Five Scariest Detroit Auto Show Moments -- 2009
1- "North American Car and Truck of the Year"
In yet another automotive advertising-supported "best-of award," some 50 "journalists" picked two vehicles as the best of 2009: The 2009 Hyundai Genesis sedan (best car), which comes with either a 3.8-liter V6 making mileage between 18 and 27 mpg, or a 4.6-liter V8 achieving between 17 and 25mpg. Interestingly, the 2010 Genesis will be available with two DOHC V8's and one DOHC V6, as well as a turbocharged four-banger (no mpg figures yet).
(Here it is - North America's Car of the Year, South Korea's Hyundai Genesis!).
The best truck is (shockingly!) the 2009 Ford F-150 pickup, available with three different V8's offering between 14mpg in-town to 20mpg highway depending on the engine chosen.
According to MOTOR TREND, "Runners-up for the car award were the Volkswagen Jetta TDI and Ford Flex, while the F-150 beat out the redesigned Dodge Ram and Mercedes-Benz ML320 Bluetec in the truck category."
America is the world's biggest automotive market, yet offers very little in the way of independent analysis and car, truck or motorcycle testing. Apart from this blog and my other sites and Consumer Reports (which has made several embarrassing mistakes in their automotive judgments), it's nearly impossible for Americans to find opinion from anyone without a vested-interest in the industry's ongoing success.
2- GM, FORD, CHRYSLER WILL NOT ATTEND TOKYO MOTOR SHOW; SHOW ITSELF MAY BE CANCELLED
Yesterday, the Detroit Three announced they were dropping out of the 2009 Tokyo Motor Show, certainly the biggest, most-inventive and frankly eager and fun car show in the world; like the Stuttgart show, it's so big it's held only every other year. Japanese food is much better and healthier than German repasts, though.
(Me at the most-recent Tokyo Motor Show - We want to go back later this year).
Today, word out of Tokyo is that the show itself, the country's most-important industrial and societal exhibition, may very well be cancelled for 2009.
At this point, all bets are off.
If it's true that "product is king" in the car business, how will people get excited if there's no new product to see at the world's crucial auto shows?
I've been visiting the Tokyo show for over 20 years; I'll miss it.
3- IMPORTS STILL DOMINATE IN EVs
"Tesla founder and chairman Elon Musk took the occasion of his company's first Detroit show appearance to announce that Tesla will provide components for the Smart Electric.
"Musk said Daimler gave him permission to reveal Jan. 13 that the German automaker has been working with his firm for nearly a year and half. Tesla will provide the battery pack and charging systems, initially for 1,000 units." - AutoWeek magazine.
Smart cars can only be bought in the US at dealerships controlled by Roger Penske's Penske Automotive Group, made-up of over 300 dealerships in 19 states, the UK, Wales, Germany and Puerto Rico. It's a publicly-traded $17-billion enterprise (maybe not anymore, though) and Penske himself is said to have turned-down the chairmanship of GM more than once.
So Americans will be buying Smart Electrics from Daimler, Swatch and Roger Penske, not from Chrysler, Ford or GM.
Not directly from the show, but NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced today that BMW Group will loan a fleet of 10 MINI E electric zero-emissions cars to the City of New York. These will be among the 500 MINI Es the BMW Group is producing to determine the viability of electric vehicles in real-life use.
Ford seems serious about developing a slew of hybrids and EVs, and may have the resources to do so, while GM and Chrysler lag behind.
GM's Volt "extended-range plug-in EV" is delayed until 2011, and with a base price at or above $40,000, the company certainly isn't aiming at the fattest part of the market.
GM also announced they will be making their own lithium-ion batteries for Volt in-house in Michigan and will open an automotive battery laboratory later this year. The company also is establishing a partnership with the University of Michigan to create a curriculum for battery engineers.
(Cadillac Converj concept at Detroit uses the Volt powertrain).
Finally, it's a big question as to whether Chrysler can remain in business much longer, especially judging by some of the haggard-looking EVs the company has been trotting-out recently. CEO Bob Nardelli had one of the all-time dumb lines in history on CNBC Monday morning from the Detroit show: "I don't think if Washington thought we couldn't pay back the $4 billion, they never would have loaned it to us."
Yeah, Bob. Right. That could never happen.
