Buzzwords like “breakthrough”, “paradigm” and “integration” are management Viagra. They give ignorant execs and clueless PR folk the power to appear talented. But no word sets the flack-talker’s soul afire like “synergy.” And no other word was deployed more often to justify the merger of Daimler-Benz with Chrysler. But what happens when you synergize top-dollar Mercedes underpinnings with Chrysler engineering and sell it for the price of a Camry? I’ll give you 300 guesses.

I was making my way through my morning paper recently when my progress was interrupted by a paean to perfection by automotive journalist Matt Nauman. Normally, I don’t pay much attention to the local paper’s car reviews or features; thanks to wall-to-wall dealer ads, these syndicated features are about as independent-minded and critical as a stage mother watching her daughter perform Grease on a high school proscenium. Of course, pistonhead that I am, I still scan them. And Nauman’s work stopped me in my tracks. The subject of his unadulterated adulation, you see, was the Toyota Corolla.

There’s an industrial road outside Chicago that has more Mitsubishi Lancer Evolutions per square mile than anywhere but the factory in Mizushima, Japan. There’s the drag race shop with several 600+hp, carbon- paneled versions vying for space. There’s the tuner shop where literally dozens of Evos flock to dyno. And there’s the rally shop that is widely considered the finest American skunkworks for this type of car. And as I stand in that shop, my own flame-spitting Evo IV rally car sitting on the hoist behind me, I stare at a brand-new charcoal Evo IX MR – the even-higher-performance-spec version – that has only 70 miles on it. And the perfect impression of a tree trunk, molded into the passenger’s side.

Has anyone noticed that Toyota’s new pickup truck production plant is located in the same Texas town as The Alamo? I know: metaphorically speaking, it’s not a perfect fit. The Alamo has come to symbolize the spirit of any small group of believers holding out against overwhelming odds. In that sense, it should be Texas-built domestic pickups facing Mexican-built Toyota Tundras. Only Toyota is the little guy in this battle. Well, sort of. Anyway, no matter how you look at it, this whole pickup truck thing is shaping-up to be a Texas-sized brawl, and anyone who discounts ToMoCo’s chances (so to speak) is making a big mistake. 

OK, I admit it: I’ve consumed way too much AMG Kool Aid. I own multiple sets of the Mercedes tuner’s black license plate frames and key rings, an AMG logo-shirt, a cashmere V-neck sweater, half a dozen hats, a pair of driving shoes, a winter coat and a limited edition AMG watch. I would have more of their stuff, but recently I was introduced to a gentleman from Italy who spied the AMG logo on the back of my car and pronounced it, “Eye-Em-Gay,” and that sort of cooled me off. And then I drove the E63 AMG.

Here’s a surprise: Chinese law requires greater automotive fuel efficiency than American regulations. Although we’re not comparing Granny Smiths to Mandarin oranges– China uses a weight ratio, the US uses categories– it’s roughly 36 to 24mpg in favor of the Chinese. You’d expect this sort of disparity from Europe, Australia, Japan and Canada. But China? How can that be? In automotive terms, China’s just waking up. Or is it that the US is still asleep?

The Chinese automotive market has over a billion potential customers. Sales growth is well into the double digits. Labor rates are a fraction of those paid in western countries, without any union rules to slow down investment or add legacy costs. An ideal place for American investment? Depends on how you look at it. The Chinese market is controlled by a totalitarian government and regulated by an Automobile Industry Policy that’s more convoluted than a bowl of shahe fen noodles. As China nips at Germany’s heels to become the world’s third-largest auto producing country, let’s take a closer look at the sleeping dragon.

