The majority of this morning's New York Times article on the auto-oriented provisions of the new energy bill profiles the industry's posturing, infighting and kvetching over higher Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. To wit, “'We’re not whiners,' Dominique Thormann, a senior vice president at Nissan North America, said in Washington during a lunch with reporters on Wednesday, in a thinly veiled jab at competitors that originally fought fuel economy increases." Breeze through this politically correct interpretation– transplants ready to rumble, domestics foot (not to say knuckle) draggers, Toyota playing both side down the middle– and Michelle Maynard finally reveals some of the more important "details." For example, we learn that the bill offers federal loan guarantees to "help auto companies that invest in factories that are at least 20 years old to build vehicles with advanced technology." Hey! Guess what? The General will [theoretically] build the new Chevrolet Volt plug-in electric hybrid at a Detroit factory that opened in the early '80s. No word on the new "footprint-based" CAFE calculations– which make a mockery of fleet-wide fuel economy averages– or ethanol credits– capable of transforming a gas-sucking SUV into a high mileage green machine (in regulatory terms).  

While The Big 2.8 keep playing "Crisis? What Crisis? Oh THAT crisis," Toyota's taking some time off (as if) to muck about with robots. Toyota's just announced that two of its new Toyota Partner Robots will hit the market in 2010. As The International Herald Tribune reports, one 'bot plays Sir Edward Elgar's "Pomp and Circumstance" on a violin (when it can play "A Lark Ascending," give us a call). The other 'bot is Segway's worst nightmare. Weighing in at 150kgs., Mobility Robot (MR) can negotiate stairs, surmount 10 degree gradients and travel 20km at a rate of 6km/h. It's (he's?) also capable of avoiding obstacles and transporting its owner autonomously. (That's Toyota-speak for "getting you back from the pub while you're too drunk to know what you're doing.") And when you feel like using the legs that God gave you, Mr. MR will be your personal porter, following you like a dog. (Which is God spelled backwards.) Next week, Honda's takes the wraps of the latest version of Asimo. While both automakers claim 'bot-making is a logical outgrowth of their car-building 'bots, we reckon they need to make them mightier still. Meanwhile, GM's still building the first ever G6.

“Wooden Shoe Rather Be Dutch?” Sigh. Bumper sticker humor aside, the Subaru Legacy had 140k miles on the clock and a well-maintained powertrain (records in the glovebox). The hardback book about Abraham Lincoln under the driver’s seat gave me hope that the owner was equally conservative with his driving. After a bit of tire kicking, I slowly concluded that the old girl had plenty of life left. Fortunately, the kicked-in driver’s door and smelly interior made the other dealers turn-up their nose when the Subie went across the block. For $500, the Legacy became mine… all mine. BWAHAHAHHA!!!!

Welcome to the wonderful world of the $500 car. From public auctions to impound lots to private sales and eBay, they’re there for the taking. We’re talking old Fords that hardly ever fail, to mondo mileage minivans with the interiors to match. The cost of today’s ‘affordable’ commuter has rapidly sunk to the point where it’s nearly equal to the price of a new scooter. Even better, as the old saying goes, “They ain’t building em’ like they used too.”  They’re building them better.

Thanks to huge advances in mechanical engineering, materials and manufacturing, the average vehicle has a remarkable ability to sustain itself well in six figures on the clock and double decades on the calendar– given the right owner and proper maintenance.

In my daily work as a dealer, I see the results of this every day: old Camrys old enough to drink in all fifty states that run as well as a twenty-year-old sewing machine; old Volvo wagons that you can’t kill with a stick, SUVs built for durability instead of bling that can still climb every mountain, conventional family sedans that have watched an entire generation grow up and head off to college, ready for grandchild duty.

For a true indication of the average car’s added endurance, look no further than Canada. Our neighbors in the Great White North recently reported that the number of 15-year-old vehicles on their roads had skyrocketed from just 800k in 1990 to 2.8m today. They’re not hanging onto to their vehicles longer because they’re poor. They’re doing it because they can. And the money saved is phenomenal. But the $500 car? How can that be a good deal?

First of all, understand this: the $500 car always has something wrong with it. Examples: the Subaru had a foul odor and a severely dented door. A $100 door and a $50 detail brought it back to its rightful glory. A 1989 Toyota Camry and a 1993 Eagle Vision I bought for $500 apiece needed nothing more than a $190 paint job (called a “scuff and shoot”). Two 1989 Volvo 240 Wagons, a 1988 Isuzu Trooper and a 1991 Ford Explorer Sport needed… well… nothing actually. They were just unpopular and ‘old’. Finally, a 1977 Mercedes 350SE bought for $250 needed a/c, new tires, and an alignment.

