1955 Ford Thunderbird Base Convertible 2-door 4.4l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Coronavirus shakes up America's truck market: GM outselling Ford and Ram

FCA, Ford and General Motors joined the rest of the U.S. auto industry in taking heavy volume hits due to coronavirus-related shortages of both cars and customers. The saying goes that a rising tide lifts all boats; it stands to reason, then, that a falling one would have the opposite effect.  However, as we learned Thursday, the automotive market can behave in unpredictable ways. While the F-Series remained the best-selling nameplate in Q1, GM's full-size trucks are now outselling Ford's again for the first time in years, and with this upward thrust from the General, FCA's Ram was unceremoniously booted out of a hard-earned second place.  While late-March sales declines hit just about every major automaker in one way or another, the model-by-model results weren't nearly so uniform. And because the market tends to be a zero-sum game, for every winner, there generally has to be a loser.  In this case, that winner was GM, and its rise had to come at the expense of another automaker, in this case, Ford. F-Series sales dropped 13.1 percent in the first quarter of 2020, while sales of GM's full-sized Silverado and Sierra surged nearly 28% in the same period. FCA's Ram lineup managed a steady-as-she-goes 7% increase. All-in, GM finished the quarter with 197,743 full-size trucks sold to Ford's 186,562. Here's the full breakdown: Ford F-Series: 186,562  Chevrolet Silverado*: 144,734 Ram P/U: 128,805 GMC Sierra: 53,009 *includes 1,036 Medium Duty sales Things are a but murkier in the midsize segment, where the Chevy Colorado slipped 36% to just 21,430 units sold — just a few hundred better than the slow-selling Ford Ranger's Q1 numbers. The GMC Canyon experienced an almost identical slide, finishing the quarter with just 4,483 units sold. For perspective, Jeep sold more than 15,000 Gladiators and Toyota's midsize Tacoma slipped less than 8%, finishing the quarter with nearly 54,000 sales.  We suspect this discrepancy in full- and mid-size truck sales comes from shifting incentives. Ford, GM and FCA would like to keep selling bigger trucks because there's far more profit margin built into their list prices. Even with tens of thousands of dollars in manufacturer money on the hood, big trucks still make money.  Since these automakers report quarterly, we won't get another good look at these numbers until July, but if you thought that 2019 represented the new normal for U.S. auto sales, well, think again.

Which car companies are creating new jobs in America?

Since January, automakers have announced investments totaling $9.5 billion in U.S. plants, creating or retaining more than 12,000 jobs. Some of those companies have yet to announce just how many jobs will be created given their investments, with the location of many of those jobs still to be determined. Specifically, the 4,000-job Toyota-Mazda joint venture plant still hasn't announced its location, with numerous states jockeying for it. Hyundai has plans to invest $1 billion but has not announced a jobs number yet. And likewise Ford is investing $1.2 billion in Michigan without specifying a number of jobs. Volvo this week announced plans to add a second line to its factory under construction in South Carolina, spending another $500 million and adding 2,500 jobs to the 2,000 it was already trying to fill. Then Thursday, Daimler announced a $1 billion expansion to its facility in Tuscaloosa, Ala., to produce EV batteries and electric SUVs, a move that will add 600 jobs to its hiring this year. Above, we've created a handy pie chart showing you which companies have announced new jobs and how many there will be. Reporting by Paul Lienert in Detroit News Source: Reuters Plants/Manufacturing BMW Chrysler Ford GM Honda Hyundai Mazda Mercedes-Benz Toyota Volvo jobs

Defying Trump, major automakers finalize California emissions deal

WASHINGTON — The California Air Resources Board (CARB) and major automakers on Monday confirmed they had finalized binding agreements to cut vehicle emissions in the state, defying the Trump administration's push for weaker curbs on tailpipe pollution. The agreements with carmakers Ford Motor Co, Volkswagen AG, Honda Motor Co and BMW AG were first announced in July 2019 as voluntary measures prompting anger from U.S. President Donald Trump. A month later, the Justice Department opened an antitrust probe into the agreements. The government ended the investigation without action. The Trump administration in March finalized a rollback of U.S. vehicle emissions standards to require 1.5% annual increases in efficiency through 2026. That is far weaker than the 5% annual increases in the discarded rules adopted under President Barack Obama. The 50-page California agreements, which extend through 2026, are less onerous than the standards finalized by the Obama administration but tougher than the Trump administration standards. The automakers have also agreed to electric vehicle commitments. Volvo Cars, owned by China's Geely Holdings, said in March it planned to join the automakers agreeing to the California requirements. It has also finalized its agreement. The settlement agreements say California and automakers agreed to resolve "potential legal disputes concerning the authority of CARB" and other states that have adopted California's standards. In May, a group of 23 U.S. states led by California and some major cities, challenged the Trump vehicle emissions rule. Other major automakers like General Motors Co, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV and Toyota Motor Corp did not join the California agreement. Those companies also sided with the Trump administration in a separate lawsuit over whether the federal government can strip California of the right to set zero emission vehicle requirements. Ford said the "final agreement will reduce emissions in our vehicles at a more stringent rate, support and incentivize the production of electrified products, and create regulatory certainty." BMW said "by setting these long-term, predictable, and achievable standards, we have the regulatory certainty that is necessary for long-term planning that will not only reduce greenhouse gas emissions but ultimately benefit consumers as well."