Know why kids don't give a shit about cars anymore? Because cars COST AN ASSLOAD OF MONEY. Let's take a '66 Mustang. Pretty dope by any teenager's standards, right? A "cool car." MSRP was $2416.18 in 1966, which, adjusted for inflation, is $16052.65 (2010 dollars). That's right, kids, for $16k, you could get a fuckin' Ford Mustang. What does a Ford Mustang cost now? $26k. For $16k, you can barely get a Honda Fit (I know, I had to armwrestle for $16,5). You're more squarely in Toyota Yarpus territory. Meanwhile, Scion, that hip, young company, is introducing the stripped-down, entry-level Toyota/Subaru FT-86 as the Scion FR-S... and they're "hoping" to keep it under $30k. Douglas Coupland made this point in "Generation X" - GenX'ers were listless because the world was fucking unaffordable. A couch in 1992, adjusted for inflation, cost as much as five couches in 1974. Durable goods are no more "durable" than they were 20 years ago, but they're priced at a 2x or 3x premium. Can't talk about that, though, certainly not in Detroit. After all, this is where a company that went bankrupt, got bailed out by the government, went bankrupt again, got bought by the Germans, caused the Germans to run screaming in terror, went bankrupt again, and is now a vassal of Fiat, a company that hasn't had a US presence in 30 years, thinks that the way to capture that "hip, GenY market" is by re-introducing the Dodge. Fucking. Dart. What's next? The Chevette? The Pacer? The Maverick? Does anyone have any fond memories of the Dart? Can you look up pictures on the internet and see how cool Darts used to be? Is "Dart" the kind of name that a 22-year-old wants? Sweet jesus some companies deserve to die.
just hit you squarely on the head. Sincerely, Steve" Detroit is thirty years too late. Growing up in the burbs outside of Detroit gave me a strange split personality about cars and the auto industry. My brain categorizes cars automatically. I can tell you the make and model of almost anything on the road at considerable distance... at night. It's a sick preoccupation of my brain. Unconsciously, I associate everyone at work with what car they drive. I love cars. I share the same distant Miami Vice love affairs with Lambos, Ferraris and Porshces. But as much as I love cars, car companies make me sick to my stomach. Japan has been eating our lunch for years. The American car companies seem unable or unwilling to adapt to the marketplace. This article makes it sound like they're listening, but I question what will actually come from it. People I knew at GM used to hassle me about driving a toyota. They actually wanted me to feel guilty for buying it because not only was sending my money outside of Detroit, Michigan, and the USA, but that I was doing it twice! I was buying a car (a toyota) that would last twice as long (they said it, not me) as a similarly priced Chevy. They were admitting that I was buying a superior product, that it would last twice as long as the Chevy, and that I should somehow feel guilt because I didn't want to support the local car company and it's workers. I would love to buy American. And as soon as they have a product worth my money... I will consider it. They've made some progress lately, but as a whole, the big three are still years behind in my book. You know what people want out of a car? I'll tell you what I want: I want it to work - and I want it to work for more than 2-3 years.
I want to be able to afford it - it shouldn't be unreasonable to pay off in the same 2-3 years that it is reliable.
Get the computers out of the car. I disagree with the direction toward touch panels in the console. Just give me a car that works (see first point).
I want to feel relatively safe, but I don't need 72 airbags and ABS brakes. - get over yourselves, no amount of airbags is going to save me when my 1988 toyota meets the 2012 Escalade - that's just physics. I wish GM, Ford, and Chrysler could turn it around... but it doesn't seem very probable.
