The Meadow Brook Concours d’Elegance is the most prestigious collectors and special interest automobile show east of the Mississippi. Started in 1979 by Don Sommer, a Detroit area collector and restorer, the concours is held on the grounds of Meadow Brook Hall, the 110 room, 88,000 sq ft Tudor mansion built in the 1920s by Matilda Dodge Wilson, in Rochester, Michigan, about 15 miles north of the city. Yeah, that Dodge. John’s widow, Horace’s sister in law. The mansion and the rest of Matilda’s estate are now the campus of Oakland University.

Read More >

Automotive News [sub] dug deep for its latest piece on the Volt project, a sprawling opus which fills in a number of the missing pieces in TTAC’s own Volt Birth Watch. From the birth of the concept (“I was getting so pissed off about reading about how the wonderful, far-sighted Toyota is the only one who understands technology”) to its design (“Within 15 minutes, [John Lauckner] had the vehicle basically laid out”) GM’s Bob Lutz takes us inside GM’s moonshot. So what’s the view like from that tin can now, Major Bob?

Read More >

The Alliance of Automotive Manufacturers has declared the $1 billion-and-counting Cash for Clunkers (a.k.a. C.A.R.S.) program a success. The org doesn’t want any prospect of limited government (the “where do you draw the line” argument) to derail the four-wheeled gravy train. In fact, the Alliance wants the feds to re-up like a coke addict wants that third line. No surprise there. Still, there’s some interesting new info in their latest press release:

Automakers and automobile dealers have seen a significant increase in vehicle sales and dealership foot traffic since the launch of the CARS or “Cash for Clunkers” program.  This increase in vehicle sales is generating important tax revenue for communities where in some cases roughly one-quarter of sales tax revenue is dependent on receipts from auto sales.  And while the program has provided much need economic stimulus to the auto industry, it has also yielded significant energy security and environmental benefits.

Amongst Alliance members Ford reports a 9 MPG increase from trade-in vehicle to new vehicle purchase; GM reports a 54 percent increase in small car sales since the CARS program was launched; 57 percent of Mazdas sold so far under the program were highly fuel-efficient Mazda 3’s; 78 percent of Toyota’s CARS sales volume consists of the following vehicles — Corolla, Prius, Camry, RAV 4 and Tacoma, which average a combined 30 MPG; and Volkswagen reports over 60 percent of its CARS sales are clean diesel Jetta TDI’s which get an EPA combined 34 MPGs.

Read More >

Consumer organization Which? surveyed more than 84,000 drivers in The Land of Hope and Glory to establish which new cars suffered the fewest breakdowns, faults and niggles. In the process, they established which vehicles suffer the most breakdowns, faults and niggles. While we wonder about the exact definition of “niggle,” if not the survey’s complete methodology, here’s the bottom of the list. In the perverse dark lining in the silver cloud way of this site, see the winners after the jump. [thanks to G Arlt for the link]

The 10 least reliable new cars

112. Hyundai Santa Fe 82.2%

113. Jaguar S-type 81.2%

114. Volvo XC90 80.6%

115. Land Rover Freelander 80.1%

116. Ford S-Max 79.9%

117. Land Rover Discovery 79.5%

118. Alfa Romeo 159 79.0%

119. Jaguar XF 78.0%

120. Ford Galaxy 76.3%

121. Audi A5 75.8%

Read More >

Do you have a vehicle that was eligible for the government’s CARS program until the EPA revised old mileage averages? If so, your vehicle is no longer eligible for the $3,500-$4,500 incentive. If you had set up a deal before the final rule came out, however, the government will hook you up regardless. “We’ve tried to come up with the fairest possible solution under the circumstances,” CARS’ long-suffering spokesman, Rae Tyson, explains to Automotive News [sub]. But it’s hard to see what exactly is fair about that. Didn’t NHTSA specifically warn that “if a dealer chooses to structure a transaction before the final rule is issued, they will bear the risks associated with later demonstrating that the transaction meets all of the specifications of the final rule”? Why are the folks who ignored the warning being rewarded, while those who waited for the rules get the shaft? More importantly, if anyone got away with engine-melting a 1987 Alfa GTV (recently reprieved by the EPA mileage mulligan), there are going to be phones ringing in at least one congresscritter’s office. Hit the jump for a complete list of clunkers which saw their eligibility change due to the EPA revision.

