Press release from Porsche:

Contact:

Dave Engelman                                                                                                Andy Schupack

Product Communications Manager                                                            PCNA Motorsport PR

(770) 290-3617                                                                                                (401) 741-6980

Porsche 911 GT3 Cup to Makes its Debut at Pikes Peak Hillclimb; Six-Time Champion Jeff Zwart Takes Purpose-built Race Car to the “Hill” For the First Time

Colorado Springs – June 21, 2010 – For the first time since Porsche began production of the 911 GT3 Cup race car in 1989, the car will contest a major international hillclimb including more than five miles of gravel.

Jeff Zwart, a commercial film director from Woody Creek Colorado, and six-time class winner at the Pikes Peak Hillclimb, will challenge the 2WD Time Attack class with his specially-prepared Luminox Watch Porsche 911 GT3 Cup race car.

With technical support from Porsche Motorsport North America (PMNA) and Pirelli Tires, Zwart will be contesting the 88^th running of the hillclimb classic, the second oldest race in America (behind the Indy 500).  Zwart said that running a 2WD, normally aspirated, purpose-built race car up the “Mountain” will be a new experience for him despite his nine starts at Pikes Peak.

“In previous years, I have always taken a street Porsche Turbo and converted it into a race car, but this time, with the help of Porsche and Pirelli, we have taken a race car and modified it for Pikes peak unique half tarmac-half gravel course.  I practiced in the car last week, and was very surprised at the balance, power, and braking the car provided.  The low-ratio sequential gear box keeps me busy through the 156 turns, but it makes the car very quick,” said Zwart.

Porsche Motorsport started with a 2007 Cup car, updated it to 2010 specifications, and installed a new 450 horsepower 3.8-liter engine currently in use in the Patron GT3 Challenge, American Le Mans Series Challenge Class, and the Porsche Supercup series.  The engine management mapping was modified to perform well in high altitude as the race starts at 9,390 feet and finishes at the summit, 14,110 feet above sea level, and ride height was increased for the gravel sections of the course.  The underbody was also modified to protect the car from gravel and stones similar to rally competition.  Pirelli has provided road racing-style rain tires which worked very well both on paved and gravel surfaces during last week’s test.

“This event should show the real versatility of our Cup racer,” said Paul Ritchie, president of Porsche Motorsport North America, Inc.

“With the variety of surfaces and altitude changes, the car was a handful to set up, but, between our  PMNA engineers, Porsche Motorsport engineering consultant Roland Kussmaul – a rally veteran – and great help from Pirelli, we think we have given Jeff a car which will provide his best chance for a win,” said Ritchie.

“I can slide the car across the dirt and grab gears without even lifting,” Zwart added.  “Add to that the car’s behavior on the tarmac – the surface for which the car was built, and we should have a great chance to win.”

Zwart has won his class at Pikes Peak – all in Porsche Turbo street cars – in 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, and 2002, setting new class records three times.  Most recently, he co-drove a Porsche Cayenne with Pikes Peak veteran Paul Dallenbach at the challenging TransSyberia Rally (Moscow to Mongolia) in 2007.  He also has an SCCA PRO Rally Championship (1990) and a SCORE Baja 1000 class win (2004) to his credit.

The Porsche 911 GT3 Cup car, built on the same assembly line in Stuttgart as the street-legal Porsche 911s, is raced all over the world in the Porsche Supercup series as well as various Porsche Carrera Cup and Challenge Cups. New last year was the additional of the American Le Mans Series Challenge class, where the Porsche Cup cars contest the full endurance series run by the Le Mans racers.

The 88^th running of Pikes Peak will start official practice on Wednesday, June 23, with Zwart scheduled to run the bottom third of the 12.42-mile course.  The Porsche will run the middle part of the course during Thursday practice, and the top part of the course on Friday. Friday is also Fan Fest in Colorado Springs, and the race Sunday begins at 9:00 AM MDT.  Results will be posted on the official Pikes Peak web site – www.ppihc.com.

