Features

Germany’s Road Sign Deforestation

5 Comments 24 July 2007

By Chris Haak

07.24.2007

Germans tend to feel more comfortable when they are given precise, unambiguous rules. To that end, their roads are absolutely covered in road signs – to the tune of over 20 million signs. There is an average of one road sign every 28 meters, or 36 signs per kilometer. Many German drivers now feel that their country’s road sign proliferation is so bad that that the sheer quantity of them has become a safety hazard. In fact, 75% of all German drivers in a recent survey conducted by Germany’s ADAC automobile club believed their country had too many road signs.

Now, the country is doing something about it. With the encouragement of the German Transport Ministry, local authorities in some towns have been cruising around while having frank discussions about the necessity of some signs, such as a “pedestrians only” sign on a walkway too narrow for even a bicycle, or a “toad crossing” sign at another location. The goal of the sign-reduction project is to get rid of as many as half of Germany’s road sign population.

When a sign is identified as potentially unnecessary, it is covered by a plastic yellow hood that advises of the sign’s condemnation. If nobody complains after a few weeks of the sign being covered, it is removed permanently. Some of the removed signs are sold for scrap, while others are kept in storage “in case they’re needed later.”

The small Dutch town of Drachten also suffered from an excess of road signs and traffic lights, so its leadership took the radical step of removing ALL signs and signals, and installing a children’s playground in the middle of a road to encourage drivers to slow down. The result was that traffic moved more “safely,” but no longer flowed as smoothly. The German town of Bohmte would like to attempt a similar experiment.

Though I would love to have the pleasure of driving a performance car on an unrestricted stretch of open Autobahn, driving through cities and towns in Germany would probably be less enjoyable. I’m all for reducing roadside clutter and driver distractions (in this case, external distractions), but without a navigation system, I’d imagine that it’s very difficult to find one’s way through a town with no signs.

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved

Editorials

After Ten Months On the Job, Mulally’s “One Ford” Becomes Reality

8 Comments 23 July 2007

By Igor Holas

07.23.2007

This is a rendering of the upcoming 2008 Ford Falcon from Australia. Under the “One Ford” strategy, the Falcon architecture will be developed into a full range of cars including the next Mustang.

Over the past month, weeks, and days, there has been a series of announcements of future product from Ford:

Ford will begin selling its new sub-compact, the Fiesta, in US in 2009; the concept of this car will be revealed in Detroit next winter. The car is practically identical to a new generation of the Fiesta in Europe, and will be assembled in Brazil

The Ford Focus will be all new in 2011, built on a new global platform, and assembled in Wayne, Michigan

The Focus-based Kuga and C-Max will be introduced in the U.S. in 2011 or 2012

The Fusion and the Mondeo will be merged into a single project in their next generation, forthcoming in 2012 or 2013

The Australia-only inline 6 cylinder engine will be replaced by the US-assembled Duratec 3.5l and 3.7l V6 engine, starting in 2010

Ford will develop a full line of rear-wheel drive vehicles, such as Mustang, Falcon, Crown Victoria, and Explorer on a new global platform developed in Australia. The first vehicles on this new platform should appear in 2012

There are some interesting common themes among these introductions, the most obvious one being the global scope of each one of them. Every one of the announcements above makes Ford’s lineup more global, unifying models and platforms and engines. All of these introductions fall in line with the new mantra brought to the company by Alan Mulally: One Ford. Under this philosophy, managers are made to think of the Ford brand globally as a single global brand, instead of conglomerate of similar, yet unrelated local Ford brands. Under this philosophy, Ford now has a single product development department, with sections for each market, and under this philosophy, Ford is changing significantly, and changing for the better.

Mulally brought to the table the kind of matter-of-fact attitude Ford has been missing for years. Previously the status quo was often the guiding principle and this principle led us to such inefficiencies as two completely unrelated Focus cars, two completely unrelated midsize sedans (Mondeo and Fusion), three unrelated RWD architectures (Panther, Mustang, and Falcon), and so on. Very few insiders were surprised when Mulally started questioning the status quo, but quite a few of us were surprised at the quick results the new boss is getting from the underlings.

The most important of the One Ford changes are the Fusion and the Falcon programs. In the early spring, when the Mondeo was being revealed in Europe, rumors were flying wild that Mulally would quickly push for the car to replace the Fusion in the United States. A lot of enthusiasts were deliriously happy in the typical “Europe is best” fashion, ignoring two critical flaws of such a plan: 1) the North American Fusion is all new and doing very well, and 2) the Mondeo, as good as it is, lacks two core features of the Fusion: a V6 option and an all-wheel-drive option.

