Posted by AUSTIN POWERTRAIN
on
7/30/2010 4:57 PM
[WEBMASTER'S NOTE: Asked to provide some input for our website on a recent announcement by Ford, Austin Powertrain provided the webmaster with two potential posts. He preferred the first, for its concise expression of his views. It read, in its entirety, “Hi, the Lincoln MKZ Hybrid is awesome. I want one soooo bad! NOT.” For a thorough analysis of Ford’s plan to forego a price premium on the hybrid version of the Lincoln MKZ, see below.]
ARTICLE #2 - THE LONG VERSION
Ford recently touted that the Lincoln MKZ Hybrid, going on sale this fall, will be priced at $35,180, which is the same sticker price that will appear on the conventional gasoline-powered MKZ. Some journalists and bloggers reacted with surprise when this news came out, but my first thought was, "So what? It should be the same price as the regular MKZ."
If Ford had announced that the price of the Ford Fusion Hybrid was being aligned with that of a Fusion equipped with a standard 2.5L 4-cyl engine, then maybe I would have been a little more surprised. The Fusion Hybrid uses a 2.5L engine, which is the same engine displacement available on the $20,000-$24,000 entry-level Fusion. In regard to engines, we can compare apples to apples and it’s obvious that one Fusion with a 4-cyl and another with a 4-cyl mated to a hybrid system should not be the same price. The hybrid technology, along with some upgraded standard features, raises the price to around $29,000. If Ford had announced it was offering a Fusion Hybrid for $24,000, then yeah, I’d have been surprised by that.
I’m not really all that wowed that a Lincoln MKZ Hybrid is available for the same price as a standard gas-powered model, because the base MKZ is equipped with a 3.5L V6 and comes with pretty much all the luxury amenities Ford has to offer. The MKZ Hybrid will feature the same 2.5L Atkinson-cycle engine as the Fusion Hybrid, and will be handsomely equipped, just like the standard MKZ with a V6. In this case, it’s an apples-to-oranges comparison in regard to engines. The 3.5L will churn out 263hp with fuel economy of 18mpg city and 27mpg highway, while the 2.5L in the MKZ Hybrid will put out just 191hp with fuel economy of 41/36mpg. We have what I consider to be a pretty fair trade-off in horsepower versus fuel economy, and paying the same $35,180 for one or the other seems pretty reasonable to me.
Up to now, hybrids have been able to command a premium from the early adopters of hybrid technology. Let’s face it, people haven’t been buying hybrids to save money on fuel; the extra cost on the price tag means that owners have to drive their hybrids for several years to recoup the additional money they paid over traditional gas-powered vehicles. These people were making a statement when they bought their hybrid. They want to be seen in a hybrid touting how green they are, or to show everyone that they own cutting-edge, advanced technology. There is a lot of ego involved in wanting to own the latest and greatest.
But like computers with Pentium 3 processors, conventional DVD players, and 3G cell phones, technology eventually gets surpassed. The Pentium 3 was replaced by the Pentium 4, the conventional DVD player gave way to the BlueRay disc player, and 4G smartphones are now the most advanced in the market. Goods move down market as they become less advanced. The early adopters of advanced technology move on to something newer and better, and prices for the old technology begin to come down once it can no longer command a premium. The older technology becomes more affordable, because the target market switches from those willing to pay a premium to those who are not.
Gas-electric hybrid systems like those in the Ford Fusion, Honda Civic, Nissan Altima, and Toyota Camry are being overshadowed by more advanced plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles with lithium-ion batteries, such as the Chevrolet Volt and Nissan Leaf (both of which will be available by the end of the year). GM and Nissan claim that the Volt and Leaf will get the equivalent of more than 200 and 300mpg, respectively, and retail in the low $40,000 range. The less advanced Lincoln MKZ Hybrid couldn’t possibly command a price in the same range as a Volt or a Leaf, so its $35,180 price tag seems like a fair market value.
The MKZ Hybrid might be the first example of an automaker foregoing the price premium on a hybrid, but hopefully it’s the start of a trend. I’m not expecting that all of the current hybrid cars will immediately start to fall in price, but the reality is that most of the automakers are working on more advanced hybrid systems that will be introduced in the next few years, and the price of the current hybrids will need to be adjusted or they face becoming obsolete.
If the current hybrid technology becomes more affordable and hybrids start to catch on with mainstream buyers, the economy of scale could be good for carmakers. Increased volume could help reduce the costs of the hybrid systems and assist the automakers with meeting the stricter fuel economy standards of the future.
