To boil it down to a single word, Sebring. GAZ’s main mass-market model is the Volga Siber, a Russian-market adaptation of the previous generation Chrysler Sebring/Dodge Stratus. As Der Spiegel points out, that’s not enough to go to war with even in the Russian market, and GAZ’s bosses want Opel to bring modernity to their products. GM is terrified about the prospect of having to compete against Opel in Russia, reports the AP. But those fears could be overblown. “Even if GM completely stops doing any research and doing any product development, maybe [GAZ is] going to catch up with them in five or ten years at the earliest,” says Serguei Netessine of the Wharton Business School. Just in case though, GM is investing in its Daewoo-based European Chevy lineup, according to Bloomberg. Meanwhile, the search for an Opel buyer has cost over $1 billion so far. And it’s only just starting to get properly nasty.
Volkswagen plans a seven-passenger SUV for the American market. VW North America jefe Stefan Jacoby explains the move to the Freep by saying Vee-Dub “would not chase parts of the market such as pickups where VW couldn’t stand out.” Seriously.
More fodder for the “Chrysler adjusts to life as a Marchionnian pawn” file, as Reuters reports that the Chrysler C-platform may be headed to China. Yes, anyone who’s ever driven a Caliber, Compass or Patriot will have a joke at the ready, as ChryCo’s compact threesome already ooze that “straight outta Tianjin” flava. Maybe Fiat figures that if GM can sell Buicks there by the boatload, a Compass might come across as mildly aspirational. On the other hand, this was already tried with the PT Cruiser. Back then, Chrysler couldn’t find anyone in a nation of a billion people who wanted to produce bulbous, tacky, out-of-date hatchbacks. It’s hard to see why Fiat thinks this go-round will be any different.
Back in loony desperation of pre-bailout Cerberus-era Chrysler, plans were floated for Chrysler to build a Ram-based Nissan Titan in exchange for a ChryCo-branded version of the Nissan Versa (and possibly the Altima). Now that Fiat is running things in Auburn Hills though, Chrysler has access to modern compact and mid-sized platforms. And Fiat doesn’t want Chrysler paying Nissan to help it compete in South America, one of Fiat’s most important markets. According to Automotive News [sub], the break “leaves Nissan with a bigger problem than any facing Chrysler.” Namely, the Titan question. Wait, seriously? Nissan recently killed off the Quest and Infiniti QX56 to make more room in its Canton plant for diesel-powered light commercial vehicle production. If/when the economy does start coming back, that market could be a better place to be than the crowded, cutthroat full-size pickup market. Alternatively, Toyota is drowning in Tundra capacity. If Nissan wants to be in the pickup market so badly that it’s willing to beg for a rebadge, that seems like the place to start. Release after the jump.
Is the 15,000 maintenance really necessary? I have an 2008 FJ Cruiser and I am just hitting 15K. I had the car for about 6 months and the dealership charges $298 for the 15,000 maintenance. I have always thought that these were just traps for dealers to charge a ridiculous amount of money for oil changes and inspection. I checked what they provide and it looks like lots of visual inspections and just an oil/filter change and tire rotation. The car still feels new to me, and I don’t I need anything more than an oil change and tire rotation. What are your thoughts?
The Freep reports that final cash for clunker numbers show the program coming in under its $3bn budget. $2.877bn was spent on 690,114 deals, according to government data. The bad news? C4C did a mediocre job stimulating the domestic firms; according to the Detroit News. GM, Ford and Chrysler captured just 38.6 percent of all clunker sales, down considerably from their joint 45 percent market share in July. Toyota captured 19.4 percent, GM snagged 17.6 percent, while Ford only ended up with only 14.4 percent—just ahead of Honda which had 13 percent. Check out the NHTSA’s PDF postmortem press release on the program here. Though the Detroit Three didn’t do so well in the “cash” portion of cash for clunkers, it swept the clunker list. Ford alone had five of the top ten clunker trade-ins, with GM and Chrysler rounding out the list. Hit the jump for top ten buys and trade-ins by model.
Clear-sighted auto industry analysts tell Automotive News [sub] that “Just a few months ago, GM was not in a position to retain Opel.” But now, according to these wise seers, GM doesn’t have to sweat the recovery of its embattled European division. “They were fighting on life support. Now the patient has recovered,” is the verdict. Huzzah! For lo, GM hath looked unto the hills from whence cometh its help, and it figures more just might be on its way. “I think the last year has shown that the government can be very creative when it wants to be in how it structures these deals,” says another analyst, who suggests that “private investors with possible credit support from government sources” could ride to Opels rescue on behalf of GM. After all, if anything, Opel is the bailout that got away. “There really wasn’t a view articulated (on Opel). It was one of several challenges that GM faced,” says an anonymous U.S. official “In its restructuring, there really wasn’t a particular view on a specific path.” And the door is still open for a taxpayer-backed rescue of Opel.
