Ford Focus: Signs of Intelligent Life in the Automotive Universe

One World. One Focus.

(Image Credits: Autocar Magazine Online)

The FI faithful will be familiar with the fact that Ford is a favorite tackling dummy of mine. I have written a couple of times times (at least) in the past about how, inexplicably, Ford wanted to sell two different versions of the Focus; one for the American market, and one for the European market. Granted, Europeans, particularly the British, have different tastes. But if a car is such a dynamite success, why mess with the formula? It's at best patronizing, at worst insulting, to suggest that American tastes run so different to European ones that an entirely different version of the same car is necessary. It's not like "good driving dynamics" and "highly efficient powertrains" don't translate.
Well, Ford has pulled the soapbox from underneath me. SETI can stop directing its antennas at Detroit because we've found sentience. There will be one Focus in the next generation; it will return to being a "world car." Let's applaud a sensible business decision from a company that, despite the competition, has made a series of them. Not to lay too much pressure on "the little Focus that could," but this could be exactly the sort of decision that pushes Ford back to the forefront. It could bring the world closer together, make trees dance, and squirrels sing. Okay, maybe it was just a good move.

Small Cars: Ankle Biting the Car Industry?

The Polo: Volkswagen's Bread, Volkswagen's Bane?

(Image Credits: www.jalopnik.com)

In an interesting summary of the state of the automotive industry on the even of the Frankfurt Motor Show, the Economist highlights some important trends that manufacturers must be aware of. Not the least important of these is that consumers--across most markets--are seeking smaller cars. For an industry accustomed to corporate/economic gluttony, this is a big problem for a couple of reasons.

1. The market is saturated

The car market as a whole is saturated. Demand cannot support the number of manufacturers that are currently offering products for sale. Even in relatively decision starved America, the process of purchasing a new car can be a very daunting task given the myriad of brands, let alone models that are vying for purchase. Companies rise and fall, but, in their latest actions, governments have cast doubt on whether the automotive industry can be allowed to endure such transience. This is a dangerous thing. Allow a mechanical analogy: a door. If a door is free swinging then it is possible to slam it shut. The faster the door is shut, the larger the slam. If, however, a damper is put on the door, then you can slam the door as hard as you like and it will still close at the same rate. If governments are going to take any meaningful and long-term action in the automotive industry, they must try and remove some of the energy of contraction, thus allowing it to occur gradually rather than suddenly. Keeping all the same brands open, whatever small demand may remain for companies like Saab, is not a solution. It only prolongs the fall.

2. Small Cars Have Small Margins

I grant you this: SUV sales were perpetuated by greedy and misguided consumers. People wanted big, strong looking vehicles to offer security, say something about them, and who knows what. But auto manufacturers were not unwitting accomplices to this trend. I have written before about how the Cash for Clunkers scheme had no teeth because the average fuel economy in US automakers' fleets was so abominably low. However, there was a simple financial incentive for producing SUVs: high margins. A margin, put simply, is the difference between what it costs to make something and the price for which you can sell that product. The Economist picks up on this:

To understand the importance of the mix, says Max Warburton of Bernstein Research, compare the cost of producing a small car such as the popular Fiat 500 with that of making a hulking sport-utility vehicle such as the Audi Q7. Mr Warburton calculates that the fixed costs are nearly identical, whereas the variable costs of making the Q7 (labour, raw materials and so on) are only about €10,000 ($14,700) higher for the Audi. Yet the Fiat sells for as little as €10,000, compared with a sticker price of at least €40,000 for the Audi. So a permanent shift toward smaller cars would devastate industry profits.

Large cars don't cost much more to make, but people are willing to pay a lot more for them. This, again, seems to be something that will be corrected over time. Automobile manufacturers like Toyota and Porsche have demonstrated unequivocally that massive amounts of cost can be cut by designing the process of assmebly as efficiently and intelligently as possible. This is how companies adapt to building a product with smaller margins. Higher margins provide a different kind of cushion, the sort that stunts rather than encourages efficient construction. Building a small car may be more expensive, but in the long run, its production that we can afford.

VW: Over the Moon

Building a Car That Has No Market, That Takes Guts. That's How Development Occurs.

(Image Credits: Autocar Magazine Online)

