Cars and Tech 2009 Model Year Preview Part 2 (H to M)

By Chris Haak

06.30.2008

Note: Part 1 of this article, from A through F, can be found here.
Part 3 of this article, from N through V, can be found here.

Our series previewing the 2009 model year continues today, starting with letter H - Honda. The this preview includes all vehicles that are new or significantly changed for the 2009 model year, including any early 2009 models already on the market.

Honda
Honda as an automaker generally tends to have a pretty steady product cadence. They don't blitz the market with a series of new models one year, only to have almost no new products the next year. Instead, most of the lineup is on about a six-year redesign cycle, and the current life cycles are fairly well spaced out. In the past few years, we've seen the Odyssey (2005), Ridgeline (2006), Civic (2006), CR-V (2007), and Accord (2008) redesigned or introduced. For the 2009 model year, it's the Pilot midsize crossover's turn.

The all-new 2009 Pilot, although still a very conservative shape as the first generation (sold from the 2003 through 2008 model years), is just a different conservative shape. The new model actually is even boxier in appearance than the old model. Frankly, I think Honda really dropped the ball with the Pilot's redesign. The old model sold well in spite of its looks, and it appears that the new one will have to do the same thing. The grille is particularly unsuccessful, but the rest of the vehicle is strikingly reminiscent of a Jeep Liberty.

Inside, however, is a different story, with additional passenger space, comfort features, and technology. The Pilot also gets more power and torque, and slightly better fuel economy. It's hitting dealers right now.

The other big news from Honda is actually small - the very popular Fit subcompact is all-new for 2009. The Fit has only been sold in the US since the 2007 model year and - thanks to high fuel prices and its reputation as a fun-to-drive, flexible little car - has exceeded Honda's sales expectations. The new 2009 model adds a bit more passenger space and interior flexibility, some additional technology such as an integrated navigation system, and by all accounts, maintains the handling prowess and fuel economy of the old model. Also, while the appearance is definitely evolutionary rather than revolutionary, I greatly prefer the design of the 2009 model, which has a more attractive headlight design, as well as a better looking D-pillar shape, and better proportions thanks to its slightly wider track.

Hummer
It's a slow news year for Hummer, the brand likely to be unloaded by General Motors in the next few months. However, Hummer will press on with the previously announced launch of the H3T four-door pickup, which will combine a four-door cab with a somewhat-functional five-foot bed (the much larger H2 SUT "pickup," in contrast, offers only a three-foot bed and the ability to allow cargo to enter the cab via an Avalanche-like midgate). Engine choices for the H3T mirror those in the H3 SUV - either an inline five cylinder or a small block V8.

Hyundai
Hyundai enters 2009 with a heavily revised Sonata midsize sedan, with most of the work applied to the car's interior, where it was heavily improved in an effort to match or surpass the competition in a very tough segment. Many reviews have praised the results of the Sonata's tweaks, which also include two new engines (a four cylinder and a V6), which both offer more power, better fuel economy, and fewer emissions.

Hyundai's biggest news, of course, is the launch of its Genesis sedan. As the name implies, the Genesis means a new day for Hyundai, which is selling its first rear wheel drive, V8-powered vehicle in the US. There will be three very competitive engine options - a 3.3 liter V6 (264 horsepower), a 3.8 liter V6 (290 horsepower), and a 4.6 liter V8 (375 horsepower). Hyundai's intent is to compete with three BMW models at once - the price of a 3-series, the size of a 7-series, and the driving experience of a 5-series. The car certainly has everything it needs on paper, from a ZF six-speed automatic when the V8 is chosen, to adaptive front lighting and adaptive cruise control, to a Lexicon Audio System featuring 17 speakers. Pricing will start around $33,000 for a V6 and at around $38,000 for a V8, which is far below import competition such as the Infiniti M35/45 and Lexus GS350/460, but above domestic competition such as the Chrysler 300C and Pontiac G8. The largest obstacle that Hyundai will have to overcome with the Genesis is that the company made the strategic decision to launch the car without a separate luxury sales channel. That means that the same dealer who has an $11,000 Accent in the showroom will also be hawking very credible, expensive luxury cars. Chevy has a similar issue with the Aveo and Corvette, but the Corvette is more like a bang-for-the-buck sports car rather than a luxury car.

Lastly, Hyundai is launching the Elantra Touring, which is an extension of the Elantra line. The (non-Touring) Elantra was launched for the 2007 model year as a four-door sedan, and the Touring model is basically an all-new body that adds a wagon-like rear end, far more utility and cargo space, and a more attractive (if more derivative) body. Hyundai claims best-in-class interior volume and cargo capacity. Power comes from a 2.0 liter four cylinder shared with the Elantra sedan.

Infiniti
Nissan's luxury brand, Infiniti, moves into the 2009 model year with just one all-new model - the second generation of the FX on-road SUV. The FX is on sale now, and is available with either a 3.5 liter V6 (FX35) or a new 5.0 liter V8 (FX50). The FX gets an all-new seven-speed automatic transmission with either engine, and gains significantly upgraded interior materials and design, as well as nearly every technology available in cars today (which is appropriate, since the FX is Infiniti's flagship with the absence of the Q from the lineup). Techno-goodies include the Around View Monitor (also available on the EX35), Intelligent Brake Assist, Distance Control Assist (for heavy traffic), and a hard disc-based navigation system that is coupled with XM's NavTraffic service.

Jaguar
As a brand with a very limited lineup - basically, three models at this point - all-new models for Jaguar only occur once every few years. To that end, the 2009 model year marks the debut of the new Jaguar XF, which replaces the S-type in the brand's lineup. The XF, in a major departure from tradition, looks very little like Jaguars of the past (while still maintaining several styling cues that hearken back to the 1950s and 1960s), and instead cuts a very modern silhouette, with little of the "Olde English" luxury that marked the brand's vehicles for much of its history. Jaguar was clearly aware that they had to do something to rejuvenate the brand, as continuing to trot out "all new" models that looked almost identical to the models they were replacing (in spite of more modern chassis and drivetrain components) caused Jaguar sales to slide for the past several years.

The XF, which was launched this past spring as an early 2009 model, has already become Jaguar's best-selling vehicle, and for good reason. The car's modern shape is perfectly complemented by an interior that combines high-tech lighting, electronics, and modern materials to finally move the Jaguar brand into the 21st century. Buyers of the XF will have the choice of a 300-horsepower 4.2-liter V8 or a 420-horsepower supercharged version of the 4.2 liter V8.

Kia
Like the new Ford F-150 and Dodge Ram (or even the 2008 Pontiac G8, for that matter), the Kia Borrego is probably the right vehicle at the wrong time. In a market where midsize body on frame SUVs such as the Chevrolet Trailblazer and Ford Explorer is in freefall, Kia is launching its entry into the segment. The Borrego will offer three-row seating, either V6 or V8 power, and the ability to tow up to 7,000 pounds when properly equipped. Its design isn't offensive, but it's also not breaking any new ground. In profile, the D-pillar treatment is reminiscent of the Isuzu Ascender. My best guess for the reason midsize SUV sales have suffered even more than fullsize SUV sales over the past few years is that midsizers offer the same poor fuel economy as the full-size ones, yet less capability. Basically, the folks who truly need an SUV for heavy towing or hauling a large family have continued to buy them, but the "pretenders" (and I was one of them for a few years with a 2005 Pathfinder) have moved onto more practical vehicles such as crossovers, that offer more utility and better fuel economy, at the expense of some offroad capability that probably wouldn't have been used anyway. The V8 Borrego's fuel economy numbers haven't been published yet, but the 4x4 3.8 liter V6 model is rated at 16/21, which tops the 2008 Pathfinder V6 4x4's and Trailblazer I6 4x4's 14/20 ratings.

Lincoln
As Lincoln moves to take over the bulk of volume in Ford Motor Company's Lincoln-Mercury channel, the brand adds a new flagship sedan for the 2009 model year, the MKS. Although the MKS won't be as large as the antediluvian Town Car (which will continue to soldier on for the next few years, primarily for fleet/livery duty), it's going to pack far more modern technology and comfort features into its Taurus/Sable/Volvo S80-based platform. All wheel drive will be available (front wheel drive is standard), and power in the first year comes from a 270-horsepower 3.7 liter V6. The MKS, despite its unfortunate name, looks to be a winner for Lincoln so far, with 10,000 pre-orders placed for the car already, prior to its upcoming launch. I sat in the car in Detroit, and it is a very attractive car with a very luxurious, high-quality interior. The interior materials and design reminded me of the 2008 Cadillac CTS, though maybe a half step behind design-wise. The cars compete in different classes, but it appears to be that good.

Mazda
Mazda's well-regarded but slow-selling Mazda6 midsize sedan is all-new for 2009, and like so many other vehicles, it's larger, heavier, and more powerful. Instead of residing in the "slightly smaller, lighter, and sportier than the Camry/Accord" niche, the Mazda6 for the US now moves right into the thick of those models' dimensions. The result is a car that loses its lithe shape and trades it instead for the puffiness that the Camry suffers from. Still, photos of the car show it to be attractive and well-equipped, with a really nice interior. More so than many automakers, Mazda worries about the details and the design, and the new 6 illustrates that with touches such as styled exhaust outlets and a nicely-integrated center stack. Power comes from either a 2.5 liter four cylinder or a 3.7 liter V6 shared with the CX-9 crossover. Other than its inability to hide the extra size externally, the only unfortunate aspect of the new design is the tapered roofline over the rear seat, which is a bit too reminiscent of the Toyota Prius' roof treatment. Still, if I was in the market for a car in this segment, I'd definitely give the Mazda6 some serious consideration.

Mitsubishi
Mitsubishi has had a few rough years in the US market, even having to fight off rumors that the company was going to leave the US altogether. Some well-designed, popular new models have helped reverse the brand's fortunes to a certain degree, specifically the Outlander small crossover and the Lancer compact sedan. One model missing from the Lancer lineup until the 2009 model year was a model to bridge the gap between the more pedestrian economy-oriented Lancers and the technology-laden (and expensive, and hard-edged) Lancer Evolution. Basically, Mitsubishi lacked a direct competitor to the Subaru WRX, while the Evo competes with the Subaru STi. However, this situation is remedied with the new Lancer Ralliart. The Lancer Ralliart is powered by a 235-horsepower 2.0 liter turbocharged four cylinder, coupled to an all wheel drive system and teamed with Mitsubishi's twin-clutch transmission. The Ralliart model will not only slot between the Lancer and Lancer Evolution in terms of power and performance, but also in terms of price.

Part 1 - from A (Acura) through F (Ford) can be found here.
Part 3 - from N (Nissan) through V (Volvo) can be found here.

Read more!

Cars and Tech 2009 Model Year Preview Part 1 (A to F)

By Chris Haak

06.27.2008

Note: Part 2 of this article, from H through M, can be found here.
Part 3 of this article, from N through V, can be found here.