OEMs have to get people behind the wheel of their hybrids if they want to achieve market acceptance. To get more people to give hybrids a try, automakers might have to forego the hybrid premiums. Your average buyer needs to be able to justify the purchase price, and it doesn’t equate to a good value if you sacrifice horsepower for fuel efficiency, but never actually realize any savings because you paid a premium when you bought your hybrid. Maybe automakers can get things to the point where buying a hybrid is actually just about trading horsepower for savings at the gas pump. Saving money by buying less fuel is what I thought the main idea behind hybrids has been all along.
Posted by JULIE CRIDLER
on
7/28/2010 5:29 PM
The development of a charging infrastructure for EVs is taking on a life of its own and styling / design is becoming a competitive differentiator even in advance of the market really taking off. It is becoming clear that the seemingly mundane task of recharging is going to become an area of new opportunity for both vehicle manufactures (at least those that are interested in getting involved in the charging infrastructure segment of the market) and outside companies. Nissan’s heavy involvement in establishing charging technology, as discussed in an earlier blog post, is a good example of this.
There are two recently unveiled charging stations – the WattStation from GE and Ecotality’s Blink – that show how design and styling are going to play an influencing role in this market. That WattStation was created by industrial designer Yves Behar to be a welcoming design that seamlessly integrates into the urban landscape as a regular part of our daily driving routine. The WattStation will be commercially available in 2011 and will enable vehicle charging in 4-8 hours. Ecotality’s Blink, designed by Frog Design, was introduced with a great deal of emphasis on the styling features – the two tone black and white color scheme and the interesting use of shapes, as well as a user-friendly touch screen interface and a cord that remains flexible even in low temperatures.
Even though the market is new and unproven, the competition is heating up. It is interesting that, for these two products that are so heavily influenced by technology, the market hype is as much about how they look as it is about how they function and perform.
Posted by KIM KORTH
on
7/27/2010 2:52 PM
A few days ago, I did a posting regarding our enthusiastic support of General Motors purchase of AmeriCredit finance. Our support was based on the importance of the subprime borrower to the automotive industry. In Friday’s New York Times, Joe Nocera wrote a terrific article entitled, “Credit Score is the Tyrant in Lending.” Here is a point from the beginning of his column:
“Essentially, a person’s credit score has become the only thing that matters anymore to the banks and other institutions that underwrite mortgages…To make matters worse... clients are having a difficult time just maintaining their current credit scores - even when they have done nothing to merit a downgrade.”
The quote is referencing the mortgage market, but the same problems hold true for access to automotive credit. While the article focuses on the inaccuracy of most credit scores in establishing credit worthiness and the “Rube Goldberg” way most credit scores are derived, the main message is that millions of perfectly worthy homebuyers (and auto owners) are being shut out of the market due to the ridiculously conservative approach financial institutions are taking to lending. Nocera relayed his conversation with a mortgage broker interviewed for the column as follows:
“Yes, she told me, she knew that underwriting standards had been way too lax during the bubble. But to her mind, the mortgage lenders had swung too far in the other direction, depriving perfectly creditworthy borrowers of the chance to get a mortgage at a reasonable rate.”
Our analysis on financing approaches in the automotive industry comes to the same conclusion. Hundreds of thousands of creditworthy consumers either can’t get a car loan or won’t take a car loan at the rates they are currently being offered. The only way is this is going to get better anytime soon is if the OEM has access to its own credit arm so it can use more reasonable lending standards. While there is some danger that they will start to lend to some people just to “move the metal” we are confident they learned their lesson from their own lending excesses of the past and this high-risk lending behavior is unlikely to repeat itself. Lending to worthy consumers that are currently rated as subprime is an essential step to a full automotive recovery.
Posted by MELISSA ANDERSON
on
7/26/2010 9:57 PM
It isn’t such a great summer so far for the West Michigan Whitecaps, the Class A minor league baseball team affiliated with the Detroit Tigers. With 9 wins and 20 losses, they are running considerably behind their 2009 win-loss percentage of .593. Fortunately, we have other home teams to root for here in West Michigan, and two of them, Gentex Corp. and JCI, reported quarterly financials this week that give much to cheer about.
The nice thing about a horrible year is that it gives you a basis for really great comparables. Gentex is the perfect example:
• Q2 net sales increased by 72% over the same period last year;
• Q2 record income from operations increased by 203%;
• Q2 net income was up 179%.
