Jalopnik: chrysler

Chrysler Models Can't Read

Wes Siler — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 19:00:00 EST

Something else on the Chrysler stand other than rocks was this young lady who neglected her schooling in her quest to become a booth professional. Can't she read? It clearly says not to stand there. [Twitter]

Chrysler Thinks Journalists Are Naughty, Gives Them Coal

Wes Siler — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:15:00 EST

Typically, automaker stands on press days are filled with free booze, some sort of obscure delicacy from their home country, press kits and saucy booth professionals. But at the LA Auto Show, all Chrysler's got is a box of rocks.

Hyundai Feasts In November, Sales Up 46%

Matt Hardigree — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 14:30:00 EST

The biggest winner this November appears to be Hyundai, with sales up 46% month-to-month with 2008. The losers? Chrysler and Suzuki, dropping 25% and 52%, respectively. The Carpocalypse ain't over yet.

November 2008 wasn't a particularly golden month for sales, meaning any increase or decrease needs to be considered in context of previous sales. For instance, Ford and Toyota's November sales were roughly on par with last year but both companies are down between 20-24% through the first eleven months of the year compared to 2008.

Overall, the companies turning around their sales appear to be the ones introducing a lot of new product in the last year. [Automotive News (subs. req)]

Five Best And Worst Black Friday New Car Deals

Matt Hardigree — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 12:00:00 EST

This year brings a newcomer to Black Friday steals and deals — cars. There's serious savings to be had on new cars, as well as some seriously horrible duds. Here's five of the best and five to avoid.

Good Deal #1

What: Buy A 2010 Suzuki SX4 For Under $15,000
Where: Suzuki Dealers
Regular Price: $15,849
Black Friday Price: $14,599
Savings: $500 Holiday cash on top of current deals, for a total savings of $1,300.
Why Its A Good Deal: You won't find a better utilitarian vehicle in this price range. Better yet, it comes with an in-dash navigation system featuring Garmin software.

Good Deal #2

What: GM Dealer Closing Sale: $2,000 Off For Certain Customers
Where: Cadillac, Buick-GMC, Chevrolet Dealers
Regular Price: Already heavily discounted
Savings: $1,000-to-$2,000
Black Friday Price: Between $1,000 and $2,000 cheaper
Why It's A Good Deal: Nearly one-million customers living near a closing dealership will receive a letter in the mail this week offering them an additional $1,000-to-$2,000 to purchase a vehicle at a dealership staying open. Deal ends at the end of the month.

Good Deal #3

What: BMW Diesel Luxury Sedans — More Than 10% Off
Where: BMW Dealers
Regular Price: $43,900
Savings: $4,500
Black Friday Price: $39,400
Why It's A Good Deal: BMW is trying to get U.S. buyers to accept diesel vehicles as luxury vehicles and is putting $4,500 in cash where its mouth is. Powerful and efficient, BMW diesels at a discount is a great deal.

Good Deal #4

What: 2009 Cadillac CTS-V: $5,000 Savings
Where: Cadillac Dealers
Regular Price: $58,575
Black Friday Price: $53,575
Savings: $5,000
Why It's A Good Deal: The CTS-V is a world-beater and the few remaining 2009 vehicles on dealer lots qualify for a $5,000 cash back deal. It's the fastest stocking-stuffer on the block.

Good Deal #5

What: Remaining 2009 Dodge Rams Up To $5,500 Cash Back
Where: Dodge Dealerships
Regular Price: $21,510 - $39,935
Black Friday Price: Up To $5,500 Off
Savings: $5,500
Why It's A Good Deal: Dodge is hoping they'll have a few less 2009 Rams sitting under their tree and are offering up to $5,500 in cash back if you'll help rid them of a nicely-loaded one.

Bad Deal #1

What: Ford's Year-End Sales Event Unremarkable
Where: Ford Dealers
Regular Price: Fairly Cheap
Black Friday Price: $1,000 less plus 0% financing
Why It's A Bad Deal: Ford is not as poorly positioned as other American automakers so they're offering a measly $1,000 cash back and 0% financing. This is a good deal — on Black Friday 2006.

Bad Deal #2

What: Baja MotorSports Phoenix 250cc Street Motorcycle A Bad Deal Free
Where: PepBoys
Regular Price: $1,999.99
Black Friday Price: $1,499.00
Savings: $500.01
Why It's A Bad Deal: Even with a $500 discount you're still buying a cheap-for-a-reason Chinese bike that's going to require riding lessons, a license and possibly being abandoned two weeks later on the side of the road.

