Premium Pricing Coming to California HOV Lane for Non-Carpoolers

By Chris Haak

07.30.2008

San Francisco Bay Area transportation officials have approved a plan to allow solo drivers in regular (non-hybrid) vehicles to use high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes on 12 highways by paying a per-mile premium via an electronic in-car transponder.

The project would cost about $3.7 billion to implement and take decades to implement. Eventually, it would cover about two-thirds of the Bay Area’s 1,200 miles of freeway lanes. Officials expect that the project will eventually generate $6 billion in revenue by 2035, which would of course pay for itself as well as other transit initiatives. Of course, the backers of this plan are forgetting about the time value of money – investing $3.7 billion in 2010 at a modest 3.5% interest rate would be worth $8.8 billion in 2035. Increase the interest rate assumption to 4.0%, and the future value is $10.0 billion.

So, the economics of the plan may not be sound at face value, but of course it could have other benefits. Transportation officials feel that the carpool lanes are underutilized currently, and that people who were truly in a hurry to get to their destination once in a while would be willing to pay a premium of a few cents per mile to travel about 15 miles per hour faster (officials estimate that the carpool lanes will average 54 miles per hour and the non-carpool lanes will average 39 miles per hour by 2035). The plan is to introduce the pay-per-use tolls on the carpool lanes starting in the 2010-2011 timeframe with an initial cost of 20 to 60 cents per mile. By 2030, officials expect the per-mile charge to increase to $1 or more. Because the tolls would be collected electronically via an in-car transponder, it will be possible to charge different prices at different times of day. Charges would be higher, of course, during peak periods, but could theoretically be reset each minute depending on the road’s current conditions.

We’ve learned as a nation that building more highways, and even more lanes, rarely fixes traffic congestion. As soon as more capacity is added to popular routes, drivers who had been avoiding those routes to avoid congestion flock back to them, quickly clogging them up again.

Critics of this plan have called the carpool lanes "Lexus Lanes," as they fear that the only people who will use them will be the rich (the folks driving Lexuses, although car-savvy readers of this site know that most Lexus models are not necessarily the vehicle that the filthy rich aspire to own). However, proponents of the plan point to studies that state that in toll lanes in Southern California, people of all income levels used the lanes, generally when they needed to get somewhere quickly. (Click here for a link to a PowerPoint summary of one study's findings).

To me, the concept behind HOV/carpool lanes is a sound one; you're rewarding people for sharing their car with another commuter with a faster commute. Many local and state governments also decided a few years ago to reward buyers of hybrid cars with access to the HOV lanes; encouraging hybrid sales is also an admirable goal in terms of environmental friendliness and reducing fuel consumption. Now, Northern California bureaucrats and politicians have decided to encourage further utilization of the unused capacity in the HOV lanes - to raise revenue (a favorite pasttime of many politicians) and to theoretically lower traffic volume on the non-"premium" section of the highway, and reducing wasted fuel from idling in traffic.

To give some perspective on how the proposed per-mile tolls stack up, the Pennsylvania Turnpike charges about 6.4 cents per mile, and the New Jersey Turnpike charges about 5.7 cents per mile during peak periods, and 4.3 cents per mile during off-peak periods. When we travel to visit family about once a month, we could take "free" roads that are a bit more direct to our destination, but include traffic lights and slower speed limits, or we could take the Pennsylvania Turnpike, and we often choose the turnpike, particularly if our young children are napping in the car, as the smooth, steady drive keeps them sleeping for longer periods of time, so the concept of paying a premium for a better experience isn't foreign to those of us in the Northeast US accustomed to toll roads. However, the proposed rates for the Bay Area HOV lane access start between 5 and 12 times more than I'm paying for access to the Turnpike, and eventually will be 20 times more expensive. Even if I "drove a Lexus," I'd be hesitant to pay, say, $25 each way on a 25-mile trip into the city for work, plus all of the other expenses associated with car ownership such as insurance, registration, maintenance, city parking, gasoline, repairs, etc.

It will be interesting to see studies over the next several years on the reasons that certain solo motorists chose to pay a fairly hefty premium per mile for the privilege of driving past congestion.

For more information about this initiative, click here to visit the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) website's page on it.

Read more!

2008 Kia Sportage 4x4 EX Review

By Chris Haak

07.29.2008

Kia is in the news lately because it is introducing its new large midsize, three-row, V8-powered SUV, the Borrego, this summer. Meanwhile, seemingly out of nowhere, Kia has a fairly broad selection of SUVs and crossovers, especially considering the size of its lineup. While we at Autosavant patiently await our chance to put a 2009 Borrego through its paces, Kia provided us with a loaded Sportage 4x4 as temporary consolation.

Kia's smallest CUV, or "cute ute," the Sportage, is on its second generation. The original off-road capable (yet poorly designed and built) model was sold from 1995 until 2002, then the Sportage went on a hiatus for a few years, and was reborn in 2005 as a crossover, with - by all accounts - a better interior, more power, and more modern engineering than its predecessor.

The Sportage is available in either all wheel drive or front wheel drive, and with (depending upon trim level) a 2.0 liter four cylinder or a 2.7 liter V6. Four cylinder models can be had with a five-speed manual transmission, while the V6s only come with four-speed automatics. The model lineup consists of LX, LX V6, and EX V6. Standard features in all models include 16 inch alloy wheels, dual power mirrors, integrated roof rails, rear privacy glass, six-speaker AM/FM/CD stereo, air conditioning, power windows, power locks, cruise control, cloth seats, six airbags, four wheel disc brakes with ABS, and a tire pressure monitoring system. The EX model that I tested adds a power tilt/slide moonroof, V6 engine, four-speed automatic transmission, body color mirrors, fog lights, AM/FM/CD/MP3/cassette six-speaker stereo, remote keyless entry, trip computer, rear cargo cover/cover net, and leather wrapped steering wheel/shift knob. Finally, to top off my EX test model, it had four wheel drive and the Luxury Package, which includes color-keyed bumpers, leather seats and door panels, automatic headlamps, auto-dimming inside mirror with Homelink, and a CD changer with subwoofer.

Since their introduction, I've never been a fan of either the styling of the Sportage, or of its Hyundai Tucson cousin. It's hard to pin down exactly what the problem is, but as I looked through some photos to begin writing this review, I had a "eureka" moment: most of the problem centers around the wheels and fenders; the body of the Sportage is too large for its meager 16-inch wheels, which makes a relatively compact vehicle look somewhat top-heavy. Also, the "muscular" fender flares (which are really just tacked on plastic cladding) don't surround the entire wheel opening; instead, they stop when they reach the rear or front bumper (depending which wheel you're looking at). The visual effect is that the fenders don't surround the entire wheel opening, when in reality, the issue is just the appearance that the fender flares go straight front or back instead of around the wheels, and the bumpers fill in as fenders around almost half of each wheel opening. The dual exhaust outlets at the back of the Sportage are a somewhat attractive visual touch, as are the beefy integrated roof rails, and my test vehicle is far more attractive to my eyes than models that have different-colored bumpers or mirrors, but the overall look still does almost nothing for me.

Inside, the interior doesn't scream "this is a value-oriented vehicle" at first glance, but it sort of does at first touch. The material covering the seating surfaces is allegedly leather (perforated, no less), but felt more like vinyl on the driver's seat. I suspect that it was really some sort of leather, but certainly not of the "glove-soft" variety you'll see other vehicles' seats occasionally referred to. The front passenger seat ironically had smoother leather, so perhaps the cow who gave its life for the driver's seat had a skin condition. There were a few nice touches, such as an auto dimming rearview mirror, reasonably convincing faux stainless steel surrounding the HVAC and audio controls on the center stack, a power tilt/slide moonroof, and a leather wrapped steering wheel. The lack of a center console was a big issue; it requires the driver to - gasp - keep both hands on the wheel, or to rest his right hand on the passenger seat (assuming that seat is empty, or the person sitting there doesn't mind the intrusion).

Some details in the interior were ignored by Kia's engineers; I'm not a nit-picker, but the huge, uncovered gap beneath the steering column (see the full photo gallery in the link at the bottom of this review) was wide enough for me to put a finger into the opening. Also, some of the junctions between different interior trim pieces could have been designed with better transitions, such as less-obvious seams and more consistent textures.

The top-end Sportage has a decent stereo; although I did not test its MP3 capability (or CD, or cassette tape capability), it tuned AM and FM radio stations well and was intuitive to operate. It also was equipped with a subwoofer that added some decent heft to the music I was listening to.

I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the unique smell of the interior plastics. I'm quite certain that my test vehicle was quite clean and well-detailed by the fleet company when it was delivered to me, but the "new car smell" in the Sportage was somewhat more chemical-smelling and less pleasant than any other new car I've spent time with. Usually, you can smell the leather seats in a new car equipped with them, but all I was able to detect was the odor of plastic and/or chemicals. It wasn't overpowering and only readily apparent when getting into the vehicle for the first time each day. Assuming you are in the market for such a vehicle, it's safe to say that you will quickly realize whether the odor is something you can live with during your test drive or not, so don't let my sensitive nose stand between you and a new Kia.

The 173-horsepower 2.7 liter V6 starts easily and is fairly smooth and quiet, at least at more pedestrian speeds. It's really bringing a knife to a gunfight, though, as its 2.7 liters is smaller than its V6-powered competitors such as the Toyota RAV4 (which has a 3.5 liter V6 that pumps out nearly 100 more horsepower), and the four speed automatic that it's coupled to doesn't help matters. Sometimes, vehicles such as the Chevy Equinox with the 3.4 liter V6 or the Dodge Grand Caravan with the 3.8 liter V6, can overcome a less-powerful engine with an extra gear ratio or two, but the Sportage doesn't have that benefit. The V6 doesn't have a flat torque curve - it has a flat horsepower curve, and it seemingly reaches its peak around 2,000 RPMs, and just goes through the motions beyond that. Flooring the accelerator from a stop will give a brisk jump for the first few feet, followed by the "oh, crap, this thing is really underpowered" sensation for the next 11 seconds until it hits 60. Leaving the automatic in "drive" results in a smooth 1-2 shift, but one of the slowest ones I've experienced. It's as if the transmission stops for a full second, thinks about what gear should be next, puts it in that gear, and resumes acceleration. The far-apart ratios also do their best to keep the engine out of its powerband with each shift. Fortunately, the Sportage has a standard manumatic feature that allows the driver to tap the gear selection up or down, which actually seems to shift more quickly than the transmission on its own is able to. The Sportage will upshift as it approaches the redline even in manual mode, and will not allow itself to bump against the rev limited, but we're not talking about a sports car after all.

The power rack and pinion steering had decent feel for a sorta-truck, and the brakes seemed to grab well enough. The Sportage's narrow track and tall-ish profile did make me tread very carefully on curvy roads. I never felt unsafe or unstable with it, but I also didn't want to tempt fate either. At least I'd be pretty safe had I rolled it over, since it has six airbags and a five-star safety rating all around. (The government actually gives the Sportage four stars for a rollover rating, which is great for an SUV/CUV).

