Bloomberg reports that Honda has dialed-back its US sales predictions for the Insight hybrid by a third. “First-year Sales of Honda’s gasoline-electric Insight, which debuted at U.S. dealerships in late March, may be between 50,000 and 60,000 units, John Mendel, the company’s U.S. executive vice president, said in a June 11 interview at Honda’s U.S. headquarters in Torrance. ‘I don’t think we’ll get to 90,000.'” (Bloomberg sat on this story for four days?) Apparently, Mendel forgot to explain the discrepancy between expectation and reality—so Hizzoner’s family firm did it for him . . .

Read More >

Why would GM’s VP of sales and marketing for North America expect his company’s [remaining] dealers to contact their elected representatives to support Government Motors’ dealer cull? Times two when you consider that GM is planning on making another round of dealer cuts in the future. “Hey. It’s Mark LaNeve. Thanks for lobbying for our downsizing. Oh, by the way, you’re next.” No, I’m not making this up. Here’s the e-mail, complete with fill-in-the-blanks phone script. [Thanks to you-know-who-you-are.]

Read More >

Even if I were a billionaire, I would still buy the store brands at the local supermarket. Names really mean nothing to me and the better deals always seem to be with the unproven or unpopular brands on the bottom shelves. Especially if they come with the right coupon as an incentive. When it comes to cars, I generally have the same attitude. Yes, there are brands that I personally disfavor on the low side (Daewoo-based Suzukis) and on the high side (BMW) as ‘keeper’ cars. But in between I’ve found a lot of great cars that simply carry the wrong name on their hood. And the loser – winners are . . .

Read More >

When Jay Shoemaker reviewed the 2010 Prius, he castigated it for its dead-feeling controls, strange operating procedures and total lack of soul. He concluded: “But I have a feeling that one day soon we will be able to drive something that gets outstanding mileage while stimulating its operator in the process.” Mr. Shoemaker, your car has arrived. May I present the Volkswagen Jetta TDI?

Now that New GM is aborning, does Toyota feel obliged to become old GM? Seriously. I’ll forgo the recap (feel free to discuss this amongst yourselves) and get straight to the latest ill-advised Toyota: the new Lexus HS250. Yes, they’re right: they’ll sell 25,000 of the suited and booted Prius clones in the first year (which says bad, bad things about the Volt’s prospects BTW). And I’m sure the HS’s hybrid powertrain will kick ass, ’cause the Lexus LS 600hL is a sweet motor. But why are these Lexus guys constantly chasing volume, in a Cadillac kinda way? And if you think I’m just putting the hate on ToMoCo (Death Watch transference?), consider the fact that the group vice president of the Lexus Division for Toyota North America is seeing lights at the end of tunnel—just like the federal teat suckling infernal optimists over in Detroit.

Read More >

Over the last year, as this unparalleled automotive sales depression has picked up steam, I have observed unprecedented vitriol directed at both Chrysler and General Motors. Here on TTAC; on Autoblog, Jalopnik, CarDomain, et al.; and in the mainstream press, the companies receiving federal aid have been criticized. I just couldn’t understand it. It’s as if the only vehicles these companies ever built were the Jeep Compass and Pontiac Aztek. Critics seem to have completely forgotten all the great cars both companies are building right now and have built over the years. At the same time, they’ve overlooked Chrysler and GM’s importance to their employees, suppliers and countless communities from coast-to-coast. “Stakeholders” who have a direct impact on as many as one-in-ten domestic jobs.

Then came the contentious debate about bailing out Chrysler and General Motors which culminated in President Obama’s address on March 30. Obama gave Chrysler thirty days fix its balance sheet and close its alliance with Fiat—or face liquidation. GM was given an additional thirty days to restructure itself or face bankruptcy. While Chrysler came within days of escaping bankruptcy, a few of its dissident bondholders balked and Chrysler was thrown into a Chapter 11 filing that many pundits felt it would it would ultimately result in liquidation. While many observers rooted for it to failure, Chrysler has emerged from bankruptcy with unprecedented speed. Congratulations.

