Though we don’t have a [sub] for Consumer Reports‘ members-only data, their latest reliability survey summary has enough interesting tidbits to warrant a mention. Based on their subscriber base’s 1.4m autos, and using only data available for at least 100 examples of a given model, the survey is one of the better indicators of reliability out there (although when it comes to this topic there is no gospel). If nothing else, it’s hard to argue that CR’s reliability results aren’t influential, so sales are definitely at stake. The results? All Toyota/Lexus/Scion received ratings of “average” or better, an improvement over last year when CR found Camry V6, Tundra V8 4WD, and the Lexus GS AWD to be lacking. Honda/Acura and Subaru also showed extremely well where complete data was available, and Hyundai/Kia models were average or better except for Sedona and Entourage. Hybrids also scored surprisingly well, with nine gas-electrics scoring above average. But CR is making the biggest fuss over Ford, which they say is “on par” with the Japanese firms on all but a few truck-based models. The rest of the Detroit firms? Not quite so much.
Walter McManus, former GM economist and current head of the Automotive Analysis division of the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, wants you to know GM’s SUV strategy of ignoring efficiency as a marketing input was his fault. In an interview with Energy and Environment News [via Edmunds Green Car Advisor], McManus explains how surveys in the 1990s showing consumers did care about efficiency were ignored:
The survey would estimate that people would estimate fuel economy fairly highly. Being a good economist, I said, ‘No, they don’t,’ and I changed the results. There was a systematic bias against such results. Our job was not to seek the truth, but to justify decisions that had already been made… It’s my fault they had the wrong vehicles until now
Can you say culture issues? McManus’s explanation for the insular attitude is a familiar refrain, namely that decisions “are being made by upper-middle-class white males, by and large. They don’t understand that the customers are not the same as they are.” Now that gas prices have made efficiency impossible to ignore though, McManus sees change coming.
Chrysler’s five-year product and business plan won’t be officially announced until next Wednesday, but the leaks have begun already. The Wall Street Journal was so curious about Chrysler’s product plan, they were able to squeeze a few broad strokes out of “people briefed on the plans.”
It gives me great pride to give UAW Local 435 workers the opportunity to partner with Fisker Automotive to create a greener America by building a plug-in hybrid car that will compete globally
So goes the line from Gary Casteel, the new Union boss for Fisker’s new Wilmington, Delaware plant at Automotive News [sub]. Why would the luxury EV startup hitch its wagon to the union that helped bring down Detroit? Was it a condition of GM’s sale of the plant where Pontiac Solstice/Saturn Sky were once built? Or does Fisker think that running a union shop might help bring in federal dross? Or are projected profit margins so strong that Fisker just doesn’t care? One thing’s for certain: though the UAW has agreed to a number of concessions over the past year, there’s a reason that most new US auto plants avoid union representation like the plague. From VW and Kia to Hybrid Kinetic Motors and Tesla, new US factories are being located in Southern states and California largely to escape the profit and productivity-sapping union. Either Fisker knows something that they don’t, or inviting the union into the new shop was a potential error of enormous magnitude.
Stanford University bring us a little closer to the day when cars will come with a pre-programmed Nurburgring (or, in this case, Pikes Peak) lap time. [Hat Tip: Robstar]
After a dismal PR year for Detroit (if only because lobbying efforts were successful enough to secure an unpopular bailout), the American Automotive Policy Council has been launched to represent the very special interests of Ford, GM and Chrysler. As Politico unironically puts it, “(Debbie) Dingell, the wife of Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) and longtime auto industry lobbyist Stephen Collins are leading the new American Automotive Policy Council.” Because former GM lobbyist Dingell, who was moved to an administrative position when she married Rep John Dingell (D-MI) is somehow not a longtime industry lobbyist? Marrying the then-Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee is like winning the gold medal for Detroit lobbyists… Dingell just had her number retired. Anyway, the new lobbying council is an offshoot of Automotive Trade Policy Council, a group known for such truth-telling efforts as Driving The Future: The New American Auto Industry [PDF], published in the heady optimism of June 2008. Which is a good indication of what we can expect from the AAPC. First up, a “manufacturing initiative” intended to “develop credible and reliable information for policymakers.” This is gonna be good.
