kansaiwalker1

From this week's (10/13) autoextremist.com


by Peter M. DeLorenzo



Saving the Motor City - Five Things Detroit Must Do to Survive.

Los Angeles. You know you aren't in the Motor City anymore when you drive around on the streets and freeways out here in Southern California. The biggest thing you notice right away? No daytime running lamps. Oh, sure, there are a few, but nothing like back in Detroit where GM vehicles are seemingly the choice of almost half of the population - at least the ones with access to employee discounts, accompanying family discounts or the "just showing up" discounts available to anyone who walks into a domestic showroom these days. The streets and byways of sunny Southern California are refreshingly free of the glare from those borderline-annoying "DRLs" - except for on motorcycles, where they belong - and the ever-present light trucks, because it's an indicator of how far out of touch GM is with the California market.

But it's not just GM cars that you don't see out here. There's a shocking lack of passenger cars evident from all of the Detroit manufacturers. Yes, there are more sightings than there were as recently as three years ago, with Cadillacs, Corvettes, Chrysler 300Cs, Dodge Magnums and even a few Ford GTs rumbling around (and the usual assortment of blingified domestic SUVs making the scene), but for the most part, any bread-and-butter-type domestic cars you see are usually rental cars - with their DRLs announcing their arrival (and terminal un-hipness) long before they get there.

California is exhibit "A" of how precarious the situation is for what's left of what used to be called the "Big Three." Toyota replaced Chevrolet out here as "America's Brand" a good ten years ago - and for all intents and purposes they've done it nationally now too. Every import brand imaginable has succeeded out here, and with each passing year Detroit-branded products have receded more and more into the woodwork. Detroit has been out of the passenger car business out here for years, except for the aforementioned isolated successes. And no, this, of course, isn't news. But the situation is much more serious than most people even imagine. Detroit's market share has been on a steadily declining erosion cycle that is seemingly irreversible. With virtually an entire generation of Americans most likely lost to the import brands for good, the domestic manufacturers are watching in horror as their share of market falls below 60 percent. Twenty years ago, the domestics had 80 percent of the market (or thereabouts), and ten years from now (or less) they'll be lucky to have 50 percent.

For Detroit, despite their cheery dispositions and public optimism to the media - while touting a slew of "gotta have" products that are here or on the way - privately, make no mistake, the mood is grim.

I could sit here and rehash in detail how Detroit got to this point, but I've been doing it for five-and-one-half years in my column. Suffice to say, it has been a perfect storm of astonishing complacency, rampant mediocrity and a level of serial incompetence that is simply staggering in its scope - and its now-dire consequences.

The abridged explanation?

Detroit collectively took their eye off of the ball for the last 30 years. And in that time the Asian and German manufacturers waltzed in and pulled the rug right out from under them. Detroit not only lost a generation of customers, they lost the confidence of the car-buying public in this country. There are simply too many ugly stories about bad car experiences involving Detroit-branded products floating around "out there" in the real world - and that lingering stench of mediocrity is not something that will go away with a snap of the finger or a few exuberant auto show intros of "gotta have" products.

But make no mistake, and as hard as it is to believe, Detroit has gotten the message.

Detroit is unleashing a steady stream of excellent and in some cases even outstanding new products on the American landscape. From competent entry-level cars, to interesting passenger car iterations, to eye-opening luxury-performance and high-performance entries - Detroit is getting back in the game and becoming a serious player again.

The only problem is that the car-buying public out there in the "real world" is having trouble getting, or worse, believing the message. That "lost generation" I referred to is - big surprise - less-than-eager to sign up for the latest offerings from the Motor City. Oh, sure, they might be mildly interested in the select brand "hits" running around right now, but actually going in and trading their Toyota/Lexus, Honda/Acura, BMW, Subaru, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz (you can fill in the rest) on a Detroit brand?

As we like to say here at AE - it's just notgonnahappen.com.

Certainly not at the rate or in the numbers that Detroit needs it to happen, that's for sure - and certainly not without a massive discount or cash incentive. That's not pouring salt on the wound, that's just the ugly reality, folks.

So, what can Detroit do? How can the denizens of the Motor City car companies close this hugely negative "perception gap" that exists out there? How can Detroit convince America's car-buying consumers that Detroit brands are not only worth buying, but actually cool to buy again?

To start with, here are Five Things Detroit must do to survive.

1. Stop Following and Start Leading. I've mentioned this before, but Detroit has spent the last 25 years "benchmarking" their way to mediocrity. When you spend development time and money "benchmarking" your future products against the competition's existing products, it stands to reason that you're always going to be one generation behind your competitors' offerings. Do that over several product cycles, and you're not even going to be in the same league. Detroit has been doing this for so long that they've actually started to believe what they're doing is competitive with "what's out there" - when they're not even close to being in the game. It's called "drinking the Motor City Kool-Aid," and it's such a potent, addictive brew that grown men and women completely lose touch with any sense of reality whatsoever - and sit there and insist with a straight face that their car, truck, minivan, crossover, etc., is every bit as good as the competition's - when they're clearly not, except for a few isolated instances.

