GM Signs $800 million Export Deal With China

GM announced today that it has signed an agreement with Shanghai General Motors, one of its joint venture partners, to sell at least $800 million worth of sport utility vehicles and related parts and accessories in China under its successful Buick brand there. Of course, the only sport utility vehicle that Buick builds in the US is the new Enclave Crossover, and the deal calls for GM to export up to 25,000 Enclaves over four years, beginning in 2008. Also, the Enclave is arguably the only US-based Buick that does not already have a superior counterpart sold in China (the LaCrosse in China is a much more upscale, modern vehicle than the US version, and the Park Avenue in China is more luxurious, powerful, and modern-looking - not to mention rear wheel drive instead of front wheel drive than the US Lucerne.)

This deal comes on the heels of a deal that GM signed in May to export more than $700 million worth of Cadillacs from the US to China, bringing the total dollar value of GM's US exports to China to over $1.5 billion.

Moves like this aren't going to reduce the enormous trade deficit that the US has with China in any significant way, but it's nice to see some "Made in America" products being sent to China, rather than the usual direction. Now, my only complaint is that China literally gets the "best of the best" in terms of the global Buick offerings. They have better cars than the US Buick lineup has, and now will also receive the US market's superior crossover.

There has been some speculation that the timing of the announcement was intended to "throw a bone" to GM's striking UAW workforce, showing that the company is doing what it can to find work for their assembly plants - and job security for their workers. Whatever the timing or motivation behind it, it's nice to see GM talking more about sending vehicles to China rather than sourcing them from there, as Chrysler LLC has confirmed and Ford is rumored to be considering with its upcoming Fiesta.

Read more!

Dealers Still Advertising Higher 2007 Fuel Economy Ratings

A breathless, critical report has been issued by CNW Marketing research stating that Toyota dealers are still claiming that the Prius can achieve 60 miles per gallon.

It has been reasonably well known in the automotive world for years that EPA fuel economy ratings were generally higher than what people could expect to see "in the real world." Sure, it's theoretically possible to drive like a stereotypical septuagenarian and achieve those window sticker numbers, but more likely than not, we're accelerating more quickly, driving faster, and using accessories such as air conditioning and power steering that also require fuel to run. With gas prices near historic highs, consumers are more concerned about fuel economy than they have been in years, and were getting irritated when their own gas mileage didn't match the numbers on the window sticker, in spite of the famous disclaimer, "your actual mileage may vary." In response to this, the EPA has implemented a revised calculation to establish fuel economy for the window sticker for all 2008 and later models to better reflect "real world" experiences. The calculations are complex, but the end result is that most vehicles will see a 2-4 mile per gallon decrease in both city and highway fuel economy. The exception to that is hybrids, which took a disproportionate beating in their ratings. The Toyota Prius, previously rated at 60 miles per gallon in the city and 51 miles per gallon on the highway, dropped to 48 miles per gallon in the city and 45 miles per gallon on the highway. My own theory on the reason for the larger drop is not that Toyota was cheating, but that the Prius' driving characteristics were very well suited to the conditions of the old test methodology (truth be told, I also am skeptical of the 21 miles per gallon highway rating of GM's Tahoe full size SUV, thanks to its active fuel management that shuts down four of its eight cylinders, but in reality, rarely has the chance to do so).

The point is, although there really are people who achieved 60 miles per gallon in the Prius, though you have to "know" how to drive a hybrid like the Prius to maximize its fuel efficiency. (From what I have heard, it's not the same thing as driving a conventional car for maximum economy). Most people achieve mileage in the mid-40s in the Prius, which is exactly what the EPA now says it should do.

Details left out of the report, however are:

• Do dealers of other brands also talk about fuel economy in terms of 2007 numbers?
• Are the Toyota dealers in question referring to 2008 Priuses or leftover 2007 models?
• Is doing this illegal, or even unethical?
• Who paid for this research?

Let's dive into the implications of each of these.

