I can hear TTAC’s audience wincing at the headline. It should be “differently,” not “different.” Of course, if you imagine this executive exhortation spoken by an Italian mobster—a reasonable re-imagining given the fact that Chrysler is now controlled by Fiat—it still doesn’t work. In that case, it should be “We gotta do business different.” Preferably preceded by the word “Hey.” This ode to illiteracy appeared in a dealer document comparing Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep advertising’s effectiveness to that of Ford and Toyota. (Guess who scored higher?) So, did anyone notice the literary mistake? I’m serious. You can concentrate on what Chrysler plans to do different before it goes Tango Uniform, or you can wonder why these guys never, ever sweat the details.

Actually, it’s more about causation than a straight either/or choice. To survive, Chrysler has to learn how to sweat the details: to make interiors, engines and transmissions that don’t suck and fit them together in such a way as they don’t break, fail or fall apart. And then, gradually, inexorably, make them better, until they’re better than all their competition’s. As for branding, it’s no biggie. Jeeps go off road, Dodges go the distance and Chryslers have class. Off you go, boys. Don’t forget to pay me my $14,312,130,642 when you get the chance.

But noooooo.

“To save Chrysler Group LLC, Chief Executive Officer Sergio Marchionne has to create a mid-size sedan that can compete with the world’s best,” Bloomberg asserts. “It’s a three- to five-year job, and he may have two years to do it.”

You can forgive the ADD-afflicted media for its ongoing love affair with The Next Big Thing. But the days are gone when Chrysler could join its cross-town rivals in pinning its hopes for a turnaround on a single vehicle. Ford and GM have the cash needed to sustain the delusion that what they really really need is a hit vehicle—instead of say, a gradual return to respectability via improved version of the products they already have. Chrysler can’t even afford the vig.

Even if Chrysler were rolling in dough, what are the odds that the former bankrupt can create a box-fresh Camry killer in a truncated product development cycle? The automaker behind the Sebring and Avenger is going to build a brand new class-leading vehicle in the most competitive segment of the market in the most competitive market in the world? Led by the head of Fiat? It’s just as preposterous now as it was before Uncle Sam decided to save American jobs by handing Chrysler’s keys to the Italians.

And even if they did build it, who would buy it? It’s not like Ford, Honda, Hyundai, Nissan and Toyota owners are wondering when the hell Chrysler’s going to offer them something demonstrably better than what they’re already driving. How do you get satisfied consumers to buy a vehicle from a company widely known for creating crap cars, whose taxpayer-provided existence is, in and of itself, off-putting? You know; if they were buying. Which, in the main, they aren’t.

We shall not see. Meanwhile, all the rest.

Sometime in the next two weeks, Sr. Marchionne will present his product and marketing plans for Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep and Mopar (not to mention Fiat and Alfa) to the nine-member Chrysler board. Huh? While I’m a firm believer that intelligence gathering is a sign of intelligence, I’d kinda hoped that the head of the semi-nationalized automaker would have had a clear idea of what he was going to do with Chrysler before our elected representatives put him in charge of the aforementioned [nearasdammit] $15 billion “investment.” Forty-two days later, what do we know? Nothing.

Whatever Marchionne’s plan may be, Chrysler’s nine-member Board of Directors is bound to rubber stamp it. With each day’s delay, the pressure for doing something builds. With each day’s delay, the natural human tendency to consolidate power in the hands of a “man of action” grows. (Pretty good for a Canadian accountant eh?) I’m not saying Machionne is hiding behind a cult of personality. Oh wait, I am.

Whether it emanates from Marchionne’s minions or represents a mainstream meme, Chrysler’s press is increasingly focused on Sergio’s style. Bloomberg breathlessly reports the Divine Mr. M’s arsenal of cell phones, minimal sleep, and five days vacation per year. Well so what?

What we need from Chrysler is proof that they’re doing things differently, not a sneak peak into the seven highly effective work habits of sleep-deprived automotive executives. And while a[nother] new Chrysler sedan could be a showcase for New Chrysler’s capabilities, the only real proof that Chrysler has refashioned its corporate culture would be found on the showroom floor, in its existing products.

It’s not there. And it won’t be there. Even if Chrysler’s Best and Brightest hadn’t already headed for the hills (or away from the Hills), even if the company’s employees work full tilt, the company simply doesn’t have enough time to fix all the quality issues bedeviling its vehicles. And it certainly doesn’t have the ten years needed to correct a well-earned reputation for also-ran products.

Zombies are different from you and me. But they are not so different from each other. Whether its GM’s headless chicken product plans or Sergio’s [theoretically] carefully-crafted vision for Chrysler’s future, the undead are doomed. Anyone who thinks any different is deluded. “It has to work this time,” an unnamed Chrysler board member supposedly told Bloomies. “A patient can only be operated on so many times before he dies.” What if they’re already dead? Fuhgeddaboutit. If only we could.

Here we go. Just two days after Obama signed the edict to slap a 35 percent punitive tariff on Chinese car and light truck tires exported to the USA, the Chinese government “has reacted by launching an anti-dumping and anti-subsidies investigation” into American goods exported to China, writes China Daily. In China’s cross-hairs: American cars exported to China. Next in line (who would have thunk it): American chickens exported to China.

Welcome to Trade War Watch. We fear, a regular feature of Thetruthaboutcars.com.

The value of American cars exported to China approximately matches the value of Chinese tires exported to the USA. Around $2 billion, each way. Poof.

