an article to
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
I'm not a member of President Obama's automotive task force, which is overseeing the bailout of General Motors (GM) and Chrysler. But in a way, we're all on the task force, since these two automakers are staying afloat thanks to taxpayer funding that could reach $40 billion or more this year.
So I'm going to give Detroit some advice. Not about labor contracts or debt refinancing or global alliances, but just about cars. It's true that the quality of American-made cars has improved in recent years. But that's not enough. If the folks running the Detroit Three—including Ford (F), which hasn't asked for a bailout but still might—drove the latest offerings from the competition, they'd realize there are lots of innovations they're missing out on. Here are some of the top cars from which the Detroit automakers can learn:
Honda Fit (HMC) (Starting price, $14,750): Car buffs don't love the Fit because it's small. They love it because the packaging is brilliant, the styling is funky, and the car handles like a go-cart. It just so happens that the Fit is also a subcompact with a low price, which makes it a slam-dunk choice for thousands of owners. There's nothing in Detroit's inventory that comes close, because Detroit has long regarded small cars as a necessary evil, while importers know they can be fun and fulfilling.
Volkswagen Tiguan ($24,300): Like the Fit, this stylish crossover reveals something that the Europeans and Japanese know but Detroit doesn't: Small vehicles can be just as cool as big ones. Cooler, maybe. The Tiguan is everything people are looking for these days: practical, fun, and modestly sized. It's a lot sportier than a Saturn Vue or Ford Escape. Instead of skimping with cheap parts and a slapdash interior—criticisms that dog Saturn and Ford—Volkswagen gave the Tiguan upscale touches that help justify a price that can easily crest $30,000 with options. That leaves an opening for Detroit to match the flair, for less.
Infiniti EX ($35,450): Quick, name a small, luxury domestic crossover. . . . Trick question. There aren't any. But the importers are starting to offer them, because they know that consumers don't just pay for size. They also pay for saucy styling, great packaging, and an exhilarating driving experience, all of which the EX offers. Detroiters might sniff that the EX isn't a true SUV because it doesn't have off-road capability. News flash: It doesn't matter. Most people who buy SUVs never go off-road, which is why optional all-wheel drive is more than enough for most vehicles.
Honda Insight ($19,800): Honda and Toyota are so far ahead on hybrids that they could run them on sludge and still be greener than Detroit. The Insight ups the ante on Toyota, since it undercuts the class-leading Prius by a couple of thousand dollars. In response, Toyota has announced it will introduce a Yaris hybrid that's even cheaper. While the Japanese are raising the bar and lowering the cost of hybrids, Detroit remains a generation or two behind. Chrysler doesn't even offer a hybrid. GM hybrids like the Saturn Aura and Chevy Malibu offer just modest mpg improvement over conventional models. And big hybrid SUVs are a meaningful breakthrough, but, at $50,000, they're out of reach for most buyers. The $29,000 Ford Escape and $27,000 Ford Fusion hybrids are good entries, but they look awfully pricey compared to Honda and Toyota offerings. Detroit needs to find a way to cut the cost of hybrids and crank out a dozen different models, or just hand over the whole segment to the Japanese.
Audi A4 ($32,700): The most common complaint about Audis is that they're overpriced—precisely the kind of problem an automaker wants to have. The A4 isn't bodacious like the Cadillac CTS. It lacks the S-curve chops of the BMW 3 series and the regal parentage of the Mercedes C Class. Yet strong engineering, slick interiors, and edgy design cues like the "eyeliner" LED lights that accentuate the headlamps have made the A4 a top-shelf alternative to more commonplace luxury sedans. Domestic lines like Buick and Lincoln, meanwhile, can only lure customers from the German and Japanese luxury makes by offering lower prices.
Mazda MX-5 ($21,750): There used to be lots of fun little convertibles. Now it seems like a lost art. Pontiac made a splash a few years ago when it introduced the Solstice, a hot-looking two-seater, but enthusiasm faded as drivers noticed the ho-hum interior and some awkward internal tradeoffs. There are few such complaints about the MX-5, which gets high marks for zip, handling, refinement, and an optional power roof. Ford and Chrysler in particular ought to pay attention—neither even offers a two-seat roadster.
