|
About Me
My work has appeared in a number of major publications either as writer, photographer, or source. I enjoy talking about all things automotive. Recent Posts
Categories
Links
CarSpace Hudson's BlogAll around the car world there are stories and these are just a few of them. A new blog is posted every Monday. Sometimes more often. Jun 4, 2009 - Bankruptcies and Government LoansWe all know that the automotive industry is in trouble. Bankruptcies at GM and Chrysler were the expected outcome. These two companies used the “excuse” of economic upheaval to radically reorganize themselves in ways that labor unions, stockholders, and franchise laws wouldn’t allow otherwise. But their current problems are not wholly the fault of the UAW or the dealers. There’s plenty of blame for the Big3 themeselves. GM (and Chrysler and Ford) have not helped themselves by concentrating on trucks. It has been very short-sighted to focus up to 60% of their product mix on trucks when the marketplace is only, at best, 50% trucks. And when fuel prices spike (which we all expected at some point), trucks are the first segments to be hit. Sure, the other manufacturers have been hurt but the Big3, and their concentration on the US market, has hurt them more than others. GM and Chrysler are not in the same place that Chrysler was in 1979. When Chrysler asked for loan guarantees thirty years ago, they had radical new products ready to hit the market. Chrysler’s newest products, the Dodge Omni and Plymouth Horizon, had already set the groundwork for the K-Cars which would, in turn, lead to replacing all of Chrysler’s antiquated products…it was a seismic shift at the time. GM (and definitely Chrysler) don’t have that product ready to rock the industry. The K-Car in 1980 was revolutionary…a $6,000 6-passenger car that got 25 mpg city. Today, GM has some very good products. Vehicles like the Chevrolet Malibu and Cadillac CTS are very competitive, but they aren’t class-leading. It’s not that GM can’t build class-leading products; it’s just that they have the whole market to cover with “good” products while other companies can concentrate on one segment. It’s a very competitive marketplace with very strong competitors. GM is spread very thin. Having good gas mileage or winning an award or two does not mean the vehicle is “class leading.” While there is absolutely a need in the marketplace for vehicles like the Silverado, recent economic shifts have proven that you can’t rely on sales of full-sized trucks to carry the rest of the company. Manufacturers need to be ready with cars when more than half of the marketplace buys cars and yet more than half of the sales from GM (and Ford and Chrysler) come from trucks. It’s a global marketplace and no company is rooted in any one country. GM, like Toyota and Honda, harnesses their global reach to design and build their vehicles as best as it can. Whether it’s Australians working on the Zeta platform (for the Chevrolet Camaro and Pontiac G8) or Germans working on the Epsilon platform (for the Chevrolet Malibu, Saturn Aura, Pontiac G6) or Koreans working on the Theta platform (for the Saturn Vue and the new Chevrolet Equinox), the money and technology flows around the world. But now GM is selling divisions and brands and reducing it’s ability to compete globally, which had been a key strength of General Motors. If GM were to close its doors (which I can’t see happening), the supplier base would be hurt. But most of GM’s suppliers have spread their eggs across many baskets, including many of the transplants. It would take some time, but the suppliers would shift their focus from GM to one or more of the transplants (and/or remaining Big3). And the production volume lost if GM were to disappear would eventually be made up by other companies. Production volume would remain in the US as it is more economical to build many vehicles in North America than to import them. Suppliers would grow to support this change in the industry. Auto workers would remain, supplier workers would remain…possibly at lower volumes but still making the same number of vehicles and the industry would continue. The transplant companies are not so dumb that they don’t realize a vibrant US economy is necessary for the sales of their products. Whether or not the car companies are physically based in the US, the American economy will survive and grow and thrive. And when it comes to the US market, the Big3 have put themselves in a bad position. While the reliability and durability of Big3 cars is on-par with the top brands from other countries, perceived quality and dynamic thinking is not quite there. Why did Toyota and Honda have to come out with hybrids nearly a decade before any of the Big3? Why aren’t there any diesel cars from the Big3? GM was ahead of the curve with the EV1…so where has that technology led? GM was toying with fuel cell and steam(!) powered vehicles in the 1960s and rotary and Sterling engines in the 1970s…what have they done lately? The US can and does compete on a manufacturing level…or else Toyota and Honda and Nissan and Mercedes-Benz and BMW and the rest wouldn’t be making vehicles on US soil. Why do US manufacturers need to put $3,500 of incentives on every car and truck for every $2,000 that the other brands use to sell their products? Why are 5-year old GM products worth a fraction of the competitive models from Honda and Toyota? GM touts the strength of its Chevrolet Malibu, but why does the Camry (as well as the Accord and Altima) outsell the Malibu with fewer dealers and a higher price tag? Loaning money to failing companies without a concrete turnaround plan was a losing proposition and bankruptcy was the only possible outcome. Without filing for bankruptcy, GM had the impossible task of turning itself around. With a bankruptcy filing, they have the nearly impossible task of convincing the buying public to make a long-term investment, with the purchase of a vehicle, in a company that just walked away from many of its American creditors…including contracts with American workers. History has shown that businesses do not learn much from the past experiences of their industry, so little can be expected from GM and Chrysler following this recent set of events. Loaning money to these companies should be treated as if a parent were loaning money to their child: it’s as good as gone. Even with large holdings in GM and Chrysler, getting any return on the government’s investment is a long shot. With some luck, the American workers will take this opportunity to find more stable employment in preparation for the next market shake up.
