Special Car, auto, cars, vehicles

Okay, the sequential blinking doesn't save anything noticeable, but the LED lamps that are flashing (and serving tail-lamp and brake-light duty) consume 87 percent less power than the incandescent bulbs they replace. This helps save 10.5 gallons of gas per year in the typical Mustang, according to Osram, the folks who produce the system and that pioneered myriad other lighting innovations on earlier Ford/Lincoln-Mercury products. More good news: Unlike most LED signal and tail lamps you're aware of, which position an array of LEDs behind some sort of lens in a custom fitting for a particular car, the Mustang's LEDs work very much like a traditional incandescent bulb.

They're bulb-shaped, so they fit into a traditional lens and reflector housing with a push-and-turn base, drastically reducing the replacement cost of the tail lamp after crash damage (costing about half as much). They typically last the life of a vehicle and are unaffected by shock and vibration, so they're ideal in extreme applications (Pratt & Miller has used Joule lamps for three seasons of Corvette endurance racing without a failure).These so-called Joule lamps incorporate the LEDs, the thermal management (that ring sitting just behind the reflector housing), and the control circuitry (which resides in the connector).

Joule lamps cannot replace incandescent bulbs in existing applications (at least not yet), but this plug-n-play approach allows manufacturers to work LEDs into their product lines for vastly less investment cost than all those custom applications you see out there, which is why Chevy can afford to have an LED fitment on only the LTZ model of the Malibu. Joule lamps are also in use on the Ford Taurus X and the Mercury Mountaineer and Sable.

The Mustang's other Osram lighting flourish is found inside, where the MyColor dash gauge backlight color is now keyed with the rest of the interior ambient lighting, so that when you dial up ghoulish green or whorehouse red on the dash, the footwells, cupholders, etc. all glow with the flow.

As you may have read elsewhere, some of us in the moto-journo biz got an early preview of the next LX sedans Wednesday in Auburn Hills. Online car magazines not invited to the event reported on what we saw, based on reports by other journalists who were invited. Those leaky journalists told Jalopnik the future cars and trucks looked like "lipstick on a foam pig" and "smoke and mirrors."

Well, of course. They were full-scale fiberglass models. They're not scheduled for production until 2010, probably the third or fourth quarter if things get better, so nothing's been retooled to stamp actual '11 model sheetmetal. I found their designs to be impressive, and several colleagues agreed. The second-generation 300 and Charger could be to the first-generation cars what the current Cadillac CTS is to its predecessor. And by the way, General Motors showed journalists the new CTS two or three years early - the same sort of "smoke and mirrors."

The difference this time is that everything we saw in the last couple of days could go up in smoke. And don't misunderstand this: I can't vouch for the quality of any future Chrysler product, or say anything good or bad about the way these cars and trucks ride, handle, perform, hold themselves together. That's what first drives and comparisons are for. I can only tell you that Chrysler has quickly exorcized retired design chief Trevor Creed. Yes, he's been gone only a couple of months, but with Tom Gale hired on as a consultant when Cerberus took over, I doubt Creed had much authority while these models were being designed. There's not a hint of Dodge Avenger/Chrysler Sebring styling here. And virtually no hint of the concepts Creed foisted on us in the last few years.

I doubt these new cars and trucks would impress Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid. They'd rather see electric cars or bio-diesels running on mulch. But Chrysler ought to show the new 300, at least, to President-elect Obama, who owned an '05 300C. Attractive, desirable product could make a bigger impression than any "turnaround plan" or union concessions.

Why did Chrysler show us these 2011 models? To prove it's not quite dead, and to give us a reason to root for its survival through 2010. If its future stuff looked like more Avenger/Sebring, I'd be saying as much right now.

Why did Chrysler refuse to invite Jalopnik and Autoblog? Automakers worry that automotive websites are quick to spread leaks, even when they're not necessarily the first entity responsible for such leaks.