Fuel economy in mixed driving was 18.6 miles per gallon. That figure actually included very few highway miles, and was mostly done on back roads. According to the EPA, the Sportage should get 17 mpg in the city and 21 on the highway; in fact, the first day I had it, I had 20.1 miles per gallon appearing after a 27-mile trip. Still, for the relatively small size and uncompetitive engine power, mileage could be far better - for example, the much-larger, much more powerful 2009 Chevrolet Traverse is rated at 16/23 in AWD guise. By the way, the four cylinder Honda CR-V AWD is rated at 20/26 and the Toyota RAV4 AWD is rated at 20/25 with the four cylinder and 19/26 with the V6. The CR-V's four cylinder produces 166 horsepower to the Sportage V6's 173, so there's not much benefit to buying the Kia just to get a V6.

In spite of losing some paper battles with its competitors such as the CR-V, the Sportage is significantly less expensive (over $3,500 cheaper than a CR-V and almost $5,000 cheaper than a four cylinder RAV4 according to TrueDelta, when factoring in rebates on the Kia), and includes a 10 year/100,000 mile limited powertrain warranty. I'd probably look pretty closely at a CR-V and RAV4 before committing to buy a Sportage, but from a pricing standpoint, it's almost competitive with USED CR-Vs and RAV4s instead of new ones.

Not having a lot of familiarity with the suddenly-popular compact SUV/crossover segment, I wasn't sure what to expect from the Sportage. What I found was a versatile vehicle that had enough space for my tall wife and me, plus enough room behind us for two car seats, in a package that offers a lot on paper, but needs some work in the powertrain and refinement departments. I'd probably buy a different vehicle if I was shopping in this segment, or wait for the next generation, as Kia has been improving its vehicles by leaps and bounds from generation to generation. I'd wager that the Borrego, in spite of competing in a completely different size and price class, improves greatly on many of the criticisms that I had of the Sportage's attention to detail and powertrain.

For more images of the Kia Sportage 4x4 EX, click here.

Read more!

Possible Solution to Inter-Motorist Communication Problems

By Chris Haak

07.27.2008

Late last week, I came across an interesting product that solves an age-old problem of not being able to communicate quickly, accurately, and effectively with fellow motorists. I've seen joking proposals in the past that our license plate number be our cell phone number, but obviously that wouldn't really happen.

Have you ever wanted to tell someone that their turn signal has been on for the past ten miles, but you were both at highway speeds, so there's no way they would have heard you? How about asking an inattentive driver to stay in his or her lane and hang up their cell phone?

A few months ago, I was behind a car that was driving erratically on a two-lane road. During a five-mile stretch that I was following this car, it crossed the double yellow line, or the single white line on the shoulder, no less than 15 times. Once, at least 3/4 of his car was in the oncoming lane, and another time, he was so far onto the shoulder that he hit the grass and dirt along the road. Drunk driver? Nope, at a stop sign, I noticed that he had a cell phone handset up to his ear.

The sign above would have been the perfect solution. If you purchase a spiral-bound book of signs from RoadRageCards.com, they are printed normally on one side, and as a mirror image on the other side. In the situation above, rather than honking and holding my own cell phone up to the motorist in front of me to encourage him to hang up his phone and pay attention to the more important task at hand. You know, driving.

The company offers both PG- and R-rated signs. Many of the R-rated ones are downright offensive. In all seriousness, even the PG cards could get you shot or run off the road if you show them to the wrong sociopath on the roads, and the R-rated cards probably double the likelihood of something awful happening to you.

It can still be fun to daydream, though, right?

Read more!

2008 Dodge Challenger SRT8 Review

By Chris Haak

07.26.2008

If you want to keep a low profile and not attract attention, the Challenger is not the car for you. If conservation of natural resources is a priority, there are far better choices than the Challenger. If your needs require a spacious interior with easy access to all seating positions, move along to the next review.

That being said, if you enjoy discussing your car with strangers (and getting thumbs-up signs and waves from people of all walks of life), if you put a premium on performance over efficiency, and if you will usually only use the two front seats, the Dodge Challenger SRT8 might be just what you need. Especially when the car is Hemi Orange.

After having driven a Challenger SRT8 for a long weekend, courtesy of Chrysler, it will be hard to forget some memorable moments. The afternoon the car arrived, our neighbor asked my wife where I got a Challenger, saying that he had been looking for one at local dealers to check out, but couldn't find one anywhere. He also insisted on a ride, which I gave him later that evening. Following that, I took it to the grocery store. As I was locking the car, a woman in her late-40s said, "that's a beautiful car." On my way home from the store, I had the windows down and was at a traffic light in town, and a man across the street yelled, "Yo man, that's a TIGHT ride!" Two days later, en route to my parents' house, a man in a minivan followed me from their town square to their house to ask about the car. Later that afternoon, a man actually parked his car across the street and rang my parents' doorbell just to talk about the car. Several motorcyclists gave me the hand-down wave they usually reserve for fellow bikers when they encountered me traveling in the opposite direction. The man from the fleet vendor who dropped off the car did warn my wife people would stop us to ask about it - he was right.

So, the Challenger has the ability, at least as a new model, to make you feel like a B-list or C-list celebrity. To me, that beats the anonymity I usually experience in an Accord, or even worse - the anonymity that I'm experiencing this week testing a Kia Sportage.

The Challenger is obviously an interesting vehicle to look at. Without having a 1970 Challenger on hand for reference, its exterior looks almost like it leapt right out of the early 1970s, but was lowered a few inches, updated for modern times with gigantic 20 inch aluminum wheels and body colored, integrated bumpers. Comparing some dimensions between the 1970 and 2008 models, the 1970 model is far lower, but also wider. The 2008 model stays true to the 1970 model's overall styling theme, with the shape of its rear quarter window and upturned character line aft of the doors, but has a shorter greenhouse (plus a fixed B-pillar for side impact and structural rigidity reasons), along with some added aero tricks such as a flat black chin spoiler and tasteful flat black decklid spoiler, which, according to Chrysler, allow the car to keep its stability at triple digit speeds. It's interesting how the car appears to sit so low to the ground, but is actually quite tall. A very cool retro touch is the chrome gas cap, which looks very much right out of the 1970s, but functionally is just a standard fuel filler door, hiding a standard plastic screw-on gas cap. By the way, premium unleaded is recommended.

Inside, it's a different story. You can tell you're not in 1970 the minute you open the door. Actually, before you open the door, as you begin to lift the handle, the indexed window drops down a quarter inch to make it easier for the doors to open, yet allow an airtight seal once the door is closed. The front seats are well-bolstered and very comfortable, as long as you aren’t of very large stature and don’t mind being hugged by your seat, both on your legs and your back. My wife found the front passenger seat uncomfortable (she’s slender, too), but I spent a lot more time in the car than she did, and I had no issues with seat comfort. The seats are covered by Alcantara (synthetic suede) on the seating surfaces, and with leather on the bolsters and headrests. Alcantara also covers the door panel inserts. The dashboard itself is soft to the touch, although its texture and dark charcoal appearance are somewhat low-grade. There is carbon fiber-looking plastic surrounding the center stack (HVAC and audio/navigation controls) to lend a somewhat sporty appearance, and chrome plated plastic can be found in the area around the gearshift lever and on the door handles, as well as surrounding the gauges. It's kind of disappointing that Chrysler did not give the interior as much personality as the car's exterior. Although many parts are shared with the Challenger's LX platform mates, the dash is a unique design, and could have been much more interestingly designed.

The Challenger has standard keyless pushbutton start, allowing you to start and operate the car with the key fob in your pocket, but does not have a key-free/fob-free way to enter the car as some competitors such as Toyota and Nissan have. Instead, you have to unlock the doors the semi-old-fashioned way (clicking a button on the remote fob), then stuff the key back into your pocket. Once settled into the car, the startup routine is as simple as holding your foot on the brake pedal and tapping the Start/Stop button. With that, the 6.1 liter Hemi V8 fires into action, and settles into a deep, lusty bass rumble. I'm sure the kids up the street from me were scared every time I started it.

The steering wheel is right out of the Chrysler parts bin (aside from some detail differences, it's the same as the one in the Magnum, Charger, and 300C), but has a carbon fiber-like appearance in the top section of leather. That appearance is carried over onto the leather wrap on the gearshift knob. Once the car is in gear, forward visibility is fairly good (though the retro-length hood is quite a bit longer than the hoods of most other new cars. Lateral visibility is also decent, but the huge C-pillars and short backlight create real difficulties in backing up safely. Since the navigation screen/head unit is apparently the same one available in the Chrysler Town & Country, and that same unit can work with a backup camera in the T&C, maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea for Chrysler to hide a small camera somewhere in the rear of the car to eliminate blind areas when backing up the car.

The interior is fairly roomy if you're only using the front seats. The back seat is adequately wide, but legroom suffers significantly relative to the 300C and Charger, because the Challenger's wheelbase is four inches shorter (and consequently rear seat legroom is eight inches shorter than it is in the Charger. Trying to squeeze to car seats into the back seat would have been significantly easier if there were another eight inches of clearance, although I'm fully aware that the car's outstanding proportions would have been ruined with the sedan's longer wheelbase. We did manage to get the seats into the car, although getting the little ones into those seats was another challenge (is that why they call the car the 'Challenger'?) To put a sleeping seven month old into his rear-facing seat, I had to thread him between the front seats, onto his spot. Surprisingly, he stayed asleep, and didn't really mind riding back there. When tilting the front seatbacks forward for rear seat access, they do not slide forward automatically, and the seatback angle is reset to the most-upright position when the seat is returned to upright. Although those front seats are large, comfortable, and supportive, the tilt/slide mechanism really could have used some improvement; the 1993 Oldsmobile Achieva SCX I owned during my college years didn't even suffer the same annoyance.

Acceleration with a 425 horsepower, 420 lb-ft, 6.1 liter Hemi is, of course, instantaneous. The powerful engine does a great job of disguising the car's fairly considerable mass, because so many horsepower are working toward the cause of moving the big guy. Published road tests for the Challenger SRT8 show fairly consistent 0-60 times of 4.7 seconds and a quarter mile of about 13 seconds at about 109 miles per hour. I wasn't brave enough (or couldn't find a safe spot to try) the quarter mile acceleration test, but the car has a performance mode on the digital instrument cluster that will give 0-60, 1/8 mile, 1/4 mile, 60-0 braking, peak g-forces, and more. The best 0-60 I could manage was 5.0 flat, but traction control stayed on, I had a passenger, and I didn't power brake (release brake, depress gas, and go). Oh, and it was slightly downhill. I've heard that the performance metrics on these built-in computers aren't very accurate compared to the GPS-verified used by the mainstream automotive media, so I'm taking that number with a grain of salt anyway, but it is a pretty cool thing to have.

