Archives

Ford, General Motors and Chrysler Are Pegging Their Rebound on New Hybrid Cars (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/IndustryInfo/story?id=6387062&page=1)

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/2011_Chevrolet_Volt_Drivers_Side_Rear1.jpgScott Mayerowitz - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com) - Dec. 04, 2008

Too little too late, I fear. -- Ed

The buzzword out of Detroit these days seems to be "hybrid."

As the Big Three automaker CEOs return to Washington today -- arriving by hybrid vehicles instead of private jets -- they will try to sell Congress on turnaround plans focusing on an aggressive new line of fuel-efficient cars.

Lawmakers might buy the plans from Ford, General Motors and Chrysler, but it is going to be a lot harder to sell American drivers on the hybrid cars.

The key may be gas prices.

Maryann Keller, who runs an automotive consulting company, said that people lined up to buy more-efficient cars only after gas topped $4 a gallon.

"Short of that, people are going to buy what suits their pocketbook and suits their needs," Keller said. "It's sort of human nature to want to buy the biggest and fastest, if you can afford it. And you're not gong to think necessarily about the environment in that purchase. At least, the vast majority won't."

To make things worse, consumers wanting that nice shiny hybrid SUV that Chrysler CEO Robert Nardelli arrived in might just be out of luck. Chrysler has plans to shut the factory where the Aspen is made. In fact, the automaker doesn't plan on having any hybrids in production until the... http://abcnews.go.com/Business/IndustryInfo/story?id=6387062&page=1

I'm getting a sense of deja vu, remembering the fuel crisis of 1978-1979. When that fuel crunch hit, the best Detroit had to offer in small, fuel-efficient cars were crummy RWD compacts. The names rattle off like the jokes that many of those cars largely were: Pinto. Chevette. Vega. Dodge Dart. Monza. Maverick. Comet. Gremlin. Meanwhile, the our shores were being flooded with imported Civics, Corollas, Accords, Rabbits and GLCs that were of higher quality, got better mileage and were largely front wheel drive.

Finally in 1980 and 1981 we saw the first wave of FWD compacts from Detroit: GM's Citation/Phoenix/Omega/Skylark, Chrysler's Aries/Reliant K, and Ford's first Escort. Still crummy by today's standards, but better than the RWD 70s era compacts, and good enough to save those companies (except Chrysler, which needed additional help, but that's another story).

This time around, instead of fuel efficient FWD compacts, it's fuel efficient hybrids that Detroit is lacking. What's different is that by now we've had expensive fuel for several years, yet (except for the Fusion) Detroit's response to fuel efficient Japanese designs is still a long ways off. By 1979, Detroit's new models had been under development for some time, partly in response to the original 1973-74 fuel crunch.

Sorry Detroit hasn't shown the good sense to study its own history. Maybe they view that time as a dark period in their history, but frankly in that period I see examples of how to do things right in response to such a crisis, things they have failed to do this time. We all know what happens to those who ignore history. I fear that we're in for a round of tragedy as a result, and I don't know if the US auto industry will survive long enough to generate a round of farce.

The pickle Detroit is in is they need something NOW - a good non-hybrid FE car (while they rush to get hybrids out)

Ford has the best chance with cars like the Fiesta - GM and Chrysler don't have anything like that. :(

It's worth repeating - often times grevious errors in business will go on almost forever, then suddendly a day of reckoning may come then heads roll. For 30 years GM, Ford, Chrysler had opportunities to make a FE car and dismissed it in contempt (true, the buying public did too). They let the Japanese replace the Tarsus and Oldmobiles with Accords and Camrys.

Ford has the best chance with cars like the Fiesta - GM and Chrysler don't have anything like that. :(.

I think GM could do something with the Aveo, HHR or Vibe...

Reduce engine size, adjust geariing... instant increase in MPG (until they can build a Metro again).

Chrysler is in a worse pickle, but here is a drastic idea.

Take the 2-seater Crossfire (good aero, but currently a "sport" design), drop the engine size and adjust gearing.
I don't need to go from 0-60 in 8 seconds. A much smaller engine would get 40+ instead of 25.
They could also start with the Caliber and make the same adjustments.

Nothing here is going to be earthshattering in FE, but it's a place to start.

The problems the domestic auto industry finds themselves mired in are mostly their own fault. Poor management and greedy unions have brought this industry to a precipice. Why did "detroit" insist on pushing trucks and SUv's and not small efficient cars. Simple, Profit. Detroit cannot build a profitable small car. Why? Because their cost structure is out of whack compared to the rest of the world. Why is that? because they have about three times the number of grossly overpaid execs that are needed, and they gave away the store to the unions who were more than willing to strike to extort whatever they wanted form the automakers. How long did they really expect to be able to get paid for not working(job banks), to be paid 2-3 times what a job is worth(fork lift drivers making 100K), and lifetime free health insurance for retirees. In light of competiton, these simply are not sustainable.

