As my father would say, another myth exploded. Eddie Alterman brought David E. Davis back to Car and Driver to . . . what? Restore lost street cred? Re-connect with baby boomers who left the buff book in disgust at its fall from Wilkinsonian grace? Who knows. But one thing is for sure: Davis’ latest column is an unconscionable, virtually unreadable sop to Ford, CEO Alan Mulally and the dead-in-the-water Lincoln brand. Davis starts as he means to finish, deploying prose that’s the metaphorical equivalent of Huggy Bear’s wardrobe: “Mr. Mulally has now demonstrated beyond all doubt that he’s the real thing, and his revamped Ford Motor Company, with a terrific portfolio of new products, is rolling proof.” Strip away the Bend Down Low vibe and sure, you could make the case. But it doesn’t take Davis but a brace of paragraphs to stretch both credibility and credulity to the breaking point. “The Lincoln MKT is the latest of several new products that are helping Ford regain lost territory.” Speaking of losing it . . .
Never one to miss a chance to put a left/right slant on, well, anything, today’s New York Times contains an editorial claiming that the Cash for Clunkers (a.k.a. C.A.R.S.) program is a triumph of the Obama administration over Republican naysayers/hypocrites/rat bastards. Blogger Timothy Egan begins by suggesting that C4C is a Republican-style economic stimulus thingie, then excoriates the elephant party for not loving it long time. “They hate it, many of these Republicans, because it’s a huge hit. It’s working as planned, and this cannot stand. America must fail in order for President Obama to fail. Don’t be surprised if the tea party goons now being dispatched to shout down town hall forums on health care start showing up at your car dealers, megaphones in hand.” Incendiary much? I’ll have mine with a side order of sarcasm, please. “But try to give struggling families a one-time boost to buy a more fuel-efficient car, with an amount that wouldn’t pay for paper clips at A.I.G., and it’s . . . outrageous!”
Now that the Department of Energy (DOE) has doled out some $25 billion to help automakers retool taxpayers—I mean, retrofit factories to build incrementally more fuel efficient vehicles than the ones built at the same locations previously—the agency is continuing its cash for anything environmental program. Our old friend E85 is the beneficiary of a $5.5 million handout as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The money goes towards two noble goals sure to get the American economy on its feed—I mean feet. First up: “outreach.” Which is Fed-speak for pro-industry propaganda, presumably . . .
Car dealers know a good environmental policy gimmick when they see one. Some 60 dealers (so far) have banded together to launch a new official-looking program that offers consumers between $500 and $4,500 of “incentives” for their used or . . . wait for it . . . new car. Welcome to autostimulusplan.com world! Automotive News [sub] tries (and fails) to adopt a suitably cynical tone for the story. “The dealer program is less restrictive than the government’s. For example, it allows shorter leases than the 60-month minimum required by the clunkers plan, and there’s no limit on the price of the new vehicle; the government program sets a $45,000 cap. A qualifying trade-in must be a 2006 model or older and must have been owned by and registered to the same person for six months. The dealer program requires a buyer to purchase a replacement vehicle with 2 mpg better fuel economy.” Or, you know, maybe not (nudge nudge, wink wink). You want fine print? They got fine print!
Here’s one new car shoppers won’t be reading on the home page at Kelley Blue Book. Via press release, the car guide’s boffins wonder what will happen when the federal government stops handing out free money to clunker-driving new car buyers. Unless the Cash for Clunker scheme is extended indefinitely (a possibility) and/or widened to include other types of vehicles (less possible but not improbable), the bubble she gonna burst. And then, bad things. Euphoria, meet reality.
Mr. Farago, I’m an avid fan of your web site / blog. General Motors is a frequent subject, often in a negative light (typically, a well deserved negative light). I have owned and currently own GM vehicles. Why? My father worked for GM for 35 years, was paid well paid and has a good pension. GM helped put bread on our table, a car in our driveway and helped pay for my education. With all the issues and bailouts that GM has recently had, I would find it difficult to purchase another GM vehicle. What would sway me to purchase another GM vehicle? The company would have to change it’s philosophy and be accountable for the products they produce. Promote this via a marketing program centered on a specific model with the following four points:
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) low-speed bumper repair data [download here] is good news for owners of the 2009 Honda Accord, Hyundai Sonata, Mazda 6 and Nissan Maxima: repair costs sank from 2007 levels. Moving beyond the headlines, the IIHS gives the Nissan a “poor” rating ($1,500 plus). And reports that the 2009 Chevrolet Malibu and 2010 Ford Fusion’s bumper repairs costs have soared. “Ford fit the Fusion’s front and rear with weaker bumper beams, and this had a big effect on the test performance,” IIHS Veep Joe Nolan’s PR flack writes. “The difference is easy to see in the 6 mph full rear test, which simulates a common parking mishap like backing into another vehicle. The Fusion’s bumper buckled, which caused it to underride the test barrier, resulting in twice as much damage as the 2007 model in the rear test. In the full front test, the Fusion had $2,529 in damage, more than any other vehicle.” Malibu misegos the jump.
