02 Ford Ranger Long Bed Residue No Reserve - Will Sell To Highest Bidder on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Are we about to see a real SUV revival?

Now that the marketplace has been oversaturated with cute-utes, crossovers, and CUV coupes, are we about to see a resurgence of real, honest-to-God SUVs? Ummm... maybe. The stars seem to be aligning in that direction, at least that's the sense I'm getting. We know an all-new Jeep Wrangler is only a few auto shows away; and that Jeep is about to introduce a new Grand Cherokee Trailhawk for 2017, in the same rugged spirit of the successful Cherokee and Renegade Trailhawks. Ford has hinted at a neo-Bronco, after showing the concept above in 2014 to wet the mouths of all those Duck Dynasty-types out there. And, and... wait for it... I recently learned that Subaru sent a questionnaire out to some Forester owners asking if they might be interested in an off-road package if it were offered. The items listed were pretty hardcore, serious stuff, such as: integrated tow/recovery hooks, additional ground clearance, more rugged wheels, skid plates, altimeter, front-view off-road camera, improved approach and departure angles, advanced differentials, Inclinometer, full-size spare tire, upgraded off-road suspension components, more aggressive tires, off-road driving mode (engine, transmission, throttle, and steering settings), more rugged styling, low-range gearing, and a more advanced traction management system. Folks that's not my wish list (well, actually it is), but those are words from Subaru, asking if that's what customers would like to see. Need proof? Go to the SubaruForester.org website. It's in a discussion there. So... no promises or guarantees here, and feel free to call me a rumormonger if you like; but the next few years could prove very interesting for those who actually do go off road. If this pans out, remember, you read it here first. Related Video: Image Credit: Ford Ford Jeep Subaru Crossover SUV Off-Road Vehicles open road

Detroit and Silicon Valley: When cultures collide

Culture is a subject that rarely, if never, gets discussed when traditional auto companies buy — or hugely invest — in Silicon Valley-based companies. The conversation surrounding the investments is usually about how the tech looks appealing and how it's an appropriate step to move the automakers toward autonomy. Culture — the way things are done, the expectations, and the approaches — is something that is overlooked only at one's peril. The potential cultural gap is almost always evident in the obligatory photos of the participants in these deals, with is essentially a photo op of auto execs with their Silicon Valley counterparts. The former — rocking jeans and no ties — look like parochial school kids playing hooky. Don't worry: The regimental outfits will be back in place once they get back in the Eastern time zone. Consider what happened back in 1998 when Daimler bought Chrysler. First of all, there was a denial in Detroit that it happened. It was positioned as a "merger of equals." Which it wasn't. In any corporate situation, when one has more than 50 percent of the business, it owns the whole thing. And the German company was in the proverbial driver's seat. People who were around Auburn Hills back then kept their heads down and their German Made Simple books at hand. Things did not go well. Daimler had had enough by 2007, when it offloaded Chrysler to Cerberus Capital Management — which brought ex-Home Depot CEO Bob Nardelli into the picture, which is a story onto itself. But when you think about the Daimler-Chrysler situation, realize that these were two car companies (at least the Mercedes part of the Daimler organization), so they had that in common, and the language of engineers is something of an Esperanto based on math, so there was that, too. Yet it simply didn't work. It doesn't take too many viewings of HBO's Silicon Valley to know that the business people in that part of the world are far more aggressive than people who ordinarily head and control car companies in Detroit. About 20 years ago, a book came out about the founder of Oracle titled The Difference Between God and Larry Ellison* - and the asterisk on the book jacket leads to: God Doesn't Think He's Larry Ellison. It would be hard to imagine a book about a Detroit executive, even a book that had the decided bias that the tome about Ellison evinces, that would be quite so searing. Sure, there are egos. But they are still perceived to be, overall, "nice" people.

American automakers fall in latest Fortune 500 rankings

Not that it means anything beyond bragging rights, but if you're fixated on the positions of domestic automakers on the annual Fortune 500 list, both General Motors and Ford are still on it but they've slipped a couple of notches. The list ranks American companies and they're ordered solely by revenue. GM, fifth last year, came in seventh, while Ford fell from ninth to tenth even though both companies saw small gains in annual revenue.
GM's $152.3 billion in revenue was less than a third of that of the first company on the list: Wal-Mart, which regained the title from Exxon Mobil. Berkshire Hathaway and Apple are the firms that moved GM down. Ford, displaced by energy company Valero, had $134.3 billion in revenue.
On a side note, profitability isn't a factor, but both GM and Ford were down in this year's list compared to last year's: GM declined from $9.2 billion to $6.2 billion, Ford fell from $20.2 billion to $5.6 billion. If profits were included, Exxon Mobil would probably still be king: although the energy company made almost $20 billion less in revenue than Wal-Mart's $469.2 billion, it posted $44.9 billion in profit compared to Wal-Mart's $17 billion.