Bad Deal #3

What: Get Less Than 3% Off Of A BMW M3
Where: BMW Dealerships
Regular Price: $54,850
Black Friday Price: $53,350
Why It's A Bad Deal: BMW knows it has a great product in the M3 sports sedan and it's throwing its smallest cash back offer on them. For less than 3% off most buyers won't notice it.

Bad Deal #4

What: Get A "Free" Upgrade To An AWD Charger You Didn't Want
Where: Dodge Dealerships
Regular Price: $30,540
Black Friday Price: $25,700
Why It's A Bad Deal: Dodge has a slate of attractive incentives for those wanting to buy a new car from them, but the "free" upgrade to an AWD Charger is selling you an unpopular AWD upgrade instead of more cash off the car you actually wanted.

Bad Deal #5

What: Subaru Donates $250 To Charity For You
Where: Subaru Dealers
Regular Price: Regular Price
Black Friday Price: Still The Regular Price On Many Models
Why It's A Bad Deal: We think Subaru's "Share The Love " event is great for the five charities that get $250 when you buy their car, but it's not a great deal for consumers. Blame it on Subaru building cars people want.

Get Snake-Bit for $22,995!

Graverobber — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 08:00:00 EST

There once was an english white viper, that wasn't going to get any riper. Nice Price or Crack Pipe wonders if you should pluck it, or instead should you just walk away and say. . .

Okay, let's all get together here and have a group hug over the '86 Eagle from yesterday. Rarely comes along a car, at such a price, that generates such unanimity among the Nice Pricians and Crack Piperarians, but this was such a car. Perhaps it was the surprise at seeing so nice an example of a piece of American automotive history at such a low price. Or, maybe it was just the warm glow the thought of a four-wheeling granny elicits in us all. Whatever the reason, grandma's Eagle received a nearly unprecedented 87% Nice Price vote. For the other 13% of you, you're still welcome here, but don't expect to get the first batch of Maw-maw's cookies- the special ingredient of which is love.

That Eagle was an AMC product with a transmission sourced from Chrysler, and was as comforting as an old sweater. Today, we've got a Mopar product with a transmission built by Tremec, and that is as comforting as an out of control freight train overrun with nut-sac chewing rabid chipmunks and with you, tied naked to the nose.

The Dodge Viper debuted as a limited-production car - and mind-blowing example of what Chrysler was capable of when somebody slips "E" in the drinking water - in 1992, five years after rocking the Motor City Auto Show as a concept. Powered by a Lamborghini-cast aluminum version of the then-new 490-cid pushrod V10 from the Ram pickup, the 400-bhp and 465 lb-ft of titty twist would provide eyeball-squeezing performance, and fuel economy only an OPEC minister could love. The acceleration of the Viper was so brutal that flabby men rocking the car would have their torsos re-shaped by the force - man-boobs flattened, beer bellies squeezed into six packs - exciting their 30-year younger female passengers until the next stop light when everything would return to its natural state of Dick Cheneyness.

Here's a '96 RT/10, the condition of which is, like all aspects of the Viper, a little rough. For that aura of hard use and patina of I'm not gonna' bother to blow all the dust out from under the hood, the car comes with an aggressive, Buy It Now of only $22,995. As the picture show some wear and tear that you might expect with an odometer rolling six, it's surprising that the seller claims only 50K on the clock. That's until you remember the stories of owners complaints about the build quality of the first generation Vipers. But it's not that bad, and a torn side bolster on the driver's seat isn't going to impede your tire-melting, full-throttle runs from gas station to gas station. And who wouldn't drop 23 large just for the RE DQLUS license plate?

So, check it out and and let's get down to bee's wax. It's a Viper; it's white with blue stripes, which isn't wood-causing, but could be worse; it's claimed to be rough but running, so barring any major mechanical issues, the Lambo-originated engine should be solid; and it costs less than your average V6 Camry. Now, comparing a used Viper to a new Camry is kind of stupid, I realize, but it's a handy point of reference, sort of like using Megan Fox to describe how attractive other women are- there's no comparison, but at least you get the idea.

But $22,995? What do you think, for that price, is this something you could sink your fangs into? Or, would spending that much mean you'd be taking it in the asp?

You decide!

eBay or go here if the ad disappears.

Help me out with NPOCP. Click here to send a me a tip, and remember to include your commenter handle.

