Bailout Blues: Chinese world takeover seems to be on hold

Other than Government Motors' politically correct statements below, is anyone surprised the deal with Chinese BAIC-backed Koenigsegg to save Saab collapsed?

“Obviously, this was both a disappointment and a surprise," U.S. GM. spokesman Chris Press said. “We believed that we were on a pathway for closing this deal and that GM had met all of its obligations.

Sure, some of the 20 Saab suitors that sniffed around the longtime failing GM brand, like U.S. financier Ira Rennert and his Renco Group, Italy's Fiat S.p.A., China's Geely Automobile and Dongfeng Motor Group, still have an opportunity to step in where the Koenigsegg-Chinese BAIC bid feared to go.

And the Swedish government is still prepared to support a potential buyer with up to 20 billion crowns in guarantees and a further 5 billion crowns in emergency loans.

But the reality is, after GM threw Saab into its giant brand garage sale (along with Hummer, Opel, and Satrun) and no other major automaker threw down any real money, the writing was on the wall. Get over it Saabistas: The likely scenario at next Tuesday’s GM board meeting is to close down Saab.

But the bigger question is this: Whatever happened to the Chinese takeover of the Western auto industry?

Yes, we still have the virtually unknown Sichuan Tengzhong Heavy Industrial Machinery offer on the table for GM’s Hummer.

And Geely Automobile is bidding for Ford’s money pit Volvo unit.

But both of these deals have yet to be been signed, sealed and delivered.

Weren’t the Chinese supposed to be first in line to snap all of these “valuable” Western brands and manufacturing assets?

Or will the Chinese just focus on one of the only growing markets in the world: their own?

[Source: Automotive News]

Bailout Blues: Can Buick be the new Saab?

For all those Saabistas mourning the (potential) disappearance of their brand, the reality is, Saabs will end up living on in the most unlikely of cars: Buicks.

Take a look at the new 2011 Regal sports sedan that media have been first driving recently. It's existence tells all you need to know about what's happened to the auto industry in the last year.

The reality is, the Regal is a rebadged Opel Insignia, originally planned as a Chinese market only-Buick. In North America, it was going to be sold as the next Saturn Aura, and provide the same underpinnings for the next Saab 9-3.

But now that it will soon be popping up for sale in Canadian Buick showrooms, the amount of “Saabness” in the Buick is quite remarkable:

• Sophisticated, fourth-gen Haldex all-wheel-drive system. Check.

• A full range of turbocharged, fuel-efficient small engines. Check.

• Six-speed manual transmission. Check.

• European-tuned driving characteristics. Check.

The Regal may as well be wearing a Saab badge, like above. At least Government Motors will be getting (some of) our tax money back from all those kroners that GM (allegedly) sunk into Saab over the past twenty years.

But what about you Saab fans out there?

Ironically, the Regal is targeted at the same premium-Japanese brands that basically stole Saab’s customers in the 1990s. Can Buick be GM's entry-level luxury brand? Can Buick be the new Saab?

Would you consider all this Saab technology, but wrapped in a Buick body?

Boo Hoo: Toyota thinks new U.S. crash standards too hard

In case you missed this one, this past week, the U.S. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety announced its Top Safety Picks for 2010 and Ford, Subaru and Volkswagen led the list.

Unfortunately for Toyota, which had 11 picks last year, it failed to win a single pick for 2010. Which apparently didn’t sit well in HQ.

Toyota immediately sent out a presser, poste haste, saying the Institute’s new roof strength test wasn't “fair,” and calling the IIHS release "extreme" and "misleading."

According to Toyota, the IIHS only chooses a few categories of cars to test each year because of the sheer number of cars available. This year, those classes included the Toyota Camry, Yaris and Rav4.

For vehicles in other classes, the IIHS gives automakers the option of supplying a vehicle at their own expense to be tested. This year, Toyota made the decision not to enter additional vehicles for budgetary reasons, not because the company doesn't have faith in its products.

Toyota chose to let the IIHS test Toyota, Lexus and Scion vehicles as their respective classes came up in following years instead.

Of course, there are two sides to every story…

The IIHS made a point in its original press release to note that the Toyota Camry had, in fact, passed the roof strength test, but that it wasn't chosen as a Top Safety Pick due to poor rear impact test scores.

"Toyota's reaction is disingenuous," IIHS spokesman Russ Rader told Motor Trend.

"In January, all automakers were informed about the new requirement for a good rating in the rollover test… automakers were invited early in the year to flag vehicles that they thought would do well in the Institute's new test.  We offered to test these vehicles outside of our normal schedule, provided the automakers reimburse us for the cost of the vehicles.  Ten automakers nominated vehicles for us to test. Toyota did not.”

Toyota reiterated that all of its vehicles are built to meet or exceed U.S. Federal crash test standards and that the company does not know how all of its vehicles will perform in the more-difficult IIHS tests because only three have been subjected to them.

Frankly, I haven’t seen this type of corporate crying since the last time I checked out the Canadian broadcast vs. cablevision TV wars.