4- CHINESE CARS
BYD and Brilliance were the only two Chinese automakers at the Detroit show. BYD is a pioneer in China for its electric and hybrid technology. A company controlled by investor Warren Buffett bought 10 percent of BYD late last year with an investment of about $230 million. The vehicles are expected to retail for less than $30,000 each.
China's Brilliance had a larger display with three sedans, named the M1, M2 and M3, and a hatchback called the FRV. All have four-cylinder turbocharged engines and are expected to sell in the $15,000 to $25,000 range.
(BYD's E6 electric).
These two companies alone seem to be more intent on entering the US market with EVs and hybrids than any American carmaker. And Warren Buffett is buying interests in Chinese car companies, not in those in the US.
5- ALL-NEW TOYOTA PLUG-IN HYBRID COMING IN 2010
At the show, Toyota announced that it would build its first plug-in hybrid by 2010, apparently beating GM and their Volt to that claim.
(Prius "mule" for Toyota's 2010 plug-in hybrid).
The plug-in hybrid displayed at the show was nowhere near its final form; it will be a version of the Prius, which it will differ from in that it will have two nickel-metal hydride batteries under the floor of its trunk, instead of the Prius' one large (and heavy and expensive) battery pack.
Heckuva car show - What do you think?
Some photos by www.SteveParker.com
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Not really sure what your complaint was about car "journalists" and what you were trying to achieve with the comment? Most Americans have a vested interest in the survival and expansion of the US domestic and foreign car manufacturers.
As a long time admirer of mags like Motor Trend, Road and Track, Car and Driver, Automobile and Car from the UK, there are plenty of sites that a consumers can read. Among some sites are Yahoo, Edmunds, Cars.com, autocar.co.uk, Kelly Blue Book, e-bay motors, Wards Auto, et. While some of these sites have a vested interest in selling more cars, most readers can grasp language and the "slant" to sell. But, that is why one should consult various sources for accurate information.
See Steve Parker's Profile
I agree. You answered your own question, though. I support Detroit, but really don't think much good can come of just pouring money into it. With the same management teams in place, GM, Ford and Chrysler (excuse me, I should write: Fiat) are still laboring under the hope and illusion that someday, all we Americans "will stop buying all those damned foreign cars."
How else to explain a probably-above -$40,000 base price for the Chevy Volt, when Honda and Toyota are offering a selection of hybrids at all price levels. Or the fact that GM's much-hyped (and rightly so) dual mode hybrid trucks and SUVs have sold barely 5,000 units. How serious can GM be about this?
The "enthusiast press" didn't have to worry about where their bread was buttered. Until the late 1970s, the vast majority of their advertising dollars came from Detroit. Times have changed, though, and there's a need for a new, fresh approach to "automotive journalism;" written by actual journalists who can have a lot of fun with cars, but understand the bottom line is that they also must be objective. Re-writing press releases for inclusion in a magazine or on a website still happens every day, and I think the vast majority of those mag and website readers don't realize that the editor marking up a press release - might have actually written the very same release.
Time for the revolving doors between magazines, websites and carmaker PR machines to close.
Steve
The imperative of shareholder profit is what caused Detroit to continue along the path of the expensive and profitable SUV as their lifeblood. Ultimately, the shareholder profit imperative is what killed detroit and, now that Detroit is certifiably dead, these same shareholders are simply investing in China and other foreign markets.
See Steve Parker's Profile
That quarterly-dividend necessity killed the housing market , too.
Steve
I already posted, but I found something else I find rather scary. Honda's new Insight, rated at 40/43 mpg. Hybrid engine, CVT transmission, all that expensive technology, and it still gets worse gas mileage than a 1988 Honda CRX HF model, which was EPA rated at 50/56 mpg. Granted, that's with about 30 less horsepower, but the CRX didn't have as much for electronics and safety equipment, like airbags, adding weight. You'd think with 20 years and God only knows how much money, that they'd actually make an improvement on mpg figures. My simple belief is that hybrids should be should be much better than they currently are, but the main issue I have as a car owner is the personal expense to me of fixing more complex technology when it goes wrong, as any technology will at some point. Is the intent to drive these cars until they break and then replace them?
See Steve Parker's Profile
Very good point, generally. Specifically, though, I would say that the cars are not at all comparable; a 20-year old compact engineered to be nothing but high-mileage simply doesn't offer the kind of performance, comfort and features Americans are used to and now demand in every kind of car or truck they buy.
Maybe we've all gotten too fat and happy (gee, do ya think?) but it'll take a LOT more pain in this country for someone to give up their Suburban and dive into a lightweight, uncomfortable, small car.