That kind of thinking is obsolete. Most of us at the Chrysler preview, some in print journalism and some not, also post online news and columns like this one.

While they would like to be considered part of the New Media, Jalopnik, Autoblog and others have become as entrenched in the moto-journo establishment as motortrend.com. I'd find it more interesting to hear what they think of the '11 300/Charger firsthand than read about the impressions leaked to them by invited journalists eager to pander to Jalopnik's irreverent image.

BRICKYARD CROSSING INN CLOSES IMMEDIATELY;

NEW HOTEL POSSIBLE IN FUTURE

Restaurant, pub, conference space, Golf Shop to remain open

INDIANAPOLIS, Monday, Dec. 15, 2008 – Brickyard Crossing Inn will close immediately and be razed in a few months, said Joie Chitwood, president and chief operating officer of the Indianapolis Motor Speedway Corporation.

The motel was built in 1963 on the eastern edge of the IMS grounds. It has 96 rooms.

“To bring the motel up to the standards and quality of what guests expect at the Speedway would require significant capital expenditures,” Chitwood said. “After reviewing the alternatives, we have decided to discontinue its operation.”

Plans are being made for the demolition of the motel buildings. Use of the space after the removal of the motel has not been determined, Chitwood said.

“IMS has been looking at alternatives to the future of the motel property for several years, including constructing a new hotel,” Chitwood said. “We continue to evaluate how a new hotel operation on Speedway property might fit in with the planned redevelopment of the Town of Speedway.

“To date, we have reviewed proposals from several groups and have met with some of these firms. We’re farther along than we’ve ever been in the process to build a new hotel at IMS.”

The closure of the motel will not affect the main building of Brickyard Crossing, which is home to a public restaurant, the Flag Room pub, conference space and the Brickyard Crossing Golf Course Golf Shop. All will continue operation. Closure of the motel involves the termination of 15 permanent employees.

The opening of the motel 45 years ago filled a void in lodging on the near-west side of Indianapolis and before the growth associated with Interstate 465.

Like the Speedway, the Brickyard Crossing Inn has famous history. Besides being the home for several Indianapolis 500 drivers and owners during the month of May, scenes from Paul Newman’s movie “Winning” were filmed in rooms of the motel. And NASCAR legend Jeff Gordon celebrated his victory in the inaugural Allstate 400 at the Brickyard in 1994 by eating a pizza in his room at the motel.

Except there's one small problem: Sales of the Prius last month were about half the level they were in November 2007. Meantime, helped by deep discounts -- up to $6000 on some 2008 models -- Ford F-150 sales for November were down just 18.5% compared with November last year, while Chevy Silverado sales were down just 22%.

Obviously, the meltdown in the economy accounts for some of the fall-off in Prius sales: Toyota's total volume in November was down 32% as fearful, credit-crunched customers stayed away from dealerships in droves. But the fact that gas in the U.S. now costs, on average, less than half as much as it did in the summer, is undoubtedly having an effect. The 8660 Priuses Toyota sold last month compares starkly with the 21,000-plus it sold in April as gas raced toward the $4/gallon mark. It also compares starkly with the 37,911 F-150s and 29,534 Silverados shifted by Ford and Chevy dealers in November despite frozen credit and swirling rumors of bankruptcy.

The Prius problem highlights the major challenge facing any bailout of the Detroit Three. If Toyota, allegedly the smartest guys in the room when it comes to the auto biz, can't figure out what American consumers want one month to the next (as of a few months back the Tupelo plant was actually slated to build Highlander SUVs) how on earth is Capitol Hill, or any so-called "car czar" for that matter, going to be able to figure out which direction Detroit's salvation lies? Building Prius clones? Or pickups? Which will give us the best chance of getting our loan money paid back?

