Tag: cars
Elon Musk

Trump Fanboy Musk 'Finds Out' With Tesla 2024 Sales Slump

Tesla reported on Thursday that 2024 saw the Austin, Texas-based car company’s first annual decline in sales in at least 12 years. The decline coincided with the company’s CEO, Elon Musk, endorsing and funding Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and becoming a major player within the Republican Party.

Tesla said that in 2024 it delivered 1.79 million cars, which was 1.1 percent below the 1.81 million cars the company sold in 2023. Back in 2022, Tesla confidently predicted that the company would grow 50 percent each year for the next few years. That didn’t happen as Musk went full MAGA.

Before 2024, Musk had shown some signs of conservatism. But his extremism ramped up considerably as the presidential election ramped up and he attacked the so-called “woke mind virus,” blaming leftist ideas for his child’s gender transition.

Following his purchase of Twitter and rebranding the social media platform as “X,” Musk reinstated Trump’s account, which had been deactivated by the previous management after the sore loser used it to instigate the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. Musk also reactivated the account of right-wing conspiracy theorist and Trump megafan Alex Jones.

In October, Musk made his partisanship official by endorsing Trump and appearing with him at a rally in Pennsylvania.

“President Trump must win to preserve the Constitution. He must win to preserve democracy in America,” Musk said, after wildly jumping around on stage.

Musk bankrolled a super PAC supporting Trump’s campaign and spent at least $250 million to help his Republican ally win the election—in addition to allowing pro-Trump election misinformation to circulate widely on his social media network.

Following his election win, Trump named Musk as co-chair of the Department of Government Efficiency, which is not a government agency but an outside watchdog group pushing to cut government spending by $2 trillion.

Even as Musk was openly embracing the Republican Party and its conservative agenda, polling showed Democrats—who have traditionally supported clean energy products like Tesla’s electric cars—turning away from the company. An analysis from the firm CivicScience released in July found that Tesla’s favorability dropped to 16% among Democrats, when it had been at 39% in January 2024.

“He completely alienated most of his buying base,” investor Mark Spiegel told Yahoo! Finance when the survey was released.

After Trump won, many X users—including journalists, who have been the lifeblood of the site—began leaving the platform in droves.

Trump has already hinted at making policy moves friendly to Musk, with his transition team announcing that he favors adopting a recommendation that would scrap federal crash-reporting requirements for self-driving cars (from companies like Tesla). But the fledgling bromance has not been smooth.

There have been grumblings from Trump allies that Musk is overstepping his role and acting as a co-president with Trump. The South African immigrant was also recently embroiled in a very public fight with anti-immigrant Trump supporters over his position in favor of H-1B visas for tech workers.

Musk’s chosen candidate will soon be president and the multibillionaire clearly has Trump’s ear. But Tesla’s growing problems—and emerging fractures within the MAGA coalition—could be an early warning sign for the richest man in the world.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

U.S. News Announces the 2016 Best Cars for the Money

U.S. News Announces the 2016 Best Cars for the Money

Photo: Automobile traffic backs-up as it travels north from San Diego to Los Angeles along Interstate Highway 5 in California December 10, 2013. REUTERS/Mike Blake

Farewell, My Unlovely

Farewell, My Unlovely

I have owned, back in my earlier life, seven Volkswagens, six of them Bugs. They promised traction, because the engine was in the rear. Through Vermont winters, they got a grip on the road to get up the hills by digging into the snow and mud, the twin curses of New England weather.

The Bugs, or Beetles, did pretty much what they were expected to do. They were cheap to buy, pretty cheap to fix, and cheap to run. They were also miserable by design. They were cold in winter, hot in summer, noisy at all speeds, and cramped for anyone over five feet tall. They could easily have been made warm in winter, because after all the engines were air-cooled. Porting some of the hot air, blown out into the atmosphere, up to the suffering passengers, would have been an engineering trick of a few minutes. VW didn’t do this.