Chickens are a totally different matter. According to figures from the United States Department of Agriculture, the US exported 330,000 tons of chicken to China in 2008. Chinese chicken exports to the USA? Zero. “America doesn’t allow any importation of chicken from China. It is quite unreasonable,” said Ma Chuang, deputy secretary-general of China Animal Agriculture Association, to China’s Global Times.

China’s chicken hatchers had contemplated an anti-dumping probe into America for a while. Now, Beijing sends the feathers flying.

Chicks are big business. “The total export value of U.S. poultry meat, table eggs and processed egg products set an all-time record last year, reaching $4.7 billion, 25 percent above 2007,” reports the chicken-chronicle Watt Poultry USA. The biggest markets for American broilers are Russia, China, and Mexico. 81 percent of America’s chicken claw exports go to China, 15 percent go to Hong Kong—we don’t want to know who consumes the remaining 4 percent.

With a face as straight as possible, China’s Ministry of Commerce says that the probes into cars and chicks are “not a retaliation” against the tire dispute, but simply “a response to domestic concerns.”

Also as predicted by TTAC, China wants to drag America in front of the WTO. Trade ministry spokesman Yao Jian said China “reserves all legitimate rights, including referring the case to the WTO”. If the case goes to the WTO, subsidy and anti-subsidy agreements under the WTO framework will come on the table. If anything is subsidized to the hilt, then it is cars made by the two zombie automakers. If we assume $100 billion dumped into them so far, every car made by Chrysler and GM carries a $20,000 subsidy.

This all may sound funny or righteous, but it is highly dangerous. Lessons not learned from the Great Depression: As every historian knows, protectionism was one of the reasons why America, after a recovery from Black Friday, plunged itself and the world deep into a prolonged depression that ultimately led to World War II.

As far as jobs go, Obama’s signature under the tire petition is a disaster. It will not bring a single job back to the American tire industry. As written on Saturday, tire makers will simply shift production to other low wage countries not affected by the China-only ban.

Supposedly, the outsourcing of tire production to low cost countries did cost 5000 US jobs. Now, witness the effect of Obama’s signature: In China, the measure will leave Chinese workers, whose welfare is ever so close to our hearts, jobless and hungry. Fan Rende, chairman of China Rubber Industry Association, said that “Obama’s decision may affect the employment of 100,000 tire workers in China.” China Daily even predicts (without naming sources) that “some 100,000 tire-related jobs in the United States could be affected, including such sectors as imports, distribution and retail.”

The definitely not left leaning Foreign Affairs journal writes:

Americans are increasingly disturbed by the growing economic clout of China. With Chinese growth rates consistently above nine percent, they accuse it of stealing U.S. jobs, of keeping the Yuan undervalued by pegging it to the dollar, of exporting deflation by selling its products abroad at unfair prices, of violating the rights of its workers to keep labor costs low, and of failing to meet its commitments to the World Trade Organization (WTO). Most of these charges have little merit. But the misunderstandings behind them have opened the way to a trade war between the United States and China — one that, if it escalates, could do considerable damage to both sides.

China is not stealing U.S. jobs or engaging in unfair trade practices to undercut U.S. economic might and exports its way to global power. In fact, almost 60 percent of Chinese exports to the United States are produced by firms owned by foreign companies, many of them American. These firms have moved operations overseas in response to competitive pressures to lower production costs and thereby offer better prices to consumers and higher returns to shareholders.

Wal-Mart alone purchased $18 billion worth of Chinese goods in 2004, more than Australia, Canada, or Russia imported from China. A global trade war is being started with America shooting at its own ghosts. China is prepping for counter-battery fire. Hold on to your wallets.

Ironically, the “fear that a trade war will erupt between China and the U.S.” lifted the value of the dollar this morning, says the Wall Street Journal. Which makes imports even cheaper. Stocks go the other way. Dow Jones reports that “European stock markets traded lower Monday, weighed down by fears of protectionism and a possible U.S./China trade war.” We’ll soon find out how our already battered 401Ks like the game of chicken.

TTAC Commentator AKM writes:

I own a 2002 VW Golf with 115,000 miles and want to sell it since we’re moving overseas (probably will buy another VW there). Belt changed at 100,000 miles, brakes at 110,000, tires at 100,000. The car is in great overall condition.

However, the engine light is on, simply because the catalytic converter is running below efficiency. According to the mechanic, the only solution is to replace it with an OEM part (i.e. VW-branded) as others might be below the specs required and thus activate the engine light immediately. It’s a $700 part, plus labor.

Do you think it’s worth repairing it before selling it, or selling it as is while explaining the problem? Edmunds gives me an approximate value of $4500, more likely $4000 with the issue not fixed. But what really matters is what buyers will think.

I have another option, which is to buy the part online. The only converter I find for my car is the “Eastern” model, generally at $275. Do you know if it’s the same converter as the original, and can I install it myself, or would it mess up the oxygen sensor?

Read More >

TTAC commentator greenblood has a question for the group:

Since our first child was born, we don’t have time for everything we used to do. So my wife has been taking her ’09 Escape to a Valvoline instant oil change location nearby. They have been pushing fuel injector cleaner every 3,000 miles. Although we aren’t dumb enough to pay the add’l labor charge to dump a 1/2 qt of cleaner in the fuel tank, I am wondering about the benefits of fuel injector cleaner in general and the need to use it periodically. Something tells me every 3k is ridiculous, but I would like to know what the Best & Brightest have would recommend.

