Bob blogs. Mr. Lutz' entries on fastlane.gmblogs.com are irregular enough to merit cybernetic Metamucil, and the GM Vice Chairman's comments are about as 'off the cuff' as the State of the Union address. Even so, the blog provides fascinating insight into The Main Man's mindset. Sure, you have to slow the spin and read between the lines. That just makes it more fun. Bob's last entry, May 12th's 'The Game Plan… an Edited Version', is a perfect example.

Even before we start, he's waffling. The 'edited version' in the title implies that the full blueprint for GM's turnaround is too long or complicated for the General's public. It's a stunningly efficient projection of corporate condescension. In case you missed the point, Maximum Bob immediately reassures visitors that he reads their comments. The hand-holding exercise is necessary because Max Bob never answers a specific post, yet understands that his impersonal commentary violates the spirit of the exercise. To wit: 'I know that some bloggers [answer questions] more quickly than others…we're all doing what we can.'

Who killed the full-sized SUV? There they were, lumbering along, transporting America's families in comfort and style, when BANG! Dead genre driving. The biggest of the big– mighty Yukon XL's, epic Sequoias, humongous Hummers– now sit on dealer lots in long, neat rows, covered in ten-foot pole marks. JD Power reports that sales of full-size SUV's have dropped 22% so far this year. Sales of Ford's Explorer are off by 25% in the same period. Formerly truckeriffic GM is teetering on the abyss. Who dunnit?

Suspect number one: gas prices. The media coverage connecting rising gas prices with shrinking SUV sales has been relentless. Story after story showcase a working-class Dad or multi-tasking Mom whose love affair with their SUV rolled over and died (so to speak) when its petrochemical needs became financially overwhelming. Or, as printer Bob Fisher of Medford put in a recent NY Newsday article, "my Durango is killing me in gas."

The Jaguar XJR is an iconic car. No wait. I mean, it's an ironic car: an automobile with a huge gap between expectation and reality. For example, you expect a leather-lined British luxury sedan to literally reek of class. The XJR smells of… nothing. You expect the torch bearer for Jaguar's performance heritage to handle corners with cat-like reflexes. It doesn't. And yet, the XJR perfectly embodies the Jaguar creed of "pace and grace". Truth be told, the XJR is both more and less than it seems.

On the more side, the XJR will pleasantly disappoint anyone expecting dodgy electrics, rusting panels and faulty mechanicals. While JD Power's Initial Quality Survey is more about customer satisfaction than build quality, the brand's ascension to the second place slot is a reasonable reflection of the XJR's reliability. No part of the sports sedan seemed predisposed to rot, break, fall off or fail. It's a thoroughly modern machine.

Vice President Spiro Agnew used to call the press 'nattering nabobs of negativism'. The barb was part of Agnew's campaign against the press during the Nixon administration. Today, GM and its apologists are also accusing journalists of negative bias. While their language isn't as colorful as the disgraced Veep's, the idea is the same: GM is the victim of a malicious media. Sure, the company has a few 'issues', but the media's perception of GM's products (and therefore the public's) lags behind reality. GM isn't bad. It's just misunderstood.

This anti-media bunkering was recently emboldened by customer surveys from Strategic Vision Inc. and JD Power. In Strategic Vision's 'Total Quality Award', GM scored more victories than any other manufacturer. Six GM products took the top slot in their genre: the Pontiac G6, Buick Rainier, GMC Sierra, Cadillac Escalade, Chevrolet Corvette and Hummer H2 (tied with the Range Rover). Given the G6' lukewarm reviews, the scorn heaped upon the gas-guzzling Hummer and the cold shoulder afforded the Ranier, Sierra and Escalade; the survey provided plenty of ammunition for GM supporters who consider the press 'hopeless, hysterical hypochondriacs of history'. Well it ain't necessarily so.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a plan! Post-Fiat payoff, post-financial quarter from Hell, post-Kerkorian, post-junk bond status, pre-stockholder meeting, The Detroit News has finally unearthed GM's strategy to extract itself from the multi-billion dollar hole that threatens to swallow the entire corporation. Step one; stop digging.