And as long as gas prices stay low (even though they won't for long - they've just gone up 3 cents in 3 days) we as a country have proven gas prices dictate almost every car-buying decision, even more than we "experts" imagined.
Steve
"The 2009 Hyundai Genesis sedan (best car), which comes with either a 3.8-liter V6 making mileage between 18 and 27 mpg, or a 4.6-liter V8 achieving between 17 and 25mpg."
I don't know if the two are comparable in anyway in terms of size, weight, engine power or whatever, but those mileage figures above are the same that the first car I ever bought from a dealership in my life, a Toyota Carolla, got. That was in 1977. That 30 years on the supposed best car in an auto show can't do better considering all the technological progress we have had during that time and the concern over greenhouse gases is kinda pathetic.
See Steve Parker's Profile
They're not comparable, but your point is well-taken.
Good news is Hyundai will have at least one gas-electric hybrid in the US in 2010, and maybe sooner.
Steve
That Hyundai Genesis looks great ! most probably created by American designers . Detroit should make better use of the talent we have here in the US --- it seems like the Big Three are scared of excellence ...
Maybe it has to do with all those marketing studies and over - analysis they do : they determine that the average American consumer has 2.3 kids, listens to country music, etc etc and does not have much taste or appreciation of beauty and sophistication. If that is the case, I disagree completely.
The Europeans specially, and Japanese auto companies seem to design their cars with a very much more sophisticated customer in mind, and people ( their US customers ) are flattered by the compliment and respond positively. We can see the success of this approach.
The US has great designers, engineers, workmen, suppliers, etc. What we need are car executives that have a high concept of the American customer and believe in the great sense of style and sophistication of them.
See Steve Parker's Profile
You read my mind.
How taxpayer billions can be turned over to carmakers run by boards and management which got them into this mess in the first place is beyond me.
This is a great country, but its domestic car industry is definitely not yet near a 21st-century business.
Steve
Surprised I didn't run into you during media days, Steve. Maybe next year.
Maybe I'm naive, but I don't see conflicts of interest affecting NACOTY. What has been clear in past years, though, is that voters give more points than they do elsewhere for any improvement over the manufacturer's previous products. At least this is how a couple of voters explained the Saturn AURA's 2007 win to me. I don't think the AURA has ever won a comparison test, yet it won NACOTY.
So, even if the Genesis wasn't a very good car--and in my opinion it is--it might have won the award simply for demonstrating how far Hyundai and the Korean auto industry have progressed.
The Ford was no surprise. If Mercedes had combined it's new diesel with an all-new vehicle, it might have had a shot.
Philistine--CR has automatically recommended new products from Toyota, Honda, and Subaru for many years, because nothing from these manufacturers was ever more than 20% below the average. Toyota has now lost this automatic recommendation, but the other two still have it.
I operate TrueDelta.com, which provides the most up-to-date vehicle reliability information. Results are promptly updated four times a year. This enables reliability information 4-6 months after a model goes on sale--no need for automatic recommendations. We'll have a reliability result for the Hyundai Genesis in early February, well ahead of anyone else.
Latest results here:
http://www.truedelta.com/latest_results.php
See Steve Parker's Profile
Hey there, TrueDelta. Reading a lot about your site.
Award processes don't much concern me - it's the emphasis on horsepower and not mpg, on 1/4-mile speeds and not improved emissions. Hey, maybe I am expecting too much from an industry which has been at the teat of the Detroit Three since Bob Petersen started HOT ROD magazine. But I can dream, right? I'll keep fighting this fight, which I think is an important, good and proper one.
Steve
The North American Car and Truck of the Year Awards are judge and jury for new vehicles, so let's apply the legal dictum "false in one thing, false is all," to Mr. Parker's criticism.
He derides them as “advertising supported,” but neither the organization nor the judges get a penny from any of the advertisements the winners place.
The awards are financed 100% through dues paid by the jurors. If the fact that outlets to which the jurors contribute accept advertising disqualifies the awards, then sadly, The Huffington Post and other outlets for which Mr. Parker himself writes are also guilty.
Among other errors in Mr. Parker's post, the massive Stuttgart auto show he praises doesn’t exist.
The jury for the North American Car of the year includes journalists whose work appears on PBS, in The New York Times, The Economist, The Detroit Free Press and a host of other outlets. Perhaps Mr. Parker would dismiss them with the same vague “which has made several embarrassing mistakes in their automotive judgments” he uses to brush off Consumer Reports. I like a little evidence with my arguments.