I don't know about other brands' dealers, but I can say for sure that if you go today to http://www.gm.com/shop and click on "30+ MPG highway," the only vehicles that come up in the search are 2007 models. Some of the models listed (Impala, Grand Prix, etc.) will not be over 30 miles per gallon in 2008, but GM is still advertising those models as being over 30 miles per gallon.

As far as whether the Priuses are 2007 or 2008 models (which would each have different economy figures on their window stickers), it's impossible to tell (and I doubt that CNW knows), but wouldn't the natural tendency of a salesperson be to cite the highest fuel economy figure he or she can for a given model? If the window sticker says 60/55 for a car they're selling, then they should feel free to show that to a customer. If the customer asks about real world economy, I'd hope that they'd either be more realistic about it or tell them to check a neutral website like http://www.fueleconomy.gov/.

If the dealers are representing that 2008 models get 60 miles per gallon in the city, then I think they are being unethical and misrepresenting the car's likely fuel economy. Actually, a better solution would have been for ALL new car window stickers on sale after a certain date (say, October 1, 2007) to show the new ratings, regardless of the model year. That way, it wouldn't look like an old model was getting better fuel economy than a new one, when in fact they're likely to be mechanically identical. Really, is it that expensive or difficult to reprint the window sticker for a new vehicle, in the interest of full disclosure and minimizing consumer confusion and angst? After all, the Fueleconomy.gov website has converted all past fuel economy ratings to the current 2008 equivalents to enable more fair comparisons between models and especially between different model years.

CNW's website does not list this report, only its infamous "Dust to Dust" report that grossly exaggerated the energy costs of a Prius versus a Hummer (see excellent rebuttals of the Dust to Dust report on TrueDelta.com here and here). However, the company states that it performs syndicated studies that "protect you from seeing information that is skewed toward a particular point of view or company or product." Yet, they seem to have a serious anti-Prius agenda after the Dust to Dust report and now this. Though it's possible that an anti-Toyota client underwrote this latest research project, it is possible that the company undertook it on its own for publicity reasons.

Read more!

Furor Grows Over Dealership CSI Scores

Michael Karesh, owner of TrueDelta, an automotive research firm, conducted a survey of his reliability survey participants last spring to gauge whether dealers were pressuring their customers to rate their salesperson and dealership with top scores in all areas on the customer satisfaction surveys that come from the manufacturer. I hadn't seen the survey results until reading the August 27, 2007 issue of industry publication Automotive News last night (I'm a little behind!) and saw an article about Mr. Karesh's research.

I think Mr. Karesh was onto something by conducting a survey about this. Not only did a major auto industry publication pick up on his work, but also today's Autoextremist article was about what a failed system CSI scores have become.

In the past four years, I've bought two new vehicles, and while my buying experience was a positive one in both cases (I bought a Honda and a Nissan), it helps that I didn't have to negotiate price, as a family member had a close business relationship with both dealerships and was able to get a great price for me. But toward the end of the delivery process, both salesmen mentioned the CSI surveys and that they need perfect scores, and that they'd be happy to address any concerns I might have before completing the survey. Needless to say, I gave them top scores.

Apparently, I'm not the only one who has been pressured to do this. Dealerships' allocations of popular models, their employees' compensation, and even factory to dealer incentives are tied to CSI rankings. Even worse, manufacturers have set such ridiculously high standards (anything short of "excellent" is a black mark, when in fact, outside of Lake Wobegon, not everyone is above average, and certainly not excellent.) "Exceeds expectations" might be a difficult rating to achieve if the customer's expectations are too high. And even if that customer's expectations are exceeded once, would they not expect the same treatment when they buy their next car from that dealer, so the same level of service that exceeded expectations earlier might only meet the higher expectations the second time.

If every car buying experience was excellent or very good, then why are there so many horror stories out there? Hmmm...