It looks like the American taxpayer is going to be stuck with the bill for another unpopular struggle in the sand. This time, however, the “insurgents” don’t stand a chance. General Motors and Bob Lutz have cherrypicked the opponent for their CTS-V track showdown. Not only is Wes Siler a novice-level racetrack driver (and, I would add, a very charming fellow), the C63 AMG is far too short on power and tire to run head-to-head with Cadillac’s supersedan. Mr. Farago has informed me that General Motors will absolutely not permit TTAC to join the party. That’s a shame because I could win this race-that-isn’t. Here’s how.

In a wheel-to-wheel contest, I would take the inside line into Turn Two, abandon all pretense of making a clean pass, track out to the exit curb while matching Lutz’s speed on the brakes, and run the old man into the dirt at eighty miles per hour. Race won. We will assume, however, that this “race” will actually be a single timed lap from a rolling start.

Only a fool would agree to let Bob bring his own CTS-V. At a minimum, such a car would have a competition alignment, a blueprinted engine, and a rather enthusiastically-tuned ECU. Instead, I would insist on bringing a car from random dealer stock and observing GM’s final prep of the vehicle. When the event’s over, it could be returned under the General’s 60-day guarantee.

With a modicum of fairness assured, it would be time to choose and prep TTAC’s challenger. (That’s “challenger” with a small “c”; not only is the big Mopar a two-door and thus ineligible for this particular dog-and-pony show, it wouldn’t stand a chance.) We’re starting behind the eight-ball here, because the CTS-V very probably is faster around most racetracks than any other production sedan sold in this country. We need to come close enough for preparation and ability to close the gap.

We’ll begin by focusing on the three major factors that affect racetrack performance in otherwise similar cars: power-to-weight, tire width, and driveline layout.

The CTS-V generates 556 horsepower to push 4220 pounds, for a power-to-weight ratio of .131 hp/lb. It has exceptionally wide tires for the class at 255/40-19 front and 285/35-19 rear. With just these numbers, we can expect that Mr. Siler’s C63, which has 451 horsepower for 3920 pounds (.115 hp/lb) and tires which are 30mm narrower both front and rear, will find it impossible to keep up. The C63 also has a torque-converter automatic, which absorbs some of the engine’s power.

Given the chance, I would bring a 2010 BMW M5. The Bimmer offers 507 horsepower and a curb weight of 4012 pounds (.126 hp/lb). This is a non-trivial disadvantage, and the situation is worse than it sounds because acceleration above about 100mph is more a function of total horsepower and aero than power-to-weight. Much of Laguna Seca amounts to a series of drag races, and we’ll be playing catch-up.

To stay in the game, we will have to out-handle the Caddy by a significant margin. The M5 has exactly the same tire size as the Cadillac, which helps, and it has BMW’s usual 50/50-ish weight distribution. Still, that’s not enough. With equal drivers, in an equal situation, the CTS-V is still likely to come up on top.

The BMW does have one critical advantage: the SMG transmission. It’s garbage on the street, but around a racetrack, SMG is priceless. Not only does it eliminate shifting mistakes, which is useful in a high-pressure, single-lap situation, it allows us to left-foot brake for the entire track. Left-foot-braking can be worth up to a second a lap, which would go a long way towards fixing our power deficiency.

We can also prepare the car a bit. “Crash bolts” in the M5’s MacPherson struts will give us some camber to address the typical BMW understeer issues. A few minutes with an angle grinder can provide even more. We can put the best possible 140-or-higher treadwear tires on the car. We’ll align the car aggressively with plenty of toe-out in the rear wheels to aid rotation.

All of the above brings us close to winning. The rest has to be done at the track.

We’ll run the car for a few days at Seca and test alignment settings while preparing to drive as close to a perfect lap as possible. On the day of the event, we will load a Traqmate with our best lap and set it to “qualifying mode” to provide continuous real-time comparison with that lap. We will insist that Lutz drives first, which lets us know how hard we’ll have to run compared to our ideal lap. If he’s slow, we can use caution. If he’s fast . . . well, at that point it will be time for me to earn the Raikkonnen-esque salary Mr. Farago pays me.

Anything can happen once the flag waves, but I will say this: a bet on TTAC to win the “CTS-V Challenge” is a better one than the American taxpayer is making on GM.

TTAC Commentator gntlben writes:

I’m currently in the market for a new car, and noticed a local Subaru dealer has a pair of new ’08 Legacys (a 2.5GT Limited and a 3.0R Limited) gathering dust on the lot. Both are being advertised with a big discount (down to $25-$26K) that puts them in my price range. Both have VA inspection stickers that expire this year (2.5 in August, 3.0 in October), which leads me to believe that, considering they’re ’08’s and VA has a yearly inspection, they’ve been at the dealership since 2007. My question is this: what possible trouble spots/wear should I look for on a new car that’s been sitting for such a long time?

Read More >

James Dean was a moderately talented actor. You could say he made his best career move behind the wheel of a Porsche. After his fatal accident, Dean’s “live fast-die young” legend grew to Giant-size, propelling his life (and death) to legendary status. As for the car [not shown], many came to believe that the “Lil’ Bastard” was evil, citing both the actor’s death and the death and injury experienced by those who came into contact with the car or bits thereof. Steven King and Snopes will fill in the blanks on that one. But the truth is that celebrities aren’t that different from you and me. The basic causation for their car crashes is the same as it ever was: human error and a light dusting of equipment limitations or failure.

James Dean’s Porsche 550 Spyder was a limited edition race car. Dean fancied himself a bona-fide race car driver. In March 1955, Dean finished second in the Palm Springs Road Races and in May of that year, he placed third at Bakersfield. Later that month, Dean was running fourth at the Santa Monica Road Races, until he was sidelined with engine failure.

