The Yaris is made at Toyota’s Onnaing-Valenciennes plant in France, from where it is shipped to the United States, Canada and Puerto Rico. Quebec accounting for 65% of Yaris’ Canadian sales, and with this, “a warm welcome will be assured for this ‘Made in France’ vehicle,” Seiji Ichii, CEO of Toyota Canada, said.

The Yaris accounted for nearly 22 percent of Toyota’s total European sales in 2012, with 182,841 vehicles, Toyota told Reuters.

When you think Toyota, you think export from Japan, but this is changing. This year, Toyota will ship U.S.-made Venza to Russia and China, said The Nikkei [sub].

Toyota will ship 4,000 Venza to Russia, 1,000 to Ukraine, and “several thousand” to China. By 2014, Toyota expects to be exporting 150,000 vehicles a year from the U.S., 20 percent more than in 2012.

In December, TTAC reported that transplants export cars in surprising numbers. BMW exported 70 percent of the 276,000 cars it built 2011 in Spartanburg, SC, helping South Carolina overtake Michigan as the No. 1 exporter of automobiles. Mercedes-Benz exports half of its cars made at its Birmingham, Ala. plant to countries outside NAFTA. Honda wants to become a net exporter of American made vehicles.

It’s not just the UAW that is upset about free trade agreements. The Koreans are likewise. The offices of the Korea Automobile Importers and Distributors Association were raided by investigators of the country’s Fair Trade Commission, the Financial Times reports. The agency alleges that BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Volkswagen and Toyota Motor were involved in price collusion.

It just so happens that the four are the most successful importers to Korea, accounting for 80 percent of car imports. After free trade agreements with the EU and the U.S. were enacted, exports took surprising turns. Car imports to Korea were up 23 percent in January and February, amounting to 12.9 percent of total sales, compared with only 4.9 per cent in 2009. Korea’s total exports to the EU increased by only 1 percent in the first year after the trade pact came into force, while trade from Europe to Korea rose 37 percent.

American carmakers are not under suspicion of collusion, no wonder; they did not have a big impact on Korea. Biggest American importer to the nation is Ford, up 72 percent.

Ford is against free trade agreements, especially with Japan, and calls the negotiations a “masquerade,” Reuters says. Stephen Biegun, Ford vice president of international governmental affairs, still blames the nasty Japanese for a closed market they say is wide open. There is zero import tax on cars to Japan, and even if the alleged non-tariff barriers are gone, it won’t make Biegun happy. He said change must reach into “the very bowels of the Japanese economy.” And because the Japanese will object to foreigners reaching into their bowels, Biegun will continue to complain.

Refreshing honesty comes from a surprising camp. Four dozen democratic lawmakers wrote a letter to President Barak Obama, warning against a free trade agreement with Japan. The alleged closed market found only passing mention. The lawmakers don’t worry about exports to Japan. They are worried about imports from Japan. Says the letter:

“In an industry with razor-thin profit margins, the elimination of the 2.5 percent car tariff (as well as the 25 percent truck tariff) would be a major benefit to Japan without any gain for a vital American industry, leading to more Japanese imports, less American production and fewer American jobs.”

What Detroit is REALLY worried about is a fall of the Chicken Tax. Detroit has a near monopoly on trucks, which drive its profits.

There is one part about free trade agreements automakers the world over love: A harmonization of standards. Biegun said that the cost of designing and producing according to separate EU and U.S. safety standards was between $3 billion and $6 billion, different environmental rules added a cost of $1.5-2 billion.

Contrary to lore, American cars are a hot export product that is in high demand abroad – as long as there are foreign badges on the Made in America cars.  For the first time, Toyota will ship U.S.-made Venza to Russia and China, says The Nikkei [sub].

Toyota will ship 4,000 Venza to Russia, 1,000 to Ukraine, and “several thousand” to China. By 2014, Toyota expects to be exporting 150,000 vehicles a year from the U.S., 20 percent more than in 2012.

In December, TTAC reported that transplants export cars in surprising numbers. BMW exported 70 percent of the 276,000 cars it built 2011 in Spartanburg, SC, helping South Carolina overtake Michigan as the No. 1 exporter of automobiles. Mercedes-Benz exports half of its cars made at its Birmingham, Ala. plant to countries outside NAFTA. Honda wants to become a net exporter of American made vehicles. At Nissan, “the numbers are trending toward Nissan being a net exporter,” a spokesman in Yokohama said.

All these exports create American jobs for Americans in America, and they improve the American trade balance.  In a few minutes, UAW operatives will tell you it’s all wrong.

Sergio Marchionne has been one of the most prolific alarmists regarding European overcapacity, and who can blame him? The economy is in the dumps in Fiat’s home market, as well as crucial export markets, and closing a plant would come with all kinds of blowback.

According to a report from Just-Auto, there may be a solution on the horizon, involving Chrysler products built in Italy and exported back to the United States. And it’s either that, or one of Fiat’s Italian plants will have to take the bullet.  A Fiat spokesman told the publication

“Given the under-utilisation of our plants in Italy [and] in an effort to resolve that issue, the company has [been] talking with Chrysler to see if we in Italy could build Chrysler or build products for export back to the States…Chrysler is doing well and they are close to saturation point in the majority of sites we have in the US. In order to have that [US export] we have to have the unions on board – if we can’t make this work… then there is one plant too many [in] Italy.”

The FIOM, a prominent metalworkers union, refused to sign a deal with Fiat that promised increased compensation packages that were linked to enhanced flexibility at the plants – something which could seriously hamper the Fiat/Chrysler export plans. According to the Fiat spokesman, other labor unions are on board with the plan.