In the 1960s, America put a man on the moon. This technological feat was possible because of the hard work and dedication of some very intelligent men. It was possible because of the faith of lawmakers in these men to be able to pull this daunting task off without tragedy or embarrassment. Most importantly, it was possible because we had cash reserves and export surpluses to match our purple mountains majesty. The situation at VW is very reminiscent of those heady early days at NASA.
VW's chairman, Ferdinand Piech, has been pushing the development of some of the most advanced automotive technology ever conceived. How many cars are made boring or uninteresting (dare I say, ugly?) in comparison with the factory in which they were built? Such it is with the VW Phaeton and its palatial birthplace. The Bugatti Veyron is often cited as Piech's greatest (and most asinine) accomplishment during his tenure as the top man. It is, without question, the most technologically advanced car ever made, in every way, just as it was designed to be. If you've never watched the first Top Gear Veyron race, you must. Your man card will be revoked, otherwise.
Rolling across the feed this morning came this little gem: VW plans to sell a revised version of its much hailed 1-Liter car by 2013. This is wonderful news. Granted, it looks a bit too much like Honda's ill-advised first generation Insight; a car driven predominantly by university professors in the Pacific Northwest. It won't appeal to a wide audience; certainly not in the United States where it is roughly the size of a Hummer wheel. But we have already been reaping the benefits of the 1-Liter car in the guise of the Bluemotion line on sale here in Europe. These ultra-efficient diesel cars flat out stomp their competition; hybrid cars especially. Now, the progenitor of that fantastic technology will be made directly available. Will it be the first aspirational eco-car? Probably not. But is it significant? Is it a good business decision? If it moves VW out in front of its Japanese competitors (rightfully, might I add) in the green races, then VW deserves to be the first to make that small step.

A Car Guy Car Shares

Car Shares: Feel the Love, Y'all

After spending a year in the UK without any motor vehicle access to speak of, my wife and I realized that we had more or less exhausted our ability to travel by train. Not that the UK does not have infinitely more rail accessibility than the US; it's just that to get to the areas of natural beauty (i.e. Devon, the Scottish Highlands) one needs a car.
Back in the US, if you had proposed something such as Zipcar to me, I would have asked you what sort of hippie I appeared to be. As a self-certified 'car guy,' the thought of sharing a car was anathema. My car was kept palatially clean. I knew absolutely everything there was to know about the maintenance history of my car because I did it myself. Why would I want to share my car with anyone less diligent?
Before proceeding, allow me to elaborate on the concept of a car share. A car share is a 'pay-as-you-go' car club. Hence, you can book a car for an hour, several hours, a day, a week, a month, however long you like. The idea is to incorporate as much of the convenience of owning a car without actually owning a car. Why does it differ from a car rental? For starters, there are no ID checks, blood tests, child-sacrifices necessary upon pickup. Booking in advance via phone or Internet ensures that your desired vehicle is available when you want it; however, it is entirely possible to just phone up the company and request an hour, two hours, etc. worth of driving. It is simple, clean, and painless (as I will later describe).
Here in the UK, we joined the car club Streetcar. After a long courtship (investigating costs, raising funds, asking their father for permission) we finally took the plunge in May. Since then, we have used a Streetcar on a day's rental and for a long weekend with no complaints. Both cars have been part of VW's Bluemotion line; substantially nicer and more technically interesting than your run of the mill Vauxhall Corsa. Membership is near as makes no difference to £60 p.a. with insurance roughly £6 p.m. to reduce the insurance deductible to £250. Rentals are as low as £6 per hour ranging up to £60 for a day (fuel not included). Streetcar also has a line of vans for rental for the odd trip to Ikea, antique show, farm market, or Scotland.

So what's it like using a car share? After booking my desired vehicle online, the following was involved (with levels of difficulty):

1) Find the Streetcar (Medium)

Streetcar provides convenient Google maps online and sends a text message 15 minutes before your rental with your car's location. Nevertheless, being on the ground is a different thing altogether from Google's omniscient viewpoint.

2) Unlock the car (Dead Easy)

Welcome to the Future. Your Car is Ready.

Every Streetcar member has a Streetcard. This standard card has an RFID tag inside that, when held up to the magic box behind the windshield, will unlock the car. I admit, this is probably dubious security, but you can just rock up straight off the street and get into a car; that is pretty cool.

All Hail the Wonder that is Magic Box.

3) Inspect the car for Damage (Easy)

Every Streetcar has a vehicle log in which (nice) members are supposed to jot down any damage that the car might have incurred during their sojourn. So, a quick walk-around with a glance in the logbook and, if necessary, a call to Streetcar HQ to notify of any malcontent is all that is necessary to make sure that you aren't responsible for someone else's transgressions. That was one fear allayed.

4) Input PIN (Do you have opposable thumbs?)

A Proliferation of PIN Pads Pervades Our Polis

On joining Streetcar, you are given a four digit PIN. This is necessary to mobilize the car and to get the keys out of their lockbox in the glove compartment. This pad is also the communication device (yellow button at bottom) that links each Streetcar with HQ 24-7 and is also the docking station for the fuel card (more on that later).

