We’d heard that Dodge (“The Full-of-Life Brand”) would be re-working its trim levels in order to “take ‘base model’ out of the Dodge vocabulary,” as a company press release puts it. So, they’ve changed the names of trim levels on some Dodge models. First off, note that only certain models get the trim level name change: Caravan will still be sold in SE and SXT trim, and Challenger will still come in the standard SE, R/T and SRT8 trims. Otherwise, each model has its own trim levels: Journey now comes in Express, Hero, Heat, Crew and Uptown trims, Nitro is available in Heat, Detonator and Shock, while Caliber comes in Express, Mainstreet, Heat, Uptown and Rush, while Avenger comes in Express and Heat trim. What the Foxtrot does it all mean? There’s no way we want to break it all down, so surf on over to Kicking Tires for the full breakdown. Needless to say, it’s yet a another marketing mess from the soon-to-be defunct bailout baby named Chrysler Group.
When someone pays tax, they generally like to think it’s going to towards something that will benefit society. Maybe it might be a repaired road? Or funding towards a crumbling school? I doubt they would want the money to go towards shifting a supposed CamCord killer or an alleged 3 series rival, but that’s what’s going to happen. BusinessWeek reports that executives at “New” General Motors are going to cut prices and rework adverts to boost flagging sales of the Chevrolet Malibu and the Cadillac CTS; two saloons considered critical to meeting Ed Whitacre’s target of a profitable 2010. That’s right, “New” GM are going to cut prices (A.K.A “Cash on hood”) to make more sales. Sound familiar? (Read More…)
Unfortunately, we’ve discovered a slight problem with our list, namely that imported and domestically-produced models are listed separately (as our data comes from a firm that mostly works with suppliers). For the Top 25, this means that the numbers for vehicles produced domestically and imported (like the CRV and RAV4) are off. We ask for your patience while we work with our data provider to fix this problem.
Speaking to Bloomberg yesterday, GM Sales Boss Susan Docherty called December’s sales results “very encouraging.” Her argument: heavy fleet sales in December 2008 explain why December 09 results look worse by comparison. But spinning sales results as the product of conscious fleet percentage reductions is just one longstanding GM tradition that Docherty indulged in: talking points touting falling incentives and improved inventory weren’t far behind. None of which is necessarily indicative of a satisfactory performance. In fact, if you dissect the spin, it’s clear that what lies beneath is not nearly as attractive as the PR would have you believe.
China’s mushrooming car market was flooded with by a tsunami of new cars in 2009, Xinhua reports via Gasgoo. A record 221 new models were introduced last year.
Auto sales in China are projected to have surged 44 percent to 13.5m units last year. Chinese automakers are expected to launch about 100 more new models in 2010.
With all precincts reporting, Subaru officially takes second place in the 2009 annual sales increase sweepstakes, with a 15 percent annual increase. That achievement was bested only by Jaguar Land Rover, which finished the year up 65 percent with 38,261 units sold. Only Hyundai improved its volume more than Subaru last year, up 56,852 compared to Subies 28,953 increase. Still, Subaru was clearly an up-and-comer this year, shrugging off industrywide declines for one of the best all-round sales performances since the beginning of the so-called Carmageddon. And the momentum seems to be going strong, as Subaru closed the year with a 33 percent increase in December and 23,074 units sold. And to think it all started with the 360, a car that made the VW Beetle look, sound and perform like a freaking Bentley. (Read More…)
If nothing else, 2009 was the year that Americans got over its disdain for Korean brands. Hyundai’s December sales were up 40 percent over 2008 capping an 8 percent annual increase, and Kia’s sales were up 43.7 percent, ending the year up 9.8 percent. Total Hyundai volume last year hit 435,064 units, while Kia crested 300,063 units. December details after the jump.
CSM Worldwide seems to think so, telling Automotive News [sub] that new compacts from Ford and Chevrolet are being pushed into the market to comply with increasing fuel-efficiency and CO2 emission standards. If gas prices stay steady, CSM’s VP for Forecasting, Michael Robinet says “extreme pressure to channel smaller vehicles in the market due to CAFE and emissions standards will raise incentives and lower profitability.” “It is very possible that U.S. automakers will not achieve their objectives of selling small cars at a profit,” adds CSM CEO Craig Cather. The crux of the argument is that CAFE ramp-ups to 35.5 MPG by 2016 create incentives for automakers to produce small cars without corresponding consumer demand. Luckily there’s a planned gas tax hike for that.