Even if one assumes that Dean had mad motoring skills, he was still destined to wear a toe tag at the end of the day on September 30, 1955. This one had bad driving and the cold reality of physics written all over it.

The lousy driving arrived courtesy a young man named Donald Turnipseed. Turnipseed (who blamed the light in his eye) made a poor judgment call when he turned left just in time to collide with the smaller Porsche’s driver’s side. The large 1950 Ford Custom Tudor coupe had a significant weight and mass advantage over the small race trimmed Porsche 550. To say the least. And state the obvious. The Porsche’s tubular race frame didn’t stand a chance.

The photos of the wreck proved this point. Dean was the unwilling recipient of a steering wheel and dash, while his luckier passenger was ejected from the car. Donald Turnupseed emerged virtually unscathed, outside of the emotional damage of Dean’s death by his boneheaded move.

Speaking of trauma, all of America has a “whoa” moment, when Jayne Mansfield lost her life in a collision with the trailer of a semi  on  June 29, 1967. Her 1966 Buick Electra land barge collided with a fog-obscured trailer. The collision killed all of the front seat occupants, including her dog. Mansfield’s children survived; the rear seat passengers were short enough to escape the trailer’s scythe-like effect.

The fatalities may have been avoided by slower speeds, but no former or current factory safety equipment would have prevented the Buick’s sudden transformation from hardtop to convertible. The urban myth about decapitation was false, but sudden head trauma certainly ushered Mansfield onto the Silver Screen in the Sky.

Gruesome pictures of the crash scene were so widely disseminated (this before the Internet) that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration soon mandated that all semi truck trailers had to be outfitted with a rear under-ride bar or bumper.

Not even one of the world’s safest automobiles—a Mercedes Benz S280—could save Princess Diana’s life. The Mercedes had every safety feature known to the auto industry, including a state-of-the-art passenger cell, traction control, air bags and braking systems. Once again, the driver was the weakest link.

While Prince Charles may have wished his wife dead several times an hour, the realization of that alleged desire was the simple result of impaired driving. Diana’s chauffeur was drunk and under the influence of pills when the crash occurred. Whether he was being chased or just plain stupid, Henri Paul over-cooked it, colliding with a concrete pillar in a Paris underpass.

Diana’s bodyguard survived the accident, but then he was wearing his seat belt and Princess Diana was not. A simple lesson often neglected in the flurry of conspiracy theories and speculation.

In fact, it’s too bad that the “teachable” moment is often lost (though not in the Mansfield crash) when celebrities die in car accidents. The public often focuses on the facts of the matter, and the star’s violently truncated career, instead of the causation. The truth is that celebrities face the same dangers on the road as you and I, only more so, as they have a tendency to intersect with fast cars, drugs and alcohol abuse. And, of course, hubris. For example . . .

In 1927, dancer and choreographer Isadora Duncan jumped into a friend’s Bugatti. As the driver began their destined-to-short journey, Duncan’s flowing scarf tangled in the car’s open-spoke rear wheel. It pulled taut, snapping her neck. The Little, Brown Book of Anecdotes reports Duncan had “waved gaily to her friends, crying ‘Adieu, mes amis! Je vais a la gloire!'” Goodbye, my friends! I go to glory!

[For more of Jim Sutherland’s work, please visit mystarcollectorcar.com]

President Obama paid his outstanding union dues and slapped a 35 percent punitive tariff on Chinese car and light truck tires exported to the USA. The new duty will take effect on September 26 and comes in addition to an existing 4 percent duty, Reuters reports. Everybody, except for the United Steelworkers, agrees that this is one of the most boneheaded decisions of the new administration.

No American tire manufacturer supported the case. Cooper Tire even publicly opposed it. No wonder: US tire companies are the biggest offenders (in the eyes of the United Steelworkers), having moved most if not all of their budget segment tire production to low labor cost overseas sites. Chinese tires are not in the USA because China wants to rape and pillage the market. Chinese tires are here, because US tire companies set up joint ventures in China to make what the market demands: Tires for less.

China is not the only exporter of budget tires to the USA. According to the Wall Street Journal, 43 percent of the tires sold in the USA are imported. Only 11 percent are imported from China. The far larger share is imported from low labor cost countries such as Malaysia, India, or Central Europe. What the boneheaded decision does is simply shift tire production from China to other low cost producing countries. These countries can take advantage of 11 percent of the tires effectively removed from the US market. The low cost producers can raise their prices until the market settles. The American consumer will bear the cost. Not a single new job is created in US tire companies. Jobs will be lost at tire distributors and dealers. This decision achieves nothing for America except higher prices and troubles with China.

The American Consuming Industries Trade Action Coalition wrote in a letter to the US Trade Representative John Kirk: “The absence of tires from China in the market will raise costs to downstream consuming industries, including automobile manufacturers, will limit consumer choices and affect most seriously those with the fewest resources. Thus, these tariffs will be the most regressive of taxes.”

“Those with the fewest resources” (i.e., the poor) are easiest sold on buying the import-restriction Kool-Aid. They drink it in big gulps: Imports bad for jobs. When they find out that fewer low cost imports mean higher prices, that they still have no jobs, and that their welfare check buys much less, then it’s too late.

