Unexpected opposition among rank and file members is overcome in close vote

By Brendan Moore

10.26.2007

It was a very close thing, but it looks as if the new four-year Chrysler-UAW labor agreement has been ratified by a majority of the United Auto Workers voting on the contract.

The tentative agreement hammered out by the UAW leadership got off to a rocky start, with unexpected opposition from a sizable percentage of the union rank and file membership. Several large plants voted against ratification and some senior UAW leaders, most notably Bill Parker, the de facto leader of the dissidents within the union, fought against approval, urging union members through various media platforms to vote “no”.

Parker, the UAW’s national Chrysler negotiating chairman, has made it very plain since the tentative agreement was announced that he feels that Chrysler took advantage of the UAW in the negotiations and gave the UAW workers at Chrysler a much worse deal than what the UAW workers at GM received. One example of this inequity from the point of view of Chrysler’s UAW workers is the fact that Chrysler did NOT make a commitment to move production back to the U.S. from their Mexican plants, which is something GM agreed to in their agreement with the UAW. Additionally, Parker and others are extremely unhappy about the agreement’s two-tier wage provisions, which would allow Chrysler to bring on new hires at a lower wage than current UAW workers.

Senior union officials have considerably ratcheted up their push for the new agreement since the early defeats at several large production plants, have conducted numerous Q&A sessions at the various Chrysler plants in order to allay fears and/or misconceptions about the new agreement, and they were ultimately successful in turning back the rebellion against the tentative pact. In fact, the strong push resulted in a 65% approval rate at the Sterling Heights car plant where the aforementioned Bill Parker is the senior UAW onsite.

The last vote of the 27 Chrysler plants is at Chrysler’s small-car plant in Belvidere, Ill., and is scheduled for later today. There are roughly 3,300 workers at the small-car plant, which is too few to change the national outcome unless a huge majority nix the deal, which is not likely since small cars are what Chrysler needs more of going forward, seemingly assuring the plant (and the UAW workers there) of production work the next four years of the work agreement.

The UAW leadership has to feel as if they dodged a bullet on this one, and are no doubt hoping the next (and final) agreement with Ford Motor Company and its attendant ratification process will be an easier one.

Editor’s note: 10.27.2007, 11:31 AM Eastern Time – as expected, the UAW officially ratified the contract with Chrysler this morning.

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved

And yes, that includes the United States…

By Brendan Moore

10.25.2007

Carlos Ghosn, the irrepressible interview subject that he is, said today at the Tokyo Auto Show that he thinks the $3000 car that Nissan is developing with Bajaj, an Indian motorcycle manufacturer, could be sold everywhere in the world, including the United States.

Indian manufacturer Tata plans on bringing their own $3000 car to market in 2008 and Renault is racing to match their imminent offering.

“Even if you have to reinforce the car” to meet U.S. crash-safety regulations and add features, “you’re starting with a $3,000 car,” Ghosn said. That low price leaves headroom to push up the cost, and thus the price, and still undercut the cheapest cars sold in many other markets, he said.

“What’s the cheapest car sold in America — $10,000? Between 3 and 10 is a large difference,” he said.

Yes, all those statements are true, but Nissan (and Carlos Ghosn) said just six months ago that they were not considering selling the Nissan Aprio (aka the Renault Logan) in the United States because it would dilute Nissan’s brand image. The Renault Logan, also sold as the Dacia Logan, is the entry-level car that has taken the world by storm, morphing into a huge hit for Renault and one of the company’s biggest sellers. The Nissan Aprio will be sold in Mexico shortly for around $9000 MSRP.

So, if a $9000 car is too cheap for Nissan to sell in the U.S., how can a $3000 car now be OK to sell in the States?

Part of the reason is that Ghosn has taken a good look around and figured out that Chinese cars will here in the U.S. in the next few years. India can make a car as cheaply as China can, whether that car ends up being priced at $3000, $5000 or $7000. Ghosn wants Nissan to be in that mix, so it’s no surprise that he’s talking up his project entry-level car from India. And how much longer will Nissan be able to resist selling the higher-priced, but still ridiculously cheap Logan in the United States, considering it will be available right across the border shortly?