Behind the scenes the discussion was much more rational, simply swirling around a core question – why are Fusion and Mondeo, while identical in size and target market, based on two completely unrelated architectures? Ultimately, and logically, the decision was made that the next generation of both models will be designed together; if not as a single project, then at least as “siblings” on the same platform.

Similar questions arose upon review of the Orion program from Australia. There was no question that there should be cooperation between the Mustang program, the Panther program (if there is one) and the Orion/Falcon program; but there wasn’t. The Mustang is loosely based on the discontinued Lincoln LS, and was planned to continue on updated version of its current platform. The Panther cars (Crown Victoria, Grand Marquis, and Town Car) are all based on body-on-frame platform dating back to the eighties, and due to their high profitability there have been no plans for changes or replacements. Finally, Ford Australia, in desperate need to continue the successful Falcon rear-wheel drive large sedan, was forced to go it alone, funding expensive redesigns on a product selling a measly 50,000 units a year. Clearly, Australia could use more demand for their product, and North America could use some new product. Mulally ordered a plan that would outline the needed time, cost, and labor involved in merging all the rear-wheel drive programs into one; a global rear-wheel drive program. In June, this program got the nod of approval and starting in 2012, North America will see the first vehicles based on a new Australia-developed rear-drive platform.

Not all credit goes to Mulally, however; two crucial decisions were made well before his arrival by the much-maligned Bill Ford Jr, and the-then new VP of Americas – Mark Fields. Fields, upon review of the product “pipeline” for North America, was stunned by the plans for two models – the Focus and the upcoming EcoSport. While the rest of the world was gearing up to ready a third generation of the Focus, for North America, Focus was to continue on the first-generation platform without a replacement planned. Fields considered this ridiculous, and with the backing of Bill Ford, enrolled Ford North America as a member of the team developing the third generation Focus – we will get it in 2011.

This rendering represents a possible look of the third generation (2012) Ford Focus. Whatever the results look like, thanks to recent changes at Ford, North America and Europe will get the same car.

Similarly, Fields reviewed the planned EcoSport – a small SUV-type subcompact built in Brazil. The car was powered by an unrefined engine, the interior was cheap and the whole car was de-contented to keep costs down. Fields publicly announced that with that car, Ford was trying to “out-Korean the Koreans” and simply cancelled the program. Despite prolonging Ford’s absence in the B-segment, Fields was confident his plan was better. Again, with the backing of Bill Ford, he asked Ford of Europe to design two cars for the U.S.: a version of the brand-new upcoming Fiesta, and the brand-new upcoming version of the EcoSport, with more competitive design, power trains, interior and amenities. The concept of the Fiesta will debut in Detroit Auto Show this coming winter, and the production for US will begin in Brazil in the summer of 2009 – about eight months after production begins in Europe.

Without the might of Mulally at the very top, his “One Ford” philosophy and this new corporate structure, Fields’ power to change things had been limited by his position of the chief for Americas – he had no power over other divisions and their “willingness to share” – after all the old Ford was all about local fiefdoms protecting “their” products. With the new structure – sharing went from undesirable to mandatory; and Ford finally started taking advantage of its global scope and power.

This all might seem like expected, if logical development by an automaker in crisis, but it all just points out how deeply Ford is changing. Moreover, this new unified model portfolio has profound implications for the Ford brand and for Ford Motor Company in general.

Initially, the arrival of so many European models to North America will quiet down the most vocal critics of Ford – the “Euro is best” whiners, who ignore any accomplishments of products from North America as long as there is a different (not necessarily better) product across the Atlantic. We can see this enthusiasm building for Saturn as they gradually become “Opel U.S.” However, unlike Saturn, which is still just a boutique brand in the GM empire, the Ford product-unification will have profound effect on models with large sales volumes, and more importantly will simplify the model lineup for the core Ford brand – not just an offshoot brand. Given the scope, and volume, this move will have significant effects on development costs, saving Ford billions of dollars.