According to Mark LaNeve, GM North America's Vice President of Vehicle Sales, Service and Marketing, The General is going to trim overlapping models across all eight domestic brands. We will no longer see re-badged versions of identical vehicles being sold under different GM banners (e.g. the Pontiac, Buick Satrun and Chevrolet minivans). As part of this overlapicide, only Chevrolet and Cadillac will sell a full model range. Everyone else will sell niche-specific vehicles, and nothing else. This leads us to…

The second I saw the Acura MDX, it was déjà vu all over again. Like the recently sampled Honda Pilot, the MDX that landed on my drive was an eight-passenger SUV riding on bisected five-spoke alloys, slathered in Red Rock Pearl paint. Of course, there ARE important differences. Most prominently, the MDX is about 25% more expensive than the Pilot. Which makes the MDX Acura's $10,000 Question: Is the higher-priced SUV that much better than its well-sorted sibling?

Although the Acura MDX is a platform partner with both the Honda Pilot and Honda Odyssey, casual onlookers will scarcely place the MDX on the same family tree, let alone branch. Unlike Ford's chrome-reliant Mercury division, Honda didn't opt for the easy route to affluence. Up front, Acura's designers sanded away the Pilot's bluff prow and pulled the MDX' sheet metal into a beak, complete with projector headlamps book-ending a narrow, wing-shaped grille. They also opted for a more severely raked windshield and sloped backlight. By sacrificing utility for style and aerodynamics in pursuit of a more car-like aesthetic, Acura has done an admirable job avoiding the vehicular "parent trap."

The M3 CS is one of those rare cars that makes you change your driving habits. Grasp its suede-effect steering wheel and you find yourself in a single-minded pursuit of corners. You hunt for wiggly arrow road signs like a lion searching for a wounded Wildebeest. You scan for curving off-ramps that lead to… curving on-ramps. You waggle to your destination as if you're trying to shake a bad guy. Sure, the 333hp M3 CS can obliterate a straight line. But it's a reverse scuba diver at heart. It lives for the bends.

The CS in question stands for "Competition Sport". It's the performance-enhanced version of the performance-enhanced version of BMW's venerable 3-Series. It's also the last hurrah of the current M3 before the new model, based on the latest generation 3-Series, inspires fresh reverence and awe. To pump-up the volume on the M3's Swan Song, the CS option package adds 19" wheels and tires, dramatically bigger brakes, a faster steering ratio (14.5:1), a less intrusive handling Nanny, aluminum interior trim and optional Interlagos Blue paint. Oh, and $4000.

Last week, we learned that embattled GM Supremo Rick Wagoner was flying to Tokyo to discuss the possibility of 'sharing' Toyota's hybrid technology. GM officially denied the story. Today, we learn that Wagoner did indeed meet with Toyota President Fujio Cho (on a Sunday no less) to discuss "fuel cell development". In the news biz, this is what you call going from bad to worse.

Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are decades way from actualization. Despite billions of dollars in development funding, engineers have yet to devise a hydrogen fuel cell efficient/practical enough for anything other than a large commercial bus. While not insurmountable, the challenge requires entirely new technologies and materials, which must then be subjected to the same rigor that applies to gas-powered propulsion: performance testing, manufacture, packaging, mechanical reliability, recyclability and more. And then there are safety concerns, especially at pump time.

Whenever a domestic automaker goes to the wall, it's always someone else's fault: the foreign exchange rate, health care costs, pension obligations, product cycles, changing tastes, the media, government regulations, union contracts, etc. Executives start shuttling off to Washington to talk about "leveling the playing field'. By now, we're wise to these buzz words; they're an attempt to hide the fact that a US automaker "suddenly" lacks the competitive skills to take on their foreign rivals. This time it's GM. Well it's time for GM to stand up and take some responsibility for their actions.

This is not GM's first chance to come clean. Remember the Arab Oil Embargo of the 70's? Gas stations lines went around the block and gas prices rose to unheard of levels ($1 a gallon!). When consumers reacted by flocking to smaller, higher mileage foreign-made cars, GM claimed that the Japanese were "flooding the market" with cheap imports– as if it was some vast conspiracy to put Americans out of work. The plain fact was that the Japanese and German product was better than ours: better engineered, better built and more economical. Not that they'd say so, but GM's corporate laziness simply caught up with them.

How fast in the Mercedes Benz E55 AMG Wagon? Fast enough to send the sunroof cover panel backwards. Fast enough to fling the ice cream out of a well-packed cone. Fast enough to make you hit the recirculating air button to keep the smell of burning rubber from curling your nostrils. Fast enough to turn your securely fastened two-year-old into a Teletubby (Again! Again!). Fast enough to lure you out of your office for a quick spin to… anywhere. That's right: pistonhead catnip now comes in station wagon form. Go figure.

