Child Seat Heads-Up and Plea

In the past month, I've had three conversations with parents or grandparents of young children (or, in one case, future parents of a young child) who spoke of putting their child in an infant carrier in the front seat of their vehicle. After having these conversations, I was almost dumbfounded, because I had no clue that there were still parents in 2007 that didn't put their children in the back seat as all of the safety experts advised. I figured that if I couldn't properly convince those people to use the back seat only for children, maybe I could save some other lives instead of their childrens'/grandchildrens'.

The belief that it's "OK" or "not a big deal" to have a very young child in the front seat of a car is, in my opinion, foolish. The reason cars and trucks have frontal airbags is because most collisions are frontal; simple physics then tells us that the further away from the impact a passenger is, the less likely it is that they would be injured or killed. Just think about that one - the back seat in almost any car is probably four or five feet farther from the firewall than the front seat. According to safekids.org, crash statistics bear this common sense out; one study showed that children are 37% more likely to be killed if seated in the front seat rather than the rear seat. As a father, I am fully in favor of giving my child a 37% better chance of surviving a crash, as should any responsible parent.

Here's another chilling statistic, from the NHTSA: "Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for the age group 3 to 14 years old (based on 2003 figures, which are the latest mortality data currently available from the National Center for Health Statistics)." The same report also states, "Research on the effectiveness of child safety seats has found them to reduce fatal injury by 71 percent for infants (less than 1 year old) and by 54 percent for toddlers (1-4 years old) in passenger cars." So doesn't it stand to reason that it's important to properly restrain your young child?

Although I have personally buckled up since childhood, and have never driven a car without wearing one, I consider myself far from extreme in my child safety views. In fact, I believe that laws such as Pennsylvania's that require a child of up to seven years old to be in a booster seat to be a little over-the-top, considering there is no weight exemption. If you have a Baby Huey-sized seven year old who weighs 110 pounds, it's ridiculous to have him in a booster seat. I do support mandatory seatbelt laws, particularly for children 17 and under, however.

Here are some excuses I've heard for putting children in the front seat that carry ZERO weight with me, as well as my response to these statements.

"When I was raising my kids 30 years ago, we didn't even have cars seats, and they turned out fine!"
Yes, but there are plenty of kids from our generation who didn't turn out fine, because they were killed or maimed in traffic accidents. The overall fatality rate has basically been cut by more than half since 1975, from 3.5 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles of travel, to 1.47 in 2005 (link to recent data). So obviously we're doing something better with regard to occupant protection today. Is it possible we know more now than we did then?

"It's much easier to take care of an infant in the front seat, rather than unsafely reaching to the back seat while driving."
While it is unsafe to reach to the back seat to take care of a baby, having a mirror on the seat so that you can see the baby without turning your head makes this situation safer (as long as the mirror is secured properly). I don't think holding a baby bottle while driving is any safer than reaching to the back seat (we prefer to have a single child seat on the right side of the car so the reach is easier). It's also prudent to just pull over for a minute to take care of the baby.

"If it's going to be your time to be killed in a car accident, there's nothing you can do to change that. You can't improve your odds."
Yes, you CAN improve your odds. If you KNEW for sure that you were going to be in a traffic accident tomorrow, and there was nothing you could do to stop it, would you wear a seatbelt at least for tomorrow? Of course you would. That's called improving your odds. If you wouldn't, (and I say this with all due respect), you're an imbecile. I believe very strongly in God, but I don't plan on tempting fate by leaving myself or anyone in my family unprotected in the car. I will also buy every airbag possible in any new vehicle I purchase.

"If you only have a two seat car, it's legal to have the baby in the front passenger seat in Pennsylvania."
Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's safe. I've already mentioned one area where Pennsylvania went overboard with the child restraint laws (no weight limit on the boosters); they have also ignored serious potential safety issues allowing small children in the front seat and allowing children to be unrestrained in a vehicle that has all of the other seating positions are occupied by restrained passengers. So the Baby Huey seven year old needs a booster seat, unless his parents own a five-passenger car and he's the sixth passenger, in which case he can sit on his brother's lap. If someone owns only a two-seat car or pickup, and there is no other way to transport a child, it's still a bad idea, but at least be certain that the passenger airbag is deactivated for all small children, and it's absolutely essential to do so with rear-facing seats.

I apologize for the preachy article, but please, think carefully about the way you are protecting your children in the car. It's your job as a parent to make smart decisions for them.

Additional resources:
Child Seat FAQ: http://www.usa.safekids.org/tier3_cd.cfm?content_item_id=6551&folder_id=170

Child car seat safety at Edmunds:
http://www.edmunds.com/ownership/safety/articles/45195/article.html

Diesel Invasion

In the next few years, we'll see more diesels offered in the US than probably at any time in history. Why? Higher corporate fuel economy standards are likely in coming years, and even the US petroleum industry said in a draft report today that world oil supplies from conventional sources are unlikely to keep up with demand over the next 25 years. The problem is a combination of rapidly increasing petroleum consumption in the developing world and slowing or declining oil production worldwide.

Diesels are one piece of the solution to the problem of reducing petroleum consumption. Others include gas-electric hybrids, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), electric vehicles, and alternate fuels such as ethanol or hydrogen. All things being equal, a diesel generally gets about 30% better fuel economy than a gasoline engine. Modern diesels are almost always paired with a turbocharger, which serves to make diesels have none of the sluggishness that their ancestors did. In fact, diesel engines usually have very robust low-end torque characteristics, which make them ideal for stop-and-go urban driving, although this comes at the expense of higher-RPM power.

One key advantage of diesel engines, other than the fuel economy and torque benefits previously described, is that the infrastructure is already in place in large part because auto manufacturers have been selling diesel-powered pickup trucks for years, not to mention all of the heavy- and medium-duty diesel trucks on the road. Unlike alternate fuels such as hydrogen and E85, which can be found in almost no and very few gas stations, respectively, diesel is available at 42% of the 169,000 service stations nationwide; E85 is available at less than 1% of them.

GM famously/infamously scared an entire generation of consumers away from diesel engines in the 1980s by underdeveloped, unreliable, noisy diesel engines that were converted from gasoline engines. While Europeans have had an auto fleet consisting of many diesels for the past several years, Americans have shied away from them, thanks in large part to the GM diesel issues of the 1980s and to the fact that gasoline was relatively inexpensive.

This is all changing, however. In the past few years, we have seen some interesting developments on the diesel front; Jeep offered a diesel Liberty and now is offering a sophisticated 3.0 liter diesel Grand Cherokee with an engine sourced from Mercedes-Benz. The real fun, however, comes in 2010.

Word on the street is that the reason Honda dropped the Accord Hybrid model after the 2007 model year (besides slow sales) is that a diesel model is on its way. I've heard a 52 mile per gallon figure cited for this car; if this is true, I'll be very impressed. That's more than double the mileage I get from my 2004 Accord V6, and I'm actually more or less satisfied with its mileage. A diesel will probably make it into the Honda Ridgeline pickup and Odyssey minivan as an optional engine choice, plus the Acura MDX crossover and likely some other models.

Honda is an engineering company first and foremost, and they are the only auto manufacturer so far that has not had to resort to urea injection to convert nitrous oxide into harmless nitrogen and water (this is a solution that Mercedes, BMW, VW, Audi, and GM, among others, have undertaken). The problem with urea injection is that there is as tank of it under the hood, and when the supply is exhausted, the exhaust is no longer treated; not a very elegant solution. Instead, Honda has devised a special catalytic converter for its diesel that requires no chemical additives (so is maintenance-free) and the catalysts convert some of the the NOx to ammonia in its first layer, and then a now-ammonia-rich second layer converts the remaining exhaust to harmless nitrogen and water. It reminds me very much of Honda's ability to meet 1975 Clean Air Act standards using its new CVCC engine rather without a catalytic converter.