Finally, with the continuous fall of the US dollar compared to the Euro, the unified product lineup might help Ford once again strengthen their position as a US manufacturer, producing models in U.S. and exporting them to Europe or even Australia. Currently, while Ford North America would certainly have the capacity for production of such global models, the fact that North America production shares no models with the “outside world” makes this capacity academic. However, Ford’s new product plans are quickly opening doors to this possibility; the first North American component to make the trip overseas is Ford’s new 3.5l V6 engine. Ford is eliminating an Australia-only inline-6 engine and replacing it with the V6, imported from the USA; inside sources indicate Ford Australia will be able to cut the cost of each vehicle by as much as $2000 AUS thanks to the new engine. We can only assume that in the future, more and more Ford components will be exchanged between continents to take advantage of favorable exchange rates – and if the weak U.S. dollar persists, Ford might just start exporting fully-assembled Focuses, Escapes, and Fusions from U.S. to Europe and other destinations.

So where do the new product announcements from Ford leave us? Clearly the recent transition at the very top of Ford Motor Company was a welcome change for those inside Ford trying to better the company. People like Mark Fields got stronger, more vocal backing for their ideas and concerns, and we can see clear acceleration of the move to rid Ford of the redundant complexity and lack of global cooperation. With Mulally, Ford got a new corporate structure, where local-market divisions of Ford are responsible for little more than marketing, sales and market research. They no longer have a hold on manufacturing, or product design. Those two functions became global under a single, worldwide boss for each whose clear task is to transform previously disjointed local operations into unified global department working together to bring efficiency to Ford operations.

There is a lot of work left transforming the Ford structures, but with less than a year under Mulally’s belt, the progress achieved is stunning. Bill Ford led the company for five years and managed much, much less progress. Under him, managers deliberately and successfully derailed any efforts for change, sabotaging his well-intentioned plans. After the failed “Ford 2000” campaign, “One Ford” seems to be gaining the traction it needs to succeed.

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved

News

China Cars to Come Into the States through Some Side Doors

3 Comments 23 July 2007

By Brendan Moore

07.23.2007

We have speculated as to when Chinese cars will be sold in the U.S. under their own brands, and although some of the Chinese car companies have made some statements regarding when they’ll start retailing their own cars in the States, those timelines now appear to have been overly optimistic.

But, cars made in China will soon be sold in the U.S., and those cars will be retailed by some familiar brands in the U.S. If you’re a consumer in the U.S., you will soon be able to buy a Chinese-made car, even if it’s not branded as such.

Chrysler has confirmed that it will sell a small car made by Chinese car company Chery under its Dodge brand as soon as the car is able to pass emissions and safety requirements and is ready for launch. The Chery-built car will be sold worldwide, including it’s projected main market, the United States. Honda is developing a separate brand though a joint venture with one of its Chinese partners that may be sold in both Europe and North America. It should also be noted that Honda is already churning out Honda Jazz (called the Honda Fit here) models in one their factories in China that are being sold in the EU. There is a lot of chatter that General Motors is considering not only letting their wildly successful Buick subsidiary in China design their next Buick model, but is exploring the possibility of having their factory there build the car for export to North America.

And VW announced last week that a new model based on the next-generation Passat will be built by VW and Volkswagen Shanghai (their joint venture partner in China) and sold in both China and North America. VW says that Chinese and North American tastes are very similar. Another version of the next Passat will be offered for sale in Europe.

The Chinese are treading a familiar path in offering their cars through an established brand here in the U.S.; some of the Japanese auto producers and Korean companies did the same thing previously. The same type of arrangement exists today between GM and GM Daewoo whereby GM retails a sub-compact produced by Daewoo as the Chevrolet Aveo in the U.S.

These “big brother” partnerships generally accomplished two important things for the Asian car companies; one, they were able to sell more of their vehicles, which is always good, and two, they “went to school” on their American partners, learning how to set up and manage a retail dealer network in the States and gaining valuable insights in how consumers react to their products. And all without any negative consequences to their brand, in the instance that they get something wrong.

If this seems like a roundabout way to enter a market, bear in mind that the risks of making a bad first impression in a market as important as U.S. are of considerable consequence. The negative repercussions can last a very long time. Just ask Hyundai, they’ll tell you.

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved.

News

Tata Hits Obstacles in Its Quest for a “People’s Car”

2 Comments 22 July 2007

But the company is quietly pushing hard towards production

By Brendan Moore

07.22.2007

As reported here, and in many other media outlets, Tata of India is heavily involved in the development of a “People’s Car” (also referred to as the “Indian Mini”) that it plans to sell for 100,000 Indian rupees or approximately $2300 USD. The Suzuki Maruti 800, currently the cheapest car sold in India, retails for around $4700.00 USD. Tata states that the planned car will be “a real car, not as small as a Smart, and it does not have plastic curtains, and it does have a roof”, and production will start by 2009 calendar year at the latest.

