engine

Rep. Buck McKeon Tries To Raise Pentagon Engine Program From the Dead

by on May 6, 2011

Huffington Post…

By Colin Clark Editor, AOL Defense WASHINGTON — Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, is likely to insert language into the defense policy bill that would allow General Electric and Rolls Royce to work on the technically de-funded alternate engine program for the Joint Strike Fighter plane. Current government regulations bar the two defense companies from working on the proposed F136 engines because they are now considered government property. Pratt & Whitney is the maker of the F135 engine, the engine program of record for the Joint Strike Fighter, or F-35. But in a speech at the conservative Heritage Foundation Thursday, McKeon announced that GE and Rolls would invest their own money to keep the program alive and provide “competition” to Pratt & Whitney. A GE source said the companies would provide between $100 million and $200 million for fiscal 2012. But the alternate engine program has required roughly $500 million per year until now, raising questions over whether it could survive solely on private funds from the two companies. And it remains unclear whether the Air Force would permit GE entry into and use of government facilities, especially those needed for testing the engine. But one observer with long experience in military acquisition said the companies’ involvement was a “great idea” that would help “keep Pratt honest.” The observer added that there were benefits to allowing a company develop a program without government funding. Since becoming HASC chairman, McKeon has consistently said that the Defense Department needs more money than it currently receives. But the odds of reviving the alternate engine program may be against him. On the right side of McKeon sits the Tea Party. It led the big defeat of McKeon and other second engine supporters in mid-February when the House voted 233-198 to kill the F136 engine. On the left side of McKeon sit a host of Democrats, some eager to trim the defense budget, some who support Pratt, and others who support the administration’s position that the second engine is unnecessary. Lexington Institute defense analyst and consultant Loren Thompson said he believes GE “is probably wasting money trying to keep its alternative going by spending company money.” He added, “GE desperately wants a berth in the future fighter-engine business, but it can’t keep pouring money into something the customer has rejected.” The Pentagon officially rejected the program on April 26.

Read more from the original source:
Rep. Buck McKeon Tries To Raise Pentagon Engine Program From the Dead

Find our Weekly Commercial Real Estate, Private Equity and Fund Newsletters at www.WeeklyBrief.net

Tagged as: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

{ 0 comments }

Video: Howard Buffett Calls Sokol’s Actions `Disappointing’

by on May 2, 2011

May 2 (Bloomberg) — Howard Buffett, who may help select his father Warren’s successor at Berkshire Hathaway Inc., spoke with Bloomberg Television’s Betty Liu yesterday about former MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co. Chairman David Sokol and the outlook for Berkshire’s leadership. Sokol bought about $10 million of Lubrizol Corp. shares in January while representing Berkshire in discussions about buying the engine-lubricant maker. He resigned in March amid revelations about the stock dealings. (Source: Bloomberg)

Follow this link:
Video: Howard Buffett Calls Sokol’s Actions `Disappointing’

Tagged as: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

{ 0 comments }

Defense Secretary Completes Cancellation Of Targeted Weapons Programs

April 26, 2011

By Colin Clark Editor, AOL Defense Robert Gates today crowned his tenure as Defense Secretary by formally cancelling the last major weapons system he had targeted for termination: the second engine of the Joint Strike Fighter program. “The Department of Defense today notified the General Electric/Rolls Royce Fighter Engine Team (FET) and the Congress that the F136 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) engine contract has been terminated,” began the short, five-paragraph Pentagon press release announcing the news. But the General Electric/Rolls Royce team that has already spent $3 billion developing the engine said it remains “committed” to the project, according to GE spokesman Rick Kennedy. Both companies are working with their congressional supporters “during the 2012 budget process in pursuit of incorporating the engine into the [aircraft] program, and preserving competition,” he said in an email to AOL Defense. Engines programs are run and funded separately from aircraft initiatives. The F136′s termination “represents an important victory for our men and women in uniform and the American taxpayer,” said Marty Houser, the spokesman for GE’s arch nemesis in the engine wars, United Technologies. It is the parent company of rival engine-maker Pratt & Whitney. “United Technologies appreciates the [Department of Defense's] and the U.S. House and Senate’s confidence in the F135 engine by eliminating funding for a wasteful extra engine,” Hauser said. For the last five years, UT has argued that money spent on the F136 sucked money from their engine, the F135. Still, GE and Rolls Royce hope their congressional friends will fold money for the second engine into the larger aircraft program. And GE knows that, should that happen, they would have to pour “some substantial share” of their cash into the kitty, Kennedy confirmed. “We are going on the assumption that there will be some expectation for self-funding in the future,” he said. The Pentagon previously supported the second engine program for the F136 because, in the past, it found weapons systems competition spurred innovation and drove down prices. But Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute said he doesn’t think GE’s program has much of a chance. “GE has never made a convincing case for how buying two engines could cost less than buying one,” the defense analyst said in an email. “Since the government is the sole customer, it would have to pay for two design teams, two production lines, two supply networks and so on — and then split its annual buys into two uneconomical lots to keep both teams viable.” This is “an industrial subsidy to one of America’s wealthiest companies,” Thompson wrote. (Readers will remember this is the same GE that managed, through masterful command of the tax code, to avoid paying a single dime in taxes to the US Treasury last year.) “Gates has now managed to prevail on every major program kill he decided to pursue, from the Air Force’s F-22 fighter to the Army’s Future Combat System to the Navy’s next-generation destroyer,” Thompson added. “No other defense secretary has managed to get his way so consistently, so the logical conclusion is that once Gates goes, the Pentagon will see less effective management.” At a time of flat or declining defense budgets, less savvy management bodes ill for the Pentagon, the taxpayers, and the defense industry writ large. Cutting wasteful programs saves money, maintain political support for weapon systems, and results in better weapons, in the long term. While GE is fighting to secure new funding for the second engine program, Kennedy said it would “take all necessary steps to ensure that the F136 assets and intellectual property are protected.” That is not insignificant since there is more than $200 million in F136 hardware scattered across 17 facilities. That includes, the spokesman said, nine engines in various stages of assembly. GE and Rolls Royce have already shrunk their FET program to a core technical group of about 100 people. The team’s job? “To protect, enhance, and advance the vital F136 propulsion technologies for JSF and future combat aircraft,” Kennedy wrote in his email. The GE spokesman clearly foreshadowed some of the arguments supporters in the House and Senate will utter when they try to revitalize the program. He noted that the engine ”has been under development since 1996 and is 80% complete with six development engines tested.” And, he said, the program “has been on or ahead of schedule.” Whether the two companies can raise the program from the near-dead –- as happened twice to the V-22 Osprey aircraft –- cannot yet be determined. But the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Buck McKeon (R-Ca.), is a fervent supporter of the second engine. The program has powerful supporters in the Senate, as well. Their task will be extremely tough in the face of the current fiscal climate, especially with the Tea Party watching in the House. Launching in Spring 2011, AOL Defense will provide news, insight and tools about the defense sector. Follow Colin on Twitter at @colinclarkaol . Follow AOL Defense at @aoldefense .