The U.S. export plan has been in discussion since the beginning of the year. A report by Reuters in February quoted FIOM’s National Secretary for the Auto Industry criticizing Marchionne’s plans. FIOM’s Giorgio Airaudo told the news service

“It seems worrying to me. He’s telling us that there are two Italian plants at risk if the recession continues and if his plans do not materialize…”

Marchionne wouldn’t get specific with what product would be exported, he told the Wall Street Journal that ”a lot of these [Italian] plants are going to be producing for the U.S.” While other automakers are lighting their hair on fire regarding over-capacity, Marchionne has a handy escape route; American exports. Even if they aren’t as profitable as American-built vehicles, the unions are kept busy (and happy), plants are fully utilized, and the appetite for Chryslers (and hopefully, an expanded Fiat/Alfa Romeo lineup) is satiated.

The cars will be built to North American specs, with a 1.5-liter gasoline engine, automatic transmission, will have FMVSS compliant bumpers, et al. Those who expect the hybrid Yaris exported from Europe will be disappointed.

“Only petrol versions of Yaris will be exported to North America,” a Toyota spokesman said. The annual export volume is planned at around 25,000 units.

The Globe and Mail’s Greg Keenan explored an interesting conundrum that Canadian governmental officials are facing; is it worth subsidizing auto industry manufacturing facilities, even with austerity programs in place?

The closure of the Oshawa consolidated line last week brought into focus the issues facing Ontario’s once bouyant auto manufacturing sector. On the one hand, there’s the instinct to preserve the auto plants, and the stable, well-paying jobs that come with them, even if it means “investment” from both the provincial and federal government (at a rate of 15 percent of the total cost from each level of government). But with governments imposing wage freezes and layoffs on public employees, subsidizing profitable private businesses goes beyond just poor optics.

Keenan cites upgrades to Ford’s Oakville plant, which builds vehicles like the Edge and Flex, as having the potential to require a total of $400 million in government money. While the sum is steep, the upgrades would preserve the 2,800 jobs currently at the plant, and allow for a global platform vehicle to be built, increasing the potential for exports beyond the U.S. market.

States like Tennessee and Alabama are courting car companies with what Keenen describes as ”… incentives worth hundreds of millions of dollars at auto makers to finance training, infrastructure and real estate purchases and provide tax holidays to land the thousands of jobs created by assembly plants.” Of course, those states tend to have plants that aren’t unionized. Foreign automakers tend to build in the South more than the Big Three, but GM recently moved some production of the Chevrolet Equinox from Oshawa to Tennessee in part because they could pay new hires $14 an hour rather than the $32 an hour paid to Oshawa employees.

High CAW wages and a strong Canadian dollar give the automakers the potential for an easy way out when it comes to packing up and moving their plants elsewhere. Bringing production back to America, at $14 an hour would not only cut costs but provide good optics for American manufacturers. Moving production to Mexico, already a trend among a number of automakers, would provide further costs savings, and if the last generation Ford Fusion is anything to go by, no major drop in quality.

Coda Automotive, a Southern California start-up that assembles EVs with Chinese components, announced at today’s Beijing Auto Show that it would partner with the Chinese OEM Great Wall to develop a new, lower-cost EV. Says Coda CEO Phil Murtaugh (who you might remember as a key character in American Wheels, Chinese Roads) explains in a press release

We’re excited to work with Great Wall Motors to develop the second product in Coda’s portfolio, to bring another solution to a global problem and together make high-quality clean technology accessible. Ultimately, this will enable drivers worldwide to go electric affordably and support our mission of putting an EV in everyone’s garage.

Coda’s first product exemplifies the challenges facing the EV startup: namely a high MSRP (starting price $38,145) for a product that doesn’t quite meet competitive standards for the US. Great Wall may not bring a vast improvement in quality to the partnership (although it was the first Chinese OEM to pass European Whole Vehicle Type Approval), but it should be able to help Coda offer a more affordable EV to the US market. The new vehicle will be jointly developed, with Coda taking the lead on the EV powertrain development and final assembly, and GW manufacturing gliders at its plant in Baoding.

Meanwhile, plenty of questions remain. Will lower costs help Coda battle its way out of a brutally niche positioning? Will even cheaper Chinese vehicles meet American-market expectations? Will new product even make a difference to Coda, considering its dealer net is currently only four stores strong? Bertel and I will be meeting with Coda while we’re in the Los Angeles area this week, and we’ll be sure to bring you more details on its alliance with Great Wall as they become available.

Now we know why GM bought seven percent of PSA, a move for which most of the industry had no explanation. Forget overcapacity and scale effects. It was a carefully crafted plan to bring traffic in the Iran to a halt. Stuxnet is nothing compared to this.

Today, management of France’s PSA Peugeot Citroen will meet and decide whether it will continue to cut off Iran Khodro from the supply of parts needed to build the 206 and 405 vehicles, Just Auto says. PSA confirmed that it had already stopped shipping parts to the Iran for the month of March.

After the linkup between PSA and GM was announced, TTAC asked how a still partially U.S. government owned company can live with the fact that one of its partners is providing aid, comfort and car parts to the enemy.  A day later, an influential US anti-Iran lobby group called on GM and Peugeot to shut down Peugeot’s Iran business due to Tehran’s suspect nuclear program.

Mark Wallace, a former US ambassador to the United Nations and head of United Against Nuclear Iran group said:

“As a working partner and now official stake-owner of Peugeot, GM owes it to its investors and customers to compel Peugeot into ending its business in Iran. By doing business directly with the Iranian regime, Peugeot supports the regime’s ability to develop its illegal nuclear weapons program, support terrorist proxies and repress the Iranian people.”

