California has backed up its strict emissions standards for years now with a $5,000 tax credit for electric, hybrid and fuel cell vehicles, which when combined with a $7,000 federal tax credit can often make those vehicles nearly as affordable as “regular” cars. But, reports Automotive News [sub], that state credit has fallen victim to California’s budget woes and oversubscription, and has been cut in half from $5,000 to $2,500. According to the report:

high demand exhausted the program’s funding last month. The Los Angeles Times reported Thursday that about 500 consumers who bought electric cars such as the Nissan Leaf or Tesla Roadster are on a waiting list and will collect the $2,500 rebate.

To deal with growing demand, the pool of money to fund the rebates was increased to between $15 million and $21 million for CARB’s current fiscal year ending June 30, 2012, according to CARB’s announcement. A total of $11.1 million was allocated in the program’s first two years, according to CARB spokeswoman Mary Fricke.

The increased cash pool and lowered rebate amount are aimed at making the incentive available to more consumers, according to CARB’s Web site. The changes are projected to fund about 6,000 rebates for consumers who apply for the program on a first-come basis, Fricke said.

Now California “green car” intenders not only get a reduced tax credit, but they also don’t get free access to the HOV lane anymore. It’s almost as if California wants “green” vehicles to succeed or fail on their own terms…

The NYT reports that, having fallen out of favor in the Afghanistan campaign for its vulnerability to roadside bombs, the HMMWV is making a comeback. The Humvee was being replaced by mine-resistant armored personnel carriers called MRAPs,

But recent blast tests show that Humvees built with the new chimney could provide as much protection as some of the heavier, and more costly, mine-resistant vehicles that have replaced them in many uses.

And if the final tests go well, the invention could save billions in new vehicle costs and restore much of the maneuverability that the Army and the Marines have lacked in the rugged terrain in Afghanistan, military officials say. Engineers say the chimney, which rises through the passenger cabin, releases some of the explosive gases — traveling at twice the speed of a fighter jet — that have mangled and flipped many of the vehicles.

Pentagon officials have said little about the 11 blast tests so far, in which the prototype vehicles are engulfed by a cloud of smoke, dust and fire, but the passenger cabin remains intact.

It turns out that adding armor hurts the maneuverability that makes the HMMWV so prized, and is less effective than the new chimneys which deflect blast forces around and away from the passenger compartment. The military will conduct five more blast tests and could request bids for the new generation of HMMWVs sometime this fall.

The Michigan Congressional delegation’s letter, stating that the Detroit-based automakers are not technologically capable of serving the market while complying with a proposed 2025 CAFE standard seemed strange to me in light of the recent progress made by Ford and GM on fuel economy. Why, I wondered, would these firms boast of their fuel econmy efforts on the one hand while allowing their congressional representatives to portray them as unable to build a CAFE-compliant fleet on the other. Why, I wondered, don’t Ford and GM come out and angrily insist that they can build the most fuel efficient cars in the world? My guess: because they know that they can probably wheedle a loophole out of the feds if they keep pleading inability. Yes, everyone knows they can comply with CAFE… but even the UAW knows that when the government asks you to do something, you ask for something back. Which in turn made me wonder: what might the OEMs want? And, turning to the 2012-2016 CAFE Final Rule [go on, give it a read in PDF format here], I found a glaring loophole that all the manufacturers seemed to want, but which the feds turned down. I have no evidence that this is back on the table for 2017-2025, but I thought I’d put it out there to give a sense of what the OEMs may be pushing for by  pleading inability to comply with the proposed 2025 standard.

(Read More…)

The Governor’s Highway Safety Association has reviewed a number of studies on distracted driving, and its report [PDF here] shows a number of disturbing findings. A few of the highlights (or is that lowlights?):

• At least one driver was reported to have been distracted in 15% to 30% of crashes at all levels, minor to fatal. The proportion of distracted drivers may be greater because investigating officers may not detect or record all distractions. In many crashes it is not known whether the distractions caused or contributed to the crash.
• In almost 80% of all crashes and 65% of near-crashes the driver was looking away from the forward roadway just before the incident and that secondary task distraction contributed to 22% of the crashes and near-crashes
• about two-thirds of all drivers reported using a cell phone while driving; about one-third used a cell phone routinely. In observational studies during daylight hours in 2009, between 7% and 10% of all drivers were using a cell phone… about one-eighth of all drivers reported texting while driving. In observational studies during daylight hours in 2009, fewer than 1% of all drivers were observed to be texting.
• Cognitive distractions by themselves – thinking about something other than driving, without any manual or visual distraction – can affect driving performance. Two recent studies reinforce the conclusion that distractions affect the mind, not just the eyes, ears, or hands
• [Two] studies found that crash risk was about four times greater when using a cell phone. Hands-free phones did not appear to be any safer than hand-held phones.
• In the only study of texting bans, HLDI studied their effect on collision claims using the same methods as their 2009 study of cell phone laws. They concluded that texting bans did not reduce collision claims. In fact, there appears to have been a small increase in claims in the states enacting texting bans compared to neighboring states… there is no evidence that cell phone or texting laws have reduced crashes.