There are nearly 100 automobile manufacturers in China.  Ninety-percent of the market belongs to eight state-owned companies. To meet soaring demand for new cars, these companies have partnered with automakers from around the world. These partnerships can appear strange; one Chinese company may have several partners which are competitors in the rest of the world. Here’s the list:

FAW:  Toyota/VW/Mazda
SAIC:   GM/VW
Changan:  Ford/Suzuki
Dongfeng:  PSA Peugot Citroën/Honda/Nissan-Renault/Kia
Guangzhou AIC:  Toyota/Honda
Beijing AIC:  DCX/Hyundai
Nanjing AIC:  Fiat
Brilliance:  BMW

While Chinese law prohibits any foreign company (or combination of companies) from owning more than 50% of their Chinese partner, these joint ventures have proven lucrative for all the parties involved. The Chinese companies get access to the engineering and design expertise of world-class companies, while the partners gain a quick inroad to what is arguably the hottest new car market in the world. 

As the market has grown, a number of independent (i.e. carmakers who aren’t affiliated with a foreign manufacturer) local companies have sprung up. They are usually either motorcycle manufacturers expanding into the auto market, new companies funded by capital from other industries (such as consumer electronics) or parts manufacturers that started assembling their parts into complete cars. The primary independent players are:

Southeast
Chery  
Geely
GreatWall
Zhongxin
Jianghuai
Hafei

Of these, government–owned Chery is the best known– thanks to Malcolm Bricklin’s professed intention to import cars built by Chery under his Visionary Vehicles nameplate. While Bricklin keeps pushing back the introduction of his Chinese-built products due to quality, production and safety issues (not to mention a lack of investors), he insists he will revolutionize the American market with his line of low-cost, high value vehicles. Recently, DCX has also been negotiating with Chery to produce a subcompact economy car for Chrysler.

Chery’s other claim to fame isn’t so, well, cheery. They jump-started their production capability by buying the defunct VW factory in Westmoreland, PA and relocating it to China lock, stock, and tool dies. They then procured blueprints from SEAT for a car based on the Jetta and began producing a clone. (Jetta is the biggest selling car in China and the Chinese market generates almost 20% of VW’s pre-tax profits). As you can imagine, VW was furious. They eventually accepted a financial settlement in compensation. 

To expand their operation further, Chery began hiring engineers from other companies including Daewoo. Two new models, the “Son of the Orient” and the “QQ” were suspiciously similar to Daewoo’s Magnus and Matiz (sold as the Chevrolet Spark). Chery introduced the QQ six months prior to the planned introduction of the Spark, priced $1500 lower than its automotive homonym. 

GM accused Chery of “copying and unauthorized use of GM-Daewoo’s trade secrets.” Chery countered by claiming they had developed the QQ independently and with only “inspiration” from the Matiz. Since this “inspiration” consisted of styling so similar you couldn’t tell them apart from more than 10 feet away and interchangeable body panels, doors and other parts, GM filed suit.

After three years of litigation, GM and Chery finally settled out of court. While the details of the settlement haven’t been released, GM did win one concession: Chery can’t sell cars in the US under its own name due to the similarity between “Chery” and “Chevy.”

The problems with Chery underscore the sword of Damocles hanging over foreign manufacturers operating in the Chinese market. Any time you’re dealing with companies owned by a dictatorial government, you’re at the mercy of the whims of the political leadership. The Chinese government (controlled by the army) provides all of the information used for business planning: economic growth, per capita income, projected sales, etc. They create the rules for the protection of intellectual property. They control the courts that interpret the rules on the protection of intellectual property. They control everything within the supply chain, from labor to raw materials to retail distribution to taxes to traffic laws. 

Like China’s so-called citizens, foreign auto companies are completely at the Chinese government’s mercy. If China’s rulers decide to nationalize all automotive production facilities, there’s nothing foreign automakers can do but leave. Meanwhile, they’re making hay while the sun shines, doing whatever they can to make sure their “partners” don’t pull the plug.

Last Friday, JWT invited me to the Big Apple to discuss their Bold Moves internet documentary series. The ad agency wanted to interview “one of Ford’s fiercest critics” about their client’s decision to “pull back the curtain” on their turnaround efforts. Although JWT was only paying my expenses, I was inspired to make the journey by Mark Fields’ parting words in the opening episode: “the American people love the truth.” This is perfectly true and completely beside the point. The question is, does Ford love the truth?

