I just came to a realization while sitting at my desk at work (slow Friday before a 3-day weekend). It’s now 2009 and everyone (except me it seems) has a GPS stuck to their windshield. I still have my Rand McNally Road Atlas from 1998 in the map pocket of my 2006 Fusion. My question is, if no one buys maps anymore and everyone seems to have a GPS, why does almost every car made today still have map pockets on the backs of the seats? And if they are there for a reason, why do we still call them map pockets?
As I’ve been saying since 1846, the Ford “brand” is so amorphous that it wears a set of air quotes. In other words, Ford doesn’t stand for much of anything. It stands for everything (another way of saying nothing): innovation, excitement, great value and family product [sic]. And those are just the four selling points FoMoCo CEO Alan Mulally mentions in the Taurus YouTube video before the editor cuts him off. These days, brand-wise, Ford’s greatest selling point (singular) is that it isn’t GM or Chrysler. Compelling as that may be, it’s not all that compelling. And so The Detroit Free Press reports that Ford is building on its non-GMness by launching a 24-week ad campaign featuring “actual [as opposed to?] Ford customers talking about the features of the Ford vehicles that they like.” Yes, well, does anyone really buy a Ford over a Toyondaissan based on “surprise and delight” features like a capless fuel filler or a built-in refrigerator, neither of which is unique to Ford? I still think The Glass House Gang would be better advised to re-build their brand on the “Built Ford Tough” meme. You?
My girlfriend drives a 1998 SL2 with 185/65/15 tires. One of the four tires has started to dry rot enough that I have to add about 5 psi every two weeks to keep it near it’s neighbors. FWIW the sticker recommends 30psi front and 26psi back but I’ve found the car rides better if I inflate to ~35psi front and ~32 psi rear. The difference is especially noticeable going over speed bumps which are common in my neighborhood and around town. The reality is that the car sees regular use but in mileages that are low enough that dry rot will end a tire before the tread is gone. I don’t need super long tread life. I am however concerned about it being a truly all season tire. Snow depth here is a non issue but dustings of snow, ice, heavy rain, light rain, frequent rain, did I mention rain, oh and dry roads are common. Seriously we are in the SouthEast but East Tennessee is full of hills and valleys.
I’m looking for some recommendations and insight on highway cruisers that would coddle me and my girlfriend on a long multi-state road trip. I’m a tall lanky guy at 6′ 4″, so the Scion xB has been a perfect car for me so far. It’s definitely the wrong car to take for a long trip because it hurts my back, and I can’t stand the engine, wind, and road noise after a few hours. Here’s a list of cars I’ve been researching just to give an idea of what I’ve been looking at on TTAC and other sites: Ford Crown Victory / Mercury Grand Marquis / Marauder Toyota Avalon Chevy Impala / Monte Carlo Chevy Caprice Lexus LS Chrysler 300M Pontiac Bonneville Hyundai XG350. The ideal car would be cheap (<5k), reliable for at least a few months, incredibly comfortable on our bums and backs, and dead quiet. For this car, I wouldn’t care about looks or handling if I could get the above list. Good mileage would be a nice to have too because we’ll cover a lot of miles. Last generation domestic full-size sedans seem to do well on price and comfort. I’m more afraid of the Buicks and Cadillacs because of repair costs. Cost is also a big factor for most of the European sedans. What do you all think? Is there a car I’m missing that would be great for traveling all over the country and then selling?
My boyfriend recently sold his F-150, and we’ve been looking at ’95-2000 4Runners as a replacement. He needs a V6 to tow his work trailer occasionally, and our biggest concern is reliability, then efficiency. We’re working with a $7,000 cash budget. Should we broaden our search to other makes/models?