If you’re at all interested in a relatively concise (50 pages) overview of the state of distracted driving research, this report is well worth a download. Ultimately, though, the report offers more challenges than easy answers, as it largely debunks the notion that increased enforcement or hands-free laws make much of a difference in the problem. [via AutoObserver]

An anonymous tipster has sent us a copy of a letter from the Michigan congressional delegation to President Obama [PDF here, or hit the jump for an embedded copy], which calls his proposal for a 56.2 MPG CAFE standard by 2025 “overly aggressive and not reasonably feasible.” The letter is remarkable in the sense that the major signatories are Democrats, and yet it attacks the President’s proposal with more vigor than many inside the industry. The letter also confirms that that the Detroit-based automakers already rely on CAFE’s “credit” loopholes in order to meet the 2012-2016 standard, a stunning admission of how far behind Detroit still lags in fleet fuel economy. And rather than taking responsibility for their situation, the MI representatives blame CAFE for Detroit’s low fleet efficiency, arguing that “manufacturers that produce primarily smaller vehicles will have an unfair advantage.” Moreover, the MI reps don’t just admit that Detroit is behind its competition, but even goes as far as to argue that “the overall targets currently proposed may exceed what is technologically achievable for the the US automakers that produce and sell the majority of the larger pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles that US families and businesses -and tens of thousands of autoworkers- depend on.”

In short, the letter strikes me as a shockingly old-school display of excuses and apologia that stands in sharp contrast to the “green car revival” narrative that Detroit and D.C. pushed so hard during the bailout. And frankly, I’d be embarrassed if I ran one of the largest automakers in the world and I was reduced to pleading my inability, on technological grounds no less, to achieve a 56.2 MPG fleet average (which in “window sticker” terms, translates to about 41 MPG EPA) within 15 years… even though CAFE is riddled with loopholes that make it easier to continue building thirsty trucks. If Detroit were actually leading the charge for a gas tax (or offering any kind of market-driven alternative), it might have some credibility on this issue, but as things stand this strikes me as nothing more than whining. So much for America’s “can-do” spirit…

(Read More…)

Every automaker is in this business to make money… there’s nothing surprising about that. But some are a little more focused on profits than others, and it should be equally unsurprising that Porsche is one of them. In an extensive interview with Automotive News Europe [sub], Porsche CEO Matthias Mueller gives a strong impression of how Porsche sees itself over the course of the first two questions:

What is your vision for Porsche in 2018?

Porsche is synonymous with sports cars – yesterday, today and doubtless tomorrow as well. In addition, in every other segment where we operate, such as with the Cayenne or Panamera, we always offer the sportiest vehicle. At the moment we are hard at work on our future strategy. And I promise you, it will contain a few exciting surprises.

What are your most important objectives?

We want to remain the world’s most profitable car manufacturer – and build on this position.

These are actually two separate goals altogether, and not two which necessarily go hand-in-hand. But if anyone can pull off the mix between performance and profit, it’s Porsche… and to understand how this strategy will play out in the near future, let’s take a look at Mueller’s product plans.

(Read More…)

If Saab survives long enough, it plans on developing three new vehicles which China’s Youngman Auto will build in China, including a 9-6X midsize crossover SUV. But, as it turns out, a 9-6X already exists… at the museum in Trollhättan. Auto Motor und Sport reports that six years after Saab did the hard work of re-badging a Subaru Tribeca, the firm has brought the prototype out of storage to show… I don’t know, what might have happened had GM kept its stake in Fuji Heavy Industries? The good news is that the Tribeca almost makes more sense as a Saab. In fact, it almost makes you wonder why Subaru didn’t just buy Saab, since it basically stole the Swedish brand’s college-town-lefty market niche. The bad news: Saab’s forthcoming made-in-China 9-6X probably won’t be as good as this cynical GM-era rebadge. Oh well, perhaps this six-year-old reminder of Saab’s extended decline will help the faithful get over their terminally ill Swedish patient…

Would you be a little bit surprised if the man behind this tiny, funky little electric van was the man who styled the VW Passat CC and first-generation Mercedes SLK? Well, Murat Günak has been heavily into the electric car game since leaving Volkswagen, having designed one of my favorite EVs, the fresh-and-freaky Mindset. But even though the Mia and the Mindset seem a little more in the same vein, Günak has actually moved well past the Mindset’s super-high-end positioning, as this Mia is set to sell for the lowest price of any EV in the EU, starting at €19,500 ($28k). For comparison, Mitsubishi’s iMiEV (the cheapest EV in the US market) sells for €34,390, or nearly $50k… although its European price is set to drop to closer to €15k when production ramps up.