There's no question gas prices will rise again once the global economy climbs out of the crater and demand for oil picks up. But as of right now, no one has any idea when that might happen and how fast gas prices might rise. Goldman Sachs recently forecast oil would slump to $30 a barrel, but these are the same geniuses who predicted it would hit $200 a barrel earlier this year. So it's anyone's guess, although futures for deliveries beyond 2013 are trading above $75 a barrel.

Against that background, full-size pickup trucks look like they could still be profitable business for a leaner, lower cost, slimmed-down Detroit for a few years yet.

As has been widely reported, it now looks likely President Bush will allow some of the TARP bank bailout funds to be used to throw GM and Chrysler a financial lifeline. The specter of a massive jump in unemployment -- and what that would do to an economy already reeling from a collapse in consumer confidence -- seems to have gotten the attention of even the hardliners in the White House. "If the auto industry goes belly up now," Vice President Dick Cheney told talk show host Rush Limbaugh, "there's a deep concern that would be a major shock to the system." D'oh...

Of course, any money doled out by the White House this week won't solve the problem. All it will do it buy time -- little more than three months -- to leave the freshly minted Obama administration between a rock (letting the Detroit Three fail and dealing with the grim social and economic cost of 12% unemployment within two years) and a hard place (pouring what has been estimated at $75 to $125 billion into creating a retooled Detroit that will almost certainly be composed of fewer companies making fewer vehicles).

President-elect Obama has said he won't let the American auto industry fail. But will he see pickup trucks as part of the solution? Or part of the problem that got Detroit in this mess in the first place.

Small-volume Japanese and European brands also had increased sales: Nissan, up 9.9 percent, to 28,971, Mazda, up 2.4 percent to 5,356, smart, up 12.1 percent to 10,486, Subaru, up 10.5 percent to 4,439 and Jaguar, up 13.3 percent to 4,120. For reference, be aware that Chevrolet sold 9,469 Malibus in November (GM's only gainer), up 31.3 percent.

For the first 11 months of '08, General Motors' European divisions sold 32,000 more vehicles than Renault, making it third in sales behind VW and Ford. It was the biggest loser in Europe in November, however, dropping it to fourth place for the month.

Here's JATO's top ten for November:

1. Volkswagen: 110,034, down 18.9 percent
2. Ford: 80,979, down 16.3 percent
3. Renault: 73,628, down 22.6 percent
4. Opel/Vauxhall: 61,780, down 37.1 percent
5. Fiat: 59,517, down 23.8 percent
6. Peugeot: 58,948, down 23.8 percent
7. Citroen: 55,441, down 24.3 percent
8. Audi: 50,292, down 1.1 percent
9. Mercedes: 45,460, down 22.2 percent
10. BMW: 43,357, down 28.5 percent
    

At the end of the first session, Representative Thaddeus McCotter, Michigan Republican serving Livonia, outlined the reasons for his compromise bill.

Half of the loans, presumably $17 billion for the Detroit Three, should come from the financial industry TARP, because if the D3 get no loans, there will be thousands more home foreclosures.

The other $17 billion, under McCotter's proposal, would come from the Energy Bill's $25 billion for advanced fuel-efficient technologies. McCotter says that without the loans, a lot of research & development the D3 already has funded would be lost to foreign competitors.

Almost sounds too logical for Capitol Hill.

"Just like British Leyland."

Indeed. Earlier, Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner described how GM looked at acquiring Chrysler before the credit crisis. When the credit crisis hit, GM had neither the money nor the time to pay attention to Chrysler.

I don't know what's more troubling: that GM might re-consider buying Chrysler, perhaps to refill its North American brand lineup now that it has a plan to change or get rid of Saab, Saturn and Pontiac, or that a Republican senator is willing to mandate a "shotgun wedding."

Corker's interest in a federal government-forced merger does stem from a rational concern. The good senator, much to Chrysler chairman Bob Nardelli's dismay, said he spoke with a Cerberus Capital Management board member Wednesday who told him the automaker's private equity owners has enough cash on its own to avoid a government bailout. Cerberus has no interest in giving Chrysler more money for its operations, Corker said.