Shortly thereafter, GM announced that PSA had suspended shipments of vehicle components to Iran Khodro and that its alliance with Peugeot “is fully compliant with U.S. law governing trade with Iran.” PSA will decide month-to-month whether to ship parts to Teheran, GM will make sure that it won’t.

With an annual capacity of a million cars, and with its 2011 production hovering close to capacity, Iran Khodro is by far the largest automaker in the Middle East. With a size comparable to Chery or Geely, Iran Khodro would rank at around place 20 on the worldwide scale of automakers, if it would rank. For some strange reason, Iran Khodro has been boycotted by or did boycott OICA for many years.

Iran Khodro (aka IKCO) has a long standing relationship with PSA Peugeot-Citroen, and France. Ayatollah Khomeini had lived in French exile and returned to the Iran on an Air France jet. France’s Total was one of Iran’s largest oil customers. The Peugeot 405 based Samand is known as “Iran’s national car.” IKCO also builds Peugeot badged iron like the 206, 405, 407 and a rear-drive Roa, a bizarre mixture of a 405 bodyshell with the rear-drive running gear of the Paykan, aka the Hillman Hunter. Iran Khodro is dependent on core components coming from France, an extended boycott could result in a breakown of its car production and in unrepaired cars after they had broken down. Iran had been busy establishing new suppliers in China, but even the Chinese complained for quite a while that payments from the Iran had become complicated. By now getting money in and out of the Iran is pretty much impossible.

I am sure the breakdown of Iran’s automotive infrastructure was an unintended consequence of the GM-PSA linkup, but I am confident that someone will claim credit and say that this was all part of the plan.  Ironically, the Iran had threatened two years ago to stop parts imports and to bankrupt Peugeot. Someone finally implemented the plan, and it was not Iran.

Renault has realized a new trend: Imports are hot in Japan. Nissan established a new company, Renault Japon Co., Ltd., to import and sell Renault vehicles in Japan, effective April 2, 2012. Previously, Renaults were sold in Japan by a division of Nissan.

While American automakers sit sulking in a corner and complain about mythical import restrictions to Japan, European makers are looking back at a great year exporting their cars to the island nation. While the Japanese market as a whole dropped 14 percent, imports to Japan rose 22.5 percent.

With 3,068 units sold in 2011, Renaults are not necessarily brisk sellers in Nippon. Renault’s alliance partner Nissan on the other hand is the second largest import brand with 53,337 units imported in 2011.

King of the hill is and remains Volkswagen. The Volkswagen Group imported 72,028 units to Japan in 2011. You will not hear them complain about a closed market.

Because of the weak euro and strong yen, the car exported from Europe to Japan guarantee big profits, especially because the Japanese customer sees nothing of that currency windfall. Cars going from Japan to the soft-euro-zone can incur losses.

As the list, compiled using data of the Japan Automobiles Importers Association, shows,  American companies do miserably in Japan. Tiny Porsche sells more cars in Japan than all of General Motors.

Registrations Of New Car Imports Japan 2011

There have been many theories that tried to explain why the Americans are losing the import wars in Japan year after year. Favorite theory in Detroit is that the Japanese market is closed. When asked where and how, there are no answers. Some people cite the fact that the Japanese drive on the left – which doesn’t stop the Germans from selling a lot of cars in Japan. Culturally attuned people say the Japanese like saiku things, small precision machines. This does not help the Mini much, which sold 4 in Japan, whereas 80 monstrous Rolls were sold. Those allegedly narrow streets in Japan seem to be wide enough for 33,000 Mercedes. Inscrutable orient.

Toyota plans to more than double its exports to South Korea to 20,700 vehicles this year, says The Nikkei [sub]. The cars come from places that used to be import nations for Toyota: The U.S. and Europe. After announcing plans to export U.S.-built cars to South Korea, Toyota now is looking to bringing made-in-Europe cars back to Asia.

The strong yen has made Japan-assembled cars uncompetitive in South Korea, whereas the relatively soft Euro makes imports from Europe interesting Toyota Korea Chief Tommy H. Nakabayashi told the Nikkei today.

The deals received extra energy from South Korea’s free-trade agreements with Europe and the U.S. The agreements will eliminate tariff barriers between the signatories. Toyota is expected to bring small diesel sedans from Europe, where they sell well.

Which country is Toyota’s second largest export hub? If all goes according to the wishes of Yoshimi Inaba, president of Toyota Motor North America, then that will be North America. Toyota has an annual production capacity of 1.8 million vehicles in the U.S. alone and wants to export increasing numbers to the world, Inaba told The Nikkei [sub].

According to Inaba,

“The U.S. has thick layers of parts suppliers. It has a huge workforce, and energy costs are falling as the development of shale gas and other types of natural gas progress. In other words, the U.S. offers both quality and cost advantages in everything from raw materials to assembly.”

Some of Toyota’s export destinations are surprising:

“South Korea, which has forged a free trade agreement with the U.S., comes to my mind. But its scale is small. Exporting to Russia and Australia makes better sense, given that we make larger vehicles favored by U.S. consumers anyway and if trading terms are taken into account. Trucks can be shipped to the Middle East. We must think of exporting to China, too, even though our production capacity is large there.”

Non-U.S. companies are taking the lead in exporting from the U.S. Last month, we heard that the BMW Group is the country’s largest automotive exporter to non-NAFTA countries.

“Under current foreign exchange rates, there can be no shipments from Japan of totally new projects,” Nissan’s COO Toshiyuki Shiga said. According to the report, anything with a new chassis that is intended for foreign markets will begin its life in those foreign markets. Says The Nikkei:

“Shiga’s comments suggest that there are few benefits to producing entirely new models for export in Japan because of the yen’s surge, but new models that use the chassis of existing vehicles can be exported as they are relatively less expensive to produce.”