Just don't try and find one. You won't find an E55 AMG Wagon on your local dealer's showroom floor or in a glossy ad. The World's Fastest Station Wagon is only available by straight-from-Germany-to-your-driveway special order. By its own admission, Mercedes didn't think there were enough adrenaline-addicted Americans willing to stump-up $80k for a supercharged station wagon to justify the cost of marketing, promoting and importing the beast.

Mr. Witzenburg's recent TTAC editorial criticized Mr. Farago for his anti-GM bias and asked us to give the domestic automaker a fair shake. While I respect Mr. Witzenburg's loyalty and patriotism, he seems to have overlooked the fact that his former employer makes some truly awful automobiles. As the cornerstone of his defence, the automotive journalist asked readers to name one– just one– poorly-made car from the General Motors line-up. Alright then, what about the Chevrolet Cavalier?

My best friend, sister and mother all had the displeasure of owning a Cavalier ('94, '00, '04). During their stewardship, pieces fell off, the electronics failed (headlights, windows, and stereo) and there were several major mechanical failures (transmission starter, alternator and master brake cylinder). Witzenburg may dismiss these complaints as relating to an "old" design, but their saga is not peculiar to the Cavalier. Perhaps owners of other GM products would like to email their tales of woe to Mr. Witzenburg. Anyway, a car company is only as good/bad as their weakest model.

Car czars say the craziest things! In 2002, GM CEO Rick Wagoner said hybrids were only applicable to Japan, where gas cost $4 a gallon. About the same time, Flyboy Bob Lutz ridiculed edgy-looking, proto-300C concept cars as 'angry appliances'. And now Mercedes chief Eckhard Cordes says MB may no longer strive to top JD Power's survey of initial quality (IQ). For a brand whose reputation once rested on the bedrock of bullet-proof build quality, Mercedes' potential capitulation to the forces of mediocrity is startling– in the worst possible, most memorable way. If Jeopardy had a category 'Things Auto Execs Shouldn't Have Said', Cordes remark would only be a $100 answer.

From a PR perspective, Cordes' remarks are an unmitigated disaster. If there's one thing Americans hate more than a $80k German sedan with dodgy electrics– I mean, a loser, it's a sore loser. In J.D. Power's 2004 Initial Quality survey, Mercedes-Benz clocked-in at number ten, with 106 problems per 100 vehicles. (Lexus was first, with 87 problems per 100 vehicles.) When the tenth ranked company suggests it no longer aspires to the top slot in the most widely recognized measure of who builds the best damn car on the planet, it's the very definition of sour grapes, in a seven-year-old kinda way. Who cares about YOUR stupid quality survey ANYWAY? I'm going to do my OWN survey. So THERE.

Oh dear. It seems that the long predicted "perfect storm" is massing above the stricken supertanker that is General Motors. Storm cloud one: the Wall Street Journal reports that SUV sales have tanked in Texas.

Never mind today's sales figures, which reveal that GM's light truck sales dropped 17 percent last month, to 209,917 vehicles. Or today's S&P downgrade, which reduces GM's bonds to 'junk' status (raising their borrowing costs). If Texans are abandoning their Conestogas, GM's number one [non-finance] profit engine is running out of gas– without a service station in sight. Unlike Chrysler and Ford, GM doesn't have a plan B: a supply of more fuel-efficient sedans, SUV's and crossovers ready for sale. I'm not talking about hit products like the Mustang or 300C. I mean reasonably frugal vehicles appropriate to these $2.70 a gallon times, like the Ford Freestyle.

According to Rush Limbaugh, we’ve got plenty of oil. So I’m not really bothered about a given car’s fuel economy, from a “we are the world, we are the stars with air-conditioned mansions” perspective. More to the point, TTAC’s weekly test cars arrive with a full tank of gas. Of course, I’m not completely insensitive to working class priorities, or my profession’s desire to promote an anti-oil agenda. So I’m always up for a good hybrid bashing– I mean review. Only things didn’t quite turn out as I’d planned…

BMW recently surprised enthusiasts by announcing that they're adding a turbo-charged 3-Series to their line-up. For a company famous for its sweet-spinning, normally aspirated six-cylinder engines, a turbo-3 seems a quirky development– to say the least. Twenty years ago, sure. Back then, [gasoline powered] turbocharged cars were THE answer, promising all the power of a big engine with the fuel economy of a small engine. Of course, it wasn't true then, and it's not true now.