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.