Happy 60th Birthday to the Best 4×4xFar

Today is Land Rover’s 60th birthday. On this day in 1948, a Land Rover was first shown to the public.

As the story goes, the owners of the British Rover car company retreated to their family farm after World War II. They used US Army Jeeps left in England for agricultural work, but spare parts soon disappeared. They decided to build a Rover version of the Jeep for personal farm use. The first prototype was even built on a Jeep platform. As requests from friends for similar vehicles mounted, the owners decided to put their Land Rover into full production.

Rover’s cars had long been considered the “poor-man’s Rolls Royce,” due mostly to high-quality engineering. Similarly, its first Land Rovers released at the 1948 Amsterdam Motor Show gained almost immediate notoriety for bulletproof construction. The Series I featured a box section steel chassis, and due to shortages of steel, rustproof all-aluminum bodywork. Under the hood was a four-cylinder, overhead valve gas engine that drove all four wheels.

Land Rover’s popularity also ignited due to its versatility. The Land Rover became available in wagon and pick-up forms with short and long wheelbases. A diesel engine also emerged. Other optional equipment could be added based on need, from dual-plane roof panels to aid cabin heating and cooling, to snow plows. Some vehicles were equipped with periscope carburetor air-intake snorkels to allow vehicles to cross rivers almost completely submerged. In the field, a Land Rover could even operate multiple transmission-driven winches, welders or generators

Safety and emissions legislation caused Land Rover to abandon the American market in the 1970s. Those sold in the states prior to the retreat became instantly coveted for their rugged nature. One of my Land Rover-owning high school friends used to cruise the hills of Seattle during big snow storms looking for stuck cars and lesser SUVs to winch to safety. Great weight distribution and skinny tires meant even the most insane snow-covered hills weren’t safe from the LR’s prowess.

When Land Rover returned in the late 1980s, its vehicles reflected the softer needs of a more upscale clientele. The company was purchased by BMW, which helped increase the luxurious nature of the product line, but did absolutely nothing to improve reliability – a nagging problem of the Rover group (and the entire British car industry since the horrible days of British Leyland.)

Even after Ford purchased the company from BMW in 2000, Land Rover’s products were perennial basement players with the likes of Fiat and VW in global quality studies. Still, from the LR3 to the luxurious Range Rover, the brand’s models have remained among the most competent off road vehicles.

Now going into the hands of India’s Tata (along with Jaguar), a new chapter of Land Rover’s history is in the making.

While many of us long for the tough-as-nails, works even when broken nature of the Land Rovers of old, they are still the rides to have when you absolutely need to cross the craziest terrain. As Land Rover owners say: they’re the best 4X4XFar.

Presidential Automotive Trivia

As we roll into Presidents Day weekend, it seems apropos to mention a few pieces of Presidential automotive trivia. These are the types of tidbits that are completely useless except for someday providing the possibility of winning a free beer from your friends.

The first automaker to transport a US President was Studebaker. Before Studebaker made cars and trucks, it was a manufacturer of high-end coaches, which were the choice of Presidents as far back as Lincoln.

The first US President to ride in a car was William “Tons of Fun” Taft in 1909. Taft was extremely interested in cars, probably more than any other Commander In Chief since. He arranged to have the White House stables converted to a four car garage and ordered two 1909 Pierce Arrows to become the first White House automobiles.

Probably the most famous Presidential vehicle was Kennedy’s 1961 Lincoln Continental X-100 limo. It was customized by coachbuilder Hess & Eisenhardt at a cost of nearly $200,000. While it was a convertible, the car featured a removable clear bubble hardtop. After Kennedy was assassinated, the vehicle returned to Hess & Eisenhardt for what was referred to as the “1963-1964 Quick Fix”, which fully enclosed the car. This vehicle returned to Presidential service for LBJ, Nixon, Ford, and Carter. It was retired in 1977.

And though current President George W. Bush is usually seen in his Caddy limo or good ol’ boy Ford truck at his ranch, in his younger days of beer drinking and hell raising, he was notorious for ripping up Houston streets in a Triumph TR3.

Cutting through the automakers’ sales results sales pitch

While the rest of the country is busy crunching numbers to predict who will be the next President, at the Four Wheel Drift, we’re up to our eyes in auto manufacturers’ reports for 2007 deliveries and sales.  If we could predict in politics the way we forecasted sales for this year, we’d be making much more money working in D.C.

 The fact of the matter is that we don’t always believe the spin handed to us with the results, so we like to see what really mattered in the companies’ 2007 reports…and which allows us to predict what will happen in 2008 and beyond. 

Like we expected, it was a brutal year in the car business for the usual suspects.  And to no surprise, the savvy European and Asian brands not only weathered 2007, but outright excelled.  

Ford
First let’s look at the Blue Oval boys’ 2007:  

• Ford’s 2007 sales totaled 2.57 million, which was down 12 percent from 2006. 
  • Retail sales were down 10 percent and fleet sales were down 18 percent (including a 32 percent reduction in daily rental sales). 
  • More than two thirds of Ford’s sales decline reflected discontinued products.

FoMoCo Brand Sales
Ford											2,101,244		2,433,086	-13.6
Mercury											168,422		180,848	-6.9
Lincoln											131,487		120,476	9.1
Jaguar											15,683		20,683	-24.2
Volvo											106,213		115,807	-8.3
Land Rover											49,550		47,774	3.7
Total Ford Motor Company											2,572,599		2,918,674	-11.9
Mustang											134,626		166,530	-19.2
F-Series											690,589		796,039	-13.2

  

Since Ford put all of its eggs in the truck basket, it shouldn’t come as a shock that a 13.2 percent decline in F-Series trucks didn’t help overall brand performance.  And once again, those who predicted that the retro look would reinvigorate the Mustang (as well as told us we didn’t know you-know-what from Shinola when we emphatically disagreed with selling-out the brand for any short-term image gain with Baby Boomers) were proved totally wrong.  Mustang deliveries in 2007 fell 19.2 percent from 166,530 to 134,626 – and many of those are still sitting on dealer lots despite low APR financing. 