All well and good, but on the way there, Tata has created a public relations nightmare in India. And it is a common theme as far as P.R. nightmares go; it is the classic “Big Guy against Poor Little Guy”.

The West Bengal government of India has used an obscure colonial-era law from 1894 to seize the lands of thousands of poor farmers in order to create the special economic zone in which Tata’s new factory will reside. In the Indian press, this action has been portrayed as part of an overall battle between the small number of India’s billionaire industrialists and teeming masses of hardscrabble farmers.

Protests by the farmers and their supporters have turned violent as the police have tried to tamp down the unrest quickly, and the resulting injuries have further polarized opinion in India. The farmers say the seized land is the most fertile and productive in all of India. The government strongly denies this, and points to the fact that the compensation packages offered to the displaced farmers are the most generous in the country, as well as their statement that the majority of the 14,000 farmers affected have already accepted the buyouts.

A targeted area of 1800 acres has already been identified in West Bengal, and is being fenced off now. The communist (yes, you read that correctly) West Bengal regional government is eager to show that their government is investor-friendly, and considers the Tata project extremely important. The federal government has been diligently putting out the same message regarding investment, and now has over 250 applications for similar special economic zones throughout India. The zones call for large gated areas which include a middle-class housing development within, which is also exacerbating the class tensions. The federal government’s response to this criticism at this point is basically, “Get used to it. This is the New India, and it will benefit all of us”.

Meanwhile, another public relations front is opening up from the environmental side. Environmental groups are saying that once people go to cars, there will be no going back, and the astounding congestion in India’s cities will get much worse with a corresponding increase in pollution. As an example, they point out that 60% of the residents of New Delhi use public transportation to get around, but with cheap cars available to the masses, that number may fall off considerably, paralyzing traffic even more in the city, and pumping out untold levels of air pollution. And this is probably only the beginning of this problem since all of the other auto companies in India (Ford, Renault-Nissan, GM, etc.) plan to follow Tata’s lead and produce a bare-bones car of their own.

Tata’s public response to both of these concerns has been, for the most part, no response at all. They are letting the federal government and the various regional governments act as their proxy in these public relations battles, saying little and pushing forward as fast as they can with their plans. Like almost everything else controversial that happens in India, they are keenly aware that once it looks inevitable that they will get what they want, then the furor will just disappear and their various opponents will just recede into the background.

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved.

News

Toyota Lowers Camry Hybrid Price

3 Comments 20 July 2007

By Brendan Moore

07.20.2007

Toyota announced today that it is lowering the base price of the Camry Hybrid by $1000 USD (3.8% of MSRP) to $25,860.

Hewing to the old adage about there being no free lunch in life, Toyota is also de-contenting the Camry in the following ways in order get to that price reduction: The 2007 model had as standard; alloy wheels, JBL audio system, leather steering wheel and shift knob, and electrochromic mirror with compass and Homelink functionality. For the 2008 Camry Hybrid model, the standard equipment is knocked back to steel wheels, single-disc CD player with only four speakers, plastic shift knob and steering wheel, and manual day/night mirror.

And in yet another pricing move to make sure all of this is a wash from a revenue standpoint, Toyota has raised the price on the regular Camry $100. Even though the price increase on the regular Camry is only 1/10 the price decrease on the Camry Hybrid, Toyota sells far, far more regular Camrys than Camry Hybrids, so they’re covered. Between the de-contenting and price increase on the regular Camry, Toyota has ensured that the Camry line will not suffer any decrease in gross revenue – if you’re a Toyota stockholder, no need for worry.

Toyota is endeavoring to take some of the sting out of the diminishing tax credits available to buyers of Toyota hybrids. Toyota surpassed their 60,000 vehicle limit for the tax credits in 2006. The tax credits were offered by the federal government to all buyers of hybrid vehicles from any manufacturer in order to stimulate sales, but each manufacturer has a cap of total hybrid vehicle sales at which buyers can receive full tax credit. The Camry Hybrid tax credit, which started out as high as $2,600, is now a much-smaller $650; and by Oct. 1, 2007, the car won’t qualify for any percentage of the income tax credit, according to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service.

Vehicles purchased from the other hybrid manufacturers are still eligible for large tax credit amounts, some as high as $3000 (i.e. Ford Escape Hybrid).

