Well, the fat lady done sung. Only it was a thin president who ended TTAC’s Chrysler Suicide Watch. Lucky for us (if no one else), the Prez also promised to keep the dead automaker alive, through a fresh injection of federal funds. Obama didn’t specify the price tag for this zombification, but the bidding starts with the familiar “b” word, and octo-mom would recognize the number. As you know, Obama justified his ongoing intervention in Chrysler’s journey to liquidation by pimping the un-dead (now dead) American automaker to Italy’s own automotive English patient. So it’s time to get on with the business of tearing the Fiat “merger” idea to shreds. In this unenviable (but gainful) task, I’m aided by Jennifer Clark of the Dow Jones News Service. Jenny’s Chrysler-on-the-block piece arrives under the odd title “Chrysler Chapter 11 Filing May Aid Fiat Turnaround.” Go figure.

Miss Clark’s analysis begins with some Detroit News-like cheerleading from a hand-picked optimist. “A Chrysler bankruptcy filing could be a wonderful opportunity for Fiat,” said Jerry Reisman, a bankruptcy lawyer at Reisman, Peirez & Reisman, who predicts a speedy procedure. “All of Chrysler’s debt will be dealt with in court, so Fiat will know exactly what it’s buying. It will be a new Chrysler.”

It’s a shame Reisman wasn’t my divorce lawyer. Or, conversely, it’s a blessing. The Chrysler C11 case will involve hundreds of Chrysler creditors. Thousands of Chrysler dealers. Dozens of Chrysler debt holders. And they’ll all be represented by Reisman’s colleagues AND hamstrung by a building full of megalomaniacal bureaucrats. Reisman’s faith that a bankruptcy judge will sort this Fiat-finagled farrago in short order is almost as delusional as Chrysler’s initial hopes for the Sebring.

And the clock is ticking. “How will the company keep going for 18 or 24 months until the new product is brought to market?” asked Mark Fulthorpe, director of European vehicle forecast at CSM Worldwide. “They can’t rely on the U.S. government.” Silly me; I thought that was the whole point. But point taken. Even if Chrysler’s new boss opts for a short-term “solution” to the automaker’s glaring lack of commercially appealing products—say, by slapping a Chrysler badge on an imported Fiat—the federalization process required is neither cheap nor fast.

If, heaven forfend, the Presidential Task on Automobiles (PTFOA) bullies the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to relax its rules on product safety, Chrysler would still be SOL (shit out of luck). The move would open the way for Ford to bring over its Euro-models, which would slaughter Fiat’s models in the market.

Or not. There is no proof that anyone’s European models would do well in the US and plenty of indication that the exact opposite is true (Merkur much?) Otherwise, plan B (or plan A as it’s called) calls for retooling American factories to build Fiats. Huh? Why not just improve current Chrysler models? If American automakers should have learned one thing from this debacle, it’s that the constant pursuit of the next big thing puts an automaker on a hiding to nowhere.

And then there are the cultural problems. Let’s assume that the PTFOA is calling the shots at post-C11 Chrysler (only because it is). So now they have to ming with Fiat. And Chrysler’s new CEO (to be named later). And the United Auto Workers. Let’s also assume they can all work together in perfect harmony. Quickly, efficiently and, above all, profitably. And while we’re at it, let’s assume that someone makes a non-fat, low-calorie ice cream that tastes better than Häagen–Dazs ice cream for, I dunno, half the price. Yum.

Funny thing about Häagen–Dazs: it’s a made-up name created by two Polish immigrants in the Bronx. But the branding is killer. As is Chrysler’s, only in the literal sense of the word. Even with Barack Obama personally guaranteeing Chrysler’s warranties, the automaker’s Chapter 11 is the kiss of death. On a corpse, if we’re going down the icky route.