Feb 25, 2008 - The Shaky World of Automotive InvestingUntil around 1950, there was a Wild West-like attitude in the American automotive industry. It was a frontier to be conquered. Throughout automotive history, there have been something like 5,000 individual makers of cars and trucks in the world with about 3,500 of them being situated in the United States. Companies like General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler have survived, in one form or another, for over a century. General Motors turns 100 this year but its oldest parts (Cadillac, Buick, and the late Oldsmobile) are well over the century mark. Ford was founded in 1903. And while Chrysler was created in 1924 from the remains of Maxwell, parts of the company can be traced back to Rambler which dates back to 1903 as an automobile manufacturer. There are a few minor vehicle manufacturers in the US. The most prominent of them is Panoz which is slowly approaching its 20th anniversary. Outside of these tiny footnotes, there hasn't been a major successful American manufacturer founded since World War II. And even new import brands on US soil have been a rare find in the past 30 years. Rare successes like Hyundai and Kia are at odds with struggling Mitsubishi and soon-to-be-gone Isuzu. So you might have to forgive my apprehension everytime someone announces a new venture. When Bob Lutz announced the revival of Cunningham about eight years ago, I was excited. This was the first time in half a century that a new manufacturer would be coming to the US where I trusted the founder. Bob Lutz is the consumate car guy with REAL automotive experience working with the likes of BMW, General Motors, and Chrysler. Lutz even had novel, and as I saw it workable, approaches to manufacturing (which he laid out in two issues of Automotive Industries). But when Lutz was hired by General Motors, it was obvious that all bets on the Cunningham were off. So if Lutz prefered to take the corporate route instead of laying the foundation for real history, I knew new car production was truly a tough nut to crack. When people with questionable backgrounds talk about their automotive ventures, I automatically write them off in my head. People like Malcolm Bricklin, Gerald Weigert, and many others show great enthusiasm, some even know aspects of the automotive business, but most of them are just in business to make a quick buck. So ventures trying to tap the Chinese automakers for the next big thing find their way to my "skeptical" list. I understand that these people are trying to do what the Germans did in the late 1940s, the Japanese did in the 1960s, and the Koreans in the 1980s...catch the next big wave at its beginning. People like Max Hoffman and Kjell Qvale did just that, but the market was vastly different than it is today. The members of my list have included many different types of ventures. Importers of the ARO from Romania, the Proton from Malaysia, the TVR from the UK, the Citroen from France, the Alfa Romeo from Italy, and the Chery from China, among many others, have all announced their intentions in the past 20 years. Many times, these announcements have been followed by many different setbacks, some even could be just called frauds or scams. So it was of no surprise that Automotive News revealed that the head of one of these latest ventures was hiding a shady past. CHAMCO is a New Jersey-based importer who has announced that they plan on selling Chinese trucks in the next few years. The head spokesperson for CHAMCO has stated that he's simply a consultant for the company, but it seems that his wife is actually the chief stockholder of the company. And his past, according to the newspaper, shows that "he did time for fraud" in an earlier trucking venture that he controlled. I'm a huge car fan. I would love to see new and exciting choices in cars and trucks in the US. But each time a Build-To-Order or CHAMCO or ARO America is announced, I need to take a step back and see what's actually going on. The odds of any of these ventures getting off the ground, let alone becoming successful, are becoming smaller an
Feb 1, 2008 - Me and My MGsOne of my first Matchbox models was an MG 1100. There was something about that little green four-door MG model that made a connection between me and MG. I bought my first MG over twenty years ago, and I still own it. MGs were never known for their reliability or value. But they have always supplied the image of driving fun. It's that image that keeps me going with my car since it has not been licensed in the past 17 years. But I keep the plan alive to get it back on the road "by next summer." When Rover revived the MG brand in the early 1990s, I was so excited. "Perhaps MG could return to the US," I thought. Maybe I could work for MG USA when the factory initiated an import office! My brand had returned from the grave! The MG RV8 was a (nicely) warmed-over MGB, which itself had been out of production for 12 years. The body panels for the MGB had returned to production for use in restoration projects so it was relatively easy for Rover to build a "new" MGB. Power came from the fuel-injected aluminum-block V8 engine borrowed from the Land Rover brand; the V8 had seen use in the MGB but only in the GT coupes and only in limited production in the early 1970s. And the interior was brought into the 20th century as well. The RV8 was a nice transition from the old MG to a new, reborn MG brand. Rover's new mechanicals provided the basis for the new roadster. Since all production Rover cars were front-wheel drive and traditional sports cars were rear-wheel drive, Rover placed the drivetrain from its little cars in the rear of the new MG's platform. A Honda transmission put the power of Rover's updated (with variable camshaft timing) K-Series four-cylinder engine to the road. And the styling remained tracable to the MGB/C and Midget...the last of the "true" MG models. BMW took over Rover in the early 1990s and gave the company the money to continue living. With an Anglophile (Bernd Pischetsrieder) at the head of BMW, British car brands seemed to be due for a resurrection. As the century drew to a close, BMW was growing weary of the boat anchor