in light of the fact that most of the things i blog about are current events, and that, as the stories develop, things might change, or new information may come to light, i am instituting this new little feature i call in re:. this segment will contain blurbs on the matter of (fun fact: in re is latin for in the matter of) some new developments, or information that may affect something i have said in the past.
this first will be on the auto industry.
news on the GM hybrid vehicle front:
all of GMs "mild hybrid" models, which i mentioned in my post dated 06-01-09 (who needs capitalism...) are being killed off. good riddance to bad rubbish, or yet another move by GM that will cost more than it will save, and takes yet another step back to square one on their journey to efficient vehicles?
GM states that this move is in preparation for a new line of vehicles that will use more efficient powertrains that are in neither research nor development stages at the moment, to be available in the future. in the meantime, you want a hybrid GM? suck it long, and suck it hard. not that the hybrids GM was making were in any way efficient (averaging 2 mpg better and $4,000 more expensive than the standard powertrain). due to the intentions of this segment, i won't postulate yet how this move will work out for GM. especially since this is among the first major decisions under their new ownership. however, i would like to point out that this move is in eerie parallel to the move to scrap the EV-1, and seems to be following the same "straight line in reverse" tactics so characteristic of GM in the not so distant past. of course, like ty webb (chevy chase, caddyshack) says, the shortest distance between two points is a straight line in the opposite direction. GM sure knows this. that's how they found their way to chapter 11.
fiat buyout of chrysler is a go. garlic bread king gets burned, deemed "too cheesy"
the supreme court, after a short hiccup, has allowed the fiat buyout of chrysler to go through. the buyout includes the dodge viper brand that was earlier being left out in the cold. this comes as bad news to the garlic bread king of michigan, scott devon (not to be confused with actress devon scott, who is, herself, not to be confused with actor devon sawa). devon's penis enlargement plans, which included creating a supercar called the devon GTX (which would have simply been a dodge viper, renamed the devon GTX), got burned up like so much frozen garlic bread.
in addition, sergio marchionne, whose previous heroics include turning a company that is not so lovingly referred to as Fix It Again, Tony, into a respectable company (sadly, he pretty much did it by buying up a handful of better companies, that he couldn't afford...sound a little bit like an american car company that recently went bankrupt?) has announced plans to turn chrysler's "bigger is better, blocky design means a man drives this" model portfolio into a bunch of cute cars you can park perpendicular to the curb on a busy street. now how will all of us fat americans, who can't see our penises, know we are men? this is going to add a wrinkle to that whole gay marriage thing... (a penis wrinkle?)
IIHS selling wolf tales. does this surprise anyone?
the last bit of news on the auto industry comes as no surprise to anyone who has ever dealt with insurance agents.
the insurance institute for highway safety has claimed that small cars have a tricky little problem that doesn't befall big beefy cars.
let's first break down who the IIHS are. the IIHS is an independent "non profit" organization, funded by insurance providers, to make ludicrous claims about how much it costs to insure your vehicle. the fact that an organization that is funded by insurance companies is non profit is a good hearty laugh to me. but let's get on with this...
the IIHS has claimed that repairs to small cars that are involved in "fender benders" cost a larger portion of the cars total value than repairs on large fender bent cars. no shit. for example, says IIHS, a car in a 6mph collision may cost over $3,000 to fix, but this is around 30% of the initial cost of many "minicars". yeah, and? i've been in fender benders before in big cars and small, and it costs just as much to fix the damage. of course it's a smaller percentage of the initial value of a larger car, larger cars cost more, initially. what they are trying to do is scare you away from buying small cars because small cars cost less to insure, for now anyway. if people do what the IIHS is hoping they will do with this new "info", and freak out about small cars being less safe, then the insurance companies can raise the rates on small cars, which will supplement the money they stand to lose if small cars become more popular with the masses.
let's break down how a fender bender works: i space out and back my car into a pole. my fender is a bit crumpled. as it is a newer car, my fender is made entirely of flimsy plastic around a light bendy frame, so the repairs include a whole new piece of plastic, which needs to be painted, shipped, and installed, and some bending and mending of the cardboard-strong support brace that holds up that plastic. even though the only thing mitsubishi has to provide here is a piece of cheap plastic, they are going to charge way too much for that piece. and even though the only thing the body shop is really doing is bolting that piece of plastic to my car, they are going to charge me somewhere between $75 and $150 dollars an hour, because apparently these people are more talented and important than doctors and lawyers (then why did they install my windshield wiper upside down?). the next move is for my insurance company to raise my rates based on the cost of repairs.
now, the more a car company charges for parts, the more money the company makes, so it behooves them to charge as much as they can possibly get away with, here. especially if it means scaring people away from buying smaller, cheaper cars (doesn't logic dictate that a smaller car is made of smaller pieces of plastic, and smaller pieces are cheaper?) and the body shop guys just get to charge whatever they can get away with, really. it doesn't matter to them, as long as you figure your insurance company is paying for it, and while they're at it, don't a lot of insurance companies have a list of body shops they will allow you to use? even the "better" companies will recommend body shops and mechanics whether you ask them to or not, and if someone is just throwing business at the body shops, don't you think they might be willing to throw a little back in the form of shifting cost of repairs? why might shifting cost of repairs matter to the insurer? because the insurance company raises your rates in proportion to how much the repairs cost. a more expensive fix means that for as long as that fender bender is on your record, they get a lot more money out of you. the difference in repair costs will be more than made up for by your new rape, i mean rate.
follow the money people. the buck never stops.
in conclusion, as an italian american, i would like to invite our newest paisan, chrysler, to the sons of italy. we meet every other monday, at the knights of columbus. you will be issued your framed picture of the pope, a jug of table wine, and the latest edition of speaka d'english for dummies which will teach you to talk way too fast, and make broad, arbitrary gestures with your hands.
benvenuto! le bevande sono laggiù.
No comments:
Post a Comment