So Ford's President of the America's, Mark Fields, did his stint at the Traverse City auto industry management mahalo. Ford was kind enough to publish the formerly private jet-setting Fields' speech, which we present below. His opening theme is clear (expressed above): "I also have been watching some of the recent commentary – including from speakers this week – about who's to blame for the auto industry not anticipating the dramatic increase in fuel prices and the accelerated segmentation shifts this year. But I really wonder if that is where we should be spending our energy as industry leaders." No, of course not. (Ignoring the fact that Fields was in power way back then.) Even stranger: "While none of us would have planned for the sharp downturn in the industry or the dramatically accelerated segment shifts, we are seizing the opportunity in a dramatic way." Would have? Yes, the guy's got a 'tude. "Some of our rivals snickered when we first starting talking about EcoBoost nearly two years ago – but it's interesting to see others trying to catch up with us…" To be fair, Fields is making all the right noises, plan-wise. But you have to wonder why such a shoulder-chipped old school Detroit apologist (and aspiring CEO) wasn't swept away by Alan Mulally's new broom.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
“While none of us would have planned for the sharp downturn in the industry or the dramatically accelerated segment shifts,”
Well, actually, some of you did. Toyota comes to mind.
Honda, for all it’s glory, did more or less the opposite of the D3: they didn’t gorge at the truck trough and likely missed profits as a result. Oh well, it’s not like they were hurting during that period.
“Some of our rivals snickered when we first starting talking about EcoBoost nearly two years ago – but it’s interesting to see others trying to catch up with us…”
What, like how GM started talking about the Volt? I’d say that, when it comes to issuing PR releases, GM is probably further ahead, but it really doesn’t matter: talking about something and actually doing it are not the same thing.
Hurry up, Mark, you’re falling behind in the press release gap!
Toyota actually has five distinct (and no, GM, the same car with three grilles and two ass-ends does not count as six hybrids) hybrids. Ford has one, and no TwinForce EcoBoost-equipped models in sight, never mind that we have no real idea of how economic EcoBoost really is, and that while Ford does some very good chassis work, their powertrains have traditionally been comparatively weak, slow and thirsty.
I don’t which of the heir-apparents scares me more: Fields or Mark La Neve. I think Fields, but only because La Neve isn’t really any worse than GM’s current management.
Interesting that the guy who used to run Mazda for Ford would act like he’s surprised that consumers want small cars and that they were unprepared for that. And as far as his statement “Some of our rivals snickered when we first starting talking about EcoBoost nearly two years ago – but it’s interesting to see others trying to catch up with us…” Let’s see.. EcoBoost is just a fancy name for a turbocharged direct injection engine like VW, Audi, Renault, Subaru and a number of others have been selling for years. Who’s catching up with whom?
I love this little gem:
In 2004, trucks and SUVs made up 70 percent of our lineup. Cars and crossovers were a mere 30 percent. Today we’ve shifted the balance to nearly 60 percent cars and crossovers.
As far as I know, the only thing Ford has done for dropping truck and SUVs is drop the Excursion by adding the Expedition XL. So no real change there.
The only car/crossovers they’ve added is the Flex and Fusion. But they’ve also dropped the Freestar.
So, really, they have dropped no SUVs, and added a single car model.
So, in Mark Field’s math, one car = 30% of Ford’s line up.
Jeez! Where do I begin?!
Firstly, the comment about “Not being able to foresee the current downturn and rising oil prices”.
Putting aside the fact that Toyota, Nissan, Honda and Hyundai saw it coming (as did Ford Europe), for a guy who studied Economics at Rutgers, he isn’t that sharp.
Oil is a non-renewable resource, not a secret. So invaribly, there will be a point when oil prices will HAVE to go up. Now couple that with the fact that India and China are ramping up their economies (which means there’s an extra 2.4 billion people who want/need oil) leaves only one conclusion; oil prices will go up or, at the least, plateau out at a much higher base rate.
Secondly, “Fields is making all the right noises, plan-wise”? Of course he is! He is spouting rhetoric recycled from what other (more compentent) managers said 4 years ago (i.e Fujio Cho from Toyota and his reasons for pushing the hybrid project forward).