# # #

A high resolution photo of Zwart putting the Porsche 911 GT3 Cup car through its paces during Pikes Peak testing – the first photo ever of the car on gravel since its debut in 1989 – can be downloaded at the following link:

http://www.sportssystems.com/hosting/display.cfm?key=101438

# # #

This Acura commercial is about crumple zones and their ability to absorb energy in a crash while directing it around the passengers ensconced in a safety cage.  It’s a nicely executed commercial that provides people with information that gives them confidence that Acuras are safe.

But it isn’t new and it certainly isn’t exclusive to Acura.  Many of us would say that crumple zones are “old news.”

In 1952, Mercedes-Benz received a patent for a crumple zone in an automobile.  Up until that point rigidity was regarded as the key to protecting passengers in an automobile accident.  The 1959 Mercedes-Benz W111 series included crumple zones and was actively crash tested by the company.

I can still vividly remember the first time I actually saw a crash test.  It was at the Mercedes Benz Safety Center in the Sindelfingen plant outside Stuttgart.  I was amazed at the devastation created by a thirty mile an hour off-set crash.  Right then and there I learned the value of a crumple zone.

Today, every automobile manufacturer uses crumple zones to make their cars safer.

Yet here is Acura, using their version of a crumple zone to differentiate themselves from their competitors.

If every car has crumple zones, then what’s differentiating about Acura’s?

Not much.

What is different is the context in which Acura judged the importance of the technology and its use in communications.

Rather than simply saying to themselves that everybody has crumple zones and therefore crumple zones are old news, Acura recognized that:

1. Crumple zones were no longer a staple of automotive communications. There was a period of time when you could read an ad from virtually any luxury segment manufacturer and inevitably read about the safety benefits of crumple zones.
2. One of the by-products of the recession is that consumers are interested in having factual information that helps them make informed judgements about the products that they buy.
3. There’s a new generation of car buyers who didn’t grow up during the years when car advertising was full of information designed to help you understand the benefits of automotive engineering.

Acura seems to have said to itself: nobody is talking about crumple zones, people want facts and information to rationalize their decision and there’s a whole bunch of new prospects that don’t know much about automotive engineering…good time to use crumple zones to build our safety engineering creds!

Sometimes I think we fall into the trap of thinking that many of our product based benefits are old news because everyone offers the same thing and we think that “everyone” knows it.  Contrary to conventional wisdom, exclusivity is not essential to strong communications and just because it has been done before doesn’t mean there isn’t relevant and powerful way to do it today.

Please comment, I’d be interested in your thoughts.

In New York last week I saw the new Mini crossover, the Countryman, for the first time in person.  All the Mini design cues are present in the Countryman and I think you’d be hard pressed to say that it wasn’t part of the Mini family.  But I was struck by how “big” it seemed, it didn’t seem small and taut the way all the other models do.  Part of the difference was that the Countryman’s ground clearance is higher, so its stance is really quite different than the other Minis.

This got me thinking, at what point does a marque go too far and begin to lose its essential character?  Has Mini gone too far with the Countryman?

I suspect this is a little like losing your hair.  Little by little your hair recedes, almost imperceptibly, you make little adjustments as you go, thinking no one will notice, until one day you end up with comb-over and people are snickering behind your back. Little by little automotive brands seem to lose their way.

I suppose this is the ultimate judgment call in the automotive branding business.  All manufacturers feel the relentless pressure to grow their business and increase volume.  One way to do that is to create products that enable you to enter new segments.  Sometimes companies get this right and other times not.

Porsche, the archetypal sports car company, introduces the Cayenne to howls of protest from the “purists,” sells a ton of them and for a number of years could claim to be the most profitable manufacturer in the world.  Clearly a good business decision and it seems not to have diminished the brand.  One of the reasons that I think the Cayenne did not hurt the Porsche brand is because at the time it was introduced, no one was making a high performance SUV.  With the Cayenne, Porsche filled an unmet need…some folks wanted an SUV that offered real performance creds and Porsche led the industry from its traditional strength.