Dodge Dart and Gen X'ers - Don't kid yourself that the car is aimed at the Gen X'ers alone, there are many other demographic targets as well. The 70+ crowd liked the PT-Cruiser and are longing for a car that gets 40 MPG and is a good, "get around" car. The 45 - 60 crowd remembers the Dart as a reasonably priced, dependable (and at the time fuel efficient) vehicle that you could not kill unless you poured sugar in the gas tank. Some folks are looking for options (the Dart is full of them, and in some cases more than the segment competition). So will Gen X'ers buy it - we'll see. With the price in the mid-teens to mid-twenties it is somewhat "affordable" in today's marketplace. I guess Alpha Romeo just doesn't add any spice to the platform at all. Here's what some of the reviews say: http://www.americanownews.com/story/16514193/all-new-2013-do... http://www.suntimes.com/business/9906625-420/story.html The American Auto Companies - Let's dissect that one a bit. Ford - Rightly so did not take a government backed loan guarantee. They should give their corporate economist a hefty raise for forecasting. In the words of the Ford Chair - if the climate remained as it was for another six months, we would have had to have had aid. Ford mortgaged everything (to the hilt) and was highly leveraged (not drowning in cash buddy!). If the climate had persisted, there might not be a Ford either. Chrysler - Not exactly "government motors" as the slang goes. It was 8% backed by US Government load guarantees and 2% backed by the Canadian Government loan guarantees. Most was either the UAW Pension Fund Trust (although I think the preferred bondholders should have gotten their money before the current administrations "UAW buddies" did - talk about political payback!) The bottom line: Chrysler paid the loans back three years early and leads the USA (and most imports) in gains in market share and sales. Hopefully, this time, the management can keep them on track and the unions have a vested interest in keeping their demands "reasonable" as differs from the past 30 years. Fortunately Chrysler probably has the best relationship of the big three with the UAW. GM - 65% owned by the US taxpayer. They have some good stock still, and contrary to most "insipid comments by detractors" has had some good product. Buick (though not primarily targeted at Gen X'ers) has been in the top five in quality for the last 18 years. Cadillac - still has some hot vehicles and a good name. Chevy Truck - still is a market leader. Will we ever get all our money out of that one - we'll have to wait and see - I hope so. The American Car Companies and high legacy costs - yep - they had them. Much the same as public unions do in many states and localities that are struggling to pay for "sweetheart" deals made 30 years ago. The Imports (which everyone just lauds - shall we even mention Toyota recalls! and their 6 cylinder engines that needed replacing at 60K due to engine sludging!) did learn a great deal from us Americans (most notably William E. Demmings and Joseph Juran) who brought statistical process control to Japan and the Asians when the US folks would not listen. And they had no legacy union costs to deal with. If you will note, most of their manufacturing is in "right to work" states with little or no union representation, and therefore, lower labor costs. Put that in the context of yen to dollar differentials in the monetary realm, and you do have quite an advantage. They do make good vehicles, but alas, they had to get their governments to help them out too during the 2008 - 2009 crash. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/23/business/23auto.html?pagew... http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2008/12/toyota-loses-17.h... http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/22/news/companies/toyota/ http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2008-10-20-auto-dealersh... The REAL reason the auto companies (worldwide) took a nose dive in 2008 was the tightening of the credit markets, not their failure to produce "hybrids" or miss the boat in sales (remember Americans were buying SUVs, trucks and minivans during 2006 -2007. No, the credit crunch actually started in earnest in 1992 (under the Clinton Administration and both houses of Congress under Democratic control) with the pressure (on private banks primarily) to increase their share of loans in "redline" districts. This is called government intrusion into the marketplace under the guise of "social justice" or "social fairness". Throughout the 1990's it continued and was even forecast by, what, none other than the New York Times and other money watchers. Then enter Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae who purchased those "questionable portfolios" and started bundling them into marketable securities by the truckload (no pun intended) to Wall Street and other financial institutions. Yes, Wall Street added their "greed and avarice" to the market. You can only lend to people who cannot pay for the homes in the first place (what's wrong with renting and saving until you can afford it - my parents did and so did generations before them), before the house of cards comes crashing down. When 98% of all automobile transactions require financing of some type, when you cut off the faucet, you will hurt everybody. That is the real culprit that few talk about becasue they are so taken up with the "sound byte" and "op-ed" mentality that forms their opinions. So, bottom line: the government intrusion into the marketplace and the government supplying "troubled" paper to the marketplace played a major role in the auto companies problems. We won't even take a lot of time to discuss the Japanese government’s role in "propping up" their auto companies over the last 20 years or so - it isn't even worth it because it is so obvious. Oh, one last thing before we blame it all on the previous