Chevrolet marketing throws down the gauntlet

By pushing dealers to put a Camry in the showroom right next to the Malibu:

Rick Kranz at Automotive News quoted an unnamed dealer saying Catton is encouraging dealers to do the previously unthinkable "so people can see the difference in styling, the interior, pricing and features." Because Automotive News is subscription-only, I can't provide a link here.

Catton's advice comes as GM prepares for the debut of one of its most important new products. The restyled and redesigned Malibu appears in January as a 2008 model. The current generation has been an also-ran in the mid-size family sedan market for several years. A strong Malibu could be a precedent-setting tool for GM to regain lost market share.

Once again, hat tip to Instapundit who has lots of good stuff today.

Blown F350 Ford engine: Because of Biofuel or Ford's own injector problem?

I am going to defer to my mechanically inclined engine guru writing partner, whose occupation involves all sorts of grease-monkeying, but this poor chap, who is a member of the San Francisco Biofuels group, blew up the engine in his brand new Ford F350 and was told he voided his warranty using biofuel. Later Ford changed their tune and he found out Ford had issued a major recall for injector problems - the symptoms of which he claims were exactly the same for his engine.

"To my understanding, biodiesel has a higher flash point and I can't understand how one blows up an engine on a vegetable-based fuel. Ford markets the ultra-low-sulfur engine as the cleanest in the industry. I ran B100 in my 2004 F25- for 2 years-a similar, high performance PowerStroke."
----------------------------------------------------
Skip several interesting exchanges later, Ford scrambled and is now covering everything-and has even offered to take the truck back and sell me a new one (mine had only 200 miles on it). Next, I found out that Ford just offered a massive recall for injector problems that create a hydrolock that produces white smoke and can cause a massive bang-exactly what happened to me.... The whole things seems to have been a ploy to cover up something they eventually had to admit to on a massive scale. Go Ford."

Hat tip to PajamasMedia.

Greatest movie car chase of all time?

Via Michael Silence of KnoxNews No Silence Here. The nominees are Bullitt, The French Connection, The Seven-Ups, Dirty Mary Crazy Larry, The Blues Brothers, The Road Warrior, To Live and Die in LA, Ronin, and The Bourne Identity.

I voted for Ronin, one of my favorite movies, although it wasn't an easy decision - Bullitt and The Road Warrior were my other considerations, I could have gone with any of them but settled with Ronin for sheer, gutsy driving and superb editing. I liked The Bourne Identity but was surprised to see it as a nominee in this list, that was a nice car chase scene but I've seen better. And not a single nomination from any of the Bond movies? Sure, most of them are pretty unrealistic, but what about the famous chase scene from From Your Eyes Only where Bond and Melina escape the bad guys in a beat up Citroen after Bond's Lotus is blown up. Or the car chase through the streets of Bangkok in The Man With the Golden Gun? One of the most memorable chase scenes in Bond films is the boats through the waterways of Louisiana in Live and Let Die, but then again those are boats and not cars.

Anyways, just surprised to not see a single Bond movie mention in this poll.

Currently Bullitt is the clear favorite at 36% of the vote. The Blues Brothers is in at number 2 and Ronin at number 3.

Hat tip to Instapundit.

I Love Cars

I often get criticized for my views on cars, driving, fuel prices, engine size, fuel mileage, but my views on it are far from based on ignorance. I've often seen trends, and views, and gone to see whether they were true or not. When I was in high school, I took auto shop, and we were asked to present a report on alternative fuel vehicles, and at the time, living in California, Electric cars were the big push by the media and "greenies". My report ended up being in favor of conventional cars, for many reasons, and if anyone asks, I will post them, but this post isn't the right time. I ran across this today, and it really illustrated the falsities of the "conventional" wisdom that gets bandied around the media.

I've always believed that America has a love affair with the car, and that is proven by the fact that there are vast amounts of improvements, upgrades and the like to customize your car practically indefinitly. Living in the UK, a supposed "green" country, with laws to try and "encourage" public transit and get people out of cars, driving is basically catching up to US levels, and customizing and modifications have caught on in a big way. Not like these, where the US essentially dominates, but what I like to call the "boy racer" scene, with many mods also being made to family cars, like the Ford Mondeo, with even a big site dedicated to the car.