Detroit needs to stop waiting around for other manufacturers to do things first. They need to dig deep from within for inspiration, instead of always looking somewhere else for ideas. In Detroit's "glory days" innovation was a way of life. The operative word was "new," and risks were taken in the pursuit of doing a better job. Today's Detroit is too often a seething cauldron of paranoia, where opportunities are wasted and advantages missed because decisions are based on not losing - instead of going for the win.

2. "Good Enough" is Definitely Not Good Enough. The common misperception out there is that Detroit doesn't have the talent to compete with the Asians and the Germans. That is flat-out untrue. Detroit has just as much talent, if not more so, as any other auto manufacturing center in the world. Detroit just doesn't know how to use it. Back to Point 1 - how can you possibly lead when you shackle your talent in a benchmarking bureaucracy more interested in covering its ass than doing outstanding work? Detroit needs to purge the "engineering to the lowest common denominator" mentality that permeates it bureaucracies - the one that states that something is "good enough." Because I would be willing to bet that as soon as those words are uttered in the midst of a product development cycle in Detroit - it's most assuredly not good enough. Example? Look at the new Chevrolet Corvette. From every angle, the sixth-generation Corvette is a sensational piece. Taut, tasteful and extremely quick - it’s a handsome, competent design with great road presence. But get inside of it, and it’s clear that someone yelled "good enough" somewhere along the way, and the development stopped. The interior is okay, but that just doesn’t cut it in today’s market. Yes, I’m aware of the vehicle’s price point and the fact that it's probably the best high-performance value in the world, but don’t tell me that Corvette customers wouldn’t spend an extra $500.00 per vehicle for a substantially nicer interior, because they absolutely would. Detroit needs to stop saying "good enough" and take their game to the next level. Detroit needs to unleash their talent and create an environment where creativity, innovation and vision are the operative words - and make sure it translates to the products that get to the showroom - and not just reserve it for their cool concept cars at the auto shows.

3. Get Smaller to Get Better. This point applies to GM more than the other Detroit manufacturers, but all of them could learn from it. Detroit controls 60 percent of the U.S. market, yet they act like they still have 90 percent of it. GM in particular still conducts itself as if it's the early '70s when it comes to their product offerings. Back when GM controlled 48 percent of the market (think about that statistic for a moment), they could dictate the design, the segments, the pricing, the options - hell, they even dictated the colors for the rest of the Big Three too. Life was good. But that hasn't been reality for GM or Detroit for 30 years. GM has too many models and too many divisions, and they have products stepping all over each other up and down the spectrum of the market. Pontiac needs a minivan? Please. And yet that's just one small example. GM needs to get real with their place in the automotive world and start cutting the number of models they offer, not adding to them. GM (and Detroit) needs to get smaller to get better. Instead of blanketing the market with a bunch of "good enough" nameplates that they can't properly support in terms of marketing and advertising dollars, they need to do fewer cars that are class leading. And that doesn't mean "sort of close" to the class-leading vehicles (i.e., "good enough"), but class leading. Period. Would a typical GM dealer prefer a "full line" of vehicles to sell when only a quarter of them actually have street "buzz" and generate consumer interest? Or would that dealer be happy with two or three models that sell like gangbusters? Trust me on this one, folks, most dealers I know would gladly broom the mediocre crap they have to sell all day long in favor of a couple of vehicles that consumers actually want for a change.