So we were cold and miserable getting to work in the refreshing Vermont winter mornings. And unsafe because there was no defroster worth a damn. Supposedly some air had been directed at the windshield by running ducts up front from the engine through the rocker panels under the doors. Guess what? The defrosted air was well cooled by the time it reached the windshield, and therefore useless. And the rocker panels rotted quickly in the Vermont salt — another design plus.

The Volkswagen Beetle or Bug was a reminder that you were poor, that this was all you could afford, that you drove this minimalist machine while others cruised happily by in an American boat, maybe a Ford, with the heater blasting. Naturally, we VW victims turned the whole experience into a virtue, possibly the mental result of near-hypothermia. Or possibly carbon monoxide poisoning, another product of the heating system.

The rear engine design meant the gas tank had to be placed in front of the dashboard. In a head on collision everyone was covered with gasoline. This in some subtle way reminded us that Adolf Hitler was responsible for the initial development of the car. Early versions had no gas gauge. If you ran out of gas, there was a reserve tank that you opened with a small valve under the steering wheel. This released another gallon to get you to a gas station. A nice simple design, except that the valve often leaked on the driver’s shoes.

VW Bugs rusted at a rate unequaled even by the standards of American manufacturers. A design feature was that the parts, fenders, running boards, quarter panels (and so on) were easily replaceable if they got rusty. A few nuts and bolts, and you were good to go. This theory was a selling point, but failed in practice, since the entire car rusted at an even rate, even the places where you were supposed to bolt the replaceable parts on. But the engine made so much noise that you couldn’t hear the body rattles, until, of course, it was too late.

The engine was good for maybe 50,000 miles. It was an environmental nightmare, horribly inefficient, unevenly cooled so that one cylinder (I forget which one now) always burned out before the rest. The linkage to the clutch (no automatic transmission for you!) was sloppy and prone to rust. The other controls were in constant need of adjustment, tightening, oiling, and generally fiddling with. The brakes were the bare minimum, although the car was light enough that some stoppage was available by opening the door and dragging your foot.

VW did not make what would have been easily made changes to the design. They could have fixed the heater. They didn’t. They could have stopped the oil leaks. They didn’t. They could have countered the rust. They didn’t. The inhuman aspects of the VW Bug went uncorrected for years. The price remained low, but as in the case of Henry Ford’s stubborn refusal to improve the Model T, the low price was not a sufficient lure after you had three or four. (As I say, I had six Bugs, which may say something about my intelligence. My excuse is Vermont teachers’ pay.)

For a period after VW sold the design and the machinery to the government of Mexico (shades of the Zimmermann Telegram!), VW tried one disastrous improvement after another. They lost market share in the U.S. and Europe precipitously. They were saved, unremarkably, by the German government. Slowly, their designs improved and they elbowed their way back to success.

Volkswagen is now a colossal enterprise. Their new cars are pretty luxurious, and they’re clearly not people’s cars, certainly not the people I was back in the 70s. Companies change and customers change. Even so, I remember what VW was. The Bug was inhuman, noisy, cold in winter, hot in summer, stubborn in its refusal to improve, and unsafe. But the main difference between the clattery, rusty, underpowered, wheezing, cramped, and funny-looking Bugs I drove, and the Volkswagens of today is that the Bugs were honest. They didn’t promise anything they didn’t deliver. They didn’t try to fool you into thinking you were in a higher class than you were. You didn’t actually grow to love them, but you appreciated the steady urge they produced to graduate up to something better. And now, as we realize, that won’t be a Volkswagen.

After my last Bug I bought a Subaru. Mostly for the heater.

Jeff Danziger is a political cartoonist. He recommends E. B. White’s essay on the Model T, “Farewell, My Lovely”, viewable online at The New Yorker.

More New Vehicles Get Forward-Crash Prevention Systems

More New Vehicles Get Forward-Crash Prevention Systems

By Jerry Hirsch, Los Angeles Times (TNS)

More cars are coming equipped with robotic functions that protect drivers from front-end crashes with other vehicles or objects, which could result in fewer crashes and lower insurance rates for drivers.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety said 52 percent of the 784 new vehicle models come with technology that alerts a driver to a pending crash as either a standard or optional feature.

