Note to Wall Street: Crankiness and a dour disposition may be assets in the car-writing biz. On you, however, it fits poorly. Please leave my schtick alone, and return at once to your former escalatory happiness. The Crank’s 401(k) thanks you.
Yes, General Motors stock is trading at levels not seen since the Age of Fins, and Ford can be bought outright for the change in the cushions of Warren Buffett’s sofa. (As of this writing, $1.99 can buy you either a House, M.D. ringtone or a share of Ford stock. And a ringtone is something you’ll always have.)
The interesting part is how these 20th-century automotive giants propose to respond. Reports say GM is considering whether to swap 49% of GMAC they still own to Cerberus Capital in exchange for Chrysler’s automotive operations. In essence, they’d be giving away the most profitable part of the company (but also a lot of messy mortgages) in exchange for market share.
Rick, Bob -- Do it.
Do it because neither of you has the market share needed to keep your overhead running. Do it because North American car manufacturing overcapacity is increasing, not declining. Do it because the jump you’re both trying to make to hydrogen and electric technology requires a stunning investment – and a company that will be around long enough to see it pay off.
But do it.
If it helps, tell Cerberus they can also have one of Lutz’s jets. He can’t fly them all at the same time anyway.
We don’t know what a merged GM and Chrysler would look like. We only know what it should look like.
On product, GM is superior almost throughout the line. Cobalt vs. Caliber is the dull leading the addled; Cobalt wins, but no matter -- the Astra trumps them both. Malibu vs. Sebring? Please.
The only Chrysler car platforms that deserve to stay are the 300M/Charger (as basis for the next G8 and Impala, mayhap) and the minivans. Should we mourn the Caliber? The Sebring? The Nitro? Naah – let us celebrate their retirement. A Viking pyre would not be inappropriate; with all that petro-plastic, a Caliber probably burns pretty well.
On the other hand, adding Jeep would let GM finally put a well-deserved double tap to Hummer. The Dakota could replace the fairly sorry Colorado/Sierra. Indeed, the only interesting question of the whole merger would be what to do with Dodge. Answer: If it isn’t hived off to China for cash, Dodge should replace the long-nebulous GMC as the “tough truck” brand.
Oh, and Challenger vs. Camaro? The Crank doesn’t think either of ‘em will be around long enough to worry about that.
Now, Ford. Not long ago, the Crank wrote these very words: “If Ford survives as an independent company, it will be thanks to Mazda.” So what is Ford doing, if the trades are to be believed? That’s right. Selling Mazda, or rather their 33% thereof.
The Crank understands needing cash (boy, howdy, he does.) And Mr. Mulally may be the smartest businessman in Detroit just now. So the Crank may be completely wrong on this. But the notion of selling off a big cash-flow generator and the engineering shop that sired a company’s best cars seems a tad short-sighted.
Perhaps things in Dearborn are just that bad – and maybe this is Ford’s way of bridging until the smaller European models can finally get over to the States and hasten the Blue Oval’s turnaround. If so, pace, Ford. One does what one must.
It’s a double-edged sword for Mazda, though. Management is reportedly trying to buy out Ford’s share, not as bold a gamble as it sounds. They’ve been independent before, albeit undercapitalized and long enough ago that a lot of their managers won’t remember the Toyo Kogyo company song. Mazda blossomed under Ford’s wing, learning important lessons about global sourcing and flexible production. Ford’s resources gave them the ability to show what they could do in engineering, too – and they surprised a lot of competitors foreign and domestic. That knowledge doesn’t vanish easily.
If, however, they fail to buy back the shares and become a junior partner to Toyota or Hyundai or Fortunate Frog Beijing Auto Works, the Crank does fear for Mazda. Ford needed Mazda in some very real ways. Most other auto companies do not – they already do well what Mazda does well. Who wins this competition will determine whether Mazda continues as a spunky builder of interesting cars or becomes a sporty nameplate attached to somebody else’s handiwork. The latter would be a shame – greater, even, than the passing of Walter Chrysler’s name from the automotive firmament.