4. Stop Losing the PR War. If you listen to the constant Public Relations drumbeats emanating from the Asian and German manufacturers, you'd think that they're the only automakers operating in the U.S. Toyota PR is so masterful, for example, that they have card-carrying members of the anti-car, anti-Detroit intelligentsia absolutely convinced that the only answer to our transportation needs in the future is a Hybrid, and the only Hybrid vehicle worth owning is made by Toyota. And Toyota plays it beautifully, too, honing their humble, "Aw shucks, we're just doing it for the good of the people" routine to calculated effect, even though they offer a large number of gas-sucking SUVs too. What, you didn't get that memo? The national media apparently didn't get it, either. The Prius has become the perfect darling vehicle of the so-called Hollywood "elite" (at least the ones whose press agents tell them what to drive), and stars love to make their "arrivals" on the red carpet in them - with the media dutifully reporting that so-and-so made their entrance in the "fabulous Toyota Prius Hybrid." No mention of the fact that Toyota makes a full range of SUVs delivering mileage in the "teens." None. The PR victory is so complete for Toyota that the national news media has the company being nominated for sainthood any moment now. But it's not just Toyota - the other import manufacturers have fared tremendously well in the PR wars too. Ever notice how the national media makes a bigger deal about "yet another recall" from a Detroit automaker, when they gloss over equally serious recalls from a German or Asian automaker? Don't believe it? Watch the next time a series of auto recalls is announced - then see how long the Detroit angle to the story stays alive and how quickly the import angle fades. After 25 years of stinking up the joint, Detroit has been written off by the national media as a Rust Belt anachronism that wouldn't be missed if it went down for the count. But the reality of the situation is that this country couldn't afford for that to happen. Remember hearing the old adage that one in seven jobs in this country is either directly or indirectly connected to the Detroit-based automobile industry? Well, it's still true, folks. And no, Detroit doesn't need a "handout" either. What they need to do is roll up their sleeves and tell their story. Their new vehicles are equal to or better than a lot of "prestige" import nameplates when it comes to quality. Why aren't we hearing it? If some in the national media and in Washington D.C. are biased against "Detroit" - well, get off your asses and take the message of the "reinvigorated Detroit" to those people. Detroit keeps waiting for people to come around to the idea that they're back in the game and that their products are worth considering again. Well, that's fine, but it's not going to happen that way. The "people" aren't going to come around to Detroit on their own, rather they need a compelling reason to do so. And the PR mavens at what's left of the "Big Three" haven't given them one yet.

5. It's the Product, Stupid. You can take the previous four points and throw them out the window if you don't get this last point. The one bright spot in the national media for Detroit right now is Chrysler. Why? Chrysler is "hot" because the Chrysler 300C and the Dodge Magnum have that elusive street "buzz" right now. They're cool American cars that exude a passionate point of view and have genuine on-the-road "presence." Is Chrysler really that smart or that good? The short answer? No. But they were smart enough on these two products, at least, to go with their gut and demonstrate real conviction for a change. In other words, they gathered the wherewithal from within to execute cars that they liked and that they wanted to build. They didn't "benchmark" them to anything else out there, and they weren't interested in making these two cars appealing to a wide spectrum of buyers. They didn't get cold feet, either - and the words "good enough" were refreshingly left out of the development process. The reward for Chrysler's risk taking? The Chrysler 300C and Dodge Magnum are two of this year's product "hits."

But Chrysler didn't have to look far for inspiration to pull these cars off - they only had to look across town to see what GM did with its Cadillac division to see how it's done. Cadillac was a moribund luxury division living in the past, until GM got religion and resurrected the brand with edgy, in-your-face design, a sophisticated rear-wheel-drive platform that was the antithesis of everything about the "old" Cadillac, and a real luxury-performance character for a brand that had absolutely none to speak of before. The result? Cadillac is the hottest division within GM, and one of the hottest car brands in the world, period.

Yes, it's about the product. It always has been about the product and it always will be about the product.

So, after 25 years of rampant mediocrity, Detroit has the opportunity to convince America's car-buying consumers that their products are definitely worth considering again. But they have to do it with one great product at a time. Not with a bunch of mediocre or "good enough" products - but with class-leading products in every segment.

And it will only be then that Detroit can get away from the "furniture store" sales mentality that has virtually paralyzed the Motor City and created such an aura of negativity for Detroit cars and trucks out in the market that consumers are skipping over the salient details of Detroit's excellent new products in favor of waiting for the next "deal" - because they know if they just wait long enough, they'll get better.

Detroit may not be down for the count, but it's fourth-and ten with no time-outs and three seconds left on the clock.

It's the ballgame, folks.

Thanks for listening, see you next Wednesday.

phile

Don't agree with #1. The Corvette's gauges being projected onto the windshield so the driver doesn't need to look down to look at his tacho/speedo while driving...that's not innovative? 4-wheel steering on those massive GMC Yukon, fold-away rear seats to elongate the bed on the Avalanche pickup...those aren't innovative? Granted, Honda first had 4-wheel steering on the Prelude for a while, but it's the application onto the SUVs that made the feature worthwhile. Give GM at least some credit.

SiGGy

Ford and Chrysler have really ran with the ball. They have a lot of new cool products.


That article is describing Chevrolet mainly. Which I agree... most of their stuff is bland. While it might have a V8 crammed in the hood none of their stuff promotes excitement when I look at it. (excluding the new vette)

gavriil

Great article.

Maximized

I think the article is redundant. This is common knowledge since the 1990s.

kumar6

yeah it is true that some of the US makers are coming out with new designs... but if the overall quality sucks... then all it is... is a good looking car that sucks...

i mean even with acura and its tranny issues... i would buy another honda/acura... because overall the car is very nice... i cant say the same for many us cars..

neuronbob

Hell, since the '80s!