I think the bit which galls me the most is how Mr Fields is being touted as the next CEO when clearly the guy is as useful as a chocolate thermometer. His turnaround at Mazda is under suspicion (i.e the Japanese managers did most of the work and not him), he did naff all at PAG (still kept losing money) and presided over Ford Americas and their current state of affairs. If this guy is going to be the next CEO of Ford, then Mullaly might as well give up now as all his good work will be undone in 3 years after he leaves!
Now compare Mark Fields to Lewis Booth, head of Ford Europe. Enough said……
P.S I think you “ignore” the fact, not “Igmore”…
“Some of our rivals snickered when we first starting talking about EcoBoost nearly two years ago..”
But your customers weren’t snickering. Who cares what your rival thinks?
but it’s interesting to see others trying to catch up with us
Care to expand on that, Mr. Fields? Because I really want to know who you are talking about.
@ blunozer
Not only that, but the EPA classifies crossovers as SUVs (trucks) and they’re classifed as trucks for CAFE averages. So why is he clumping them together with cars for their sales mix? If they were grouped per EPA classification, the car/truck model mix be 42% cars, 48% trucks. And saleswise so far this year, the mix is 38% cars and 62% trucks. Looks like they still have a bit to go before Mark the Mullet has anything to brag about.
I find it mind boggling that after 9/11 and war in Iraq, nobody in the Big 3 decided to hedge their risk on SUVs by making a solidly competitive line of sedans. It’s not exactly beyond the realm of possibility that oil would spike.
I mean, its never a bad time to have a quality lineup from top to bottom.
Honda has the Ridgeline and the Pilot, so it did enter the SUV/truck market. It just didn’t dive in whole hog. I like the fact that they mostly stuck with their core competency instead of trying to cash in on something they really aren’t too good at.
Isn’t is funny that these overpaid underperforming execs cannot ever say they were wrong and could have done it differently.
Ford, who has forever depended on one horse in the stable pulling all the weight, did it with trucks. The F series made them money for more years than we can imagine and also was the best selling vehicle in America.
The explorer was the second horse in the stable and it started off brilliantly. If it weren’t for the tire and flipping publicity ford would have kept it going longer.
However, neither of these horses could get through the gas crisis and there was no plan B.
Only the American mfgs. put all there eggs in the truck SUV basket. Starving the car developement budget was fine because they weren’t making any money there. It was easier to play the old horsepower and size rules game than think strategic in an ever more complex market.
So here we have not just Ford, but there two buddies now having to crack and penetrate a market they gave up years ago to Asian competitors and make a profit doing all of this. We shall see.
For those of you at TTAC and the loyal commentators, I have news for you. Americans do not WANT small cars, they have been FORCED into buying them.
By whom you ask? The dirty politicians and beaurecrats in washington that are more concerned about getting reelected and catering to the far left kook fringe than doing what is right for the american people and our economy.
Global warming is a hoax and “biofuels” made from our FOOD and cat crap will not get us where we need to be in energy production.
I have been selling cars for a lot of years and I have not had ONE single customer that truely could not wait to get out of the full sized SUV or sedan for a small car except for the cost. MOST are buying because they have no choice!
Many are buying the cheapest example of fuel sippers possible and hanging on the the vehicle the REALLY want to drive.
Throw all those bastards out in washington and start over and lay off the guys in detroit.
Isn’t is funny that these overpaid underperforming execs cannot ever say they were wrong and could have done it differently.
That’s very salient point: Toyota’s management (I believe it was Katsuaki Watanbe himself) has admitted to quality problems, likely due to overly rapid growth.
All I’ve heard from Detroit’s management is “No one could have predicted…”, “The problem is perception… “, “The media bias…” and/or “The customer isn’t aware…”. Not one admission of strategic failure or culpability. It’s always someone or something else’s fault.
My god, are these people every scared to death of being accountable
Image over content – another example of how Ford leadership of the past is nothing but an empty suit.
Let’s see… taking credit for other people’s work, assigning blame to others when it was poor decision making or a misread of market direction, inaccurate product mix, lack of vision.
Yeah, I wonder why Bill Ford looked outside for a leader. They should send this idiot to Russia and have him lead the Ford division over there. Do they have a Ford division in Russia? Ah, who cares.