Chrysler, the U.S.-funded, Italian-run, formerly bankrupt American automaker is leaking its product plans, ahead of their official unveiling in November. Automotive News [sub] confirms that Sergio Marchionne’s minions have decided to spin off Ram trucks into a separate brand, removing the company’s most profitable product from underneath the Dodge umbrella. For once, AN (or at least its mysterious person of interest) understands the full implications. “The separation of the Ram truck brand will allow Fiat to make Dodge more of a performance car brand, the person said. But the move could also make it easier for Chrysler to spin off its truck business down the road if a continuing slump forced Fiat or U.S. officials to consider such a step.” Did you see that? “U.S. officials.” Pay some attention to the Presidential Task Force behind that curtain! In any case, Chrysler and GM are heading into a perfect storm: continued market share erosion, new product constipation and chaos and, sopra tutti, cash burn.
This pitch for a car sales seminar is based on one single assumption: car buyers today are better informed than ever before. Mr. Rodgers even raises the specter of 83-year-olds armed with information they found on the Internet, in hopes of convincing dealership sales staffs that it’s a whole new world out there. Of course the fact that car sales are at their worst levels in years probably helps his argument, but is it true? After all, as TTAC commenter Mike In Canada points out in our most recent Sebring/Avenger bashing post:
Here at TTAC we all love badmouthing these two hunks of junk (God knows I do). But, we are missing the trees for the forest.
Someone is actually buying these things….!
So there are still suckers born every minute, but on balance are car buyers better informed than they used to be? Is that coincidental to the car market’s recent downturn, or did one phenomenon cause the other? Personally, I don’t see a lot of “civilians” making particularly well-informed car-buying decisions because they usually believe a quick decision will be less stressful than taking the time to make the right decision. What are you seeing?
Let’s assume for a moment that Hybrid Kinetic Motors and its planned Alabama assembly plant are not just a visa scam. Say, for example, it’s a visa scam that will actually build cars at some point. Can anyone make sense of the limited powertrain specs we have to work with? We’re told the vehicles will have a 1.5-liter combustion engine, capable of running gasoline or compressed natural gas. The curious part is the “hybrid kinetic” element, which will include a battery-electric hybrid system and, one assumes, some form of kinetic energy storage. Brilliance, the Chinese company whose former executives are behind HK Motors have only shown mild hybrids, leading one to assume this drivetrain technology was not developed there. However, Brilliance does build BMWs in China, and the Bavarians have adapted a “Kinetic Energy Recovery System” (KERS), which was created for Formula 1, for the road. That system uses regenerative braking to store small amounts of electricity which can be used to boost power for short periods. HK Motors’ claim that it will get 45 mpg out of a 1.5-liter ICE sounds reasonable, but the “up to 400 hp” spec sounds like pie in the sky. Unless that kind of power is only available for short bursts in a BMW KERS-style system. And though BMW’s F1 team has abandoned KERS, there’s talk of it coming to road cars like the next-gen M5. So has HK Motors licensed/stolen “flybrid” technology, or is there another system that could plausibly produce these specs? Or, are we wasting our time discussing vapor?
A straight EV at this point isn’t very useful to many people because of the current technology’s limitations. And, for me, hybrids are far too expensive and complicated to consider buying. I’m an ASE certified mechanic (25 years) and work in automotive manufacturing (nobody very important). The big thing that I can’t figure out about hybrids is why have a conventional drivetrain at all? Why not have the car operate similar to a diesel electric locomotive? Drive a large alternator with a combustion engine designed to run most efficiently at [a certain] RPM. Have no idle at all. It’s either on driving the alternator or not running. NVH engineering would only be needed to cope with that one RPM and startup/stop. Put an electric motor to drive each rear wheel. Mount them inboard so unsprung weight will not be increased. Even 4 electric motors or one on each axle if you want AWD. No transmission, driveshaft or differential is needed. That would come close to offsetting the weight of the battery pack.
Years ago, I would see tires with a pattern. That pattern was cut to the base of the tire, and but for tread wear indicators, the pattern of the tire did not change from new to bald. I now have a set of General UHP tires, reviewed on this site. I’ve been happy with the UHP’s overall—while not the Pilot Sports they replaced, they are 9/10’s of the PS for 1/3 the price. Now the tires approach the halfway point of tread wear. The tread blocks and pattern will change in a few places. I’ve noted this on other tires as well. Why do tire makers “tier” the tread patterns today? What advantage will accrue? Do they make the tires louder at the end of service life to encourage replacement? (my last set of Pilot Sports were way loud at the end). Is the rubber formula different and if so, why?
