Enough about politics and Bozomania, let's go for a ride.
The Future Of America?
Submitted by Robert Lindquist on Wed, 12/30/2009 - 8:01am
As a once great city lies in in ruins, brought to it's knees by corrupt liberal policies and government bureaucracy, we must ask ourselves "Has Detroit become the poster child for hope and change?"
In this video, Steven Crowder of PJTV, takes a look at present day Detroit, and documents in decline from it's days a model city under the Johnson administration.
Japan's Clunker Plan Shuts Out U.S.
Submitted by Robert Lindquist on Mon, 12/21/2009 - 6:18amJapan is now running its own stimulus plan designed, in the midst of a marketwide slump, to boost sales of fuel-efficient cars—and the rules shut out all U.S.-brand vehicles.
According to Automotive News, Japanese automakers sold 319,342 vehicles under the U.S. cash-for-clunkers program this year, almost half of the roughly 677,000 vehicles purchased. About 115,000 of those Japanese vehicles were imported. Japan's cash for clunkers plan pays ¥250,000 ($2,778) to buyers who trade in cars that are at least 13 years old for vehicles that meet Japan's 2010 emissions standards. Buyers with no trade-in get $1,111 if their purchase beats Japan's 2010 emissions standards by 15 percent or more. But you can't spend it on a U.S. made vehicle. Here's why
"Clunkers" Deal Missing On All Cylinders
Submitted by Robert Lindquist on Fri, 08/07/2009 - 6:10am
WARNING:GRAPHIC VIDEO CONTENT! On the surface, it appears that I (and I was not alone) was wrong about the "Cash For Clunkers" deal. I really didn't think that so many people actually had vehicles that would qualify. However, in the final analysis, will CFC be a boon to the economy, or is it just another political farce cooked up by the Democrats to win friends and influence people?
I have questions and nowhere on the Internet can find the answers. I want to know things like, "Under the C.A.R.S. program, how many people actually switched from a domestic make to a foreign make?" I don't have the official numbers, but I know a lot of people who did—and I mean alot. I work with a lot of local dealers, and I know Honda and Toyota did real well. Obviously, that won't help our economy.
Cash For Clunkers—Great For Japan's Economy
I'd also like to know, "Under the C.A.R.S. program, how many people who made a purchase where planning to anyway?" Again, I can find no official numbers, but everyone I know that traded in a clunker was planning on buying sometime in the next 3-6 months anyway. So what did the program stimulate the economy? Not really. Most dealers admit that they got a nice sales blip in the midst of a typically slow sales season, but when the CFC ends, where will the buyers be? I'll tell you where... out enjoying their new Gummint subsidized "people's cars." Further more, the CFC program was so popular during July, it's depleted inventories to the point that manufacturers have now cut back on their own incentive programs for August. So it becomes yet another "bail-out" for the automakers.
Finally, "Under the C.A.R.S. program, how many people who bought a car, really needed the $3500-$4500 Gummint subsidy?" No one I know. The fact is, people who could have really used this assistance can't afford a new car at any price. Wasn't that supposed to be part of the benefit—Helping folks who are down on their luck get a decent set of wheels? A survey of car dealerships and 2,200 consumers conducted by CNW Research found that the average income of those purchasing new cars under the program was $57,700—only slightly below the $61,000 for all new car buyers. So, if your neighbor happened to be driving what qualified as a clunker, you are were not... they get a handsom $4500 bonus from Team Obama, and you get screwed. Oh, and BTW, some of the $4500 your neighbor just got came from your taxes! How do you feel about that?
Ok, so the "let's help people who can't afford cars" angle didn't work (duh!), so the dems are now going back to the old stand by of saying how much this program will clean up the atmosphere. Wrong again.
CNW Research says that the cars being traded in under the program so far have averaged 16.3 mpg, with new cars averaging 24.8. But this does not necessarily mean fewer carbon emissions. New cars tend to be driven more for a variety of reasons, ranging from reduced fuel and maintenance costs to the excitement of a new car. According to CNW, the cars traded in were driven some 6,000 miles per year, compared to the average for a new car of 12,000 miles. So, even if that shiny new machine in the driveway is driven less than that average, the benefits to the environment are insignificant—Especially when you figure in the environmental costs of building a new car and disposing of the old one.