Ptrott, may I ask, are you a salesperson for one of the D3?
I have been selling cars for a lot of years and I have not had ONE single customer that truely could not wait to get out of the full sized SUV or sedan for a small car except for the cost. MOST are buying because they have no choice!
Are you selling full sized Buicks?! Full sized sedans have for years been an exclusive market of the retirement crowd. Full sized SUV’s more or less were a status symbol and alternative people/stuff mover after the minivan was demonized in the early 90’s.
Small cars have been popular since the gas crisis of the 70’s. Honda and Toyota have always been able to sell massive quanities of their Civic’s and Corolla’s. Even GM and Ford have sold millions upon millions of Cavileers, Cobalts, Escorts and Focus. Throw in the mid-sized class of Camry, Accord, Malibu, Fusion, etc. and I would hardly say American’s don’t like “small” cars. There are those that like big cars but I’d hardly say all, or even a majority, of American’s fit that billing.
Ptrott,
Where in the USA do you sell cars at?
@ Ptrott :
The only persons that are responsible for the current state of affairs are…wait for it…everybody! Washington, car companies, but also all the people who were buying vehicles far larger than needed, thus feeding Detroit’s bad habits, and encouraging the developing world to pick up our own bad habits.
Blaming the politicians only is just ignoring that we all share responsibility for the problem.
By whom you ask? The dirty politicians and beaurecrats in washington that are more concerned about getting reelected and catering to the far left kook fringe than doing what is right for the american people and our economy.
There’s a far left fringe the US? Really? Could’ve fooled me…
Anyways, I always thought the whole problem with the economy was, you know, the subprime mortgage meltdown and the associated credit crunch, and that large, discretionary vehicles were a victim of that. If you can’t pay for fuel because your mortgage payments shot up and you had no contingency, well, c’est la vie. The government is trying to fix this, but it’s not exactly light-switch-flicking easy.
And regardless, even if people are forced to downsize, that’s an eventuality that a manufacturer needs to prepare for. If the economy tanks, there’s a lot of value in making products that people can still afford to buy. Midsize and economy cars aren’t called “bread and butter” products for no reason. You make them, and you make them appealing, because in the event of a market adjustment, they’re your high ground for a strategic retreat.
Blaming the government because you can’t plan for a downturn in customer demand for discretionary products rings sort of hollow.
** (for the record, I bought a Honda Fit because I wanted to. I could have bought bigger car, but I wanted small, agile and space efficient. I would have bought a Mini had I not been soured on European reliability)
I’d would like to drive a Bugatti Veyron as my daily driver, except for the cost.
Which is a massive exception. I have no doubt that many people are getting out of SUV’s not because of a new found love of smallness, but because they realized that the cost was not worth what they were really getting out of the vehicle. I don’t get the point of the objection; shoveling people into massive fuel sucking SUVS they don’t need and can’t really afford is BAD for the economy and the American people. Its the same problem of giving people loans to houses they couldn’t afford; it puts a lot of people on the edge of bankruptcy to create the illusion of prosperity. Frankly, if you own and SUV and the fuel costs are breaking the bank, you probably shouldn’t have had one in the first place.
psarhjinian. The government is trying to fix this? The government created the problem, by gettin involved with telling the banks and mortgage companies to whom they had to loan money to. I.e., the “poor and disinfranchised” that get “black listed” because of race and neighborhood. Im no fool nor am i naive, i understand they, the banks, are to blame in the fiasco as well but the government is NOT the fix. Now, almost all auto purchases are discretionary to one degree or another. Usually based on affordability, style tastes and need. That is nothing new, and to say someone should be prepared for the unexpected is correct but for the DOUBLEING of ones gas bill cant be blamed on poor planning in an auto purchase. And congratualtions on buying exactly what you want in an automobile.
Americans do not WANT small cars, they have been FORCED into buying them.
As far as I know, just about every Truck, SUV and large car that was on sale five years ago is still available on dealer’s lots today. So nobody has been FORCED into anything.
toxicroach :
shoveling people into massive fuel sucking SUVS they don’t need and can’t really afford is BAD for the economy and the American people. Its the same problem of giving people loans to houses they couldn’t afford;
Damn those car companies for allowing people to buy their products. Evil! Evil I say!