Are consumers receiving a government “rebate” for their clunker paying LESS for their new car than they would have without the rebate? I know that seems like a no-brainer, but never underestimate the perfidy of car dealers. Or, to quote Shakespeare, there’s many a slip ‘twixt the cup and the lip. Equally salient (if less erudite), the laws of supply and demand can not be denied. With Cash for Clunkers hoovering-up the supply of applicable new cars, why would dealers give their best price on said new car? The statistical data on the question is out there, with hundreds of thousands of transactions logged at US DMVs. A new website and future TTAC partner is on the case. TrueCar.com will share the results of their data dive ASAP. Meanwhile, how about some anecdotal evidence or baseless conjecture from TTAC’s Best and Brightest? Did Cash for Clunkers participants get a better deal than they would have if the program had never existed?
“General Motors’ plug-in hybrid technology will be introduced in a new Buick crossover vehicle in 2011, Tom Stephens, GM vice chairman of product development, announced here today during the Management Briefing Seminars.” Did someone get paid to write that sentence? I prefer this “free” one from TTAC commentator MR42HH: “Slapping a Buick badge on a Korean engineered CUV with faux Opel styling is a good idea? To my eyes, this is pure ‘Old GM’ badge engineering mania. It’s the ‘Buick Opel by Isuzu’ all over again.” Did someone say Saturn Vue to a kill? No? So what’s the official explanation for adding another crossover—albeit one with a cord (so not a Cord)—to Buick’s moribund lineup?
In other words, TTAC commentator Stephen Teller has assembled a chart matching the amount of Cash for Clunkers money doled out per state, divided by population. [download here] Here are the top ten in reverse order:
Oh, to be the head of the Presidential Task Force on Automobiles (PTFOA). First, you have to pretend that you’re not running not one but two nationalized American automakers. Hands-on, hands-off, hands-on! Next, you have to beat off failing automotive suppliers with a baseball bat (so to speak). Automotive News [sub] reports that PTFOA jefe Ron Bloom told their Management Briefing Seminar that bankruptcy-bound suppliers get bupkis. But “We’re keeping a very close watch on the supply base.” That said, Bloom’s leaving such mission critical issues to the titular heads of GM and ChryCo—unless supplier meltdowns should suddenly be deemed a “core issue.” In which case, “If we felt it necessary, we might consider something.” But “at the moment, we don’t see that happening.” So it’s sink or swim, until they start to sink. Huh?
The Toyota Corolla has overtaken the Ford Focus as the first choice for American consumers trading their government-approved clunker for a federally subsidized new whip. According to Department of Transportation stats, ToMoCo has now captured three of the top five slots on the Cash for Clunkers (a.k.a. C.A.R.S.) hit list (previous version here) : Toyota Corolla, Ford Focus, Honda Civic, Toyota Prius, and Toyota Camry. Or as, the official release puts it, “Four of the top ten selling vehicles are manufactured by the Big Three. Of non-Big Three purchases, preliminary analysis suggests that well over half of these new vehicles were manufactured in the United States.” Did they mention that the “foreign nameplates” are produced in the U.S.? They did not. Nor did they offer a similar analysis of the country of origin for the trade-ins. Guess what percentage of the Cash for Clunkers trade-ins are American brands?
Call it tall poppy syndrome. Even as the world’s largest automaker’s fell into the U.S. new car sales quagmire, Toyota’s critics slated the brand’s quality “issues.” The Detroit News [sub] reports that freshly-minted CEO Akio Toyoda has ticked all the boxes in his efforts to reassure his stakeholders (as opposed to steak holders) and say the right thing to everyone about everything. “Toyoda emphasized the company’s core principles, including the need to produce clean vehicles for the benefit of society. But, he said, ‘we must do it in a way that’s affordable to today’s customers.’ That is the key challenge for the industry, which is ‘at a point where we must re-invent the automobile.’ But Toyoda, a racing enthusiast, said one of his objectives as head of the company was to inject excitement into the lineup. He said Toyota planned to develop an affordable, fun-to-drive sports car in the next few years but did not elaborate.” So green, affordable, [somewhat] exciting, affordable and . . . what was that again? High quality. How come the DetN didn’t put that in a direct quote?
Am I the only one who finds it ironic that TTAC received the press release for National Stop Red Light Running Week arrived in the middle of same (August 2 – 8)? Equally strangely, the PR flack writing this tardy tiresome tirade seems to see red. “While the message is sound, this particular safety campaign is unlike traditional safety programs like ‘Click It or Ticket.’ The ‘Stop on Red Week’ program has a decidedly corporate slant. The big push behind this week appears to be coming from the photo enforcement industry. These are the companies that install red light cameras. Photo enforcement is right in the middle of the ‘safety vs. revenue’ debate taking place nationwide. It’s likely this campaign is mostly about telling the public how necessary photo enforcement is and encouraging towns to install such cameras.” How long before THAT gets pulled? Meanwhile, how about some common sense tips on how not to run a red light? Seriously.
Cruising through this morning’s autoblogoshpere, I clicked on an Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association (AAIA) report on telematics. In case you didn’t know, telematics is “the science of measuring, sending, receiving and storing information via telecommunication devices. In automotive terms—it is the ability to establish two-way connection with a moving vehicle.” Like, a cell phone? Yes, but better! “Did you ever drive your dad’s car somewhere you weren’t supposed to be, or faster than you were supposed to go? With skypatrol, your dad would have received an e-mail or text message telling him you were traveling outside of your assigned geofence [!] or moving faster than the speed limit . . . With skypatrol, you can use GPS travel histories to analyze your route planning to maximize your effectiveness.” Question: can we make a rule that the “you” in question is always the “you” who owns the vehicle—and no one else? Just askin’.
Recent Comments