I know: I recommended a ChryCo C11 at the start of the old series. Well, as any S.E. Hinton fan will tell you, that was then, this is now. Now that Detroit has used up all its goodwill by sucking up seemingly endless (’cause they are) subsidies, the stench of bankruptcy is overpowering. If buyers avoided Chrysler like the plague before, they will now avoid the Auburn Hills zombie like Ebola. Which, coincidentally, ends with a vowel, Italian style.

Counterpoint! “Carlos Ghosn proves it can be done: Ghosn is chief executive of France’s Renault SA and alliance partner Nissan Motor Co. of Japan.” Yes and no. Ghosn brought Nissan back to life, but he didn’t do it by selling rebadged (or retooled) Renaults in the US market. He did it the hard way, through evolution, over time. And Nissan still got slammed by the economic meltdown.

Nope. Chrysler is an evolutionary dead end, a walking zombie waiting for the marketplace to blow its head off. And TTAC will be there.

Hmmm, new Nissan QX? Nissan rumored to be replacing the current Armada-based vehicle with a Japan-sourced vehicle, and this seems like just the ticket to keep up with the Lexus LX-leasing Jonses.

As GM’s journey to bankruptcy nears its conclusion, the punditocracy is busy contemplating the company’s afterlife. The current line of thinking: the feds will cleave General Motors in two. Bad GM gets Buick, GMC, HUMMER, Pontiac, Saab and Saturn. Good GM “buys” Chevrolet and Cadillac. It emerges from Chapter 11 unencumbered by outdated production facilities, warring management, befuddled marketing, over-priced labor, restrictive union work rules, astronomical pensions and onerous health care obligations. Chevillac rises from the ashes to steal share from both mainstream and luxury brands, repay its debts and thumb its nose at Bailout Nation’s critics. But here’s the thing: good GM is “saving” the wrong brands.

“What’s a Chevrolet?” branding guru Al Reis asks, rhetorically. “It’s a small or large cheap or expensive car, truck, SUV or sports car.” Reis has been sounding the alarm on Chevy’s branding for over twenty years, claiming the company lacks the focus it needs to survive in a market place with over 40 competitors.

So how could the liberated Chevrolet rebrand itself for success? “Get rid of the trucks,” Big Al suggests. “Take Chevy back to its roots. Make it what it was before Saturn arrived: an entry level car brand.”

Yes, well, what would distinguish this new Chevy from its competitors? Toyota owns reliability. Hyundai owns price. Nissan owns value. BMW owns driving pleasure. So. . . what? “It should be an American brand,” Reis says. Even if the cars are made somewhere else like, say, South Korea? “These days consumers don’t care where their products come from. Ralph Lauren’s clothing is made in China.”

When I push Reis for a unique selling point for Chevy, he hesitates. I can almost hear him shaking his head. “It’s too late to narrow its focus,” he says. “Other than appealing to patriotism, there isn’t anything left.”

I suppose Chevy could play the patriotic card, returning to the brand’s former “baseball, hotdogs and Chevrolet” appeal. It could even play off its taxpayer subsidy to assert itself as “America’s car company” (yes way). Chevrolet could offer comfortable, affordable and reliable American-styled sedans. Sort of like the groundbreaking Chrysler 300, only better.

Fine, but I doubt the US market would value four-wheeled flag waving enough to make Chevrolet profitable. Remember: Ralph Lauren’s WASPy brand ID convinces customers to pay a premium for his Chinese made apparel. If Chevy can’t charge a premium for these “all-American” products, it will have to compete on price with some of the world’s most efficient automakers. Why would the end result be any different than it is today?

Cadillac sits on the opposite end of the scale. As Lexus, Mercedes and Audi have proven, you don’t have to restrict yourself to one automotive genre to be a successful luxury automaker. But, like Chevy, like any car company, it’s all about the brand. The CTS may be as good as an equivalent BMW, but in this rarefied air, perception trumps product.

“If someone goes down to their golf club and says ‘I just bought a Cadillac,'” Reis says, “it doesn’t mean anything. It doesn’t mean you’ve made it.”