Which brings me to this. Why must all these cars coming in be crushed? Some of these vehicles are in pretty darn nice shape. Just take a look on the used market and see what $4500 will buy—you may be surprised. Some of these vehicles have been very well-maintained, with no rust and clean interiors—they just aren't worth $4500 IN TRADE. On the lot, many would easily go for $6500 or better. Why not, at least, donate these vehicles to automotive trade schools, or to charitible organizations that need vehicles. Why not give them to churches to give to needed people in the community. Why? You know the answer. It's all politics.
With support for Obama's single-payer socialistic health plan in nose-dive, someone in the Democratic party woke up, smelled coffee and said "Hey guys, people seem to like this clunkers deal we cooked up, let's keep that going and maybe they won't pay so much attention this "Health Care" (they all gigle) plan.
Arrgh.
If you don't have a clunker, but would still want a great deal... check out EconoCarsDirect.com -
Graphic Video: Is this really what you wanted for 'ole bessie, after all those years of faithful service?
The Clunker Law
Submitted by Robert Lindquist on Fri, 07/03/2009 - 6:53am
Well, it's official. "Cash For Clunkers" is now law—only it's not called that anymore. Now it goes by the tidy name of the "Car Allowance Rebate System," so that it could have the cutsey acronymn of CARS. I wonder how much our taxpayer money went to the Ad Agency hired to come upwith that.
So, what is the program all about and what is it's purpose? The way I understand it, it has two goals: The first is to stumulate sales of automobiles. The second is to get smokey old gas-guzzlers off the road so we can all breathe cleaner air. These are honorable objectives, indeed, but once again, Congress failed to do their homework (which would have amounted to actually speaking with someone who works at a car dealership). Fortunately, where the Obama administration dropped the ball, that cursed private sector is picking it up.
Under the plan (as explained at cars.gov), If you have a car that's less than 25 years old, gets 18 or less MPG (see fueleconomy.gov), and has been registered, insured and driven during the past year, then you probably qualify to receive a $3500 allowance when trading that vehicle in on a new car (purchase or lease).
On the surface, that sounds great, however, when you get down to it, the program, as presented by the Gummint, will benefit very few. First, while the government would like you to believe that poor fuel economy is synonymous with "Made In Detroit," this is not the case. In fact, the vast majority of horseless carriages truned out by the Ford, GM and Chrysler, over the past 25 years have gotten 18 MPG or better. Strike one.
Next, the rebate has to be used for a new vehicle. I may be wrong here, but it seems to me that anyone driving a car that is worth less than $3500 as a trade-in, probably is not in a position at the moment to buy a brand new car. Strike two.
What about trucks and SUVs that do get 18MPG or less? Oh, they are eligible as well as but the NHTSA hasn't quite figured out how that will work. However, according to the cars.giv Website, they hope to have a handle on it by July 24th. Apparently, the program was to simple so the NHTSA ws brought in to complicate it by creating numerous categories of trucks. ("A category 2 truck is a large van or a large pickup truck, based upon the length of the wheelbase (more than 115 inches for pickup trucks and more than 124 inches for vans)." It hardly matters, however, as the program fails to take into account that people who owns trucks typically need them for their business. As a result, regardles of the vehicle's condition, they probably aren't about to trade it for Chevy Aveo. Strike 3.
There are numerous other flaws in the CARS in program as cooked up by Congress. However, thanks to the creativity of people who actually sell cars and trucks, there is some hope that it may generate sales. Many manufacturers and dealers are already offering to add bonus cash to the gov't rebate so that more people may be able to take advantage of the program. whether or not it will work is yet to seen, but the bottom line is that it should get people at least thinking about trading up, which, in this economy, will have a better effect than any new liberal spendulus programs to come out of Congress.