October 12, 2008
September 18, 2008
Credit Where Credit is Due
The Crank was present at the creation of the online publishing devolution. (In fact, if anyone was writing car reviews online before 1991, the Crank would like to hear from them to arrange the surrender of his crown.)
Why a devolution? Because looking around, much of what passes for auto writing on the Web is an eye-washing waste of pixels. It is the rare auto blog that doesn’t merely masticate and spew barely-altered manufacturer press releases, and even the more serious sites rarely flirt with original journalism, much less season their writing with any detectable style. (I except, of course, the sites that reprint columns from another medium, such as RoadandTrack.com and Dan Neil’s jewels on LATimes.com.) But Henry Manney’s ghost is safe from replacement in our reverence by those who toil first in cyberspace.
Nothing inherent to the medium compels lesser thought or syntax, except that if one is truly good at the craft, other outlets pay more. Which makes some difference, but still doesn’t explain the noticeably lower quality of Web-original work. If a new Neil, Manney, Ezra Dyer, Pete Lyons, or Peter Egan is not forthcoming from the vast Internet, where at least is the next Csaba Csere, for Pete’s sake? Pat Bedard? Joe Lorio? Your name here? It is a puzzlement.
That’s why, when the Crank does find something praiseworthy, he makes sure to point it out, even if they’re competition. And one such is AutoSpies.com. To be sure, their written work is not nearly as strong as can be found even other places on the Web. But this site has gone from 0 to 60 with comparatively alacrity by specializing in that most beguiling of art forms, the spy shot. Jonesing to peep at the latest beauty machine, the newest thing that somebody doesn’t want you to see? Look at Autospies first. Don’t know who they are or how they do it, but do it they do, and consistently.
On a vaguely related subject: The temptation of instant publishing leads many websites either to flirt with or just flat ignore embargoes, a practice that puts the Crank in a mighty lather. If today’s Web writers hope ever to make it to the local magazine rack, they’ll cut that out. Corporate PR folks have long memories, and can ensure your career in print or broadcast is short and unhappy.
Embargo ignorers, you have been warned! Duty done, and now the Crank's lunch will settle well.
Why a devolution? Because looking around, much of what passes for auto writing on the Web is an eye-washing waste of pixels. It is the rare auto blog that doesn’t merely masticate and spew barely-altered manufacturer press releases, and even the more serious sites rarely flirt with original journalism, much less season their writing with any detectable style. (I except, of course, the sites that reprint columns from another medium, such as RoadandTrack.com and Dan Neil’s jewels on LATimes.com.) But Henry Manney’s ghost is safe from replacement in our reverence by those who toil first in cyberspace.
Nothing inherent to the medium compels lesser thought or syntax, except that if one is truly good at the craft, other outlets pay more. Which makes some difference, but still doesn’t explain the noticeably lower quality of Web-original work. If a new Neil, Manney, Ezra Dyer, Pete Lyons, or Peter Egan is not forthcoming from the vast Internet, where at least is the next Csaba Csere, for Pete’s sake? Pat Bedard? Joe Lorio? Your name here? It is a puzzlement.
That’s why, when the Crank does find something praiseworthy, he makes sure to point it out, even if they’re competition. And one such is AutoSpies.com. To be sure, their written work is not nearly as strong as can be found even other places on the Web. But this site has gone from 0 to 60 with comparatively alacrity by specializing in that most beguiling of art forms, the spy shot. Jonesing to peep at the latest beauty machine, the newest thing that somebody doesn’t want you to see? Look at Autospies first. Don’t know who they are or how they do it, but do it they do, and consistently.
On a vaguely related subject: The temptation of instant publishing leads many websites either to flirt with or just flat ignore embargoes, a practice that puts the Crank in a mighty lather. If today’s Web writers hope ever to make it to the local magazine rack, they’ll cut that out. Corporate PR folks have long memories, and can ensure your career in print or broadcast is short and unhappy.
