“That’s why the late Marshall McLuhan called cars “the mechanical bride.” Just as a woman attracts you, at first, because of her appearance, so too does a car. And as a woman continues to appeal to you because of her intellect and humor, so too does a car have to show some substance.”

With respect, I’m not sure this is an accurate description of cars or car buyers today – on average. Toyota, Honda, and Nissan all seem to run most of their vehicles through a dullifier at the end of the assembly line, yet they can’t produce them fast enough.

I do think it works in reverse though – what I mean is if a vehicle is horribly ugly (as distinct from merely dull) I think people will avoid it. I got my first look at Ford’s new Super Duty Trucks this weekend. I’m not in the market for a large PU, but if I were, I’d avoid those things at all costs. They make the Dodge Ram look stylish and well proportioned. Overcompensating is what I’d think about any man driving a new Ford SD.

Much has been written here about Rick Waggoner; and at other posts about the new head of Ford and also the new head of Chrysler. There’s something in common with them all, and it is the main problem of managment in Detroit: they don’t understand the automobile industry.

In the auto industry, you’re selling a fashion statement, as much as you’re selling a technical object. Look at how the cars at this very site are slammed, or championed, for their appearance. Of course, that is not unique to TTAC. It’s how people are about automobiles in general.

That’s why the late Marshall McLuhan called cars “the mechanical bride.” Just as a woman attracts you, at first, because of her appearance, so too does a car. And as a woman continues to appeal to you because of her intellect and humor, so too does a car have to show some substance.

GM, like Ford and Chrysler, has put all its product development money into outrageously big and dated vehicles, that only people with more money than brains or taste will buy – think NBA players or hip-hop artists or wannabes of both. The Escalade is a prime example. And yes, dealers and the factory make money off each of those they sell; but how many people can buy those now, or even lease them? Or more importantly, how many keep them long enough for the dealership network to make any money off service and parts?

When a car such as the Pontiac G8 is as well known and respected, by people under the age of 35, as the Honda Civic or any Scion, GM will have won the battle. But unfortunately, that day seems as far away as the proverbial Second Coming.

And when GM comes up with a winner, such as they have with the Pontiac Solstice, they don’t ramp up for the demand. One has to wonder how many people who couldn’t get their order for a Solstice filled in a timely manner, went to a Mazda store and bought a Miata, or even a Mazda3.

As someone who grew up at a time when the main company that the U.S. Attorney General’s office considered a potential monopoly wasn’t Microsoft, it’s sad to see the possibility of GM closing down. But it could happen here.

But GM and Ford *haven’t* retained market share, they’ve bled market share like crazy during at least the last 20-30 years, and they’re both losing money. How does this relate to an effort to build only those vehicles that either company can produce at a profit, market-share-be-damned? They don’t seem to be making money on behemoth-mobiles either, after accounting for money-on-the-hood.

I agree that a rational consumer like you or I would buy the Camry over the Malibu based on resale. However there are a lot of irrational consumers out there. How else do you explain the sales numbers of makers like VW who have poor quality reputations and insanely fast depreciation. My last car was a VW, not because I thought much about quality or how much I could sell it for, but how much I liked the way it drove. My wife is insanely attached to the Nissan Morono (sp) she loves the thing and I may have to buy one soon, not because it it the best car or it makes the most financial sense, but because she thinks it’s cute. Irrational but human nature, we want what we want.

As to the resale value being killed by the high numbers of big 3 cars in the rental fleets, I think that part of that is that the majority of those cars are the cheapest most bean counted examples of those particular models, the ones that the average consumer wouldn’t even look at much less buy. The huge number of those de-contented malabus etc. that are manufactured every year for the rental and fleet market are what draws down the resale value.

If this new UAW deal gives GM the cost cuts it needs then, what advantage will they have over Toyota? A customer has a choice between a Chevrolet Mailbu or a Toyota Camry, both cost around the same (thanks to the UAW concessions), both have similar quality and reliability (remember, this is fantasy!) customer goes for the Camry because holds its value better. End result is the same…..GM loses another car sale

“THE RENTAL FLEETS ARE EXCELLENT ADVERTISING!”

Can’t disagree there. I was in LA twice in the last month with a rental car on business.

The first time I was given a Chevy Cobalt, what a crappy little car! It was slow, thirsty, and the interior seemed to be made of recycled soda bottles. When I returned it I was ecstatic to get out of that car and climb into a comfortable coach seat for a 6 hour flight to the East coast.

