Last week, our man Thor translated a Q & A with Peter Horbury in Automotorsport.se. Ford’s former global design director was recently demoted to his roots: head of Volvo design. Sadly, Automotorsport failed to discuss Horbury’s career reversal. Equally unfortunate: I had to inform Mr. Johnsen that we can’t lift entire articles. (Automotorsport.se denied our request to republish the piece.) We can, of course, publish excerpts. And Horbury is, like all car designers, a veritable fount of designer-speak. Or not. You’ll see what I mean. Meanwhile, here’s the warm-up for the money shot: “Horbury always missed the sea and the forests surrounding Gothenburg. ‘I like the Bohuslän nature with its clean lines, exactly as I believe car design should be.’He pauses, thinking.But soon enough he makes a metaphor between U.S. and European design, and how Yanks often exaggerates certain design elements while the European design tradition is more stylish, simpler. . .”
AZ Central reports that the usual logic—the worse the economy the higher the crime rate—doesn’t apply to this current, uh, economic downturn. Especially when it comes to grand theft auto. “Automotive theft stands out as having decreased most sharply,” the e-paper reports. “Thefts are fallen by about a fifth. So far this year, 243 autos have been stolen in Peoria, down from 305 in the first half of 2008.” Obviously, there are LOTS of variables in this sort of thing: population trends, policing, etc. But at least one insurance biz guy reckons car thieves are losing the battle between genetics and anti-theft technology.
Frank Scafidi, a spokesman for the National Crime Insurance Bureau, said the decrease in auto thefts is consistent with national trends and signifies that the market for stolen cars is changing.
As newer cars become harder to steal, “fewer garden-variety knuckleheads” are going to be able to take them, Scafidi said.
As of now, I’d say Ford has momentum and will outsell GM in the U.S. next year–and maybe even for one month this year.
Jerry Flint wonders (via Forbes) when, not if, Ford will overtake GM. Why?
GM, with its larger lineup, outsells Ford easily in cars, but the overall difference after seven months is only a 197,637-vehicle lead for GM (GM: 1,135,674 vs. Ford at 938,037). And some 172,000 of this lead are GM models to be sold or discontinued, such as Pontiac.
“We think in some markets Chevrolet dealers will be able to improve their sales and profitability by 20, 30, 40, even 50 percent.” GM’s vice president of U.S. sales made his promise/prediction/delusional rant to GM’s remaining bow tie-branded store owners, as reported by Automotive News [sub]. The remark comes hot on the heels of Chevy supremo Brent Dewar’s pronouncement that the U.S. new car market will grow by 15 percent next year. I suppose LaNeve reckons Chevy stores will capitalize on this fantastic rising tide. “GM expects each surviving dealership to increase sales next year by at least 25 percent over 2009.” Yes, well, will Chevy dealers’ [theoretical] sales increases match the overall market? In other words, NOW how much will they get paid? But wait, there’s more! “Over the next 18 months, GM will boost advertising spending for each division well above amounts in the first half of this year. LaNeve said advertising that starts next month will be a ‘creative breakthrough’ intended to quickly change consumer perceptions.” Hey, wasn’t Cadillac the break on through brand? And wasn’t LaNeve its head? How did that turn out, then?
We have run out of patience. We have been calm so far, listened diligently and made comments, but that is over now. If nothing changes from General Motors’ side by the end of this week, then we will be active, and there will definitely be spectacular measures from us.
Opel Work Council (Labor Union) Boss Klaus Franz glowering on German radio (via Automotive News [sub]). Meanwhile, anonymous GM sources tell the Financial Times that “Germany have expressed interest in having Magna, but there might be other [financing] sources. This is what we are currently exploring.” It doesn’t sound like anyone is anticipating peace for our time.
There is nothing in the record that suggests that plaintiff’s (Lamson’s) particular act — refusing to report to work because unlawful trade practices might occur there — enjoys high social value.
