China’s top economic planner has approved of Chery’s plan to buy the Volvo brand from Ford Motor, Gasgoo says. The report is not confirmed yet by Chery Auto. However, Gasgoo is very close to Chery.

According to Chinese media reports, Dongfeng Motor Co. has also submitted its Volvo-bidding plan to the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC). The company’s spokesman denied the reports.

On Feb. 12, Chery Auto president and CEO, Yin Tongyao, said that his company would not rule out the possibility of buying a troubled European auto brand. Volvo was believed to be one of the choices.

Chery Auto received a 10 billion yuan ($1.47 billion) loan to fund its global growth from Export-Import Bank of China (China Eximbank) in December 2008. The company was also granted the flexibility of a credit line by the bank.

Ford put Volvo up for sale late last year to raise cash, but has found little interest in the brand, because many potential buyers are facing similar crisis and the nearly $6 billion needed for buying Volvo is a prohibitive price for most carmakers.

The report has been repeated on China Daily. China Daily is the English speaking organ of the government news agency Xinhua.

Looks like we may have retired the Tesla Deathwatch a bit prematurely. Valleywag reports that Tesla CEO Elon Musk has launched a Nixonian “plumber” offensive aimed at eliminating leaks from the Silicon Valley startup. And boy are the employees happy about it. The plumb-and-purge strategy was launched when Tesla engineer Peng Zhou told Valleywag that the company’s cash reserves had dropped to $9M. According to the blog, Musk “hired an outside IT contractor go through the company’s email and instant messages, and then had an investigator take fingerprints off a printout discarded near a copier used to leak the email.” That investigation implicated Zhou who was asked to confess, apologize and leave the company. This was just the beginning.

(Read More…)

A message to the troops from GM’s VP of sales and marketing for GM North America:

Today’s submission of our annual report has generated a significant amount of media speculation about GM. Specifically, the media are covering the auditor’s language about whether or not we are a ‘going concern.’

Let me be clear — neither is this “new” news, nor does it change our viability plan to succeed.

For months we have explained the need to restructure and recapitalize our business for the long-term. As dealers, you are integral to that long-term success. Dialogue with the Auto Task Force team in Washington is ongoing, and we remain focused on implementing our viability plan.

So, here’s what I’d ask of each of you: Stay focused on the business, not the media hysteria. Reassure your customers that we are here for the long haul and that we’ve overcome challenges many times before in our 100 year history. Also remind customers that we deeply appreciate their business and support. For new customers, take a few extra minutes to show them the great GM cars and trucks we offer, and demonstrate our commitment to the best service in the industry.

As always, we are very appreciative of your support and welcome your continued comments.

The statement we are using in response to media questions is attached for your reference.

Mark LaNeve

(Read More…)

Despite General Motors’ epic slide into Chapter 11, or perhaps because of it, its defenders are busy re-writing history. It’s the Poseidon Adventure redux: a huge, well-run ship overwhelmed by a sudden, terrible force of nature. Except this ship will eventually right itself. In truth, GM really is the Titanic: a badly built vessel helmed by men blinded by short-term greed and long-term hubris headed for Davey Jones’ locker. Make no mistake: GM CEO Rick Wagoner had the chance to return GM to dry dock, repair the company’s flaws, and make it across turbulent seas. But then Wagoner is a GM lifer—his cowardice is both genetic and institutional. What’s the mainstream media’s excuse?

Back in Motown’s heyday, in-house design giants like Harley Earl set the automotive fashion trends. Rockets, airplanes, Googie, breasts—vehicular taste-makers drew inspiration from the pop culture gestalt. Today’s car designers are no different. Specifically, they’ve turned to urban parade makers for their sheetmetal cues, favoring designs that evoke the wretched excess of a rapper’s bling. Unlike Earl and his cohorts, contemporary car designers suffer from Marty McFly Complex: they try dangerous things to show that they’re not creative cowards. The Ray Gun Gothic designs of day’s past had “it.” Our time’s blingmobiles are just plain embarrassing.

TTAC reader JG writes:

Sajeev, do I have a question for you! Knowing the roads (and potholes) of Houston (like I know you do) here goes. I own a 2001 Ford Explorer 4-door. My pregnant wife curses the ride every time she’s in the car (whether it’s moving, or not). I have recently replaced the tires, which helped a little and ball joints up front. I’d love to get out of this car into something safer, but it’s not an option for a few more years. Is there anything I can do to improve the ride quality? I know I’m dealing with limited options with the solid rear axle, but there has to be something, right?

Sajeev writes:

I see two quick fixes: put several bags of mulch in the cargo area, or hack the muffler and run a straight pipe. (You can get away with it in Texas.) The mulch takes the bite off the leaf springs, and a large amount of ride quality comes from the rear suspension, fuel economy penalty be damned. But the straight pipe ensures your wife will never complain about the Explorer’s terrible ride. Ever.