Gentex also says that it is keeping costs under control in spite of the increased volume, with the result that the gross profit margin is up from 30.5% in Q2 2009 to 36.7% most recently.
JCI reported that in its FYQ3, automotive net sales were up 43% over 2009 and net income swung from a $14 million loss to a positive $171 million. New programs are adding to its engineering and launch costs, but overall, JCI too is reaping the benefits of the crash diet of 2009. Unfortunately for JCI, its overall performance did not meet analysts' expectations, so shares fell even though the corporation more than doubled its earnings. The Building Efficiency segment was the party pooper, with net sales up only 2% over last year and profitability flat. Still, the auto team is doing its part, and we will look for these companies to stay the course through the second half, as light vehicle production remains relatively strong.
Posted by KIM KORTH AND TRACY SCHNEITER
on
7/23/2010 1:10 PM
Yesterday General Motors announced the purchase of AmeriCredit Corp. This will re-create a captive finance arm for GM and will allow them to get back into financing a much broader number of American consumers. Both GM and Chrysler have been severely restricted in their lending practices for the last year as they have had to rely on Ally Financial (the old GMAC) whose lending criteria are as stringent as that of a commercial bank. We were very excited when we heard this news as the ability to finance a broader range of consumers is a critical step in a return to normalcy for the automotive industry. So, imagine our surprise when we discovered that most of the press coverage and public opinion is overwhelmingly against the deal.
A typical comment was one posted by a subscriber to the Wall Street Journal who said, “GM is acquiring AmeriCredit so they can make loans to people who are otherwise unqualified for loans. This is on the taxpayers’ nickel. Where have we seen this story before?” This writer obviously hasn’t had notification that his credit card was revoked or been unable to qualify for bank or retail credit during the Great Recession. He and most of the other readers and pundits seem to be oblivious to how many good, pay-their-bills-on-time consumers have been shut out of the auto market for the last two years. We would argue that many of his neighbors, family members, co-workers, bosses, etc. are now falling into the “sub-prime” category. These are reasonable-risk consumers that have been completely unable to get a car loan.
The chart below shows the historical proportion of subprime borrowers running in the range of 13-15% of total new cars sold. The tightening of credit is reflected in the rising average FICO score in 2007 and 2008, and in the fact that the proportion of subprime is now about half of what it used to be. The really interesting fact is what lies beneath the 2010 subprime proportion of about 8%. This is the figure for all OEMs, but for GM, the proportion is about half that, or 4%. Because GM no longer has a captive finance arm, it is not able to go after that segment of the market the way other automakers are. If we taxpayers who own GM want to get good value for our investment, we should be demanding that they find a way to make a reasonable (not excessive) number of sales to this segment of the population. So IRN would like to be unequivocally on the record saying that the major OEMs’ return to owning captive finance arms is a good thing and absolutely critical to a sustainable recovery of this industry.
Posted by JULIE CRIDLER
on
7/22/2010 7:15 AM
One of the concerns potential buyers have about electric and range-extended hybrid vehicles is the distance that can be driven between charges. But, there is another potential obstacle in the mind of the consumer, and that is the life expectancy of the battery pack and the cost to repair or replace. Most EV companies spend considerable effort touting their vehicle’s range potential, but few have directly addressed the battery issue.
Just recently, however, General Motors announced that it will offer an 8-year or 100,000 mile warranty on the Volt’s lithium ion battery and its 161 components. This is certainly a wise move on GM’s part, as they are eliminating a major source of worry for would-be buyers, and hopefully securing a strong sales position right out of the chute, albeit for a small customer base. The warranty can also be transferred to another owner within the 8-year / 100,000 mile timeframe at no cost, so that could possibly help to keep the vehicle’s residual values strong – at least in the very early years of the vehicle’s life.
GM has reportedly put their battery design through rigorous testing at extreme temperatures on both ends of the spectrum, and the extended warranty offering is a statement to their confidence in the product. At the same time, should the battery prove to be less robust in real-world conditions, GM will not take a significant financial hit, since the volumes are relatively low. Furthermore, the initial launch volume is small, and GM will be able to make improvements as needed based on any warranty claims it might see from the first batch of products out on the market.
So overall, GM made a good decision by offering the attractive warranty – they are eliminating consumer anxiety with relatively limited financial exposure for the company.