TrueDelta's research (with admittedly small sample sizes) found that at least 75% of all dealerships at least mentioned the survey would be coming, and many others took further steps such as allowing to preliminarily address problems before the survey (36%), asking for perfect scores without begging (28%), saying they wouldn't get a bonus without perfect scores (9%), begging for perfect scores (9%), offering to watch the customer complete it (2%) or allow the dealer to complete it (2%), or offering a gift in exchange for a positive survey (2%). Note that these do not add to 100% because multiple responses were allowed. It also found that among respondents, Nissan, Hyundai, and BMW dealers pressured customers the most to complete their surveys with only the highest scores.

Further adding to the furor is that GM announced in the past week or two that some dealers had submitted "fraudulent" CSI surveys and those results would be ignored, and the dealer would likely be penalized in some way.

So let's see: customers don't like being pressured, dealers and salespeople don't like having their livelihood tied to the whim of someone completing a survey who marks "very good" instead of "excellent" (or "meets expectations" rather than "exceeds expectations), and the manufacturers are suspicious of the process.

Part of my "real job" is working with employee compensation, and designing incentive plans to motivate employees to perform a desired behavior. I'd say that the current CSI system should be thrown out, because clearly begging, lying, and fudging should not be the behaviors that are encouraged.

Are there any other stories of dealer or salesperson pressure to give perfect scores out there?

Link to TrueDelta's research on this subject: http://www.truedelta.com/pieces/survey_survey.php

Read more!

Frankfurt: Toyota IQ Concept

I've previously complained about Chinese companies making knockoffs of western-designed vehicles and basically stealing intellectual property. (For more on that, click here and here.)

Now, it's Toyota's turn! The Toyota IQ concept that it revealed in Frankfurt not only appears to bear a more than coincidental similarity to the Smart city car, but even the car's NAME ITSELF - IQ - seems to want to imply intelligence (Get it? Smart - IQ...?)

However, other than the unoriginal name and basic shape (and the shape is actually more pleasing to the eyes than the Smart's, in my humble opinion), it's actually a pretty interesting little city car. It seems to have been better-received than the Volkswagen Up! concept, which is intended to fill a similar niche and debuted in concept form around th same time.

The Toyota IQ was designed in France by Toyota's Advanced European Design Studio, and is just a short 2.98 meters in length. For some perspective, it's 770 mm (0.77 meters) shorter than a Yaris, yet according to the press release, has a similarly-sized interior. The seating configuration is advertised as "3+1," meaning that other than the two front seats, there is one adult-sized seat behind the front passenger and one child-sized seat behind the driver, which can also be folded to increase luggage space. The dashboard is designed to sweep away from the front passenger so that when only two people are in the car, the passenger seat can be roughly aligned with the driver's seat, but when a passenger needs to ride in the back seat, the front passenger seat can be moved forward of the driver, still leaving adequate space for both passengers. Toyota calls it the smallest four seat passenger concept car.

Again, the concept is a fine one - it's arguably a more attractive car than the Smart ForTwo, plus it has more seats (as the Smart is only designed "for two" passengers), but couldn't Toyota come up with a more original shape and a better name? What's next - the Honda Intelligent? The Nissan Clever?

Read more!

A Magazine Time Machine

One of the last times I visited my parents this past summer, they gave me a large plastic bin full of old automotive-related magazines. Titles include Autoweek, Motor Trend, and Car and Driver, and they appear to be mostly of the 1996-1997 vintage. I don't know what possessed me to keep these magazines after reading them - I haven't ever referred to them in the ensuing decade, and after I read my current magazines, they are recycled or thrown away.

Nevertheless, over the past few days, I've been gradually making my way through these old magazines one more time before they hit the garbage can. It's been pretty interesting to have ten more years of automotive history, the seeming dominance of import brands, a horsepower war, high gas prices, and more happen to change my perspective on vehicles that I believed were at the top of their game in 1996 and 1997. Humorously, I wasn't the only one who believed this.