As TTAC moves into its next chapter, it’s important that we revisit a topic that has long been a defining factor in our site’s success: our comment moderation policy. TTAC strives to provide the very best discussion on all things automotive, and in order to maintain decorum and high-quality online discourse, we’ve always moderated comments. This will not change, because—as a visit to most other car blogs proves—it’s the only way to prevent otherwise interesting conversations from devolving into ad-hominem, flaming and general unpleasantness. To help combat the internet’s endless supply of insulting, angry, incoherent, thoughtless, unfunny and generally annoying commentary, I’ve enlisted longtime TTACers Jeff Puthuff and Daniel J. Stern to help patrol our community. If you step over the line, expect to hear from one of us. Meanwhile, hit the jump for a little more detail on on community expectations and behavioral standards here at TTAC.
It’s not an academic question: if your answer is yes, Mazda has a $1.1B share offering it wants you to participate in. Now that Ford has reduced its stake in Mazda, the Japanese automaker is finding itself short on all kinds of hybrid and EV development. In fact, Mazda’s planned offering will dilute Ford’s share even further, to 11 percent. Automotive News [sub] reports Mazda’s plan is to use the money to improve fuel economy by 30 percent by 2015 mainly by improving its internal combustion engines, gradually adding electric components such as a hybrid system. However, isn’t promising to offer a first hybrid (let’s pretend, as most of the world has, that the Tribute Hybrid never happened) by 2015 a bit like a TV company finally offering a flat screen within the next five years? Has Mazda dallied to long with hydro-rotary nonsense, or is Mazda’s Hail Mary worth betting on?
Thanks to $7m in state grants and incentives, a $26.5m investment by Bannon Automotive and the promise of $52m in federal loans, Syracuse NY will become the American home of the Reva NXR. The AP (via MSNBC) reports Bannon expects production to reach 15k-20k units per year. But is $25k for 100 miles of charge, a 65 mph top speed and a bit more interior room than an Isetta going to fly in the US market? Oh right, government subsidies don’t care.
And it wasn’t even close. Though the proposed concessions didn’t even move Ford to parity with its UAW-VEBA-owned cross-town rivals, 92 percent of the KC plant’s workers rejected the deal. According to The Detroit News, a UAW national Vice President tried to convince workers to accept the deal prior to the vote, but was apparently shouted down by angry employees. “(He) spoke and was booed,” said one worker who the DetN did not identify. “There were a lot of ‘No’s!’ It was a very loud meeting.” And apparently, it was the no-strike clause that got workers so steamed. Which makes a certain amount of sense… after all, what good is a union that can’t strike? The problem is that the no-strike clause was a crucial factor in convincing Fiat to take charge of Chrysler, an automaker the UAW ended up with a 60 percent stake in. And now, the worker’s rejection of a Ford agreement strikes an equally rippling blow to the UAW’s pattern-bargaining strategy. Can the UAW have it both ways? It sure looks like it’s going to try. Though KC was the first local rejection of the deal (five other plants narrowly approved it, two have rejected), a vote is approaching (on Friday) at the Dearborn Truck plant that has been a hotbed of UAW dissent. So much so, that it appears that UAW leadership may have delayed the Dearborn vote until after all the other locals’ votes. Still, if the Dearborn vote fails, which it well could, we could see major turmoil within the ranks of the UAW.
$413 million isn’t a ton of money for one of the largest global automakers, but GM’s purchase of Daewoo’s entire share offering still doesn’t completely add up. After all, GM was barred from spending US taxpayer bailout money on overseas assets. And it’s not like GM wanted to increase its stake from 51 percent to 70.1 percent; GM-Daewoo tells Reuters GM had to step in with the cash when the Korean Development Bank, SAIC and Suzuki declined to participate in the rights offering. But under which sofa did GM find the cash? “The money came from GM’s global operations,” is all Daewoo’s reps will say about the matter. And though we could criticize GM for starving its overseas operations in order to keep the wolf from Daewoo’s debt-riddled door, the reality is that few of GM’s divisions are as important as Daewoo for GM’s global product development now that Opel is on the way out the door. The real problem is that this outlay is hardly the last one GM will have to make in order to keep its small-car development hub.
