As fuel prices hit historic highs, small car safety once again takes center stage. Quoted in the Wall Street Journal, the Insurance Institute's president gets straight to the nub of the matter. "The tradeoff is still there," says Adrian Lund. "Large cars and small cars are both much better designed to protect occupants than 20 years ago, or 10 years ago. But if you look at the fatality rates today, we see the risk doubles for the smallest cars compared to a very large one." The WSJ's Joseph B. White points out that "small cars [that] are a lot safer than they used to be– as safe, by one measure, as midsize cars were a decade ago." Yes, well, a 20-year-old Honda beats the fuel economy pants off a brand new microcar. Which one is safer, and does it matter? (I wouldn't send my wife or daughter out on the mean streets in either.) Anyway, the scribe reprises the old argument that small cars can avoid crashes: "It's reasonable to think that a good driver in a small car could steer out of a situation that would cause a crash for someone in a slower-handling, heavier vehicle with a long stopping distance. But note the qualifier: a good driver."  

On Friday, after GM detailed the financial damage caused by the American Axle strike and union shutdowns at two of its plants, the American automaker's stock price slid to $17.38– it's lowest level since February 1982. Once again, GM saved bad news for the end of the week; the stock market couldn't fully react to the revelation. As the markets are closed for Memorial Day, it'll be Tuesday before investors [literally] take stock of the situation. They'll also take into account GM's busted accounts— a deficiency that caused numerous financial restatements, triggered an SEC investigation in October 2005, caused the ouster of CFO John Devine in December 2005, and forced the "resignation" of controller Paul W. Schmidt and chief accounting officer Peter R. Bible in May 2006. Meanwhile, in the here and now, the U.S. new car market is moribund (to say the least) and there's little prospect of immediate recovery. GM's high-profit trucks and SUVs are dead in the water. Suppliers are up against the wall, with a "run on the bank" scenario (cash on the nail, please) looming large, The stock market is waking-up to the perfect storm we've been predicting for months if not years.   

GM's annual report's out (just in time for the weekend!) and it's a shocker. The General's CEO, the company's former CFO, has admitted that the automaker's accounts are, how do we put this gently… unreliable. Here's the text: "Material weaknesses previously identified as of December 31, 2006 that continue to exist as of December 31, 2007: 1. Controls over the period-end financial reporting process were not effective. This has resulted in a significant number and magnitude of out-of-period adjustments to our consolidated financial statements and in previously reported restatements. Specifically, controls were not effective to ensure that significant non-routine transactions, accounting estimates, and other adjustments were appropriately reviewed, analyzed, and monitored by competent accounting staff on a timely basis. Additionally, some of the adjustments that have been recorded relate to account reconciliations not being performed effectively… 2. Controls to ensure our consolidated financial statements comply with IRS No, 109, Accounting for Income Taxes were not effective… 3. Controls over the accounting for employee benefit arrangements were not effective. We lacked sufficient control procedures as well as adequate involvement of technical accounting resources to ensure that employee benefit arrangements were accounted for properly." It's hard to grasp the full implications of this revelation. If GM severely over-reported its liquidity, the situation could be dire. Full Death Watch on Monday. [thanks to Buickman for the heads-up]

"Pontiac is … car." And car is rebadging. Ipso facto. The Pontiac Torrent, G5, and G8 are blatant dirty rebadges. The G6 is a bit more unique looking, but same deal. And now… the Chevy Aveo! I mean Pontiac G3! The 2009 Pontiac G3 is listed on the fed's fueleconomy.gov site. Judging from its 1.6-liter engine, four-speed automatic, interior dimensions and 25/34 mpg, a rose by any other name will smell vaguely Korean (you might also say like dead dog, but I couldn't possibly comment). In Canada, the Pontiac version of the Aveo is called the Wave. but we're getting the G3– which raises a [relatively insignificant] question as to whether Pontiac is pursuing odd numbers or even numbers for its alphanumeric model names. Yes, this new model rounds out Pontiac's car collection as G3, G5, G6, and G8. Are we getting a G4 or G7? If I said yes, would you be interested? Meanwhile, the former excitement division will offer the G3 in sedan and hatchback versions. So is it going to suck? Why yes, thank you for asking. 

You'd think that Exxon shareholders would be pretty damn happy about rising gas prices (in terms of the company's alt. fuel investments) and the fact that the energy giant booked $11.7b worth of profits in the first financial quarter of the year. That should go double for the Rockefeller family, whose unimaginable lifestyle is supported by their Exxon stock. But nooooooooo. The New York Times reports that the Rockefeller family have thrown their weight behind a "shareholder rebellion" aimed at pushing Exxon further and faster towards an alt fuel future. "The resolutions ask Exxon to take the threat of global warming more seriously and look for alternatives to spewing [sic] greenhouse gases into the air. One resolution would urge the company to study the impact of global warming on poor countries, another would encourage Exxon to reduce its emissions and a third would encourage it to do more research on renewable energy sources like solar panels and wind turbines." Yes, “Exxon Mobil needs to reconnect with the forward-looking and entrepreneurial vision of my great-grandfather,” Neva Rockefeller Goodwin announced in a statement. “The truth is that Exxon Mobil is profiting in the short term from investments and decisions made many years ago, and by focusing on a narrow path that ignores the rapidly shifting energy landscape around the world." 