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved

The Aston Martin Vanquish is not great, good, or even average in the realm of exotic iron, says Bruce McCulloch – it’s a disaster as a supercar.

By Bruce McCulloch

10.25.2007

It’s not often that you hear the words “awful” and “supercar” in the same sentence. Actually, finding the word “awful” to describe a “supercar” is about as rare as finding someone who actually likes the repugnance of a Pontiac Aztek.

And it’s no wonder why, when purchasing a $200,000 automobile, the last thing you obviously expect is for it to be awful. But of course, there are those exceptions; those exceptions which manage to slip through the factory gates without a shred of engineering excellence – a dud, a lemon if you will.

Thankfully, there are few of these wallet-crushers which could be described as being awful, but I’ve got one for you – there is no supercar as awful as the Aston Martin Vanquish. Here and now, we’ll take a look at what made the Vanquish so awful; its tribulations, its downfalls, its cost-saving operations.

After a some-ten-year life-time span of Aston’s flagship, the DB7, the time eventually came when with the help of Ford Motor Co., it was time to release a new vehicle. Something which would be able to compete with the average 21st century supercar; something which would have the brute power, the technology and the style to make it a true thoroughbred. Trouble is, the Vanquish was (and has) never been anything like that. And despite its bold name – which means to “annihilate or “forcibly subdue” – the Vanquish did quite just the opposite. It was never daring, never class-leading and seriously compromised because of Aston’s cash flow at the time.

The first of many problems was the styling, which as it was often criticized for being overly adventurous for an Aston. Designed by Ian Callum, designer of the DB7 and the new Jaguar XK, the Vanquish (apparently inspired by the DB4GT Zagato) was not smooth like the DB7, but more blatant – more aggressive, flashier. Of course, this is subjective and not a real problem per se, but this was an often-stated criticism of the Vanquish. Personally though, I could never concur. I always thought the Vanquish was always a great looking car – perhaps not as finely stated as the DB7, but still interesting and modern without alienating Aston Martin’s classical design philosophy.

Exterior preferences aside though, the Vanquish’s first of many downfalls was always its interior. Those who had previously been acquainted with Aston’s had come to know and love their rich and vicarious all-English thematic styling elements – the affluent and over polished woods, the hand stitched leather and well, the 20th century cabin architecture. And though such specific traits were often criticism of such vehicles as the DB7 and the Virage, it ultimately made them Astons. That’s what Aston’s were, until the Vanquish arrived.

Unlike previous Aston Martins which were really like stepping into a 19th century drawing room, engineers and designers had tried – with their limited resources – to make the Vanquish interior luxurious, as well as modern. Unfortunately, the results didn’t pan out as one had hoped. With the Vanquish there was no rich woods to be found, oh no, just a sculpted console supposedly formed with aluminium, or so they say. Instead of being classical Aston, the Vanquish’s interior was always a sub-par item; not good looking, nor well built. The centre console being the worst example with its vast array of Ford parts bin pieces – cheesy and tactless buttons, awful air vents, and an audio and climate system obviously borrowed from that of a much lesser automobile. So, the approximately $200,000 Aston Martin was noticeably shabby. Suffice to say, such was not expected from a marquee of such high stature.

Amazingly though, that’s not even the Vanquish’s real vice. The biggest of downfalls with the Vanquish was undoubtedly with its mechanicals. Like the engine for instance, which was essentially two Ford Mondeo Six’s lashed together. Though that’s not the real issue here, the real issue was the fact that the engine had 450bhp and some 400lb-ft of torque. Respectable figures at the time of its release, but it looks as it was all a little too late. The same year Aston released the Vanquish, Ferrari released an updated version of Maranello, the 575M. With a price tag near identical to the big Aston and an engine featuring 520bhp and 414lb-ft of torque, the Vanquish looked to be living in the stone-age. Mind you, that’s without even mentioning the 6.2 litre 580bhp Lamborghini Murcielago with a price tag also near identical to the Aston. So, pretty much from its release the Aston was over-priced, underpowered and cheaply assembled.