Restoring the Cadillac brand to the pinnacle of automotive desirability would require a multi-billion dollar investment in new products and an equally expensive marketing effort. At the same time, Cadillac would have to abandon its current willingness to maintain volumes with badge-engineered bling. Does Cadillac have the time/will/money to ditch/evolve their current lineup and make and promote the kind of world class cars that could reinvigorate the brand?

No.

Meanwhile, GM is throwing the baby out with the bath water. Buick, meh. But GMC is a strong brand that would gain strength the moment Chevy transfers all its SUVs and pickup trucks to the professional graders. Assuming the US economy recovers sometime before the next century, the pickup market will return. And after driving the Chevy Tahoe hybrid, I’m convinced there’s more room for the genre’s fuel efficiency, packaging, durability, safety, style, convenience, etc.

HUMMER may be the antithesis of President Obama’s vision of the American automobile’s future, but it’s an instantly recognizable brand. HUMMER’s underlying concept—SUV as survivalist’s enclave—still has resonance. Saturn has the touchy feely thing happening. It could be the home of green vehicles. American sports cars? Give Pontiac the Corvette, Solstice, Camaro and a performance brand is born. Saab could return to its roots an, uh, do whatever it is Saab used to do.

Alternatively, nothing. While resurrecting two or more of GM’s eight brands is doable, so is going to the moon. Judging from recent polls, Americans are more willing to fund lunar colonies than pour endless billions into GM.

That’s because they know that Uncle Sam isn’t “protecting ” or “investing” taxpayer’s money by subsidizing GM. They’re gambling on a loser. “GM has destroyed the equity of eight car brands,” Reis says. “You could almost say that’s what they do best.”

Mike writes:

I just thought I’d pass on an ongoing good/bad incident. First the bad: my wife’s 2003 Neon went into the dealer with a mysterious problem that they have determined requires replacement of the cylinder head. In a dramatic departure from my usual luck, the car is still under the 7/70 warranty so the expense will be small.

However the factory has informed them that they do not have a replacement. They are now checking with other dealers. Given that the Neon sold in numbers that Chrysler can only dream about attaining now, I cannot imagine this bodes well for anyone who bought a current Chrysler product.

Read More >

Props to automotive consultant Maryann Keller for calling for GM to get its shit together, I mean “create a sense of urgency” since 1875, or thereabouts. Kudos for Keller’s willingness to predict a GM C11 early and often. And praise be for loaning TTAC the writing talents of Mr. Ken Elias. OK, so. . . Keller’s column in Automotive News [sub] is suffused with Annie-like optimism for a post-C11 GM. With one a catch. Chevillac’s success depends on the “smaller, leaner and cost-competitive company‘s” ability to secure a champion who can administer strong medicine to GM’s poisonous corporate culture. Before we deal with Ms. Keller’s “if you build it, he will come” theory, here’s a taste of her sunwillcomeouttomorrowism:

Let’s face it: Much of the success of the Japanese auto companies in the United States came about as a result of Detroit’s failures. GM, Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler made it easy for the competition by not matching them in quality, not renewing their product lineups on a timely basis, virtually ignoring the sedan buyer and diverting resources away from North America and even away from auto assembly.

If GM restructures quickly, it can emerge as the low-cost producer in North America and use that position to gain market share quickly.

I don’t see how Chevrolet or Cadillac can become low-cost producers in North America. Does anyone seriously expect Chevillac’s UAW employees to labor for lower wages than their non-union American counterparts? Or, for that matter, Korean or Chinese workers? So where’s the competitive cost advantage going to come from? More efficient factories? Streamlined management? Better marketing? What?

Even if Chevy could undercut its competitors’ costs, gaining marketshare, never mind gaining market share quickly, is so far from a done deal it may not even be possible, never mind likely.

Chevrolet is not a viable automaker. Aside from pickups and a superabundance of dealerships, they ain’t got game. The Volt is an inside joke.The Malibu isn’t stealing significant sales from Toyonidssan. The new Camaro is a niche product. Ditto the Corvette, only more so. The Aveo is a piece of crap. The Traverse surmounts nada. Etc.