Chrysler / BBDO Detroit Split Makes For Some Very Sad Former Ad Men

Ray Wert — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:15:00 EST

BBDO Detroit's got 100 problems. One's Chrysler, the other 99 are severance related. [AgencySpy]

STUDY: Each New GM Vehicle Costs Taxpayers $12,200

Matt Hardigree — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:30:00 EST

A study by the obviously pro-government National Taxpayers Union claims each new GM vehicle costs the average taxpayer $12,200. Their bizarre assumptions and our analysis below.

GM has been given $52.9 billion in TARP/Federal loans and financing arm GMAC has been given $12.5 billion of which approximately 8.6 billion can be considered GM money. If total car sales reach 10.5 million in 2009 and 12.5 million for 2010 and GM has roughly equal market share next year as it did in 2008 then GM will sell roughly 5.06 million over the next two years. Add and divide and you end up with about $12,200.

Rather than point out that this money protects jobs and keeps American industry from faring worse than it already is, we'll just make a list of all NTU's assumptions used to come up with the $12,200 per car figure plus our own analysis of how many of their assumptions are full of crap:

GM will sell 5.06 million cars in 2009/2010 combined.
(NTU's numbers on GM sales for 2010 are okay based on a SAAR of 10.5 million, the reality is they'll possibly do worse than the 2.31 million cars and instead do 2.25 million.)
GMAC will loan no money back to finance a car to anyone who is also a taxpayer
(They will)
GM will have the same market share in 2010 it had in 2008
(Almost certainly not. It'll probably be worse)
Total vehicle sales will reach 10.5 million in 2009
(More like 10.7 million as of late October)
Total vehicle sales will reach 12.5 million in 2010
(Maybe.)
GM will not pay the $6.7 billion back
(GM's already said it plans to start paying back the loans at the end of this year and even GM's not that PR-illiterate. We think.)
GM will never pay any loan back
(See above.)
GMAC will never pay any loan back
(GMAC has an unfair advantage according to the NTU study itself, therefore we assume it'll remain in business long enough to pay some portion of the loan back.)
GM will not sell any cars after 2010
(OK, here's the real silly part of the study. We all know GM will more than likely still sell cars after 2010, even if they're cars we wish they wouldn't sell.)

So, to quote Pete Sepp of the NTU, "Every time someone in your neighborhood drives home in a shiny new Chevy Silverado, remember that it cost American taxpayers more than $12,200."*

*assuming everything above.

Study: Every GM Vehicle Sold Costs Taxpayers $12,200(Alexandria, VA) – The American taxpayer has put up $12,200 for every General Motors vehicle sold through the beginning of 2011, and $7,600 for every Chrysler vehicle sold as well, according to a new report issued by the 362,000-member National Taxpayers Union (NTU).
The report, The Auto Bailout – A Taxpayer Quagmire, authored by NTU Adjunct Scholar Thomas D. Hopkins, Professor of Economics at the University of Rochester, does the math on what the government bailout of the auto industry – including General Motors, Chrysler, and GMAC – actually means to American taxpayers, including how much each taxpayer has contributed to the auto industry since December 2008 and how much each vehicle is costing us.
"Every time someone in your neighborhood drives home in a shiny new Chevy Silverado, remember that it cost American taxpayers more than $12,000," said Pete Sepp, NTU Vice President for Policy and Communications. "I wonder if all those Americans without work right now could think of any better ways to spend that money."
The study found that the average American taxpaying family has invested roughly $800 in the auto bailouts so far. Moreover, the study found, the government support poured into General Motors, Chrysler, and GMAC – the financing subsidiary that supports sales at both – now stands at a towering $78.9 billion. Given that figure, and an estimate of how many vehicles GM and Chrysler will sell through the end of 2010, the study finds that each vehicle one of the bailed-out companies sells costs taxpayers $10,700.
Finally, breaking down the costs by company, the study reports that every Chrysler vehicle sold costs taxpayers $7,600, and every GM vehicle sold costs taxpayers $12,200.
The research is based upon a November study released by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), entitled Continued Stewardship Needed as Treasury Develops Strategies for Monitoring and Divesting Financial Interests in Chrysler and GM, " a follow-up report on the "Troubled Asset Relief Program," as well as statements and reports released from the U.S. Treasury.
Additional Findings Include:
• GMAC receives government guarantees not available to most private firms. Coincidentally, these are the same private firms that are forced to compete with GMAC taxpayer-assisted bank, Ally Bank. These guarantees save GMAC about $500 million annually in interest costs. During the first ten months of 2009, GM and Chrysler sales fell further than other major auto producers, down 33.4 percent and 38.9 percent, respectively.  While the prospect of repayment of GM and Chrysler loans might be expected, after bankruptcy the vast majority of the bailout funds are no longer legal obligations of the newly-structured GM and Chrysler. If Americans are to believe public officials' claims that the government will eventually reprivatize the auto industry, the necessity of a thoughtful exit plan is essential. However, at this time no such plan exists, making it likely that the Treasury will not recover its investment.
"[T]he bailout has created moral hazard problems, inadvertently handicapping the progress of stronger, non-subsidized producers," Professor Hopkins concluded. "The problems extend beyond just the auto industry, as favored status for one financial company and its bank necessarily complicates prospects for non-subsidized rivals. The time has come to stop such bailouts, and in an orderly way, to seek at least some recovery for taxpayers."
Note: To view the complete issue brief, The Auto Bailout: A Taxpayer Quagmire, click here.