The only American company worth looking at anymore isn't even American anymore--Chrysler. They make great-looking cars that generate buzz. They actually got me to leave the Honda family and buy two cars before I got my sense back and moved back to Honda.

As much as we debate about how the 300C competes with the 3G TL, the fact that we even have such a debate should tell you how things have changed for the big 3 in the last few years. Scattered pieces of them really get it, as shown in the article.

Thanks for the find, points for you, kansaiwalker!

Python2121

^^ what the hell are you talking about? every american car company has something thats worth looking at. GM is caddy, and im not sure your gonna call the gto or corvette a POS either. Ford has volvo, and a bunch of other good stuff.

kumar6

ford has volvo... volvo isnt american...its owned by ford... but not an american car maker...

just like gm owns saab... saab isnt american...

Infamous425

the new caddy's are nice but the interior plastics look up to par with a honda civic.

the new G6 interior plastics are no better than a 1990 camry.

equinox, please.

buick? look at the "all-new" lacross, 'nuff said.

the corvette has a nice interior but what a horrible steering wheel.

GM trucks/suv's, haha ...

the exterior designs look nice, and even some of the interior designs are nice but the look/feel of them are cheap.

kumar6

i 100% agree with the last post....

charliemike

So true. Our expectations were so low after the interior in the C5 that anything that looks halfway decent is a huge relief to Corvette fans. Bottom line is that GM cannot do interiors. Even the interior on the new STS is suspect in some ways.

The article is right, GM half-asses it.

1SICKLEX

Americans CAN DO it. The Ford Explorer, REINVENTED the family car into a SUV is just one example.
Thing is American car companies only have 1 or 2 bright spots instead of a GREAT lineup.

gavriil

Cant argue with that, though now we have better visibility as to where GM is in reference with the competition because we know what the competition has done. So repeating the main points throughout that years is wise.

gavriil

Kumar you're 100% wrong. Volvo and Saab are 100% USAmerican. Can you prove me wrong?

gavriil

There is no question in my mind that "the Americans" can do it. Actually even the writer of the article above says so. It's not lack of talent. It's culture. It's the "it's good enough, after all I am number one" type of culture. But when they're put "under the gun", when push comes to shove, you'll see them running 100 mph to turn things around. It almost happened with Ford, they possibly might have needed a bigger jolt though. Time will fix everything eventually. 10 years from now, they will have even less market share out there. Let's see what they might have learned by then. If anything.

SiGGy

Sorry I would NOT buy another Honda/Acura. I made that decision when they used the same transmission in the 04 TL. It's blatently obvious they cut corners.

I'd go with a Lexus/BMW/MB next. It's a few leaps above Acura in terms of quality. (yes, yes all cars have their problems) however refer to the statement above.

Acura=honda in a $20 dress. Some people buy thr marketing, I don't. No while I'll agree the legend made waves in it's time. So did the NSX, however that time as come and gone. It's long since past...


Hands down I had less problems in my Chrysler and my Ford products than i have with my CLS. The service is phenominal (no argument there for me), but I don't want another honda lemon....

gavriil

I still perceive Lexus, Infiniti and Acura as better values out there as compared to the German luxury brands.

Infamous425

i, too, will not buy another honda/acura because 1) they havent proved their transmission probs are fixed 2) shitty brakes 3) fwd, i dont want an RL 4) u need to mod them for it to be fun to drive, with a couple exceptions.

with that said, i would still buy a honda/acura over the detroit 3

CLpower

it was innovative when pontiac started doing it 8+ years ago w/ the grand prix

CLpower

it's cause 90% of them are cheap for the market they are in

Maximized

I feel that the american brands can compete with Japanese and German brands. I can argue that Detroit have some of the world's best automotive engineers, but they are not being used properly. GM and Ford are making great strides to change their respective organizations. Both companies are offering some great products in the future, but they are underpowered. Ford's 500 sedan would attract more customers if it had 270 hp like most of its competitors. Instead, it is stuck with a lawnmover engine compared to competitors offerings. Nissan did this a few years back and it worked for them pretty well. Ford and GM are going on a product blitz in the next few years, which helps create a buzz.

gavriil

I dont agree with the underpowered statement wholeheartedly.

The Ford 500 will get the 270 or so HP in another year or so. But even with the 201 HP, it's no slouch. It's in the 7s for the 60 (I believe with the CVT) and that time has been confirmed by a variety of journalists.

I agree with the use of the engineering talent though. But Detroit's main issue is not power. It's mainly quality and design (exterior as well as interior).

