Audamotive Rotating Header Image

The Truth About (“Bland”) Cars

Jan 13th, 2009
by Jim Koscs.
No comments yet

2010_camry

Where would we be without “bland” cars? Probably out of a job.

One statistic stands high above the carnage of 2008: the midsize sedan – the “bland” sedan — proved the customer favorite once again, as it has for what … 30 years?

The Toyota Camry smashed all competitors with 436,000 sales, down 7.7% from the 473,000 in 2007 (compared to 18% for the whole industry). Honda Accord came in second again, its nearly 373,000 sales off just five percent from 2007. The Nissan Altima was down just over five percent with its 270,000. Right there, you have nearly 1.1 million sales from just three nameplates.

I went over the Automotive News 2008 data (who am I, Jack Teahan?), pulling out what I’d refer to as the “bland” segment. Most are midsizers, but I threw in the Chevy Impala and Buick, uh, what’s it called …, wait, I’ll get it … oh, Lacrosse. Right.

Bottom line? two thirds of all passenger cars sold last year were the “bland” sedans. (The Automotive News numbers don’t break out the coupes for Accord, Altima or convertibles for uh, what’s that Chrysler? Oh, right, the Sebring. It’s still with us, I see.)

The big number in the segment – big, as in how it stuck out in a dismal year – was the 39% sales gain posted by the Chevy Malibu. Interestingly, though, its 178,000 sales still trailed the larger but notoriously bland Chevy Impala by 88,000! Lots of rental Impalas, no doubt.

Now, I’d hardly call a VW Passat CC “bland,” but guess what? I think most people would think their Camry, Accord or Altima and even Mercury Milan was stylish, too, and even enjoyable to drive. And if it’s got a V6 engine (as a shrinking number did in 2008), Camry, Altima, and Accord owners enjoy a car that can blow the doors off most showroom-stock classic musclecars from the 1960s and early 1970s. (True – look it up.)

Let the “buff books” and blogs castigate the midsize sedan for delivering “blandness” to the masses. Let them mock “blend-in” and “me-too” design. But I suggest we all embrace the blandness and hope its dominance continues.

Our paychecks might depend on it.

Fuel for Thought
The fun cars withered in 2008, including one of my favorites, the Mustang. Here’s how the “bland” cars compared to their sporty siblings.

Honda Accord: down 5% Honda S2000: down 41%
Nissan Altima: down 5.3% Nissan 350Z: down 45.5%
Pontiac G6: down 6.5% Pontiac Solstice: down 36%
Ford Fusion: down 1.3% Ford Mustang: down 32.2%

Posted in: Uncategorized.

When “Small” Was a Two-Ton Word

Dec 20th, 2008
by Jim Koscs.
No comments yet


My mother was unimpressed with her first ride in a Cadillac. It was a 1977 Seville, and the car belonged to her friend and co-worker. More accurately, it was the woman’s husband’s “baby.” He’d always wanted a Cadillac, and he was one of many that were smitten by the first-gen Seville’s svelte styling.

But my mother was not impressed. Mainly, because she rode as a rear seat passenger when her friend’s husband drove them to work. She said she was surprised by the lack of room, and that the ride quality didn’t seem that special.

The 1975-1979 Cadillac Seville was special, though, historically speaking. It was probably the most successful attempt by an American brand to market a “smaller” model at a premium price. Ford and GM – and who knows, maybe even Chrysler – are pinning hopes on this strategy for upcoming smaller cars, such as the Ford Fiesta and Chevrolet Cruze.

They look at the MINI’s success, and, to some extent, VW’s product strategy, as examples. Premium dollars for premium smaller cars, so the idea goes.

Some say this is new ground for the U.S. automakers. But Americans have shown themselves willing to pay more for “less” when “less is more.” More or less.

Cadillac Gets Small
First, recalibrate your idea of the word “smaller” to 1970s thinking. The 1975 Cadillac Seville inherited its name from the Eldorado Seville coupe models of the 1950s. The mechanical package was based on the GM X-body, which also yielded the 1975 Chevy Nova and its Buick, Pontiac and Oldsmobile clones.

But the Seville was no mere grille-and-badge job. It’s body and interior were unique, and it used an exclusive engine: the Olds 350 with electronic fuel injection. The Seville rode on a longer wheelbase than the other X-bodies (114 in. vs. 111 in.) And Cadillac engineers went through the platform thoroughly to refine it. That took a lot of work, as the Nova was a buzzy thing.