About the Author
Thomas D. Hopkins is Professor of Economics at Rochester Institute of Technology. He served as Dean of the College of Business 1998-2005 and as President, U.S. Business School in Prague, Czech Republic, an RIT MBA program where he taught 1992-98. He was the Arthur J. Gosnell Professor of Economics in RIT's College of Liberal Arts, 1988-98. Hopkins held senior management positions in two White House agencies during the Ford, Carter and Reagan Administrations; in 1979 President Carter appointed him a charter member of the federal government's Senior Executive Service. In the early 1980s, he served as Deputy Administrator, Office of Information & Regulatory Affairs, in the Office of Management & Budget. His research on business burdens of government regulation has been sponsored by the Organization for Economic Cooperation & Development (OECD) in Paris and the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) in Washington. He has testified on regulatory policy issues before committees of the U.S. Senate and House, and Canada's House of Commons. He co-authored a 2001 SBA report, "The Impact of Regulatory Costs on Small Firms," as well as National Research Council reports on marine transportation, the Exxon Valdez oil spill, and trucking/rail/barge transportation. He previously was on the faculty of American University, University of Maryland, and Bowdoin College.
Background
The Auto Bailout – A Taxpayer Quagmire is based on data obtained from the Government Accountability Office and Treasury reports on the Troubled Asset Relief Program. The study was sponsored by the National Taxpayers Union (NTU), a nonpartisan, nonprofit citizen organization founded in 1969 to work for lower taxes, smaller government, accountability from public officials, and economic freedom at all levels. For further information, visit www.ntu.org.

[NTU via Carscoop]

Photo Credit: Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images

BMW, Toyota Don't Make IIHS 2010 Top Safety List

Matt Hardigree — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 00:00:01 EST

This year, people aren't thinking about buying a car the IIHS considers one of the 27 safest for 2010. They're thinking about pink slips, erectile dysfunction, and suicide. According to the IIHS, these people should buy Toyotas and BMWs.

Though BMW and Toyota aren't the only major automaker to not make the list of 27 vehicles, they're the most notable considering Chrysler managed to get four vehicles on the list and Volvo managed the same despite having belts on their XC60 disengage in a side-crash.

Click on the thumbs in this gallery and you can see the full list of IIHS-ordained cars in each category. For the most part, it's a sign of the cars you're least likely to want to drive. For instance, they explicitly exclude the WRX and SI versions of the Impreza and Civic.

