2012 Ford Boss 302 Laguna Seca 5.0l #617 Recaro Only 2k Texas Direct Auto on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Revisiting the 2008-09 auto bailout that saved GM and Chrysler

The Federal Reserve stayed open late on December 31, 2008. There's almost no way you could remember that because barely anyone knew at the time. But General Motors had to pay its bills, and the Fed wired money so GM could still buy things in January. Without those funds, the nation's largest automaker wouldn't have seen much of 2009. It's one of many heart-stopping moments that illustrate just how close Detroit's Big Three came to extinction nearly a decade ago. They're chronicled in a new movie, Live Another Day, premiering in theaters September 16. Filmmakers Bill Burke and Didier Pietri interviewed nearly all of the key executives, federal officials, and union chiefs to recreate the auto industry's most perilous period. The movie begins in the aftermath of Lehman Brothers' demise amid the global financial meltdown. Things looked bleak for American carmakers, and their CEOs were laughed off Capitol Hill when they sought a Wall Street-style bailout. "It was a feeling that it was the end of the world," Pietri told Autoblog in an interview where he and Burke previewed the film. Saved by last-minute loans authorized by the Bush Administration after Congress refused to act, Detroit staggered into 2009 with a faint pulse. Live Another Day illustrates the downward spiral that played out that winter as President Obama and his task force – with little prior knowledge of the auto industry – wrestled over the fate of hundreds of thousands of jobs. GM's longtime CEO Rick Wagoner was fired in March. Fiat CEO Sergio Marchionne suddenly appeared as a savior for Chrysler, with his own motives. Obama rejected restructuring plans from the automakers. Chrysler declared bankruptcy on April 30. GM followed June 1. The sequence was very public, but Pietri and Burke showcase lesser-known events that shaped the outcome. They also seek to dispel the notion that the government rescued GM and Chrysler from incompetent leaders. "We never subscribed to the theories that the management structures of the companies were a bunch of idiots who didn't know what is going on," Pietri said. At one point, Chrysler executives were negotiating with Marchionne and Fiat. Unbeknownst to them, the government was having its own talks with the Italian automaker. The filmmakers also cast light on the bankruptcy process, which was shredded to shepherd two of America's industrial icons through reorganizations.

Ford and Chrysler reducing summer plant shutdowns

Most domestic automaker assembly plants traditionally take a couple of weeks off during the summer. The shutdowns give each plant time for much needed repairs and maintenance, and in some cases, help better align production with demand. Not this year, though, as demand for many models is outstripping what Ford, Chrysler and General Motors plants can produce.
Ford has announced that it will shorten its annual summer shutdown for most North American plants from two weeks to one. The shorter shutdown will increase the carmaker's annual North American production by 40,000 units on top of the 200,000 extra units that it was already planning to produce this year versus last. Automotive News reports that Ford produced 2.8 million vehicles on this continent in 2012, and that output this year has already increased 13 percent through April.
Chrysler, meanwhile, is also operating at full tilt and plans to run some plants through the summer with no shutdown at all. Those not getting a break include Jefferson North where the Jeep Grand Cherokee and Dodge Durango are assembled, Toledo North that will assemble the new Cherokee, and Conner Avenue, home of SRT Viper production. Other assembly plants will be down for a single week, while all of Chrysler's engine and transmission plants except one in Indiana will continue operating with no shutdown this summer.

Ford made three big mistakes in calculating MPG for 2013 C-Max Hybrid

It's been a rough time for the official fuel economy figures for the Ford C-Max Hybrid. When the car was released in 2012, Ford made a huge deal about how it would beat the Toyota Prius V, which was rated at 42 combined miles per gallon, 44 city and 40 highway. The Ford? 47 mpg across the board. How did Ford come to this place, where its Prius-beater turned into an also-ran? Well, after hearing customer complaints and issuing a software update in mid-2013, then discovering a real problem with the numbers last fall and then making a big announcement last week that the fuel economy ratings of six different 2013 and 2014 model year vehicles would need to be lowered, the C-Max Hybrid has ended up at 40 combined, 42 city and 37 highway. In other words, the Prius trumps it, as daily drivers of those two vehicles have known for a long time. The changes will not only affect the window sticker, but also the effect that the C-Max Hybrid (and the five other Ford vehicles that had their fuel economy figures lowered last week) have on Ford's compliance with greenhouse gas and CAFE rules for model year 2013 and 2014. How did Ford come to this place, where its Prius-beater turned into an also-ran? There are two technical answers to that question, which we've got below, as well as some context for how Ford's mistakes will play out in the bigger world of green vehicles. Let's start with Ford's second error, which is easy to do since we documented it in detail last year (the first, needing to do a software update, was also covered). The basic gist is that Ford used the general label rule (completely legally) to test the Fusion Hybrid and use those numbers to figure out how efficient the C-Max Hybrid is. That turned out to be a mistake, since the two vehicles are different enough that their numbers were not comparable, despite having the same engine, transmission and test weight, as the rules require. You can read more details here. Ford's Said Deep admitted that the TRLHP issue is completely separate from the general label error from last year. Now let's move on to last week's announcement. What's interesting is that the new recalculation of the MPG numbers – downward, of course – was caused by a completely separate issue, something called the Total Road Load Horsepower (TRLHP). Ford's Said Deep admitted to AutoblogGreen that the TRLHP issue had nothing to do with the general label error from last year.