The September 16, 1996 Autoweek has an article about the then-new Chevy Venture, Pontiac Trans Sport, and Oldsmobile (remember them?) Silhouette. Even GM fans can't stand these vans in their current, completely uncompetitive iteration, but eleven years ago, Autoweek said things like, "despite the four-door configuration, the body-structure has tremendous integrity. There is a solidness that will be benchmarked by other minivan makers" and "these vehicles' handling is best among minivans, bar none." But my favorite line was, "a rear overhead console, with headphone jacks for the rearmost passengers, and separate climate controls, are other nice touches, though a tug on the headphone cord brought the whole thing down. A Chevy engineer promised that a fix has been made using metal fasteners."

The same issue has this story on the last page about Bob Lutz, current GM Vice Chairman, Global Product Development:

Erick Nacke, of the Great Lakes Road Racing Association, tells of a group of Chrysler execs, engineers, and suppliers riding Ninjas at a recent superbike racing school. Who won most improved? Bob Lutz, of course. "We didn't know who he was--some silver-haired guy who was ripping it up. He was the only one who followed instructions to a tee. If we'd said, 'ride with one hand on your helmet and both feet up in the air,' he'd have done it. And by the end, he was the only one who dragged his knee through a turn."

That's a funny visual, and in the photo of Mr. Lutz accompanying that snippet, he looks very much the same as he does today, eleven years later. The accompanying photo here is just an artist's conception of what Mr. Lutz would look like atop a Ninja.

The February 17, 1997 Autoweek has a first test of the Oldsmobile Intrigue, which to me was always the best-looking, most-capable of the GM W-body midsize cars built from 1988 to present. Again, the article's perspective was interesting: "The Intrigue is destined to be the division's volume leader and the true test of whether Olds has succeeded in recasting itself" and "GM expects to sell hundreds of thousands of Intrigues against the toughest competition going - imports." Well, it wasn't, and unfortunately it didn't. I don't have access to 1997 and 1998 calendar year sales results, but in 1999 and 2000, the Intrigue was not Oldsmobile's volume leader - that title fell to the smaller and less expensive Alero, which nearly doubled the Intrigue's sales figures in 2000 (122,722 versus 64,109). Intrigue sales only made up about 30% of Oldsmobile sales in 1999 and 2000, while Alero sales made up between 42% and 57%. While the division may have sold hundreds of thousands of Intrigues cumulatively (likely just barely; Olds sold only 209,365 Intrigues from 1999 through 2004; the car was sold for about 18 months that aren't included in that figure from summer 1997 through December 1998), it's safe to say that it didn't help to stem Oldsmobile's slide into oblivion, with the last Oldsmobile rolling off the line in 2004. Also, the plan to "make cars with an international flair to draw import intenders into Oldsmobile dealerships" sounds eerily similar to GM's current plan for Saturn.

The next issue of Autoweek, dated February 24, 1997, introduces BMW's "new navigation system," available as a $2,990 option in the 528 models and $2,800 option in V8 5-Series and all 7-Series models. The article basically introduces readers to the concept of the now-familiar in-dash navigation system (this was before BMWs had the iDrive interface for navigation; instead, a small rotary knob next to the screen is used to enter inputs. The worst part of this early navigation system is that the map data is stored on nine CD-ROMs rather than a single DVD, or even a hard disk, as modern systems use. BMW's system in 1997 could automatically dial 911 or BMW roadside assistance in the event of emergency; it's a shame such functionality seems to be available in few cars today except those equipped with OnStar.

The March 24, 1997 Autoweek said that the Jeep Dakar concept vehicle, which was a hardtop four-door Wrangler, was approved for production, according to supplier sources. It was intended as an upscale partner for the Wrangler in the Jeep lineup. As it turned out, of course, it took until 2007 for Jeep to actually introduce a four door Wrangler, and it's Chrysler's hottest product. Some of the Dakar concept's styling cues did make it to the production Jeep liberty a few years later, but given the success of the four door Wrangler today, imagine how well the Dakar might have sold even in the SUV-crazed late 1990s.

