26 Magazine » Automotive

Chevy’s Volt a much needed jolt

Awesome Rob — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 06:42:38 +0000

A few months ago, people cried over the treatment of ‘Government Motors’ and its bailouts and eventual bankruptcy filing, while conspiracy theorists predicted the company would be a government entity within the private business sector. While many of those claims are still on their way to being proven false, the idea that GM would grow stale or would fail even with government intervention seem to be way off the mark. GM has needed a change in its public image, that much anyone can agree on. In many ways, GM needed not years of gradual improvement, but something so significant and earth shattering that it broke the hanging cloud of doubt over General Motors and its smaller companies and would renew interest in the struggling automaker.

The Volt was a much needed jolt to that cause.

For a long time, GM was known for its gas guzzling SUV’s and going all out with the luxury features in Cadillac, a questionable tactic of canceling heritage lines in Chevrolet and of course, owning way more brands than the average automobile conglomerate.

Hummer was the car so big and hungry, it looked for smaller compacts to eat for lunch.

Cadillac was a brand that oozed title and station, that those who owned them and had not a single accomplishment to their name still felt like a million bucks (or about $50,000, depreciating value with time).

Pontiac seemed like the idea of someone that manufactured generic brands, simply taking Chevy frames and throwing them into a new wrapper.

Buick marketed to a small demographic of those too old to see five feet in front of them, so they needed a boat built for the road to protect them on their 45-minute drive three miles down the road to pick up a bottle of Maalox.

Then there of course was Chevy, who made the questionable decision of derailing the Camaro years ago, only to bring it back at the same time of the bankruptcy filing.

There are other brands that were part of the umbrella of GM, and all can be detailed as these have, showing that there have been some marketing and production missteps that set the stage for the grand collapse. GM got too big for its britches, and all it took was a sickness, like the recession we’ve faced, to shake the foundation of what was once called “too big to fail.”

The Volt takes all that bad press and spins it into a positive light, showing that not only did GM promise to make a more energy efficient vehicle, but that it can still do so on an accelerated time table and still hold the values of the modern driver high.

Americans love leg room, arm room, butt room, and other room necessary space considerations for our either fear of claustrophobia or the love of fast food.

All while throwing them into a vehicle that can get an estimated 230 miles per gallon. The real mileage will vary tremendously with the driver, but the impact of the statement has been made. Millions have read, heard and discussed this now anticipated car, and the response has been pretty positive from consumers and one of high school trash talking, as Nissan had done with a twitter update after the Chevy announcement.

If GM can follow through, and if it plays its cards right, the American auto industry may be looking forward to a bright future.

Trade in old clunkers, gas guzzlers for cheaper new car smell

Brittany — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 20:00:40 +0000

Last month, Congress approved the “Car Allowance Rebate System,” also known as “CARS,” in an attempt to help push auto sales up, at the same time as rid the road of those old clunkers, gas guzzlers and otherwise inefficient vehicles. Taking advantage of this deal could mean $3,500 to $4,500 off the sticker price of a new — and overall better — car for you and your family.

Here’s what the Associated Press published about the program:

Q: Which vehicles qualify?

A: Cars and trucks must be 1984 models or newer to be eligible for a trade-in rebate. They must get 18 miles per gallon or less in combined highway/city rating — based on the “Estimated New EPA MPG” ratings available at http://www.fueleconomy.gov. The vehicle needs to be drivable, insured and licensed for at least a year — so forget about buying a clunker this summer for $500 and “flipping” it through the program. Violators face penalties if they submit false information.

Q: How do I qualify for the incentives?

A: For passenger cars, consumers can get $3,500 if the new vehicle gets at least 4 mpg more than the trade-in and $4,500 if the new vehicle gets at least 10 mpg more than the trade-in. For sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks or minivans, owners can get a $3,500 rebate if the new vehicle gets at least 2 mpg higher than the old vehicle. The rebate improves to $4,500 if the new vehicle gets at least 5 mpg higher than the trade-in. Large work trucks weighing at least 6,000 pounds can also qualify for rebates of $3,500 to $4,500.

Q: Can I buy any kind of vehicle through the program?

A: This won’t subsidize a new Ferrari. The new vehicle needs to meet the fuel-efficiency requirements and have a manufacturer’s suggested retail price of less than $45,000. It can be a domestic or foreign model. Used car purchases are not allowed under the program.

Q: Can I get the clunker rebate plus the value of my trade-in?

A: No.

Q: My old car or truck is worth more than $4,500. Should I use this program?