Read More >

Speaking of barnyards, someone forgot to tell Ford watchers not to count their chickens until they hatch. The MSM is ready, willing and able to pronounce the Blue Oval Boyz’ turnaround plan for the ailing American automaker as good as done, and skip the “it worked!” part of CEO Big Al Mulally’s canonization. The Detroit News is down with this fait accompli meme. “As one fund manager who controls a sizable chunk of Ford’s stock and bonds put it: ‘The biggest threat to Ford’s future is that Mulally steps off the curb tomorrow and gets hit by a bus.’ Such sentiments, blunt as they may be, are a testament to the progress Ford has made since Mulally took over as CEO in September of 2006. He predicts the company should settle into profitability by late 2011.” So that’s it, then, save “Mulally is no stranger to success” and “He’s been an agent of change” and “For many Ford employees, he has rock-star status” and I think they ought to think it out again.

Read More >

Think your clunker gets 18 mpg combined? Plan on cashing in on the CARS clunker rebate program? You might want to double check those EPA numbers over at fueleconomy.gov.  As part of the buildup to the Cash For Clunker program, the EPA undertook “quality assurance and quality control effort regarding fuel economy calculations on more than 30,000 vehicle model types spanning the past 25 years.” But according to CNN Money, this pre-stimulus housecleaning turned up bad data for about 100 vehicles and ended up changing their clunker rebate eligibility. Although “roughly” the same number of cars became newly eligible as became newly ineligible, this news came as a nasty surprise to owners of the 1993 Camry V6 wagon, 1995 Saab 900S, 1988 Toyota 4Runner and the 1987 Mercury Grand Marquis. And since the EPA’s statistical quality control didn’t take place until the official launch of the program, some shoppers had their deals planned out before realizing that their trade-ins were too efficient to qualify. Meanwhile, dealers have their own complaints about the program.

One anonymous dealer writes:

I wish you would let us opt out of the cash for clunkers deal. Three dealers on the conference call stated that they were not fucking with this bullshit. You wouldn’t believe the bullshit involved in this. I don’t see this costing us any significant sales. We will waste more time fucking with this than it will ever be worth. The rebates are in place to subsidize the deal. Collecting our money will be a full time job.

Toyota has been remarkably upfront about its struggles with “Big Company Syndrome.” The fate of Toyota’s predecessor as the world’s largest automaker is an unavoidable example of what awaits giant manufacturers that lose their focus. And yet, as Toyota has replaced GM as the big daddy of car building, it keeps making eerily familiar mistakes. And its no surprise that Toyota’s challenges tend to center around marketing and brand management (hello, Scion). Toyota’s brand is a by-product of its obsession with manufacturing, rather than an independently developed, carefully-maintained image. The trademark Toyota brand qualities of quality and reliability are built on dedication and reputation, not the modern-day alchemy of marketing, sales strategies and brand-pushing. So why is Toyota telling Automotive News [sub] that it’s creating a wholly-owned subsidiary to coordinate global marketing and advertising? And why is Akio Toyoda going to be running the new marketing realm?

Read More >

Yoga teacher and ForbesAutos refugee Matthew De Paula has brought his zen insights and love of top ten lists to MSN Autos. Given the popularity of the genre (which we now usurp in the name of truth, justice and the American way), Bill Gates’ Boyz must be happy enough with the result—although Matt makes a few choices that will surely give pistonheads pause. We report, you deride. Well, we do too, but I’m sure you catch my drift.

1. Ford Fusion — I’m not saying De Paula is a Detroit apologist, but if ever a qualifier seemed po-faced, well, here it is: “The Ford Fusion doesn’t just hold its own against competitors, it beats them in some ways: The least expensive 4-cylinder Fusion is as fuel efficient on the highway (34 mpg) as the pricier Toyota Camry hybrid.” And that’s it: the only way mentioned. Oh wait. “The updated 2010 Fusion uses higher-quality materials, has better fit and finish, and a quieter ride than the model it replaces.” Don’t you just love it when relative excellence means relative to itself? Me neither.

Read More >

While Ford and GM consider building their mid- and full-size cars on a single platform, Toyota and Nissan are already doing it. The Avalon has been based on the Camry platform since its inception and now Nissan is giving us an Altima-based Maxima. The key to pulling this trick off successfully is differentiating the resultant cars visually and dynamically, and preferably aiming them at different market segments. Did Nissan succeed at this mission, or did they just give us an Altimus Maximus?

I have nothing against the Toyota Prius. It’s the car’s mystique that irks me. You know what I’m talking about: the whole “Toyota Pious” thing. As someone who’s read rational reports from Prius-owning TTAC commentators, as a pistonhead who understands that there’s more to driving a Ferrari than beauty and performance, I swear I’m OK with the hybrid’s PC mantle. But the Prius’s high MPG numbers and green street cred tend to stifle the debate on some important points.