As a result, its straight line performance was always mostly inadequate. With an average 0-100 km/h (62 mph) sprint between 5.0 and 5.5 seconds, the Vanquish just wasn’t matching its similarly-priced competition, let alone a $90,000 Mercedes-Benz SL55. Also contributing to poor acceleration was a gargantuan kerbweight and what is arguably the worst sequential transmission ever built; the latter being the greatest criticism of the Vanquish. The first and foremost trouble was that the Magneti Marelli system featured no automatic mode like that of a DB9, or a Ferrari 599 GTB Fiorano. In the Vanquish, the only way to change gears was with the paddles and even that would be ok if they had just worked properly. All throughout the Vanquish’s life the transmission was always an unbelievable afterthought; it didn’t respond quickly to gear changes – often delaying upwards of two seconds. It was jerky, noisy and above all else, faulty.

Now, I know what exactly you’re thinking – “well, performance isn’t everything, how about the general driving experience”?

Well, you’d think that after a cheaply assembled interior, a faulty transmission, mediocre performance and a large kerbweight not much else could be worse, but you’d be wrong. The brakes proved to be under-sized, inadequate and likely to starting fading after a few laps on the track. And the handling, oh boy, where do you we start? The true essence of an Aston has never demanded precise handling (making a nose-heavy Aston Martin go fast was always a muscular achievement), but with the Vanquish you would have expected some sort of advancement. This was untrue though – the car was sloppy, uncontrollable and over-sized. Simply put, it just couldn’t pull its weight through the corners. And so on and so forth, the Vanquish proved to be just a big lug with lousy footwork. But in 2004, the Vanquish faced its hardest competition yet; the company’s newly released DB9. Borrowing upon the Vanquish’s 12 cylinder motor and general styling theme –albeit closer to the DB7 – the DB9 did everything better than the Vanquish. It was just as powerful, it was a tad faster; it was better-handling and certainly much better built. It’s transmission… actually worked. In short, it was everything the Vanquish should have always been, and with a price tag undercutting the Vanquish by a lump sum of some $50,000, there was now little point in purchasing the flagship.

Aston made note of this immediately and in 2005, released the “Vanquish S”. What was an apparently reworked Vanquish though, was just a pin-up. Despite featuring a supposedly “reworked transmission”, it still changed gears like a 16 year old using a manual for the first time. And despite a 70bhp power increase, tests revealed the car to have straight line performance more or less identical to that of the first Vanquish. In fairness and thanks to a stiffened chassis, it was said to handle better than the first generation though.

So here we are, in 2007, looking back at the vast mistake which the Vanquish was. A $200k dud. A mistake, an afterthought – a car which never lived up to being called a supercar, let alone an “Aston Martin”. Thankfully, the big Aston is no longer wasting factory space as it’s been discontinued, and rightly so. Long live the new DBS.

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved

A ’67 Mille; the lady is not my mother.

The ’67 Simca was the successor to the valiant Renault Dauphine of yore that had taken my parents and me to Yugoslavia in the summer of ’61 (read here) The Mille was the car in which I learned to drive, and it became my first car when I came of age and my mother graduated to a Peugeot 304.

A 304 and a Mille neck and neck in a 1973 French movie

I liked the Simca Mille from the start. It was about Dauphine-sized but boasted such refinements as a removable rear seat, a then-voguish linear speedometer, chrome side trim, red-and-cream naugahyde seats, and coat hooks above the rear doors.

It was sprightly enough, with a 944-cc engine in the rear that made 50 hp at 5200 rpm and could impel the little box along at the dizzying speed of 135 km/h (83mph)–and even a theoretical 140, with a tailwind, as I discovered to my intoxicated delight on the autobahn between Vienna and Salzburg , as such lesser local fauna as Steyr-Puch 500s obligingly yielded the fast lane.