In fact, rebuilding Chevy isn’t simply a matter of throwing billions at existing products, or spending billions on creating new ones. It would take at least decade to do something about the brand itself, which is both damaged and virtually meaningless.

In contrast, Cadillac doesn’t need cost savings; it need vehicles that are significantly better than those made by Lexus, Audi, BMW and Mercedes. Cadillac also needs a stronger brand than its German or Japanes competitors. This for the automaker hell bent on building a station wagon, a rebadged SUV-lite, a blinged-out Tahoe and a lower-priced sedan than the CTS.

While MAK’s right that the transplants built their initial success on Detroit’s failures, there’s no reason to think the “usurpers” will now drop the ball. Though MAK tries to make the case:

Ironically, some of GM’s competitors aren’t looking invincible anymore. At ¥100 to the dollar, imports from Japan aren’t profitable. Nissan Motor Co. will lose money this year; and, despite Carlos Ghosn’s magic, it has yet to demonstrate consistent product strength.

Toyota Motor Corp.’s quality is not rock-solid anymore. The residual values of its vehicles are falling, and product proliferation is confusing buyers and dealers. The blind quest to be No. 1 left Toyota with global excess capacity.

Sorry, but Toyota and Nissan are hardly standing still. They’re rectifying their mistakes, readying themselves to keep kicking Motown’s ass. And what of Honda? Hyundai? Ford? Fiat? Just joking.

Anyway, MAK thinks Chevillac’s future comes down to people. True, but what are GM’s chances of finding someone to lead Chevillac to victory?

The GM board of directors bears responsibility for the company’s fate. The most important responsibility of the board is naming and firing the CEO. . .

The GM board deserves a failing grade, and the new GM deserves directors who will be fully engaged. The new board has to ensure that the vitality of the new company isn’t squandered as soon as there is evidence of a comeback.

This would be a good time to mention the fact that a federal committee is in complete control of GM’s Board of Directors. They just fired GM’s CEO, and installed his clone at the helm. How confident does that make you feel?

Not that I’m suggesting that an unelected federal quango made up of bankers and non-auto industry types is incapable of choosing a kick-ass BOD for GM, who would choose the right CEO for the job. I’m saying it.

I never owned a share of General Motors during my 28 years on Wall Street and in the 10 years since. But if bankruptcy delivers a low-cost, competitive company, I’m ready to buy.

And if there’s a clean, low-mileage 2007 Ferrari F360 going for $20k, I’m in. Meanwhile, not.

Mike Dulberger recently gave us the 411 on Forbes magazine’s “Most Dangerous Vehicles of 2009.” According to the safety campaigner, Forbes spiked his concerns about the [S]mart ForTwo’s safety. During the course of our discussions, I asked Mr. D. to right that wrong: send me the “real” 10 most dangerous new vehicles for sale in the US. And so he did. Those of you of a statistical bent can download Dulberger’s data dump for the dangerous decern here, including all the factors that comprise his SCORE index. And here are the updated stats for ALL 315 new vehicles for which Dulberger’s non-profit, informedforlife.org, has calculations. As you might expect (if you knew the man), Mike’s got something to say on this terrible table. Jump for same, and his list of the ten most potentially deadly vehicles . . .

Read More >

C’mon. This whole Fiat and Chrysler hook-up is a joke, right? I mean, what could possibly motivate an Italian car company that got its ass kicked seven ways to Sunday in the US market for peddling sorry-ass rust buckets and [almost] providing some of the worst dealer service in the history of four-wheeled transportation to re-enter the fray under the Chrysler banner? That’s like Kodak teaming-up with Polaroid to make high end digital cameras for the Japanese. Like Cambridge’s instant photo folk, ChryCo’s business model is so busted all they’ve got left is an iconic brand name (Jeep). And there are still plenty of Americans who know that Fiat stands for “Fix It Again Tony.” So what’s it all about Alfetta?