I always enjoy listening to these big shots blather on and on that “No one could have predicted the increase in fuel prices.”
Really? Are you sure?
In Honda’s 2007 Annual Report, p17, they start a several page discussion with the headline:”Soaring Gasoline Prices and Rising Interest Rates Affect North American Market”
They go on to mention that they have been watching fuel prices climb for the past few years and are enjoying higher sales of fuel efficient vehicles because of that.
Seems like all any of these guys had to do was to look outside of their tiny fiefdom for information that wasn’t “adjusted” to fit their preconceptions and they’d be fine.
Blunozer:
I love this little gem:
In 2004, trucks and SUVs made up 70 percent of our lineup. Cars and crossovers were a mere 30 percent. Today we’ve shifted the balance to nearly 60 percent cars and crossovers.
As far as I know, the only thing Ford has done for dropping truck and SUVs is drop the Excursion by adding the Expedition XL. So no real change there.
The only car/crossovers they’ve added is the Flex and Fusion. But they’ve also dropped the Freestar.
So, really, they have dropped no SUVs, and added a single car model.
So, in Mark Field’s math, one car = 30% of Ford’s line up.
Don’t forget how the Escape magically became a crossover in Ford’s eyes. If you look at their monthly sales figures, Ford puts the Escape under the “Ford Crossover Utility Vehicles” category.
Funny though…in 2001 (and you can look up the press release), the Escape is magically a SUV.
I hate the term crossover…it is a sneaky, deceitful marketing term. The Flex is a crossover??? No, it is a Station Wagon. The Edge is a Crossover?? No, it is a SUV.
Americans do not WANT small cars, they have been FORCED into buying them.
Oh really? That’s why people are voting for smaller cars with their money instead of SUV and trucks? Last time I checked they could still buy a large vehicle IF THEY TRULY WANTED ONE! Apparently they don’t, hence the downward spiral of large vehicle sales.
Washington has nothing to do with it. The consumer has voted with their money whether you or the Detroit 3 like it or not.
The way I look at is like this:
The person taking out a bad car loan is responsible for doing it.
But the creditor shouldn’t exactly be shocked when they default. It’s not his FAULT that the loan went bad, but he was the one wandering around dark alleys in a bad part of town at 2 am handing out money. So GM should not be remotely surprised that maintaining market share by extending sub-prime car loans would lead them into trouble. It may not be their fault, but it is their problem.
Responsibility and blame aside, I’d like to hear an argument that low credit standards that let irresponsible people live on the absolute bleeding edge of their means and beyond is good for the country.
For those of you at TTAC and the loyal commentators, I have news for you. Americans do not WANT small cars, they have been FORCED into buying them.
I’m an American. And I’ve always bought small cars. When gas was cheap in the 1990s I bought a Mazda MX3 and then in 2000 when it was still cheap I bought a Civic. In fact the largest car I’ve ever owned is my current 2008 Civic, which I bought because the Honda Fits were sold out and unavailable that day. Because other Americans had freely chosen to buy them first.
I actually don’t blame Detroit for not predicting the magnitude and timing of the oil bubble, which is now collapsing BTW — and I don’t believe any of you armchair Nostradamus’s did either. BUT, I blame Detroit for not always selling at least a couple or 3 of the most attractive small cars on the market, for people like me who like small cars. And for not having contingency plans that would enable them to respond to changing markets.
The government created the problem, by gettin involved with telling the banks and mortgage companies to whom they had to loan money to. I.e., the “poor and disinfranchised” that get “black listed” because of race and neighborhood.
That’s an explanation of our current predicament that I hadn’t heard. Affirmative action lending. I don’t believe it because I don’t believe the banks and mortgage companies acted out of anything but greed. I’m not slamming the banks, either. It all worked for awhile. The banks got profits by booking more and more loans and packaging them for investment. More and more people could afford homes. Property values went through the roof. It was all a great ride. The ride’s just over.
