UAW’s newest President, Bob King, recently reiterated the ban on foreign vehicles in UAW parking lots. King’s comments were in response to a reporter who got kicked out of a UAW parking lot for driving a Toyota Camry. King’s reasoning is that “Foreign automakers accept U.S taxpayer’s dollars in incentives to build assembly plants in the United States, jeopardizing the future of middle-class workers in the domestic auto industry.”

Although I will be one of the first to preach the importance of protecting the domestic industries, I completely disagree with UAW’s policy. Unions came about for good reasons, such as improving working conditions, creating the 8 hour work day and 5 day work week, fair wages, etc. But, this policy goes opposite of what the UAW is “supposed” to stand for – pro-American. This is actually, quite un-American. Competition leads to better innovation and better products, not bullying.

So is this what UAW leadership is paid to accomplish – create stupid policies? I thought it was to stand up for their workers. Maybe it would be more beneficial to work on helping make the domestic companies more efficient and cost effective. Or, how about working on changing our trade policies with other nations and make it fair to sell our products overseas.

Oh, by the way, I’ve been reading article after article about this story, along with people’s comments, and I’ve noticed something interesting – many people state that this worsens their perception of the UAW (as if it’s not bad enough), and worsens their perception of UAW built cars. So how about that, people won’t buy domestic cars because of this! Thanks Bob.

Source: The Detroit News

So I came upon an article titled “Ford Had 20 Acceleration Deaths as Regulators Cited Human Error,” thinking that this will be some sort of comparison to the latest problems at Toyota. Nope. Instead, this is a biased piece of reporting about how Toyota’s problems are no different than incidents reported to NHTSA for any of the other automakers. So, no worries NHTSA, you can stop your investigations, these guys have all of the answers!

So where do I begin – how about the first paragraph, where the editors state:

“U.S. regulators have tracked more deaths in vehicles made by Ford Motor Co., Chrysler Group LLC and other companies combined than by Toyota Motor Corp. during three decades of unintended acceleration reviews that often blamed human error. Fifty-nine of 110 fatalities attributed to sudden acceleration in National Highway Traffic Safety Administration records occurred in vehicles other than those sold by Toyota…”

So let me get this straight – the combined total of complaints to NHTSA for all of the other automakers is greater than the number of complaints for Toyota, which contributes to nearly half of the complaints – 51 vs. 59. Additionally, the majority of the complaints can be attributed to human error. Okay – considering that GM and Ford (not combined) sell more vehicles in the US than Toyota, I wouldn’t call that a very good statistic.

The article then continues to explain that NHTSA has determined that the primary root cause of these complaints is human error. This may be the case, but that cannot be the only root cause – why else would Toyota decide to recall millions of vehicles? Just for fun? They don’t like the size of their piggy bank?

The article continues to discuss the fatality statistics for this failure mode:

“NHTSA, which is responsible for ensuring the safety of motor vehicles in the U.S., hasn’t previously disclosed the non-Toyota deaths. After Toyota’s 51, Ford and Chrysler vehicles were linked to the most deaths — 20 for Ford and 12 for Chrysler.”

Again, the statistics do not seem to favor Toyota – Ford sells more vehicles than Toyota, and although Chrysler does not sell as many as Toyota, they sell significantly more vehicles than about 20% of what Toyota sells (12/51).

I’m not rationalizing the fatalities caused by this failure mode in non-Toyota vehicles, each NHTSA case needs to be investigated thoroughly, but it seems like the authors of this articles are simply trying to say: “look, the other automakers are killing people too, Toyota is not any different.” But Toyota is different; the rate of occurrence of this failure mode is significantly higher in a Toyota vehicle as compared to a non-Toyota vehicle.

I hope the editors of this article never try to be lawyers – the arguments suck.

You can find the full article at Bloomberg.

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.

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.