GM is also embracing diesels in a big way in the coming years. GM Vice Chairman of Global Product Development, Bob Lutz, recently on a video posted on the corporate FastLane blog that in the coming years, GM would introduce a V6 diesel engine for crossovers, passenger cars, and light duty trucks and an all-aluminum 4.5 liter V8 diesel engine for light duty sport utilities, etc. Word is that the Euro-centric Saturn lineup will be among the first passenger car applications of GM's US diesel engines, and the V8 diesel will likely make it into half ton trucks and full-size SUVs (GM has said that anywhere a small block V8 fits, the new diesel will fit). In the same video, Mr. Lutz sought to downplay expectations of the diesel engine as a panacea for US fuel economy concerns, because he said the price premium to build an emissions-compliant diesel is about $4,500 on top of a comparable gas engine, and that as gas engines become more sophisticated (thanks to direct injection and homogeneous stratified charge) and diesels are choked by emission controls, he expected the 30% economy improvement to be reduced to near zero. Basically, he seems to implicitly support Ford's approach of applying diesel-like technology to gasoline engines, while going kicking and screaming into diesels only because they think that the market will demand them.

Apparently at the same time Bob Lutz was recording the above-mentioned video (the first segment was posted June 29), GM was in negotiations to buy a stake in its partner for the upcoming Cadillac CTS's diesel engine in Europe, VM Motori of Italy. Yesterday (July 16), GM announced that it had bought 50% of VM Motori. The press release contained none of the skepticism that Bob Lutz showed in the video clip. The move to buy a large stake in VM Motori sounds like a prudent move if GM wishes to ensure a steady supply of powerful, efficient diesel engines in the next few years.

Other potential future diesel applications include new diesels for the Toyota Tundra and Nissan Titan full size pickup trucks, and a diesel version of the next-generation Nissan Maxima sedan.

It's good to see some alternatives in the pipeline for consumers who wish to improve their fuel economy. It's a good time to love oil burners.

Chrysler Headlights And Signal Lights Are Like Matter And Anti-Matter

It's been something that has bugged me for years, and I've never been given a good answer for it.

Have you ever noticed that EVERY Chrysler vehicle shuts off a headlight when a signal light is flashing? Picture it in your head- the Caravan above is driving around with its headlights on, and comes to a stop sign and wants to turn right. The driver signals the right turn, and the right headlamp goes off while the signal light flashes. Once the signal light shuts off, the headlight goes back on to normal. This happens with daytime running lights too. And it's not limited to vehicles that have both lights in one housing- it doesn't matter, and it happens to every single Chrysler vehicle- Dodge, Chrysler, Jeep, you name it.

So, why does it do this?

Some have postulated that it has to do with minimum distances for lights in the law- but that doesn't hold weight, because lots of other cars have similar setups to Chrysler vehicles, and they don't exhibit the same behaviour.

Anyone?

The Emperor's New Clothes

Bear with me for a moment, and take a step into your childhood with this excerpt penned by Hans Christian Andersen:

All the people standing by and at the windows cheered and cried, "Oh, how splendid are the Emperor's new clothes. What a magnificent train! How well the clothes fit!" No one dared to admit that he couldn't see anything, for who would want it to be known that he was either stupid or unfit for his post?

None of the Emperor's clothes had ever met with such success.

But among the crowds a little child suddenly gasped out, "But he hasn't got anything on." And the people began to whisper to one another what the child had said. "He hasn't got anything on." "There's a little child saying he hasn't got anything on." Till everyone was saying, "But he hasn't got anything on." The Emperor himself had the uncomfortable feeling that what they were whispering was only too true. "But I will have to go through with the procession," he said to himself.

So he drew himself up and walked boldly on holding his head higher than before, and the courtiers held on to the train that wasn't there at all.

Keeping the above story in mind, I need to get something off my chest.

I don't buy into the hype about the Ford Flex.


It pains me to make that statement, because I really, really want to see Ford pull out of its tailspin and sell some awesome products that resonate with the US buying public. The Fusion has done pretty well in its early life, and the Edge appears to be pleasing its early customers, in spite of a need to diet and some lackluster magazine reviews.

Now Ford wants us to believe that the Flex will be the family hauler for the 21st century, the one that every father and mother has dreamed about as they retch at the thought of commuting in a traditional minivan, and all of the perceived social stigma that accompanies a minivan purchase.

I hope I'm wrong about this, but I think it looks a little too different from the norm. GM's new full-size crossovers (Enclave, Acadia, and Outlook) have similar dimensions to the Flex outside and inside (except height, where the GM vehicles are about five inches taller, apparently mostly in the ride height). The difference is, GM is trying to make their large crossovers look more or less like traditional SUVs, while Ford is trying to make theirs look different. The GM triplets hide some of their length by having a curved, arching roofline, while the Flex has one as flat as Kansas, and you can see every inch of the vehicle's length when viewing the profile. In fact, the orange body and white roof in the press photos make it look even lower and longer than it probably is. People who seem to like the Flex's style compare it to a Range Rover, which has famously squared off edges and a recognizable shape, but the profile and white roof remind many others (me among them) of a double-sized Mini Cooper. The Flex has an innovative interior and lots of space, but I can't get past the idea that it looks a little too much unlike anything else in its class. To me, it just seems too long and low, and I'm just not sure if minivan intenders (or minivan-phobes) are interested in something so different.

Ford has bet big before and hit grand slams (1986 Taurus/Sable, for example), so it's entirely possible they're right on the Flex as well. I'm not going to humor the emperor and say that it's anything but a boxy-shaped crossover, and not the second coming of the minivan. It's just not a great looking vehicle to me, and I'd be dishonest to say otherwise.

Transformers Sucked

Well, it broke all records for the week, racking up $152.6 million for the week, and $67.6 million for the weekend. It even managed to get a somewhat decent Tomatometer review over at Rotten Tomatoes, a feat I find hard to believe in retrospect, considering a)it's a Michael Bay movie and b)the movie really sucked.

Why did it suck? Well, first of all, Michael Bay needs to be strung up by his testicles on a clothesline for coming up with such shitty character models for all of the Transformers. No, I'm not some sort of old geek who wanted everything to look like the cartoon I grew up with when I was a kid. I just wanted the freaking machines to be recognizable. Apart from Optimus Prime and Bumblebee, exactly which of them was memorable? And not only that, but Bumblebee was recognizable solely because he was all yellow. The rest of the Transformers looked to be a dully grey, with healthy dollops of black, and a few touches of colour here and there. Every action sequence looked like a car accident, and not in a good way. The Transformers fanboys bitching about everything not looking like the cartoon are right- but not for the reasons they think- the cartoon worked because when you saw Optimus Prime, you KNEW it was him. When you saw Starscream or Megatron, you KNEW it was them. In the movie? They looked like big Mech Assault action pieces. Not cool.

The second reason why the movie sucked is because it was essentially the American remake of Godzilla, but with better special effects. I understand there needs to be a 'human' backstory, but the reason why there ARE Transformers fanboys in the first place is because all of them had some sort of personality. In the movie? Well, Jazz certainly tried his best to be Jar Jar Binks. And um, yeah. That was about it. Optimus Prime was spot on, but Bay managed to muff up the easiest characters in the entire movie- Megatron and Starscream- instead we got a couple of throwaway lines, and that was that.

The third reason why it sucked is that this was basically an alien invasion movie, but with some big robots. No adherence to backstory, no reason other than some convoluted 'All Spark' BS as to why everything was happening. If all the Transformers were lizards, it could have been the same thing.

