RealityDriven

Article on Why The U.S. Government Must Provide Loans to Detroit's Automakers, GM, Ford and Chrysler

Atul H. Patel, Editor-in-Chief

Here is a cross-link to a post I did for my other personal blog about the government providing loans for the Detroit 3...

"We’ve heard a lot of news from the press lately about the dire situation the American automobile industry is in. In part due to the “financial hurricane” that the credit crisis has created, the Detroit 3, (D3), including GM, Ford, and Chrysler are on the brink of going bankrupt or closing up completely. As a former GM employee who loves cars, and cares for Detroit, my friends who work in the auto industry and our whole country, I believe that the government must provide loans to the Detroit 3...  Click on this link to get to the article.

Automotive Ironies

- by Atul H. Patel, Editor-in-Chief

The world is full of ironies and the automotive industry is no exception.  Over the years as I've observed the industry, I've noticed lots of things that didn't make sense, and nobody else was writing about them.  So I have taken it upon myself to mention these so that you can comment on them. 

• Manual transmissions are more popular in areas of the world where traffic is more congested.  - Within the U.S. manual trannies are more popular on the east and west coasts where traffic can be horrendous.  You'd think drivers would change to automatics since they might get tired of clutching and shifting while inching along at 3 to 10 mph.  In middle America, the open roads have drivers who prefer automatics.

• Roof racks are almost always put on stationwagons and SUV's which have more cargo room than sedans. - Since the box in the back has so much room, you'd think the cargo rack would rarely get used.  If you think about it, sedans need roof racks more since they have less space for stuff inside.  But, that's not the case.  And roof racks create unnecessary aerodynamic drag, thereby further decreasing fuel economy.

• The decklids on some sedans are becoming shorter, approaching hatchback decklid length. - Most car buyers in the U.S. feel that hatchbacks are "unbuyable" but some of the sexiest looking cars have really short decklids.  This makes the trunk less acceptable and it also makes the car look more like a hatchback.  The Scion tC takes the opposite approach.  It's a hatchback that pretends to look like a notchback coupe.

• Some sports cars get worse fuel economy than SUV's, but little of the scrutiny. - Lamborghinis, Ferraris, even souped up Audis and BMW's get really poor fuel economy, lower than some SUV's yet, people tend to criticize only the SUV's.  Sure SUV's obstruct your viewpoint and roll over more, but environmentally speaking, a 600 horsepower super car is just as irresponsible as a large SUV.  And a large SUV might actually be used for its people or cargo-carrying capability.

I don't know how many others have noticed these peculiarities, but we would be interested to know your thoughts.  I may write more about each of these topics individually in the future, especially if we see comments about them.

We Could Learn from Our European Neighbors

By: Chris Olliff, Senior Editor

Ahhhh…Driving in America. The land of wide open spaces, Big Macs, Big states, and BIG CARS! Where else can you be a single male and drive a Chevrolet Suburban and be seen as a hero like you are saving the American Dream? Is this a dream…or a NIGHTMARE?

They are everywhere…these big, 6,000 pounds goliaths (and even mid-size SUVs), and the only thing worse is the fact that most don’t even need the space. Yes….you families with ranches and boats are off the hook here. Confront those drivers who are guilty of waste, and they will often say that “they like to sit high up” or “they like to haul things from time to time”. I must say, this is absolute RUBBISH, especially when you consider the trade-offs.

SUVs are styled like appliances, heavy and clumsy, bouncy, hard to get in and out of, hard to drive ‘round corners, hard to park, hard to maneuver, expensive, have poor resale value, and get poor fuel mileage. I can just hear it now…..the cries from all of the SUV owners this summer as fuel hits $3.00 a gallon……again!