A: Probably not. The program essentially guarantees a minimum trade-in for a vehicle. So someone with an old beater valued at $1,000 that meets the mileage requirements stands to gain the most. Any prospective buyer with an old car worth more than $4,500 should probably trade it in for a new one. But many automakers and dealerships are offering additional incentives, so it’s worth talking to your dealer.

Q: What happens to my old vehicle?

A: The trade-in vehicle will be scrapped. Dealers are required to use a government-approved salvage facility for the vehicle disposal. Vehicles need to be shredded or crushed within six months.

Q: What do I need to do to participate?

A: Go to your local car dealer. Dealer registration for the program began Friday. Owners need to bring their vehicle, title, proof of registration and proof of insurance.

Q: How will this program affect other dealer and manufacturer incentives?

A: Dealers must use the rebate in addition to — instead of as a substitute for — other rebates and discounts available to consumers. Many automakers are combining internal incentives with the government rebates to lure customers to showrooms. For example, Chrysler is offering $4,500 in cash toward the purchase of a new vehicle. Dealers are also required to disclose the best estimate of the salvage value of each vehicle.

Q: Does any money change hands?

A: No. If a consumer qualifies for a government rebate, the amount of the rebate is deducted from the vehicle’s sticker price and the dealer is later reimbursed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Q: How many clunkers are expected to be traded in through the program and how much will it cost the government?

A: The program will cost $1 billion to remove about 250,000 vehicles from U.S. roads. It’s unclear if Congress will seek more money later this year. Some lawmakers, led by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., have said if Congress provides more funding, the program should require consumers to buy vehicles with higher fuel-efficiency than the current program’s requirements.

Q: How long does the program last?

A: It ends on November 1 or when the $1 billion in funding runs out. Jack Nerad, executive market analyst for Kelley Blue Book, makes this suggestion: “I would look to see if I qualify right away. A lot of people won’t qualify” because of the specific requirements. Nerad said automakers may offer additional incentives before the program ends.

Q: Where can I find more information?

A: Visit the government’s CARS Web site http://www.cars.gov/ or call the government hot line at (866) CAR-7891. Auto companies and Web sites such as Edmunds.com http://www.edmunds.com/cash-for-clunkers, Kelley Blue Book http://www.kbb.com/kbb/cash-for-clunkers/default.aspx and AutoTrader.com http://www.autotrader.com/cash-for-clunkers.jsp have compiled additional details and eligible vehicle lists for consumers.

Honda Fit vs. Toyota Prius

andrea — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 14:00:34 +0000

It seems like only yesterday when the “cool” car to drive was a BIG SUV. Well, those days are gone, and now everyone wants to conserve gas and save the planet. There’s no easier way to do this than by driving a cute little subcompact car, or a hybrid if you’re nasty.

I’ve been driving a 2008 Volkswagen Jetta and my lease is just about up. I decided to be proactive for once and start looking at some possible cars so I checked out the (seemingly) two most popular options: the Honda Fit and Toyota Prius.

They seemed pretty similar to me at first, but there are some distinct differences. I found my information on Edmunds, which is an incredible Web site that can answer any question that you have about any car.

This is what I’ve found:

Honda Fit
Price: Obviously prices range, but the average (with all taxes/fees/etc) is mid $17,000s.
Safety: In government crash tests, it earned a 5/5 star rating for protecting passengers in both frontal and side crashes. For back side protection it earned 3/5 stars. In all, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety gave the Fit the highest “Good” rating for “frontal-offset and side crash protection.”
Gas Mileage: approx. 35 MPG
Power/Performance: Features a 109-horsepower engine, which can really get a car that’s mass is 2,500 pounds to really fly. The manual goes from 0 to 60 in nine seconds. And because it’s so light, the Fit can really accelerate, but it’s not very quiet when going highway speeds.
Other: This has a much higher MSRP than other cars of its kind. It also hasn’t really been upgraded since 2001. It’s only been sold in the U.S. for a few years but it’s been sold worldwide since 2001. The 2009 and 2008 Fit are exactly the same. We can expect to see it in Hybrid form within the next few years.

Toyota Prius (Hybrid)
Price: About $25,000. (This is brand new, keep in mind.)
Safety: In government crash tests, it earned a 4/5 star rating for protecting passengers in the front of the car when in a frontal crash. For side impact, it received 5/5 stars for passengers in the front and 4/5 stars for passengers in the back. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety gave the Prius the exact same as the Fit. (”Good” for protection in frontal-offset and side-impact crashes.)
Gas Mileage: approx 46 MPG; Edmunds calls this the most fuel-efficient car on the market
Power/Performance: The gas engine provides 76 horsepower and 82 pound-feet of torque. The electric motor’s net peak horsepower is 110. These two power sources will hit their peaks at different times. Goes from 0 to 60 in 10.4 seconds.
Other: With all new cars, you get can get lots of goodies and techie things. The Prius features an entire screen on the dash that shows everything from the temperatures inside (and outside) to what’s on the radio to how many miles you have left before you need to gas up.