A Steyr-Puch 500, or Fiat Cinquecento made under license in Austria

That exploit occurred when I was en route home to Geneva from Budapest, and happy to be heading west. I made the eastbound trip at a time when Hungary was behind the barrier of minefields and barbed wire and sinister lies known as the Iron Curtain. To go there at all then(1969) was a daring escapade, but I’d inherited my parents’ bloody-mindedness, and I was of an age to drive.

Switzerland and Austria, threaded as they were even then by magnificent autoroutes and autobahnen, were no sweat. The Simca hummed happily along, except when one of the frequent Alpine crosswinds blew and the car exhibited an urgent desire to hop laterally into the next lane, or into a ditch. The steering was heavy, not being power-assisted, of course; but overall the little car was easy to control, and it had a superb Porsche-sourced (so they said) four-on-the floor that squeezed the most out of the tiny engine. So I managed to avoid incidents, even in traffic-congested and polizei-teeming Vienna, the West’s last glittering showcase, beyond which the autobahn and rolling fields of Austrian Burgenland dwindled into a potholed two-lane road that did no good to the Simca’s suspension and led past looming watchtowers and fields sown with tripwires and mines (Achtung: Minen!) to the Hegyeshalom frontier post and Hungary.

The Communist world came on strong. I’d already waited three hours by the time the customs officials got around to inspecting the Simca, looking in vain for my luggage in the engine compartment at the rear and finding it in the removable rear seat, which they tackled grimly, muttering in Magyar. I was coldly interrogated by more delegates of faceless internationalism from other Iron Curtain countries: the USSR, Poland, and the DDR, some in uniform, some in bulky gray Commie-civvies. (It was barely a year since the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, and the proletarian faithful had closed ranks.) As darkness fell, the strobe lights on the watchtowers went into action, rotating slowly from left to right, right to left, left to right, inspecting the lower depths for telltale signs of wretched escape. Uniformed guards paced, expressionless. Pungent cigarettes were chain-smoked by one and all. Equally pungent slivovicz or schnapps was passed around (not to me). Occasionally a Hungarian official would bustle over and yell something at me in his native tongue or in one of the many other languages I couldn’t understand. Finally the Mille and I were released from bondage at eleven-thirty at night and drove off into the midnight Magyar steppe and found shelter in a town called Gyor that was dark and silent and smelled of the cheap gasoline that fueled the GAZ trucks and Pobeda cars one saw on the roads in the daylight. (No one traveled by night; the roads were rough and poorly lit, and roadside assistance was a thing of the future and/or the capitalist West.)

A Pobeda

Of the Hungarian countryside, however, I recall an excess of color and jolliness, and buxom peasant girls, and wine-soaked harvest festivals; but my memories may have gotten mixed up with the photos in an old Communist Youth magazine. Certainly Budapest itself was fine, although ringed with cheap apartment blocks, a whited sepulchre athwart the bluish Danube. Still: The view from the hills of Buda was magnificent. The city’s boulevards, even then, were handsome enough and evocative, vaguely, of Paris, or at least Vienna. The aromas from the few food shops were enticing, and exotic, and paprika-redolent; and the locals were surprisingly friendly. Things were cheap; but things were few. After three days I was willing to leave, hopeless capitalist that I was, and am. And my Simca and I had a tailwind to catch, somewhere on the forested autobahn west of Vienna and east of Salzburg.

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved

By Kevin Miller

10.24.2007

Audi is introducing the metroproject quattro design study this week at the Tokyo Motor Show. The vehicle is a three-door subcompact, with a hybrid powertrain which drives the front wheels using a 150 HP, 1.4 liter TFSI (turbocharged, fuel direct injection) gasoline engine and Audi S-tronic Direct Shift Gearbox, and drives the rear wheels using a 41 HP electric motor. The vehicle can run either as a gasoline front-wheel drive vehicle, an electric rear-wheel drive vehicle, or as an all-wheel drive vehicle, with the respective powertrain driving each end of the car.

