A scene from the 2011 Chicago Auto Show. Photo by Randy Stern

The North American International Auto Show inspired a lot of optimism amongst all of us working in and around the automotive industry. The show recently held in Detroit hosted a slew of major introductions on the floor of Cobo Hall amid an atmosphere never seen in the automotive industry in the past few years. The cause for celebration was nothing more than honest optimism thanks to a rise in auto sales from the depths of the global financial crisis.

Hopefully, all of the optimism and the industry’s celebratory mood will carry over to the next major auto show on the calendar: Chicago.

Why Chicago this year? It is the nearest major auto show to home. McCormick Place has two massive halls full of the latest automobiles, as well as related experiences for the show attendee. Scheduled to be introduced in Chicago so far are the new 2013 GMC Acadia, the Volkswagen Beetle with the TDI engine, 2013 Toyota Land Cruiser and the RAM Laramie Limited. We are also in for a few more surprises to come.

I will be on the floor of McCormick Place for the second year in a row during press preview days. This marks my fourth Chicago Auto Show as working press – my fifth overall in attendance since 2002. This year’s coverage will not only feature debuts from the show itself, but in-depth coverage of previously introduced new models, additional industry insights and analysis and a peek into coming attractions for Lavender and Victory & Reseda.

I am planning on posting a few articles from the floor of McCormick Place on V&R, along with plenty of photographic images onto my Flickr site. I will also be doing some live tweeting as well. Just follow @VictoryReseda on twitter to catch the fun during Wednesday and Thursday.

Stay tuned for Chicago Auto Show coverage starting Wednesday morning…

Photo by Randy Stern

Today is Super Bowl Sunday…for most of us.

For me, it is just another Sunday. Actually, this date is a historic one normally marked annually by some magical event that occurred at dawn on this date 48 years ago.

Somewhere along the Ventura Freeway at a hospital on Balboa Boulevard in Encino, California, a baby boy was born to a Barbara Jean Stern and her husband Sheldon. He was a healthy infant – a bit chubby, but no signs of immediate health issues. They brought him home…and the rest is, well, history.

There is a tinge of embarrassment in telling this story. I’m getting to an age where birthdays become somewhat meaningless. Don’t get me wrong, I have no qualms about celebrating it. It’s just that it doesn’t have the cache as it once had.

Of course, I’ll say this now and my 50th comes up in two years…black balloons, coffin cakes and all.

I still believe in trying to do something special on this day. This Super Bowl is not it, I’m afraid. Sure, we’ll argue about the National Football League’s new Collective Bargaining Agreement that includes a clause protecting players on the basis of sexual orientation. Then again, half the country would rather kneel alongside Tim Tebow than even acknowledge this advance in professional sports labor relations.

Or, watch the state of Minnesota fall into another budget crisis on Zygi Wilf’s desire to build a stadium for his pathetic NFL franchise.

Furthermore, what’s the point of watching the Super Bowl anyway when most of the commercials have already been aired on YouTube? I hate to say it, but neither of these spots had the raw emotion of Chrysler’s “Born of Fire” (Eminem and the 200 rolling through Detroit with a gospel choir at the Fox Theatre) and Volkswagen’s “Little Darth Vader” (for the Passat) for last year. Not even Jerry Seinfeld and Jay Leno’s Acura NSX spot did it for me. Sorry, I’m not a fan of either one of these semi-funny celebrities.

Oh, and Honda, we’ve seen this before…in the 1980s. I’d like to keep it back there, please?

Don’t get me wrong – I’m not entirely a grumpy old man at 48 years old. There’s still some youth left in me. I believe in embracing the new while celebrating the past. This is why the 2013 Dodge Dart seems appropriate as one of the subjects I will be examining further at the Chicago Auto Show later this week. When I was born, the Dart helped shape Chrysler’s decade as it was about to embark on a complete reconfiguration of its lineup for 1965. Today, the Dart marks a new beginning for the company. It is the first fruit of a promise made in late 2009 by Sergio Marchionne to bring a series of new Chryslers that embody the best of the Pentastar and its guiding partner in Fiat.

Cadillac will also play a part in this extended celebration as I also get to examine the ATS in Chicago – General Motors’ answer to the growing small premium sedan segment. In 1964, a Cadillac was seen as a beautifully sculpted symbol of American luxury. You can get a Cadillac in one size – big – or even bigger if you have a chauffeur on your payroll. Today, you have a choice of sizes to fit your lifestyle. No one in 1964 would have ever dreamt of the lineup Cadillac will have in its showrooms by this summer.

Who would have ever dreamt 48 years ago that a Japanese automaker would have such a presence in this country? Toyota’s march to market leadership was a steady one, despite its recent fall due to legal actions and corporate corrections to its products. No one envisioned a vehicle more luxurious than the 1964 Crown – one with its own brand name. Neither were we prepared for propulsion technology fusing an electric motor with an internal combustion engine, a gearless transmission and batteries more efficient than the ones we used to put distilled water in. Toyota, Lexus and Scion will be stops along the way in Chicago as well.

Of course, one would not forget about the contributions Europe made back then. If you shopped around at the time of my birth, you would have a wide variety of foreign cars at your disposal. There were Opels sold at Buick dealers, Vauxhalls at Pontiac dealers, Simcas and Sunbeams could be had at your local Chrysler-Plymouth-Imperial dealer, and British-built Ford Cortinas sat alongside Falcons and Fairlanes. We used to see Renaults, Peugeots, Citroens, Triumphs, MGs, Rovers, Alfa Romeos and Lancias on our roads. Holdens were sold at Pontiac dealers in Hawaii around this time as well. Mercedes-Benz was starting to gain traction as an alternative luxury product against the Jaguar/Cadillac/Lincoln/Imperial/Rolls-Royce set.

Only a select few remain on sale from Europe today, it is Asia that leads all foreign makes on this soil. There’s still relevance in the Eurozone, despite impending recession in Spain, debt crises in various EU states and unemployment around 10% across the continent. Still, we buy automobiles from German brands – some of which are built outside of the EU. Though we’re seeing a resurgence of the automotive industry on these shores, Saab is in bankruptcy proceedings and GM Europe is faced with a dilemma to remain operational or reduce its presence tremendously. On the flip side, BMW outsold Mercedes-Benz last year and Audi made significant gains in market share. Volkswagen is coming back strong. We are also seeing a new side to Jaguar as Tata is guiding both the big cat along with its Land/Range Rover brother towards a rebound. There may still be some semblance of life across the pond.

My birth era was an interesting one. The previous November saw a popular American President assassinated, effectively ending an era of glamour and grace. Days after I arrived in the world, a popular musical group from Liverpool arrived in this country to the hysteria of the universe. Then, the Ford Mustang arrived. It changed the way we drive.

Today is also an interesting time. Knowing what I know now, I am seeing both acceptance and retraction for who I am. I found a home in the automotive industry as a journalist, commentator and photography. Being an out gay man has been an asset working in this field, not a liability as I found out in some corridors of the professional sports world. As part of the LGBT press, I am also wedged by my dedication to my subject matter and the back-and-forth socio-political struggles of my culture and community.

I am thankful for what I have gone through to get to this stage in my life. To be able to live my passion through the experience of telling stories about the automobile has been a blessing I only dreamed about a decade ago. Turning this age may not be as exciting as turning 50 or 60, but I embrace every minute this universe provides even as I go about the business of storytelling.

This is how I will spend my birthday…sharing this story with you.

Photo by Randy Stern

In the last State of the Union address, President Barack Obama proclaimed that the automotive industry in the U.S.A. is “back.” Some may argue that the industry’s return to prominence has not been fully realized, but there are signs that it is on the upswing.

