There’s only a limited amount of puns possible: a SAAB story

SAAB, or Svenska Aeroplan AktieBolaget, is currently just another GM nameplate to shill their other cars through (mostly Opels and Chevys, at the moment). When formed in the late 1940s, however, SAAB was one of the most unique and innovative automakers in the world. Having been primarily an airplane manufacturer, they brought an outsider perspective to a landscape of conservative auto manufacturing with such wild features as front-wheel-drive, a two-stroke engine (which is small and makes a lot of power at the expense of emissions and noise), and a car that was smaller than the aircraft carriers that most Americans were used to driving.

Needless to say, as a small, bizarre foreign car, most folks in this country just ignored the little SAABs. That’s a shame. The original SAAB, the 92, was an amazing little car. It was so aerodynamic that it matches one of the fastest cars in the world today, the Koenigsegg CCX, at 0.30 CD. (That’s also kind of a biased comparison, because with computers, even a modern Honda Accord can get a 0.30 CD. But for 1949, that was at least twice as good as most cars on the market.) It was designed by a bunch of aeronautical engineers who’d never made a car before, and as I mentioned before was a virtual testbed of new ideas. The front-mounted, transverse (across the car, rather than placed on the centerline) engine powering the front wheels allowed for amazing traction, allowing the little and underpowered car to win rally races on snow and dirt despite being up against bigger, faster opponents. This started a performance and rally-winning heritage that lasted for quite a while.

The car was gradually upgraded, with the 93 and later cars getting different engines and slightly different engineering. Eventually, the cars went to a longitudinally-mounted (along the centerline) setup but with front wheel drive, which was a layout that only one other automaker, Audi, adopted. With the 99 and the definitive 900 coming later, SAAB became one of the only enthusiast-oriented front wheel drive cars on the planet.

So what happened? SAAB began its long, slow tailspin with the arrival of the 9000, which was co-engineered with Fiat, Alfa Romeo, and Lancia. It was entirely different than the 900, not just an evolution of its design, and it lost a lot of the character that the 900 had. SAAB was purchased by GM shortly after this in 1990, and the 9000 was replaced by the 9-5, which was built on a GM chassis that was designed for the SAAB and its soon-to-be brother, the Opel Vectra. This lead the 900 to be replaced by the 9-3, which was also built on the Vectra platform.

I really hope you’ve followed the story so far, because if you did, you’d realize that at this point, GM had both of the SAABs they were selling on non-SAAB, GM platforms. And they were the same platform! Basically, you could get small GM or larger GM. That is what SAABs were by this point. And then they proceeded to sell the exact same cars until pretty much now. The 9-5 has been on sale, virtually unchanged, since 1997.

That’s clearly not how you market an automaker who is supposed to be fundamentally different as its primary selling point. In my opinion SAAB stopped living up to its own modus operandi when the 900 died. Without unique cars to sell, it’s just another GM brand, and that’s why it’s upcoming demise is not terribly troubling to me. It’s just sad.

[Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Wikipedia, NYT]

I’ll say it again: the upshot to the “in the toilet” economy is …

Cheap, cheap cars. Really cheap. If you want to buy a Saab 9-7X, you can get $8500 cash back. But let’s be honest, the majority of these incentives are found on American vehicles, specifically larger cars and SUVs. The Saab I mentioned is a barely-disguised Chevy Trailblazer, so that (along with the fact that Saab is owned by GM and barely sells any cars at all) might explain the discount.

However, some small, fuel-efficient cars that are in high demand are even getting discounts. The Toyota Yaris and the Honda Civic are both having incentive programs in some areas. That just goes to show just how much the sales turndown is affecting even large, healthy companies like Honda and Toyota.

Places like Edmunds.com or manufacturer websites are good places to explore the discounts, but use common sense. Even though $8500 cash back makes a 9-7X a good buy, the insane depreciation and very small number of people interested in a Saab SUV might mean that you’ll end up with less equity in the car than you thought.

Of course, navigating these intricacies are what I do for a living, so you can click through to Spark Auto Consulting if you want more info about tapping into incentives.