Nardelli replied that private equity doesn't work that way; it consists of pension funds and other investment money, just like investors in public GM and Ford Motor Company. He also asserted that Cerberus isn't considering selling Chrysler. Corker said that Nardelli's probably the only person with knowledge of the matter who believes that.

Ford and Chrysler wouldn't have come to Capitol Hill to request bailouts, Corker said, if not for GM's desperation. And therein lies the rub. Corker, and his Republican and Democratic colleagues don't want to lend Chrysler $7 billion just to see it sold to a foreign company.

Corker also wants GM to consider restructuring its debt, a kind of pre-bankruptcy, including paying 30-cents on the dollar for its bonds, and of course, getting a better deal from the United Auto Workers. The UAW remains conservative Republicans' biggest target. Senator Richard Shelby (R-Alabama) maintained his status as biggest opponent of the loan guarantees.

Senator Christopher Dodd (D-Connecticut), the committee chairman, said that the only person at the witness table who has already contributed to a Detroit Three turnaround is UAW President Ron Gettelfinger. "They haven't said what they're going to do. They're saying what they've done. Hundreds of thousands of workers at the Big Three already have made concessions."

Good to see someone still calls them the Big Three, even if it's someone with little prior knowledge of how the auto industry works. From dealership floorplans to the vagaries of production, the Senate committee learned a lot about the industry Thursday.

Senator Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), asked Wagoner what it takes to "ramp up" production for the 2011 Chevrolet Cruze.

"A good rule of thumb would be half a billion dollars," Wagoner responded. "If we have to develop the product as well (if it's all-new, not on an existing platform) that's three years. It's a long-cycle business."

"What happens in Lordstown (Ohio)?" Brown asked.

"We're going to proceed. We're going to build the Chevy Cruze in Lordstown," Wagoner replied.

Will GM still be around to do it? "We're not going to write a blank check, but we're going to get something done," Dodd told reporters after the hearing. "People are angry about bailouts. I suspect they'd be angrier about the failure of the auto industry with hundreds of thousands of jobs. My preference would be if the Federal Reserve and Treasury would step up with the authority we gave them."

Dodd believes the public opposition to loan guarantees for the D3 stems from the mishandled Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Wagoner, Mulally and Nardelli all agreed to oversight - they said they'd prefer a "car czar" to a government board.

Dodd, who blasted Fed Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson several times Thursday for failing to show up at the hearing, said he'll continue to push to fund automaker loan guarantees from the $700-billion TARP. GM, Ford and Chrysler have requested a total of $34 billion, and it appears the "136" funds from the Energy Bill for fuel-efficiency are not available.

"The secretary of the treasury is in China right now. He needs to come home."

Perhaps Paulson is trying to find a buyer for Citicorp.

And so, after a six-hour hearing with no break, things don't look so bleak for GM, Chrysler and Ford, at least not on the Senate side. The fun continues Friday, at the House Financial Services Committee. Stay tuned.

Dodd is not exaggerating. During today's hearing Wagoner admitted GM had investigated acquiring Chrysler a month or so back, but had abandoned the idea because it was running out of money: "...we were concerned we did not have the liquidity to survive until the deal closed." Senator Bob Corker from (R-TN) made this point: "GM is the reason we are here. There is no way we would be having these meetings if GM was not having problems." UAW chief Ron Gettelfinger told the assembled Senators: "Unless something changes, General Motors will be bankrupt by the end of the month."

No-one disagreed with him.

Here are some of the key themes to come out of today's hearing:

• The actual bailout bill could be $75 billion to $125 billion

Mark Zandi, chief economist, Moody's Economy.com, attending as an expert witness, claimed the $34 billion requested by the Detroit Three would not be enough to avoid bankruptcy in the next two years. Zandi contends the new car market will not recover as quickly as the Detroit Three anticipate. The credit crunch will continue to keep customers out of showrooms, and that the frenzied discounting of the past decade has led to a pull forward of demand that has yet to work through the system. He says a market of 17 million units -- close to the average of the past few years -- "is not supportable by underlying demand".