I think the Panamera will be a different story.  I don’t think the world is waiting for a Porsche 4-door sedan.  There are already terrific high performance sedans,  Audi RS6 & S8, Mercedes-Benz AMG models, BMW’s M5 & Alpina B7.  Porsche is following a well-worn path with the Panamera and it will be just another performance sedan.

VW and its much-maligned Routan is a good example of a product that stretched a brand the wrong way.  VW wanted to add a people mover to its line-up.  The wonderful VW Microbus Concept proved too expensive to produce so VW struck a deal with Chrysler and the Routan is the result.  A perfectly serviceable vehicle I’m sure, but very little VW character:

Had VW been able to produce the Microbus it would have been more distinctive and reflective of the Volkswagen brand.  Instead the Routan competes with every other plain vanilla Japanese entrant and is struggling.

BMW, inarguably the best-defined brand in the automobile business has just announced that it will develop a front wheel drive platform and market front wheel drive cars.  Again, howls of protest from the enthusiast circles that rightly point out that the Ultimate Driving Machine has been based on several principles not the least of which was rear wheel driven handling and perfect 50/50 weight distribution front to back.  But there are good reasons to have a FWD in your product portfolio, particularly when you need to develop smaller more fuel-efficient models to meet CAFE standards.

Here’s the tough thing about having a well-developed brand, you can’t be all things to all people.  Some things fit and others don’t. When you do things that conflict with your brand’s core values or principles it diminishes your brand.

Is the Mini Countryman going to weaken the Mini brand?  Probably not, but what about the next variant?

Porsche Cayenne OK?  What about Panamera?  Feels like the Porsche brand doesn’t have that much elasticity.

Volkswagen Routan?  VW’s stated company goal is to become more “mainstream”  and increase US volumes dramatically. I guess Routan is mainstream, but I’m not sure that “mainstream” and strong brand go together.  It will be fascinating to see the new sedan built in the Chattanooga factory, will it still have essential VW character or will it be “mainstream?”

BMW and front wheel drive?  Maybe most people won’t know or care that the car is front wheel drive, but the legions of people who bought into BMW’s rear wheel drive rationale will be wondering what it means for the Ultimate Driving Machine.

It seems like growth is the enemy of automotive brands.  Little by little, the never-ending pursuit of volume forces companies into segments and compromises that make their brands less distinct, less clear.  Without question you can sell a few more cars, but is it worth it?  Would you be better off creating a new brand?  It’s a good question to ask as you consider each new segment and new product. If you take the question seriously and really consider the strength of the brand an important consideration then you can avoid becoming a comb-over brand.  A brand that has rationale for what’s doing…but it isn’t fooling anybody.

Please comment, I’d be interested in your thoughts.

The fact is that nothing has happened to Lexus, they design, engineer and build an extraordinary vehicle.  What’s happened is that the other manufacturers have improved to the point where every year it’s a genuine dogfight to get to the top spot.

There were some other surprises that weren’t so good…. Jaguar dropped from the 1st spot in 2009 to 23rd.  Given Jaguar’s long standing reputation for iffy quality, that’s certainly not a good thing from their perspective.  Audi also took a hit dropping from the 12th spot in 2009 to 26th in 2010, but my guess is this year will prove an aberration.

Personally, I think it is exciting to see Buick up near the very top and Cadillac well above average.  These brands have their product act together, now marketing needs to pull its own weight.

This year’s study and the jockeying for position proves something I have been telling people for a number of years:  In today’s market, it’s tough to buy a bad car.

Download the JD Power press release

There are certainly plenty of questions on all sides of the issue.  Are Toyotas safe? Are Toyota’s designs faulty?  Did Toyota hold back information?  Is Toyota evil? Is NHTSA just “a lap dog” for the auto manufacturers and simply trying to cover its you know what?  Were our elected officials just grand standing for their own benefit? Is the Federal Government going after Toyota because it owns a big chunk of GM and Chrysler. Are these allegations of Toyotas run amok the creation of lawyers and their clients who see the deep pockets of Toyota?