Well, we’ve been here before. A while back we’d heard that an Alfa 169-branded, LX-platformed sedan would be built at Brampton for the US market, with a rumored $62k price point. That story seemed a bit iffy at the time, although it wouldn’t surprise us to hear it announced officially at Chrysler’s forthcoming five-year plan announcement. Especially now that we’re hearing more rumblings that Fiat will borrow the LX platform for European-market sedans to be built at the former Carozzeria Bertone plant in Turin. Automotive News [sub] reports a Lancia Thesis replacement and possibly even a entry-level Maserati will be built using Chrysler’s long-running RWD platform. Fiat has been looking for a RWD platform for some time, having planned on using Cadillac’s Sigma platform, and when things got nasty with GM, Fiat went sniffing around the Jag XF platform. Now Fiat has its rear-drive underpinnings, and Chrysler’s new “Pentastar” V6 to play with… but will Maserati settle for less than a V8? And will the American market actually be getting an Alfa-branded LX? TTAC will be on-hand for Chrysler’s five-year product plan announcement, and will report the definitive word on November 4th.
It’s 2009, and Chrysler Group is still hugely dependent on Ram sales to keep dealer volume flowing. Not that there’s anything wrong with pickups per se, but dependence on a shrinking market (down 34 percent year-to-date, compared to 27 percent reduction for all light-duty vehicles) is never a good thing. Cutting into profits to keep your share of said declining market is even less of a good thing. And yet Chrysler is planning on doing just that, cutting starting prices on 2500 and 3500 Heavy Duty Rams by $1,970. According to Automotive News [sub] Ram 2500 regular cab 4×2 with a 5.7-liter Hemi V-8 will start at $28,165, including shipping for the 2010 model year, despite offering more equipment than the outgoing model. Why? In a word, desperation. “There’s not a lot of strength in Chrysler’s portfolio right now, so they’re trying to give it its own identity,” says Edmunds Editor Karl Brauer. Except that “won’t sell unless they’re discounted to the hilt” was already part of the Chrysler portfolio’s identity. The only difference with the Ram is that it might just sell. As Cash-for-Clunker-era sales results prove, even huge rebates (on top of record manufacturer incentives) don’t do much to move Chrysler’s moribund car lineup. So why not try massive discounts on massive Rams? How much worse could (will) it get?
The recent arrest of a Ford employee on charges of industrial espionage may have been enough to scuttle Ford’s sale of Volvo to Chinese firm Geely. Or, as Bertel Schmitt reports, perhaps the spy story was just a convenient excuse to get more money out of the deal. But whether as a legitimate concern or strategic fearmongering, industrial espionage is hot right now. The Freep reports three former GM-Daewoo employees have been charged with spycraft, for allegedly transferring “critical GM technology” to Russian automaker tagAZ. The technology in question: engine and component designs for Daewoo’s outgoing (J-200 model) Lacetti, predecessor to the Cruze. And GM claims tagAz’s new C-100 sedan (above) looks a little too similar to the Lacetti in question. “It’s pretty close, if not dead on,” say GM-Daewoo spokesfolks. “The J-200 may not be a new vehicle for a lot of developing countries, but for a lot of emerging markets, it’s a very aspirational vehicle.” And it’s been a best-seller in Russia. TagAZ denies that it stole designs from Daewoo, saying it spent four years and $250m developing the C-100. But it also hired “a number” of former Daewoo engineers, according to GM, which is probably the most legitimate way to steal a good design. But with GM possibly wavering on the Opel deal, will this latest espionage raise doubts about the wisdom of selling Opel to another Russian firm? It probably should.
Fisker’s first car, the Karma, is being assembled by Valmet in Finland, but Fisker is already looking ahead. Following the Tesla model of offering a second sedan at around half the price of the brand’s flagship nameplate, Fisker is negotiating the purchase of the former Solstice/Sky plant where it plans on building a $48k “family-oriented” hybrid. The WSJ report Fisker is eying up to 100,000 units of production, employing 1,500 workers. Fisker is also following the Tesla example for funding; the EV company will spend most of its $528m in DOE ATVM loans developing its new lower-cost model (the Karma will retail for around $90k) and retooling the Delaware plant. Though companies like Fisker and Tesla surely appreciate these loans, one can’t help but wonder if they encourage an unhealthy level of optimism in a company that has yet to bring a vehicle to market, let alone record a sale. Though it’s understandable that fledgling EV companies would begin with a luxury model and work towards mainstream offerings, shouldn’t there be some indication of the flagship’s success (especially if it involves a more-complicated range-extending ICE) before going full-speed ahead for a 50 percent cheaper model?
Recent Comments