The new Lexus supercar
Check out this video from the Toyko Motor Show: The LFA has arrived.
Ford Raptor chews up competition in Texas
The 2010 Ford F-150 SVT Raptor took the Truck of Texas and Best Full-size Pickup awards this weekend down in the Lone Star State.
The Texas Auto Writers Association has grown fond of Ford, naming it the best Truck Line of Texas for seven years in a row.
The Raptor may hold a special place for truck enthusiasts with its 5.4-liter SOHC V-8 that produces 320 horsepower and 390 pound-feet of torque. Next year, truck buyers can opt for an even bigger engine, a 6.2-liter V-8.
The specially developed off-road machine is seven inches wider than a regular F-150 and includes FOX Racing Shox and additional suspension components that provide serious off-road capabilities, such as 11.2 inches of front suspension travel and 12.1 inches of rear suspension travel.
Ford says that it already has 3,000 dealer orders for the $38,995 pickup.
Ford also collected an Outstanding Feature award for its Work Solutions technology that appeals to commercial fleet buyers.
Buick Regal is back
It didn't take long for other media to confirm what The Detroit News already knew: The Buick Regal will return to the U.S.
Jalopnik.com confirms the story this morning that GM will bring the Opel Insignia to the U.S. as the Buick Regal.
You could call it the Buick POS and it wouldn't matter, this car is smoking hot and will seriously help the Buick lose its AARP reputation.
Take a look for yourself.
Something to do in a Mustang
Check out the power in the 2010 Cobra Jet engine.
Does GM hate diesels more than America?
Normally, I don't care about different groups' rants. They are typically self serving and meaningless.
But the one 40mpg.org sent out yesterday was a doozy. The group blamed General Motors Co. for Americans hating diesels.
Of course, while the group's intense hatred of Detroit -- something that seems to be at a pathological level -- remains, blaming GM for diesel's failure in the U.S. is as stupid as making a .org website.
40mpg uses a story written by a Fisker/Volvo dealer and former American International Automobile Dealers Association chairman in the Automotive News as the premise of its claim. (A Volvo dealer doesn't care for the company that dumped Saab? Hummmm.)
The author surmises that since GM built a lousy diesel in the '70s, it created a marketing campaign to show that diesels were underpowered, smokey and all around bad. GM hasn't been this evil since it created that 100 mpg car and then hid the plans because someone from Exxon asked them to.
The reason Americans think diesels from the 70s were bad are because they were horrible, horrible machines. GM's Oldsmobile was awful. But so was the 1977 Rabbit diesel, all of those early '80s Mercedes diesels and any other oil burner that arrived on the U.S. shores.
The the group continues with its header off the deep it. I love this particular line. (The quote marks are used around the Automotive News column.)
The echoes of that very public thrashing of diesels still reverberates today in the minds of American motorists. Too bad it no longer has any real connection to current-day reality. The truth is that today's diese ls [sic] are "highly sophisticated, quick-starting, quiet, powerful and fuel-sipping direct-injection turbo diesels built by Mercedes, BMW, Volvo, Volkswagen, Audi, Nissan, Toyota and most of the world's other manufacturers, curiously including GM's and Ford Motor Co.'s European operations." So why aren't we seeing more of these diesels make it U.S. shores faster?
Now I agree with 40mpg that diesels are great little engines. But the reason diesels sell so well in Europe and not in the U.S. starts with the fact European governments provide incentives to consumers to buy diesel vehicles and diesel fuel costs less there. Fuel costs alone will keep Americans out of diesels and really, diesel fuel should be cheaper than gas as it costs less to make.
In California, the incentive to allow the Prius an HOV sticker with only one passenger was an incentive that sold more Priuses than any marketing campaign by Toyota. (For a while, you could have bought a used Prius with the sticker for more than a new one with out it.) The VW Jetta TDI, which got better highway mileage than the Prius at the time, was not eligible. The U.S. government has made it very clear hybrids are the favored vehicle in the U.S. diesels are not. (Though there has been some movement on this with the new Jetta qualifying for a modest tax credit.)
Additionally, and I don't know why 40mpg forgot to point this out, until 2008, most diesels sold in the U.S. could not be sold in all 50 states and some of the biggest markets, such as California and New York, banned diesels because of emissions. If California, the home to e coli contanimation, says something is dirty, it must be.
As for the snarky comment about GM and Ford selling diesels in Europe and not here, please, of course they do --European consumers want diesels. Saab sells diesels there too, something the Volvo dealer forgot to mention.