Toyota Motor Co. is the largest seller of gasoline/electric hybrids in the world.

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved

Editorials

Driving in Manhattan Won’t Be Free Much Longer

6 Comments 20 July 2007

By Chris Haak

07.20.2007

In 2003, London instituted a £8, or about $16, “congestion charge” on any cars that entered central London. The aim was to clear some of the traffic and clutter from the center of the city, encourage public transportation use, and reduce air pollution. To many, including London’s mayor, Ken Livingstone, the plan was so successful that the city expanded the size of the zone in February to roughly double its size and encompass a larger portion of the city. Although at the time of the initial implementation, 40% of Londoners supported the surcharges, 60% of them did in 2006.

Mr. Livingstone touts many successes of the charges:

  • In 2002, the average vehicle traveling through the city moved at an average of 8.7 miles per hour; in 2003 it jumped to 10.5 miles per hour
  • There are 16.4% fewer vehicles entering the city since 2002
  • There is 16.4% less carbon dioxide emissions in the city than in 2002
  • Traffic accidents with injuries fell from 2,296 in 2002 to 1,629 in 2005

The tolls work like this: When you drive through the marked toll zone between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. (or 6:30 p.m., depending on the zone), hundreds of cameras photograph your car’s license plate. A computer matches your license plate number against a database of license plates that have paid the toll. Drivers have until midnight on the day they entered the toll zone to make payment (which can be done online, via text message, over the phone, or in convenience stores), or they face fines, which are sometimes very hefty. Residents who live within the toll zones receive a 90% discount. The system costs the city about $184 million per year to run, but generates $430 million in revenue (that’s a 57% profit margin).

They are not without opposition, even in London. Small business owners are concerned that the charges dissuade potential customers from shopping at their stores if they are within the toll zone. Privacy advocates hate the idea of the government tracking every car’s movements through the city.

Now, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg would like to implement a similar plan in Manhattan, below 86th street. Under Mr. Bloomberg’s proposal, any car entering the area between 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. would be charged $8. Forget for a moment that the city is asking the federal government for between $200 million and $500 million for this initiative. Also forget for a moment that 55% of New Yorkers already use public transportation to commute to work. And finally, forget the fact that recording vehiclular movements Big Brother style goes counter to the loss of privacy that most Americans will tolerate. Those are all major issues with this initiative, to be sure. But what about the fact that Manhattan is an island? I mean, until amphibious cars are mainstreateam, the only way to get a car into Manhattan is via bridge, tunnel, or ferry, and nearly every way into Manhattan requires payment of a toll. So wouldn’t it be exponentially simpler to just add $8 onto tolls for vehicles entering Manhattan? The toll collection infrastructure – whether in the form of ferry tickets, E-ZPass, or human toll collectors – is already there.

The other thing that fundamentally bothers me about this idea as a car enthusiast is that, as if increasing traffic, increasing gas prices, and increasingly inconsiderate fellow drivers aren’t already conspiring to remove most of the fun from the driving experience, New York is basically trying to eliminate automobiles, at least to the largest extent they are able. That just doesn’t sit right with me.

I’ve only personally driven in Manhattan twice that I can recall; otherwise, every other time I have visited, I’ve either ridden the train or the ferry, so this concept doesn’t directly affect me. However, the idea is catching on in other cities, and it’s only a matter of time before a city near me – or you – tries to implement “congestion charges.” Say goodbye to automotive freedom and hello to bureaucracy.

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved

News

2008 CTS Pricing Released

3 Comments 19 July 2007

It’s good news, unless you check all the option boxes.

By Chris Haak

07.19.2007

Yesterday afternoon, a member at Cadillacforums.com posted official 2008 CTS pricing, and today, now that the cat is out of the bag, GM released them as well. The base price for a 2008 CTS with the non-DI engine and manual transmission is $32,990, and the model with the 304-horsepower direct injection V6 comes with a standard automatic transmission and costs $34,545, or $2,300 more. The base car’s price represents a $2,320 (7.6%) increase over the 2007 2.8 liter’s $30,670 price. However, comparing the 3.6 liter prices, it’s actually a $540 price reduction.

Don’t get your hopes up, however. If you’re a buyer, the news only gets worse from here. Options seem to be extremely expensive. I haven’t analyzed the details of what is included in each package, but it’s readily apparent that if you want to get ALL the good stuff, you should be prepared to spend a lot of money. A DI model with the premium luxury collection, 18″ wheels, UltraView sunroof, etc. will top out at almost $50,000.