That old Merc was a freakish, right place/right time deal. But all the others had dozens of eyes on them and nary an interested buyer in sight. But why did all these sell so cheaply? Most car shoppers (and dealers) judge a book by its cover. Fashion rules. A damaged door or other body panel, peeling paint or lack of functional air conditioning stops most buyers in their tracks.

In time though, most folks pretty much just treat their cars as appliances. If it breaks a little bit, but it still works, they figure why bother even fixing it? Car buyers prefer to trade-in or sell their problems instead of fixing them, predominantly because they believe the repair cost is simply too much to bear.

That’s where the challenge and opportunity lies. Paint is cheap, parts at the local recycling yard (check car-part.com) or parts store are a fraction of dealer prices, and the time spent calling a few shops to get a direct quote for the labor on a specific repair costs you absolutely nothing. Enthusiast sites for specific cars are great at telling you the weak spots of any particular model, and what to look for during the test drive. Again this costs nothing but time and the willingness to learn.

For those of us who buy for the long haul, or just want a good cheap car to play with for a while, my advice is to look at the ‘scratch and dent’ side of the market. There are a lot of cheap old cars out there that had owners who did the maintenance, but not the cosmetics or the seemingly big repair.  A little homework and a good independent mechanic can truly give you a ‘keeper’.   It will also stave off the five figured financial scourges of depreciation, higher ad valorem taxes, and insurance while keeping your car hobby affordable and fun.

As we've been saying for years, China is only going to allow foreign automakers to do biz in The People's Republic as long as it takes them to figure out how to do it themselves. Hence the law stipulating that all carmakers setting-up shop in China must do so as part of a joint venture with a Chinese company. And the China half of these companies are already preparing for divorce. Guangzhou Automobile Industry Group, currently shacked-up with Toyota AND Honda, is the latest Chinese automaker to strike on its own. As WardsAuto reports, Guangzhou is readying an as yet undeclared model under an as yet unannounced brand name. "Construction of a research and design center and vehicle plant site already is under way in Guangzhou’s Payu district. The Chinese auto maker will invest some $916 million, including $404 million on the R&D center and $512 million on production facilities in order to launch its own brand of passenger cars by 2010." It's only a matter of time before the Chinese government games the market to favor their "independent" domestic automakers. 

When Toyota unveiled their all-new, supersized Tundra pickup, they confidently predicted/promised that the model would hit 200k sales in its first years. Despite some early teething troubles (e.g. underestimating demand for the iForce 5.7-liter V8 engine), strong competition (e.g. GM's determination to discount its Silverado and Sierra to thwart the competition) and economic headwinds (i.e. a contracting housing market and rising gas prics), Toyota execs reckon they just might meet the target. Admitting that "It's going to be close," ToMoCo's U.S. group vice president and general manager laid out the results of regional battles “We’re seeing record market share on the West Coast and good growth elsewhere, particularly in the Midwest,” Bob Carter told WardsAuto. “Tundra has maintained leadership in California and has gained leadership in the Pacific Northwest.” Sales of the Texas-made Toyota climbed by 43.2 percent in November (compared to sales of last year's outgoing model). Although Ward's forgets to mention it (doh!), Toyota sold 177,336 Tundras YTD. That leaves them with 22,664 Tundras to go.

Honda got the biggest bang for their American advertising buck in 2006, according to Brandweek. A study by research firm Compete reveals that the Tokyo transplant spent just $118 in advertising per brand shopper last year, besting Toyota by $40 per. Ford was the biggest spender, forking-out $240 per vehicle to entice each shopper into their showrooms. Overall, foreign nameplates averaged $182 per shopper in 2006, while domestic manufacturers spent an average of $223 per shopper. Looking at individual brands, Scion spent a whopping $30 per shopper. "The smaller brands with a clearly defined target performed the best," Compete's Mike Jennings opined. "Brands like Scion and MINI have a product line that also corresponds, whereas Ford has to go from an F250 truck to a Fusion. It shows a fundamental of marketing, which is, ‘ID a target and hit it.'" It also shows that a product with a good reputation and high "gotta have it" factor doesn't need a lot of advertising. And we reckon GM's $150m Malibu launch campaign will probably help the General unseat Ford's ad spend per customer when the 2007 figures are released.