that was Rover, so it was sold. A group of Brits took over the company for $14 (10 pounds), which included a $1 billion interest-free loan from BMW. What didn't come with the company was ownership of the name Rover, mainly because Land Rover was sold off separately. The new company prepared for a time when the Rover name would be unusable (the new owners had free use as long as they didn't produce an SUV under that brand) and named the new company MG Rover. MG versions of the Rover products were introduced, nearly doubling the lineup. Once again, my heart soared! MG's coming back! Perhaps they need help marketing the MG TF (an updated version of the MGF introduced almost a decade earlier) in the US! But my enthusiasm was, again, short-lived. MG Rover closed up shop in 2005. Assets of the company were transferred to Shanghai Automotive (SAIC) and Nanjing in China. The two companies argued over which one owned which parts while they both prepared to launch versions of the Rover 75 sedan. BMW sold the Rover name to Ford, owner of Land Rover, and since BMW already owned most of the traditional Rover brand names (including Mini, Austin, Triumph, and others), MG Rover only had the MG name within its rights. Nanjing claimed ownership of "MG" and badged its sedan as the MG7. SAIC needed to launch its own brand for its 750e sedan and christened it "Roewe" (sounding quite a bit like "wrong way"). Nanjing announced to the world that they would bring the MG brand back to the automotive market. Grand plans were shown including reopening the Longbridge plant in England and opening a new plant in Ardmore, Oklahoma. Nobody outside of Nanjing believed these plans and, late last year, Nanjing was absorbed by the much larger SAIC. While the Longbridge plant is still part of the deal, the "to-be-established" US plant was off the table. Now with all of the legal scuffling cleaned up, SAIC can relaunch the MG brand. Am I waiting to work for MG now? No. Am I waiting to put my name on the list to get a new MG? Not yet. Do I hope MG is successful? Yes, I do. I would like to see a return of a British-built MG...and especially one that can be purchased in the US. But I'm not placing bets as to when (or if) this will occur. Unlike my nature, I'm ever optimistic that it will happen...sometime.
Jan 21, 2008 - Car AuctionsIt's that week again. That week in January where I plop myself down in front of the tube with an A-Treat soda in one hand, pretzel sticks in the other, and both eyes glued to the Speed Channel for another 40 hours of auction coverage...the Barrett-Jackson auction from Scottsdale. Back in 1990, FNN (the Financial News Network...now CNBC) covered this auction for one Sunday afternoon and it was wonderful. Watching some of my dream cars like the Ford GT40 roll across the block and sell for, as I recall, right around a million dollars each; there were two that sold to the same person for a combined total of $1.9 million. And this was in the days before the Muscle Car boom. Now the true classics and exotics have been replaced by 1950s American classics and 1960s muscle cars. It's still an exciting event, especially now with SIX DAYS of coverage. But I wish the hosts were better at describing the vehicles (they sometimes don't know details that they should know before the car reaches the auction block like what engine's under the hood) and I wish the directors showed more cars instead of long boom shots of people parading in and out of the auction. And I wish the vehicles were more interesting. Sure, a Hemi Cuda is a great car just like a Yenko Nova or a Shelby Mustang. But on TV, it's just a Plymouth or Chevrolet or Ford. The occasional Packard or Kaiser Darrin or pre-War anything stands out above these modern vehicles that were basically everyday drivers with rare powertrains. But this weekend, I actually got up from my easy chair to see a live auction. Not too far from home, an auction featuring a variety of oddball and interesting vehicles was held. About 60 vehicles in all were there. And not one featured a 426cid Hemi V8. Actually some of them featured engines with substantially less than 60 cubic inches of displacement. I don't get up early for many things, but a good car event will make be part from my bed. And this one required that I get up around six...something I don't even do for work. The early start was required to see the auction items before the 9 o'clock sale. We arrived at the auction site only to find that the cars were at another site about a mile away. We checked out the parts and automobilia that was on sale which numbered in the thousands! There were pallets and crates of stuff...parts and tools and supplies collected over many decades. Steering wheels in various states and doors dating back to the 1920s and various parts that only a model specific expert would be able to identify. After quickly checking out the parts, we headed across town to where the vehicles were stored. The Hatfield Auto Museum had about 50 cars on display and ready for auction. Only two or three looked to be in a state to be driven away and the rest would have had to have been hauled. The relatively common vehicles were a late-1990s Ford Taurus SHO, 1970s-vintage Mercedes-Benz S-Class, and a 1960s Mercury Comet Caliente. Oh, and there were the two Volkswagen Beetles, two Volkswagen Buses, and one Volkswagen Vanagon, none of which could be driven in their current state. But the reason I was there was to see the oddball cars. And this place had them: four Isettas, two Bianchinas, a Saab Sonnet III, no fewer than seven "bugeye" Austin-Healey Sprites, a Mini Moke, a Goggomobil, and a Austin Bantam van, just to name a few. Oh, I was in heaven. Maybe it wasn't heaven since I would have bought one or ten in my heaven, but it was a fun Saturday afternoon. If you're a fan of odd little cars, check out my pictures from the auction. I'm trying to find out what some of these vehicles sold for but I'm not entirely sure if I want to know. What if I should have purchased one? The license plates at the auction site which ranged from Connecticut to Virginia and the fact that the auction was being offered on eBay as well makes me think that nothing went cheap.