Although some of the most intriguing new models will be introduced a year from now, for the 2010 model year (i.e., Chevy Volt, third generation Toyota Prius, Acura NSX), there are still some really interesting vehicles hitting the market right now and in the coming months. Below is a brand-by-brand overview of the most significant new vehicles that we can expect to see in the new car market for the 2009 model year. Due to the gigantic size of the market, we will pay closest attention to all-new or significantly changed vehicles. Also, because I doubt that any Aston Martin or Ferrari buyers are doing their research on this site, I'll ignore those lineups.

Acura
The 2009 model year came a bit early for Acura this year, with both its new TSX and warmed-over RL sedans making their auto show debuts in the spring, and hitting dealers this summer.

The 2009 TSX is, as are most new models, slightly larger and heavier than the vehicle it replaces. The simple, attractive lines of the old TSX have been replaced with Acura's controversial "shield" grille, bulging fenders, and some curious angles. The interior materials have allegedly been upgraded, and more technology has been added to the car. Power comes from a 2.4 liter four cylinder rated at 201 horsepower, coupled to either a five-speed automatic or a six-speed manual.

The 2009 RL is an update of the existing car, with the new Acura family grille, enhanced technology, increased engine power, and some creative seat-shaping to increase rear seat passenger space, which has been a criticism of the current model. The RL, as Acura's flagship sedan (and, incidentally, a car that should rightfully have never lost the Legend name) also was criticized for being a V6 powered flagship. Honda naturally hasn't added a V8, but did bump up the displacement from 3.5 to 3.7 liters, and horsepower goes up to an even 300.

The 2009 Acura TL will be an all-new car, introduced later this year. Although it hasn't been revealed to the public yet, several decent-quality spy photos have shown a car that appears to be larger than the current model, and again incorporating the sheild grille. Power will be upgraded, of course, with the top engine likely to be a variant of the RL's 3.7 liter V6. All wheel drive is also likely. While I prefer to give the benefit of the doubt to vehicles I've only seen in spy photos, Acura's recent styling direction leaves me a bit pessimistic about the TL's looks. The 2009 TL certainly has some big shoes to fill, because in my opinion, the 2004-2008 TL is the best looking vehicle Acura has ever sold.

Audi
The larger, wider, more powerful trend continues at Audi, where the all-new 2009 A4 compact luxury sedan makes its US debut later this year. The car, which is already on sale in Europe, has A5/S5-type headlights (with a ring of LED daytime running lights underneath the headlights themselves). The initial engine available in the US will be the direct injection 3.2 liter V6, to be followed later by a new 2.0 liter turbocharged direct injection four cylinder that will supposedly match the power and torque of some V6s, while returning superior fuel economy.

The new Q5 small SUV will also make its US debut for the 2009 model year. The little brother of the Touareg/Cayenne-based Q7 looks like a cross between the Q7 and an A4 Avant (wagon). It will come with only a 270 horsepower 3.2 liter V6 when launched in the US next spring.

BMW
BMW has been busy filling as many niches of the luxury market as it could find, and even inventing a few that didn't exist before. One member of the class of one - that is, the class of four door coupe SUVs - is the new X6. If only the name were as simple as "X6," however - its full name is X6 xDrive35i or X6 xDrive50i, depending on whether it has the 3.0 liter twin turbo inline six, or a new 407-horsepower twin turbo V8. The new V8 will find its way throughout several vehicles in the BMW lineup in the next few years; a likely early recipient of it will be the upcoming all-new 7 series.

Other big news at BMW is the availability of 50 state-legal turbodiesel six cylinder engines in both the 3-series and X5. This sophisticated engine produces 265 horsepower and over 400 lb-ft of torque. Performance should be on par with the expectations of BMW owners, although I'm sure that the extreme low-end torque and lack of revving will be a very different experience for them.

Cadillac
The 2008 model year was a big one for Cadillac, as its volume sedan, the CTS, hit the market. The car has been a critical and sales success, and later this year, we should see a wagon version (with half of its production scheduled for export to Europe) as well as a production version of the CTS coupe concept displayed in January 2008 at the Detroit Auto Show. Other big CTS news for 2009 is the release of the 2009 CTS-V, which packs a detuned version of the 2009 ZR1's 6.2 liter supercharged V8. In the CTS-V, the engine is rated at 556 horsepower (versus 638 in the ZR1), but the CTS-V has proven to be an absolute rocket in performance figures released by GM, with a quarter mile time of 12 seconds flat. Pricing hasn't been announced for the V yet, but expect the most powerful engine of the Cadillac V-series to start around $60,000, which - if true - is a heck of a deal considering the performance relative to the M5 and E63, plus the fact that the similarly-powered ZR1 starts at $105,000.

Chevrolet
GM's volume brand sees two significant introductions for the 2009 model year. First is the Corvette ZR1, which (as mentioned above) packs a 638 horsepower 6.2 liter supercharged LS9 V8 under its hood. Zero to sixty arrives in a conservative 3.4 seconds, quarter mile times are in the low-11s, and top speed exceeds 200 miles per hour. The price exceeds $100,000 as well - $105,000 to be precise, including destination and the mandatory $1,700 gas guzzler tax.

The second introduction for Chevy this year, the Traverse large crossover, should sell in much larger volumes than the ZR1 (which will be limited to 2,000 units in its first year, by the way). The Traverse is basically an Enclave/Acadia/Outlook with a different front end, different interior, and a different D-pillar treatment. However, the Lambda crossovers (that's the name of the platform on which the Lambda and its cousins are based) can handle fairly well for large vehicles, and are comfortable and quiet inside. GM also promises best-in-class fuel economy with a direct injected version of the 3.6 liter V6, coupled with a six-speed automatic.

Chrysler
The big news at Chrysler is the launch of the company's first hybrid, which will be found in the Aspen full-size SUV. Interestingly, Aspen sales haven't done too badly this year, in spite of enormous headwinds in its segment. The two mode hybrid was co-developed with GM and BMW, so is a version of the system that can be found in the Tahoe and Yukon Hybrids, except that it obviously features Chrysler's HEMI V8 instead of GM's small block V8. Chrysler announced a few weeks ago that Durango and Aspen Hybrid pricing will undercut their GM competition by up to $8,000.

Dodge
The Dodge Durango Hybrid has the same powertrain that the aforementioned Aspen Hybrid has, and also makes its debut for the 2009 model year. Along with the Durango Hybrid news, 2009 marks the filling out of the Challenger lineup with the V6 powered SE and 5.7 liter HEMI V8-powered R/T models to accompany the fire-breathing SRT8 that kicked off the Challenger's return to the streets for the 2008 model year.

The other big news at Dodge is the launch of the all-new Ram pickup. I've seen it in person, and it has a hugely improved interior, lots of interior storage, a cleaner shape, better fuel economy, more power and torque, and some innovative features such as locking bedside compartments. Another innovative feature for the new Ram is four-wheel coil spring suspension, which is unique to the pickup market, and should improve unladen ride and handling relative to the competition. Dodge desperately needed to add both refinement and fuel economy to their flagship pickup, and it appears that they have done so for 2009.

Ford
Ford has two very important launches for the 2009 model year. One launch - the Flex large crossover - has already begun, if the three models sitting in front of my local dealer are any indication. The Flex is intended as Ford's non-stodgy minivan replacement, very similar to how the Traverse is Chevy's non-stodgy minivan replacement. While the Traverse doesn't break any new styling ground, the Flex's intentional boxiness prove that Ford was willing to take some styling risks on a very important vehicle. It's certainly a shape that has grown on me over time; when the production model was first shown, I thought it would be a flop in the market, but now I can appreciate it for what it is: basically a cross between a Mini Cooper and an old-school station wagon. I give the Flex credit not only for being honest about what it is (not pretending to be ready to tackle the Rubicon trail), and for an interior that, according to early reviews, is of very high quality and packed with innovative features such as a built-in refrigerator with its own compressor, SYNC, and a vista roof. Power comes from a 262-horsepower 3.5 liter V6.

The other critical launch for Ford has already been delayed by two months because of ballooning inventories of the old 2008 models: the [strike]bestselling[/strike] F-150 pickup. Like its crosstown rival the Dodge Ram, the new F-150 features a stronger, lighter frame, a nicer and more spacious interior, and improved fuel economy. Ford also added a new Platinum trim level above Limited, which will feature a leather-wrapped dashboard; the Platinum will basically replace the Lincoln Mark LT pickup in Ford's overall lineup, and actually has a nicer interior than the Lincoln cousin to the old F-150 had.

Part 2 - from H (Honda) through M (Mitsubishi) can be found here.
Part 3 - from N (Nissan) through V (Volvo) can be found here.

Stay tuned for Part 3 - starting with Nissan - coming in a few days.

Read more!

GM-Ford Merger Mentioned in GM C-Suite and Shot Down

By Chris Haak

06.26.2008

Although it obviously hasn't come to fruition, BusinessWeek reported this week that some GM executives have thought out loud about the possibility of a merger at Ford. According to BW's sources, GM's management's consensus was that such a huge merger, even if it could pass muster and be approved by both companies' shareholders as well as the government, would be a huge distraction to GM, who literally needs to focus every ounce of its energy on surviving the next two or three years.

If such a merger ever happened - and I'd consider it unlikely for many reasons - it might solve some problems such as reducing overhead costs and allowing the combined entity to share a dwindling cash pile to sustain the downturn in the US auto market until it recovers. However, it would create so many more problems, such as a proliferation of brands (GM already has too many brands; would adding 50% more brands do anything other the further divert resources from the core products?), redundant products, excess/unused factory capacity, and a lineup that's far larger, but still doesn't match the current buyer's wants or needs.

Although GM hasn't publicly even confirmed that the discussions/mention took place, it's safe to say that many GM fans and Ford fans are a bit freaked out at even the prospect of their favorite company joining the "enemy." I mean, will the Calvin peeing on the other guys' logo stickers have much meaning if Ford and Chevy trucks are owned by the same company? That would be like a Chevy owner having a picture of Calvin peeing on a GMC logo.

More worrisome, however, is the knowledge that brands would absolutely need to be eliminated; Buick and Lincoln are basically serving the same segment; Ford and Chevy have a lot of overlap; Mercury and Ford already overlap; Pontiac and GMC lineups both consist almost solely of rebadged Chevrolets so are redundant. We've seen a perfect case study for what happens to market share when a brand is eliminated - that market share disappears. Just ask GM how many Oldsmobile customers it retained; the answer is almost zero. Buicks and Chevys may have looked nearly the same, and been the same under the skin, but Olds people didn't want to buy Buicks - they wanted Oldsmobiles. Instead, they traded their Cutlass Ciera/Calais/Supreme/etc. on a Camry, saw that it was a good, reliable car, and they are now out of the GM fold, and GM's market share is lower than it's been in decades.

