You just know they’re going to get it wrong. And so they do. Number One: Full-Size Pickup Trucks. Huh? If any market segment is likely NOT to restore The Big 2.8 to glowing good health, it’s the PU segment. But no. I mean yes! “The Dodge Ram is new for 2009, as is the top-selling Ford F-150, while the Chevy Silverado and GMC Sierra twins combine to sell more than any of them. With the Toyota Tundra in retreat and Nissan ready to surrender the segment (they’ll be getting their next generation of Titans from Dodge), cheap gas should keep buyers putting their money into these profit centers.” And if the housing market stays in the toilet, the market remains saturated with trucks or the price of gas goes up? * crickets chirping * No wait! Number Two: American Muscle. Huh? Talk about carving-up smaller pieces a decreasing pie. Nope. Fox is saying halo to the new Camaro, Challenger and Mustang. “Forget for a moment all of the goody two-shoes environmentally conscious cars Washington wants the Detroit 3 to build: These are the ones that look best in the commercials and get shoppers into showrooms. They may not sell in huge numbers, but you can’t pay for the kind of pride they bring to a brand’s image.” Apparently, you– I mean “we” can. Number Three…
A stylish, high-quality, reliable, fuel-efficient Camry and Accord killer. Just kidding. “Powerful efficiency.” Huh? You mean hybrids? Nope, because, “the technology that goes into building them is still expensive, so while the vehicles are good for public relations, it will be years before they start putting any coin into the company coffers. Besides, they’re all still kind of wimpy. Enter direct injection, which is an effective way of getting fuel into engines that not only makes them more fuel efficient, but also more powerful, and it costs a lot less than a hybrid to produce.” Which leaves us with only one question: is this Motown’s plan? If so, you can kiss our $44.4b (and the rest) “investment” in Detroit good bye.
88 Comments on “Fox News: 3 Things That Can Save Detroit...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
I’m surprised Faux News made the solution THAT complex. 3 solutions for their viewers to get their head’s around?? Usually they can’t handle anymore than one angle on a problem, which they will stick to in face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
It’s an embarrassment for we Australians to have inflicted Rupert on the USA. Sorry ’bout that.
Nah, it isn’t your fault.
Every nation has its own fair share of bums – unfortunately we have 300M people here so we have proportionally lot more stupid bums than any other modern, democratic European or Asian country (Russia isn’t modern nor democratic) ergo an entire ‘news’ empire can thrive on this enormous mass of uneducated morons, fake religious fundamentalist sects and cynical, lying pseudo-conservatives.
BTW I wonder how long will Murdoch, this completely unscrupulous, greedy midget pay for his utterly failed, laughably illiterate, useless, preposterously amateur Faux “Business” News channel – he’s NOT a conservative by any measure, he loves profit, that’s all, if there won’t be any decent centrist station or liberal voice then he would move in there tomorrow morning so I bet if FBN does not take off this year he will kill it by 2010 latest.
kamm :
As a former CNNer (there for day one, in 1927), I’m happy Fox is around. I appreciate coverage from all ends of the political spectrum. Jefferson. Newspapers without a government vs. government without newspapers. That sort of thing.
But this is a clear example where Fox gets its badly, badly wrong. (O’Reilly’s love of ethanol is another). Which is deeply worrying.
And here’s the real kicker (to use the news term): what IS the right answer? Short of a total reorganization under C11– Hell WITH a total reorganization under C11– I don’t see anything that Ford, GM and Chrysler (ha!) can do to generate enough profit to pay off their OLD debt, never mind the new stuff.
Pete,
You’re looking at this logically. It’s really only one solution: Remain calm, all is well.
I promise not to hold you accountable for Murdoch if you promise to reciprocate for Bush.
Stay focused guys. What’s your take on the substance of this story?
Fox has it right.For the short term pickups and muscle cars is the only segment that the domestics can kick ass.Toyota made one of thier rare mistakes with the Tundra.Nissan can’t get a truck frame to hold together for more than about 6 yrs.Honda is not in the game.The Camaro/Mustang crowd just laugh at the wannabe ricers.