Nissan makes only 25 percent of its worldwide volume in Japan. However, half of the Japanese production is currently exported. This will change.

In the interview, Shiga indicated that exports from Japan could fall to 400,000 units. At the same time, the Japanese market (which pays in yen) is supposed to absorb 600,000 units, so that the target of 1 million units can be maintained. In the fiscal year that ended in March 2011, Nissan’s Japanese production was 1.07 million units, of which 610,000 were exported and 460,000 were sold in Japan.

In early November, Toyota had announced a similar plan to maintain its commitment to make 3 million cars in Japan: Fewer cars exported means that Japanese will have to buy more cars domestically.

If the domestic sales don’t pan out as planned, both carmakers can say: “Sorry, we tried.”

Nissan’s plan sounds more decisive than Toyota’s.  Usually, cars are developed and made at home first before they slowly filter abroad.  Starting newly developed cars offshore inevitably will mean that R&D has to follow. Development and production must go hand in hand in close vicinity, at least in the early stages of the cycle.

Japan’s innovative power will be dismantled and shipped abroad. And that is a much bigger loss than a few cars. Japan will slowly turn into a 3^rd world country. It used to be that those got the older cars, while new models hatched at home.

With a 35% import tax on new cars, Argentina is already a touch market for foreign brands seeking to bring cars into the country. But the Argentinean government has just made it  little bit harder by demanding that importers export an equal amount of Argentina-made goods for every car imported. As a result, Bloomberg reports that Porsche’s importer is exporting Malbec wines and olives, Mitsubishi’s importer is getting into the peanut export game, and Subaru’s representative is shipping chicken feed to Chile. BMW, which has had recent difficulties importing into Argentina, is focusing on its core business, exporting auto parts and upholstery… and a little processed rice to make up the difference. But why are these major manufacturers getting into all kinds of strange side businesses just because Argentina wants to improve its trade balance and foreign currency reserves? Simple: Argentina is South America’s second-largest economy, and it’s been growing at over 5% per year since 2007 (i.e. when other markets were shrinking). So if the government wants imports balanced with exports, well, Porsche’s importer is just going to have to get into the wine business, isn’t he?

Designed to be the world’s cheapest car, the Tata Nano is supposed to compete with scooters and three-wheelers rather than full-priced, global-brand vehicles. But the Nano has already seen several price increases since the target MSRP of $2,500 was announced, and the price in India for a base-level Nano is now about $2,870. And when you talk about such low prices, even small increases can wreak havoc on expected volumes, and as a result the Nano is turning into something of a flop (helped along by its pyromania problem).

Apparently Year-To-Date sales of the Nano were just 29,377 units through September, down from last year’s 37,402 result over the same period. In order to make up for weak sales in India, Tata has begun planned exports to neighboring countries, but that effort is running into problems as well. Abdul Matlub Ahmad, director of Nitol Motors, the Nano’s Bangladeshi distributor tells the AFP

A lot of people came to us for booking at the fair. At least 23 people confirmed their interest. But we’ve deferred launch of Nano at the last moment as we’re seeking a re-look at the price, which some say is too high.

The price? $7,900 after a 132% tax on imported cars. No wonder Bangladesh’s auto market is dependent on some 30k annual imports of reconditioned cars. Meanwhile, the Nano’s promise of becoming “India’s Model T” seems to be fading fast. But at least Tata has done something Ford was never able to do: make money on Jaguar and Land Rover…

China’s assault on the auto markets of the west may have been delayed another five years, but Australia is going to be the canary in the coal mine. The first mature Western-style market to see any significant imports of Chinese vehicles, led by the Chery J1, is adapting to a new era of low-cost, low-content cars. And it seems that the Chinese OEMs are right to be waiting for future generations of vehicles, as the J1 seems unlikely to make even the impact that Hyundai’s departed Excel made. One reason: safety. Or lack thereof. Hit the the jump to see what we’re on about.

Not wildly inspiring, is it? On the other hand, it could be worse: after all, Holden’s Barina (a rebadged Daewoo Kalos/Chevy Aveo) got a similar two-star rating back in 2005. So, weak safety scores alone shouldn’t keep the J1 back…

Similarly, the marketing for the new Chery is weak… but not fatally, embarrassingly bad. To wit

But, if we look to South Africa, which has already been exposed to earlier Cherys, the perception of the J1 is something along the lines of the recent crop of Chrysler 200 reviews: still not competitive but a huge improvement. Or, in the words of this reviewer, a “scarily large improvement.”

In short, the J1 seems to represent a step in the development of China’s car industry: better than the rolling jokes of even a few years ago, but still not ready for primetime in the Western markets. And if China makes the most of the next five years of development, the next wave of export-oriented Chinese cars could begin to make the kind of impact we’ve seen from Hyundai over the last several decades. But neither the Koreans nor the Chinese will enjoy the opportunity afforded the Japanese, which came into the US just as Detroit’s automakers were fatally losing their way in a rapidly-changing market. If China’s going to make good on the angst it inspires in the Western automakers, it’s going to have to earn it vehicle by vehicle, generation by generation. This is only the beginning.

In many ways it was a strange scene. The president of Korea, speaking in a US factory that builds the replacement to a car that was once imported from Korea. The president of the United States, speaking in a factory that can only competitively build subcompact cars because of a government-ordered “innovative labor practices” that unionized workers were not able to ratify. In many ways, both President Obama and President Lee were visiting the graveyard of their ideals. Which is another way of saying, that this meeting symbolizes a new pragmatism.