The complaint by the US Steelworkers does not allege unfair trade practices. No longer needed. In US law, there is a special anti-China provision, called section 421. The Hong Kong Trade Development Council explains the complicated law in the most succinct way: “Under Section 421, the USITC determines whether a specific product from the mainland is being imported into the U.S. in such increased quantities, or under such conditions, as to cause or threaten to cause market disruption. ‘Market disruption’ is defined as rapidly increasing imports, either absolutely or relatively, so as to cause or threaten to cause material injury to a U.S. domestic industry. If the USITC makes an affirmative determination it proposes a remedy, which the president may or may not implement.”

The USITC is the United States International Trade Commission, “an independent, quasi-judicial federal agency that provides trade policy advice to both the legislative and executive branches of government.” The USITC is often called the International Trade Commission to give it a fake supranational flair. It’s pure US government.

“Market disruption” is a vague concept. If anyone feels disrupted by Chinese imports, they can petition the USITC. If the USITC accepts it and takes it to the president, and if he signs it, no more Chinese imports. Under Bush, for all his failings, every section 421 petition that reached his desk was rejected: He had to decide on strategically important goods such as wire hangers, steel pipe, brake drums and rotors and “pedestal actuators,” a component used in scooters for the disabled. All voted down.

Obama approved the first 421 petition that was put before him. China and US companies are rightly afraid that this will trigger a flurry of section 421 cases. “Multinational companies such as Caterpillar Inc., Citigroup Inc. and Microsoft Corp. have urged Obama to refrain from curbing imports, saying it could lead to a “downward protectionist spiral,” writes Bloomberg.

The United Steelworkers based their complaint on the allegation that Chinese tires had cost a paltry 5,000 union jobs over a number of years. Which of course is bunk. The jobs were lost because US consumers increasingly refuse to buy the high priced tires, and because US tire companies have reacted to consumer demand and moved their production elsewhere. Only one fourth of the tire imports comes from China.

Understandably, the Chinese are deeply upset. China’s state-run news agency, Xinhua, writes, “This ruling came at a time when the U.S. economy is at an uncertain turning point from the worst recession since World War II.” Officially, China exercises restraint. “Observers said that the president needs his people to help make domestic reform smoother,” is as low as Xinhua wants to publicly stoop.

The verbiage from China’s Ministry of Commerce is stronger: “China expressed strong dissatisfaction and is resolutely opposed to this,” said China’s Ministry of Commerce (MOC) spokesman Yao Jian. “This does not comply with WTO agreements on subsidies. The U.S. used an incorrect method to define and calculate the subsidies, which has resulted in an artificially high subsidy rate, hurting Chinese firms’ interests.”

What China is likely to do is threefold:

One, China will drag the USA in front of the WTO. China will have the tacit or open support from other low-cost countries, including the EU (many low cost countries, such as Poland or Romania are EU members.) The world will also love to slap around a country that demanded free trade as long as free trade was good for America. Note that China mentioned “subsidies.” The bail-outs will come on the table also. WTO proceedings can drag on forever.

Two, China will take some tit-for-tat measures. On the table is a hefty tariff on US auto imports to China. During the first half of the year, China imported more than $1 billion worth of automobiles from the US. China could buy fewer Boeings and more Airbusses. If things get really bad, China could put a dent in the Chinese growth of the automotive ward of the state, GM. Europe will love it all.

Three, Chinese President Hu Jintao will give Obama a tongue-lashing when they meet in Pittsburgh at the G-20 Summit September 24-25. Obama will be gently or not so gently reminded that America’s largest creditor deserves a little better treatment, or the money could be moved elsewhere. Timothy Geithner will also be reminded that his announcement in June that “Chinese assets are very safe” is bunk. The greenback is on its way down. A EURO bought $1.46 today and it’s heading toward $1.50. Come to think of it, a falling dollar is the best protection against cheap imports from all corners of the world: The lower the dollar, the more expensive the imports. A truly free market needs no section 421.

Forbes writes: “The current round of disputes will undoubtedly end up in a trade war, and China, a country extraordinarily dependent on exports, will surely be the biggest loser.”

Don’t bet on it.

America is already involved in two shooting wars which it couldn’t afford would China not buy its bonds. America cannot afford two shooting wars and a trade war with its largest creditor.

General Motors is a nationalized automaker. But it can’t stay that way forever. Its federal taskmasters have decreed that GM must return to public ownership before the Congressional mid-term elections in 2010. Makes sense. If GM is still on welfare at election time, GM will be an enormous political liability. A symbol of Big Government gone bad. But GM can’t possibly achieve profitability within that time frame. Even if it had the brains, it doesn’t have the time or money to build what needs building, to fix what needs fixing. The new car market sucks and GM’s product planning, reputation and branding are in tatters. So New GM’s doing the only thing they can do: putting lipstick on the product pig and sending it off to market. This “May The Best Car Win” advertising strategy will backfire. Badly.

You can certainly understand the thought process involved. The campaign is, after all, Bob Lutz’s brainchild. For more than half a decade, the former Car Czar has been claiming there’s nothing wrong with GM’s products (especially the vehicles developed during his watch). Lutz has consistently blamed the so-called “perception gap” for GM’s epic fall from grace. Our products used to suck at some indeterminate point in the past, but they don’t anymore, starting . . . now! Wait . . . NOW! In other words, it’s not the product, stupid. It’s the perception of the product.

I have no idea how Lutz seized on the idea that perception and reality aren’t part of a feedback loop. For someone who never saw combat, he has an extremely cynical view of human nature. Less perplexing: why New GM is allowing Lutz to bet the entire company on Maximum Bob’s belief that carpet-bombing consumers with “enlightenment” will somehow save the day. Again, GM has no choice. They don’t have the time to create the incremental improvements they need to build, market and sell the genuinely competitive products which would generate a profit in the North American market.