Among 2015 models, 27 percent also offer robotic braking, which automatically slows or stops the vehicle without driver intervention if a crash is imminent. That’s more than twice as many as in the 2012 model year.

“Automatic braking is an accessible technology that’s within reach for many drivers,” said David Zuby, the insurance institute’s executive vice president and chief research officer. “That’s a welcome sign for highway safety and helps pave the way for the eventual deployment of fully autonomous vehicles.”

Early studies are finding the technology is effective. Front-crash prevention systems use cameras, radar and laser sensors to judge whether a vehicle is getting too close to one in front of it. Most systems issue a warning and pre-charge the brakes to maximize their effect if the driver responds by braking, while others have robotic braking.

Automatic braking systems slash front-end crashes 14 percent compared with the same vehicles that don’t offer the feature, according to the institute’s research. Vehicles that only alert drivers to a potential crash, but don’t stop the car, cut collisions 7 percent.

Although the trade group has not measured the technology’s effect on insurance premiums, it believes that fewer crashes will soon be reflected in lower rates, said Russ Rader, an institute spokesman.

Mike Doerfler, Progressive’s product development manager, said the insurer “is starting to lower rates for vehicles with stability control, adaptive headlights and forward-collision warning with braking. We’re introducing that on a state-by-state basis.”

But Rader said vehicle design will influence which vehicles eventually realize premium savings. Many automakers are putting the crash-prevention sensors behind the grille in the front end where they’re vulnerable to being damaged.

“The sensors are expensive to replace, so that can offset the cost benefits of fewer crashes,” he said.

Some manufacturers are making adjustments and moving the sensors to the windshield ahead of the rear-view mirror, where they’re better protected, Rader said.

The insurance group tested the systems and rated the vehicles as basic, advanced or superior for front-crash prevention depending on whether they offer autobrake and, if so, how effective it proves in tests at 12 mph and 25 mph.

Typically, these systems are offered on luxury vehicles or as expensive options. But some automakers, including Mercedes-Benz and Toyota, are making them standard or offering the features as part of a comparatively lower-cost safety-oriented option package.
Toyota, for example, plans to offer safety-package options for nearly every Toyota and Lexus vehicle sold in the U.S. by the end of 2016. The packages will sell for $300 to $500 for Toyotas and $500 to $635 for Lexus models.

Mercedes-Benz is the first automaker to offer a standard front-crash-prevention system that earns the “superior” rating in IIHS test track evaluations. The system comes on Mercedes’ 2015 C-Class, CLA and E-Class.

The technology is catching on with more mainstream nameplates. Seven of the 19 superior- or advanced-rated models in the institute’s latest testing round are moderately priced: Chrysler 300; Dodge Charger; Mazda 6 and CX-5; and Volkswagen Golf, Golf SportWagen and Jetta.

In the latest testing, 14 new models earned the superior rating and five won the advanced rating.

The “superior” vehicles included the 2016 Acura ILX, MDX, RDX and RLX; 2016 BMW X3; 2015 Chrysler 300 and its twin, the 2015 Dodge Charger; 2015 Mercedes-Benz C-Class, CLA and E-Class; and the 2016 Mazda 6 and CX-5. The vehicles rated advanced for front-crash prevention were the 2016 Volkswagen Golf, Golf SportWagen, Jetta and 2015 Volkswagen Touareg.

BMW’s X3 earned an advanced rating when equipped with BMW’s camera-only system, called City Braking Function, and is rated superior when equipped with a camera- and radar-based system.

Acura was pleased with the results.

“Acura is committed to implementing the AcuraWatch suite of safety and driver-assistive technologies on all models, and the recent IIHS results further validates our effort to remain the safety leader in the luxury segment,” said Gary Robinson, manager of Acura product planning.

Photo: Cars undergo Insurance Institute for Highway Safety tests of forward-collision avoidance systems. (Photo courtesy IIHS/TNS)

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World