The movie does get an enthusiastic 2 thumbs up for Megan Fox however.

Turning to the cars- yes, GM played a huge role here. Yes, the Camaro looked pretty boss. Will this do anything at all to increase sales? Probably not. Not unless they actually do start transforming.

Mags Ebert signing off.

This Nissan Sunny Picture Predicted The Future Of The Altima

In news that may only interest me....

Carscoop says:

Nissan’s best selling 2007 US-model, the Altima is being recalled due to a problem with the air-filter that could result to a fire in the engine bay. More specifically, the recall affects 140.852 cars equipped with the 2.5-liter 4-cylinder engine.

How fantastic!

You know why?

They already HAD a massive recall on the last generation 2.5 liter 4 cylinder engine. Remember, the one that fixed the manifolds that had a propensity for blowing up? I actually had one of those manifold eating engines- a 2005 if I remember right... but luckily it was before the recall- they did fix it under warranty, but they also were quite the pricks about it. And now this.

See, the Toyota recall of the Tundra engine was crappy, but at least it was an all new design, and it seemed to be an outsourced part that caused it. This on the other hand, is another problem on an engine that has been out in one form or another in the Altima for close to SIX years now.

Hey Nissan- pull your heads out of your asses.

Halfway To Zero

The first half of 2007 is behind us, and after some crunching of sales numbers, Automotive News reported today that the market share of the Big Three domestic manufacturers (GM, Ford, and Chrysler) has dipped to 50.2% of the US vehicle market in June, thanks in large part to GM's meltdown. Meanwhile, sales of Japanese branded vehicles in the US rose to 37.5%. Since the Domestics' share was 56.0% in June 2006 and the Japanese brands' share was 32.5% in June 2006, this means that almost one for one, every point of market share that Detroit gave up was snapped up by a Japanese brand. European and Korean brands took up the remaining 0.8 percentage points of market share.

What does this mean? Well, unlike an era a generation or two ago, when GM alone held more than 50% of the US auto market, three US-based companies together are likely to not be able to hold onto that share even together. GM has already said that they will not sit idly by while Ford, Chrysler, and even Toyota outspend them on incentives, so expect possibly a slight bump in July in domestic sales, but the long term writing has been on the wall for a while.

Not only has the US auto market become more fragmented - with more models, more brands, and even more countries of origin than ever before - but the domestic brands falling asleep at the wheel for a decade or two in the 1970s and 1980s certainly has harmed their current situation. For decades, their import competition steadily chugged along, improving their products in terms of comfort and reliability with each generation, convincing one buyer after another to switch brands, Detroit didn't do much about it. Now that this ship has left the harbor, and foreign competition has raised expectations and created a generation or two of satisfied customers, Detroit needs to come up with products and marketing that will convince satisfied import owners - or at least current domestic owners thinking of switching to the import side, that their products are worth buying. To do that, they'll need not only superior products, but substantially superior products. They need to look better (and in some cases, the domestic models actually do look better than their import competition), but also have better reliability, better fuel economy, a nicer interior, and be priced competitively. It's a tough hill to climb, and it pains me to say it, but I don't think we'll see Detroit at 50% market share again, ever.

By the way, the title of this post is not intended to imply that Detroit is on its way to zero market share (although the trend line does move in that direction). At some point, it will level off, but who knows when that will happen? The glass is definitely half empty at this point.

GM Two-Mode Hybrid To Cost Arm, Leg, Plus Body Part To Be Named Later

From Automotive News (subscription required)-

General Motors might absorb some costs of a Two Mode hybrid transmission in its
full-sized trucks to make the technology affordable to consumers, product chief
Bob Lutz says.The automaker plans to have at least three hybrid transmissions
and offer as many as a dozen hybrid models in the next few years. The Two Mode
system, which has two electric motors that assist the engine, would be the
premium system, Lutz said. The cost of that system is more than $10,000, sources
close to the program say.

That's not good.

Not good at all.

Note that it says AT LEAST $10k. Are you prepared to pay AT LEAST $35k US for an Aura? Or AT LEAST $32k US for a Malibu? What about smaller vehicles? If anything, this news means that GM is going to be stuck using the shitty BAS system for their low end vehicles for quite a while- at least until the economies of scale let them bring down the cost of their Two Mode system. The thought of GM subsidizing this system is ludicrous- using cash to subsidize the Two Mode would be suicide, especially since they're low on cash anyways, and much of their lineup is still in dire need of updates and revisions.

If you look at the Prius, it had 'premium' pricing for close to ten years before Toyota finally had the production capacity to make enough of them to drop the price. Does GM have 10 years? Or do they believe that using the Two Mode strictly in their $50k+ vehicles is a good strategy to persuade the general public that they are a green company? The whole thing is quickly becoming a joke- waiting for the vaporware that is the Volt, waiting for the Two Mode to become affordable, betting the farm on E85. And while they're touting upcoming technology, they continue to sell compact cars that are well behind everyone else in fuel economy, and utilize second rate 'hybrid' technology and trying to pass it off as filet mignon.

But it's all a conspiracy right Bob?

So to sum up- the Two Mode was supposed to be the silver bullet against the werewolf that is Toyota. And now it turns out that the werewolf can only be killed with silver bullets coated with diamonds. At a cost of more than $10,000 for the system, only the supremely stupid will bother with this system in anything less than a Cadillac- and that's not going to be enough for GM.

Nitpicking Is Fun

I like the way the new Enclave looks, especially since it looks far better than the vehicle it ostensibly replaces, the Rendezvous. The other day, I saw an Enclave in the 'wild' for the first time, and something didn't look right. I tried to figure it out while I sat there looking at it in traffic, and it didn't click. And then I came home and started looking at pictures, and I figured it out-

Concept Enclave

2008 Enclave

Can you spot the difference?

First of all, GM needs to be commended for bringing this thing out so close to actual concept form.

But here's the nitpick.

Look at the C-pillar. The pillar right behind the rear door. On the concept, it flows right into the glass, and it has some brightwork design on it. On the actual model, they swept the pillar back some more, added in the triangle window portion right ahead of it, and the pillar now lacks the brightwork. It's not as noticeable on the dark grey example above, but in the colour that I saw it in (white), the pillar really stood out, and not in a good way- it looked almost tacked on.

Why did GM make such a small change that to me make a big difference in the way the back end of the vehicle looks? I have no idea. I just know that it looks different, and not necessarily better.

And so ends another session of nitpicking.

Silly Me

Pulled up to a stoplight today behind the styling monstrosity you see above, the Toyota Camry Solara. Same colour too. Thing is, I wasn't paying attention, and slowly crept up really close behind the guy. We were on an incline at the light, so I worried briefly for a moment that the guy might be driving a stick, and if he wasn't careful, he might hit me on his takeoff. And then I woke up and realized I was behind a Camry Solara.

Silly me.

The Massacre

Straight from the mouth of the horse.

GM dealers in the United States delivered 326,300 vehicles in June, down 24 percent, compared with year-ago monthly sales. The decline was partly attributed to a planned reduction of an additional 13,487 daily rental sale vehicles in the month. GM now has taken more than 92,000 daily rental vehicles out of the sales totals in 2007.

First things first- the daily rental bullshit is just that- bullshit. They were down 13,487 in daily rental sales for the month of June, but down 87,173 sales overall, so even if you take 13k sales out of that 87k figure, they're still in deep doo doo.

No Bobby and Ricky, June was one hell of a disaster month for the General.

Some of the brand highlights:

• Buick down a solid 33% for the month, and down 28% for the year.
• Chevy down 26.2% for the month, which accounts for a loss of about 54,000 vehicle sales for ONE MONTH for the 'volume' GM brand.
• The Cadillac revival down over 30% for the month.
• Saturn pulling in a 12% loss for the month, despite an almost complete vehicle lineup overhaul.