The Challenger SRT8 comes with outstanding Brembo brakes that bring the fun to a brisk halt if called upon. Having some quick, yet safe, fun with the car on a back road with tight curves, the brakes never showed any sign of fade or fatigue. The red calipers also add a bit more visual spice to the exterior. The only problem with great brakes is that they generally produce more brake dust marring the aluminum wheels; in spite of most of my time with the Challenger being on the highway with my family, in about 400 miles with the car, the wheels started to get pretty dirty.

Helping not only the aforementioned braking, but also steering, were the huge 20 inch, 45-series Goodyear Eagle F1 Supercar tires (255/45ZR-20 in the rear; 245/45ZR-20 in the front). The tires are considered "three season" (summer) tires, and are grippier in dry conditions than the standard all-season rubber, but completely inappropriate in winter (as if a 425-horsepower rear wheel drive muscle car would otherwise be appropriate in the snow).

The exhaust note is absolutely intoxicating from about 3,500 RPMs to 5,000, and I found myself tempted to manually keep the car in a lower gear than necessary just to hear the roar of the big V8. My wife reported (via frequent scolding) that the exhaust that sounded so great to me from the driver's seat was a bit booming in the back seat where our sons were riding. Although I spent most of my lower-speed driving with the windows down and sunroof open, the car is actually quite sedate with everything closed. When the boys were sleeping for a long stretch, I referred to the car as a "pussy cat" more than once. Driven gently, the Challenger SRT8 emits just a serene purr from the engine compartment that sounded not unlike the more pedestrian 5.7 liter Hemi in the Chrysler 300C that I tested a few months ago. But, kick the five-speed automatic down a few gears, and it barks with a ferocity seen in few modern vehicles. It was almost a Jekyll-and-Hyde dichotomy, completely under the control of my right foot. My only complaint about the driving experience is that the automatic does not hold your gear choice up to the rev limited when in AutoStick (manual) mode; instead, it holds on until the redline, then upshifts. So, if you know a corner is coming soon and want to keep the car in a lower gear to blast out of the corner, you'll have to either back off the gas a bit so the car doesn't upshift itself, or downshift mid-corner (a potentially risky move). Or, you could wait for the 2009 model year and buy a six-speed manual, which will cost about $1,000 extra, but will be the beefy Tremec 6060 used in the 600 horsepower Viper SRT10.

Unsurprisingly, I barely turned the stereo on, but it's an impressive one. It is a 13-speaker Kicker system with a 322-watt amplifier and 200-watt subwoofer that resides on the left side of the trunk. As with the V8 underhood, the stereo had an overabundance of power. The trunk was also quite spacious, leaving plenty of space to carry as much as two empty-nesters (who could afford to buy and feed this car) would need for a weeklong vacation. As a bonus, the lid was supported by gas shocks and not the cheaper gooseneck hinges found in some cars; as a result, there is no risk that the contents of the trunk will be crushed when closing the lid.

As mentioned in the opening sentences of this review, if you're looking for fuel economy, look elsewhere. The EPA rates the Challenger SRT8 at 13 city/18 highway. The 6.1 liter SRT-massaged version of Chrysler's Hemi V8 does not include variable displacement technology to shut down four of the cylinders under light load condition, which really helped the 300C AWD on the highway. However, gentle driving and setting the cruise control at 72 miles per hour on the highway yielded a relatively impressive 19.2 miles per gallon according to the car. However, it also cost me $46 to bring the tank back up to almost-full of premium after about 200 miles, including that aforementioned "economical" highway trip. Overall, my mileage was about 17 miles per gallon, which came from about 80% highway and 20% city mileage. That's about what I got from the 300C AWD, but the Challenger had the luxury of far more highway miles than did the 300C.

The base price for the 2008 Challenger SRT8 is $37,320. My test vehicle included every available option, including the (mandatory) gas guzzler tax ($2,100), power sunroof ($950), MyGIG system with navigation ($890), and summer tires ($50). Chrysler actually does not charge a destination fee, which is impressive since many manufacturers are actually increasing their destination charges in this time of high fuel prices. The final tally was $41,310 - if you can get a dealer to sell one to you for MSRP. The original party line was that the entire 2008 production run of 6,400 cars was sold out, but as of this writing, there were stories that some Dodge dealers had multiple examples in stock, so if you want a 2008 model, do some research and shopping around. The advantage of a 2009 model will be the availability of an optional six-speed manual transmission with pistol grip shifter, plus a mechanical limited slip differential (the 2008 model has an electronic limited slip differential, which isn't quite the same). Aside from fuel economy, pricing, and safety (it has standard stability control and side airbags, plus seatbelt pretensioners and seatbelt force limiters), the only other consumer-related item to mention is that the SRT models do NOT include Chrysler's lifetime powertrain warranty. Instead, the powertrain falls under the same 3 year/36,000 mile basic limited warranty that covers the rest of the car.

It really was an awesome feeling to spend a long weekend with the Challenger. It was one of the rare cars that was very difficult for me to give back, although it would have probably cost me half of an extra car payment's worth of money to fuel the car often enough for daily driving. But the feeling of having seemingly limitless power underfoot, plus the feeling that the orange car you're driving around is making other people smile at you, really has a lot of value for some folks. My empty nester, baby boomer father loved the Challenger, and he's a classic car/modern truck guy at heart. As Ferris Bueller memorably said in 1986, "It is so choice. If you have the means, I highly recommend picking one up." Truer words have not been spoken. The Challenger is a sweet ride, and I feel privileged to have had a chance to enjoy it firsthand.

Click here for more photos of the 2008 Dodge Challenger SRT8.

Read more!

Sirius-XM Merger Finally Approved After 16 Months

By Chris Haak

07.26.2008

We've covered this lengthy saga several times before - when the companies announced their intention to merge in March 2007, when the companies said a year later, in March 2008, that they still expected the merger to be approved, and finally when the Department of Justice approved the merger on antitrust grounds. The last remaining obstacle - albeit a theoretically formidable one - was the FCC. The FCC voted on Friday to allow the merger to proceed, so it's likely to close as quickly as the companies are able - even as soon as next week.

The FCC is composed of five commissioners - three Republicans and two Democrats. At the time that the FCC granted the licenses to the two satellite radio companies, the agency had a formal rule on the books that said the companies could never combine. Meanwhile, in spite of growing their audience to just below 20 million users combined, both companies remain mired in losses and have become sob stories for their long-suffering shareholders.

In spite of the no-merger rule, nearly everyone expected the deal to eventually be approved, but with some conditions attached to it, because without a merger, neither company is probably viable for the long-term without significantly cutting back on programming and marketing expenditures. The companies successfully argued that their combination was not a monopoly, because they not only competed with each other, but also iPods, CDs, terrestrial radio, and now HD radio.

The conditions that the companies had to agree to in order to secure the merger's approval included settling enforcement actions (fines) regarding unauthorized terrestrial signal repeaters and too-powerful transmitters in portable radios that the companies had previously sold to consumers. The total cost to settle will be $19.7 million, which is peanuts compared to the cost savings the companies will enjoy by combining operations. Other concessions the companies agreed to were a three-year price freeze, the addition of some a la carte programming choices (allowing customers to, in some cases, pay for only the channels that they want), and setting aside eight percent of their combined channels for the public interest and minority programming. Further, the companies agreed to release an interoperable radio that receives both services within one year, and to have an open standard on the technology that allows more innovation in radio development, hopefully bringing more device manufacturers into the fold in the future.

As I said before, I was initially opposed to this merger based on my expectation that it would give the combined company too much pricing power, but I really do enjoy satellite radio service, and if prices will be frozen, with the possibility that I could eliminate several unwanted channels from my lineup and potentially save some money, plus the availability of the best of Sirius on my XM radios at some point, it might not be all bad. Now, if my six month old portable XM radio (a Pioneer Inno) stops working before it's worn out, or the built-in XM radio in my Honda is no longer compatible with the combined service, then I reserve the right to change my mind and complain about the merger. I also promise to complain - loudly - if the companies jack up prices in three years. But, based on the premise that for the next three years I should get more programming for the same price, or less programming for a lower price, I'm glad that the FCC finally approved the merger.

Read more!

WSJ Report Says Chrysler Financial Will Stop Offering Leases

By Chris Haak

07.25.2008

According to a report in the online edition of today’s Wall Street Journal, Chrysler LLC has started telling its dealers that they will no longer offer auto leases through its Chrysler Financial subsidiary. The move comes as domestic automakers are seeing increasing losses as a result of lease write-downs, on top of the current credit crunch which makes credit less accessible and more expensive for companies that have a less-than-rosy outlook. You know, companies like Chrysler.

Companies generally incur large lease write-downs when the residual values projected for leased vehicles at the time of the lease origination are higher than the actual value of the vehicles –or the new projection of the vehicles’ values based on current market trends. Amidst Ford’s results released yesterday was a $2.1 billion charge against Ford Motor Credit Company attributed to its operating lease portfolio, so it’s not just Chrysler that is having this problem.

So, why are the resale values so out of alignment with the projected lease residuals? Two reasons, but they’re both intimately related. First, the collapse in consumer interest in large, fuel-thirsty vehicles such as full-size pickups and SUVs resulted in there being far more supply of these vehicles than demand for them. Simple economics moves their prices downward. Second, in response to reduced demand for these same vehicles, the manufacturers slap huge rebates and discounts on them, which serves to further lower the values of the used models currently out there.

I personally ran into this issue several years ago when a Saturn that my wife was leasing approached the end of its lease. It was a 2001 L200 five-speed manual, 65,000 miles, and had been in two accidents. The car was properly repaired both times, but the accidents didn’t help the car’s value, nor did the clutch pedal. GMAC wanted over $8,000 for us to keep this three-year old car, when it was worth less than $4,000 at wholesale. We turned it in and bought basically the same car from a used car lot, two years newer, with just 15,000 miles and an automatic transmission, for roughly what GMAC wanted for us to keep the old one. When GMAC “disposed” of the 2001 Saturn at auction, it likely suffered a loss of about $4,000 – on that single transaction.

The other credit-related issue that Chrysler is undergoing right now is that Chrysler Financial is in the midst of its annual credit facility agreement with several (somewhere around 20) banks. The company is looking for about $30 billion in credit, but it’s having a tough time finding any takers at attractive rates. If it can’t get good rates, they will still find the credit, but borrowing costs will be higher, which will either force the company to pay larger subsidies on discounted interest rates, or pass those higher rates onto consumers, thus crimping sales further.

While the lack of lease availability will likely cause some harm, leases usually aren’t the greatest deals on cars with rapid depreciation, which unfortunately describes the makeup of most of Chrysler’s lineup today. A bigger concern would be the difficulty in finding low-interest loans to help dealers close sales of the company’s products until the newer, more fuel-efficient vehicles such as the rebadged Nissan Versa/Tiida arrive in coming years.

Read more!