Of course, if you can get by the fact that Toyota is coming off like a pouty teenager complaining that her teacher is, “like, sooooo unfair!!!” they’ve also strategically stolen some of Ford, Subaru and Volkswagen’s hard-earned spotlight.

Over to you: Do you think Toyota’s whinging is justified?

Or, do you think it just needs to go back into its safety wood shed and start working harder?

[Source: Motor Trend]

Bailout Blues: GM lost $5,100 US on each Saab it sold

Perhaps this is why potential saviours Koenigsegg wants to double the price of Saabs.

According to the Swedish government and their consulting firm KPMG, parent Government Motors had lost $ 5,100 US on each Saab it sold during the last eight years.

I’ll let the business press figure out whether or not this is all a bit of creative accounting to make sure Saab gets the EU to approve the Swedish government’s guarantee of a loan to Koenigsegg group. But it makes you wonder how Saab can survive moving forward.

The only good news? GM has hard a time selling Saabs. Imagine the losses if it had sold more.

Even with up to $10,000 discounts, only 41 Saabs were moved last month in Canada—less than the number of Panameras Porsche moved. In fact, for the first 10 months this year, Saab Canada sales are down by half.

Look. We all know under GM’s watch Saab’s so-called premium products became nothing more than gussied-up, mainstream Opel Vectras. But that’s the game Honda’s Acura, Toyota’s Lexus, and Nissan’s Infiniti plays as well. Now please, you can’t tell me Honda loses over five grand on each Acura TSX (nee Euro Accord) it sells.

So what of this KPMG report?

Do you really think what few Saabs were sold really cost GM $5,100 US each?

And if so, does Saab have a future selling cars for profit?

[Source: di.se via TTAC ]

Bailout Blues: GM circles its sports wagons

Wagon fans many be wondering if going bankrupt was the best thing that ever happened to Government Motors.

Over the past few days, GM (via vice chairman Bob Lutz) has confirmed production of an über sport wagon for Cadillac  and a nudge-nudge, wink-wink towards a sport wagon for Buick as well.

Firstly, Lutz confirmed the oft-rumoured, much-hoped-for Sport Wagon version of its BMW M5-chasing CTS-V sedan as a “go.”

When, and how much, is yet to TBD. But as a sports wagon lover, who gives a Chevette? I already think the CTS is GM’s most competitive product. While the existing CTS Sport Wagon just adds a big, ripe cherry to that cake. But a 556 hp—V8—rear-wheel drive—0–60 time of 3.9 seconds—Q-Ship, as a CTS-V Sport Wagon would end up being, is almost too good to be true.

As Lutz aims for BMW with the CTS-V hauler, Audi looks like the target with GM’s second sport wagon: an imported version of a 325 hp, AWD Opel Insignia OPC Sports Tourer (above), but badged as a Buick Regal GS. Nice.

Of course, only a handful of automotive writers and wagon fetishists will ever buy these cars.

Just one peek at how many BMW and Audi wagons are sold, compared to the number of SUVS, will condemn this pair of GM sports wagons as niche products only.

And, keep in mind, Lutz is the same guy who vowed the Pontiac G8 was too good to die, and would live on as the Chevrolet Caprice. Which it won’t.

Let me ask you: Will all this newfound wagonlove get you back into a GM showroom?

Or will sport wagons ever only be low-volume, PR specials?

[Source: Car und Driver]

Bailout Blues: Canadian Saabistas still waiting their fate

Some more news yesterday from south of the border about the up-in-the-air future of U.S. Saab dealers.

To recap: The target date to close Government Motors' sale of Saab, to Swedish boutique sportscar maker Koenigsegg, is Nov. 30. A step in the process this week was Koenigsegg rejecting 81 of Saab's 218 U.S. dealerships.

The news sheds little light on what holds in store for Saab shops here in Canada.

According to GM Canada, this action "has no impact" on its previously announced plans to no longer distribute Saabs in Canada as of the end of the year. But there's still hope for Canadian Saabistas.

"Koenigsegg, as the potenetial new owners of Saab, will decide the future plans for Saab in international locations as their business plans are formulated," GM Canada's Director of Communications, Stew Low, told The Crank.

So Koenigsegg could still come in and swoop up a few Canadian Saab dealers. And sell the cars for twice their going prices. Or not.

If the deal to sell Saab falls through—as GM's deal to sell Saturn to Penske Automotive Group did—GM would close its North American Saab shops.

Do think forthcoming Saabs (like the new 9-5, above) are worthy of staying in Canada?

Or do you think the Swedish brand should revert to being a European regional brand only, as it started out as?

[Sources: Automotive News, GM Canada]

Bailout Blues: Is Fiat giving up on Chrysler by canceling EVs?

You have to give Don Marchionne some credit.

After taking up a whole day last week spinning fairy tales about Chrysler’s vacuous five-year plans, canceling his U.S. arm’s non-existent electric-vehicle was a fresh piece of down-to-Earth decision-making.

