2005 Chrysler Pacifica Touring Awd Top Of The Line 3rd Row Seat Low Reserve on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Detroit 3 to implement delayed unified towing standards for 2015

Car buyers have a responsibility to be well-informed consumers. That's not always a very simple task, but some guidelines are self-evident. If you live in a very snowy climate, you generally know a Ford Mustang or Chevrolet Camaro might not be as viable a vehicle choice as an all-wheel drive Explorer or Traverse, for example. If you want a fuel-efficient car, it's generally a good idea to know the difference between a diesel and a hybrid. But what if it's kind of tough to be an informed consumer? What if the information you need is more difficult to come by, or worse, based on different standards for each vehicle? Well, in that case, you might be a truck shopper.
For years, customers of light-duty pickups have had to suffer through different ratings of towing capacities for each brand. For 2015 model year trucks, though, that will no longer be a problem. According to Automotive News, General Motors, Ford and Chrysler Group have announced that starting with next year's models, a common standard will be used to measure towing capacity. The Detroit Three will join Toyota, which adopted the Society of Automotive Engineers' so-called SAE J2807 standards way back in 2011.
The standard was originally supposed to be in place for MY2013, but concerns that it would lower the overall stated capacity for trucks led Detroit automakers to pass. Ford originally passed, claiming it'd wait until its new F-150 was launched to adopt the new standards, leading GM and Ram to follow suit. Nissan, meanwhile, has said it will adopt the new standards as its vehicles are updated, meaning the company's next-generation Titan should adhere to the same tow ratings as its competitors.

Why the Detroit Three should merge their engine operations

GM and FCA should consider a smaller merger that could still save them billions of dollars, and maybe lure Ford into the deal. Fiat-Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne would love to see his company merge with General Motors. But GM's board of directors essentially told him to go pound sand. So now what? The boardroom battle started when Mr. Marchionne published a study called Confessions of a Capital Junkie. In it, Sergio detailed the amount of capital the auto industry wastes every year with duplicate investments. And he documented how other industries provide superior returns. He's right, of course. Other industries earn much better returns on their invested capital. And there's a danger that one day the investors will turn their backs on the auto industry and look to other business sectors where they can make more money. But even with powerful arguments Marchionne couldn't convince GM to take over FCA. And while that fight may now be over, GM and FCA should consider a smaller merger that could still save them billions of dollars, and maybe lure Ford into the deal. No doubt this suggestion will send purists into convulsions, but so be it. The Detroit Three should seriously consider merging their powertrain operations, even though that's a sacrilege in an industry that still considers the engine the "heart" of the car. These automakers have built up considerable brand equity in some of their engines. But the vast majority of American car buyers could not tell you what kind of engine they have under the hood. More importantly, most car buyers really don't care what kind of engine or transmission they have as long as it's reliable, durable, and efficient. Combining that production would give the Detroit Three the kind of scale that no one else could match. There are exceptions, of course. Hardcore enthusiasts care deeply about the powertrains in their cars. So do most diesel, plug-in, and hybrid owners. But all of them account for maybe 15 percent of the car-buying public. So that means about 85 percent of car buyers don't care where their engine and transmission came from, just as they don't know or care who supplied the steel, who made the headlamps, or who delivered the seats on a just-in-time basis. It's immaterial to them. And that presents the automakers with an opportunity to achieve a staggering level of manufacturing scale. In the NAFTA market alone, GM, Ford, and FCA will build nearly nine million engines and nine million transmissions this year.

Question of the Day: Most heinous act of badge engineering?

Badge engineering, in which one company slaps its emblems on another company's product and sells it, has a long history in the automotive industry. When Sears wanted to sell cars, a deal was made with Kaiser-Frazer and the Sears Allstate was born. Iranians wanted new cars in the 1960s, and the Rootes Group was happy to offer Hillman Hunters for sale as Iran Khodro Paykans. Sometimes, though, certain badge-engineered vehicles made sense only in the 26th hour of negotiations between companies. The Suzuki Equator, say, which was a puzzling rebadge job of the Nissan Frontier. How did that happen? My personal favorite what-the-heck-were-they-thinking example of badge engineering is the 1971-1973 Plymouth Cricket. Chrysler Europe, through its ownership of the Rootes Group, was able to ship over Hillman Avanger subcompacts for sale in the US market. This would have made sense... if Chrysler hadn't already been selling rebadged Mitsubishi Colt Galants (as Dodge Colts) and Simca 1100s as (Simca 1204s) in its American showrooms. Few bought the Cricket, despite its cheery ad campaign. So, what's the badge-engineered car you find most confounding? Chrysler Dodge Automakers Mitsubishi Nissan Suzuki Automotive History question of the day badge engineering question