Surprise! The Detroit News reports that nearly half the vehicles listed in Consumer Reports' "most satisfying" list are manufactured by Japanese brands. And a quarter of the models listed were Toyotas. Only seven American brands showed up on the list. The Ford Fusion and Saturn Aura won high marks in the family car segment. While making up less than 10 percent of the market in the U.S., European models accounted for almost a third of the winners. The Toyota Prius was the overall most satisfying vehicle, followed by the BMW 335i and the Porsche Boxster. Domestic models dominated the "least satisfying" list, which consisted mainly of trucks and SUVs. Four of TTAC's Ten Worst winners are Consumer Reports bottom feeders: the Saturn Ion, Chevy Aveo, Chevrolet Uplander, Chevy Trailblazer/GMC Envoy. 

Automotive News [AN, sub] reports that Chrysler and GM are piling on the incentives in the hopes of clearing out lingering '07's and maintaining '08 sales and market share in the run up to the New Year. Dodge buyers signing-up for the 2008 Ram scoop $5k off sticker. The Dodge Ram 2500, Ram 3500, Durango, Charger and Magnum; Chrysler 300C, and Jeep Commander and Grand Cherokee carry incentives ranging from $3k to $3500. GM dealers may not have as much cash on the hood, but thirty-one models– including 20 trucks– tempt seasonal buyers with $500 to $2k off msrp. Caddy hopes to clear out its '07's by offering [both] XLR buyers $7,500, stumping-up $5k for DTS intenders, deflossing the Escalade's price tag by $4,500 and tempting aspiring CTS and STS drivers with $4k. GM biggest losers are the "classic" (i.e. '06) Silverado and Sierras, clocking-in with a $5k discount. Elsewhere, Subaru's '07 B9 Tribeca sheds $3500k, Suzuki's '07 XL7 trims $2500 and Volvo's XC90 can be had for $5k off. Meanwhile, Toyota has dialed back on Tundra incentives, offering just $1500 off the new Texas-built pickup. But its old Tundra and its SUVs all get $4k off. Although most of these incentives are scheduled to expire in January, what's the bet they wont'?

2020. That’s the year by which all automakers selling vehicles in the United States must [now] achieve a Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) of 35mpg. The symbolism is strictly ironic. The politicians who crafted the new Energy Bill hardly displayed 20-20 vision. They singularly failed to see that their well-meaning efforts to force Americans to conserve fuel by forcing manufacturers to produce fuel efficient vehicles evokes the law of unintended consequences. While it’s impossible to see the future with perfect clarity, there are obvious “unforeseen” pitfalls.

Let’s start with the legislation’s basic assumption: automakers can create a range of vehicles with a combined fuel economy of 35mpg. Ostensibly, there’s no need to reinvent the wheel (and everything attached to it). All carmakers have to do is build and sell more vehicles like the ones that already achieve the requisite target. According to the official EPA website, only two cars sold in the U.S. literally fit the bill: the Honda Civic Hybrid and the Toyota Prius. Uh-oh.

First, both cars are niche products; the vast majority of American consumers prefer to drive something else. That reality creates a strange paradigm. Any automaker that doesn't meet the new standards has a far better chance of selling vehicles and making money than one who does. If the CAFE fines are lower than the profits generated by ignoring the standards, auto execs wishing to maximize shareholder value must turn their backs on the legislative directive, pay up and get on with it. To wit: BMW and Mercedes' current CAFE fines.

Second, the Prius and Civic hybrid both use proprietary technology. Detroit doesn’t possess the necessary gas – electric expertise to replicate their mpg results. To think that The Big 2.8 can catch-up with Toyota and Honda in 12 years, never mind overtake them, is a leap of faith without historical basis. Yes, this dilemma is Detroit’s own damn fault. But Ford, GM and Chrysler are already teetering on the abyss. This legislation is a shove in the wrong direction.

Third, the Prius and the Civic Hybrid's towing capacity is listed as“not recommended.” While I’m sure there are plenty of environmental campaigners who’ll be happy to learn of the Energy Bill’s de facto death sentence for SUVs, the economic impact of neutering pickup trucks' load carrying and towing capacity would be dramatic.

The argument against this line of thinking: automakers will now race to develop technological solutions that will raise their CAFE numbers by 40 percent without sacrificing comfort, performance, price, practicality, towing, safety or reliability. Call it the “if we can put a man on the moon…” school of thought.