Now, Ford has legions of C-car customers in the U.S., including:
– 6 million Escort buyers
– More than half a million Tracer buyers
– Nearly 600,000 Lynx buyers
– And, 1.9 million Focus owners in the U.S. – and growing fast
Is he serious?? LYNX? Whoever is still driving a Lynx is unlikely to be a candidate for a new car – it’s out of sheer necessity they own a Ford – a car for less than $500, where there was little choice in the matter. Escorts and Tracers are quickly funneling into the same camp. These cars were all purchased back when the imports were making crap all the same. He can’t honestly think that these owners are primed to be new Focus buyers. This smacks of the GM “sense of entitlement” market strategy.
@toxicroach
Honda has the Ridgeline and the Pilot, so it did enter the SUV/truck market. It just didn’t dive in whole hog. I like the fact that they mostly stuck with their core competency instead of trying to cash in on something they really aren’t too good at.
I wonder – can’t you argue that that’s what the D3 did with trucks and SUVs?
toxicroach :
shoveling people into massive fuel sucking SUVS they don’t need and can’t really afford is BAD for the economy and the American people. Its the same problem of giving people loans to houses they couldn’t afford;
The truth hurts!
Lets be honest here and admit that avarage SUV in the USA is being purschased by a folks that just do NOT need that much vehicle. Put simply when a single dude goes out to purchase a Tahoe he is consuming easily about 1500-2000lbs more recourses (metal, rubber, plastic, etc) then he needs or will ever make effective use of.
The joke is that since there resource are just “dumped” in a few short years the materials are WASTED. Yes, I do know about recycling BUT that is still rather energy intensive.
In addition to the materials and resources that are wasted lets take into consideration how much fuel and energy are also consumed in the manufacturing and transportation process.
It is important to remember that MANY other US industries must compete for these resources that are being wasted on unnecessary land barges with “fad” popularity. Like it or not all of us are paying for the “Big Jim” mentality of some Americans.
Oh, lets now figure in just how much the unneccessary fuel consumption of SUVs have screwed up the whole supply and demand model for petroleum. Think about it, a couple cruising the strip on a Satuirday night in a Tahoe will burn about a 1/3 more fuel for no good reason that a couple in a good ole mid-sized family sedan. Factor this in across that country and figure out just how much of our diwindling wealth in this country has been wasted on unneccessary fuel consumption.
There are some real reason why our country is in such bad shape today. Part of it is due to the fact that far too many of us are wasteful jerks that act like a bunch of children when that fact is pointed out to them. This the same mentality that has about half of the US population over-weight.
Think about it! Turn on American TV and you will see that too many Americans think a nice ride is a bloated SUV, fitted with over-sized rim and tires, with a 10,000 watt sound system installed. Go the Toys are US and look at the toy cars and you will find that those silly lokking DUBS are the most popular today.
While folks that visit sites like this might actually like cars that have a purpose. It appears that ideal car for many in the USA is one that represents “outlandish, wasteful, worthless, consumption”.
Ptrott
For those of you at TTAC and the loyal commentators, I have news for you. Americans do not WANT small cars, they have been FORCED into buying them.
Interesting generalization. I’m an American and I have always WANTED small cars and no one has FORCED me into buying anything. However, after giving American small (and medium and large) cars from all 3 manufacturers a chance over a 15-year period, I now drive imported cars because I saw no improvements or real advances in the American ones.
People who have interviewed him privately tell me that Fields is smart and capable. Mazda seems to have done well when he was in charge. However, in public he comes across as the emptiest suit in Detroit, someone who got where he did by being a corporate political animal, not a car guy.
I apologize for what I’m about to say, but anyone claiming that Toyota saw the gas spike, segment shift and market deterioration coming down the road this year is ignoring blatant facts. They still had sales plans for 2.64 million units until July when they quietly lowered their target to 2.44 million. They still had hopes of selling 200,000 Tundras until June this year, but that looks highly unlikely now.
If Toyota had this great foresight, they would not have built a $1 billion+ facility that sits underutilized because they can’t even fully utilize the capacity they have. They would have taken that $1 billion and invested it in Prius production and development.
If you look at Ford’s product plans, they’ve been planning on bringing the world Focus here since 2006 for a 2011MY launch. They’ve been looking at the world Fiesta program since Fields returned to Dearborn in 2005 for a 2010MY launch. The hybrid Fusion has been planned since 2005. Their six-speed changes have been in the planning phases since 2004. Mulally was planning on aligning all of Ford’s world products by 2013-2014. Some things have just been accelerated thanks to the shifts that we’ve seen since April of this year.