But does this decision say more about Fiat's plans for Chrysler than the 7-hour PowerPoint presentation we received last week?

It’s one thing for Fiat/Chrysler head Marchionne to spin us on the doubling of global sales (including a 33 per cent increase here in Canada.)

With aging, unattractive and market-inappropriate products, bottom-of-the-barrel dismal quality ratings, a bare product development cupboard, and few North American resources on hand, I’d bet on the Leafs winning the Cup before any of The Don’s bold predictions comes true.

But what about the canning of Chrysler’s ENVI program?

On one hand, it makes a bunch of business sense.

If you remember, the quickee concepts (like the Dodge Circuit above) were little more than vapourware
—with engineering specs cut-and-paste from GM’s Volt program.

But  the EVs did serve the purpose of nailing down billions in Canadian and U.S. taxpayer bailout money. The Don’s argument is that the Fiat 500 will replace the EVs as Chrysler’s high-mileage vehicle that the government funds were directed towards the EVs.

But is that enough?

Is the canceling of the EVs just another sign in the lack of Fiat’s long-term commitment?

Or is The Don only admitting what no one wants to hear: That EVs are a waste of time?

Trends: Are luxury cute-utes tomorrow’s minivans?

Remember when minivans were hot? Fiat's Chrysler wished you did.

But just as fickle buyers moved from station wagons to minivans, a big chunk of former minivan drivers now drive compact crossovers. But not for long.

According to some U.S. sales figures, cute-ute sales have peaked. Especially in the luxury segment, which has dropped 25 per cent overall among major models.

BMW X3 have fallen off a cliff: down 77.7 per cent sales between 2007 to 2009. While the Lexus RX 350 was the only one in six models looked at by Edmunds that had less than a 40 per cent decline over those 24 months.

Why? We’d like to think that people have wisened up a bit.

Why pay a premium for an Acura RDX when you can get a similar Honda CR-V? Or maybe even Honda’s new Accord Crosstour hatchback-thingee.

Why get a Caddy SRX, when you could be driving the better handling, less expensive and nicer to look at CTS Sport Wagon?

Do you think this opens the door for the return of the station wagon?

Or this?

[Source: Edmunds]

Trends: Should you have to pay extra for satellite radio?

In the U.S., BMW has slashed the costs of its Sirius Satellite Radio factory option from $595 to $350 (all U.S. figures) on some of its 2010 vehicles.

The reduction doesn’t mean less service. Customers who choose Sirius will continue to receive "The Sirius Everything" package for one year.

Now, we all know the German brands are tight with the standard kit. Base model pricing rarely reflects what actually rolls out the showroom. But does BMW need to go even further in it sat radio pricing reductions?

Some other automakers make sat radio. And most cars these days come standard with AM/FM radios, CD player, and USB and iPod integration.

So, over to you: Do you think the novelty of sat radio has died off?

Whether its XM or Sirius, should you have to pay a premium for sat radio?

Or does it still offer enough of a value over land-basd radio to demand that premium?

[Source: BMW US]

Bailout Blues: Can Fiat keep Chrysler’s lights on to see through its Five Year Plan?

We waited five months and seven hours for this?

After an all-day press conference, Chrysler’s new Italian caretakers, Fiat, came through with little—if anything—that makes me change my mind that this enterprise isn’t going to make it to 2012, the year when reskinned Fiats will start selling in Chrysler showrooms. Maybe.

Except for the no-news of any plans for North American Alfa Romeos, the product plan varies little than what was leaked last week.

The Plan calls for deep-sixing next year the PT Cruiser and Jeep Commander, and the Dodge Dakota in 2011—something consumers have already effectively done, what with Chrysler’s U.S. sales off 30 per cent last month.

But the cars that no one is buying today—like the Sebring, Avenger, Caliber, etc.—will be gathering dust in Chrysler dealerships for another three years until their respective Fiat replacements come to the rescue.

So how in the name of Lee Iacocca does Fiat keep Chrysler in business until then?

The reality is, Chrysler is still in deep doo-doo. It’s still stuck trying to sell the low-quality, unattractive and getting-older-by-the-day products that currently no one’s buying.

Except for the niche Fiat 500 (that’s coming next year as a Chrysler) consumers will have no compelling reason to visit a Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep showrooms until 2012, expect for refreshed 300 and Charger sedans and a new Grand Cherokee and Durango—not exactly the types of products that are selling, n’est pas?

And then what? By then, Chrysler will be even further behind the competition.

Rivals will have jumped into the small car market (Ford Fiesta, Focus, C-Max, Mazda2, Chevrolet Spark, Aveo, Cruze, etc.) that the reskinned Fiats hope to compete in.

Even if customers suddenly flock to the Chrysler-badged Fiats, realistically, it will take at least a full generation of product (eight years) to win people back.

So, does Fiat have deep enough pockets to keep Chrysler afloat until 2020?

Here’s a hint: Google “Renault” and “AMC” for your answer.