Speaking of loops, Lutz would say that my assessment of GM’s competitiveness is just my [biased, GM-hating] opinion. But it’s also the opinion of millions of American consumers over the last three or four decades, who’ve been abandoning GM for other car companies. I mean, ipso facto, right?

In truth, GM’s comparison tests will offer little more than invidious distinctions. To wit: GM’s new ads will pit the Chevy Equinox against the Honda CR-V, and the Buick LaCrosse against the Lexus ES350. And so on. According to Automotive News, “Lutz said in the rare cases when both cars match each other feature for feature and warranty for warranty, the difference will be illustrated in sticker price.” So we’re talking about feature comparisons and price comparisons. What was that about the definition of insanity?

Lest we forget, GM’s been driving down this road for some time. Howie Long’s Chevy ads, focusing on relative mileage and manliness, have done exactly nothing to stem the Bow Tie brand’s sales slide. The ads were arrogant, condescending and, at the end of the proverbial English day, ineffective. So ineffective they always ended in a plug for “the deal.” What’s different this time?

Nothing. GM’s “May the Best Car Win” head-to-head ad campaign completely glosses over the fundamental question that a real bankruptcy forces a company to face: “Well, how did I get here?” With a few not-so-notable exceptions, the products that GM is about to present as class-leading are the same products that ushered the company into [its first] bankruptcy. Discount the idea that customers are to blame or the competitors suddenly got worse, and you’re left with an inescapable conclusion: same as it ever was.

The “May the Best Car Win” campaign also reveals Lutz’s ongoing and misplaced belief in symmetrical warfare. Ironically enough, the larger-than-life fly-by-the-seat-of-his-pants suit has convinced his bosses that rational comparisons will finally convince consumers of his paycheck provider’s product superiority. But, Bob, that’s not what sells cars. Brands sell cars.

This is no small point. GM’s fall from grace is not about its products, per se. It’s about the company’s ongoing and abject failure to create compelling brands that sell products (and services) that embody the brands’ promise. Never mind the LaCrosse vs. the ES350. Who would buy a Buick instead of a Lexus? Or a Chevrolet instead of a Honda? The people who would are, and the ones that don’t, won’t. No head-to-head model throwdown is going to change the overall dynamic, and/or the minds of people who vote with their wallet.

There’s only one way Lutz and Co. can win this “debate”: frame it in the context of a battle of the brands. But first they have to create four tightly-gathered, clearly expressed branding concepts (e.g., Cadillac as the “standard of the world”), then build products and services that realize that promise. Until and unless New GM grasps that nettle, potential customers will see “May the Best Car Win” as bilious bailout braggadocio, while existing customers will see it as an invitation to jump ship.

Never mind. Time’s up. While we await the inevitable, GM has placed the cart before the horse, and invited potential customers to tell them they’ve gone about it the wrong way. Only this time, when they make their choice, when the best car company wins, everyone loses.

In a recent news article, RF stated: “…here’s another story where the web pulls the rug from under auto industry types seeking to hide the truth. We’ve been saying it forever (in Internet terms): the collector car market has collapsed. Well, duh. But the mainstream media and specialist press has both been happy to perpetuate the myth perpetuated by the auction houses that their business has been defying gravity. See? Cars are selling for phenomenal prices! Meanwhile, Hagerty’s CARS THAT MATTER is telling readers to pay attention to the men behind the curtain.” In truth, the men behind the curtains are not the market. They are middlemen. They extract a percentage from every participant they can find to witness their activities; Buyer, Seller, hell, even the gawkers have to pay to watch the show. The auction houses are, in ecological terms, parasites on the very market they claim to serve. Like any parasite their success has a tendency to cause harm to their host. These guys are tarted up used cars salesmen. That, and the recent transformation of the car auction into a three ring circus, is what is killing the auction companies, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the collector cars being sold.

All these moves created an artificial market bubble where some people were proven to be fools, easily separated from their money. It successfully convinced them that a machine mass-produced by the hundreds of thousands could have rarity based on factory options. They achieved this by wining, dining, and blinding those fools with the bright lights of live TV coverage. In an era where celebrity is valued above wisdom, why not go for fame and throw a few hundred grand at that Mopar?

Smelling blood in the water, and seeing the resulting feeding frenzy themselves, more parasites attach themselves to the market. Builders and restorers taking less-valued stock from that mass-production pool of used cars and create a host of dubious offerings for the auction block. “Resto-mods.” “Tribute” cars. “Continuation” cars. As a bonus, many of them even turn this activity into TV shows, attaching themselves to the celebrity culture.

Finally even the manufacturers themselves got into the game. Selling the first cars off the lines at auctions. Selling off their own collections. The final insult to both the auction houses and to their own lack of vision: Building retro-cars and selling straight to the consumer.

This whole collection of players created a market-within-a-market, and it inflated too far, too fast to sustain itself. That is what has collapsed. In a decade we might call it “The Muscle Car Bubble” or maybe “The Baby Boom Bubble.” Like all economic downturns a few of the “innocent” were harmed in the collapse, but mostly the damage, deservedly so, has been contained within the bubble’s sphere of influence.

The collector car market is, and always will be, healthy. Collector cars are not beanie babies or Pokémon cards. Automobiles have aesthetic appeal and genuine practical use. They have intrinsic value, both as a utilitarian object, and as a stylistic example of what happens when engineers and designers create something. Sir William Lyons, the man behind Jaguar, once said, “The car is the closest thing we will ever create to something that is alive.”