All auto companies knew that gas prices had only one way to go, and all were adjusting for the long-term shifts. But what Fields is saying is that NO ONE in the industry – not even Toyota or Honda – predicted the dramatic segment shift we’ve seen this year or the complete deterioration of auto sales in the U.S. If Honda had, they would have had even more Civic capacity already online instead of scrambling to fill inventory, and they would have all but shut down their Pilot and Ridgeline production. Oh, they can adapt quickly, though. Well, quickly still means 12 months. Ford will have MTP completely gutted and transformed for C1-2 Focus production in 18 months.
We are mistaking the existing product portfolio and relative production capacity that has been slowly built/removed over time (over decades, in fact) for accurate predicition of short-term market shocks and medium-term market shifts. We are failing to do any proper analysis on product pipelines and development plans, which often give a clearer picture of what automakers are envisioning for the long-term. I’m not asking for much. Just for some analysis and thought.
I don’t think anyone anticipated the gas spike being as harsh as it is/was, certainly not the massive drop in SUV sales.
But some car companies had maintained a quality line-up of cars from top to bottom, which acts as a hedge against the risk of swings in taste, whether its because of gas prices or because SUVS are the new minivan which is the new station wagon.
Big 3 bet their asses on SUVs, even to the point where GM took money away from sedan development to improve their SUVs.
The domestics bet big on SUVS and trucks, and didn’t protect themselves against change. I don’t think its crazy to expect a car company to develop a full line of competitive cars. Thats just good business whatever gas prices are. Leaving yourself open to a downside risk when protecting yourself is good for the company whether the risk happens or not is stupid.
So that’s what I’m saying about the domestics. Gas price spike or no, neglecting smaller cars was dumb. If gas was .77 a gallon or 10.00 it would still be dumb.
Some of the commenters here are increasingly sounding like Baghdad Bob.
1. People always wanted small cars. Lots of people.
2. SUVs had to be made artificially attractive to sell as much as they did – by getting preferential treatment in fuel economy and emissions laws, they were effectively subsidized – they could simply not be sold in the numbers they were if they competed on an even keel with cars. So, if anything, the US car companies got the government to encourage you to buy more SUVs, which in my opinion is tantamount to treason. The snowballing critical dependence on oil that caused means we couldn’t smack the Saudis for what they did to us on 9/11, because it might have made things difficult for the idiots who bought Suburbans.
3. Toyota and Honda did eventually build trucks. Toyota even built big ones. They never, however, never ever EVER lost sight of the fact that absent the subsidies and preferential treatment obtained for them by the US car companies, most people really didn’t want SUVs – they wanted (and needed) cars.
While folks that visit sites like this might actually like cars that have a purpose. It appears that ideal car for many in the USA is one that represents “outlandish, wasteful, worthless, consumption”.
Well, part of it is image I am sure, but a lot of people also like the high ride height that lets them see over traffic, the soft and cushy ride, the tons of interior space (whether they use it or not) and the general feeling of safety (real or imagined) that comes from rolling around in 6000lbs of metal.
I would love to have a big honkin’ F-350 King Ranch diesel crew-cab even though 95% of the time I am alone in my vehicle and I have never towed anything. However, with gas prices (as well as the truck price) as they are, I just can’t afford it. Instead I drive a Mazda compact, but it isn’t completely out of being priced out of a big truck/SUV, I very much enjoy my little Mazda and the small car benefits of great handling and ease of parking are not lost on me.
To say that the population as a whole wants one type of car or another is a pretty big generalization. A Navigator, a Mustang, and a Fusion are all fun cars to drive for entirely different reasons. I would say there is a mentality that ‘we have the most money, we have the biggest bombs, we are the most powerful nation on earth and we are going to do whatever the hell we want and drive whatever the hell we want, and the rest of y’all can just fight over whatever scraps are left’ and I see nothing wrong with that. It feels good to be king, and when the economy starts booming again, I have a feeling those truck plants are going to ramp up pretty fast.
Now, Ford has legions of C-car customers in the U.S., including:
– 6 million Escort buyers
– More than half a million Tracer buyers
– Nearly 600,000 Lynx buyers
– And, 1.9 million Focus owners in the U.S. – and growing fast
…many of whom will never buy a Ford again because of their miserable experience with these vehicles.