So, rather than get their costs in line, they ceded the FE car market to the imports and pushed their fuel sucking pigs. Talk about a house of cards! One strong wind and look what happened. The shame of it is, they all had ample opportunity to position themselves to weather this.

When daimler owned Chrysler(remember, they did until 2007) they could have easily brought the smart here. They already had a large dealer body in place, and they had nothing remotely like the smart to sell. Instead, they gave us the Commander, the Aspen, and the RAM SRT10. They are giving $10K off sticker on the Pacifica right now, while the waiting time to buy a smart for sticker price is over one year. Nice move there, eh?

Ford has manufactured the Ka since 1996. 1.3L, under 2000#, good handling and roomy. It has been a popular and good selling car in Europe. WHy didn't WE get it? Why did WE get the horrid Escort in the late 90's and early00's?? The Focus actually showed promise, but they screwed it up too.

The last FE car that GM actually designed and made in the US was the chevette. They have never been serious about this segment. The Vega? Right. The Chevette? Obsolete the day it was introduced. The Saturn? NIce try, but cheap and unrefined. GM insisted that Americans would never buy a premium small car(bet the guys at Mini got a kick out of hearing that). Their answer to this segment was rebadged Isuzus and Suzukis. The cavalier could return reasonable economy, but compared to it's competition it was crude.

Taliesin, the problem with the Crossfire is that it is made in Germany by Karmann, which makes it horribly expensive to produce. Most of the components used are M-B, as was the engineering. It is essentially a rebodied previous generation MB SLK. MB DID produce an SLK with a 2.3L 4 cylinder engine(it was supercharged), so theoretically, your idea could be done. However, the cost would make the end result uncompetitive. As it is now, Chrysler is giving over $10K dealer cash to move its baglog of unsold 2007 Crossfires.
BTW, the 3.2 V6 Crossfire CAN return pretty good mileage if driven properly. I owned one and was able to coax it it 31MPG.

I got similar out of my '05 Crossfire for the short time I had it. I didn't treat it too nicely, but for the most part it got treated like what it was... A fancy touring car. something to let the top down, let the wind blow through the hair, relax, and enjoy the drive.

I turned it in for a pick-up to tow the boat with... I am starting to think that may have been a bad idea.

I think part of the reason Chrysler can't move the Crossfire is that it is 1: expensive, 2: not good FE.

My idea would have been for a slightly different market, maybe a niche. Those that can afford "nicer" things, but still have a care for the environment/oil future/etc. Ie. someone that would drive it the way I did, but still enjoy someting different on the road.

The pickle Detroit is in is they need something NOW - a good non-hybrid FE car (while they rush to get hybrids out)

Ford has the best chance with cars like the Fiesta - GM and Chrysler don't have anything like that. :(



I don't know what Chrysler has in the way of FE but, correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't GM plan to introduce the 40 - 45 mpg Chevy Cruze in the 2010 to 2011 time frame?

....

The last FE car that GM actually designed and made in the US was the chevette. They have never been serious about this segment. The Vega? Right. The Chevette? Obsolete the day it was introduced. The Saturn? NIce try, but cheap and unrefined. GM insisted that Americans would never buy a premium small car(bet the guys at Mini got a kick out of hearing that). Their answer to this segment was rebadged Isuzus and Suzukis. The cavalier could return reasonable economy, but compared to it's competition it was crude.

...

My take on GM's difficulties with its reputation for building bad small cars differs from yours and you're a bit off on GM's US small car design history. IMO It's not that they can't design and build a good small car, its that they haven't maintained their brand by updating them often enough to keep up with the competition. The Vega and Chevette were even worse than most of the bad cars of their era, but when the Cavalier first came out in 1982 it was competitive with the Corolla and Accord (back then those were also crappy and cheap by today's standards). By the time GM finally updated the Cavalier in '94 the times had passed it by and GM kept the update cheap. Similarly, the '91 Saturn S's were competitive when they first came out, but they were seriously out of date before they were retired in 2002. You can bet that automakers who seriously update their vehicles every five or six years usually have fresher product than those who only update them every eleven or twelve. It's just human nature to remember the US cars at the end of their runs instead of at the beginning;). I'm still curious about the 4 cylinder Fiero's from the '80's that were rated at 40 mpg--they could be the unheralded US hypermiling kings of the 80's--but I never had any hands on time with one. I'm also still curious about the capabilities of the Cobalt.