Yeah..yeah I know mullets and rednecks. Laugh all you want but its a huge demographic.In baseball you hit em where they ain’t no fielders.
With car sales in the dumper bring on the pickups and muscle cars.
Well, SOME people “say” that Fox News is the modern-day equivalent of Goebbel’s propaganda machine of Nazi-era Germany.
I would encourage everyone to take a peek at the film “Outfoxed”…it’s on Google Video for your viewing pleasure:
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=outfoxed&emb=0&aq=f#
Fox News is NOT “fair and balanced”…it’s quite the opposite. To use gutter talk, it’s mindwarping bullshit.
But back to cars…I just SO LOVE the “AMERICAN” muscle crap. There may be a niche for the “Harley Davidson’” of automobiles…but there are only so many mullet-wearing, stained t-shirt wearing, Wal-Mart shoppin’…..
…oh WAIT, Wal-Mart…YES, *that’s the ticket*…offer a free $20 Wal-Mart gift certificate along with 0% financing…THAT’ll save the “Big 3″. Maybe you can throw in a free family pass to a traveling “Mud Bog” show…coming to the nearest Po-Dunk Hillwilliam town nearest you.
While these 3 steps alone will not save the D3, they don’t seem entirely off the mark. Pickups and brash muscle cars are definitely something the D3 do well. Pickups will always remain in demand to a significant degree while halo cars like the Camaro may help strengthen the manufacturer’s image (perhaps very little but it certainly won’t hurt it). Lastly, the point about green technologies being unprofitable in the short-term is unfortunately true for the D3, due to the amount of investment they need just to catch up. So, in the short-term they can use quick fixes that can be ready right away at a low cost.
The D3 will need a lot more to save them (if it’s not too late) but these points don’t sound too crazy.
Robert,
With all due respect, where is the substance?
This is a filler/fluff piece that gives Tom and Ray Magliozzi the gravitas of Kissinger.
As you (and everyone else who can read a financial) has observed, short of C11, there is no prayer.
Even with C11, it’s about 50 to 1 against.
If we want to talk about a new company, with new management, selling the big3’s successful niche products, then we have something that has a chance of coming true.
Oh, good. Muscle cars! It looks like typical Detroit: Always look backward instead of forward. Who needs new technology? What people really want is to relive the past–forty years in the past. I cannot wait for the Big Three to mine even further back in time and put fins on their cars. That’d be sweet. What red blooded american would not choose an Adam West batmobile over a rice ready hybrid econobox made by our old enemy, the “japs?”
So let me get this straight. To save Detroit, they must…keep doing the things they’ve been losing money doing for the last four years?
About the only option short of bankruptcy that will save Detroit is to start selling Hondas rebadged as Pontiacs.
@ Porschespeed
I promise not to hold you accountable for Murdoch if you promise to reciprocate for Bush.
Geez. That’s a big ask. Can I have a coupla days??
@ RF
What’s your take on the substance of this story?
Short-term-ism alive and well of course. Faux News are suggesting they should make products that are profitable at the moment, well heeellloooo…
Besides that, given the massive discount incentives, who is suggesting that the Bigish3 are actually making money in the pickup market?? I suspect they’re just trying to generate cash at almost any cost in an appalling sales environment.
GM/Chrysler (and probably Ford’s) fate is probably out of government’s hands now, even if they do have a few profitable products. The new car market will shrink too much that they just won’t have time to re-organize regardless plus the rate of market share loss is increasingly away from GM/Chrysler.
In that environment, the sales end will collapse as will selected suppliers.
Ford might be able to benefit.
Is Fox Serious?
oh wait, this is Fox News never mind.
I can believe in the “powerful efficiency” but trucks and muscle cars? Trucks still have their place and the effort put into them by Detroit is wonderful. But it’s a shame they can’t put that much enthusiasm and effort into a high volume seller, passenger vehicle. If they really want to use the muscle car as a selling point for survival they better do it with proven 21st century tech and forget the “good ol’ days” crap.
Look at the brands and cars America makes that DO SELL.
Chrysler 300/Pacifica… WHY?
