Kia’s booth at SEMA was quiet and empty compared to the Genesis-fest at sister firm Hyundai’s space. But fewer fans meant a chance for a closer look at several near-production concepts that point the way forward for the “other” Korean budget automaker. And though Hyundai seems to have Lexus in its crosshairs, Kia appears to be gunning directly after another Toyota’s Scion. First up, Kia’s Soul Burner concept looks like a (not quite production-ready) alternative to Scion’s xD. Strip away the flame-tread show tires, and a few other tuner-show fripperies, and it’s a practical, flexible, stylish little hatch. The styling doesn’t exactly put the “b” in subtle, but it’s a reasonable compromise between practicality and urban chic. Fit-and-finish clearly needs some work (paint bubbles on a show car?). But a cheaper, better-looking (in the eyes of this beholder) xD should have Toyota sweating more than a little. Kia’s Koup Concept has an equally laserlike-focus on stealing sales from the Scion tC. The stylishly unisex Koup sports clean lines, sharp-looking head- and tail lights, and a surprising impression of quality compared to the Soul Burner. Slap a Honda badge on the Koup and you might think it was the next Civic Si. Put it next to a tC with no badges at all, and you might have a hard time guessing which came from the world’s most successful automaker.

OK, before we get into the gory details, let’s take a moment to acknowledge the fact that Chrysler’s presence at the SEMA show was something of a minor miracle. Of course, there are presences and there are presences. Chrysler’s display was tucked far away from the highest-trafficked areas of the Las Vegas Convention Center. And its stand was the only major OEM presence on the ground floor of the South Hall, which was otherwise packed with wheels, tires and cheesecake. Of course, if you never found it you’d not have missed much. The whole shebang could be summed up in a single word: Challenged. There were about equal numbers of new and vintage Challengers making up the vast majority of the Mopar display. Sure, there were a handful of lifted Rams and Jeeps, but otherwise it was all Challenger, all the time. In the interests of complete fairness, Chrysler also showed a Landaulet version of its 300C and there was a Viper as well. But no Calibers, Chargers, Avengers, Sebrings, etc. Not that they were necessarily missed, but it definitely gave the impression that ChryCo’s corporate masters were spending as little money as possible in order to highlight only the most strip-and-flippable brands in the stable. And though the 300C-ized Magnum’s crucifix art pictured here seemed to sum up Chrysler’s tragic circumstances, it was not part of the Chrysler display.

Environmental exploitation is here to stay. Even the threat of industry collapse has failed to take the collagen out of American automaker’s eco-friendly lip service. In this they are hardly alone. The litany of firms running advertisements professing their undying love for our Mother Earth, and building concept cars to show their unconsummated devotion, continues apace. 2008 is the first year that the SEMA has set aside a portion of its annual show for green trendiness. It’s not a concept that sits well with the show’s ethos of excess. But never underestimate the power of hypocrisy. And America’s ability to co-opt controversy to unite our society under the banner of the almighty buck. Amen.

I waited all day for the fear to take hold. Wandering through a parking lot jammed with alien whips, I wondered when the icy fingers would make contact with my sun-baked scapulae. But it never came. As the desert sun faded to dusk and Las Vegas slowly came to life with humming neon, I couldn’t help but take what alcoholics call a searching and fearless moral inventory. What had robbed these ferociously unnecessary monuments to excess of their terrifying power? Were they too much at home in glittering Babylon, little more than tiny microcosms of the glaring titans that loom over the Vegas Strip? Or had some infectious irony (gone pandemic in the face of national malaise) landed in this last bastion of shallow glitz, reducing each glittering status symbol to so much light parody? Or was I (and the creators of these mechanical beasts) simply preoccupied with said malaise, and the seemingly inevitable national transformation which has only now, as I write from my hotel room, been officially realized? Nobody goes to Vegas seriously expecting answers, but was a little existential fear now too much to ask for too?