I’ve come to the opinion that we are worrying about the wrong things. Don’t misunderstand me, if Toyota has committed some act of malfeasance then we should prove it and Toyota should bear responsibility, but in the meantime have we missed the most important point?

This past Thursday the Wall Street Journal ran an article headlined: “Toyota Complaints Surged After First Recall.”   In this article it reports a variety of NHTSA data and discusses the most recent Toyota UA incident in San Diego that took place the day before.  It also reports that: “Toyota’s troubles are raising anxiety in the auto industry that Congress will enact a new round of regulations proposed by safety advocates.”  The article goes on to say that “About 95% of auto accidents are caused by driver error, according to a 2005 NHTSA study.  About 2% of accidents are caused by problems with the vehicle.”

Talk about misplaced emphasis.  We’re going to further regulate the auto manufacturers, increasing their costs which will then be passed on to their customers so that we can reduce infinitesimally the number of accidents that today, without regulation, only represent 2% of accidents!?  Doesn’t it seem more fruitful to work on the big number, the 95% that are due to driver error?

What would happen if we took all the time and money that the regulators will spend developing, enacting and policing new regulations on the manufacturers and used it to make us better drivers? What if we made it a requirement that all drivers go to driving school where they learn how to manage their vehicle in critical situations?  What if we actually make Americans better more skilled drivers, so they make fewer mistakes?

95% of accidents are caused by driver error.  Enacting legislation that would require us to be more proficient drivers, thereby reducing driver error, would seem like a better way to make a significant difference in the number of accidents.  The “safety advocates” need to work on the real cause of accidents.

After a number of high profile failures to enter the European market in a big way, the folks at Cadillac want to be a niche player and are willing to accept the lower volumes that go along with such a strategy.  By keeping volumes low, and presumably margins high, they expect that they can be profitable from year 1.

I think this strategy is sound and will succeed.  Cadillac’s current design language is unique and appealing.  There has always been a segment of the automotive market that is interested in something different and Europe is no different than the United States in this regard.  In Europe where Mercedes-Benzes, Audis and BMWs are common and cover a multitude of uses including taxis, rental cars, executive cars and the vehicles of choice for captains of industry, there is an opportunity for something “different.”

For example, in a part of the world where station wagons (called “Estates” and sometimes “Avants”) are enormously popular, Cadillac has a terrific entry in the CTS Sport Wagon.  Ironically, in the U.S. the CTS Sports Wagon is expected to be a niche product at best, I bet it could be the brand’s best seller in Europe.

Here’s the challenge for Cadillac in Europe.  Quality.  European luxury car buyers have become accustomed to a very high quality standard and expect it to be met.  If Cadillac can meet this expectation, then I think they will be a successful niche brand and could probably expect measured year over year growth.  Long-term, they will need to figure out how to offer a diesel, but initially I think they can get the ball rolling without one.

The industry needs more niche brands and I’ll bet Cadillac can have a very nice piece of business in Europe, as long as they keep their volume aspirations in check.  Ultimately, that may be the biggest challenge of all.

Please comment below, I’d love to know what you think…

Allegations of  UA and the media furor around it virtually destroyed Audi in the United States.  Audi was vindicated eventually, with UA and the unfortunate accidents associated with it attributed to driver error.

Toyota is now “in the barrel”  with the politicians and media all intimating that there is some sinister plot at work.  There’s a lot at stake.  If there have been genuine misdeeds then let’s prove it beyond a question of a doubt and hold Toyota responsible. If indeed, driver error was the issue, I hope that the media and our politicians will be as quick to acknowledge the fact as they have been to hoist Toyota on its petard.

Please let me know your thoughts in the comments section below and here’s the letter:

“Holman Jenkins is 100% correct in “Trial Lawyers vs. Toyota” (Business World, Feb. 26).

I taught at BSR Advanced Driver Training at Summit Point Raceway in West Virginia for about 20 years, teaching counterterrorism, motorcades, racing, high performance driving and car control techniques. Almost invariably, unintended acceleration was a major problem caused by the driver thinking he is on the brake rather than the gas in an emergency situation. His foot is planted firmly on the gas and his brain is firmly in panic mode and therefore his brain function is zero.

