About Me

Isn't this meadow soothing? Let's pave a road through it! I'm James Riswick and these are my random thoughts published daily.

Thoughts from the Curb

Car Reviews, News and Random Thoughts from Edmunds.com Automotive Editor James Riswick

Nov 20, 2008 - The Rant: Are There Any Car Guys in Congress or the Media?

Chrysler CEO Robert Nardelli, left, and Ford CEO Alan Mulally testify on Capitol Hill on Wednesday.

I am sick to death of hearing this argument from mass media journalists/pundits and members of Congress.

"The Big Three have found themselves in this financial crisis because they failed to make fuel efficient cars, like hybrids, that people actually wanted to buy."

Wrong. That may be an issue in the here and now, but the Big Three's problems started a long long time ago. It started when Americans started to realize that the Japanese and Germans were making better cars than the crap the American companies were expecting the American public to buy out of brand and national loyalty. Honda made an Accord while Chrysler made a Dodge Spirit. Toyota made the Corolla while Ford made the Tempo and GM made the Cavalier. Hell, go even further back and look at all the American crap from the '80s. I was in pre-school and I knew that stuff sucked.

American automobile loyalty died because the people started to realize other companies were making better cars. I can see the change in my family alone. Sure, we're Canadians, but "domestic" brand loyalty ran just as fierce in the Toronto area, which is home to massive Ford and GM plants. Back in the '80s and early '90s, every extended family member (16 or 18) on both my mother and father's side owned an American car. Today, I can think of four who own American.

That's where this mess began. That's the cause. Sure, producing a Chevy Prius 6 years ago would have been a good move, but they'd still be where they are now. While trucks buoyed them all in the late '90s and early '00s, the car offerings were left to further slip behind imports. New offerings from Ford and GM (not not not Chrysler) are indeed catching up or have caught up, but it may be too late in public perception.

Now, back to the media and congress. Seriously, are there any car people out there who know anything about this topic? I keep hearing "they aren't making fuel efficient or safe cars people actually want to buy." Well, actually they are safe. And in fairness, Americans decided they wanted fuel efficiency two years ago. That's not enough time for an automaker to screech on the brakes and go down a different road.

No, they're in trouble for past crimes that are finally catching up with them. I don't know how you fix that. Perhaps you give them the money and hope they've learned their lesson. Or perhaps you just let them die because they deserve it. I don't know, but I'm not in Congress. Given the level of car knowledge on display, though, perhaps I should be.

-James Riswick

7:48 am | Categories: the rant
Permalink | Alert Administrator
 
Add to:     

 
Comments
jriz - Nov 20, 2008 11:02 am
I don't disagree. You seem to be expanding on parts of my thoughts. All well put. You mentioned the Intrigue. Pitty about Oldsmobile, it was their most attractive brand back in the late 90s.
chavis10 - Nov 20, 2008 8:48 am
James- while I agree somewhat with your premise you cannot ignore the fact the WE as Americans, wanted SUVs. In case people have forgetten, the Explorer sold MORE than the Camry and Accord for many years. People also tend to forget that selling vehicles is actually a for profit business venture. If I own a business, the goal is to increase profits by selling the items people want to consume. If am and GM or Ford and people want SUVs, that's what I'm gonna produce. Basically, the Big 3 were selling Explorers, Blazers and Grand Cherokees (at higher profit margins) while Toyota and Honda were selling 130hp Accords and Camrys. The Big 3 only recently became big bad wolves when gas rose to $4+ a gallon over the summer because the press villanized them as Suburban pushers when in fact the buyer has a free will to acquire whichever car he gets a loan for. Think about it for a second... if I only need dependable basic transportation for my family of 3 with a roomy trunk and decent power- I could get the Impala sitting on the lot fully equipped for under $30k. However, I want the image and attitude of an SUV so the Trailblazer that gets 15/22 and costs $10k more with the same exact features of the Impala gets the nod. People were willing to pay through the nose to get SUVs which means the blame has to be placed on the buyer, not the company. 11 years ago, GM introduced their best (IMO) midsized car ever, the Olds Intrigue. In fact, it beat the Camry in every single comparison and Edmunds was even gonna rate it in first place over the Accord but it had falty starter during the test so it came in 2nd place. It made the same amount of power and had BETTER EPA mileage while being larger and weigh 200 lbs more. You'll never hear this in a single piece criticizing the Big 3 for force feeding SUVs into every driveway of suburban America. I could see if Big 3 ceased to build decent cars but their mid-sized to large vehicles get fuel economy on par or a lot of times superior than the competition. The Ford Taurus is the roomiest car in the class with the biggest trunk yet achieves EPA mileage on par with the Camry V6 with comparable power. Nobody mentions this- when they see Ford, the automatically think Explorer, Expedition and F-150. The upcoming Fusion gets 33mpg on the highway in a roomy fun package- that's better economy than the thirsty Mazda 3 that weighs 300-400 less. The Malibu/Aura/G6 4 cyl/6 spd cars also get 33 mpg on the highway.
Add Your Comment:

To post a comment about this blog you must be signed-in