In Europe, yes….there are a few SUVs, but people make do with vehicles that better suit their lifestyles while taking size, practicality, and economy in mind. Instead of driving a Ford Explorer which handles like a drunken Hippo, single people drive VW Golfs and Seat Ibizas. Yes, they still carry as much as we might on a weekend holiday, but they make better usage of the vehicles space. OK, to be fair, a European family may have to drive a Renault Modus or Grande Megane Scenic to get the space that an American family may use in an Explorer, but they will be getting at least 30% better fuel economy to boot!  

 

I know….”fuel is more expensive there”, you say….”so they NEED to drive smaller cars”. This is true, but we could learn from our European neighbors to use vehicle space better and be more efficient. How can we do this? Here are some ideas…

- Don’t buy more car than you need. There are several hundred choices out there, so pick a vehicle that is “just right” for your needs. If you are single and carry stuff occasionally, try a small wagon or even a Prius and use a roof carrier. If you are a family of four and want space, try a Mazda 5 with three rows of seats and get 27mpg instead of 17.

- Go after vehicles that have better fuel economy and may have a better impact on the environment

- If you can, drive a vehicle with a manual transmission and you will get better fuel economy and performance

- Look for vehicles that use technology to save fuel like hybrids, diesels, direct injection, and cylinder deactivation

- Look for vehicles that use maximum efficiencies of interior packaging.

- Support car makers who are serious about their global footprint, their commitment to advanced technologies, and environmental outlook. 

 

These are just a few ideas….please feel free to write in with others.

Lest you think I don’t ascribe to any of these myself, I do. My wife drives a Scion xB, which is a very efficient vehicle in terms of economy and space. The vehicle gets an average of 35mpg, and has 2 cubic feet less of total interior volume than a Ford Explorer. Me? I drive a 1998 BMW 323 ic which gets 33mpg as well, and is about the largest vehicle I will ever drive…

In the face of looming fuel hikes and environmental regulations here in America, we should do our part and buy vehicles that are more efficient for our needs. As I have just brushed across this subject one thing is clear: we could learn from our European neighbors…. 

   

The Pickup Truck Has Met It's Match: The Utility Trailer

-by Stephen A. Lovett, Senior Editor

Let me start by staying that the pickup truck is a great vehicle.  It has served this country very well, in fact, it has built most of it.  Pickups from Ford, GM and Chrysler have served their owners with loyalty over the years and should be commended for their duty.

I appreciate that the pickup is an invaluable tool for professionals such as builders, plumbers, carpenters, firefighters and rangers.  These tradesmen use their trucks to haul 100% of the time.  They are true work trucks.

I am perplexed by the pickup’s recent popularity a household vehicle.    As an everyday vehicle, they waste fuel and space for what?  The occasional run to the hardware store, or even the thought of doing so.  In most cases, we really are purchasing the ability or fantasy to do such things, while most users find they rarely do them.  Household pickups which operate 98% of the time with nothing in the bed are owned by people who like the allure of hauling things, and don’t want to cut off that possibility.

Well, I have the perfect solution for such weekend wannabe’s!  Instead of buying a huge, wasteful truck for 2% usage at best, buy the car that you want, and a utility trailer.  Store the trailer vertically in the garage, and hook it up to your car with a proper hitch when you need to carry something tall or extremely long.  A utility trailer can be had from Costco for $500, the hitch will cost you about $250 installed for a “hidden hitch” which you can’t tell is there until  you attach the tongue and ball to haul, giving you a clean look for most of your driving, plus you’ll save a ton on fuel.  Not to mention, you’ll be in a vehicle that has much better performance than any pickup.

This is even a good solution for the more active handyman.  My neighbor built a 1000 square-foot finished garage on his own.  He hauled all the supplies needed with his Chrysler Sebring convertible.  Pretty amazing, huh?  Well he used the Sebring and of course, a utility trailer.  In fact, depending on the equipment, a utility trailer may be even more handy than a pickup.  Rare these days are the 8-foot beds on pickups that were truly useful.  As pickups have become fancier and their interiors longer, most pickups now have short-beds, with cargo length less than 6-feet.  That’s not even enough for the obligatory 4X8 sheet of plywood.  Get yourself an 8-ft trailer, and you’re good to go.  Plus you don’t have to worry about scratching paint in the bed or denting the thing.  It’s only 500 bucks, so who cares how you treat it.  Now that’s starting to sound like the old pickup that we fell in love with.

