1986 Mustang Gt Convertible on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ford Transit Skyliner Concept does discreet luxury in NYC

There's something to be said for luxed-out vans. They're cool, and as a means of getting chauffeured about, they're extremely comfortable and far more low key than your typical executive luxury sedan. For the 2014 New York Auto Show, Galpin Auto Sports has shown the potential of the new-for-the-US Ford Transit as an ultra-luxurious people hauler.
The Transit Skyliner Concept, which we previewed last week, sports four finely crafted captain's buckets that can be moved into different formations based on need. Want to watch a movie? The seats can be swung around to face a 52-inch screen. Riding along with some business associates? A table can be popped up. There's even a configuration for tailgating.
The materials are, unsurprisingly, pretty plush. The leather seats and wood floors (yes, wood floors in a van) look great, while the trunk and its customized luggage are a nice touch, as well.

Buy Ford and GM stock and make 5%

Want to make a five-percent return when 10-year treasuries are paying around two percent? Ford (F) and General Motors (GM) have solid balance sheets, strong cash flow, solid earnings, and growing markets. By all accounts, they are smart investments. But the market is down on these stocks. Why? Some of the stupid excuses include: They are cyclical companies The Detroit 3 have lost 3.5 million in sales since 2000 The world economy is shaky GM recently filed for bankruptcy Their markets have peaked They haven't changed their ways Let's take these criticisms one by one: They Are Cyclical Companies Yes, they are cyclical. Every company is cyclical. Every industry is cyclical. Some more than others, but not every company is immune from swings in the market. Banks used to be 'non-cyclical' leader, not anymore. Airline stocks are just as cyclical as auto stocks, yet they are trading at multiples greater than the auto industry. Why? And what accounts for the irrational stock price for Tesla (TSLA)? At least Ford (F) and General Motors (GM) make money and have positive cash flows. In fact, both companies have a net positive cash position. They have more cash on hand than liabilities. Auto sales in the United States hit a record 17.5 million vehicles in 2015. During the Great Recession, Ford (F) and General Motors (GM) cut their break even points to 10 million vehicles per year. Anything above an annual U.S. volume of 10 million vehicles is profit. And what a profit they make. Sales of Ford's F-150 continues to be the best-selling vehicle in the United States for over 30 years. Detroit 3 Have Lost 3.5 million in Sales Since 2000 Automotive News reports General Motors (GM), Ford (F) and Chrysler (FCA) have lost a combined 3.5 million vehicles sales since 2000. So how can they be making more money? Two big reasons – Fleet Sales and the UAW. Fleet Sales The Detroit 3 used to own car rental companies to keep their factories running. Ford owned Hertz (HTZ), General Motors owned all of National Car Rental and 29 percent of Avis, and Chrysler, the forerunner to Fiat Chrysler (FCA), used to own Thrifty Car Rental and Dollar Rent-A-Car. The Detroit 3 owned these rental companies to have a place to sell their bad product and keep their factories running. These were low margin sales, and in many cases, were money losers for the Detroit 3. They no longer own auto rental companies.

For EV drivers, realities may dampen the electric elation

The Atlantic, a decades-old monthly journal well-regarded for its intelligent essays on international news, American politics and cultural happenings, recently turned its attention to the car world. A piece that ran in The Atlantic in October examined the excesses of the GMC Hummer EV for compromising safety. And now in its latest edition, the magazine ran a compelling story about the challenges of driving an electric vehicle and how those experiences “mythologize the car as the great equalizer.” Titled “The Inconvenient Truth About Electric Vehicles,” the story addresses the economics of EVs, the stresses related to range anxiety, the social effects of owning an electric car — as in, affording one — and the overarching need for places to recharge that car. Basically, author Andrew Moseman says that EV life isn't so rosy: “On the eve of the long-promised electric-vehicle revolution, the myth is due for an update. Americans who take the plunge and buy their first EV will find a lot to love Â… they may also find that electric-vehicle ownership upends notions about driving, cost, and freedom, including how much car your money can buy. "No one spends an extra $5,000 to get a bigger gas tank in a Honda Civic, but with an EV, economic status is suddenly more connected to how much of the world you get to see — and how stressed out or annoyed youÂ’ll feel along the way.” Moseman charts how a basic Ford F-150 Lightning electric truck might start at $55,000, but an extended-range battery, which stretches the distance on a charge from 230 miles to 320, “raises the cost to at least $80,000. The trend holds true with all-electric brands such as Tesla, Rivian, and Lucid, and for many electric offerings from legacy automakers. The bigger battery option can add a four- or five-figure bump to an already accelerating sticker price.” As for the charging issue, the author details his anxiety driving a Telsa in Death Valley, with no charging stations in sight. “For those who never leave the comfort of the city, these concerns sound negligible," he says. "But so many of us want our cars to do everything, go everywhere, ferry us to the boundless life we imagine (or the one weÂ’re promised in car commercials),” he writes. His conclusions may raise some hackles among those of us who value automotive independence — not to mention fun — over practicalities.