Read the full article →

Mark Blyth: The Real Reason That the Bailouts May Not Work

December 29, 2010

A recent WSJ article on banks in trouble focused on the fact that many of these banks were TARP recipients: QED, TARP was bad and the bailouts didn’t work. While state bashing is nothing new in the pages of the WSJ , it’s worth remembering what the bailouts were actually designed to do: stop the global payments system freezing up. It was not designed to bailout some community lender in the West who got in over their heads in commercial real estate. It is also worth putting these prospective failures in perspective. The median size of these banks was $439 million. Compare that to the balance sheet of Bank of America and the combined $4.2 billion tied up in these banks is a drop in the bucket. Moreover, while 98 failing banks seem a lot, we should remember that between 1985 and 1992 2109 banks failed , so let’s not get too excited about this most recent spate of casualties. So why the focused attention on these relatively normal events? Perhaps the answer lies in the continuing campaign played so deftly by the banks and their allies to turn the largest ever private sector failure into a public sector failure, thereby getting themselves off the hook for the mess that they made. To take just two examples, the minority report of the Financial Crisis Commission blamed Fannie and Freddie for the crisis, despite the fact that the crisis hit over 20 countries and yet only one of them has Fannie and Freddie. Similarly, the global banking crisis has been turned into a crisis of profligate sovereigns, sidestepping the fact that the debt bloating states’ balance sheets are bailout costs and lost revenues, not runaway social programs. Mere facts, it seems, can’t compete with a good ideology. However, the WSJ may be more right than they know. The bailouts may not ultimately work, but for an entirely different set of reasons. To see why it’s worth having a look at two pieces, one by John Cassidy in the New Yorker Magazine and one by Andy Haldane at the Bank of England . Taken together, they suggest that all may not be well going forward, despite the billions of dollars thrown at the banks: on a fundamental level, their business model may have run out of juice. Cassidy’s November New Yorker piece asks, “What Good is Wall Street?” If it significantly adds to capital formation, then the argument for compensation orders of magnitude beyond other sectors is somewhat justified. The problem lies in showing this, since doing so rests upon a series of counterfactuals that are hard to prove. For example, the existence of a $400 billion swaps market doesn’t mean that its absence would result in lower GDP growth. It does however mean lots of fees for those who arrange the swaps. Looking at the link between what banks do and capital formation, Cassidy notes that the part of Morgan Stanley that does link borrowers to savers and raise capital, traditional investment banking, delivered a mere 15 percent of 2009 revenues. For Citibank “about eighty cents of every dollar in revenues came from buying and selling securities, while just 14 cents on every dollar came from raising capital for companies.” As such, the claim that these institutions are doing “God’s work,” AKA capital formation, seems to skate on rather thin ice. Andy Haldane, executive director of Financial Stability at the Bank of England, similarly set out to measure the contribution of the financial sector to growth. Is it a productivity miracle or a statistical mirage? Haldane concludes that it’s a mirage, but what is of most interest is how he dissects the underlying business model of investment banking, which enables us to see Cassidy’s numbers in a different light. First of all, you give up on customers and develop counterparties. That is, you fatten your trading book, and to do that you need lots of different products to trade, hence the growth of complex and opaque securities. Second, you use said securities and the firm’s balance sheet to develop massive amounts of leverage so that even if the margins on each trade are thin, with enough volume you can earn a lot of cash. Finally, you ‘cover’ all this by writing deep out of the money options that give you a near risk free income stream: until it doesn’t. This is how banks actually make their money, until 2007, when it all went wrong. This raises two problems going forward. First of all, the revenues generated by this model are contingent upon some raw material going into the system as an input that one can profit from as the asset increases in value. Over the past twenty years those raw materials were equities and then real estate and then (briefly) commodities. The latter markets were too small and fragmented to pump this system, hence the 2006-7 boom and bust, and the former two and now either held up by massive amounts of free liquidity (equities) or are underwater (real estate). As such, it’s not clear that these engines of profitability can be effectively restarted. This is a worry since the bailouts were based upon two complimentary definitions of what this was a crisis of. For the Americans this was a crisis of liquidity. That is, the engine was sound; it’s just run out of oil (credit crunch) and with enough liquidity it will spontaneously restart (limited stimulus etc.) For the British, the engine blew a cylinder and it had to be rebuilt (12.5 percent of GDP as bank recapitalization), and with enough oil (liquidity) it will restart. But what if the raw material to feed these engines is no longer available? Then the business model as a whole may be in much more trouble than we think. Add to this the impending foreclosure mess really coming home in 2011-12 and the revenues may simply not be there anymore. TARP and associated programs worked. They saved the global payments system. That is what they were supposed to do. They were not supposed to save small-cap banks from their own investment decisions. They were also not designed to save a business model that may have run its evolutionary course.

