So, the voiceover is wrong. Chrysler Group and its brands are too badly in need of credibility to be narrating an ad this good with a voice that sounds so similar to this guy’s. Otherwise, this spot is nearly flawless. Especially in comparison to other recent Wieden + Kennedy Dodge efforts like this one. But you all have longer memories than I… so when was the last time you saw a Dodge ad that hit the nail so directly on the head?
Yesterday’s Senate Committee On Commerce, Science and Transportation hearing on the proposed Motor Vehicle Safety Act [full text of proposed Senate version S.3302 in PDF format here] was a surprisingly low-key affair. Discussion didn’t seem to move much beyond the battle lines drawn at House hearings two weeks ago. NHTSA Administrator David Strickland continued to argue passionately in favor of so-called “imminent hazard” powers, which are included in Henry Waxman’s House version of the bill, but not the Jay Rockefeller-sponsored Senate version. Meanwhile, debates over nearly every proposal in the legislation rage on, as the industry seeks to mitigate what it considers the bill’s most onerous and intrusive measures. But Strickland framed NHTSA’s mission in zero-tolerance terms: if one American dies on the road, he argued, NHTSA should be doing more to prevent it. This philosophy is underlined by the presence of hard-core safety advocates Joan Claybrook and Clarence Ditlow at nearly every DC hearing on auto safety since the Toyota recall. The flip side to this position is the argument that cars have literally never been safer, and that deaths per vehicle mile traveled are at all time lows. This yawning divide in perspectives towards automotive safety is begging for discussion, so let’s have it. Are cars safe enough? Which new regulations make sense, and which are more onerous than they’re worth? Where should the government define an acceptable number of roadway deaths? And are cars the problem, or are people?
Because this is a political topic, please make the extra effort to make your comment constructive. Complete prepared testimony from yesterday’s hearing can be found here.
On point as always, TTAC commenter ajla called it in today’s Camry review. In the comments after that tale of suburban anonymity and “the Marriot of cars,” he asked:
Wouldn’t you really rather have a Buick?
I figure Toyota thinks that, in their heart of hearts, many Americans do still want a Buick. Not an actual Buick, mind you, but a big, comfortable sedan that’s somewhat luxurious but not at all flashy. Over a year ago, I made the friendly recommendation that Buick ditch its explicitly youthful marketing message for “something along the lines of Canadian Club’s “damn right your dad drank it,” campaign.” This spot for the new Avalon probably comes closer to what I had in mind for Buick than anything I’ve seen since. The question then, isn’t so much “is Toyota the new Buick?” as where is Buick going to find its own niche? The wreckage of Acura?
Whilst grazing on the internet I come across some weird and wonderful things. From discovering Bill Maher’s New Rules on YouTube to learning about the different strains of marijuana available in the coffeeshops of Amsterdam (for research purposes, ahem). But the following article is one of the funniest and I found it on the Ford’s own website. Ford got into this Web 2.0 social networking thing with a vengeance at thefordstory.com
The article starts off OK. Ford crowing about their quality beating everyone else. O.k., we’ll discuss that another time. It’s the comments that raise my interest. The second comment starts off a “Toyota vs Ford” debate by saying “Toyota is so much better.” I call flame-bait, that comment was written March 13, at the height of the Toyota-troubles. Then the conversation turns into an “All MBA’s aren’t bad” string (conveniently forgetting that Alan Mulally is an engineer, first and foremost). The comment is finished with a flourish: “WE MUST PROMOTE AN ‘INNOVATIVE AMERICA-‘ENVISIONEERING’ ITS FUTURE”. (Read More…)
NPR asked: “if I’m a Toyota owner subject to this recall and I say ‘I don’t want a repaired accelerator pedal, I want a new one.’ Is that an option?” To which Lentz replied: “it will be looked at on a case-by-case basis.” When NPR asked for Lentz to clarify what he meant by “case-by-case basis,” he said “It’s really up to… between the dealer and the customer. We would like to see customers get this fix done with the precision cut steel bar and see how that is. I think the customers are going to be very satisfied with overall quality of the pedal and the feel of the pedal.”