According to Cheers and Gears, the package contents are:

Luxury Collection (PDP) – $2600
Luxury Level One Package (Y40)
Seating Package (Y44)

Premium Luxury Collection (PDQ) – $8165
Luxury Level One Package (Y40)
Luxury Level Two Package (Y41)
Seating Package (Y44)
Audio system with navigation (UAV)
UltraView sunroof (C3U)
Wood Trim Package (B19)
Wood Trim Package (B20)
Universal Home Remote (UG1)

Performance Collection (PDR) – $3300
18″ All-Season Tire Performance Package (Y42)
Seating Package (Y44)

Luxury Level One (Y40) – $1000
Theft-deterrent alarm system
AM/FM stereo with 6-disc in-dash CD changer and MP3 playback with Radio Data System (RDS) and Bose 8-speaker system
Rainsense wipers
Accent lighting
17″ x 8″ machined-faced wheels

Luxury Level Two (Y41) – $2025
Heated/ventilated front seats
Split-folding rear seat
Power rake wheel and telescopic steering column
Universal Home Remote
EZ Key passive entry system
Ultrasonic Rear Parking Assist

While the base prices are similar, or even better, the availability of additional options will push the price of a CTS with all the option boxes checked to more than $8,000 over the price of a loaded 2007 model. Apparently GM really does take the idea of moving the CTS into BMW 5-series territory seriously, because top of the line CTSs will be within spitting distance of 535i sedans (which start at $49,400 with leatherette interiors).

I’m curious to see how the market reacts to this pricing. On one hand, the base price is attractive and the car is a clear improvement over the outgoing model. On the other hand, pricing a new model too high at launch can kill its chance for later success; just ask the Chrysler Pacifica.

Some will say that the price spread is too wide; the problem is, until the smaller Alpha platform RWD Cadillac BLS debuts in a few years below the CTS, the CTS has to fill more than one pair of shoes; it has to compete on price with the 3-series and in size and features with the 5-series. It’s going to be a good car – but it really has a tough job to do.

Click the image below for a graphic with the full pricing details.


COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved

Features

Flagrantly wicked or impious

4 Comments 19 July 2007

Mike Mello

07.19.2007

Open headers. Moon discs. Full roll cage…”Nefarious II” had it all. While strolling the avenue earlier this month at the New England Summer Nationals in Worcester, MA, certain cars stood out for different reasons. A mid-80’s Impala put its hydraulics on display leaving opposite wheels hanging in mid-air, the row of S-10s was capped off by a rare Syclone, and a Toyota Corona appeared in two-tone blue. All of these cars captured my attention, but the following early 30’s mostly Ford(?) coupe was one of my favorites.


“Flagrantly wicked or impious” is what m-w.com lists as the definition of “nefarious,” the name which appeared in approximately 4″ tall blue lettering below the backseat window of this Moon-equipped sled. I’ll do my best to share with you just how this car called me over.
While walking amongst an honorable row of hot machines on Friday, July 6, this flat-black coupe hung out quietly, just watching the other guys hunt for places to park. Since the city of Worcester allowed open headers during the Summer Nationals, there was plenty to hear as well as see, but I’m only sorry I didn’t get to hear the Pontiac power in “Nefarious II” come to life.


Topped by dual carbs that bolted up to perhaps a custom-built intake, this coupe looked like it made full use of the wide rear rubber mounted at either end of the 9″ rear axle. A couple of Nefarious II’s details kept me there a while longer, even while a slew of other cool rides idled by.
“Do not resuscitate” was the order given out back, near the vanity plate that made reference to the kind of relationship the owner had with this car. The feeling I got was that this rod wasn’t built under strict rat rod standards – it just was what it was – and that’s how it got to be so wicked.

A look inside was a must-do, as the right-side door was left open, showing off the clean sheet metal interior door panels, accented by the louvered pieces which took over the openings where side glass used to reside. The period steering wheel was beautiful – but don’t miss the Gene Winfield autograph. Back to the front end, not every hot rod has a pair of vintage headlamps like this. What do you say to those big, kinda-grimy, hazel lenses? I just want to see them turned on, all yellowy, nasty, and of course, wicked.

How do you like this rod? Is it your style? Since the owner was not with the car, there was no chance for a vehicle-to-driver profile.

Don’t forget about the mouse trap – shouldn’t every rat rod have one?