Speaking of Jeep-like vehicles, the November 4, 1996 Autoweek had two notable Toyota SUVs profiled. Most Jeep-like of these was a 1958 Toyota FJ25 Land Cruiser, which looks strikingly similar to a 1940s-vintage US military Jeep. Compared to a 1997 Land Cruiser, the 1958 FJ25 was 40 inches shorter and 8 inches narrower! Toyota only imported 61 vehicles to the US in 1958, but a California man (of course!) bought the one featured in Autoweek new to use for duck hunting trips, and traded it in decades later for a new Land Cruiser with 93,000 miles on the odometer. Toyota later acquired it, restored it, and kept it in its permanent collection.

The other Toyota off roader featured was a Japanese military vehicle called the Mega Cruiser, which bore a striking resemblance to the AM General Hummer favored by the US military. The Mega Cruiser was built to order; Toyota only sold 47 of them through the first seven months of 1996, for example. The truck had all the equipment needed for a credible (but large) off roader, except that its 6,283 pounds were moved solely by a 4.1 liter intercooled turbodiesel, rated for 155 horsepower and 282 lb-ft of torque. The seating arrangements were certainly peculiar; two front buckets separated by an enormous transmission tunnel (as in the Hummer H1), two outboard bucket seats in the second row, with a two person bench between them (meaning it had a seating capacity of six). The price in late 1996 was $87,454.

Several issues, including the March 17, 1997 Autoweek, mentioned Nissan's Z-car factory restoration program. During the Z's hiatus (Nissan stopped importing new 300ZXs to the US in the mid-1990s), Nissan contracted with Pierre'Z Service Center in Hawthorne, California to completely disassemble and refurbish 1970-1972 240Zs back to factory specifications. Literally every nut and bolt was removed, yet pricing was supposed to only start "above $20,000." That doesn't sound bad to me for a "new" classic car. If I was in the market for a collector car like an original Z-car a decade ago, it would have been really neat to get a Nissan-certified one like these, although I believe that the program was ended after only a few dozen cars were restored.

In the April 7, 1997 issue of Autoweek, the then-new (two generations ago as of today) 1997 Camry CE was featured in an Autofile. Thinking of current criticisms of the Camry - that it's too soft, too much of an appliance, that it is favored by an older demographic - made me chuckle at a few quotes: "The Camry is so smooth and seamless that it could be the ultimate automotive appliance" and "The five-speed [manual], now available with the optional V6, is Toyota's first step toward cultivating a crop of more youthful Camry buyers. There were also several mentions of Toyota's cost control efforts in that generation Camry; the Yen's relative strength to the dollar at the time made things very tricky for Japanese automakers in the US. It seems that, other than the Camry SE (and the SE, the sportiest Camry, is not available with a manual transmission), Toyota still hasn't really made much of an effort to cultivate a performance image around the Camry. That hasn't really slowed sales, though, as the car continues to shatter sales records even a decade later.

I hope you enjoyed this stroll through a slice of the automotive world as it was ten years ago. The lesson I've taken from reading these old magazines is that what was once considered good, might now considered bad if it's not regularly updated. Expectations are constantly being elevated, and automakers cannot rest on their laurels.

There are still more magazines in the bottom of my closet, so if others find this as interesting/amusing as me, I may do another article of this type.

Read more!

2008 Infinti QX56 Review

Over the summer, I paid off my 2004 Honda Accord, and being an auto enthusiast, I was ready to trade in and trade up to something different. The Honda had been great for me, but I was very interested in the new 2007 Infiniti G35 sedan, so I requested a brochure from Infiniti's website.

Well, I decided to keep the Honda for the time being, and hopefully continue driving it for a few more years, and use the savings to buy a "fun" third car.

I hadn't given much thought, then, to Infiniti since then until I received a mailing from them offering me a test drive in the revised 2008 QX56 luxury sport utility vehicle. I'm always up for driving a new car (or truck), and especially when Infiniti offers me a $100 American Express gift card just for doing so. Today, over my lunch break, I drove to the Infiniti dealer and checked it out.