But the Mia isn’t just (relatively) inexpensive… it’s downright cool. Built by the French firm Heuliez in either 9.4 or 10.5 foot lengths (the latter with 53 cubic feet of cargo space), it comes with a McLaren F1-style central driver’s seat and doors designed to operate in tight urban conditions. With a range of only 60 miles and a top speed of only slightly more than 60 MPH, it’s strictly an urban runabout, but as a small business delivery vehicle it seems to hit a lot of the right buttons… especially the three-hour charging time (an 80-mile-range battery is optional but takes five hours to charge). Production hits 10,000 units next year, when sales to private customers begin. [via Autobild]

One of Saab’s suppliers, SwePart Verktyg AB, asked a Swedish court to declare a key Saab subsidiary, Saab Automobile Tools, bankrupt today reports Automotive News [sub]. Saab Tools owed about $935,000 to SwePart for tooling, and according to the supplier

More than one week has passed from the summons and payment has not yet been made. Saab Automobile should therefore be considered insolvent… We don’t want them to go into bankruptcy, I wish you understand that, that would be horrible, but we are a small company and for us that is a lot of money

Saab Tools was created to guarantee EIB loans for tooling, so had the “subsidiary” been declared insolvent, the whole ship would have gone down. But before a judge could act, Saab somehow managed to put out the fire, as a company press release proclaims

Swedish Automobile N.V. confirms that Saab Automobile Tools AB reached agreement on payment terms with the supplier that filed for bankruptcy, thereby resolving the issue.

Once again, Saab pulls the fat from the fire at the last minute… but the clouds are dark and rolling in fast. Many suppliers are still looking for money, Saab Automobile has 104 claims pending against it, and SwePart’s bankruptcy request won’t be formally withdrawn until Monday. And with the Swedish government and EIB seemingly unwilling to lift a finger to help, even the faithful are losing hope. This feels like the beginning of the end of the end…

The internet has been a boon for car buyers in a million ways, but for new car marketers it’s been a decidedly mixed bag. GM’s California-only experiment selling new cars over eBay was quickly abandoned, after generating more embarrassment than sales. Now, another high-ish profile online new car marketing gag has flopped, as Autoweek reports that Groupon’s car debut is going nowhere:

Only four consumers agreed to pay $200 for a $500 discount voucher on a new-vehicle purchase at LaFontaine Buick-GMC-Cadillac in Highland, Mich. Groupon and LaFontaine had set 10 as the minimum required for the vouchers to be issued.

For companies like Tesla, who hope to do without traditional franchised dealers altogether (Chrysler may harbor similar desires), the internet is next great frontier in new car sales… but the eBay and Groupon failures are troubling signs for that dream.

(Read More…)

Video from Chrysler’s last “new day,” shortly after being bought by Cerberus in 2007

According to Chrysler Group’s latest 8K, filed with the SEC today

On July 21, 2011, Fiat North America LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Fiat S.p.A. (collectively, “Fiat”), acquired beneficial ownership of the membership interests in Chrysler Group LLC (the “Company”) held by the U.S. Department of the Treasury (“U.S. Treasury”) and the Canadian government’s special purpose entity, the Canada Development Investment Corporation (“Canadian government”). Fiat acquired 98,461 Class A membership interests in the Company from the U.S. Treasury, representing approximately 6 percent of the fully-diluted ownership interest in the Company for cash consideration of $500 million. Pursuant to a separate agreement, Fiat paid $125 million to acquire 24,615 Class A membership interests in the Company from the Canadian government, representing approximately 1.5% of the fully-diluted ownership interest.

Pursuant to these self-funded transactions, Fiat became the owner of a majority of the membership interests in the Company. Fiat now holds 55.3% of the Company’s outstanding equity, or 53.5% on a fully-diluted basis, taking into account the occurrence of the third and final Class B Event described in the LLC Operating Agreement which is expected to occur by the end of 2011. The remaining equity in the Company is owned by the UAW Retiree Medical Benefits Trust, a voluntary employees’ beneficiary association trust (the “VEBA”).