Explanatory theories are floating through the autoblogosphere. The Fiat – Chrysler plan is an Italian head-fake. They’re having a peek at what they can buy when pennies from C11 heaven start to fall. Or Fiat’s “rescue” plan is a cunning ploy to use U.S. taxpayer money to fund Fiat’s American aspirations. After all, they got $2b from GM for not merging with GM. With inflation, that’s got to be worth at least $8b in today’s freshly-printed dollars. And then there’s a far more likely motivation for all this Mopar madness: ego.

The US car industry is a “yeah, too quiet” kinda place these days. The Presidential Task Force on Automobiles (PTFOA) has done the cappo si tutti cappo thing at GM: silencing Car Czar Bob Lutz and cashing ex-CEO Rick Wagoner’s bankruptcy-proof pension check. Wagoner’s clone, an overpaid caretaker who goes by the name of Fritz Henderson, has all the charisma of four-day old cod fish.

Ford CEO Alan Mulally is the same again, only fresher and more swordfish-like (if you know what I mean). And having learned that discretion is the better part of a $240m severance package, Chrysler CEO Bob Nardelli has sent out a memo saying, “Him! Let him run the company! Or them!”

In short, the American automotive industry doesn’t have a single charismatic spokesman at this, its hour of need. Which no doubt suits PTFOA chairman Steve “Chooch” Rattner. But it doesn’t alter an immutable fact: the auto industry is an ego-driven business.

Remember when we were discussing the strategy of Kirk “The Lion of Las Vegas” Kerkorian (ready to chill with Walt Disney), as his major domo (arrigato) Jerry York joined GM’s board and told them to sell something, anything, before the lights went out? Or the going, going, Ghosn GM – Renault merger?

That was then, and this is now. Now we have Sergio Marchionne. The Italian auto exec’s stolen the spotlight. He’s busy holding court—I mean chairing meetings. Issuing pronouncements. Making ultimatums. Flying hither and yon in Fiat’s private jets (yes, they still have them). Scheming. Dreaming. Coveting ChryCo’s CEOship. And putting on a show for Fiat’s shareholders.

To wit, the Wall Street Journal reports that “Italian carmaker Fiat SpA (F.MI) shares surged over 10% in Milan Friday, as investors expect a deal between the Torino-based company and Chrysler to be finalized by the end of April.”

How a ChryCo hook-up will help Fiat’s CEO achieve his profit target ($1.3b for 2009) in this moribund market is anybody’s guess. But the limelight does wonders for Marchionne’s rep in his native Italy, insulating him from the sales disaster waiting for Fiat’s politically-fixed sales incentives to expire.

Lest we forget, Sergio is, like Wagoner and Henderson, an accountant by training. Who started his career as a tax specialist. In other words, Marchionne’s a man whose craves attention not to say adulation. Which motivates the Canadian – Italian to rush in where any sensible corporation fears to tread. No, really.

“Canada was a mixture of pain and pleasure for the Italian teenager,” Canada’s Globe and Mail reported in a Marchionne profile. ‘Trying to get friendly with girls with whom you cannot communicate was a problem,’ he said.”

Surely this isn’t all about appearances, is it? Don’t call Sergio Shirley.

“The [Fiat] board room has a frescoed ceiling that would not look out of place in the Vatican Museum,” the Globe reports in a more recent article. “Coffee is served in fine china on a silver tray. The employees make sure the place is well stocked with Murattis.”

And so, here we aren’t. Chrysler’s private equity owners tried to dump the failed American automaker on China’s Chery (Hornet much?). Cerberus then tried to off-load their automotive non-fortunes onto Nissan (Hornet that, Titan this). And now they’re trying to palm off the whole schmeer on Fiat. Well, the U.S. government really. With the help of an egomaniacal Italian who either knows better and doesn’t care, or should.