1SICKLEX

Detroits issue is they are still riding truck profits as well. Why build a car when all your dough comes from your trucks?
Detroit needs to have their executives seriously drive their cars compared to the competitions.
Detroit needs to stop bleeding suppliers for the lack of quality parts in their cars.
Detroit needs to build PROUD American cars like the 300C/Viper/Mustang instead of import knock-offs.
Is Lutz the only guy that gets it? The Soltice is coming, that is another great car coming.
The C6 is incredible. And for the money, even more incredible.
Caddy is coming up. Still behind but making great strides.

Maximized

I havent seen an actual review of the 500, but C&D put it right around 9 seconds to 60 IIRC. Now compare that to the competitions high powered V6's and you will see that the 500 is way behind its competitors in acceleration. Ford should offer the current engine in a "base" model and should have offered 270+ well engineered V6 in the top models. The same thing goes for Pontiacs G6. Both companies know how to make great engines, but they are still way behind imports in hp and overall engine refinement. If you look back to Nissan a few years ago, they decided to basically make their cars hp leaders. The use of the VQ, a product blitz, and cost cutting really turned the company around quickly.

Maximized

Bill Ford gets it also. There was a great article on Ford in Forbes a few months back about the companies plans and strategies.

1SICKLEX

No he doesn't. He would rather invest in the new GT 44 instead of cars of US. True the GT 44 is OUTSTANDING, a Ferrari beater but 99% of people can't pay for this.
Aston Martin is also on the Rise. 98% of us can't buy this.
Bring us the Mondeo.
Bring us the Focus RS.
The Ford 500 is a mistake.
Lincoln is lagging, lagging.
Jaguar is lagging, lagging.
The Explorer redesign was so conservative it looks like the 1990 version.
The F-150 redesign was also conservative and the gamble of a top notch interior seems to have paid off (still #1 selling).
Ford did have the Firestone Fiasco to overcome. That was a LOT of money and negative publicity.

Maximized

I would disagree. If you I could provide the article it would answer every one of this points. The Ford GT is a halo car designed to create a buzz, which it did. It also showcases Ford's engineering and design. Ford knows how to build trucks and SUVs. Bill Ford has called this year "The year of the car" because he realized the lack of products to consumers who want to buy sedans and coupe.

SiGGy

Bang for you $$ sure, but at what cost... The CLS has taught me that lesson.

Sometimes shopping at the dollar store is not always a wise choice...

Infamous425

ford taurus went from #1 best seller to rental queen to soon-to-be out of production while camry/accord leapfrogged it as well as civics/corollas.

GreenMonster

Got you too, eh ?? Bang for the buck may mean a 2 year old non-dollar store car next time

gavriil

True. But the above 3 makers are constantly improving. Especially Infiniti.

kansaiwalker1

Part 2 from this week's autoextremist:

Detroit. Editor's Note: With last week's column still reverberating throughout Detroit and around the automotive world (the one in which Peter listed the five things Detroit must do to ensure its very survival as a viable player in the automotive industry - we're still receiving email about it), this week, we decided it would be fun to let Peter Rant about a number of things, "unplugged" in a format we first tried several years ago. Some of these are the tough questions hovering over the industry that either aren't being asked, aren't being answered, or are just being ignored in the hopes that they'll go away, and some are just plain fun. By the way, the questions were formulated by the editors of AE. So, without further ado, here we go... -JJP

Q. Other car company designers and engineers sing its praises on a regular basis, but why hasn't Audi made it to the top rung of the luxury ladder in the U.S. market? What's holding them back when their design and engineering are first rate, and their interiors are consistently ranked as the best in the industry?

A. Audi has had an image problem ever since the "60 Minutes" debacle 20 years ago, when that tedious, self-righteous TV news magazine did a hatchet job on the brand, insisting that there was some mysterious problem with all Audis that led to "unintended acceleration." It was proved false due to driver error, but "60 Minutes" blithely walked away unscathed (we won't watch the show to this day because of it - ed.), but the witch hunt devastated the Audi brand in this country, and the effects of it linger to this day. Audi was forced into revolving their marketing around cheap leases and free maintenance for years, while wrestling with trying to create an image that distanced itself from the tremendous negative publicity generated by CBS. But I believe Audi is now on the verge of bringing everything together. They have outstanding products either on the ground or in the pipeline - the A8 is the best luxury sedan currently available here, and the new A6 may be the best new sedan in the world, period. They now have serious competition credentials - with their multiple Le Mans victories and championships in the SCCA SPEED World Challenge Series. And they've finally honed their brand positioning and ad strategy to the point where it's exactly right for where they are - and where they want to go.

Q. You've been highly critical of BMW over the years - can't you at least acknowledge how successful they've been and how successful they will apparently continue to be?