Lesson learned?  Don’t drive some expensive, cumbersome vehicle 100% of the time for utility that you may need 2% of the time.  Put your utility to work only when you need to with a simple hitch and utility trailer.

New EPA Fuel Economy Ratings Are Not The Answer

- by Atul H. Patel, Editor-in-Chief

It seems as though the EPA is trying to get more realistic with its fuel economy ratings by revising how the figures are calculated.  It's admirable that they attempt this, but I'm afraid it won't make much difference in the way we collectively behave with our purchases.  In converting from 2007 fuel economy labels to the 2008 ones, the average vehicle loses around 2-3 mpg (combined).  Unless the person buying the vehicle is good at doing math in her head, it's not going to stop her from buying the vehicle she would have bought if she had only seen the 2007 label.  "It's only 3 mpg" is what will be thought. The phrase "3 mpg is 15% more gas I have to buy," will never be spoken.  So then the conversion to dollars won't happen either.  To those that already own vehicles, realizing that the sticker numbers have gone down may make the buyers feel a little better that they're getting fuel economy closer to "what they're supposed to get".  So there is some positive there, but then it may prevent people from trying to conserve fuel to try to match the sticker ratings.  Also, this new scheme doesn't account for the many people that surpass the fuel economy ratings.  I've done it with nearly every car I've owned, but some people never have.  For examples of people that do this regularly, go to  http://www.cleanmpg.com and see how some people have turned hypermiling into a science.  Part of it is the way the vehicles are tested for fuel economy figures; the other part that accounts for real world fuel economy is the way they are driven.

I don't have scientific proof, but only logic to explain why certain vehicles exceed the fuel economy ratings, while others do much worse.  Heavier vehicles take more energy to move and this disparity compared to lighter vehicles only increases as the rates of acceleration are increased.  So a 3-ton SUV driven with a lead foot will miss the sticker by a higher percentage than a light compact driven with a lead foot.  And at high speeds, tall vehicles don't fare well.  They tend to have large frontal areas which hurt their ability to cut through the air.  As vehicle speed doubles, aerodynamic drag quadruples, (based on scientific formulas).  So if you're bad to begin with, the high speeds have a much worse effect.  Add to that tires that have aggressive off-road oriented treads and you're heading for a career as a part-time gas station attendant whose job responsibility is to fuel your own vehicle. 

One other area that is frequently not looked at is a vehicle's tendency to coast.  This is inconsequential in the real world if you are cruising at a steady speed.  You're going to hold the gas pedal steadily for any vehicle at a steady speed on flat ground.  However, in decelerating, you're going to use a combination of engine braking and braking from your brakes.  When it comes to fuel economy testing, vehicles that engine brake significantly, will require the throttle to be applied longer to maintain the rate of deceleration that the fuel economy cycle calls for.  The test driver must follow the speed versus time profile closely.  So the rating for vehicles that engine brake a lot will seem artificially low on the highway rating.  Contrastingly, those that coast a lot will have artificially high numbers.

Having worked in the field of fuel economy simulation, I know that real vehicles aren't tested on roads for EPA figures.  Rather, a coast-down value from a real car, (time to coast from one speed to another), is "dialed in" as resistance for a vehicle powertrain hooked up to a dynamometer, (basically rollers for the wheels to spin on without the vehicle actually moving).  The test driver follows arbitrary speed versus time routes which have been around for ages and have little relation to the way we drive.  We do more stop and go and higher speeds on the highway than the creators of the cycle ever envisioned.  At least with the 2008 ratings, they're correcting some of the flaws by introducing colder cold starts, more air conditioning usage and higher speeds.