At the time, this was interpreted as a not-so-great sign for Toyota’s “precision cut” shim fix. Reinforcing the impression that some might not be happy with the fix, a Toyota memo to dealers has surfaced today at the AP [via Google], which requests that:
If a customer is not satisfied with the operation and/or the feel of the accelerator pedal after the reinforcement bar has been installed, please assist us by assuring a replacement pedal is provided at no charge to these customers
Which makes us wonder: is there anyone out there who has had the shim fix done to their recalled Toyota only to have the problem reoccur? Has anyone requested a replacement pedal instead of the shim fix, and had a Toyota dealer turn you down? Toyota is probably playing it safe by asking dealers to provide new pedals, but we’re cant help but wonder why they would cast suspicion on the shim fix this way. Any ideas?
In testimony before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Energy and Transportation, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said he was “looking at the possibility of recommending” mandatory brake override systems on all new vehicles sold in the US. Given the congressional hysteria about auto safety in the past few weeks (not to mention the already-expectant MSM headlines), such a requirement would likely face little political opposition. When Toyota first announced that it would be installing the buzz-worthy “failsafe” system on its new cars, we whined that the days of doing burnouts in Mom’s autobox IS350 were over. Which, frankly, was fairly petty of us. At this point it’s become fairly clear that, whether there are unfound defects still lurking in the evil minds of our appliance-mobiles or not, Americans need to feel that they could stop their cars in a worst case demonic possession scenario. So let them eat brake override systems, say I. At least until I hear someone advocating for mandatory manual transmissions.
This spy shot was sent in to us by an anonymous tipster, who caught what appears to be an extended-wheelbase Ford Fusion Hybrid. But it’s not just stretched: those wheel arches are definitely not stock Fusion kit, which suggests that the Fusion Hybrid body might just be a mule body concealing an unrelated chassis under development. Can you spot any other clues that might hint at what we’re looking at? Got a guess? Let us know in the comments. [Thanks to you know who you are!]
Toyota got hammered by another big recall today, with 2.3m vehicles called back for sticking accelerator pedals. According to Toyota’s release, this recall is
separate from the on-going recall of approximately 4.2 million Toyota and Lexus vehicles to reduce the risk of pedal entrapment by incorrect or out of place accessory floor mats. Approximately 1.7 million Toyota Division vehicles are subject to both separate recall actions.
How much more of this can Toyota take? One thing is for certain: ToMo has got to pull its current ad campaign which emphasizes the alleged quality of Toyota products. Cognitive dissonance might work in the short term but once consumers wise up they’ll never trust you again. Just ask GM.
I don’t watch “24” but apparently GM’s dead brand Pontiac Pontiac “received $256,200 in exposure by 8 total sequences, including one verbal mention” on the season premiere of the Fox terror drama according to Front Row Marketing and TVbythenumbers.com. Your tax dollars hard at work building equity for dead brand? Out of morbid curiosity, are there any 24 fans out there who can tell us what these references were? [Hat Tip: Graham Smith]
Starting this week, the fine citizens of Quebec will be required to take 24 hours of theory and 15 hours of practical driving instruction before getting their driver’s licenses. According to CTV, the provincial government has capped the expense of courses at $825 in order to prevent the cost from becoming too onerous of a burden on new licensees. Still, even in Canadian dollars that’s no chump change. And as instinctive as it is for me to resist this kind of regulation of personal mobility, mandatory driving instruction is common in much of the developing world (i.e. Europe). Moreover, the next time I’m on the interstate having an aneurysm over rampant on-road incompetence (let alone lane etiquette), I’ll approach the idea with a lot less libertarian zeal. Still, unless Ray LaHood (or Oprah?) gets more traction in the War on Distracted Driving, I don’t see the idea catching on in the US. Especially at the prices that Quebec is talking about. Do you think mandatory driver education is a reasonable option in these car-crazed United States?
Tata Motors already has made a European version of the four-seat car that will cost about $8,000 when it debuts in 2011, and a Tata Technologies official said privately that the U.S. version is expected to have a comparable price. The official did not want to be identified because the price has not been made public.