Because the 300 is a large car with entry luxury appeal and optional powerful V8 engines as well as base 3.5 V6. Pacifica because it was the first crossover that didn’t look bad and maintained interior space.
CADILLAC CTS and ESCALADE
Why? Anyone buying an Escalade ISN’T WORRIED ABOUT FUEL ECONOMY. Not when you’re buying a $71,000 truck that uses premium fuel.
The CTS? Because its pretty, sexy and well marketed.
FORD FOCUS, FUSION and LINCOLN: MKZ, MKX, MKS
Ford isn’t doing as bad as GM or Chrysler cause they are making efforts to give the people what they want without beating us over the head on pricing. The MKX is a great crossover as well as the edge and it has looks that appeal to women and men. The MKZ is a good looking Lincoln, though it doesn’t have alot of power under the hood. The MKS is a luxury car that has alot of Lexus appeal to it and is only $45,000.
The way I see it, the best segments to focus on are base consumer car/eco car; performance and yes, pickup trucks.
The F150 is #1 ON THE EARTH – for good reason – its overengineered and has unmatched torque in its class as well as great luxury features.
GM’s trucks appeal to western Americans too but I think they get better deals from Toyota’s banks.
IMHO the story misses the point. The deal is that sales are down and are going to stay down for years to come.
The credit bubble pulled ahead millions of sales. Did GM, Ford, Chryco participate with 0% deals? Sure, but what choice did they have. If they hadn’t sold cars to people who couldn’t afford them, someone else would have and they would be in WORSE shape today, if they even survived at all.
So to the point… Once the easy credit left, the demographics of real buyers changed significantly.
My take on the new buyer:
- Even with the economy imploding they are comfortable taking on a payment or they are paying cash (and they know exactly what is happening with the economy. They watch the news)
- They managed their credit even during the bubble and are sitting on a 700+ score
- They probably know their trade isn’t worth much. Maybe they are giving their current car to a son/daughter. They don’t need the trade in order to make the deal work.
- They are likely to have watched CNN, FOX, etc.. They know about the bailouts and the risk of GM, Chryco going away.
- They know about the quality (or lack thereof) of these cars. It would occur to them to spend a couple hours researching on the internet before writing a check for $30K
- They also know they can get a sweet used car for $15K and save that other $15K
I’m sure any of us could think of more characteristics… The days of Donald Dumfuk walking (cause his last ride was repo’d) into a dealer because he saw an inflatable gorilla and driving out in a tricked out Escalade are over.
So how will GM/Ford/Chryco win the hearts, minds and wallets of this buyer?
Ford is off to a damn good start by not talking the bailout. The new buyer knows that Ford didn’t take the cash and respects them for managing their business.
Robert…why so surprised? It is Faux News after all.
How could the opinions of any network that hires Sean Hannity be taken seriously? I mean…come on!
There are only two ways D2.801 can survive…Use political violence to steal from the taxpayers or use their corporate jets to run illegal narcotics. Those who think they can survive by selling autos are the ones who can’t read or comprehend a corporate financial statement.
@ lw
Thanks. You’re summary is neat.
Full-Size Pickup Trucks: Consumers have probably noticed that they can get to work or schlep the kids to soccer without a pickup. Many of them are gone. I live in a place mostly devoid of rednecks and mullets; over the past few years, more and more shiny pickups and SUVs were bought but how many were necessary? Darned few. And the rednecks and mullets, if they can’t get 170% financing, just buy whatever’s cheap… the pickups they drive are already hand-me-downs. As availability of used pickups declines over time, more and more rednecks and mullets will switch to 20-year old Cobalts.
I expect some of the pickup/SUV market is going to slide because of the loss of sweetheart financing deals.
Fox: “…thanks mostly to a captive audience of commercial buyers who just can’t figure out how to fit an 8′x10′ sheet of plywood into a Honda Accord.”
The consumer has probably noticed he can attach a trailer to his Accord. Or pay the $50 to have whatever he wants delivered. Or rent the Home Depot truck for $20/hour. I once built a rock wall with 10 tons of rocks. A pickup wasn’t going to help me… I paid the delivery fee. There’s always a job that’s too big for whatever you own, anyway. Get used to it.