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved

Editorials

S-Max USA? No way…

8 Comments 19 July 2007

By Alex Ricciuti

07.19.2007

As promised in an earlier post whereupon I reviewed the Ford S-Max and asked why the North American consumer doesn’t get a choice like this at their local Ford dealer – or a Focus ST or a new Mondeo for that matter. Here is an answer that I hope can satisfy all those disaffected, turbo-charged enthusiasts who congregate at sites such as focusfanatics.com (Which I take to be Focus fans’ answer to vwvortex.com.)

So here’s why:

It’s simple. It is an issue of price/cost. It would just be too expensive for North American buyers to purchase a vehicle manufactured in Europe from a non-luxury brand like Ford. This is particularly the case right now with exchange rates being what they are. As of this writing the Euro is trading at about 1.37 to the US dollar. This is why VW is selling only about 400,000 cars in the US each year and losing money. They’re bleeding through the nose on the Passat and Golf/Rabbit built in Wolfsburg. The Jetta, made in Mexico, is probably mitigating their losses.

Base price in Germany for an S-Max is 27,000 Euros – which is about 37,000 US dollars at current exchange rates. On a Ford that size, sticker-shock in the US would have kicked in about 15,000 bucks before that.

Cost sensitivity is a big issue because corporations are very sensitive about losing billions of dollars. We see this in how the Detroit 3 respond to proposals to increase CAFE (fuel economy standards). They all oppose them because they believe it will add costs to the vehicles they produce.

They already build fuel-efficient cars in Europe. They already have the technology. Yes, they do. But they know that the US consumer is not willing to pay for this. Right now, the only advantage the Detroit 3 enjoy over their Asian competitors is the price advantage they offer – especially with their incentives. Their brand values aren’t what they would like them to be.

Ford of Europe is essentially a German carmaker. They are designed, engineered and built mostly at the Ford plant in Cologne, Germany (and other production facilities in Genk, Belgium and a drive-train plant in the UK, etc.).

And here’s where the Ford Focus example comes into play (Focus Fanatics, pay attention now).

Many car critics think the Focus ST is a great vehicle. I wasn’t complete impressed since I found it to be a drinker and the enormous power coming through the front-wheel drive seemed unbalanced. But it was still a pretty good competitor to the Golf GTI.

Ford Focus ST

The car sells for about 22,000 Euros, which would put you in the region of 30,000 US dollars. Now, assuming Ford even had the new Focus, which it does not, a customer walks into his local dealership in Florida or Oregon or Alberta or Nova Scotia and begins to wonder why he would have to pay more than double the base-price of a Focus for the souped-up ST version.

You see? They can’t just put a Focus ST in a North American showroom and be able to justify the price difference without an explanation that mangles the value of their brand.

Namely, that the Focus ST is a German car and is not the same as the North American Focus. That it’s a superior vehicle. As German as Mercedes or BMW. Sound good? Yes, it does. So that’s why you have to pay so much to have it. Which would lead the prospective buyer to state,”But it’s a Ford!” To which the salesman would reply,”Yes, but a European Ford.” To which the customer would say,”So you’re saying that this European Focus is a better car than that other Focus over there?” To which as an employee of a Ford dealer he would be forced to answer no. To which the customer would retort,”Then why do I have to pay twice as much money for the European one?” At this point the salesman’s ears would begin to spout smoke and he would break down to reveal himself to be a Detroit-engineered robot. See the contradiction?

Now, one can ask the obvious,”Why doesn’t Ford move production over to North America where costs are less and produce vehicles that consumers will like and that will up their brand value?”

This is what Mulally, Ford’s CEO, seems to be musing about.

It’s not such an easy path to reaping the profits of building great vehicles cheaply. If it were, Audi would have had a plant in North America long ago to be more competitive with BMW and Mercedes. PSA Group, Renault and FIAT would have already bought up old GM and Ford plants and re-entered the market to sell cars that do well in Europe.

The expertise, the suppliers, the infrastructure, materials, personnel, etc. is not something you can Fed-Ex across the Atlantic. You would need great amounts of money to make such investments which Ford and GM and those new owners of Chrysler really don’t have.

Also, they’d have to look at low-cost production in Canada or Mexico to escape the rampant escalation of health-care costs for workers in the US. They’d have to re-tool factories and negotiate new agreements with the unions to do so and so on and so on.

Fundamentally, the reason the S-Max is a great car is because of the expenses incurred in building it. You want cheap? It won’t be any good.

