#branding

Ladies and gentlemen, today is a historic day for the Aston-Martin brand. Never in the rich and storied history of the British sportscar maker has there ever been a vehicle, and therefore a review, quite like this one. Autocar handles the burden of history with the soft touch that defines nearly every “first drive” review, demeaning its own readers’ inability to purchase this exclusive Aston rather than daring to question its point, purpose, performance or purchase price. So read on, dear reader… because what we have here is a piece of automotive history. And since you’ll never own one of these proud and noble machines, you might as well use this opportunity to bask in its reflected glory. To wit:

The 97bhp four-cylinder engine feels and sounds energetic up to 50-60 mph. The optional CVT transmission gives easy step-off at traffic lights. In this car it it’s a much better option in a city car than any fiddly five-speeder.

The [Aston-Martin] can produce a quite refined cruising performance on motorways if necessary, though passing performance isn’t its forte.

The steering is feather-light and nicely accurate. If you haven’t sampled [this Aston-Martin] you’ll be surprised by the sheer pleasure that flows from using its scooter-like turning circle, especially when it’s a viable three-seater, that can occasionally cope with four if you don’t mind having no boot space.

But wait… that’s not all! Hit the jump for the answer to the question you’re doubtless asking yourself at precisely this moment: Should I buy one?

A lengthy Automotive News [sub] story on Scion concludes with Scion VP Jack Hollis restating the brand’s basic myth:

Scion was not created for Scion’s sake. Scion was created for Toyota’s sake. It is an investment in Toyota’s collective future.

Hollis’s argument is bolstered by the scenario in which a youngster is attracted to a Scion store by the brand’s youth-oriented marketing, only to leave in a Corolla. Hollis argues that this model means Scion doesn’t have to worry about its sales volume… which is a good thing, considering the brand’s steady sales decline over the past four years. Hollis explains:

We still don’t go with a set [volume] number. Scion wants to be more influential. We want to talk to more people. We’re getting the right people, so the real question is: How do we get more of them?

I don’t know about you, but creating a brand to be “influential” and to “talk to more people” sounds like some vintage, dry-aged, old-school GM branding nonsense. And given that Scion’s sales decline coincided with the rollout of less-distinctive, more Toyota-like products, Scion’s apparent comfort with its recent declines smack of Old GM-style apathy as well (Scion execs respond with the old “but we gave customers what they wanted” chestnut). But don’t worry… Scion has a plan!

With €30m from PangDa and €30m from Gemini Investments, Saab restarted production today at its Trollhättan factory. According to SaabsUnited, the line will run at 80% speed today and Monday, before moving to 100% (over 200 cars per day) by the middle of next week. Speaking at a press conference, CEO Victor Muller reflected:

It’s been an interesting lesson. A company like Saab, that lives in a glass house, should never be caught in a situation where there is not enough cash to withstand the storm as the one we have seen now. What happened seemed like a very insignificant situation became a very significant situation, and next thing you know, you are losing six weeks of production… it was very, very tough and we’ve had some very adverse circumstances that we’ve had to live with, but we got out of it. I think that if you got through 2009-2010 as Saab has been, anything else is relatively easy. We will definitely ensure that this will not happen again. This means that we will be on a quest to ensure that we have sufficient funds at all times to overcome adveersities like this because we can’t afford to have another production stoppage with all the relating downsides, such as disappointed customers, upset suppliers and media attention… that is definitely not in our interests.

Under the terms of its contract with the US Treasury, Fiat will get an additional five percent of Chrysler Group’s equity when it builds a 40 MPG (CAFE, not EPA, so actually about 30 MPG) vehicle in the US. But it turns out that Dodge already sells a car that might qualify… unfortunately, Dodge doesn’t actually build it, offer it in the US, or, starting with the 2012 model year, even bother to rebadge the thing. That’s right, you’re looking at a 2012 Hyundai Dodge Attitude… the only non-red, and one of the only non-Dodge-branded car in the brand’s Mexican lineup [the Hyundai Atos and H100 “Ram Van” are also badged with the Korean brand’s “H.”