Ford Loses $8.7 Billion in Q2, Confirms Plant Retoolings

By Chris Haak

07.24.2008

As Autosavant previously reported would happen (and in the process, scooped the rest of the journalistic world by five whole weeks), Ford announced the details of its newest turnaround plan today, including the conversion of several truck plants that were otherwise slated for closure, and instead will be retooled for production of European-based small cars.

In the light of an $8.7 billion loss for the second quarter of the year (of which $8.0 billion was non-cash impairment charges to write off the value of troubled assets, such as the $5.3 billion write-down for the company’s North American operations that are part of the $8.0 billion charge), Ford CEO Alan Mulally provided a lot more detail about the plant retooling that Autosavant had previously reported.

The company will move production of the Expedition and Navigator from its Michigan Truck Plant in Wayne, Michigan to the Kentucky Truck Plant in Louisville early in 2009. The Michigan Truck Plant will then be retooled to produce C-segment small vehicles based on the platform shared with the European Focus. That accounts for one of the three plants.

The Louisville, Kentucky plant that currently builds the Ford Explorer (a former cash cow for the company that has seen its sales nearly collapse for the past few years) will also be converted to build more C-segment small cars beginning in 2011. The plant will be available then because the next Explorer is due in 2010 and will move to a new unibody architecture, so will be produced at a different plant, likely where the company’s other large crossovers are produced in Ontario.

The Cuautitlan, Mexico truck plant will produce the B-segment Fiesta small car for North American sales in early 2010. That plant currently builds F-series pickups.

Since Ford’s F-series truck sales have struggled this year, and the company has commensurately reduced production plans, Ford will only have three shifts at two plants building F-series trucks, which is quite a shift from years past, when multiple plants were running multiple shifts just to keep up with demand for the pickups back in the “good old days” of cheap gasoline.

Other product moves (or non-moves, as the case may be) that Ford announced this morning was confirmation that the Ranger pickup will soldier on for two more years than originally planned, until 2011. Its plant in the Minneapolis, Minnesota area that builds the small pickup had been slated for closure at the end of 2009, but concern about fuel prices – plus the fact that the Ranger is the only true compact, non-midsize pickup in the North American market – gave the Ranger a new lease on life. The company also restated plans to introduce a seven-passenger Lincoln crossover based on the Ford Flex in 2009, the Transit Connect small van in 2009. The European Focus will also finally hit the US market in 2010, shortly after the Fiesta small car makes its debut.

The changes will be difficult for Ford to implement, and the company’s financial results will probably look worse in the coming quarters before they start to look better, but the company is making all of the right moves to address the US market’s seismic shift of the past quarter. With these announced moves, Ford appears to have taken far more aggressive and decisive steps to fix its situation than GM or Chrysler have taken. It makes one wonder if GM or Chrysler will announce similar ideas in the coming months.

Read more!

2008 Scion xD Review

By Chris Haak

07.24.2008

Toyota's Scion sub-brand has had some sales struggles lately (down 5.3% in June); many of its newest products (particularly the second-generation xB "box on wheels") have been criticized as having lost the charm of the originals. Yet, the brand's three models are relatively fuel efficient in an era of $4.00 per gallon (or more) gasoline in the US, so I felt that it would be relevant for me to review at a time that consumers are rapidly showing interest in small, fuel efficient vehicles. Toyota was happy to supply a Barcelona Red test vehicle to me for a week for evaluation.

While the xD shares its platform with the Yaris and is definitely a very small car, it also has the larger 1.8 liter engine (128 horsepower) from the Corolla instead of the puny 1.5 liter (108 horsepower) mill from the Yaris. Dimensionally, the xD is very close to the Yaris sedan, but has a shorter wheelbase, and therefore less legroom in the rear. However, its hatchback body allows for significantly more cargo volume behind the back seat, and even more still if the back seat is folded.

Before I receive most of the vehicles that I will test from manufacturers, I usually get a copy of the window sticker (called the Monroney sticker in industry parlance), so I have an idea of what to expect. From the Monroney, I was a little puzzled that my test vehicle was to be equipped with the TRD sport exhaust (a $469 option), but there was no mention of alloy wheels. Fortunately, it was equipped with some presumably dealer-installed alloys that weren't too big and weren't too small. Unfortunately, all of the photos of the xD accompanying this review are from Toyota's media website, because I lost our digital camera containing about 25 photos of the xD on vacation before uploading them to my computer, but my test vehicle was the same color, with smaller (and different) wheels.

The other thing that I most anticipated about the xD before I got it was that it had a five speed manual. I owned several cars over the years with manual transmissions, but it's been probably two years since I last drove one, and I was looking forward to re-synchronizing my feet and shifting arm.

As noted above, the car was in a really attractive, deep red. It featured the TRD sport muffler (which has a large diameter exhaust outlet) and a $385 rear spoiler. Rounding out the options list were VSC (stability control) for $650, floor mats for $155, a cargo net for $65, a premium Pioneer stereo with iPod connector for $389, and XM Satellite Radio for $449.

While the car's appearance was certainly enhanced by the spoiler, dark red paint (one of my favorite hues in any vehicle anywhere), and aluminum wheels, I couldn't help but think that Scion tried too hard to show a family resemblance between the xD and xB in terms of their shape. Not that it's ugly - and actually it's better looking than the xA that it replaced - but the xD has interesting proportions. For example, the hood is extremely short. It's almost twice as wide as it is long. The hood's width to length ratio is probably more extreme than that of a minivan's, which is really saying something. The short hood, at least, meant that a fashionably short front overhang was possible. Another nod to automotive fashion was the short side windows; they look cool from the outside but do somewhat restrict visibility from inside the car.

Although the car did not include many additional options ($2,562 worth), Scion packs their vehicles with standard features. The car had power windows, power locks, six airbags, cruise control, keyless entry, ABS, and air conditioning. The final tally came to $17,732 including destination; the Corolla that I tested had an MSRP of $18,410 and had an automatic transmission (which the xD lacked), but did NOT have cruise control, power windows, or keyless entry. TrueDelta.com shows the xD as being between $1,500 and $2,200 cheaper than the Corolla when adjusting for equipment differences, as well. Basically, if you want to buy a small Toyota, the xD is a much better value than the Corolla. Dimensionally, the xD is very similar to the Corolla, except that it's a few inches narrower, which affects hip and shoulder room in both rows.

Inside, it's not a bad place to be, but like the Corolla, there were too many hard plastics. The headliner was the same "furry cardboard" that the Corolla suffered from, and the sun visors were the cheap-looking vinyl-covered variety, which I did not care for. The entire dash panel is hard plastic, with soft points throughout the interior fairly difficult to find (the armrests on the doors have fabric near them and the seats are fabric; that's about all). There was no center armrest, which was somewhat annoying when driving longer distances.

Scion may view the Pioneer stereo head unit (which was an uplevel one in my test vehicle as well) as a selling point, but I really disliked it. Not only was the sound weak (there is no subwoofer), but it has an extremely annoying animated display that constantly moves when the radio is powered on, and it was far more difficult to operate than any factory-installed system I've seen this side of BMW's iDrive. For instance, the power button was on the top-right corner of the unit, about as far away from me as it could possibly be. It took me half a day before I actually found it there; instead, I was just muting the volume when I wanted silence. Further, the standard iPod integration is not a regular USB interface like Ford's SYNC system; instead, the connector requires a proprietary plug, so I was unable to test the car's iPod integration.

The xD's front seats seemed to be reasonably comfortable, although I didn't spend more than an hour at a time in them during my time with the car. The rear seat in the xD split and folded forward to make a flat cargo area, and also could slide forward and backward on tracks to either enlarge cargo area or rear seat legroom by a few inches, depending on needs. A clever touch was that the seat could be moved forward or backward via a lever on the seatback, so you did not have to leave the vicinity of the cargo area to adjust the seat's position if necessary.

On the road, the five-speed manual slightly helped performance relative to the slightly larger and heavier Corolla that I drove (which was saddled by a four-speed automatic). Clutch takeup was pretty easy to get used to, even for someone like me who was a bit rusty (I suppose it really is like riding a bike!) The electric power steering didn't seem to be quite as uncommunicative as it was in the Corolla, but still didn't exactly inspire confidence. The biggest annoyance when driving (other than the animated stereo and lack of a center armrest) was the TRD sport muffler. I felt some embarrassment as I boomed down my street, the same way young kids do in my neighborhood in their souped-up 15 year old Eclipses (who always cause me to mutter nasty things about them under my breath). I doubt that it adds much power to the car, but it adds not only a loud bark upon acceleration but also a constant booming drone at highway speeds. The car is geared relatively low, too, so it is running around 3,000 RPMs at 70 miles per hour, and that doesn't help the noise issue. Unless you're 22 years old or younger and want to piss off your neighbors, I'd advise against the TRD sport muffler.

EPA fuel economy figures are 27 city/33 highway. My observed economy was about 31 miles per gallon, which is among the best I've experienced (about tied with the Camry Hybrid and Corolla, and behind only the Prius.)

To me, the biggest irony about Scion is that nearly all of the brand's marketing is focused on the youth market (who generally cannot afford new cars, even if they cost $17,732), yet the brand also appeals to practicality-minded empty nesters who want a value-packed Toyota at a fair price. If you can tolerate the Pioneer stereo's interface, the nighclub beat marketing, and hard interior plastic (which is pretty much par for this class and price range, anyway), then the Scion xD is worth checking out. I'd let my son drive one - if he was 16, and if it had a "normal" muffler.

Read more!

Would Crushing Old Cars Improve the Environment?

By Chris Haak

07.22.2008

One way in which several state and provincial governments have attempted to improve air quality over the years has been to pass "clunker laws." They are all different, but most have the same fundamental design: the government pays a bounty to individuals who "turn in" an old, theoretically polluting, car, and that car is then disabled so that it can no longer be driven. Sometimes, the turned in car is actually crushed and recycled.

As a fan of both classic cars and of a clean environment, I find myself somewhat torn by initiatives to remove old vehicles from our roadways. However, it's hard to argue with the fact that a modern vehicle is not only something like 100 times less polluting, generally more fuel efficient, as well as being safer for its driver and passengers than a 20 year old vehicle.

For a while, I have questioned why it's necessary to continually make already-clean new vehicles even cleaner in subsequent model years. After all, the exhaust emissions from ULEV vehicles is pretty darn clean. So if a PZEV is even cleaner, does that make it worthwhile to have PZEVs, or would regulatory energies be better focused on removing the worst polluters from our roadways instead? The absolute air quality improvement from a ULEV to a PZEV is nothing compared to the difference between a 1985 Chevy Celebrity with a piston ring leak and defective catalytic converter, and a 2001 Chevy Malibu with its emission equipment in good working order.

A frequently-quoted statistic says that 10% of our auto fleet produces 90% of our auto-related pollution. I have no idea if that is true, but if it is, finding a way to clean up those worst offenders seems to be the shortest route to cleaning up our auto fleet.