However, this is not the same automotive industry of my childhood. Nor is it the same industry of my ancestors. Progress in manufacturing and an emphasis on globalization changed the way we view the manufacture of automobiles. On one hand, it had helped North America by the opening of production centers by non-Detroit-based automobile corporations.

On the flip side, the strategy of bringing the automobile closer to its marketplace through localized manufacturing plants evolved to accommodate a wider offering of products and advances in transportation and technology to eliminate the need for extra production capacity. Since the 1970s, this meant losses in manufacturing jobs and idle facilities – some reborn into other uses.

There are now generations of Americans who have forgotten that there was a mighty production facility in their community. Though some of them have not seen the wrecking ball, others either resemble a lay of wasteland or have been built to unrecognizable specifications.

There are some manufacturing facilities that continue to produce automobiles. They are imposing sites, sprawling for acres with telltale signs of industrial might. These continue to fuel the engine of the American economy.

A tour of these facilities – operational or otherwise – is in order. I will start just a few miles from home…

SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA: On December 16, 2011, Ford rolled out its final North American market Ranger pickup from the plant alongside the Mississippi River. It ended over eight decades of automobile manufacturing in the state of Minnesota. While discussions continue to resolve the future of the Highland Park plant, the empty facility serves as a reminder of what Minnesotans could do when given the right tools to do so. Over the decades, Ford built various models for regional distribution. As production became centralized per a specific line, the Ranger would find its way from Louisville, Kentucky to make way for a growing market in F-Series trucks and larger SUVs. The Ranger was suited for Saint Paul and it would be joined by a Mazda-badged version for the North American market. In the end, a combination of demand for the F-Series over smaller trucks and a global economic crisis would not keep the old plant going on forever. As of today, plans to convert the site have not been finalized by the City of Saint Paul. Once they do, I expect a quick sale by the Ford Motor Company of one of the most valuable properties in the Twin Cities.

JANESVILLE, WISCONSIN: My mother’s side of the family settled just south of where the old General Motors plant is located. I used to live north of there in the den of academia and state government. Janesville continues to be a crossroads of agriculture and manufacture, but the latter has been quelled for some time now. The mighty GM plant on the south side of Janesville stood on one side of the town’s economic and social divide – one that was seen as both of the city’s high schools. Having seen various models come through its 90-plus year-old facility, the last models built at Janesville reflected both an old and recent economy – GM’s large SUVs and Isuzu’s medium duty trucks. The idea was simple – as long as there was capacity, Janesville would build it. Today, it is an idle plant. On some materials, it is stated that Janesville would be a back-up assembly facility. It is apparent that modern manufacturing may not be suitable for this old plant. There has been no word on what the future holds for the plant and the City of Janesville. One would hope that it would be suitable for manufacture of some form again.

KENOSHA, WISCONSIN: Just north of the Illinois/Wisconsin border stood a sprawling complex born from a simple name: Rambler. When the Nash Motor Company bought out Rambler after the turn of the 20th Century, it acquired and expanded its assembly facility just west of Lake Michigan. The buildings have seen many names posted along its sides: Nash, American Motors, Renault and Chrysler. It’s labyrinth of assembly lines spanned many buildings with skyways sending partly-assembled chassis and bodies from one building to another. Within this labyrinth produced some machinery only a few still fondly remember. Names such as Rambler, Hornet, Gremlin, Eagle, Alliance and Fifth Avenue came out of the multi-block complex in the middle of Kenosha. Chrysler closed down the plant after it consolidated its engine lineup as a result of the Fiat-guided post-bankruptcy five-year plan. The plant design is no longer sufficient for modern assembly or component manufacture and there had been no word on the final disposition of the main site. Another associated AMC facility on the lakefront has since been razed for the HarborPark development in 1990. AMC also operated a car body plant in Milwaukee that has since been demolished as a consequence of the merger with Chrysler. One look westward along the Illinois state line would give you a sense of what modern manufacturing is all about.

BELIVDERE, ILLINOIS: When I would do my Madison-Chicago runs a decade ago, I would pass this modern facility alongside Interstate 90. Chrysler built this plant in 1965 as a facility to provide additional capacity for its full-sized Plymouths and Dodges. Over the years, the plant located east of Rockford built the Dodge Omni, Plymouth Horizon, the Dodge Dynasty, the Neon, the Dodge Caliber, the Jeep Compass and Patriot. In a matter of months, the 2013 Dodge Dart will come down the Belvidere line – soon to be joined by other CUS-Wide platform products. I first saw this plant en route to my new life in Madison, Wisconsin back in October of 2000. I drove westbound on Interstate 90 when it came into view. It gave me a sense of grounding to see Chrysler’s facility sprawled in the middle of rural land to know what it builds for global audiences. It was indeed wise for Fiat and Chrysler to see value in this facility for it to build a new line of smaller vehicles for this market and beyond.

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS: Deep in the southeast corner of this great city stood a mighty engine of production. It is Ford’s main plant for Chicago going on nine decades, building everything for this huge market. In 1985, it was one of two plants building the Ford Taurus and Mercury Sable. Today, the current Taurus is built alongside the Lincoln MKS in the bleak, rusty plant on Torrence Avenue. The old plant embodies a history intricately linked to Chicago’s post-Fire industrial boom – designed as an alternate plant for Model T assembly in 1924. The plant has served the tucked-away Hegewisch neighborhood well…and brought some delights for enthusiasts when pre-production vehicles would pop up in nearby Pullman and Calumet City. During Press Days at the Chicago Auto Show in 2004, Bill Ford had then-Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley on hand to announce another round of jobs to build the big front-drive sedans and crossovers at Torrence Avenue. I was glad to see the old plant sprung into life, as it continues building revised product for the market. This plant is supported by a component stamping facility in suburban Chicago Heights.

However, there was another plant in Chicago that had a very interesting and brief story – Ford City. Ford never built any vehicles in the huge facility south of Midway Airport. Neither did the plant’s original constructor – Chrysler. It was built for World War II as Chrysler was contracted by Wright aviation to build Cyclone engines for the B-29 bomber. As the war ended, Chrysler did not need the plant anymore. Preston Tucker did. The entrepreneur bought the plant from the War Assets Administration to build his dream car. Only 51 of them built – including one that was sold at the recent Barrett-Jackson auction in Scottsdale earlier this month for close to $3 Million. Tucker failed and Ford swooped in to buy the plant. Originally, Ford wanted to use the plant to augment the Torrence Avenue facility. Instead, it went back into military aircraft engine production through the Korean War. By 1959, Ford gave up on the facility and concentrated their Chicago area efforts on Torrence Avenue and the Chicago Heights stamping plant. It is now a retail mall serving the Midway Airport and South Side community.

NORMAL, ILLINOIS: If you head south out of Chicago for about 150 miles, you will run into Mitsubishi’s sprawling assembly plant in the Bloomington-Normal area. Production began in 1988 as a joint venture with Chrysler to build several shared products for the North American market. The share of ownership went back-and-forth until 2001 when Mitsubishi took complete control of the plant. Its main goal was to offset production from Japan while developing market-exclusive products for this side of the Pacific. Many Eclipses were built from Day One in Normal. Galants, Endeavors and Mirage sedans were part of the production mix at Normal, alongside various Chrysler products ranging from the Eagle Summit sedan to the Chrysler Sebring coupe. The plant continues to build the Galant and the Eclipse for the time being. It has ceased production of the Endeavor as of last year. There had been talk of supplanting the Project America vehicles for one of Mitsubishi’s current products. They had an agreement to build the small ASX, known as the Outlander Sport here, starting later this year. Mitsubishi needs some form of boost in its sales and its production plant in the USA – right within reach of supplier chains in nearby communities and states.