Selling Jaguar and Land Rover to Tata was obviously a great move.  If Ford can’t do something quickly to revive Volvo’s tired product line, it will be looking to send away its favorite Swedes, as well.    

Volvo’s reputation for electrical gremlins, expensive maintenance (not to mention often inept dealer service centers), and not so amazing fuel economy might be credited with steep declines in S60 (down 28.1 percent to 18,511 cars), V70 (down 32.7 percent to 3769), XC70 (down 3.8 percent to 12,628), and XC90 (down 5.6 percent to 31,336).   

General MotorsThere are two bright spots at GM. 

First is GMC, which actually saw 5.1 percent growth in the face of a market shunning domestic trucks.  Credit for GMC’s performance goes directly to the Arcadia, which sold 72, 765 units in its first full year of production. 

The second star at GM is Saturn with 6 percent growth.  Unfortunately, the percentage growth isn’t nearly as great as it should be.  Even with all its accolades, the Aura fell just short of 60,000 units – not even good enough to crack into the leaders in the midsize segment.  The true Saturn surprise looks to be the Sky, which while not outselling its Pontiac Solstice sister, did manage to see a 30 percent increase against the Solstice’s 15 percent decline. 

Buick’s performance reflects the company’s decision to focus on well-built soft, boring crossover Utes, instead of soft, boring, and poorly-executed sedans during a time when people are slow to buy either. 

As for Hummer, all we can say is that the only people more shortsighted than Hummer consumers are the yutzes who felt that investing in free-standing Hummer dealerships was a good business decision. 

Speaking of bad business decisions, the Chevy brand is busting at the seams with them.  When the lone bright spots in the Bowtie group are the long-term declining Suburban (which pulled-off a stunning 8.4-percent increase to 83,673) and the Aveo (up 15.1 percent to 67,028 units), an also-ran in the growing sub-compact segment, there’s not much about which to be happy.  Okay, we’ll throw-in the Corvette, because every year the car gets better and units always sell, but niche products aren’t enough to save GM.  Like at Buick, Cadillac, Pontiac, (and Ford, for that matter), Chevy needs top-quality products in the core segments: large sedan, midsize sedan, small sedan, and sub-compact fuel sipper.  Until then GM fans should get comfortable with results like these: 

Buick	185,791	240,657	-22.8
Cadillac	214,726	227,014	-5.4
Chevrolet	2,265,641	2,415,428	-6.2
GMC	505,746	481,222	5.1
HUMMER	55,986	71,524	-21.7
Pontiac	358,022	410,229	-12.7
Saab	32,711	36,349	-10.0
Saturn	240,091	226,375	6.

  

Chrysler

The board room at Daimler-Benz has to be breathing much easier this year with Chrysler as someone else’s nightmare.  

CHRYSLER BRAND	543,011	604,874	-10%
JEEP BRAND	475,237	460,052	3%
DODGE BRAND	1,058,402	1,077,579	-2%

 

Chrysler could only manage a 10 percent decline in sales, with brand image leaders 300 and PT Cruiser slipping 16 percent (to 120,636) and a whopping 28 percent (to 99,585) respectively.  We’re actually surprised that it took this long for the PT Cruiser to fall under 100,000 annual units, but evidently there are still many older Baby Boomers trying to look “cool” by driving a Neon-sized bucket of rattles…come to think of it, maybe the extended run can be attributed to these buyers replacing PT Cruisers every few years as they fall apart.

 One might call Jeep’s 3-percent increase a big win, but with all the new products in the brand’s lineup, it’s actually a big disappointment. 

Similarly, Dodge managed its 2-percent decrease in deliveries with a whole host of new products…most of which replaced poorly-built coupes and sedans with nicely-powered ugly crossovers that while built better, are aplomb with cheap materials.  

Furthermore, Chrysler has been running plenty of zero-down, zero-percent financing deals to move existing inventory.  And to top off the carnage, even the “lifetime” powertrain warranty doesn’t seem to be helping.  

Toyota

Best-ever year-end sales of 1,313,651 units, up 2.7 percent 

The fact that Toyota had record sales is proof that offering solid products in core segments is the winning strategy.  When Toyota sees a product not fairing well, it makes it better, as proven by the Tundra, which helped Toyota light trucks deliver best-ever sales of 977,997, an increase of 3.2 percent. 

Unlike the domestic companies, which always maintained an “in-the-now” product philosophy, Toyota is now reaping the benefits of developing fuel efficient small cars like the iconic Prius (up a huge 68.9 percent to 181,221 units) and underwhelming, but still fast-selling Yaris (up 20.2 percent to 84,799.) 

Lexus witnessed its cars jump 9.1 percent to 200,334 units, but light trucks (meaning SUVs) slipped 7.9 percent to 128,843.  Anyone who doubted the sanity of offering a hybrid powertrain in the flagship LS need only look at the near 80-percent jump to 35,226. 

Let’s not forget to mention Scion, which is actually considered a part of the Toyota brand for sales purposes.  In general, Scion stunk it up in ’07, with the xB dropping over 25 percent (to 45,834) and the tC falling just short of 20 percent to 63,852. 

Honda

Ford, Chrysler and GM can cry all they want about how horrible the market is and we still won’t shed a tear, because Honda saw record total vehicle sales of 1,371,438 (up 4.5 percent) in 2007.  Just for the record, this is the 11th consecutive yearly sales record and 14th consecutive year-over-year sales increase for the company.  As for the complaint about lagging SUV sales from the Domestics, Honda responds with record light-truck sales across Honda and Acura brands of 669,327 (up 0.3 percent), representing 43 percent of total vehicle sales. 

Acura

Honda’s entry-level luxury brand did falter by 10.8 percent to 180,104 vehicles.  But it wasn’t all bad, as Acura showed its SUVs are still very desirable by posting record year-end sales, eclipsing 2006 by 29.1 percent. 