California has a program that costs $50 million per year to clean up or "retire" vehicles that fail emission tests. The program provides $500 to repair or $1,500 to retire vehicles that fail emission tests. Last year, the program retired 16,000 cars, which works out to a puzzling $3,125 per vehicle average, or more than twice the maximum allowance of $1,500. Government "efficiency," perhaps?

In Texas, a vehicle that fails an emission test and can be driven to the dealership under its own power is eligible for a $3,000 voucher to buy a car up to three years old (or a truck up to two years old). Buying a hybrid up to one year old gets the buyer a $3,500 voucher. Participants in the program must have a family income of $63,000 or less for a family of four to be eligible. $3,000 off a cleaner car isn't bad; a three year old 2005 Cavalier can be had for as little as $6,000 to $6,500. Financing the remaining $3,000 to $3,500 gets a monthly payment of under $100 when financed over 36 months.

The biggest problem that many automotive enthusiasts have with so-called "clunker laws" is that crushing (euphemistically referred to as "retiring" in many programs) cars limits the availability of spare parts to keep nicer, roadworthy versions of the same vehicle humming along in tip-top shape. Just as cars of the 1950s and 60s were the "classics" as I was growing up in the 1980s, for better or worse, our automotive history will be incomplete without a few examples of 1980s Oldsmobile diesels, Ford Tauruses, Chrysler minivans and K-cars, and the aforementioned 1985 Celebrities. And they may not seem like "classics" now, but preservation of at least some examples of nearly every vehicle is essential for sharing our automotive history with future generations. After all, how will I be able to properly tell my sons about my 1987 Grand Am without showing them one in the flesh?

Perhaps the best compromise, although still less than perfect, would be to remove the polluters from the road with a nice incentive to purchase a newer, cleaner vehicle, then crushing only the absolute worst examples and parting out the salvageable ones.

My father, who has done more than 20 frame-off restorations, including several AACA Senior and Grand National winners, used to say that modern cars just wouldn't be around to restore in 25 years. I'm beginning to wonder if he was right, although I hope that in ten years, I'll be able to take my sons to Carlisle to show them what a "performance car" looked like in the 1980s. (Answer: Not much.)

Read more!

Mercedes-Benz Reveals New SL65 AMG Black Series

Rumors of the V12's demise have been greatly exaggerated.

By Chris Haak

07.11.2008

Yesterday, Mercedes-Benz pulled the wraps off of its new performance flagship, the SL65 Black Series. The car will start at an astronomical $320,000, but includes nearly every weapon in AMG's quiver, including several new ones.

Power for the SL65 Black Series comes from a twin turbocharged V12, rated at 661 horsepower and 738 lb-ft of torque. Unlike all other SLs, there is no retractable hardtop; instead, the car has a fixed roof with a factory roll cage. The non-power top, coupled with a carbon fiber hood, fenders, roof, and trunk make the Black Series an impressive 550 pounds lighter than the "pedestrian" SL65 AMG (although still a rather-hefty 4,122 pounds). Perhaps the SL is so heavy because it's still over-engineered as Mercedes cars were in years past.

Regardless, the two ton weight isn't enough to keep that blown V12 from mauling acceleration tests. Zero to sixty is promised in less than 3.9 seconds, and the car has a top speed of 199 miles per hour, although it's allegedly geared to run up to 220 miles per hour in fifth gear, so the 199 figure may be electronically limited.

The exterior of the SL has been moved dramatically from mild to wild; like the CLK63 Black Series coupe of a few months ago, there literally is no mistaking the SL65 Black Series for any other vehicle in Mercedes' lineup. Actually, it's a pretty unique shape anywhere in the automotive landscape. The two main styling themes are huge fender flares and a plethora of air vents to provide cooling air to its big V12. It's hard to tell from photos, but the fender flares (which are integrated into the fenders and not just tacked on) appear to be six inches wider than the rest of the fender. There are also no less than seven air intakes on the car's exterior (three on the front bumper, two on the hood, and one on each front fender) to feed air to the V12. Although the car's shape is clearly unique, the fender flares lend an obvious family resemblance to the aforementioned CLK63 Black Series. The result is a very menacing looking car, but also one that seems almost like it's trying too hard to be menacing. If I were dropping $320,000 on a new car, I'd hope that it would look a little more exotic, and not look like an SL with the boy racer package.

The car's spot in the lineup is really one of a very expensive, exclusive stopgap to tide the richest Mercedes buyers over between the just-discontinued McLaren-built SLR and the future Mercedes-Benz SLC ultra performance car. Only 200 copies of the SL65 Black Series will be exported to the US, so if you have a spare vacation home lying around and would like to trade it on the current top-dog Mercedes, run - don't walk - to your dealer right away.

Read more!

Toyota Significantly Changes US Production Plans

By Chris Haak

07.10.2008

In response to the dramatic - and many believe permanent - shift in consumer demand for new vehicles (abandoning large gas guzzlers in droves and lining up on waiting lists for efficient vehicles such as the Prius and Civic), Toyota announced today that it has changed its vehicle mix and production plans at three plans quite drastically.

Currently, Toyota builds the Tundra pickup, Sequoia SUV, and Sienna minivan in its Princeton, Indiana plant and builds Tundras only at its fairly new San Antonio, Texas plant. The company also has a new plant under construction in Tupelo, Mississippi that was expected to build the Highlander SUV when it went online in 2010. Toyota had announced a few months ago that it would delay the opening of the Tupelo plant by several months in light of weaker-than-expected Highlander demand, plus the delay allowed Toyota to avoid having to do a model changeover at the plant just months after its opening when the Highlander receives its mid-cycle enhancement in 2010. Meanwhile, both the San Antonio and Princeton plants are operating at slower production speeds to keep vehicle inventories down.

All Tundra production will be moved from Princeton to San Antonio by spring 2009. Meanwhile, Toyota will stop Tundra and Sequoia production from August 8 to early November (about three months) to allow demand to catch up with the supply of the large trucks. Employees at Princeton and San Antonio, as well as at the Alabama plant that builds engines for the trucks, will not be laid off and will continue to be given work to do.

The extra capacity freed in Princeton by the Tundra's imminent departure will then allow Toyota to build Highlanders there, starting in fall 2009. The move makes sense on many levels, especially since the Highlander and Sienna aren't very different vehicles, and the Princeton plant is already a truck plant.

Since the Highlander is moving to Princeton, that means that Toyota has a billion dollar plant with no product for it. Enter the Prius, which has seen its sales drop for the past few months because of supply constraints. Toyota currently builds the Prius only in Japan, but will begin production in the new Mississippi plant in late 2010. The plant will have to be slightly reconfigured from its original mission of building relatively large crossovers, but once it comes online for Prius production - and assuming that Toyota can ensure an adequate supply of batteries for the car's demand. Since the company has made arrangements for a new battery plant in Japan that will go online in the next few years, that will probably not be a problem for Toyota.

Toyota has the advantage over its domestic rivals of not having huge amounts of idled workers and excess production capacity, but also has flexible production facilities that can build several models in the same plant, and can adapt (with some modifications) to building entirely different types of vehicles. I'm most curious what the Princeton and San Antonio workers will be doing with their time for three months starting in August. While Toyota probably has some quality control training and maintenance work scheduled for them, the plants will also probably have the cleanest floors in the auto industry.

Read more!

NHTSA Improves Crash-Test Program For 2010

By Chris Haak

07.10.2008

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) announced this week that it is significantly changing the way that it crash-tests new vehicles and reports on those results to consumers. This is the first major change in the crash-test regime since the star system was developed in 1979.

One motivator behind the NHTSA's decision to revamp the rating system is that 96% of all new cars sold today receive four or five star safety ratings. In 1979, when the star rating system was introduced, only about 30% of all new vehicles were rated at four or five stars. Not only have cars literally become much safer places to be in the event of a collision, but manufacturers have become experts at building cars that are able to ace the tests, even if other crash tests such as the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) 40 mile per hour offset barrier test is much tougher to pass than the government-mandated tests. Basically, acing the government's tests did not necessarily mean that you were driving a car that would do the best job of protecting its occupants in different types of crashes.

The new crash test program, which takes effect for the 2010 model year, will add a side impact crash into a pole which is intended to simulate wrapping a car around a tree, as well as additional front end tests and using a small female dummy for some tests, since accident results have shown that females of small stature are most at risk of current restraint system designs not adequately protecting them. Additionally, the new system will provide concise information to consumers about the various safety technologies included in a given vehicle, such as stability control, lane departure warning systems, etc.

Although the tests themselves are more comprehensive and therefore more difficult to master for automobile manufacturers, they will provide consumers with a single overall star rating rather than driver, passenger, driver side impact, passenger side impact, and rollover as the current ratings illustrate (and consumers have found to be confusing).

While saving lives is obviously an admirable goal, it's also important to note that more rigorous safety standards also will likely further increase the weight of new vehicles, increase the cost, or both. Increasing the weight would then, of course, run contrary to the desire of all manufacturers to squeeze as much fuel economy out of their lineups to meet increasing CAFE standards over the next few years. Everything in automotive engineering is a balancing act, so this will require additional efforts and creativity on the part of everyone responsible for engineering new vehicles and making them both crash-worthy and fuel efficient.

Read more!

2008 Nissan Versa 1.8 SL Sedan Review

By Chris Haak

07.09.2008

A few years ago, the major Japanese manufacturers hit the US market nearly simultaneously with new small car offerings that offered smaller engines, better fuel economy, and often better packaging than offerings that had previously been their smallest US offerings. The models I'm speaking of are the Toyota Yaris (which replaced the unloved Echo), the Honda Fit, and the Nissan Versa.

Nissan took a slightly different track when it developed the Versa than did its closest competitors. First, the styling is unique, which is not a surprise considering that a version of the car's platform underpins some Renaults. Second, the Versa has a larger, more powerful engine (a 1.8 liter four cylinder) than either the Fit or Yaris (both having 1.5 liter four cylinders). The Fit and Yaris also have conventional automatic transmissions while the Versa has a CVT.

Walking up to the Versa, the car has a unique shape, but it's definitely not my cup of tea from a styling standpoint. The proportions are the first thing you notice; unlike the current trend of low rooflines and minimally tall windows, the Versa practically boasts of its height to anyone who will listen. Certain lines in the car's profile take sudden zig-zag turns, such as the shape of the taillights and front side markers. The roofline also slowly heads downhill starting above the B-pillar, then makes a sharp turn at the C-pillar. One area in which the Versa did match current fashion is its tidy overhangs; there is only a minimal piece of the front end that dangles over the wheel wells, and considering the car's front wheel drive layout, it's again fairly tidy. The other notable styling cues are a trunklid shape reminiscent of a BMW's "Bangle butt", with a hood closure that shares a complementary design. My test vehicle was shod with 15 inch alloy wheels, which actually looked more like 16 inch wheels would on a normally-sized car. The Versa didn't hide the fact that the wheels were affixed with just four lugs, but many small cars also have only four lug wheels. Heck, the Honda Accord only had four lug wheels earlier in this decade.