Former 1978 Pinto Owner (it was given to me, and still wasn’t worth it).
What many are calling buying and selling decisions made by either mfgs. or customers in other countries are overided by someething called public policy. In America it is expensive to smoke and illegal to do it as a minor. It is also a crime to pollute water and soil even if you own the land. In Europe small cars are public policy. Cities will not be rebuilt to handle cars like we do with freeways. People will be encouraged to use public transit where feasible. And in Japan you can’t buy a car in Tokyo unless you have a certificate for a parking spot for it (not a cheap thing). All of these are public policy issues by government that guide through economics or use permits the way people will behave. The large fuel taxes in Europe are enough to keep SUV’s and pickups off the streets. Where does the tax go? Mass TRansit. You say you don’t want to ride the train, fine but you will pay more to drive. A large car in Europe is a mercedes E class (mid sized by our epa) this would be owned by a professional or business exec. Mercedes S classes will be seen more here than in Germany. It is not accident.
Count me in the small car fan club – I’ve never had more than 4 cylinders in any of my daily drivers.
As an owner of a not so-minivan, I’ll agree that it’s very nice to have a big vehicle when you need it. But the big car as an automotive Manifest Destiny? No, it’s not a right, it’s a privilege with extraordinarily high costs to society, one that we all pay for. As above posters have mentioned, the pursuit of cheap oil has held our foreign policy hostage for decades. The rise of the suburbs and drive-through culture has contributed to obesity with resulting diabetes and heart disease. The cost of maintaining highway infrastructure isn’t cheap, and collapsing bridges are just the tip of the iceberg.
I guess the lesson for car companies isn’t much different from your novice investor – diversification. The likes of Honda and Toyota had good diversification in place for higher fuel prices whereas the diversification for the 2.8 were more like GM stock.
Even stranger: “While none of us would have planned for the sharp downturn in the industry or the dramatically accelerated segment shifts, we are seizing the opportunity in a dramatic way.” Would have?
Yeah, I too am having trouble with Field’s use of the word “would”.
Is he actually saying that even if he knew the SUV/PU fad was fading and that fuel prices were going up the Detroit execs still would not change any plans?
Maybe the 2.8 need some Army Colonels in management. Don’t the military colleges teach contingency planning?
psarhjinian :
There’s a far left fringe the US? Really? Could’ve fooled me…
Reminds me of a saying at the poker table: If you look around and don’t see the patsy at the table, the patsy is you.
Not a flame, but you have declared yourself a Collectivist on this very site in a previous post.
Richard Chen: Cheap oil has also resulted in enormous prosperity, mobility and freedom for our society. This issue is not so neatly defined as described. In fact, it is an incredibly complicated cost/benefit analysis.
And I have just one question for all those who feel the need to limit the choices and opportunites of their fellow citizens: What qualifies you or anyone else to make those decisions for the rest of us?
Cheap oil has also resulted in enormous prosperity, mobility and freedom for our society. This issue is not so neatly defined as described. In fact, it is an incredibly complicated cost/benefit analysis.
And I have just one question for all those who feel the need to limit the choices and opportunites of their fellow citizens: What qualifies you or anyone else to make those decisions for the rest of us?
Does wanting to have clean air and water qualify?
@jschaef481: psarhjinian is Canadian.
@NulloModo: in, ten years or so when it is the Chinese people saying “we have the most money, we have the biggest bombs, we are the most powerful nation on earth and we are going to do whatever the hell we want and drive whatever the hell we want, and the rest of y’all can just fight over whatever scraps are left,” I wonder what you’ll think about that?
It’s great being on top of the hill, but when you’re too busy kicking sand down at one enemy (the “liberals”) it is pretty easy to lose sight of the other parties scrambling up behind you.
While I do agree that the car companies should have developed good small cars I don’t agree that the car companies should not have developed and sold the large SUVs the way they did. There was a demand for them like it or not.
M1EK- I’d like to know how the SUVs were made artificially attractive?
Count me as an American who bought a small car because it was the only thing he could afford.
I guess I’m lucky I ended up with a Saturn because if I had the money I’d be driving a 12 MPG Avalanche, Silverado or F150 now.