The hard core of Real Work Truck Buyers… I’ll bet some of them are thinking about downsizing, too. I know a construction worker who realized that he could actually go to work in a Corolla and still do his job. Everything he needed, that was locked in his truckbox, actually fit into the trunk of a Corolla.
In mid-size pickups, fleet buyers appear to appreciate the benefits of the Tacoma.
American Muscle: I can’t see this. The Camaro leaps, late, into a crowded pool. Sales of muscle cars are falling as fast as autum leaves. Doesn’t anybody at Fox look at monthly sales reports? Did anybody bother to find out why the Camaro was killed back in ‘02 or ‘03?
Fox: “These are the ones that look best in the commercials and get shoppers into showrooms. They may not sell in huge numbers, but you can’t pay for the kind of pride they bring to a brand’s image.”
Please, explain how Toyota and Honda are eating Detroit’s lunch without halo cars? Honda still offers the S2000 but advertising for it… I can’t remember ever seeing any.
Powerful Efficiency: Fox got this one right… sort of. This is certainly a useful tactic but can they stay ahead of Toyota and Honda? It seems to me that variable valve timing, which Detroit was slow to adopt, offered a similar advantage to some of the tech Fox mentions. Detroit is finally getting its act together there but marketshare was lost. Adoption of highly effective cylinder deactivation is lagging; GM has the technology but they offer it on very few engines. If Detroit gets direct injection, EcoBoost and other efficiency tech into the marketplace, can they retain what promises to be a slim lead?
GM, for one, seems dedicated to the Hail Mary play… they’re not willing to just grind out first downs to eventually score.
Further, Toyota and Honda, with 50-mpg hybrids, do have the high ground. The MSRP of the Honda and Toyota products don’t justify Fox’s allegation that it’s “still expensive” when their flagship hybrid products are similar to or less than Detroit’s mid-size cars. Fox isn’t even being very considerate of Ford here, which is bringing out the Fusion hybrid at a reasonably competitive price.
A whole generation of Toyota and Honda buyers have noticed that they can get 4-cylinder economy with 4-cylinder power and the world doesn’t end because they can’t get to 60mph in 7 seconds or less.
And another thing…
I really like GM products, pretty much all I buy, but the interesting part is that I won’t miss GM / need to even think about switching to another brand for 5+ years after the last Tahoe/Vette/etc. rolls off the assembly line.
The GM vehicles I buy are the few that do have high quality and long life, so used won’t be a problem…
Go figure…
The Detroit automakers are so poorly structured (UAW contracts, excess brands and dealerships, over $100 billion in private debt, excluding the debt they now owe the government) that they could not succeed if they had the best products in every single market segment. The only possible way there is a light at the end of the tunnel is Chapter 11.
Otherwise we are looking at American Leyland. Fox News should direct their product suggestions to Nancy Pelosi. Probably under a pseudonym.
I’m with them on the trucks. They still have a lot of appeal
Not with them on the muscle cars or DI-turbo engines. Muscle cars are too small of a market and the DI-turbo engines are only good if in nice reliable cars
The Prius is Toyota’s halo car nowadays.
lw- If all that is true, all the carmakers will be out of business in short order. Yeesh, soon people will move into cities and take public transportation everywhere. :-)
“A whole generation of Toyota and Honda buyers have noticed that they can get 4-cylinder economy with 4-cylinder power and the world doesn’t end because they can’t get to 60mph in 7 seconds or less.”
Couldn’t you do that with a Ford, GM or Chrysler?
VW? Suzuki? Kia? Hyundai? Mazda?
Do we really want Toyota and Honda to be the only car brands that survive?
Chapter 11 is a tunnel that’s sealed off at the other end
@ no_slushbox
Agreed. The consumer now has GM and Chryco by the nuts.. and we can squeeze hard…
Sure I like that new Tahoe… I’ll wait.. next month you’ll need to sell it even more…
A GM warranty? Hmm throw in a 3 party warranty for free.. I think GM is going under… you won’t do that? See you in a month or two…
Look at all these pretty used Suburban’s honey… and the payment would be half…
They have devalued everything… Even their great products are trashed now due to overproduction.