Other resources:
Handy qualification chart from Ford
Clunkers Law Looks Like A Lemon
How To Get The Best Deal On A new Car Or Truck
Shhhhh... They Haven't Noticed
Submitted by Robert Lindquist on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 4:04pmThe one thing I've come to learn about President Obama is that if he personally doesn't like something, he'll do whatever he must to make it go away. Cases in point: GM and Chrysler. Under the guise of keeping them both out of bankruptcy (Remember him saying, "GM is to big to go bankrupt"?) he walked them right up the steps to the courtroom.
Even Ralph Nader has stated that this didn't need to be. In a statement yesterday, Nader said, "The proximate cause of the bankruptcy was supposed to be the inability of GM and the government's auto task force to reach an accommodation with GM's bondholders. But late last week, the bondholder problem was moving toward rapid resolution, and was clearly resolvable. Why then are GM and its multibillion government financier proceeding with bankruptcy?" He then answers his own question by saying, "The bankruptcy and the GM restructuring plan are the product of a secretive, unaccountable, Wall Street-minded government task force that assumed power because of a Congressional abdication of historic magnitude. By all rights, the restructuring plan should have been submitted to Congress for deliberative review and decision."
So, if this didn't need to be, then why is it so? Could it have been that former GM CEO Rick Wagoner got the boot because he wasn't willing to play by Obama's rules? Once again, this is all about the administrations perceived need to dictate what will drive and they want us driving small, efficient cars that get great gas mileage. And, do you know why? Don't kid yourself—of course you do. It's all just to get us ready for $7.00 a gallon gasoline, $2-$3 of which will be taxes to pay for Obama's new socialism.
So, imagine my surprise when I saw the list of GM assembly line closings. Bowling Green, KY is not (for the moment, at least) on the list. In case you just tuned in, Bowling Green is where they quietly make Corvettes. But keep it to yourself as apparently Obama either doesn't know this, or he doesn't know that the Corvette is made by GM.
Now, I'm not a huge Corvette fan—but I am a fan of what it stands for. At a time when the great American Auto Race, the Indy 500, features 33 identical cars made in Italy, powered by Japanese engines and sporting Japanese tires, the Corvette is one of the two remaining rolling statements that Americans can build world class cars (2nd place would have to go to the Ford Mustang). It represents the ultimate top down joy ride that is both nostalgic and an escape from the stress and pressure of the day. It's sleek, fast and powerful, with an ego all its own.
True, the Corvette has had it's good years as well as years when it was little more than a joke on fancy chrome wheels. At the moment, however, the Corvette is doing quite well. In virtually all major comparisons with the likes of Porsche, Audi, Ferrari, and Lamborghini, the Corvette has done more that hold its own, it has, frequently, whipped the perceived best from Europe and Japan. Nothing comes close to offering such a high level of performance at such a reasonable price.
Unfortunately, the market for Corvettes (and all sorts cars) is shrinking, and while Corvettes actually get exceptional gas mileage (28 highway) considering their size and power, the opposite is perceived to be the truth among the masses. There was chatter around GM awhile ago that the next generation 'Vette would either be a mid-engine design, or be built on the Pontiac Solstice / Saturn Sky chassis. With the discontinuation of Pontiac and the forth coming sale of Saturn, that option is off the table.
So what will happen to the Corvette? I doubt that any of the money that the administration is feeding GM is actually going toward developing products with more than 4 cylinders, so I would have to think that the next generation Corvette (if there is a next generation Corvette) will be powered by either 4 or 6 cylinder turbo, and will probably be much lighter. Yeah, I'll miss those big V-8s too, but if there's to be a Corvette, it will probably be quite different that the current one. Let's just hope that the administration never finds out that there still is a Great AMERICAN sportscar—if they do, it'll be gone faster than you can say Oldsmobile.
Another Day, Another $30B
Submitted by Robert Lindquist on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 6:30am
Chalk one up for all those who opposed throwing barrels of cash at Chrysler and GM to stave off bankruptcy, they were right on the money last fall when they said the best thing to do is just let the companies quietly go through restructuring. “Why put off the inevitable?” they asked.