Several years back, before ethanol as a motor fuel additive became all the rage, Sweden started a program to produce biogas. They envisioned a methane-based fuel made from sewage (with the aid of some bacteria) powering cars, trucks and buses. According to ever-hopeful engineers, with the right process, the average Swede craps out enough yearly to power an average car for an average of 75 miles. Unfortunately for FordonsGas, Dong Energy and other curiously named companies, the biogas biz has encountered the usual, uh, teething problems with new technology. Not to mention a distinct lack of biogas pumps and vehicles that can run on the stuff. (Biogas buses are out there, somewhere, while Volvo stopped making biogas powered vehicles a couple of years ago.) The International Herald Tribune reports that biogas boosters remain undaunted, hopeful of the process' long-term adoption. "When you're in the bathroom in the morning and you can see something good come of that, it's easy to be taken in by the idea – it's like a utopia," quoth a consultant. If you say so…

Truck buyers shouldn't feel like eco-pariahs just because they want to use huge trucks as commuter cars or SUVs as grocery-getters. An unknown writer on Commercial Auto Dealers' GMC Truck Dealer blog wants you to know that hybrids aren't "really that much better for us than trucks." He/she warns you hybrids make you drowsy because "with their quiet motors and lack of exhaust noise, you can't hardly [sic] tell the car is on" which "could be a problem for people who want to drive at night or even during the day after a long shift at work." And if the risk of pandemic narcolepsy isn't enough to scare Prius owners back into a professional-grade Sierra 3500 Dually, "the electricity that the car uses to operate the vehicle isn't good for our health either." So while hybrid drivers are microwaving their tender parts, you can "just smile and walk away secure in the fact that you won't be subject to the same potentially harmful electromagnetic fields that they encounter every day." The anonymous writer concludes "if you want that large truck or SUV, don't hesitate to visit your local GMC truck dealer." And don't worry about $4/gallon gasoline. After all, what's a $136 fill-up compared to the peace of mind that hearing your engine and exhaust noise can bring? 

There are two kinds of people: people who split the world into two kinds of people and people who don’t. I usually consider myself part of the latter group. However, after spending a few years with The Truth About Cars, I’ve become fascinated by the variety of opinions from readers who share so much in common. Type in anything to do with the Prius and watch the battle lines form. Last year, The Cambridge Strategy Center published some ideas that go a long way towards explaining why this website isn’t always unified, taken as gospel and/or followed like law. It seems there are two kinds of car people.

The Dunn County News reports that ethanol boosters have re-energized their alliance with the American Lung Association. "From food to fuel, corn serves many purposes these days," scribe Bruce Dybvik writes. "When processed as ethanol and added to our gasoline, it seems to benefit our breathing, too. According to Bob Moffitt, communications director of the American Lung Association, 'Every flex-fuel vehicle that uses E85 instead of gasoline for a year saves four tons of air pollutants from going into the air, including a lot of greenhouse gasses. Here in Wisconsin, one of the leading sources of air pollution is tail pipe emissions.'" The reduced greenhouse gas claim is the most obvious obfuscation, as E85 gets less mpg than normal gas. But the idea that E85 is "cleaner" than garden-variety (or not) unleaded needs some serious debunking. In 2007, Environmental Science & Technology [via Scientific American] offered one such an analysis by Stanford University's Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering. "Due to its ozone effects, future E85 may be a greater overall public health risk than gasoline," Mark Jacobson's study stated. "It can be concluded with confidence only that E85 is unlikely to improve air quality over future gasoline vehicles." 

The Volt cheerleaders at GM-Volt.com have given The General a chance to explain away the controversy over CEO Rick Wagoner's $30k price pledge on their new plug-in gas electric hybrid Volt. And the spinmeisters have grabbed it with both hands. "I now have official confirmation [from] GM spokesperson David Darovitz that 'there was an unfortunate misunderstanding that resulted in inaccurate information published,'" Dr. Lyle Dennis faithfully reports. "He also went on to say 'we are not in the position to speculate on the retail pricing of the Chevrolet Volt.'" Not after that debacle, you're not. Anyway, Dr. D. provides a helpful update on GM's efforts to use your tax dollars to help the Volt compete with the Toyota Prius. "Last week a new bill called HR 6049 was passed again by the house, allowing $5000 in plug-in tax credits for a car like the Volt with a 16 kwh battery. It allows $3000 as a base plus $200 per kwh over 5 kwh up to a maximum of an additional $2000. It may soon go before the Senate." Although volt.com's blog post on this misunderstanding displays a roll call of Senators who championed/shot down the last attempt at same, so that Volt supporters may lobby on behalf of a Volt subsidy, members of TTAC's B&B who wish to email their senators to oppose this legislation might find the list equally helpful. That said, Dr. Dennis didn't link the list to the Senators' email. Oops! 