Yesterday’s GM, tomorrow’s..?

Awesome Rob — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 14:00:03 +0000

This past year has been a rough year for many people. Unemployment skyrocketed. People were being foreclosed on left and right and evicted before you could even finish reading the notice. Stocks tumbled, super corporations filed bankruptcy and went under. But most of all, Motor City USA was pummeled by this recession, with it coming to a head with the demise of a company once deemed too large to fail, General Motors.

After bailouts and bankruptcy, the GM brand is one that has been badly damaged. One won’t know the extent for perhaps several years, and the outcome of the chain of events put into place by their June 1 bankruptcy filing, but the Associated Press reported of a popular method of reinvention.

On top of company restructuring, many companies also opt for renaming their brand.

The most recent example of this is our private military company (PMC) formerly known as Blackwater. This PMC handled security in Iraq where U.S. forces were stretched too thin. PMCs are almost exclusively ex-military, with most having special ops training, and are in many ways more capable than the U.S. military at engaging in urban warfare. Things were going well for years, and business was booming for Blackwater until an accident involving Blackwater soldiers and the killing of several Iraqi civilians. Upon ‘losing’ their contract (they just had to give business to another PMC and move their operations to other cities), Blackwater received mountains of negative press from media and government officials both at home and abroad.

So Blackwater sank, and Xe was born.

Xe is the same company, with a name impossible to recognize (or pronounce correctly on the first attempt), but it’s largely escaped the negative public eye and have gone onto business.

Looking at that, it makes sense to speculate that GM has some justification for considering the name change. It blew through billions of taxpayer’s dollars just to file bankruptcy all the same a few months later. That’s a lot of negativity for the company that once ran the American dream off the assembly lines of eight different brands. The popular monikers for GM are now Government Motors (given how much of GM is owned by the government), or Greedy Motors (all the money it’s received). The list goes on, but the message is clear. The brand’s taken a beating.

But there is one thing that GM and Blackwater do not have in common, and it is perhaps the biggest thing to remember in this debate.

GM has a legacy. People know what GM represented for years. It has brand recognition, respect and in some cases, even hope for recovery. Blackwater, and ValuJet (now AirTran) did not have a legacies. Phillip Morris (now Altria Group) changed its business model and tobacco association would contradict their goals.

GM is still going to make cars, though fewer cars, but it’s still staying true to what the company is about.

As symbolic as GM has been for years, even with its tarnished and beaten reputation, there is something many need to understand. Americans are a people of one of the greatest characteristics man can possess, and it is what has long separated the United States from the rest of the world.

Resilience.

In the beginning, America was a country that fought a war that seemed impossible to win for freedom. Even when the country fractured and warred within itself, from the reformation emerged an even stronger nation. And several times in the country’s history, the United States has found a way to create prosperity in the depths of depression.

For GM to re-establish itself as it once was, it will take a lot of sacrifice, hard work and time. General Motors will again become America’s brand; a brand that Americans can be proud of.

Zero to 60 in three seconds

Awesome Rob — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 20:00:50 +0000

In these rough economic times, people have reorganized their values. If you walk into a restaurant, you see fewer waiters and waitresses. The crowds in the malls have diminished and every few days you hear about a new bank going under, or another car manufacturer turning over control to the court in bankruptcy. Fewer people have made home improvement purchases, gone splurging for new wardrobes and have even had to downsize on housing.

Yet, with all that said, it’s nice to know that Europeans still tickle the American fancy, and they do it better than the Americans could ever.

A great modern philosopher turned lunatic once said, “I feel the need, the need for speed.” Speed is something Americans have loved since we climbed on a horse’s back and told it to run for the sunset. We’ve turned those horses into mechanical horsepower, shelled it in aluminum, carbon fiber and fiberglass. Then we advanced upon that and utilized aerodynamic science from aviation development and created the race car. NASCAR, Formula-1, Indycar and even the urban street racing culture are stem from this tree.

Speed once was the pride of American Muscle, and loud engines that went fast and got 36 feet to the gallon were our adrenaline fixation. The Japanese then created fuel injection, and made cars just as fast, and the Europeans had style; both leaving Ford, Dodge and GM in the dust.

But if there’s one thing America itself hasn’t lost, its our insatiable quest for the better, faster, and most expensive status symbol.

Welcome, the Gumpert Sportwagenmanufaktur Apollo.