Ah, but the Obama administration saw things differently. They saw an opportunity to take over two of the big three automakers and structure deals that essentially give these giant corporations back to the United Auto Workers. It also puts the government in a position to dictate the kinds of vehicles these two automakers will be putting on the road in the near future.
Over the weekend, the smoke began clearing at Chrysler when U.S. bankruptcy judge Arthur Gonzalez approved the sale of $2 billion in assets of the bankrupt Chrysler to a new company (Chrysler Group LLC) that will be 68% controlled by a health care trust aligned with the UAW. Italy’s Fiat will control 20% and the US and Canadian governments will split the rest.
Now, GM is walking into bankruptcy with its tail between its legs, led once again by President Obama and once again, you and I will be footing the bill. After already giving GM $19.4 billion to keep GM out of bankruptcy, the government is now prepared to pay $30.1 billion to pay their way through it. More wasted time, more wasted money.
In the proposed deal, the government will have the right to replace GM’s current board, made up primarily of people with experience in business and the automotive industry, with it’s own “trustees”—who will see that GM sticks to plan of turning the once great US Auto industry into one that produces products with slightly less quality than those produced by one of your better emerging third world countries. Oh, by the way, Obama also said “GM will not be a government agency,” even though the government will have a 60% stake in the reorganized GM—and will appoint the directors. Give me a break.
Of course, the people really getting the sweet deal here are the UAW workers. As a special thanks for helping him get elected, an additional 21,000 workers at GM alone will be getting pink slipped in the very near future. In addition, the UAW agreed to take equity instead of cash for most of the funding of its health care trust. I have no idea how that’s going to work. I’m assuming it will allow the members to pay for health care with auto parts. In addition, more factories and dealerships with be getting boarded up—more people employed by a President who campaigned on creating jobs, not eliminating them.
The govment’s goal is to get GM’s production DOWN to just 10 million vehicles annually. The administration says it can break even at that point and therein lies the key to this whole thing about what happens when government gets involved in business. The goal here is to just break even. In Obama’s eyes, profit is bad. No one should ever make a profit. In his socialistic way of thinking, if no one makes more money than someone else, then all are equal and the world will be at peace. Of course, when it finally dawns on him that without profits, there’s no money to tax, then maybe he’ll realize that capitalism isn’t all that bad and that business savvy comes from experience and getting answers from people who know—not from glancing through “How To Run An Automaker, For Dummies.”
Getchur Clown Car!
Submitted by Robert Lindquist on Tue, 05/19/2009 - 6:53pm
Well, the top news story today was Mr. Obama's BIG announcement that by his divine will, the US passenger vehicle fleet will average 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016, saving 1.8 billion barrels of oil.
According to Reuters, Obama was flanked by "auto executives" — that was just to make it appear that the car people actually bought this load of sludge. More than likely, Obama took them out to lunch so they could eat plenty of crow before the photo op. I'm sure Obama used the occasion to remind them that if they want anymore of big daddy's bucky boos, they better toe the government line.
As we discussed previously, Obama obviously believes that if he can gain control of the auto makers, he can then dictate what kinds of cars Americans will be forced to drive. It's no secret that little lightweight cars get better gas mileage than their larger siblings. This is not news. They are also not as safe in a wreck, they are less practical for many folks as there's no room to put stuff, and in many areas of the country, they just aren't practical, period. Perhaps that's why Americans, as a society, don't like them.
Believe it or not, some people do put safety and comfort ahead of MPG. Now, here's the real kicker. Everytime the government does this, the same thing happens. Economy goes up, so people drive more. I'm willing to bet the farm that this doesn't save a single drop, let alone a barrel, of petrol. Won't happen. It's just another excuse for the government to intrude into our lives. Oh, and what happens if the US Automakers can't meet that 35.5 MPG goal - No problem, they'll just bring in more clown cars from China and elsewhere. This is a lose-lose all the way around. I can't wait to hear what Tony Stewart has to say when he sees what NASCAR will be racing in 2016.