Audi

Audi dealers sold 93,506 new vehicles during 2007, up 3.8% over 2006.  This is especially impressive, considering that this is actually sales to customers, as opposed to other manufacturers quoting deliveries to dealers, which still often need huge incentives to get customers to buy the cars off the lot. 

Subaru

187,208 total units for the year -7% 2007 

Nissan

Nissan saw sales of 76,900 units, a 2.2 percent decrease compared with last year’s 78,663 units sold.  If it weren’t for the great performance of the Altima (284,762 – an increase of 22.1 percent), though, things would have looked much worse.  Things look up for the manufacturer, too, since the GTR supercar gives a much needed halo image, while a new (and much more competitive) Maxima isn’t too far off on the horizon. 

Infiniti

On the other hand, Infiniti was an overall winner.   Its great G-series helped the company to increase car sales by 7.6 percent to 93,718. The 33,320 units of SUVs, however, were 3.3 less than 2006.   

The BMW

BMW and MINI combined for best-ever annual sales in America for both its brands of 335,840 vehicles, an increase of 7.1 percent over the 313,603 vehicles sold in 2006.    BMW seems to be the blueprint for success, with the 3-series showing an 18.6-percent increase to 142,490 (and the factory simply can’t keep up with 335 coupe and retractable-hardtop convertible orders!)  

And even though it ain’t the most fuel efficient thing on the planet, the X5’s quality and performance led it to a 31.4-percent increase to 35,202 units. 

Mazda

The forgotten Japanese automaker (at least the one not named Mitsubishi or Isuzu) had its best year since 1994.  Mazda sold 296,110 vehicles in America, an increase of 10.2 percent.   The vehicle leading the revolution at Mazda isn’t wielding a Wankel, nor is it a British-inspired roadster, rather the fun, comfortable, well-built 3 compact.  It increased its sales by 27.4 percent to 120,921. 

Speaking of Wankel rotary engines, the RX8 was off 38.3 percent to a “kill me now” 5,767 units. 

VW

Volkswagen sold 230,572 total units in 2007, a decrease of 1.9 percent.  We can simply attribute this to another 5000 or so people realizing that despite the great packaging, nice steering, available diesel engines, and wonderful seat heaters, the cars are statistically more likely to break down than anything short of a Land Rover. 

Hyundai

Hyundai increased total annual sales from 455,520 in 2006 to 467,009 in 2007.  The performance was its ninth consecutive gain, courtesy of consistently improved products.  

Kia

Kia’s bang-for-the-buck products were the key for a 14th consecutive year of record sales with 305,473 units sold, a 3.8-percent increase from 2006. Like Hyundai, Kia didn’t have a single silver bullet, rather just a good overall lineup representing most of the core product segments. 

Porsche

Porsche Cars North America delivered 34,693 units in the US, which exceeded 2006’s record-breaking sales of 34,227.  If you’re a naysayer who hates the Cayenne, and it is not enough that Porsche’s SUV helped the company to its fourth consecutive annual sales increase, then just put this statistic into your pipe and smoke it:  in 2007 Porsche sold 9,649 Boxsters and Caymans, 12,493 911s…and 12,547 Cayennes!

2007 Energy Bill CAFE Standards and a fuel economy history lesson

Congress managed to get higher Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards into the 2007 Energy bill. If everything goes as planned, auto manufacturers product range will have to average 35 mpg by 2020.

As with any threat by politicians to “improve” vehicles, the Big Three came back with “it will drive the cost of cars up”. As always, the cited cost by many industry reps was roughly 30-percent of the current average price of a new car, or $10,000.

Interestingly, however, after the CAFE Standards made it into the bill and seemed to look like it would pass, automakers have put on a better PR face. Ford and Chevy have put out statements indicating they are up to the challenge, showing the market is probably behind the politicians.

This is good news for auto consumers, because current average mpg for each and every company is nothing short of a joke.

I made the comment at Thanksgiving dinner to family and friends that real-world average fuel economy hasn’t improved much (and to some extent, not at all) in the last three to five decades. After getting read the Riot Act by my father, citing the 12 mpg he got on his 1956 Buick, I pulled out road test after road test from Road and Track, Motor Trend, Car and Driver, as well as other publications of the day, and cited fuel economy results from real road tests.

Plain and simple, our view of real-world mpg from the past is simply not accurate. For instance, the hottest 1956 Chevy V8 (the 265-ci equipped with the “Power Pack” for 205 hp) actually delivered 17 city and 21 highway mpg. In contrast the 2006 Impala SS, the only available with a V8, had EPA ratings 18 city/ 28 highway, but Car and Driver saw only 16 mpg actual throughout their test. Just for chuckles, a 1988 Chevy Corsica carried EPA ratings of 19/29, but a C+D test found 21 mpg overall.

In the 1970s fuel economy was chic, and Road and Track found in 1976 that the Honda Accord delivered an average of 32 mpg, which was no different than the VW Beetle’s 30/35 results from over twenty years earlier. In the 1980s, domestic econoboxes looked like the 39 mpg Ford Festiva or 37mpg Chevy Sprint Turbo. Now we get 21 city/ 31 highway Honda Accords and ultra-fuel-efficient 34/30 Ford Escape Hybrid sport ute!

Even sports cars haven’t come a long way, baby. Alfa Romeo’s ’56 Giuletta Spyder gave 27/33 mpg. Porsche’s 356 Coupes were tested at an overall average of 35.2 mpg. And while Triumph TR3 advertisements boasted “up to 30 mpg”, actual testing showed 26 city and 32 highway. Thirty years later, the 1986 Honda CRX was rated at 29/36 and Toyota’s MR2 stickered with 26/32. In 2006, Consumer Guide found a Honda S2000 could only muster 24 mpg, despite clocking 70-percent highway miles on their test regiment.

The first reason for the mileage issue is weight. Cars today weigh more than cars from yesteryear. We all love airbags, stability control, twenty speaker sound systems, and power-adjustable/climate-controlled seats to keep our asses comfy, but all this equipment requires fuel to move down the road.