Inside, the Versa shines. As Honda engineers managed with the Fit subcompact, the interior seems to be larger and more flexible than it should be for such a small vehicle. Credit goes to the tall roofline, large window surface area, and wheels pushed to the corners of the car. The result is a car with enough room for me to "sit behind myself" at 6'4" (when the driver's seat is adjusted to a spot comfortable for me). I had plenty of headroom; I was able to make a fist and fit that between the top of my head and the ceiling with room to spare. Width-wise, the car was a little narrow - in fact, narrower than, say, a Prius, but other than in width measurements, actually was similar to the Prius in categories like legroom and headroom (and the Prius is classified as a midsize car). Actually, the Versa is also classified as a midsize car by the EPA. Compared to the Nissan Sentra, the Versa has more rear seat headroom and legroom, more cargo space, but less shoulder and hip room because the Versa is about four inches narrower than the Sentra.

The seats were made of a fairly coarse cloth; I didn't mind it, but it really bothered my wife. The door panels were covered in the same material, with padded vinyl at the top and a very thickly padded armrest. The armrests literally had a half inch of give when pressed with a finger and were very cushy. Aside from a nicely-woven headliner, the rest of the interior was fairly reminiscent of what you'd expect to find in an economy car: hard plastic on the dashboard, low-gloss black plastic around the HVAC controls and radio, and fairly thin sound insulation from road noise and the engine. Interior features, however, in the SL model that I tested were impressive for a car in this class. My test vehicle featured keyless entry and ignition, voice-activated Bluetooth cell phone integration, cruise control, power windows, locks, and mirrors, and a six-disc CD changer with an auxiliary in jack on the front. Since I have a steering wheel fixation (I prefer them to be small in circumference but with a thick rim, and always covered in leather), the Versa didn't disappoint. The wheel nailed two out of my three criteria, lacking only a thick rim. Cruise control and redundant audio and phone controls were on the spokes, which was nice to have in an inexpensive car.

HVAC controls were, of course, manual, and I had nearly forgotten how annoying it is to have to decide on a mode, temperature setting, and fan speed periodically while driving (rather than just setting a temperature and forgetting about it). You don't get automatic climate control for $17,290, though.

The economy-grade sound insulation made for a ride that was somewhat noisy upon acceleration. Wind noise wasn't readily apparent, but driving through a city, it was a little too easy to hear external sounds even with the windows closed. If you haven't driven a vehicle equipped with a CVT before, the CVT is nearly invisible when you are accelerating slowly or moving at a fairly constant speed. However, brisk acceleration causes the transmission to peg the engine in the thick of its powerband (about 5,500 RPMs in the Versa's case) and keep it there until the desired speed is reached. The transmission, of course, is continually varying its ratio while the engine speed remains constant. The resulting sensation is one of a conventional automatic that is slipping. It's also an assault on the ears, as the 1.8 liter four is not the quietest engine in the world, and there is no rest from its booming until the desired speed has been reached. (In a conventional transmission, even under the hardest acceleration, gear changes quiet the engine's clatter momentarily as it spins slower). CVTs, however, do have both a fuel economy and a performance benefit, and Nissan has a reputation for doing a better job with them than anyone else. The Versa does not have the slick manual/sport mode that some other Nissan CVTs feature, which allows the driver to impersonate a conventional automatic transmission, with six forward ratios pre-programmed into the CVT for use upon demand. Interestingly, Nissan's website only allows you to configure a 2009 Versa (my test vehicle was a 2008) with a CVT if choosing the SL hatchback. Otherwise, transmission choices are a six-speed manual or a four-speed automatic.

The brakes were front disc/rear drum, which is a cheaper alternative than would be found in more expensive vehicles. My test vehicle included optional ABS (only $250, and of course worth the money), which I did not have occasion to try, but the brakes were a bit grabby until I got used to them. The steering was electric power assisted, but was the second-best electric power steering I've ever tested (the best being the $40,000-plus Lexus IS350's). It still can't quite match traditional hydraulic steering for feedback and feel, but it was close enough that I had to check the window sticker to verify my guess that it might be electric.

The car never felt unsafe on the highway (nor did I feel vulnerable driving a small car), but I also was cognizant of the fact that I was driving a narrow, small car with 15 inch wheels and a relatively high center of gravity. It certainly did not embarrass itself on the road, though, and was a fairly comfortable commuter car.

In terms of fuel economy, the Versa is rated at 27 miles per gallon in the city and 33 miles per gallon on the highway. Unfortunately, the Versa does not have a trip computer that will show fuel economy averages, and I did not need to add gas to the full tank that Nissan provided, so I'll have to assume that it got somewhere between the EPA's city and highway figures. After about 200 miles, the gas gauge is below the halfway point, but the Versa only has a 13.2 gallon tank. Relative to its closest competitors, the Versa's economy is fairly close when comparing automatic-equipped models with the base engines. The Fit is rated at 27/34, the Yaris is rated at 29/35, the Civic is rated at 25/36, and the Corolla is rated at 27/35.

The 2008 Versa starts at $13,540 for a Versa S, which is available as a sedan or hatch for the same price, and includes air conditioning, AM/FM/CD stereo, side curtain and side impact airbags, and power steering. Stepping up to the Versa SL (which is what my test vehicle was) costs $16,175 and adds 15 inch aluminum wheels, power windows and locks, remote keyless entry, cruise control, and an upgraded stereo with a CD changer. My tester also featured the Convenience Package for $650, which added Bluetooth, the leather wrapped steering wheel, and keyless entry/start (which allows you to keep the key in your pocket, even when starting the car), the aforementioned $250 ABS package, splash guards for $110, and floor mats for $105. The destination charge was $625, for a grand total of $17,290. I thought that was a pretty fair price for a capable little car. Compared to the 2009 Corolla that I tested a few weeks ago, the Versa had power windows, cruise control, Bluetooth, keyless entry/start, and aluminum wheels - none of which the Corolla S had - but had an MSRP about $1,200 less. I also preferred the Nissan's steering feel to the Corolla's, although the Corolla S is a much better looking car than the Versa (though the Versa hatchback is a much more pleasing shape to my eyes than the somewhat frumpy sedan is).

However, like minivans, people don't buy compact or subcompact cars for image reasons. In this case, the Versa provides a very credible entry at the lower end of the market, including some features not available in more expensive vehicles at any price (keyless start and Bluetooth, specifically). Nissan did a heck of a job with the Versa and is offering a car that is more comfortable and more spacious than expected. Any time consumers get more than they expect for their money, they win.

For more photos of this vehicle, click here.

Read more!

Cars and Tech 2009 Model Year Preview Part 3 (N to V)

By Chris Haak

07.06.2008

Note: Part 1 of this article, from A through F, can be found here.
Part 2 of this article, from H through M, can be found here.

In the previous two installments of this series, we have covered A through F in Part 1, and H through M in Part 2. Today, the series concludes with Part 3, N through V.

Nissan
Nissan's legendary new GT-R, which in earlier generations was not available in the US except in video games and magazine articles, hits dealers this summer. The car is a technological tour de force, with a 480 horsepower (which is significantly underrated, by the way) twin turbo intercooled 3.8 liter V6, all-new six-speed dual clutch gearbox, sophisticated all wheel drive system, virtual user-configurable "gauges" designed by video game makers, and room for four (as long as two of the four are of small stature and can squeeze into the back seat). The resulting car is almost GT-size and weight (tipping the scales at just under 4,000 pounds, while a similarly-priced Corvette Z06 is under 3,200 pounds) - but puts up absolutely breathtaking performance numbers. According to Car and Driver, 0 to 60 occurs in 3.3 seconds, the quarter mile whizzes by in 11.5 seconds at 124 miles per hour, the top speed is just under 200 miles per hour, and pulls 0.99 g on the skidpad. According to Nissan, the GT-R can lap the Nürburgring's famous Nordschleife faster than nearly any production car, at 7 minutes, 29 seconds.

Nissan's other big news for the 2009 model year is the launch of its second-generation Murano crossover this past January as an early 2009 model. In fact, although the new Murano is a 2009 model, Autosavant has already reviewed it. The 2009 Murano's styling is an obvious evolution of the original version's (which first went on sale in 2002 as a 2003 model), but has a stiffer structure, more powerful engine, more luxurious interior with better materials and more amenities. Pricing actually dropped from the previous 2007 model (there was no 2008 Murano) to the 2009 model, making a new one a better deal than it had been before, as long as you can look past its controversial new front end.

Pontiac
The Toyota Matrix-based (which itself is Toyota Corolla-based) Pontiac Vibe is all-new for the 2009 model year and saw an early launch. The Vibe retains its sporty wagon persona, with a cleaner design that eschews the plastic cladding of the original version and improves upon the interior design and materials of the old car. A larger 2.4 liter engine is now optional (the base engine is a 1.8 liter four shared with the Corolla) in higher-end models. All wheel drive is again available in the Vibe, which results in a pretty competitive package. I feel that Pontiac did a far better job styling the Vibe than Toyota did with the 2009 Matrix, especially considering they had the same raw materials to use.

Other news at Pontiac for the 2009 model year includes model line extensions; the existing Solstice convertible is joined by a coupe and the G8 GXP is added to the G8 line. For the Solstice Coupe, engine choices will remain the same as the convertible's, but the roofline has a much sleeker, cleaner shape than the lumpy convertible top that appears as if it's just an afterthought in the Solstice convertible's design. The G8 GXP features a 6.2 liter 402 horsepower LS3 V8 taken from the base Corvette (but detuned by about 30 horsepower) and coupled with the G8's first six-speed manual. Zero to sixty should happen in a brisk 4.3 seconds in the GXP model.

Saturn
GM's former import-fighting brand, which now instead imports several of its models (the Astra from Belgium, the Vue from Mexico) doesn't have much to report for the 2009 model year after a very busy two year span where its entire lineup was refreshed. However, there is big technology news as the 2009 Vue Two Mode Hybrid. The 2008 Vue Green Line Hybrid was a 2.4 liter four cylinder coupled to GM's BAS (belt-alternator-starter) "mild" hybrid and saw barely any fuel economy improvement over the standard four cylinder Vue. However, the two-mode hybrid Vue (the Green Line moniker will be dropped from all Saturn hybrids for 2009, by the way) will have a direct injection 3.6 liter V6 instead, and the far more sophisticated two mode hybrid system, which is similar in engineering to the system found in the Tahoe, Yukon, Silverado, Sierra, Durango, and Aspen hybrids offered by GM and Chrysler. However, the Vue will be the first V6 application of the system and also the first front wheel drive-based application of the system. Expected fuel economy improvements are similar to those seen in the large trucks (over 40%), but pricing has not yet been announced. Expect the most green of the Vue line to fetch over $30,000, although the higher gas prices climb, the shorter its payback period is before the hybrid expense has paid for itself.