Posted by TRACY SCHNEITER
on
7/21/2010 2:49 PM
With much news lately regarding the continued pessimistic outlook towards economic indicators such as the lack of a speedy jobs recovery or the need for some sort of miracle housing cure, I thought it was time to give a snapshot from IRN’s most recent vehicle production forecast. Given the context of where we have been, i.e. in the economic basement of 2009, things are certainly looking up. Our industry has weathered the worst of what had been unsustainably low volumes and has been steadily restocking inventories ever since.
Many suppliers we’ve talked to indicate they have reworked their business model to post modest gains at around a 12 million North American industry production level. IRN’s most recent forecast projects that level will be met in the first or second quarter of 2011 – just around the corner. The chart below shows selected segments - trucks, crossovers and small/mid-size cars – that will all share in the rebound. SUVs, shown by the line at bottom… not so much.
Posted by MELISSA ANDERSON
on
7/19/2010 4:48 PM
Our recent poll posed the question of whether our readers are fans of the trend toward dropping product names in favor of alphanumerics. This was prompted by the news that Kia is considering changing some names, i.e. making the Optima the K5 instead, re-naming the Cadenza the K7, and the Forte the K3. Hyundai Motor vice chairman Chung Eui-sun says that alphanumerics can increase the strength of an auto brand, but do we agree?
To the extent that letter-number combinations are heavily associated with European and Japanese luxury brands, the answer might be yes. Kia is reaching for that halo effect. IRN poll results suggest that we are not fooled by such superficial moves: 60% of the respondents are unimpressed by a meaningless letter and numeral, while 40%, on the other hand, hear the sizzle and smell the steak. It would have been interesting to get some demographic data to go with the survey results. Is it just crotchety old people like myself and John Teahen of Automotive News that are put off by this? Just how old was the letter-writer who suggested that the alphanumeric idea should be extended to families? “If I were young and starting a family, I would certainly embrace the idea. My first child would be D1, the second could be D2, and on and on.”
Hyundai Group’s US sales are up 21% for the first six months of 2010 over 2009. How much better could they do with names of symbols rather than substance? Perhaps we will find out.
Posted by TRACY SCHNEITER
on
7/16/2010 4:06 PM
According to a Ford spokesperson, substantial damage to rail lines from recent storms in Mexico has left Ford having to reroute shipments of the highly popular 2011 Ford Fiesta. Ford expects shipments to be delayed up to two weeks, which is quite a shame. The Fiesta is the ultra-fuel efficient, B-segment vehicle that is being manufactured in Ford’s Cuautitlan facility and already has waiting lists at dealers. Ford is heavily relying on both this new Fiesta and the upcoming redesigned Focus to continue to lift its 2010 and 2011 profits for the North American region and help fund development costs for additional programs going forward.
Posted by KIM KORTH AND TRACY SCHNEITER
on
7/15/2010 4:48 PM
Given the fact that we still get almost daily calls regarding Chrysler, it is probably a good time for an IRN update on their outlook. The key question we are perpetually asked is “Are they going to survive?” A series of additional questions normally follow such as:
• “We have been actively moving away from Chrysler but we are still seeing new opportunities. Should we change our strategy?”
• “We really like the new regime at Chrysler. Great communication, honest attempts to resolve differences, beginning to feel like the old Stallkamp days. While I hated them during the Nardelli period, now I would really like to see them succeed.”
• “We are seeing a ton of opportunity at Chrysler right now but my boss (or my private equity owner) is very reluctant to support anything relating to Chrysler. Should I change their minds, and if so, how?”
Since we are somewhat schizophrenic regarding their outlook in our office, we know how our customers feel. I (Kim) have been quite positive on the likelihood of Chrysler’s survival for some time. Tracy, on the other hand, has been quite skeptical. On the whole, however, the entire IRN team believes that Chrysler’s outlook has been steadily improving and their likelihood of survival has improved dramatically over the last six months. A few data points to support this increasing optimism:
• Chrysler North American light-duty sales totaled 671k units for the first 6 months of 2010 – significantly better than the same period in 2009 when they sold 582k units during a disappointing bankruptcy-induced stupor. June 2010 sales totaled 120k – up over 46% from June of 2009 (82k units). While these sales are still relatively anemic, they now have a cost structure that will allow them to survive at a sales level of 1.4 million units per year. (See chart below.)
• The Grand Cherokee just launched. While it is a little pricey for the segment, we think it will do very well, particularly since it is supported by a new ad campaign that reflects a higher level of sophistication in Chrysler marketing. It will also drive traffic to Chrysler dealers who have been spending the last year significantly upgrading their dealerships.