American workers may not be getting paid what they once were, but they’re building cars at a profit. Korea may not be exporting as many cars to the US, but it’s putting the squeeze on Japan. Professor Kim Seung-jin of Hankuk University sums up the dynamic in the Korea Times, saying

There is no free lunch in the world… Korea should get into the U.S. market prior to Japan and China. The more we delay the less the advantage. You should know that the world is still living off the American market

This deal probably won’t boost US auto exports to Korea in the way Obama is hoping for, but it’s a reminder that US manufacturing is slowly becoming more competitive… and that our market remains an attractive place to do business. Free trade is necessarily a messy business for politicians, and protectionism might have kept Orion’s wages higher or Aveo production in Korea. But by embracing free trade, these two presidents could walk into Orion, live up to the downsides of free trade, and promise a stronger, more sustainable economic future.

Editor’s note: GM has officially confirmed what the UAW already let slip: Chevy’s new midsized Colorado pickup will be built at the Wentzville, MO plant and sold in the US. More details on that decision are forthcoming, but in the meantime, here’s Edd Ellison’s report from the global launch of the Colorado in Bangkok, Thailand.

Chevrolet has launched its new-generation Colorado in Thailand where it will be built and exported to 60 global markets. In true GM style, the ceremony was lavish – a cluster of truck ploughed their way through a large field of crops planted in a Bangkok exhibition hall watched by the media, dealers and VIPs packed into several grandstands – and the message was just as upbeat, the automaker feeling it has a product that can compete in the crowded mid-size segment.

In ten days time Thai customers will be able to pass judgment on whether GM have got this right, quickly followed by Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines. The New Colorado has to make up ground – the outgoing model, introduced seven years ago, never gained traction with consumers, particularly in the U.S. where robust initial sales tailed off very quickly. In the developing world, customers continued to prefer offerings from Toyota, Mitsubishi, Nissan and Isuzu – the latter somewhat ironically, as it shares its architecture with the Colorado.

GM is confident it has dotted all the ‘i’s and crossed the ‘t’s in developing the new Colorado. It has been a long and expensive project, involving the refitting of the Rayong factory, the construction of new engine plant next door to produce the new family of diesel engines, while styling was carried out in the carmaker’s Sao Paulo studios and extensive R&D was undertaken in Thailand and elsewhere. “It’s the most clean-sheet mid-size truck programme,” in GM history, said Martin Apfel, President GM Thailand/South East Asia.

According to Brad Merkel, GM Global Vehicle Line Executive, the big lesson which came from listening to customers was that they perceive pickups as “rough and tough” – but they don’t want “rough” to be a fundamental characteristic anymore, or even see why it should be. Growing aspirations and consumer demand that sees half of all pickups in Thailand bought as private cars has seen all OEMs scurrying to improve the comfort and luxury of their trucks. Toyota, the mid-size market leader, improved its Hilux this summer, and the others are following suit. Merkel says that the truck is now “refined” and points to the lack of vibrations, improved stability, and the dialing out of wind noise and rattles as key achievements. “It feels car-like,” he reckons.

The new Colorado will start from a low base here – 7,347 sales for the year to the end of August. That compares with 100,187 Hilux sales for tsunami-hit Toyota, 91,161 for the Colorado’s twin, Isuzu’s D-Max, 41,508 for Mitsubishi’s Triton and 16,032 for the Nissan Navara.

GM is anxious to emphasise the new project hasn’t been conducted in tandem with Isuzu, the two focusing on different directions after developing a common architecture. Addressing perceptions that the Colorado is more expensive to run has been a priority – the new model will go 20,000 km before its first scheduled service, while 100,000 km of running should be achieveable for a cost of no more than 20,000 baht.

Styling-wise, much of the design language has been carried over from the acclaimed Colorado “show truck” displayed at several major motor shows this year; however, some of that impact has been lost in the translation to production reality. The front end is dominated by Chevrolet’s twin-grille ‘family’ look which works quite well on what aims to be a big, butch pickup. It’s grown, too – the Colorado is now 5347mm long and there is a healthy choice of seven body colours. Inside the cabin is quite well laid out, but – as is to be expected with a pickup – there is a lot of hard plastic. The air-con controls are nicely laid out and backlit, there are umpteen storage areas and decent seats, but a number of areas, such as the instruments and door catches, feel basic and a bit clumsy.

The new four-cylinder diesel engines are based on the 6.6-litre V8 Duramax. They come in 2.5 and 2.8 litres and can be mated to 5-speed manual or 6-speed auto transmissions. The 2.5 (which should account for 75-80 percent of Thai sales) develops 150 HP and 350 Nm while the 2.8 has 180 HP on tap and 440 Nm (manual) or 470 Nm (auto).

Underneath, the body-on-frame chassis has been stiffened in torsion, and there are the expected safety features including front airbags, ESP, ABS, BA, CBC, HBFA and a deformable steering column.

GM is cautious about putting numbers on targets. The Rayong plant will assemble 12,000 new Colorados up to the end of this year, but management say they will be following demand. Capacity is likely to be around 100,000 units a year with a split between domestic and export. Only the 2.5 has been priced so far; it starts at 537,000 baht for the single cab, rising through extended/double cab, low/high ride and 2/4WD before reaching a range-topping 808,000 baht. That leaves the Colorado pretty much in line with existing pickup pricing here.

Edd Ellison is a Thailand-based auto journalist, covering the ASEAN markets and beyond. He can be contacted at edd@interfuture-media.com

Everybody has heard  that Europe and the Euro are in trouble. So why does it take so long to save it? We’ll let you in on a little known secret. First, let’s go to Slovakia. The eurozone’s second poorest member quietly turned into an automotive powerhouse. Ever hear much of the Slovakian auto industry? You won’t. Global automakers such as Volkswagen, Peugeot, Kia have discreetly set up car plants in Slovakia. Parts makers followed. Wages are low – 780 euros a month on the average. Without anyone looking, Slovakia turned into the world’s top auto maker per capita. They want to keep it that way. And that’s why they don’t want to help Greece.