The picture gets even more depressing when you look at certain models.

For example:

• Silverado 1/2 ton pickups were down 26% for the month, and are now down 2% for the year... and remember, this is an all new model. Their full-size brethren also suffered a 26% setback for the month.
• The Sierra didn't do any better, down 29% of the month, and now down for the year to date as well.
• The Aura is still selling under 5,000 units per month, putting it solidly in the 60,000 units per year category- all for a vehicle which has been pimped beyond belief to the masses... and with no buyer response.
• The Equinox was down 50% for the month, losing 5,000 sales.
• The G6 was down 38%, losing 7,000 sales.
• The Cobalt was down 38%, with almost 10,000 fewer sales.
• The Malibu was down 51%.
• Even the once hot Solstice has fallen behind by 20% year to date versus last year.

Notice a trend here? All the volume sellers aren't doing volume!

About the only bright spots in the lineup this month were the Lambda triplets... and yet another further increase in Impala sales, which can only portend the end of the world. The biggest problem above and beyond the poor sales is this- when you take THIS ARTICLE into account, you realize that even these deflated sales numbers can be deflated further in terms of 'John Doe and his family' sales. Crazy.

Perhaps the truth is dawning on GM- the fix won't be quick. And when it arrives, the company may be long, long, long, long gone. But what do Lutz and Wagoner do? They continue to act like they're the big hosses in the barn... it's only a matter of time boys, only a matter of time.

Honda: Looking Out For The New Grads Pulling In $100k Per Year

Most car companies have new grad programs. They usually are something along the lines of 'graduate and you receive X amount of dollars off your new car purchase'. GM goes and makes 2 payments for you. The one thing they all have in common however, is that they usually exclude expensive models, and concentrate on entry models in a brand lineup.

But no, not Honda.

Honda doesn't offer the Fit to new graduates.
Honda doesn't offer the Civic to new graduates.

Honda offers their grad rebate on the Accord, CR-V, Element...and wait for it, the S2000.

Not exactly 'young grad' nirvana. Well, okay, maybe the S2000, but then again, the S2000 has a $50k Canadian sticker price. Not exactly the type of money most new grads have to put down.

Why does Honda do this? Because they can. And they're pricks.

Future Scion Product: Subaru Tribeca Rebadge?

According to industry publication Automotive News, Japanese magazine New Model Magazine X recently showed a spy photo of a camouflaged vehicle that had Subaru Tribeca-like proportions and dimensions with what looked like a Scion badge on the grille. The magazine went on to speculate that Toyota would rebadge a Tribeca as a Scion to sell in the US.

Toyota has made a point of denying that it plans any additional models for the Scion brand, and sales have climbed steadily for the past several years (up 10.6% during 2006). But with Toyota owning 8.6% of Subaru's parent company, Fuji Heavy Industries - and Tribeca sales not meeting expectations in its first two years on the market (only selling 18,614 units in 2006) - anything might be possible.

My question is - how exactly would a rebadged Tribeca fit in with the rest of the Scion lineup? Scions generally come from the factory with only two different variables: manual or automatic transmission, and color. The rest of the equipment - appearance, comfort, or performance - is installed by the dealer or the owner. The most expensive 2008 Scion will be the tC coupe, at $17,580 (including destination), while a 2008 Tribeca starts at $30,620 (including destination), or 74% more money. The value proposition just seems very different between the Tribeca - arguably Subaru's flagship - and Scion. Not only that, but Toyota has taken a lot of criticism for the way the 2008 xB has grown in size, weight, and power - but seen its fuel economy decline in an environment of high gas prices. Do they really want to hear about a six cylinder, seven seat crossover from the Scion faithful?

Frankly, I don't see this happening, but if it did, it would be another fascinating case study to see how Toyota manages the marketing message, pricing, and styling of a Scion-ized Tribeca.

Ford's Future Powertrain Direction

While many auto manufacturers are scratching their heads trying to decide how to meet likely new EPA fuel economy standards in the next few years, Ford thinks it has an answer. They also hope that answer will address the power shortages that some of their engines have relative to the competition (particularly their V8s, in a world where the competition has 400 and 500 horsepower, with the same or better fuel economy of Ford's current engine lineup).

Ford's solution is called Twin-Force, and it means twin turbos coupled with gasoline direct injection. Starting with the 2008 Lincoln MKS sedan, Ford intends to apply twin turbos to I4, V6, and V8 engines over the next several years, and rumor is that engine sizes and power outputs will be:

• 260 horsepower for the 2.5 liter I4 (likely to appear in the 2009 Fusion sedan)
• 350-420 horsepower for the 3.5 liter V6 (likely to appear in the Mustang and F150 later in 2009)
• 400 horsepower for the possible 5.0 liter V8
• 650 lb-ft of torque for the 6.2 liter V8 (likely to land in the F150 and Super Duty as a diesel alternative).

If the power figures appear as rumored, I'll be very impressed. Even more impressive is that Ford expects fuel efficency to be on par with contemporary diesels of similar size, but expects diesel-like fuel economy, at a lower cost because the expensive emission equipment will not be needed.

Finally, the last part of Ford's powertrain future is called a Powershift gearbox, which is similar in concept to Volkswagen's much-loved twin clutch DSG gearbox. DSGs promise less driveline loss than a conventional torque converter-equipped automatic (so better fuel economy) and faster, more direct shifts.

Giving Ford the benefit of the doubt that they actually can meet these rumored horsepower and fuel economy numbers, plus rolling out a DSG, all they'll need to get in order is a more interesting, engaging styling direction. They have the ideas (the Ford Interceptor would be a nice start), but need to actually implement them.

I was someone who questioned Ford's strategy of going with a twin turbo V6 in the upcoming Lincoln MKS rather than the Volvo-sourced V8 in the original concept car, but if a Twin-Force V6 exceeds the V8's fuel economy, and with potentially 400+ horsepower (versus about 311 for the V8), it's hard to argue with the results. The photo at the top of this post is of the Twin-Force V6 in the Lincoln MKR concept car, which was first shown at the NAIAS in Detroit in January 2007.

I wish them luck. Now let's see these engines and transmissions actually installed in production vehicles.

Happy Long Weekend

Long weekend coming up for those of the Canadian persuasion (ie. me), so no updates from me until Tuesday. Hopefully FB can do something up in the meantime.

Happy Canadia Day!

Infiniti Dealers Really Need To Just Shut Up And Sell Their Own Product

Was in an Infiniti dealership today, to get some information on the G35 sedan. It's a vehicle I've had my eye on for a bit now, and I wanted some comprehensive stuff on packages, features, and most importantly, pricing. It's all going fine at first. I appear to have a salesman who knows his vehicle very well, is very polite and courteous, and seems to have a grasp of the competition out there.

And then he started going kooky.

The first issue was that he wouldn't shut up about the most recent Motor Trend mag comparo that gave a victory to the G37 coupe over the BMW 330i coupe (mostly because the BMW was too expensive and needs an oil cooler badly). Umm excuse me, I'm not looking at a G37 coupe- I'm looking at the G35 sedan remember?

The second issue was that he kept bringing up residuals on the G35. The residual on a 2007 G35 Sport on a 48 month lease with no money down works out to be about 21k CDN. His argument was that most G35 sedans from 2003 (4 years ago) retail for around 28k CDN, making the G35 residual a great thing. But... he's wrong. A 4 year old G35 in good condition with about 100,000 kilometers runs, wait for it, about 21-22k. And he wouldn't shut up about this, heaping scorn upon BMW in particular for having such high residual values. I mean, who would want a vehicle that has a lot of value when you want to sell it.... right? Please note my sarcasm there.