FIAT's Risk? Nada
Submitted by Robert Lindquist on Thu, 04/30/2009 - 12:16pm
President Obama announced on thursday (4/30) that he has single handedly saved millions of American jobs by pressuring Chrysler to enter bankruptcy so that the decks could be swept clean for a merger with FIAT of Italy. Keep in mind that this is the same Chrysler that was, not so long ago, partnered with Daimler (Mercedes) of Germany. Mercedes is at least a recognizable name in the US. The last thing FIAT made for the American market was the Yugo, which has was rated by TIME as one of the 50 worst cars of all time.
In recent years, FIAT has been looking for an opportunity to get back into the American market. There was a time, of course, when FIAT made and sold some pretty interesting (albeit, not so reliable) cars in the US. Most notably was the 124 Spyder. But you really have to ask, What has FIAT done lately? And what are they bringing to the table in this deal with Chrysler?
To answer the first question, nothing really. Although FIAT has a rich history that dates back to 1899, and has been an automotive pioneer throughout that rich history, the bread they spread their jam on today is economical cars designed primarily for the European market. In addition, FIAT has problem's of it's own. According to independent automotve industry analyst, Rob Golding, “Fiat is easily the weakest of all the major automotive companies. It does not even generate enough revenue to fund its own investment.” De-Tuning America
Submitted by Robert Lindquist on Wed, 04/29/2009 - 8:19am
On monday it was announced that General Motors is in the "last ditch attempt" phase to stay afloat. Topping the list of current drastic measures is a relatively fast phase out of the Pontiac division (by 2010) and dropping roughly half of it's 6246 dealerships. In addition, GM will offer stock to debt holders in order to meet obligations on government loans.
According to CEO Fritz Henderson, who took over from the ousted Rick Wagoner, "The objective here is not to survive; the objective is to develop an operating plan that allows us to win." Unfortunately, that may be a tad over optimistic considering that the future of the company rest heavily on whether or not a sufficient number of debt holders accept the stock offer by the government's drop-dead date June 1. Several analysts say the plan has no chance.
So while the future for GM is still unsettled, the pieces are beginning to fall into place. The GM of the future will be smaller, with fewer models, and owned (to a maximum of 89% by the US Government and United Auto Workers). Pontiac will be a memory, Saab, Saturn and Hummer will (hopefully) be operating under new ownership.
There are many interesting twists and possible outcomes to what is happening at GM, and you can bet that with a bean-counter in charge, those of us who enjoy driving will be the big losers.
Pontiac has always been known as GM's young-at-heart performance division. The Pontiac GTO was, for all practical purposes, the very "Muscle-car." Though other models, such as the Bonneville and Firebird, Pontiac proved that it had the know-how to get the power to the pavement is a big way. Even now, when many still dis the quality of American made vehicles, the Pontiac Solstice is a world leader in fun and bang for the buck. The Solstice shares many components with the Saturn Sky and if GM finds a buyer for Saturn, these cool 2-seaters will both be gone.
So the performance division is the first to go, and without Pontiac, what else does GM have for the auto enthusiast. Sadly, I predict that very soon we'll hear the disturbing announcement that the Corvette will either be phased out, or possibly be built on the current Solstice/Sky chassis. While that would still GM a sporty vehicle offering, it would totally devalue the Corvette name as well as it's current, hard-fought standing as the world's best sports car value - even when compared to Ferrari and Porsche. The only other hope is the new Camaro, but it's future too may come to play with the big hand of the fed on the wheel.
So the fact of the matter is, that with the government running GM, we'll not only have fewer vehicle choices (okay, there were too many anyway) but what will be offered may not be anything that we want to drive. the same will probably happen with Chrysler. The only hope left for those of us who want to buy American may be Ford, if they are, in fact, able to weather the storm. Let's hope they can.
The Drive For 55!?!
