truth about domestics

John McCain (the 2008 Republican Presidential Candidate – for those who don’t know who that is) doesn’t believe that Chrysler will survive. He thinks that the $80 billion in government aid given to General Motors and Chrysler is a waste and that Chrysler should have filed for bankruptcy from the beginning. McCain blames the unions and their generous contracts as a reason for the government putting so much money into the automakers (maybe because the unions support Pres. Obama?).

John McCain put up some interesting things on his Twitter account:

“Chrysler finally filing for bankruptcy! Wish they would have done it months ago as I called for — could have saved taxpayers $26.7 billion!”

“President (proposes) government/union takeover of GM and Chrysler — Lenin would be smiling.”

“UAW eventually owning 55% of Chrysler stock and the U.S. Gov owning the rest — if that isn’t socialism, what is?”

Dude, give it a rest! First of all, you’re a hypocrite; you were in favor of the bailout at the very beginning. And, you’re just bitter because you lost.

Read the article at The Detroit News.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel needs to settle down now. The chancellor is bitter at GM’s reversal of decision to sell Opel in Europe to Magna and Gaz. Her fear is that GM is going to cut too many jobs at Opel, as compared to Magna’s plans.

GM decided to not sell Opel because of its small car platforms and also the improving global economy. This is a smart move in my opinion; how else would GM be a global company if it sold off most of its operations in Europe?

Does Angela Merkel actually think that Opel can be more successful under the ownership of Magna and Russia’s Gaz? She should relax.

Read the full article at New Europe.

During this week’s “The Business of Plugging In” conference in Detroit, Michigan, Jonathan Lauckner, the GM VP of Global Program Management, told the audience that the government needs to increase incentives for plug-in hybrids in order to generate more consumer interest. According to Lauckner, the costs for these vehicles are high, and volumes are low. Lauckner also talked about GM’s upcoming Chevy Volt plug-in vehicle.

While I agree that the government needs to take a more pro-active approach in stimulating alternate fuels/technologies in transportation (in general), I do not agree that the government needs to do this by dishing out cash. Instead, I think the US needs to follow what many European governments have been doing; they need to increase the tax on gasoline. This will ultimately generate interest in vehicles that are more fuel efficient, such as hybrids, plug-ins, electric vehicles, and even small and efficient diesels.

I’m sure nobody will be ecstatic about an increase in taxes; therefore, the government could compensate by reducing income taxes, for example, or fixing roads, building mass transit systems, etc. In the long run, this will not only help US’s economy, but also the environment.

Let us know what you think in the comments.

Read the full article at The Detroit News.

So I was reading about Lexus “developing” new scratch-resistant paint for their vehicles on Autoblog and thinking, “that’s pretty neat.” I then read some comments, and someone posted a link to a YouTube video comparing the paint on the new 2010 Ford Taurus and the luxury Lexus LS.

Wow! I have to say that I’m very impressed that Ford engineers went the extra mile to ensure that something that is seemingly mundane, like the paint, is more durable. This ultimately increases the quality of the vehicle and improves brand perception; exactly what the domestic three need to win back customers!

Alright, so I haven’t done a rant post in a looooong time. So here goes…

I just read a column at the Washington Post, and again, I am not surprised at the ignorance of the editor. It is instantly clear that the editor is angry that GM decided to kill of Saturn; yet he states that he is happy with his past 5 Saturn vehicle purchases. Okay, that is acceptable. But then, he states that he will never buy a GM vehicle again: “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. GM has already fooled me once.” What!? GM fooled you into purchasing vehicles that you were happy with!? Alright, whatever.

So the dude decided to purchase an Asian, up-scale SUV (the exact model is not mentioned); although supposedly he is pro-American in his purchasing habits. His reasoning? Chrysler can fold at any moment and his wife had a bad experience with a Ford, “her first car.” Her first car!? When was that!? You just said that you and your wife lived in the Detroit area from 1972 to 1979, so it has to be 20 years or more since your wife owned her first Ford! Come on, get a clue, you are losing credibility with every word.

