It’s a bright Thursday morning on Interstate 95. I’m hammering my black Phaeton down the left lane at an indicated one hundred and twenty-three miles per hour. In the back seat, my brother and sister-in-law are sound asleep. Next to me, my wife idly flips through the pages of a month-old magazine. “I think the Wilderness Lodge is the worst hotel at Disney… of the acceptable ones, you know,” she says. Before I can respond I notice that we’re closing in on what looks like a high-speed multiple-car freeway accident. In progress.
[Editor’s Note: This is the last part of a four-part series by Dr. Rob Kleinbaum. Here are parts 1, 2, 3. A PDF version of the entire editorial is available, courtesy of Dr. Kleinbaum, here.]
Serious consideration needs to be given to a radically different organization that would give people overall business responsibility and accountability and increase their contact with markets and the external world. The current direction is to move away from integrated business responsibility by creating strong functions with weak business units, and the problem is compounded by making the transition slowly, so there is continual confusion and conflict over who is responsible for what. The company is doing this to “leverage its global strengths” but the real effect is to create an organization where fewer and fewer people are actually running a business or have contact with the outside world and control is becoming more and more concentrated in a few people.
I remember when every liberal Northeast college professor worth his Cyprian latakia drove a Saab. The question is… why? Normally, I live by the Al Reisseian dictate that a brand must stand for one thing, and one thing only. It’s easy enough to identify the USP for most successful car brands. Mercedes = engineering. BWM = driving. Toyota = reliability. Lexus = comfort. Hyundai = cheap. But I can’t for the life of me remember what characteristic typified Saab. Practicality? Handling? No…. Quirky! Huh? WTH does “quirky” mean? Never mind that key between the seats thing. No wait, maybe that IS it. How much satisfaction did a Saab owner get from telling the valet parking attendant “Oh, the ignition’s between the seats.” Knowing (but not saying) that the key positioning was a safety-related “quirk.” Oh wait; college professors don’t use valet parking. But I reckon that somewhere in Saab customers’ collective subconscious they imagined they told a barely post-pubescent car parker where to fit the key. Yes, that’s some complicated shit right there. Which is why no one outside of Sweden could have possibly made the Saab brand a success. GM? Don’t make me laugh. Actually, do. I am genuinely sad to see Saab go. Only thing is, I went through the five stages of grief for Saab more than twenty years ago.
Earlier this week, we got one of those dreaded “I’m ok, but . . . ” phone calls from our daughter. A combination of completely bald tires and heavy rains led to a nasty three car pile-up. The Highway Patrol issued the offending driver a $1K fine for driving on bald tires. She claimed she knew nothing about cars—except to take her whip in for an oil change from time to time. Nobody at the shop warned her about the worn out tires. I’m all for mandatory annual safety inspections, which aren’t required in the land of the proctological emissions test (go figure). In fact, I’d like the state to check the headlights’ alignment, window tint levels and exhaust noise at the same time. In fact, a British style annual MOT requirement seems about right. The cost and hassle to our family would be significant; I’ve got six cars. But needs must. Your take?
Today’s been rather hectic, in a Swedish go-fish kind of way. I caught sight of this Bloomberg report on a possibile Chrysler-GM shotgun marriage this morning. And, somehow, it’s still there. “Chrysler LLC may be sending a message to President Barack Obama’s autos task force by saying the ‘best option’ for survival is a merger with General Motors Corp. that both sides have labeled dead.” ChryCo spinmeister insists that Bloomberg’s got it wrong: “We are in exclusive talks with Fiat.” Now that the supposed deal with Nissan is dead. And the one with Chery. And the previous talks with GM. Speaking of which, The General’s aide de camp, PR spinmeister Steve Harris, also ruled out an Alliance—I mean, alliance. Yes, well, JR didn’t want to marry Cally either. (You could say this doesn’t bode well for either automaker.) Now, some scary stuff . . .