• Chrysler has been particularly hard hit in the area of sub-prime lending due to the more stringent lending policies of GMAC (aka Ally Financial). They have been working with their parent Fiat to expand their lending options and to allow them to finance more of their buyers. The Cherokee, for example, is offering 0% financing which should definitely help pump sales.
So the bottom line regarding Chrysler? While their outlook is certainly cloudier than that of either Ford or GM, it is looking a lot better than it did six months ago and we are encouraging our clients to actively pursue doing business with Chrysler.
Posted by IRN DEPARTMENT OF LIGHTER SIDES
on
7/15/2010 8:42 AM
Faithful readers know that we at IRN were quite taken with the original Kia Soul commercial featuring hip hamsters in a hot red Kia Soul cruising past humdrum hamsters spinning on their cage wheels. A large part of its charm was the element of surprise and creativity in making the point that this vehicle was something out of the ordinary. The question now is, 'do the hamsters have legs?' in the advertising sense of the phrase. For some of us, it's time to move on... Watch the latest iteration below and tell us what you think - does this commercial work for you?
Posted by JULIE CRIDLER
on
7/14/2010 2:32 PM
Recently introduced legislation, the Electric Vehicle Deployment Act of 2010, lays the groundwork for a community-based strategy for rolling out electric vehicles and increasing their market penetration on a national scale. If the legislation is enacted, there will be between 5 and 15 communities selected to encourage the deployment of electric vehicles through a series of incentive programs, tax credits, and financial assistance initiatives that are designed to bring the financial benefits closer to the point of sale. For example, in the deployment communities the $7,500 federal tax credit is increased to $10,000 and can even be transferred to a dealer so the purchase price of the vehicle could be accordingly reduced. Other examples of benefits afforded the deployment communities include funding for projects to bring a public charging infrastructure online more quickly and an extension of the federal tax credit for installing a home charger (extended through 2016 vs. 2012) among other things.
The rationale behind the community approach is that the lessons learned and best practices adopted can be applied in other communities later on to speed market penetration of electric vehicles nationally. It sounds great in theory, but will it work? A couple of drawbacks quickly come to mind. First, every community is different. What works well in one may not work at all in another, so there is no guarantee that the lessons learned can be seamlessly applied across all regions of the U.S. And, what if the wrong communities are selected for the test cases? Starting in the wrong markets could impede forward progress on a larger scale later. If EVs are met with less than enthusiasm by consumers in the deployment communities and they generate less than favorable publicity, it could ultimately put a damper on consumer acceptance overall. That being said, we have to start somewhere, and maybe a handful of carefully selected test case communities is what the EV industry needs.
Posted by KIM KORTH
on
7/12/2010 11:35 AM
For the last year, IRN has been counseling our clients that the days of relative stability and predictability in the economy are gone and we are entering a period of much higher volatility. The last couple of weeks are certainly a case in point. In terms of the stock market, the first week in July saw the worst weekly decline in the market since the recovery began in mid 2009. With continued worries about the European debt crisis, the mixed signals on the U.S. economy, and several days of hundred-point drops in the Dow before the 4th of July holiday, many people were convinced the market rally had finally ended and we were headed into the dreaded “double dip” recession. As you know, not only did the stock market stop its decline last week, it had three of the best days in history for stock market performance in July. Go figure.
Other leading indicators were equally volatile. From less than anticipated auto and retail sales (up but not as strong as analysts had hoped) to better than expected jobless numbers (even with the census hires going away) to worse than expected new housing starts (the loss of the new owner tax credit) - anyone following these trends began to feel a lot like an observer at a tennis match. So, with all of these mixed signals, where is the economy really headed? Toward more of the same. With 24 hour news media coverage and virtually instantaneous transmission of everything, increasingly rapid swings in outlook are becoming the norm. What does this mean to an automotive supplier?
• Get used to much greater volatility in inputs - materials, exchange rates, logistical costs, etc. Anything you can do to protect yourself from this volatility going forward is critical (e.g. material pass through).
• Avoid getting seduced into assuming there will be steadily improving vehicle production and sales. While we do believe we will see a return to more “normal” levels in the next few years, you must look at your numbers platform by platform and vehicle by vehicle. Create a best case/worst case planning scenario for the life of the program and try and keep your fixed costs tied to the worst case.
• The commercial side of program management is as important as the engineering side. Protecting (or improving) your profitability during program launch will be a key attribute of successful suppliers going forward.
Finally, get used to living in a world where the only real certainty about tomorrow is that it will be different from today.