Avoiding some of the other gibberish in between, I’ll skip and criticize the last paragraph. The editor says that his Asian SUV is “largely an American car” because it was assembled in Canada and its engine had been made in the US. Alright, Mr. pro-American-consumer, as you wish. Ignorance is bliss…

Read the article at the Washington Post.

Edmunds Inside Line recently did a comparison test of the brand new 2010 Ford Taurus and a 2009 Honda Accord, and let me begin by stating: what a terrible review! Can you make this shit any more biased? Keep reading to find out why.

The review starts out by listing off the features that each car has and finally naming the price of each vehicle.  The Taurus has loads and loads of features; features that even the reviewer states are simply not available on the Accord.  Those features include massaging seats, a blind spot information system, adaptive cruise control, Sony sound system, optional all-wheel drive and automatic high-beams.  After listing all the features that the Taurus has and the Accord does not, the reviewer says that you can save $3,575 if you go with the Accord. Duh! I wonder why!?  They optioned out the Taurus with items the Accord can only dream of having and then wonder why it’s so expensive.  If you step down into a lower trim level on the Taurus, you still get more features than on the Accord and at a lower price, which would then make the Taurus the better buy, but the author fails to mention that of course!

A little more on the features discussion: the reviewer also states that the Accord has the Acura navigation system that has been stripped of various features!? Why? I don’t know if the reviewers test vehicle had the Ford navigation system, but from what many reviews state, the Ford navigation system is one of the best (if not, the best) in the industry, even amongst luxury brands. It has features like sync, Bluetooth, USB connectivity, etc. Again, word of advice, option the vehicles similarly, and then compare them OBJECTIVELY! That is my understanding of what a proper review should be like.

Oh and lets not forget the section where the author goes on to say that the Taurus rides better, stops shorter, and has a quieter cabin than the Accord, but that’s not important.  What is important to the author is that the radio isn’t pixelated…  If the author had an ounce of sense in his head he would understand why that is.  The Accord had a navigation screen that is LCD based.  The Taurus in this case did not have a navigation system, so it has a standard LED display.  If they had bothered to get cars that were optioned similarly, the Taurus navigation system has a larger LCD screen, looks sharper, and is much more intuitive than that on the Accord.  If I had a nickle for every time the author disregards the Taurus’ strong points, I’d be able to retire.

Here comes the performance comparison. I won’t discuss the exact number here (you can read the review for that), but ultimately, the performance characteristics (times, speeds, etc.) were very similar for both vehicles. The Accord was a little quicker, with a 7.2 second 0-60, compared to Taurus’ 7.8 seconds. But in the end, the reviewer boldly states “it has no hope of catching the Accord.” What!? Clearly, both of these cars are not speed-racers, and I didn’t realize that full-size sedans were designed to be weekend track cars. And if you really wanted to get a performance full-size sedan, you do have the option of getting a 2010 Taurus SHO that has significantly more power, AWD, and ultimately will kill the Accord; but then it wouldn’t be a fair comparison.

Alright, my head is about to explode from all the stupid crap in this review. Long story short, the reviewer found issues with the Taurus and could not leave them alone. Common themes include the weight of the Taurus, the size of the Taurus, the price of the Taurus, the Taurus having too many features, more complaints about the weight of the Taurus, and more complaints about the size of the Taurus. Ultimately, the Accord wins. And not just any Accord, but the “Honda Accord EX-L with Navigation!” BAM! It’s got a navigation system! Game over baby!

Read the full craptastic review at Edmunds.

Peace.

Alex

ZipCar’s CEO, Scott Griffith was recently interviewed on a Squawk segment on CNBC. He was describing the nature of the car-sharing business and how it works. The business model is very interesting, allowing people to share vehicles by the day or even hour, instead of buying a vehicle.

