Think small

["Mahoney, John" <JMahoney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>>
There are homes all over a former piece of GM's area in Mesa, and every other proving grounds is threatened by what's going on here. A year ago
<<

Remembering how, when western New York was not far removed from the vast American frontier, Alexis de Tocqueville wrote of finding in "le desert" a surprising amount of "les debris," the fact that Toll house Cookie Monster boxes (oh, what the heck --- let's make it a triple play!) of ticky-tacky

http://www.tollbrothers.com/homesearch/servlet/HomeSearch 

http://tinyurl.com/cc7q6

http://www.redrock.org/issues/2002_laing_homes/little_boxes.html

(We've got Rambler mentality; we won't pay iTunes or Napster 99 cents!)

bloom in the deserts where great American motor monsters once roared, is only to be expected.  It's progress.  It is, as Toyota promises, "moving [us] forward" --- to somewhere we've never been before, somewhere we're not really sure want to go.  That's why the past is of such great value.  Without it, we're lost souls in an American desert, filled with hot air; with it, we can make sense and enjoy.

Headline: AMC memories from Kenosha and Toledo are brought alive again!  

The UAW members now making $27/hour in wages plus another $27/hour in benefits who plan to "set on fire and toss in the aisle" any "slap in the face" bonus checks issued by the Big-2 or Mopar should better tear themselves away from NASCAR at Daytona on TV to watch the Stuttgart show. Yesterday, I noted that Ghosn thinks Nissan-Renault needs 6% profit on sales by '09; hours after I typed that, Zetsche said DaimlerChrysler's '07 goal needs to be 7%, adding that he will do "whatever it takes" to get there.  Making more cuts (people, plants, dealerships) and making more Mercedes or Mopar models outside Germany and North America means making no mistake, Motown men and women: any bonus that makes you mad should, instead, make you glad.  You still have jobs.  Good -American- jobs!

Yesterday also, I bumped into a 30-something acquaintance who (I happen to know) earns a little less than $70k/year (his wife earns $35k/year): the lease on his black Chrysler 300M Special has terminated, so he leased a 2006 black Cadillac STS.  Its MSRP is above $60k.  He thinks he's smart.

Last week, I happened to be reading online SEC documents from a company another [70-something] acquaintance retired as CEO of; I was surprised that his 1994 pay was $2.2M.  Then as now, he -buys- only Buick sedans:  when he earned that amount, he drove a Park Avenue and his wife drove a Century.  Neither car was brand new then.  I suspect he's even smarter.   

Oh yeah.  The black hot rods park outdoors; the blue Buicks were garaged.  I'm glad Thos. Jeffery's and Charlie Nash's Rambler and Buick mentality are still alive in America.  Too bad the believers are becoming old and gray.  Someday they'll be as dead as Nash and Rambler.  Buick tomorrow?

And oh yeah, in another reference to yesterday, see what John McCormick (in the Detroit News) just today wrote.  If I pull the quote, you won't have to perform hard labor by clicking and reading the w-h-o-l-e thing.  

"Staging what it declared was the most important product introduction in the company's history, Toyota unveiled the 2007 Tundra. After years of playing around the lower fringes of the full-size pick-up market, the Tundra is finally taking on Detroit's big trucks head on. However, even as Toyota trumpeted the tough, hard core, 'badass' character of the new Tundra and even set up a 'Tundra territory' display to emphasize the point, there was careful mention of the environmental aspects of the vehicle and of Toyota overall. It was stressed that the Tundra's biggest powertrain, a 5.7-liter V-8, will be ULEV (ultra low emissions) capable. Plus, as Jim Press Toyota chief pointedly remarked, the company in 2005 had the best overall corporate average fuel economy of any full line automaker.
It will be interesting to see whether Toyota can pull off this bit of PR wizardry. For some years the Japanese brand has been given a free pass by the general media when it comes to environmental image. The fact is that Toyota has plenty of fuel guzzling large trucks in its corporate line-up (the Sequoia, for example, gets no better mileage than its Motown rivals and is less fuel efficient than GM's new full-size SUV range). Seemingly unaware of such details, the press at large always picks on GM or Ford when writing about fuel thirsty vehicles."

Circle the American M/motors G/gremlins and let the badass fun begin!

If American M/motorists enjoy NASCAR/iPod fun too, let them download! 

http://www.tuaw.com/2006/02/16/free-nascar-preview-in-the-itunes-store/

And, since I mentioned the ex-AMCer back to flack US cars, read more!

("Twisted Sister" is the author's name for AMC/Mopar/GM Steve Harris.)

"Although GM recently trimmed $200m from its '06 ad budget, it will still spend $1.2b flogging its products. There's bound to be enough loose change down the back of the corporate sofa to subsidize Operation Love Me Tender. Besides, with all this press about plant closures, layoffs, billion dollar losses, a Presidential f-off and the "b-word", Sister's sledgehammer PR campaign seems a reasonable idea. Unless something's done to alter GM's tragic trajectory, consumers are heading straight for the "you can't touch this" tipping point, where buying any GM product will seem like throwing money into a black hole. Why not sell potential customers a little automotive anti-gravity?
 
[Ed: To transport them back to 1979 Chrysler New Yorkers and 1980 AMC Concords?]

Simply put, the harder GM pushes the fact that they're doing well - or will do well, you know, eventually - the more people will believe they're headed for oblivion. GM's spinmeisters fail to understand the depth of consumer ill-will towards The General. For decades, millions of people spent their hard-earned cash on poorly made, unreliable and (come trade in) expensive GM vehicles. Their complaints were met with arrogance, deceit and indifference. These disgruntled customers told their friends, neighbors and co-workers about their misery and vowed "never again." In fact, the GM resentment bank is so full that any claim that "we're different; we've changed" will sound like a junkie's pleas for his twelfth chance.

Twisted Sister beware: it's American car buyers who are cynical about GM, not journalists. (As far as I can tell, the automotive press is desperate to see a GM turnaround.) So how do you convince deeply skeptical consumers that the new, new GM is worthy of their patronage? You sure as Hell don't launch a glossy ad campaign exhorting them to share your pride in a reborn American institution, to buy into GM's new spirit of honesty, resilience and determination. No, you start somewhere else: the only place where you have the slightest hope in Hell of changing public perceptions about General Motors. You start with the product."

Assuming the product is actually built, not cancelled before birth,

http://www.gminsidenews.com/naias/outlook.jpg

while the competition keeps on coming, becoming stronger every day,

http://www.kiamotors.com/

(Click 2/16 "ceed" press release, then watch out, GM -and- Toyota!!)

or you can bask in whichever past glories you may still be counting, 

http://www.musclecarclub.com/main.shtml

or you can count on the past coming back as the future once again.

"Small Cars Are Back In Action"

"Forget Pinto, Vega and Gremlin. Get ready to learn Yaris, Fit and Versa.  Not since the oil tensions of the 1970s have subcompact cars gotten such attention."

- Detroit Free Press, 2/17/06

Small cars are the toughest cars to sell of any; can Toyota, Honda, and Nissan (and Hyundai/Kia) do what American Motors could not?  Sell small cars that return big profits?

As the calendar turns to 2008, can American motors sell American small cars as well?  Or, like when an old calendar turned to 1980 (as it will again when "That '70s Show" comes to its end in May), will any American Sprit be left to Pacer the future of American small cars from GM, Ford, and Mopar?

The past is certain.

The future, unknown.