Read the full article →

ACJC signs EngineLife agreement with Snecma

December 7, 2010

ACJC signs EngineLife agreement with Snecma

Read the full article →

Video: Buchanan Says China Wage Growth More Important Than Yuan: Video

October 21, 2010

Oct. 21 (Bloomberg) — Michael Buchanan, chief Asia-Pacific economist at Goldman Sachs Group Inc., talks about the outlook for China’s economy. China’s economy grew 9.6 percent in the third quarter and inflation accelerated to the fastest pace in almost two years, adding weight to calls for the engine of the global recovery to let its currency appreciate more rapidly. Buchanan speaks from Hong Kong with Maryam Nemazee on Bloomberg Television’s “Countdown.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Toyota Recalls 1.1 Million Corollas, Matrixes

August 26, 2010

NEW YORK — Toyota recalled 1.33 million Corolla sedans and Matrix hatchbacks in the U.S. and Canada Thursday because their engines may stall, the latest in a string of quality problems at the Japanese automaker. The recall covers vehicles from the 2005-2008 model years sold in the U.S. and Canada. Three accidents and one minor injury have been reported, though Toyota said a link to the engine issue has not been confirmed. Toyota’s latest recall is one of its largest since it began recalling cars and trucks last October. The automaker has now recalled more than 10 million vehicles worldwide for problems that run from faulty gas pedals and floor mats that can trap accelerators, to problems with its Prius hybrid. Toyota said Corollas and Matrixes equipped with 1ZZ-FE engines may contain a defective engine control module, the computer that regulates the performance of the engine. In some cases, a crack may develop on the module’s circuit board, which could prevent the engine from starting or could cause harsh shifting or an engine stall. Separately, General Motors Co. is recalling 200,000 Pontiac Vibes in North America due to the same problem, GM spokesman Alan Adler said. The Vibe is similar to the Matrix and was built under a joint venture between Toyota and GM at a now-closed factory in Fremont, Calif. Both automakers said they will replace the engine control modules on the recalled vehicles at no charge. The companies will begin mailing notifications to owners of the affected vehicles in mid-September. The engine control module with the possible defect was manufactured by Delphi Corp., a large auto parts supplier headquartered in Troy, Mich., according to documents filed with federal regulators. The automaker has been more aggressive in its pace of recalls in recent months. Its last recall was in late July, when the automaker said it would fix half a million cars, mostly Toyota Avalon sedans, over a steering issue. U.S. regulators hit Toyota with a $16.4 million fine earlier this year for failing to promptly tell the government about its car defects. Toyota has been working to overhaul its quality controls and respond more aggressively to customer complaints in the fallout of its recall crisis. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has been investigating the possibility of engine stalling in the Corolla and Matrix models since late November. On Tuesday, the traffic safety agency said it had intensified its investigation. NHTSA spokeswoman Olivia Alair said Thursday that the probe is ongoing. Toyota spokesman John Hanson said the automaker is cooperating with the safety agency on the probe. He said it was the automaker’s decision to issue the recall, adding it was not pressured by NHTSA to do so. U.S.-traded shares in Toyota Motor Corp. fell 34 cents to $68.72. ___ AP Autos Writer Stephen Manning contributed to this report from Washington.

Read the full article →

Matt Desch: Setting the Record Straight on Iridium

July 29, 2010

Hilary Kramer makes a number of important points in The Huffington Post story alleging faulty equipment is being supplied to our country’s combat troops. Unfortunately, the article included claims about Iridium that are entirely incorrect. The author cited a “first-call connection rate of only 80 percent.” The fact is that Iridium’s call completion rates are consistently greater than 95% from anywhere on the planet with a clear view of the sky. This has been validated by independent third-party consultants and our customers including the U.S. Government. With 66 operational satellites and 7 in-orbit spares, and major ongoing enhancements to the network infrastructure, Iridium is in a strong position to continue providing high reliability through 2015, when the first of our “Iridium NEXT” next-generation satellites are scheduled to be launched into orbit. In addition, it is important to remember that Iridium phones are not cell phones, but they do cover the entire Earth’s surface, where cellphones actually cover only less than 10 percent of the Earth’s surface. With respect to 16-year-old sailor Abby Sunderland, the facts are that she used her Iridium phone from the Indian Ocean on June 10th to speak with her parents to relay the good news she had successfully repaired her engine. Shortly thereafter a massive wave flooded her boat, disabled her engine and damaged her phone in the process. Huffington Post’s readers can read Abby’s account and Abby mentions Iridium on her own website . Iridium has more than 375,000 subscribers, many of whom depend on Iridium for reliable mission-critical communications day-in and day-out. They include first responders rushing to the aid of earthquake and hurricane victims, firefighters struggling against wildfires, ships on the high seas, aircraft flying across wide open spaces, medical evacuation helicopters transferring patients to a hospital, oil and gas workers in the far northern regions of Alaska and — yes — soldiers on combat duty in Afghanistan and other places around the world. Iridium is proud to provide reliable communications services globally to all of these diverse users of our system.