As far as braking, many drivers come completely off the brakes when the ABS kicks in since the perception is that something is wrong with the brakes. Also, many drivers do not brake hard enough.

The majority of accidents are caused by the driver, not the vehicle. In America we teach drivers to pass the driver’s test, not how to drive a car. We want a risk-free world and we’re not going to get it.

Toyota’s problems are more examples of the power of suggestion and mass hysteria then they are of faulty electronics.

Yes, things can go wrong mechanically, but that is very rare, and most of the time it is the driver’s fault. However, we rarely take the blame or the responsibility when we do something wrong; it’s blame the other guy and sue.

The press, politicians and public are all blaming Toyota for faulty equipment, yet there is plenty a driver can do when faced with an emergency. Most drivers really aren’t that skilled. Airline pilots are required to practice emergency maneuvers every six months, yet driving is far more dangerous than flying. Most drivers have no clue about what to do when something does go wrong. How frequently does the average driver practice for emergency situations?

As another driving instructor has said, “A meteorite hitting your car is an ‘accident,’ everything else is driver error.”

Miriam Schottland

President

DriveLab

Washington”

As reported in today’s Detroit News, Audi of America’s Johan de Nysschen called out the current political leadership for “falling in love” with electric vehicles.  He’s absolutely right, EVs and Hybrids have become the fashionable automotive technology and Washington’s choice for the future.

The only problem is that EVs won’t make a difference for two decades.  The New York Times reported that “plug-in hybrids would not have a significant impact on the nation’s oil consumption or carbon emissions before 2030.” To be clear though, de Nysschen is not saying EVs and Hybrids are wrong or won’t play an important role in the future. What he’s saying is that Washington is picking winners and losers from a technology point of view rather than remaining agnostic, and he’s right.

Clean diesel remains the best near term technology available for reducing our dependance on foreign oil and CO2 emissions (the major cause of global warming), yet no one in Washington seems interested.  It seems that “diesel” is literally a dirty word.

There is no doubt that Americans harbor a negative perception of diesel based on experience and inadequate information.  If our government really wanted to serve the citizens, it would consider the facts of modern diesel technology and help dispel the myths. Modern diesel is as clean as gasoline, offers 25-30% better MPG and emits less CO2.  While we’re waiting for the infrastructure to develop and the financials to make sense for EV technology, Americans could be driving diesels and making a difference in oil consumption and global warming.

Diesel in America is a marketing problem.  We have to change Americans’ perception of diesel so that consumers can make the best choices.  I don’t want our government picking the technologies that will succeed, but I would like it to have a balanced perspective and ensure that the facts are available so that Americans can make the decisions that make the most sense to them.

It seems to me that being open minded about diesel technology should be easy for our politicians….

If they’d like to take on something hard, then they should consider abolishing the CAFE standards and putting in place a Federal tax on gasoline which has always been the key to getting Americans to drive smaller more fuel efficient and cleaner vehicles.

It was ironic that virtually every manufacturer was talking about EVs in one form or another, yet the much less fashionable technology…diesel…took home the Green Car of the Year prize.

Don’t get me wrong, I think some of the electric cars and concepts are fascinating.

Chevrolet showed us a production version of the Volt and spoke about the fact that there would be no “range anxiety” because of the small motor that would generate electricity to charge the batteries. Audi showed the E-tron, an electric version of the R8 with an electric motor poweringeach wheel and delivering supercar performance. BMW’s “Vision” concept demonstrated where “Efficient Dynamics” might take the brand. Mini has been testing electric cars on America’s roads and had an example at their stand.

EVs are being talked about as if they will solve global warming, reduce our fossil fuel consumption to zero and generally save the planet. EVs are the messiah of automotive technologies.

Here’s the problem, electric cars are expected to represent maybe 10% of sales by 2020. At that sales rate it’s hard to imagine the technology as a game changer from a fuel consumption or global warming perspective.