[source: Edmunds.com]

UPDATE: GM asks for an additional $12B

No, you’re not missing a period in-between the 1 and the 2. That’s t-w-e-l-v-e billion dollars on top of the $18B they already wanted. If they don’t get it, they’ll run out of cash by March, and might have to consider bankruptcy.

Look, I’m not happy about this at all. GM employs lots of folks who happened to live in this country (and Mexico, Canada, and South Korea). And a bunch will get laid off, and almost all with see a reduction in the health benefits and other perks they were promised. Which totally sucks. You shouldn’t have to shaft the little guy, especially considering the state of healthcare in this country.

I totally blame the UAW. I am usually a pro-labor person, but in my mind the UAW represents everything that is wrong with unionization. Why is that relevant to GM’s woes? I mean, certainly GM has done a lot to dig it’s own grave, with enough brands/models competing with each other, and enough management to make the combined bureaucracy of Europe look streamlined. But the UAW has apparently bludgeoned the industry into accepting insane “legacy costs.” Which is a fancy way of saying, we’ll promise all sorts of benefits, to be paid off in the future, betting on great sales and market dominance. And it’s falling apart like Bernie Madoff’s ponzi scheme (which is exactly how I view the situation).

The taxpayer ends up with a lot of the burden for the mistakes of private enterprise. That makes me really angry. If GM achieved “parity” with the cost and benefits of other sectors in the US (including the domestic workers for foreign automakers), and stood up to the UAW, they’d be in an arguably better position, and you, Joe or Jane America, wouldn’t be worrying how much of your tax dollars are cleaning up the mess.

OK, in case you can’t tell, this turned into a full-blown rant as I actually thought this whole thing through. I actually hope it riles you up too, because it should.

[Source: NYT, pure unadulterated anger]

Under Pressure: Ford’s Ecoboost, and it’s future

Ford has been talking up their Ecoboost system (really just their name for the new generation of turbocharged engines), which are intended to give the power of a larger engine (like a V8) at the fuel economy of a smaller one (like a V6). For example, Ford already offers a V8 and a V6 version of the Mustang, but with an Ecoboost V6 you could get similar power to a V8 (which would remain the halo motor) and economy closer to the V6, if not better.

What’s the trade-off? As Autofiends.com points out, torque could be the issue. Torque is the twisting, stump-pulling power of a motor. A tractor doesn’t go very fast, but it has a lot of pulling power. Likewise, a Honda S2000 is pretty fast, but it couldn’t pull out a stump. That’s the difference between torque (tractor) and horsepower (S2000). Torque pushes you into your seat when you hit the gas, and lots of Americans like that kind of power delivery. That’s why you can get a Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT8, which is basically a 6.1L V8 engine that flings the shoebox it’s stuffed in to 60 MPH in 4.6 seconds, aerodynamics and basic notions of time and space be damned. Who cares if the SRT8 doesn’t actually make any sense when driving it is like being on a rollercoaster wherever you go?

But hey, the advantage is fuel economy, and weight savings. Especially with the addition of a turbo 4-cylinder engine to the Ecoboost line, it could provide for a lot of interesting applications. For example, a 4-cylinder Ecoboost in an SUV like the Explorer (yes, they still make them) could net fuel economy numbers substantially greater than a V8 version, with a tradeoff in towing capacity mostly.

The bottom line is it’s a good idea. There are drawbacks, and turbocharged cars are not for every application. If you tow a boat, get the larger engine. If you simply need to cruise down to the Denny’s while flooring the gas the whole time in order to stimulate your appetite, then an Ecoboost might be in your future.

[Source: autofiends.com]

Slimmin’ Down: Automakers to submit plans to Treasury

In many ways as unsurprising as it is incredible, the details of GM and Chrysler’s plans to redo their business models is going to be submitted to the Treasury Department today (Ford did not take money from the Feds, so they don’t have to submit a restructuring plan). Apparently, GM is going to slim down to just 4 brands, from the 8 they currently sell in the US. The list is:

1. Chevrolet
2. Buick
3. GMC
4. Cadillac

What’s missing from the list? Some of the brands were expected to be cut, notably Saab, Hummer, and Saturn. But Pontiac!!!