Jan 14, 2008 - The Downside of Putting the World on WheelsAs countries develop, they all seem to go through similar stages. These stages may take progress quicker or slower, depending on the country and/or culture, but they all tend to follow a similar pattern. And part of this development encompasses their automotive industry. Car companies are a sign of an economy's arrival. The US, France, Germany, and the UK all developed their automotive industries beginning in the late 1800s and other regional countries followed. As each economy develops around these car-related businesses, specific automotive needs are found and met. Trucks and buses and luxury cars are among the first. Later comes the car for the masses. The US developed their first "people's car" as the 1901 Olds but it was the 1908 Ford Model T that really set the global standard for such a vehicle. It was simple and rugged and could carry a family (or livestock) as needed. And it was inexpensive..a key component for a "people's car." France had their Citroen. England had the Austin Seven. Italy had the Fiat Topolino. Germany had the Volkswagen. Each developing nation brought their idea of the basic car to the market. In the early 1980s, India started to bloom and basic transportation was needed there. Suzuki of Japan came to India and worked with the local firm Maruti Udyog to produce a knock-off of the Japanese market small car. Maruti's little car was wildly successful in India and 20 years later, about 7 out of 1,000 people in India had a car. While 0.7% of over a billion people is still a large number, a large untapped market still remained. The global conglomerate made up of Renault and Nissan developed a little car through their Romanian subsidiary just a few years ago. The Dacia Logan introduced basic, reliable, and modern transportation to Eastern Europe in the early part of the 21st century. So well suited to the modern developing world was the Logan that it became an overnight success wherever it was introduced, including India. But the Logan was still priced high for the poorest of markets since the car was designed to be the €5,000 car; quite a bit of money in the Indian economy. Indian truck market Tata entered the car field in the 1990s with a compact car called the Indica. It was a luxury car compared to the basic Logan, but Tata had other plans. And after years of planning, Tata finally showed the fruits of their labors last week when the Tata Nano was shown to the public. And throngs of reporters rushed the stage at the car's introduction. Why would such an extremely basic car with average looks engender such a reaction? Mainly because the Nano was designed to break the Rs 1,000,000 barrier...the equivalent of $2,500! Nobody expects this little car to take over the world with its 33hp two-cylinder engine and lack of nearly every feature expected in the West. But it is the right car to take over the streets of India. For good and bad. Global oil supplies are being tapped by all of these emerging automotive markets. China is experiencing amazing growth in car production and sales. India's growth may be slower, but it's still growing at an alarming rate. And adding a basic car, albeit one that gets 50mpg, will put added pressure on the global supply of oil. It doesn't help that Americans are taxing the world's oil supply with (relatively) gas guzzling six- and eight-cylinder engines while much of the rest of the world is using four-cylinder gas and diesel engines as its primary source of power. It doesn't help when the American people see affordable gas prices as their RIGHT no matter how much they use. And it doesn't help that nobody is really doing anything to stop this demand for oil. Sure, the next generation of the automotive industry will bring about alternative fuels, but we've been waiting for that to be "right around the corner" since the early 1970s. Car companies have been working on fuel cell vehicles since the 1960s and electric vehicles since before 1900, but we're not going to see these (or any other alternative fueled vehicles) anytime soon. Between necessary infrastructure change for fueling these vehicles that nobody's funding to a significant lack of desire by car and oil companies and government agencies to push these new technologies, we'll be lucky to see any of these new vehicles hitting mass market prices before oil prices reach $200 a barrel...or more. I want to remove myself from the problem, but I can't afford to. My best move reduce my intake of oil as radically as possible. I hope to have my 100mpg moped available for my daily commute by spring time. On bad weather days and when the seasons change, I'll be back to my 25mpg sedan. Part of me wants the people of India to enjoy the thrill of driving their own car. Part of me wants Tata to drop the whole Nano project right now to limit the number of potential drivers further eating away at the finite petroleum resources available. I'm torn. But there are thousands of Indians, right now, anxious to get their hands on their first new car. Many of them ready to bring cash to a Tata dealer for a car that won't be availble until the fall. I'm happy for them...but sad for every car owner (and potential car owner) around the world.
