Jil McIntosh

Another low-fat potato chip comes to showrooms

In the news: Chrysler has launched the Aspen Hemi Hybrid. The Dodge Durango version will be coming, too.

So this is what Chrysler has chosen for its first entry into the hybrid market. Not a juiced-up version of the Caliber, or an auto-stop Sebring, or even a big vehicle that would make sense, like a work truck, which companies and contractors are going to have to buy even if gas goes to four bucks a litre. No, this technology goes into a giant SUV that's already a low-volume model and undoubtedly will continue to be, even with the $1,000-per-year fuel savings that the company claims it will provide.

I really hate to rag on the domestic automakers, because I want to see North America with a solid manufacturing base -- it benefits all of us, no matter how far removed we are from the auto industry. But they just seem to miss the point so often. This hybrid is just one more low-fat potato chip: not as bad for you as a regular potato chip, but if you really want to lose weight, reach for an apple or figure out if you're actually hungry instead. We've got the technology. Let's use it for good, not stupid.

What you say ... and what you don't ...

  In the news today: the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) crash-tested the Dodge Grand Caravan.

Here's what was on the IIHS' website: Front and side crash test ratings are GOOD but rear protection is MARGINAL.

Here's what was in the press release that Chrysler (U.S.) made available to the media: The all-new 2008 Chrysler Town & Country and Dodge Grand Caravan earned "good" ratings, the highest ratings available from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), in both frontal offset and side crashworthiness tests.

And save for an enthusiastic quote from the minivan department's vice-president, and an assurance that Chrysler's concerned about safety, that's it.

Rear protection crash tests determine whether seat and head restraints have been properly designed to minimize the risk of neck injury in a crash. It still isn't high on a lot of automakers' lists: the Grand Caravan finished mid-pack, behind the top "Good"-rated Hyundai Entourage, Kia Sedona and Honda Odyssey, but ahead of the "Poor"-rated Toyota Sienna, Nissan Quest and Chevrolet Uplander.

But while the rating itself is important, the real story here is what Chrysler said ... or rather, what it didn't say. "Error of omission", I call it, and I think it's just as newsworthy.

How about giving us what we really want?

I noticed a press release from Chrysler yesterday. In the US, the company is launching a campaign with the tag line of If you can dream it, we can build it.

Let's see what the release says people are dreaming about:

As a chassis rolls out of the plant and down the road, all kinds of people in all kinds of places start adding what they want on a vehicle including MyGig™ with navigation, dual DVD system and Swivel ‘n Go™ seating system.

Now, maybe there are a few people who are dreaming about twin movie screens and minivan seats that face backwards. But I suspect that even more people want things that are even simpler. Things like better interiors, with more care spent on fit-and-finish, and less cheap-looking plastic. Better fuel economy, especially in excessively thirsty vehicles like the Dakota and Durango. Less-expensive versions of utility machines, such as pickup trucks. And possibly most important of all, a good-quality, inexpensive subcompact that can compete with vehicles like the Toyota Yaris and Chevrolet Aveo -- a segment Chrysler has promised us (with a Chinese-built car) but has yet to enter.

I want to see Chrysler do well, because a strong, mostly-domestic automaker is good for our economy. But strong companies start with strong foundations. It's fine to have the odd gimmick, but only when it's added on to a well-built, good-looking, fuel-efficient, realistically-priced vehicle with a reputation for bulletproof quality and reliability. That's my dream, Chrysler. Now build it.

Chrysler's leaving California

Chrysler has announced that it's closing its Pacifica Advance Product Design Center in Carlsbad, California and will consolidate the Advance Design function at its headquarters in Auburn Hills, Michigan.

Now, news from the automakers is usually made available to journalists on media-specific Web sites during business hours, with lots of quotes that we can use to beef up the story, and photos if they're available. This little tidbit came as a very low-key email, and with the same terse message posted not on Chrysler's media Web site, but on a blog that it reserves as a chattier version for the press. No quotes, no photos, not even an attribution -- just "by Editor". And it arrived late on a Friday night.

Methinks they don't want us to say too much about it.

The email said that the function will be consolidated with Michigan, but the last paragraph reads, These changes set the stage for Chrysler's future global growth efforts, which also include our intent to establish global expertise in design, engineering and sourcing through centers of excellence. These actions will help the Company meet its long-term globlization goals.

Translation: we're going to find a place that'll make the cars for cheap.

It's not new, of course. GM's been doing it for a long time -- you want to get a deer in the headlights look, go up to half the people driving Chevrolet Aveos (bonus points if they've got a "Buy Domestic" license plate frame) and ask them if they know their cars are built in Korea. Rather tellingly, GM built three new subcompact concepts and had the public vote on which one it should build. One was designed in the U.S. The winner, announced at last year's Los Angeles Auto Show, was designed in India. Hmmm. I wonder where the actual car will be built, and if that has any bearing on how that particular design was chosen.

Y'know, in the grand scheme of things, I do have a bit of a handle on how corporations work. Even if I don't like it, I understand why companies move production offshore, whether it's cars or clothes or call centres.

I just wish everyone would be honest, instead of coating it all in bafflegab. Come clean with us: it costs too much money to design a car in California, so we're closing that office and we'll be contracting the work overseas. Will the public like it? Of course not. But I think John Q. Public would have more respect for a company that tells him up front what it's doing, instead of sneaking out the back door in the middle of the night.