27 winners of 2010 TOP SAFETY PICK award; new requirement to win is good rating for protection in rollovers 
ARLINGTON, VA - Nineteen cars and 8 SUVs earn the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's TOP SAFETY PICK award for 2010 For the first time, good performance in a roof strength test to measure protection in a rollover is required to win. TOP SAFETY PICK recognizes vehicles that do the best job of protecting people in front, side, rear, and now rollover crashes based on good ratings in Institute tests. Winners also must have electronic stability control, which research shows significantly reduces crash risk. This is the second time the Institute has tightened criteria since announcing the first recipients in 2005.
Subaru is the only manufacturer with a winner in all 4 vehicle classes in which it competes. This automaker earns 5 awards for 2010. Ford and subsidiary Volvo have 6 winners, and Volkswagen/Audi has 5. Chrysler earns 4 awards, continuing a recent trend of improving the crashworthiness of its vehicles. Two new small cars, the Nissan Cube and Kia Soul, join the TOP SAFETY PICK list for 2010.
"With the addition of our new roof strength evaluation, our crash test results now cover all 4 of the most common kinds of crashes," says Institute president Adrian Lund. "Consumers can use this list to zero in on the vehicles that are on the top rung for safety."
Good rollover ratings: A new requirement for strong roofs winnows the list of TOP SAFETY PICK winners from a record 94 in 2009. The addition of this criterion recognizes manufacturers with vehicles that provide good protection in rollovers, which kill more than 9,000 people in passenger vehicles each year. The first rollover ratings were released in March. Vehicles rated good have roofs more than twice as strong as the current federal standard requires. The Institute estimates that such roofs reduce the risk of serious and fatal injury in single-vehicle rollovers by about 50 percent compared with roofs meeting the minimum requirement.
"Cars and SUVs that win TOP SAFETY PICK are designs that go far beyond minimum federal safety standards," Lund points out.
Missing the mark: Not a single model from the world's biggest automaker by sales is represented among this year's winners. Toyota and its Lexus and Scion subsidiaries had a strong showing in 2009 with 11 winners but were shut out for 2010. Four other manufacturers whose vehicles have earned TOP SAFETY PICK in the past didn't have a qualifying vehicle for 2010: BMW, Mazda, Mitsubishi, and Saab. The Honda Accord picked up the award the past 2 years, but the 2010 didn't earn the required good roof strength rating to qualify (the roof is rated acceptable). The Ford Fusion is another midsize car that dropped off the list for the same reason.
"Honda and Ford would have to make only minor changes to achieve good ratings for roof strength, as the Accord and Fusion just missed the mark," Lund explains.
The midsize Toyota Camry would have qualified with good ratings, except for its rear crash evaluation. This car's seats and head restraints are rated marginal for protection against whiplash injury. A change to good would have earned the Camry a TOP SAFETY PICK for 2010. Other automakers have improved head restraints to win. For example, inadequate head restraints kept earlier Chrysler models from earning awards, but in 2010 the Chrysler Sebring, Dodge Avenger and Journey, and Jeep Patriot all earn good ratings and TOP SAFETY PICK. Likewise, General Motors upgraded the seats and head restraints in the Chevrolet Malibu to win.
Volvo glitch: The Institute identified a problem with the Volvo XC60 in the side test. A piece of plastic trim on the driver seat pushed against a service release button for the safety belt, which then detached from its anchor during the test.
"This would be a serious issue if it happened in a real crash, but it's not likely to happen and it's fixable," Lund explains. "Still, belts shouldn't come loose in a crash test. Volvo is fixing the problem so it won't be an issue with XC60 models produced after November 2009. TOP SAFETY PICK applies only to these modified XC60s."
Consumers who own 2010 XC60s already on the road should see their Volvo dealer for repairs, Lund advises.
Improved protection: Front and side impacts and rollovers killed 24,056 passenger vehicle occupants in 2008. Rear-end crashes usually aren't fatal but result in a large proportion of crash injuries. Neck sprain or strain is the most commonly reported injury in two-thirds of insurance claims for injuries in all kinds of crashes.
"In safety terms, we've come very far, very fast in just the past decade," Lund says. "When the Institute began conducting frontal tests for consumer information in 1995, few vehicles earned top ratings. Now almost all do. Most cars failed the side tests we added in 2003. Test results in that initial round were so bad we nearly broke our budget for repairing the crash test dummy, but now most vehicles ace the side test thanks to side airbags and stronger side structures. Factor in improved head restraints to protect against whiplash and electronic stability control to prevent crashes, and consumers are the clear winners."
Safety equipment is increasingly standard. Ninety-two percent of 2010 model cars, 99 percent of SUVs, and 66 percent of pickup trucks have standard side airbags with head protection. Electronic stability control is standard on 85 percent of cars, 100 percent of SUVs, and 62 percent of pickups.
"Now that roof strength is a priority, we think manufacturers will move quickly to bolster roofs to do well in our roof strength test. This means consumers likely will have more TOP SAFETY PICK choices for 2011," Lund predicts.
Keep in mind vehicle size and weight, he adds, because larger, heavier vehicles generally afford better protection in serious crashes than smaller, lighter ones. Even with a TOP SAFETY PICK, a small car isn't as crashworthy as a bigger one.
The Institute awarded the first TOP SAFETY PICK winners to 2006 models and then raised the bar the next year by requiring good rear test results and electronic stability control as either standard or optional equipment. Early this year the Institute alerted auto manufacturers to the new criteria for roof crush and asked them to nominate candidates for testing.
How vehicles are evaluated: The Institute's frontal crashworthiness evaluations are based on results of 40 mph frontal offset crash tests. Each vehicle's overall evaluation is based on measurements of intrusion into the occupant compartment, injury measures recorded on a Hybrid III dummy in the driver seat, and analysis of slow-motion film to assess how well the restraint system controlled dummy movement during the test.
Side evaluations are based on performance in a crash test in which the side of a vehicle is struck by a barrier moving at 31 mph. The barrier represents the front end of a pickup or SUV. Ratings reflect injury measures recorded on 2 instrumented SID-IIs dummies representing a 5th percentile woman, assessment of head protection countermeasures, and the vehicle's structural performance during the impact.
Rear crash protection is rated according to a two-step procedure. Starting points for the ratings are measurements of head restraint geometry - the height of a restraint and its horizontal distance behind the back of the head of an average-size man. Seat/head restraints with good or acceptable geometry are tested dynamically using a dummy that measures forces on the neck. This test simulates a collision in which a stationary vehicle is struck in the rear at 20 mph. Seats without good or acceptable geometry are rated poor overall because they can't be positioned to protect many people.
In the roof strength test, a metal plate is pushed against 1 side of a roof at a constant speed. To earn a good rating for rollover protection, the roof must withstand a force of 4 times the vehicle's weight before reaching 5 inches of crush. This is called a strength-to-weight ratio. For an acceptable rating, the minimum required strength-to-weight ratio is 3.25. A marginal rating value is 2.5. Anything lower than that is rated poor.