I’m a member of the jury. I have disagreed with some winners we chosoe. However, to slag the process and the results with provably untrue charges does a disservice to the buyers who look for every piece of information when they choose a new vehicle.
False in one, false in all? You be the judge.
-- Mark Phelan, auto critic, The Detroit Free Press
See Steve Parker's Profile
Hi Mark - I'm not so concerned about the process of any of the 'car awards' - I'm more concerned with the choices. Appreciate your spirited defense of the NACTOY, and can understand it, but someone needs to say this: GM, Chrysler and Ford have been defending the way they design, engineer and make vehicles for the past 40 years, and look what it's brought them. A very dubious public, to say the least, and once-great businesses which may or may not be here in a year. Hope someone pays attention to reality. Americans deserve it.
Oh, I meant Frankfurt - so shoot me. You never made a mistake, right?
Steve
From what I've read of the show, I'm still not convinced the Big Three have any idea how they got to where they are, nor do I believe they even think it is their own fault. It feels to me that they've heard buzzwords floating around, like "hybrid", so are throwing things at the wall to see what sticks. I think they need to get moving, now. The E-Flex platform was unveiled, what, two years ago? Lets do something tangible with it already.
I'm not sure what to say about Chrysler. I think they're due for another K-car level revolution, at least in their passenger car division. While I would never own one, I don't think discontinuing the PT Cruiser was the right move - when the platform was a popular one, and could easily be adapted to more economical engines. If the Sebring looked like the 200C concept, it might actually sell. I think their lack of money for R&D is what is going to hurt them the most.
I gave up on most car magazines a long time ago, almost every article was the same industry speak, and many reviewers go far out of their way to make excuses for the major flaws in vehicle designs. That being said, I've never entirely disagreed with most Car of the Year determinations. They usually seem pretty well thought out - given their choices. Though, I'm a little confused at Automobile magazine's Car of the Year being the Nissan GTR.
See Steve Parker's Profile
Thanks for the astute comments.
The GTR is such a tour de force, a supercar for under-$80K, that I can understand their choice.
I just think these ad outlets for Detroit, Tokyo and Stuttgart need to factor environmental and pricing factors into their "best of" lists.
Steve
Steve,
I'm flummoxed by your report, particularly the comments on the North American Car and Truck of the Year awards. I don't like to ascribe motives, normally. I'm not inside your head, but whatever IS, whether you really wished you could get on the jury, or are simply looking for something controversial to say, I'm disappointed to the point of being appalled. Your lack of comprehension on the subject is countered by an apparently desperate need to create controversy. The irony is that the 50 of us jurors, and yes, I proudly serve, come from an assortment of backgrounds and shre little beyond covering the auto industry. The very structure of NACTOY helps minimize both personal extremes and the potential influence of advertising (or PR or just about anything else) on an individual juror or his/her publication.
Do I agree with all our choices, year after year? No, I have voted for some losers. Other years, I called it right with the majority. And that's a key reason why it works.
I should note that we, collectively, spend a significant amount of time dealing with issues that might even slightly raise issues of conflict of interest. Our vetting process is severe, to say the least.
I personally stand behind NACTOY -- enough to stand up when I hear someone, like yourself, try to making npoints where none are to be made.
You are incredibly off-base, and need be aware of that.
With disappointment,
Paul A. Eisenstein
Bureau Chief, TheDetroitBureau
See Steve Parker's Profile
Hi Paul, nice to hear from you.
We have different opinions on the NACTOY (and probably on other "auto awards") but that doesn't mean opinions on the award must be all positive. Any carmaker can build a good pickup which sells for $30K and a powerful, good-looking sedan which will sell for over $40K when all is said and done. Where are the great $25K cars and trucks?
NACTOY needs to consider more than just the vehicles; those vehicles' impact on the environment and peoples' wallets needs to be factored-in, too.
I'm still convinced that the only auto awards which means anything to the public are those produced by MOTOR TREND, simply because they were first.
Steve
Steve, Thanks for the follow-up. As an occasional contributor to Motor Trend, I'm certainly a fan. But as a NACTOY juror, I'm both proud and honored. I'm not sure I understand the point you're trying to make, as you seem to be demanding what we're already doing, as judges. Long ago, we collectively decided that what matters is not producing the best possible vehicle, money no object, but doing the best job within the segment you are aiming for. This includes design -- both interior and exterior -- powertrain, content, quality and so on. We're certainly looking for the breakthrough vehicles, of course, so, over the years, we have honored hybrids and other step-ahead vehicles. We have chosen luxury sports cars and compact cars, big pickups and little crossovers.