Subaru
The 2009 Subaru Forester was yet another early 2009 model year launch, and is on dealers' lots right now. The new Forester is slightly larger than the old model, but has kept its weight gain down to just about 100 pounds, so driving characteristics should be similar. This cross between a mini SUV and a tall wagon is easy to drive and park, yet offers its owners a lot of utility. Also, the new model's pleasing shape, while sacrificing some of the "distinctiveness" of the old model, should prevent owners from having to make excuses for its homeliness. It has a more traditional small-SUV shape now, but it's a far cleaner design than the Tribeca or Imprezza were at their launches, so at least Subaru appears to have some clue about the appropriate design direction for some of their vehicles.

Suzuki
Small car specialist Suzuki is launching its first pickup in the US for the 2009 model year, called the Equator. US buyers should be pretty familiar with the truck, though, as it's just a Nissan Frontier with a different front end. The Equator will be available in two- or four-wheel drive and in regular or extended cab variants. While all pickup sales are tanking in the US this year, it's probably a win-win for Nissan and Suzuki; Suzuki is able to sell a vehicle that can carry its ATVs and motorcycles, and Nissan gets additional plant utilization in its Smyrna, Tennessee facility that builds the Frontier and Pathfinder, among others.

Toyota
Toyota has already launched two early 2009 model year vehicles, its Matrix and Corolla. The Matrix is identical to the also-new 2009 Pontiac Vibe, but clad in entirely different (and not necessarily attractive) skin. The Matrix also has the same powertrain options that the Vibe has (both 1.8 and 2.4 liter four cylinders). The Corolla, one of Toyota's best sellers, went into its early 2009 model year with an all-new body that is about three inches wider and one inch shorter, giving the car more pleasing (and more US-friendly) proportions. I drove a 2009 Corolla S for a week, and while it was a good car and had plenty of room inside for a cheap car, the driving experience was not particularly engaging, and it's disappointing that the Corolla's city and highway fuel economy got worse with the new generation.

Toyota is also launching an all-new Camry-based two-row crossover called the Venza this fall. Similar in concept to the Nissan Murano and Lexus RX350 (midsize, luxurious, comfortable), the 2009 Venza will offer both front- and all-wheel drive and either a 3.5 liter V6 (the same engine that powers the Camry V6 models) or a new 2.7 liter four cylinder.

Volkswagen
Ambitious (yet painfully naïve about the US market) Volkswagen comes to bat for the 2009 model year with its first small SUV to be sold in the US, the Tiguan. Supposedly, this manufactured word is a combination of tiger and iguana. Regardless of its unfortunate name, the Tiguan competes with other small premium SUVs such as the Acura RDX and Volvo XC60 (see below) and brings the expected luxury and technology to bat, including adaptive front lighting, a touchscreen navigation system, and a 30 GB hard disk for storing music files. The Tiguan is powered by a 2.0 liter turbocharged four cylinder coupled to a six-speed automatic.

Volkswagen also re-enters the minivan market in the US, this time on the back of Chrysler with its Routan. The Routan is nothing more than a rebadged Chrysler Town & Country/Dodge Grand Caravan with a Volkswagen nose and taillights, plus some minor interior trim differences. I actually prefer the Routan's front end to the Chrysler's, as it flows more smoothly and doesn't try too hard to be "tough" or "truck-like." Volkswagen has already said that the Chrysler-based Routan is a one-generation only product, and any eventual replacement will be developed in-house.

Volvo
Volvo's new premium small SUV, the XC60, offers a new design direction for the Swedish brand, while still retaining familiar Volvo cues as well as a definite family resemblance to the older and larger XC90 SUV. As expected in a new Volvo, several safety-related innovations were incorporated into the new XC60, including something called City Safety, which closely monitors the area around the front of the vehicle to detect any potential collisions. If it believes that one is imminent, it will apply the brakes automatically, including taking the vehicle to a full stop if necessary. The XC60's engine at launch will be a 285-horsepower six cylinder turbocharged engine and should arrive at dealers in early 2009.

As I said in the introductory words to Part 1 of this series, the 2009 model year actually seems to be a "slow" year, with many brands trotting out mostly the same lineup they had last year. The recurring theme for the 2009 model year was also early launches - very few 2009 vehicles will be launched in the traditional fall timeframe, and are instead already on the road, and have been for several months in the case of some, such as the 2009 Nissan Murano.

In spite of the auto industry's enormous struggles for the past few months - which are likely to continue for at least the next year - there really hasn't ever been a better time to buy a new car if you want an efficient, excellent-performing, safe, comfortable new vehicle. The deals ain't bad nowadays either.

Part 1 - from A (Acura) through F (Ford) can be found here.
Part 2 - from H (Honda) through M (Mitsubishi) can be found here.

Read more!

NHRA's Quarter Mile is Now 1,000 Feet Instead of 1,320

By Chris Haak

07.03.2008

The National Hot Rod Association (NHRA) announced late yesterday that in the wake of the recent tragic death of popular Funny Car driver Scott Kalitta on June 21, it is immediately shortening its race distance by 320 feet to 1,000 feet for its Top Fuel and Funny Car classes. The change goes into effect next weekend at the Mopar Mile High Nationals in Denver (July 11-13).

Kalitta's crash occurred after his car's engine exploded and the car continued to the end of the track, through a sand pit, and finally stopped when it hit a wall. The car's parachutes did not deploy. Similar to how Dale Earnhardt's death at the end of the 2001 Daytona 500 spurred NASCAR to take dramatic steps to improve driver safety (which culminated in the ugly, but apparently safer, Car of Tomorrow that all teams must now use), Kalitta's death appears to have encouraged the NHRA to immediately take safety concerns more seriously.

The NHRA announced that effective immediately, it is looking into the following issues while it investigates Kalitta's fatal crash:

- how to reduce engine failures
- parachute mounting techniques and materials
- increased braking efficiency when downforce is lost due to the car body being lost
- new ways to stop runaway vehicles at the end of the track
- considering the need to reduce speeds for more safety.

The most dramatic change, though, was the reduction of the race length. The quarter mile is obviously the most identifiable racing statistic for straight-line acceleration. No longer timing the final 320 feet of the quarter mile will of course render records and comparisons meaningless. Obviously, both elapsed times and trap speeds will be lower (since the cars have to cover a shorter distance before the end of the track, and since the cars will not have the full track length to accelerate). However, the safety benefit is the addition of an additional 320 feet - about the length of a football field - in runoff area at the end of the track.

Some drivers had complained that the runoff area at the Englishtown, NJ speedway where Kalitta's crash occurred was not long enough. The NHRA said that the change was made in collaboration with race teams.

Many of the other safety initiatives that the NHRA is investigating have already been implemented in other race series; NASCAR's superspeedways that require restrictor plates to reduce engine power are a direct result of the same goal of reducing speeds. The roof flaps that pop up in NASCAR race cars when the car is about to go airborne, and they keep the car on the ground and hopefully slow it down enough for the driver to regain control.

I'm not really an ardent fan of auto racing, although I am something of a purist when it comes to traditional aspects of any sport. Although I can see why the NHRA has made this change, to me it almost feels like Major League Baseball announcing that next season, the distance between the bases will go from 90 feet to 75 feet to reduce the risk of injuries. Hopefully, the safety for drivers can be enhanced, and better/longer runoff areas can be added to all racetracks so that they can return to the traditional quarter mile length for the fastest cars.

My father was a successful amateur drag racer in the 1960s and early 1970s; although we haven't spoken about this news yet, the concept of a 1,000 foot drag race is probably pretty foreign to him, and to many fans of the sport.

Read more!

June Sales Results Are In - And They're Ugly

By Chris Haak

07.02.2008

Yesterday, all of the major automakers reported their June sales results. The market was down 18.3% in June 2008 compared to June 2007. Unsurprisingly, they were ugly nearly across the board, with the notable exceptions of Honda (which was up 1.1%, thanks to its car-heavy, truck-light lineup), Hyundai (up 3.5%, for more or less the same reasons), Subaru (up 5.3%, thanks to its car-heavy lineup), and Volkswagen (thanks to the Tiguan's launch, the Passat sedan, Eos/New Beetle convertibles, and Audi A4). Otherwise, everyone was down.

Hit the hardest was Chrysler LLC, down a staggering 35.9% compared to last June. The company's sales are also down 22.0% year to date. Chrysler managed the unusual feat (in the current market) of its car sales actually dropping far faster than its truck sales (car sales down 49%, truck sales down 30%). The company attributes this to "planned reductions in fleet sales." Since last year more than half of all Chrysler brand sales were to fleets, that may not be a bad thing. Ironically, the minivans that were built in the plant whose indefinite closure was announced yesterday saw significant sales increases (Grand Caravan up 52%; Town & Country up 21%), although their sales are still down significantly year to date (Grand Caravan down 27%; Town & Country down 10%). Every Chrysler-brand vehicle except for the Town & Country saw its sales decrease by no less than 38% (PT Cruiser). Even the 300, which is not a model on the chopping block, saw its sales decline by 62%. The Sebring, while it watches it competition like the Malibu, Fusion, Camry, Accord, Altima, and even G6 leap through the sales charts, saw its sales drop by 50%. The news wasn't much better at Jeep, with all models down except for the Patriot (up 6%) and the brand down 40% overall. At Chrysler LLC's Dodge Division, sales were down 30% overall, with the only models showing gains the limited production Viper (78 sales in June 2008 versus 22 sales in June 2007) aforementioned Grand Caravan. Most disturbing for Chrysler is that some of their most fuel efficient models - the Caliber (down 44%), Compass (down 39%), Avenger (down 49%), Sebring (down 50%), and PT Cruiser (down 38%) all struggled. One bright spot was the new 2009 Journey crossover, which sold 5,162 units, making it the 5th-best-selling Dodge vehicle just a few months after its launch.

The overall news wasn't much better at Ford, but at least the brands' drops were pretty consistent among Ford, Lincoln, Mercury, and Volvo. Ford Motor Company June 2008 sales were down 28.1% compared to the year-earlier period and down 14.3% year to date. The only models to see sales increases were the Fusion (up 18.4%), Milan (up 7.6%), Volvo V70 (up 168.0%) and C70 (up 64.2%). Fortunately for Ford, there are several high-volume launches coming this month - both the Lincoln MKS flagship sedan and the Ford Flex large crossover - will drive the company's overall sales needle forward. The only models with single-digit sales increases were the Focus (down 5.5% on the heels of the stratospheric month the car had in May), Taurus X (down 9.8%), Town Car (down 9.7%), and Volvo S80 (down 6.0%). Some lowlights of the Ford sales figures for June were the Taurus (down 53.8%), Expedition (down 59.8%), Explorer (down 52.0%), F-Series (down 40.5%), Navigator (down 41.3%), Mark LT (down 46.4%), Mountaineer (down 61.8%), Volvo S40 (down 63.4%), S60 (down 62.2%), and XC90 (down 47.2%).