This has shown that cars are still the preferred method of travel, and it doesn't take a brain surgeon to discover why. It's fast, cheap, easy, and direct to your door. With that in mind, why shouldn't we drive? The article I linked to shows the top 5 myths in regards to pollution and how we're destroying the world. I agree with pretty much every point, and it reflects my own observations in the world.

I especially liked the last point, in regards to what the real impact of driving less means. In the past 10 years I've seen environmentalism shift from a concern for the environment to how much power and influence can they wield. The driving less cars issue, with the resultant burning less fuel issue fails simply because it'd implausible. In myth 5 the author talks about how we would be better off dealing with the effects of global warming (which will most likely be far less severe than scientists have claimed).

This becomes a valid argument because:
A: Global warming will not stop or slow down because we burn less fuel.
B: Developing countries such as China and India would destroy their fragile economies, and that would not be good because historically it is countries with strong economies that have the most environmentally sound policies. In short, they can afford it.
C: If those economies did collapse, any environmental gain would be lost due to billions of people being totally unconcerned for the environment because they are worried about their very survival, though I am sure some people would enjoy that.
D :The solution to bring the world out of the crisis of global warming is to bring the countries who create the most pollution into a stable and positive economy that cares about the envrionment and has the spare cash to do so.

The result of artificially jacking up fuel prices through taxes, and raising the cost of using a car to horrifically high levels does nothing but increase the gap between rich and poor. The poor can't afford a car and are forced to use expensive, inefficient and dirty public transport, and the rich sit happy in their luxury cars burning fuel that they can afford to burn. The real squeeze ends up on the middle class, essentially forcing them to sacrifice other things to run increasingly expensive basic vehicles. And as has been seen in Britain, the amount of cars on the road is rising, not due to a disregard for the environment, but becasue the standard of living is rising and they can afford it. Which basically shows that when we can afford to pay for environmentalism, we are willing to do so.

Which begs the question, what's a better way to spend the funds raised as a result of the increased cost of awareness? Is it through spending in government with no oversight (through high fuel and road taxes) ? Or is it better to funnel the money through private companies who make use of environmental laws to create companies, jobs, and ultimately, a much cleaner and safer environment. I vote the latter.

Brief return

Been dormant for a while, but decided to get back up, been getting some great material lately, and wanted to post this.
After a brief training session on the new Maxus, one of my co-workers shook his head and said "I give LDV 6 months. Well, LDV has recently been purchased by a private equity group to save the ailing business. The Maxus was set for release a couple years ago, but their joint venture with Daewoo went bust when Daewoo couldnt go through on the deal with their own problems. LDV makes news because it is basically the last genuine British vehicle manufacturer that exists. Foden was purchased by Paccar about a decade ago, and Paccar has announced that Foden production will cease in 2006, due to ailing sales. ERF was purchased by MAN, and I can't see MAN putting the effort to keep ERF afloat much longer either. What has caused the British MAnufacturers to all have such serious problems? One can look to the story of Rover MG for a good answer. Will pursue that angle tomorrow.

Light's on but no one's home?

I stumbled on this site a while ago, dealing with Daytime Running Lights(DRL's), and their supposed evils. I myself, personally, are quite grateful for them and wish they were on all cars, as they have saved my neck a few times, as well as i have had a few close calls with poor lighting conditions where if the driver had his lights on i would have seen him and not nearly put him into the wall of the Webster tube. Also, if it's close to dusk or dawn, and you are driving with the sun behind you, you cant see the cars in your mirror, but the lights from the DRL's shine through and are much more visible. The website really isn't all that fantastic at supporting their claims, actually, they are really poor at doing anything more than just spouting hate towards DRL's and the manufacturers who use them, but give almost no evidence to support their claims. Their arguments are also very easily picked apart by anyone with common sense and a mechanic's brain. I don't know about anyone else, but i like DRL's, any thoughts anyone?

New Engines, New Loyalties?