The metroproject quattro’s lithium-ion battery pack is capable of powering the car solely with its electric motor, with a range up to 100 km and speeds exceeding 100 km/h. While operating in electric mode, the combustion engine will only cut in when the battery capacity has dropped below 20 percent of its maximum charge. In addition to the ability to be charged while running, the vehicle can also be plugged in to the power grid to be recharged. Audi has highlighted the electric motor under a clear window in the luggage compartment, much like Audi’s R8 showcases its motor.

The 1.4 liter TFSI gasoline engine features start automatic start/stop technology and is capable of getting the car to 100 km/h in 7.8 seconds. In self-sufficient (non plug-in) operation, the metroproject quattro’s fuel consumption is estimated to be 16% less than a comparable vehicle running solely on a gasoline engine.

The metroproject quattro is instantly recognizable as an Audi, while not mimicking any current Audi vehicles. Styling touches on the concept’s exterior include aluminum roof arches that form the A- and C-pillars as well as the roof side structure, frameless windows with no B-pillar, and use of LED daytime running lamps as seen in some production Audi vehicles. The interior features four individual seats (as in the Volvo C30) and a tasteful interior which is a bit of a departure from current Audi offerings.

An aluminum insert is present in the center console which consists of the Audi Mobile Device (AMD) as well as the start/stop button behind the gear lever. The Audi Mobile Device is a portable unit which is removable from the vehicle, and serves as the access and authorization system for the vehicle, offers the same functions and menus as the car’s MMI system, and also operates as a mobile phone, navigation system, and audio/video player. When docked in the vehicle, the information displays on the small MMI screen and on the central display in the instrument cluster.

Because the Audi Mobile Device serves as the access and authorization system for the vehicle, a separate key is not needed. Additionally the AMD serves as a control device for many system settings which can be configured from outside of the metroproject quattro. As an example, the vehicle’s heat can be turned on, and its sound system configured, by the vehicle’s driver before ever leaving the house. The AMD and the vehicle communicate via a WLAN connection. In the event that the vehicle’s alarm sounds, the vehicle can send images from an in-car camera to the AMD in real-time.

Both the hybrid quattro system and the Audi Mobile Device are interesting features of the metroproject quattro. While hybrid vehicles have become popular in recent years, they are not known as very fun to drive; this Audi promises a much more enjoyable driving experience. At the same time, the Audi Mobile Device promises a new degree of personal electronics integration into a vehicle, with all the possible convenience and driver-distraction that could introduce.

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved

See earlier coverage of the next Fiesta HERE

As the eighth-generation Fiesta is nearing production, we are finding out more about the various aspects of this revolutionary new project. Currently, there are three virtually unique versions of the Fiesta offered around the globe: German-developed European and Global Fiesta, Australian-developed Asian / Indian Fiesta, and Brazilian-developed South-American Fiesta. There is also the European Fusion, South-American EcoSport, two pickup-trucks (South-American Courier, and South-African Bantam), and even the Ikon, a Mexico-produced sedan based on an older-generation Fiesta.

With the eighth generation, Ford is putting an end to this chaos, and is developing a simplified, global lineup of cars on the platform, all designed, and developed primarily in Germany. Ford will still recognize three core markets (Europe and Europe-sourced markets; East and South-East Asia; and the Americas), and make some localized changes to the products and product availability, but the lineup will be simplified and globalized.

Accordingly, Ford will reshuffle and consolidate production: the core Fiesta production will be based in Valencia (Spain), Cologne (Germany) and Ford’s brand new plant in Nanjing (China). Camaraci (Brazil) plant will be the main producer of the derivative models of the Fiesta. It is almost certain the U.S.-destined Fiesta will be of Chinese manufacturing origin, possibly being one of the first Chinese cars imported to the U.S.; this was first hinted at by Alan Mulally back in September (LINK), and has since been confirmed by insiders as a set plan of action.

As mentioned above, Fiesta will be attractively “localized” for the three core markets. Accordingly, Ford is rolling out three concepts: we saw the European version in Frankfurt as the Verve concept, we will see the Asian version in China next month, and the American version in Detroit in January.

