No Reserve, 1 Owner, No Accidents, Dealer Serviced+records, Premium/nav/coldwthr on 2040-cars

Auto blog

China’s Great Wall looking to partner with BMW to sell cars in the West

The Chinese automaker Great Wall seems to have moved on from courting Fiat Chrysler. According to Reuters, the company announced in a stock exchange filing that it's looking to collaborate with BMW's Mini brand in some way. Reuters also reports that BMW is open to discussion. We reached out to a BMW representative, and he provided us with an official statement regarding the news. The company didn't specifically say it is talking with Great Wall. What it did say is that it has had success with its current partnership with another Chinese automaker Brilliance, but also that the company is interested in expanding the Mini brand worldwide and in China. The statement says that Mini's future strategy and expansion will include "diversification of partnerships and new cooperation models." It also said that expanding in China "is only possible with a local partner." That sounds to us like BMW is pretty interested in working with Great Wall. This move comes about a month and a half after Great Wall attempted to purchase parts of Fiat Chrysler. The company was reported to be talking to FCA to purchase the Jeep brand, and it later confirmed that it was interested in that brand, a few, or the whole company. But things seemed to fall apart when Fiat Chrysler's CEO Sergio Marchionne announced it hadn't received any offers and wasn't working on any kind of deal with another company. Now it may seem a little odd that Great Wall would shift from trying to buy an SUV brand, or a company that is beginning to concentrate on crossovers and trucks, to one that specializes in compact cars. After all, they're fairly different segments. Our theory is that Great Wall isn't necessarily interested in the specific products, but more that it's looking for a gateway to Western car markets. It's not something new for the company. As far back as 2013, the company made it clear it was looking to start selling cars in America. It also started looking into a manufacturing facility in Mexico earlier this year, which would supposedly supply vehicles to both Mexico and the U.S. Now when Great Wall announced its American sales intentions, it was targeting a date of 2015. That obviously didn't happen, and it probably has something to do with the company's products. Most of the cars under the Great Wall and Haval brands bear an uncanny appearance to discontinued models from other companies that compete in the West.

What would you drive in 1985?

Bereft of live baseball games to watch, I've turned to the good ship YouTube to watch classic games. While watching the 1985 American League Championship Series last night, several of the broadcast's commercials made its way into the original VHS recording, including those for cars. "Only 8.8% financing on a 1985 Ford Tempo!" What a deal! That got me thinking: what would I drive in 1985?  It sure wouldn't be a Tempo. Or an IROC-Z, for that matter, despite what my Photoshopped 1980s self would indicate in the picture above. I posed this question to my fellow Autobloggists. Only one could actually drive back then, I was only 2 and a few editors weren't even close to being born. Here are our choices, which were simply made with the edict of "Come on, man, be realistic."  West Coast Editor James Riswick: OK, I started this, I'll go first. I like coupes today, so I'm pretty sure I'd drive one back then. I definitely don't see myself driving some badge-engineered GM thing from 1985, and although a Honda Prelude has a certain appeal, I must admit that something European would likely be in order. A BMW maybe? No, I'm too much a contrarian for that. The answer is therefore a 1985 Saab 900 Turbo 3-Door, which is not only a coupe but a hatchback, too. If I could scrounge up enough Reagan-era bucks for the ultra-cool SPG model, that would be rad. The 900 Turbo pictured, which was for auction on Bring a Trailer a few years ago, came with plum-colored Bokhara Red, and you're damn sure I would've had me one of those. Nevermind 1985, I'd probably drive this thing today.   Associate Editor Byron Hurd: I'm going to go with the 1985.5 Ford Mustang SVO, AKA the turbocharged Fox Body that everybody remembers but nobody drives. The mid-year update to the SVO bumped the power up from 175 ponies (yeah, yeah) to 205, making it almost as powerful (on paper, anyway) as the V8-powered GT models offered in the same time frame. I chose this particular car because it's a bit of a time capsule and, simultaneously, a reminder that all things are cyclical. Here we are, 35 years later, and 2.3-liter turbocharged Mustangs are a thing again. Who would have guessed?

BMW slapped with discrimination suit by EEOC

According to a report from CNNMoney, BMW has been hit with a lawsuit from the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission after revised criminal background check policies resulted in the dismissal of 88 contractors, 70 of whom (that's about 80 percent) were black. A total of 645 contractors were required to submit to background checks at BMW's facility in Spartanburg, South Carolina after BMW switched contract companies at its plant.
Though the 88 persons who were not rehired by the new contractor all had criminal records, that may not necessarily be a legal way to screen applicants, as the EEOC counters: "BMW's policy has no time limit with regard to convictions. The policy is a blanket exclusion without any individualized assessment of the nature and gravity of the crimes, the ages of the convictions, or the nature of the claimants' respective positions."
BMW's actions were in violation of the Civic Rights Act of 1964, according to the EEOC, because they utilized "a criminal conviction policy that disproportionately screened out African-Americans." A recent bulletin offering guidance from the EEOC on the Civil Rights Act can be found here, but the EEOC's stance on the issue has been the same for years: "Since issuing its first written policy guidance in the 1980s regarding the use of arrest and conviction records in employment decisions, the EEOC has advised employers that under certain circumstances, their use of that information to deny employment opportunities could be at odds with Title VII."