Everything in the EU must be decided unanimously. “One dissenting voice among the 17 countries that use the euro could wreck the latest plan,” writes Reuters.

“It’s a debate the rest of the world is following with concern. No strangers to privations and harsh economic reform, Slovaks are divided over whether their government should agree to increasing the powers of the fund set up to help Greece and other euro zone countries that have lived beyond their means.”

Officially, it’s a question whether a poor country like Slovakia should pay for countries like Greece, which borrowed too much and were fudging their books even before they joined the euro.

Unofficially, there is another matter. A low Euro is fuel for the European export machine. While the Japanese car industry is driven out of the country by its strong yen, a low euro makes exported BMWs, Mercedes or Audi even more attractive.

Germany exported itself out of the crisis in 2010 when the Euro was down to 1.20 to the dollar. When the Euro nearly hit $1.50 last May, exports started to slow down. The crisis in the Mediterranean countries brought the Euro down to more sedate levels, and order books are full. At the same time, imports from Japan, which suffers from a strong yen are being kept in check without anyone  raising a stink about level playing fields.

However, with all the trouble the euro supposedly is in, it still fetched a $1.34 on Friday. Which is relatively high for a currency that is supposedly falling apart  if you believe the news. A euro in trouble hides the fact that the dollar is weak. Whenever there are rumors about the Mediterranean mess being solved, the euro pops up like a spring that has been under pressure. Germany exports about half of the cars it makes at home. Or in places like Slovakia.

So the little known secret is that despite the chest pounding and the dramatic (but largely unsuccessful) salvage operations, the export dynamos in Europe’s north are not unhappy with a euro that is kept in check. If peace would break out on the euro front, the currency could easily zoom to $1.50 or higher.

It is not unwelcome when people in Slovakia ostensibly ask why a poor country should help bail out the Greek. It prevents people in Berlin, Wolfsburg and Stuttgart from openly discussing whether they should bail out the Greek and lose their jobs to a zooming Euro, or whether they should prolong the southern agony a little more. Riots in Athens are more palatable than riots in Berlin. Especially when you are in Berlin.

Hyundai and Kia are technically separate companies, with Hyundai owning less than 50% of its junior partner. But as the two major divisions of the Hyundai-Kia Motor Group, the two firms share resources and align their strategies through carefully-maintained relationships in the classic Korean chaebol (conglomerate) fashion. Hyundai has long been the senior partner in the relationship, getting the newest technologies and the most expensive new cars. But in both Korea and abroad, Kia is beginning to catch up with its big brother, raising questions about the future shape of its delicate relationship. Together, Hyundai and Kia enjoy a dominant position in Korea, earning 45.2% and 33.2% of the overall Korean market in 2010 (including commercial vehicles).  But if you just look at sedans and SUVs, the Korea Herald reports that their 2010 market share numbers are much closer: 39.6% and 35/7% respectively, and converging

Hyundai Motor Group is focusing on the possibility that Kia will catch up with Hyundai within one year in terms of monthly market share ― for sales of sedans and sport utility vehicles ― domestically for the first time…

The gap for sales of sedans and SUVs have continued to narrow ― 22.9 percentage points in 2007, 17 percentage points in 2008, 15.4 percentage points in 2009 and 3.9 percentage points in 2010.

And this fresh-brewed sibling rivalry isn’t just about Korea: around the world, Kia is catching up. And this shifting relationship is shaking things up at the highest levels of the group’s leadership.

Fox Business reports that, last month in Korea

Kia’s domestic sales rose 4.4% but Hyundai’s slid 1.1%.

And that differential could be higher if it weren’t for the company’s single largest “problem”: demand is outstripping supply. The Korea Herald notes

“Some purchasers of Kia cars have to wait two or three months to see their products due to the weaker production capacity,” a local dealer said.

So, why is Kia pulling ahead of Hyundai in Korea? The Herald opines

Automobile dealers attributed Kia’s noteworthy sales performance in the local market to growing popularity of four models ― K5, K7, Sorento R and Sportage R.

Kia Motors has been successful in attracting Korean consumers by launching cars with innovative designs after the company scouted Peter Schreyer, a car designer known for helping to create the New Beetle and the Audi TT, in 2006.

And Automotive News [sub]‘s Rick Kranz has a similar interpretation

While the styling for the Sonata has been a home run in the United States, the Korean market initially was turned off by what some buyers might say is the car’s audacious design language, which Hyundai calls “fluidic sculpture.”

Simply, the Korean market apparently prefers something less radical; judging from Hyundai’s past model line, maybe “ultraconservative” is a better term.

“There are some people who are very critical of our (design) activities” in Korea, Cho Won Hong, Hyundai Motor’s chief marketing officer, told Beene. “However, we believe we should continue to apply this design identity.”

And because both firms are seling more vehicles than they can produce, a decision will have to be made at the top of the group’s leadership in order to determine how to invest in future production capacity. And because that decision will define relations between the two firms, it has huge political implications. The Herald notes

Executives of Hyundai Motor Group, however, are allegedly taking the situation seriously.

Should Hyundai be overtaken by Kia at home, the automaker will see its brand image as the long-standing No. 1 carmaker of Korea undermined and overseas sales damaged.

“It is quite interesting whether Hyundai Motor Group chairman Chung Mong-koo and his only son Eui-sun, CEO of Kia Motors, will tolerate the scenario,” a dealer said.