Jan 7, 2008 - CAFE and Your Car ChoiceIn a previous life, people relied on me to keep them abreast of the goings-on in the automotive world. My current life makes knowing the restoration market a little more important than the global production of cars and trucks, but that doesn't mean I've stopped paying attention. All the buzz in the American automotive industry today, aside from "when is the market coming back," is about CAFE. CAFE stands for Corporate Average Fuel Economy. It's the basis for improving the fuel economy of vehicles sold in the US and has been for well over 30 years. The fuel economy of each manufacturers fleet of vehicles sold in the United States is averaged together, weighted by the number of vehicles sold, to generate a CAFE number. Currently, up to three CAFE numbers are generated per manufacturer: domestic car, imported car, and light-truck. The idea is that each manufacturer would be required to sell more fuel efficient vehicles to keep their CAFE number above a set level or else face a stiff penalty. The CAFE levels peaked in the late 1980s and early 1990s with the car number set at 27.5 and the light-truck number set around 23.5. (Please understand that the CAFE number is not the number, city or highway, found on the EPA sticker on every new car. Rather it's the "combined" number formulated way back when before the gas mileage rating system was revised...twice.) In reality, CAFE has done very little to help improve the economy of the American fleet. Since the mid 1970s, the advent of fuel injection and other technologies have made engines smaller, more powerful, and more fuel efficient so the manufacturers have been able to keep up with the rising CAFE (which was slowed because manufacturers petitioned the government in the mid-1980s). By 1990, the average fleet fuel economy in the US was TWICE what it was only 15 years earlier. But fuel prices didn't rise as expected in the 1980s and early 1990s. Demand for larger, more fuel hungry vehicles rose but since CAFE didn't allow for the supply of large cars to meet the demand, manufacturers turned to trucks. And the SUV market bloomed! From just a couple hundred thousand vehicles in the early 1980s, the SUV market in the US peaked at about 2 million vehicles a year in the early part of this decade. Car production made up less than half of all vehicles built in North America just a few years ago, mostly due to CAFE regulations. Another "benefit" of CAFE was to be the added domestic production of small cars. General Motors tied up with Toyota to produce some small models in California. But Ford, on the other hand, moved production of the large Ford Crown Victoria and Mercury Grand Marquis to Canada (later NAFTA would make Canadian vehicles "domestic" in CAFE formulas). The whole concept was to get more fuel efficient vehicles on American roads. Bob Lutz, former Vice Chairman of Chrysler and current Vice Chairman of GM (and a real "car guy"), described CAFE as being akin to getting everyone to lose weight by requiring clothing manufacturers to produce smaller clothes. And now CAFE is potentially on the rise again. How will vehicles change with the rise of CAFE from 27.5 to 35? How will truck sales change with an increase there? Whatever will capitalistic Americans do without gas guzzlers? We'll be just fine. Cars today are much smaller on the outside than they were before CAFE, but have much the same interior space. Cars today have more power, far better fuel economy, are much more reliable and dependable, pollute far less and are safer. All of this, and cars are just as affordable as ever. I expect the same in the next 15 years. And I don't expect gasoline to fall from its perch as the number one fuel for personal transportation. I, personally, am looking for a commuter car that doesn't tie me to oil companies. When oil companies get government assistance and generate record profits, I can't imagine why gas prices jump every few days. Are they at risk of losing money because a barrel of oil went up a few cents? Why should I continue to fuel (pun intended) their record profits? And why should ANYONE worry about CAFE do any harm to the car as we know it? The first 30 years of CAFE didn't hurt the car...or the oil companies. I'll keep my gas-consuming cars for fun, but I'm in the market for a good, used Standard-Vanguard Citicar electric for my daily commute. If you've got one sitting around, I'd sure like to talk to you, but it seems like many people have the same idea as me. Have you seen the price of a Citicar on eBay? As Economics professors taught me....supply and demand!