USA Today’s car coverage is normally a fairly sensible part of a fairly sensible newspaper. But the Motown meltdown has created major distortions in the force. USA Today’s piece “Readers tell us why they stand by their American cars” is odd, from any angle. Clicking on the “enlarge” button of a homo-erotic picture of a guy in combat pants posing in front of a Buick Riviera is only the beginning. Right from the start of the article, it’s clear that scribe Chris Woodyard is so far out of the news loop he might as well check if Elvis is on the moon with him. Either that or he’s having a bad flashback, man. How else can you explain his bell bottom jeans-era take on American cars?
Last year, Toyota bought 16 percent of Fuji Heavy Industries, Subaru’s parent company.Those who care about such things immediately began speculating about Subaru’s influence on Toyota. Rumors of all kinds of wonderful sporting Toyobarus emerged, from a replacement for the Scion tC to a resurrected rear wheel-drive Celica using just the rear half of the Subie AWD drivetrain. The highly-anticipated (in some quarters) cross-pollination is well underway. Unfortunately, the result turns pistonheads’ dreams into a nightmare. With the arrival of the Impreza 2.5GT, the Toyotization of Subaru has begun.
Trollhättan – As a result of GM’s strategic review of the global Saab business the Saab Board announced today that it will file for reorganization under a self-managed Swedish court process to create a fully independent business entity that would be sustainable and suitable for investment.
The reorganization is a self-managed, Swedish legal process headed by an independent administrator appointed by the court who will work closely with the Saab management team. As part of the process, Saab will formulate its proposal for reorganization, which will include the concentration of design, engineering and manufacturing in Sweden. This proposal will be presented to creditors within three weeks of the filing. Pending court approval, the reorganization will be executed over a three-month period and will require independent funding to succeed.
Red light camera supporters insist that the devices are needed to prevent the common and deadly T-bone style of accident at intersections. In practice, however, automated ticketing lenses are more often positioned to photograph a different type of violation, one that rarely causes accidents. A review of US Department of Transportation statistics shows that an average motorist could drive a billion miles—the distance from Earth to Jupiter and back—before being involved in an accident that resulted from a motorist making a rolling stop on a right-hand turn.
I caught the following on fordmuscle.com. The author agreed to let me republish it here:
There’s an old saying, “Everyone is a capitalist on the way up and a socialist on the way down.” While GM’s circumstances are tragic, we need to let capitalism take its course. Propping up GM hurts the competitors who aren’t asking for handouts. It makes the playing field un-level. Ford is the fittest, and when resources are scarce, the fittest shall survive and the weak potentially go extinct. Ford stands to increase its market share dramatically if GM (and Chrysler) were allowed to fail. By doing so Ford would be able to make more cars, hire more workers, and be a better competitor in the global automotive market.
Transportation Secretary Ray La Hood is considering a transportation tax based on miles driven, to replace gasoline tax revenue. “We should look at the vehicular miles program where people are actually clocked on the number of miles that they traveled,” La Hood tells the Freep, echoing proposals being considered by Oregon, Idaho, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and North Carolina. La Hood argues that gasoline tax revenues “can not be relied on” to fund infrastructure maintenance, presumably because relatively high prices have caused a downturn in gas tax revenue. “One of the things I think everyone agrees with around reauthorization of the highway bill is that the highway trust fund is an antiquated system for funding our highways,” LaHood said. “It did work to build the interstate system and it was very effective, there’s no question about that. But the big question now is, We’re into the 21st Century and how are we going to take care of our infrastructure needs … with a highway trust fund that had to be plused up by $8 billion by Congress last year?” For La Hood the answer to that rhetorical question is “by putting GPS chips in your car and charging you by the mile.”
It was my last meeting with Saab. The new marketing director had decided that we were just too difficult to work with, and wanted a new team. When his predecessor introduced us to the new guy, he had no idea that we’d be working together again soon, for Lexus Europe. Meanwhile, he’d be moving on inside GM to work on the launch of the new Cadillac platform, and the later Lexus work would bring us into contact with the man who is presently heading Bentley’s sales and marketing. The car world is a small world. Back to the meeting. New guy is drawing a very sketchy car on the whiteboard.
Recent Comments