Being a diesel mechanic, I stay in somewhat tune to what's happening in the EPA and emissions world. After the 2004 spec was enforced, and a date was set for enforcement, Cat and Cummins started up a huge grudge match, bnoth saying that their engine was better than the other's Cat criticized Cummins for going cooled EGR, which would allow for cooler combustion chamber temperatures and lower NOx emissions, and Cummins criticized Cat for actually not being ready by the deadline and for selling engines after the noncompliance date, but to Cat's credit, Cat absorbed the penalties for such a folly, but in a slap to cummins, got their engines certified for 2004, and are well on track for 2007 emissions laws, contending that EGR equipped engines will not be able to pass 2007 emissions laws. While that remains to be seen, I am sure Cummins is scrambling to get their engines ready for the next wave of EPA over regulation. On the flip side, Paccar pulled an interesting maneuver. Paccar, in an attempt at integrating vertically, and doing a damn good job of it i might add(read: i am glad i bought the stock when i did), after purchasing Daf trucks in Eindhoven, Holland, had their engineers build a new engine to be built for the Euro 4 and 5 emissions, and also to be tested and used in the US market. Recently unveiled in the Hannover automotive show, here's the basic stats:

Paccar MX engine:

12.7 Liter engine
single head design with integrated intake manifold
High pressure fuel injection(Really high pressure)
integrated injection pump(bad idea)
4 valves per cylinder
two stage turbocharging
Power output:
410-560 HP
Torque:
1475-2028 ft lbs.

Cat C15 engine:
15.2 Liter engine
Single head design with integrated intake manifold
Unit injector system
4 valves per cylinder
two stage turbocharging
Power output:
435-625 HP
Torque:
1550-2050 ft lbs.

It seems as if the Cat C15 and the MX are quite evenly matched. consider these popints howver.
Paccar's engine was designed by Daf, I work for a dealership for Daf now, and while i do feel that Daf products are high quailty, there are major design flaws in their current XF engine, which stemmed from the XE. I understand flaws are normal and possible no matter what, but we replace head gaskets on a very regular basis, and the design is seriously flawed. I give Daf for working to rectify the issue, and have tried their best to do so, and have warrantied a large amount of head gasket work. The problem lies in this: going back to the drawing board to build a new engine, in stakes as these, may not be the best idea. The Cat C15's first design came out 20 years ago, and they've had that time to work out the kinks in the basic engine design. Also, Paccar will be offering this engine in their brands in the states for their US brands, namely, Peterbilt and Kenworth. while in Europe if you buy a Daf, or a Scania, or a Volvo, you get a Daf, Scania, or Volvo engine, and your choices depend on the power output you want. It's different in the US, where you can choose between Cat or Cummins, and have a huge range of engines to choose from, thanks to standardization for mountings, etc. Plus, the driver's are going to have a major brand loyalty, very big in the states. Very much like the difference between Ford and Chevy and Mopar nuts. I have the feeling that the Paccar engine will be received as well as some of the foreign car makers who try to muscle a die hard chevy fan off the road. they dont like it, and will fight like hell to avoid it. time will tell how it works out, and we're testing an MX engine with one of our customers here, but if the MX doesn't cath on in the states, price may be the only alternative to moving them, but they are not cheap to make. time will tell, though it is possible that fleet owners will go for them big time. we shall see

Update: Having thought more about it, the Paccar MX engine could very well be very attractive to fleets above 25 trucks, due to their higher fuel efficiency claims, and simpler design, especially if they employ their own techinicians, providing, of course, that the MX is competitively priced. otherwise,, it'll be the venerable Cummins engine for them. As for the owner operator, i think the MX will sell very poorly, as they will want the engine with more pulling power, the Cat C15, most of the time, and seeing as they don't work on them, they could care less as to what the technician has to deal with on orer to repair it, so long as it's repaired right, on time, and within budget. which brings up another point, i doubt the Paccar engine will be able to meet the prices of repair that Cat does, unless it is able to shift it's manufacturing facilites to a wider base, and produce them cheaper in foreign markets, like China and Mexico, and since there is a Kenworth plant in Mexico already, that may not be a bad idea. Right now, DAF parts are horrificly expensive. so that's my verdict.