That’s right, the United States taxpayers are now fully-divested from their “investment” in Chrysler, which is now a majority-owned division of Fiat. Once the EPA certifies that Dodge’s new Fiat-based compact car gets 40 MPG unadjusted combined (about 30 MPG in “window sticker” EPA mileage), Fiat will get another 5% of Chrysler’s equity, bringing its stake in the company to 58.3%. In a statement, the Treasury estimated the final cost of the bailout to be $1.3b (as it does not expect any meaningful recovery from Old Chrysler’s liquidation), although that does not include several taxpayer outlays, without which the rescue of Chrysler would not have been possible. By our math, the total bill for Chrysler’s rescue is closer to $4.7b.

So, after all the drama was it worth it? For now I’ll leave that one to the comment section… and history.

The word “truth” in our title has long been a cudgel for our critics, who, finding fault with our analysis, condemn us for failing to publish their version of the truth. But, as I’ve steadfastly maintained since taking up TTAC’s editorial reins, we do not hold ourselves up as the sole source of truth. Rather, by provoking an engaging discussion, we hope that our readers will use our posts as a jumping-off point to debate the issue at hand with vigor. The truth, as I find myself saying again and again, is a journey, not a destination.

Accordingly, I’m always thrilled when manufacturers read our pieces and offer up their own counterpoint to the discussion, broadening our understanding of the issue at hand and moving the conversation forward. One of my posts from yesterday, which examined GM’s decision to invest in full-sized truck production in the midst of CAFE negotiations and an inventory backlog, has drawn just such a thoughtful response from GM’s Tom Wilkinson, which is published after the jump. It provides some inside perspective on GM’s decision to move forward with the next generation of full-sized pickups, and is a great example of the kind of conversations that TTAC hopes to start every day.
(Read More…)

WardsAuto is a great source for industry news, but it’s pretty clearly not the best source for enthusiast news. Take, for example, a recent interview with Dodge SRT boss Ralph Gilles about the forthcoming compact Dodge and its possible SRT version:

“The Neon put the whole street-tuning scene on its ear with the factory turbo. We have to figure out how to get an entry-level SRT product to capture the next generation.”

The car to which Gilles refers will be a Dodge C-segment sedan derived from the same platform that shoulders the highly acclaimed European-market Alfa Romeo Giulietta offered by alliance-partner Fiat…

While Gilles is adamant that a high-performance C-car would be a welcome addition for Chrysler, he stops short of saying it’s a done deal, noting internal plans still are being hammered out.

However, it’s unlikely the entry-level model would share the 470-hp 6.4L Hemi V-8 shared by its SRT brethren introduced at the event here. [emphasis added]

Say it aint so, Dodge! I don’t know about you, but as far as I’m concerned it’s just not a true successor to the Neon SRT-4 unless it’s got a Hemi V8… damn Italians! Seriously though, how cool is it that Wards considers a V8-powered Fiat-based compact merely “unlikely” rather than “a surefire sign of the apocalypse”?
Alternative video after the jump…
(Read More…)

Earlier this year when it seemed that a price war could be brewing in the US market, one of TTAC’s industry sources noted that the problem wasn’t strictly a question of business competition. Speaking on background, the source told us that

when speaking with old friends at Ford and GM, the level of mutual distaste for each other is very high…it seems to be getting personal. Lots of egos involved, [which] increases potential for short-sighted decision-making

At the time, I was willing to chalk up this animosity to the usual industry hyper-competitiveness (or at least a return to form after the lockstep mutual support of the bailout era), but it seems I should have paid more attention to our source’s concerns. As it turns out, the bad feelings between Detroit’s cross-town rivals has apparently gotten worse…

(Read More…)

After spending much of this year not producing vehicles, Saab is anxious to get to work on its 11,000 vehicle backlog of orders, and production was supposed to start on August 9 after workers return from Summer vacation. But a Saab press release reveals that the troubles aren’t over, with short term financing and supplier agreements still to hammer out, and that production won’t resume until August 29 at the earliest. Gunnar Brunius, Vice President of Production and Purchasing explains:

I am positive about the progress we made on the payment terms with our suppliers and it is good to see that we all want to make it work. What we need now is a full commitment on supply of parts into our factory to be able to restart production and secure a stable manufacturing operation. We are now working hard with our suppliers to nail down these plans, commit to a delivery schedule and start building the close to 11,000 cars that we currently have in our order books. The industry-wide summer break at our suppliers caused certain key suppliers not to be able to supply us in time. Saab Automobile hopes to restart production earliest in week 35 provided that it is able to commit to a delivery schedule with its suppliers.

But wait, there is some good news! Saab’s Communications Manager Eric Geers tells GP.se

I can promise one hundred percent to the salaries paid next week. Where the money comes from is not important, the main thing is that we pay [emphasis added]

That kind of sums up the whole Saab situation nicely, doesn’t it?