Photo (c)2012, Paul Webb LAT Photo USA via the Ford Motor Company

Last weekend, we experienced what motorsport is all about.

The 50th running of the Rolex 24 Hours at Daytona reaffirmed that true competition amongst drivers and machines can be achieved when it is engaging and exciting for everyone involved. When the fans are engaged, the drivers, the teams and the vehicles become an integral part of the experience – either at the track or away from it.

After the deaths of IndyCar star Dan Wheldon and superbike racer Marco Simoncelli, there was concern whether motorsport would recover and in what shape they will take in the coming season. Add the sometimes moronic behavior of some of stars of the NASCAR Sprint Cup circuit, and even the most fickle fan would be spurned away.

Some of the behavior seen in and around the top tier of NASCAR is not unlike what I’ve witnessed on the same level of the sports I used to enjoy. For every Busch brother, there’s a Miguel Cabrera, Chad Johnson and Jean-Francois Jacques making a mockery of the world of sport. It was to the point where I no longer have respect for the game my mother raised me to love – thanks to the likes of Bud Selig, Ozzie Guillen and Nyjer Morgan.

In 1970, I remember watching the Daytona 500 and loved the fact that familiar cars were running around the super oval and great speeds with competition in mind. I was naïve to know the intricacies and dramas that permeated the days when NASCAR’s Grand National circuit began to mature towards the Winston Cup. Later that year, it was the Indianapolis 500 with the Brickyard in full pomp and circumstance. It was a time when you gravitated to Mario Andretti and the Unser brothers for USAC sanctioned open wheel warfare.

Those were the days.

Today, I am looking for a new home to enjoy sports in general. Something to augment the Saint Paul Saints of the American Association of Professional Baseball and the Minnesota Stars FC of the North American Soccer League – two of the purest forms of their respective games within reach of home. As an automotive journalist, it would be natural to follow some form of motorsport. I am surrounded by racers and race analysts in my field and they have provided me some perspective and intimate knowledge of various levels of the sport. This helps in framing my knowledge of the automobile world.

But, which motorsport should I truly feel at home in? NASCAR? Though I admire the work of Michael Myers and his team of journalists at Queers4Gears, I am still not on board with the most popular sports entertainment organization in the country at present. I understand the formula at the Sprint Cup and Nationwide Series levels, it’s not entire attractive to me.

Formula One? Are you kidding? As long as Bernie Ecclestone can weasel his way into complicating the sport any further, it doesn’t have the cache that it held when Andretti won the World Driver’s Championship or when Alain Prost ruled the circuit. I will admit that I happen to like Sebastian Vettel…such the anti-Schuey (that’s multiple times World Driver’s Champ Michael Schumacher to the rest of you), if I may add! Still, the circuit is more of a circus than anything. Not my cup of tea…

It’s not Wheldon’s death that has spurned me from IndyCar. Nor it was Danica Patrick’s jump into Sprint Cup racing that caused this rift. It’s the fact that it has not discovered the laws of physics. Banking on curves does play havoc on lighter weight machines. If you go even three wide on a 15 percent bank or more, who knows what will happen to the car? That is exactly what transpired at some of the tracks on last year’s IndyCar circuit. Perhaps the street or flat circuits will help ease the pain of last year’s tragic ending. There’s always the Brickyard on Memorial Day…

That pretty much leaves sports car racing. Luckily, there are two series I could follow – The Grand Am Rolex series and the American Le Mans Series. The one thing about these series is the attainability of the technology used in these competitors. The GT cars are easy – they are exactly the same cars on the street with a few more horsepower and some better geometry for the track. Prototypes use familiar power sources – for the most part. Some are seen as test beds for tomorrow’s technologies. There is honest involvement by the manufacturers in these series – Audi, Porsche, BMW, and Honda are amongst many – to become involved in the racing aspect as well as track-level engineering of the machines they use in battle on the tarmac.

We may not be aware of other series that are not as high profiles as the ones mentioned above. Grand Am and the Sports Car Club of America offer an array of choices for the motorsport fan involving even more familiar competitors. There is talk of a B-Spec series pitting today’s subcompacts on the track. Though you may be at Road America or Watkins Glen for the big names and the main event, there’s a whole weekend of great racing to take in involving everything from older BMW M3s to Volkswagen GTIs. These racers and their machines remind me of the days when the SCCA National Championship meant a lot – such as John Buffum’s white British Leyland racers running around Road Atlanta or Mid-Ohio. The weekend racers with a truck, a trailer and a track ready Mazda Miata – those are the true heroes of motorsport!

This is why motorsport has returned to my realm once again. The idea of testing a driver’s skill in a familiar steed around a two-to-three mile course with trees on one side and a chicane on the other. You could be Elliot Forbes-Robinson, Hurley Heywood, Patrick Dempsey of “Grey’s Anatomy” or AC/DC’s Brian Johnson for one day. You may have an old warhorse with a local sponsor or a team with a huge budget, mainstream sponsorship and a crew of a dozen or so. Motorsport engages fans unlike few sports ventures do. The essence is that we all love to drive and those who take the track on any given weekend are simply fulfilling our dreams.

The fact that the Rolex 24 Hours at Daytona’s official hashtag on Twitter trended higher than the NFL’s Pro Bowl in Honolulu should tell you something about where the real excitement was on Sunday afternoon. Too bad there’s not a race happening on Super Bowl Sunday…er, my birthday.

Besides, there’s nothing wrong with watching cars go by at speed.

Photo and image courtesy of Chrysler Group LLC

Remember when you actually followed your owner’s manual and replaced parts from your local dealership? You recall the clause in the owner’s manual to replace your oil filter, air filter and spark plugs with a manufacturer’s own brand. How many of us actually did that?

Seventy-five years ago, a company called Chrysler decided to join General Motors and Ford to offer a distinct brand of maintenance parts along with accessories to customize your vehicle. GM called their products “AC” or “Delco-Remy.” Ford had “Autolite” and “Motorcraft.” Chrysler came up with the brand “Motor Parts” whose acronym has gone beyond just a name they gave for an anti-freeze product – Mopar.

The name Mopar is more than just the brand for parts and accessories for Chrysler and Fiat products. It is a calling card for all things Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, RAM, SRT, Plymouth, Eagle, DeSoto, Imperial…and so on. For the past 75 years, Mopar is a term of endearment for a company and its output of loyalty through customization and optimal maintenance of Chrysler’s vehicles.

Why Mopar? It is one of many things Chrysler has done right for the past 75 years. The reward is to distinguish the brand as an extension of the ownership experience. This experience has now been expanded to include replacement parts for Fiat worldwide, including the Magneti Marelli brand. As one of the outcomes of the Fiat-guided post-bankruptcy Chrysler, Mopar was given a new life beyond just the shelves of the parts department at the local dealership. Chrysler and Fiat CEO Sergio Marchionne recognized this and announced the formation of an autonomous brand within the structure of both companies after the five-year plan was announced in late 2009.

The point of Mopar today is to facilitate a lifestyle amongst Chrysler’s enthusiasts. This began to take root as an extension of the birth of the HEMI engine in the 1950s. No one thought of in-house performance parts and accessories before the automobile grew along with customization and the new youth culture of the postwar era. By 1962, the Mopar brand grew from the parts attached the engine to its iconic status of the nickname for those early “funny cars” on the drag racing circuit. By the 1970s, performance parts for Chrysler products of old and new took on another layer of the Mopar name – Direct Connection. This led to a huge growth in aftermarket products with Mopar’s name and logo happily emblazoned on it. When the AMC merger came about in the late 1980s, Mopar’s greatest growth was realized by adding a line of Jeep accessories – a lucrative business in itself.