My 05 colorado is an ok work truck but it still wont hold an 8×10 sheet of plywood. Come to think of it my local home depot doesnt sell sheets bigger than 4×8 anyway. Thats a big piece of plywood, dang.
@Davey49
Well I doubt all of it is true for every buyer, but every day more of those are true for more buyers.
Layoffs, tighter credit, devaluation of trade-ins, mortgage payment resets, etc. all work to remove the Donald Dumfuks from the equation.
Sally Smartyskirt is all that’s left and Sally has been mistreated for years…
Payback is a bitch…
mikey:
“The Camaro/Mustang crowd just laugh at the wannabe ricers.”
What is this, 1995? I’d venture to guess that more kids these days aspire to own a WRX, Evo, or Mazdaspeed3 (or their more tame equivalents) than a Mustang. Also, I’m not sure there’s much of a “Camaro crowd” at the moment. It would seem that the largest contingent of folks clamoring over American muscle and pony cars is increasingly becoming aging baby-boomers – and they’re just out for a cruise anyway.
————————————————-
Flashpoint:
Look at the brands and cars America makes that DO SELL.
Chrysler 300/Pacifica… WHY?
Because the 300 is a large car with entry luxury appeal and optional powerful V8 engines as well as base 3.5 V6. Pacifica because it was the first crossover that didn’t look bad and maintained interior space.
Uhhh…you did notice that Chryslerberus axed the Pacifica in November 2007, right? “…first crossover that didn’t look bad…” We are talking about the same underpowered, underselling, overpriced mini-van without sliding doors, right? Ever heard of the Murano or FX45?
The one thing that will “save” Detroit has already started – surviving at the taxpayer teat. And surviving is all they’ll do – there is no saving. They have no leadership to make the tough choices, save Ford.
Chrysler is a corpse at this point, and GM’s house of cards will fall apart without a gun to the taxpayer head.
> I appreciate coverage from all ends of the political spectrum.
You can’t reference Jefferson to describe the “terrorist fist jab” network. Fear-mongering is not a legitimate view on the political spectrum. If you want conservative commentary worth reading, see here:
http://www.thenextright.com/
http://online.wsj.com/public/page/news-opinion-commentary.html
As to the substance of these particular statements, there’s some truth evident behind their facile appearance.
Pickups are so enormously profitable [or were, prior to $10K rebates] and such a volume product that even a small percentage uptick in sales can help a great deal. The problem is that the implicit title of this piece is “3 [New] Things…”. There’s nothing novel about a truck, nor anything a make can do to increase the size of the market segment. The Big 3’s existing truck sales are a necessity to survival.
Muscle cars are important, but not for the reasons that Fox supposes. Like the F-150, the Mustang is a major volume-seller for Ford and very profitable, especially in GT guise. The Camaro will not be so fortunate. The Zeta platform costs more than the D2C platform that underpins the Mustang. The resulting $2K difference in base price will harm V6 sales. Moreover, the Camaro’s styling is too aggressive to appeal to the broad cross-section of those that shop Mustangs. I expect it to manage only half the sales of the Mustang, and at less profit per unit. A savior for GM, this car won’t be.
The Challenger looks ungainly and isn’t particularly fast or efficient. I’m sure it will appeal to some, but I wouldn’t venture a guess how many. Less than the Camaro, I suspect.
Direct injection is par for the course, not some magic panacea that lends any sort of competitive superiority. As before, innovations must provide competitive advantage to change sales figures. DI is a prerequisite to compete at all.
Robert,
That’s low hanging fruit. You, better than most, should know that broadcast/cable news and most newspapers are clueless about cars. But then most of them follow the prevailing narrative regardless of the story. There are maybe 5 major US newspapers that cover cars and the car biz with any proficiency and even they’re spotty: Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Freep, DetNews, and LATimes (until their financial straights create an excuse to lay off Dan Neil). YMMV. Frankly I’m surprised that SpeedTV doesn’t do a daily or weekly automotive news show. OTOH, most folks would rather look at Vida Guerra’s T&A.
