Crime Pushes Bulletproof Vehicle Production to Record High

Matt Posky
by Matt Posky

It’s an exciting time to be a manufacturer of bulletproof cars. Violent crime in Latin America is booming right now. For example, growing levels of drug-related violence made 2017 Mexico’s most murderous year on record, based on government statistics.

The problem has resulted in a 10-percent increase in demand for the nation’s car-armoring services this year, according to the Mexican Automotive Armor Association. Still, Mexico’s 3,284 bullet-resistant cars are nothing compared to the 15,145 vehicles armored in Brazil last year. That country holds an even higher murder rate per 100,000 inhabitants.

The armoring industry expects to see a 25 percent jump this year, as both governments predict further increases in crime. As a consequence, some automakers have decided to simply start offering from-the-factory protection to eliminate the customer’s need to seek bulletproofing elsewhere.

According to Reuters, Audi began production of an armored version of its Q5 in the central state of Puebla in mid-2017 for local sale and export to high-risk countries like Brazil and Argentina. Audi claimed its bulletproof Q5, which costs $87,000 locally, was an affordable alternative for consumers vs aftermarket firms. BMW, Mercedes-Benz, and Jeep have provided armored cars to Mexico (and elsewhere) for several years.

Some of their offerings are incredibly elaborate. Mercedes, which has been in the security vehicle business longer than most, even goes as far as offering an emergency fresh air supply to protect occupants from smoke or irritant gases, as well as automatic fire suppressant systems, in addition to the usual ballistic protection. We suppose that’s just the thing for heading into hostile territory.

If you’re wondering how dangerous these countries are right now, Brazil had 29.53 murders per 100,000 inhabitants in 2016, while the Mexican murder rate was closer to 19.26. South and Central America typically rank exceptionally high in the global murder rankings, along with the Caribbean. El Salvador, Honduras, and Venezuela are among the most dangerous, with murder rates well above 50 per 100,000 people. All of these figures are expected to rise in 2018.

For a point of comparison, Canada’s murder rate in 2016 was a scant 1.68 while the United States’ was around 5.35. But, according to the FBI, violence in the U.S. has been on the rise over the last two years following a long and steady decline, and gun violence is often disproportionately high. There’s also more money there for customers to spend on retrofitting high-end sport utility vehicles with bulletproof glass and reinforced doors. As a result, North America and Western Europe are expected to account for more than half of the total market share for armored vehicles over the next few years.

Interestingly, firearms don’t play into Latin America’s problem as much as one might think. Despite gun violence being a perpetual concern, the brunt of firearm deaths remain self-inflicted. While bulletproofing a vehicle does protect the driver from projectiles, many who purchase them don’t have gunfire on their mind.

“One of the crimes that hurts us most is kidnapping, that’s what we’re afraid of,” explains Arturo Avila, who operates a security company in Mexico City. Avila said he had been assaulted and robbed multiple times in recent years and now drives armored cars exclusively.

Security firms frequently rent or lease specially equipped vehicles to affluent customers worried about personal security, yet direct sales remain the bulk of the business. It’s definitely a strange business, and one that still accounts for just a tiny fraction of the overall auto industry. But it’s also growing. More rental services have cropped up in metropolitan areas across the globe, manufacturers are now providing from-the-factory armoring, aftermarket firms are making money, and sales projections look to stay strong.

[Images: BMW Group; Daimler]

Matt Posky
Matt Posky

A staunch consumer advocate tracking industry trends and regulation. Before joining TTAC, Matt spent a decade working for marketing and research firms based in NYC. Clients included several of the world’s largest automakers, global tire brands, and aftermarket part suppliers. Dissatisfied with the corporate world and resentful of having to wear suits everyday, he pivoted to writing about cars. Since then, that man has become an ardent supporter of the right-to-repair movement, been interviewed on the auto industry by national radio broadcasts, driven more rental cars than anyone ever should, participated in amateur rallying events, and received the requisite minimum training as sanctioned by the SCCA. Handy with a wrench, Matt grew up surrounded by Detroit auto workers and managed to get a pizza delivery job before he was legally eligible. He later found himself driving box trucks through Manhattan, guaranteeing future sympathy for actual truckers. He continues to conduct research pertaining to the automotive sector as an independent contractor and has since moved back to his native Michigan, closer to where the cars are born. A contrarian, Matt claims to prefer understeer — stating that front and all-wheel drive vehicles cater best to his driving style.

More by Matt Posky

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 25 comments
  • 33873 33873 on Jun 28, 2018

    But they come to our country as an act of love!

  • Sub-600 Sub-600 on Jun 29, 2018

    When your car is bullet resistant you know you’ve been touched by diversity. Kidnapping is part of a wonderful culture and should be embraced. Stronger together.