Secondly, cars now are more powerful than nitro-methane. When Toyota sedans pack 265 horses, you know the power horse race is in full swing.

Nowhere is the weight/power issue more evident than in BMW’s 3 Series Convertible. In 1988, the 325i weighed 2982 pounds and did 0-60 mph in 7.7 seconds, courtesy of 168 hp. In 2008, the 335i Convertible (with its folding hardtop) tips the scale at over 3985 pounds, but runs to 60 mph at 5.3 seconds due to 300 hp. The 335i’s direct-injected twin-turbo 3 liter engine is a case study in performance efficiency, but the 18 city mpg is identical to 325’s. C+D’s observed 21 mpg for its 325i was actually better than CNet’s 335i 19.1 test average.

Nobody with any legitimate expertise could argue that cars of the past were better than today’s comfortable road rockets. It’s evident, though, that the market has placed all of its weight in performance, luxury, convenience, and of late on safety. Too little has been placed on fuel economy. Consequently, technological revolution has not benefited those interested in high mpg as much as those wanting to go 0-60 in under 4.5 seconds while coddled in luxury.

Political and business experts can debate until they are blue in the face that whether it is the market’s or government’s position to demand fuel economy, but one thing is for certain, the manufacturers haven’t given the market many good fuel efficient options. Those high mpg options have been mostly saddled with market-perceived downsides of tiny, tinny econoboxes, or smelly, expensive and hard-to-acquire diesel, or unproven, hard to work-on gas/battery hybrid systems. (Again, this is the market perception, not my feeling, so please do not call me anti-diesel or anti-hybrid.)

So maybe it is time that someone in a position of power tells companies that they need to focus on fuel economy? The market can then work out which technologies and products deliver it the best.

In Edsel’s Defense!

There has been quite a bit of discussion regarding a Time magazine article naming the “The 50 Worst Cars”. Chat boards, emails and water coolers already have hosted scorching debates on this piece… and you can bet that after I meet some looming deadlines on other projects, I’ll produce my own Speaker’s Corner soapbox soliloquy with the tone and content you’ve come to expect from The Four Wheel Drift.

(In other words, buckets of fire and brimstone coupled with more than enough automotive statistics and history to make a Gartner industry analyst look like he’s been working off Cliff’s Notes. )  

Until I have time to write such an article, there was something specific about this debate I had to address immediately…

I listened intently to the Bob Rivers morning show on KZOK FM radio in Seattle as they discussed the now infamous Time article. Bob and his co-host Spike had listeners owning cars on the list call in.

A woman with a 1958 Edsel Citation was put through.  She mentioned the car was undergoing restoration, but it had been a really nice driving and comfortable car not worthy of inclusion on the list.  Unfortunately, she admitted she didn’t know enough statistics about the car to counter much of the article’s gripes.

At that point, one of the DJs said twice “UNDERPOWERED.”

I almost choked.

Now, every single time that a list of worst cars appears, the Edsel is on there. There’s always the same regurgitated rationale for inclusion, such as “synonymous with failure” and locker room jabs about its front grill.

But saying the Edsel was underpowered is like saying Dick Cheney is too affable. 

Edsel misconceptions are all too common, so here are some interesting statistics that might clear up this one aired on KZOK, as well as a few others:

POWER:

There were four models within the Edsel brand in 1958. The Ranger and Pacer utilized the 303-horsepower 361-cubic inch V8. The $3,346 base Corsair and $ 3,535 Citation came standard with a 410-ci V8 producing 345-hp. For reference, the 1958 Chevrolet Impala’s top engine was the tripower 348 ci V8 with just 315 hp. The Pontiac Bonneville’s 370-ci V8 delivered either 300 from fuel injection or 310 from tripower. The top Cadillac was the 365-ci 335-hp V8 standard in the Eldorado. Even the Corvette’s top 283-ci V8 with fuel injection was just 290 hp.

So what were the only mass-produced American cars available in ’58 with more horsepower? Ford’s $3,631 halo model the Thunderbird came standard with a 300-hp 352-ci V8, but production records reference an optional 430-ci V8 with 350 hp – although it is not certain if any were actually so equipped.

Chrysler’s 392-ci Baby Hemi made 380 hp (or 390 ponies with dual four barrel carbs) in the $5,173 base priced 300D. DeSoto’s Adventurer had a 361-ci version of the Hemi producing 355 horses with the optional dual quads.

It was Edsel’s corporate brother Mercury that held the performance engine title in 1958 with all models available with a 430-ci V8 producing 360 hp (standard equipment in the $3,944 Park Lane) or the optional big-daddy 400 horse version.

INDUSTRY SALES:

In terms of sales, 63,110 Edsels were sold in 1958. This ranked as 12th in brand sales, only 571 cars behind Chrysler. Brands with worse sales in 1958 included DeSoto (49,445), Studebaker (44,759), Lincoln (17,134), and Imperial (16,133).

CORPORATE SALES CONTRIBUTION: 

Edsel made up 5.1 percent of FoMoCo’s total volume of 1,234,010 units from five brands in 1958. To put this into perspective, based on the recently released figures, General Motors sold 388,168 total domestic unit sales of all nine brands for August, 2007.  Of this, 5% (19,481) were Cadillacs, only 4.9% were from Buick (19,324 units), 1.1% (5,677) were courtesy of Hummer, and Saab chipped-in just 3,011 units – or 7/10ths of one percent of overall GM sales for the month. Even though Saturn finished the month with a 5.4-percent (21,117) monthly share,  it hovers at an Edsel-like 5.2% for 2007 calendar year contribution.

The Four Wheel Drift probably doesn’t have enough readership to save the Edsel from future “worst car” lists, but hopefully a little statistical analysis will make enthusiasts second guess what they read or hear.

Auto Brand Sales 2006 Comparison

The 2006 sales season is over…and needless to say that there are some clear winners and losers.  Most companies have reported sales/production, so we felt it would be fun to compare the numbers in a long list.