administration (which had its faults as well). In 2003 and 2006 the Bush adminsitration tried to gain more oversight over Fannie and Freddie (the Congressional Record shows this), but were stymied in their attempts to bring some sanity to the GSEs by none other than the House and Senate Banking and finance committees - this is public record!). Normally, I am a free market guy - just let the chips fall where they may. However, I actually agree with the Obama Administration's decision to help two of the "Big 3). Why, because the auto companies did NOT do this to themselves (as many easily allude to but their allusions are illusions!) - the US Goverment actually did it to them (and the housing industry to boot). We could attempt to calculate the US loss of jobs and related industries, but it would have meant millions of jobs lost. There are around 17,500 new car dealerships in the US (many dualled with domestic and foreign nameplates) which employ an average of about 25 families each (some large ones around 150). So, let's see - that's 437,500 direct employees. Then there are the local vendors (water doctors, office suppliers, non- OEM parts houses, sign companies, medical services providers, TV and radio stations, newspapers, internet suppliers, computer suppliers, - oh you get the picture. This would have probably added another 500,000 jobs lost. Then we can talk about the auto OEM parts suppliers whose ranks are in the hundreds of thousands (Magna, Johnson Controls, and the many smaller suppliers) which would have been taken out (oh, and Ford could not have survived without those suppliers so add Ford too). Then we can add the 300,000 jobs in the US that work for the auto companies and we begin to see millions of jobs lost. Couple this with the shutting down of plants and what it does to the local economies of hundreds of cities and towns, and we are talking several millions of jobs lost on top of the 2.2 million net losses of jobs since 2009. You begin to see why the government (which caused much of the debacle to begin with) took the stance it did. It is easy to sit in the bleachers and tell the coach what they are doing wrong - it is so tempting. All that to say, the Dart many not tantalize your particular gaze sir, but there are many that it does tantalize - we'll wait to see who is correct and only time will tell. As far as "stale" nameplates, doesn't "Civic" just excite the dickens out of you? Perhaps "Corolla" does it for you. Good cars, but not necessarily "sexy" - just dependable (kind of like the Dart was known for)!
1) The Dart was never remembered fondly by anyone (if you remember them fondly you're high - they were pieces of shit) and the people who do remember them fondly are not the target demographic that Dodge claims, in this very article, to be courting. 2) Cars are way the fuck more expensive now than they used to be which is one reason kids aren't buying them. A discussion that you apparently don't even feel like having. 3) Chrysler in particular has mismanaged itself into government bailouts and foreign investments time and time again and bringing back a car generally unloved by anyone who wasn't over 40 in 1973 is more of the same. Now - if you want to take this "a point at a time" those are the points under discussion. Take it from someone who runs to excessive loquaciousness: if you don't stay en pointe people are just going to gloss. You clearly have some deeply-held, deeply researched points to make that, correct or not, don't address any of the 3 points above. Kind of like your "Civic" and "Corolla" examples. Both have been in production continuously for decades - 39 years for the Civic and 46 for the Corolla. They have brand awareness. When I say "Civic" or "Corolla" there isn't a 20-something in the car market who doesn't know exactly what that is. Chances are their parents drove one. It's entirely possible their grandparents had one. The Dart? JFK to Gerald Ford, man. That sucker has been dead since before the Sugar Hill Gang invented Rap music.
Dart among hottest new cars at the Detroit auto show, Vanity Fair, Jan. 23
o Vanity Fair picked the hottest and the not-hottest cars at the recent auto show in Detroit, and Dodge Dart ranked among the hottest. This is the best-looking “small” Chrysler vehicle since the original Dart died 40 years ago, Vanity Fair said. Better yet, it’s built on the grippy underpinnings of the Alfa-Romeo Giulietta, which were inherited from the brand’s new Italian overlord, Fiat, the magazine said. Our version is widened and softened, though, for wider and softer Americans; also: it has a cool digital dashboard, the article said. What's hot at Detroit auto show, Detroit Free Press, Jan. 19
o From the moment the Selected by God choir - famed for Chrysler's "Imported from Detroit" commercial - sang "Lean on Me" at the ribbon-cutting ceremony, the 2012 North American International Auto Show has hit one high note after another, the Detroit Free Press said. One hit is the 2013 Dodge Dart, the Free Press said. The Dart compact sedan hints at great things to come from Chrysler's alliance with Fiat, the paper said. Its broad cross-hair grille and sporty stance make it immediately recognizable as a Dodge, but engineers in Auburn Hills stretched and widened the platform of the sporty Alfa Romeo Giulietta to create a car that promises up to 40 mpg on the highway and more rear legroom than a Hyundai Sonata midsize sedan, the article said. A year from now, we'll see how Chrysler and Fiat engineering made new models for the Jeep and Chrysler brands - this is a good start, the article said. And the target market I alluded to earlier, here's the news on that - and it is wider than Gen Xer's (in fact some Gen Xer's may be too old - ha!) http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/detroit-auto-show-201... 2.) Here's some reasons they are so expensive: What cost $10000 in 1975 would cost $40062.77 in 2010.