Read the full article →

Steve Parker: Road test – 2010 Mazda MX-5 Miata

May 23, 2010

Believe it or not, there is still a fairly low-priced two-seater with an open top, engine in front and rear wheel drive, a near perfect 50/50 weight distribution and a stick shift transmission. Mazda’s MX-5 Miata is the best-selling sports car in history and more people race their little darlings at autocross and other amateur and professional events than any other car. And everyone loves a two-seater. It’s the best way to avoid driving the relatives around when they visit and you never have to help your friends when they move. Miata was designed by a team in the company’s Irvine, CA offices. Tom Matano, Mark Jordan, Bob Hall, Wu Huang Chin and Koichi Hayashi were in-charge down the 405, engineering and styling the entire car before it went to Hiroshima, Japan for final tune-ups. Matano, in fact, helped start the Miata Club of America and turned it by far into the biggest enthusiast group for a single model in the country, perhaps the world. The 2010 Miata we tested is the 21st birthday edition of the car, now only in its third generation. Why stick with the same basic model for so many years? Because from Car #1, there was little to fix or change (other than having to drop the engine to change the oil filter…but that’s been fixed). Out of the chute, the car looked and ran great, didn’t leak from its convertible top (almost a wonder in 1989), is now available with a power folding hardtop (which may make it the perfect sports car) and base prices between $23,000 and $29K. We can report that Miata remains true to the goals of the Mazda’s original designers: build a fun, responsive roadster in the tradition of cars including MG, Triumph, but build it so it won’t break. MX-5 is fun, smart, low to the ground, modestly powered, nicely priced and handles like its on rails. It’s the closest thing to a go-kart for the street. Or a skateboard. Still, Miata is sometimes derisively called a “secretary’s car,” which refers to the car’s somewhat anemic 2.0 liter 16-valve DOHC 167-horsepower four-cylinder powerplant (the auto tranny puts 150 horses to the ground; 140 pound feet of torque makes for a satisfying launch at the Stop Light Grand Prix). Truth be told, the heaviest Miata sold, with an automatic transmission, weighs-in at a feathery 2542 pounds with a 52% front/48% rear weight distribution. This makes the 167 horse engine feel a lot more powerful than it really is and helps tremendously in handling, steering and stopping (when using engine torque to slow with the stick). One major reason the engine never got too powerful (originally it was a mere 1.6L) was for insurance reasons. The car is aimed primarily at under-40 types, and insurance for those folks is expensive enough. Add a high-powered car to that equation and insurance might be impossible to get or pay for. So keeping it modestly-powered keeps ownership costs lower. Some aftermarket companies make bolt-on turbocharger kits for Miata owners and one outfit even put a Ford V8 in that front bay which made for a frankly dangerous ride. Even a front engine/rear driver has its limits. In 1989, when Miata first came to America, I drove literally one of the first ones off the boat from the company’s docks in Oxnard. My photographer, David Gooley, and I drove the car back to LA on PCH and got some beautiful, iconic shots of this early Miata framed by a Pacific Ocean sunset. Of course in those days we used something called film, not digital numbers, to take pictures. Fewer than 5% of cars and trucks sold in America are ordered with a standard transmission; automatic and CVTs have taken that market over completely. But there are still a lot of drivers who crave the control, the sounds, the visceral feel of a stick shift, the active involvement in their driving. If so, Miata might be your next car; especially if that new Cayman or used Miura are out of your league (they are out of mine!). And finally, Miata is cute. “Cute” is a big deal in Japan, where they have something like 20 different words and get very specific as to cuteness, like the Eskimos have scores of different words to describe snow. Miata remains true to its original intent. Some photos courtesy AutoGuide

