“In every deliberation, we must consider the impact on the seventh generation,” goes a famous line in the Great Law of the Iroquois, “even if it requires having skin as thick as the bark of a pine.” Though TTAC tests the thickness of GM’s skin on a daily basis, GM is ahead of the seven-generation game. The Detroit News reports that GM’s engineering staff are already working on the Volt’s third-generation hardware, although previous iterations are still being used to collect data. Meanwhile, the major challenge remain getting everything road-ready for a 2010 launch, a goal that will be reached… “barring any last minute problems.” “I did place a lot of faith in the battery companies, who said they could have them ready,” admits Bob Lutz. Oh, and there’s still one other major obstacle to overcome: the cost. Test vehicles cost “over $250,000” per vehicle to build, and a major focus of the testing process has been reducing the build cost. And despite the earlier Volt-as-sports-sedan rhetoric, the top attained speed in testing is 107 mph, although engineers say it will likely be limited to 104 mph. Though that’s faster than most EV early-adopters will take their Volts anyway, it’s also only about 15 mph faster than the much-cheaper Nissan Leaf EV, a vehicle that the Volt will have to differentiate itself from considerably to earn its estimated $10k premium over the non-range-extended EV.
It would be difficult to conceive of a vehicle better-suited to demonstrating TTAC’s diversity of automotive reviewers than the massive and massively outrageous Ford Raptor. Robert Farago would have eviscerated it with a zero-star diatribe on the inadvisability of building three-ton boutique trucks with borrowed funds. Sajeev Mehta would rhapsodize about the graphics but demonize […]
Autoweek apparently got an interview with GM vice president of global vehicle engineering and former chairman of Holden, Mark Reuss. Apparently, because their write-up takes a light hand with the quotation marks, using them to fill in the gaps between the author’s breathless interpretations of the topic at hand: Chevrolet’s SS line.
From 1960s Chevelles to modern Camaros, speedy Chevrolets have always been indentified with two letters: SS. But does the tradition-laden performance designation have a future in the new General Motors, which is under pressure to cut costs, make money and meet stricter fuel-economy regulations? “Absolutely,” Mark Reuss, GM vice president of global engineering, told AutoWeek. In fact, the SS line could be better–or at least more clearly defined. Reuss envisions cars outfitted on a case-by-case basis, rather than somewhat generically adding horsepower and red-letter stitching to Chevys across the board. Or as he put it, “Not trying to peanut-butter SS for everything.”
And though the intent of Reuss’s proclamation was clearly to encourage, the SS brand may be one of GM’s most-damaged. Here, for your viewing pleasure, are a few of the reasons why.
UBS has cut Fiat’s rating from “buy” to “neutral”. UBS cites its cautious views on car demand in Europe and Brazil as well as heavy trucks and machinery, the areas in which Fiat are strongest. UBS notes that Sergio Marchionne’s grand scenario of spinning off Fiat’s auto division is still the company’s goal, and PSA Peugeot-Citroen as a “likely candidate”. In the near term, UBS thinks that Fiat’s market share price of €10 per share is fair, as a consolidated manufacturer. Another reason why UBS cut Fiat: Chrysler. The article finishes with a stark warning that the “value of Chrysler to Fiat has been cut to 1 euro from 2 euros.” In the interest of fairness, we shouldn’t listen too much to the stock market as these are the same people who proclaimed that the banking sector was in rude health, right up until they asked for a bailout, catching the market “by surprise”. Especially considering Sergio Marchionne is the non-executive vice chairman of UBS’s board of directors. These caveats aside though, it’s important to note that Chrysler has realistically gotten Fiat no closer to the magical 5m annual sales number it needs to spin off its auto business, nor has it added real value. And Marchionne is apparently eying up PSA as the next target in his mad march to world domination. What a gas.
Earlier this week Chrysler talked about taking real steps to improve its quality. Today it’s GM. Mark Reuss, GM’s head of engineering, had this to say to the Detroit Free Press:
Reliability has been the Achilles’ heel of GM for my entire career,” he said, promising he would focus the company’s engineers around the world on fixing the problem. “It gets down to an individual engineer’s ability to find a problem and leadership’s ability to fix it,” he said, adding that too many GM engineers have been reluctant to point out problems because they were afraid they’d get the blame rather than praise for catching the mistake before customers suffered.
China’s SAIC, which had bought Britain’s MG and Rover in a roundabout way, is expected to unveil a production version of the MG 6 at the upcoming 2009 Guangzhou auto show next week, Gasgoo writes. (Read More…)
Sweden’s unions are on a hot trail. They think that –ohmygod- the Chinese government could be pulling the strings with Geely and Volvo. China’s Geely won’t say where they get the money for buying Volvo from Ford. Geely says its backers include Chinese banks. Sweden’s union leaders are concerned that the Chinese government may ultimately be behind the takeover. Well duh, most (if not all) Chinese banks are owned by the Chinese government. Kindof. Somehow. (Read More…)
On Wednesday, German German tire and car parts maker Continental AG joined the long line of multinationals who opened a R&D facility in China. The multinationals are way ahead of popular wisdom that technology is developed in the West and ripped off in the East. In reality, development has long left the building and has taken up shop in China.