There should be no doubt in anyone’s mind that giant fuel-swilling dinosaurs are as American as fake boobs. So it stands to reason that giant, fuel-swilling dinosaurs powered by federally-subsidized, mileage-reducing, corn-based fuels must be more American still. The only thing such a vehicle needs to achieve an apotheosis of American automotive excess is a 10k pound curb weight and enough armor to make Saturday night joyrides through Fallujah as drama-free as the invasion of Grenada. This bold vision of an America with unlimited energy and enemies was made real today, when Conquest Vehicles unveiled their Knight XV luxury armored SUV. And where else would this happen, but in Las Vegas, at the annual SEMA show? The $300k Knight XV is built on a Ford Super Duty platform, powered by a 6.8-liter Ford V-10, making 400 to 500hp depending on how many oil wells you own. This beast is DOT certified (certifiable?), fully armored. It boasts night vision camera systems and a 2000w audio system (Ride of the Valkyries, anyone?). Oh right, and it’s “environmentally friendly.” As in flex-fuel capable. Because nothing says you care like a corn-juice-powered luxury armored car.

Ask the average American why they oppose the recent financial-sector bailout, and a devalued dollar will likely rank high in their answer. But perhaps what’s being missed in the hysteria is that a weaker dollar provides America with an opportunity to rediscover something we used to be pretty well known for: making high-quality products and selling them on the world market. A weak dollar means cheaper exports, and with Euro-zone costs as high as they are, European manufacturers are most likely to take advantage of this. Volkswagen has already moved on creating an American manufacturing base, with a new factory under construction in Chattanooga, TN. And now it seems that VW’s sister brand Audi is looking to get in on the action in hopes of capitalizing on its hot hand and doubling US sales by 2015. VW CEO Martin Winterkorn says its not a question of “if” anymore, but “where” and “what.” “Perhaps in Chattanooga, but we have no decision yet,” Winterkorn tells Automotive News [sub], who notes that the $1b VW plant can expand to an extra 100k production capacity if need be. This means 150k yet-to-be-announced mid-sized VWs and 100k unnamed Audis could be built in Chattanooga each year. “The new mid-sized (VW) which we want to build in America, we want only to sell in America,” says Winterkorn, who expects a decision to come next year. “(Audi) should have the right product for the market.” Given VW’s long history of saddling America with sub-standard cars that it can’t won’t sell elsewhere, this isn’t encouraging. Unless, of course, you happen to be looking for manufacturing work.

There are only a few businesses that are tougher to compete in right now than the automotive game. Though airlines have to be on the list, a recent addition would be the world of finance. But even with credit markets frozen, lenders stuck holding worthless paper and weekly rounds of consolidation and nationalization, FoMoCo CEO Alan Mullaly thinks holding on to Ford’s financing arm makes sense. Ford Motor Credit has “been through a lot with the world slowing down, and they have restructured aggressively to focus especially on the Ford brand,” says Mulally. “And it’s been helped by us divesting the noncore brands.” And, says Mullaly, Ford Credit isn’t simply dragging its parent company down with it. “With the situation being what it is, it’s hard, but the dealers and the customers say they’re doing a great job during the hardest of times,” says Ford’s main man. Faster marketing initiatives and more leeway in setting lending criteria including leasing (now abandoned by many motor credit firms) are said to be some of the big advantages to keeping Ford Credit around. But surely there’s a downside, right? Of course, but you need to ask a “source close to Ford who asked not to be identified,” to get it. “There’s an advantage to full ownership, but not a big advantage because the issue is that nobody will loan us money,” admits the nameless blue oval boy. With Ford’s credit arm enjoying a B- rating from S&P, it’s in the same shape (roughly) as GMAC and better off than Chrysler Finance. Still, warns Peter Morici, a business professor at the University of Maryland, a wholly owned captive “is useful for moving cars out if you don’t abuse it.” In the car business, that’s one huge “if.”