Read the full article →

Steve Parker: Road Test – 2010 Buick LaCrosse

April 1, 2010

Let’s kick-off our road test series with the 2010 Buick LaCrosse, an all-new car which is one of the prime examples of how far American-made car quality and attention to detail has come. And I see nothing wrong with sometimes rooting for the home team, especially when it’s well-deserved. Buick has had growing sales (comparing month-by-month to the past year) for six straight months and in March sales were up an impressive 76%. And collaboration between designers in the United States and China, in partnership with the GM’s Pan Asia Technical Automotive Center (PATAC) as well as chassis and body engineers in Europe, has resulted in the first General Motors vehicle to be created on three continents. Buick’s 2010 LaCrosse is a perfect competitor for the Lexus ES 350 and Chrysler 300 (which is pretty long in the tooth), thanks to its looks, a choice of three direct-injected engines, optional Haldex all-wheel drive (on CXL) and a healthy mix of standard and optional interior gadgets, including in-dash nav, rear entertainment system and a rearview camera. Another thing LaCrosse has over the Lexus is its styling. Buick says the car’s styling, a continuation of what started with their Enclave cross-over, is “seductive and uninterrupted”. That may be so to some eyes, but I find LaCrosse’s appearance to be aggressive and powerful, not quite intimidating but certainly muscular for a pretty big four-door sedan. The Chrysler 300? We’ve seen it for a long while now; nothing really new. And Lexus makes a point of not changing styling on an annual basis; they know their buyers don’t like a lot of change in existing models. Two design cues harkening back to Buick back in the day is the large grille with vertical louvers. In years past people would say about Buick’s signature big grille that, “I don’t know whether to drive it or shave with it.” The distinctive Buick portholes are back, too Now they’re found next to the engine compartment on the inside top of the fenders. You have three engine choices: for the first time in a decade, Buick offers a four-cylinder engine standard on the CX. It’s a direct injected Ecotec 2.4L which pumps out 182 horsepower. The CX has a new 3.0L V-6 powerplant which make 255 horsepower. The high-zoot CXL comes with a 3.6L V-6 liter providing 280 horses. All engines are direct injection, which increases power and mileage and can decrease pollutants. Six speed automatics come on all three cars and they have a center console stick with a now-taken-for-granted tap-to-change-gear feature found on so many cars and trucks (no paddle shifters, though). For 2010, only the 3L CXL model will have AWD available; in 2011, the CXS standard with the 3.6 V-6 will have the option. That’ll do away with any nasty understeer (more later). Buick will stop offering the 3L V-6 in North American LaCrosses at the end of the 2010 model year, leaving just the four-cylinder and the 3.6 liter V-6. The reason for killing the 3L engine is that the 2011 model will now be able to offer all-wheel drive paired with the direct-injection 3.6-liter LaCrosse 2011 models start production on June 14th of this year and will be available about six to eight weeks after that. If it were me and I had the kick I’d wait a few months for the CXS AWD. Inside, it’s Buick-level plush and quiet, and that says a lot. It has one of the best dashboards, switchgear, gauges and driver positioning in the industry. It’s all very easy to use and quite instinctive. Most people will feel right at home in the driver’s seat in just a few minutes. Precise detail and fit and finish inside (and out) shows GM is paying attention to details which the old GM would have let slide. “Ship it and let the dealer fix it” was the long-time GM mantra and thankfully those days are gone. Driving LaCrosse on either the 17″ (CX), 18″ or optional 19″ wheels is mostly a pleasure and can be fun. Front-drive cars sometimes have a lot of torque steer, also called understeer, what NASCAR drivers call “push”. You’ve experienced it, too, every time you adjust the steering wheel at moderate or higher speeds and it seems the front wheels simply won’t turn. Engineers worldwide have done a good job of reducing this phenomenon (especially Honda) and LaCrosse, while it has its share of understeer, is fairly predictable and controllable. If you want no understeer, order the AWD option. The HiPer Strut front suspension, standard on the CXL, is a modified MacPherson strut system which allows the car to launch without too much understeer. The HiPer Strut suspension will come standard on all 2010 CSX models produced after May with no price increase. The car, despite its luxury look, feels taut and surprisingly sporty. Fuel mileage, GM says, ranges between 17 and 26 mpg depending on the engine ordered, though I found my mileage quite a bit lower. Around town mileage was between 12 and 15 mpg, and on the open highway was in the 21 to 23 mpg category, but not 26. The 2.4-L is EPA-rated 30 mpg on the highway and 19 mpg in the city. Still all fairly impressive for a 3,929 pound automobile (yep, just a tad short of two tons). Base price for the 4-cylinder is $26,995, for the V-6 CX $27,835, $30,395 for CXL and $33,765 for the top-line CSX with the big 3.6L V-6. Our tester, a CSX with a sunroof, Xenon headlamps, heads-up info display and optional paint, Red Jewel Tintcoat, came in at $36,130. LaCrosse is built at GM’s Fairfax Assembly facility in Kansas City, KS. Buick was always known as the “doctor’s car” because, in the days of yore and house calls, no doctor wanted to pull up to your home in a Cadillac; a Buick was perceived as more conservative, less expensive and more sensible than its big bro Caddy. But they’d take the Cadillac to the country club on Wednesdays (the traditional doctor day off in the old days). LaCrosse signals Buick sedans are headed into a much higher realm. If this is your kind of car, there’s little to complain about, including not much rear seat legroom, the aforementioned torque steer, not the greatest sound system and some other problems. But there’s plenty to enjoy, too, and that’s right for a car which tops out at nearly $40,000. Buick may find itself gone at some point, melded into Cadillac (in the 1920s and ’30s, Caddy offered a less expensive model called La Salle). I’ve said that GM should consist of Chevrolet, Cadillac and nothing more. LaCrosse is a car which could make the quality argument for consumers and the money argument for GM to keep the division right where it is. And as I said, nothing wrong with rooting for the home team. On my scale of one to five, four tires and a spare, LaCrosse rates a 3+ to 4.