Ford's US small car offerings history is similar. A '91/'99 Ford Escort Sedan looks obsolete compared to a '99 Civic Sedan but not compared to a '91 Civic. Currently the Focus is getting long in the tooth and doesn't represent Ford that well. My impression is that both the Escort and Focus were based on previous Ford Europe designs so they may have been a little bit behind from the start:(.

ILAveo, I think there's a lot to what you're saying about the Detroit 3's long product cycles contributing to their being perpetually out of date. I remember driving an early 90s Escort (2nd gen) in the early 90s and thinking it was a pretty decent little car. That said, the Saturn S series got a substantial refresh in 1996, and even with that (I bought a '96 SW1 brand new in February 1996) their interiors and controls felt cheap compared to the Civics of the time.

ILAveo, I think there's a lot to what you're saying about the Detroit 3's long product cycles contributing to their being perpetually out of date. I remember driving an early 90s Escort (2nd gen) in the early 90s and thinking it was a pretty decent little car. That said, the Saturn S series got a substantial refresh in 1996, and even with that (I bought a '96 SW1 brand new in February 1996) their interiors and controls felt cheap compared to the Civics of the time.

I would characterize the 96 refresh of the S series as cosmetic. My wife's '01 drives about the same as my older sister's '93 did. The '93 (I think she wrecked it after about 250,000 miles) was good enough that my sister bought an SW to replace it after she got a kid. IIRC she liked her SW about the same as the Prius that replaced it. She has been particularly disappointed in the Prius' FE ("it isn't much better than the Saturn"), but I'm her little brother so there's no point in me offering her driving advice :o.

On cosmetics I'm probably not the guy to judge--I like the interior to be vinyl without lots of seams so it cleans easily.

Taliesin has the right idea. That being said, Chrysler needs to look to the past and see what works. A nice looking compact car (say one that looks like the crossfire for example) with great fuel economy(like the 98 neon with a few quality and aesthetic improvements especially) had and a few trims available -FE trim which includes taller gears in both an automatic and manual version). They could certainly look back to past products and pick the best of what they had, make it look newer. I'm sure they could do that while they tool up for the hybrid economy.

Chrysler is developing a new V6 engine called the Phoenix that gets better gas mileage than the camry v6 with more power. I'm sure they could adjust the displacement for FE. Auto companies really have a lot of time and money to bring real products to the market. They really just waste it away by bringing autos that are not up to par.

...Chrysler is developing a new V6 engine called the Phoenix that gets better gas mileage than the camry v6 with more power. I'm sure they could adjust the displacement for FE.This concerns me - today's V6s are yesterday's V8's. They need this tech in a four-banger to avoid being behind the curve.

For 30 years GM, Ford, Chrysler had opportunities to make a FE car and dismissed it in contempt (true, the buying public did too). They let the Japanese replace the Tarsus and Oldmobiles with Accords and Camrys.

:biglol:

Had to read that one twice. Sad but True.

This concerns me - today's V6s are yesterday's V8's. They need this tech in a four-banger to avoid being behind the curve.

It seems the domestic automakers go off on a tangent as to what they think people want. When they realize that they're headed in the wrong direction (usually "pointed out" by honda or toyota) they try to play catch-up until they're safe to go off on another tangent. They know how to make money, they're:Banane40: and :Banane39: while hoping to continue living lavish off the middle class. THey market products really well, I mean...how do you make someone do something that is detrimental to that persons future and the future of that persons offspring???

A fuel sucking pig wearing lipstick is still a fuel sucking pig.

I forgot - none other than Bob Lutz predicts that 4-cylinders will be the norm in five years.

we may have to go to 1.0L 2 cylinders at this rate. The auto execs can make the changes necessary, they just have a hard time not being able afford all the amenities they've been so gluttonous about. They're lazy, why make 100 000 cars and make $100 off each when we can make ten trucks and make 10 000 off each? Profiteering and marketing at peak profits with no foresight is what it is.

Nah, a 1.0L 3cyl is quite good. ;)

My take on GM's difficulties with its reputation for building bad small cars differs from yours and you're a bit off on GM's US small car design history. IMO It's not that they can't design and build a good small car, its that they haven't maintained their brand by updating them often enough to keep up with the competition. The Vega and Chevette were even worse than most of the bad cars of their era, but when the Cavalier first came out in 1982 it was competitive with the Corolla and Accord (back then those were also crappy and cheap by today's standards). By the time GM finally updated the Cavalier in '94 the times had passed it by and GM kept the update cheap. Similarly, the '91 Saturn S's were competitive when they first came out, but they were seriously out of date before they were retired in 2002. You can bet that automakers who seriously update their vehicles every five or six years usually have fresher product than those who only update them every eleven or twelve. It's just human nature to remember the US cars at the end of their runs instead of at the beginning;). I'm still curious about the 4 cylinder Fiero's from the '80's that were rated at 40 mpg--they could be the unheralded US hypermiling kings of the 80's--but I never had any hands on time with one. I'm also still curious about the capabilities of the Cobalt.