Pontiac has been the sporting face of GM for a long time, despite mostly not living up to the image. Other GM brands, with their own management and agendas, produced their own sportscars, reducing Pontiac to sort of a façade. Take the Chevy Corvette and Camaro. Pontiac got a version of the Camaro, the Firebird, for pretty much the entire life of the car. But the Corvette was the halo car for GM, and it was a Chevy, so Pontiac could never meet or exceed the performance of that car.

This is despite the fact that lately, there was some thinking that Pontiac would become a specialty, sportscar-only brand, making cars along the lines of the Solstice, G8, and the GTO exclusively. However, that’s also a little hard to believe when you consider the introduction of this monstrosity, the Pontiac G3, which is a rebadged version of that old GM favorite, the Daewoo Kalos/Chevy Aveo. Talk about mixed messages! What about the Kalos/Aveo is sporty?

So after my initial shock (“no, don’t kill the General’s sportscars!”), I’ve realized that Pontiac is just as warped and off-message as any brand at GM. Like Saturn, the brand-image has been tainted, and maybe it deserves to die to allow GM to start focusing on not competing with itself.

[Source: NYT]

New layout!

I'm testing out this new layout - I was getting a little sick of the generic blue one. A little too Blue Man Group for me. Anyways, let me know what you think of the new design.

PS - I think the text is a bit too small so I'll work on correcting that.

Multitude of Pun Options: the SHO is back

Trust me, no matter how clever you think the phrase “Fo’ SHO” would be in the byline, it’s not worth my integrity to do it. So there, it’s just in the body, and you can send any hate mail to me through my secretary, Alan Mulally.

So you might know about the Ford Taurus on sale right now, but probably not. Frankly, I’ve only noticed one on the road, and that might be because of it’s DARPA-developed stealth capabilities: complete and utter blandness. Originally the Taurus was the bread-and-butter Ford sedan, outselling all others for a number of years in the 90s, until falling off because of underdevelopment. Instead of injecting some much-needed dollars into the nameplate, they killed it and introduced the Ford Five Hundred, which was a huge underpowered boat that nobody bought. After that proved to be a mistake, they had a brilliant idea: rename it the Ford Taurus again! I forgive you if you don’t remember that earth-shattering day.

The coolest aspect of the original Taurus was the SHO (Super High Output) variant of the original car. A manual transmission and a screaming beast of a V6 (which was designed by Yamaha, which has a history of making really good motors for cars, and helped develop the high-output engine in the Toyota Celica) made it a surprisingly fun, cheap ride. The car would invariably fall apart around the motor, but the motor was a real jewel. It was one of the best V6 motors ever made.

Ford is bringing the SHO back, and it’s a similar formula – big motor in a sedan. This time, it’s a twin-turbocharged Ecoboost V6 making a whopping 355 hp. It will also apparently get 25MPG and is all-wheel drive. The Taurus is now a much bigger car that it was originally, so this is going to be a little bit of a different proposition (more big Mercedes sedan than hot-rod Accord in functionality), but Ford is claiming it will outperform a BMW 550i and be considerably cheaper at about $37,000 MSRP.

My take? It’s still a big bland car, and for $37,000 I would much rather get a Hyundai Genesis or (if I needed AWD) a turbocharged Subaru Legacy. However, the original SHO had a whole heap of die-hard fans, and I’m sure they’ll be happy to forgive it any defects and hoon the living daylights out of it. Plus it’s a cool idea, and using turbocharged V6s instead of big, thirsty V8s is responsible of Ford.

[Source: Jalopnik, Freep.com]

Right next to the giant jar of mayonnaise: a Chinese car?

There was an episode of the Simpsons a while back that involved a giant food big-lots store called CostMo, where Marge buys a 12-pound container of nutmeg. The motto was “Where Shopping Is A Baffling Ordeal.” Our reality has possibly moved closer to merging with the Simpsons universe.

Several blogs are reporting that Chinese automakers, particularly FAW, are looking at how to establish networks to sell their vehicles in North America. The companies interested in importing the cars have hit upon an idea to sell them at big-box stores like Costco and Wal-Mart. One importer, GS Cars, is already doing that in Mexico and apparently moved 4,000 units last year.