Volkswagen GTI ($23,230): It's not just a muscle car, it's a poor man's race car, with taut handling, amped-up brakes, and a sizzling 200-horsepower, turbocharged, four-cylinder engine that might provide more thrill per dollar than any other car on the road. Detroit muscle cars tend to be all about the engine, which is unfortunate, since big V-8s are falling out of favor. The Chevy Cobalt SS is a GTI imitator, but it's based on a middling economy car and isn't nearly as refined. Keep trying.
Hyundai Genesis (HYMLF.PK) ($32,250): The South Korean automaker has cracked into the near-luxury segment with a holy-cow sedan that ranks in the top five in its category in the U.S. News rankings and is the reigning North American Car of the Year. Buick, Chrysler, and Lincoln might want to study Hyundai's formula, which is to offer the same features and quality as the top Japanese and European brands for thousands less. If they don't, Hyundai may end up poaching what customers they still have.
Mazda 5 ($17,995): It's small for its category, so Detroit's probably not interested. Yet many families find the quirky 5—a three-row hauler that seats six—to be a fun, economical alternative to conventional minivans. It costs less than other minivans, gets better mileage, and even comes standard with a sporty, five-speed manual transmission. Some analysts think the 5 may actually kick off a new "microvan" category, with copycats like the Kia Rondo. But no domestics, apparently.
Subaru Forester ($19,995): Car reviewers find this crossover a bit frumpy—but they love to recommend it for their parents, because it's one of the most practical, unpretentious vehicles you can buy. The high, stodgy roofline provides great visibility whether you're a tall or short driver. There's lots of cargo space for the price. You could pay more for a Chevrolet Equinox or Jeep Liberty, but you'd probably end up wondering why. GM and Chrysler should ask themselves the same question.
Disclosure: no positions
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largest
increase in followers
in the last 7 days-
1
TraderMark
-
2
David Fry
-
3
Peter Schiff
-
4
Ashraf Laidi
-
5
Philip Davis
Fastest Climbers » -
1
-
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Mike Havrilla
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
Top
StockTalkers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
Cliff Wachtel
-
3
Mike Havrilla
-
4
David White
-
5
Hedged In
Top StockTalkers » -
1
Prius - 1000 miles / 40mpg = 25 gallons of gas.
Impala - 1000 miles / 24mpg = 41 gallons of fuel * 15% (85% ethynol) = 6.25 gallons of gas.
That said - why do you and other continue to make such false statements and why on earth are you not harping on our governement to give the $33bln in oil subsidies to the ethynol companies to invest in the technology?
On Mar 29 10:42 PM slowdown wrote:
> Here's some fun facts for you Rick - My nephew bought a Prius a few
> years ago and paid $40k for it. It was supposed to get 60 mpg. He
> gets 40 mpg. I purchased a 2008 Chevy Impala. The Impala has more
> room and the back seat flips down so it's open to the trunk. We hauled
> a twin bed (mattresses/side rails and head/footboard) to my son's
> dorm with it. I get 24mpg burning E85 and I burn it 95% of the time
> because it's readily available in my area.
> Prius - 1000 miles / 40mpg = 25 gallons of gas.
> Impala - 1000 miles / 24mpg = 41 gallons of fuel * 15% (85% ethynol)
> = 6.25 gallons of gas.
> That said - why do you and other continue to make such false statements
> and why on earth are you not harping on our governement to give the
> $33bln in oil subsidies to the ethynol companies to invest in the
> technology?
>
On Mar 29 10:44 PM slowdown wrote:
> I forgot - I paid $23K for the Impala and it's loaded...leather/sunroof
> etc and I don't have a $4500 battery that has to be replaced. <br/>
Guess you haven't read about the 300k+ miles being driven by F150 owners. Come back and talk to me when your little toy reaches that level of mileage.
Engineering! Sheesh, I bet you're a sales or marketing guy who wouldn't know engineering if it walked up and bit your behind. If anyone believes the BS you're peddling they're just as ill informed as you.
On Mar 29 06:32 PM TinyTim wrote:
> "small, luxury domestic crossover" like my Pontiac Vibe; may not
> be total luxury & it is based on a Corolla platform
>
> "Consumers Reports states that Ford's quality equals Toyota and Honda
> and that many GM vehicles, but not all, are also world class for
> quality."
> There's a big misunderstanding between quality and engineering.
> Consumers looks at fit and finish and obvious defects for about 2
> weeks. My 88 Civic has 285K miles on it, only cost me $7K new in
> Oct 87 and my teenager is driving the piss out of it. That kind
> of reliability is engineered in. Toyota used to call it life-cycle
> cost before they fell victim to US mktg and started with Tundras,
> etc.