A. I have praised BMW repeatedly since we started Autoextremist.com 5-1/2 years ago, but I have also clearly been the most outspoken critic - by far - of BMW's waywardness of late, while other members of the media continue genuflecting before the blue and white-propellered throne. CEO Helmut Panke, by all accounts, is a genius, but that still doesn't conceal the fact that BMW has made some serious missteps and continues to make them. Luxury car companies veering off course, embracing the notion of being all things to all people, inevitably fail - and BMW can't continue to push BMWs as if they belong in every garage across America. At some juncture, you reach a point of diminishing returns, and I believe BMW has reached that point. In BMW's quest to become a mainstream luxury brand, they have turned their back on their core brand values and in essence, mortgaged their soul. They aren't alone by any means (see the Porsche question below - ed.), but they're dangerously close to the top. The company that has relentlessly pounded the notion of being the "Ultimate Driving Machine" in car-buying consumers' heads for years and years now has wavered from its clearly delineated brand path in favor of promoting electronic gimmickry that actually comes between the driver and machine - in effect watering down the act of driving. Disagree? Even BMW admits that there's a problem now, and they've finally set aside at least a shred of their arrogance, apparently, because in the next-generation 3 series coming next spring, BMW will give the buyer a choice - and the dreaded "i-Drive" will be optional, unlike in the 5, 6, and 7 series. We predict future 3 series buyers will avoid the device like the plague.

But that's not all that's wrong with BMW, because an inordinate amount of BMW's advertising is devoted to price and "the deal" - blurring the distinction between it and the domestic brands, the ones that they smugly like to think they're above. And finally, though design is subjective, I feel BMW's recent design direction has contributed to the derailing of the brand's image. Yes, we've all heard the lectures how design "reach" is important and how all of us "out there" just don't "get it" and can't possibly understand, with our untrained eyes, the brilliance at work in BMW's new look, but I think I'm qualified to speak about it with a sense of history about this business and a "feel" for design that has been ingrained in me since the days when I grew up down the street from Bill Mitchell - and I can objectively say that I find that BMW's new design direction leaves a lot to be desired, to say the least. At best, it's imposing (not necessarily in a flattering sense), and at worst, it's bloated, ungainly, sophomoric and inelegant.

BMW has been on top for a long time, but just when things look all rosy and are seemingly destined to go on forever, more than a few cracks are showing in BMW's heretofore impregnable armor. There's a fine line between being successful - and being so successful that you lose your exclusivity and dilute your image in the process. And I believe BMW has crossed that line. The auto business is obsessed with lead times - let's hope it's not too late for BMW to realize that, barring a wholesale shift in direction, they're already well on their way to losing their "mojo."

Q. Speaking of good design, what vehicles fit that description?

A. In no particular order, 98% of the new Corvette (except for the lower rear detail, which comes off like an afterthought), the new Mustang, the Pontiac G6 and upcoming Solstice, the Chrysler 300C/Dodge Magnum (but not the new Charger) and Crossfire, the Infiniti G35 Coupe and FX35/45, the Mercedes-Benz CL, SLK350 and upcoming CLS, the new Porsche 911 and upcoming Boxster, the Volvo S40, the Audi A6 and upcoming A3, the Cadillac STS and XLR, the Lamborghini Gallardo, the Ferrari 612 Scaglietti, the Mini, the Chevy Equinox, the Aston Martin DB9, the Rolls-Royce Phantom, the Mazda3 and Mazda6...

Q. What do you think of the "horsepower wars" and do you see them continuing?

A. I believe having "enough" (my definition of "enough" and yours might be completely different) horsepower is an essential ingredient in giving a driver an extra measure of control on the road, and that it is as much of a "active "safety factor as good brakes, accurate steering and agile, responsive handling. Having said that, however, I think we have reached the saturation point in the application of "big" horsepower across the product spectrum. Yes, I'm for "power to the people" and all that, but the industry has to start doing something it has rarely been accused of doing - and that is thinking ahead of the curve and anticipating the shifting political winds. And right now, those winds are starting to blow toward the direction of the anti-horsepower, anti-car intelligentsia. No, of course I don't want the big horsepower options to go away, I just want the industry as a whole to get smarter about how they advertise and promote those options. Let me put it this way - I would much rather still have the choice of several cars with 400HP - 500HP, and not see them advertised, than to see yet another batch of tire-smoking, braggadocio-laced TV spots and print ads, that will surely bring the safety advocate/handwringers out of the woodwork, and place the whole "problem" of speed and horsepower at the feet of some weasel do-gooders in Congress chomping at the bit for some TV time.