Let’s imagine that Bob Lutz has quit his job (“New GM? It’s a crock of shit!”) and you applied for the job and got it. What would you do? How would you change “New GM’s” marketing? Would you change some of GM’s brands’ slogans (“The New Class in World Class”)? Would you redefine some of the brands? Maybe you know a better spokesman than Ed Whitacre? Maybe a new brand is the order of the day? Bob Lutz does come in for a lot of stick, but could you do any better? Please help “New GM”, you’re their only hope . . .
For those of you unfamiliar with the secret language of telephone-based customer service representatives, RTFM means “Read the F-ing Manual.” Only now, for Chrysler, it’s PTF-DVD: “Play the F-ing DVD.” Automotive News [sub] reports that “Chrysler Group is replacing its traditional owner’s manuals with DVDs and an abridged printed guide in an effort to reduce costs and save 930 tons of paper annually.” Wow! Can you imagine how much better off the planet would be if Chrysler stopped making cars? Just kidding. As for costs, well, taxpayers have sunk over $10 billion in this bad bad boy, so every penny ChryCo doesn’t spend on paper manuals goes to their “Save the Sebrings!” campaign. Uh, how many pennies is that, anyway? “Spokesman Bryan Zvibleman . . . declined to say how much will be saved by the change, which is taking effect with 2010 models.” Declined? As in refused? I like “demurred,” but then I like my euphemisms shaken, not stirred.
Is this a big deal? It sure was to Chrysler (the artist formerly known as “under private equity ownership, we can move much faster than our competition”) . . .
This morning’s New York Times had a jarring headline: “A Proposed Tax on the Cadillac Health Insurance Plans May Also Hit the Chevys.” I swear I thought they meant The Gray Lady was referring to a tax on Cadillac workers’ health care plan. To these admittedly jaundiced eyes (ew), “Hit the Chevys” sounds like something a GMC executive does when sales slide. “Hey, what’s wrong with Joe? Same as it ever was. Hitting the Chevys again? Yup.” Anyway, I can’t remember the last time I heard the phrase “The Cadillac of . . .” (Longtime readers may recall that I made this observation previously when the installation guy referred to my new KitchenAid as “The Lexus of dishwashers.”) When was the last time you heard the Cadillac comparison, and to what did it refer? What, if anything, has replaced it? Meanwhile, if Buick is “The Class of World Class” where does that leave Cadillac? I think the Beatles did a song about that.
The bile triggered by news of my departure (last day November 12) brought back old memories of rancorous accusations of anti-American bias. At the beginning of the GM Death Watch, I had to delete several hundred obscene, hate-filled comments and ban dozens of persistent posters of TTAC Must Die TOO comments. Now, after the fact of Chrysler’s and GM’s bankruptcy, there’s a revisionist theme arising. “Anyone” could have predicted Detroit’s dissolution (many did long before TTAC, of course). And, believe it or not, yeah, well everything’s OK now. New GM is kicking ass. Leaving aside that delusion, I wonder: when was the last moment GM could have turned things around? I reckon it was the day that Bob Lutz and Rick Wagoner decided to spend GM money refreshing their GMT SUVs. IF GM had spent that cash improving their passenger cars AND cutting brands (they could have afforded to do so at the time) AND then got rid of Lutz and Wagoner for an outsider like Mulally, they MAY have dodged the bullet. As I told Stuart Varney, if my grandmother had wheels I’d be a trolley car. Still, what’s your take? When was the last time old GM could have turned it around?
We had a brief word with the IIHS’s Russ Raider, who was quite cagey on the origins and condition of the 1959 Bel Air that was destroyed for the Institute’s 50th birthday. What we were able to get out of him was that the ’59 Bel Air was in “good” condition, with only a little engine rust, leaky hood/trunk seals and non-original upholstery in the negative column. We also learned that the car was procured in Indiana, and with this information we went looking for Bel Airs on the internet. And you’ll never guess what we found . . .
Recent Comments