When I returned 2 weeks later I was given a Kia Rondo. The first thing I noticed about this car was it was a V6? A rental? Then I saw the interior, this was no stripper, it wasn’t lavish, no leather, but obviously it wasn’t the bottom of the line model either. The 3 days I drove the Kia were enough to make me want to take a look at it when I am in the market for a new car for my wife next year. I was extremely satisfied with the car and it was with a bit of a wrench that i turned it in.

In the end which experience would a car maker want a rental customer to have? That’s what the big 3 need to recognize. After this experience I will not look at a Cobalt when I go car shopping next, but I will look at the Rondo, I may not buy one, but I wouldn’t have even looked before this rental.

I have rented, Accords, Camrys, Sonatas, Mazda6s, and even some higher-end cars such as a g35s, and CTSs. None of these products are hurt by being included in someone’s reantal fleet. THIS IS BECAUSE THEY ARE ALL DECENT, GOOD, or VERY GOOD CARS!

It just makes me laugh to witness the supidity of those suits in Detroit. Fleet sales, so-called fleet vehicles, and Detroit automakers all have an undesireable image because the overwhelming majority of the vehicles that the big2.8 sell to fleets are absolute garbage! Which in turn has done major damage to Detroit’s brands.

What is wrong with those idiots? Damn near everyone who has the means to purchase an new automobile will find themselves at some point inside of or driving a rental or fleet vehicle.
My mother (now retired) was a sales rep for several major US companies during my childhood so I know a bit about fleet vehicles. During her career she had numerous domestic fleet cars as company cars from Gm, Ford, Chysler. She was a very well paid women and the Big 3 did everything in their power to prove to her that she did not want to spend her own money on a domestic car.

This summer alone I personally rented 3 cars, A PT cruiser, a Malibu, and a Jetta. The PT Cruiser was OK at best. Cheap but decent. The ride sucked because the engine felt like it was mounted on rubber bands, anytime you gave it some gas the whole car was upset.
The Mailbu had the wife laughing and laughing, she could not believe it was actually a real car.
From the looks to the dynamics she called it a “test platform”. I will get band here if I give my opinion on that POS.
The Jetta was a very nice car, optioned up just like you would buy it from the dealer (it even had a sun-roof). It drove great had decent power and had the wife calling it a poor man’s BMW.
Guess which car I came away from feeling like I could live with? Too bad about the VW reliabity.

THE RENTAL FLEETS ARE EXCELLENT ADVERTISING!

If GM had a bit of sense I should have been able to rent one of those new Enclaves or Arcadias. I check one out at the auto show but that is it. I would love to spend some time with what is claimed to be one of the better domestic vehicles but I guess GM knows that if they give us a chance to explorer their new products we will be just disappointed as before.

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/ford_reintroduces_model_t_line

Too Hysterical to be ignored

Or even 30 years ago. Or 20.

When I started there it was only Chrysler products, I think Plymoth was still alive then. All I remember is the Chryslers were actually drivers, didn’t hold up so great except the Alliance tank, but they were respectable drives. Cab forward design was ugly but made for a decent handling and ride. Then half way through Ford got there teeth into the company and all hell broke lose.

The Ford products were abysmal comepared to the Chryslers, often not wanting to run properly let alone drive good. The Town Cars and Continentals were the only thing that made going to work fun anymore, until we got the Mazda’s.

What a breath of fresh air. I would do my best to get a 626 or even a Protege whenever I had a choice, the old guys in the group often didn’t care they prefered the boats. I distinctly remember the 626 compared to the Sable being 1000 times nicer on the inside, decent radio. And the handling well lets say the Sable didn’t have any clue what that word meant. I don’t have enough time to dicuss the maintenence issue they had with the Taurus and Sable twins but needless to say they weren’t so happy they had Ford’s now.

Oh well thanks for bringing back some fond memories. I still rememeber my high speed runs with the 626 or that scary as all hell 300 mile drive back in the Blizzard of 95 sliding all over the road in a Sable(I was doing 40 on the interstate).