If we accept this metaphor, Japan is America with a ten year lead. Detroit is Communist Russia. Ford is bankrupt. Chrysler is bust downsizing for re-sale. And even if Chevrolet’s Volt turns out to be a stunning technological triumph, there’s little chance GM can convert their entire passenger and light truck lineup to lithium-ion battery-aided propulsion— and get people to buy the result— by 2020. That said, GM may not have to Volt-up the whole fleet; the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration might agree to some highly advantageous mpg calculations for plug-in gas – electric hybrids; a new formula that will help off-set the rest of the fleet's low-mileage stats.

The potential for finagling on CAFE raises the automakers’ most obvious “solution” to Congress’ “solution” to our dependence on foreign oil: cheating. The new Energy Bill extends the ethanol credits that inflate automakers’ EPA stats based on almost entirely theoretical E85 use. I have every confidence that Representative John Dingell (D-Michigan) secured plenty of exemptions, exceptions and get out of jail free cards for his Detroit constituents.

For example, the Detroit Free Press reports that “Money generated from fines that luxury automakers would receive for missing fuel-economy standards are to be given to automakers that retool old factories for building models with advanced technology.” If we assume the “luxury automakers” bit is Freep conjecture, this rider could mean that automakers who violate CAFE can use their own CAFE fines to fund new product development. How great is that?

The way I see it, either this Energy Bill will defeat Detroit, or provide enough loopholes and clever caveats to render its 35mpg target meaningless, or simply fail under the weight of its own unrealistic expectations. At the end of the proverbial day, legislation that attempts to control the free market on this scale is doomed to failure. There's  only way this will work: if the free market heads in the same direction at the same time– allowing legislators to claim credit for events they didn't create or control.

Of course, I could be completely wrong. Perhaps the Energy Bill will usher in a golden age of environmentally friendly automobiles. Wanna bet?

“Roger Smith led GM during a period of tremendous innovation in the industry. He was a leader who knew that we have to accept change, understand change and learn to make it work for us. Roger was truly a pioneer in the fast-moving global industry that we now take for granted.” You can't expect GM CEO Rick Wagoner to speak ill of the dead, but the truth is that Smith was an utter disaster for GM. In GM Death Watch 116, our own Eric Stephans wrote: "After a massive reorganization in 1984, Smith dismissed thousands of workers and began a buying spree of epic proportions. GM’s CEO spent an estimated $40b on a laundry list of fashionable solutions and distractions: NUMMI (New United Motor Manufacturing Inc.), EDS (Electronic Data Systems Corporation), Hughes Aircraft and more. GM’s culture ignored the benefits of these innovations. The Toyota-style production techniques learned at NUMMI and the union-friendly ideas implemented at Saturn’s Spring Hill plant never made it outside the factory gates. GM management remained impervious to EDS’ can-do culture. Saturn devolved into another badge-engineered GM platform brand." Today's GM owes Roger Smith a debt, but it's not one of gratitude. 

The Japanese government has been ordered by a district court to pay worker's compensation to a woman who claims her husband worked himself to death at Toyota. Yahoo! says Hiroko Unchino applied for compensation after her 30-year old husband, Kenichi, collapsed and died at work in 2002. He'd averaged 80 hours of overtime per month in the six months prior to his death, and had 114 hours overtime for the month before his death. The government acknowledged death from overwork, or karoshi, as a basis for claims in 1987. Since then, they've acknowledged 147 cases. Uchino sued after the Labor Ministry said her husband's case didn't qualify as karoshi. Curiously, Toyota wasn't involved in the suit. Yet.

As Canada struggles to hammer out a trade agreement with South Korea, the automotive trade imbalance has taken center stage. And no wonder. According to the Canadian Auto Workers, South Korea imported fewer than 500 Canada-made vehicles last year– as compared to the 200k Korean cars sold in Canada during the same period. In total, South Korean only welcomed 43,492 imported autos in '06. And for "good" reason. Although that meager total accounts for just four percent of South Korea's total new car sales, Chosun reports that it also represents a 32 percent increase over the previous year. And that's got South Korea worried. "Considering that Hyundai Motor's growth rate for the same period was 9.6 percent and Kia's was just 2.5 percent, the imported car sector's growth is alarming." At the same time, the types of cars entering the Republic has changed, from the early imported luxobarges to today's wider range of mass market motors. Honda, in particular, is kicking ass, doubling its sales. And here's the kicker: Toyota ain't even in the game yet. Meanwhile, one wonders what GM's take is on all this, as it has a large manufacturing bases in both Canada AND South Korea. GM's Daewoo brand currently owns about 30 percent of its domestic market. [thanks to starlightmica for the link]

Ad agencies evaluate the effectiveness of their artistry using a "recall score." The metric measures how well consumers remember a brand and/or product within 24 hours of having seen its advert. A high recall score means the commercial hot-wired the product into the consumers' minds. A low score means the sponsor wasted their money. Although I watch quite a bit of TV, this semi-professional pistonhead can't recall more than a handful of car ads. So much for carmakers getting their money's worth.