The European Fiesta will very closely resemble the Verve concept. The huge trapezoidal bottom intake will be a little smaller, the top grille a little bigger, and the rear roof line will not be as sloping as the Verve’s, but the overall shape, the nose and tail designs as well as the overall idea of the interior will be untouched.

The American and Asian versions will not be significantly different from the European version, but might indeed sport noticeable changes in design language and general front-end treatment. There were mules spotted in Europe with different bumper designs peeking through the camouflage, but before the respective versions are released as concepts it is hard to predict just how different the localized version will be. Either way, the changes are only going to affect the nose; the cabin shape, door skins, interior, and tail design are going to be virtually identical globally.

Recent Spy photographs show the Fiesta’s overall design it close to the Verve concept. On the right, the prototype shows a different lower intake treatment, possibly being an American or Asian vehicle.” SOURCE: http://www.automotto.org/entry/new-ford-fiesta-production-version-on-road/

Engine lineup is also becoming more definitive, but mostly only for the European version. That car will launch with a familiar lineup of three gasoline engines (1.25l, 1.4l, and 1.6l) of the current Sigma Zetec family, and two diesel engines (1.4l and 1.6l) co-developed with France’s PSA. At least some of the engines will be mated to Ford’s new PowerShift six-speed dual-clutch transmission. There have been consistent rumors of a new 1.0 liter TwinForce: a three-cylinder, turbocharged, flex-fuel engine, which will deliver about 100hp and excellent fuel economy. While this engine has still not been confirmed, inside sources “smile and wink” at inquiries about it. Finally, it is quite likely the new Fiesta will have a version running on natural gas.

Engines destined for the American version are not completely clarified yet. The most recent information is now ten months old, and pointed to a single engine offered: a 1.6l 110hp Flex-Fuel engine currently used in Brazil mated to a manual or a PowerShift transmission. There certainly could have been some changes since January regarding U.S. engine options, but at this point we simply do not know.

The Fiesta will come in three body styles: three- and five-door hatchbacks and a sedan. European version will be available in the two hatchback guises; the Asian version will likely only be offered as a sedan, and the American version will come as a sedan and a five-door hatch.

There are two Fiesta derivatives reliably confirmed at this point: the MPV-shaped Fusion and the SUV-like EcoSport. The second generation EcoSport will remain true to the current model with rugged body, AWD, and SUV looks, but the Fusion will likely be re-envisioned with a more flowing “mono-space” body and a new name, likely “B-Max.” Both of the models will also become more global; currently, Fusion is a European model, and EcoSport is a South American model, with no market offering both. The new generations will be offered alongside each other in many markets, including the Americas, and likely Asia and Europe. A third derivative is reportedly still possible – a sport-coupe inspired by the Reflex concept could be released under the Puma name about a year after the others.

Finally, a U.S. supplier source indicated a Fiesta truck project underway. Currently, Fiesta platform underpins two small trucks – the Courier in South America and Bantam in South Africa, and Europe builds Transit-Connect utility van on a unique platform. It is very likely that Ford is replacing all three of these vehicles with a new one built on a toughened-up version of the new Fiesta platform, and offering both utility-van and open-bed truck version. This new vehicle would be offered globally, including the U.S. where a small front-drive truck and van will be an interesting proposition.

One more paragraph should be written about the new Fiesta – talking about the new Fiesta ST. The sport version is confirmed to follow shortly after the mainstream Fiesta debuts, and will be powered by a new 1.6l TwinForce engine. Ford confirmed 170hp, but insiders point well north of that, close to the magical 200.

There are still many questions unanswered about the new Fiesta and its derivatives: will the car keep the Fiesta name or be renamed Verve; what will be the design and engines of the American and Asian versions and the derivative models; etc. However, it is already clear that the new generation will go a long way towards unifying Ford into one global car company with a logical vehicle lineup.

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved

By Kevin Miller

While emissions of recent diesel-powered cars in the US have gotten much cleaner in the past few years, especially with the introduction of low-sulfur diesel, large trucks- even new ones- have perpetuated diesel’s dirty image by noisily belching out clouds of smelly, sooty exhaust upon acceleration. Thankfully, that is beginning to change.