My take? Not as crazy as it sounds, but I don’t think the venture has a ton of hope. Brand-quality associations are pretty strong, and selling a car at Wal-Mart might taint the company.

Finally, consider the historical perspective. In the ‘50s Sears-Roebuck sold all sorts of motor vehicles, mostly Vespa and Cushman scooters, under the Allstate brand. They also sold a car in 1951, simply called the “Allstate.” It was in reality a small and cheap economy car made by the Kaiser-Frazier Corporation called the “Henry J” after the chairman of the company. It was cheap, poorly built, and didn’t appeal at all to American sensibilities of the 1950s. Basically, it had a weak marketing message and they didn’t sell, whether badged as Kaisers or as Allstates.

Will the Chinese cars suffer the same fate? I think if the economy recovers, everyone will spend a few dollars more and get a Chevy Aveo or something. I predict that until the Chinese can solidly establish a traditional dealer network, crazy stunts like this won’t move enough cars to make a real difference.

[source: hybridcars.com, wikipedia]

Put your hotness to work: thermoelectric generators

VW claims to have developed a thermoelectric generator that will convert wasted heat from a vehicle’s exhaust into a useable amount of electricity (about 30% of the Golf test car’s needs). They also claim a 5% reduction in fuel consumption because of the reduced load on the engine.

Reality check: is this a crazy idea? Not really, the process actually works. It’s just very, very inefficient. They’ve tried this before, and it’s pretty much not worth it to hook up an expensive thermoelectric device for a few watts of power. Apparently the VW engineers have improved the efficiency, but what’s the tradeoff? I am guessing that the device would be prohibitively expensive.

Good idea for more research and study, though. If you get this device cheap enough, and combine it will other efficiency technologies (example: a plug-in hybrid with regenerative braking, direct-fuel-injection, etc.) you might make a pretty big impact in fuel consumption. Let’s hope the net gains of a device like this outweigh, for example, the energy or harmful substances used to produce it. And these technologies would let us use internal combustion engines for a bit longer. The reality is, gasoline and diesel are pretty useful sources of fuel, from a chemical standpoint – lots of energy per unit, relatively easy to store, and still somewhat plentiful. I’m 100% in favor of getting as much bang for our gallon as possible until the party’s over – and that means wringing out as much efficiency as we can to make the dino fuel last as long as possible.

[Source: gizmag]

I’m not sure whether to be flattered or insulted: the Chevy Spark

OK, it’s no Maserati. In fact, it’s a Daewoo. GM owns Daewoo as a company that is called, unimaginiatively, GM Daewoo. It’s best known product in the US is the Chevy Aveo, which is sold as the Daewoo Kalos overseas.

The Spark is a badge-engineered version of the Daewoo Matiz, and is styled after the Chevy Beat concept. It’s been expected for a couple of years now, but it will only be sold in the US starting in 2011. Of course, GM could really sell models like this in the current economic Chernobyl, so I’m not really clear why they haven’t rushed this thing into high gear to push them onto US saleslots ASAP. I guess GM knows better.

Yeah right.

But anyhow, even though the Aveo is possibly the most awful car ever conceived outside of the Soviet sphere of influence, they sell a lot of them. So the even smaller and more efficient (theoretically) Spark should appeal to a lot of folks. If you have a genetic condition that prevents you from discerning between pleasing and unpleasing design elements, and you are in the market for a cheap car, this might be the one …

[Source: Autoblog]

Are you a plumber AND a Europhile? Have I got a car for you …

You might have seen Dodge Sprinters running around, especially if you’re a tradesperson making deliveries. The tall, narrow design has a ton of room and relatively economical features (read: diesel engine) and is great for tight urban areas. It is actually a Mercedes truck design, intended to fulfill the same niche in Euroland as panel vans (like those big Chevy and Dodge truck-based vans used by cable companies to park in the middle of your street and eat donuts) do in this country. I live near San Francisco and these things make a lot of sense in even big American cities.