As for some of the other commenters here:
Faux News. Boy that one was original. Did you stay up all night working on that?
Glibertarians who think they’re smarter than “moron” Americans.
The obligatory slam at President Bush. Whatever will you do after Jan 20 when you can’t blame everything on GWB? OTOH, people still blame the Great Depression on Hoover, though FDR screwed the pooch repeatedly by prolonging and worsening it.
And then there’s the gross (in both meanings) Godwin violation that compares one of the few major news agencies that doesn’t follow the prevailing “progressive” narrative about nearly everything, to propagandists for a totalitarian regime that murdered 1/4 of my family. Sometimes I wonder if people really understand just how evil the Third Reich was. No wonder that the Jew haters can get away with accusing Israel of “genocide” for shooting back.
Robert, are you sure you aren’t using the B&B in an arch, ironic manner?
@Ronnie Schreiber
They’ll blame everything on Barack Obama, duh.
I don’t know what it is like in the US, but I remember one of the big reasons the Camaro and Firebird cars fell out of favour in Canada.
The insurance premiums.
I had a friend who helped his mid-20s kid buy a Firebird and another friend who bought a Camaro for himself.
Both of them traded the cars off within a year.
Their insurance premiums skyrocketted on both cars.
I wonder if it would be the same today?
Anything that has the connotation of a “muscle car” and is marketed towards the highest rated drivers for insurance, is doomed from the outset.
Do car manufacturers consider insurance costs when they build a vehicle aimed at a specific consumer group?
They should. It makes a big difference between paying 100 a month or 600 a month for insurance.
I’m going to partially agree.
Trucks
As many have already said, this is the “Big” 2.8 home territory. No-one else is really successfully competing in this segment.
Muscle
This is Toyota Achilles Heel, they don’t make any halo models(other than Prius). Heck the first & last decent sports car was the 2000GT (look it up).
So as much as you might criticise the Camaro, Mustang etc. They improve brand image, and are usually highly profitable.
@ mr_min
Heck the first & last decent sports car was the 2000GT (look it up).
I’m sure this is bait, but I don’t believe you’d say that having driven JZA80 Supra TT or ST205 Celica GT4 (or Alltrac I think for USA). Toyota could do it if they wanted to.
You know they’re right about number 3
I don’t fault the general direction of the article written by Captain Obvious. Clearly domestic automakers need to build vehicles that are profitable and pickup trucks are about as good as it gets for them. They have fresh pickup trucks that are best in class with good profit margins. The problem is can they make enough profit at reduced volume to carry the company? In survival mode, they 1) can’t make cars at a loss and 2) can’t pay workers to not work.
Regarding building muscle cars for image, I wouldn’t have bet so much development cost on a low volume market, but the cost is already sunk. To maximize ROI, build 100% of them with V8 engines and exhaust systems that let the whole would know that it’s got a V8. A muscle car without V8 rumble is like decaffeinated coffee–what’s the point?
Incremental improvement in fuel economy using direct injection, more efficient transmissions, electric power steering, etc. applied widely have more impact on fuel consumption than selling a small percentage of hybrids.
Not understanding why Fox News is singled out for bias. The news shows with Brit Hume and Chris Wallace are excellent and Michael Barone offers detailed election insight lacking on the other news networks. Sean Hannity has obvious biases, but he doesn’t claim to be neutral.
It’s hard to take seriously Fox’s recommendations for all of the above-cited reasons, but they do raise some interesting product-related questions.
1. What’s the best way for Detroit to maintain its dominance of the big truck market?
2. If performance cars are important to Detroit’s image, what’s the best product given the current the economic climate?
I think that what Detroit needs most right now is a new generation of downsized big trucks. Remember how GM trimmed the fat off of its big cars following the first oil embargo? The 1977 Chevy Caprice had all the room and comfort of its predecessors but was meaningfully shorter, lighter and more aerodynamic.
By the same token, if Detroit was going to dump a bunch of money into pony cars its size/weight target should have been the Fox-platform Mustang. That would have weathered volatile gas prices and the recession with greater ease — and potentially opened the door to some international sales.