Nowadays, Mopar can offer you practically anything for your Chrysler or Fiat vehicle. For example: When the 2013 Dodge Dart was introduced at the North American International Auto Show, Mopar announced that it will offer 150 different accessories for the new compact sedan. It is not about how many items they can offer to personalize your ride – but, rather, having the foresight to create them while the vehicle is in development. Many manufacturers can say that, but you can tell there is an honest synergy happening at Auburn Hills to make this happen. Not to take away from various parts, accessory and performance teams at other companies, but there is a level of engagement within Chrysler that allows Mopar to be creative in terms of dealer-installed and aftermarket items for any particular vehicle.

Where Mopar differentiates itself from its competition is the volume of external engagement in the industry. Even if you are loyal to certain brand or corporation, you cannot ignore Mopar’s presence on- and off-line. As we say in social media: “Engagement is the key to a successful presence with your customers and fans.” Mopar’s social media-driven engagement should be recognized as ground-breaking in this industry. If you followed events, such as MoVenture, then you get what Mopar is doing externally.

Who would have thought that a company’s in-house parts, service and aftermarket accessory and motorsports brand would be so engaging after 75 years of brand recognition? The answer to that question is the heart of what social media successes are made of. It also serves as a huge lesson for the entire automotive industry – the service, parts and aftermarket sector included.

How will Chrysler celebrate Mopar’s 75th? Lots of social media engagement, an introduction of their latest Mopar-branded vehicle (There are Mopar editions of the 2011 Dodge Charger on sale as we speak) and plenty of giveaways! It is an extension of what Chrysler had been doing through social media since the Fiat-guided five-year plan was announced in 2009. You can see on the Mopar.com website, if you’re curious – as I have no details until their webcast on Tuesday, January 31. That’s how good the folks at Mopar are…

This celebration goes beyond offering an air filter for a HEMI or a Slant Six, a beefier camshaft for a one of the 2.2litre Turbos of 1980s vintage, a heavy-duty winch for your new Jeep Wrangler Unlimited, the Wi-Fi router for your RAM 1500 to connect with the office from the construction site, or that cool retro Challenger cap you got for Christmas. It is an embodiment of how lingo, lifestyle and loyalty are embodied into a legacy spanning seven-and-a-half decades. It is about how Mopar’s future as a global service, support and aftermarket brand is being shaped by the legacy off two historic automotive companies. It is as you walk through a line of Chrysler 300s, Dodge Omni GLHs and Jeep Grand Cherokees and simply call them “Mopars.”

The biggest result of the 1980 vote on Proposition A in Los Angeles County. Photo by Randy Stern

Automobiles weren’t the only modes of transportation affecting the universe in 1982.

In the years after World War II, the way Americans viewed transportation shifted to reflect an overall lifestyle migration from an urban society to metropolitan sprawl. Places that were once agrarian and bucolic became paved with new family housing units and expanding businesses supporting the new suburbs.

To coincide with this move, it was deemed that the current public transport infrastructure would not be the optimal solution for linking these new homes with places of employment. Somehow, the equation came up with money for roads – limited-access ones designed for automobile use, specifically – instead of laying down new streetcar rolling stock beyond a city’s terminus. Instead, public transit sought to remove the old streetcar in favor of the bus in induce more flexibility in the transport system.

Buses supplanting streetcars was a drop in the bucket to what transpired during the postwar years. Automobile sales skyrocketed thanks to the suburban migration. To survive in the suburbs, you have to find a way to go from Point A to Point B. The automobile became the primary mode of transport in these new neighborhoods thanks to the G.I. Bill, affordable purchasing options, low insurance rates and very low fuel prices.

There were some consequences to the growth of the automobile. Traffic on main arteries grew beyond capacity. Air quality worsened in various places. As a way to alleviate these problems, public transportation agencies sent buses out to the suburbs. In some cities, commuter rail operations began to take root as another, more direct option for downtown workers. Metropolitan areas also had grander solutions involving metropolitan rail systems – including a return of the streetcar.

My hometown, Los Angeles, bore the worse of these problems. In light of the constant smog layer that hung over Southern California and the increased number of cars on the region’s freeways, they also discussed solutions to these problems for the entire Basin. The primary public transportation provider was the Southern California Rapid Transit District – one of the largest operators of transit buses in the USA in 1982. The RTD’s network of buses stretched from Thousand Oaks to the west out to San Bernardino in the east, down to Anaheim in south. Interlocked with the RTD was a network of smaller municipally-owned transit systems running buses for their communities that connected and, sometimes, competed with the larger regional transit operator.

The intersection of Victory and Reseda Boulevards were served by two main RTD routes: One connecting Burbank with a cross-town bus ending in what is now called West Hills; the other running from Northridge down along Ventura Boulevard – onward to downtown Los Angeles. In similar communities across the USA, the chance that a public transit system servicing at the frequency of these two lines is quite rare for the most part. The RTD knew that communities, such as Reseda, would be key areas where transit would be served regularly to keep commuters and non-automobile owners moving.

However, the RTD also knew that eventually an all-bus transit network would run its course. The freeways were either reaching capacity or are beyond limits. Buses were part of the traffic pattern on Los Angeles freeways with no end in sight – unless the RTD came up with better solutions.

This was where the Metro Red Line was born.

In 1980, the RTD sponsored a county referendum to increase the sales tax to help pay for the building of a rail infrastructure for Los Angeles. Though it was not the first ballot measure of its kind in California – and not the first time such a question was brought to the voters of Southern California – it was rare to ask voters to pay for more taxes to pay for public transportation. That all changed with a statewide ballot initiative that changed the way property taxes were valued. In 1978, the property tax revolt initiative passed with one consequence – it decreased revenue to the coffers of each county within the state.

Since local governments experienced a steep decrease in revenue from property taxes, Californians began to see a reduction of services that were taken for granted. The biggest losers were the public schools as district budgets were being cut in response to the property tax revolt. Another consequence of the initiative was public transportation. It seemed that the days of heavily subsidized fares and service funding were about to go away. To offset the loss in property tax revenue, transit systems had no choice but to raise fares and/or cut service. It also meant that certain operational improvement and expansion projects were sent to the back burner until there was a better way to pay for them.

Governments, transit operators and other interested parties knew that a big revenue generator was from the sales tax. Most states elected to set their own sales tax to ensure a steady flow from retail sales into the government’s coffers. There was no law preventing local governments from tacking on additional taxes on top of what the state asked for on each transaction. Usually, they’re allowed a fraction of a percent for such additional taxes.

This was exactly what the RTD had in mind. Add a fraction of a percent to the sales tax charged throughout the RTD’s service area – primarily Los Angeles County – and have the revenue go towards construction of a rail infrastructure. A brilliant idea for a region in love with the automobile!

Los Angeles County voters passed Proposition A. A half-a-percent sales tax was added to every taxable item throughout the county. By 1982, we were engaged in conversations regarding one specific piece of the rail network: The Wilshire Corridor. When the ballot measure was on the ballot, the biggest selling point of the proponents was the building of a subway line underneath Wilshire Boulevard – one of the key thoroughfares in the city. Wilshire ran from downtown Los Angeles through Beverly Hills and Westwood before it ends in Santa Monica by the Pacific Ocean. The RTD ran frequent bus service on the street for years to overwhelming capacity. The idea of the subway was to alleviate stress on surface routes concentrating key intersections as stations for transfers to surface bus routes. The subway’s proposed route had it turn up towards Hollywood, through the Cahuenga Pass and Universal City to its ultimate stop in North Hollywood.