Read the full article →

Steve Parker: Road Test – 2010 Buick LaCrosse

April 1, 2010

Let’s kick-off our road test series with the 2010 Buick LaCrosse, an all-new car which is one of the prime examples of how far American-made car quality and attention to detail has come. And I see nothing wrong with sometimes rooting for the home team, especially when it’s well-deserved. Buick has had growing sales (comparing month-by-month to the past year) for six straight months and in March sales were up an impressive 76%. And collaboration between designers in the United States and China, in partnership with the GM’s Pan Asia Technical Automotive Center (PATAC) as well as chassis and body engineers in Europe, has resulted in the first General Motors vehicle to be created on three continents. Buick’s 2010 LaCrosse is a perfect competitor for the Lexus ES 350 and Chrysler 300 (which is pretty long in the tooth), thanks to its looks, a choice of three direct-injected engines, optional Haldex all-wheel drive (on CXL) and a healthy mix of standard and optional interior gadgets, including in-dash nav, rear entertainment system and a rearview camera. Another thing LaCrosse has over the Lexus is its styling. Buick says the car’s styling, a continuation of what started with their Enclave cross-over, is “seductive and uninterrupted”. That may be so to some eyes, but I find LaCrosse’s appearance to be aggressive and powerful, not quite intimidating but certainly muscular for a pretty big four-door sedan. The Chrysler 300? We’ve seen it for a long while now; nothing really new. And Lexus makes a point of not changing styling on an annual basis; they know their buyers don’t like a lot of change in existing models. Two design cues harkening back to Buick back in the day is the large grille with vertical louvers. In years past people would say about Buick’s signature big grille that, “I don’t know whether to drive it or shave with it.” The distinctive Buick portholes are back, too Now they’re found next to the engine compartment on the inside top of the fenders. You have three engine choices: for the first time in a decade, Buick offers a four-cylinder engine standard on the CX. It’s a direct injected Ecotec 2.4L which pumps out 182 horsepower. The CX has a new 3.0L V-6 powerplant which make 255 horsepower. The high-zoot CXL comes with a 3.6L V-6 liter providing 280 horses. All engines are direct injection, which increases power and mileage and can decrease pollutants. Six speed automatics come on all three cars and they have a center console stick with a now-taken-for-granted tap-to-change-gear feature found on so many cars and trucks (no paddle shifters, though). For 2010, only the 3L CXL model will have AWD available; in 2011, the CXS standard with the 3.6 V-6 will have the option. That’ll do away with any nasty understeer (more later). Buick will stop offering the 3L V-6 in North American LaCrosses at the end of the 2010 model year, leaving just the four-cylinder and the 3.6 liter V-6. The reason for killing the 3L engine is that the 2011 model will now be able to offer all-wheel drive paired with the direct-injection 3.6-liter LaCrosse 2011 models start production on June 14th of this year and will be available about six to eight weeks after that. If it were me and I had the kick I’d wait a few months for the CXS AWD. Inside, it’s Buick-level plush and quiet, and that says a lot. It has one of the best dashboards, switchgear, gauges and driver positioning in the industry. It’s all very easy to use and quite instinctive. Most people will feel right at home in the driver’s seat in just a few minutes. Precise detail and fit and finish inside (and out) shows GM is paying attention to details which the old GM would have let slide. “Ship it and let the dealer fix it” was the long-time GM mantra and thankfully those days are gone. Driving LaCrosse on either the 17″ (CX), 18″ or optional 19″ wheels is mostly a pleasure and can be fun. Front-drive cars sometimes have a lot of torque steer, also called understeer, what NASCAR drivers call “push”. You’ve experienced it, too, every time you adjust the steering wheel at moderate or higher speeds and it seems the front wheels simply won’t turn. Engineers worldwide have done a good job of reducing this phenomenon (especially Honda) and LaCrosse, while it has its share of understeer, is fairly predictable and controllable. If you want no understeer, order the AWD option. The HiPer Strut front suspension, standard on the CXL, is a modified MacPherson strut system which allows the car to launch without too much understeer. The HiPer Strut suspension will come standard on all 2010 CSX models produced after May with no price increase. The car, despite its luxury look, feels taut and surprisingly sporty. Fuel mileage, GM says, ranges between 17 and 26 mpg depending on the engine ordered, though I found my mileage quite a bit lower. Around town mileage was between 12 and 15 mpg, and on the open highway was in the 21 to 23 mpg category, but not 26. The 2.4-L is EPA-rated 30 mpg on the highway and 19 mpg in the city. Still all fairly impressive for a 3,929 pound automobile (yep, just a tad short of two tons). Base price for the 4-cylinder is $26,995, for the V-6 CX $27,835, $30,395 for CXL and $33,765 for the top-line CSX with the big 3.6L V-6. Our tester, a CSX with a sunroof, Xenon headlamps, heads-up info display and optional paint, Red Jewel Tintcoat, came in at $36,130. LaCrosse is built at GM’s Fairfax Assembly facility in Kansas City, KS. Buick was always known as the “doctor’s car” because, in the days of yore and house calls, no doctor wanted to pull up to your home in a Cadillac; a Buick was perceived as more conservative, less expensive and more sensible than its big bro Caddy. But they’d take the Cadillac to the country club on Wednesdays (the traditional doctor day off in the old days). LaCrosse signals Buick sedans are headed into a much higher realm. If this is your kind of car, there’s little to complain about, including not much rear seat legroom, the aforementioned torque steer, not the greatest sound system and some other problems. But there’s plenty to enjoy, too, and that’s right for a car which tops out at nearly $40,000. Buick may find itself gone at some point, melded into Cadillac (in the 1920s and ’30s, Caddy offered a less expensive model called La Salle). I’ve said that GM should consist of Chevrolet, Cadillac and nothing more. LaCrosse is a car which could make the quality argument for consumers and the money argument for GM to keep the division right where it is. And as I said, nothing wrong with rooting for the home team. On my scale of one to five, four tires and a spare, LaCrosse rates a 3+ to 4.

