TrueDelta

Nissan released full pricing information for the Nissan 370Z yesterday. Figuring many people would be interested in this information, I input it into TrueDelta’s pricing database ASAP.

So this site is the only place you can already configure the new, 332-horsepower 370Z. Media reports suggest that the new car handles better and has a nicer interior than the less compact, slightly heavier 350Z.

Compared to the 2008 3350Z, the base price is up $1,425, to $30,625 (the $30,000 figure you’ll read elsewhere ignores destination). BUT the new car has airbags, stability control, and a few other features as additional standard equipment. Adjust for these, and the 2009 is actually priced a bit lower than the 2008.

The more agile Mazda RX-8 runs about $3,500 less, but no doubt most people will opt for the much more powerful Nissan when choosing between these cars. When both cars are loaded up, the related Infiniti G37 coupe runs about $3,800 more than the 370Z. But adjust for the Infiniti’s additional content (sunroof, additional power seat adjustments, etc.) and the difference is close to zero.

A few weeks ago it was rumored that Consumer’s Union, publisher of Consumer Reports, would purchase The Consumerist, a blog covering consumer issues and giving voice to consumer complaints. Now these rumors have proven accurate, and this purchase has been completed. 

Operating TrueDelta.com, I’ve learned quite a bit about the media. One of the most difficult lessons: journalists often won’t write about what you’re doing if it even partially competes with the activites of their employer. At least a few of them have told me they couldn’t write about TrueDelta’s unique vehicle information for this reason.

Consumer Reports is just one example. Though ostensibly putting the interests of consumers first, will they cite TrueDelta as a source of information they personally cannot yet provide? Of course not. I’ve personally been told I cannot mention the site when posting to their forums. Consumer Reports’ competitive interest comes before the interest of consumers. 

Now that they’ve bought The Consumerist, the same will likely apply to that site.

So, from where I sit media consolidation isn’t a good thing. Each media outlet has its own interests, and these come before the interests of readers. The larger these outlets get, the broader their interests get, and the more delimited their reporting gets.

Luckily, word-of-mouth remains beyond media control, and more and more people have been learning of TrueDelta from their family and friends.  

For years I’ve come across complaints that the rear side window of this or that car doesn’t go all the way down. Often people assume the reason for this is safety, to prevent children from falling out of a moving car.

Well, that’s not the reason, at least not the primary reason. Especially in this age of mandatory car seats, when children are no longer standing unrestrained on the rear seat as the car goes down the road. (Yes, this was done when I was a child, along with throwing a bunch of children unrestrained into the “way back” of station wagons.)

So, why don’t rear windows usually go all the way down? Because there’s not enough space in the door for them to go down into. Look at the outline of the rear door. Almost all of the time the rear wheel opening cuts well into the lower rear corner of the door. So, at its rear edge, the door isn’t very tall. If the rear window is a single piece of glass running the entire length of the door, it will only go down part of the way before running into the lower edge of the door.

One solution: split the rear window, so that the retractable front piece of glass can retract farther, and maybe even all the way, into the door. This clutters up the design, so designers resist doing it. Often when this approach is used the split isn’t far enough forward to enable the glass to retract all the way, just more of the way than it could otherwise.

Child safety likely remains an additional factor. Not actual child safety, given today’s restraints, but perceived child safety. After using this excuse for partially retractable windows for decades, manufacturers must now work with this “fact” they created.

For years we’ve stated that while those who didn’t participate in the research would have to pay for full access to the site, participants would receive this access for free. But only the free, participating option was available.

Well, we’ve finally added the ability for people who don’t want to participate in the surveys to buy a non-participating membership. So this alternative is now real rather than planned. In addition to the $24.95 annual membership, a three-month membership is available for $9.95.

Participants will continue to receive access to the results for free.

Writing in the New York Times today, Micheline Maynard reminded me that everything GM is promising to do now–reinvent itself, forge a new relationship with the UAW, improve customer care, develop more fuel-efficient cars–it tried to do with Saturn.