One ad that managed to stick in my mental craw: GM's $150m campaign for Chevy's new "now you see, now you can't buy it" Malibu. The ads show a computer-generated facsimile of the ‘Bu zooming around intimidating Camrys and generally showing off its sleek new lines. At first I wondered if the ad agency also couldn't get their hands on one, hence the computer animation. Then I wondered where they spent the remaining $149,975,000.

But at least the Malibu is in production. Another ad GM's running shows an ethnically blended troop of kids with their ears against a Volt, listening to it hum. The hip young spokesman tells them it's "the extended-range electric car powered by the miracle of the advanced lithium-ion battery pack." And hey! "They expect they'll get up to 40 miles without a drop of gas." The kids gasp their appreciation like they're about to snort Pixies Sticks.  "I've heard the future and it hums" the actor exclaims. The obligatory voice-over intones "Chevy- from gas-friendly to gas free. That's an American revolution."

What they don't bother to say, except in small print flashed momentarily at the bottom of the screen, is that you can't have get one– no matter how badly you want it. They also neglect to mention that the production model- whenever it arrives- will look nothing like the sexy beast whispering God knows what into kids' ears (where's Steve King when you need him?). Or that once you go past that claimed 40-mile range you're burning petrochemicals to recharge the batteries. Or that currently the only "gas free" model Chevy offers is a large diesel-powered pickup truck. 

The manufacturers all seem Hell bent on saving us from our own tailpipe pollution (i.e. alleviating globally-warmed guilt). From Accords driving through tunnels lined with images of nature at its best to Subarus coexisting with Bambi, carmakers want you to believe that it's OK to buy their car; Mother Nature won't mind a bit if you do. 

The most blatant example of eco-misdirection is from Toyota. They show a Prius made of twigs and leaves raising spontaneously from the muck of a bog only to return to it, convincing us (they hope) that their eco-mobile is one with nature. Just don't think about what's required to manufacture or dispose of those battery packs crammed within. Or the fuel oil burned to ship the cars here from Japan. 

The award for the strangest eco-mercial shows a group of hit men trying to take each other out with water pistols, super shooters and water balloons. The message? "What if we could replace something harmful with water?" You guessed it: it's an ad for Honda's yet-to-be-released limited production Clarity hydrogen fuel cell car. 

So hit men won't kill each other with water balloons (is there a hit man jobs bank?) and we won't kill each other with the Clarity because all it produces is water instead of that yucky greenhouse gas. Of course, we're not supposed to think about how much energy is used to make that hydrogen or what the by-products of that process might be. Or the fact that water vapor is a greenhouse gas. I'm beginning to think Norway had the right idea by banning car ads that extol the a car's benefit to the environment.

Meanwhile, trucks. Big. Macho Trucks. Ford, Chevy, Toyota, Nissan and Dodge all have the toughest truck. They're all the biggest, haul the most, tow the most, last the longest and offer "class leading" fuel economy. By implication, anyone who doesn't buy theirs is a weenie. And they practically take a sledgehammer to their truck to prove… some weird sado-masochistic point.

The Tundra ad best reflects this chorus of "any abuse you can take I can take more" pre-school of thought. The Texas Toyota hauls a trailer up and then down an iron teeter-totter poised over a cliff (I think) in a landscape that would give Mad Max the heebie-jeebies. What's the point? If you're ever performing truck tricks at a post-apocalyptic party, the Tundra's the way to go. 

And that's it. That's all I got. Except this: a new study of auto advertising found that Japanese auto manufacturers reached 22 percent more audience than U.S. automakers and 27 percent more than European manufacturers. Considering the car ads in question, it's clear that the entire auto industry's reach exceeds its grasp. 