Posted by TRACY SCHNEITER
on
7/6/2010 4:42 PM
June automotive sales posted a solid 16% gain over 2009 sales but were off by nearly 11% from the previous month of May 2010. IRN believes that aggressive sales incentives and increased financing offerings in May brought many consumers to the buying table. While over 5.5 million vehicles have been sold in the first six months of 2010 compared to only 4.8 million in 2009 (the ‘Great Recession’), this year is a bumpy year at best.
IRN doesn’t expect to see sales hit the basement again like last year but economic factors continue to point to extremely cautious consumers who continue to look for bargains and wait on the sidelines as long as possible. As a few new models start to peek their noses out into the market soon, sales should perk up for a couple of the OEMs in particular (i.e. Chrysler, thanks to their upcoming Grand Cherokee, and Ford’s Fiesta). Overall, IRN expects US vehicles sales to top off around 11.8 to 11.9 million light-duty vehicles in 2010.
Posted by KIM KORTH
on
7/2/2010 5:45 PM
During the dark days of last year, many industry participants predicted a massive downsizing of the supplier industry. Some analysts predicted as much as 30-40% of suppliers would not survive the dramatic downturn in sales of the first half of 2009. As many of you know, IRN never believed that was likely to happen (for a variety of reasons) and while there were a large number of bankruptcies and liquidations between October of 2008 and June of 2009, most of the supply base survived. After this massive “cleansing” of the supply base failed to occur, many of these same analysts argued that many suppliers were able to survive by basically mothballing their facilities. The real test, they claimed, would be when production started to ramp up again and weaker suppliers would be unable to get access to credit to support the upturn. We were definitely going to see a second and bigger wave of bankruptcies. So what happened?
These analysts were wrong again! As the Cash for Clunkers program kicked in during the 3rd quarter and production levels rose dramatically in the 4th quarter, suppliers across the board experienced something they had not seen in a long time. They were highly profitable. Things have only gotten better in the first two quarters of 2010.
Supplier profitability is the direct result of two major issues:
• Most suppliers reduced their breakeven points by between 20-40% in the first half of 2009;
• Most suppliers based their 2010 forecast on ridiculously low production numbers (i.e. they did not believe IRN’s forecast of at least 11 million units in 2010). With many suppliers planning on 8.5-9 million units of production, profitability improved dramatically as the industry consistently produced at a 11.5-12 million unit rate.
The result? Most suppliers were able to fund their re-start out of their own cashflow vs. having to get access to traditional credit. This has been a huge surprise to the financial community and has allowed many marginal suppliers to survive and begin repairing their decimated balance sheets.
|
|
HOT TOPICS: SUPPLIER STRESS
Posted by MELISSA ANDERSON
on
6/19/2010 8:25:08 AM
The results of IRN's 2010 materials pricing survey show how the environment has changed since our first survey on this subject in 2008. Suppliers have done a great deal to protect themselves in this area, and with good reason. The report covers what suppliers are expecting in pricing trends; whether they are pursuing cost recovery and in what form; how customers are responding; and other topics. It includes many nuances that will help companies evaluate their own activities and provide insight to interested observers on the dynamics of raw material supply. Order your copy of the report for US$99 by sending an email to survey@think-irn.com.
AUTOMOTIVE INTELLIGENCE: SNAPSHOTS
AUTOFUTURES® SUBSCRIBER ALERTS:
Posted by THE AIP TEAM
on
7/26/2010
IRN's OEM Assembly Operations Tracking Report (released on July 23, 2010)
IRN has updated its tracking report that lists all North American OEM assembly plants and any scheduled or anticipated plans for downtime or closing. We are always looking for feedback or any plant shutdown updates that you can forward on to us. Please feel free to send either to auto-intelligence@think-irn.com.
The North American Industry Results for June 2010 (July 22) are now available through your Autofutures Live account.
IRN's Q2 June 2010 Product Lifecycle Report (July 16)
IRN has updated its product lifecycle report that is published with each monthly forecast update. You can access this by logging into your AF LIVE account and visiting the WELCOME page. This document titled, Q2 June 2010 Product Launches, shows up under the section titled OTHER DOCUMENTS for your reference.
IRN's Q2 June 2010 Forecast Report (July 14)
The North American monthly forecast report is now available. In addition to the normal SUMMARY Of Changes (shows only the significant adjustments we made), we are also including a COMPLETE List Of Changes (shows every change "by vehicle").
As always, if you have any questions or concerns, feel free to give us a call at (616) 785-5175.
Sincerely,
IRN's Automotive Intelligence Products Team
|