Saturn met with some early success. Many people who would never buy another GM car bought a Saturn. It was essentially an independent company, with its own engineering, factory, flexible profit-sharing labor agreement, and customer-friendly no-haggle dealers.

Then GM didn’t invest in product improvements, and reversed nearly every step it had taken with Saturn. Except for the dealers–those continued their customer-pleasing ways.

With Saturn sales in a dive, GM pulled a page out of the Oldsmobile playbook, and gave the brand a fresh line-up of competitive vehicles. Unfortunately, customers did not respond.

Why not? First off, Saturns are no longer much different than other GM cars.

Second, while there are still some awful dealers, many have improved their practices, so Saturn no longer has the edge in customer satisfaction it once had.

Finally, and I suspect of greatest import, with other GM cars enjoying heavy discounts, Saturn’s no-haggle prices have been uncompetitive. It was one thing to have slightly high prices when the cars were unique. But when they’re not, people tend to buy the GM brand with the big discount.

And so, when asked to provide a viable business plan, GM has excluded Saturn from its core brands. There’s a good chance it will be sold or discontinued.

A shame, because if GM had applied what it learned at Saturn to the rest of GM, instead of making Saturn like the rest of GM, the corporation would not be on the verge of bankruptcy.

Every time Consumer Reports or J.D. Power releases the results of a reliability survey, much of the press rushes to reduce the message to a single question: are Detroit’s cars as reliable as Japanese cars?

The same answers have followed in all recent years: the gap is closing, and some domestic cars now score as well as the imports, but on average, or if you sum up the category winners, a gap remains. So we see the same oversimplified headlines and articles over and over.

Why the rush to reduce the issue of reliability to Detroit vs. Japan? Does the press or reading public try to similarly oversimplify acceleration times? No, in that case people expect test scores for not only a specific model but a specific powertrain.

The same should be done for reliability. The fact of the matter is, the reliability scores for a make’s models often vary widely. Some require few repairs, some require more repairs. Looking up individual model scores does require a bit more work from everyone, but not much more. Well, when such scores are provided. (TrueDelta provides them.)

The focus on Detroit vs. Japan not only misleads some people into buying Japanese models that are actually unreliable, but makes it difficult for those Detroit car models that do score well to get the consideration they deserve. This is the perception gap Detroit complains about–because it is one thing threatening the survival of an entire industry.

In defense of oversimplification, some things do pertain to the manufacturer as a whole, if not a nationality as a whole. Most importantly: customer care. How well the customer is treated when a problem occurs will be fairly constant for all of a make’s models. And, as I’ve written before, Detroit’s customer care needs to be much better. Too often these companies, when forced to choose between covering an early failure out of warranty and losing a customer, choose to lose the customer.

That’s a separate if related issue, though. When it comes to the number of problems a car is likely to have, car buyers, car manufacturers, and the people the latter employ would all benefit if consumers stopped trying to oversimplify reliability and at least looked at the scores for individual car models. And it wouldn’t hurt if the press took the lead on this one rather than “giving the people what they want.” After all, isn’t this the same line Detroit uses to defend its overdependence on SUV sales?

Well, some people have been suggesting that I make a video. No, not that kind of video. But something to upload to YouTube.

Then Diane, who has been helping to publicize the site, not only made this suggestion but offered to put the whole thing together. Complete with an attractive daughter who’s much better on camera than I am. And who edits! (You should have seen the original.)

So, if you’ve ever wondered what I look and sound like, unscripted…

A big thanks to Diane and Tiffany for finally getting me in front of a camera.

I’ve been using gmail, which serves up ads based on what’s in your inbox. Recently they’ve been serving up an ad for the Chevrolet Traverse. The claim: “Traverse Outperforms Almost All its Competitors.” Almost all? Well, why shouldn’t I buy the one it didn’t outperform?

A message you won’t be receiving from TrueDelta: “providing better vehicle reliability, fuel economy, and car pricing information than almost all other automotive websites.” If you don’t have a better way of doing something, why bother doing it?