In the end, no matter how "realistic" the sticker ratings are, nothing can make up for the fact that somewhere in the ballpark of 10% to 30% of fuel economy difference is caused by driver behavior.  Perhaps the government should educate the public about ways to conserve fuel with the vehicles they already have.  At least some people would listen and it would be a relatively painless way for us to reduce our oil consumption in a short amount of time.  Here's an idea for something more compelling than an environmental or conservation message.  If the average driver drives 12,000 miles a year at $2.50 per gallon, the difference between getting 20 mpg and 25 mpg could add up to $30,000 in 40 years of driving if the money in the bank earns just 4% interest.  If one were to switch to a vehicle that gets an average of 30 mpg, the amount jumps to nearly $50,000!  Perhaps this will be more compelling than the revised EPA fuel economy labels.  Whatever the message, we should all think a little more before we buy.  Wasteful fuel consumption hurts not only the environment but also your pocketbook.

+ Atul

What's In a Name?

- by Christopher A. Olliff, Senior Editor

Names….we all have one, some of us have more than others. Good names, bad names, happy names, sad names….all objects and feelings, places and such also are blessed with a name. Famous people have things named after them, and couples are wont to wage battles over the naming of a child. I think we can all agree that 1) Names are important, and 2) Names tell a lot about who created them….I’ll bet that you have even given your car a name……

Car names can be numbers or actual names. If you are BMW or Mercedes, it’s quite simple:

-         First letter or number is the class or series

-         Second set of numbers denote engine size…so a Mercedes S430 is a large S class sedan with a 4.3 litre v8 engine.

Naming other cars is not so simple, and car companies spend thousands of dollars to name a car. This can be done through on-line surveys or elaborate brand attribute studies. There is, but one problem…..

Like cats chasing their tales, automotive marketing executives at GM and Ford were running in circles in the 1990s over brand management. I’ll spare you the lecture, but I will tell you that they basically wanted each car to be its own brand and therein lies the folly….

A car is not a brand, but a car company is. Marketing executives want us to believe that a car is a brand, as they want to get as much “mileage” as they can from the name. This can cause a lot of confusion at the basic level….is Ford the brand, or F150? This is not to say that a car name does not have equity in the brand that it is under…look at the Toyota Camry. For years there has been a Camry, and nothing else has been or ever will be named anything else…..which brings me now to the sad story at Ford…

Like a ship that has lost its way, Ford has had car naming issues of late. Their latest insurrection is the naming of the Ford Fivehundred the Taurus. Oh the Horror! Ask a marketing man at Ford, and he will tell you that the Taurus brand will be good for this vehicle, and that its “all new for 2008” (new front end and some interior trim bits) Ask me and I will say: RUBBISH! Just like Sadam Hussein, the Taurus is DEAD and Ford is the killer. That’s it, unless you want to have an entirely new car developed with the Taurus name in mind again….Don’t just slap an old, known name on a vehicle that you need more sales from next year….the public will know that it is a Fivehundred with the Taurus name…

Ford is not the only company suffering from this sickness. Just as they were sitting at the port waiting for their new owners, someone at Volkswagen decided to change the name of the Golf to the Rabbit! Yes….as many of you can remember the Rabbit….there is nothing like the feeling of car parts falling off during vehicle ownership! A door handle here, a loose armrest there…..The Rabbit was an OK vehicle, but not one to be known for its quality. If you know the current affairs at Volkswagen, the last thing they need as they attempt to re-build their quality reputation is fond memories of the Ghost of Rabbit Past…I know if, or when, I buy a new Golf….I will not allow it to have a Rabbit on the rear flanks…

What does this say about Ford and Volkswagen? With Ford, I think that they are in crisis mode and are looking at all of their options. At Volkswagen, I think it was a way for a new marketing manager to put her stamp on her new brand, and she has already left the company….

Names are important, and they can not be bantered about like silly jokes…….