Ford's US small car offerings history is similar. A '91/'99 Ford Escort Sedan looks obsolete compared to a '99 Civic Sedan but not compared to a '91 Civic. Currently the Focus is getting long in the tooth and doesn't represent Ford that well. My impression is that both the Escort and Focus were based on previous Ford Europe designs so they may have been a little bit behind from the start:(.


Actually i think we ae both sating *almost* the same thing. I don't think i am off on GM's history though. I tried my best to go to GM to buy economical cars since the late 70's. I actually owned 3 different Vegas and one Chevette. When the J car was introduced in 1981(as an 82), it had promise. However, as GM was prone to do, it didn't sweat the details. Back to back test drives with a J car and a VW rabbit left me no doubt as to which was the better car. The J car COULD have been SO much more, but GM once again decided to introduce a car that it felt was "good enough". Don't get me wrong, i am not a GM hater, far from it, but i do call em the way i see em.
The Fiero was originally intended to be a high MPG commuter. A fantastic idea which some dimbulb nixed in favor of making it a "sports car". Problem was, it had econ car underpinnings and an anemic engine, so it was laughed at as a sports car and thus was a sales failure. By the time GM got it right, it was too late and management killed it. If they had done what they had originally said they were going to do with the Fiero, and introduced it with the Chevette engine, or better yet, the Isuzu diesel engine that they put in the Chevette as an option, there is a chance that they would not be in the position they are in now. I have spent time driving a Fiero and it was actually a good driving car, although it had a very cheap interior.
But your point about GM not updating is spot on. My point is that they weren't very good to start with, which made their ignoring of improvement that much worse. It's a shame, because GM HAS done some good engineering. My LT1 powered Z28 ran 13.6 in the 1/4 mile, yet i could coax 31MPG out if it.

Of course the cheap price of oil/gasoline is confusing the issue, too. If the trendline for crude oil had held, it should be selling for around $60/barrel today. But apparently the momentum of the downward move has caused it to break through that and is now closer to $40.

This theoretically could give the car makers some breathing room to clear their inventory of FSP's, but people just aren't in the mood to crack their wallets open.

And to come up with new fuel-efficient vehicles costs big piles of cash, something in short supply not only in Detroit, but in the credit markets as a whole.

All in all, the perfect storm for car makers. Sure, they need more fuel efficient cars, but they are short of cash to make that happen, and can they count on the American public to buy these new fuel efficient cars as the price of gasoline heads towards $1/gallon? After all, it was the gas-hog-buying American car buyer who in large part aided and abetted Detroit's foolishness.

Harry

Blackbelt, I remember exactly what you're talking about with the Fiero. I remember Car and Driver reporting pretty regularly on the development progress of GM's "P-Car" (as it was known before they decided on the Fiero name). It was always referred to as a commuter car, not a sports car, during its development. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it originally offered only as a 4cyl, with the V6 showing up a couple years later?

Blackbelt, I remember exactly what you're talking about with the Fiero. I remember Car and Driver reporting pretty regularly on the development progress of GM's "P-Car" (as it was known before they decided on the Fiero name). It was always referred to as a commuter car, not a sports car, during its development. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it originally offered only as a 4cyl, with the V6 showing up a couple years later?

Exactly right, i had forgotten the code name "P"car. The Fiero was originally intended as a high MPG commuter. The original engine was the 2.5 "iron duke", which, when mated with an economy geared transaxle, was EPA rated at 27/40. The problem with the Fiero, as with many GM products, is that they used the buying public to sort out the problems with the car. Another problem was that it was a "parts bin engineered" car. Not usually a problem if the parts in the bin are good to start with. But when you start with the X car drivetrain and suspension(shoved into the rear of the car), and the front suspension from a Chevette, you are asking for problems.
GM offered the 2.8L V-6 (again, from the X car) in 1985. The shame was, that by 1988 GM finally figured it out, and redid the Fiero's suspension with dedicated pieces. The 88 was a much better car. But GM had already pulled the plug on the car. Imagine if they hadn't done that, and offered the fiero as a high mileage diesel powered car.