Surf on over to hyundaiusa.com and ford.com, and the two momentum-blessed automakers will greet you in a remarkably similar fashion: with a lineup of 40 MPG Highway-rated vehicles. Of course, Hyundai would, in its inimitable “asterisk-wrangling” style, point out that Ford’s 40 MPG requires more footnotes than a David Foster Wallace book. But then Ford might shoot back that Hyundai leaves out any reference to City or Highway ratings in its lineup, leaving consumers to play “hunt the legal disclaimer” itself. And as Autoobserver recently noted, highway ratings make for good ad fodder, but combined EPA ratings are much more helpful to consumers.

Bertel’s provocative piece on SaabUnited’s complex relationship with Saab and Vladimir Antonov has drawn a predictable response from the Saab faithful, who have rushed to defend their beloved but troubled brand as well as its mysterious Russian “savior.” The outburst of anger at TTAC, though harsh to the point of almost blaming TTAC for Saab’s sorry state, is nothing new around these parts: TTAC has long angered the die-hard fans of many auto brands by calling for (or simply covering) the demise of brands that have outlived their usefulness to the market. Even the most basic understanding of TTAC’s history explains away the now-popular (in certain corners) theory that this site has a personal vendetta for Saab. On the other hand, perhaps we’ve been too focused on day-to-day developments to properly make the case for why Saab, sadly, needs to die. Luckily the reasons for Saab’s inevitable demise are not difficult to understand…

Hard on the heels of the release of Ferrari’s FF four-seater, Lamborghini’s Stephan Winkelmann tells Automotive News [sub]

We are going to have a third model. It has to be an everyday car. We want to have a car which is able to be used on a daily basis.

We’d heard as much back in December, but at the time it seemed that a production version of the Estoque Concept would be the third model line. That’s not necessarily the case, as it turns out, as Winkelmann admits that Lambo “has not yet decided which segment the car will belong to.” Between the strong reception Ferrari’s FF has received from the press and its background making one of the first four-seat supercars, the Espada, it seems that a two-door, four (full) seater has to be a top candidate. On the other hand, a four-door sedan would help the brand capitalize on the Panamera/Quattroporte market, which has been doing quite well globally (and would help the brand make progress in the Chinese market)… provided it doesn’t look anything like the uninspired Estoque. Alternatively, a modern interpretation of the bat-shit-crazy, Countach V-12 powered LM002 SUV might even be an option, despite Winkelmann’s previous protests, as his latest quote seems to indicate that anything is on the table at this point.

So jump in, Best and Brightest. What kind of car should Lamborghini develop as its third model line, and how can they walk the line between Lamborghini’s now-trademark extravagant impracticality and the desire to sell “everyday cars”?

Saab has received wire transfers of around €30m from both Gemini Investments and the Chinese dealer group PangDa, reports Aftonbladet, and it will be using that money to pay off its supplier debts which could use up most of that cash (Saab’s supplier debts are estimated by DI.se at between two hundred and four hundred million kroner, or as much as €44m). Leaving aside the issue of how that money was able to be transferred from China to Sweden in a matter of two days (more on that from Bertel here, the short version: the deal should need Chinese government approval), there are serious questions about Saab’s ability to restart production. After all, the €30m from Gemini is debt, while Saab owes PengDa for an undisclosed number of vehicles that it bought with its investment. Unless those cars are sitting somewhere waiting to be shipped, Saab will have to pay off its suppliers and then build the cars on what is essentially credit from PengDa. Meanwhile, that’s not the only demand on Saab’s finances and attention, as CEO Victor Muller is planning on taking a bonus of over half a million dollars, a decision that is creating fresh problems of its own.

Does that headline seem ripped from the pages of TTAC’s 2008-2009 headlines, or what? But really, who’s shocked? Chrysler spent early 2009 trying to convince the government that it was worth a (second) taxpayer-funded second chance, and now that it’s looking for a private-sector bailout in order to escape the terms of its publicly-funded bailout, Chrysler’s still got some ‘splaining to do. The DetN reports:

Chrysler Group LLC does not intend to speed up plans for new cars despite media reports that investors see a high degree of risk in an automaker that has been so dependent on truck sales…

“Nothing has changed from the five-year plan,” [Chrysler Group VP of Design and Dodge boss Ralph Gilles] said.