There is palpable inspiration and creativity expressed in the form of the automobile. People who love cars will always want, buy, and sell them. Private sales make up the vast majority of all collector car transactions, and the Internet is transforming that market from a local to a global phenomena accessible by anyone, anywhere. Car auctions are also dying for the same reason swap meets, car clubs, and buff-books are. You can browse the whole planet’s supply of cars, parts, and automobilia from your laptop or cell phone. On your schedule, at minimal cost. Craigslist has far more reach and power than Craig Jackson. Google will find what you want better than Gooding.

The Collector Car Market hasn’t collapsed. It merely sheds excess now and then when parasitic traders come in and inflate a bubble such as we’ve seen recently. There are top tier collector cars and there are pedestrian collector cars. Duesenbergs and Delahayes will always have value, as will ‘Cudas and Camaros. Only when the latter types start trading at prices near the former you have a market as artificial as testicles hanging off a truck.

Smart people and smart money were never in the bubble anyway. The market survives. Smart auction houses will even survive the stupidity of some of their brethren. Those that haven’t fallen into the trap of celebrity culture glitz will continue to bring buyers and sellers together for as long as there are titles to trade along with the hardware. What we are seeing is the deserving death of a small portion of the market. Couldn’t have happened to a more deserving bunch.

Virgil writes:

What has been your experience selling a car privately? My recently widowed sister in California has a 2003 Infiniti Q45 with 10,000 miles. Yes, ten thousand. But I live 2000 miles away. An ad in the paper or Craigslist would certainly bring riff-raff to the door. A simple test drive could turn into a missing car.  The dealer offered about half of market value, a private sale could make both parties happy.

Read More >

First of all, I don’t have the embed code for this ad. For some reason, GM hasn’t sent it to TTAC and it’s not on YouTube. To see the ad, click over to Autoblog. Second, New GM Chairman of the Board Ed Whitacre should never have done this ad. GM’s single biggest problem, the one that trumps everything: their insular culture. By fronting this spot, Whitacre has become part of the problem. He’s crossed the line from gamekeeper to poacher. He’s lost his independent observer/taxpayers’ guardian status; he can no longer distance himself from the Lutzes and yutzes who animate the GM zombie. Whitacre’s now “one of the boys.” Third, the actual text of this ad [parsed after the jump] misses the boat.

“I’m Ed Whitacre, the Chairman of General Motors.”

What? No hello? Not very friendly, is it? First impressions count. Whitacre looks like a prison warden walking through The Big House. But is that rank-pulling exercise a good thing? GM has four brands left: Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet and GMC. The whole chairman thing squares with Cadillac’s core clientele, maybe Buick. But Chevy and GMC? Those are supposedly working-class brands. Their average buyer is more in tune with the word “boss.” And not in a good way.

Yes, I know: Lee Iaccoca was Chrysler’s Chairman. But his famous 1984 ad didn’t start with him saying, “I’m Lee Iaccoca, Chairman of Chrysler.” (A subtitle provided the ID.) Lee’s opening line: “A lot of people think America can’t cut the mustard anymore.” That’s the way you do it. Grab ’em by the lapels and don’t let ’em go.

“Before I started this job I admit I had some doubts. [pause] Probably a lot like you.”

What doubts? Did you think GM cars were crap? Crap how? Unreliable? Uncomfortable? Badly built? What? And why “probably”? That’s an admission wrapped in a denial shrouded in mystery. Whitacre’s vague statement is so Old GM: wishy-washy and vague whilst trying (and failing) to be genuine and sincere.

“But I like what I found. I think you will too.”

What did he find? See: above. Except this time the ad’s trotting out GM’s secret weapon in its own self-destruction: the perception gap. Clearly, Eddy’s saying “I was wrong about GM—and so are you.” Which is another way of A) calling himself a close-minded ignoramus and B) calling GM customers close-minded ignorami. Idiots. Fools. It wasn’t OK for Old GM to insult its customers. It’s not right for New GM, either.

While we’re at it, “like” is not the kind of word that convinces people to risk their hard-earned money on a car from a company with a history of building crap (both relatively and absolutely). “Buy a Buick. You won’t love it. But you will like it.” That’s not going to cut the mustard, and he didn’t even say it. Clearly, GM doesn’t know the power of the specific. Or does it?

“Car for car, when compared to the competition, we win.”

What’s with the strange sentence construction? It’s no small thing: people listen to TV ads—if they listen—with one ear. Anything that makes it hard for them to understand what’s being said (let’s not even talk about Ed’s accent yet) dilutes the message.

Ed’s assertion sounds like it’s designed by lawyers. What does “car for car” mean? I know YOU know what it means. But again, what about people who aren’t really paying too much attention? Whitacre should have said “car vs. car.” Or something else entirely, that follows on from the previous statement.

And then there’s “we win.” HUH? By what metric? As the Chairman doesn’t cite an authoritative source for this declaration of victory, the ad asks viewers to take Mr. Clicky Shoes’ word for it. Yes, well, who the hell is Ed Whitacre? [Note: Ed’s the guy who said, “I know nothing about cars,” the day his appointment was announced.] And if Ed was so stupid as to have doubts about GM products he shouldn’t have had, why should we think he knows shit from shinola now?

“It’s as simple as that.”

Who would’ve thought it could get worse? But it does. “It’s as simple as that” is the same as saying “I know more than you do.” Or “I’m not going to debate this with you.” Or “STFU and buy a car from us.” Yeah, that’ll work.