With the proposed GM-Chrysler merger effectively off the table, automotive colmunists are slowly returning to the task of facing reality. Needless to say, they don’t like what they see. Though Mark Phelan may smell the smoke on the breeze as well as the next Detroit cheerleader, he obviously still figures a pom-pom in the hand is worth two in the bankruptcy court. Stuck with three sickly children who won’t all make it through this dark night of the industry, Phelan verbally douses Chrysler in 57 sauce and calls out the wolves. “If I were the U.S. Treasury Department, I’d offer GM executives $10 billion, on the condition that they walk away from Chrysler and never look back,” goes the first sentence of his latest opus. “Or $15 billion, $20 billion,” begins the second. His point? That a merger between GM and ChryCo would be disastrous. And though he acknowledges the real reasons for this (overlap, baby), he doesn’t stop there. “Cerberus’ ownership of Chrysler is a strip-and-flip operation,” raves Phelan, adding “Chrysler’s leaders spent much of the nine years they were part of DaimlerChrysler approving vehicles that didn’t stand a chance in the market.” Sure, there’s no use in arguing that the Sebring and Compass aren’t evidence of a company that practically wants to fail, Phelan isn’t feeding his beloved Chrysler to the wild beasties for the sheer fun of it (that’s our job). It’s all about saving Ford and GM.

(Read More…)

Reuters reports that Tesla Motors has secured $40m in additional financing from existing investors. The electric sportscar firm had less than $10m in the bank as of a few days ago, but CEO Elon Musk is still convinced that Tesla has nothing to worry about. “Forty million is significantly more than we need,” Musk said in a statement. “However, the board, investors and I felt it was important to have significant cash reserves.” Except that Tesla failed to secure a $100m round of financing just a month ago, triggering the current cash crisis which has claimed a quarter of Tesla’s workforce and all of its development work. And if you aren’t already bearish on Tesla, consider that the latest round of financing comes in the form of convertible debt. This financing option is described here, but the major benefits to Tesla are that it does not have to place a value on the struggling firm (can you say “upside down?”) and it protects early “angel” investors. What we don’t know is what the “trigger” for this convertible debt is, whether it is filling a specific number of orders, reaching certain financial goals, or what. Whatever the trigger is, whenever it happens, the folks who just ponied up $40m better hope Tesla is in much better shape when that debt converts to equity. If the debt ever converts to equity. Ultimately this news is only good for one category of filth people: lawyers. Convertible debt is notorious for requiring near constant legal oversight. Whatever it takes, right?

As Detroit remains bogged down in the Russian winter of their hubris and mismanagement, Nissan is launching a counter-offensive. Not only is Nissan joining Toyota in launching zero-percent financing on select models, they’re even launching factory leases at a time when nearly every finance company is running away from the lease business screaming. Automotive News [sub] reports that zero-percent financing is available on Altima, Rogue, Sentra, Versa and Murano, with all the “qualifying buyers” mumbo-jumbo that could keep many from the deal. Nissan is also launching factory-subsidized $199-a-month leases on the Altima sedan and Rogue, as well as extending a $339-a-month lease offer on its newly redesigned Maxima. If you just want a deal on basic transportation and don’t care much about financing, Nissan is also rolling out a stripped Versa sedan with a MSRP under $10k. “We are making a bold statement to our customers and to our dealers that we’re here for them,” says Nissan Division Vice President Al Castignetti. “If you need financing, we have it. If you want to lease a vehicle, we have it. If you need to buy an inexpensive car, we’ll have it for you.” While feasting on the dying corpses of the Detroit Three.