(Read More…)

The auto industry spends millions each year studying what motivates people to buy a car. Much less studied, perhaps not even studied at all is what motivates people to get rid of a car. After all, people don’t just fall in love. They also fall out of it. We have a list of likely suspects: new car fever, the warranty running out, problems, maybe even the suspicion of future problems. So, what motivated you when you got rid of a car? A few critical bits of info: model, model year, month/year sold, odometer when sold (or junked). Extra credit: month/year purchased, odometer when purchased. Lessees need not respond: you’re boring—the lease simply ran out. I’ll go first. I traded my 1996 Ford Contour SE V6 (purchased October 1997 with 23k miles) when the engine lost some compression in three cylinders thanks to an engineering defect. Replacing the engine would have cost more than the resulting increase in the car’s value. That was in November 2003, with 69,000 miles. We sold my wife’s 1998 Olds Intrigue (purchased in January 1999 with 14k miles) in July 2004 with odometer in the high 70s because she was bored with it, and we thought it might start having problems at some point—though it had had none for the previous 2-3 years.

We at TTAC are aware of the strain we’ve been placing on attention spans today, what with the six (!) full-length pieces we’ve published today and all. In honor of your noble sacrifice at the altar of literacy we present a gallery of photos from our photographer in Geneva, Tim Sutton. Without comment. Enjoy.

Last year in Geneva, I grumbled about how the annual car show was all green talk and no green action. This year, in contrast, I found few new cars worth writing about: the VW Polo is a bore, the Daewoo/GM Spark is a joke, exotics are an anachronism, and the A4 Allroad is a good sequel — but why waste any bandwidth on it? On the other hand, there are some pretty exciting alternative-fuel vehicles on display. (And, predictably, some big disappointments, too).

Saturn spokesman Steve Janisse must rue the day Automotive News [AN, sub] picked-up the phone. Hey, Steve! Wassup with the whole selling the brand thing? How’s that going anyway? “There is interest from investors in doing a spinoff, and there are other entities interested in just buying it.” So far, so spinmeisterly. And then, the gotcha (sans quotes) “He said he does not know whether the interested parties are other automakers.” So, are we to believe that GM’s got buyers for Saturn but doesn’t want to tell Janisse? I don’t think so. Anyway, AN reveals that GM’s spending lots of taxpayer money to hire someone to find a mark willing to rethink the idea of losing billions of dollars in the car biz. “GM has hired Steve Girsky, formerly senior auto analyst for Morgan Stanley, to help advise on any possible Saturn deals … ‘He has extensive knowledge of the financial side of the equation and so he’s helping evaluate the different options,’ Janisse said. ‘But he’s also there to build the business plans for the options.'” Good luck with that.

I’m not using the poker definition of the word “hit” here—despite the obvious metaphor of GM drawing on 20 in a game of 21. (Three decades ago.) I’m speaking here in the Britney Spears sense of the phrase. Well, actually, it’s not me. It’s none other than House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi. According to The Detroit News, Nance told reporters today that she supports a strong manufacturing sector. “But this isn’t endless,” she said. “And there has to be a sign of viability and it has to come soon.” Spears fans will recognize Ms. Pelosi’s cry for a pistonhead portent as an echo of Ms. Spears lachrymose lament. So, what sign of viability does the D.C. politician want; you know, as GM has already submitted its official viability Powerpoint presentation? If she’s looking for some kind of sales turnaround, well, uh, anyway . . . “The White House’s top auto advisers will travel to Detroit next week to meet with all three domestic carmakers, Obama administration and auto industry sources said Thursday.” Huh?

(Read More…)

Sitting between two highly conventional Rios on the Kia lot, the Soul Sport looks like a visitor from another planet. The Kia’s European styling not only refutes the bland mediocrity of its fellow Kias, but also challenges the toaster-oven aesthetics of its boxy competitors. At the same time, it offers a more unique approach than Honda’s low-slung Fit hatchback. That said, the Soul is more the product of a careful compromise between its competitors rather than a genuine automotive oddity. So what happens when you pick the least-compromising trim level, the Soul Sport with manual transmission? You develop a new level of appreciation for the art of compromise.

Was Aston Martin’s expansion into lower reaches in the luxury automotive food chain a good idea? The development of the AM V8 Vantage was at best a dangerous move. Why risk devaluing a storied brand? Looking at top line figures, it seems as if Aston’s “entry level” model is a solid success. Aston Martin’s sales have increased to levels the company hasn’t experienced since… ever. Thanks in part to the AM V8, Aston Martin turned a profit in the two years prior to its removal from the FoMoCo family. But looking one level deeper, the British automotive brand’s move down market triggered several less than savory consequences. They may be returning to bespoke, fragrant leather coops, but the prodigal chickens are back, and they’re bad.

I believe that the 2009 Ford Fusion S is the most unremarkable car I have driven. Ever. When I sat down to record notes immediately after concluding my test of this blessed blandmobile, I had a hard time recalling anything about it. I got in. Transportation happened. I got out. That’s it. This car’s striking anonymity served both to prevent it from winning this comparison – not even close to defeating the Chevrolet Malibu LS. At the same time, I suppose flying under the radar preserved it from a potential loss. Actually, the Chrysler Sebring LX is so dreadful that defeating it isn’t much of a victory. So the Fusion S ingloriously falls into second place. Read on as I attempt to fill 800 words… about nothing.