Back in early November, in what seems like a lifetime ago, the talk in the automotive world was of a possible “merger” between GM and Chrysler. I thought that this was a bad idea and would quickly lead to the dismantling of the Auburn Hills automaker and the loss of at least 30,000 US jobs. I came out and said that there was a far better partner for Chrysler who needed small car technology that they couldn’t afford to develop on their own. That partner was Fiat, which had the obvious and complementary need to sell vehicles in the United States in its quest to become a truly global automaker.

On January 20, Chrysler announced it was in serious partnership talks with Fiat to merge their operations; a move that would help both cope with and survive in the deepening worldwide automotive sales depression. This sales implosion was not only was impacting weak regional automakers but successful global ones like BMW, Honda, and even Toyota. All were seeing sales volumes declining by 40% or more as the virus was spreading around the globe.

Then, as now, I believed that an alliance with Fiat was Chrysler’s best and probably last hope for survival and was pleased to see yesterday’s deal between Chrysler and Fiat concluded. I truly believe that it will have a positive impact on both companies and will give us, as car enthusiasts, additional choices. After all, what can possibly be bad about Alfa Romeos returning to our shores?

Meanwhile, it should be said that other nations have taken extraordinary steps to protect their home-based industries. Why shouldn’t we do the same, especially since we have provided completely open access to our market allowing them to build their export industries? For example, I have absolutely nothing against Hyundai and Kia. But what’s fair about the fact that South Korean manufacturers can sell more than 600,000 vehicles a year here in the United States, yet our manufacturers sell fewer than 10,000 units annually south of the 38th parallel?

Last year, when driving to cover the Los Angeles Auto Show, I was forced to take a detour off the freeway. I stopped at a Starbucks in the Asian enclave of Alhambra off I-10 to get my e-mail. As I pulled into the parking lot, I noticed something strange: there wasn’t a single American brand car in the lot. While there were a few BMWs and Mercedes, every single car in the lot was of Asian origin. I walked into the Starbucks thinking to myself that Asian buyers, consciously or unconsciously, appear to buy homogeneously, supporting their nation’s car builders. Why don’t Americans? It’s because our market is so open that we can. In retrospect, maybe this explains why the American public—and our politicians—gives our own companies such a cold shoulder.

I hope the restructuring of General Motors is ultimately successful. The fact that some are calling for a boycott of “Government Motors” strikes me as absurd. Collectively, we as Americans will soon own 60 percent of New GM. Why would we not buy vehicles from a company we own?

[Read more of Rich Truesdell’s work at automotivetraveler.com]

In recent months we have seen the Obama administration nationalize the majority of the domestic automobile industry. A recent poll indicates that a decisive majority of Americans think this is a really, really bad idea. Furthermore, the action is illegal. The Constitution of the United States of America has endowed the congressional branch of the government with the sole power to spend money. Article 1, Section 9: “No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law [i.e., by the legislative branch].” This makes the financial seizure of General Motors with money appropriated by congress for the use of stabilize the banking system a brazen act of embezzlement. (The witless leader of the House of Representatives says that King Obama has not requested that they pass legislation authorizing expenditures to GM and Chrysler, so it must not be needed.) And so there has been cry among some right wing bombasts to boycott the purchase of GM cars. This too is a bad idea.

Twenty-six years ago my father traded in our family Buick for a Toyota Camry. It was the first time that a Buick had not darkened our family garage, but this car, a gas guzzling ’77 Skylark had been fraught with problems from the first day that we brought it home. I vividly remember watching the red vinyl-topped gray car get dragged by winch out of our La Mesa, California, garage onto a flatbed the morning after dad brought her home because the transmission had seized. The tranny was fixed and we had her back in a few days but at 30 thousand miles a multitude of other components began to fail. Before long my folks were ready for something much more dependable and something that provided a little relief at the pump.

The cream colored Camry was a breath of fresh air blowing in from across the Pacific. The Toyota felt light and maneuverable after the stodgy Buick and the high-revving I4 engine loved to sing while delivering 35 mpg on the highway.  The steering was nicely weighted and, other than excessive body roll, it handled reasonably well. And despite accusations to the contrary, it was safe, comfortable, and did not rust and blow away.