> Even Honda caught the Detroit disease as the new Civics look like
> the original Accords. The Fit is just their recognition that there
> is a place for a cheap, sporty econobox, unlike the Yaris which
> is just a cheap econobox.
> What's always been missing from the Big3 is any appreciation for
> engineered reliability. After all, these guys invented planned obsolescence.
I see a lot of anger....deep inside people are afraid of job loss.
But American, please, be open minded, accepting the critics is our only way out to strive & to improve our product. See how open minded Japanese were to learn from their failure back in 60' & 70'??
I don't want my tax money given to those can't accept failure & don't want to learn. Because I know they will FAIL AGAIN!!!
On Mar 29 06:32 PM TinyTim wrote:
> "small, luxury domestic crossover" like my Pontiac Vibe; may not
> be total luxury & it is based on a Corolla platform
>
> "Consumers Reports states that Ford's quality equals Toyota and Honda
> and that many GM vehicles, but not all, are also world class for
> quality."
> There's a big misunderstanding between quality and engineering.
> Consumers looks at fit and finish and obvious defects for about 2
> weeks. My 88 Civic has 285K miles on it, only cost me $7K new in
> Oct 87 and my teenager is driving the piss out of it. That kind
> of reliability is engineered in. Toyota used to call it life-cycle
> cost before they fell victim to US mktg and started with Tundras,
> etc.
> Even Honda caught the Detroit disease as the new Civics look like
> the original Accords. The Fit is just their recognition that there
> is a place for a cheap, sporty econobox, unlike the Yaris which
> is just a cheap econobox.
> What's always been missing from the Big3 is any appreciation for
> engineered reliability. After all, these guys invented planned obsolescence.
If your new cars really are up to the competition, and the jury's certainly still out on that, given time reviewers will be writing articles extolling the virtues of YOUR vehicles.
In the meantime you'll get to deal with GM's new CEO, Mr. Obama. I hear he's driving a Ford Escape hybrid these days, which from a PR standpoint is at least a good start.
Dealer gives loaner cars, ran out of Subaru's and Chrysler/Jeeps they usually give out, so sent me to Enterprise Rent-A-Car.
Was given Chevy Aveo which had < 1/2 the mileage of my subaru.
What a piece of junk. Door didn't close without use of force.
The entire car seemed flimsy compared to my Subaru.
You patriots out there who buy American just because it's American
aren't doing the USA any good, encouraging such poor manufacturing standards by the big 3. It's govt bailouts of Chrysler in the past and now all 3 that allow them to survive overpaying workers and delivering cars with lesser quality than the competition.
Yes, many point out the USA car quality has improved over the years, and it has, but so has everyone else, and we are still behind most Asian manufacturers in quality. Last time I bought a minivan, read the gov crash test reports, and the Chevy minivan had the seat belt break allowing the crash test dummy to go flying ! Only minivan where this occured. Is this what we're trying to save ?
Keep jobs, kill people ? I have no problem with a bailout if they are held accountable for safety, quality and reasonable fuel economy and all exec compenstation is severely impacted by these end results.
I happen to work in an industry where we operate in Japan,
and have competed with firms in Japan. Our counterparts there are much more detail oriented, perfectionists to the point of driving Americans crazy. I feel compelled to remind my fellow American co-workers that "all they want to do is make sure the end result is correct", when they criticize our peers in Japan. That relentless pursuit of quality was copied from Americans, initially, but now looks like it was stolen.
On Mar 29 01:23 PM larmar wrote:
> We bought a brand new 2007 Chevy Aveo for the gas mileage and to
> support an American company. But we are getting ready to trade in
> our Aveo, for the same reasons as posted on here by others. Things
> going wrong with the car that shouldn't. 1st the AC unit quit working,
> 2nd the brakes had to be repaired, then last month the transmission
> went out.
>
> GM is paying the bill, but with the car is having multiple issues
> while still under warranty there is no way it will live to be 10
> years old. Not sure what car we will get next, but it will not be
> GM. We want a car that will last, not put together by a worker that
> was "having a bad day."
The passionate comments to this article were striking. We all should want Detroit to succeed. It will require some hard changes and a rekindling of the entreprenuerial spirit.