Dec 31, 2007 - New Year's ResolutionsEach New Year's Day, we resolve to change things in the coming 12 months. With an additional day in the coming year, I'm breaking with tradition and sharing some of my automotive-related resolutions for 2008. I resolve to: Attend more car shows. In 2007, too many other things came up and prevented me from attending the car shows that I had planned to see. In addition to my usual rounds, I hope to find a new car show or cruise night here and there. If anyone has any good ones in Southeastern Pennsylvania (let's say from Chambersburg to the Poconos), drop me a line. Compete in more autocrosses. After I get the struts changed on the Suzuki, I hope to best last year's count of ONE autocross. And, with a better suspension, I hope to best my initial outing by beating more than one other driver (I finished 8th out of 10, but one did not complete a single lap). Work on my vehicles. With the fleet now numbering THREE vehicles not on the road (four if you count the Suzuki awaiting strut replacement surgery), I hope to get one of them running this year. The MG sits there pining to take to the open road. The Moto Guzzi moped sits in the corner like a neglected toy. And the newest edition, the Ford Ranger, is ready for the modifications I plan to give it. Lots of work and only 366 days to do it. Write more. I have one article due to my publisher in February but I want to finish two or three more by the time next New Year's Eve approaches. I hope to have a regular non-automotive writing gig this year as well. And I would love to get started on any of the longer-form writing projects (a couple of books, a few screenplays, etc) I've discussed over the years...perhaps this will be the year for it! Volunteer at the local car musuem. I've talked about it for years. But I need to just open up time in my schedule and accomplish this task. They need the assistance and I'd like to offer my time, but there never seems to be enough time in the day...week....month. Start and finish my documentary. Another one of those projects that has been on the back-burner for far too long. Sources for projects like this are not getting any younger. And neither am I. If you've got resolutions like this, let me know. Please let me know that I'm not alone in this sort of procrastination. We'll work on it together and encourage each other to get each task behind us...so we can find new tasks for 2009 and beyond! Happy New Year to all!
Dec 17, 2007 - My Car Sales CareerMy car sales career was quite brief. In that 100 day period, I learned quite a bit; not the least of which was that I'm not cut out for car sales. I also learned that car sales people are a breed unto themselves. A breed which I both envy and hate. Oh, I know car sales people. And they're personable enough to be friends with. That's hardly the problem. The problem lies with the fringe elements of this group. And, to be honest, they're among the BETTER people in their field. While that's how it works in most types of sales, car people are somehow different. I worked with Dennis. He was probably twice my age (or so) and seemed to be waning in his car sales career. If you were to meet him, you'd notice that he seemed to be more of an old school used car sales guy than a modern new car guy. A little portly and walking with the slight limp that can come with older age, Dennis was a friendly guy who no longer had that drive needed to turn 10 sales a month. But he could still sell rings around me since I didn't have 10 sales in my career. My first sale was to a friend. Jimmy walked onto the lot and, since we were friends, I was given the courtesy to sell him a car. He purchased the car I nicknamed the "Alabastard." It was a Mercury Cougar, Alabaster in color, that had been on the lot so long that it needed to be jumpstarted each time. Other than the battery problem, it was a great car and Jimmy gladly traded in his beat up (and I'm not exaggerating there) early Ford Escort wagon. Jimmy was glad to gain three speakers (only one of the Escort's four worked), power everything (versus power NOTHING), and air conditioning. Late in my career, a woman drove onto the lot with an older Ford Festiva. This car had somewhere above 100,000 miles on it (the speedometer stopped working), no radio (the wires were dangling from the hole in the dashboard), no air conditioning, and a non-overdrive 4-speed manual transmission. She loved this car and drove it about 200 miles every day. But she saw newer versions on our lot and thought it was time to move up. The newer cars were leftover rental units and we had about 10 of them. They had air, 3-speed automatic transmissions, and cassette stereos. Oh, and they had about 20,000 to 30,000 miles on them along with working speedometers. She was impressed with the little cars and seemed like she wanted to buy, but not that day. My boss informed me that she didn't buy because "her husband wasn't with her." I was a novice at this and raised in an environment where women didn't buy cars without a man's (husband, boyfriend, father, brother, uncle, some man) approval. But I still didn't see the connection that THIS woman, who had purchased the old car by herself and had a job where she could afford the car by herself, couldn't and wouldn't buy a car on her own. A few days later, she returned to the dealership and purchased one of the former rental Festivas....by herself. One day, a gentleman and his 30-something son came into the dealership. He was driving something sporty and I steered him to a supercharged Mercury Cougar XR7 that, I felt, was a great deal, This $23,023 car was blazing red with a black leather interior and came with a $5,000 discount! I couldn't understand why it hadn't sold but I found a man who was a perfect match for the car. And he agreed after the test drive. We negotiated on price for quite some time, but came to an agreed sum. He was about to sign the papers when he asked that the rebate be taken off of the negotiated price. All along, our price discussions had included all rebates and that fact was not hidden, but he still wanted another $500 taken off of an already low price. Nothing would change his mind and this $500 difference broke the deal. I was later told that he had been in this dealership a number of times over the years and the reason why I couldn't sell him a car was that I was male. It seems that sex discrimination works both ways....and from both sides of the desk. My best sale, however, came late in my career. One Saturday afternoon, an older couple drove onto the lot. They were very nice and I showed them exactly what they asked to see: a Mercury Grand Marquis that had been marked down dramatically. We drove it up and down the road and they liked it, but they also told me that they were retiring and moving to Florida. I told them that I thought everyone should have a really nice car once in their life and that the step up to the even more dramatically marked-down