By the time the Camry arrived I was driving and was highly attuned to all things automotive. The country was in an uproar because the domestic steel industry was in full meltdown and Motown’s long decline was already underway. The mantra of those attempting to guilt trip the country into buying over-priced second-rate domestic manufactured goods was, “Buy American.”

My response was, “Buy the best.” Even then it was clear to me that sheltering the manufacturers from superior competition would only exacerbate the problem. Sure, “Buying American” might provide some short-term relief to the complacent industries, but it would rob American consumers the best goods and remove the incentive for what was left of domestic manufacturers themselves. If Americans “Buy the best,” the market will stay strong and healthy, fueling an economic engine that will continue to provide jobs and pull people—at home and abroad—out of poverty.

Today, to those that advocate boycotting General Motors, I say, “Buy the best.”  Right now The General has numerous products that should be on any consumer’s short list. Chevrolet Corvette, Cadillac CTS, Chevrolet Camaro, Chevrolet Silverado, Chevrolet Malibu, and the Pontiac G8, come to mind. In business we say, “Feed success and starve failure.” These cars are successes and deserve consideration—even if Mr. Goodwrench now lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

The Obama administration, or anyone’s administration for that matter, lacks the expertise and motivation to make a success out of something as complicated as the manufacture and marketing of automobiles. If they remain control of GM for long, its products will undoubtedly become outclassed by stronger free competitors. But that day is not here yet, so “Buy the best” even if it means condescending yourself to buy from a government-owned company.

To those who think that a government-owned auto industry is a wonderful marriage of the greatest attributes of the public and private sectors, I would ask, would you trust the next George W. Bush (Sarah Palin?) that gets elected to manage the domestic auto industry? Eventually it will happen and there will be regret, even if Obama manages to make lemonade out of GM lemons in the near term.

Let political considerations be political considerations and let your choice of cars be for that car that best serves your needs and wants at the price you are willing to pay. Eventually Congress will become re-staffed by those that recognize their mandate in counterbalancing excesses and misuse of Executive Branch power. As in the 1980’s, politics must be remedied in polling booths, not in dealership showrooms.

I drive a Prius regularly. It’s time to correct a few myths about hybrids:

1. A hybrid’s drivetrain is the most important part of the car

Sometimes a drivetrain is just a drivetrain. The hybrid gets all of its fuel from gasoline, so it’s just a way to drive a bigger car with a smaller engine and save gas. The hype from those who haven’t driven them much is about saving the planet, and using less gas is certainly an environmental benefit. But, really, the Prius is just a well-built practical car with good economics (100k miles, great maintenance record, cheap fuel cost, paid off, etc)—with enough cachet that you don’t look poor when you drive it. If you really want to save the planet, ride a bicycle (which I do, several days a week), walk, or make your own fuel somehow.

2. The Prius is a lousy car

Jay Shoemaker’s recent review of the 2010 Prius totally missed the point of the car. He essentially claims it is a weird car and wasn’t fun to drive. He’s entitled to his opinion, and it’s clear that he shouldn’t own a Prius (Jay should stick with the sports cars and performance sedans that he likes so much). However, for the rest of us, the Prius is an A to B car. It’s a grocery cart. It’s a household transportation appliance.

The Toyota Prius isn’t the car for everyone, but it is a nice little practical car, if that’s what you need. Green-evangelists and automotive pundits miss this entirely, though for drastically different reasons. Boring A to B cars for boring people like myself; they should probably be evaluated by different standard than a fun car that happens to be able to carry people and cargo. The volume and shape of the cargo area is more important than the 0 – 60 time.

3. Hybrids are just like any other car

Like switching from a manual to an automatic, switching to a hybrid drivetrain takes some getting used to. Toyota went to extraordinary lengths to hide this fact, but the fundamentals shine through. My girlfriend, who has driven the Prius for most of it’s 100k miles, is weirded out by the jerks and the abrupt RPM changes that happen when a automatic transmission shifts. It sounds like it’s CVTs and hybrids for us for the “family” cars from here on out. Personally, I’m most comfortable in a manual or a hybrid, since that’s what I’ve driven for most of my miles. No wonder the guy who panned the 2010 Prius didn’t like it.