“I just know if you get into one of our cars you’re going to like what you see.”

So, Ed you feel it in your water, eh? Not good enough. Taken literally, “you’ll like what you see” makes no sense; people don’t buy a car based on whether or not or how much they like the way the interior looks. Taken on a more metaphorical level, it’s a meaningless statement—that depends on Ed’s credibility. Again, he doesn’t have any. For 99.78% of the general population, Whitacre’s a completely unknown quantity. Judging him as a salesman, I don’t like what I see; Whitacre doesn’t have one tenth of Iaccoca’s star power.

“So we’re putting our money where our mouth is.”

The switch to the royal “we” is jarring and completely inappropriate. A personal message has instantly become just another example of a corporate shill mouthing off.

“Buy a new Chevy, GMC, Buick or Cadillac and if you’re not a hundred percent happy return it.”

Anyone else catch that momentary hitch between Chevy and Buick? Seriously; Whitacre is trying to remember the list. He’s mastered it, but it’s not quite there. By the same token, look at his finger point. It’s out of sync with what he’s saying. That’s what psychologist calls cognitive dissonance. Or what normal people call B.S.

In any case, the 60-day guarantee concept is deeply flawed. Buying a car is not like buying a packet of gum in a flavor you’ve never tried before. People hate car dealers. The only thing worse than the thought of buying a car is the thought of returning it. The customer is thinking, rightly, hassle, more hassle and more hassle, ad infinitum.

“We’ll take it back.”

How nice of you. But it’s not “We’ll give you every penny back, plus give you a toaster for your time.” Sigh.

“That’s our new, 60-day satisfaction guarantee.”

Think like a moron for a moment. Ed’s saying that the guarantee will be in place for 60 days. OK, I’m being picky, but this isn’t as clear as it should be. All they had to do was add the 60-day bit to the return statement. Oh, and the usual “no questions asked” caveat, that’s been around since 34 A.D. Like this:

“. . . if you’re not a hundred percent happy after the first sixty days, return it to your GM dealer for a full, no-questions-asked refund. Plus a new toaster for your time.”

“And as always you’ll get our 100,000 mile five-year powertrain warranty on every vehicle.”

That’s “your” vehicle, not “every” vehicle. And sorry, it’s not vee-hickle. Whitacre’s accent just crossed the border from regional to quirky. And that’s opened him up for parody (check back with TTAC in future posts). Whitacre could have, should have said “car” instead. Anyway, what’s the point of mentioning this? Trying to remember two deals is not as easy as one.

“That’s how strongly we feel about our cars and how committed we are to you.”

See how that doesn’t work? By introducing the warranty thing, the connection between the 60-day guarantee and the commitment has been broken. Touchback.

“So put us to the test.”

Test? I’m not buying a car with confidence, I’m buying a car to see if GM’s any good? No thanks. Not with my money. As PCH101 says (below), people want to buy a car they can keep. Duh. And if the car was any good, why would Eddy even mention returning it?

That’s the problem with this type of come on, and there’s no getting around it. And the more expensive the item, the more risk the consumer assumes. The more risk, the less likely they are to buy. Even with a money-back guarantee.

“Put us up against anyone.”

Huh? They’re introducing a new concept—comparison shopping—in the last ten seconds? What’s that got to do with the 60-day guarantee? If I don’t like the car relative to the competition I can return it? Obviously not. But this “we’re better than the other guys” is a different idea that smacks of throwing stuff against the wall to see what sticks. Not that GM’s ever done that before . . .

“And may the best car win.”

This is a blatant attempt to echo “If you can find a better car, buy it.” But it’s totally different. Whitacre’s closing statement admits the possibility that the competition is better than GM’s products. How stupid can GM be? That stupid. And more. Watch this space.

Will writes:

Hello, Don Sajeev! Over on Autoblog, I read Jonny Lieberman’s post on the Aston Martin 177 and it’s inboard shocks. I am not sure I will ever have to deal with this, but what is the deal with reducing unsprung weight as much as possible? I don’t understand: Is it just about greater control of the vehicle+motion through shocks & springs, or is it something greater? It would be nice to find out what El Mehtador + the Piston Slap community thinks about this.

Read More >

Your 2050 Brazzaville Micro-i600 solar-electric personal transportation device automatically glides into the Biodynamic Vego-Taco Loco lot and parks itself. On the way inside, you pass the static display of a 2010 Honda Pilot. Your seventeen year-old son stops in his tracks, looks at it with bewilderment, and asks if you really drove around in one these big, ugly, two-ton carbon-spewing behemoths forty years ago. Will you mumble something incoherently about times being very different then and tell him to hurry along, or will you stop, gaze admiringly and wax eloquently about your distant but ever-so-vibrant Pilot memories? Read More >

TTAC Commentator Dror writes:

I own a 2006 Mazda 3, hatch 2.3 liter 5 speed A/T. I bought the car new, I have 45k miles now, car drives very well and I tend to follow maintenance schedule as the book suggest. My concern is that there is no schedule for A/T fluid change, what does it mean? Don’t ever change it, or let the dealer decide for you?

If it’s up to the dealer, I’d spend ridiculous amount of money on stupid things like “the 30k service” that is known to car dealers only, but they never suggest anything like that when drop by every 3 months/3k miles for oil. I live in NYC and that car spend significant time of it’s life on Manhattan streets: I would like to know if anyone knows the answer, I really don’t like to mess with my A/T if I don’t need to.

Read More >