However, the first project that would actually be constructed appeared to be the easiest to do – the Blue Line light rail project from Long Beach. However, the Blue Line relied on the Red Line’s subway construction for it to be connected as part of a regional network, so construction plans called for an underground transfer station underneath 7th and Flower Streets.

It was not a perfect design as it involved two different types of rail systems. The Wilshire/Hollywood Corridor was designed for “heavy rail,” using heavier rolling stock for higher capacity. The line would be the first of the kind to be built after the opening of MARTA’s system in Atlanta. The Red Line would be designed with maximum space in most of the stations, even beyond the large station enclosures in Washington, DC’s Metro Rail system. Yet, it would be the only heavy rail line in the entire network – rightfully, so.

While the Wilshire Corridor subway garnered the most discussion about the future of transit in Los Angeles, there were a lot of us in the San Fernando Valley had no idea about any other projects stemming from the Proposition A funds. Aside from the Blue Line light rail from Long Beach, we had no idea that the “extension” from North Hollywood would become a bus rapid transit right-of-way. The old Southern Pacific rail corridor that ran down the middle of Chandler Boulevard eventually making its way to Reseda and Canoga Park would have its rails ripped out in favor of a mixed-use paved and landscaped alternative pathway. Opening 25 years after Proposition A was voted on; the Metro Orange Line ran bus service down a two-lane busway, with a bicycle/pedestrian pathway running alongside of it most of the way. Frankly, none of us in Reseda in 1982 ever saw that coming.

The Orange Line did take away one of our hangouts: The “Trestle.” The Southern Pacific rail line had a few little nooks unknown to the public at large. There was a bit of a bridge that equaled out the rail line near a National Guard station on Victory Boulevard. The Trestle became a place where some of my friends would hang out and party. Having never been there, I could only imagine what transpired those late nights in an area that was supposed to be off limits to civilians. I wished I did. But, alas, progress took a bit of history away from our youth.

Not all railroad lines were ripped out for bus rapid transit. Another surprise developed in the form of a commuter rail network that would serve the San Fernando Valley and the rest of Los Angeles Basin – Metrolink. No one in 1982 expected that Los Angeles would follow in the path of New York City, Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia and the Bay Area in terms of creating a wider network of commuting options using rail rolling stock for multiple purposes. The line did not run through Reseda, but one could get the train in Northridge for a commute either towards Ventura County or into downtown Los Angeles. You could even take the train to Burbank Airport – something that was made possible thanks to a prior expansion of Amtrak’s service in California by the end of the 1980s. Metrolink began service in 1992.

One could imagine the future. I imagined it upon my visits to the Bay Area during that time before my relocation up there in 1987. A given ride on BART made me question the transportation system in Los Angeles. Why did the RTD have to rely on buses to solely be the solution to get people out of their cars and off the freeways? A temporary answer came when Los Angeles hosted the 1984 Summer Olympic Games. The RTD forged a campaign that got Losangelinos out of their cars for the two weeks during the games to improve air quality and provide a network of buses to several key venues of the games. It worked. I recall at the halfway mark of the games when ABC’s Jim McKay reflected on how the freeways were less crowded and the air was more breathable.

After the games, Los Angeles began to implement the dreams of Proposition A. After my nine-year stint in the Bay Area, I returned briefly to my hometown to experience the results in action. I was amazed that my hometown could execute a rail system – both heavy and light modes – that worked along key corridors…and, worked extremely well!

Even the Basin’s transit network reached out further. Growth in housing in the Santa Clarita, Antelope and Moreno Valleys saw new buses and commuter rail arrive at their doorsteps. It is now possible to commute from Lancaster to downtown Los Angeles or at one of the employment centers in the San Fernando Valley – something never thought possible in 1982.

Perhaps, it was all a dream. In 1982, it certainly was. The reality certainly elevated my hometown with a new found fondness for it.

All photos by Randy Stern

If this was any other year, I’d be happy to celebrate my birthday on Super Bowl Sunday.

Not this year, I’m afraid. It is not because the Minnesota Vikings went into complete retrograde. Just my interest in the National Football League waned severely this year, thanks to the Collective Bargaining Agreement and the constant frustration with the state of cultural relations with most major professional sports leagues.

Frankly, I could care less who is playing in this year’s Super Bowl (that would be the New England Patriots and the New York Giants – correct?). If it is your team that will be on the field inside Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis – good luck!

Still, football was one of my favorite sports to follow and go deep with for the longest time. I recalled some memories from the game – in attendance, of course. In some cases, they involved automobiles.

On this special edition of Five Favorites, let me log back into time to see what crazy automobile-related events transpired around the pigskin and the 100-yard field.

THE RACE TO THE COLISEUM: The highlight of going to anything back in Reseda was being with a group of friends – or, so-called friends. We all got the idea of attending a Los Angeles Raiders game against the visiting San Francisco 49ers during the 1985 season. We gathered at a friend’s work in Northridge waiting for some stragglers to convoy to the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum. It got so close that we would end up late for kickoff. Where the fun begins was a race between two white Fords – a friend’s co-worker’s Mustang notchback and my rented Tempo. The “race” got interesting as we put foot to metal in our underpowered white Fords down the Hollywood Freeway onto Vermont Avenue. We kept on getting yellow lights at practically every intersection – to give you an idea of how insane our run was. All I knew that the people in my car were ready to kill me. Luckily, we were glad to get our cars down near the Coliseum just after kickoff. At least the ‘Niners won…

CHARGER-MANIA: Winters in Southern California aren’t like winters elsewhere. The air used to just cool down, but sunny skies always prevailed. It was an action-packed Sunday starting with a football game in San Diego – ending with a holiday party for my job back in the San Fernando Valley. Originally, I was going to take a co-worker – until he backed out. Fine…I went solo. On a lovely December Sunday in 1986, I headed south on Interstate 5 in a rented 1987 Ford Taurus GL from Reseda to what is now called Qualcomm Stadium for a Chargers-Seattle Seahawks tilt. It was a leisurely drive down to San Diego –arriving before the gates open. Coming back towards the Valley was a different story. I left before the end of the game, so I was able to leave the stadium swiftly. Then, Interstate 5 became a parking lot around Camp Pendleton. That was when I re-discovered the checkpoint patrolled by the California Highway Patrol. After that, I had my foot down on the Taurus for the run to Woodland Hills. I made it just in time for the holiday party to start. What about the game? The only memory of it was Steve Largent set a career mark that game…

AN EARLY POST-THANKSGIVING EXIT: What would be the most significant Thanksgiving weekend in my life ended at Anaheim Stadium on a beautiful Sunday afternoon. The Los Angeles Rams played the Washington Redskins during the 1991 season. With my brother and sister-in-law in tow, we sat on the lower deck stands on the north side of the stadium – those seats no longer exist, by the way. By the third quarter, I had to leave to catch my flight home to the Bay Area out of LAX. I had a rented 1991 Oldsmobile Cutlass Ciera with me, while my brother had his car alongside as we went our separate ways. I would have loved to stick around for the end of the Redskins victory over the Rams, but there was a Delta flight to catch for SFO.