At least we have the folks responsible for selecting the “Green Car of the Year” to provide a reality check. For the second consecutive year, a diesel-powered vehicle was selected as green car of the year. Why? Clean diesel is a practical and “green” approach to transportation. It offers 25-30% better mileage, it emits less CO2 and particulate emission is now comparable to gasoline-powered technology. Today’s clean diesels meet the most stringent pollution standards and are sold in all fifty states.

The Audi A3 TDI is a terrific example of the modern clean diesel and a worthy “Green Car of the Year.”

Modern clean diesels are readily available, offer the possibility of reducing fuel consumption by a third and emit less C02 than gasoline engines. Maybe after we’re done talking about technology that won’t make a difference for another 20 years, we’ll start to talk about one that can make a difference tomorrow.

I know it’s not fashionable, but we need to change Americans’ perception of diesel because it makes sense.

Audi of America has stepped up and taken on America’s negative perception of diesel technology.

Take a look at this video:

Then the commercial:

Changing American’s perception of diesel is a monumental task but one that will yield remarkable benefits.  Diesel offers the opportunity to immediately reduce our consumption of oil, reduce emission of CO2 and get better mileage.  Diesel can help manufacturers satisfy the new CAFE standards.  All this from a proven technology that is well understood and available today.

Diesel needs to be part of the energy solution of our country.    I know that it is far more fashionable in Washington to discuss plug in electric vehicles but those technologies are years away from broad-scale commercial viability.

Clean diesel is here today and can contribute immediately to   reducing our dependance on foreign oil, reducing one of the major gasses that cause global warming, give consumers 20-30% better milage and a motor that will last longer!

Diesel is a “win-win” for the consumer, the automobile manufacturers and our country.  All we need to do is update America’s perception of the technology.

Good for Audi of America for trying to change our perception of diesel.  I hope they succeed, that would be good for all of us.

Amid all the blather from Washington about hybrids, plug-in electrics and other green technologies is an engine technology that is clean, fully developed and ready to make a difference…clean diesel.  For the life of me, I can’t understand why we are not having a more meaningful conversation in our country about the advantages of clean diesel.

Actually, I do understand.  Diesel is a much misunderstood technology in America.  We all remember those diesel Rabbits with black stuff all over the hatchback and a steady stream of vile smoke out the back.  Mercedes Benz has been marketing diesels in this country for decades and there are still many smoky, noisy 300D’s on our roads today.  Unfortunately this image is the impression most Americans have of diesel technology.  Diesels are dirty, slow, noisy pollution machines.

America, the world of diesel has changed.  Now we have ultra low sulfur diesel fuel available in our country and the European manufacturers have introduced 50 state emission compliant “Clean Diesel” models (Volkswagen, Mercedes Benz, Audi and BMW all offer clean diesels now).  So here’s the deal, now you can buy a diesel that is at parity with gasoline from an emissions perspective (in fact it puts out less CO2) and gets 30% better mileage.  Diesel engines also last far longer than their gasoline counterparts.  People regularly put half a million miles on diesel engines.  The new clean diesels are quiet and offer terrific performance.

What’s the downside you ask?  Diesel fuel prices are bit higher than they need be which reflects limited refining capacity and high levels of global demand.  Right now diesel is priced in between regular and premium gasoline.  New refining capacity will come on line in the next couple of years and that will help diesel fuel prices.  The other issue is that the initial price of diesel automobiles is a little higher than their gasoline counterparts.

When I run the numbers, I still have a compelling case for diesel.  A car that will last longer, be environmentally responsible and reduce our dependance on foreign oil.  Here’s the best part, all of this available today, using well understood and proven technologies.

While I’m sure there’s a plug in electric somewhere in our future, diesel offers us a way to reduce our oil consumption in an environmentally responsible way, today!  Diesel may not be the long term answer to our automotive and energy issues, but it is a darn good step on the path to energy independence.

Diesel is part of the solution.  Our colleagues in Washington need to embrace it as an option, even if it isn’t as politically fashionable as hybrids and electrics.