Continental’s R&D center in northeast Shanghai will have 900 engineers working away by early next year. They will focus on the design and development of vehicle electronics. Shanghai Daily reports that Continental plans another technical center in the Jiading District if Shanghai which will do vehicle development and system testing. Not the stuff you do with a sledgehammer. (Read More…)
For manufacturers of engine timing chains, main bearings or any of the hundreds of unique components for engines and transmissions, EVs like the Nissan Leaf pose an enormous threat. Decades of investment in the manufacturing technologies and IP are potentially rendered irrelevant if the switch to battery-powered EVs progresses at the rate that its optimists proclaim. Bloomberg tells the tales of woe from anxious Japanese suppliers: “It’s a crisis-like situation,” said Toru Fujiwara, head of Tsubakimoto’s auto-parts division. “With electric cars, there’s no way we can apply our current technology.” Especially when their current technology lacks AC or DC. (Read More…)
“Without any doubt we knew fundamentally that [a merger with GM] would work, but only if it was a collaborative effort. Frankly, there was a possibility to create something that would be extremely competitive… unfortunately, it did not happen.”
Nissan/Renault honcho Carlos Ghosn reflects on the GM merger that might have been. When asked if he was happy that the merger hadn’t gone through, Ghosn replied “when you see the disaster and the waste of energy and skills and talent, nobody can be happy.” But was he talking about GM or the failure to merge with them? And since Ghosn has us in a reflective mood, isn’t it fun to imagine how a GM-Renault/Nissan merger might have played out?
Automotive News [sub] reports that GM will rush out its $4.9b restructuring plan for Opel in December, as it seeks to ease worries on the continent about the fate of the troubled division. “Our plan is very similar to Magna’s. I don’t think it’s worse,” GM’s Nick Reilly told reporters near Opel’s largest plant in Zaragoza, Spain. Reily has said that as many as 10,000 jobs and 20 to 25 percent of Opel’s production capacity could be cut in the restructuring. Though Reilly refused to indicate where cuts could take place, he did say that GM would not transfer production from Zaragoza to Eisenach in eastern Germany, as Magna had planned to do. He also previously implied that British government loans could prevent or mitigate a planned 800-job cut at Opel’s Vauxhall operations in Britain.
When Pontiac’s infamously retina-searing Aztek pops up in popular auto industry analysis, it’s usually as little more than a throwaway punchline. So credit Thebigmoney.com‘s Matthew DeBord for trying to leave the Thesaurus entry for “ugly” out of a recent piece dedicated entirely to one of the great modern styling miscalculations. Unfortunately, his admirable restraint serves only to further a wholly unsupportable thesis:
GM needs to remember the Aztek, because it represents the kind of risk-taking design that the post-bankruptcy firm will need to go forward. The temptation for the New General will be to copy successful market formulas, rather than try to define new market segments.
Autocar confirms that BMW has green-lighted a “MINI by Rolls-Royce,” featuring a “totally individual, coachbuilt” interiors finished at Rolls’ Goodwood plant. The Aston Martin Cygnet and Abarth 695 Tributo Ferrari have been put on notice… as have the marketing geniuses who thought they were good ideas. At least Rolls-trimmed MINIs have good precedent.
This Curbside Classic took the same trajectory as the Blazer. It started as a legitimate nod of acknowledgment to the S-10 Blazer as the trailblazer of the compact SUV market. But as I got further along, I realized just how badly GM bungled the huge opportunity for the baby Blazer in a segment that became a monster money machine for Jeep and Ford. With the mistakes being all so prototypical GM, I just had to re-write it as a Deadly Sin, even though it would have been easier to just leave it as it was. Which is exactly what GM’s Deadly Sin was: leave it as it was, forever. Well I’m not ready just yet to have someone document my Deadly Journalistic Sins, so here goes: Blazer, take Two.
This according to the National Taxpayer’s Union report “The Auto Bailout: A Taxpayer Quagmire,” authored by Rochester Institute of Technology Professor of Economics, Thomas D. Hopkins. That number includes the $52.9b taxpayer “investment” in General Motors, as well as GM’s portion of the GMAC bailout, which brings GM’s taxpayer tab to over $60b. Chrysler’s GMAC-inclusive bailout bill totals $17.4b, or $7,600 per vehicle, based on estimated 2009/2010 sales. Don’t believe that GM or Chrysler will match their projections over the next twelve months? The NTU estimates that total government support for the auto industry comes out to $800 per taxpaying American family. These numbers do not include the Cash for Clunkers program, likely future bailouts of GMAC (projected at a further $2b), or Department of Energy retooling loans (ATVML). These numbers also do not reflect the very real possibility that GM, Chrysler and GMAC could continue to drain taxpayer money post-2010. “For each year of survival beyond 2010,” the report warns, “the burden per vehicle would decline [Ed: but not disappear] – so long as no additional government funding is provided.”
Recent Comments