|
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. 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
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.
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.
Sep 17, 2007 - The Demise of...MercuryBack in the mid 1990s, anyone who followed the automotive market could see the winds of change. There were brands that were heading for the door, but nobody would say anything official. It had to be that way so that the companies wouldn't lose additional sales and the dealers wouldn't sue. But everyone knew it. First was AMC. When Chrysler purchased American Motors in 1987, it was obvious that Jeep was the target but that the AMC brand and hundreds of dealers would be redundant. AMC became Eagle immediately to redefine the weak brand as a competitor with the European and Japanese brands. Rebadged Renaults (Eagle Premier and Medallion) and co-developed Mitsubishis (Eagle Summit and Talon) couldn't establish the brand properly since neither of the supplying companies were doing particularly well in the US. And so Jeep-Eagle dealers slowly merged with Chrysler-Plymouth dealers. The final straw was when the replacement for the Eagle Vision sedan was rebadged as teh Chrysler 300M leaving only the sporty Eagle Talon coupe. Eagle died with barely a notice. When Chrysler introduced the Plymouth Prowler and Plymouth Pronto concept cars in the mid 1990s, it seemed that the Plymouth brand was ready for a resurgence. It was about that time that Plymouth was oddly missed when the Chrysler and Dodge brands replaced their mid-sized models with all-new vehicles. Plymouth got the Breeze a year later, but it was lacking many options that its siblings had including the popular V6 engine. Sales lagged. Even so, the Prowler was put into production in 1997 to bring attention to the overlooked brand. Aside from the low production roadster, Plymouth's lineup included the compact Neon, the mid-sized Breeze, and the Voyager minivan. Once Chrysler Corporation's highest volume brand, Plymouth had fallen behind even the pseudo-luxury brand of Chrysler in sales. The fact that updated 2001 Voyager lacked "Plymouth" badging was the first tangible sign that the end was near. And so it went that the 2002 Voyager and Prowler became Chrysler models while the Breeze and Neon simply died in 2001. Throughout the 1990s, General Motors tried to re-establish the Oldsmobile brand. First it was "Not Your Father's" car and later became an entry-level luxury import fighter. Neither direction took with buyers and sales continued to slide. Even the introduction of a minivan and sport-ute could help Oldsmobile's slide. In January 2001, the end was announced but legal disputes with dealers kept Oldsmobile alive into the 2004 model year. Even today, not all of the legal issues have been solved but Oldsmobile's story has been basically written into the history books. A sad end for what was America's oldest car brand. Ford is not immune to these kinds of troubles. Everyone knows about the Edsel that was launched just in time for a national recession. Ford's medium-priced brand only lasted three model years before dying in late 1959. But Ford has since lagged behind its Big3 brethern in the number of brands offered. In the 1990s, General Motors had seven American car and light truck brands while smaller Chrysler had five. Ford held onto its namesake brand at the low end, Mercury in the middle, and Lincoln at the top. But Mercury was always being squeezed. Since it was created in 1939, Mercury has been "the other" brand at Ford. Almost all Mercury models were based on Ford-brand products. With rare exceptions, Mercurys were "gussied up" Ford. It helped Ford Motor Company compete with GM's Oldsmobile, Buick and Pontiac brands. It has had some significant products over the years. The 1961 Comet, 1967 Cougar, and 1978 Zephyr were big hits for the brand. But even its hits such as the 1986 Sable were over shadowed by the bigger hits over at Ford. In recent years, Mercury's only products not shared with Ford products (1990 Capri convertible, 1993 Villager minivan, 1999 Cougar coupe) have not been overwhelming successes, leaving Ford and Lincoln to carry the weight of the company. With all of these dark clouds, it's obvious that Mercury has been on the chopping block of every prognosticator for twenty years. Recent articles in Automotive News and other publications have brought this back up by pointing to Mercury's empty product pipeline as proof. But Mercury's pipeline has been quite dry for quite some time. Why is now special? Limited lineup? Mercury has three sedans (mid-sized Milan, full-sized Sable, and extra large Grand Marquis) and two trucks (compact Mariner and mid-sized Mountaineer). That alone doesn't mean much...compared to Buick or Pontiac, that's a full lineup. Dry pipeline? Milan is just a couple of years old. Sable and Mariner are new for 2008. Mountaineer's a few years old and the Grand Marquis is ancient. Sounds like the same problems that Ford has. So what is it? I say it's the new head of Ford, Alan Mullally. He's not a car guy, he's an airplane guy. He has no sense of automotive history, which is a bad thing if you're a car fan but a good thing if you're an investor (I'm the former, not the latter). Mullally needs to cut costs and Mercury is nothing but costs.
|