The price of a gallon of diesel has risen two bucks in a year, from $2.50 to $4.50. The escalation threatens to decimate the U.S. trucking industry. The New York Times tells the tale: "More than 45,000 vehicles, or 3 percent of the tractor fleet, have disappeared from the highways since early last year, according to America’s Commercial Transportation Research in Columbus, Ind." And we're not just talking about the small independents, neither. "In the first quarter, 935 of these larger operators [five trucks or more] shut down, the American Trucking Association reports, up from 385 a year earlier and the highest quarterly failure rate since the 2001 recession." The knock-on effect: the used truck market is glutted with abandoned rigs. "There are so many used trucks in dealer lots now that some of the larger dealers have stopped buying them,” said salesman James McCormack of www.truckertotrucker.com. “From what dealers tell me, exports have become their best outlet, particularly to Russia.” High diesel prices, a weak dollar and thousands of U.S. trucks are shipped to our former Communist enemy. Ain't capitalism grand?

The latest from Lambo's CEO Stephan Winkelmann is both a breath of fresh air, and it isn't. Automotive News reports Lamborghini won't be meeting the strict emissions standards laid out by the EU and the USA. Not this year. Not next. They just won't. Why? Well for one, it's against the brand's DNA. When asked if they'll be dropping their V10 and V12 engines in favor of turbo-V8's, the CEO replied, "No." Two, while 2007 was the very best year ever for the raging bull, they only sold 2,604 cars. Toyota's sold more than that since you sipped this morning's coffee. Also, people who buy Lamborghinis don't drive very much. Winkelmann points to an average of just 5,000 miles per car per year. Finally, all things being equal, his cars don't pollute that much. The new Gallardo LP560-4 with its 560 horsepower (though "only" 552hp according to American metrics) 5.2-liter V10 gets 17 mpg. Well, that's according to Winkelmann. We're sure that pushed off a cliff the newest Gallardo will average at least that. Back on point, while ceding that greenhouse gasses are "an emotional issue," Winkelmann proclaims that Lamborghini, "[W]ill never reach the emissions that are asked for." What's the bet that Porsche and their 100k annual sales would love to say the same? 

The price for the 2010 Chevy Volt has been going up. Once pitched as a direct Prius competitor, the mostly-electric Volt is now expected to sticker for around $40k. Not kosher, as Toyota's hybrid stickers just north of $22k. Automotive News reveals the General has a plan: make you pay for it. No, not "you" as in Volt customers– "you" as in American taxpayers. GM is hoping to get a $7K tax credit for "extended-range electric vehicles." That would put the plug-in electric – gas hybrid Chevy Volt's price within spitting distance of the Prius' Monroney. I guess when Slick Rick stated "we want to bring the Volt to the market in 2010 at a price of less than $30,000," "we" meant GM and the taxpayer. (Of course, when he said "we want to make money on the Volt from the beginning," the taxpayer was nowhere in that picture.) As for product readiness, an unnamed source says "We still have a lot of development and testing to go." Let's hear it for representative democracy. 

It's a car… It's a beauty… It's Cathrine Zeta Jone's jewelry… No, it's the new Alfa Romeo multipurpose crossover always handy sports utility fashion lifestyle vehicle. Why? Because they are planning to take over the world and, apparently, the CX-over is the must-have for such ambition. I imagine the car as a blend of the 2003 Kamal concept (which is more like an SUV) and the 156 SW Q4, freshened up for the expectations of the next decade. The designers at Alfa are well known for sacrificing practicality and functionality for the sake of design; their wagons usually have less trunk space than the sedans. It's interesting to see how are they going to handle this… uh… MUV (MPV meets SUV) that it is intended to be more practical. I imagine another niche being born: the FAV (Fashion Activity Vehicle).

[For more Avarvarii photochopistry, click here]

The Mitsubishi Lancer Evo X just got a 5-star rating from Mr. Michael Karesh. The regular Lancer ES "earned" a whopping 2 stars when this writer reviewed it last year. All versions of the Lancer look great on the outside, but the engine, transmission, and suspension make all the differences in the world (or at least in the 7-11 parking lot). So what about the space between the extremes? We're still waiting on an announcement from Mitsubishi about a 220-horse, Ralliart badged, turbocharged, AWD version of the Lancer, meant to go head-to-head with the Subaru WRX. Meanwhile, the 2009 Lancer GTS will replace its 2.0-liter lump of crap with a 2.4-liter 168 hp engine from the Galant. The GTS redux gains 16 horses and 21 ft.-lbs. of twist, and loses a single mpg. You're looking a not quite wallet-thrilling 21 city/27 highway (with life-sucking CVT transmission), significantly less when driven hard and put away wet. Look for a full road test of the new 2009 GTS on TTAC soon.