What had been unimaginable just a year or two ago seems to be an ever more likely scenario as panic sets in among the Detroit Three. Just as the last of the independent manufacturers such as AMC merged rather than just closing up shop, absent a dramatic turnaround in the next twelve months, we'll probably see something similar from GM, Ford, or Chrysler. Some would argue that the beginning of the end of the US auto industry happened in the 1970s, but I'm talking about the actual death of the industry as the endpoint, not the events that eventually got us close to it. However, I really believe that when we see GM and Ford, GM and Chrysler, Ford and Chrysler, or any of the three and a foreign manufacturer merging, it truly will be the beginning of the end of our domestic auto industry. I hope for the sake of millions of workers, not to mention our national economy, that we don't get to that point.

Read more!

2008 Jeep Grand Cherokee CRD 4x4 Review

By Chris Haak

06.26.2008

The new US CAFE (fuel economy) rules will force every automobile manufacturer to re-think its product portfolio over the next few years to focus more on efficiency and less on performance. We're going to see more widespread application of technology that is sometimes more costly such as direct injection, hybrids, lightweight materials, and turbocharging. Another solution to improving our auto fleet's average mileage is the diesel engine, which generally improves fuel efficiency by about 20 to 25% over a comparable gasoline engine.

I wrote nearly a year ago about the "diesel invasion" that was coming, and one of the early diesels to be sold on a non-commercial vehicle is the new-for-2008 Jeep Grand Cherokee CRD. CRD stands for common-rail diesel; without going into the gory technical details, just know that it's not anything like a 1980-vintage Oldsmobile diesel. It even literally takes a different kind of diesel fuel than the 1980s GMs did (ultra low sulfur diesel fuel, which doesn't even smell like diesel fuel of yore).

I was very excited when I learned that I'd be testing the Grand Cherokee CRD for several days; the Grand Cherokee is by far my favorite Jeep, in terms of size, packaging, and styling. Coupled with a new 3.0 liter diesel engine and five speed automatic sourced from Chrysler's former Mercedes overlords, the Jeep made for a compelling vehicle to test.

The Grand Cherokee's shape certainly evokes images of a rugged vehicle capable of conquering any off road trail. The shape can be described as more boxy than curvaceous, although curves can be found in the hoodline around the headlights as well as the large fender bulges - which, thankfully, are part of the sheet metal and not tacked on the way they are in the Jeep Commander. The Grand Cherokee, like previous generations of the same vehicle, has a very steeply-raked windshield for such an otherwise mostly squared-off vehicle (contrast that with the nearly-upright Wrangler windshield), but it doubtless helps wind noise and fuel efficiency at least a little bit. The 17 inch wheels look a little small in the large wheel openings, but much larger diameter wheels probably wouldn't be "Trail Rated," and the 17 inchers also allow plenty of room for suspension travel off road. Not that I'd know from experience, however, since the furthest off road I took it was onto a gravel parking lot, in spite of my best efforts to visit a friend's cabin in the woods. I'm also a fan of tasteful chrome adornments, and the Grand Cherokee Limited has horizontal chrome strips across the rear bumper, along the door moldings, and below the side windows, plus a chrome grille. The Steel Blue Metallic exterior color looked tasteful yet rugged. Really, I had no complaints about the Grand Cherokee's looks. It's the Baby Bear of Jeeps - not too big (Commander), not too small (Liberty, Patriot), not too car-like (Compass), not too truck-like (Wrangler). It's just right.

Inside, the interior design was very attractive. Unlike with many Chrysler vehicles, the squared-off look (plus a few select gentle curves) actually works very well with the Grand Cherokee, since the outside shape more or less follows the same theme. My Limited test vehicle had two-tone leather seats (Dark Slate Gray/Light Sandstone) with door panels and dashboard trim in identical colors. The front door panels and center stack are adorned with faux wood, but it (along with a few chrome accents here and there) help spruce up an otherwise plastic-heavy workplace. I was disappointed to notice that, like the Town & Country minivan, the entire dashboard is made of hard, hollow plastic. In contrast, the 300C AWD had a soft-touch dashboard that felt like it was made of a higher-grade material. I was hoping for something better than hard plastic in a $43,605 vehicle.

Interior features, however, were abundant in my loaded tester. It included navigation, MyGIG hard disc, heated front and rear seats, and Sirius Satellite Radio. The steering wheel was also one of my favorites in a Chrysler vehicle, as it was nice and thick and carried the same two-tone motif as the rest of the interior, with plastic chrome rings bisecting the dark and light segments of the rim.

Really, my only criticism of the interior other than the hard plastic dash is that it's a bit cramped, particularly aft of the front seats. The rear seat does not have much legroom, which was illustrated by the difficulty I had in securing a rear-facing convertible car seat (that's generally my ultimate test for the amount of space in the back seat of a test vehicle). We did manage to fit the seat into the Jeep, but it was closer to the front seat than we would have preferred; I'd say that rear seat legroom was similar to the 2009 Corolla that I tested last month. Also, the cargo area was very high and shallow. It's a high lift for loading cargo, and don't expect to carry anything tall in the cargo area.

As noted earlier, I was more excited to experience a modern turbodiesel than anything else when testing the Jeep. The first thing I noticed was a lack of odor while the engine idled. Bravely sticking my nose an inch from the tailpipe while it idled, I couldn't smell any telltale diesel odors. I also never saw smoke coming from the exhaust pipe, although I obviously never followed myself to see if hard acceleration was enough to unleash smoke. However, the exhaust system really seemed to get HOT on this thing. One morning, I was stopped at a red light, and I noticed some smoke wafting past my passenger side (the side the exhaust pipe is on). A fellow motorist looked at me with a concerned look, but the gauges all looked good and I didn't see anything too alarming, so I drove the last mile to my parking garage. I investigated the underside of the truck, and it smelled pretty hot, but there was no smoke coming out. The test truck only had about 2,200 miles on it, so perhaps it still wasn't fully broken in. I did not experience any repeats of this phenomenon, but I had not been driving the Jeep hard prior to the smoke episode.

Starting the Grand Cherokee CRD is very similar to starting any other Chrysler vehicle. The "smart key" is basically a plastic key that you dock into the dash, and turn like a conventional key. You merely have to turn the key to the "start" position and release, and the engine will crank until it starts. Although the owner's manual mentioned glow plugs (which in my childhood in the 1980s with a handful of Oldsmobile diesels meant that you'd have to turn the key to "on" for 10-15 seconds before turning the engine over), I didn't see any lights or such indicating that they were needed. The engine started nearly as quickly as a gasoline-powered vehicle and settled into a smooth idle around 600 RPMs. Minor clatter is audible under the hood, but nothing from the exhaust end. Revving the engine gives a little bit of a diesel sound, but it's still very smooth and quiet at idle.

My wife said that she didn't like the diesel sounds and that she perceived it as noisier than a gasoline engine, but perhaps partially because I thought it was "cool" to have a diesel, and partially because it is SO much more refined than a 20 year old diesel, it didn't bother me at all. At highway speeds, it felt just like a gasoline engine (and road/wind/radio noise, while not excessive, drown out any remaining diesel clatter). The Grand Cherokee was a little bouncy at highway speeds (likely due to its short off road-friendly wheelbase), but it is a very capable off roader, so I can easily forgive that. Rack and pinion steering felt accurate, and the wheel felt good in my hands.

Setting off from a stop, it feels slow for a second until the turbo spools up, then it takes off and actually pins you back into your seat. The Mercedes-sourced five-speed auto shifts quickly and always seemed to be in the right gear. Redline is just 4500 RPMs, but it's just a small perception adjustment to know you're getting your grunt down low instead of up high in the engine's powerband. Speaking of powerbands, the 3.0 liter turbodiesel V6 is rated at 215 horsepower and 375 lb-ft of torque. The torque peak is reached at a low 1600-2800 RPMs. The 5.7 liter HEMI V8, in contrast, is rated at 330 horsepower and the same 375 lb-ft of torque, but the HEMI reaches its torque peak at 4,000 RPMs. While I haven't driven a HEMI Grand Cherokee, I have spent time with the aforementioned 300C AWD, and can attest to the HEMI's low-end torque and midrange horsepower. The diesel was a totally different animal; the low torque peak throws you into your seat after the turbo lag ends, but if you want to pass somebody at highway speeds, you have to plan very far ahead, because it has nothing to give its driver in those situations. The upshot of the diesel, however, is that the Jeep can climb very steep hills (paved or unpaved) literally without even trying. It doesn't even have to downshift; steady application of the throttle up steep hills results in almost no change in velocity - it just keeps chugging along.

The steering ratio is fairly slow, likely another concession to off road competence (making it easier for the driver to be very accurate with steering inputs at slow speeds without fear of turning the wrong direction). The Goodyear Fortera tires didn't have an extremely aggressive tread for off-road use, but had an incredible tread life rating of 540. Our old 2005 Pathfinder LE 4x4's 265/65SR17 OEM tires had a similar tread depth but a tread life rating of 420. (I didn't know that from memory; I had to look it up!) The long tread life rating is generally an indicator of a harder rubber compound that will last a long time but compromises cornering grip; that proved to be my experience with these tires. The brakes bit hard enough in panic stop-like situations, but the tires betrayed them. It was the same story with curves: the tires let the Jeep down a bit. At no time did I feel top-heavy or unsafe, but I often was wishing for more grip (and more high-speed horsepower).

The lack of horsepower and low-end grunt of the turbodiesel V6 did have one benefit - at the gas pump. The CRD model is the most fuel efficient Jeep; it's rated at 17/22 or 19 combined (all fuel economy figures are for 4x4 models; add about one mpg for 4x2 models), while the 3.7 liter V6 is rated at 15/19 (17 combined), the 4.7 liter V8 is rated at 14/19 (15 combined), and the 5.7 liter HEMI V8 is rated at 13/18 (also 15 combined). In my experience, being gentle with the throttle yielded about 20-21 miles per gallon, but overall I averaged just under 18 miles per gallon. The funny thing is, the powertrain actually thrives on relatively gentle throttle application. The nature of the torque curve makes the driver want to take it easy on the throttle (especially when carrying passengers) because allowing all of the torque to do its job at once is a recipe for passenger whiplash. "Taking it easy" in the Jeep actually doesn't make you feel like someone who's a traffic impediment/nuisance, because of the copious torque available just above idle speeds.

After having read Kevin Miller's story of his brother's travails in finding ultra low-sulfur diesel fuel, I was a little worried that I wouldn't be able to find it in my area. There is no nationwide listing of ULS diesel availability as there is for E85, and I knew better than to put the old low-sulfur diesel fuel into it (without the "ultra" tag). Fortunately, a new Shell station on my way to work did offer ULS diesel fuel, so I splashed a bit into the tank. I paid $4.849 per gallon, so for $20, I only got 4.124 gallons. (Regular 87-octane gasoline was $3.929 at the same station at that time). ULS diesel pumps can be identified by their bright green nozzles, which conveniently match the bright green fuel cap on the CRD Jeep.