Readers can make their own decision by visiting:
http://www.northamericancaroftheyear.org/nacoty-past.html
..but I think that noting past winners have included the likes of the Prius, Aura, Malibu, Mini Cooper, MDX, Ridgeline, CX-9 and others actually argues that we HAVE achieved what you seem to want. No other award is LESS influenced by outside forces, such as advertising; no other award represents such a wide range of diverse opinion; no other award has done such a good job of recognizing long-lasting achievement, rather than fads.
The North American Car of The Year award is one of the most widely-quoted and trusted because it gets it right.
Paul E.
Bureau Chief TheDetroitBureau.com
There are many mistakes in the Car of the Year portion of this piece. The Hyundai Genesis has never been offered with a 4.2L engine -- it is available with an award-winning 4.6L. Mr. Parker's information on engines that will be offered on 2010 models is entirely wrong as well. Finally, his writing shows he knows nothing about the North American Car and Truck of the Year process nor about the members of the committee. Talk about "several embarrassing mistakes." This story and "journalist" is full of them.
See Steve Parker's Profile
Thanks for pointing out the typo on the engine size - I'll fix it right now.
I expected many negative comments from industry insiders about the NACTOY, and predictably, they're coming in. That's the price paid when you have strong opinions and play "outside" the rules as I have always tried.
Just as the auto industry is changing, there must be a commensurate change in what's "auto journalism." America's consumers deserve it. Thanks again.
Steve
Steve: When I turn off my ad blocking software when reading your blog, I see an ad for Stevens Creek Toyota. It includes a photo of a white Toyota Prius. Is that what you mean by "automotive advertising-supported" as opposed to "without a vested interest"?
BTW, Hyundai Genesis is now Consumer Reports' top-rated "Upscale Sedan". So the "automotive advertising-supported" journalists views here don't differ from CR.
See Steve Parker's Profile
No Huff Post bloggers have any control over the advertising on their sites. Bloggers can not solicit any advertising nor do we receive any money at all from the advertising on the Post. What you're seeing is an auto ad on an auto blog, certainly a no-brainer for the people (or computers) running the Huff Post.
No doubt the Genesis is quite and amazing car; I just hoped to see high-mileage and less-expensive vehicles win the awards; Ford F-150? Absolutely predictable. As for the Genesis, yet another over $30K sedan just doesn't excite me.
Steve
Philistine: The 2007 V6 Camry and Tundra quality problems caused CR to cancel its automatic recommendation of new and redesigned Toyota models, which had been recommended based on the automaker's track record, despite insufficient reliability data on the new model. Many CR readers, no doubt, had purchased these below-average reliability products based on CR recommendations.
Thanks for the clarification. I was unaware of such a problem, and find it surprising, since CU never used to recommend any model which had undergone a significant redesign. That said, even CU is bound to make a mistake every now and then. Their recommendations are safer than any others, precisely because they do include historical data in their recommedations, unlike Power and Associates, whose awards are based on initial quality and not quality over time. I like to buy vehicles that age well, because I keep cars a long time, which minimizes overall cost and lowers overall resource consumption.
Cheers!
"...Consumer Reports (which has made several embarrassing mistakes in their automotive judgments)...."
I am a big fan of CU. Please explain this statement.
See Steve Parker's Profile
Thanks for the comment. Here's a few things:
In 1996, CR wrote that the 1995-96 Isuzu Trooper SUV had demonstrated a "tendency to roll over in certain situations" in its tests, and that it had determined that this was "not acceptable". Isuzu filed a lawsuit against CU as a result of the article; the court ruled that CR had made "numerous false statements" and had put the Isuzu through tests that competitors were not subjected to.
Related to this suit, in 1988, CU published that the Suzuki Samurai had demonstrated the same tendency to roll and deemed it "not acceptable." In July 2004, this suit was settled and dismissed with no money changing hands.
The February 2007 issue of Consumer Reports stated that only two of the child safety seats it tested for that issue passed the magazine's side impact tests. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which subsequently retested the seats, found that all those seats passed the corresponding NHTSA tests at the speeds described in the magazine report.
Steve
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