Americans, however, have shown they do not. While the demand for diesel cars is high in the U.S. it is only high because the volume of diesels is so small. You can go to dealership right now and buy an affordable diesel car, and some people are buying them -- obviously, they were not influenced by GM's nefarious campaign 30 years ago.
If they ever change their mind, I have no doubt a flood of diesel vehicles will arrive shortly after that. I believe Audi's campaign for diesels is helping change minds and it should. As I've said before, diesels are great engines -- and lots of carmakers are ready. In fact, Ford's compact cars, the ones based on the new Focus, can have any engine it wants in it -- gas or diesel.
But note, nearly every diesel sold in Europe right now could not be sold in the U.S. because of the U.S. has stricter emission standards. It seems 40mpg's misguided anger over GM's behavior 30 years ago should really be directed at the U.S. government today. A minor point, indeed, but one it might want to consider.
I do like the last bit of maliciousness 40mpg has in its update -- saying how GM fought "tooth and nail" against the new fuel economy rules but has finally succumbed to them. Toyota also fought against the new regulations, as did Ford and a whole group of carmakers, but that seems to be overlooked.
And while it was a bad PR move, the reasons most carmakers opposed the fuel economy standards were they wanted to ensure one federal standard was enforced instead of a hodge podge of standards issued by different states -- which was the direction the country had been moving in. Oh, I may not totally believe that, but at least that makes sense.
40mpg's humorous piece that arrived in my email box, however, made none. If you want to give half the truth, I would have to assume the other half is lies.
The Cadillac of crossovers
Cadillac released two new commercials for its SRX -- a great riding five-passenger crossover. (here's my review)
And here's one of the commercials -- as you can see, it appears the video has been Lutzified -- focusing on the vehicle.
Emissions don't kill people, government regulations kill people
Here's a little footnote that struck me while reading about the new EPA/NHTSA fuel economy standards: The government estimates that more people are going to die because of the regulations.
Does that mean the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration have become the first government sponsored Death Panel?
Here's an excerpt from The Detroit News story today.
"Under a worst-case scenario, NHTSA said the new requirements would result in an estimated 493 additional "weight-related" auto deaths from 2016 models. Under that scenario, nearly 1,100 additional people could die over the lifetime of the 2012-16 models, with about 250 of those through 2020. The fatalities would have a net societal cost of up to $15 billion."
Now to be fair, the EPA/NHTSA does try to wash its hands of this mess by saying that, well, maybe the auto industry could defy physics and do something to make smaller, lighter cars safer. Maybe the panel should pass a regulation on that too: "We hereby declare our laws will supersede those of nature."
See, even these government yahoos know that smaller, lighter cars tend to crumple up worse in an accident. It's because they are smaller and lighter. This leads to more fatal accidents in smaller vehicles. Now add to the equation a large vehicle smashing into a smaller one and things get worse. Who would you bet on walking away from an accident between a Chevy Suburban and Chevy Aveo?
Raising fuel economy standards is smart -- every automaker needs to offer efficient vehicles.
The higher standards will help cut down on oil consumption. Conservation -- of everything -- is currently in vogue and, realistically, it's a responsible way to live your life. Having a fuel efficient vehicle is one way to conserve.
However, thinking carmakers simply have some kind of on-the-shelf technology they can plug into a vehicle to make it reach the new standards is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Big oil did not secretly buy that 100 mpg carburetor and give it to GM or Ford or Chrysler.
Every carmaker, even the American ones, do everything they can to get that last mile per gallon. Who started the trend of six-speed transmissions on four-cylinder engines? (Correct answer: GM, followed quickly by Ford). They do it because consumers demand it, not because the government mandates it.
Do you think the Chevy Equinox is doing so well out of the gates because of government regulations? Of course not, it's a hot seller because it gets 32 mpg on the highway. The race to sell cars and trucks has always included high mileage numbers -- the higher the number, often, the higher the sales. As fuel prices have gone up â€" and the scare from last year â€" fuel economy is more important. (Of course, this has been one of the arguments for artificially raising the cost of fuel, which is idiotic and stupid, but, no doubt, I believe, will happen in the coming years.)
And there are improvements every day. There are turbocharged engines allowing carmakers to add power with smaller displacements and the electrification of vehicles (which are ideal for people who don't want to see the pollution they're creating and sleep smugly at night while that coal-fired power plant charging up their car spews smoke in some far away country side -- because, you know what, that's what's really happening).