Point One — Are Prius Owners Hypocrites?

Prius drivers swear, “It’s not about all about me.” I’m not buying it. If owners didn’t want people to know that they’re doing their bit for the environment, why has the Prius’ distinctive shape been such a boon to sales? Is the Prius that much more fuel-efficient than its competitors that it deserves to dominate the US hybrid market?

Aside from a small badge and different wheels, the Honda Civic hybrid looked just like every other Civic. Did it sell well? No. Honda Accord hybrid? Nope. Is it any wonder the new Honda Insight is a Prius clone?

There’s no question that the Prius gets great mpg (51/48 for 2010). But I suspect Prius drivers want more: they want us to know they’re saving the planet one car at a time.

Again, that’s OK. But there are limits. A Prius is not a free pass for the hybrid’s owner’s total “carbon footprint.” Or is it? This summer, how many Priora will park in front of chilled McMansions?

Point Two — Shouldn’t the Prius be More Energy Efficient?

Surely a driver concerned about the environment can open and close their windows manually. The electric windows extra motors and wires add unneeded weight and use precious energy. By the same token, why air conditioning? Isn’t the A/C compressor and all of its needed wiring, blowers, hardware etc. wasting energy? What effect does r134a have on the environment?

Why does the Toyota Prius offer an optional ten speaker JBL sound system? For years, we got by with just two or four speakers. Prius drivers could listen to their favorite tunes without the extra power, draw and weight of speakers and amplifiers.

And what of the leather seats? Shouldn’t Toyota fashion the Prius’ chairs, carpeting and other interior materials from some composite derived from recycled plastic bottles or part soybean oil (a la Ford)?

And what about the extra money spent on all of these options? Wouldn’t it be better if Prius buyers purchased de-contented vehicles and sent the money to an appropriate environmental organization?

Point Three — Is the Prius REALLY That Efficient?

No question: the Toyota Prius is a clever piece of kit. The car’s Synergy Drive system’s internal combustion engine (ICE) generates electricity for a battery which supplants or assists ICE power in various ways at various times, according to engine load. The Prius also recaptures and reuses braking energy. Equally important, the car sits on skinny tires. And it’s slow.

So what would happen if you equipped a Prius with the world’s most efficient internal combustion engine; a powerplant that would match but not exceed Toyota’s Synergy Drive’s Prius performance?

I’m not suggesting a HUMMER is less energy intensive to produce, operate and recycle than a Toyota Prius. And again I’m not against the Prius, Toyota or Prius owners per se. But it should be asked: is the Prius set-up the best use of our resources?

The same question applies to electric cars. There is a lot of talk in the media about the merits of the electric car and not much debate about the reality. Electric cars need batteries. Batteries need electricity [mostly] generated by fossil fuels. A gallon of gasoline far exceeds a battery in its energy density.

And what of the batteries charge level?

A gasoline car maintains its performance right down to the last milliliter of gasoline. Whether you have a full tank or a quarter tank, there is no discernible performance loss. A battery, on the other hand, shows a significant power loss in a non-linear fashion as it discharges. Ever see what happens when your electronic device gets down to 25 percent power? It performs erratically. Discuss. Meanwhile, I leave you with one final question:

Point Four — Is There A Better Way?

Take the existing Corolla and strip out any unnecessary weight. Next, maximize the engine for gas mileage. The target demographic certainly be able to tolerate decreased acceleration times in the interest of more efficient fuel consumption. (Toyota has extensive experience with diesels; a diesel powerplant should be assessed as well.) Fit the interior with lightweight materials or recycled composites.

How would this low-touch, high-mileage Corolla carbon footprint stack up against the Prius? And if the stripper Corolla offered substantially better efficiency than the Prius at the same price, would Prius owners make the switch?

Earlier this week, J.D. Power gave the automotive world a new score to ponder: the Vehicle Launch Index (VLI). This addition to the survey giant’s quality canon aims to measure how well manufacturers launch new or redesigned models. It’s a worthy endeavor; a new model’s success in its first few months often predicts its long-term sales and profitability. But what do these new J.D. Power scores tell us? In the immortal words of Jeff Spicoli: I don’t know.

This first set of VLI scores includes 27 models introduced in the first ten months of 2008. The top scorer: the Hyundai Genesis. The bottom scorer: the Toyota Matrix. Speaking to Automotive News [sub], J.D. Power Senior Vice President Gary Dilts characterized the Hyundai luxury sedan’s launch as “flawless;” a characterization that captured the media’s immediate attention and pleased the Korean automaker to no end. The rear wheel-drive sedan’s score: 689 out of 1,000. Flawless? On a curve?