Remember, the Nova and its clones of the 1970s were considered compacts, so the Seville, if not exactly small, was at least “smallish” by the day’s standards. It was over two feet shorter and a half-ton lighter than the leviathan Sedan DeVille. But the Seville, at $12,500, cost 40 percent more than the huge DeVille! Even the Eldorado convertible was about $2,000 less. (An optioned-up V8 Nova LN was about half the Seville’s price.)

And so, for 1975, Cadillac’s smallest, lightest car — and possibly, it’s least costly to build — was essentially its flagship model. (The Fleetwood 75, a low-volume factory limousine, was two grand over the Seville, but fewer than 1,700 were made that year.)

Seville was an instant and big hit – especially on the West Coast, if you can believe it. Even the European press praised it. The first-gen Seville’s peak year was 1978, with just under 60,000 sold. By then, the base price was nearly $15,000, same as the Eldorado.

Seville brought a lot of attention to itself and the brand. It was the domestic industry’s first legitimate attempt to compete with European luxury sedans, but still in a very American way. The second gen Seville abandoned the “small” theme and brought in the love-it-or-hate-it “bustleback” styling on the newly downsized Eldo’s front-drive platform. More people hated it than loved it, though, and sales suffered.

Out of respect for how far Cadillac has come in the past few years (Escalade aside), I won’t even mention the second time the Division tried to create a “premium” small car out of a cheap, buzzy Chevy.

Posted in: Auto Mythbusters, Auto News and Views.
Tagged: ·

Rotary Ruminations

Dec 12th, 2008
by Jim Koscs.
No comments yet


In a recent post, I referenced my fifth-grade science project, a car of the then-near-future powered by a Wankel rotary engine. But I was mistaken. I think it was sixth grade. So I was 11, not 10. That was spring 1975, and I was merely synthesizing what I was reading in Motor Trend at the time. Today, people who do that are called bloggers.

I share this because I’ve long been intrigued by the Wankel engine, even though I’ve never owned a Mazda RX7 or RX8. Not that I wouldn’t want one. The last-gen RX7 was one of the most exciting cars I’ve ever driven, and I think the design was sublime.

I remember driving it back-to-back against the Acura NSX at Pocono at IMPA Test Day in the 1990s. The NSX’s handling was in its own class. But I preferred the RX7’s midrange torque.

After all these years in the market, the Mazda Rotary still fights for recognition and respect outside of enthusiast circles. I still see some dealers advertising them with “4-cyl.” or “V6” engines, because they truly have no idea that the Wankel is a different animal.

Smarter than a Sixth Grader?
Some journalists outside the core “buff books” can be equally unaware. A recent RX8 review by a known Detroit newspaper writer said “No one uses a rotary engine anymore, though it was once very popular 90 years ago for airplanes.”

Uh, no, not quite. I posted a comment on his story pointing out that the Wankel has nothing in common with the rotary piston engines used in old airplanes. (Or with rotary piston engines some are experimenting with today.) I’m no engineer, but I knew that in sixth grade. To be fair, I believe it was Mazda that first called the Wankel a “Rotary” engine. It was a smart move, because just having Felix Wankel’s name on an engine doesn’t describe it.

The “Renesis” version of the Mazda Wankel engine in the RX8 brought forth nearly the horsepower of the last RX7, but without that model’s sequential twin turbo setup, not nearly the torque. Lack of torque is the one thing that keeps me from truly loving the RX8. All other ingredients are there for me – original and even a little wacky design, a nod to practicality and an outstanding driving experience.

I’d been living near Seattle for four years and so did not get to drive the RX8 at IMPA until this year. I thoroughly enjoyed it on the road-driving portion but avoided it for the track – because the torque was so underwhelming. Not that the car is not fun. And the Rotary engine is so smooth, you want to rev it – it’s as smooth at eight grand as it is at two. But there’s really no punch. Drive the Mazdaspeed3, and you really wish the RX8 had that kind of power and torque.

In a story I did for AIADA Auto Dealer publishing this month, Mazda told me it is committed to the Wankel. I hope the next version will have more torque. Of course, a cure for lack of torque in a 3,100-lb. car is to pare 500 lbs. from the car’s weight, but then you’re back to a two-seater.