New small and midsize cars for Chrysler, engineered by Fiat, “are coming strong and heavy,” Gilles told reporters following a speech. “There is no need to speed up.”

Now, nobody would suggest that Chrysler should mess with its product timing simply to please some bankers. If it’s even remotely possible to hurry new products to launch without cutting serious corners, Chrysler should/would be doing it anyway ( ask Sergio). Still, Gilles’ “nothing has changed” sound bite isn’t exactly true.

Ford’s arduous Lincoln turnaround is having another one of those awkward moments, as Ford and its dealers seem to once again be at odds about how to go about fixing Lincoln. And though it’s tough to tell what exactly is going on in Ford’s fandango with Lincoln dealers, it’s easy to see that it ain’t good. For starters, last week, Automotive News [sub] ran a blog item that noted

In just a few weeks, a group of Lincoln dealers will converge on Detroit for an invitation-only brand meeting with Ford Motor Co.

Mark Fields, Ford’s president of the Americas, promises that the meeting in early June will spell out some specifics about Ford’s plan to reignite its luxury brand.

But some dealers have put their invitations in the round file.

One says he won’t “waste” his money on airfare, adding that when Ford has “actual future product to show us, then I’ll go meet with them.”

One Lincoln dealer with a stand-alone store did not get an invitation, but he doesn’t care.

So, clearly things don’t sound happy in Lincoln Land. And what does Ford have to say to the non-attending and uninvited dealers? Ford’s Alan Mulally personally delivered a response the next day at Ford’s annual shareholder’s meeting…

When Lotus showed five new cars at the Paris Auto Show last summer, the British Sports Car brand raised a number of eyebrows amongst the motoring press. Not only was Lotus abandoning its lovable but hugely unprofitable enthusiast/trackday niche, but it was also reaching for Ferrari and Porsche-style brand recognition while offering an ambitious but underwhelming (on paper anyway) vision of its future product lineup. Five new vehicles (three mid-engine, two front-engine, four two-door coupes, one four-door sports sedan) is a lot of development work, and initial reports that Lotus would use Toyota power including hybrid drivetrains didn’t create much for enthusiasts to get worked up over. Lotus has since backed away from using Toyota power, but developing engines for five new vehicles creates a whole new set of challenges. And, as it turns out, Lotus has quietly backed away from the most ambitious elements of its plan, and the firm now plans to launch only two cars at first. Has Lotus turned the corner from hype machine to credible competitor?

Editor’s note: Car News China has some pictures of the Dongfeng EQ250 in police livery, accompanied by the nearly-unbelievable tale of the HMMWV’s Sinification, which we have excerpted here. Do surf over and check out one of the better Chinese car blogs out there.

AM General tried to sell the HMMWV to the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) in the late 1980′s.

The PLA however had no interest in the vehicle by that time, they thought it too big and heavy. AM General left one HMMWV in China, hoping the Chinese would change their mind. They did after the first Gulf War in 1991 when the HMMWV was on every TV screen in the world, seen as a winning vehicle that could cross every desert.

When we heard that Saab’s deal with the Chinese automaker Hawtai had fallen through, our initial reaction was a complete lack of surprise. My take was that Saab’s attempts to seek Chinese White Knight from the ranks of that country’s smaller automakers was doomed to fail, as the Chinese government has made it clear that it would like to see its auto industry consolidate. As with all things Chinese, however, I should have consulted more closely with Bertel before writing. Our man in China was quick to point out that the Beijing scuttlebut blamed Saab’s lack of intellectual property, rather than government consolidation rules, was to blame for the collapse of the Saab-Hawtai deal. And sure enough, Automotive News [sub] reports today that

Sweden’s Saab Automobile failed to secure investment from Hawtai Motor Group because of “commercial and economic realities,” not a lack of government approval

And, it turns out that’s the nice way of putting it…