Well, a smaller version of the same idea is being introduced by Ford. Called the Transit Connect (a name that makes NO sense to Americans, more on that in a second), it’s a small car-based vehicle, essentially a tiny minivan with a really high ceiling. It’s going to get a 2.0L Duratec motor and get fuel economy in the mid-20s. No diesel option is mentioned yet, but there’s an electric version coming out later this year with a 60-100 mile range, depending on options. OK, so that name. Ford Transit Connect. It sounds like a service where Ford picks you up at the airport and drops you off at your car or something. It’s really a cute way of referring to the Ford Transit, a larger van a lot like the Sprinter. But seriously, dudes, change the name. It’s stupid because we don’t get the big Transit.

This should be a pretty cool little vehicle. I was across the pond for a bit back in my wild college days, and I drove a very similar Renault vanlet around for a while. It was a VERY useful little car. And Ford is going to offer a passenger version, which should (as in Europe) attract a pretty significant number of folks looking for an inexpensive but very functional vehicle. Probably the most similar car in the US to the Transit Connect will be the Honda Element, which doesn’t offer as much interior space or a commercial version.

[Source: Jalopnik, Freep.com]

Would you buy a Geely Urban Nanny?

I was joking a bit in the last post about the Geely Beauty Leopard. Well, the name of Geely's pickup is the PU (funny in and of itself), and the delivery-truck version of it is called either the Urban Nanny or the Rural Nanny, depending on how it's configured.

It's based on the old (ancient) platform of the Daihatsu Charade, another really unfortunately named car, that was actually sold in the US for a couple of years.

I know it's problematic to make fun of the names of cars in other languages, but I seriously hope before Geely ever sells a car in the US they learn how to do focus groups with Americans.

Volvo Potentially to Be Purchased By Chinese Company

Several sources are reporting that the Chinese manufacturer Geely is interested in purchasing Volvo from Ford. Geely is known in the US mostly for making cars with funny names, like the BL (which stands for “Beauty Leopard.” Pictured above, lifted from the dictionary next to the word “ironic.”). Ford has spun off much of its former Premiere Automotive Group (PAG) to other companies. Land Rover, Aston Martin, and Jaguar are now owned by Tata of India, and Volvo is really the last PAG marque left.

Volvo hasn’t been good to Ford. Low sales volumes and losses have made Volvo sort of a liability, and the PAG (in my opinion) hasn’t really had much of a halo effect on Ford. I mean, do most people even know that Ford owns Volvo? The connection really isn’t there.

What would a Geely acquisition mean for you as a consumer? Probably not too much – I doubt that Geely would tinker too much with the cars or their direction. Volvo still has a lot of structure in Sweden, including designers and engineers, so my guess is that the Swedes would keep developing the cars for Volvo, and work double duty making the Geely cars themselves better. The real question is whether or not this is a cost-effective way for Geely to get some Western design and engineering experience. I’ll leave that to the beancounters.

[Sources: NYT, Edmunds, Autoblog]

Sick again ... more sporatic posting and lame excuses.

It seems that I'm about as healthy as the Detroit 3. But hey, that means lazy blogger is ok! So here are some old Toyota ads.

Let's start with this gem: in Japan, there's a whole genre of ads where a western movie star says a token word or two, and drives a car around in a usually nonsensical situation. I can't embed these videos (sorry), so make the jump over to Jalopnik and enjoy watching Roger Moore drive the crap out of a Toyota Corona. Trust me, it's worth watching the whole thing.

And in this amazing, absurd song-and-dance commercial, you'll notice even the strange looking team of muscle-men like front wheel drive. "Oh what a feeling!" indeed.

Uh, this one? I like old Celicas probably more than anyone, but this ad does not want to make me buy one. I agree with Jalopnik that the swinging mailbox that makes it nighttime is a little absurd.

Basically, after seeing this ad about a Corolla FX from outer space, I can't believe anyone bought Toyotas at all!

Jing Qi! China passes US in total auto sales

Despite a worldwide recession that is affecting even China (after significantly growing it’s economy for most of 2008), the Chinese bought about 795,000 new vehicles in January of ’09. That compares to approximately 657,000 vehicles sold in the US.