To my mind, this is video is some of the better corporate communication to come out of Detroit in a while. It’s the perfect counterpoint to GM’s perception-gap whining, giving ordinary folks a glimpse inside the manufacturing line while highlighting quality control improvements. Only the choice of hosts is bit confusing; sure, Mike Rowe is the Robin Leach of blue collar America, but why invite the comparisons to, say, sheep castration?
Does this headline seem familiar? We noted a while back that British reliability records showed Chrysler and Fiat sharing space at the bottom of the rankings. Now, Glass’s Guide (via Autocar) has ranked British resale values by model, and Fiat’s Alfa 166 sedan takes dead last place. Not that this is entirely surprising; after all, reliability and resale tend to go hand-in-hand. The troubling part is that abominable resale values are already a major drag on Chrysler’s viability. How on earth is Fiat going to improve this desperate shortcoming for Chrysler, when it can’t beat the resale bug with its own products?
Amidst a lawsuit by Old Chrysler creditors accusing Daimler of stripping Chrysler’s assets comes another suit against the German automaker, this time by New Chrysler. Automotive News [sub] reports that Chrysler actually owes Daimler about $78 million in volume shortfall payments for 2.2-liter diesel engines supplied by Daimler. Because Chrysler is balking on those payments, Daimler stopped delivery of steering columns and torque converters, as a way of pressuring Chrysler to make good on its payments. But Chrysler claims that “the volume shortfall payment issue was resolved in an April 17, 2009, pre-petition agreement that settled a number of disputes between Daimler and the old Chrysler.” As a result, “Chrysler Group believes that Daimler’s misconduct is designed to extort a settlement by wrongfully withholding crucial parts that Daimler has contractually committed to supply to Chrysler Group,” say ChryCo spokesfolks. Grand Cherokee production at Chrysler’s Jefferson North assembly plant in Detroit is threatened by the supply dispute, as is Dodge Charger and Challenger and Chrysler 300/300C production in Brampton, Ontario.
There’s some surprising news in Automotive News [sub] today in GM’s ongoing attempt to save Opel (and, more importantly, its intellectual property). Since the German Government shot down the only proposal that would keep Opel IP with GM, the General is scrambling to prevent its erstwhile German arm from falling to Magna and GAZ/Sberbank. But who on earth would give GM the $4 billion it needs (now) to keep Opel on board the mothership (for the moment)? Surely only the American taxpayers are that gullible! Unfortunately for GM, there’s a catch. Automotive News explains:
Because GM is barred from using funding from the U.S. government from its reorganization in bankruptcy to support its international operations, one of the options could include raising money by selling or mortgaging the automaker’s assets in China, one of the sources said.
The Freep reports that Ford officials are meeting with the United Auto Workers Union today, to renegotiate elements of their labor contract. Reducing pay for entry-level workers and reducing skilled-trades job classifications are said to be at the top of Ford’s to-do list. And why not? GM got the UAW to agree to streamlined skilled-trade positions, an entry-level wage freeze, a performance bonus freeze and a no-strike agreement. Why wouldn’t the UAW do the same for Ford, just because the Blue Oval didn’t give up major ownership stakes to the union and its allies in government?
Despite indications that Chrysler was moving towards a contract manufacturing business model, Automotive News [sub] reports that ChryCo’s Italian masters are considering not building Nissan’s next-generation Titan pickup on the Dodge Ram platform. And this surprising news has Nissan scrambling to look for other options. “My team is spending a lot of time looking at different scenarios of what we can do,” says the father of the Titan, Nissan VP for Product Planning Larry Dominique. One of the options is a mild in-house refresh and continued production. Another is approaching other automakers for a quick fix. Analysts tell AN that Ford, GM and Toyota are unlikely to help out, although Toyota’s excess Tundra capacity indicates that it might be a leading candidate for a Nissan rebadge. The only problem? “I doubt sharing a full-sized pickup with Nissan is in their corporate DNA,” says Michael Robinet of CSM Worldwide. “Nissan is in a precarious position, as their options are few.” Should Nissan abandon full-size pickups, or is there an option that actually makes sense?
I was driving down the freeway in the left lane just the other day when a quick peek in the rearview mirror told me that another car was approaching me from behind. It was still a ways off, and its silver-gray color barely stood out from the unseasonably gray skies. As it drew nearer at a fairly rapid clip, I had to look again, and after a quick glance my initial identification was “2004 Chevrolet Monte Carlo.” It wasn’t until the car was within the two-second following envelope that I realized it was actually a Jaguar XF. Being the considerate driver I am, I pulled over and allowed the Jag to float past on a wave of blandonymity. But not every driver is as ethical with the lane etiquette as me, which is why the Germans came up with the term “Überholprestige.” Roughly translated it means, “the ability of a car to intimidate drivers into moving out of your way,” and the Jaguar XF rates about a 2 on the scale [ED. Out of what?]. In contrast, the Audi Q7 chases you down looking like the love child of a sperm whale and a bullet train. Seriously, the Q’s grill alone looks like most cars could pass comfortably through it and be pulled into the Q’s belly never to be heard from again. So which cars do you think demand respect? Which models part traffic before you like the Red Sea and which leave you stuck behind disrespectful peasants?
Recent Comments