Earlier this year, I wrote an editorial here on this topic (which in an act of shameless self-promotion I have linked below.) My basic thesis is that the primary problem with fleet sales is not with the low margins per se, but with the temptation of the Detroit automakers to dumb down the product because the margins are so low. Because the fleet buyers will buy the cars, irrespective of driving intangibles, but won’t pay a premium for those intangibles, Detroit doesn’t bother to provide those intangibles in the first place.

Unfortunately for Detroit, 7/8ths of the car market is still comprised of retail buyers. It would be more cost effective in the long run to target products that would serve that 7/8ths, even if the margins on the remaining units that go to fleet are slim to none. The brand value created through that effort is vastly more important than is saving a few bucks in the short run that cost you in the end. Detroit has gone into a perpetual holding pattern with this pennywise/ pound foolish mentality and refuses to escape it.

Adding option packages to a mediocre product won’t be enough, either. Air conditioning, power equipment and the like are now the norm for new cars being sold today, so the automakers can no longer differentiate a vehicle by offering features that everyone else is also offering. Even rental cars are actually decently equipped. They may lack high-end sound systems, leather and sunroofs, but they almost always have A/C and power everything.

So the equipment levels aren’t the issue here. It’s really about the driving experience, something that you don’t need to be an enthusiast to appreciate or be willing to pay for.

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=2995

First, we deride domestics for all the fleet sales and point out that it leads to depreciation and also leads us renters to believe they make lame cars. We never even go to their showrooms after the experience.

At the same time, I had no idea how utterly decent the new Hyundai’s were until I drove one for a rental car. Now, I no longer wonder why anyone buys one at all. They seem like a good value.

We often make up case rules based on results without actually knowing all the facts. The only thing we likely REALLY know about fleet sales is that it has seemingly hurt the domestics while helping Hyundai. Maybe it didn’t hurt either or help either, either. (extra points if you didn’t stumble over that last sentence).

So here is the gem: The domestics should likely figure out how to use fleet sales as a marketing tool rather than a way to dump unwanted product. The day I get into a domestic rental that I like, will be the day I stop believing I will never buy one of their cars.

The biggest thing the 2.8 need, though, is to put Deming’s teachings to use – yesterday!

Glenn’s comment is SO good that I thought it needed to be posted again. America would be a much different place today if we would have listened 60 years ago.

Yup. And we have our own European Union Death Watch clock ticking. The whole rotten scheme is unsustainable on the long run. Uh, and it is a form of slavery.

Spaniard, the difference is all the cars you cite were priced for the mass market. The SSR is not

I did not known. Thank you for the info. In my mind the SSR was a bit above the PT Cruiser. I did not take the care to look at retail prices.

Now… how’s that compare with an aveo?

RF, Aveo and Corvette in the same show room, why not? you can get a low price mini and a hugely lavish 7 series in a BMW dealer? or a cheap Defender and an Autobiography Range Rover in the same showroom. Chevy is about covering all markets affordably and the Corvette is a Halo-esque vehicle. Its called product line-up. Do you want the Aveo moved further away in the showroom? I agree it could be hidden behind the reception desk until someone adds a bit of make up to make it look better while waiting for the Camaro to arrive….

However i dont understand is how come europeans can make small cars, at a profit yet it can’t be done here. I guess thinking about it there are a number of reasons, workers dont get paid a ludicrous sum for putting them together as they do here (when will the UAW realise the big real world out there), there is nationalised healthcare which takes some cost away. But it still happens, there really should be a new way of thinking.

I had high hopes that GM would beat the union down, the look on most strikers as they left said it all, they couldnt afford to be off work. There were frightened people trying to look bigger than they really were, like the school bully who finally realised the little kid he was picking on might actually have the chance to kick his ass and he was looking to his mates to get him out of the situation. There was too much showbiz to this strike, and i dont think the union negotiators have kept the rank and file in communicado, heard lots of interesting snippets of conversation over the last few weeks between UAW guys, all saying they were in the dark over what was going on and why vote for a strike which could potentially remove them from a job when not knowing what they were voting about!? I can’t wait to see the details on this deal to see the truth, to be secure for the future i feel we needed the VEBA and a pay cut and removal of the job bank. As for job security, lower wages or we move everything off shore, i just hope if necessary Rick and co have the balls to move more stuff out of NA if that what it takes. Can’t wait to see how the other 2.9999 react now.

Yet they’re not ashamed of their past – but proud of it. Think of it like this – South Korea was smashed to pieces only 15 years prior to Hyundai starting auto assembly, and there was no Marshall Plan to help rebuild South Korea, as there had been for Europe after WWII.