From a layout standpoint, John Cooper’s revolutionary mid-engine design brought F1 cars into their modern form. Dynamically superior, mechanically simpler and cheaper to construct than its front-engine predecessors, the Cooper was a revelation. Cooper’s design, however, was not the pinnacle of F1 car design. In keeping with F1’s history of innovation and constant development, new designers soon arose to bring F1 its next big thing.

Not to coin a phrase, but it's the end of an era. With the finish of the 2006 Brazilian Grand Prix, Michael Schumacher ended the greatest Grand Prix career of all time.

I remember my Dad carrying me out to a little greenish-yellow station wagon when I was two. We had that car a little more than a year and that’s my only memory of it. This puts me in rare company: one of the few Americans with a positive memory of a Chevy Vega. My parents would not be in that group. One rear end collision and one melted engine, and the Vega was gone. If I missed out on the joy of picking rust scabs, at least I got to sample the full majesty of the Chevette. Was it a bad car? Was it a match for the Vega? To steal a line from “Bloom County,” it wasn’t that bad, but Lord it wasn’t good.

Last year’s Zephyr was the automotive embodiment of all that’s wrong with Ford and Lincoln. The barely badge engineered Ford Fusion hammered yet another cheaply gilded nail into the once mighty Lincoln brand’s coffin. So now Ford has given the Zephyr a new name, engine and front end; an MP3 audio jack and [available] all wheel-drive. Is it enough to lift the Lincoln into some semblance of dignity, or does Lincoln still need to reach higher?

Voting for The Truth About Cars’ Ten Worst Automobiles Today (TWAT) awards has now closed. We will reveal the ten winners/losers next week, once our writers have penned their pithy pillories and our new PR flack has been prepared. Meanwhile, our esteemed (though not necessarily by us) colleagues have begun their annual love-ins. Motor Trend has named the Mercedes GL450 their SUV of the Year– testing the controversial theory that the most expensive vehicle is also the best. Edmunds has unveiled their “most wanted” list, with no fewer than 32 winners (TTAC snipers note: only two domestic gongs). Thankfully, the awards season isn’t all ad-scented fluff. For example, here’s the National Insurance Crime Bureau’s (NICB) 2005 list of America’s most stolen vehicles:

I suppose it was only a matter of time before some video maven caught site of The Truth About Cars (TTAC) and thought, hmmm, that might make an interesting TV show. Obviously, any program along those lines would A) have about as much chance of landing a major sponsor as a Kansas fisherman pulling a swordfish from the Keith Seblius Resevoir and B) would boldly go where Top Gear has gone before. With pay-per-view channels and YouTube, the first objection is surmountable. The second is more problematic. Top Gear is a well-funded (via the UK's TV tax) program with all the best toys and… Jeremy Clarkson. Yes, even from that tiny, cold island in the North Sea, the semi-journalistic stylings of "Jezza" cast a long shadow over anyone who seeks to tell the truth about cars with rhetorical flourish. I think TTAC TV would have one main advantage over Top Gear: no Jeremy Clarkson. While I admire the man's wit, prose and telegenic charisma, he's a first class bully and a meglomaniac, with bells on. If Lieberman, Johnson, Farago and Spinelli ever get it together video-wise, more than half the fun would come from the "happy talk" interplay between the different personalities. Bottom line: we all respect each other enough to provide the open space for our natural creativity to emerge. That said, this podcast is a celebration of Jonny's virtuosity mit de RS4. Another Clarkson? Please God no.  

I recently completed a Munich to Paris road trip in a BMW 335. When I returned to the US, I was retrospectively struck by the lack of high profile vehicles (pickup and SUV’s, not celebrity Ferraris or Leclerc battle tanks) on French and German roads. I suppose when gas costs nearly seven bucks a gallon, fuel efficiency is all. Personally, I don’t care for SUV’s; the few I have owned have taught me that being tall and overweight is no more fun for a vehicle than it is for a former supermodel. So when my Mercedes dealer suggested I have a look at the new ML63, I scoffed. And then went along for the ride.