Embargo ignorers, you have been warned! Duty done, and now the Crank's lunch will settle well.
September 17, 2008
Scylla, Charybdis, meet Mini
As you may have heard, the cheerful gnomes at Mini have showed off a concept crossover – their idea of what an all-wheel-drive, slightly larger, slightly raised Mini would be like.
This is an abomination.
Look, with the possible exception of a nuclear-armed Alabama, what the world needs least right now is another full-line car maker. Whether it’s Porsche going into SUVs and sedans, Lincoln and Cadillac and Buick making trucks, or Volkswagen heaving up Phaetons, the grail of a full-line showroom is actually a blight on the industry, a siren luring companies away from what they do well to crash on the jagged shoals of Mediocrity and Irrelevance.
And the fact that some of these mutants sell well is not an excuse. There’s something called brand equity, and every time a hallowed name is put on a vehicle that’s substandard or out of brand character, the value of the brand is diminished even on the cars that the company does well. Say it with me: Saab 9-7x.
The Crank doesn’t doubt that the Mini crossover would be brand-appropriately quirky. Its asymmetrical design and navigation crystal ball features guarantee this. But at the same time, however quirky-cute it may be, the world:
Doesn’t need another crossover;
Doesn’t need another full-line carmaker;
Doesn’t need another competent company falling victim to niche envy.
And Mini, of all companies – the brand devoted to doing what other companies weren’t doing – should be the last one to wander into crossover territory.
Disappointing? The Crank says yes.
(And yeah, the Crank knows that Mini is just BMW with a plummy accent and a randy boarding-school warden in its past. But BMW should know better. Then again, they built the X6, so maybe not.)
This is an abomination.
Look, with the possible exception of a nuclear-armed Alabama, what the world needs least right now is another full-line car maker. Whether it’s Porsche going into SUVs and sedans, Lincoln and Cadillac and Buick making trucks, or Volkswagen heaving up Phaetons, the grail of a full-line showroom is actually a blight on the industry, a siren luring companies away from what they do well to crash on the jagged shoals of Mediocrity and Irrelevance.
And the fact that some of these mutants sell well is not an excuse. There’s something called brand equity, and every time a hallowed name is put on a vehicle that’s substandard or out of brand character, the value of the brand is diminished even on the cars that the company does well. Say it with me: Saab 9-7x.
The Crank doesn’t doubt that the Mini crossover would be brand-appropriately quirky. Its asymmetrical design and navigation crystal ball features guarantee this. But at the same time, however quirky-cute it may be, the world:
Doesn’t need another crossover;
Doesn’t need another full-line carmaker;
Doesn’t need another competent company falling victim to niche envy.
And Mini, of all companies – the brand devoted to doing what other companies weren’t doing – should be the last one to wander into crossover territory.
Disappointing? The Crank says yes.
(And yeah, the Crank knows that Mini is just BMW with a plummy accent and a randy boarding-school warden in its past. But BMW should know better. Then again, they built the X6, so maybe not.)
September 10, 2008
A Poor Spa Treatment
The Crank’s been watching some Formula One lately. (Okay, he’ll watch Formula One just about any time, especially when it’s at Spa.) Not the most competitive racing in the world, but now and again you get moments of drama and, frankly, injustice. And the Crank *lives* for moments of injustice.
The latest transgression was visited upon Lewis Hamilton at Spa. In a situation where he was clearly trying to avoid an accident, Hamilton cut a chicane and wound up in front of the car he was trying not to hit, Kimi Räikkönen’s Ferrari. Properly, Hamilton did the right thing; he immediately let Räikkönen back past. Then, catching a tow, he set up and executed a clean pass at the next corner.
On review, the stewards of the meeting decided that this was not proper – that Hamilton had managed to gain an advantage by cutting the chicane. Never mind that he was so close to Räikkönen’s gearbox going into the corner that the evasive action was necessary; the fact that he came out of the corner in the same position – on Räikkönen’s gearbox – was somehow deemed to have given Hamilton an advantage.