Third, he tells me that the 2007 G35 uses the same VQ as the Altima et al. I even gave him a chance to backtrack on this, and he insisted (okay, so this is more me being a know it all bastard, but I digress).

And then this happens.

Him: So one of the other vehicles you're looking at is the Lexus IS?
Me: Yeah, it seems to be the Lexus most closely aligned with what the G35 is.
Him: Oh yes, but it's quite a bit more expensive.
Me: I understand that.
Him: It's also smaller.
Me: I understand that.
Him: Did you know that the IS250 is based on the Toyota Corolla, and the IS350 is based on the Toyota Camry? Why pay a premium for that?
Me: Huh?

He kept insisting this. In a way, I can understand the Camry thing- after all, the ES is on the Camry platform. But the IS? A rear wheel drive car? And bringing the Corolla into the picture? For the exact same vehicle but with a smaller engine?

At this point, I realized I was working with an idiot, and mentioned that I wouldn't want a luxury sedan so closely associated with the 350Z. And he flipped out, saying that the Z was on a completely different platform from the G35. And then I threw the Altima and Maxima out there just for shits and giggles to get him really riled up.

Needless to say, the domestic manufacturers are not alone in employing idiotic sales people.

Let's see...what else isn't bolted down?

Yesterday, GM announced that it had agreed to sell its Allison Transmission unit to private equity firms Carlyle Group and Onex Corp. for about $5.6 billion. Wall Street cheered the announcement, sending GM shares up to $38.19, nearly $20 per share higher than the shares were at their low point in 2005 during the worst of GM's bankruptcy fears. It seems that GM has managed to get a better price for Allison than Wall Street was expecting.

Allison Transmission, which makes transmissions for commercial trucks, buses, and military vehicles, as well as dual-mode hybrid transmissions for the upcoming light duty hybrid pickups and SUVs and for the popular Duramax/Allison combination in 2500 and 3500-series trucks, is headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana. The sale announced yesterday excludes a plant in Baltimore that makes conventional and dual-mode hybrid transmissions used in GM's light duty trucks.

The Allison money will help offset the expected $7 billion cost that GM will incur to fund the UAW-Delphi bankruptcy settlement, which (if approved by union membership) will pay union workers upfront payments as well as ongoing supplemental wages for a period of time, in return for a reduced hourly rate in the future. There is also speculation that GM might use the Allison money to help fund a potential union-managed trust fund to pay for workers' health care coverage, similar to the agreement that Goodyear came to with its union membership last year.

Unfortunately for GM, the Allison unit was "highly profitable," and now it has killed another cash cow. The sale of 51% of its GMAC financing arm to Cerberus (the same company that bought Chrysler) marked the sale of another major contributor to GM's black ink in North America.

Other than these two, more "non-core" assets that GM has sold off in the past two years include stakes in Fuji Heavy Industries Ltd. (Subaru), Isuzu Motors Ltd. and Suzuki Motor Corp.

It's a shame that GM has to continue selling assets, but this is a necessary move for them to add to their cash balance and ensure that they can still meet their operating cash needs and keep the company running. But this is not the end of GM selling everything but the proverbial kitchen sink. They're also in talks to sell the (also profitable) medium-duty truck business. No announcement has been made, but the word is that Navistar is the front runner to acquire that business. Medium duty trucks are sold as the Chevrolet Kodiak/GMC Top Kick conventional cab trucks, and the T- and W-series cab over engine trucks, which are rebadged Isuzus, and are generally labeled as 4500-8500 series trucks (versus 1500-3500 series for the light duty ones).

Shedding assets of non-core businesses as GM and Ford have been doing is OK from the standpoint of allowing management to concentrate on core operations, and monetizing an asset, but it also eliminates a layer of safety net should core operations falter. There have been several quarters over the past few years that GMAC results helped to prop up GM's regular results. Now, they'll only be able to help 49% as much as they had before. After this year, there will be no return from Allison, and likely no return from the medium duty unit if it's sold off.

Death Wish? Buy a Brilliance BS6

Last week, photos and video started circulating online of the horrific crash test results of the Chinese Brilliance BS6 sedan. The car was tested using the well-recognized Euro-NCAP (New Car Assessment Program) offset frontal crash test at 40 miles per hour by ADAC, a German auto club.

In cars that ace these tests, the passenger compartment stays almost completely intact with no intrusion of the floor into the driver's footwell or the instrument panel into the driver's face. The best cars often still have functioning driver's doors, yet sacrifice so much of their front end absorbing the crash energy that the occupants get out of the car relatively unscathed.

Instead, the poorly-named Brilliance BS6 saw the pedals intrude into the driver's space by 18 inches, and the dashboard by 7 inches. The driver's door wouldn't open without the technicians using a huge crowbar, and the rocker panel bent almost 90 degrees, stopped only when it hit the floor. The base of the windshield moved to the same vertical plane as the top of the windshield was before the crash, and the driver was left sharing space with steering wheels, windshields, and the front end of the car. He or she would have almost certainly been killed instantly.

ADAC also tested another BS6 for side impact protection (this is also in the video linked above). In this test, the side impact cart intruded past the width of the door into the passenger compartment (over 12 inches) and whipped the driver's head so severely that he would have almost certainly been killed.

Naturally, the car earned the minimum rating, one star, on a five-star scale.

If you're keeping score at home, Chinese vehicles undergoing western crash tests have both failed miserably (the earlier being the Landwind SUV, which fared so poorly it was withdrawn from the European market).

So far, the Luxembourg-based distributor for the BS6, HSO Motors, has sold 350 of the €19,000 cars, and has said that dealers should offer to repurchase the cars from owners who are concerned about its crashworthiness. However, one dealer quoted in Automotive News said, "For price-conscious customers who are careful drivers, this safety issue does not have priority." He also said that he would continue selling the car.

Great - so if you're sure you won't be in an accident, you're OK in a Brilliance. But I always thought that most accidents sort of happened, you know, accidentally. I've been in two of them in 16 years of driving, and I didn't plan them ahead of time. I really didn't expect them to happen, frankly. Sometimes, they're unavoidable.

For its part, the manufacturer doesn't believe that the poor crash test results will hurt sales. The company also accused the German media of "viciously playing up" the ADAC test results. Brilliance also said that they agreed to cooperate with ADAC on the BS6's safety, and expect the car to earn three stars within a year. Brilliance also would like to find a partner to help it crack the US market, and said in April that it would like to sell cars in the US, including the BS6, no later than early 2008.

Personally, I don't plan to set foot in a Chinese car that will be moving (I'd feel reasonably safe in one in a static display at an auto show) until I'm convinced that the safety of these vehicles has improved to modern standards. I'd take a good used car - or a new Renault/Dacia Logan/Nissan Aprio - any day over a Chinese car with questionable occupant protection capabilities. But, if you have a death wish, you can always buy one of these and drive into an offset barrier at 40 miles per hour. You won't be around to tell us about it.

Further Idiocy From Ford

Courtesy of Bloomberg -

Ford Motor Co. thinks it finally has a chance to crack the small-car market, and not a moment too soon.

This fall Ford will begin selling the second generation of the Focus, a compact that hasn't fared well against some of the stiffest competition in the auto world. The new model, available with an optional interactive speech-recognition system developed with Microsoft Corp. and called Sync, will have to offer young shoppers a clear advantage over a Honda or Toyota, aside from a discounted price.

I swear, my head is about to explode Scanners style if I have to read any more shit like this from retarded automakers.