Meanwhile, there are already signs of change at the top of the chaebol. Last week, the WSJ [sub] reported

Hyundai announced Friday the retirement of Chief Executive Yang Seung-suk, who ended a nearly three-year stint in the post, during which time the car maker outpaced the competition in one of the industry’s worst downturns. In March, Lee Hyun-soon, Hyundai’s head of research and designer of the company’s first engine, also retired abruptly.

Hyundai’s ability to absorb such high-profile departures is rooted in a complex management structure built around Chairman Chung Mong-koo, the son of the company’s founder. Its day-to-day operations are handled by a suite of executives, the most visible of which in recent years has been Mr. Yang, known outside of South Korea as Steve Yang.

Mr. Yang was chiefly responsible for nondomestic operations and global marketing for Hyundai, which, with its affiliate Kia Motors Co., is the world’s fifth-largest car maker by unit sales.

In a statement, Hyundai said Mr. Yang’s duties would be divided among two executives, Mr. Chung and Kim Eok-jo, but neither would immediately receive the CEO designation.

The consolidation of power around Mr Chung, and the rise of executives with strong ties to Kia (which Mr Chung personally oversees), caused Wards Auto [sub] to report

Some analysts say Kia has outperformed Hyundai in the domestic and some overseas markets, speculating the two executives initially were brought over to provide a spark.

Is Kia coming into its own? Certainly US sales of the brand are nowhere near Hyundai’s blazing growth, but globally the balance of power appears to be shifting. We’ll certainly be keeping an eye on this emerging sibling rivalry.

The Detroit News‘s David Shepardson has a way of being on hand with a microphone whenever GM CEO Dan Akerson lets loose with a memorable line, and today he has Akerson telling a Bloomberg News Forum that the green star of the American auto turnaround, the Chevy Volt, could be built in China within a few years. Said Akerson

We’re going to export into China for probably a year or two and see if it gets a take … if customers set the right usage patterns. If it does, we may manufacture it there.

As Bertel has noted, GM is outsourcing future EV development to its Chinese joint ventures, but this is the first time we’ve learned that the Volt could be made in the Middle Kingdom. In fact, just two weeks ago, GM said concerns voiced by Senator Stabenow (and echoed by Rep Slaughter in the video above) about Chinese technology demands, didn’t apply because it had no plans to build the Volt in China.

But why would GM hand Chinese firms the technological secrets to the car it insists is the future of transportation, when it could export it from the US and keep dreams of a US green car renaissance alive? Well, other than the fact that the Volt is about twice the price it needs to be to be a “gamechanger” and nobody will build it cheaper than China. Besides, we’re still waiting on evidence that China is actually going to take technology in exchange for EV market access. In other words, cheap labor and big subsidies mean it’s just a matter of time before the green icon of America’s Great Auto Bailout starts being built in China.

Around two thirds of the oil used in the United States is imported. Now, something is done to offset this energy trade imbalance ever so slightly: Ethanol, the stuff that is supposed to save the U.S. from foreign oil dependency is shipped out of the country.

Who buys it? Brazil, the land where cars drink alcohol to drive. Demand in Brazil is growing at a 5-10 percent annual pace. This year, bad weather has resulted in a poor harvest of sugar cane, the main raw material for Brazilian fuel.

Enter the American farmer and enterprising Japanese trading houses

Japanese trading company Itochu  will be buying U.S. bioethanol and export it to Brazil. According to The Nikkei [sub], Itochu operates a bioethanol production and sales business in the northeastern Brazilian state of Tocantins and the southeastern state of Minas Gerais jointly with U.S. agribusiness giant Bunge Ltd. Soon, Brazilian cars will run on American corn.

The national character of auto brands is a tricky thing. For decades, Volvo wore its Swedishness on its sleeve, emphasizing the values that made Ikea, Abba and Swedish porn so popular in the US… even when it was an outpost of the Ford empire. And then the unthinkable happened: Chinese up-and-comer Li Shufu bought the brand and rolled it into his Geely empire. In the world of national-character-branding, being bought by a Chinese firm is something like hiring Casey Anthony as a brand ambassador, or using a mascot called “Mr Melamine Milk” (another nightmare scenario can be found here). So, how does a brand like Volvo, that was built on Swedishness, get past the “China Factor”? By doubling down on Swedishness? How about by building cars in the US?

Volvo’s Stephan Jacoby has opened the door to just that possibility, telling Bloomberg [via Automotive News [sub]]

One weakness of Volvo cars is the exposure to the U.S. dollar, so we are investigating increasing our sourcing in North America. The utmost solution would be to have a North American industrial footprint. We haven’t made up our mind.

OK, so currency exchange is the overriding business factor, but on a secondary level, building cars in the US would override any concerns American consumers might have about buying a made-in-China Volvo. For years now, the industry has fretted that the rise of Chinese automakers would be accompanied by waves of cheap, Chinese-built exports wiping out traditional brands on sheer cost alone. That Li and Jacoby are talking about building a US plant confirms that Chinese ascendancy need not follow the worst possible scenarios of industrial realpolitik. And as Sweden’s other automaker circles the drain, making Volvo a more global brand by assembling in Europe, China and the US is another triumph of reason over “automotive nationalism.”

If the Shanghai Daily isn’t hallucinating (their writing is pretty sober, if not sobering), and if their source is reliable (the source is Pang Qinghua, chairman of Pang Da, the yellow knight from China that was supposed to save Saab from the abyss,) then Saab’s goose is cooked.

Chairman Pang told the Shanghai Daily that “Pang Da Automobile Trade Co and Zhejiang Youngman Lotus Automobile Co have not submitted an application to the Chinese government to inject much-needed funds in Saab, increasing fears that the Swedish carmaker may drive into bankruptcy due to a cash crunch.”

Why does that mean that the goose is good for eating? Because Saab says so.