Jeep charges a premium of $1,655 for the 3.0 liter CRD V6 diesel option. Assuming $4.00 per gallon for regular unleaded and $5.00 per gallon for diesel fuel, the option would take over 30 years (!) To pay for itself (15,000 miles). On top of the cost being higher, the diesel sacrifices highway passing power for low-end torque and fuel economy, and that the CRD option is not available in the low-end Laredo models. If you'd like the diesel engine without the glitz of the Limited, you're out of luck, and would end up paying thousands extra for stuff you don't want or need. You're also out of luck if you live in California, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont; those eight states adhere to California's more strict emission standards, and do not allow the Jeep to be sold new to customers residing in them. (It's a so-called "42 state diesel," and since I reside in Pennsylvania, I'd be in the "out of luck" category.)

If I were in the market for a midsize, off road-capable vehicle with a splash of luxury, I'd seriously consider a Grand Cherokee. Rebates are very rich as SUVs have fallen out of favor and there are deals to be made for any buyers brave enough to wade into this segment. I'm not saying that these will be collector-worthy in 30 years, but I see a lot of parallels between the incredible deals on SUVs to the great deals and depressed trade-in values of gas-guzzling muscle cars in the early 1970s that later turned into cars coveted by enthusiasts. My advice: take a diesel for a spin and see if the experience is right for you. If it is, more choices are on the horizon, but if you have to have one now, you don't have many alternatives yet.

For more photos of this vehicle, click here.

Read more!

Daimler Plans All-Electric Models For 2010

By Chris Haak

06.23.2008

According to an article published in German magazine Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung on Saturday, Daimler AG CEO Dieter Zetsche said that his company plans to sell both an electric-only Smart car for 2010 as well as a Mercedes-badged electric car for the same model year. (Click for the original German or roughly translated English versions of the article).

According to the article, no decision has been made on pricing, which Zetsche said depended in large part on whether the expensive batteries are sold along with the cars, or leased separately from the cars themselves. Those of us who haven't grown completely tired of all of the news releases regarding the Chevrolet Volt plug-in electric car with a range-extending internal combustion engine may recall that a while ago, GM said that it too was considering leasing the batteries to owners to keep the purchase price at a more reasonable level. GM hasn't said much about leasing the batteries lately to my knowledge, but aside from the upfront price advantage, a leased battery would likely be the responsibility of the owner to replace if there should be some sort of problem with it.

To me, the most ironic twist about this news is that Mercedes may be phasing out a platform (the stacked chassis underpinning its vertically-oriented A-class small car) that would be perfect for holding the extra batteries and componentry required by an electric vehicle. The next-generation A-class is supposed to be moving to a more conventional layout to better compete with the Audi A3 and BMW 1-series.

News that Daimler will sell an electric Smart car is interesting in that the current gasoline-powered model sold in the US gets pretty mediocre fuel economy considering that the car is grossly underpowered according to nearly all reviews. An electric drivetrain would of course limit range in the city car, but most of them probably aren't taken far from the confines of the cities they "live" in anyway (though over the weekend, I saw a Smart ForTwo on the Pennsylvania Turnpike buzzing along with traffic in the oncoming direction. I'm curious as to how well Daimler will be able to incorporate the batteries into the Smart, since it already has little cargo capacity to sacrifice in the name of battery storage.

In the same interview, Zetsche said that he expected the internal combustion engine to disappear within 20-30 years, but that he hoped to market a fuel cell vehicle in limited numbers by 2010 as well.

As other publications have noted previously, 2010 is supposed to be a heck of an interesting year in the auto industry. Nearly every manufacturer is promising some sort of well-performing, cost-effective, ground-breaking vehicle for the 2010 model year. We'll know very soon who will be able to deliver on those numerous promises.

Read more!

Attention Hypermilers - Please Don't Be a Traffic Impediment

By Chris Haak

06.20.2008

With average US gas prices over $4 per gallon (and a near-celebration that the average fell two tenths of a cent over the past few days), a growing number of individuals have decided that rather than shopping for the lowest gas prices or considering the purchase of a more fuel-efficient vehicle, they will do their best to eke out fuel economy numbers that are seemingly impossible to achieve.

We've all seen the standard tips for fuel efficient driving a thousand times; don't waste energy by accelerating or braking hard; keep speeds down, keep tires properly inflated, keep the air filter clean and the car well-tuned, etc. In this environment, however, there are people who call themselves "hypermilers" who take all of the above steps to the highest power, plus use some more extreme fuel-saving tips to get incredible fuel economy figures far above EPA estimates.

Instead of inflating their tires to 32 PSI, a hypermiler might inflate his to 50 PSI, which reduces the size of the contact patch and therefore adversely affects handling, braking, and steering performance, but the harder tires also roll down the road more easily.

Other tricks - sometimes questionable - employed by hypermilers include using a thinner viscosity motor oil to reduce internal friction, removing unused seats and extraneous weight from their vehicles, turning off their engine at traffic lights (sometimes even in stop and go traffic), coasting down hills in neutral, and fastidiously avoiding the use of air conditioning or other electrical accessories that might require the car's alternator to engage. Knowing that I might be on the road simultaneously with a hypermiler, I'm not inclined to appreciate their overinflated tires (making them more likely to be in an accident), out-of-control downhill coasting in neutral, or having to wait for them to restart their engine at each prolonged stop in traffic or at a red light.

I'd read about these "hypermiler" creatures before - and frankly was uninterested in any of their techniques due to a combination of impatience and safety reasons - but had never seen a hypermiler in the wild before. Until this evening, that is.

On my commute home from work, I encountered a Toyota Tercel similar to the one pictured above with its hazard flashers activated in the right-hand shoulder of the two-lane road I was traveling on. At first glance, I assumed the car was pulled over for one reason or another, but later realized that it was actually moving down the road, albeit at a slow pace (probably about 25-30 miles per hour in a 45 miles per hour speed limit). Just as I approached the car, the driver zipped in front of me in the true travel lane to avoid something on the shoulder, and I realized what I had just seen. I'm generally not the most observant person in the world, but the stickers and placards all over the back window (which, incidentally, is another safety hazard) saying, "I'm a hypermiler! 58 miles per gallon!" among other things really helped give away his intent. Curious after reading his rear window display, I kept a closer eye on this individual. The weather was sunny and in the high-70s, and the driver maneuvered back to the shoulder, I noticed that he had his windows open and was sweating profusely. Hopefully the sweat was caused by his shame for dawdling along on the shoulder (illegally) and not by his discomfort in a hot car.

The fundamental question that a hypermiler has to ask himself is whether the safety, comfort, and time sacrifices are all worth it to save $13.92 per week (assuming that the guy I saw gets 58 miles per gallon in his Tercel rather than the 31 miles per gallon a 1994 Tercel was rated at by the EPA in the adjusted 2008 scale). Assuming 12,000 miles per year, he'd save 181 gallons of gas, which is $724 per year, $60 per month, or $13.92 per week. More importantly for me, however, is that he probably irritates 181 motorists per day by driving around them on the shoulder in traffic, dodging in front of them when there is a shoulder obstruction, and visually bragging about his fuel efficiency claims all over his back window.

Hypermiling is not for me, but for people that do choose to engage in it, please be considerate of other motorists. Really, your fuel economy is not as important to your fellow motorists as safe, considerate driving.

Read more!

GM Announces 2009 Corvette ZR1 Price, Performance

By Chris Haak

06.19.2008

GM has released the official pricing and performance specifications for its fastest, most powerful, most expensive vehicle in company history - the 2009 Corvette ZR1. Basically, all of the numbers - pricing, performance, even fuel economy - turned out almost exactly where everyone expected them to. But it's only when you step back to consider these numbers, particularly when taken together.

The ZR1's base price is $103,300 (including an $850 destination fee) and has a $10,000 option package available (likely interior upgrades such as the leather-wrapped dash available in other Corvette models), $2,000 chrome wheels, and a mandatory $1,700 gas guzzler tax. It's interesting to note that the 2009 ZR1 is the first Corvette to be saddled with a gas guzzler tax (estimated EPA ratings are 14 city/20 highway). Forgetting for a moment about the likely dealer "market adjustment" and mandatory gas guzzler tax, the ZR1 is 115% ($55,405) more expensive than a base $47,895 coupe and 41% more expensive ($30,045) than the $73,255 Z06.

So, what do you get for your $103,300 (plus the aforementioned dealer "market adjustment," which is likely to be particularly problematic for the first cars to hit showrooms)? The quarter mile flashes by in 11.3 seconds at 131 miles per hour; 0 to 60 happens in just 3.4 seconds, and the car can go 0 to 100 in just 7.0 seconds. Manufacturers' performance claims are often conservative, and in fact, the former bad boy Corvette, the Z06, had a manufacturer-claimed 0 to 60 time of 3.7 seconds, but several magazine tests were able to beat that, with times as low as the ZR1's claimed 3.4 seconds. GM claims that the Z06's 0 to 100 time is 7.9 seconds, so the ZR1 is significantly quicker in that metric as well.

Given the large price differentials ($25,360 between a base coupe and a base Z06; $30,045 between the base Z06 and base ZR1), it's unlikely that many buyers will be comparison shopping among the various Corvette models; some buyers will want the relatively inexpensive and fast base model; others will prefer the more expensive and faster (and more hard-edged) Z06; many will covet and some will step up to the ZR1's ultimate performance and luxury, which is probably a less hardcore track machine than the Z06, yet thanks to its significant horsepower and braking advantage, can probably still beat the Z06 on most racetracks.

Since the various Corvette models won't be competing with each other, GM surely enjoyed pointing out in the press release (linked below) how well the ZR1 compared with its competitors in terms of fuel economy. Most of the competitors GM named consume far more fuel than the ZR1 does; the Ferrari 599 GTB Fiorano is rated at 11 city/15 highway), the Lamborghini Murcielago is rated at 8 city/13 highway, and the Aston Martin V8 Vantage is rated at 12 city/19 highway. Interestingly, two competitors do top the ZR1 in fuel economy; the Dodge Viper bests the ZR1 in highway economy (13 city/22 highway) and the Porsche 911 GT3 bests it in city economy (15 city/22 highway).

Of the competitors named above, the ZR1 is less expensive than all but the Dodge Viper (which is likely on its way to the racetrack in the sky after this current generation runs its course and sells in extremely small numbers). Those prices are: Ferrari 599 GTB Fiorano ($270,484), Lamborghini Murcielago ($323,300), Aston Martin V8 Vantage ($114,350), Dodge Viper ($87,460) and Porsche 911 GT3 ($108,360). The Italian exotics and the Viper are pretty close to the ZR1 in terms of power output, but the Aston Martin and Porsche are far below the ZR1 horsepower-wise (415 for the Porsche and 380 for the Aston Martin). The competitors (excepting the Viper) all have higher-quality interiors, but for twice or triple the price, they should as well. Start checking option boxes (there are no less than 19 of them) on a Porsche order form for leather-covered interior bits, and the price quickly gets further from ZR1 territory and closer to Ferrari territory.