I admire Mazda for standing by its Rotary. And I admire the RX8, because it dares to be different. Though sales may be off now, it really did find a niche for itself.

Posted in: Auto News and Views, Interesting stuff.

Achtung, Trabant! Part 2

Nov 29th, 2008
by Jim Koscs.
No comments yet

Three days after writing my last post, The New York Times published three articles on the Trabant by Towle Tomkins.  Now, anyone can experience how just how badly the worst-of-the-worst commie cars drove. And it seems this horrid little car has a small fan base in the U.S.

A Red Menace That You Can Drive Yourself – NYTimes.com

A People’s Car as Flawed as the People’s Paradise – NYTimes.com

Where Have All the Trabis Gone? – NYTimes.com

Enjoyable reading, if not enjoyable driving.

Posted in: Fun, Interesting stuff.

Achtung, Trabant!

Nov 26th, 2008
by Jim Koscs.
No comments yet

If you’re on my mailing list (lucky you!), you’ve probably seen my little marketing cards that use images of the Trabant. And it would be reasonable for you to ask, “Why?”

Well, mainly, I use the Trabant as an attention getter. The Trabant, a product of East Germany’s centralized communist experiment, ranks among the worst cars ever made. As a car enthusiast, it’s easy to find humor in that. Maybe better than any other symbol, the Trabant represented the great divide between free West Germany and oppressed East Germany. Mercedes-Benz from the West, Trabant from the East.

At the same time, the Trabant — “Trabi” for short — was also one of the most significant, and even heroic, cars of the postwar era. But let me first explain my connection to the Trabant.

Summer of ’74
In the summer of 1974, for my 11th birthday, my parents gave me “World Cars 1974.” You might remember the annual “World Cars” book series (a.k.a. “World Car Catalog”). These were thick, heavy, glossy reference books, published by the Automobile Club of Italy (and Herald Books in the U.S.), that cataloged every car made in the world. They stopped publishing them in the 1980s, I think.

The book cost about $25 in 1974, which is over $100 in today’s dollars. (You can still buy used copies at low prices.) That was a lot of money for my parents in 1974. But I think they knew immediately that it was my favorite gift of all time, and indeed, an investment in my future.

I didn’t just read that book. I studied it. I pored over every photo and every spec – first of the cars I was most interested in, and then all the cars I’d never even heard of. That was the first I’d learned that a Japanese company called Mitsubishi made a sporty car called the GTO. And that Australians could buy a Ford musclecar that looked like a blend of 1970 Torino and 1971 Mustang.

I wore that book down, literally. Within six months the book jacket was breaking. And it even helped me in school. In sixth grade math class, I received a homework assignment (at random) to compare three low priced family sedans with three exotic sports cars.

The assignment card suggested the project might take a long visit to the library to find and compare about 12 different specs among these cars. I had a week to turn the work in. I opened my “World Cars 1974” and had all my specs in about an hour. I created a comparison table (with ruler and pen in that pre-Excel era) in about another hour. I actually felt a little guilty, since I didn’t even need to calculate the weight-to-power ratios; “World Cars” had that spec, too.

End of the Road
But back to the Trabant. After I’d pretty much memorized the specs for all the American cars and the “foreign” car brands that I recognized, I started looking at the obscure cars like the Trabant from East Germany, Hindustan from India and the various communist-country FIAT and Renault cast-offs. I remember saying something to my father like, “Why would anybody want cars like that? They seem so primitive.”

And my father, who still had relatives in communist Czechoslovakia, simply said, “That’s what they can afford.”

Those five words told me all I needed to know, without going into any geopolitical discussion (well, at least one that an 11-year-old could grasp). I got it.

Smile by Photoshop

Smile by Photoshop

I received several more “World Cars” books after that, but I didn’t really give the Trabant another thought until 1989. Eastern European communism was crumbling. The Berlin Wall was coming down. And what did we see on TV? East Germans streaming through newly opened border crossings, on foot, on bicycles and in Trabants.

Two years later, the Trabant was featured on the cover of U2’s seminal album, “Achtung, Baby,” and the band used a giant mobile made from empty Trabant shells on the supporting tour. To me, that really symbolized the end of the Trabant’s journey.