The sales staff was very courteous, and the salesman pulled around with a brand new black QX56 that just arrived off the truck overnight. It still had plastic wrap everywhere on the interior, but it really looked pretty good in black.

Exterior
The QX56 shares all of its body panels except for the front end with the more pedestrian Nissan Armada. I've never been a big fan of the QX56's style, especially the front end. The tops of the doors have an interesting arch, but the result is that they appear to have been designed for a different vehicle and shoehorned into the QX's profile. It's a HUGE truck, but seems to sit relatively low to the ground; it's almost as if it's too big for its wheels.

Interior
Infiniti has done a nice job packing its flagship SUV with all the techno goodies that luxury buyers expect: XM Satellite Radio, navigation with integrated NavTraffic, Bluetooth connectivity, intelligent key, power liftgate, power folding third row seats, and more. The center stack has been updated in the QX56 for 2008, and the changes are very welcome, as the old version was clearly one of the weakest points in the interior.

The smart key start is nice, but – same as with the 2008 Cadillac CTS, I always wish that vehicles with smart keys would then have the accompanying push button start instead of a “fake key” – in the spot where the key had been in earlier models, there is a plastic piece shaped almost like a key that must be twisted to start or stop the engine. Meanwhile, much lesser Nissan models that have clean-sheet interiors (such as the 2007 Altima) have true push button start.

Interior materials seem to be pretty good overall – the dash was mostly made of soft plastics and the door panels have stitched vinyl armrests and attractive real wood trim on all four of them. The leather on the seats was buttery soft and definitely a higher grade than Nissan products receive. Storage spaces abound - there is even a small shelf between the front seats and the center console. The third row folds flat into the floor, which is a nice feature the GM vehicles don't have, thanks to Infiniti's independent rear suspension. The QX that I drove did not have the optional DVD entertainment system, but did have an overhead console that stretched all the way to the third row. Although the extra storage is nice, it felt like extremely hollow, cheap plastic and was out of place in a $56,000 vehicle.

On the Road
The 5.6 liter, 320 horsepower engine has a nice purr at idle. Once dropped into gear, the cabin is relatively quiet. I haven’t driven a 2007 Escalade to compare the cabin noise levels between these two, but relative to our own 2005 Nissan Pathfinder, there is less wind noise and less engine noise. The engine does have a nice growl when it's given some throttle. I stomped on the gas pedal on an on-ramp, and it felt pretty good, but not quick. From a seat-of-the-pants perspective, it felt about the same as our smaller and lighter Pathfinder does with its 4.0 liter V6. The Pathfinder has less horsepower and torque, but also less weight to lug around.

The ride was comfortable and the truck felt relatively responsive, mostly thanks to the standard-for-2008 20 inch wheels. The steering had just the right amount of feedback for such a large vehicle, and didn't feel overboosted the way a 2007 Suburban LTZ does. I didn't do any panic stops, but the brakes felt fine.

Final Thoughts
During the ride, the salesman made some somewhat disparaging comments about the Escalade (most of which were incorrect):
- The body hasn't changed in 15 years (wrong - it was all new in early 2006)
- People are really flocking to the QX56 instead of the Escalade (the extended length Escalade ESV alone outsells the QX56 by 39% through August 31, and combining Escalade and Escalade ESV sales, the Cadillac has outsold the Infiniti by 175% through August 31.)

In looking at pricing of these two vehicles, the QX56 seems to be too expensive for what it is. True, the Escalade is a dressed-up Tahoe, just like the QX56 is a dressed-up Armada. But the Escalade has brand cachet, a more luxurious interior, and 83 more horsepower (403 versus 320 in the Infiniti), all for about $5,000 more (when comparing the Escalade ESV with the QX56). In the Infiniti's favor, the navigation system is more modern with a more attractive display, and the Cadillac lacks Bluetooth or a smart key.