When people think of fast cars, they think of the Corvette for American cars, the Nissan Skyline R34 or Toyota Supra on the Japanese front, and Ferrari F50 or the Ferrari Enzo from our European speed demons.

But all that has been pushed aside by the new heavyweight.

Gumpert had made cars only available in Europe for many years. Recently however, they made the jump to producing cars in America for sale in the good ol’ USA. What sets Gumpert apart from Ferrari, Lamborghini, Aston Martin and the other big name super car manufacturers is that Gumpert sells completely customizable cars from the get go. Base pricing for their 10 Apollo a year is $400,000, with most of the final builds totaling more than $700,000. This is a car built around the individual buyer, making whatever he or she may want come to complete fruition.

If you’re ever lucky enough to save up enough pennies to buy one of these babies, there’s only one place in America where you can go to get it fixed, and that’s back in Arizona at the assembly plant, where the only authorized Gumpert repair specialists reside.

All that said, this is the car you want if you get a kick out of granny yelling at you from her porch as you fly by at 223 miles per hour. You can accelerate from 0 to 62 miles per hour in three seconds. You reach 124 miles per hour in 8.9 seconds. (All speeds from top speed.)

That puts this beast near the top of the supercar list for speed, and compared to the Bugatti Veyron, which tops at near 250 miles per hour, you can buy two of these for the price of one. Not that it matters much at that speed. Both cars run out of gas three to five minutes before the tires would blow.

U.K. faces speed limiting: Is U.S. next?

Brittany — Thu, 14 May 2009 02:25:20 +0000

The U.K. could soon see thousands of its buses, taxis and other public vehicles installed with speed limiters.

I know you’re about to go back and check – if you already haven’t – to make absolutely sure you saw a “K” and not an “S” in the previously stated acronym. Either way, let me make it crystal clear that this is the United Kingdom, not the United States that the following article will be discussing in regard to the possibility of limiting the speed of all common motor vehicles.

Feel any better now? Well, maybe you shouldn’t.

The technology behind this is known as Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA) and is being tested by Transport for London (the U.K.’s version of the U.S. Department of Transportation) in a trial starting this summer.

In an article written on London’s Times Online, I noticed some careful diction when I read, “Drivers of vehicles with ISA will be able to select an option that prevents them from accelerating over the limit.”

Did you notice it too?

“Drivers…will be able to select…”

Select, huh? Oh really….

The article then describes that this “selectable” feature will also automatically decrease the speed of a vehicle if the driver fails to reduce his or her speed when passing a sign marking a lower limit.

In order to detect local speed limits, the ISA device uses a satellite tracking and digital road map. But wait, there’s more….

In addition to the automatic mode, a driver can also select – again with this diction – a setting that flashes a “smiley face” if the driver is following the speed limit, or a “frown “face” if the driver is exceeding the limit.

So you can either be electronically forced to obey the speed limit signs or you can “choose” to see happy or frowning faces constantly flashing you in the eyes, inches from your odometer.

The Times Online also says ISA technology will likely be available to private motorists as early as next year.

Where do I sign up? Yeah, right.

Supporters of this control on motorists and motor vehicles cite the potential elimination of thousands of speed-related accidents each year.

They also argue that since almost a quarter of all traffic congestion is due to accidents, having speed limiters on vehicles would reduce that congestion as a direct result. So, essentially, fewer accidents would equate to less traffic. Finally, we’re getting to something that makes sense.

It is true, according to the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, that around 11,000 deaths in the U.S. each year are speed-related, with almost a third occurring on rural or non-interstate roads.

Another supporting argument offered for this speed limiting device is that vehicles operating at or below speed limits would consume less fuel and therefore would create less pollution.

I’m not sure of the exact science behind the pollution a car produces between each mile per hour, but if everyone was forced to follow speed limits, I’m sure that number would add up fast, saving quite a lot.

Okay, so there are some benefits this ISA technology could provide. I’ll give it that, but what about the down sides? How about that one word the U.S. is said to fight for above all else?

Freedom anyone?

Again, this is a story about a trial version of speed limiting technology, a trial taking place more than 3,000 miles away. Is it not possible, however, that if this idea takes off in the U.K. it might just take off here in the United States? Looking back in the annals of American history, a lot has taken place first in old mother England before taking root here. Let’s not forget about civil rights and…the Beatles.

Is it not our right to be in control of our vehicles and thereby our speed? The freedom of putting the top down on that old Mustang, slamming it into third gear at 60 miles per hour and flying down an empty stretch of highway, wind blasting through your hair, music cranked up loud….

Maybe it’s just me.

Results of the U.K.’s trial of this technology will be published in spring, reported the Times Online.

Guess we’ll just have to wait and see where the road takes us from there.