  • Kmars2009 I rented one last fall while visiting Ohio. Not a bad car...but not a great car either. I think it needs a new version. But CUVs are King... unfortunately!
  • Ajla Remember when Cadillac introduced an entirely new V8 and proceeded to install it in only 800 cars before cancelling everything?
  • Bouzouki Cadillac (aka GM!!) made so many mistakes over the past 40 years, right up to today, one could make a MBA course of it. Others have alluded to them, there is not enough room for me to recite them in a flowing, cohesive manner.Cadillac today is literally a tarted-up Chevrolet. They are nice cars, and the "aura" of the Cadillac name still works on several (mostly female) consumers who are not car enthusiasts.The CT4 and CT5 offer superlative ride and handling, and even performance--but, it is wrapped in sheet metal that (at least I think) looks awful, with (still) sub-par interiors. They are niche cars. They are the last gasp of the Alpha platform--which I have been told by people close to it, was meant to be a Pontiac "BMW 3-series". The bankruptcy killed Pontiac, but the Alpha had been mostly engineered, so it was "Cadillac-ized" with the new "edgy" CTS styling.Most Cadillacs sold are crossovers. The most profitable "Cadillac" is the Escalade (note that GM never jack up the name on THAT!).The question posed here is rather irrelevant. NO ONE has "a blank check", because GM (any company or corporation) does not have bottomless resources.Better styling, and superlative "performance" (by that, I mean being among the best in noise, harshness, handling, performance, reliablity, quality) would cost a lot of money.Post-bankruptcy GM actually tried. No one here mentioned GM's effort to do just that: the "Omega" platform, aka CT6.The (horribly misnamed) CT6 was actually a credible Mercedes/Lexus competitor. I'm sure it cost GM a fortune to develop (the platform was unique, not shared with any other car. The top-of-the-line ORIGINAL Blackwing V8 was also unique, expensive, and ultimately...very few were sold. All of this is a LOT of money).I used to know the sales numbers, and my sense was the CT6 sold about HALF the units GM projected. More importantly, it sold about half to two thirds the volume of the S-Class (which cost a lot more in 201x)Many of your fixed cost are predicated on volume. One way to improve your business case (if the right people want to get the Green Light) is to inflate your projected volumes. This lowers the unit cost for seats, mufflers, control arms, etc, and makes the vehicle more profitable--on paper.Suppliers tool up to make the number of parts the carmaker projects. However, if the volume is less than expected, the automaker has to make up the difference.So, unfortunately, not only was the CT6 an expensive car to build, but Cadillac's weak "brand equity" limited how much GM could charge (and these were still pricey cars in 2016-18, a "base" car was ).Other than the name, the "Omega" could have marked the starting point for Cadillac to once again be the standard of the world. Other than the awful name (Fleetwood, Elegante, Paramount, even ParAMOUR would be better), and offering the basest car with a FOUR cylinder turbo on the base car (incredibly moronic!), it was very good car and a CREDIBLE Mercedes S-Class/Lexus LS400 alternative. While I cannot know if the novel aluminum body was worth the cost (very expensive and complex to build), the bragging rights were legit--a LARGE car that was lighter, but had good body rigidity. No surprise, the interior was not the best, but the gap with the big boys was as close as GM has done in the luxury sphere.Mary Barra decided that profits today and tomorrow were more important than gambling on profits in 2025 and later. Having sunk a TON of money, and even done a mid-cycle enhancement, complete with the new Blackwing engine (which copied BMW with the twin turbos nestled in the "V"!), in fall 2018 GM announced it was discontinuing the car, and closing the assembly plant it was built in. (And so you know, building different platforms on the same line is very challenging and considerably less efficient in terms of capital and labor costs than the same platform, or better yet, the same model).So now, GM is anticipating that, as the car market "goes electric" (if you can call it that--more like the Federal Government and EU and even China PUSHING electric cars), they can make electric Cadillacs that are "prestige". The Cadillac Celestique is the opening salvo--$340,000. We will see how it works out.
  • Lynn Joiner Lynn JoinerJust put 2,000 miles on a Chevy Malibu rental from Budget, touring around AZ, UT, CO for a month. Ran fine, no problems at all, little 1.7L 4-cylinder just sipped fuel, and the trunk held our large suitcases easily. Yeah, I hated looking up at all the huge FWD trucks blowing by, but the Malibu easily kept up on the 80 mph Interstate in Utah. I expect a new one would be about a third the cost of the big guys. It won't tow your horse trailer, but it'll get you to the store. Why kill it?
  • Lynn Joiner Just put 2,000 miles on a Chevy Malibu rental from Budget, touring around AZ, UT, CO for a month. Ran fine, no problems at all, little 1.7L 4-cylinder just sipped fuel, and the trunk held our large suitcases easily. Yeah, I hated looking up at all the huge FWD trucks blowing by, but the Malibu easily kept up on the 80 mph Interstate in Utah. I expect a new one would be about a third the cost of the big guys. It won't tow your horse trailer, but it'll get you to the store. Why kill it?
Next