Lincoln Town Car would be a great choice for them. We took four test drives that afternoon; one each in the Mercury and one each in the Lincoln. We got along famously and they both prefered the Lincoln. They left the lot without buying anything. My boss was steaming! One of the reasons why I couldn't sell cars was that I'm not all that pushy. They were going to buy a car, but they weren't prepared that day. I knew this, but my boss was still mad that I let them walk. I told them that they'd be back but, with years of experience, he seemed to know better. Monday the couple returned with TWO trades. They came to purchase the Lincoln and I sold it to them. They left as very happy customers with a brand new Town Car and I came away with the pride that I sold a car, even upgrading the sale, and didn't have to resort to the pushy salesman tactics for which I was being trained. That little success wasn't enough to save my flagging career and so it ended late that fall. I sold a Mercury Cougar, a Lincoln Town Car, a Ford Econoline, a Ford Tempo, a used Mercury Topaz, and a handful of other cars and trucks before turning or, more to the point, being turned toward other pursuits. I learned quite a bit about sales, car sales, and the automotive business from that job. It didn't discourage me from working in the industry, but I did keep far away from selling cars and trucks. I'm glad to have that short stint on my resume just for the experience it gave me. To this day, I still enjoy the car sales experience but from the buyer's side of the desk. To all of you salespeople out there, good luck to you! Those of us who couldn't hack the job tip our hats to you. Selling a car is still a face-to-face profession and I don't see the day coming where some personal interaction isn't necessary...atleast for most car buyers. It's a very tough job and one where you're automatically selected to be the "enemy" from your own customers. And yet you still earn a living doing it. Good luck to you!
Nov 26, 2007 - It's a Fact...But It's WrongEver have a conversation with someone and they try to impress you with their automotive knowledge? It must happen with every hobby or interest: someone "knows" a fact about a subject and uses it to impress another person who actually lives the subject. Car people have to be among the most vulnerable to this type of confrontation because everybody knows about cars and many people have some hidden "fact" about them. I use the quotes because many people think they know something about this subject but it usually turns out that someone told them this "fact" and either told it to them wrong or the listener fell prey to the misplaced adjective, thereby invalidating the initial "fact." It happens all the time to me. I've learned (or tried to) that you need to be careful with the feelings of others in these circumstances. Many people have lived the better parts of their lives knowing something to be fact when it is actually partially true or a complete fabrication. Kids usually start these types of urban myths because they didn't fully appreciate the subtle modifier used when they were first taught the "fact." We've all been a victim of a half-truth. With automotive knowledge, and especially automotive history knowledge, I become a stickler. I always want to be the teacher (when I know the subject), but I have to limit myself so that I won't become the "know-it-all" that everybody hates. I fear becoming Cliff Clavin from "Cheers." I also worry that kids growing up in the automotive hobby might actually believe some of these half-truths and, as Steve Martin once called them, "made up facts." Here are some of the "facts" I've been told by various people over the years: Henry Ford invented the automobile - The first Ford Motor Company car was built in 1903 and the first car built by Henry Ford puttered around the streets of Dearborn in 1896, but most people who claim this "fact" think the Model T was the first car. My first thought is always "why would they start with 'T' and why not start with 'A'?" Of course, the first practical Otto-engined automobile was the 1886 Benz but many historians date the origins of the automobile to the 1769 Cugnot Steam Tractor. Arguments can even be made that Leonardo diVinci designed the first automobile well before that, even though he didn't build one. Ford invented the assembly line - Henry Ford did much for the automobile industry and for the industrialization of the United States, but many of his triumphs are exaggerated by people who hear half of the actual claims. Henry Ford adapted the moving assembly line to automotive production. His assembly line was developed from the production of guns which used many of the same techniques. Even the claim that the Model T was the first mass produced vehicle is wrong (or depends on your definition of "mass production") since the first mass produced automobile is generally thought to be the 1901 "Curved Dash" Olds. Volkswagen was the first US transplant - This is actually the claim that got me thinking of this subject. In a recent editorial, a well-respected automotive writer made this statement referring to the 1978 opening of the New Stanton plant in Pennsylvania. Volvo had been producing cars in Canada for years prior to the beginning of Rabbit production, but this claim is for production in the United States. Among the car companies who produced cars in the US prior to the New Stanton plant was Rolls-Royce who produced vehicles in Springfield, Massachusetts, starting in 1919; about 3,000 were produced before the plant shut down during the Great Depression. Various other manufacturers had operations in the US including Benz, Napier, and Fiat prior to World War II. Chevrolet's first V8 was in 1955 - Everyone knows that the small block Chevrolet V8 started production in 1955. And most GM and Chevrolet aficiandoes will tell you that Chevrolet had no V8 prior to that which is why the first two model years of the Corvette had six-cylinder engines only. But only the best Chevrolet fans will tell you about the 1917 OHV V8 engine that Chevrolet produced. The 288cid OHV Series D V8 engine produced 36hp and about 3,000 were produced between 1917 and 1919. Between 1919 and 1955, Chevrolet sold only four- and six-cylinder cars until the introduction of the famous small block V8. Ford's first Model A was introduced after the Model T - This is one of those trick questions that automotive historians like. When production of the Model T ended in 1927, Henry Ford introduced his next model and instead of calling it the Model U, he decided to call it the Model A. But this wasn't the first time that name had been used. The first Ford production introduced in 1903 was also called the Model A. Of course the Model A was followed by the Model B and Model C and various other letters before reaching the world-famous Model T in 1908. More than 15 million cars were built by Ford between the first Model A and the 1927 Model A.