The two markets, Europe and North America, are very different too. North American consumers expect larger cars for much less money and aren’t as demanding as Europeans in terms of styling and performance from a volume brand.

But having explained that, again, the ultimate question still stands – why can’t the Detroit 3 build great, desirable cars in their domestic market? In a competitive economy there are no excuses; if your competitor makes a better product and can deliver more value for the price, which many of the Japanese automakers do, then you’re finished. You can explain it, as I just have above, but at the end of the day you lose.

Alex Ricciuti is a freelance writer and automotive journalist based in Zurich, Switzerland. He writes frequently for Automotive News Europe.

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved

News

Ford sales up 122 percent…

1 Comment 18 July 2007

…in Russia.

By Chris Haak

07.18.2007

For all the tears shed, hands wrung, and red ink spilled about Ford’s problems in the US market for the past year or two (namely a $12.6 billion-with-a-B loss in 2006 and falling sales and market share), there is at least one part of the world where Ford can literally do almost no wrong: Russia.

Take almost everything that is wrong with Ford in its home market – a truck-heavy lineup, a marginally competitive small car, and unrealistic MSRPs (hence the perpetual $7,000 rebate on Lincoln Town Cars), and Ford does not have any of those issues in Russia. In fact, year to date Ford sales are up in Russia by 122% through June 30, while the overall market was up 70% in 2006.

In Europe, expensive gasoline and a more pragmatic approach to transportation means that few if any non-industrial buyers purchase pickup trucks or full-size SUVs. Although the US market is trending away from these vehicles, they are still very much a part of Ford’s US lineup (as well as GM’s and Chrysler’s). However, as US buyers’ tastes shift away from large vehicles, Ford’s product plans have not yet caught up to consumer tastes. In Europe, and Russia in particular, the product mix pretty much already matches what buyers want, and are likely to want in coming years. Throw a growing economy flush with oil revenue (wages up 28% in April 2007 versus April 2006) into the mix, and the result is stratospheric sales gains.

Instead of talking about what Ford does wrong in the US, let’s look at what they did right in Russia. Part of Ford’s success is probably luck, and part can be attributed to good management.

Ford laid the foundation for its success in Russia by becoming the first foreign-owned automotive company to build a production line in Russia, in St. Petersburg, so the company enjoyed a first mover advantage. St. Petersburg has become a “Russian Detroit,” as Nissan and Toyota later announced plans to build vehicles there, and other facets of a nascent automotive industry sprang up in the area. Ford currently has capacity to produce 72,000 Focus compacts at its St. Petersburg facility, but just announced plans on July 10 to spend $100 million to expand the plant to produce an additional 28,000 Focuses (100,000 total) plus 25,000 Mondeo midsize cars.

As far as having the proper product mix for the local market, Ford’s lineup in Russia is anchored by the Focus. Yes, the Russians get the “good” Focus (on the well-regarded C1 platform, which also underpins the Mazda3, Volvo S40, and others). The Focus starts at just $12,000 and is well within reach of the Russian middle class, particularly with readily available financing. The Focus is so popular in Russia that at its launch, customers had to endure six month waiting lists to buy one. There are still waiting lists, but they’re now at three or four months. It’s the best selling import brand vehicle in Russia, beating out strong competitors such as Toyota, Nissan and Mitsubishi.

If only Ford was able to emulate its success in Russia in the US, we might be having very different conversations about Ford’s future today. Unfortunately, though the Russian Ford sales are way up, they also represent only a small portion of Ford’s global sales (115,985 units out of 6.6 million) so aren’t really helping the bottom line at this point. However, analysts believe that in the next few years, Russia could become the largest car market in Europe, and Ford appears to be sitting in a great position to capitalize on that.

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved

What we do

We love cars and the car business, no matter where that takes us - United States, Japan, Germany, France, China, Brazil, Australia, India, the U.K, etc. You get the idea. No subscription fees, no sign-up, no sign-in - all you have to do is just show up and start reading. We provide both opinion and information. We have two writers in the EU, one in Asia, and five in the U.S. We focus on the United States (because we're here), but we want our readers to have the benefit of seeing a global picture regarding automotive products and industry. We hope you enjoy the site.

Used Car Bargains – Updated Monthly!

This is stored on our Used Car page - just click here and you will go there post haste. Which models are bargains month after month? Which models are bargains as of the past few months and may not be in the future as the price of gasoline continues to rise? We know, and we have added some more bargain used vehicles to the list this month, so check it out.