Detroit Auto Show Looks Toward Frugal Future
Although there were far fewer shock-and-awe car introductions, the type that employs a legion of Broadway stagehands and extras to produce, the press preview days were not without amusement. The show opened with the announcement of the North American Car and Truck of the Year winners. While few of my colleagues were surprised that Ford’s reworked F-150 pickup prevailed over the Dodge Ram and Mercedes ML320 BlueTec diesel, some oxygen left the room when Hyundai’s new Genesis edged out Ford’s Flex. The big, pugnacious Ford wagon is clearly a segment-buster, but look at how far Hyundai has come.
In the main hall, General Motors had gathered retirees, workers, and young people to hold signs in a mock rally to promote the arrival of the Cadillac Converj, an extended-range electric that’s based on Chevy’s Volt, along with two new models that will be available in the summer. The fully reworked Buick La Crosse and Chevy Equinox look every bit as tight and finished, inside and out, as their import rivals. Now the challenge is for the company to survive. Meanwhile, outside Cobo Hall, a gaggle of non-scripted pickets carried signs that urged fair treatment for UAW workers during the bailout drama.
The Caddy concept, based on the Chevy Volt system, may be the best-looking 4-cylinder luxury car.
With moderate fanfare, Ford unveiled its new Taurus with enough emotional design to pull it out of the ready-for-rental category and provide a stylish option to mid-size sedan buyers. Lexus unveiled a new HS250h model that it described as the “world’s first dedicated luxury hybrid,” with hybrid architecture based on the new Prius. But instead of simply bestowing luxury on a Toyota, the HS250h gets a more powerful gas engine and a heavy dose of comfort and convenience. Although fuel economy figures were not released, Lexus asserts in press materials a 30 percent improvement over the most efficient model in its current lineup (42 mpg combined?) and, during the unveiling, Lexus VP Mark Templin suggested better city economy than the 33 mpg Smart ForTwo. One thing we know for sure: it won’t top the new 50 mpg Prius.
The new Prius is what the wind tunnel does when you try for low wind resistance. Looks a lot like the previous Prius.
I missed Lamborghini’s fashion show, a bit of slinky model sleight of hand that only an Italian automaker can pull off with a reasonably straight face. It’s the kind of unveiling you do when there isn’t a new car model to show, and it works — at least with the guys. The second day, GM CEO Rick Wagoner took the stage with a big battery pack and a Chevy Volt for company. Wagoner announced the construction of a new 30,000-square-foot battery laboratory, the sponsorship of an electric car engineering program at the University of Michigan, and a plan to build battery assemblies in Michigan. Then he thanked a bevy of politicians, from the governor to Congress for their support. Wagoner played basketball at Duke and he has already discovered that politics is a contact sport.
For drop-dead looks in plug-ins, the Fisker Karma is my winner. But will we see the real thing?
Perhaps the most intriguing cars at Detroit were Fisker’s Karma sedan and new Karma S convertible coupe with a folding hardtop. The charming entrepreneur and former Aston Martin designer promises extended range, plug-in electric exotics with thrilling performance, drop-dead looks, and a price that’s right in the middle of the gasoline luxury offerings. He’s got a smart team together, with ex-BMW and Volvo chief Vic Dolan leading the marketing, and they’ve already signed 22 dealers. If it’s not vaporware, it should sell like hotcakes. Otherwise, we’ve seen a very pretty Tucker.
I’m sorry, but that Fisker looks an awful lot like one of those cheap fiberglass bodies folks used to plunk down on a VW beetle chassis and call a sports car.
I guess there is nothing new under the sun.
I’m also reminded that back in the 1970′s (does anybody remember the Arab/OPEC oil embargo of ’73?) a bunch of engineering students from Ga Tech built a true diesel/electric hybrid using a little Mercury Capri body and rolling chassis, and a high torque 24 volt aircraft starter motor. That little car got a proved 70+ mpg,,, and then faded into automotive history.
Here we are again, reinventing the wheel.
Detroit auto show…it’s a bit ironic no???
http://mylifeiscrap.com
JohnB:
“(does anybody remember the Arab/OPEC oil embargo of ‘73?)”
Sure do…and I remember that the 1974 Big 3 auto models were pure, unadulterated, underpowered CRAP.
The Oil Embargo panicked the Big 3′s engineering departments into such shoddy practices as putting a 4 cylinder all-aluminum engine,(with 1960′s metallurgy, mind you), into a chassis that had been designed for a big V-6 or small V-8…(Vega, anyone?)
” a bunch of engineering students from Ga Tech built a true diesel/electric hybrid using a little Mercury Capri body and rolling chassis, and a high torque 24 volt aircraft starter motor. That little car got a proved 70+ mpg,,, and then faded into automotive history.”
The Capri was a fine looking little sled, and even with a 4 cylinder, had some “scoot”, thanks, IIRC, to the crossflow head on that engine.
If you opted for the V-6 and the manual tranny, you had a sporty little coupe to zip around in.
(Although some schmuck with a Maverick “Grabber”,(302 cid V-8 engine), would still blow your doors off.)
As a car owner since 1957, and a reader of current car sales figures, US car buyers value performance/handling/cosmetics above all else. When no one is buying cars the excess money people buying enviro-vehicles would seem to be the coming market. However, once the speculator oil/gas price leap disappeared, nobody wanted the enviro-vehicles.
Detroit and the rest are now dedicated to building the cars DC bailout funds want, not what the real market wants.
Most would much prefer a BMW 318 to a Toyota Prius Hybrid.
Well there you go- my Karma really can run over your Dogma.
