1991 Toyota Mr2 95' Turbo Swap ! 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.

Ford tumbles to second worst in Consumer Reports reliability survey, list dominated by Japanese [w/video]

It's no secret that MyFord Touch has had its share of problems since being introduced, but the most recent reliability survey from Consumer Reports shows just how much this infotainment system has affected Ford. Just two years ago, the automaker was in the top 10 for the institute's reliability rankings, but since then, it has tumbled to the second-lowest rung just above dead-last Jaguar. In addition to MyFord Touch, CR also attributes a handful of new products that have had issues right out of the gate.
Compiled from 1.2 million subscriber surveys, this year's auto reliability survey heavily favors Japanese automakers, with eight of the 10 spots hailing from Japan. Toyota brands grabbed the top three spots (Scion, Toyota and Lexus - in that order) with Mazda, Subaru, Honda and Acura filling the next four spots. The only non-Asian automaker cracking the top 10 was Audi at number eight.
Audi climbed a total of 18 spots from last year, and Cadillac and GMC round out this year's top gainers breaking into the top 15. Helping Cadillac's upward movement, the CTS Coupe was named the most reliable domestic car. Lincoln, Volvo and Chrysler join Ford on this year's biggest loser list.

The ugly economics of green vehicles

It's fair to say that most consumers would prefer a green vehicle, one that has a lower impact on the environment and goes easy on costly fuel (in all senses of the term). The problem is that most people can't – or won't – pay the price premium or put up with the compromises today's green cars demand. We're not all "cashed-up greenies." In 2013, the average selling price of a new vehicle was $32,086. The truth is that most Americans can't afford a new car, green or not. In 2013, the average selling price of a new vehicle was $32,086. According to a recent Federal Reserve study, the median income for American families was $46,700 in 2013, a five-percent decline from $49,000 in 2010. While $32,000 for a car may not sound like a lot to some, it's about $630 a month financing for 48 months, assuming the buyer can come up with a $6,400 down payment. And that doesn't include gas, insurance, taxes, maintenance and all the rest. It's no wonder that a recent study showed that the average family could afford a new car in only one of 25 major US cities. AutoTrader conducted a recent survey of 1,900 millennials (those born between 1980 and 2000) about their new and used car buying habits. Isabelle Helms, AutoTrader's vice president of research, said millennials are "big on small" vehicles, which tend to be more affordable. Millennials also yearn for alternative-powered vehicles, but "they generally can't afford them." When it comes to the actual behavior of consumers, the operative word is "affordable," not "green." In 2012, US new car sales rose to 14.5 million. But according to Manheim Research, at 40.5 million units, used car sales were almost three times as great. While the days of the smoke-belching beater are mostly gone, it's a safe bet that the used cars are far less green in terms of gas mileage, emissions, new technology, etc., than new ones. Who Pays the Freight? Green cars, particularly alternative-fuel green cars, cost more than their conventional gas-powered siblings. A previous article discussed how escalating costs and limited utility drove me away from leasing a hydrogen fuel cell-powered Hyundai Tucson, which at $50,000, was nearly twice the cost of the equivalent gas-powered version. In Hyundai's defense, it's fair to ask who should pay the costs of developing and implementing new technology vehicles and the infrastructure to support them.