Oregon Supreme Court Justice W. Michael Gillette in his opinion finding that whistleblower protection does not apply to “business practices that pose no threat to public health or safety.” The business, in this case, being the selling of cars. Kevin Lamson was fired from Crater Lake Motors in Medford, Oregon, for (allegedly) refusing to participate in a sales campaign led by Real Performance Marketing that (allegedly) used deceptive and misleading tactics. According to Gillete’s opinion (by way of the AP/Google), Lamson’s suit “did not involve interests of sufficient public importance to support a claim that plaintiff (Lamson) was discharged for fulfilling an important societal obligation.”
Autoblog occasionally gives me flash-backs, as they have with their blog on the Devon GTX.
The California-based design studio and upstart automaker created the GTX as an American answer to the ultra-exclusive sports cars hailing from Europe. Housed within the steel structure and carbon fiber body lies an 8.4-liter V10 putting 650 hp (at 6,100 rpm) to the rear wheels through a six-speed manual gearbox.
But credulity has its price:
Devon plans to produce 36 cars each year, carrying a price tag of $500,000, with a racing package commanding another $25,000.
USA Today re-joins the cavalcade of media outlets helping GM destroy as much Volt “buzz” as possible via premature recapitulation. Yes, it’s a recycled review of the Volt that fails to address questions surrounding the Hail Mary-shaped plug-in hybrid’s internal combustion engine (ICE). When does it kick in? How does the car behave when it kicks in? What’s the Volt’s operating range? What’s the mpg when the ICE is operative? Of course, you can’t blame USA Today for this sin of omission. GM has point blank refused to let a journalist drive the car in “extended range” mode. But you can blame the media for pretending they’re reviewing a “real” car. Of course, they always mention it at some point in the “review,” but, by then, the un-damage has been done. As for “GM and the government are discussing how to calculate a realistic fuel-economy number,” we all know how that turned out.
Tuning of the gasoline engine. It wasn’t operable in the test cars, so there was no hint of how smooth and quiet it’ll be when it comes on to charge the batteries, if needed.
“The New Trabi will be a stylish car with a history. It will be electrically powered because that is the trend.”
Herpa Miniaturmodelle spokesman Daniel Stiegler on his firm’s plan to jump into the car game with an EV Neo-Trabant. Stiegler went on to say that the Trab-E “will not be a retro car.” Whatever you say. Just watch out for the charging cable issues that plagued an actual car company’s “stylish EV with history.” Oh, and make it better than this.
Holy shit, another GM website? I swear I’ve lost track of GM’s online PR blitz—and I do this for a living. Let’s see . . . GM, GMfactsandfiction, GMeuropefactsandfiction, The Lab, GMreinvention, GM-volt, tellfritz, Fastlane, GMblogs (both YouTube and Twitter), four new eBay California partner sites, and I’m sure there’s more. Well, there’s at least one more: Chevroletvoltage.com. And on this august (August?) website, GM Marketing Maven Maximum Bob Lutz is busy defending GM’s decision to announce that the Volt will get 230 mpg in city driving—deploying his usual combination of condescension, cheerleading, willful ignorance and prevarication.
Ford made $2.1 billion or whatever last quarter and they’re still wanting more concessions, more concessions.
UAW Local 249 President Jeff Wright to Fox 4 News Kansas City. By “whatever,” he actually meant “a $424 million pre-tax operating loss and $1 billion of cash burn, with $2.3 billion net income thanks only to one-time ‘special items.’” Or whatever. But Bloomberg reports that the UAW has “concession fatigue” and wants Ford to accept less favorable terms than GM and Chrysler. Hey, UAW, remember “bailout fatigue?” Taxpayers were told to shut up and keep the largesse flowing. Try following the example.
“We were too optimistic on timing. Maybe what we should have done was not bought it.”
Cerberus Capital honcho Steve Feinberg in a New York Times takedown on his private equity bid to turn Chrysler around. Ya think? So where did The Old New Chrysler go wrong? Was it simply “one of the investments made at the very top of the credit bubble,” as a Harvard Business School professor puts it? Or was it that “Cerberus did not have a clue about the automotive industry,” as a former Chrysler employee claims? Or was Cerberus’s investment of $7.4 billion not enough in the first place? Probably all of the above, but whatever the correct diagnosis is, it’s lost on Feinberg. “I don’t know what we could have done differently,” he says. “From the day we bought it, we worked hard to improve it.”
Recent Comments