Unfortunately, Griffith then goes on to state some very interesting “facts.” According to Griffith: “We are not buying GM or Chrysler cars; in fact we have never bought a GM or Chrysler product.”

That has got to be the biggest load of bull-crap that I have heard in a long time! Granted, there is no way of me knowing what kind of requests they get, that is extremely hard to believe because Griffith states that they have all sorts of vehicles in their fleet, including trucks and SUVs! Is he honestly going to tell everyone that when someone requests a truck or an SUV it’s a Toyota or Honda? Yes, he does mention they get requests for Ford vehicles, but as far as I know, GM still sells over half a million trucks every year. That means that they are POPULAR!

Of course there’s no one there to correct this fool. Griffith, I hope you get a chance to read this; I’d love to have a chat with you. You’re full of crap!

Peace,

Alex

GM has supposedly narrowed its negotiations two to possible parties interested in the Saab brand, according to Saab’s chief executive, Jan-Ake Jonsson. Jonsson says that the deal should be sealed within a maximum time frame of two weeks. Hopefully that is true because it’d be nice to start tying up all of the loose ends in the mess known as the global auto industry.

According to undisclosed sources (is anyone ever disclosed?), the two potential parties interested in Saab are Koenigsegg, a Swedish luxury carmaker, and U.S. financier Ira Rennert and his Renco Group.

Interesting news…but I just have to make some comments about Reuters, the source of this story. Why does Reuters have to refer to Saab as a “loss-making” brand? What the hell is that? Couldn’t the author just refer to Saab as Saab? I never liked Reuters, here’s another reason why. Thanks for the article guys.

Read the full article here.

Jon Stewart provided his opinion on GM’s recent filing for bankruptcy on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart Tuesday night. Check out the video for his take. It’s also pretty funny, if nothing else.

While I’m not a big fan of Jon Stewart and his super-liberal-viewpoints, he did make a good point: banks that made nothing, nothing tangible, were given cash with no questions asked and few strings attached. General Motors and Chrysler make a product!

I don’t agree with him saying that GM could have filed for bankruptcy a while back for “free.” Many things GM has done until now has been in preparation for bankruptcy, which will hopefully make it a quicker trip through the courts.

And I am still dumbfounded by the ignorant comments I hear and read about why we (the taxpayers) are giving money to these companies. Well, the way I (and well-educated individuals) look at it is as so: if the US government allowed the companies, or more specifically GM, to fail, the cost would be a lot greater than that already incurred. Significantly greater! I am no economist, but the tax base of the millions of people becoming unemployed has got to be worth something. So to all of the naysayers: SHUT IT! Until you can provide a better solution, don’t speak.

Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla Motors, was on Dave Letterman last night talking about the Tesla Roadster and their new Tesla Model S. Let me just get this out of the way: what a bunch of idiots! Musk and Letterman!

They went to great lengths discussing the Tesla Roadster and how awesome it is. Then, Musk had the pleasure of ripping on GM for destroying the EV1 cars after the program was canceled: “…when was the last time you heard anyone doing a candle-light vigil for the destruction of any product, let alone a General Motors product.”

Eventually they went on to discuss GM’s Chevy Volt. Letterman tore it apart for having a range of only 40 miles. The problem is that not once did he mention the range-extender feature of the car, nor did Musk have the courtesy to correct him.

Musk did mention once that the Tesla Roadster costs 100K; but I guess since letterman has enough cash to buy one outright, he didn’t bother to put 2 + 2 together and realize that Tesla is NOT producing cars for the average person.

I respect Tesla’s initiative, and the fact that it’s based out of the United States. But now knowing that the company (Musk is at the top after all) has absolutely no class, I will stray away from their cars…oh wait, they only have one limited production roadster to show for their effort; there is nothing to even consider!

Oh, and where did the geniuses at Tesla come up with the name “Model S?” I think they can only dream of the Model S being as revolutionary as the Model T was. Show some respect.

Watch the video for your own take on these fools.