WE’RE PARKING WHERE? In another one of my visits to Southern California from the Bay Area in 1989, a group of my old friends from Reseda decided to take in a UCLA-Arizona State game at the Rose Bowl. We were a mixed crowd: One of my friends was on the football team at Arizona State, while his wife is a UCLA graduate. The rest of us were made up of USC fans, Cal State Northridge alums…and me. I had a rented Pontiac Grand Prix coupe that weekend and figured we all get there – somehow. After meeting up at a friend’s home in nearby Altadena, they suggested we park at the nearby golf course. No one told us that we would be parking on the golf course itself. It was OK prior to the game since there was some sunlight left before kickoff. It was not a huge turnout and it appeared we had the section all to ourselves. Rightfully so – we tend to talk a lot of smack amongst each other. As we left the stadium, we headed back to the golf course to find our cars. One small problem persisted – there were no lights on the course. It would be easy to find a silver Grand Prix in the dark. It wasn’t.

LOST IN ANOTHER STATE: How did the 2010 Buick LaCrosse win the 2009 VOTY? It went to South Dakota. Part of the adventure with the LaCrosse CX was a little trip up Interstate 29 out of Sioux Falls to see where I could cut back into Minnesota. I ended up in Brookings – home of South Dakota State University. As I meandered into town, I got lost. Little did I know there was a Jackrabbits football game happening and ended up following the crowd to the stadium. Actually, I sort of knew the game was happening, but forgot when kickoff was. As I approached the stadium, I tried to find a place to turn around. Some parking lot guy was yelling at me. I yelled back saying that I need to turn around. He was no help, but I got out of there in haste. Luckily, I did find my way out of Brookings, but ended up on a zigzag pattern somewhere in Eastern South Dakota to find the Minnesota border. Remind me to never go to Brookings again…during football season.

Chevrolet Code 130R (above) and Tru 140S (below) Concepts. All photos (c)2012 General Motors

To be up front here, I’m not a fan of concept vehicles.

I understand why they were created. Either a company wants to play around with a design language that will eventually appear on production models, or to tease us with a production vehicle in disguise. Still, I rather have a sense of reality when I see a “concept” than some Gene Roddenberry/George Lucas-inspired look into the future.

While watching the insanity that is the North American International Auto Show, it dawned on me that there were some concepts that would need further examination. They had some form of value tied into the potential for production of these fantasies in metal, rubber, plastic and upholstery.

Amid the hoopla of the Cadillac ATS, Buick Encore and Chevrolet Sonic RS, General Motors trotted out two concepts for the bowtie badge. The idea was to create vehicles for the upcoming generation of drivers to enjoy. What made the Code 130R and Tru 140S quite interesting were the simple fact that both concepts were two-door coupes.

Coupes? For Millennials? I must be getting old…

It makes sense, really. A recent conversation with some other journalists and enthusiasts regarding whether the Chevrolet Cruze should spawn either the hatchback for the North American market or a coupe drew a mixed bag of responses. It feeds into the talk of a potentially growing market for coupes geared towards the Millennial generation. Perhaps, this is all justified somehow.

Frankly, I was not convinced. Yet, I figured I try to speculate as if GM was going to build either one or the other to compliment the Cruze in expanding a market already started by the Hyundai Veloster. A market I once enjoyed through the lens of my 1991 Acura Integra two decades ago.

CODE AND/OR TRU – WHAT ARE THEY? Though GM’s materials did not state which platform the Code is derived from, they did peg the Tru coming from the Delta architecture – the one that underpins the Cruze, Volt, Buick Verano and Opel/Vauxhall Astra. Therefore, the Tru is a front-drive compact hatchback coupe – closer to what some of us journos and enthusiasts were talking about.

Would it be far fetched to say that the Code is also derived off the Delta platform? If so, it would justify the existence of the 1.4litre turbocharged ECOTEC underneath both concepts. Both concepts tout an uptick in power for the small booster current lurking under the hood of the Cruze, Sonic and the upcoming Buick Encore. With designs such as the Code and Tru, 150HP is a pretty good number to start with. It is a given that consumers would choose between a manual and an automatic with the turbocharged 1.4litre mill.

GM also claims that these two coupes offer an environment reminiscent of a sedan. This claim would mean two things: A good amount of interior space and they would be completely related – if not integrated – into the Cruze lineup. A closer look at the concepts would help comprehend the impetus behind this claim.

THE PAST AND THE FUTURE: So, what do these two two-door Chevrolet concepts remind you of? Millennials need not be reminded of a couple of vehicles from my generation (or, rather, the late Baby Boomers): The Chevrolet Vega and Monza. Billed as GM’s entry into the gas miser category, the 1971 Vega had the Toyota Corolla and Datsun 510 in mind when it came out with four body styles – including a panel van. It was a charming idea – until the engine melted or self-destructed. Building off the Vega was the 1975 Monza – a sporty version of the Vega. The latter were intended to ease the pain of the Vega. They did – sort of.

However, Gen-Xers would point out to the first front-drive J-cars as reminders of the Code and Tru. Both the Chevrolet Cavalier and Pontiac (J)2000 were offered in both hatchbacks and two-door sedans. Unlike the Vega and the Monza, the J-Car was front-wheel-drive – closer to at least the Tru.

When I look at the Code and Tru, I do see what some of my colleagues were on about. Not just reminders of GM’s past efforts to capture the youth market (The Vega/Monza and the early J-Cars), but of the notion for a coupe accompanying the strong selling Cruze. GM designed these two to use familiar cues of other Chevrolet products, but create a distinctive profile.

There is one little detail to discuss: the Crossed-Flags badge on the side of the Code. Going back to the 1950s, the Crossed-Flags were applied to Chevrolets that embodied performance and sportiness. They first appeared on the 1953 Corvette and had been on various other Chevys – including the Corvair Monza. Normally, one would identify the Crossed-Flags with strictly the Corvette. Seeing it on the Code – knowing it has turbocharged 1.4 under the hood – threw some alarms wondering if Chevrolet was planning on linking this notchback coupe with the oft-discussed C7 (Seventh Generation Corvette). Frankly, I wouldn’t even consider linking the two – siding with heritage than rumor.

BUT, WHICH ONE? Both the Code and Tru make compelling cases for production. If the requirement is to have Chevrolet offer a compact coupe to compete against the Hyundai Veloster, Kia Forte Koup, Honda CR-Z and, though it is a stretch, the Scion tC, then either one would do the trick.

The Code seems more production ready, design-wise. It has a Camaro-esque stance that is scaled down for the segment, without the drawbacks of the Camaro’s roof. To me, it has the stance of BMW’s 1-Series coupe. This may be intriguing in markets where the 1 M is revered in the same light as the M3 and so forth. The Chevrolet may not offer the drama of a 1-Series, but it would be a youthful option for those who enjoy the pleasures of a notchback coupe.

The Tru is aligned more with the CR-Z and the tC. The Tru is a hatchback with a swooping fastback line – more the norm in today’s coupe market. Certainly, the lines will be tamed if it goes into production, but one would hope that the muscular bulges are retained on some level. The one thing the Honda and Scion would like you to think that they offer an air of absolute masculinity from their coupes. Being masculine in design and performance helps in future plans – SCCA club and series racing, for example.

There are some advantages each one enjoys over the other. Rear headroom seems to be better in the notchback Code then the fastback Tru. The Tru may offer more cargo space with some flexibility over the Code. Yet, without going further into breaking down each one – they both appear to be the same idea with two different interpretations.

SELLING TO THE MILLENNIALS: Toyota touted its Scion brand as one geared for younger drivers. In reality, Scion attracted all ages and cultures to its youthful products. Honda experienced the same result when they introduced the Element crossover. If you attempt to market to a certain demographic, that product will most likely attract other groups who just may like the car.