I like to believe that the general population’s insensitivity to the joys of automotive design, engineering and performance is a simple matter of missed opportunity. If the average driver had suckled on Hot Wheels' sweet metallic tang from toddler-hood, if a mechanically-minded mentor had gently and gradually revealed the wondrous secrets of the automotive arts during their teenage years, if they’d been shown how to harness horsepower with skill and respect as adult drivers, they’d share my passion for cars with genuine soul. Meanwhile, Toyota sells millions of Corollas and no one complains. Why would they?

We here at TTAC spend a good part of our time trying to discern a car’s subjective worth. But the free market provides the final judgment. And when it comes time to rate an automobile manufacturer’s overall vitality, resale value is the way to go. Foresight, engineering and design all figure into what someone is willing to pay after the new car smell fades, when there’s a couple of Cheerios in the seat rails. Forget professional pundits and industry analysts; residual values are the ultimate arbiter of a carmaker’s strength. And guess what? Volkswagen is America’s most valued carmaker.

Taken collectively, Volkswagen’s U.S. lineup holds 48 percent of its value after five years. BMW, Honda and Acura are close behind, each with around 45 percent retained value. While only the VW Eos won its individual category, the Rabbit and Jetta both manage to retain greater than 50 percent of their value after five years. VW’s models placed high enough in all of their classes to earn the top spot.

This startling stat arrives via Kelly Blue Book (KBB), who just published their predicted resale values rankings for the 2008 model year. A fluke?  A statistical anomaly?

Well, KBB’s methodology does help VW. Only automotive brands with four or more models for sale in the U.S. are included, and all of those vehicles must cost under $60k. Still, Honda and Toyota have no trouble playing by those rules; they’re this year’s runners-up. And, the findings are not that different from KBB’s competitors in the value ranking business.

Automotive Lease Guide (ALG) has been tracking values and selling their knowledge to banks, leasing companies and the automotive industry for more than 37 years. ALG announced their Residual Value Awards in October. Here Volkswagen placed third, behind Honda and Toyota respectively. Another excellent showing. Of course, they also have a methodology which aids VW's cause.

This year's ALG awards are based on 2008 model year vehicles, just like Kelly’s, but comprising only a three-year history. (This is the sixth year ALG has included a brand award.) The envelopes are sealed after a careful study of segment competition, historical vehicle performance and industry trends. The trick here is the split.

ALG differentiates between standard and luxury vehicles. In fact, ALG produces a whole second list. So VW didn’t have to compete with Infiniti, Lexus and BMW (to name a few). ALG also excludes marques with fewer than four models. So that put MINI and Scion out of the brand running– which is significant given that MINI scooped the compact category. (Both brands are also excluded from KBB’s list.)

Volkswagens may have found some advantages within the rules, but it doesn’t detract from the validity of their ranking. KBB and ALG produce similar results at the top of both their lists, and at the base. KBB relegates Suzuki, Kia, GMC, Mercury, Dodge, Chrysler and Ford to the bottom of the worst performers for regular old vehicles. ALG’s methodology differed, but the names remained the same. And as for luxury cars, Cadillac, Jaguar, Lincoln, Saab and Volvo all fell below average in both ALG and Kelly’s final reckoning.

There’s a truckload of reasons why a carmaker might find itself parked at the bottom of these residuals lists. Unreliable vehicles, poor image, bad service, a wavering corporate future; each carmaker suffers its own particular frustration combo plate. Volkswagen has hardly been immune from these missteps. But with the Phaeton’s fade to black and a pruning of the pricier Passats, the people’s car has inched back into customers’ good graces. No to put too fine a point on it, most Volkswagen’s are what buyers want them to be.

Volksie has also paid attention to the laws of supply and demand. VW is fairly strict with pricing and, more importantly, doesn’t dump an undo number of cars on North American lots. They build what the market will bear, avoiding huge Rabbits warrens in rental fleets waiting to nibble up space on used car lots. Price and supply find a natural equilibrium that results in relatively high resale values.

Volkswagen won only one of its categories, as divvied by ALG. The Eos took best sporty car (a suspicious sounding group). As in decathlons, it seems that being the best at any one thing is not as important as being solid overall. That might be the wider lesson worth learning.

Taken car by car, VW is nearly never number one. Taken as a whole, VW is doing a great job generating value. That type of continuous performance seems to engender a consistent level of trust in the market place. Volkswagen might not be making the biggest bang with any one car, but playing together they’re getting it done.

Rail all you like against Volkswagen’s reliability and the brand’s piss-poor dealer service. But the market has spoken.