While any car costing $103,300 could be called "inexpensive" or a "bargain," GM has really put an impressive machine into enthusiasts' hands for the 2009 model year. What GM has also inadvertently shown is what a great performance bargain the upcoming 2009 Cadillac CTS-V, which shares many basic engine components with the ZR1, although in a detuned state, will be if its price is near the rumored $58,000 to $62,000 range.

GM's press release can be found here.

Read more!

Is a Fabric-Covered Car In Our Future?

By Chris Haak

06.13.2008

Earlier this week, BMW revealed its GINA fabric-covered car. Yes, you heard that right; instead of steel, aluminum, fiberglass, or plastic, this car is covered in fabric. If you haven't seen photos of the car, it's not what you would probably picture if someone told you that they had a car covered in fabric (personally, my visual would be of a very boxy shape covered by cotton sheets; in other words, a queen size bed with windows and doors).

Instead, BMW has built a car that uses a tough, stretch-resistant fabric stretched over a somewhat-movable substructure that not only minimizes body seams (there are only four distinct body panels), but can also change shape depending on the situation. For example, when the headlights aren't needed, they are hidden by fabric. When they are turned on, the fabric covering them is drawn back and the lights appear. The substructure itself has some electro- and electro-hydraulic controls to change the shape of the car's outer skin. This is helpful not only for aesthetic purposes, but also for practical ones such as allowing the grille openings to become larger when the engine needs more cooling volume. And of course, fabric is a far, far lighter material than steel, or even more expensive materials such as aluminum. So, will our future vehicles be covered by fabric instead of steel or more conventional materials?

I really doubt it. I can see so many potential issues with using fabric, no matter how tough it may be, to form a vehicle's body. It certainly does allow for a more aerodynamic shape, as well as the possibility of further enhancing aerodynamic efficiency for high-speed cruising (possibly at the temporary expense of the vehicle's appearance). But how good will the fabric look when birds start pooping on it? How will it be cleaned? Owners won't be able to take it to a car wash, and the material is probably extremely expensive and not removable, so slipping off your car's "clothing" to throw into an industrial washing machine at the local laundromat also sounds like it's out of the question.

Then there are the dual issues of safety and security. Thieves love soft-top convertibles, because a sharp knife is really all that they need to gain access to a car's interior. Now imagine an entire vehicle made of fabric; the whole thing is an invitation to slice into the trunk, or the interior, and remove anything of value. Even if the miscreants aren't stealing things from the car, hacking up a BMW would also be an enormously attractive proposition to a potential vandal. In terms of safety, unless a GINA-like car had a very strong steel substructure (with an integrated crash absorbing design), I'd probably be kind of concerned about having fabric between others cars and myself and loved ones instead of a half-ton of steel.

It's entirely possible that some of these issues may be worked around; for example, using an extremely tough weave fabric such as Kevlar, while likely not very flexible, would make it more difficult for vandals or thieves to access or damage the car. Building an adequate crash structure underneath the fabric might make the car do well enough in crash tests to convince consumers to buy the car.

When I attend auto shows, I love to see new production cars make their debut, but I also love concept cars that push the limits of design and engineering creativity, while still looking like a "normal" vehicle. I applaud BMW for coming up with a creative way to reduce the considerable heft of the modern automobile, while making an attractive (if impractical) styling statement simultaneously. But I don't think we'll be seeing fabric-covered cars hit the mainstream for a very long time, if ever.

Read more!

Volkswagen Expects to Cut Next-Generation Golf Production Costs by $1,600 Per Car

By Chris Haak

06.11.2008

As Volkswagen prepares to launch its sixth-generation Golf (called the Rabbit in the US) this fall, the company expects to cut its production costs by €1,000 (about $1,600) according to a report in the Wall Street Journal.

VW has taken several steps to improve the profitability of its well-regarded, bestselling vehicle, which until recently has been unprofitable for the company. Primary among these moves is the decision to have the next-generation vehicle share its platform with the current-generation model.

Further, the company plans to hedge its foreign currency exposure problems (right now it's being hammered in a weak dollar environment because it produces no cars in the US) by opening a US factory in the next few years. This factory, which we've previously mentioned, will have the capacity to produce 300,000 vehicles annually. According to the WSJ, the company will export 125,000 vehicles from the US and Mexico to Europe, while importing the same quantity (125,000 vehicles) from Europe. To meet their ambitious sales goals for the US (from about 200,000 vehicles per year currently to 800,000 vehicles per year by 2018), the US plant will supply 300,000 (with the 125,000 crossing paths each way across the Atlantic meaning a near-wash in terms of volume) and the Puebla, Mexico plant will supply 375,000.

Volkswagen seems to be taking the necessary steps to have the production capacity online to meet its objective of quadrupling its US sales over the next 10 years. It still remaons to be seen, however, if the US buying public will be willing to go along with VW's plans and, you know, actually buy those 800,000 new cars. It's not like Volkswagen's competitors will be sitting still during the next 10 years - I fully expect that there will be even more choices in the US by then, including broader lineups from the established players like Honda, Nissan, and Toyota. Also, we will see new entrants from India and China competing at least against the low end of VW's segment.

Forgetting for a moment about the competition (as VW has apparently done), there is also the issue of building products relevant to the US market that people will want to buy. US consumers have diverse tastes, but it's safe to say they don't want expensive European cars priced above their closest competitors, but without a premium brand name and with questionable reliability. They want stylish, good-performing products that won't fall apart, and at a fair price. US consumers don't see Volkswagens as a premium product, so the company should probably apply some of the aforementioned production cost reductions to lowering prices and embracing the company's history as a purveyor of solid, economical cars that are a good value. But just because they should do that doesn't mean they actually will.

Read more!

2008 Dodge Grand Caravan SXT Review

By Chris Haak

06.09.2008

My family just spent a week using a Dodge Grand Caravan SXT as a temporary replacement for our own 2008 Toyota Sienna Limited. I was actually very curious to see how the Dodge stacked up not only against a higher-end Toyota, but also against its own cousin, the Chrysler Town & Country, which I tested for a week last month.

Both vans are new for the 2008 model year; as always, Chrysler chose to set their vans apart from the competition by offering some unique interior features, including Stow 'n Go second row seats that fold flat into the floor (the Japanese competition doesn't do that), an available hard disc music and photo storage system, Sirius Backseat TV, dual overhead DVD/TV screens, indirect interior lighting, and more. The vans also feature an exterior shape that has taken a step closer to functional and a step away from the ovoid, swooping design of the previous model. The upshot is that the boxier shape leads to a more usable interior, but the downside is that an already unfashionable vehicle has even less style. Another change for the Grand Caravan for 2008 is that all Caravans are "Grand;" the regular wheelbase value-leader model was dropped from the lineup. Chrysler's hope is to move would-be short wheelbase Caravan buyers into the new 2009 Journey crossover.

Exterior
The first thing I noticed about the Grand Caravan is that its grille treatment, while slightly more attractive than the Town & Country's to my eyes, also looks a bit too similar to the rental car favorite Dodge Avenger sedan. The design of the Grand Caravan is basically identical to the Town & Country, with the exception of details such as the grille and trim. Body stampings are all the same between the vehicles, so the bulges around the wheel openings - really the only interesting styling feature on the entire van - that looks good on the Town & Country also looks good on the Grand Caravan. My test vehicle was equipped with chrome-finish 16 inch aluminum wheels, which nicely set off the metallic black exterior, and the Dodge also included a chrome molding along the side similar to the one that I felt really dressed up the identically-colored Chrysler version that I tested.

Interior
The interior of the Grand Caravan is both spacious and functional. As I've said before, Chrysler's engineers clearly focused much of their attention on making the vans as family-friendly as possible, which was probably a better choice than making the vans more attractive but less functional. The design theme of the Grand Caravan SXT was one of hard plastics, sharp angles, and dark colors. Having experience with the high-end Town & Country just a few weeks ago, it was readily apparent where the much of the extra $13,000 price advantage that the Dodge enjoys came from: the interior. Over the past few days, I've gotten pretty good at spotting "missing" features that my particular Dodge did not have, but the Chrysler did. For instance, a 3 inch square cubby between the air vents on the center stack resides where the analog clock lives in the Chrysler; two of the four flip-down storage compartments in the overhead console take the place of the drop-down dual DVD screens in the Town & Country; black and grey plastic takes the place of the attractive faux wood that the Chrysler had; a conventional radio head unit replaces the touchscreen navigation system featured in my Chrysler test vehicle; YES Essentials stain resistant cloth seats replaced the leather seats in the Town & Country. Other features lacking in the Dodge that were found in the Chrysler were automatic tri-zone climate control (the Dodge had tri-zone climate control, but it was manual); the thinner, less comfortable Stow 'n Go seats instead of the less functional but more comfy Swivel 'n Go seats and built-in sunshades to make it easier for little ones to sleep in the car. (The Stow 'n Go seats, while forced to sacrifice some comfort and padding in the name of storage, really are a pretty neat piece of engineering.) The result, equipment-wise, was a van that kept nearly all of the family friendly necessities such as Sirius satellite radio, dual power sliding doors, remote keyless entry, privacy glass, power front seats, a six-speed automatic transaxle, and a trip computer, but lacked the more expensive "nice-to-have" comfort items that some pampered car owners in 2008 have become accustomed to having.

On the Road
Not surprisingly, the Grand Caravan drove very similarly to the Town & Country, in spite of its less-refined and less-powerful 3.8 liter overhead valve engine (the Town & Country had the optional 4.0 liter SOHC V6 but the same six-speed automatic). The steering and brakes felt basically identical between the two vans, although the Chrysler had a nicer steering wheel with controls for the upgraded trip computer on it.

Engine power from the 197 horsepower (230 lb-ft of torque) 3.8 liter V6 seemed adequate for most conditions; only when rapidly accelerating was the power deficit against the optional 4.0 liter V6 (251 horsepower and 259 lb-ft of torque) noticeable. This makes sense because generally OHV engines like the 3.8 liter are stronger in the lower RPM range, and the torque figures are not far apart. In the higher end of the tachometer's travel, the missing horsepower can be felt. But really, most people probably would not notice the difference. The six speed automatic, as it did in the Town & Country, made the most of the engine's power, with a low first gear for quick starts and a relatively serene sixth gear for high-efficiency cruising. (The engine turned at about 2,000 RPMs at 70 miles per hour in sixth gear). I did not bother to manually shift the transaxle in the Grand Caravan as I did in the Town & Country, since I figured there wouldn't be much to learn from the experience that I hadn't already witnessed. Plus, the 3.8 liter wasn't as inclined to enjoy revving as the 4.0 liter was. However, that same capability is built into the dash-mounted gearshift lever.