Large Cars:
Buick LaCrosse
Ford Taurus
Lincoln MKS
Volvo S80

Midsize Cars:
Audi A3
Chevrolet Malibu built after October 2009
Chrysler Sebring 4-door with optional electronic stability control
Dodge Avenger with optional electronic stability control
Mercedes C class
Subaru Legacy
Subaru Outback
Volkswagen Jetta sedan
Volkswagen Passat sedan
Volvo C30

Small Cars
Honda Civic 4-door models (except Si) with optional electronic stability control
Kia Soul
Nissan Cube
Subaru Impreza except WRX
Volkswagen Golf 4-door

Midsize SUVs
Dodge Journey
Subaru Tribeca
Volvo XC60
Volvo XC90

Small SUVs
Honda Element
Jeep Patriot with optional side torso airbags
Subaru Forester
Volkswagen Tiguan

Why Do Republicans Hate American Automakers?

Matt Hardigree — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:30:00 EST

A German company is battling with a Japanese one to become the world's biggest automaker. Italians own Chrysler. It's like World War II except we're losing. So why are Republicans suddenly on the side of the automotive Axis powers?

It was little more than half-a-century ago the armies of Rome, Berlin and Tokyo were defeated by Detroit's "Arsenal of Democracy" equipped by American carmakers. Yet to hear it lately from conservatives and leaders in the Republican Party, American automakers are what's wrong with this country, should be boycotted, and go bankrupt.

Senator John McCain told reporters that we should have never bailed out Chrysler and GM and let them go under.

"No, I don't think we ever should have bailed out Chrysler and General Motors," McCain told The Detroit News. "We should have let them go into bankruptcy, emerge and become viable corporations again."

This, of course, while he was out drumming up support for his 2010 Senate run while serving as the grand marshal of a NASCAR event where the very good ol' boys he was drumming up support from were watching Chrysler and GM products race. And, as The Detroit News points out, we did let them go into bankruptcy. We're still waiting to find out whether they'll emerge as stronger companies.

Confusingly, McCain seems to be channeling John Kerry in being for the bailout before he was against it. Now, of course, he's going so far as to refer to it as "Socialism."

And just this weekend RNC Chairman Michael Steele responded to the news of GM going further in debt by pointing out this statement:

"Today's release of General Motors' financial results is further proof that President Obama's economic experiments are wrong for America."

Of course, GM lost $4.2 billion in the third-quarter last year so this is actually an improvement, of sorts. And GM also announced they'd be repaying loans ahead of schedule.

So who do the Republicans like? At last year's Detroit Auto Show we had a conversation with Senator Bob Corker, the Republican who lead the charge against the bailout, and he talked about the Volkswagens he loves. Not a surprise given VW is joining Nissan in building a huge plant in his state.

