China’s recent decisions to allow defaults on commodity future contracts and subsidize raw material imports are seriously messing with the commodities markets, giving voice to paranoia in every sector of the economy. In the auto industry, that means the now-familiar cries from those who worry far too much about the availability of raw materials for battery making. Automotive News [sub] reports that worldwide demand for 15 “rare earth” elements will exceed demand by 40k tons “in the next few years,” raising challenges for the nascent hybrid and battery electric segments.
Ford has a gushing press release out on the US’ first month of Transit Connect sales; and a booming small business economic sector! You know things are a bit dicey when a survey saying “9 percent of small business owners plan to hire additional staff within the next three months” gets its own big bold bullet point. That nine percent planning to hire means that the other 91% plan to either hold pat or let employees go. Ouch, those are bad numbers.
Caution: The sycophancy and silicone in this paint-by-numbers preview may make you want to hurl. Note to Mr. Piven: those who went before salute you, albeit with a single digit. Yes, the silver screen (or flat panel HDTV) has a long history of amoral, blood-sucking, lying, cheating, scumbag car salesman. As Slate’s Matthew DeBord points out, “Don Ready” isn’t the usual sad sack salesman. A distinction without a difference? Anyway, DeBord has a nice little rundown on nine (I’ve subtracted four) automobile-selling assholes. So which one was your fave? Any additions? And have you ever met a real world car salesman to rival any of these?
Summertime, and the living’s easy, when the warm breezes wafting over the windshield gently rustles through your hair and of the pretty girl sitting next to you. Or not.
Autocar reports that BMW is considering licensing Toyota’s iQ city car platform for its long–rumored neo-Isetta EV. In return, Toyota would reportedly get access to BMW’s MINI platform. It’s understandable that BMW would want to trade for a city car platform (they all look/drive the same anyway), but why would Toyota want a platform that could be mooted by improving the Yaris’s underpinnings? Also, is BMW not aware that Aston is doing its own iQ re-skin? How did the Bavarians not pick up on the scornful reception that news elicited? Meanwhile, Toyota is also in platform-sharing talks with Daimler. When did Toyota become the new Fiat?
The LA Times interviews AC Propulsion’s Tom Gage, and sheds some light on what an actual, honest-to-god profitable EV firm looks and thinks like. The short version? Think of the exact opposite of Tesla and you’ll be getting close.
Volkswagen’s BlueSport is still in concept form, but that didn’t stop Autobild from taking it out and comparing it to Mazda’s Miata, the industry standard for affordable fun. “Not bad, truly not bad,” is how the BlueSport’s creator Marco Fabiano describes the Miata, his concept’s intended prey. Which means the BlueSport will have to be “damn good, truly damn good” to break Mazda’s 20-year stranglehold on the entry-roadster market. At least VW is clear on that much going into the project.
Fox News reports that GM has confirmed Roger Penske’s decision to pull Saturn from the Canadian market. Saturn’s 46 remaining Canadian dealers sold 18,726 vehicles last year. According to GM, “a business case could not be made” to keep Saturn operating in Canada. Sorry Canucks, but there will be no Renault/Samsung loving for you.
The “Toyota is the new GM” meme is a provocative one. After all, prior to GM’s decades-long unraveling its dominance of the industry put Toyota’s tentative top-dog status to shame. GM’s decline proved once and for all that no make, model or brand can coast on being “number one” alone. Which is why I want to believe that Lexus is shaping up to be the new Buick, as Mark Phelan insists at the Freep.
If it sounds too good to be true, someone somewhere is scamming someone somewhere. This morning’s story in Automotive News [AN, sub] would almost have us believe that former Brilliance automotive CEO Yang Rong is “leading a venture to build a $6.5 billion auto plant in northern Mississippi, where he would hire 25,000 workers to eventually produce 1 million cars a year.” ‘Cause, you know, the U.S. market has room for another mainstream automotive brand. To its credit, AN sees a few problems with the concept: “It would be easy to dismiss his proposal out of hand. The plan has no brand, products or retail network. But Yang oversaw a rise from nowhere in Brilliance’s fortunes in the 1990s, and he has been attracting money from some of China’s wealthy residents.” The last part of that statement is the most credible; and it doesn’t bode well for anyone gullible enough to invest in Rong’s visionary vehicles. Oh, and Uncle Sam’s part of the scam . . .
“We think in some markets Chevrolet dealers will be able to improve their sales and profitability by 20, 30, 40, even 50 percent.” GM’s vice president of U.S. sales made his promise/prediction/delusional rant to GM’s remaining bow tie-branded store owners, as reported by Automotive News [sub]. The remark comes hot on the heels of Chevy supremo Brent Dewar’s pronouncement that the U.S. new car market will grow by 15 percent next year. I suppose LaNeve reckons Chevy stores will capitalize on this fantastic rising tide. “GM expects each surviving dealership to increase sales next year by at least 25 percent over 2009.” Yes, well, will Chevy dealers’ [theoretical] sales increases match the overall market? In other words, NOW how much will they get paid? But wait, there’s more! “Over the next 18 months, GM will boost advertising spending for each division well above amounts in the first half of this year. LaNeve said advertising that starts next month will be a ‘creative breakthrough’ intended to quickly change consumer perceptions.” Hey, wasn’t Cadillac the break on through brand? And wasn’t LaNeve its head? How did that turn out, then?
Huh. And there I was thinking that The New York Times was pro-Cash for Clunkers. Now that all’s said and done (well, done), the paper slates the government program as . . . wait for it . . . inefficient. (Well, they did call for a “well-designed” program.) Post-mortem, the Gray Lady does the math. “On average, cars are driven 12,000 miles per year, according to government statistics. Considering that the traded-in clunkers had an average fuel economy of 15.8 m.p.g. while the new ones deliver 24.9 m.p.g., a swap saved some 278 gallons of gas per year — which would have released almost 2.8 tons of carbon dioxide when burned. Assuming the clunkers would have been driven four more years, the $4,200 average rebate removed 11.2 tons of carbon from the atmosphere, at a cost of some $375 per ton. If they would have been driven five years, the carbon savings cost $300 per ton. And if drivers drive their sleek new wheels more than they drove their old clunkers, the cost of removing carbon from the atmosphere will be even higher.” So how does that compare with the Times’ new red-headed, planet-cooling stepchild?
Recent Comments