But... who am I? and... What's in a name?

Auto Show Misfits

- by Chris Olliff, Senior Editor

As most of you know, we have just come off of the 2007 Detroit Auto Show  and most of us have “show hangover” which consists of hurting feet, empty wallets, and the desire never to step foot into Cobo Hall again. We have walked the hall 10 times over, and taken more photos than a Japanese tourist at Niagara Falls. Among my many travels at the show, I stumbled across what I like to call “The Hall of Misfits”….

Cobo Hall has a lower level that has some aftermarket companies, and there even used to be ½ of the VW stand down there…but not anymore……

Like those toys on the misfit island in the old Rudolf Christmas show we used to watch, having a stand down in the lower level is like being a part of a different culture. In the universal order of things, this is where you “pay your dues” until you can graduate up to the “big floor”. Yes, Hyundai and Kia got their start here, and it also is space for suppliers to be seen at the show. Not much foot traffic here, so it is a great place to take your time and have a quiet look around.  

This year’s group consisted of Saleen, XM Radio, Michelin, DUB Magazine, Chainfang Auto of China, ect. For the first time since I can recall, VW did not have any space down there this year. Without them, it seemed that this floor was an afterthought or that you had taken a wrong turn….

Don’t get me wrong, if you want to trick out your ride or get away from the hustle of the main floor, then you should have a go on the lower level. It will be interesting to see how this area may change in the future, but for now it seems like a great place for the “Auto Show Misfits”.

 

Luxury Vehicles and Exclusivity

- by Atul H. Patel, Editor-in-Chief

As I walked the Detroit Auto Show, (NAIAS), and noticed the proliferation of luxury makes represented, I couldn't help but wonder who actually has the money to buy these vehicles.  The average new vehicle purchased costs over $28,000, but there are a host of brands that charge $80,000 plus.  Those divisional brands usually have entry models.  After all, car companies exist to make a profit, just like any other corporation.  Volume typically drives profits, so even Jaguar decided to offer the X-Type, BMW the 318ti a while ago, and Mercedes even offers an A-Class and a B-Class in Europe.  These put the divisions significantly down-market.  But when does a luxury brand stop being a luxury brand?  If you buy an XJ for cache and exclusivity, isn't it being compromised with every X-Type that is sold?  I say yes, and it's the reason that division such as Maybach and MINI are formed.  Maybach steps up the exclusivity, luxury and price to separate it from a "mere" Mercedes, while MINI allows for a cheaper (FWD) BMW ultimate driving machine type vehicle without diluting BMW's brand image.  Speaking of BMW, if they sell 53,000 5-Series in the U.S. per year and a KIA Rio sells 30,300 units per year, which is more exclusive?  This is especially noteworthy in markets like California where you see more BMW's than you see Chevy's. 

So, it's time to reevaluate our definition of luxury when it comes to mass market items.  When the ante gets upped with what luxury is and what brands define luxury, then it gets confusing for the manufacturers as well as for the consumers.  In "the old days", it was much simpler.  A Mercedes was expensive and unattainable for most.  But now,  A C-Class can be had for the same price as a partially loaded up Accord.  A fully loaded Accord could cost even more.  Which is more luxurious?  This is debatable.  And when a Lexus ES is so similar to a Toyota Camry, what are you really paying for?  Better service is one thing, but then you have to deal with the luxury brand dealer snootiness.  You'll notice a lot of parts sharing between Nissans and Infinitis.  This just dilutes the distinction.  Eventually people may begin to notice to the detriment of luxury brand profits.  As luxuries become mainstream, efforts are needed to retain the distinction.  Exclusivity counters the basic tenet of business that selling more is better.  But car companies have to show restraint with the prospect of short-term greed.