The following figures were from press releases delivered to us by each company.  They represent the number of units produced and sent to dealers, so many of these vehicles are sitting on dealer lots with factory incentives to motivate actual customers to buy them.

Toyota, BMW, Audi and Porsche are all still living case studies on competing and winning in their respective segments.  On the other hand, Ford, GM and Nissan are showing how being saddled with too many mediocre products results in falling further behind.  The great surprise — the fall of Acura and Infiniti.  Maybe their large sedans aren’t large enough, while small sedans and coupes aren’t small and sporty enough to compete with BMW and Mercedes?

Meanwhile the Koreans just keep on inching along.

Consumers are smart.  They’re buying quality products that deliver substance and style.  Retro is out — quality, reliability, future-looking utility and performance are all in.

So without further comments: the figures! (We apologize for the horrible formatting, no matter what we do, the site’s editor changes it, making it hard to read!)

Sales By Brand	2006	2005	Change %
Mercury	180,848	195,949	-7.7
Lincoln	120,476	123,207	-2.2
Jaguar	20,683	30,424	-32
Volvo	115,807	123,587	-6.3
Land Rover	47,774	46,175	3.5
GENERAL MOTORS
Vehicle Total	4,124,645	4,517,730	-8.7
Car Total	1,625,376	1,751,921	-7.2
Truck Total	2,499,269	2,765,809	-9.6
Light Truck Total	2,439,965	2,702,464	-9.7
Buick	240,657	282,288	-14.7
Cadillac	227,014	235,002	-3.4
Chevrolet	2,415,428	2,669,932	-9.5
GMC	481,222	566,322	-15
HUMMER	71,524	56,727	26.1
Oldsmobile	96	1,866	-94.9
Other - Isuzu	15,751	15,787	-0.2
Pontiac	410,229	437,806	-6.3
Saab	36,349	38,343	-5.2
Saturn	226,375	213,657	6
CHRYSLER BRAND	604,874	649,293	-7%
JEEP BRAND	460,052	476,532	-3%
DODGE BRAND	1,077,579	1,179,008	-8%
TOTAL CHRYSLER GROUP	2,142,505	2,304,833	-7%
TOTAL CG CAR	510,234	526,823	-3%
TOTAL CG TRUCK	1,632,271	1,778,010	-8%
Mitsubishi	109,960	113361	-3%
Nissan Divison Total	898,103	940,269	-4.2
- Total Car	466,821	477,564	-1.9
-Total Truck	431,282	462,705	-6.5
Infiniti Division Total	121,146	136,401	-10.9
Total Car	86,796	94,901	-8.2
- Total Truck	11,694	41,500	-17.0
Subaru	200,703	196,002	2.40%
TOTAL TOYOTA DIV. PASS. CAR	1,275,119	1,138,130	12.4
TOTAL LEXUS PASS. CAR	183,037	151,226	21.4
TOTAL TOYOTA PASS. CAR	1,458,156	1,289,356	13.5
TOTAL SUV	478,843	362,530	32.5
TOTAL LEXUS LIGHT TRUCK	139,397	151,669	-7.8
TOTAL TOYOTA LIGHT TRUCK	1,084,368	970,939	12.0
TOTAL TOYOTA DIV.	2,220,090	1,957,400	13.8
TOTAL LEXUS	322,434	302,895	6.8
TOTAL TOYOTA	2,542,524	2,260,295	12.9
Honda
Honda Total Car Sales	706,012	686,160	3.2%
Honda Total Truck Sales	602,123	566,702	6.6%
HONDA	1308135	1252862	4.40%
Acura Total Car Sales	137,938	151,662	-8.8%
Acura Total Truck Sales	63,285	57,948	9.6%
ACURA	201223	219610	-8%
Hyundai	455,520	455,012	0.11%
Kia	294,302	275,851	7%
Mercedes Car Group	1,260,600	1,221,000	3.2	of which Mercedes-Benz*	1,148,500	1,078,000	6.5					Porsche North America	36,095	33,859	7%
Volkswagen of America	235,140	224,195	4.9%

Killing Itself Softly With Its Products: Ford’s Record-Breaking 2006 Losses

Ford announced earnings and it’s about as pretty as an Explorer in a rollover. Thanks to a $5.8 billion loss in the fourth quarter, the company performed a swan-dive down to its worst performance ever: $12.7 billion in losses.

Some of the losses were entirely the responsibility of corporate accountants, who simply did their jobs of applying different tricks for tax reasons. Mostly, however, the blame is on the company for being run worse the British Leyland in the 1970s and delivering products people don’t want. The company’s sales were down eight percent overall in 2006…and that doesn’t include the number of vehicles shipped to dealers, only to sit on the lots.

Want proof that Ford’s cars aren’t selling? Take a guess and see if you can name its top five products in order of sales.

The answer:
• F-Series Trucks (796,039 — down 11.7 percent)
• Econoline/Club Wagon (180,457 – up .5 percent)
• Explorer (179,229 – down 25.3 percent)
• Focus (177,006 – down 4.2 percent)
• Taurus (174,803 – down 11.2 percent.)

Maybe it’s just me, but I find it a combination of funny and scary that the Taurus is in the top five, especially since they really haven’t marketed it in years, and one really has to buy it via fleet sales. In fact, fleet sales seem to be the only thing keeping money coming in, because F-Series, Econoline and Taurus are largely fleet-sale based.

Comparing Taurus to Ford’s other midsize sedan, the Fusion, is embarrassing. Fusion sold 142,502 in its first full year of production. Ford spent a fortune on advertising and marketing the Fusion, and it fell 30,000 units short of the Taurus, which ended production early this year for good. And if you’re one of those people who believe the Five Hundred has been successful, think again. Ford only sold 84,218 units to dealers (down 22 percent) and most of them are still on lots with huge factory incentives in place to move them.

Bright spots in the sales figures? Don’t say Mustang! Just because you like that retro look doesn’t mean it has been a good business strategy. Like I’ve said all along, it was a big mistake to go retro with a mass-market product intended for standard coupe-buying demographics. Here are the statistics to back this up.