Of course, you could say that the same thing about all parties concerned with this, Chrysler’s final fling, before it slinks off into that long goodnight.

This year is going to be a devastatingly bad one for car valuations. If you’re a keeper, this is great news. New and near-new cars are going to continue with their proverbial freefall. You will more than likely be able to get a good vehicle with 80 percent of its useful life for 40 percent of the price (two to four year old vehicle). The frugalists amongst the keeper crowd will likely do even better than that. A well-engineered seven- to nine-year-old vehicle may truly be the best sweet spot in the market right now. With some diligence, you can find a conservatively driven car with 50 percent of its life (90k to 120k miles) for a mere 20 percent of its new car price. But what will be the absolute best deals? Read on . . .

Read More >

Let me take you down, cause I’m going to. . . GT-R Fields. Almost nothing is real, whether you’re talking about the ridiculous Nurburgring-centric engi-marketing, the programmed-to-self-destruct transmissions, or the amazing shrinking customer warranties. Still, there’s nothing to get hung about (so to speak). The entire concept behind the GT-R—building a car that more or less steers itself to people who can’t drive for shit, live in downtown Tokyo, or both– is stranger than any LSD trip John Lennon could have possibly imagined.

The New York Times reports that hecklers are verbally assaulting GM’s booth babes at the New York Auto Show. Worse, the glamor girls are wearing last year’s dresses. Literally. This is not what you’d call death with dignity. This is GM on federal life support, drooling and soiling itself uncontrollably as it waits and waits and waits for someone somewhere to pull the damn plug already. As I’ve asserted in the past few episodes of this series, I no longer believe GM can be revived. The company is brain dead. No matter what cancerous parts of The General’s terminally ill body Uncle Sam’s surgeons separate from the corporate body, GM can’t function as an independent entity. Chevrolet and Cadillac? Building what? For whom? At what profit? Both of those brands are money losers losing market share right now. They may have volume but they ain’t got game. Of course, that’s not going to stop the feds from trying to revive GM. And boy, are they—I mean “we”—going to piss away a LOT of money.

In 37 days the Presidential Task Force on Automobiles (PTFOA) will force GM to file for Chapter 11. A friendly bankruptcy judge will then split the artist formerly known as “the world’s largest automaker” into “good” GM and “bad” GM. “Good” meaning a new(ish) American carmaker, freed from a mountain of debt, pesky union contracts, health care obligations, pensions, unprofitable brands, outdated factories, commitments to Delphi, etc. “Bad” as in all that worthless NSFW piled into one place, where the creditors can squabble with each other over its worth until death do them part.

This the PTFOA will do in the name of jobs, jobs, jobs. Or, more accurately, finding a way to support GM with [your] federal tax money without completely alienating the 70 plus percent of Americans who are against supporting GM with [their] federal tax money.

Politically, the split makes sense—but only if the US government takes an equity position in the “new” GM. See? We didn’t throw billions of dollars worth of your hard-earned money down a rathole. We used it to help GM rise Phoenix-like from the ashes. It’s an investment. Uncle Sam gets to make a new cake and eat it too because GM’s current U.S. Treasury loans (call it $22.8 billion) are secured, backed by all of GM’s assets, including the assets owned by its subsidiaries.

The Fed’s claim on GM is junior only to the existing, secured, revolving credit facility (a pittance at about $5 billion). I repeat: GM’s federal loans are senior to all GM’s creditors, including the retiree trust claims (around $27 billion), GM bondholders ($29 billion) and the trade payables owed to suppliers ($22 billion).

Moving forward, leaving all of those “stakeholders” behind, “good” GM is looking for another $22 billion from the Treasury to fund its future operations. Oh, and an additional $6.6 billion to develop energy efficient vehicles and $6 billion from foreign governments. If Santa leaves all these presents under GM’s Christmas tree, all of this new money would ALSO be senior to existing unsecured creditors, ahead of payments to bondholders, the retiree trust and creditors.

