TTAC commentator Holydonut shares some of his time with us:

I don’t know if you’ve tried out the Google Trends tool to see search and news activity on google.com for some auto-related searches. First: I just put in GM, Chevrolet, Chrysler, Toyota, and Nissan to see their trends [click here]. And another fun one . . . I compared searches of “gas prices” and “mpg” to some automaker names [click here]. I filtered the lists to show only USA region searches. Searching for “Ford” is misleading since the name is so common that you get several non-auto “Ford” topics all mashed together. If you go global, then Toyota and Honda become regular names of people, so it over-states the results as well. But for the selfish USA-only view, it seems mostly valid. Unfortunately this also means comparing a search for HUMMER versus Prius is invalid. The rankings themselves against each other aren’t very relevant, but the fun stuff lies in the change of the changes in the trend due to known events. Some interesting takeaways:

(Read More…)

KBB is ever-so-sensible. Here’s their “top ten back to school cars:” 2010 Kia Soul, 2010 Mazda3, 2009 Ford Focus, 2007 Suzuki SX4, 2006 Honda Civic, 2005 Chevrolet Silverado. Wait! That’s only six! I’ve got to click from the press release to the website to get the last four? The suspense is killing me/you/no one . . . 2009 Nissan Cube, 2007 Suzuki SX4, 2005 Ford Escape, 2009 Honda Fit, 2005 Scion xB. So how did kbb pick their winners? They like them! Mind you, “Every new car listed on this year’s Back-to-School list features New Car Blue Book Values that start at under $18,000. Every used car identified has a Kelley Blue Book Suggested Retail Value of less than $12,000.” I guess they never heard of Beverly Hills 90210. Or college kids with a grand in the hand. So it’s time for YOU to pick TTAC’s top ten “back to school” cars, price no object, on either end of the spectrum. UPDATE: Wow! You guys are a serious-minded bunch. Here are some of your wilder choices and some of mine. Tell me what should stay and what should go (in its place), and why. Or not. Either way, thanks for the help.

While Automotive News [sub] trumpets the fact that “Cadillac Joins Lexus atop Study of Customer Satisfaction,” our experience with all manner of stat house slickery behooves us to dig a little deeper into the subject. [“league table” here.] While we eagerly await Mr. Karesh’s analytical evisceration, I’d like to share some relevant facts. First, although the “see there IS a perception gap” study is called the American Customer Satisfaction Index™, it hails from the University of Michigan. Second, it’s a racket. The academics behind the index charge companies a $35K “corporate subscription price.” If you don’t work in automotive, no problem! The ACSI covers 44 industries! Oh, and the US government. Third, methodology (as above) . . .

(Read More…)

Ford has roughly $18 billion in the bank. The company’s CEO has slowed The Blue Oval’s cash burn to about a billion a month. If you take away $10 billion—the amount of float needed to keep the lights on—Crazy Henry’s mob has eight months to stop the arterial spray of red ink before contemplating C11 (or a “proper” bailout). Volvo’s sale looks like it will give them another month (about a billion). Although Ford tapped the credit markets for $1.6 billion in May, another offer may not be greeted with open arms. So let’s call Ford’s drop-deadline a year, maybe 18 months. Oh, did I mention a $5.9 billion dollar Department of Energy “retooling loan?” That’s worth another six months on our timeline. But that’s different. “Ford is the only one of the Big Three U.S. automakers that hasn’t taken government bailout money or declared bankruptcy,” NPR declares, disingenuously. “Ford is still losing $1 billion per month, but it has money in the bank and hopes to be making money by the year 2011.” The media meme in a nutshell. In an interview with publicly-funded radio, Ford’s CEO connected the dots between perceived purity and customer conquest, and hinted that yes, they did stick their noses in the taxpayer trough.

(Read More…)

I have no idea how Chrysler is going to survive. In fact, I assume the feds saved ChryCo from the grim reaper knowing full well the dying domestic didn’t have a hope in hell of recovering, just to help out their pals at Cerberus, I mean, save the US economy from total collapse. Or something. Anyway, Fiat ended-up paying bupkis for some pretty juicy assets. Jeep much? Chrysler also has some modern production facilities, including a plant in Toluca, Mexico. Today’s story in the Wall Street Journal, “revealing” Fiatsler’s plans to build the Fiat 500 down South is something of a non-story. Our pals over at Inside Line called that one way back in January. But it’s worth repeating: An American Fiat 500 is a non-starter. We reckon a hecho en Mexico 500 will be built by Mexicans for Mexicans. Or, as Edmunds puts it . . .