Go here http://worldwide.hyundai-motor.com/

then go to the upper right, “Hyundai Plaza” click, then “Auto Museum” click, then “History of Hyundai” click

Look at it another way. I’ve recently done some research, and only 5 makes of American automobile current in 1920 are still produced, and 4 were the top 4 producers that year, not coincidentally I’m sure. The fifth of the group was Cadillac. (There are some makes built in 1920 which “became” what is now Chrysler, etc., but I’m using makes going under their name in 1920 and names still used).

In the order of 1920 production,

Ford 806,040; Chevrolet 146,243; Dodge 141,000; Buick 115,176.

Ford started in 1903; Chevrolet in 1912; Dodge in 1914; Buick in 1904.

Now, look at the progress made by Hyundai since late 1968 vis a vis these five makes….

Katie’s not so crazy to use Hyundai as a good latter day comparison to what can be done.

The trick for the 2.8 is to do it while getting the barnacles of past experience off the hull… so to speak.

You intriged me with this statement, philbailey.

And you are right:

http://pages.eidosnet.co.uk/~morrismarina/Korean%20Connection.htm

Amazing!. And, yes, the humble Morris Marina was based on the underpinnings from the venerable Issigonis´ brainchild: The 1948 Morris Minor.

http://www.austin-rover.co.uk/

Yup. Hyundai started selling totally outdated technology.

Well, sir. I disagree. The SSR was a car I dislike a lot, an irrational, total nonsense car.

BUT…

*But the same -just the same- can be said about the parts bin special, dangerous-as-the-Pinto-gas-tank 1964 Ford Mustang.

*Or about the foul handling, foul stopping, fake air hood scoop original Pontiac GTO.

*Or about the totally enigmatic (at least for me, and admirer of small Hatchbacks) high powered versions of the Chevrolet El Camino.

*Or about the bad-bad idea of selling rollover-prone 4×4 behemots to the general public.

*Or about the anti-Bauhasian “form uber alles” no-trunk, no rear-seat, fun but almost useless (i know, I drove one for a while) VW New Beetle.

Look, sir: Sometimes outrageous cars become highly successful cars, because sometimes the public has strange ideas about what right and what´s wrong (or, putting it bluntly, is stupid).

The SSR was simply a gamble. But, this time, buyers showed more sense than money than in the mentioned examples.

Here is the text:

“In every field of human endeavor, he that is first must perpetually live in the white light of publicity. Whether the leadership be vested in a man or in a manufactured product, emulation and envy are ever at work. In art, in literature, in music, in industry, the reward and the punishment are always the same. The reward is widespread recognition, the punishment fierce denial and detraction. When a man’s work becomes a standard for the whole world, it also becomes a target for the shafts of the envious few. If his work is merely mediocre, he will be left severely alone. If he achieve a masterpiece it will set a million tongues awagging. Jealousy does not protrude its forked tongue at the artist who produces a common-place painting. Whatsoever you write, or paint, or play, or sing, or build; no one will strive to surpass or to slander you unless your work be stamped with the seal of genius.

Long after a great work has been done, those who are disappointed or envious continue to cry out that it cannot be done. Spiteful little voices in the domain of art were raised against our own Whistler as a mountebank, long after the big world had acclaimed him its greatest artistic genius. Multitudes flocked to Bayreuth to worship at the musical shrine of Wagner, while the little group of those whom he had dethroned and displaced argued angrily that he was no musician at all. The little world continued to protest that Fulton could never build a steamboat, while the big world flocked to the river banks to see his boat steam by.

The Leader is assailed because he is a Leader, and the effort to equal him is merely added proof of that leadership. Failing to equal or to excel, the follower seeks to depreciate and to destroy, but only confirms once more the superiority of that which he strives to supplant. There is nothing new in this, it is as old as the world and as old as the human passions of envy, fear, greed, ambition, and the desire to surpass. And it all avails nothing. If the leader truly leads, he remains the leader. Master Poet, Master Painter, Master Workman; each in his turn is assailed, and each holds his laurels through the ages.

That which is great makes itself known, no matter how loud the clamor of denial. That which deserves to live, Lives.”

I think a similar point could be made regarding the Central/South American small pickup market. Did no one at the Big Three see any upside to getting into that ‘young’ market?