Read the full article →

Predictive Marketing Leader [x+1] Names Marketing Analytics Expert Kenneth Rona as Its Vice President of Data Strategy and Analytics

October 8, 2009

Former Senior Vice President at IXI Digital Media Will Head Up [x+1]‘s Data Partnerships and Strategy and Guide Development Direction for Its Predictive Optimization Engine(TM) (POE)

Read the full article →

Relevant Searches Attracts Veteran Sales Executive From Efficient Frontier to Drive Growth

September 23, 2009

LAS VEGAS, NV–(Marketwire – September 23, 2009) – SHOP.ORG 2009 ANNUAL SUMMIT — Relevant Searches , a Search Engine Marketing firm pioneering Search Engine Optimization 2.0, today announced the appointment of Geoffrey Price as Senior Vice President of Worldwide Sales. With more than 11 years experience in executive leadership and sales roles, Price is ideally suited to lead Relevant Searches’ revenue expansion and serve as a strategic executive of the company.

Read the full article →

China to Select More Engine Suppliers for Jumbo Jets

September 16, 2009

China to Select More Engine Suppliers for Jumbo Jets

Read the full article →

Michael Russnow: My GE Dishwasher Tragedy, Manufacturer Parts, Car Repairs and Doctor Visits: Let’s Be Mad as Hell and Not Take it Anymore!

August 23, 2009

I had some experiences recently I thought I’d share that may have happened to you. Experiences that cost time and money and seem designed to screw us, while perpetuating a steady flow of income for other parties. In the first case, before you remind me, I will readily admit I caused the problem. My objection is with the available solution that now confronts me. I bought a General Electric Portable dishwasher a number of years ago. It has worked fine, and I have no complaint with its operation. The problem is its design. In order to connect it to my sink, I have to fasten a unicouple — a device that delivers water to and from the dishwasher — to the faucet and over time it has become worn, making it a bit more difficult to disengage. After the last usage when I tried to take it off, the entire faucet adapter (which connects it with the faucet) came along with it. Try as I might to detach the unicouple, I couldn’t get it to budge. I finally tapped it against the sink and, in the process, the unicouple broke. Okay, it was my fault. However, instead of being able to replace a cheap plastic part that might have set me back a few bucks, I am stymied by the fact that the unicouple, designed by mega-corp GE, is attached to two hoses that extend well inside the machine. Now it’s a humongous job. The part alone costs over a hundred dollars, not to mention a repairman who would charge anywhere from $75-100 an hour. A new machine costs about $450, so it’d be dumb to pay so much just to get my dishwasher repaired. However, the simple question is why wasn’t the machine designed so that the unicouple might click in and out of the hoses or attach with common screws, enabling a simple and inexpensive replacement instead of combining all elements of the operation into one device? Not to mention the fact that the hoses go all the way inside the machine, requiring me to open the dishwasher up and figure out how to disconnect and reassemble the part. It’s absurd that a simple appendage made of cheap plastic and thus easily breakable under many circumstances cannot be replaced without undergoing the options I’ve described. And yet without the unicouple, the machine, even with its primary operating functions working perfectly, is now kaput! And consumer headaches don’t stop there. Have you looked under your car hood lately? In order to repair something otherwise very cheap, a mechanic often has to disassemble many of the parts to get to where your $5.95 hose or fuse might be. The other day a dashboard light came on in my Toyota Corolla — one I’d never seen. I looked in my manual and discovered it was the “Check Engine Light.” I went to my local PepBoys, and they said the “Check Engine Light could be a myriad of causes and they’d have to hook my car to an analysis machine, costing $90, which was in addition to any work they might have to do. Fortunately, I’d secured a coupon from their website for, among other things, checking the engine light. They happily agreed to do so and later informed me it was smog device related, referring me to a Toyota dealer. As I was headed for an important appointment, I got their assurance that my engine was not in jeopardy and the car wouldn’t break down. However, out of curiosity I called the Toyota dealership and gave them the engine analysis code number PO 404, and was told the repair could cost over $400. I consulted The Internet about this PO 404 code — thank God for Internet “Ask” sites — and was advised the light might simply be due to a loose gas cap (which I tightened) or possibly some water in the gas. Such circumstances might correct themselves after a few days of driving. Sure enough in a couple of days the engine light went off. But why is this “Check Engine Light” such a catchall of scary possibilities? There are separate light indicators for oil and battery and overheating problems. Since newer cars have computer systems, couldn’t they have a number system that would identify the problem, e.g. a “32″ appears on the dash, and your manual lists the problem or at least localizes the area of the dilemma? Manufacturing CEOs do very little to reduce the need for maintenance work and perhaps there should be legislative enforcement requiring them to do so. We have laws about emission controls and gas mileage. Why not for manufacturing devices mandating modular parts that are easier to get to and for systems that would more easily identify the problem and not subject us to “analysis” costs? And while I’m at it, there should be a recoupment procedure available when doctors make us wait an unreasonable amount of time. It’s quite common to be made to wait more than an hour — sometimes two and three — and when you complain to the receptionist you are treated in a “how dare you” manner, as if it’s unconscionable to gripe about a doctor. Not to mention the fact that many people are intimidated from doing so, perhaps after years of being told that that profession was the gold standard when nailing a husband. A friend of mine, who has severe glaucoma, waited two and a half hours, having already inquired about the tardiness of the doctor after the first hour. Only after almost three hours of waiting was she told there were emergencies that had come through the door. My question, of course, is why weren’t the waiting patients notified so that they could determine whether they wanted to reschedule? Indeed, my friend decided not to wait further and she told me the receptionist looked at her like she was crazy for not hanging out longer. Why can’t we bill a doctor for our time when we are kept waiting — let’s say — more than half an hour? What’s our time worth? After all, they have the cheek to bill us if we cancel our appointment within a short time frame or don’t show up at all. It’s time to rise up and not take crap, like Peter Finch’s character Howard Beale advised us in Paddy Chayefsky’s classic film Network . Isn’t it time for Anderson Cooper to do a Keeping Them Honest report on CNN? How about 60 Minutes on CBS, Dateline on NBC or 20/20 on ABC? Maybe Oprah could do a show. Meanwhile, as I live alone and mostly cook for myself when I’m home, I’ll just deal with washing my dishes the old fashioned way. As I said at the outset, this particular problem was my own fault. Pity the solution isn’t less costly and complicated. Michael Russnow’s website is www.ramproductionsinternational.com