Was this something Chevrolet had in mind when they made the statement about inviting Millennials to “co-create” the Code and Tru? What will prevent a Gen-Xer or Gen-Yer from buying a production version of the Code or Tru simply because they could not afford a BMW 1 M or embodies a preference towards domestic automobiles?

There’s no question that these small coupes will sell. As to how many of these will be in the hands of Millennial consumers remain to be seen, but I expect they will make up a significant number of sales for either the Code or Tru.

And, when they build it – either one or both – it’s going to bring some more fun back to the bowtie. That we can all expect from these concepts.

If it weren’t for some “divine foreign intervention,” this would not have been made – or have succeeded!
1984 Jeep Cherokee Chief. Photo courtesy of Chrysler Group LLC

If divine foreign intervention did not come in time for an American automaker, the company in question would have probably ceased to exist by 1982.

It is an audacious statement to make where history was thwarted to save a company from extinction. We’ve seen this many times over the past 30 years where Detroit-based automakers sought alliances and acquisitions with other automakers around the globe. To recall each one would be a massive effort to digest and analyze. Yet, most of the readers of this site have probably forgotten the scenario that put American Motors on the brink before Renault came in to assist them through most of the 1980s.

Ah, yes, AMC. Remember them? Let me refresh your memory…

In 1954, a new company was established as the result of a marriage between the spun off automotive division of the Kelvinator Corporation and an aging, but strong small Detroit automaker. As Nash and Hudson combined operations and product lines, AMC thought to have the innovation and the forward thinking to outsmart the remaining “Big Three.” This notion was expanded when AMC purchased the Kaiser Corporation’s last remaining automotive division in 1970 – Jeep.

In the midst of AMC’s consolidation, the American auto industry paid their last respects to the Studebaker Corporation in 1966. It was thought that Detroit would remain with four major automakers in place for the duration of the Millennium. Emboldened with Jeep on its side, AMC seemed to have the path towards accomplishing this vision.

Through the OPEC oil crisis and the fallout that put Chrysler on the brink of bankruptcy, AMC had its own failures to work though. Product development at Jeep was virtually stagnant, as AMC took a “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” approach to the iconic sports utility brand. Some products AMC produced were outright failures. The Gremlin was simply a Hornet with a chopped rear end. Plenty of consumers did not view the Gremlin as a competitor to the Ford Pinto, Chevrolet Vega and any imported compact car in the market. The Pacer was simply the wrong vehicle at the wrong time.

Prior to Le Regie‘s overture at AMC’s Southfield headquarters, the two companies had cooperated before in the 1960s. AMC needed an outlet to sell its cars in Europe and Renault agreed to build Rambler Classics and Americans from Completely Knocked-Down kits in France. Renault’s North American operation simply imported cars from France to a fickle market. The 5 – known as the LeCar stateside – was seen as a quirky, but semi-fragile alternative to Volkswagen and the Japanese in terms of fuel efficiency and fun to drive aspects. Renault managed to sell enough LeCars and 15/17 coupes to keep afloat in the USA.

This time around, Renault and AMC sought to create a another joint venture involving the manufacture of each other’s products for a global market. In 1978, the two companies agreed to such a venture that would benefit both companies – starting an agreement to distribute each of their products in their appropriate markets. Renaults made their way into AMC showrooms in the North America, while Jeeps were being sold at Renault dealers in Europe.

There were plenty of obstacles challenging the foundations of this joint venture. The pressure was on in Southfield to increase fuel efficiency and update the engineering on Jeep products. As the Japanese brands gained serious ground on the marketplace, AMC’s and Renault’s cars were being passed up for the likes of Honda, Toyota and Datsun. Financial worries were building at AMC to the point where the banks refused to loan more money to the company. This left AMC at risk of shutting down if they cannot make it on its own.

AMC eventually asked Renault for a $90 Million loan to keep things afloat. Instead of lending the money, Renault agreed in January of 1982 to acquire 49% of AMC. AMC simply became part of Le Regie…sort of.

Weeks after the acquisition agreement, Renault sent over a veteran executive, Jose Dedeurwaerder, to Southfield. As President of AMC, Dedeurwaerder reviewed the way the old company did business and made sweeping changes. In no time, Renault’s AMC was a leaner operation through streamlined management and manufacturing processes. On the assembly line floors of Kenosha and Toledo, a new technique in building vehicles were introduced – something Renault had instituted worldwide. By the start of the 1983 model year, AMC’s own lineup was pared down to the four-wheel drive Eagle wagon – a vehicle originally designed in 1970 as the Hornet Sportwagon.

Meanwhile, Renault supplanted AMC showrooms with their own vehicles. The LeCar effectively replaced the Spirit hatchback. For 1981, the Renault 18 was introduced to replace the Concord sedan and wagon. The 18 was a hit in Europe and Renault hoped for the same success stateside – except it went up against the Honda Accord. Prior to the acquisition agreement, Renault added the Fuego coupe for 1982 – another hit back on the old continent.

Though all of the French-sourced cars were practically visual improvements at AMC dealerships, Renaults weren’t exactly problem-free. Despite instituting quality control at Kenosha and Toledo, some may argue that it was all a mask for the quality problems Renault’s imported cars embodied. This is why consumers would turn away and head towards the nearest Volkswagen, Toyota, Nissan/Datsun or Honda dealer after a test drive in an 18i or Fuego.

The most important offspring of the acquisition were a couple of upcoming new products that were key parts of the original joint venture agreement back in 1978. Renault originally agreed to have the LeCar built at Kenosha. Instead, the French had a better idea. The compact car market continued to grow with the Volkswagen Rabbit, Toyota Corolla, Honda Civic, Ford Escort and Nissan Sentra claiming sales from larger, less efficient products. Renault already had a car to compete in this segment – the 9. In Europe, the 9 was hugely touted as France’s answer to the Volkswagen and the Ford. The sedan had a very clean and efficient design. Reanult and AMC decided that building the 9 at Kenosha instead of the LeCar made more sense for growth in the USA market.

Photo by Randy Stern

The job went to AMC’s Richard Teague to shape the 9 for North America production. He took the simple lines and elements of the 9 and Americanize them. The result was the Alliance – a 9 that wore both the Renault diamond and AMC’s logo on it. It looked like the 9, but with elements placating USA regulations and supposed consumer tastes.

The Alliance drew a lot of attention upon its introduction in the fall of 1982. Renault supplied the engines – a 1.4litre and 1.7litre. AMC made sure they would have the requisite equipment levels American consumers expect from their cars. As a result of these efforts, Motor Trend awarded their Car of The Year Award for 1983 to the Alliance.

The Alliance wasn’t fool proof. There were some initial quality issues with the Kenosha-built cars. Complaints mounted on the lack of power from the 1.4litre engine, though the 1.7litre version wasn’t much of a motivator, either. The Alliance attracted enough buyers to keep AMC afloat, but the car was simply outclassed by the likes of the Rabbit, Civic and Sentra.

Following the Alliance, Teague went to work on the hatchback brother to the 9 – the 11. Another strong seller in Europe, the 11 took the Fuego’s glass hatch design and melded it onto the 9′s basic design. Teague did not touch that part of the 11, but employed the same concepts from the Alliance onto the 11. The Encore debuted for 1984 as a companion to the Alliance on the Kenosha line.

The work of Renault-AMC did not stop with passenger cars. While developing the Renault 9 and 11 for North American consumption, they went to work on a brand new Jeep. In 1982, AMC kicked around the idea of a smaller Jeep SUV based on a brand new platform. The plan for the new product was to retain as much of the Jeep’s reputation in strength, durability and four-wheel drive ability and fuse it into a more fuel efficient vehicle with advanced engineering for its segment. It sought to advance Jeep towards the end of the Millennium with such a product.