The following are Mustang production/sales over the years. The newest ‘Stang debuted as a 2005. The previous generation went 1999-2004, which was a mild restyle of the ’94-’98. The ’87-’93 and ’79-’86 were the initial Fox body Mustangs, with the popular 5.0 GT cars. 1975 shows the sales of the unloved low-power Mustang II, 1969 includes the Boss 302 era, and 1966 was the second year of initial production.

• 2006 166,530

• 2005 160,975
• 2004 129,858
• 2003 140,350
• 2002 138,356
• 2001 169,198
• 2000 173,676
• 1999 166,915
• 1998 144,732
• 1997 108,334
• 1996 126,483
• 1995 185,986
• 1994 123,198
• 1993 114,228
• 1992 79,280
• 1991 98,737
• 1990 128,189
• 1989 209,769
• 1988 211,225
• 1987 159,145
• 1986 224,410
• 1985 156,410
• 1984 141,480
• 1983 120,873
• 1982 130,418
• 1981 182,552
• 1980 271,322
• 1979 369,936
• 1975 188,575
• 1969 300,682
• 1966 607,568

It is evident that the retro-Mustang has done nothing to grab a larger share of the coupe market, which has dramatically increased in size from ten years ago, when most other coupe-makers made the decision to scale-back or leave the market entirely. Of course, competition has increased since then, too.

So the only single bright spot seems to be the F-Series trucks, which isn’t shining so hotly now that a new Chevy Silverado and Toyota Tundra are in production, and widely considered by reviewers to be better.

Expect tougher times at Ford in 2007, because there’s no end in sight for its “P problem”: people producing poor products.

Classically Tough Trivia Quiz Answers

Whoever said “it’s not what you know, it’s who you know” never did well on the Classically Tough Trivia Quiz. Success on this fourth annual edition required one to be a phenomenal student of automotive history.

The northwest’s rain, wind and power outages didn’t seem to stop the Sound Classics faithful from doing their best. In the end, though, there wasn’t a single person who could touch Olympia’s Jim Culp. By scoring 26 out of 29 points, Culp, a talented race photographer from prorallypix.com, proved he knows a ton about the cars he shoots.

1. Like Dodge’s R/T and Chevy’s SS, Lancia used HF as its performance acronym. It stands for “High Fidelity.”
2. Prior to building Kaisers, Henry Kaiser created Kaiser Shipyard to build vessels at a record pace during WWII. During this period, he also established Kaiser Permanente to treat shipyard workers.
3. From January 1917 through January 1919, Chevrolet produced a total 2,781 Model D “Eight” V8-powered cars. The valve-in-head engines were installed in D-4 roadsters and D-5 tourers until reliability issues caused management to pull the plug. The next time a Bowtie would have a V8 would be 1955.
4. Marquette was the baby Buick brand for 1929 and 1930. The 1927-1930 Erskine (named for company president Albert Erskine) was Studebaker’s first lower-priced brand. In 1931, Stude replaced it with the Rockne – the marque lasted until 1933. The brand was named for Knute Rockne, who was killed in a plane crash just twelve days after joining Studebaker. Oakland was actually a more expensive senior model to Pontiac.
5. The King Midget was the smallest domestically-produced passenger car.
6. In 1991 71 people ordered RPO B2K— Callaway Twin-Turbo for their Corvette at a cost of $33,000. The option exceeded the price of the base $32,445 coupe.
7. Since 1906, Morgan has been family-owned. It still produces cars in its Malvern Link facility.
8. President Lincoln rode to the theater on the eve of his assassination in a Studebaker. Prior to making cars, Studebaker produced high-end carriages.
9. Ferrari first used an inline-four cylinder in its 1954 750 Monza. The Dino 246GT is the best-known V6-powered Ferrari. Magnum PI’s 308GTS had a V8, while Miami Vice’s iconic white Testarossa used a flat-twelve. V10s have powered Ferrari’s F1 cars for years. Kudos (but no extra points) go to those knowing that Enzo Ferrari’s pre-Ferrari model, the AAC 815, utilized a straight-eight.
10. Cars from Voisin and Minerva, as well as Daimler’s Double Six used engines with Knight’s sleeve valve design.
11. Hudson was “the car you step down into.”
12. Rambler produced 370,865 vehicles in 1961, which ranked third among domestic manufacturers.
13. The photo showed a 1907 Stanley H-5 Gentleman’s Speedy Roadster. An extra bonus point went to those who recognized the man displaying the car to judges at the Kirkland Concours as Olympia Farmer’s Market fixture Bob “Sully” Sullivan.
14. Journalist LJK Setright of CAR magazine is credited with inventing the word “supercar” to describe the Lamborghini Miura upon its unveiling.
15. DKW was an acronym for Dampf-Kraft Wagen…or “steam-powered vehicle.”
16. Cunningham was an early luxury brand. Later, Briggs Cunningham badged the sports cars he produced with the same name.
17. In 1955 34,000 out of 51,000 total cars imported to the United States were VWs.
18. While it is confusing which company can actually claim the first “production” car with a power retractable hardtop, one thing is for certain – it wasn’t Ford’s 1957 Skyliner or Citroen’s 1950 or 1952 show cars. In 1933, Georges Paulin designed a folding hardtop system for coachbuilder Pourtout. It appeared initially on a single1933 Hotchkiss, but by 1934, the system appeared on a number of Portout-built Lancia Belna éclipse, Peugeot 301 éclipse and Peugeot 601 éclipse examples.
19. In 1924 Andre Dubonnet raced a Hispano-Suiza with body made of tulip wood.
20. Because emissions standards didn’t apply to trucks, Dodge’s Lil’ Red Express pickup was the fastest accelerating American vehicle in 1978. On the handling side, however, the Lil’ Red Express was less balanced than John Candy on dull ice skates.