Aug 6, 2007 - Should They Stay or Should They Go?On one automotive forum that I frequent, there is a discussion of which car brands should be the next to leave the US market. Poster after poster lists their choices and the reasons why they believe each should no longer sell their wares in the US. Most of the opinions are based on biases formed from personal experiences with these brands…some of which are quite out-dated. But it’s an interesting discussion. My opinion, as a car fanatic, is that more is better than less. I’m an American and proud of it. I wish American manufacturers were not losing market share to the imports, but it’s not, in my opinion, completely undeserved. But I would not want any brands to go away to simply save a domestic brand name (domestic jobs, however, are another topic for another time). With the Chinese brands knocking at the door, this discussion takes on added fervor. Many of the people involved in this discussion believe that the Chinese are the next wave of automotive competition to beat up the American companies, and I have to agree. Where the Japanese were laughed at just 40 years ago, today they’re among the most admired automotive manufacturers in the world. The Korean brands were in the same boat just 25 years ago and today Hyundai and Kia are respectable names in many parts of the world. Along with a few Indian companies, Chinese companies are looking to the US for market expansion. Many people have heard of Chery since they have been in the news for the past few years while they prepare to enter the US market. Today, Chrysler is working with Chery to produce an entry-level Dodge product for the US market. And Chery will take what they learn from Chrysler to become a global brand on their own. There’s also Nanjing and Shanghai and Great Wall and Geely and a dozen others that are looking across the Pacific. Nanjing owns the MG brand and will, most likely, use that name in its global expansion. Shanghai has been working with Volkswagen and General Motors for a number of years to increase their hold on the Chinese market, but exports aren’t too far away especially since they bought out the Rover side of the former MG Rover company, but need to establish their own brand name (they’re currently using Roewe, almost pronounced “wrong way”) since the Rover name did not come with the package. Great Wall has light trucks and Geely has economy cars and both have eyes on the US market. Brilliance and Wuling and Landwind could be in the next wave as well. But, from what I’ve seen, none of these companies are ready for the US market quite yet. The Japanese entered the US market with cars too small for American tastes but quickly tailored their products with US buyers in mind…and raised their quality to class-leading levels. The Koreans learned from the mistakes made by the Japanese and brought true entry-level product to the US. Although they made their own mistakes along the way, they were competitive players in just over 25 years from producing their first car (the Japanese took about 40 years. The Chinese seem like they’re on the 20 year plan, which would bring them to a competitive nature in just a few more years. Once in a while, one of my cars impresses someone. It doesn’t happen very often, but it’s a nice feeling that someone likes your choice of car. The only person who really matters about my choice of car is me. And that’s how it should be with everyone’s choice. The fact that I don’t care for a single guy buying a Ford SuperDuty just to commute to his office doesn’t matter as long as the owner of that big pickup likes his choice. This laissez faire attitude should extend to brand names as well. If Isuzu finds enough buyers for their products, more power to them…it’s a capitalist marketplace. Not too many would be sad to see Isuzu (or Mitsubishi or Suzuki or Buick or Mercury or…) go, but the reduction in choice would be a sad thing. So here’s hoping that we see a return of Alfa Romeo (discussed for a year or two from now), Citroen and Peugeot (oft-rumored), Fiat, and MG. Perhaps then the Americans can bring back Duesenberg and Packard and Stutz and AMC and Edsel and… Okay, maybe I've gone a bit too far.
|
