2007 Toyota 4runner Limited Sport Utility 4-door 4.0l Sport Edition on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Mixed sales results, but automaker stocks rise on need for cars in Houston

DETROIT — The Big Three Detroit automakers on Friday reported better-than-expected August sales and issued optimistic outlooks for demand as residents of the Houston area replace flood-damaged cars and trucks after Hurricane Harvey, sending their stocks higher. General Motors, Ford and Fiat Chrysler posted mixed August U.S. sales, with GM up 7.5 percent and Ford and Fiat Chrysler down. Japanese automaker Toyota improved sales by nearly 7 percent, while Honda fell 2.4 percent. Still, analysts focused on the potential for Detroit automakers to cut inventories and stabilize used vehicle prices as residents of Houston, the fourth largest city in the United States, are forced to replace tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of vehicles after the devastation from Hurricane Harvey. Mark LaNeve, Ford's U.S. sales chief, told analysts on Friday that following Hurricane Katrina in 2005 "we saw a very dramatic snapback" in demand. That said, Ford sales fell 2.1 percent in August. It sold 209,897 vehicles in the United States, compared with 214,482 a year earlier. Sales were down 1.9 percent in the Ford division and off 5.8 percent at Lincoln. Demand was down for cars, crossovers and SUVs. It was not clear how many vehicles in the Houston area will be scrapped, LaNeve said, saying he had seen estimates ranging from 200,000 to 400,000 to 1 million. Ford's Houston dealers may have lost fewer than 5,000 vehicles in inventory, he said. Ford is the No. 1 automaker in the Houston market, with 18 percent share, according to IHS Markit. The company plans to ship used vehicles to Houston dealers and has "every indication we would have to add some production" of new vehicles to meet demand, LaNeve said. Investor concerns about inventories of unsold vehicles and falling used car prices have weighed on Detroit automakers' shares most of this year. Now, automakers can anticipate a jolt of demand from a big market that is a stronghold for Detroit brand trucks and SUVs. "It's got to be a positive for the industry," LaNeve said. Investors appeared to agree. GM shares rose as much as 3.3 percent to their highest since early March. Ford increased 2.8 percent at $11.34, and Fiat Chrysler's U.S.-traded shares were up 5.2 percent $15.91, hitting their highest in more than five years. GM reported a 7.5 percent increase in U.S. auto sales in August, helped by robust sales of crossovers across its four brands.

Scion was slain by Toyota, not the Great Recession

Scion didn't have to go down like this. Through the magic of hindsight and hubris, it's easier to see what went wrong. And what might have been. What the industry should understand is this: Scion wasn't a losing proposition from the get-go. Its death is due to negligence and apathy. This is more than just the failure of a sub-brand. It's the failure of a company to deliver new and compelling products over an extended period of time. Toyota will point to the Great Recession as the reason it hedged its bets and withdrew funding for new vehicles, instead of using that as an opportunity to redouble efforts. This was as good as a death warrant, although myopically no one realized it at the time. Sadly, GM's Saturn experiment was a road map for this exact form of failure. No one at Toyota seemed to think the Saturn experience was worth protecting their experimental brand from. Or they weren't heard. Brands live and die on product. Somehow, Scion convinced itself that its real success metric was a youthful demographic of buyers. It seems like this was used to gauge the overall health of the brand. Look at the aging and uncompetitive tC, which Scion proudly noted had a 29-year-old average buyer. That fails to take into account its lack of curb appeal and flagging sales. Who cares if the declining number of people buying your cars are younger? Toyota is going to kill the tC thirteen years [And two indifferent generations ... - Ed.] after it was introduced. In that time, Honda has come out with three entirely new generations of the Civic. Scion wasn't a losing proposition from the get-go. Its death is due to negligence and apathy. At launch, the brand could have gone a few different ways. The xB was plucky, interesting, and useful – a tough mix of ephemeral characteristics – but the xA didn't offer much except a thin veneer of self-consciously applied attitude. That's ok; it was cute. Enter the tC, which managed to combine sporty pretensions with decent cost. It took on the Civic Coupe in the contest for coolness, and usually managed to win. More importantly, an explicit brand value early on was a desire to avoid second generations of any of its models, promising a continually evolving and fresh lineup. At this point, the road splits. Down one lane lies the Scion that could have been. After a short but reasonable product lifecycle, it would have renewed the entire lineup.

Ford fights back against patent trolls

Some people are just awful. Some organizations are just as awful. And when those people join those organizations, we get stories like this one, where Ford has spent the past several years combatting so-called patent trolls. According to Automotive News, these malicious organizations have filed over a dozen lawsuits against the company since 2012. They work by purchasing patents, only to later accuse companies of misusing intellectual property, despite the fact that the so-called patent assertion companies never actually, you know, do anything with said intellectual property. AN reports that both Hyundai and Toyota have been victimized by these companies, with the former forced to pay $11.5 million to a company called Clear With Computers. Toyota, meanwhile, settled with Paice LLC, over its hybrid tech. The world's largest automaker agreed to pay $5 million, on top of $98 for every hybrid it sold (if the terms of the deal included each of the roughly 1.5 million hybrids Toyota sold since 2000, the company would have owed $147 million). Including the previous couple of examples, AN reports 107 suits were filed against automakers last year alone. But Ford is taking action to prevent further troubles... kind of. The company has signed on with a firm called RPX, in what sounds strangely like a protection racket. Automakers like Ford pay RPX around $1.5 million each year for access to its catalog of patents, which it spent nearly $1 billion building. "We take the protection and licensing of patented innovations very seriously," Ford told AN via email. "And as many smart businesses are doing, we are taking proactive steps to protect against those seeking patent infringement litigation." What are your thoughts on this? Should this patent business be better managed? Is it reasonable that companies purchase patents only to file suit against the companies that build actual products? Have your say in Comments.