One of our economy’s biggest engines is brand loyalty: both trying to keep it and trying to break it. If you’ve seen the first episode of the most excellent Mad Men, you’ll remember the scene where Don Draper is trying to figure out why his waiter smokes X brand of cigarettes, while simultaneously musing about what makes Lucky Strikes so damn special. I mention this not only because i’m a recent convert to Mad Men but because I’ve got to reattach the rear view mirror on my fiancee’s Focus. See, I grew up in a GM household. My dad’s dad was a Buick/Cadillac man and once my father got Renaults and Datsun Zs out of his system (i.e. my sister and I were born) it was Buicks, Chevys and Pontiacs to haul us around. Until he discovered Acura. But I digress. One of the big reasons we were GM-only, was because of my mom’s Ford Falcon. I can still see my dad’s eyes rolling back in his head while he says, “three valve jobs.” Never again. At least for my Mom. Me? I’d buy a Ford, despite this POS focus. But after how I was treated by Chrysler after my father died and I had to deal with his leased Jeep (nightmare), I can easily say never again. You?
Category: News Blog
I know: shooting fish in a barrel. (“If only those damn fish would keep still. Martha? Martha! Where are my reading glasses? Damn! I dropped them. In the barrel! I said… Oh never mind.”) But Automotive News [sub] is reporting that Buick is changing its tagline– again– without telling us the new motto. Just in case you’ve forgotten (“Martha? Martha! Where’s my damn medication?”), Buick’s current tagline is “Drive Beautiful.” In the past, we’ve been asked “Wouldn’t You Really Rather Have a Buick?” and told “You’re Better Off With a Buick.” Buick was once “The Beautiful Buy” (hence the outgoing motto), although before that it was more of a head than heart deal, apostrophes be damned (“Smart Buy’s Buick”). And we all know that “When Better Automobiles [crossovers? minivans? SUVs?] Are Built, Buick Will Build Them.” Oh, I forgot “The Solid Feeling.” And the wartime “Buick Powers the Liberator.” And “Better Buy Buick.” And “Buy Buick’s Best.” And “Buick’s the Beauty.” And “It’s Buick Again.” [thanks to oldcarandtruckads.com]
Automotive News [sub] reports that the Tokyo Auto Show could be canceled this year. Debate is raging within the Japan Automobile Manufacturing Association (JAMA) which hosts the show, as foreign automakers stay away and even domestics brands call for a cancelation. But JAMA won’t reveal the confirmed no-shows, and insists that the things must go on in the business of show. “A couple companies are not in favor of organizing the show under these conditions, but that is not JAMA’s opinion,” says Toshihiro Iwatake, JAMA’s executive director and secretary general. “We think the motor show is a symbol of industrial prosperity,” he said. “We have to show that our industry is healthy.” And though Japan’s automakers are as healthy as can be expected, Japan’s cratering domestic market (set to fall under 5m units in 2009) makes America’s down year look like China’s down year. If the Tokyo show is canceled, it won’t be back until 2011. By which time, Japan could be well on its way to becoming a “kuruma banare,” or demotorized society.
The city of Ventura, California escaped paying an Australian red light camera contractor more than $1.7 million as of last June by exercising a questionable contract provision. Under state law, municipalities are required to pay a single flat-rate fee to the private companies that own and operate automated ticketing machines. Ventura claims that it does not owe any money at all because, on May 22, 2006, it signed a contract with Redflex with a “cost-neutrality” clause. “In order to ensure cost neutrality to the customer, customer will only be obligated to pay Redflex from the gross cash receipts received from Ventura County after first deducting customer operating costs,” the contract states. “Cost neutrality is assured to the customer using this methodology as the customer will never pay Redflex more than the actual cash received from Ventura County after deducting customer operating costs.”
“I’ve never quite been in this situation before of getting a massive pay cut, no bonus, no longer allowed to stay in decent hotels, no corporate airplane,” GM Car Czar Bob Lutz tells NPR radio. “I have to stand in line at the Northwest counter. I’ve never quite experienced this before. I’ll let you know a year from now what it’s like.” Hopefully not. Meanwhile and before that, Maximum Bob was busy comparing the Chevy Malibu to the VW Phaeton. On one level, I’m down with that. The VW Phaeton was a stunning car, in an absurdly misbranded, high-tech kinda way. I mean, we’re talking about a vehicle that automatically adjusts the angle of its sunroof at speed to protect occupants from sonic distress. But during his don’t call it The Detroit Auto Show interview, GM Car Czar Bob Lutz proudly reveals that the Chevy Malibu took its styling cues from the ill-fated Phaeton. What styling cues? Of course, there’s more Maximum Bobage to be savored here.