'A chance to crack the small-car market' ??? How idiotic is that statement? Ford CRACKED the small-car market back in 2000 with the original Ford Focus. It was class leading, it looked great for the time, it hit all the right buttons, it was a quantum leap over the Escort/Contour that it replaced in the lineup. It was an honest to goodness valid and in a lot of cases, BETTER alternative to the Civic, Corolla, Sentra, et al. And they shit the bed by not updating it significantly for almost EIGHT YEARS. Absolutely shit the bed. No ifs, ands, or buts. And now they're touting this new Focus as some sort of 'chance' vehicle for them.

The best part about all this? It's still not an all new Ford Focus! It's still riding the same platform, while the Mazda 3 gets all the latest goodies.

Incredible.

Is the smart Too Smart for the US?

The smart [the all-lowercase name is almost as irritating as Saturn's all-uppercase names, and will not be repeated throughout the rest of this post], a diminutive "city car" produced by Daimler, is going to make its official US sales debut in the first quarter of 2008, to be sold by United Auto Group, a large dealership chain owned by Roger Penske. There has been a lot of hype surrounding the US availability of this car; the official website at http://www.smartusa.com/ even is so kind as to provide a way for interested owners to "reserve" a 2008 Smart for just $99.

Although the reservation fee is refundable at any time, and the company claims that the fee and reservation system are there to "gauge interest" in the car, it sounds to me that it's arrogant at best, and a scam at worst. How does committing $99 - in what is not even really a commitment, because you can get your money back, and they don't have to sell you a car if they don't have enough - really gauging interest? Plus, the "deposit" is less than 1% of the $12,000 base price of a Smart. So basically, Smart expects buyers to pay $99 for the privilege of being contacted if a Smart car is available for purchase.

As of early June, UAG announced that they had over 20,000 Smart "Insiders" who paid $99 to be on the sort of wait list...so Smart is now holding almost $2 million for basically doing nothing. I'd like someone to give me $2 million for a little while. I won't even touch the principal, and if I invested it in a mutual fund that earned 10% per year, I'd be making six figures without lifting a finger. Sweet.

Smart expects to produce about 16,000 ForTwos for sale in the US for the 2008 model year, and I can see them meeting or even exceeding that goal, but is this really a car that's going to succeed beyond core urban centers like New York, San Francisco, Chicago, or Miami? Everything I've read about them has said that they're surprisingly roomy inside for two passengers, but lack luggage space, and give off a vibe of feeling a little too close to the road and surrounding traffic, without much sheet metal between you and them.

For a quick run to the grocery store, or for simple urban parking, they seem like a neat idea, if perhaps just a novelty. They'll get pretty good gas mileage (over 40 miles per gallon, even without the benefit of hybrids or diesels) and crash tests have been successful in them because of their innovative engineering. But how many Americans, who pretty consistently are in love with 1) large vehicles, and 2) fuel economy, as long as it requires no sacrifices in vehicle size, comfort, or engine power will be willing to pay $12,000 for an 8.8 foot long, 1600-pound "city car," when most Americans live in large suburbs and do not have to worry about urban parking or maneuverability? I think the Smart requires too many sacrifices - namely, interior space, engine power, and perceived occupant protection - to be a huge success in the US.

Mr. Lutz, Your Tin Foil Hat Is Ready

From The Detroit News

"This whole thing has nothing to do with energy policy, CO2 or the environment," General Motors Corp. Vice Chairman Bob Lutz told The Detroit News on Friday. "This is purely punitive; the 'big business haters' finally giving us our due for decades of 'colluding with oil companies' and 'forcing the U.S. public to buy big SUVs.'

"Make no mistake: these people hate us and want to inflict pain."

So it's come to this. the Vice Chairman of GM is complaining about black helicopters in the sky and a grand conspiracy against the domestic automakers, all because the government, who are looking after their own asses and ensuring that gas prices stay low and the trees all don't die, have decided to make CAFE have a bit more teeth.

Now, forget the arguments about CAFE, and whether it's a good thing or a bad thing for a minute.

CAFE has been around for a long time. And domestic manufacturers openly flouted the loopholes built into CAFE by spending most of their advertising and new product development dollars on trucks and SUVs, both classes of vehicles not affected by CAFE. They did this ON PURPOSE. There was no ignorance involved. They gave up markets with less margins where imports were making headway in order to take the easy road lined with SUV gold. And now that the farmer has figured out that he let the wolf take care of the chicken coop, they're pleading innocence and naivety. If it wasn't so funny, it would be disgusting.

The big problem in all of this is that the domestic manufacturers are now caught in their own endgame. No one takes them seriously anymore as purveyors of vehicles with good fuel economy, but they'll now be forced to market them. Just as the imports start taking aim at their lucrative truck market, and just as the money tree in their own backyard has started turning up rotten fruit. With less R&D money than the competition to develop new car platforms, and the competition going after the truck jugular, what next?

The obvious answer? Appeal to patriotism.

Chrysler Vice President Jason Vines, in an appearance on Mitch Albom's radio show Friday, lamented that America seems to be the only country where the government doesn't care about and protect its domestic auto industry. He said it was time to "give a damn" about an industry that creates jobs and wealth for hundreds of thousands of people.

Good sir- the government has given a 'damn' too many times in the past already. You dug your graves. Now pull yourselves out of them.

Ford : Home Of The Original Styling Cue

See that Lexus up there? In the US, it was sold as the Lexus IS300, the Lexus answer to the BMW 3 Series. In Japan it was sold as the Toyota Altezza. Sales started in 1998. It had some issues- namely, it didn't have that big of an engine, and the interior really wasn't all that Lexussy. It was a case of Lexus trying to be BMW a bit too hard. It even had an inline 6. What it DID have going for it was its looks- it's a handsome car from all angles, and even managed to look good in wagon form- a rarity. Notice those tail lamps? The IS300/Altezza started a trend in 98- 'Altezza' lights, which are basically clear casings with lots of chrome bits showing through. A more common sighting of Altezza lights would be Nissan, which cribbed the idea to an extreme in 2002 with the Altima (now in extra large versions with the current gen).

Well driving around this morning, it struck me just how hard the American makes are trying to make the rear ends of their vehicles look like Altezzas. It's quite funny actually. Especially in light of all the brouhaha they make about 'traditional American style' being the key area where they can trump the Japanese. The entire Saturn lineup is starting to look like Nissans from behind now... but the biggest offender is Ford. Who are methodically turning the front of their cars into Mach 3 razor blade replacement cartridges, and the rear of their cars into 1998 Toyota Altezzas. From the Fusion (which started it) to the yet to be released Focus, all the new Ford coming out are cribbing this styling element. Without grace or style I might add. Even moreso than the Altima, which was a shameless offender in previous gen guise in terms of a 'tacked on look' to the tails, the current Ford products look like 2 different designers had a go at the car- one at the front and one at the back.

Bear witness:






All of them with ultra glitzy rear ends for no other purpose than to copy the Japanese. Who would have thought the day would come where American style would be influenced by the Japanese? Well, it's here.

Beware of the Fleet Queens

Yesterday, I came across some interesting data on fleet sales as a percentage of total sales for each car and truck sold in the US for the first half of the 2007 model year. There were some surprises and some non-surprises in reviewing the list.

Before pointing out some of the more notable items, let's talk about fleet sales. What is a "fleet sale" anyway? Well, auto sales are broken into two main categories: retail sales and fleet sales. Every manufacturer wants high retail sales, because they're not giving volume discounts on the vehicles, retail units are generally better equipped than the ones sold to fleets, and retail sales don't end up at auctions or used car lots for half of their original MSRP with 10,000 miles after only a year. Heavy fleet sales (and thus a large volume of fleet vehicles on the used car market) depress residual values of every one of that model, including ones sold to retail customers , making unhappy retail customers and likely further reducing retail sales.