Picture above are the base-model prices for the cheapest sedan and hatchback variants of the new Ford Fiesta. As you can see, the cheapest Fiesta hatch is priced $1,800 more than the cheapest sedan. In part, that’s because Ford won’t offer an S trim Fiesta hatchback, but even in the best apples-to-apples comparison, the SE trim hatch costs $800 more than an SE sedan. Compare that to last month’s subcompact segment sales leader, the Nissan Versa. Like Ford, Nissan makes its lowest-cost models sedan-only; in fact you can’t buy a Versa hatch with the base 1.6-liter engine. By that measure, the $9,990 “base” 1.6 sedan is a whole lot cheaper than the lowest-cost Versa hatch, the $13,150 1.8 S. But compared apples-to-apples to a 1.8 S sedan, the cheapest Versa hatch carries a mere $50 premium over the sedan. As a hatchback lover, I want to damn Ford for not offering a hatchback Fiesta for less than $15k. On the other hand, with so few hatchback options on the market, I can understand why Ford would want to squeeze more cash out of weirdos like me who crave hatches possibly because nobody else does. But has Ford taken the hatchback premium too far?
From the Calculated Risk Blog comes this manifestation of the cash-for-clunker boom, as measured by Google’s auto buyer index. Because of seasonal downturn, it seems that pull-forward may not have been as devastating as was once thought. But will next January see the usual post-holiday recovery again?
For most of the last 20 years, Ford and Mazda have enjoyed a symbiotic relationship which worked quite well. Ford needed Mazda’s engineering and Mazda needed Ford’s volume to keep their profit margins. In short, everyone was happy. Then came the recession. Ford needed money and it needed it fast, so they mortgaged their logo, cut staff and closed factories. But curiously, Ford divested a huge chunk of Mazda which netted them, in the auto world, very little money. Ford reduced their 33.4% stake in Mazda to 13.4%, netting $540 million, but effectively losing Mazda. Not that Ford’s Mark Fields is worried.
Ford analyst George Pipas reckons the recession is over; the U.S. economy is on its way to recovery. New car sales will, uh, stay the same. “I think that we won’t fall backward from October. How much November might advance from the October level it is too early to say . . . The fourth quarter will be stronger from an auto sales standpoint than a pre-clunkers level.” Translation: the U.S. new car market is bumping along at the bottom. Lest we forget, Pipas’ “pre-clunkers level” promised land was already significantly down from pre-crash volumes. Anyway, Pipas admits that Ford 2010 sales gains will be “modest” thanks to . . . wait for it . . . the perception gap. “[Unemployment] is a drag on consumer psychology. The recession may be over and the recovery may have begun, but for many, many consumers it may not feel like it’s over even 12 months from now.” The Detroit News reports that Pipas also predicts $4 a gallon gas by next summer, cementing the consumer shift towards smaller vehicles. What’s more, “Consumers in the future will be more careful about living within their means.” And if not, even better.
Some politicians who supported the Cash for Clunkers program didn’t want to be seen promoting a billion dollar (or three) bailout for car dealers, what with car dealers rating just above sex offenders as “people who I’d like to support with my taxes.” So, not surprisingly, the C4C bill was wrapped in a mantle of green; structured to reward buyers who traded gas guzzlers for [marginally] more fuel efficient vehicles. In practice, the “program mostly involved swaps of old Ford or Chevrolet pickups for new ones that got only marginally better gas mileage, according to an analysis of new federal data by The Associated Press. The single most common swap — which occurred more than 8,200 times — involved Ford F150 pickup owners who took advantage of a government rebate to trade their old trucks for new Ford F150s. They were 17 times more likely to buy a new F150 than, say, a Toyota Prius. The fuel economy for the new trucks ranged from 15 mpg to 17 mpg based on engine size and other factors, an improvement of just 1 mpg to 3 mpg over the clunkers.” It gets worse . . .
Recent Comments