No really. (Remember: we don’t diss Autoblog any more.) Scribe Sam “Is There a Draft Out There” Abuelsamid has noticed a new technology on the otherwise Lincoln WTF– I mean Concept C that’s way cool. I think. “Take a close look at the brake caliper in the photo above. Typically, the brake rotor is attached to the wheel hub and the caliper grips the disk from the out edge. On the Concept C, the braking surface is attached to the inside edge of the wheel rim with caliper wrapping around the inside edge of the rotor… An internal caliper mount has the advantage of allowing a larger effective radius for where the braking force is applied. Since torque is defined as a force applied at a distance from a pivot point, the greater the distance, the greater the braking force. Such a setup allows more brake force with a smaller caliper, which in turn can provide better brake feel since the fluid displacement is smaller. The downside is that changing wheels becomes a much more complicated matter since the brake hardware is mounted on the wheel.” Man, I’ve got to get out more.
The federal bailout bucks propping-up GM and Chrysler’s bankrupt businesses come with political strings attached– that will turn into piano wire with each successive snuffle at the trough. And so it begins… Yesterday’s New York Times editorial called for higher federally mandated fuel economy standards. “[Now that Bush is history] The Obama administration now has a free hand to set its own standards that will save consumers money at the pump, reduce oil dependency and greenhouse gases, and help make the American car companies more competitive. The 2007 energy bill required new cars and trucks to meet a fleetwide average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020, a 40 percent increase over today’s average of 25 m.p.g. Congress intended this as a floor, not a ceiling, and ordered the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to write specific regulations.” Uh-oh…
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is joining a larger veteran’s initiative to create a new program “to increase awareness of the importance of safe driving among newly-demobilized veterans.” Of course, the press release made no mention of the budget for said program. (In fact, they’re studying what to study.) But it did make a case– somewhat– that veterans’ safety needs differ than that of the general population. “According to the Department of Transportation, motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for all Americans between the ages of eight through 34. Men constitute about 70 percent of all traffic deaths. In the past decade, both deaths and injuries from motor vehicle crashes have gone down in the United States, due to increases in seat-belt use and decreases in alcohol involvement, among other factors. Nonetheless, motor vehicle accidents remain a major concern in the military and among veterans as the greatest cause of accidental fatalities. Several studies have reported an increase in post-deployment deaths [ED: percentage auto-related?] among military personnel who served in a combat zone compared to their non-deployed counterparts, who are in the military but not deployed to a war, after both the Vietnam War and the 1991 Gulf War. Preliminary evidence also indicates this is the case with veterans from the Global War on Terror.” Citations? None. Intentions? Honorable. Boondoggle potential? Enormous.
Can you say price war? How else is Toyota going to shift 180k Priora when the market for hybrids has tanked (Prius sales down 44.7 percent in December) and Honda’s Insight has arrived to do battle? In their best year, Toyota shifted 181,221 gas – electric hybrids. The obvious answer: they’re not– barring a sudden recovery of the American automotive market and an increase in fuel prices. (Federal gas tax hike?) Could be. As far as the Insight’s concerned, ToMoCo isn’t. US Prez Jim Lentz told Ward’s Auto there’s room in the market for three hybrids. “You’re going to have Honda at the entry end. You’re going to have Prius kind of in the center, and you’re going to have (the) Lexus (HS 250h) on the luxury side,” he says. “It gives consumers clear choices, a large array of hybrid products.” So much for the Ford Fusion or any GM hybrid, then. Sad; but true?