Words of wisdom from the mid-term report of the Swedish Automobile N.V.:

“Management is of the opinion that the continuity of the Group can be secured based on the conditional EUR 245 million agreed investment by Pang Da and Youngman and based on the interest shown by investors to provide further short-term funding as is currently under negotiation. Management has accordingly prepared the financial statements on the assumption that the Group will be able to continue as a going concern. However, if adequate funding for the Group cannot be secured timely, going concern can likely not be maintained.”

Well, folks, if Pang Da and Youngman haven’t handed in the paperwork yet, then that’s all, folks. Anything approaching timeliness is out of the window.

Months ago, we had been hearing noises of foot-dragging in China. We didn’t believe then that the paperwork would be handed in “within weeks,” and we don’t believe it now.

A Bloomberg report, printed verbatim in China Daily quotes Wang Yin, Pang Da’s board secretary, who said yesterday that Pang Da and Youngman “plan to submit the application in the next two weeks” to China’s National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC). His Chairman Pang Qinghua did not want to comment to Shanghai Daily.

A month ago, it was said that the paperwork would be handed in within weeks, and it wasn’t. We provided the Chinese-English translation:

“Now this is China. ‘Likely to submit’ means: ‘Maybe we will, maybe not.’ And ‘within three weeks’ means: ‘Don’t rush me.’”

Even if the paperwork is finally submitted to the NDRC at some point far away in the future, then that’s only one of a number of government agencies that have to say “hao” to the project and put a bunch of big red “chops” underneath if and when they think they should. Another agency is the Ministry of Commerce. The two companies have yet to set a date to submit an application to the Ministry, Wang said. Bu hao, no good. They all need to sign off, and a missing stamp by one can derail the whole exercise. Running down the clock is an art form that has been perfected in China over thousands of years. If you are in a hurry, then you are out of luck in this game

Even when all ducks are in a row, they tend to waddle slowly. A month ago, we reminded our readers:

“The joint venture between PSA Peugeot Citroen and China’s Chang’an took a whole year to get all necessary official blessings. The fact that Chang’an is a state-owned enterprise, one of China’s largest automakers, and owned by government-owned China Weaponry Equipment, did not speed up the paper-shuffle.”

Bottom line: It doesn’t look good. Reassuringly, Pang Qinghua told Shanghai Daily that “Saab was not in danger of an imminent bankruptcy” simply because “its chief executive officer was in China yesterday to coordinate rescue efforts.” Meaning: As long as Victor Müller is in China, he can’t sign papers in Sweden. Now that’s nice.

There is another rumor that is making the rounds: Youngman and Pang Da would guarantee the famous bridge loan. CNBC heard it from Reuters, which in turn heard it from Sweden’s Dagens Nyheter. Even the faithful at Saabsunited, which usually cling to the thinnest tread of hope, didn’t want to buy into that story:

“I would say this is a speculative rumour as I can’t even find the article from Dagens Nyheter they talk about.”

Bloomberg reports that Fiat is considering moving production of planned Alfa/Jeep-branded compact CUVs from its Italian Mirafiori plant to the US, as a rising Euro forces tough production choices. Production of some 280,000 units per year were planned to start at Mirafiori in late 2012, but Fiat may now build an as-yet unannounced subcompact there instead. According to Bloomberg’s reporting, Fiat/Chrysler CEO Sergio

Marchionne, while confirming his commitment to invest at the Turin facility, told Piedmont Region President Roberto Cota Aug. 29 that he may change the production plans for the plant.

“Fiat is evaluating which model it will build at Mirafiori,” Cota said after meeting the CEO.

Fiat’s first-half volume in the European market is down 13%, and its market share has fallen from 8.1% to 7.2%, forcing the firm to think hard about its product mix and production plans. A city car would be sold primarily in Europe, and since the Euro as risen 9% since last November when Fiat said it would build Compact CUVs at Mirafiori, it now makes more sense to build global/US-market products somewhere other than Europe. US production would be a huge boon to the reintroduction of the Alfa brand to the US market (led by the new C-CUV), as it would keep prices and profit margins far more competitive.

There’s no indication as yet of where Chrysler could build the Alfa/Jeep Q5/Forester-fighters, but Toledo North seems like the most likely candidate. Not only is the Jeep Liberty (predecessor to the new Fiat-derived Jeep C-CUV) already built there, but Chrysler is already sniffing out incentives to expand to 327,000 units per year.

Following strong rhetoric of Japan’s automakers against the strong yen, Nissan appears to take action. According to Reuters, Nissan will “reduce exports by as much as a third and reduce the impact of the yen’s crippling strength.” The move is couched into socially acceptable terms.

According to the Reuters report, Nissan does not want to reduce its Japanese production level. The company repeatedly had committed to producing 1 million cars in Japan. Reuters quotes Nissan’s Executive Vice President Hiroto Saikawa who said that the plan is to sell more cars in Japan. By increasing sales in Japan and building more vehicles for other brands under OEM agreements, “Nissan aims to boost production of vehicles sold locally in Japan from 460,000 vehicles last year to 600,000,” the report says. This would reduce exported vehicles to 40 percent, down from 670,957 units or 59 percent last year. It also would increase Nissan’s bottom line. With the yen trading at 80 to the dollar or below, exporting cars from Japan means incurring losses.

Nissan’s global production number was nearly 4 million in 2010. Only a quarter of this was made in Japan. Nissan had likewise indicated in the past that most or all of its future volume growth would go on account of locations outside of Japan.

Disclaimer: There is no official announcement by Nissan to this effect. Although Sunday is now a normal working day in the Japanese auto industry, I was unable to reach anyone at Nissan to receive independent confirmation. Emails have been sent. However, the report is by Ran Kim, an extremely reliable and conscientious Reuters correspondent.