Remember when the rumor dujour was a Ford GM hook-up? That didn’t last long, thanks to Fords deep lack of interest. But as the LA Times points out, rejecting GM’s advances was just step one in Ford’s survival scheme. In fact, Ford is letting GM take the lead on bailout beg-a-thons, UAW negotiation and more. Once GM gets the feds to profer the appropriate mammaries, The Blue Oval Boyz simply waltz in and ask for their turn. “If they’re going to give money or other benefits to GM, there’s no way that Ford won’t be asking for those, too,” says Aaron Bragman, auto industry analyst for Global Insight. “Their argument is that if one company gets access to low-interest loans, so should we.” Ford VP Mark Shields puts it into bailout speak for us: “Whatever happens in the industry, there should be parity.” Ford is taking the “you go first” approach because it has cash to conserve, whereas GM has no choice but to go begging. (Or declare bankruptcy, of course.) But if the GM-Chrysler merger goes through, the UAW VEBA contract will likely be renegotiated. When it is, Ford will be able to apply any concessions to its own business with the UAW without paying for any of the negotiation. And while it outsources negotiation and federal fundraising to GM, Ford is focused on bringing its European lineup of fuel-efficient vehicles stateside. Can you say last man standing?

Automotive News [sub] has the latest in a stream of consultant reports on the on-again-off-again merger between Chrysler and GM. And things do not look good for Chrysler (duh). Remember back when we got all riled about the projected 70k job losses? The report from Grant Thornton LLP says we can actually expect between 100k and 200k job losses. Less tragically, the merger would also cut Chrysler’s entire lineup, except for “about seven core models.” And shockingly, the Sebring isn’t one of them! The report considers only the Ram, Caravan/T&C, Wrangler and Grand Cherokee safe in the event of a merger. Grant Thornton Principal Kimberly Rodriguez thinks that an agreement in principle between GM and Chrysler could be reached by election day, and damn the short-term bailout money that isn’t coming. “Despite the significant number of families that will be impacted, the benefits of combining the two companies are both structural and strategic,” figures Rodriguez. But long-term strategy will have a major short-term price. Much of the job loss from a merger will happen at suppliers, who are in bad shape already. “The suppliers have been hit by the financing crisis and the raw materials crisis and volumes falling off. This will be a final blow to many suppliers and that will be costly to all the OEMS, but in a controlled fashion, it’s something that the industry with access to financing should be able to weather,” says Rodriguez. Or not.

Production maven Laurie Harbour-Flex has a guest column in Automotive News [sub] that could easily run as a Deathwatch editorial on any of The Big 2.8. Describing the tough conditions that automakers find themselves in, Harbour-Flex argues that flexible production lines will be key in determining who survives and who doesn’t. As the market for new cars swings from segment to segment, chasing volatile fuel prices, manufacturers who can shift production on the fly to meet changing demand will do well. The upshot? Japanese firms use flexible production, Detroit doesn’t. Sure, Chrysler (for example) can claim that its Belvedere, Ill plant is “fully flexible,” but the Patriot and Compass are built on identical platforms. True flexibility, argues Harbour-Flex, means the ability for a manufacturer to “produce any vehicle in their lineups within their body, paint and assembly shops.” And this actually happens. Honda’s Alliston, Ontario plant builds the Honda Civic and Ridgeline and the Acura CSX and MDX, while its East Liberty, Ohio plant produces the Honda CR-V, Civic and Element.  Harbour-Flex identifies four key points that are necessary for truly flexible production.

(Read More…)

Reuters reports that Republican presidential candidate John McCain is taking a cautious tack on a Michigan economist’s suggestion that Detroit should get an additional $15b in government support. “Let’s get the $25 billion to them to start with and see how that goes,” McCain told NBC’s Meet The Press. McCain had initially opposed that bailout before bowing to political pressure and blessing the deal. Top McCain economic adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin echoed the Senator from Arizona’s position on CBS’s Face The Nation, saying “The top priority should be get (the $25b) out quickly, not take 18 months, which seems to be the current plan.” The Department of Energy is currently writing regulations governing the disbursment of that money, a process expected to take longer than GM and Chrysler can probably stay in business. Meanwhile, Barack Obama’s advisors refuse to rule out further auto industry suport. “The auto industry clearly is extremely important to the economy and now has enormous difficulties,” Obama advisor and former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin said on Face the Nation. “We do need to face those difficulties and see if there are ways that public policy can be helpful that make sense … without having a whole raft of unintended consequences.”