4. Hybrids are the only “real” way to save gas

In addition to driving the Prius, I’ve owned a VW Jetta TDI. It was a wonderful car (except for the accursed 01M 4-speed automatic transmission), and its mileage approached that of the Prius. My 500cc Kawasaki Vulcan regularly exceeded 50mpg, and it only cost $4500 brand new off of the showroom floor. Also, I hear that a Geo Metro can exceed 50mpg. The easiest way to save gas is just to make the vehicle smaller and lighter.

The term “Hybrid” isn’t code for “saving the world.” Hybrid is code for a smooth efficient drivetrain that some people don’t like because it’s not “fun”, whatever that means. “Hybrid” does mean “I get to drive a bigger on the same amount of scary foreign oil”. Fortunately, the Prius and the Volkswagen TDI series are both small cars — so, if you were going to be driving a Ford Explorer, they do translate to real-world savings.

Volvo deserves its What Car? Green Car award. Saving gas the conventional way is just as valid. “Hybrid” isn’t magic anything, though it does help to save a little gas. The Prius would be a grocery cart with any engine.

What Car? magazine’s award for the year’s greenest car goes to the Volvo S40 DRIVe. The British magazine picked the diesel because its CO2 emissions are basically the same as a second generation Prius, but it’s considerably more fun to drive. The car is not available in the States, and the Honda Insight and 3-gen Prius were not available across the pond in time for eligibility. Still, it makes one wonder: Is the hybrid really the way to save the planet. I’ve driven both the S40 (regular gas) and the Insight, and, well, it’s like comparing apples and ice cream. If I could get all my vitamins in a scoop of Ben & Jerry’s, I’d never hear a crunch again, know what I mean?

The Volvo puts out 104 grams of CO2 per kilometer. Toyota is claiming the 2010 Prius puts out 100 grams of CO2 per kilometer. For comparison sake, that’s half of what an Audi A8 emits.

Enthusiasts consider this idea every once in a blue moon. “If you could have just one car for the rest of your life, what would it be?” Last-gen BMW M5? Porsche 911? Corvette? Pontiac G8? Lotus Elise (just kidding). But how about folks who don’t care about cars? What should they get? The Camrolla and Civords would likely be at the top of the lists for the frugal and apathetic. But maybe a Grand Marquis or Crown Vic Interceptor would do fine. Then you have pre-Daimler Jeep Cherokees, RWD Volvo wagons, Subarus of certain stripes, and old Benzes that may now require German translations and Indian parts. The 10+ year old used car world has several winners for the tightwad crowd. But what about new and late model cars?

Read More >

They say that “Less is more”, whoever they are. The Lotus Elise would seem to be a reasonable proof of that statement. Most of the Elises sold in the United Kingdom are 134-horsepower models powered by the same Toyota engine which, bolted to a base (in all senses of the word) Pontiac Vibe, permits America’s daytime strippers to make their late-morning commutes without mechanical incident. From what I’ve read, the base Elise is a stimulating, wonderfully balanced sporting car that permits man and machine to operate in perfect “B-road” harmony.

Auto Motor und Sport has driven VW’s “Blue Concept Sport” roadster (in concept form, limited to 100 km/h), and praise its agility, steering precision and weight distribution (48:52). Not to mention it’s near-production feel. Word is that the two-liter diesel (180 hp) convertible could go into production by 2013 at a €22k-25k price point. Building the better MR2 sounds like a good place to correct one of Toyota’s major errors: surrendering the fun.

General Motors is at war with itself. Thanks to a staggering, though not unexpected, lack of decisiveness, GM’s management has managed to completely alienate its major, public-facing “stakeholder”: GM dealers. Without the guys on the sharp end moving the metal, General Motors might as well declare bankruptcy and surrender the keys to the executive washroom to a 25-member federal quango led by Washington insiders with no manufacturing experience whatsoever. Oh, wait. In fact, GM needs its dealers even more now that it’s a zombie than before, when it was also a zombie (but didn’t know it). And of all the items of GM CEO Fritz Henderson “to do” list, not throwing GM’s entire US dealer network into chaos should have been somewhere near the top. I want to say something about a “race to the bottom,” but I’ll let you connect those dots.