Ford is the first truck manufacturer to introduce clean diesel technology in the US. Available in 2008 Ford F-Series Super Duty trucks, the new Ford 6.4-liter Power Stroke turbo-diesel is quieter, more powerful and more capable, yet it still meets stringent new emissions regulations thanks to what Ford is calling Ford Clean Diesel Technology. The 6.4-liter Power Stroke clean-diesel delivers 350 horsepower at 3,000 rpm, 650 foot-pounds of torque starting at 2,000 rpm and has particulate emissions on par with gasoline engines – a 97 percent reduction from the existing 6.0-liter diesel truck engine. The highly efficient exhaust system combines engine and emissions-control technologies such as the diesel particulate filter (DPF) and oxidation catalyst into a close-knit system, removing nearly 97 percent of the diesel particulate.

The engine is designed to use ultra-low sulfur diesel, and is equipped with a larger fuel filter which facilitates better water removal from the fuel, enabling the vehicle to use biodiesel when it is available. Ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel is fed to the engine via a state-of-the-art, high-pressure common rail fuel injection system. Fuel pressurized to 26,000 psi is injected into the cylinders through Piezo-electric injectors. The latest in injector technology can deliver up to five injections per combustion cycle to better control emissions, provide instant response for optimized acceleration and improve cold start down to –20°F.

In addition to being cleaner and quieter, the new diesel engine is quicker. Two sequential turbochargers provide improved throttle response throughout the entire power band with better low-end performance. Ford’s tests have shown zero-to-60 times more than a second faster than the outgoing 6.0-liter Power Stroke diesel.

So the new motor is quieter, cleaner, and more powerful. What more could drivers of heavy duty trucks – and motorists following them in traffic – possibly ask for?

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved

Ghosn has not given up on a North American alliance

By Brendan Moore

10.23.2007

In wide-ranging remarks on a variety of automotive subjects made at the opening of the Tokyo Auto Show, Nissan CEO Carlos Ghosn touched on the U.S. market by commenting that he thought the U.S. market would get tougher in 2008. Ghosn said economic forces would slow sales and that even lower prices through incentives will not be enough to bring sales up to a normal level.

Ghosn predicted that somewhere between 15.5 million and 16 million units will be sold in 2008. It is expected that approximately 16 million units will be sold by the end of 2007. Total sales in 2006 were around 16.5 million.

While on the subject of North America, Ghosn also reiterated his desire to add a North American third partner to the Renault-Nissan partnership. He said he remains open to such an arrangement and hopes to see it happen soon.

Total sales of Renault and Nissan combined were around 6 million vehicles last year – the company forecasts an increase to around 7.5 million vehicles annually within the next two years.

The Renault-Nissan partnership kicked off in March 1999 and is widely credited with saving Nissan from it’s-then precarious financial situation. The companies hold shares in each other, with Renault being the senior partner and the lead in strategy. Renault and Nissan share engineering and manufacturing resources as well as some sales operations, i.e., the red-hot Renault Logan is sold as the Nissan Aprio in Mexico since Renault is not a major player in Mexico. They also share information technology, technology enterprise platforms, and have a joint purchasing and vendor management organization.

In an interview in Frankfurt last month with the German publication Die Welt, Ghosn said out loud what everyone has come to realize lately; that is, that some established auto manufacturers in the West will soon be purchased by some brash newcomer from the East.

“I think that Chinese, Indian or Russian manufacturers will buy established automobile groups, or merge with them, or sign cooperative agreements,” Ghosn said. “It’s natural. China is going to become one of the biggest markets in the world and it is very likely that at least one Chinese manufacturer appears on the global market”

“There is no reason why an Indian automobile group should not play a global role” as well, Ghosn added.

It is believed that this likely future development is part of the sales pitch Ghosn uses to entice prospective partners in North America. In other words, join us now, or possibly be forced into a partnership later that that you may find much less desirable.

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net – All Rights Reserved