2015 Chrysler 200 Limited on 2040-cars

Auto blog

What car should James Robertson buy to drive his famous 21-mile commute?

The Internet has been abuzz this week with the story of Detroit resident James Robertson, the 56-year-old factory worker who has walked some 21 miles to work for the last 10 years. The Detroit Free Press brought Robertson's story to the fore, helping an online fundraising campaign to generate more than $275,000 (as of this writing). The original goal was just $5,000, or about enough to replace the used Honda that died on Robertson back in 2005, and left him walking. So, newly flush with funds, what's the perfect car for Robertson to buy? Let's look at the specifics of his situation, and try to pick out the best options. Here's what we know: Robertson's commute is (famously) 21 miles; he lives in downtown Detroit (for now) and seems pretty humble, so something very flashy is probably out; former Honda aside, his ties to the city (and statements about being a Ford fan) seem to indicate a Detroit Three company product is best; he's a single guy with a girlfriend; he's got to deal with Michigan weather, and the sometimes fickle snow removal processes in The D. Here are some choices: Ford F-150 Robertson is on record as being a Taurus fan, and after a decade of walking I've no doubt that the big sedan would offer a cozy respite. Still, as a car guy and a student of the industry, I'd have a hard time recommending a sedan so clearly in need of replacement. Especially when The Blue Oval has such great stuff within the rest of its roster. The 2015 F-150 seems almost perfect for Robertson. Opting for either of the new EcoBoost V6 engines should help keep fuel bills in reasonable check, while healthy ride height and four-wheel drive will get him to work on time even during the snowiest of snow days. Better still, with a fat options sheet and car-like ride quality, Robertson can have just about every amenity he might want, in a package that won't disrespect his blue-collar roots. Chevrolet Colorado You guys saw this one coming, right? The smaller footprint of the midsize Chevy pickup, relative to some of the other options here, should be an advantage for urban parking and driving. And again, 4x4 is an option for the nasty weather, the running costs should stay pretty low and there aren't many tech/luxury features that can't be had in-cabin. I'd go ahead and splash out on the Crew Cab bodystyle, too, just in case Robertson feels like starting a carpool.

Buy Ford and GM stock and make 5%

Want to make a five-percent return when 10-year treasuries are paying around two percent? Ford (F) and General Motors (GM) have solid balance sheets, strong cash flow, solid earnings, and growing markets. By all accounts, they are smart investments. But the market is down on these stocks. Why? Some of the stupid excuses include: They are cyclical companies The Detroit 3 have lost 3.5 million in sales since 2000 The world economy is shaky GM recently filed for bankruptcy Their markets have peaked They haven't changed their ways Let's take these criticisms one by one: They Are Cyclical Companies Yes, they are cyclical. Every company is cyclical. Every industry is cyclical. Some more than others, but not every company is immune from swings in the market. Banks used to be 'non-cyclical' leader, not anymore. Airline stocks are just as cyclical as auto stocks, yet they are trading at multiples greater than the auto industry. Why? And what accounts for the irrational stock price for Tesla (TSLA)? At least Ford (F) and General Motors (GM) make money and have positive cash flows. In fact, both companies have a net positive cash position. They have more cash on hand than liabilities. Auto sales in the United States hit a record 17.5 million vehicles in 2015. During the Great Recession, Ford (F) and General Motors (GM) cut their break even points to 10 million vehicles per year. Anything above an annual U.S. volume of 10 million vehicles is profit. And what a profit they make. Sales of Ford's F-150 continues to be the best-selling vehicle in the United States for over 30 years. Detroit 3 Have Lost 3.5 million in Sales Since 2000 Automotive News reports General Motors (GM), Ford (F) and Chrysler (FCA) have lost a combined 3.5 million vehicles sales since 2000. So how can they be making more money? Two big reasons – Fleet Sales and the UAW. Fleet Sales The Detroit 3 used to own car rental companies to keep their factories running. Ford owned Hertz (HTZ), General Motors owned all of National Car Rental and 29 percent of Avis, and Chrysler, the forerunner to Fiat Chrysler (FCA), used to own Thrifty Car Rental and Dollar Rent-A-Car. The Detroit 3 owned these rental companies to have a place to sell their bad product and keep their factories running. These were low margin sales, and in many cases, were money losers for the Detroit 3. They no longer own auto rental companies.

Our love of SUVs is killing people in the streets

Americans are fond of supersized fast-food meals and colossal convenience-store fountain drinks, even though they're clearly bad for our health and U.S. adults keep getting fatter. We also like large vehicles, and our love affair with SUVs is killing people in the streets. According to a recent investigation by the Detroit Free Press/USA Today, the increase in SUV sales over the past several years coincides with a sharp rise in pedestrian deaths in the U.S. — up 46 percent since 2009, with nearly 6,000 people killed in 2016 alone. With SUV sales surpassing sedans in 2014 and pickups and SUVs currently accounting for 60 percent of new vehicle sales, it's no wonder Ford announced in April plans to cease U.S. sales of almost all passenger cars. And this followed Fiat Chrysler's move to virtually an all-truck, -SUV and -crossover lineup. While the Freep/USA Today investigation found that the simultaneous surge in SUV sales and pedestrian deaths comes down to vehicle size, it also points to a lack of action on the part of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), even though it knew of the dangers SUVs pose to pedestrians. Also blamed are automakers dragging their feet on implementing active safety features. Using federal accident data, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) determined that there was an 81 percent increase in single-vehicle pedestrian fatalities involving SUVs between 2009 and 2016. Freep/USA Today's analysis of the same data by counting vehicles that struck and killed pedestrians instead of the number of people killed showed a 69 percent increase in SUV involvement. As far back as 2001, researchers at Rowan University forecasted a rise in pedestrian deaths as Americans began switching to SUVs. "In the United States, passenger vehicles are shifting from a fleet populated primarily by cars to a fleet dominated by light trucks and vans," the researchers wrote, with light trucks comprising SUVs.