If I was in the market for a $56,000 gas-guzzling SUV, I'd go with an Escalade. However, I'm not in that market, so I won't be going with either. Pricing out a revised 2008 V8 Pathfinder might be a different story, however!

Read more!

Jim Press Leaves Toyota for Chrysler LLC

In an absolutely stunning development, longtime Toyota executive Jim Press, who had been with the company for 37 years and was the first American ever elected to Toyota Motor Corporation's Board of Directors, resigned from the company to become Vice Chairman and President of Chrysler LLC. He now has the same job title as former Chrysler CEO Tom LaSorda, except that Mr. Press will be responsible for Sales and Marketing, and Mr. LaSorda will be responsible for manufacturing, labor relations, procurement, supply, and global business development and alliances.

With Toyota, which Mr. Press joined in 1970 when annual sales were about 100,000 units, his job titles were Toyota Motor America president and a Toyota Motor Corporation (TMC) senior managing director. Toyota is now the largest automaker in the world and the #2 automaker in the US (depending on the month), with 2,542,545 light vehicles sold in 2006.

Frankly, I'm surprised to see someone like Jim Press leave a comfortable, successful environment like he had at Toyota for the uncertainty of Chrysler. I would have expected Tom LaSorda to be out the door (since he was basically demoted from CEO to a COO role), but I guess money talks. Also, while Toyota sold more vehicles in the US than Chrysler did, the Chrysler job might be larger in scope than Mr. Press's job with Toyota was.

Jim Press has a proven track record of success in the industry - he was one of the executives who pushed for the latest Tundra to be larger, faster, and more capable than previous 7/8ths scale half-baked versions, and its sales success so far has proven that strategy to be a good one. Also, I needn't remind you that the Toyota Camry has been the best selling car in the US for nearly a decade. The guy knows how to sell cars, and Chrysler needs it. I believe that Chrysler, having already undergone several painful restructurings, needs someone who knows what consumers want and how to sell cars (and alter/shape perceptions of those products). Mr. LaSorda is good at his more operations-based behind-the-scenes role, and as long as Mr. Press can encourage the development of more appealing vehicles, and more importantly get consumers to buy them, Chrysler will be fine. Chrysler's dealer body is near mutiny, and Mr. Press has already promised to make repairing that relationship a high priority in his tenure.

I wish Mr. Press the best of luck in his new job. It won't be easy, but he is probably the right guy for the role. Also, congratulations are in order to Chrysler for the recruiting coup d'état, with a seemingly struggling company snagging Toyota's top US executive. Also, Toyota has lost its Lexus division vice president of marketing Debra Wahl Meyer at the end of August, who joined Chrysler as the company's chief marketing officer.

Read more!

Super Corvette Gets a Name?

The future "super Corvette," often referred to as the Blue Devil, Corvette SS, or Z07, has been named the ZR1, according to Todd Lassa's blog on MotorTrend.com.

If this is true (and I say "if" because Motor Trend has had "scoops" before that turned out to be completely wrong), it's a good move for GM in my opinion. For those of us who reached driving age around the time the Corvette ZR-1 made its debut in 1990, the name conjures up images of the ultimate in Corvette performance at the time.

I still think the ultimate Corvette will be called the Corvette SS, but the ZR1 name (not hyphenated) is a better name choice than SS. Yes, apparently there was an SS variant of an old Corvette somewhere in the past, but only the biggest Corvette history buff/die hard will be able to make that connection. There's no such problem with Corvette ZR1.

Motor Trend also stated matter of factly that this specific model will have 650 horsepower. I was actually hoping for a little more, for bragging rights and all, but that's still an awful lot, more than I could imagine needing (or even being able to control safely). Now, 505 horsepower, that's a different story!

Absent public confirmation from GM on this car's name, I guess we won't know for sure until it debuts in concept form at the 2008 North American International Auto Show in Detroit next January. I'll be there in person to cover it!

Read more!