Submitted by admin on Thu, 04/23/2009 - 3:54pm
It's all about the money! Back in July of 2007, Republican Senator John Warner of Virgina asked then Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman to calculate what speed would provide optimum gasoline efficiency under the technology of the day. In his request to Bodman, Warner cited studies that showed that (after it was imposed by Congress in 1974 because of the Arab oil embargo) the 55 MPH national speed limit saved 167-thousand barrels of oil a day. That speed limit was repealed in 1995. The letter read "one could assume that the amount of fuel that could be conserved today is far greater."
An Energy Department spokeswoman responded that Warner's letter would be reviewed but that "if Congress is serious about addressing gasoline prices, they must take action on expanding domestic oil and natural gas production." Obviously, that was not the answer Congress wanted, so that was the end of that.
Then came last summer and $4+ per gallon gasoline. Immediately, Congress started again rumbling about lowering the speed limit to save fuel. Their foil this time was the American public who took the sensible initiative and simply drove less—so much so that demand, and prices, dropped drastically is relatively short period of time. Predictions of "$10 a gallon by Christmas" vaporized as once again the electorate showed the electorees that we're far smarter than they give us credit for being.
"Well curses!" said congress, "If we can't push through the 55 limit on fuel savings, let's try the safety issue." So now the scuttlebutt is that all those sub-sub-sub-compacts, like the Smart 4 Two, Honda Fit, and Toyota Yaris are unsafe in a collision with a larger car. Well, Duh! What kind of stupid, twisted logic is that. Of course a vehicle half the size of another is going to take a beating in a one-on-one street fight. A Ford Expedition is unsafe in a collision with an 18-wheeler and and an 18-Wheeler is unsafe in a collision with a locomotive. First, they convince us that driving smaller vehicles saves fuel, then they say the smaller vehicles we're driving, to save fuel, are unsafe. Micro-vehicles, like the ones mentioned, are not intended for freeways and super-highways. Anyone who buys one thinking they are is nothing more than a poorly informed shopper who fails to understand the basic laws of physics. On the other hand, for around town driving, those little vehicles can be handy tools. If you need to save fuel AND do some time on some time on serious asphalt, then you need think Hybrid (caution: not so great in areas with lots of hills). If you just want to save fuel, keep your current buggy and watch your speed best you can. See, we don't need the government to tell us how to do these things. The caveat in this way of thinking, is that, for the government, there's no profit in it.
Congress knows full well that the problem is not the cars or the speed, it's the drivers, all drivers. I'll include myself in this as well. Regardless of how competent we are behind the wheel, there are times we shouldn't be there, either because we're tired, distracted or just not focused (umm... that Big Mac Wuzzz good!). We take phone calls when we shouldn't and DWTM (Text Messaging While Driving) has been suspect in numerous fatal accidents. And what about unexpected hazards caused by weather? If government really wants to make the roads safer, then they need to take the same strategy that they want to use to make the streets safer. Congress seems convinced that confiscating firearms is the only way to keep people from killing each other. Then the logic only follows that if they want to keep us from crashing into each other on the road, they should confiscate our vehicles. But that won't happen, will it? And we all know why—the state and federal government needs us to own cars so that they can collect sales tax, licensing fees and registration fees. And, they need that speed limit back down at 55 so that they can put robot cameras along every stretch of highway and reap gazillions of cashmoneybux in fines from unsuspecting drivers.
The government knows that most people occasionally drive over the limit (whether it's intentional or not). Their job is to figure out how to make it pay—to find ways to catch as many people as possible, as often as possible so they can collect as much money as possible, to spend on more silly socialistic programs. These new traffic cameras are already showing along major travelways in many big cities—and they are causing quite a controversy. You flash by a few ticks over the limit, they take your photo and send you a bill. No cop needed. How convenient. In some areas, motorists are fighting back by spraying their lenses with paint, silly string or covering them with tape (See "Sticking It To The Man"). Elsewhere, sharp shooters have found them fair game for target practice (Ah, so that's why they want to take our guns). So, when you hear talk about a 55MPH speed limit, don't think for a minute that it has anything to do with saving you money, or saving the planet or even saving your life—it's just about getting more of your money.