To Bilgeman. The Vega engine wasn’t all aluminum. It had a cast iron head, and aluminum bock.
Our new administration is run by people who wnat to tell us what we need to but and not what we want to buy. Such a philosophy led East Germany to product the Trabant.
The Trabant, if memory seves me correctlym had 24 HP, about the same as the original VW Beetle. The body was made from cotton reinforced plastic which should not be confused with fiberglass reinforced plastic as used in a Corvette.
One thing that our gurus in congress refuse to do much about is getting electric power to run all their dreamed up eleftric cars.
Why is it that nobody is talking about the negative aspects of electric cars? How about no power? And they still have to be charged up, which requires- electricity mostly coal generated. They arent as enviromental friendly as one might think. What happens to the batteries every 3-4 years when they have to be replaced? Landfill anyone? Also, electric cars will NOT save consumers any money. When you add the extra expense of the electric option, coupled with the $2500-$3000 charge every 36 months for new batteries, how does that translate to any savings, even at 70mpg? There are plenty of things automakers can to with their gas-only engines and drivetrains to make them more fuel efficient without bankrupting the automakers as well as our country.
#4 MikeD — “Most would much prefer a BMW 318 to a Toyota Prius Hybrid.”
One BMW model gets 55 mpg using a diesel. I read about it in a UK magazine. What to do? Butt ugly Prius or the BMW that gets far better mpg AND has real power in it? Hmmmm. Choices.
We need the high mpg diesels here. Of course, I imagine Pelosi et al would rather chew broken glass first. Shame, too. Some can build decent vehicles that people really would like to have. Sorry. Can’t have that.
Funny but even Ford has a 55 mpg vehicle overseas. Same thing, a diesel. Of course it ain’t a BMW. But still.
Warning for Lincoln – look up the Cadillac Cimarron, then avoid GM’s mistake.
I was reminded of that, too.
From my own place this morning, where I wrote a comment on Brian’s piece:
And does history repeat itself, here?
I suspect it will.
Hang in there for Series technology hybrid cars. The Chevy Volt and Chrysler 200c are coming. Yes they will be off the hook expensive at first but prices will come down just like they did on HD TV’s and DVD players. Competition is king and drives down prices.
HEY DETROIT–I DON’T WANT AN ELECTRIC CAR!!
#11 — “The left figured they knew more about physics than the car companies and their scientists did, too. They figured all this business about so many miles for so many gallons could be changed by simply passing a law. Of course, such things can’t happen that way…”
Your memory isn’t quite what mine is. Perhaps it’s perspective.
As much as I despise Technology Creationism (the belief that stuff can poof into existence because it’s been mandated by politicians) “the left” in this case was partly correct. America doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Detroit could not continue to create 5 mpg vehicles and not have an impact. Back then we didn’t have PC’s but we could do graphs and projections.
I lived in Europe during the oil shock era. At that time gas was $3/gallon (or more) there. VW made what in the US would be called the Rabbit (it was a Golf) and it got reasonable mileage. BMW and other makes were also selling similar fuel efficient vehicles. The only way a Detroit car could outperform them was in the 1/4 mile ‘stomp the pedal and never turn the wheel’ acceleration competition. Otherwise most of these cars did reasonably well.
Back to projections and graphs. The government knew very well that it was possible to create smaller fuel sipping vehicles that would work. There was no Technology Creationism; they were going by working example. What they were hoping was that if the Europeans (and European divisions of US companies) could make working vehicles that would get better mpg, Detroit should be able to figure out how to make vehicles that would work in the US.
And… as you note we got the Gremlin. Meanwhile the Japanese and German makes were advancing in leaps and bounds such that by the very early 80′s there was no longer any contest. The best Detroit could muster up was ugly and unreliable (remember the K car?) BMW was selling 318i’s at the time. The rout was on. Within 10 years Detroit had pretty much given up on the sedan market and concentrated on pickups and SUV’s.
It wasn’t the government’s demand for better mpg that killed Detroit. Certainly the “foreign” makes figured out how to build these vehicles and sell them.
But again, not in large enough numbers to turn much of a profit. Again, I point to the mater of choice. Even at the hight of the most recent crude price spikes, the biggest selling vehicle in America was the Ford F-150. Even given ample numbers of smaller vehicles, Americans by a wide margin said ‘no’.
Reckon with why, Mr. Alston, and you’ll have something.
#15 Eric Florack
Since you missed the point, I’ll speak slowly this time.
70′s: Detroit was mandated to build cars to a certain standard, one that the government knew was achievable. Detroit failed. Other companies filled that void. Detroit focused on vehicles outside the CAFE standards instead when gas became cheaper in the 80′s, effectively conceding the car market.
Detroit is going to be once again mandated to build and market vehicles that meet a certain standard, and one that again the government reckons to be achievable. If Detroit fails to make vehicles people will buy, then again other companies will fill that void.
Meanwhile.
“Even at the hight of the most recent crude price spikes, the biggest selling vehicle in America was the Ford F-150.”
Ummm… maybe not. Detroit has existed as it has for the last 25 years because gas has been cheap. When energy prices go up, things look more like this Autodata breakdown:
http://carscoop.blogspot.com/2008/07/us-top-20-best-selling-vehicles-in-june.html
…which looks suspiciously like my point.
Hmmm. Apparently, I need to speak more slowly.
They did that for a reason… what Washington wants, doesn’t sell. What Washington wants, the people do not.
Are we to assume you consider what Washington wants more important than what sells?
Are we to assume you consider what Washington wants more important than what the people want?
And while I have this open, let’s add a point;
Isn’t Toyota turning in negative numbers this year, in terms of profit margins?