Sorry, guys, you got this one wrong.
The Crank has a bit of experience with things like this, having pulled a trick or two during his days on the track. When a racer does the wrong thing, he or she should be penalized. But when the stewards do the wrong thing, the driver shouldn’t pay.
Hamilton did the sporting thing and what the rules required: He let the guy by. But as soon as that’s done, the race is back on.
He gets an appeal; let’s hope the board sees the world right.
The latest transgression was visited upon Lewis Hamilton at Spa. In a situation where he was clearly trying to avoid an accident, Hamilton cut a chicane and wound up in front of the car he was trying not to hit, Kimi Räikkönen’s Ferrari. Properly, Hamilton did the right thing; he immediately let Räikkönen back past. Then, catching a tow, he set up and executed a clean pass at the next corner.
On review, the stewards of the meeting decided that this was not proper – that Hamilton had managed to gain an advantage by cutting the chicane. Never mind that he was so close to Räikkönen’s gearbox going into the corner that the evasive action was necessary; the fact that he came out of the corner in the same position – on Räikkönen’s gearbox – was somehow deemed to have given Hamilton an advantage.
Sorry, guys, you got this one wrong.
The Crank has a bit of experience with things like this, having pulled a trick or two during his days on the track. When a racer does the wrong thing, he or she should be penalized. But when the stewards do the wrong thing, the driver shouldn’t pay.
Hamilton did the sporting thing and what the rules required: He let the guy by. But as soon as that’s done, the race is back on.
He gets an appeal; let’s hope the board sees the world right.
July 19, 2008
Window-welding time in Detroit
The Crank did not get his name easily. It didn't come from box tops or by digging through Cracker Jack. No, this particular moniker was hard-earned; a lifetime of grouching isn't for the fainthearted.
He says this so that what follows won't be taken as puffery.
The Crank is bullish on General Motors. Yes, the stock is at a 50 year low. Yes, it is popular and very easy to bash GM's current leadership. But of the three Detroit car companies, GM is the one with the best product line, the best financial resources, the best global distribution, and the strongest commitment to the business.
And the most important part is that product. The Crank has driven almost everything that GM has made in the last 17 years, and there was plenty to wail about. But in the last 2 1/2 years, GM has gone from strength to strength to strength. It started with superior interiors in even the low end cars. It moved onto driving dynamics, build quality, and exterior design. To date, the best statement of the new GM is the Chevrolet Malibu and its cousin, the Saturn Aura. The Malibu, quite simply, is a jaw dropper -- like the ideal prom date, beautiful, well put together, and cheap. It is a car that should be causing sleepless nights across the Pacific and the Atlantic. And it's just an example of what GM can now do. The trick is getting people into the showrooms to see the cars in the first place. Always has been.
Nobody knows what's going to happen to Chrysler, but the morning line has the company in pieces within a very few years. Whether the Dodge brand gets sold to the Chinese or is simply applied to cars made in the Middle Kingdom is irrelevant; in either case, this is not your father's Chrysler. Plymouth is gone and Dodge is for the high jump; that leaves an emasculated Jeep and the Chrysler brand whose equity has been so diluted over the past decade as to be meaningless. Some in Auburn Hills may complain that the company was micromanaged under German occupation, but whoever greenlighted the Caliber, Sebring, and the emasculation of Jeep is probably still in the building. If nothing else, this makes Chrysler guilty of harboring a fugitive from justice.
Ford keeps trying. They keep making appealing products that somehow fail to capture the American imagination. The Crank is an unabashed fan of the way Fords drive, and the current Taurus and Taurus X are remarkably undershopped automobiles. Ford has handled its foreign acquisitions with a maturity and sensitivity that make GM seem positively Neanderthal. While making some product errors, Ford added value to Jaguar and has also done well by Volvo. Their financial condition is sufficiently parlous, though, and their failure to capture the national imagination enduring enough, that if Ford survives as an independent company, it will be thanks to Mazda.
