Now that football season is in full swing, I'm enjoying viewing some of the more outlandish commercials that run during the games. One in particular that comes to mind is the advertisement for Chrysler Corporation's Dodge Challenger, which originally aired during last summer's FIFA World Cup. To recap, the commercial shows a line of Revolutionary War-era British soldiers setting up a skirmish line to fight the oncoming American patriots led by General George Washington. At this point, three Dodge Challengers zoom through a valley toward the Red Coats with Washington leading the charge. And to make sure we really get the point, the Challenger driven by the Father of Our Country has the Stars and Stripes attached to the hood. The British are overwhelmed and as they begin to run away, the voiceover says, "Here's a couple of things America got right: cars, and freedom."
Without getting into the fact that this is probably one of the dumbest commercials ever made, let's look at what it's saying about American cars. The Dodge Challenger only has EPA ratings of 16/23 mpg for the automatic version and 15/23 mpg for the six-speed manual model.
The fact is that we are at a true crossroads regarding where we want our energy policy to lead us through this next century, and advertising a muscle car with this kind of mileage doesn't come close to showcasing what is really one of the strongest aspects about our country: our ability to innovate and improve. Relying on an outmoded rationale to sell cars is simply unfortunate.
Plus, lest we forget, Chrysler received a huge government bailout. At the time, the federal government stated that auto manufacturers would be held accountable for bringing the industry to the forefront of technology, i.e. green automobiles for a new green economy. And yet all Chrysler can do is showcase a new model car with EPA ratings of 15/23 and 16/23 mpg? That's unimpressive, to say the least. It seems like the company is stuck in reverse and have no intention of changing, at least in the short run.
Perhaps Chrysler is working behind the scene on a host of new fuel-efficient cars. Let's hope so, because it would be much more heartening to see our tax dollars directed toward that goal. It would also prove that what we're all looking to see is entirely possible--that is, a new generation of vehicles that can get us off foreign sources of oil as well as reduce our carbon footprint.
Now, getting back to that commercial, I'm not sure which is worse: using bailout money to fund the making of outdated, gas-guzzling automobiles or to pay executives to oversee the creation of such an embarrassingly bad advertisement.
Jonathan A. Schein is President/CEO, publisher of MetroGreenBusiness.com
Follow Jonathan A. Schein on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jaschein
First, the banks got a bailout -- which they never intended to pay back.
Second, The automakers got a TARP LOAN, which both are planning to pay back in full (although
GM is having more success with this currently).
Third, the Challenger is one of the best cars in its segment. It recently won Consumer Reports Most Satisfied Buyer award. Its excellent for what it is -- a muscle car.
Fourth, your trashing a low-volume specialty car. Dodge only sells 40,000 of these cars a year. If you really gave a hoot about the environment -- you'd have an axe to grind with a Ford F-150 which gets considerably worse gas mileage (19 mpg on the highway versus the Challenger's 23).... Ford also sells about 13 F-150's for each Challenger -- so the environmental impact of a Challenger is not even close.
The Challenger aside, I do like the new ads for the Jeep Liberty and I'm sure the Challenger is making the same point---their cars are still made in America. It may seem like the "wrong idea" to Mr. Schein, but for those of us who depend on the auto business to keep food on the table, it means a heckuva lot. (And let's not forget that it's not just Chrysler, Ford, or GM that is affected when an auto maker goes under. All the companies providing parts--Delco is one--also suffer).
Mopar fans wouldn't want it any other way.
You must be referring to the bank bailouts, because the loans to the auto companies did come with conditions.
Blaming the current Chrysler for advertising the car and or producing it is misguided.
The car was designed, tooled etc. as far back as 2004-2007 and started production in Calendar year 2007. It is an extremely low volume car for one of the big 3. < 30,000 / year.
It takes a minimum of 3 years to bring a new car out of Detroit to market, most take more.
To drop the car would cost far more than making it, since every cost associated with the production is variable and they only produce when they have an order. Therefore, each unit produced is paid for exclusive of bail out money.
Even if it wasn't the case, the bail out money came from the Government of Canada / Ontario and the Canadian taxpayers, not the U.S.
Illustration of how fair this system is, Guy in Tennessee's house burns down because of this $75 dollar Privatization crap in the Fire Dept. (same slop they want to do to your schools and have already done to the prisons *that's where the jobs are)
Chrysler drops the ball to the tune of $17 BILLION and gets to profit.
*http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=852 (FROM 1999!!!)
also - what percent of the each dollar spent on gas goes to the countries many of the muscle car buyers hate - 70% 80% --
so much for loyal americans buying cars because the "can"
I think you want us to go back to killing whales for oil.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/10/study-climate-460-mya-was-like-today-but-thought-to-have-co2-levels-20-times-as-high/
Also as usual, the reason is capitalism-as-religion, which is how capitalism works in America. Here, even sensible and urgent improvements such as fuel-efficient transportation and universal health care are denied the public so the elite class can get even richer. That's because, we are told, that "the free market" should rule, despite the fact that the "free market' isn't free and consumers are systematically misled into buying products that are bad for them. It happens over and over again. Until recently America could get away with this because of our abundant resources, but no more. Now our downward spiral is accelerating, and capitalism-as-religion is still being preached by the Republicans, the Tea Partiers and even many Democrats. Welcome to the Third World folks. Enjoy your big pickup trucks and gas-guzzling sports cars -- while they last.
As far as the rest of your comments, you are lumping many into one group. You are making assumptions based on their choice of vehicle. I drive the car of my choosing. I am also a what you might label a liberal democrat. I vote straight 100% democrat right down the ballot. Free market is great, but absolutely needs regulations to put safety and consumer protection above profits for the irresponsible, like BP.
And yes, I will enjoy driving my "gas guzzling" car even though it uses less than half of what my fathers car did when he was my age. Sure I could use even less if I squeezed into a Smart car. But I drive 7 miles round trip daily. how does that compare to someone driving a Smart car 50 miles round trip daily? I use about .3 gals per day. A Smart car driving 50 miles per day would use about 1.2 gals per day. So I am using much less fuel by moving closer to my job than someone using a Smart car for an average daily commute.
So the next time you see my Challenger and a Smart car on the road, ask yourself which is using more fuel each and every day.