That’s only the first of many VLI oddities. The VW Routan falls just three points shy of the 582-point average. The slow-selling German-engineered (or not) minivan had a decent launch—who knew? The Audi A4 ranks much lower, tying with the now-defunct Pontiac G8. So should Volkswagen of America aim for more launches like the Routan’s, and fewer like the A4’s? Meanwhile, the Ford Flex, which has had an agonizingly slow start and (according to J.D. Power’s IQS) poor initial quality, ranks near the top of the VLI.

How can models that are selling poorly or that have poor initial quality attain decent, even high scores for their launch/re-launch? Drilling down, J.D. Power’s VLI scores include turn rate, vehicle revenue, dealer gross profit, incentive spend, credit quality, residual value, customer appeal and initial quality.

J.D. Power’s famous Initial Quality Survey (IQS) combines two totally different elements: design quality and mechanical quality. As a result, the line between them is muddled. In fact, it’s still not entirely clear what a particular IQS score represents.

With the VLI, J.D. Power has taken this lack of clarity to a whole new level. Where the IQS has two subscores, the VLI has [at least] eight. So when looking at any particular score, it’s impossible to say what it represents. The Ford Flex and VW Routan did well at . . . some things. The Audi A4 blew it with . . . maybe the same things. Maybe something else. Who knows?

These model subscores aren’t the only part of the VLI that J.D. Power’s keeping from public scrunity. The actual formula has also been kept under wraps. Nothing is said about how the variables and weights in this secret formula were determined—except that the formula followed from “carefully analyzing more than 90 vehicle launches.”

Without knowing this formula, it’s far from clear how much weight each factor receives. Judging from the scores, initial quality doesn’t carry much weight. Nor does how close a model comes to achieving its sales targets. Maybe all eight-plus factors are equally weighted, such that none of them carries much weight by itself?

One thing is clear: the VLI isn’t evaluating launches from a car buyer’s perspective.

Car buyers, who’ve learned to be wary of buying a new model in its first year, are focused on their need for information on a vehicle’s initial reliability. “Appeal” they can judge with their own eyes. They couldn’t care less about dealer profitability and inventory turns (whatever that is). Car buyers’ needs would be much better served by a metric that focuses on initial reliability and that provides this information as quickly as possible. [Fair disclosure: Mr. Karesh’s TrueDelta offers a Car Reliability Survey offers that information.]

Of course, it should come as no surprise that a J.D. Power-crafted metric would focus on the manufacturer’s needs. J.D. Power earns its millions by serving manufacturers, not by serving car buyers. Their M.O.: persuade manufacturers that they need a high score based on a proprietary formula, then sell them the data and consulting services that will help them boost their scores.

In the official press release, J.D. Power offers some tips to its corporate benfactors gratis: set realistic prices, set realistic sales targets, style the vehicle well, and achieve high initial quality. (Notable by their absence: advertising and PR.) Of course, everyone in the biz already knows this much; much as everyone knows that the way to lose weight is to eat less and exercise more. The hard part isn’t knowing what should be done, but doing it.

Meanwhile, J.D. gets another service to sell to the biz, while auto industry execs get more hardware for their ego shelf and another bullet point for their resume. Well good for them. But the VLI’s yet another example of car biz navel gazing, a metric that marginalizes a central, well-established fact: the customer comes first.

Bloomberg is quoting “two people familiar with the plan” (now it’s three) that Toyota’s pulling the plug on their joint venture with Old GM. “The company will negotiate the timing of the closing with Motors Liquidation Co., an entity responsible for the disposal of the assets GM shed in bankruptcy, said the people yesterday. They declined to be identified because the information wasn’t public.” But but but . . . it IS public. You know; now. Anyway, three days ago, ToMoCo was angling for government “assistance” and union “flexibility,” telling the world that it hadn’t made a decision on whether or not to terminate the project once and for all. Toyota’s North American chief executive  Yoshimi Inaba said the decision “depended on possible aid from California lawmakers, labor contracts for the factory’s union workers that expire in August and NUMMI’s financial viability.” As Toyota is not known for, uh, lying, I reckon the jury is still out.

The supervisory board of Volkswagen met in Stuttgart today, a symbolic act that documented the occupation of formerly enemy territory. The board of Porsche had pulled an all-nighter before and prepared everything for the surrender: A capital increase was approved, facilitating the entry of another party. A deal with Qatar was sanctioned. The heads of Wiedeking and Härter were presented to the victors on a titanium platter.
Read More >