2007 North American International Auto Show in Detroit - What It's Like to Be in "The Press"

- by Atul H. Patel, Editor-in-Chief

As a first time press day attendee to the Detroit North American International Auto Show, I must say that it was an interesting experience, particularly in how we were treated.  First of all, the respect you get from the people representing the manufacturers is apparent.  We have the power of the pen, (or is it the power of the keyboard?), so they have to be nice to us.  Then there are the wonderful cafes with made-to-order cappuccinos and gourmet accompaniments including waiters who walk around feeding you appetizers.  I felt like I was at a wedding... only with lots of cars.  One other thing that struck me is that I was walking amongst some very powerful, highly paid executives.  I could have said anything I wanted to them although mentioning that I was from RealtityDriven.com would have given me no extra credibility.  That will take time.

I did have a somewhat press looking digital camera with which I took almost 300 pictures.  But I'm of Indian descent, look young and I don't look like a journalist so some people looked at me like I didn't belong there.  Little do they know that I used to work for one of the car companies and I have 12 years in the business.  I think I know my stuff, (or at least I can write like I do).  When it came to picking up press kits, some companies/divisions were very friendly about it, like Dodge, GM, and Toyota while others asked for business cards to mail the kits later.  Since we're a new website, I didn't have my RealityDriven.com business cards on-hand, but I still convinced the Maserati guy to give me a kit.  My regular job business card helped here.  In a way, the more press kits you get, the more of a pain it is.  You have carry all that stuff around in a bag with handle straps that aren't very comfortable.  Then when lunch rolled around, I had to put the stuff and my camera below a seat while I grabbed food, (which was very good by the way).

One other obstacle we had to continually deal with were the shifting sectioned off areas for various interviews and photo shoots.  Usually after the press introduction of a new vehicle, we would leave and come back later after the rush died down, but then you couldn't necessarily get back to it the way you got there the first time.  Often the vehicles were moved too.  It was great seeing some TV show reporters getting interviewed including John Davis from the PBS show "Motorweek".  I've been watching that show since I was 12 and have always respected their seemingly rare objectivity when it comes to the auto industry.

When it was all over, I felt like we had a great day.  We accumulated knowledge, photos, and ideas for upcoming posts on RealityDriven.com to make the whole show more real for those of you who cannot attend in person.

Here are a few photos that one can only get on Press Day since they don't let the public close to the really expensive, pre-production, or experimental vehicles.  That's just reality.

 

The Most Wonderful Time of the Year

- by Chris Olliff, Senior Editor

January in Detroit….such a sentence brings thoughts of frigid temps, big pot holes, dirty snow, the sound of my vehicles rusting out due to salt corrosion, and the daily absence of sunshine which leads to depression…

But, in the midst of all of this….there is hope, and its called the North American Auto Show which is held in the baffles of the great city of Detroit every second week in January. For the 10^th year in a row, like a solider going off to war, I have traveled into the war zone and dodged mine fields of pot holes to this great event. And what an event it is….

New cars, beautiful women, good food, and great entertainment…..I would say this is every man’s dream! You see, we travel to the show as media, and they feed us and introduce the new cars with a staged fanfare that would make Steven Speilberg proud. Who could forget last year’s comment from David Spade saying that “at least it's (the Dodge Caliber) NOT a Neon”? It takes great skill to stay in the same shape at the end of the week, as there are many areas of gourmet food ‘round each corner that you MUST try…after all….we don’t want to upset the German chefs at the VW stand….

Yes, we do work at the show as well. We do so much walking over the week that your most comfortable shoes begin to feel like you are wearing concrete bricks! Show coverage is always exciting, and I love to see the new concept vehicles and experience the new models on the floor.

So….the North American Auto Show…..located in a freezer, has enough food to feed the entire state of Texas for one week, rivals Las Vegas for its shows and entertainment, and can make you walk so much that you could easily wear your feet down to the stubs of your ankles………

Oh…and there are cars there as well

Like my friend Steve and I say, this truly is “The Most Wonderful Time of the Year”!

** Stay tuned as the Realitydriven staff brings you updates and coverage from the 2007 North American Auto Show**