By the way, I get the photos for my “Trabi cards” from iStockphoto.com, where a number of photographers have posted images of these cars. Last year, I did spot a blue Trabant in an empty lot in Tarrytown, N.Y., near the waterfront.

JK

Posted in: Fun, My latest work.
Tagged: ·

Yet Another Car Blog

Nov 16th, 2008
by Jim Koscs.
No comments yet

Welcome to the “Web 2.0″ version of the AudaMotive Communications web site, built on the WordPress platform, and hosted and administered by me on reliable GoDaddy servers.

I’ve been working on the transition from a traditional web site to the WordPress platform for some time, and you’re looking at the result of that work. I started dabbling in blogging back in the spring, which is why you’ll see some older posts.

The blog is just a place to share my thoughts on the auto business, my experiences and anything I think might be helpful to my clients or prospective clients. Unlike all the other car blogs, I don’t have the answer to GM’s woes. I just hope they survive to build the Camaro.

Peruse the other pages, learn about my business and come back to visit, oh, every week or so. Or, click on the “Subscribe to feed” button and get new posts delivered to your favorite RSS reader or web start page.

Posted in: My latest work.

(Super) Chevy “Celebrity”

Nov 16th, 2008
by Jim Koscs.
No comments yet

Red_Camaro2.jpgCan you tell from my blog entries that I like the new Camaro? In my post “Perfect Pony?” I discussed good proportions for a modern ponycar. Chevy prefers the term “sports car” to avoid that lineage to the original Mustang, but the Camaro is no sports car.

At first glance, the published specs for the new Camaro had me thinking it was a bit too large. But a closer review showed that to be a hasty judgement. Purely out of curiosity, I decided to compare the 1969 Camaro — the designer’s inspiration for the new car — to the 2010 model. I was pleasantly surprised to see that the new Camaro is only modestly larger than its forbear, and, considering the gains in performance, safety and chassis sophistication, not much heavier.

I decided to share my comparison table with Super Chevy Editorial Director Jim Campisano, whom I had just seen at the annual IMPA Test Day in Pennsylvania. Jim decided to use it on his the Super Chevy web site and made me a bit of a “celebrity” by retelling some publishing history. A big shot editor today, Jim joined CSK Publishing (MuscleCars, Vette, High-Performance Pontiac, High-performance Mopar, Cars Illustrated and others) about a year after I departed for other endeavors. Here’s Jim’s take:

Comparing the new Camaro to the icon of the brand, the 69 Camaro – Super Chevy Magazine

Numbers junkies can also download my original chart. I make no claims of it being a definitive document. Camaro proportionsJK revised.doc

Posted in: Auto News and Views, Interesting stuff.

Driving the MINI Diesel

Nov 14th, 2008
by Jim Koscs.
No comments yet

MINI_d_small.jpg
This past September, participating in the International Motor Press Association (IMPA) annual test Day in the Poconos, I drove a MINI Cooper diesel evaluation model along some of the back roads near Split Rock Resort.

I’m partial to the MINI to start with; if this model were offered in the U.S., I might prefer it to the turbocharged gas S model … if the price were right. I’ve written about the challenge of pricing diesels for the American International Auto Dealers Association (AIADA).

First off, MINI USA did not bring the MINI Cooper d to the IMPA event; it was one of four Euro-spec diesel cars brought by BOSCH, which makes the fuel injection systems. Other diesels included a Chrysler 300 (Mercedes V6 diesel), a BMW 123d (sharp-looking 1-Series hatchback), and an Audi A4. I drove only the MINI Cooper d. BOSCH is making a pretty big bet on diesel cars for the U.S. and is presumably trying to generate positive press coverage to drum up public demand.

Torque Rules
The MINI Cooper d has a driving character unique from that of the standard or turbo “S” models. It’s 1.6-liter turbo diesel yields the same 177 lb.-ft. peak torque as the S, but within a tighter RPM spread (1,750-2,000 RPM vs. 1,600-5,000 for the S). Like the S, the MINI Cooper d provides a short-burst “overboost” mode good for another 15 lb.-ft. or so under full throttle.