Not only is Mazda engineering the best platforms in the forward line up, it is better positioned than any other major carmaker to weather the era of 4-dollar-a-gallon gasoline. They don't have full-size trucks or sport utes; their smaller cars are interesting rather than simply economical; and even their larger platforms offer a qualitative difference from their competition. Drive a Mazda CX-7 or CX-9 in close proximity to a Honda Pilot or Toyota Highlander and you'll see what I mean. Car or for car, Mazda offers more interesting driving for the dollar. Car buyers can either buy simple or, for the same money, buy interesting. Guess what they prefer?
Over time, the internal combustion engine is doomed. The trick while they’re still around is to put them in appealing packages to give a car buyer or something more than basic transportation without bleeding wallets dry. Mazda does that; GM can too. After that, it's everyone to the lifeboats.
He says this so that what follows won't be taken as puffery.
The Crank is bullish on General Motors. Yes, the stock is at a 50 year low. Yes, it is popular and very easy to bash GM's current leadership. But of the three Detroit car companies, GM is the one with the best product line, the best financial resources, the best global distribution, and the strongest commitment to the business.
And the most important part is that product. The Crank has driven almost everything that GM has made in the last 17 years, and there was plenty to wail about. But in the last 2 1/2 years, GM has gone from strength to strength to strength. It started with superior interiors in even the low end cars. It moved onto driving dynamics, build quality, and exterior design. To date, the best statement of the new GM is the Chevrolet Malibu and its cousin, the Saturn Aura. The Malibu, quite simply, is a jaw dropper -- like the ideal prom date, beautiful, well put together, and cheap. It is a car that should be causing sleepless nights across the Pacific and the Atlantic. And it's just an example of what GM can now do. The trick is getting people into the showrooms to see the cars in the first place. Always has been.
Nobody knows what's going to happen to Chrysler, but the morning line has the company in pieces within a very few years. Whether the Dodge brand gets sold to the Chinese or is simply applied to cars made in the Middle Kingdom is irrelevant; in either case, this is not your father's Chrysler. Plymouth is gone and Dodge is for the high jump; that leaves an emasculated Jeep and the Chrysler brand whose equity has been so diluted over the past decade as to be meaningless. Some in Auburn Hills may complain that the company was micromanaged under German occupation, but whoever greenlighted the Caliber, Sebring, and the emasculation of Jeep is probably still in the building. If nothing else, this makes Chrysler guilty of harboring a fugitive from justice.
Ford keeps trying. They keep making appealing products that somehow fail to capture the American imagination. The Crank is an unabashed fan of the way Fords drive, and the current Taurus and Taurus X are remarkably undershopped automobiles. Ford has handled its foreign acquisitions with a maturity and sensitivity that make GM seem positively Neanderthal. While making some product errors, Ford added value to Jaguar and has also done well by Volvo. Their financial condition is sufficiently parlous, though, and their failure to capture the national imagination enduring enough, that if Ford survives as an independent company, it will be thanks to Mazda.
Not only is Mazda engineering the best platforms in the forward line up, it is better positioned than any other major carmaker to weather the era of 4-dollar-a-gallon gasoline. They don't have full-size trucks or sport utes; their smaller cars are interesting rather than simply economical; and even their larger platforms offer a qualitative difference from their competition. Drive a Mazda CX-7 or CX-9 in close proximity to a Honda Pilot or Toyota Highlander and you'll see what I mean. Car or for car, Mazda offers more interesting driving for the dollar. Car buyers can either buy simple or, for the same money, buy interesting. Guess what they prefer?
Over time, the internal combustion engine is doomed. The trick while they’re still around is to put them in appealing packages to give a car buyer or something more than basic transportation without bleeding wallets dry. Mazda does that; GM can too. After that, it's everyone to the lifeboats.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)