I still found it relatively easy to break the tires loose from a stop, though it didn't happen to me as often as it did in the Town & Country. Most likely, owners would become accustomed to the throttle tip-in and this would not be an issue for them.

While I didn't spend any time in stop-and-go traffic in the Dodge (which I did in the Chrysler), I experienced none of the abrupt gear change thunk as the transaxle tried to decide what gear to be in with the Town & Country. The transaxles are identical between the two; the Grand Caravan only had about 2,500 miles on the odometer while the Town & Country had about 7,500 miles, but otherwise, it seemed to shift more cleanly than the Chrysler did.

Fuel Economy
Although I did not drive the same route in the Grand Caravan that I did in the Town & Country a few weeks earlier, my actual fuel economy was similar around town. Highway mileage was also very similar between the Dodge with the 3.8 liter and the Chrysler with the 4.0 liter. EPA ratings bear out my experience; they are identical for both the optional 4.0 liter and standard (on the SXT) 3.8 liter at 16 city/23 highway (18 combined). These ratings are slightly below the Odyssey with VCM (17/25; 20 combined) and Sienna 2WD (17/23; 19 combined). In my testing, which included a mix of highway driving, back roads, and city traffic, I got about 19 mpg (I got 17 mpg in the Town & Country, but spent more time on the highway and less time in traffic in the Dodge.

Pricing
The Grand Caravan comes in SE value (base), SE and SXT trim levels, with several sub-packages under the SXT level containing more and more enhancements. All Chrysler and Dodge minivans currently have a $2,500 rebate, which definitely enhances their value proposition to buyers. A base SE value begins at $22,700 ($20,200 after incentives) and includes the full complement of airbags, Stow 'n Go second row seats, front-only air conditioning, the 3.3 liter engine and a four-speed automatic transaxle, and not much else. The SE level for $26,390 ($23,890 after incentive) adds rear air conditioning, power windows, cruise control trip computer, power adjustable pedals, YES Essentials stain-resistant seat fabric, and more. Finally, the SXT costs $27,910 ($24,410 after incentive) and mainly adds the six-speed automatic transaxle and 3.8 liter V6. Other packages for the SXT add the 4.0 liter V6, UConnect Bluetooth cell phone connection, satellite navigation, Sirius satellite radio and Backseat TV, and more. When adjusting for features using TrueDelta.com's tools, the Grand Caravan comes in at $625 less expensive when comparing a loaded Grand Caravan to a loaded Town & Country. Some features are not available in the Grand Caravan, such as surround sound, memory seats, HID headlamps, and an analog clock, so the most expensive Grand Caravan is about $1,500 less than the most expensive Town & Country.

Bottom Line
There really wasn't anything wrong with the Dodge Grand Caravan, per se. It had every family necessity that modern minivan buyers expect. It was comfortable during a four-hour round trip highway journey for my wife and me. Although I do prefer the Chrysler to the Dodge, a lot of that preference may be because I was spoiled by driving the flagship first, then seeing obviously the missing features and interior trim that the Chrysler included. Had I driven the Dodge first, and not been spoiled previously by the concept of a "luxury minivan," my impression of the Dodge might have been different. But, for about $25,000 after rebates, the Dodge was a heck of a family hauler. However, I'm not sure that could necessarily be considered a value relative to the Town & Country Limited, because the Town & Country literally throws nearly every conceivable comfort feature found in any minivan at you. The Dodge costs a lot less (about $14,000 less), but also gives you a lot less stuff. For some people, that might not be a problem; for me, I'm spoiled and would want a van with everything.

COPYRIGHT Autosavant.net - All Rights Reserved

Read more!

Did I Speak Too Soon About Labor Peace?

By Chris Haak

06.08.2009

Just over two weeks ago, I wrote an article about how there had finally been some good news about labor peace; the American Axle strike had ended, the CAW had agreed to a new collective bargaining agreement with GM and Chrysler, and a key GM plant's UAW workers had agreed to a local agreement, ending a strike that idled the full size crossover plant in Lansing Delta Township, Michigan that builds the Acadia, Outlook, and Enclave.

Perhaps I spoke too soon, however. While the three events I wrote about on May 14 were indeed good news and significant positive labor developments, there are so many contentuous relationships between labor and management in all aspects of an auto industry in recession that just as one agreement is signed, another pair seems to go to war. And I'm not just talking about OEM auto manufacturers such as GM and Chrysler; this is happening throughout the supplier base and now even after the vehicles are built.

I specifically mentioned labor problems "after the vehicles are built" because the second-largest auto transport company, Performance Transportation Services, Inc., is expected to see its Teamsters-represented workforce go on strike beginning Monday, June 9 to protest PTS' bankruptcy court-approved 15% wage reductions for union employees. The company is currently in Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection for the second time since 2006, and is blaming its problems on the lethal combination of sky-high diesel fuel prices and declining production (and therefore shipments) of new vehicles from its customers to dealers. PTS clients include Toyota, GM, and Ford, although spokespeople for all three companies indicated that contingency plans are in place. Still, it can't be welcome news for companies like GM and Ford, who are struggling against several headwinds in the marketplace (plus GM just resuming production at many of its plants after the two-month American Axle strike).

The second problem is an even thornier issue. The CAW, fresh into its new collective bargaining agreement with GM that its membership ratified about two weeks ago, is absolutely livid about GM's recent announcement that it would be closing the Oshawa, Ontario pickup plant soon. According to the CAW, GM bargained with them in bad faith, since it pledged to keep the Oshawa truck plant open "dependent on market conditions," then decided two weeks after bargaining that market conditions had deteriorated to the point that production was no longer viable in one of their highest-cost (but highest-quality) truck plants. The CAW spent several days last week blockading the GM Canada headquarters in Oshawa to protest the action, and CAW president Buzz Hargrove has said that the union would decide sometime next week what steps to take next, including the possibility of a strike to protest GM's action.

For its part, GM met with CAW leadership in Detroit last week for a 90-minute meeting and outlined more details for the union about what went into their decision to close the plant (specifically, that GM now views high gas prices as a permanent reality, so GM also considers the related consumer shift away from large vehicles. The company had no comment on the possibility of a strike, since the union has not officially called for one.

Depending on where the strike occurs (whether it's local to Oshawa, or covers the entire population of GM employees in Canada represented by the CAW), a strike obviously couldn't come at a worse time for the company. The company is shedding market share at an alarming rate, bleeding cash monthly, chipping in billions of dollars to bail out troubled suppliers (Delphi, American Axle, plus the rumored purchase of battery supplier Cobasys). If GM doesn't make it, the cause isn't likely to be one single issue, but rather the proverbial "death by a thousand cuts." GM paying their troubled suppliers for buyouts is like asking a still-bleeding stab wound victim to donate a pint of blood.

I'd love nothing more than to see a thriving, successful GM driven by outstanding products (the company is making great progress on that front) that are relevant to the current market conditions (not so great on this one), and propelled by excellent marketing (the huge divisional structure means too many mouths to feed with marketing dollars, so products get support at launch then are left on the vine to fend for themselves for the next five years of their life cycle). But these issues keep coming up; it's like the company takes one step forward then two backward. Even if these two labor disagreements are settled in a way favorable to the manufacturers, what dispute is looming around the corner ready to hit them next? And will it be the next dispute - or one two years from now - be the one that finally causes GM to wave the white flag of surrender?

Read more!

Toyota May Move Some Camry Production to Indiana Plant

By Chris Haak

06.07.2008

LeftLaneNews reported yesterday that in the face of full size pickup and SUV demand falling off a cliff, plus the minivan market shrinking, Toyota is considering a plan to use some of its underutilized Princeton, Indiana truck plant (which currently builds the Tundra, Sequoia, and Sienna) to produce Camry sedans. The Tundra's sales were down 34.0% in May (up 6.8% year to date because last year was the ramp-up of the new model); the Sequoia was up 24% year to date (but is an all-new vehicle this year), and the Sienna is down 6.2% year to date.

There had been a lot of speculation about how Toyota would deal with slowing demand for its large vehicles. The company announced previously that it would export some of the Indiana-built vehicles to overseas markets. Toyota has previously taken several other steps such as slowing down the production line speed and reassigning employees to quality improvement teams to avoid layoffs; shifting some Camry production from overseas facilities into the less-expensive US plants. (Last year, 89% of the Camrys that Toyota sold were built in the US; in 2008 so far, 98% of them were built in the US). It appears that Toyota is selling as many US-built Camrys as it can produce between its Georgetown, Kentucky plant and the dedicated production line that Subaru is operating for Toyota in Lafayette, Indiana.

The Camry's sales success is something of a surprise to me; the car's reputation was built on quality, value, and reliability. The current model has had some reliability concerns; the quality of the interior materials has been questioned by numerous reviewers (I wasn't terribly impressed by it in the Camry Hybrid I tested, and while the car is still in the same price range as some of its competitors, Toyota's de-contenting is beginning to show in the interior. It has become clear to me that Toyota has become overly concerned about the bottom line and less concerned about using top-shelf materials throughout their vehicles. Comparing the interior in an older Toyota design such as the Sienna to newer designs such as the Sequoia and Camry, the material quality is far better in the older designs than in the newer ones.

However, it's unclear to me if the Camry's relatively flat sales this year (while its closest competitors, the Accord and Altima, were both up big-time this year (the Accord up 8% year to date and the Altima up 17% year to date) are a result of stronger competition or production constraints. Presumably, if Toyota was able to build 11% of its US-sold Camrys in Japan last year, it should still be able to use Japanese facilities to fulfill any unanticipated US demand this year, unless doing so in a weak dollar environment would kill the car's profitability, since vehicles exported from Japan would be more expensive this year than they were last year.

Giving Toyota the benefit of the doubt that production capacity constraints are what is causing the Camry's sales to remain flat in an otherwise growing market, this possible production shift sounds like a win for all involved; Toyota gets more Camry production, the Princeton plant gets more vehicles to build, and Toyota should theoretically then be able to sell more cars.

Read more!

Automotive News Reports that GM Will Buy Battery Supplier Cobasys

By Chris Haak

06.06.2008

According to three sources cited by Automotive News today, GM is nearing a deal to buy battery supplier Cobasys. Cobasys, a joint venture between Chevron and Energy Conversion Devices, supplies GM with batteries used in its mild hybrid vehicles (the Chevrolet Malibu Hybrid, Saturn Aura Hybrid, and Saturn Vue Hybrid).