In fact, there have been a number of foreign car companies moving better-than-minimum-wage assembly plants into states represented by Republican senators, including BMW in South Carolina, Toyota in Texas, Nissan/VW in Tennessee, and Mercedes-Benz and Hyundai in Alabama. Of course, we can't blame the Chrysler-Fiat "Global Strategic Alliance" alliance on the Republican party.

So when the far right goes to Boycott GM they're doing so for the benefit of companies like Volkswagen and Toyota, who have both surpassed GM as the world's largest automaker in the last year.

Ironically, this is the same Republican party upset about the Chinese purchase of Hummer. As Republican Representative Duncan Hunter told the Wall Street Journal: "Any money that is going to China or to Chinese companies is contributing in some way to China's military buildup."

So supporting American car companies is socialism and supporting every other country's investments in production capacity is capitalism and therefore good for America.

But hey, the Germans, Japanese, Chinese and Italians are our friends so who says we need any domestic car production or car companies? Of course, we're probably just paranoid. Maybe the real reason the Republicans hate GM and Chrysler is just that they really like Ford.

Photo Credit: DiggerHistory

Have the Taliban Abandoned Toyotas for American Pickup Trucks?

Peter Orosz — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:20:00 EST

If you’re a militiaman rolling in hostile terrain, your best vehicle choice is the Toyota pickup. A minuscule clue in the latest issue of The New Yorker suggests that all that is about to change.

Like the AK-47 assault rifle and the RPG–7 bazooka, the Toyota pickup truck has become an icon of irregular armies worldwide. When mounted with an anti-aircraft cannon or a rocket laucher on its bed, it is called a technical and technicals have helped militas wage and win war against armies equipped with mechanized divisions. There was even a conflict in 1987 called the Toyota War, in which Chad’s Toyota-equipped troops defeated Muammar al-Gaddafi’s Libyan army.

The practice is not local to Africa. In Afghanistan, it was an influx of Toyota pickups from Pakistan’s ISI spy agency which transformed the Taliban from a Kandahar militia to a force which took over most of Afghanistan with remarkable speed, defeating established mujahideen commanders with decades of experience.

This has nothing to do with good guys, bad guys or tribal affiliations and all to do with the Toyota pickup’s extreme reliability on hostile terrain. You have no doubt seen the famous Top Gear episode where a Toyota Hilux is subjected to every manner of destructive testing short of a thermonuclear explosion yet it keeps on ticking—but you may not have seen this image from 2002, where US Special Forces soldiers ride in a quad cab Toyota identical to the ones used by their Taliban foes:

But all that may be about to change.

The only clue is a few pixels of an illustration which accompanies Seymour Hersh’s latest piece for The New Yorker, where he reports on the safety of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal—or its lack thereof. It was created by the acclaimed French illustrator Guy Billout and if you lean in close, the truck you see the Taliban soldiers riding in is rather striking:

It’s not a Toyota. It’s a quad cab Dodge—a Dakota to my untrained eye, but it could be a Ram as well. This might be an inconsequential detail if the magazine in question was not The New Yorker, famous for their fact checking team. And the truck is definitely not some sort of generic placeholder pickup: it has a Dodge grille.

Cooperation between American companies and the Taliban would not be without historical precedent. Back in 1995 before they conquered Kabul and became host to Al-Qaeda, Unocal executive Marty Miller was involved in negotiations with the Taliban leadership for a natural gas pipeline which was to run from Turkmenistan to Pakistan, straight through Taliban territory. While the deal eventually fell through, Miller visited Kandahar several times and at one point even had Taliban leaders flown to Houston for Christmas, of all holidays.

Perhaps Toyota, with its humbling losses and its exit from Formula One, has gone over the hill—while Chrysler has found itself a particularly lucrative market for trucks, where demand for new vehicles is guaranteed not by rebates but by American firepower. And nobody likes to stick with a loser. Least of all the Taliban.

Photo Credit: SAEED KHAN/AFP/Getty Images, TERENCE WHITE/AFP/Getty Images, Paula Bronstein/Getty Images, Guy Billout, EMMANUEL DUNAND/AFP/Getty Images, U.S. Air Force

Chrysler Kills ENVI Electric Car Program, Shocks No One

Wes Siler — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:40:00 EST

Remember the fake electric car program Chrysler showed off earlier this year in a transparent attempt to get bailout money? Fiat just canceled the entire ENVI program. So predictable. Frankly, we're more shocked Chrysler still exists.