For whatever it’s worth, this is the first time in history that China has surpassed the US in vehicle sales. But don’t expect me to scream “oh no, we’re going to be overrun by crappy Chinese cars!” I feel like the learning curve isn’t going to be too much steeper for China than it was for Korea. It took the Koreans, particularly Kia and Hyundai, only a decade or two from making bad copies of other cars to being serious rivals to Japanese automakers in terms of quality and design. Want proof? Look at the new Hyundai Genesis. Compare that to a Hyundai Excel from 1990 and you’ll understand that motivated companies with advantages in labor costs, and some help from foreign expertise, will catch up really quick. Realistically, I give the Chinese another 10 years, and possibly less, to make very competitive cars. And I don’t expect the Koreans to give their market position up easily, so expect a price, feature, and quality war in the near future. Chinese automakers like BYD (“Build Your Dreams,” actually one of the better manufacturer names) are already very serious about hybrid technology, too.

That will be good for consumers, trust me. You’ll benefit in the long run.

[Source: Freep.com. Bnet Autos]

Auf wiedersehen, beschissen Bangle-Arschen!

(Goodbye, crappy Bangle-butts!) For those of you unfamiliar with Mr. Bangle or his atrocities, know this: in high school, my car-loving friends and I adopted the word “Bangle” to mean, well, the same thing as a four-letter work starting with an “F” commonly used to describe (with “-ed” on the end) the state of the economy. That same meaning of “completely and totally screwed” applies to what Mr. Bangle did to the styling department of BMW.

According to the ever-accurate wikipedia, Chris Bangle (who is American) went to BMW in 1992, apparently after deciding that becoming a Methodist priest was less exciting that making ugly cars. There, he imposed a strange, twisted design philosophy. Before Bangle reached BMW, they were known for their driving dynamics, not their styling. Case in point: the BMW M5 of the late ‘80s. Ugly as sin, but a great driver. Later M5s, notably the 1998-2003 edition, were handsome in an UNDERSTATED way. They did not need to be flashy to convey the point that they were fast, luxurious, and exclusive. Fast forward to 2002, when the 7-series that was styled by Bangle’s team was unleashed on an unsuspecting public. It had a butt that looked like it had grown an unfortunate tumor, and it was shocking and polarizing. No longer was BMW going to eschew gimmicky tack-on elements, they were going to fully embrace them! Bangle said, “let the world have FLAME SURFACING,” and despite the fact that no one knew what the hell he was talking about, suddenly people noticed that their BMWs looks like they had been poorly folded out of cardboard, with clashing lines and edges. This Z4 is a prime example, with strange shapes scalloped into the sides, awkward meetings of panels, and a frumpy tail. All hallmarks of the Bangle style. But in any event, the point of the matter is that Bangle is gone, and despite all of the harm he’s done to BMW and its competitors (like Infiniti and especially Acura, whose cars have been beaten with the ugly stick of late), hopefully BMW will decide a new styling direction would help them sell more cars.

[source: Jalopnik, Reuters]

Hug your sad Salesperson: Sales off sharply for January

Reuters is reporting some bad news. Auto sales are near a 27-year low for the month of January. The numbers (make sure small children or people sensitive to strong images of corporate failure are not looking):

Ford: 40% drop in January domestic sales, capping 10 months of declines of more than 10%

Toyota: 34% drop for US sales

Nissan: 30% for US sales

Shockingly, on the news that rental car agencies were sharply cutting back on purchases, Chrysler expected sales to be off more than 35%. Why did I say “shockingly” (in a sarcastic manner)? Well, that’s to be expected when the only people who buy your cars are rental agencies. I mentioned a while back that the Dodge Avenger and Chrysler Sebring twins are pretty much the archetype of a car so foul that only rental car agencies will buy them. The economy is so bad the agencies are balking.

If any Chrysler execs are reading this (which, trust me, they aren’t for several reasons, one of which is that they are allergic to good advice), you might want to consider making cars that don’t look like rejected props from Mel Brooks’ Spaceballs.

Symphonic Exhaust: Jay Leno's Lotus Elan

If you read my posts about Lotus (see HERE and HERE), then watching this video might help you further understand my appreciation from the quirky little English manufacturer.

If nothing else, the sound the twin-cam in this little Elan makes is simply unearthly.

Enjoy!