(Read More…)

Just got off the blower with Rae Tyson, stalwart spokesman for the Department of Transportation’s Cash for Clunkers (a.k.a. C.A.R.S.) program. Although Tyson doesn’t have the exact stats, he revealed that the agency has rejected “significantly more” than 25 percent of dealer submissions for government reimbursement. “The bottleneck is regrettable,” Rae said. “But the number represents safeguards against fraud.” The clock is ticking. As of this morning, US car dealers have submitted paperwork to the C4C program for 390,283 vehicles. That represents $1.63 billion from the $3 billion total. Minus the $50 million processing fee. So there’s $1.34 billion and change left in the kitty. [Top ten reasons for C.A.R.S. rejection after the jump.] Meanwhile, NADA spokesman Chuck Cyrill says, “a lot of dealers are pulling out of the program.” Cyrill contends that cash flow problems caused by paperwork issues are causing dealers to “limit their exposure.” The remedy is the experience. “To address dealer concerns with a backlog of reimbursement claims, DOT has informed NADA that it will commit to deploy an additional 1,000 employees to speed up its processing efforts.”

(Read More…)

Jeff Puthuff is one of our (mostly unsung) heroes: a TTAC commentator who made the leap to editor. Initially, Jeff made the jump as our resident proof reader, grammarian and style guru. Since then, he’s begun patrolling the comments section and helping us figure out how to take TTAC to the next level. This is the month that VerticalScope’s boffins will cull the cranky code created by NameMedia‘s Estonian customizers. In short, TTAC will return to a bog standard WordPress platform, with a few bells on. We will, of course, keep things nice and simple. And then adjust the site’s style and functionality according to your feedback. Meanwhile, Jeff has created a new way for you to access all TTAC reviews: click here for more direct access to our arsenal of democracy. Meanwhile redux, thought you might like to know that our stats are approaching those of the dead tree version of Car and Driver.

(Read More…)

I’m having a little trouble seeing GM’s decision to reopen 30 to 50 terminated dealerships as anything other than the result of disorganized dithering. For one thing, the fact that it’s such a vague number shows that the reanimation dealer plan—such as it is—is a work in progress. Automotive News [sub] turns to GM’s Marketing Maven to explain the mechanics and rational behind the reversal: “Terminated dealers will get the right to make the first proposals, GM says. Mark LaNeve, GM’s vice president of U.S. sales, said the open points were created when poor-performing dealerships in good locations were targeted. Other points will be filled if GM discovers that customers are driving too far to reach a dealership, he said.” Needless to say, this is bound to piss-off some of GM’s 1350 or so officially terminated—rather than GMAC-squeezed-to-death—dealers. To which LaNeve “repeated his assertion that the terminations were fair and based on poor performance for sales, customer satisfaction and other targets.” Formula please? Hello? At least one ex-GM dealer’s not bothered . . .

(Read More…)

August 16 [word of the day]: blinker beat

When the tic-toc of the blinkers syncs with the music playing on the car radio.

dude check it out, I got blinker beat happening on this Jay-Z song.

Autoblog occasionally gives me flash-backs, as they have with their blog on the Devon GTX.

The California-based design studio and upstart automaker created the GTX as an American answer to the ultra-exclusive sports cars hailing from Europe. Housed within the steel structure and carbon fiber body lies an 8.4-liter V10 putting 650 hp (at 6,100 rpm) to the rear wheels through a six-speed manual gearbox.

But credulity has its price:

Devon plans to produce 36 cars each year, carrying a price tag of $500,000, with a racing package commanding another $25,000.

I’ve been harping on about the media’s “Ford didn’t take bailout bucks” meme for some time. Commentators have slated me for slating the Blue Oval Boyz for claiming they avoided the taxpayer trough. In fact, Ford raided the public purse to the tune of $5.9 billion dollars. Yes, it’s a no-to-low-interest Department of Energy “retooling loan.” I repeat: the $5.9 billion loan from the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) program allows Mulally’s minions to spend $5.9 billion dollars on something else. It’s a bailout. Question: if you’re an industry writer, how do you push Ford’s mega-suckle to one side to keep the “pure as driven snow” show alive? You draw a distinction between “emergency tax dollars” and ATVM loans, while, at the same time, not mentioning the loans. Sarah Webster’s “Ford, Toyota in a close race to No. 1” does that and more, taking Motown’s hometown cheerleading to the next level.