Read the full article →

Steve Parker: Exclusive – Right wing "Big Lie" about clunker law exposed!

August 8, 2009

One of the major arguments against the clunker law comes from car collectors, restorers and enthusiasts who claim that the law takes potentially millions of perfectly good replacement parts off the road, and off of cars and trucks, forever. Turns out, just as the claims that President Obama was born in Kenya and national health care boards will decide whether the old and sick can live or die, this isn’t true. With much of the more vocal opposition to the clunker law coming from southern Republican members of Congress with import car plants in their states and pro-business/anti-union Chamber of Commerce-type groups, whoever would imagine lies would be told about yet another Obama Administration initiative? While interviewing Bailey Wood of the National Automobile Dealers Association for my TalkRadioOne.com radio show, The Car Nut (get the podcast anytime at www.TalkRadioOne.com) he casually mentioned, as if this were something everyone knew, that many parts of the clunkers ostensibly headed for the crusher could be parted-out and sold, including most all of the vehicle except for the engine block and drivetrain. He also said that Texas has its own state-sponsored clunker laws in major metro areas, while both Texas senators voted against the federal law, but that’s yet another story … So let’s go to the 136-page law itself, “DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 49 CFR Parts 512 and 599, [ Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0120 ], RIN 2127-AK53, Requirements and Procedures for Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Program,” to see what the rule really says (it’s available as a .pdf file at www.cars.gov; click on the “Official Information” tab at the top of the page then “Download the Law”). Here are some excerpts: “The CARS Act specifies that while many parts of the trade-in vehicle are permitted to be removed and sold, in the end the residual vehicle, including the engine block, must be crushed or shredded.” “The dealer must agree to transfer the trade-in vehicle to a disposal facility that will crush or shred it so that it will never be returned to the road, although parts of the vehicle, other than the engine block and drive train (unless the drive train is sold in separate parts), may be sold.” “The CARS Act contains an explicit Congressional instruction to take measures to prevent fraud and the statute’s clear environmental objective is to ensure that the fuel inefficient parts of the vehicle are never again used on the highway. Taking the above considerations into account, including the Secretary’s authority to prescribe the manner in which the trade-in vehicle, including its engine block, is transferred to a disposal facility, the agency has determined that the prudent course of action, consistent with Congressional concerns about crushing or shredding, resale and fraud, is to require permanent disablement of the trade-in vehicle’s engine block as a part of the qualifying transaction under this program.” “We interpret ‘engine block’ to mean the part of the engine containing the cylinders and typically incorporating water cooling jackets and also including the crank, rods, pistons, bearings, cam(s) and cylinder heads. In the case of a rotary engine, the block includes the rotor housing and rotor.” “Drivetrain” is defined in the law as including “transmission, drive shaft(s) and rear end.” “During the six-month period prior to the required crushing or shredding of the trade-in vehicle, the disposal facility may sell any parts of the vehicle other than the engine block or drive train (unless the drive train is dismantled and sold in parts).” As for “disabling” the engine: “The agency has determined that a quick, inexpensive, and environmentally safe process exists to disable the engine of the trade-in vehicle while in the dealer’s possession. Removing the engine oil from the crankcase, replacing it with a 40 percent solution of sodium silicate (a substance used in similar concentrations in many common vehicle applications, including patching mufflers and radiators), and running the engine for a short period of time at low speeds renders the engine inoperable. Generally, this will require just two quarts of the sodium silicate solution. The retail price for two quarts of this solution (enough to disable the largest engine under the program) is under $7, and the time involved should not substantially exceed that of a typical oil change. The agency has tested this method at its Vehicle Research and Test Center and found it safe, quick, and effective.” Essentially, the law says the entire vehicle other than the engine block and drivetrain can be parted-out and sold to junkyards, collectors, restorers, etc. This puts the lie to yet another fear tactic being popularized by the fringe and mainstream media to attack an Obama White House program.

Read the full article →