Q. You were pretty critical of Chevrolet's "American Revolution" ad campaign. Any new thoughts on the subject?

A. Let's revisit what I said about that campaign. First of all, I loved the initial print campaign and generally still like it. I wasn't as enamored with the "car carrier" launch TV spot as everyone else was, however - I found it to be a "one-trick-pony" spot that bordered on the tedious after three or four viewings, one that simply didn't wear well. And I especially don't like seeing derivatives of that spot on the air now. Enough already with the car carrier schtick, we get it - and now we're long overdue for a new idea. And I didn't like the Corvette TV commercial at all, which, as you might recall, I dubbed the "Harry Potter meets the Dukes of Hazard" fantasy spot that was beneath the stature of the car. GM ended up pulling the spot when the anti-car intelligentsia/safety zealots complained that it promoted unsafe driving, which was a crock, but GM caved, which was a mistake. Pull the spot because it was wrong for the car, or because it ran its course, but not because a bunch of misguided safety zealots were suggesting that their precious little ones might emulate the "flying" car routine - now that was really stupid.

Q. What automotive ad campaigns are you liking at the moment?

A. One. I think the new Toyota "Moving Forward" campaign is brilliant. Wonderfully conceived, beautifully filmed, emotionally riveting music - it's absolutely right for Toyota and absolutely perfect for taking Toyota's image to the next level in the U.S. market. It's the best automotive TV commercial since the "Happy Jack" spot for the Hummer H2. And that's saying something.

Q. Come on, don't you like any of the BMWs?

A. What's with the BMW questions? Okay, I like the M3 and the Mini. And three-fourths of the 6 series, but then they turned off the lights in the studio before they finished the back end, so there you go.

Q. What performance/GT cars do you approve of, price no object?

A. That's not as easy as it sounds. You would think I'd say the Ferrari Enzo, but it does nothing for me - just like the current crop of F1 cars does nothing for me. The Porsche Carrera GT is really good, but it should be for that kind of money. The rest? The Bentley Continental GT. The Aston Martin DB9. The new Corvette. The Ford GT. The Mercedes-Benz AMG cars - especially the CL65 and the SL65. The BMW M3. The Lamborghini Gallardo. The Ferrari 612 Scaglietti. The new Porsche 911. The Cadillac CTS-V. The Audi S4. And if price is the object? The new Mustang GT, hands down.

Q. What's your current assessment of Porsche? Judging by the financial success brought to the company by the Cayenne, don't you think you were wrong and they were right about the reasons for bringing it out?

A. First of all, I stated clearly that if Porsche wanted to enter the four-wheel-drive market with a vehicle with true off-road capability, they could have and should have done it with a vehicle that displayed the founding principles of their founder, i.e., a lightweight, agile machine with true performance capability, on- and off-road (much like the VW concept at last January's Detroit Auto Show, ironically - see below). Instead, they come up with a bloated, overweight caricature of an SUV that is the antithesis of everything that Porsche stands for. In one fell swoop, Porsche fell from the ranks of exclusive sports car makers by building, of all things, a stereotypical SUV, one jointly developed with VW, no less (and one that VW executed better, to boot). Porsche went for the short-term solution to their cash problems - whatever damage done to their image and reputation be damned. But Porsche didn't have to do it that way, and that's what pissed me off. They could have carried out engineering and development work on an SUV for VW (like they do engineering assignments for other manufacturers), while still developing an all-wheel-drive vehicle more authentic and true to the spirit of their founder's vision.



It has been stated that the long-term stability and viability of Porsche were behind the decision to build the Cayenne, that because of its success, Porsche can now afford to continue to build its sports cars, etc. But how far can Porsche go before they hit the wall? Now, we here talk of a four-door Porsche sedan/coupe based on Cayenne underpinnings. What's next? A Porsche minivan?

This image thing is serious business. It takes years and years to build up the kind of reputation Porsche has imbued in their sports cars, but it can all slip away in an instant if mistakes are made. As good as the new 911 is, and as promising as the "freshening" of the Boxster appears to be, Porsche has fundamentally altered the character of its company with the Cayenne in order to become a "full-line" manufacturer - with all of the negative connotation that thought conjures up. And to make matters even worse, in order to develop the Cayenne, Porsche abandoned racing for overall victories in big international events like the 24 Hours of Le Mans, turning its back on the legacy established by its founder. And they have stated repeatedly that they have no intention of returning to compete at that level again. Not good.

So, you tell me, did Porsche make the right move? In terms of short-term gain and financial glory, absolutely. But in terms of remaining true to the authenticity of the brand? Absolutely not. Porsche has made an egregious error, and because of it they're no longer the same company.

Yes, things change and companies must change and adapt with the times, but there's a way of doing it while protecting the integrity of the brand. And when judged by those terms, Porsche has failed miserably, and I believe the dilution of their brand will inevitably come back to haunt them.