The smallest failure among the Detroit Three, GM, saw its sales results boosted by its longer-than-72-hour 72-hour sale, which gave 0% financing on many models for 72 months as well as generous cash incentives on several models, notably trucks and SUVs. GM's sales for June 2008 were down 18.5% and are down 16.5% year to date. Interestingly, and likely solely because of the generous incentives that GM lavished upon its trucks, light truck sales were "only" down 16.0%. Notably, GM includes crossovers such as the Enclave, Acadia, Outlook, Torrent, Equinox and even the HHR in their "light truck" category. Highlights for GM were the Cadillac CTS (up 16.0%), STS (up 12.1%), SRX (up 12.0%), Cobalt (up 21.6%), Malibu (up 73.4%), HHR (up 23.6%), Vibe (up 23.0%), Saturn Sky (up 44.1% thanks to $3,000 cash back), Equinox (up 45.9%), Trailblazer (up 28.2%, which is a huge surprise considering what the Envoy, 9-7x, Explorer, Pathfinder, and Mountaineer managed to not do), and Saturn Vue (up 24.8%). The Suburban hanging on with only a 0.1% decline is pretty impressive, too.

Models that saw significant sales declines for GM were the Enclave (down 18.4%), Avalanche (down 38.8%), Silverado (down 23.7%, but that's far less than any other non-GM full-size pickup's decline), Acadia (down 40.1%), Envoy (down 38.9%), Sierra (down "just" 18.3%), Yukon (down "just" 10.0%), Yukon XL (down "just" 17.2%), and Saturn Outlook (down 58.0%). Hummer deserves a special mention for dropping a staggering 60.1% as a brand, including 55.9% for the hulking H2 and 60.1% for the almost-hulking H3. No wonder GM is shopping Hummer; it really is too bad that they waited far too long for a smaller, more fuel efficient Hummer. At this point, such a vehicle will probably never see the light of day under GM's ownership. The Aveo's 19.7% decline is surprising at first glance, until one realizes that the larger, more powerful, more comfortable Cobalt now tops the Korean-built Aveo in highway fuel economy.

Toyota and Nissan both saw uncharacteristically steep declines in vehicle sales; this is the price that both brands are now paying for being "full line" automakers, in contrast with Honda who sells no V8s, rear wheel drive vehicles, or full-size pickups or SUVs. Toyota's sales were down 21.4% in June, and are down 6.8% year to date. Other than the Corolla (up 15.6%), few of Toyota's more fuel efficient offerings saw sales gains; the Prius was down 33.7% (blamed on "limited availability"), Yaris was down 4.5%, the Camry was down 10.8%, and the Scion lineup was down an aggregate 5.3%. The news in trucks and SUVs - with the exception of the recently-launched Sequoia (up 25.1%), Land Cruiser (up 94.0%), and LX570 (up 193%) - was sanguine. The Tundra, a truck that set the sales charts on fire in its first model year as a true full-size pickup, was down 47.1%; the Tacoma midsize pickup was down 25.9%; the 4Runner SUV was down 54.6%. Overall, Toyota division passenger car sales fell 7.1%. Toyota division light truck sales fell 39.1%. Lexus division passenger car sales fell 25.9%, and Lexus division light truck sales fell 35.9%.

Over at Nissan, the company saw truck sales fall by a staggering amount. Fortunately for Nissan, however, trucks make up a relatively small portion of their overall model portfolio. Nevertheless, Nissan's June sales fell 17.7% and are down 2.4% year to date. The bottom literally fell out of the truck and SUV market for Nissan; Titan full-size pickup sales fell 71.4%, Pathfinder sales were down 71.7%, Quest sales fell 62.3%, Frontier sales fell 58.1%, Armada sales fell 63.4%, XTerra sales fell 68.3%, and the all-new 2009 Murano sales were off 24%. Overall, Nissan light truck sales were down 37.9% in June.

Rounding out the other automakers with a US presence, BMW was down 11.0% (down 3.9% YTD), Daimler AG was up 12.9% (up 10.5% YTD), Mazda was down 7.7% (up 0.3% YTD), Mitsubishi was down 42.4% (down 23.4% YTD), and Porsche was down 18.9% (down 15.5% YTD).

GM does fire sales better than anybody; now the next question will be how adverse the impact was to their bottom line. Has their relatively successful June (compared to Ford and Chrysler) been at the expense of future sales - with potential buyers moving up their purchase plans in light of the great deals? Has the 72-hour sale further damaged GM's tenuous cash position and bottom line?

One thing that is clear from looking at all of these numbers; it's a great time NOT to be selling trucks and any other gas-guzzling vehicles. Good small cars are golden (Honda Fit sales were up 78.2%); mediocre small cars aren't (see the Chevy Aveo results above). It's also a great time to NOT be a full-line manufacturer, as evidenced by the relative sales success of Honda, Hyundai, and Subaru. By the way, the Accord (39,704), Civic (39,967), Camry (41,572), and Corolla (42,180) all again outsold the Ford F-Series (38,789). Just like the world changed forever on 9/11, the auto industry changed forever on 5/1/08.

Read more!

Chrysler Announces Plant Idling, Shift Elimination

By Chris Haak

07.01.2008

Chrysler LLC announced yesterday that it is indefinitely idling its St. Louis South Assembly Plant and eliminating the second shift at its St. Louis North Assembly Plant. The St. Louis South plant builds the Chrysler Town & Country and Dodge Grand Caravan minivans, and the St. Louis North plant builds the Dodge Ram full-size pickup. The van plant had been operating on one shift, and the pickup plant had been operating on two shifts. Both vehicles are still built elsewhere.

Ford and GM have already announced a series of moves in response to the colossal shift in the US auto market that began just two or three months ago, including adding shifts to small car production facilities and closing plants or eliminating shifts at truck and SUV production facilities, but we hadn't heard any concrete steps from Chrysler until today.

It was clear that Chrysler had to do something to rein in its truck production capacity and keep it closer to where demand is likely to be for the rest of the year. The company has gone on record over the past few months saying that it expects to gain market share in the hyper-competitive (and rapidly shrinking, by the way) full-size pickup market because of the myriad improvements added to the Ram pickup, including a true crew cab for the first time.

Unfortunately, the shift elimination and plant closing will hit the same city - St. Louis - simultaneously. They will mean a loss of approximately 2,400 jobs (1,500 at St. Louis South and 900 at St. Louis North).

In what may be a disturbing parallel, Chrysler also had high hopes for their new-for-2008 minivans in a declining market, but the vans have suffered in the current market, along with the company's pickups. (The pickups, of course, are due to be replaced this fall by the new 2009 Ram). Chrysler's overall sales are down 19.3% year to date.

Read more!

Would You Let Big Brother Ride Along for Cheaper Insurance?

By Chris Haak

07.01.2008

Several major automobile insurance companies worldwide, including Progressive and GMAC in the US, as well as a few smaller companies, are offering substantial insurance discounts to drivers who allow the companies to install a "black box" in their vehicles that monitors their behavior behind the wheel.

The devices are generally slightly different in function an purpose depending upon which insurance company has provided it, but they typically monitor miles driven, the speed at which the car is driven, and how often and how hard the brakes are applied. Analysts expect that the typical driver who agrees to so-called "usage-based insurance" can expect to save about $270 in premiums per year, although the companies reserve the right (in some states, at least) to assess a bad driving surcharge of up to 9% (in the Progressive plan). Drivers that Progressive deem as "good," however, can see savings of up to 60% per year, again depending on what their home state allows.

Progressive currently offers the plan, called TripSense, in only Michigan, Oregon, and Minnesota. The company is replacing the TripSense program with a new one called MyRate, which includes a telematic device (similar in concept to OnStar) which will automatically transmit driving habit information to the insurer. The older TripSense product requires the customer to periodically disconnect the device from the vehicle's diagnostic port to connect to their computer, then send it to the company. Progressive's new product will be available in six more states by the end of 2008 and even more states thereafter.

GMAC Insurance offers a product similar in concept, but that is tied to GM's OnStar telematics service. The program is called GMAC Low Mileage Discount Program with OnStar, and requires that the driver have an active OnStar subscription. The program gives drivers a 5% to 8% discount just for signing up for the service, and a 26% discount if they drive less than 26,000 miles per year. At this point, the OnStar device only transmits odometer readings to the insurance company, but has the capability to transmit location, acceleration, G-forces, and more. (I've read several buff book test drives where the writer described getting a call from OnStar in response to a slalom or skidpad test, in spite of there being no crash or airbag deployment. So the system DOES know what you're doing.)

So, how many people actually are willing to give up some of their privacy and freedom for lower insurance rates? GMAC claims that they have 2,000 subscribers to their program (it is available in 34 states), and in the three states where Progressive offers its program, 34% of its customers who signed up for insurance online (rather than through a local agent) have elected the usage-based rates.

I'm not a tinfoil hat kind of person, but I frankly would not be willing to effectively have my insurance company riding shotgun with me for literally every mile that I travel just to save a few hundred dollars per year. I'd have to believe that the insurance company is able to get odometer readings from annual policy renewals (my company asks me for an odometer reading annually, which is only a matter of walking ten feet to the garage door with a pen and paper). Also, letting the company in the door with a telematics device as powerful as OnStar - which only tracks mileage currently, but could easily provide acceleration, deceleration, and lateral acceleration rates - not to mention the exact location and speed of your vehicle - to the insurance company - doesn't seem like something I'd be interested in doing.

Another issue is that one of the most fundamental tenets of insurance is the avoidance of adverse selection. It's why you can't sign up for life insurance when you're terminally ill, or why you have to wait until the end of the year to change your health insurance. At its fundamental level, adverse selection means that you make a choice because you are sure it will happen, while the other party does not have that information. If only unhealthy individuals bought health insurance, rates would be sky-high because the low-risk pool who are healthy aren't paying premiums and helping to defray the expensive claims of the unhealthy population, while incurring few or no claims of their own.

In terms of car insurance, with these programs, the money to pay for 50%+ auto insurance discounts for "tracked" drivers has to come from somewhere (assuming, likely correctly, that the insurance companies are uninterested in seeing their overall revenue decline). That "somewhere" will be the people who would prefer not to have the insurance company's black box riding along. Those of us who see the black box as an intrusion of our privacy, or something otherwise undesirable, will eventually be seen as a greater insurance risk, and will therefore see higher premiums - and in my case, my clean driving record be damned. It's not a huge logical leap to see that as these usage-based car insurance programs gain in popularity, they will come to be seen as the norm.

Folks who drive far less than their policy allowances, and in a "responsible" (as defined by the insurance company) will indeed see lower premiums. As high gas prices cause drivers to eliminate unnecessary trips and generally reduce miles traveled, large swaths of the driving public could see lower rates through programs such as these. It's nice in theory to say "yeah, charge those scofflaws/bad drivers higher rates, and I'll take my black box," but it won't feel quite as good to see your rates jacked up for pressing that brake pedal a bit too hard, and therefore subsidizing someone else's discounted rates.

Read more!