This doesn't mean Chrysler isn't still working on electric cars, but as Kicking Tires points out, they're just not working on the three battery-electric vehicles — the ENVI program — they unveiled to great incredulity at this year's Detroit Auto Show are DOA. [Automotive News, Kicking Tires]

Five Reasons Dodge Shouldn't Divorce Ram

Ray Wert — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 08:30:00 EST

Five reasons Dodge and Ram shouldn't divorce. The sixth? For the kids. [PickupTrucks.com]

My Name Is Irony

Ray Wert — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:30:00 EST

My name is Ram. My tank is full. I am fueled by optimism, driven by passion and stopped by lawyers...

First "My Name Is Ram: My Tank Is Full" Ad, For Real

Matt Hardigree — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 10:20:00 EST

After attempting to show you the first My Name Is Ram commercial yesterday, we now have the final-cut that aired at last night's World Series below the jump.

The ad was put together by the Richards Group of Dallas (who does all those great Bridgestone ads) and, according to AdAge, may be voiced by company founder Stan Richards himself.

We think the commercial is a bit much, trying to capture the Whitman-esque charm of the new Levi's commercials but, you know, while talking about a truck and not the American spirit. Either way, people who don't know who Walt Whitman is will probably be equally as moved. [AdAge]

Chrysler's Complete Five-Year Product Plan

Matt Hardigree — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:00:00 EST

Here's Chrysler's complete product plan — all the brands including Fiat — for the next five years. Basically, the five-hour event Wert's been at all day is all boiled down to the short gallery of powerpoint pages below. Hit it.

Chrysler's Complete Product Plan

Matt Hardigree — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:50:21 EST

The New New Chrysler: Update #3

Matt Hardigree — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:30:00 EST

Lots of big news in the early evening part of the presentation from the New New Chrysler marathon news session. Click "more" to learn about the new page the Ram brand may be turning and the scoop behind the logo.

That's right, they're considering bringing back a unibody truck/car/camino for the Ram brand. Rampage anyone?
With Fiat comes Abarth, which is some of the best news all day. A Fiat Abarth SS would be sweet.
Chrysler is considering dropping Audrey Hepburn digitally into an ad for the Chrysler 300C.
Best quote in the latest update: Chrysler Town and Country is moving through Canada like "chicken pox through a Kindergarten class."
The new Chrysler logo? It's the new Chrysler brand logo.

The New New Chrysler: Update #2

Matt Hardigree — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:15:00 EST

The New New Chrysler continues to pour out news at a furious pace, including word of more involvement in motorsports not named NASCAR. All this while the building is under attack from one crazy website (not us).

Ralph Giles told the crowd today that, unlike other companies, Dodge will continue to race and put more money into the Nationwide Series/NASCAR as well as more grassroots motorsports. The SRT team enjoys events like LeMons and it's a little investment that could build a lot of good will for the automaker.
A new unibody pickup could replace the unloved Dakota.
Yes, this does feel like DaimlerChrysler
Yes, Ray Wert is a serial over-sharer
The website CarBuyersBeware.com flew planes with banners around the headquarters of Chrysler today. It's affiliated with the Teamsters and their issue seems to be bad (i.e. non-union) car transport companies.

[@raywert]

2012 Dodge Charger: First Look

Matt Hardigree — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:00:00 EST

Among the news from today's New New Chrysler briefing was this slide of the 2012 Dodge Charger. The design is so good it apparently made Ralph Giles weep with joy. Look familiar? There's a reason...

This image reveals a sloping belt line and strong curve building from the front to the shoulders, reminiscent of the 1999 Dodge RT Charger Concept (below) it seems to borrow heavily from. We're also told the new Charger initially had rear door handles in the roof line rather than the door panel — giving it a two-door look — but this was eventually dropped. Any other details stick out?

First "My Name Is Ram" Ad: My Tank Is Full...

Matt Hardigree — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:30:00 EST

Here's the first look at the new ad for the Dodge Ram brand with the awkwardly double entendre-filled, overly repeated taglines: My Name Is Ram and My Tank Is Full. Yeah, you're definitely full of something New New Chrysler.

~~Sorry, we had to pull the video down. We didn't realize we weren't supposed to be taking video or photos in the session. — Ed.~~ And it's back up!