However, mileage is not always king. Even if it's the most important factor for buying a vehicle, it's not the only factor.
I'd love to drive a 30 mpg F-150, physics won't let me. The weight needed to make a vehicle capable of hauling 10,000 pounds, while carrying a five-man crew doesn't exist. Will it in the future? Maybe, but if someone could make it right now, I have no doubt they would. It would set sales records in the worst automotive market in a generation.
Really, I'm not sure what to make of the government admission that the new fuel standards will result in the loss of life. Maybe its just being practical. Maybe it thinks sacrificing 500 lives is worth forcing people to buy smaller cars. Of course, roughly 500 people might disagree.
I just have to assume these people realize if you're going to make an automotive omelet, the yolks on them.
Lutz: In his own words
GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz is always good for a quote. He is also one of the reasons GM is in better shape now than it was five years ago.
The list of Lutzmobiles he has helped bring to GM are some of the best offerings the company has: The Cadillac CTS, the Chevy Malibu, the Pontiac G8.
Now, GM has put together a series of videos where Lutz tries to answer some of the questions people are asking. The videos are pretty short and offer some insight into the legendary car man.
Meet Bob Lutz, who is the man with a marketing plan
Pontiac is dead, and sadly, so is the G8
Why keep GMC?
Part Three â€" Question from Jon Neeman
Can Buick convince young people to buy the LaCrosse?
10 Jobs, 10 cars (or trucks) Happy Labor Day
Kelley Blue Book is putting the Labor back in Labor Day, while stealing a bit from Dave Letterman, with its Top 10 Vehicles for Top 10 jobs.
It's actually a pretty fun list -- though I have to disagree with some of their decisions. My comments are in itallics:
Job: Bounty Hunter; Vehicle: F-150 Raptor.
Agree -- imagine the car/truck chase footage.
Job: Real Estate Agent: Vehicle: Lexus RX350.
Agree, though I can't recall if my new favorite real estate agent on HGTV, Mike Aubrey from Real Estate Intervention, drives one. (He's only my favorite because I don't think Suzanne Whang is actually an agent and you only see her walking on sidewalks.)
Job: Delivery man: Vehicle: Ford Transit Connect.
Fully agree. Read my review today here.
Job: Private Detective; Vehicle: Chevy Impala.
Disagree. I think you need something so bland no one can discribe it. My vote:The Toyota Camry. It's reliable, comfortable and comes with completely forgetable exterior.
Job: Courier; Vehicle: Toyota Yaris. Disagree: What if you have to ship a lamp? Or you want to achieve some enjoyment out of the drive. The Honda Fit gets my vote.
Job: Long Haul Salesman; Vehicle: Ford Fusion Hybrid.
Disagree: Sure the Fusion has eco-cred, but the VW Jetta TDI has better highway mileage, and that's really what someone on the long haul needs.
Job: Marketing; Vehicle: Smart for Two.
Disagree: Any other vehicle would be better. A bicycle is better. A sandwich board and some string is better. The guy on the corner dressed up like the Statue of Liberty is better.
Job: Paper Delivery: Vehicle: Honda Element.
Agreed: Additionally, at The Detroit News, you'd have a very nice vehicle to drive around the other four days a week.
Job: Outdoor tour guide; Vehicle: Jeep Wrangler.
Agree: A Hummer would upset some nature enthusiasts, who are plowing through open fields and mountain passes in the Jeep.
Job: Construction; Vehicle: Ford F-150.
Agree: Of course a Ram, Silverado or Sierra would do just as well. And the Tundra and Titan aren't far behind.
Hummer dealership aims at new customers
Give some credit to the No. 1 Hummer dealer in the US to find a way to keep a bead on potential customers.
Jim Lynch, of St. Louis Lynch Hummer has decided to use up his empty floor space to sell guns.
"It is a natural fit," said Lynch in a news release. "Our customers enjoy outdoor sports and the firearms have been a big hit with our Hummer owners."
The dealership touts weapons from all of the major firearm manufacturers as well as a full line up of paramilitary vehicles. Warlords don't have this much firepower and transportation available.
While the guns add another feature to the dealership, it's not that Lynch had a typical place to begin with. His facility includes a 60-acre off road course along the Missouri River.
Now Lynch sells both Hummer accessories as well as firearm accessories. It's unclear if there will be any firearm accessories for the Hummers.