• Bankruptcy is not an option

Rick Wagoner confirmed fears over a possible bankruptcy had already begun to impact GM sales. "It is clear the overhang surrounding bankruptcy is affecting certain buyers." Ford Boss Alan Mulally claimed American consumers needed to believe in the company they were buying their cars from. Bankruptcy would mean "sales would fall off so fast we couldn't restructure". Mark Zandi pointed out the automakers would not get the financing they needed to work through a Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the current environment, so the government would likely have to provide that money. The taxpayers would therefore be on the hook "no matter what". "We recognize bankruptcy is not an option," said Senator Elizabeth Dole (R-NC).

• There should be a government-appointed "car czar" with wide powers

The need for strong oversight to ensure public funds were being applied correctly was a recurring theme among the senators questioning the Detroit Three CEOs, mainly, as committee chairman Dodd implied in his closing remarks, because it was felt the banks had gotten public money with too little clear direction as to how it was to be used. All three CEOs agreed with the idea of an oversight board or a trustee to monitor how loan money be used, even if that body or person had the power to impose sweeping restructuring conditions.

• GM and Chrysler should merge

"No thinking person thinks three companies can survive," said Senator Corker, who questioned Chrysler CEO Bob Nardelli at length as to why Ceberus would not make further investments in the company. "Chrysler doesn't want to be a stand alone business," he said, adding that it troubled him any loan to Chrysler would simply allow Cerberus to keep the company operating long enough to find a suitable buyer. He described a consolidation or merger of GM and Chrysler as "the kinds of things we need to force to make happen". "Everything I've seen suggests a merger between GM and Chrysler is a good idea," said Senator Bob Bennett (R-Utah), who claimed the two companies didn't need loans but an injection of government money he called "patient capital". Bennett then asked if GM and Chrysler would agree to a merger if it was made a condition of receiving government money. "I would be very willing to look at it," said Rick Wagoner. "The first job that would go would be mine," said Nardelli, "but if that's the criteria ...I would do it."

• Only $17 billion -- for now

Economist Mark Zandi recommended any money be paid in two tranches. As GM claims it needs $10 billion to get through into the first quarter of 2009, and Chrysler $7 billion (Ford's Alan Mulally stuck to the line the Blue Oval may not need to touch the $9bn credit line it's requesting) it was suggested this amount be paid, and a review set for March 31 next year to see whether restructuring plans were on track. The "car czar" or oversight body would then decide whether more money would be paid.

• The UAW needs to give up more

Senator Corker pressed UAW chief Gettelfinger hard on the issue of more concessions. GM's core problem, Corker said, was its debt level. He believed it would be necessary for GM's bond holders to accept 30 cents for every dollar of debt they held by March 31 (roughly a 50 percent premium over what it is currently trading for) to reduce the debt burden. But he said it was unreasonable to expect the bond holders "to take a haircut" without the UAW giving up more. Specifically, he wanted Gettelfinger to agree to cut UAW wage rates to the same level as that paid in transplant factories "and not a penny more", and wanted 50 percent of the $35.5 billion GM was due to pay into the union-owned VEBA fund by 2010 to be taken in the form of equity.

Tomorrow the CEOs sit down in front of the House Financial Services Committee for another grilling. While Chris Dodd took a swipe at the Bush Administration for not making some part of the TARP funding quickly available to help automakers, noting drafting legislation in the next 72 hours to ensure funding would be a mammoth task, he did say "...inaction is not an option". It's a long way from a slam-dunk, but the mood in Washington seems to be tilting towards a bailout. Whatever happens in the next few days is still open to plenty of speculation. But this much is clear: Detroit has changed forever.