On both of these fronts Detroit is stuck with “old guard” products for a number of years because existing designs need to be amortized. In the meantime, the best that the Collapsed Three can hope for is incremental improvements that do little to change their competitive position.
Basically, the article makes sense.The big 3 do pick up trucks better than anybody. And while demand for this vehicle may be soft the next couple of years, you cannot abandon that market. And why get all twisted up over the high profile muscle cars? Of course they will be low volume and that’s OK. The idea is brand recognition and getting people into the showroom. It’s called marketing.
And another comment. I cannot believe the hatred from the overt libs. Calm down. You still have err Amerika. Or not.
Eventhough the points in the article aren’t so bad, anyone with a brain can see what will become of them in reality.
Pick-ups: the US automakers already have that market, so there is no change for the better here.
Musclecars: Idem pick-ups
Direct injection; well, yeah, but the newest engines already have this, so it’s more like a necessary condition to be competitive as opposed to a competitive advantage.
Bottom line is, US automakers will have to change their ways to survive, but the points in the article will bring no improvement whatsoever while having the pretense of ‘hey this is what we should do and then we’ll be fine’.
Bridge2Far: Don’t forget they also have : NPR, PBS, CBS, NBC,MSNBC,ABC,CNN, the LA and NY Times, Newsweek, Hollywood celebrities and their product, our school system and universities. Not like the public isn’t already getting the full spectrum of so called “progressive” ideology. Fox is the “problem” ?
And another comment. I cannot believe the hatred from the overt libs. Calm down. You still have err Amerika. Or not.
Yeah, it’s all the libs’ fault. Typical Repugs. They never take any responsibility for their own messes. I guess it’s much easier to push the cost of their failed policies on the backs of the current and future taxpayers.
Fox gets it mostly right (for a change). Build what people want and will buy, or at least dream of buying, not what Pelosi says is what you want to buy.
If the world is only Prius and Civic clones and greeniemobiles, then there is no passion or individuality about vehicles. In which case everyone will just give up and buy Japanese or S. Korean as appliances based on prior reputation for utility, without boithering to think further. Yes, I’m thinking Detroit’s market share would drop rather than rise in that scenario. The only way that wouldn’t happen is if Detroit’s clones were priced thousands less….not gonna happen.
These are the ones that look best in the commercials and get shoppers into showrooms. They may not sell in huge numbers, but you can’t pay for the kind of pride they bring to a brand’s image.
Between the Viper, Corvette, and Mustang, the Big 3 have had halo cars for a while. These cars haven’t brought in the customers, except those looking to purchase one of these cars specifically. What makes them think the new Challengers, Camaros, and Mustangs will bring in the customers? Ford can at least make Mustangs for a profit. It remains to be seen if Chevy can make the Camaro and Dodge can make the Challenger at a profit. And right now, all three need to make cars that make a profit.
Macca :
What is this, 1995? I’d venture to guess that more kids these days aspire to own a WRX, Evo, or Mazdaspeed3 (or their more tame equivalents) than a Mustang.
As a card-carrying ricer (I have LED’s in my grab handles…that qualifies me, right?), you’re absolutely right, with one exception:
I agree on the WRX and the EVO (oh lordy yes), but for the ultimate in douchebag-kidmobile, soon-to-be-totalled, hanging-around-Taco-Bell-at-11:00-p.m., parents-bought-the-car sort of whip, you need a Nissan 350.
dougjp: “If the world is only Prius and Civic clones and greeniemobiles, then there is no passion or individuality about vehicles.”
Passion? When it’s clear that gas prices are at the mercy of forces we can’t control? When more and more people are cognizant of a relationship between turning fossil fuel into CO2 and the greenhouse effect?
Remember the humble Toyota Echo? Surf over to Edmunds and read consumer reviews of the ‘02 Echo. Count the number of times people wrote, “Love my Echo!”
I’m a Scout leader… I know lots of boys and while they almost all find having a driver’s license to be desirable, there’s almost zero interest in cars beyond that.
Many of you don’t know that America – off the coasts – is a unique market compared to just about any place but Canada. (I was reminded at a party on Wednesday-eve, just how great the disdain for and misunderstanding of that part of America is – especially among the effete, lilly-whites of these original colonies).