Fourth Annual Classically Tough Trivia Quiz

It’s December. The Christmas trees are up, the dreidels have already started spinning and the stores are hopping with consumers. Readers of my “Sound Classics” collector car column know it’s time for the fourth annual Classically Tough Trivia Quiz.

And for the first time…Four Wheel Drift readers will have a chance to participate.

Since I’m a sucker for tradition, this year’s quiz continues with difficult questions covering all eras of automotive history. Each one is designed to challenge knowledge, recall and ability to use Google. There are some tricks in there, too!

Don’t fret too much if you can’t get many, because you’d have to be an expert in classics from all eras and countries. Even my father didn’t get them all… and he has assured me many times that he knows everything.

But if you think you have many of the right answers, send them in to trivia@apexstrategy.com before the clock strikes midnight on December 19, 2006. The top point-getter will be immortalized in the Classically Tough Trivia Answers edition.

1. Which manufacturer applied the acronym HF to the end of the model names of its racing-oriented cars? What does HF stand for?
2. This automotive manufacturer spent WWII creating 1490 ships for the Navy at yards capable of completing vessels in less than two weeks.
3. What year did Chevrolet first install eight-cylinder engines in production cars?
4. LaSalle was a junior Cadillac. What were the lower-price brands for Buick, Studebaker and Pontiac?
5. It holds the title as the smallest domestically-produced passenger car.
6. Excluding base body-styles, which “regular production option” was the most expensive in Corvette history?
7. It is the oldest British car company never to be sold to international ownership.
8. What was the first automaker to transport a US President?
9. Ferrari might be famous for its V12-powered vehicles, but they made many cars with other types of engines. Identify engines Ferrari made other than the V12, as well as one model that used each engine.
10. Stearns-Knight and Willys-Knight both used Charles Knight’s sleeve valve technology. Name two non-American cars that also took advantage of Knight’s sleeve valve design.
11. Which automotive brand advertised “the car you step down into”?
12. It was the only year since 1930 that a non-Big Three (GM, Ford, Chrysler Corp.) brand was in the top three of domestic auto production. Name the brand.
13. Identify the car in the picture.
14. The word “supercar” was invented to describe this car.
15. This automotive manufacturer’s name started as an acronym translating as “steam-powered vehicle” and it later used the same acronym translating to “the small wonder” for the motorcycle it produced.
16. It’s the name shared between two unrelated American auto companies – the first a high-end luxury manufacturer in the 1920s, the latter an expensive line of sports cars built by a rich sportsman in pursuit of winning the 24 Hours of Le Mans.
17. In 1955, two-thirds of foreign-made cars imported to the United States were of this brand.
18. It was the first production car to offer an automatic folding hardtop convertible.
19. The Nieuport aircraft company built a roadster body of riveted tulip wood on this automaker’s chassis in 1924 for André Dubonnet to race.
20. What was the fastest American-made production vehicle to 100 mph in 1978?

Sammy’s guide to buying a new car, truck or SUV

I spend a great deal of time serving as a consultant to clients, friends and family members during the car buying process. In fact, just as I completed that sentence, I was interrupted by another call asking me for my opinion on which midsized sedan to buy

So in an effort to prevent another person from calling me, I’m publishing “Sammy’s Car Buying Tips.” By reading this simple primer, you’ll be in a position to make a smart, decision.

The key to this guide is to always give yourself many months to research, decide and complete the deal. If at any time you absolutely have to buy a car within a specific timeframe, you inevitably lose flexibility to get a vehicle you might want, as well as relinquish leverage against the dealer/seller.

Step 1: Narrow your search to appropriate vehicles
I can’t stress this enough: you should be focused on vehicles that fulfill ninety-percent of your needs, not the vehicle that delivers specialized capabilities for the once or twice per year activities. You wouldn’t believe how many people have come to me asking about which SUV or pickup truck to buy, and through simple (yet methodical) needs analysis concluded a sedan or minivan was the correct purchase.

So to get to the bottom of what you need, rather than what vehicle fits your desired image of your needs — ask yourself these questions based on prior years:

How many passengers will regularly riding simultaneously and how many will need children’s car seats?

How many times will I be towing a boat or trailer larger than a small utility trailer?

How many times per year will I be going skiing, hiking or driving icy/snowy/muddy roads that are not plowed/maintained?

How many times per year will I be hauling materials/garbage/yard waste?

How many times per year will people of 6-feet or taller be riding in both front and rear seats?Bottom line is that unless you plan to haul, tow or attack nasty roads many times per year, you’re better off with a car, wagon or minivan, and simply rent or borrow SUV or truck when you need it. Similarly, if you plan to be hauling more than two small children regularly, you’ll probably need a minivan, since three booster seats won’t fit across most sedans and wagons. (Conversely, why buy a minivan if you only have two kids and don’t ever plan to own a big dog or drive a carpool?)

A good way to think about the different segments:

SUV – Only if you need ground clearance for muddy roads or snow drifts, or if you need to tow large trailers while also carrying many passengers. Otherwise, SUVs are cheaply built, expensive to buy and have a fuel drinking problem. They usually fill the role of wagons and minivans for people who are too insecure to drive station wagons or minivans.

Truck—Trucks are really only good for people who need to haul a lot of crap without hauling people. Too many people buy trucks when they should be buying a sedan or minivan. Keep in mind that the auto manufacturers love when people buy trucks, because they are really cheap to make, are poorly built, and sell for up to $20,000 more than a sedan or minivan of comparable interior space and utility. Think of pickups like a supermodel – great for a weekend, but are too expensive and annoying to marry.

Wagon– A sedan for people who need to haul something big, like a dog or equipment. A much better option for most SUV consumers, because they handle better, cost less, are better built. Wagons are almost always built on small and midsized car platforms, so often the rear cargo room comes at the cost of backseat leg room.