It was revealed last week that a quality control glitch at Cobasys in the past year resulted in leaking batteries that had to be recalled in approximately 9,000 2007 model year hybrid vehicles. The 9,000 replacement batteries were diverted from the production line for new GM hybrids, causing GM's hybrid sales to be even more abysmal than they would have been otherwise. GM might offer more hybrid models than anyone else, but they are selling them in the low four figures per quarter at this point.

Many automobile manufacturers have been partnering themselves with battery suppliers to ensure an adequate supply of the high-capacity batteries for their future hybrid needs. While many of those partnerships seemed to be done for more strategic reasons, this likely deal is probably more of a reaction to the quality, financial, and ownership issues that Cobasys has been struggling with for the past several months.

The two companies that own the joint venture have been in arbitration as early as the early part of 2008, disputing such things as financial support and the approval of a budget for 2008. However, the partners notified the arbitrator set to rule on their arguments that they had entered discussions with a potential buyer. The deadline to close the agreement with the unnamed buyer (unnamed at least in regulatory filings) has been extended seven times.

According to these same regulatory filings, Cobasys is losing increasingly more money; it lost $76 million in 2007 and expects to lose between $82 and $88 million this year. Cobasys and GM have an interesting history; GM was one of the venture's founders and had previously held Chevron's stake; it later sold that stake to Texaco, which of course later merged with Chevron in 2001. This time, however, GM would buy the entire company and not just the half that it had owned before.

For its part, Cobasys is saying that it has the capacity to not only increase production of the batteries that GM's current BAS (belt-alternator-starter) hybrids use, but would also enhance GM's product development capabilities and allow the company to sell Cobasys batteries to other companies.

GM's hybrid ambitions are far larger than their current size, so although the troubles that the company had been having with Cobasys batteries hadn't even really caught the media's attention until the past week or two, the loss of Cobasys as the battery supplier for most of GM's hybrid products would deal a blow to GM's efforts to get its name into consumers' minds when they are searching for a fuel efficient car. However, GM has already stated that their next-generation mild hybrids will use lithium ion technology (which means higher capacities in a smaller battery size) starting in 2010. Without knowing the company's specific plans, it seems like a Cobasys purchase is almost a short-term fix instead of a longer-term solution, since the older NiMH technology in the Cobasys-powered mild hybrids will be obsolete soon. Hopefully GM will be able to leverage the production capacity and knowledge base of Cobasys for next-generation battery technology and get more than just two years' worth.

Read more!

2009 Toyota Corolla S Review

By Chris Haak

06.05.2008

Even though car sales have tanked so far during the first five months of 2008, the news isn't bad for every car and every manufacturer. The Toyota juggernaut, although finally seeing its trend of 10% year-over-year growth end late last year, still enjoys several models that light up the sales charts. Among these is the venerable Toyota Corolla, which for many is a default choice when they are shopping for an economical car and are looking for the "safe" alternative. (By "safe," I mean that it earns respectable crash-test ratings, has a legendary reliability track record, gets good fuel economy, and holds its value well.) A few months ago, Toyota launched an all-new Corolla as an early 2009 model. I decided to spend some time with one to see what kinds of sacrifices, if any, were necessary to drive a sub-$20,000 family car that has room for four and has highway fuel economy figures in the mid-30s.

The model that Toyota provided for my evaluation was a Corolla S, which is one model up in the hierarchy from the base model. Above the S, in order, are the LE, XLE, and XRS models. To the base Corolla, the Corolla S adds fog lights, power mirrors, ground effects, 16 inch wheels with plastic hubcaps, six speaker stereo, map lights, interior accents.

Exterior
The 2009 Corolla, like the generation before it, borrows heavily from the styling of the larger Camry of the era. To me, however, the Corolla looks better than the Camry, which almost tried too hard to add a more engaging style with its most recent redesign for the 2007 model year. Instead, the Corolla has become (at least in S trim) arguably one of the least-stodgy looking compact cars. It has good proportions, reasonably short overhangs (particularly at the front), and some interesting character lines. My favorite styling feature is the way the hood's cutlines pay homage to the trunklids of Bangle-era BMWs, and my least favorite is the way the shape of the C-pillar is too curved and seems out of touch with the rest of the car's styling. The fact that the Corolla S comes with the ground effects and foglights in a model with a 1.8 liter engine and four-speed automatic is disappointing, in that the car's performance can't come close to cashing the checks that the "sporty" body is writing. I put "sporty" in quotes because, although I am still young enough to prefer sportier vehicles, I find the aero enhancements to be a little too close to the trying-too-hard era of Pontiac styling in the 1980s and 1990s.

Interior
Since the interior is obviously where you'll spend a lot of time, it's arguably far more important than the exterior styling. The design was pleasant enough, with low-sheen plastics and a tasteful amount of metallic-looking accents. However, there was almost no place inside the car that was soft to the touch, unless it was covered in fabric. My expectations were somewhat tempered by the fact that the car stickered for about $18,000, but my 5,000-mile test vehicle was already showing signs of scuffing on the top of the dashboard, door panels, and along the center stack. The headliner and sunvisors were also somewhat disappointing (although again I must remind myself that this is a pretty basic car); the headliner felt like furry cardboard, and the sunvisors were vinyl covered and non-lighted.

Also, $18,000 doesn't get you as much as it used to. While the Corolla S comes with some nice features such as power locks, power mirrors, and a six-speaker stereo with CD/MP3 player, it also lacked power windows. I couldn't remember the last time that I saw a new car without power windows. It was a strange adjustment to get used to cranking a window knob. The test vehicle also lacked cruise control, which made expressway travel in light traffic difficult to maintain a steady speed. Those two options, while available optionally, would have been deal breakers for me if I were buying the car and they were absent.

The seats were reasonably comfortable, and surprisingly, I found the interior to be more spacious in terms of legroom and headroom than the Lexus IS350 that I tested a few weeks ago. While we couldn't comfortably ride in the Lexus as a family for more than 15 minutes, we undertook our Memorial Day weekend travel in the Corolla and were actually reasonably comfortable, once the seats were carefully adjusted. I am 6'4" and my wife is just under 6' tall, and we have two sons in child seats behind us. We even managed to fit a stroller in the trunk, although not much else.

The Corolla S had several storage compartments (including dual glove boxes and a center console on the small side), but I was disappointed that there was only a very small storage space within the center stack itself below the HVAC controls. It wasn't even large enough to hold an eyeglasses case.

My favorite part of the interior, aside from its reasonably large usable space, was the steering wheel. It was small in diameter but leather wrapped (which I found surprising considering the very basic nature of the equipment in the Corolla S), and felt great in my hands. It also had duplicate audio controls to change the volume, preset, or mode.

Driving Impressions
One point eight liters of naturally aspirated four cylinder, connected to a four-speed automatic transaxle, does not get an enthusiast's heart beating quickly. Actually, the powertrain did a great job in a few respects. The engine is extremely quiet at idle and had adequate power for most driving situations. In other words, if you were taking your parents - or wife and young children - for a ride in the Corolla and didn't want to get a smack for driving too aggressively, you'd never notice that the Corolla's 1.8 liter is lacking in power. However, driven more aggressively, the engine's lack of power becomes apparent. It has to work hard to get every last horsepower, and isn't afraid to buzz to let you know that it's trying it's best for you. Meanwhile, having only four transmission ratios requires that fourth gear be lower than it would otherwise probably be, so the engine is spinning faster at steady highway speeds than I'd like to see. Fuel economy on the highway was still very good, but I think it could be better with a six-speed automatic, or at least a five-speed automatic. (The Corollas equipped with the upsized 2.4 liter four cylinder come with a five-speed automatic, but it's not available with the 1.8 liter four).

As with many other economical cars, the Corolla is equipped with electric power steering, and Toyota hasn't mastered it yet for its cheap cars (that's OK, most manufacturers haven't either). The steering has a dead spot on center and doesn't vary the effort required with the vehicle's speed or road conditions. It was very isolated from the rest of the driving experience. As a result, the Corolla didn't feel confident at all in curvy roads, particularly at higher speeds. The car felt like it floated too much; in spite of its visibly sporty exterior, the Corolla S apparently has the same suspension tuning as all other Corolla models. The numb steering and indifferent handling made me almost long for the agility of the Sequoia I had tested a week before. (I'm being facetious, of course, but it was definitely a driving experience that required some acclimation).

Fuel Economy
The Corolla S with the 1.8 liter four cylinder is rated at 26 mpg in the city and 35 mpg on the highway. With the standard five-speed manual, the rating is 27/35. Models with the larger 2.4 liter four cylinder are rated at 22/30 regardless of transmission choice (five-speed automatic or five-speed manual). The EPA rates the combined mileage of the 1.8 liter Corollas at 30 mpg and the 2.4 liter Corollas at 25 mpg. In about 300 miles of mixed driving (including 100 miles of a pure highway trip), my overall average was about 31 miles per gallon. The highway trip saw about 33 miles per gallon. Interestingly, the larger, more comfortable, more powerful (and unfortunately much more expensive) Camry Hybrid that I tested a few months ago
achieved the same 31 miles per gallon combined.

Somewhat disappointing is that the 2009 Corolla's fuel economy dropped from 28/37 in the outgoing 2008 model. While it's a small drop in relative terms (one mpg worse in the city and two mpg worse on the highway), and the 2009 Corolla is larger and more comfortable than the 2008 model, I'm sure that if Toyota knew that gas prices would be $4 per gallon, they would have tried a little harder to at least match - if not exceed - the mileage ratings of the previous model.

Relative to its competition, the Honda Civic is rated at 26 city/34 highway with its 1.8 liter and five-speed automatic and 21/29 with its performance-oriented 2.0 liter and six-speed manual. A Nissan Sentra with the 2.0 liter and CVT is rated at 25/33. A Chevrolet Cobalt XFE (five-speed manual) is rated at 25/36, and a Ford Focus also a five-speed manual) is rated at 24/35. So, the Corolla's mileage has fallen back to the rest of the pack rather than leading it as it had been doing with the previous generation.

Pricing
The base Corolla starts at $15,910 with a five-speed manual transaxle, including destination charge. The four-speed automatic costs $740. Moving up to the Corolla S will cost you about $1,100 more, although it's primarily an appearance package. The Corolla LE is probably a better buy for most folks, and I'd imagine it's more of a volume model, since it eschews the slightly immature-looking ground effects, but includes some interior niceties such as power windows, all for just $330 more than the Corolla S. The Corolla XLE is $900 more than the LE, and adds features such as optitron electroluminescent gauges and remote keyless entry. Finally, the top-dog XRS model starts at $19,420 including destination with the five-speed manual. It comes with the larger 2.4 liter four cylinder engine, 17 inch alloy wheels, and a leather wrapped steering wheel (which is only available in the S and XRS). Some models have leather seats ($1,192), a touchscreen DVD navigation (only $1,100), JBL audio ($795), and a power tilt and slide moonroof ($712). Checking most or all of the option boxes results in a somewhat non-economical MSRP of about $23,500. My test vehicle, which was a Corolla S automatic with only a six-disc CD changer, all weather guard package, and stability control, had an MSRP of $18,410. At that price, it's getting very close in price to a lower-end midsize sedan. For example, TrueDelta shows a 2009 Corolla S being only $300 cheaper than a 2008 Malibu LS, and the Malibu includes considerably more standard equipment, such as power windows, four wheel disc brakes, stability control, etc. Sure, the Corolla will be cheaper to operate, but it's also less comfortable.