In the immortal words of Rodger Myers Jr., “You kids don’t know what you want. That’s why you’re still kids, ’cause you’re stupid.” I mention this because a couple of hours ago, Farago posted this little nugget about Generation Y and what they want when it comes to cars. According to the Deloitte survey, the three most important factors are exterior style, price and green. Which Robert categorized as, “complete horseshit.” Hmmm, not a lot of wiggle room there. But, obviously RF’s right. Horsepower is the number one thing a kid cares about, followed quickly by torque and then number of turbochargers. I think. And as commenter bleach said, “Environmentally friendly, eh? I’m guessing that survey also found Gen Y considers abstinence from sex, drugs and alcohol to be cool too.” Ha ha ha! But kids are pretty stupid (see above). So I decided to ask my 28-year-old fiancee (the age range of the survey was 17-28 year olds) what she thought. “Yup,” she totally agreed. Though for her it would be affordability, looks and environmental friendliness. What about performance I asked in a panic? Surely you must want performance? “No. The only people that care about performance are gearheads like you. I just want to go 80 mph on the freeway and get to where I’m going.” I was a bit shocked, especially because this blasphemy was happening under my roof. What about getting on the freeway quickly — surely that had to matter! “Most cars get on the freeway fine.” Safety? “No.” Um — I was fishing around — good brakes, surely. “That would fall under performance. Look, I’m a little spoiled from driving your car, but really price looks and whether or not it hurts the planet sound right.” Gulp. For the record, I’m not marrying her for her opinions on cars. Anyhow, what do you think the kids want?
The talk about US-based A123 receiving federal and Michigan taxpayer funding to ramp up American-made batteries for the plug-in electric – gas hybrid Chevrolet Volt seems to have been much ado about nothing. The AP (via Yahoo) reports that GM “has picked LG Chem of South Korea to supply the lithium-ion battery cells for its Chevrolet Volt.” Apparently mindful of its precarious political situation, GM makes a big deal about the South Korean cells being “assembled into battery modules and packs at a factory in Michigan.” In the mid-80s, I was a young engineer in Silicon Valley’s then booming semiconductor industry, and we outsourced the low tech, low value added final packaging and assembly offshore to places like South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore. Back then, the high value added R&D and primary manufacturing still largely happened in the US. My how times have changed.
“To dial the industry back to a point where it’s viable at 11m is going to be hard – though we’re going to try,” GM Car Czar Bob Lutz promised at the don’t call it the Detroit Auto Show [via just-auto, sub]. “But there’s a question as to whether any car company in the world can survive on an 11m market for a sustained period of time. If it continues I would imagine you’d see massive consolidation in the industry, massive plant shutdowns, massive layoffs and much smaller product programmes.” Needless to say, Maximum Bob doesn’t like that idea one bit. OK, well, a little. “A better proposal is not to get it back up to 17.5m because on a sustained basis you could argue that was an unrealistic number with a financial and housing ‘bubble’ effect,” Lutz said, taking no responsibility for helping to create that self-same bubble. Anyway, thatleaves us… “I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect an industry level of 13 or 14m – with the restructuring we’re undergoing, that’s going to be OK.” When asked if that was a PR-oriented asessement or a promise to stay away from the federal bailout buffet, Maximum Bob showed NFL-quality broken field running. “Talk to Rick Wagoner- I don’t do money,” Lutz demurred. “I do product development – I only spend it.” How great is that?
Honda has launched a new series of short films (well, they say they’re short) about the importance of failure. Not giving up. Kicking out the ladder then lighting the building on fire (WTF?). Surrendering your life to Sochiro at the Temple of VTEC. Something. “Ultimately, we hope these films will intrigue and inspire people by giving them a look into Honda’s unique philosophy—that impossible dreams can be realized through determination, creativity and hard work,” pronounced Todd Carey, associate creative director at RPA, without disclosing what he means by “ultimately” (time delay zen?). But if you’re looking for an endlessly annoying piano riff (are they going to trademark those two notes or what?) or someone talking about how cool it is that they weren’t fired for fucking up, this is the series for you. To be fair, it’s beautifully shot and all the Honda employees speak from the heart. And remember: corporate culture eats executive strategy for lunch.
A Rocky Mountain News investigation reveals that Denver city officials and police made no effort whatsoever to track the performance of their public safety program (a.k.a. red light cameras) beyond counting the 11,200 tickets worth $840,000 that had been issued between June and November. Redflex Traffic Systems, the Australian company that operates the automated ticketing machines at four intersections in return for a cut of the profits, did not submit a single report to the city regarding maintenance or calibration of the cameras, despite being required to do so by contract. The city only requested these documents after the Rocky Mountain News made an inquiry to follow up on the program’s performance. Doh! Another interesting discovery: increasing the duration of the yellow signals has had a greater safety impact than the use of red light cameras in Denver, Colorado. That’s the conclusion of a
Recent Comments