Last week, GM CEO Fritz Henderson faced a Spanish Inquisition from the company’s paymasters. Senator Rockefeller wanted GM’s former CFO to explain his rationale for cutting over 2000 dealers from the roster. Fair enough, right? If you’re going to unleash a political shitstorm by shit-canning a large, politically-connected, highly litigious, battle-tested, lyin’, cheatin’, boozing, whoring, testosterone-fueled group of GM “customers” (the dealers are the ones who actually buy the cars from GM), then you want to make sure you have your proverbial ducks in a row.

Oops! Fritz forgot his Ross Perot-ian “We’re In Deep Shit for Dummies” charts back at Days Inn. Or did he leave them on the plane? Rick friggin’ Wagoner just HAD to fly to D.C. in the Gulfstream to beg for bailout bucks, the bastard. Senator Rockefeller also wanted an actual list of dealers culled. Damn! I must be wearing a different jacket! Anyone remember the scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark, where Indy casually shoots the scimitar flailing baddie? GM’s the dope with the flashing steel.

THIS is how the new, “smarter” GM rolls? It gets worse. On the same day that Henderson failed to defend the company’s decision to downsize its dealer network, Fritz granted eleven axed dealers a reprieve—without revealing the exact methodology used to separate the wheat from the chaff. Yeah, that’s a good idea: play favorites. That’ll REALLY piss off the disappeared. And if that didn’t do it–which it did—GM’s crafted a new state-trumping franchise agreement for their remaining dealers that makes slavery seem like an oral contract.

According to Automotive News, New GM’s New Deal with its new dealers puts the “con” into “draconian.” To remain a part of “the family,” all GM stores must agree—in writing—to increase sales by 10 percent (maybe twenty), carry larger inventories, eliminate non-GM brands from their showrooms, upgrade dealerships, maintain high customer satisfaction scores and STFU if a new GM store locates more than six miles away from their dealership.

In other words, GM’s new contract includes a “just shoot me now” tick box at the bottom.

Sell more vehicles? The fact that GM’s market share has been on a downwards trajectory since the last century (news flash: the company is now bankrupt) should tell the corporate mothership a little something about how easy it is to sell GM vehicles these days. Hang on; shouldn’t GM make better products before they “force” dealers to sell more cars?

By the same token, what’s with the dealership upgrades? GM stores are hurting for cash. Wait, let me guess. The feds are going to provide loans (or loan guarantees) so that GM dealers can put Ford, Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, etc. dealerships to shame. Because Uncle Sam believes that rewarding losers is really just “leveling the playing field,” and when it comes to debt, more is always better. Meanwhile, pay no attention to that $1 million per dealer HUMMER upgrade fiasco. That was then. This is crazy.

As for the mandate to “maintain” consumer satisfaction scores (a.k.a. CSI), it’s Big Mac time. They CANNOT be serious. GM’s CSI scores have been a complete sham since they were first foisted upon their retail operations. I’ve got two words for anyone who thinks otherwise: Bill Heard. And another two: blind eye.

If GM was actively trying to screw-up its future, they couldn’t do it more effectively than they are right now. Saying that, I have every confidence that GM will somehow find a way. Let Barney Frank fuck with your plant closing plans? Sure! Piss away resources on a new green car that can’t compete with Toyota’s last generation hybrid? To paraphrase Albert Einstein, “employing the same people to do different things is the definition of eternal insolvency.”

Meanwhile, remember Fritz Henderson’s pledge to We The People promising transparency as it “reinvents” itself to repay our hard-earned tax money? How’s this for opaque: dealers are prohibited from discussing the agreement with anyone other than employees or business partners without GM’s expressed written consent.

Dead automaker walking.

Sitting in the new Toyota Prius, I suddenly blurted out, “Open the pod bay doors, Hal,” half expecting something to happen. Alas, I was still entombed in the resin chamber that passes for an automobile interior. If Ralph Nader had been an engineer, this is the car he would have designed, a vehicle for people who loathe automobiles.