Drew Dowdell

Again... no. Lets look at 4 cases. VW TDI Scandal, GM Ignition Switch Scandal, Toyota Unintended Acceleration Scandal, FCA's and GM's Recalls over faulty airbag sensors. We'll do VW last. In the Toyota scandal, the issue was that Toyota knew there was a problem, but claimed they didn't. This is a six year old article that I wrote so the formatting is all f-ed up, but the basic point is that Toyota should have been in hot water over this issue because they had been recalling vehicles and zip-tying floor mats for 4 years before it became national news. On top of they, Toyota tried to force owners into NDAs to get their cars fixed. Toyota should have taken a bigger hit than they did for that.... not because of slippery floor mats or sticky gas pedals, but because of the cover-ups and denials. Toyota got off relatively easy, though I'm sure they would disagree. GM's ignition switch scandal - GM absolutely deserved to get punished for that. Not because of the supplier spring being of insufficient tension, but because of the severe series of missteps that happened when trying to address the issue. For the GM ignition switch issue to occur and result in a fatality, a driver has to have all of the following be true - 1. have a lock cylinder spring with insufficient tension 2. too much weight on the key chain. 3. hit a bump hard enough that the excess weight pulls the switch out of run. 4. be startled or inexperienced enough to react incorrectly to a loss of power situation. 5. not be wearing a seat belt or hit something with enough force that a seat belt without an airbag could result in a fatality. Five specific conditions that all must be in place for the ignition switch issue to cause a fatality, and not something you can engineer around until you actually know of these situations happening. Where GM failed was not in the engineering department, it was in the reporting structure once reports of an unknown situation started coming in. Then making it worse by not notifying the proper people/authorities, and then updating the part without updating the part number. The important point here, is that it is virtually impossible to engineer for unknown unknowns, but the reaction to the unknowns once they are discovered is vital. FCA's and GM's Recalls for airbag sensors sound very similar to the GM ignition switch scandal in everything except the companies' reactions to it. In both cases, a very specific series of events has to happen in just the right way for the airbags to not deploy during a crash. The industry average for airbag non-deployment during a collision is around 8%. Even GM's ignition switch fiasco was below that number, but because a cause was known, they had to fix it. In the most recent recall, there was a single driver fatality of a GM and three known fatalities of FCA vehicles. Those wouldn't even be statistical noise for the number of trucks GM has sold in those years. Commendably to both FCA and GM, they reacted quickly once the possibility of an issue was known and issued recalls promptly once they had a fix. VW defrauded people. It wasn't "just littering". They lied to multiple national governments. They lied to their customers. They sold goods with fraudulent labels. They marketed their goods fraudulently. They did so in spite of being warned against doing so by other companies they were working with. They did it with malice and forethought because they felt they were above the law.... and once they were called on it, they tried to cover it up. In case you hadn't heard, fraud is illegal, and other companies that have committed severe fraud have been punished out of business. Many more companies have committed fraud and got away with it (basically any publicly traded financial investment institution or mortgage bank from 2001 - 2008), they should have been punished as well. The difference here is in the intent. No engineer at GM or FCA was trying to defraud people or get anyone killed, it was simply that engineers cannot see the future and every single "series of unfortunate events". VW's and Bosch's engineers actively worked to defraud national governments and their customers in order to increase their own profits. It was done with intent and malice, just as Enron's disabling of certain electric supply lines to cause prices to go up and force rolling blackouts was done with intent and malice. THAT is why VW is getting spanked hard here and not GM or FCA.

That looks like a pretty good deal. If it's got the maintenance records and a clean carfax, it's probably as good all around as you'll find. The key to any turbo engine, Ecoboost or not, is not letting the oil changes go too long.

I like Tesla a lot, but Musk has a problem with over promising and under delivering... Especially on timelines and pricing. To get the speeds you're talking will require at least the upper mid-level battery and all wheel drive. On the model S, that's a $23,500 price increase while selecting no other options, and on the 3 that won't include supercharging. So even if the base 3 comes in at $35k (which most people in the industry think is unlikely) you're looking at $57k for a Model 3 with no options and no supercharging only to tie with your buddy in a Ford Focus RS in a stop light race and get toasted by any Cadillac with a V on its trunk... Even the old ones...

So far, South of the Border only.

Again, there is a difference between malice and a mistake. VW acted specifically to circumvent the law. In this case, an unintentional flaw was found in a product and the manufacturer is taking steps to fix.

ATS + CTS + Camaro - yes at the moment that is correct. As of August they are at 72,963 while the Mustang alone is 80,829. But Cadillac is getting some of the highest transaction prices in its respective classes (even higher than BMW), so that means they are pulling in much higher transaction prices than Mustang. The mustang, quite honestly, is often to be found as an option at the rental car counter while I can never seem to find a Camaro. That isn't a judgement against the car (I actually quite like the Mustang overall), it's just a reflection of what's behind the sales numbers.

I'm sure they can also.... But not at the price you're talking about.

But are they now more profitable for GM even at the lower rate of sales? That's the point I was trying to make. If GM can get $5,000 profit per car (completely made up number) selling 50,000 of them a year, but would have to mark it down $4,000 to sell 70,000 of them a year... where is the financial incentive to do so? They make more money selling fewer cars at a higher price. They are also likely making more per unit than Ford because of the fact they are using a platform shared by 2 other vehicles (both of which are in the premium segment), so the amortization costs of the platform will be much lower.

I'm actually a fan!

I think GM is showing a change of attitude.... they care less about volumes and more about profit. They feel they can set the price, and if they sell fewer of them (them being just about any model except full-size trucks), then they are fine with it. They're no longer building cars just to keep the lights on like they were 10 years ago.

I wonder if this is going to end up being an industry thing... it sounds very similar to what happened on the GM recall.

My grandmother drove Oldsmobiles when I was a kid and Buicks from my teen years till my grandfather passed. She always wanted a BMW even when I was a kid, but my Grandfather, in spite of being a man with the means, always bought the frugal option. He was the owner of a good size company and sold it for a good chunk of money, yet drove about as basic a Ford Festiva as you could buy. Once my grandfather passed, my Grandmother decided she was going to finally go get her BMW. She traded in her Park Ave on a new 7-series lease. The first one was lemon-lawed out (but that's not the point of the story) and she got into another 7-series. After getting the BMW bug out of her system, she went back to Buick and has been there since. Moral of the story: don't try and talk your mother out of a BMW if "she's always wanted one". Let her get it and be happy with it if that's what she wants. Just make sure she gets a Certified one with the extended warranty and maintenance.

Heh, I was born up the street at Mercer Hospital (now closed)

Could.. but won't. First off, there is serious doubt that the Model 3 will be a $40k base car even before tax incentives. Second Tesla had already sold 50,000 of its 100,000 cars eligible for the tax incentive as of March 2016 and they're moving between 2,000 - 3000 vehicles a month.... and there are still a few more years to go before the first Model 3s hit the road, so on the optimistic side, maybe a couple thousand of the first Model 3s get the tax credit. The $50k Model 3 will be as mundane as an Accord V6 on 0-60. You're simply not going to get a Tesla Model 3 P75D for $50k.

Or not... Check out the Opel Karl Rocks