A one liter, three cylinder engine making a reported 60 hp. Five speed manual transmission. Two airbags, ABS, traction control, and electric power steering. 14 inch wheels. [via Autocar] Would you bite for $8k? Everything sells at the right price. Where is the Nano’s magic number?
Once upon a time, luxury brands built unique cars and added special editions for extra profit. Now luxury brands tend to build more cars based on volume brand platforms, the special edition seems to be giving way to a new phenomenon: unique luxury trim levels. GM has been a proponent of this system for some time, adding Denali trim levels to its GMC upgrades of Chevrolet trucks. Now, The General’s Cadillac brand has announced it will be adding Platinum trim level options to every vehicle that isn’t available in “V” form. The impetus for this is clearly the dream of coaxing BMW “M” or Cadillac “V”-style markups from consumers who don’t care about dynamics or power, but it also fundamentally undercuts Cadillac’s status as a true luxury brand… as well as Buick’s raison d’etre as an entry-lux brand. Or does it?
Detroit’s auto critics are a funny bunch. For decades they’ve been mocking the idea that Americans could ever love Europe’s small, underpowered, overpriced cars, as Detroit gorged itself on SUV profits. Now that Ford and GM have announced they’re bringing small cars like the Fiesta and Spark to the US, you’re starting to see the pendulum swing twice as hard in the opposite direction. “Yes, there will be a couple of mega-powerful V-8 asphalt eaters at the Detroit show, including the 2011 Cadillac CTS-V Coupe and the 2011 Ford Mustang GT 5.0,” writes Scott Burgess in a Detroit News piece entitled “V-6 engines begin long fade into history.” “But, it turns out, destiny has determined that the meek four-banger will inherit the earth.” Burgess’s theory follows Ford’s Ecoboost playbook fairly closely: thanks to direct injection and turbocharging, smaller engines can produce more power. And when you consider that electric hybrids can restore some of the lost poke of a large-displacement engine, the prediction seems all the more likely. Eventually. But just because the new Sonata and Regal aren’t being offered with a V6, doesn’t mean the six-banger is ready for automotive Valhalla just yet. Even Burgess admits that “it may take 10 years or even more.” When do you, TTAC’s Best and Brightest, reckon the six-cylinder option on cars like the Camry, Altima or Impala will fall by the wayside? When will we see the death of the six-cylinder popular sportscar alá the Nissan Z?
In Cambridge Massachusetts and its affluent outlying suburbs, these days cars are second class citizens. Peds think nothing of jay walking, and motorists almost always give them right of way when they do. Sometimes, peds get aggressive about it, charging across the street en mass just as the light turns green, with looks of entitlement upon their faces. Across from Harvard Yard, peds parade in front of cars turning onto or off of Massachusetts Avenue, oblivious to how many cars they are forcing to wait for minutes on end. Amazingly, I haven’t seen road rage arise from this behavior. The motorists seem to turn the other cheek, or tire, as the case may be. (Read More…)
If human beings were truly rational animals, trends would be easy to predict. Given that we’re fickle, self-aware and subject to the influence of less predictable forces than pure reason, figuring out what is going to appeal to people is never easy. And few automotive examples prove the inconstancy of market trends like the minivan. On paper they just plain make sense, creating a huge amount of flexible interior room out of high-volume sedan platforms, making them relatively cheap, capable and efficient. But if consumer decisions were made based on such rational considerations, turtlenecks would be long overdue for a huge comeback. In short, the “image thing” killed minivans, with morethan a littlehelp from the marketing efforts of the very companies that profited off their (relatively) brief time in the sun. And really, the future of the minivan will be determined by the staying power of its modern replacement, the Crossover. Are CUVs an evolutionary step from the SUV dead-end of the 90s back towards minivans and station wagons, or will the needs of multiple-passenger consumers forever be doomed to be served by the in-between-mobiles? My totally unjustified belief in the basic sanity of consumers makes me believe that minivans make too much sense to not make a comeback, and concepts like VW’s Microbus show the way. What say you?
Recent Comments