5) Grab the keys and go! (Easy, peasy)

The Drive:
-------------

Driving a Streetcar is, well, as easy as driving any other car. While on the go, the keys lock and unlock the car as normal. The radio has iPod connectivity; an absolute must these days. Unlike a rental car, fuel is included in the cost of a Streetcar booking. This can be either good or bad, depending on the duration of a rental. When we took the Streetcar on a daytrip, we were responsible for fuel at a rate of 23p/mile. As we did not have to fill up the car (since it was a Bluemotion) the cost of fuel was low. When we took the Bluemotion Polo on an 800-mile trek across Devon, that cost ramped up substantially. However, all fuel transactions are billed directly to Streetcar via a corporate fuel card. Hence, there is no need to seek reimbursement for personal fuel outlays. Having all of the costs of a trip occur on one bill is, for obsessive budgeters like moi, a substantial advantage over standard car rental. Recently, Streetcar has started a promotion that any booking longer than 24-hours will have fuel included. Thus, there will be no fuel surcharge. This makes taking a Streetcar as attractive (to my mind, more attractive) than a standard rental car.
I personally have enjoyed having the opportunity to drive a couple of examples of VW's much-hyped Bluemotion line. After two trips, I observed 58 MPG in a VW Golf (doing substantial motorway driving at about 80 MPH) and well over 60 MPG in the Polo (with an average of 70 MPG on the motorway) despite doing some Devonian hill climbing. Both of these cars will leave a Prius with nothing but its Eco-hubris when it comes to achievable fuel economy.

I was not much of a fan of the electric power steering in the Golf; it felt artificial and weird. The Polo felt like a much better drive, but the gearbox places Reverse next to 1st with only a push down necessary to engage; particularly frightening if you need to quickly shift into 1st when the person you are following stops short on a 15% grade. Giving the Bluemotion treatment to both Golf and Polo endows both cars with the suspensions from their GTi brethren. However, both cars are let down by their low-rolling resistance tires that give up long before the driver is interested. It is an altogether schizophrenic experience on single-track and narrow two-lanes for the spirited driver, but wonderfully well thought out for the average drive. Despite having low-powered diesel engines, both cars were turbocharged; an absolutely necessity on any drive where the topography is not reminiscent of Illinois.

So to sum up the pros and cons of car sharing, in a bulleted list for the engineers out there:

Pros:
-------

- Substantially better cars than one could afford for such low sums of money
- More convenient than hire cars
- Relatively low cost of fuel
- Superlative fuel economy
- As much car as most people with access to public transport need
- Kinda quirky, cool, and fun

Cons:
-------

- It is not your car
- Mostly diesels or low-powered petrols
- Hidden costs of insurance and gasoline
- Annual membership fee
- Can't necessarily have the car you want when you want without advanced planning

All in all, I have been more than pleased with the car sharing experience and, as long as my income is limited, will absolutely look to it in the future as part of an integrated transport network for getting from Point A to Point B. After all, that's what cars were about in the first place.

Give Car Shares a Chance. Try Their Website!

My Auto Company Bail-Out Plan: Sell the Focus RS

The Future of Ford: Currently on Sale in the UK
(Image Credits: Ford of Europe, UK)

TO: President Barack Obama, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington DC.

Dear Sir,

Call me old-fashioned, but back in the day car companies sold cars. Trouble is, somewhere along the line the business-types became more important than the engineers and political infighting superseded common sense. My favorite (most recent) example of this has to be the Ford Focus. I've written previously about how there are two Foci out there in the world. Here is the current American model; here is the current European (UK market) model.

Now I'm sure, Mr. President, that you will have particular thoughts on this based on your geography, but which would you rather own? The trouble with it is that you cannot, and will never have, a choice. Ford is actually two (three if you count Australia) separate companies with two (three) separate design offices with two (three?) separate design languages. Actually, it looks--much like their accents--that the Australians and English stay closer to one another than to the American language. A sensible mind would say, "wait a second, why build two of the same type of car?" The trouble is that sensible people only earn pink slips in the auto industry.

In the last episode of Top Gear (12 July), Jeremy Clarkson had a whacking great time in the new Focus RS. Here's a thought: an affordable, practical, 3-door hatchback with 300 horsepower, a high-tech differential, Bluetooth connectivity all for the equivalent price of about a Volkswagen R32 or Audi A3. Sounds like the kind of car that Ford needs to be selling, doesn't it? Problem is, they won't. Instead, America will get that exciting, Dodge Avenger-esque styling. Boy, doesn't THAT send your pulse racing.

The trouble is that American automakers have been so busy fighting amongst themselves that they haven't realized a couple of important points. The first is that none of them have styled something original since the Dodge Viper; and even that was a tarted up modern Shelby Cobra. Hence, nothing fresh is entering the American design aesthetic. Furthermore, Ford of American remains insistent that the European division can't possibly design a car for the American market because it is so "different." Yet, all this time, Honda, Toyota, and VW seem to be able to design cars for us "different" Americans. The second is that we, as consumers, have spoken with our silence. By not buying the droll, beige, generic cars rolling off Detroit production lines we've made quite clear that whatever they're selling we'll have no part of. When, all this time, our European cousins have been living it up, driving the Fords we should have had all along.

So, Mr. President, if I may respectfully offer my advice, if I were your 'car czar' my bail-out plan would be to bring things back to basics. Have the car companies sell the great cars that they are already building in America. Champagne would fall from the heavens, brands would be born again; that which was old would be made new. The Focus RS is either, sir, a vision of the future or another painful example of corporate-consumer disconnection.

Respectfully Yours,

Fuel Interjected