The auto task force conclusions were a breathe of fresh air. It is possible that bondholders and the union will jump on board and forge an agreement. If that happens it may be the beginning of a reemergence of the domestic auto industry.
Let's see three years is 35K-50Kmiles. Pathetic for someone who expects reliability and longevity from a major purchase. WHICH CAN ONLY BE ACHIEVED THRU EXCELLENT ENGINEERING.
Toyota fell victim to Detroit marketing when they upsized everything, including pickups, to capture bigger margins and mkt share. When gas hit $4, these sales hit bottom like everyone elses. They recently reported the first losses in their history. So much for copying Detroit.
Oh, BTW, this article is about passenger cars; any idiot that uses a commercial vehicle like an F150 for commuting must have his head up his butt, Jag.
Zach
Greedreviews.com- "Letting investors rank, review and evaluate investment information sources"
The engineering profession (if indeed it could be called a profession) doesn't bode well in the United States. Traditionally trained as a technical practitioner, he/she often shuns politics. Most (in my view only) second rate graduating engineers heads for an MBA and become bosses. The first rate graduates pursue PhD's and become researchers. If the boss is stupid, what could you do? Not even the most brilliant engineering ideas could succeed.
Just look around - at one time 1 out of 3 engineering PhD candidate in our schools was a foreign student. I guess greed is in control and our best and brightest went to Wall Street. Besides, why bother to studying so hard to wreck your brain - instead make millions like the Letterman, Ophra, Stern, NFL, NBA, and NGL players. Today engineers are like pawns, some making even less than plumbers, have less job security than the UAW, and their so-called professional association and licensing bodies only look after the interest the employers.
Got the message now?
Teutonic
On Mar 30 08:51 PM TinyTim wrote:
> As an auto mechanic and degreed mechanical engineer, I've been following
> Consumer Reports and JD Power on cars for years. CR has progressed
> a long way since the days when only Toyota & Honda were worth
> buying. That said, their quality ratings are based on functional
> problems, fit and finish for the two week review period. They do
> have reliability ratings on many products going back a few years
> based on annual subscriber surveys. Not much, but better than others
> like the JD Power VDS (vehicle dependability study). "The study,
> which measures problems experienced by original owners of three-year-old
> (2006 model year) vehicles, has been redesigned to include 202 different
> problem symptoms across all areas of the vehicle.
>
> Let's see three years is 35K-50Kmiles. Pathetic for someone who expects
> reliability and longevity from a major purchase. WHICH CAN ONLY BE
> ACHIEVED THRU EXCELLENT ENGINEERING.
>
> Toyota fell victim to Detroit marketing when they upsized everything,
> including pickups, to capture bigger margins and mkt share. When
> gas hit $4, these sales hit bottom like everyone elses. They recently
> reported the first losses in their history. So much for copying Detroit.
>
>
> Oh, BTW, this article is about passenger cars; any idiot that uses
> a commercial vehicle like an F150 for commuting must have his head
> up his butt, Jag.
Regarding cars, another engineering area where the Big3 fell on their face is designing for assembly. How can a non-UAW workforce in KY or AL put together a car faster and better than Detroit?
Combine that with agile manufacturing techniques and the Japs won fair and square. The real slap in the face is that Japanese auto companies successfully took American cars apart in the 70's to reverse engineer them and improve design and value.
On Mar 30 02:28 PM kdo wrote:
> You fail to grasp the problems at GM, Ford, Chrysler by simply stating
> the need to copy successful cars. They have a non-competitive cost
> structure, which forced them to attempt to compete on higher margin
> (ie: bigger) cars. GM has -$60 billion of shareholder equity. There
> are far more problems than just simply the fact that their small
> cars aren't competitive. The problem is they never will, unless they
> are fundamentally restructured.
On Mar 29 09:33 AM User 179292 wrote:
"There are reasons the editors from Car and Driver, plus Road and Track don’t write articles on Wall Street. They don’t know it. Rick, you obviously don’t know anything about the auto industry."
I couldn't agree more. This moron had two articles in one day on April 1 (see below please)
5 reasons to buy an American car
5 Reasons To Shun American Cars
His criticism of the auto industry is mostly unfounded and only shows his ignorance of the industry itself. It is a shame that someone with so little knowledge can write something so
uncorroborated (i.e. his allegations about earlier American cars and their play in the downfall of the industry). He should keep his opinions to himself and leave facts to those who know.