|
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 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.
Jul 31, 2007 - Oh, the People You Will Meet!The September issue of Car and Driver arrived the other day and one particular road test gave me a flashback. I’ve been working in and around the automotive industry for a number of years and it always amazes me that there is such a wide variety of abilities in the people who are supposed to be the face to the public and the media. There are people who you will go out of your way to see at every event and there are people you will avoid as if your life (and more importantly, your sanity) depended on it. I remember a woman who worked at Honda that everyone spoke of in only the most glowing terms and there were similar people Subaru and Ford. But unfortunately, it’s the people on the other end of the spectrum who you tend to remember the most. This particular issue of Car and Driver features a test of a Slovakian kit car that looks quite exotic. So exotic, in fact, that I went out of my way to catch a look at one a snap a picture or two. I was walking around a car show where the K1 Attack was shown. As I walked over, I noticed that someone was being interviewed just in front of the car. The videographer was setting up so I quickly snapped a picture before they were ready for the camera to roll. As I walked away, the interviewer tried to impress his interviewee by making some disparaging remark about any shmo with a camera, obviously trying to put himself on a plane higher than me. He was obviously younger than me so I was to assume that, unless he had being interviewing people since he was in diapers, I had more experience than him. But because I didn’t have an entourage or a broadcast-quality video camera, I must be one of the unwashed masses. I felt secure enough that I didn’t have to flash the media credentials in my pocket just to make myself feel important. And because I’m a nice person, I didn’t embarrass this cub reporter in front of his “big interview.” Now, as I’m reading what I’ve written, I feel like you, the reader, are going to get the wrong idea of me. I love working in this industry. Aside from that rare person, I’ve enjoyed the company of most automotive people (media, PR, and others) that I’ve met along the way. I do not, in any way, want you to think that I think highly of myself, because I don’t. But when others put me down, I will get a bit defensive. There’s a pecking order in this industry, and you’re made aware of it quite often. There are precious few people you must bow down to, but you also know that your experience and stature places you on a certain rung of the ladder. Just because you have a cameraman with you doesn’t put you near the top and just because you carry a lowly digital camera doesn’t mean you’re on the ground floor. If I were to run into you at a car show, I would treat you just as you would treat me. If you’re taking a picture, I will step back and help prevent others from stepping into your frame. But I would hope to have you treat me just the same. When someone acts as if they’re more important than anyone else around them, they’re not going to get any special treatment from me. I’ve been surprised by the people who are nice to me and sometimes equally surprised by the people who weren’t. There was a gentleman from a Washington DC TV station. You wouldn’t know him to see him, but if you lived in the area, you would know his voice. We ran into each other a few times and each time he would re-introduce himself as having “an old car and a young wife,” and then proceed to show me a picture of his ’59 Rolls-Royce. Another car show, another DC personality. I was fighting through a crowd at the New York Auto Show, looking down and trying my best not to step on anyone’s feet, when I caught a glimpse of a name tag. I read “John Harter” and I immediately remembered that I watched his on-air road tests on WJLA. I told him that I watched him every week and he replied by joking that he thought only his mother watched. I was reporting on an awards ceremony where a rather famous and prolific automotive writer was honored. After I took his picture, I told him that he had authored the first automotive book I was ever given. He is quite the writer so he started to name off some of his most important works, but I just answered no. When I named the book, he laughed and said, “the funny thing is, I don’t remember writing that one.” Apparently, the book had been culled together from various pieces he wrote so he never specifically sat down to write that book, but we had a laugh about it. These are the people you want to meet. These are the people who make the automotive industry so dynamic and interesting. From the most experienced CEO to most-knowledgeable historian to the private car collector to the budding enthusiast, there’s nothing quite like the automotive world. I wish I could introduce you to some of the people I’ve met along the way. Some are funny (intentionally or not), some are scholarly, many are respectful, and all add some color to the world. And you can meet some of them on your own; just visit a local car show or cruise night. You’re bound to find some colorful people there. And then you’ll have a few stories of your own to share. I’d love to hear them!
|