Fox’s story is only derivative of other news/ opinion and not too far off the mark…
Some fact:
“Even at the peak of gas prices, half the vehicles sold in the U.S. were light trucks. In November, amid a collapsed home construction industry and with $4 gasoline fresh in mind, what were the two top sellers? Pickups by Ford and Chevy — and the Dodge Ram was No. 7.” – Holman Jenkins, WSJ 12.31.08
Some Opinion:
Americans – for better or worse – want to buy cars that work for them. In the “off-coast” America – where there is room to roam – there is little public transportation, families are bigger, there are places to go and people to see. 4-door F-150’s and Suburbans do that job well: they are practical for the situation – albeit thirsty. The American auto industry should innovate around the needs of the American market place, not the market place in the imagination of the neo-metro-sexual socialists in the District of Columbia, New York City, Boston and Chris Matthew’s circle of friends.
Build more efficient light trucks because American’s need and buy them. Make the Camaros Challengers and ‘Stangs smaller volume, higher margin products because Americans still want to dream about and own their kind of sports car (but you’d better understand that they won’t save the company). I wonder: The original pony-car drivers are in their 50’s and 60’s. Would there be this new generation of Pony cars if there were no Viagra?
Finally, make better marketing decisions – e.g. don’t design and build a worthy competitor to the Camry and Accord and give it a name that brands it as the same old 25-years of mediocrity that is “Malibu” (apologies to my friends on the beach in SoCal).
The post-script here is that the evident fascination with Vida Guerra’s nether region among SpeedTV’s cognoscenti illustrates the fatal American flaw: “Bigger, bigger, bigger!” Until sheer mass causes catastrophic collapse.
Building and selling autos will never save them.
There best hope at this point is the new Obama administration and the Dem controlled House and Senate. Likely they will just continue to throw money at them until they run out of money.
US bankruptcy next year? We need a USA government bankruptcy watch series.
Basically, the article makes sense.
The article is suggesting that the 2.8 do exactly what they are already doing, which obviously hasn’t been working.
Obviously, muscle cars and pickup trucks are not a formula for success, otherwise they’d be rolling in dough.
It makes no sense whatsoever to pretend that the Camaro or Silverado are going to save General Motors, particularly given the decline of the truck market. Frankly, it’s one of the most idiotic things that I’ve read in quite awhile, but given the Faux News source, that’s not surprising.
Look, the problem with this ’strategy’ is obvious. It means the D3 become specialty manufacturers and give up on 50% of the US market, and probably 80% of the world market,
It may not be a bad profit-maximizing strategy, but it means the US auto industry becomes half its _current_ size. Conventional wisdom for the last twenty years is that auto manufacturers need global volume to survive. Even now it seems likely there will be consolidation to six or so groups.
As most commentators have noted (in effect) the Fox News ‘analysis’ is silly because it is not a strategy for long term survival. If any Detroit manufacturers will live on as an independent company, they _must_ develop mass market cars that compete on the world stage. Success on the coasts of the US would be a good start.
How about Detroit looks up from the government teat and looks around the global market to see what people are doing in similiar ecomomies that are undergoing economic pressures like ours.
I recently traveled to Estonia (NE Europe) where there is very little delineation in cars/trucks model lines. You have cars for moving people and small stuff and they have small 4 cylinder gas and diesel motors. You have hulking, simple trucks for hauling products, building materials and other things efficiently.
Do you need a car, a minivan, a SUV and a Wagon in the same market segment to essentially do the same thing? Do you really need a short bed, quad cab, leather clad Caddy truck to haul stuff? The market will get more narrow and defined and it is the car company that builds cars well and with a good value that will be successful.
Muscle cars and specialty hybrid vehicles are just PR in my opinion.
Fox News has something of a point about U.S. automakers appealing to core markets, but misses the need for efficiency in a declining economy.
What about modern, competitive, Ranger-sized compact pickups? RWD sedans and coupes light enough for enjoyable performance with four-cylinder engines?
If they get out of their own way with a sub-two liter turbo four, they might even export some of them.