Fleet sales can also be broken down into a few subcategories: commercial, government, and rental. The daily rental fleet sales are the worst kind, because the cars are driven by hundreds of different people during their time owned by Hertz or Avis, and not necessarily babied by their drivers. They are also quickly sold back to the manufacturer, as opposed to a car sold to a company for use by a sales representative, where he or she would keep the car for three years before turning it in. Also, having a substandard car in your lineup that is a "rental car favorite" is not a good way to turn renters into future buyers, because you're not putting your best foot forward as a manufacturer. For example, imagine if the general public thought that all GM sedans were on par with the Grand Prix, when the reality is that many are better.

The source of my data is http://www.fleet-central.com. Fleet Central is a website for automotive fleet managers and appears to be pretty comprehensive. Fleet percentages given are as a percent of the model's total sales midway through 2007 unless otherwise noted, and include commercial, government, and daily rental sales.

The Non-Surprises

Ford Taurus

Think about the cars you have rented over the past few years. Most likely, they were models such as Chevy Malibu (58.8%) or Impala (53.9%), Ford Taurus (96.5%), Pontiac Grand Prix (77.6%), etc. For this reason, these models are all leaders on this list. Some others on the list are not surprises; the Ford Crown Victoria, a government favorite (thanks to police departments) sold 91.3% of its overall sales to fleets, mostly governmental agencies. The Ford Econoline, a favorite of plumbers and contractors, was 69.2% fleet sales because not many retail buyers need or want the capability and size of a full-size van.

The Surprises

Dodge Avenger

This part is more fun, but it's not necessarily good news. There are some 2008 model vehicles, just introduced in the past few months that are already selling more than half of their production to fleets (and mostly daily rental fleets). Offenders include the Chrysler Sebring (63.5%) and Dodge Avenger (79.4%!!). No wonder Chrysler management is so concerned about those two vehicles and has implemented an immediate improvement program to make them more attractive to people who want to buy the cars, not just catering to people who rent them and don't get to choose.

Other relatively new models with somewhat high fleet percentages include the Kia Optima (52.8%), Dodge Caliber (45.1%), Ford Edge (32.0%), and Chrysler Aspen (31.2%).

The Fleet "Hall of Shame"

Pontiac Grand Prix

The following vehicles sold more than half of their overall sales to fleets; if you would like to buy one of these cars for yourself, you can probably get a great deal on a slightly used one, but you're likely to take a huge depreciation hit if you decide to be in the minority and buy one of these new from the dealer.

• Chevrolet Express (58.4%)
  
• Chevrolet Impala (53.9%)
  
• Chevrolet Malibu (58.8%)
• Chevrolet Uplander (70.9%)
  
• Chrysler Sebring (63.5%)
• Dodge Avenger (79.4%)
• Dodge Caravan (54.8%)
  
• Dodge Charger (56.2%)
• Chrysler Crossfire (70.6%)
• Chrysler PT Cruiser (61.8%)
  
• Dodge Magnum (60.9%)
• Ford Econoline (69.2%)
  
• Ford Taurus (old version) (96.5%)
• GMC Savana (50.9%)
  
• Kia Optima (52.8%)
• Mercury Grand Marquis (50.0%)
  

Study the list above carefully; odds are, next time you visit the rental car counter, they'll hand you the keys to one of the models above.

The full lists are available here:

Cars: http://www.fleet-central.com/af/stats2007/cars_web.pdf
Trucks: http://www.fleet-central.com/af/stats2007/trucks_web.pdf

The Hype Around The 2008 Cadillac CTS Is Premature

The automotive equivalent of Jesus Christ is coming to Cadillac next year. Or that's what assorted fanboys of the GM persuasion would have you believe. A better interior, a sleeker exterior package, and upgraded engines are all cited as being reasons for this optimism. But dig deeper and what do we find?

1. Excessive Mass
The CTS will weigh 3861 pounds in manual transmission form, 3872 pounds in automatic transmission form, and a whopping 4101 pounds in all wheel drive configurations, according to THIS GM press release. That's hefty. For the sake of comparison, a BMW 335xi tops out at 3825 pounds, an Infiniti G35x tops out at 3703 pounds, an Audi A4 3.2 Quattro tops out at 3780 pounds, and a Lexus IS350 tops out at 3527 pounds. All of the competition noted, except for the Lexus have AWD in those weights listed. Note that ALL of the AWD competition actually weighs LESS than a regular old 2WD 2008 CTS. Ladies and gentlemen, the next gen CTS is a porker. How this will translate into a 'sports sedan' is yet to be seen, but for the sake of argument, the A4 is often derided as being too heavy. So what are we to expect of a 4100 pound CTS?

2.Barely Enough Power
If the 2008 CTS was released as a 2006 model, I would have no complaints. It features two engines- the much loved regular 3.6 HF V6 from the GM family, and a brand new 3.6 HF DI V6 making a confirmed 304 horsepower. Yes, the torque curve is very flat. Yes, it's competitive. But note my point- if it came out in 2006, it would be more than enough. As it stands, a yet to be released 2008 CTS already trails the Lexus IS350, the Infiniti G35, and the BMW 335i (300/300) in power stats. Incredible. If you want a perfect example of GM failing to take into account the competition and benchmarking moving targets, this is it. Yes, the base engine is more powerful than most others in the class. No, that doesn't mean shit, since most advertising centers around the top end engine outputs. Not to mention that in a few months, Infiniti will be dropping a 3.7 VQ into their G coupe (which will no doubt make its way to the sedan). Combine barely competitive power with excessive weight, and the prognosis doesn't look good.

3. Dull Styling
Yeah yeah, styling is subjective. But honestly, apart from the front fascia, how much major change has been made to this vehicle? A similar argument can be made for the redesign of the G35- it looks a lot like its predecessor, but then again, the G35 isn't the next stage of a 'design revolution' for Infiniti, like the CTS is for Cadillac. Yes, it's a bold grille. Yes, the side vents are cute, if a bit played out. But beyond that, I could be looking at a current generation STS. Just a big let down in a field where Cadillac could have really made a splash.

4. Missing Features
I'm not like some others that will bemoan the lack of push button start and the lack of Bluetooth as reasons why someone wouldn't buy a CTS- but the question remains- why the hell is GM so against upgrading their products to at least the minimum of the market standards? If even one sale is lost because someone wants Bluetooth and/or push button start in their vehicle, that's one sale too many, and a sale that GM could have easily kept. Instead, their reliance on OnStar has become a boon and a burden to the company- they're afraid to poach OnStar customers with Bluetooth capability, but will never move forward technologically unless they do so.

At the end of the day, the biggest issue that the new CTS will encounter is how to overcome its weight and power issues. The new interior will no doubt boost lagging sales, but if the goal of Cadillac is to once again become the standard of the world, they'll have to do much better than this- because 'this' is competitive with vehicles of today, never mind vehicles that will be released and available in 2008.

Tom Cruise: Future Attorney General

Via the Globe & Mail-

The government has the power to seize and destroy cars that have been adapted for street racing, and can do so before a race takes place or any charges are laid, Ontario Attorney General Michael Bryant said Wednesday.

Car junkies who pour thousands of dollars into their vehicles to make them as fast as possible are wasting their money, Mr. Bryant said.

He warned potential racers that all it takes is a tip from police to seize and destroy their cars.

“If we can establish someone has parts and they're juicing up their car — obviously for the purpose of street racing — then we can seize those vehicles,” Mr. Bryant said.

In the last couple of weeks there have been two high speed accidents in the Toronto region that have caused deaths. The most recent was a few days ago, when a Grand Am and a Mustang on their way up to cottage country, were swerving in and out of traffic at high speed, causing a tractor trailer to fishtail and subesequently crash, killing the driver almost immediately.