In the fall of 1983, Renault and AMC introduced the new Jeep Cherokee and Wagoneer. Under the guidance of product developer Francois Castaing, it would become part of the change in American motoring. The smaller Jeep made it easier for Americans to enjoy off-roading, while being civilized enough to take the kids to school or tow a small boat to the lake. As General Motors built a two-door SUV off the S-Truck platform and Ford introduced the Bronco II off the Ranger’s chassis, Jeep’s Cherokee added a four-door wagon version at the onset. The Cherokee/Wagoneer were the first of the “smaller” SUVs to be built from the ground up – something unheard of at the time from a North American automaker.

Globally, the new Cherokee was seen as comfortable and capable SUV against the likes of the Toyota Land Cruiser, Nissan Patrol, Mitsubishi Montero/Pajero/Shogun and the Range Rover. The Cherokee may not have been driven in the jungles of Asia or the grasslands of Africa, it could do well along the mountainsides of North America and the green lanes of the UK. It simply returned Jeep back into the global arena.

Because of the Cherokee, AMC’s stock was ripe for a complete takeover. Renault would not be the one to do it – they were not in the position to acquire anything beyond a majority stake in AMC. However, a resurgent Chrysler was in a shopping mood, led by lee Iacocca’s vision of a global powerhouse for the K-Car company. In 1987, Chrysler agreed to buy out Renault’s stake in AMC and merge it into the Pentastar family.

The timing was quite interesting for such a move. Renault retooled AMC’s Brampton, Ontario plant for production of a North American-designed version of the 25 executive sedan – the Premier. The year before, Renault imported the popular 21 family sedan as the Medallion, with Americanized adaptations to it. It was also ready to nix production of the Eagle 4WD wagon by the time AMC became part of Chrysler. Eagle became the brand for any car sold under AMC or Renault’s banner.

The asset Chrysler wanted the most was Jeep. Both Renault and AMC made their money off of the new Cherokee and it became their best selling product at their showrooms. Chrysler knew it had a winner in the Cherokee and the Wrangler as it continued cultivating the brand around these two vehicles.

However, Chrysler also acquired an asset that would help them gain momentum again in the 1990s – AMC’s Renault-influenced management processes. When it was time for Chrysler to renew its product line, they threw the K-Car DNA out the window. Instead, Chrysler integrated Renault and AMC’s management into the pipeline to create a leaner operation inside its Highland Park headquarters. Castaing changed the way Chrysler developed products by concentrating on an integrated platform-based approach than a traditional separate design and engineering development plan. The result was the follow-up to the Premier – the cab-forward sedans off of the LH platform.

Through its link with Renault, AMC was provided a chance to remain a viable part of North America’s automotive industry. In turn, Renault tried to increase their presence in this marketplace. Sometimes, these alliances work, but others do not.

When it was announced 30 years ago that Renault took 49% of AMC, I immediately thought that it would just be Renault and Jeep. In essence it became as such, except there was a market to keep the Eagle 4WD wagon on the lots. I was quite entertained by the newer Renaults – the 18i and Fuego. There’s a bit of quirkiness that attracts me to the Renaults of the era – from their ignition keys to some of the shapes inside and out.

Deep down inside – perhaps it’s because of my quarter French (OK, Alsatian) heritage – I hoped that the Fuego would work out for our market. I was blinded by its looks without understanding what was lurking underneath them. One could dismiss the level of quality as being relative to the times. It’s one thing to design something different to the tastes of another market, but one must be able to match the wants of design and quality to win over those customers.

However, I had no idea how important a part Jeep would play in the ensuing years of the Renault-AMC relationship. I should have seen this coming through the windshield of my dad’s 1981 Jeep Grand Wagoneer. I remember when he bought it through one the biggest Jeep retailers of the time, Brian Chuchua’s Jeep in Fullerton, California. I had a chance to drive this old school large SUV in the summer of 1982 as a way to get to an Oakland A’s game during my post-high school graduation trip to the Bay Area. I always envisioned Jeep’s products as a true recreational vehicle – one you take up into the mountains on a weekend of fun. Nothing prepared me for how civilized the Grand Wagoneer was. It did not dawn on me that it was the direction Jeep had in mind once they introduced the smaller Cherokee and Wagoneer a year or so later.

Renault stepped in at the right time to save AMC from oblivion. The venture have not have yielded great results for Renault through its own product line, but by taking Jeep to the next level. What transpired afterwards was ripe for AMC’s final acquisition by Chrysler. We may have forgotten about the Renault Alliance and the Eagle 4WD wagon, but without Le Regie‘s 49% investment in AMC 30 years ago – there would be no Jeep for us to enjoy today.

Funny how history sometimes repeats itself…

Taking Photos of Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT8. Photo by Randy Stern

We, automotive writers and journalists, love getting asked consumer questions. For example: If it were our money, what would we get for a certain vehicle class you’re considering? We don’t mind at all…though our perspective would be somewhat different than the average consumer. Then again, we could be wrong completely…

The subject of this “Your Turn” piece is a friend of mine in Grand Forks, North Dakota – Chester Beltowski. He is a photographer and a student at the University of North Dakota. Chester and his partner recently took delivery of a 2012 Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT8 – one of the hottest vehicles on the market lately.

The story is not about the fact that they got the new hot Grand, but rather the process of getting there.

I knew both Chester and his partner for years and, in turn, they were aware that I am an automotive writer. Because of this vocation and art, the questions began as to what vehicle they should buy for a SUV/crossover that would have a level of luxury they enjoy. According to Chester, they were looking at various options and were ready to settle for a BMW X5 or a Mercedes-Benz GLK, until they saw a neighbor with a 2008 Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT8. Just so happens that Chester also owns a 2010 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited Sahara, therefore the idea of the Jeep SRT8 was firmly planted in both of their heads.

The story continues when the new Grand Cherokee came out. Chester’s partner messaged me to find out whether I knew anything about a SRT8 version of the new Grand. I had a hunch it would happen, but no solid information available to confirm it. This went on through the 2011 New York Auto Show, when the SRT8 was unveiled. Chester contacted his local dealer in Grand Forks until it was time to place their order.

They took delivery on November 22, 2011. Since then, they put on 1,400 miles. Chester reported that he loved the performance of the SRT8. I can attest to the immediacy of the throttle as Chester recorded an average of 5.0 seconds from 0 to 60MPH. That throttle response knocked me back a few feet. Chester appreciated the level of luxury inside the SRT8′s cabin. Chrysler’s interiors had been just simply top notch quality-wise of late and the GC SRT8 was no exception.

Yet, there are a few complaints. Chester reported that the audio system in the Grand SRT was “horrid” due to a lack of bass “punch” and the lack of a balanced midrange. He also found the satellite navigation system’s menus to be “clunky” and the UConnect Voice Command system semi-responsive, the Snow mode on the driving dynamics selector “useless,” and a transmission response lag when switching from the brake pedal to the accelerator while coasting in traffic.

Although the SRT8 isn’t perfect, Chester states that he feels “great” when he drives it. Earlier in the week, Chester’s partner messaged me to state how protective he was of the car. For the money the SRT8 commanded, I fully understand both their feelings about their high performance SUV!

There are additional images on Chester’s Flickr page – Cubcake Photography – dating to when he took delivery of the Grand SRT. You may want to look at his work photography work…because he’s pretty damn good at what he does with his subject matter!

My sincerest thanks to Chester for letting me experience the Grand Cherokee SRT8 – from the passenger seat. Believe me, it is one of the best seats in the house.