On paper, the MINI Cooper d is not as quick as the standard MINI Cooper – 0-60 in about 9.5 seconds vs. 8.5 sec. (factory claim). But you would not know that by driving; the diesel MINI feels quicker by virtue of all that low-end torque. Externally, the only difference from the standard MINI Cooper is a small, stylized “D” on the rear hatch.

MINI-d_badge_small.jpg

The MINI Cooper d revs up smoothly and quickly. I was caught off-guard when I saw it bang into the 5,000 rpm redline, which is 1,500 less than the gas model. I got used to that quickly, since the diesel MINI gave a nice kick in the 2,000-3,500 range. Handling is the same as the standard MINI, which is to say outstanding.

43 MPG Under the Gun
The MINI Cooper d was popular with the IMPA members, a steady stream of which had been hammering it on back roads all day. The onboard computer was still showing 43 mpg average when I was driving it. I’d guess an easy 50 MPG on the highway vs. the 37-MPG EPA rating for a standard MINI Cooper. The automatic stop/start feature takes some getting used to; put it in neutral at a stoplight and the engine turns off; press in the clutch and it re-starts quickly.

Automotive News reported “BMW plans to offer the Cooper diesel in the United States when the emissions system is robust enough to allow the car to be sold in all 50 states.” That would likely mean the urea injection system such as that in the upcoming BMW 330d.

Automotive News also said the MINI Cooper d would cost $7,000 more than a standard gas model – but did not cite a source for that figure. That’s about double the premium of the MINI Cooper S over the standard car. I’m sure American MINI customers would love the diesel MINI, but I think it would have to be priced between the standard MINI Cooper and the MINI Cooper S.

There is, by the way, an online petition to bring the car to the U.S.: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/minid/index.html

Posted in: Auto News and Views.
Tagged: · ·

All American Racers?

Nov 14th, 2008
by Jim Koscs.
No comments yet

Toyota_NASCAR.jpg I originally wrote the following as a sidebar to a “Dodge Wins Daytona 500″ story for Mopar Action magazine earlier this year. It was not published, however. The car in the photo, in case you can’t tell by the decal tail lights, is a “Camry.”

All American Racers … Sort of.
When Toyota clinched its first Sprint Cup race in March (Kobalt Tools 500 in Atlanta), NASCAR touted it as the first victory by a “foreign manufacturer” in NASCAR’s top series since June 13, 1954, when Al Keller drove a Jaguar to victory at Linden Airport in New Jersey. That was NASCAR’s first road race, and the Jags were the XK-120 sports cars.

On that day in New Jersey, Jags took four of the top six positions. Jaguar would in the late 1980s be adopted by an American parent, Ford, which this year pawned off the money-losing stepchild to India’s Tata. And to be nitpicky, any win by Dodge between its 2001 NASCAR return and the 2007 season was essentially by a “foreign manufacturer” – DaimlerChrysler. Remember, when Dodge returned to NASCAR, it was that mustachioed German “Dr. Z” guy doing a lot of the talking.

When Toyota decided to enter NASCAR racing, first in truck and then in the Sprint Car series, some fans were aghast. A Japanese brand in NASCAR? Ah, but this is 2008, not 1968. So, what does citizenship really mean in the world of NASCAR?

Consider the Sprint Cup’s four competing brands: Chevrolet, Dodge, Ford and Toyota. Chevy uses the “Impala SS” name on its NASCAR entry; the Dodge sprint car carries the “Charger” decal; Ford emblazons its Car of Tomorrow with the “Fusion” moniker, and Toyota uses Camry. In the real world, that would be two full-sizers (Charger and Impala) against two midsizers. All are four-doors, but among the four, the Charger and Impala offer the only V8s in the showroom, and the Charger is the only rear-drive production car in the series. In NASCAR, though, it’s all the same. Ford opened that door (or more accurately, four doors) when it petitioned NASCAR to allow the Taurus body a decade ago.

Citizenship lines get a little blurry in the real world of auto sales, too. The Dodge Charger has lots of stamps on its passport: it was born of a German-owned Chrysler entity, with plenty of Mercedes-Benz engineering throughout. The car is assembled in Canada, and its optional Hemi comes from a plant in Mexico. The German-designed 5-speed auto tranny is an older Mercedes-designed piece now made in the U.S.