Also, if you were to buy exactly the same products in 2010 and 1975,
they would cost you $10000 and $2324.49 respectively. However, don't blame the auto companies per se, there are lots of reasons we pay more. The amount of money that is "printed" and circulated with the country in debt and growing deeper by the day has a devaluing effect on the monetary supply. What about the cost of regulation? What about income versus demand? To say it is just auto companies (foreign or domestic) that have hiked the price (which I hope you are not saying) is a gross exaggeration of the real facts. Here's a link from NADA that estimates just the latest ones: http://www.nadafrontpage.com/NADA_Testifies_at_EPA_NHTSA_Fue... 3.) No argument on past Chrysler management exempting, of course, Lee Iacocca, Bob Lutz, and Sergio Marchionne. Your aspersion that Chrysler "chased off the Daimler folks is false. Remember, the Daimler folks were in charge at that time! In fact, they spent 7B in liquid assets (cash in the bank), stripped out content in the American arm of the company (i.e. Chrysler) such as sound deadening, interiors (sea of plastic), sub-par suspensions, and other items. The current management has put that back in and the sales record for Chrysler underscores that (in the top three automakers along with Kia and Hyundai), and the best of the domestics! Oh, the Dodge Durango won Consumer Reports most reliable large SUV (and it is pretty fuel efficient for its size - let's see you get a family of five with kids seats, playpens, luggage and the like in a Toyota Prius - huh - you'd need three! Oh, the Fiat 500 (average fuel economy 38 MPG) gets better fuel economy than Honda Civic and Toyota Corolla (not that they are bad cars - they are not - they are good ones). Don't be so jaded on past records and look at current efficiencies. Want to pay $3,500.00 for new batteries at 40K miles? Talk about unaffordable! Ford and GM have good, efficient vehicles at the lower end of the cost spectrum as well. The Dodge Dart will get 40 MPG on the highway as well! The imports make good vehicles, but they don't own the market any longer (shall I say Toyota Highlander or Nissan Pathfinder with their less than renowned fuel mileage ratings). So, there is a more circumspect approach to the automotive and financial markets and we have to see why - let's have fun driving good cars and trucks.
2) Original figures were adjusted for inflation. Give me a break. If you wanted to make a real argument, you'd start somewhere like this: http://www.automobilemag.com/green/reviews/0907_1985_honda_c... ...but you're not. 3) "Chrysler in particular has mismanaged itself into government bailouts and foreign investments time and time again and bringing back a car generally unloved by anyone who wasn't over 40 in 1973 is more of the same." http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2011/autos/1110/gallery.consu... (That's where your "most reliable large SUV" came from) Lexus CT 200h
Honda CR-Z
Infiniti QX56
Scion xD
Toyota Highlander (4-cyl.)
Lexus ES
Nissan Titan
Honda Fit
Toyota Prius
Toyota RAV4 (4-cyl.) Not a domestic in the herd. Here's Consumer Reports' recommended "Best Large SUV" category: Other good choices:
Toyota Land Cruiser
Toyota 4Runner (V6)
Honda Pilot
Toyota Highlander Hybrid
Lexus RX
Lexus RX Hybrid
Acura MDX
Infiniti FX35
Toyota Sequoia
Mazda CX-9
Lexus GX
Subaru B9 Tribeca, Tribeca ...so... while it may have won for "most reliable" they still don't think you should buy one. I'm done here. My whole point is that bringing back the Dodge Dart to try and woo youngsters is a bass-ackward and stupid approach. Your counter-argument seems to be that the Dodge Durango doesn't break as often as a Lincoln Navigator. I'm not quite sure where we go from there.