Minivan – The vehicle for a driver who will regularly be carrying more than two children, or more than three adults. Those who would have driven Oldsmobile Vista Cruiser station wagons in the 1960s and 1970s are the target for minivans. Minivans are perfect for people, pets and cargo. The downside to minivans is that they are impossible to park (notice how many minivans have dents in the rear corners!) and six cylinder engines mean a limited towing capability. Often they are purchased by so-called soccer moms who would be better suited by sedans.

Crossover- A compromise between wagon, sedan, SUV and minivan – which translates to a compromise in just about every type of trait. With a shorter wheelbase and higher center of gravity, they tend to handle poorly compared to sedans. Crossovers are too small to comfortably haul people or significant cargo, cost more than sedans and wagons, can’t tow much of anything, but get better fuel economy than standard SUVs. Think of them as halfway houses for former SUV abusers. Due to the inherent lack of benefits, this segment will be almost entirely gone within a decade as sedans return to popularity.

Sedan – The core transport in every country other than the US – and they were the core transport here too until the SUV craze. Sedans include four-door and two-doors (we call them coupes, but two-door cars are still globally considered sedans.) They are returning to popularity here due to the increased strength of offerings like the Honda Accord, Toyota Camry and Honda Civic. Midsized sedans are best for families with drivers under six-feet tall. Large sedans are primarily luxury-based. There are many sports sedans, which are midsized and offer the most pleasant driving experience while still maintaining utility. Compact sedans and coupes are generally cheaply built, and deliver less power, luxury and safety.

Sports car – You don’t need a sports car – nobody does. An entirely selfish purchase for people who weigh driving pleasure over utility. Sports cars tend to be among the best built vehicles. If it’s just you and one other person to carry, a sports car is wonderful.A note on AWD/4WD: Most people who buy AWD/4WD vehicles are doing themselves a disservice. AWD/4WD’s only purpose is to help get the car going in slippery conditions. Once going, AWD/4WD is a liability – reducing a vehicle’s ability to stop and turn. (AWD/4WD vehicles understeer, which means they push wide in corners.) AWD/4WD is marketed as a safety aspect, but it is absolutely the opposite, because it makes it easier to crash in the snow and ice. Furthermore, AWD/4WD systems are expensive to maintain and fix. (On-demand 4WD has a habit of locking-up if not exercised regularly, as well!) Unless you plan on climbing unplowed snowy roads regularly, you’re far better off with a front wheel drive sedan with stability control and a good set of snow/ice tires. A good set of winter tires can be mounted to rims for under $600, but AWD will cost $2000 or more to add as an option where available, plus the fuel mileage and maintenance costs will suffer.

Step 2: Research
Buying a new (or new to you) vehicle is easier now than it ever has been. Quite simply, as much (if not more) information is available to the general consuming public as is available to the average car salesperson. This means that unlike in the past, a well informed buyer can know any vehicle’s positive and negative traits, its MSRP, the dealer’s actual cost, and what everyone else is paying.

And due to the sheer number of brands, models and trim levels, consumers have never had so many options. This remains true on all ends of the value/price spectrum.

So your first to-do is to read through Edmunds.com, MSN Autos, Road and Track, Autoweek and the dreaded Consumer Reports. These publications will give all the statistics, pricing, options, and opinion you’ll need to form a basic opinion about various vehicles.

Step 3: Go for a test
Go to the dealers and check out all the top-rated vehicles in the classes that interest you, irrespective of price. If you’re in the market for a small sedan, even if you can’t afford one, drive a BMW 3-series to make the faults of all other cars in the class stick out like sore thumbs. On the other hand, some expensive cars can also make less-expensive alternatives look even better. For instance, after driving a Mercedes S430 the Toyota Avalon will prove faster, more luxurious and more comfortable, despite being less than half the price.

Call the dealer to arrange to have cars ready for you to inspect. This is most important with newer or limited production models, but it also minimizes wasted time.

Get in the vehicle. Set the car’s seat to a comfortable position, then either get into the rear seat to see if it can seat any necessary passengers comfortably. If you have kids, bring them with their car seats. Car salespeople will tell you how large a Volvo XC90, Subaru Forrester, Honda Accord, Acura RL, BMW 5-series or Yukon Denali is inside, but I’ve personally proven that at 6’4” tall, a salesperson or child in a car seat can’t sit comfortably behind me if I’m driving in any of these.

Take the vehicle on a long enough test run to understand the pros and cons. If you plan to share this vehicle with a spouse, trade positions to get enough time in each seat. Keep in mind that passenger seats rarely have the same ability to adjust as the driver’s seat, so make sure both adults are comfortable in both seats.

After you’ve driven a vehicle, head directly to the next dealership. You want the feeling of one car fresh in your mind when you test the next one.

Step 4: Figure in safety
Safety is a big deal to some consumers, so instead of taking Madison Avenue’s word that Volvo builds the safest vehicles (statistically, they do not!) go out and do your own research. Don’t take the dealer’s word, either, because just having front airbags means very little these days. There are big differences between makes and models in terms of safety and reliability.

Visit the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety’s web site. Skip the meaningless static ratings, because when was the last time you got into an accident in a test lab? Go to two very important reports: Driver’s Death Rates by Make/Model at http://www.iihs.org/news/2005/iihs_sr_031505.pdf and Injury, Collision and Theft Losses by Make and Model at http://www.iihs.org/brochures/ictl/ictl.html. Both of these reports can be found by searching the IIHS site, and aggregate actual statistics reported to insurance and police. In other words, these reports show how the risk of death, injury, collision, and theft relative to other makes and models (normalized for the number of cars on the road) based on real world statistics.

As you might guess, the 30,000-foot view of the reports indicate that big sedans are the safest, while small coupes and SUVs are the most dangerous. Cheaply built economy cars don’t fare as well as well-engineered luxury vehicles. And while the statistics aren’t quite in yet, allow me to predict that the current trend of putting third-row seats in midsized crossover vehicles and SUVs will prove very dangerous. As I’ve mentioned in my columns before, a Ford Explorer has a third row seat, despite being exactly the same length as a Honda Accord and Toyota Camry. Would you have your child ride in the trunk of an Accord? I certainly w