Bottom Line
The Corolla is a car that is probably just the right size for folks who have young children who no longer need car seats, or have no children, and want a small, economical commuter vehicle. Hybrid-like fuel economy, a broad array of available options, and excellent resale values make the Corolla a prudent, easy choice for consumers. Driving enthusiasts will want to avoid the lethargic 1.8 liter engine/four-speed automatic combination, and rear drum brakes coupled with electric power steering and suspension that's on the soft side do not yield a rewarding driving experience. As nearly anyone in the market for a compact car is likely to do anyway, be sure to keep the Corolla on your shopping list.

For more photos of the 2009 Corolla S, click here.

Read more!

May Sales Results Indicate a Huge Shift in Buyer Behavior

By Chris Haak

06.04.2008

As Igor Holas' article below mentioned, the Ford F-series has finally lost its monthly sales crown, and in dramatic fashion. The F-series, which has perennially been parked solidly at the top of the sales charts for decades, suddenly found itself crashing into the reality of a tight credit market, a major downturn in the housing market, and of course, $4.00 per gallon gasoline. The result was not a gradual decline from first to second - the F-series dropped from first to fifth in the span of one month.

The story of the fall of the F-series is certainly not the only canary in the mineshaft that we saw this month; in fact, it's just one example of a major, major shift in US consumer behavior. Several of us at Autosavant have wondered over the past year or two what the breaking point was in gas prices that would finally convince the US consumer to give up on the large-vehicles-for-image-only idea. Consumers ignored $2 per gallon gasoline, and blinked a little when it crossed $3 per gallon. But when the average nationwide retail price of regular unleaded crossed the $4 barrier, they suddenly made a beeline for the Toyota Corolla, Honda Civic, and Ford Focus - or worse, decided not to buy a new car at all.

In terms of manufacturers, the biggest drops occurred in Detroit: Chrysler LLC was down 25% (trucks down 22%; cars down 33% - which is counter-intuitive, but Chrysler explained it as planned fleet sale reductions); Ford was down 16% (trucks down 29%; SUVs down 44%, cars up 4%, crossovers down 7%); GM was down 28% (trucks down 37%; cars down 14%). Toyota, which obviously has the broadest lineup of any import brand automaker, also was not immune: its overall sales were down 4% (trucks down 12%, cars up less than 1%). Mitsubishi was down 24%, with only the Galant and Lancer Evolution seeing sales increases that warranted a mention on their press release. Isuzu's dead cat bounce of a few months ago is gone, with sales down 28%.

Meanwhile, the brands that were the big winners included Honda's car-heavy lineup (up 16%; trucks down 9% and cars up 32%), Daimler AG (up 12%, almost entirely thanks to the Smart ForTwo), Subaru (up 13%), and Nissan (up 8.4%).

Individual models told different stories - the losers included nearly every large pickup and SUV, such as the Tundra (down 34%), Titan (down 56%), Silverado (down 42%, partially to be blamed on the American Axle strike), Sierra (down 31%), F-series (down 31%), and Ram (down 37%), Explorer (down 41%), Expedition (down 43%), Durango (down 69%), Suburban (down 42%), Tahoe (down 40%), Yukon (down 50%), Yukon XL (down 57%), Envoy (down 68%), Trailblazer (down 72%). The newly redesigned 2008 Sequoia was up 75% and the Chrysler Aspen was up (unexplainably) 18%. The Aspen is now outselling the Durango on which it's based by 50%.

Telling also is the fact that of all of Chrysler's nameplates, one Chrysler (the Aspen), one Jeep (the Patriot), and one Dodge not named Viper (the Caliber) saw any kind of sales increase. No wonder the company is working so hard to re-do their midsize sedans ahead of schedule and get their hands on either rebadged Nissans or rebadged Chinese Chery vehicles as quickly as possible.

GM has more nameplates than Chrysler, so its double-digit sales gainers included the CTS, Cobalt, Malibu, Aveo, G6, Vibe, Enclave, HHR, and Uplander. I consider the Uplander's sales gains to be a mystery, but the other ones are clearly small and midsize vehicles.

In the Ford lineup, double-digit gains were earned by the Taurus, Fusion, Focus, Sable, Milan, Volvo V70, Volvo C70, and Volvo S80; nearly everything else was down by double digits. The Mustang dropped by 45%; think GM is wondering if it made the right choice in resurrecting the Camaro in this environment?

The numbers also told some interesting stories at both Honda and Toyota. At Honda, the new best selling car in the US - at least for May 2008 - was the Honda Civic, which sold 53,299 units for its best month in history and a gain of 33%. The controversially designed 2008 Accord saw its sales jump by 37% to 43,728 units. The Fit, which is in its last few months of the current model and will be replaced by an all-new car in the fall, saw its sales rocket 53% to 8,205 in May. Finally, at Honda's struggling Acura division, the TSX climbed 60% compared to May 2007; that car is an early 2009 model that just went on sale.

At Toyota, the story was also far brighter on the car side of the ledger, with the Yaris jumping 31% to 14,397 units, the just-launched 2009 Corolla (review coming in a few days) jumping 17% to 52,826 units, and the Camry down 1.5% to 51,291 units. However, Toyota's Lexus divsion has had a rough stretch, including May 2008, with sales of every model down, and the division down 16% in May and 11% on the year. Again, we're seeing the fuel-efficient offerings shine in the sales results and anything else (SUVs, large crossovers, pickups) struggling with double digit sales losses.

As Igor alluded to earlier, the top-selling vehicles in the US in May 2008 were:

Honda Civic: 53,299
Toyota Corolla: 52,826
Toyota Camry: 51,291
Honda Accord: 43,728
Ford F-Series: 42,973

In April 2008, the top five were:

Ford F-Series: 44,813
Toyota Camry: 40,016
Chevrolet Silverado: 37,231
Honda Accord: 34,000
Toyota Corolla: 32,435

Amazing what a difference one month makes, isn't it? But May 2008 will definitely go down in the history books as the month when the US auto market was turned upside down. To the points made by Alan Mulally and Rick Wagoner, the shift is probably permanent. The companies that adapt quickly and cleanly to this new reality will survive; those that don't will not.

Read more!

GM Announces Truck Plant Closings, May Sell Hummer Brand

By Chris Haak

06.03.2008

We’ve previously reported how Ford has accepted the new reality of a dramatically smaller market for large vehicles such as pickups and SUVs and subsequently announced substantial production cuts, as well as focusing more of its energies and development dollars on the creation of more efficient vehicles and powertrain technologies, such as the upcoming Fiesta subcompact and the EcoBoost twin turbocharger setup. Now today, on the occasion of its annual shareholder’s meeting and against similar headwind in the US market, GM has announced that it too has taken steps to further reduce its footprint in fuel-thirsty large trucks that are languishing unsold on dealer’s lots.

First, the company plans to close four truck plants by 2010, and stated that it may move that schedule even earlier if market conditions deteriorate further. The plants to be closed are the Oshawa, Ontario truck plant in 2009 (builds the Silverado and Sierra pickups), the Moraine, Ohio SUV plant (builds the Trailblazer, Envoy, and Saab 9-7x), the Janesville, Wisconsin plant (builds the Suburban, Yukon, Tahoe, and medium-duty trucks) plant by the end of 2009 for medium-duty trucks and by 2010 for the SUVs, and a medium-duty truck plant in Toluca, Mexico later in 2008. Overall, approximately 2,500 employees are expected to lose their jobs, although many of them will be eligible to apply for transfers to replace some of the 19,000 staff who accepted buyout packages earlier this year and will need to be replaced.

Over the past few years, many analysts have wondered why GM bothered to continue to maintain the Hummer brand, since at this point, it’s very much the antithesis of the environmentally friendly, fuel-sipping face that nearly every vehicle manufacturer strives to present to the public and potential customers.


Since the launch of the now-discontinued Hummer H1 (which itself is a civilian version of the military vehicle still used by the US military), each successive Hummer model has gotten better fuel economy, but with just two vehicles in the lineup (the H2 and H3), and neither of which is rated at even 20 miles per gallon on the highway, the brand has a huge image problem. That problem was rumored to be in line for a fix if Hummer ever launched the rumored Jeep Wrangler-size H4 (which was shown in Detroit in January 2008 as the HX concept), but the fact is that buyers are avoiding the Hummer showroom in droves. Therefore, GM has announced that it will undertake a strategic review of the Hummer brand. That’s nearly the identical code-speak that Ford said when it put Aston Martin, Jaguar, and Land Rover on the block, and what DaimlerChrysler said when it put Chrysler up for sale. I see the H4 as the Hummer brand’s last hope for survival, but if GM decides that it can’t afford to develop and launch it, the Hummer brand is going to be shown the door. I don’t really see any entity being terribly excited about the prospect of owning the Hummer brand, either, so I’d imagine that a sale is unlikely, meaning that it would just close up shop.

Some brighter news for GM is that the much-ballyhooed Chevrolet Volt plug-in hybrid vehicle has been added to the production plan for a late 2010 launch, and will likely be built in Michigan (the leaked UAW document last year pointed to the Detroit-Hamtramck Assembly Center, which currently builds the Buick Lucerne and Cadillac DTS, as the plant that will build the Volt). CEO Rick Wagoner also said that GM expects to show the production-trim version of the Volt (likely to look very different from the concept) in the “very near future.”

In other much-needed small car news for GM, the next generation of the semi-successful (if not critically acclaimed) Chevrolet Aveo subcompact will come in the second half of 2010. Finally, the replacement for the Chevrolet Cobalt compact (with mercifully no mention of its badge-engineered clone, the Pontiac G5) will come in mid-2010 and will be built in the same plant it’s assembled in currently (Lordstown, Ohio), equipped with a new 1.4 liter turbocharged four cylinder, and in a car that (according to GM) will set class benchmarks for safety and quality. I’ll note that there is no mention of benchmarks for fuel economy, performance, or design – but hopefully the new 1.4 liter turbo will help with both fuel economy and performance.

This is just another part of an ongoing series of wrentching changes in process in the US domestic auto industry. Two years ago, I was fairly confident in GM’s ability to stave off bankruptcy and excel in the marketplace with their excellent new products. At this point, however, I’m not sure that even the best products in the world will change the game sufficiently for GM to survive in anywhere near its current form. It seems like this might be a case of too little, too late. I hope, for the sake of the industry and GM employees, that I’m wrong.

Read more!