Also hailing from Mexico is the Ford Fusion, a Mazda-based model with more Japanese DNA between its bumpers than the Charger has German, including its base 4-cylinder engine. Somewhat ironically, the Mazda 6 model on which the Fusion is based is built here in the U.S. in the same assembly plant as the unrelated Mustang.

The “baseball, hotdogs and apple pie” Impala also comes from that friendly foreign country to the north. So, of the four models represented in NASCAR Sprint Cup racing, the only model built in the U.S., including its U.S.-built powertrains, is, ta da … the Toyota Camry.

Posted in: Auto News and Views, Interesting stuff.

Win on Sunday, Bankrupt on Monday?

Nov 14th, 2008
by Jim Koscs.
No comments yet

Two_Dodges_small.jpg Rob Kinnan’s editorial in the September issue of Hot Rod magazine (“Wake Up Call”) suggests a new money-saving move for Chrysler, Ford and GM: dump factory support for NASCAR.

Sounds controversial, no? I think it’s a good idea, for all the reasons Kinnan cites in his column. Earlier this year, I wrote a piece for Mopar Action magazine about Dodge winning the Daytona 500. I included a couple of sidebars, the first of which, “Win on Sunday, Bankrupt on Monday?” was published as the editor’s column. I’ve posted it below. The second, titled “All American Racers?” was not published, for reasons that I think will be clear when you read it — I’ll post it in a couple of days.

Win on Sunday, Bankrupt on Monday?

It’s easy to understand the pride a NASCAR fan might feel by driving a car of the winning make. But does that translate to sales? Does the old adage, “Win on Sunday, sell on Monday” (coined by a Ford guy) still apply? At Mopar Action, we ask the tough questions (but get the same softball answers as everyone else).

By its continued support for Dodge teams and the $1 million bonus for winning Daytona, Chrysler obviously sees value in NASCAR as a marketing tool. Mike Delahanty, Sr. Manager, Dodge Motorsports, told us so:

“NASCAR racing creates a halo effect for the Dodge brand. It reaches 75 million people a year through TV or who attend the races, and our research shows that many Dodge customers follow NASCAR racing. And that is 75 million people who we have the opportunity to talk to about our production vehicles. It’s the fourth largest sport in the United States. If you are a car manufacturer, it makes business sense to be involved with an audience that large.”

Support does not come without the occasional re-alignment, however. “Last year when Dodge announced it would not be the major sponsors of the #9 and #19 cars, it was so we could redirect resources to both engineering and marketing,” Delahanty continued. “The $1 million dollar bonus was an example of some of the marketing efforts, the coverage that resulted from the win and bonus far exceeded our investment.”

The popular NASCAR fan site, RaceFanVote.com put the question to its readers, loyal NASCAR fans: “Win on Sunday, sell on Monday: Does this theory still apply in today’s age?”

Results were mixed:

29 percent chose, “Yes because there are a lot of loyal fans still out there.”

19 percent checked, “There is still marketing value for the manufacturers to participate in NASCAR, but loyalties have waned somewhat.”

22 percent selected, “Maybe for the manufacturer, but not necessarily for the exact model of car they are racing.”

23 percent indicated, “Not much anymore.”

7 percent said, “No, not at all.”

So, nearly a third don’t see the connection between track and showroom. Admittedly, this was just an informal, non-scientific poll on one fan site, but its author, self-professed loyal NASCAR fan Greg Shultz, senses a trend. On the RaceTalkRadio.com site, he said, “Winning trophies just isn’t selling cars the way it used to. Loyalties seem to be mixed in a certain percentage of fans that for example, cheer for a Chevy driver and yet choose to buy some other manufacturer’s vehicle for their daily driver. This is not to say that NASCAR or the fans are responsible for the problems happening with the automakers, but times are changing. Prospective buyers are demanding higher quality vehicles, more fuel efficiency and an overall good value for their hard earned dollars.”

Chevy general manager Ed Peper told USA TODAY that “win on Sunday, sell on Monday,” does still apply. “In our case, we certainly look for (NASCAR) to help us sell product. That’s the name of the game.” He cited the brand’s NASCAR dominance with 622 Sprint Cup victories (going into this year’s Daytona 500). He did not, however, provide any evidence that NASCAR participation had prevented, perhaps even in a small way, GM’s historic $38 billion loss in 2007 from being even worse.

Posted in: Auto News and Views.

← Earlier Posts
Newer Posts →