Again, in exchange for their largesse, US (and foreign) taxpayers get a stake in the new, relatively unencumbered “Good” GM. The Treasury Department converts all of its current and upcoming senior secured debt into  junior preferred stock. Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you, American Leyland.

Here’s the worst part: what if it doesn’t work? What if the PTFOA puts the paddles on the new, cancer-free GM and the patient fails to revive? I mean, if consumers are ignoring, eschewing and even heckling “old” GM, why does anyone think that “new” GM will recover or even maintain life-sustaining market share?

To pull that one off, Chevillac would have to steal customers from Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Hyundai, Ford, Mercedes, BMW, Infiniti, Audi, Lexus and all the rest. In five years, maybe. Short term? No NSFWing way. Damaged brands, damaged company. And if this American Leyland plan bites the dust, all of that preferred stock will be completely, 100 percent worthless.

Alternatively, the PTFOA could put GM into Chapter 7 and let someone try to make a go of whatever bits are make-a-go-able. And if politics demand it, Uncle Sam could spend that $34.6 billion worth of additional funds sending every UAW worker and supplier employee and Detroit-area pump jockey a big fat check.

Assuming (as we must) that common sense has nothing to do with this, the flip side is the really scary bit. What are the feds willing to do to “protect” their (your) investment in GM? As the “investment” gets larger, so does the pressure to make sure it doesn’t fail. The PTFOA has already fired GM’s CEO, gelded its Board of Bystanders and manipulated the bailout bill to send the automaker tens of thousands of sales. What’s next?

Whatever it is, you can bet it won’t benefit the American consumer.

A Stanza wagon? What the NSFW! Before you run for the exits/bookmarks, give me a minute to spell out my Curbside Classics criteria: 1) at least twenty-five years old; 2) used as a daily or regular driver; 3) shows the patina of age; 4) has a significant place in automotive history; 5) has a place in my personal automotive history; 6) has distinctive design features; 7) has an enthusiast following; 8) represents the unique carscape of Eugene; 9) is under-appreciated; and 10) inspires me to write about it. Believe me, the boxy Nissan (a.k.a. Prairie) is worthy. Read More >

Fair disclosure: I’ve just finished an e-mail correspondence a Ward’s employee who insulted my professional honor. On her or off her? Definitely on her. That’s the best offer I’ve had all week. But seriously folks, if my expense account hadn’t suddenly disappeared, I’d send these guys the animated version of Atlas Shrugged. As Dash Parr (a.k.a. Incredible) moaned, saying every one’s special is like saying no one’s special. I mean, eleven winners? “All 35 [considered] vehicles were divided into six car and truck segments based on price. One winner is named for each of the six categories, plus special-achievement honorees are selected in five other areas. The 11 awards carry equal weight.” And I’m sure that’s exactly what you told the manufacturers so honored. Who are . . .

Read More >

Regular readers know that I’m resolutely anti-auto show. Long before the current international auto industry meltdown led Nissan, Mitsubishi, Land Rover, Rolls-Royce, Porsche et al. to pull out of the North American International Auto Show, I proclaimed the events an enormous waste of time, money and effort. And boring. And outmoded. And so I will again, as I go talking-head-to-talking-head with CNBC’s resident Motown apologist Phil LeBeau (8:30 p.m. EST). In terms of autoblogospherical representation, CNBC is usually Jalopnik’s patch. I’m guessing Ray wasn’t ready to step up and criticize his bestest best friends at this most wonderful time of the year. Either that or he’s speed dialing CNBC right now, and I’ll get a call any second telling me to stand down. UPDATE: view the segment here.

Land Rover? Indian-owned manufacturer of four-wheeled global warming devices by appointment to the Queen? The very same. The BBC reports that Landie has scored a $400 million “loan” from the European Investment Bank (Banque Européenne d’Investissement). While you’re wondering where the EIB figures in the shadowy conspiracy to create a world government (under the aegis of the Rothschilds), let’s show Auntie Beeb a little love for their mastery of English as she is spoke.