Q. So what else is bugging you lately?

A. That after all of these years, and after all of the dire warnings and the steady market share erosion, there are still large pockets of people entrenched in the Detroit bureaucracy who still don't get it. There are still people working at GM, Ford and the Chrysler Group who actually believe that cutting costs is the path to success. There are still people who will refuse to spend $50.00 more on an interior (an amount that would make a tremendous difference to the consumer), purely in the interest of hitting an arbitrary price point locked in stone 24 months before. In other words, instead of delivering real value that consumers can see, feel and touch, there's a mindset at work in this town that says, "If we cut more costs, leave the suppliers with nothing but scraps, and deliver on our targets, we will win." And what do they get with this attitude? Cars and trucks that need to have massive discounts attached to them in order to get consumers to consider them.

One of these days, one of these manufacturers' chief executives will get up at a national dealer meeting and say, "Well, guess what, ladies and gentlemen? What we've been trying to do for the last ten years flat-out isn't working. We've been trying to keep plants open and prop up our overinflated dealer count by churning out cars and trucks that we have to discount the shit out of - just to keep this whole enterprise going. Well, that stops today. From now on this company is going to build fewer cars, with more built-in value, ones that will compete with the best vehicles in whichever class we choose to compete in. Some of you will scream, but at this point, we have to say, too bad. We want to be thriving in ten years, and not an interesting postscript about a failed industry."

Q. You have to be kidding? Have you been sampling Dr. Bud's Kick-Ass Margarita recipe while writing this?

A. No, but maybe I should have. Yeah, I know that little speech as we like to say, is notgonnahappen.com. But I truly believe that unless and until Detroit fundamentally changes the way they approach this business, we could very well be riding out the sunset years of a doomed industry. Yes, legacy costs play a huge factor in Detroit's burden, and "Japan, Inc.'s" calculated manipulation of the yen is despicable, but until the U.S. Government decides to get serious about those issues, it's up to Detroit to hoist themselves out of The Abyss. And they're not going to do it with financial analysts beating up suppliers, either. They're going to have to deliver best-in-class vehicles wrapped in industry-leading designs, with interiors second to none. And if they do, something amazing will happen - they'll sell fewer cars and trucks - and make more money doing it. What a concept.

Q. Let's change the subject. If you had to drive from Detroit to L.A., what's the one car you'd pick today?

A. A Bentley Continental GT. And my backup choice would be a Mercedes-Benz CL65.

Q. And what if you didn't want to be noticed?

A. I figure a putty gray Chevy Impala would me make me pretty close to invisible.

Q. Do you ever get tired? (recalling the famous speech in the classic movie "Grand Prix" that begins with the words, "Pete, do you ever get tired?")

A. Of doing Autoextremist.com? Hell no. But doing this particular column? Yes. We'll continue this discussion another time. I'm slumping over at the controls here...

Thanks for listening, see you next Wednesday.


Peter M. DeLorenzo founded Autoextremist.com - an Internet magazine devoted to news, commentary and analysis of the automotive industry, automotive marketing, strategy and product development - on June 1, 1999. Since then, Autoextremist.com has become a weekly "must-read" for leading professionals within and outside the industry, including top executives at the car companies, suppliers, dealers, journalists, financial analysts, enthusiasts, and people directly involved in motorsports. Prior to launching the site, Peter spent more than two decades in automotive advertising and marketing, holding top-level positions as CD and ECD at agencies including DMB&B, William Esty, BBDO and Campbell-Ewald. In addition to his editorial work on Autoextremist.com, Mr. DeLorenzo occasionally consults for enlightened automobile companies. The opinions expressed in his columns are his, and his alone, and do not necessarily reflect those of his clients - JJP

gavriil

"why hasn't Audi made it to the top rung of the luxury ladder in the U.S. market? What's holding them back when their design and engineering are first rate, and their interiors are consistently ranked as the best in the industry? "

What a kick ass question to ask!

kansaiwalker1

I think most people have probably already forgotten the "unintended acceleration" issue. It's just that Audi is now competing against top tier opponents with more name catchet so any market share gains will just come very slowly.

Infamous425

even before that acceleration problem they had many probs. my dad used to have a early 80's audi he said was the worse car he ever had and never considered audi ever again.

1SICKLEX

Great question. And good answer.

Edward'TLS

Reliability is always a problem with Audi, especially so after the factory warranty has expired.

charliemike

Audi used to finance open-ended leases in the late 70s and early 80s that really turned a lot of people off to Audi when they got pimpslapped with a huge bill at the end of the lease.

Audi made a lot of bad choices and it's gonna take a while for the parents of people looking at an Audi to say, "I wouldn't if I were you."

Edward'TLS

Other than first rated design, engineering, and interior, the major reason people buy Audi is the infamous Quattro AWD system available throughout the model lines, from A8 down to A3. However, as more and more European car manufacturers are bringing out AWD options, even on cheaper Volks, the edge that Audi once has erodes rapidly.