Yes, it's tragic.

Yes, the idiot drivers should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law (which is laughably lenient).

No, it's the not the fault of street racers.

There's a very real difference between street racing and idiotic driving. Street racers are, well, racing. And idiotic drivers, well, are driving idiotically.

My real beef here is that the government of Ontario is apparently taking a page from Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, and interpreting fictitious events as being plausible in the real world. No Mr. Bryant, this is not 'Minority Report'- you can't predict who will be street racing their vehicles, who will be making their vehicles more powerful just for kicks, and who will be actually taking their vehicles to the track. Using this line of reasoning, anyone who bodybuilds for the purposes of being stronger should theoretically be pre-arrested for assault. And anyone who buys a legal gun for the range should theoretically be pre-arrested for murder. And anyone who buys a DVD burner should be pre-arrested for piracy. And anyone who takes a penny from the 'take a penny leave a penny jar' should be pre-arrested for armed robbery.

Another issue with what Mr. Bryant has said is exactly what constitutes a street racing vehicle? Is the idiot down the street with the fart can muffler and racing decals looking to street race his Honda Civic? Or is it the guy who just bought an AMG CLS with about 600 HP? Or the kids who just had their parents buy them a WRX STi for their birthday? As seen from the accident a few days ago, you don't need a performance car OR mods to street race- the Grand Am being a prime example.

Not that I'm surprised at their actions. With a provincial election coming soon, and the Toronto media in an uproar over these 'idiot' kids speeding everywhere around the city (funny, because I drive everyday and I don't see them), the easy decision for a government is to overreact. And they satisfied the criteria with this move.

Unfortunately, the real issue here, and the overlooked issue here, is that police forces, not just in Toronto, but around North America, are not interested in having safe roads for the most part- they're interested in ticket revenue and catching speeders. And until that changes, we're going to continue to see such accidents.

RIP Monte Carlo: Don't Let the Door Hit Your Ass on the Way Out

GM announced today that the last front wheel drive, W-body Monte Carlo "sports coupe" has been built. The Monte Carlo of the past several years took all that was wrong with the Impala (review here) and added to it a cheaper looking interior, large and impractical coupe doors, the biggest quarter panels since a 1976 Coupe de Ville (slight exaggeration), and a redneck/NASCAR owner stereotype.

Similar to the Impala, the Monte Carlo is a perfect example of the OLD GM and exactly the kind of car that it should not be building. I'm glad that they finally gave up on it. Sales were a lukewarm 34,113 in the 2006 calendar year, and were down over 30% so far in 2007. Few buyers want coupes after their first two years on the market, and even fewer want ones with gangly styling, a NASCAR alter ego, and chassis architecture that dates to the late 1980s (albeit with periodic improvements).

I'm not going to miss the Monte Carlo, at least as it was in this form. My favorite style is the first generation. The second generation was way too overstyled, and the next generation began a trend of mediocrity for the car. The low point, though, was probably the Lumina-looking Monte Carlo of the 1990s that had ZERO style, grace, or character. At least the last generation had a little style, even if it wasn't exactly a current style.

Rest in peace. Now, will the NASCAR fans in the South start driving Impala SSs? It's hard for me to imagine, unless they release a special "Intimidator" edition with black paint and silver ground effects.

Chrysler Finally Figures Out How To Rid Itself of 2006 Models

I don't live anywhere near Detroit (about 550 miles away), but even I've heard the stories over the past year or two of Chrysler overproducing vehicles to keep the factories running, even in the face of falling demand for their products (particularly the larger, more fuel-thirsty ones). Since they were unable to convince dealers to take many of them, and still had a huge inventory problem, many of them were being parked in overflow parking lots at the airport in Detroit. There were acres upon acres of new 2007 Jeep Commanders, Dodge Durangos, and more.

Chrysler finally wised up a few months ago and discontinued this practice, after having at one time or another over 100,000 unsold, unordered new vehicles in the "sales bank." Chrysler watchers (or Iacocca autobiography readers) may recall that this very thing - the sales bank - nearly bankrupted the company in the late 70s/early 80s. This time, all it did was cause a multi-billion dollar loss, the head sales & marketing guy (Joe Eberhardt) to lose his job, and lead to much of the pressure that lead Daimler to unload the Chrysler part of its name.

Meanwhile, most of the damage was done. The sales bank vehicles were already built, and there were billions of dollars in finished goods inventory that nobody wanted, sitting in the Detroit weather, with birds crapping on them and the sun, rain, wind, and snow depreciating them. Last I heard, most of them had been accepted by dealers. But at this point, with many 2008 models hitting dealers, who wants to buy a "new" 2006 that was built almost two years ago, when 2007s are becoming heavily discounted?

Chrysler's solution to this was to basically allow dealers to buy the leftovers themselves. You see, dealers who held 2006s and used them as loaners or test drivers for as little as one day could be considered used cars, transferred to the used car lot, and counted as a new car sale. So, aside from helping to clear out excess [old] new car inventory, this policy change also bumped up Chrysler's May 2007 sales results. Previously, the rule was that a vehicle had to be a loaner for 90 days before it could be considered a used car. What's not clear is who is eating the loss in value - Chrysler or the dealers - when a vehicle priced at $30,000 suddenly becomes a $22,000 vehicle overnight. But if you're in the market for a new Chrysler vehicle, particularly one where there might be new 2006 models still out there, it might be a good time to go shopping. According to the company, there were 9,800 2006 Chrysler Group vehicles in dealer inventory as of May 31, 2007.

Toyota Changes Course

The Wall Street Journal reported this morning that Toyota is putting the brakes on its factory building activities in the US, once the new plant for Highlander crossovers in Tupelo, Mississippi is finished in 2010. Toyota has already scaled back its plans for the Tupelo plant, reducing initial production capacity from 200,000 to 150,000 vehicles and delaying its opening date from 2009 to 2010.

It seems that the company is concerned about several factors - increased US labor and material costs, a geographically diverse North American manufacturing base, and the quality problems that have uncharacteristically confronted Toyota for the past few years. Also, the company is in the unfamiliar position of having excess production capacity at its North American plants (it can build about 100,000 more Tundras per year than it's on pace to this year).

Over the years, Toyota has built factories in the US for two main reasons: to build political support in as many communities/states as possible, and to provide a sort of "insurance policy" against protectionist policies and currency fluctuations that would make putting all of its factory "eggs" into one basket potentially disastrous. However, with the Japanese yen being inexpensive relative to the dollar, it's more profitable for Toyota to import cars from Japan.

According to the article, the policy shift was driven by two of the company's former presidents: Shoichiro Toyoda (1981-1992) and Hiroshi Okuda (1995-1999) who are still members of the company's board. These men were concerned that Toyota has built too many plants in the US too quickly, and hadn't fully considered the economics of the decisions.

The supply chain complexities that come from a geographically diverse manufacturing base (Toyota has plants for engines, parts, or vehicles in eight states). Toyota's four most recent assembly plant projects have only one production line each (the most efficient plants Toyota operates have two or more lines).

In contrast, most of Toyota's factories in Japan are concentrated in Toyota City, which makes the supply chain much easier and less expensive to manage, and most of the company's plants in Japan can build up to six different models each, instead of one or two built in the company's North American plants.

My take: It appears that Toyota has allowed themselves to become a little complacent over the years...almost making very expensive factory construction decisions on auto pilot, when there may have been a better alternative. I congratulate them on identifying the problem before it's too late, like most of their domestic competition did for the past two decades. If Toyota's record profits of the past year or two are coming on the back of some fundamentally unsound decisions like these, imagine what they can accomplish if they sharpen their focus and concentrate more on profitability and cost reductions than on political goodwill and making the "automatic" choice.