Jaguar Land Rover said it could be a number of weeks before any cash was handed over. Sources at the company were more cautious, stressing that whilst they were confident the money will be approved, they did not want to assume it would.

So other than calling the payment a “loan” (boy does THAT sound familiar), how does the EIB justify running roughshod over World Trade Organization (WTO) prohibitions against government subsidies? Environmentalism, of course. Wait; Land Rover? Yes.
Read More >

A TTAC reader writes: “Did you read the Wards AutoWorld article about how full Chrysler’s product pipeline is?  So inaccurate. I had to throw away the magazine because of it.  As a former product planner for Chrysler up until April of last year (on the Jeep WK (Grand Cherokee)), I can tell you the state of the business that I knew.

There was plenty of pinching on the interiors of the cars. We called it the “thousand dollar challenge;” which included reducing the amount of leather in the car seats (think lower back and where your butt is, but not the back of your thighs; all else vinyl). At the same time, unrealistic volumes were driving business decisions, with calculations for how JNAP [Jefferson North Assembly Plant] will be filled on three shifts for WK, endless management reviews and preparation for management reviews—leading up to a canceled product (CT, WC).

Chrysler tried to make product lines profitable by figuring out how to maximize profit by take rates and bundling. Eliminating an engine on the vehicle ultimately makes sense for reduction of complexity, but from a business case perspective, it is almost always negative (upcharge on the optional motor).

Now working in a different industry altogether, I get a sense of just how management-focused Chrysler had become. That is something the Germans can take credit for. There’s much more structure in the product development process, with the resultant inability to make a decision and endless preparation for meetings.

The “dream team” that Cerberus built was not. Specifically, the two Toyota execs were remedial. Jim Press was well liked internally, but Debra Meyer was not overly bright. She spoke and presented well, but she didn’t know cars.

I hear now that if you discuss the understaffing of ENVI relative to their proposed task you face retribution. I’ve also heard that the Jeep Patriot concept car/electric vehicle was nothing more than an interior (with cool cluster), Viper style wheels, and some other minor stuff. Nothing electric about it. Good PR tho.

They actually lost almost 35-40% of their staff in the Nov 26 buyout of white collars, not including the additional 10% they retired early (totaling then almost 50%). Of my product planning department, exactly none were left.

Brand Management and Product Planning have since been merged, an event that took until January to announce. They lost a month because they didn’t know who was going to be left, they didn’t tell people before they made a decision what was to be their future etc.

Look what happened to Mopar guys. They were mostly contract guys working for a 93 grade band supervisor. They outsourced all of the jobs to suppliers and transferred some of the contract guys over there.

XXXXXX XXXXXXX  was one of the suppliers (plastic injection stuff among others). They told their guys that they were not able to work them the full 40 hours a week due to financial limitations (payments from Chrysler?) and that they’d get one day off a week (in addition to the 10% pay cut). THEN they said you need to work five days a week and simply book those comp days for the future (where you’ll never get to use them).

They really don’t have any idea of how to approach their business. They are building a WK (2- row only), a WD (3-row Dodge), an LX that the dealers council said needs to look more different than the existing model (the one that they showed in the filing to the government to get more dollars was the revamped one, the one before was even more vanilla but not much different), and no other product that I am aware of.

I heard (was not directly involved) that the D-segment quotes from Nissan were within single digit dollars of their projected internal costs to do it inside. With only 100 people on that platform working previously, they were definitely going outside. Now virtually all of those people are gone (retired or bought out).  Normally 600–700 are required on a platform.

Internally, a platform’s profitability depends on how much overhead is assigned to it. The WK  was over-assigned overhead, to the point where it was always negative. Usually it was based on sales + an arbitrary amount decided by management. The WK was always under water with the fully accounted system we used (DCAV). But I think it was an attempt to make the platform stretch for profitability (hence the unrealistic volumes).”