Not a flame, but you have declared yourself a Collectivist on this very site in a previous post.
Hey, call a spade a spade; it’s true.
…anyone claiming that Toyota saw the gas spike, segment shift and market deterioration coming down the road this year is ignoring blatant facts.
I don’t think it’s so much that they saw it coming (or that we’re claiming such), but they saw the potential of it, weighed the risk, and decided to hedge their bets vis a vis the profit margins of the truck market but not at the expense of their bread-and-butter.
If they persist and continue to gain traction (and, if anything, the Tundra is still selling better now than it did in 2003-2006) they’ll be in a good space when demand stabilizes.
Where Toyota’s forethought is evident was not leaving their economy cars to rot while pushing the Tundra. By having a product portfolio that allows them to make profits (albeit decreased ones), they’ll have the resources to better their product offerings and marketing efforts, while their money-losing competitors will be scraping together the funds to field products and campaigns.
Again, no was Nostradamus on this, but Toyota comes off looking a lot sharper for having incurred the financial equivalent of a stubbed toe, rather than a sucking chest wound.
many of whom will never buy a Ford again because of their miserable experience with these vehicles.
Former 1978 Pinto Owner (it was given to me, and still wasn’t worth it).
I wonder if you keep a 30 year grudge against any other consumer product manufacturer. Nobody builds cars the way they did 10 years ago, let alone 30.
Maybe I should avoid Kenmore and Sunbeam products because the vacuum cleaner I bought in 1976 wasn’t as good as a Kirby, and that Sunbeam mixer wasn’t as durable as a Kitchen Aid.
I think it’d be a safe bet that tech98’s house has no shortage of poorly made dreck from China.
# psarhjinian :
August 14th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Not a flame, but you have declared yourself a Collectivist on this very site in a previous post.
Hey, call a spade a spade; it’s true.
And we all know what great cars and motorcycles collectivists have produced.
Lada anyone?
Of course we can’t deny that collectivists have indeed left a legacy: thought police, show trials, gulags, millions starved to death, political prisoners, bread lines, permanently damaged ecosystems (read Ecocide in the USSR by Deutsch, Feshbach, and Friendly).
Hayek had it right, collectivism is the road to serfdom.
davey49:
The way that trucks and SUVs were made artificially attractive was by what wasn’t done to them, but was done to cars. Fuel economy standards imposed in the 1970s and later were substantially laxer for light trucks and non-existent for heavier models. Likewise for many “safety” standards, e.g. the collision standards that mandated big ugly bumpers on cars from about ’74 or so, until makers worked out how to do the body-colored plastic things they use now.
The way fuel economy and emissions standards were implemented had the net effect of simply encouraging manufacturers to make (and customers to buy) larger vehicles than they did before.
The only thing that increased overall fuel economy in the 70s and 80s was the fact that gas had become more expensive – not the useless fuel economy regulations.
Emissions standards were also slanted, in that what mattered for them wasn’t the net emissions per mile or person-mile, but rather what percentage of the car’s overall tailpipe emissions was of certain compounds. For the same tailpipe gas composition, a little Honda produces much less pollution than a truck, but that is completely ignored by the emissions regulations.
These biases in regulation and law, probably due to lobbying by commercial interests in the case of fuel economy standards and the Big Three in general on emissions, artificially distorted the US auto market in the last 35 years or so. How many people bought a truck for personal transportation in 1970?
Psarj- Toyota has always had to design cars for markets that have had high fuel prices.
Morven- I kind of figured all that, I was just wondering if it was anything specific.
You’re obviously comparing greenhouse gas emissions (which is tied to fuel use) to pollution (which is not) The EPA and CARB have only regulated pollution which is the same for trucks and cars equally.
I’m not sure that any of this make trucks more attractive. I’ve always liked trucks because they rode high and held lots of stuff. Plus they tow campers, boats, race cars, snowmobiles etc.
As far as 1970 goes, I was 3 years old but every family I knew had a truck throughout the 70s. Maybe not as their only car but I remember a lot of trucks. I personally have never known anyone who had a truck or full size SUV as an only vehicle. My brother has a beat up old Ford Explorer but I don’t count that. Explorers are tiny.