The Aston Vantage is, for many junkies of the petrol, just pure car porn. Or car strip club, if you go to the dealer. Or car hooker, if you hit up an exotic car rental company for a day. It's just so sexy it hurts (I blame the jeans). In any case, Aston has set to update the engine in the V8 Vantage which was, in a commentary on our horsepower times, underpowered compared to competition. The former 4.3 liter engine (which some real goons claimed ran out of puff at times) is enlarged to 4.7 liters. Horsepower jumps from 380 to 420, and torque goes from 302 lb ft to 347 lb ft. Aston also claims there will be modest efficiency gains, since the war on cars is firing on all cylinders. The interior, which Jonny Lieberman told me is unsatisfactory considering the car's price, is also significantly upgraded (we'll bring you pictures the moment they surface). But if the power still isn't enough for you, you'll just have to wait for the V12 Vantage with the honking 12 pot from the DB9. Probably will sound great, but no need to cut into the car's balance like that.

Anyone who’s driven one of the first nine iterations of the Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution (a.k.a. Evo) approaches the tenth fully expecting chest-flattening acceleration and spleen-rupturing cornering. Obviously, the Evo X’s engine and chassis are bound (and determined) to continue the model’s budget supercar-killer tradition. But there’s another less welcome Evo tradition: denture destroying suspension and a Gladware interior. Will the Evo X’s ride quality and interior materials once again conspire to kill the love for all but the masochists among us?  

And? Who amongst us didn't totally cram for that test? Anyway, the PR stat of the day comes from "The 2008 GMAC Insurance National Drivers Test" [via CNNMoney]. The gekko-less insurer extrapolated data from a survey of 5,524 drivers from across the USA to conclude that 16.4 percent (or some 33m) American drivers would fail a driver's test re-do. Their call center clones asked 20 questions from department of motor vehicle tests. Apparently, an [unrevealed] number of drivers didn't know what to do when approaching a yellow light (floor it?) or the safe following distance when you're behind another car (one car length per bumper sticker). Talking points: drivers over the age of 35 were more likely to pass; women were more likely to fail. Northeast drivers sucked even more than respondents in New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts and the District of Columbia. Kansas drivers rock! "It's encouraging to see that scores are beginning to get better," said GMAC Insurance's VP of marketing. "But there is still a lot of room for improvement." You can take some comfort in the fact that "nearly all of the test-takers knew how to respond to an emergency vehicle with flashing lights (get out of the way), what to do when hydroplaning (freeze), and how to interpret a solid yellow line (look for cops before passing)."  

For all of eternity, or at least modern eternity (since the birth of 8-Bit Nintendo), Ford has sold various iterations of the Duratec V6 engine. For the past umpteen years, the company used a 3.0-liter engine making about 200 horsepower using premium go-juice and variable valve timing. The six-pot produced in the realm of 227 horses in the Jag X-Type or 220 in the Mazda6 (the latter on 87 octane). This engine was supposed to be retired with the introduction of Ford's excellent new Duratec 35 engine. That mill currently motivates the new Ford Edge. In bored-out form– to 3.7 liters– it provides power for the Mazda CX-9 and upcoming Lincoln MKS. So far, so good. Old engine (Duratec 30) out, new engine (Duratec 35/37) in. But Ford has announced a major overhaul of the older 3.0-liter engine for duty in the coming years. The new 3.0-liter mill will now make some 240 horsepower in the 2009 Ford Escape (previously, it was rated at 200 ponies). Now the 35 is a truly modern engine, can accept direct injection and turbocharging. But even in naturally aspirated form, it makes 250+ horses. So it really begs the question: why is the 3.0-liter engine still on the table? And if I can beg a little more even, why isn't the 3.5/3.7 liter V6 available in the Mustang instead of the crotchety old 4.0 liter V6? Oh, you forgot that one, didn't you? One more: wasn't CEO Alan Mulally all about eliminating production complexity? I'm sure there are good reasons why this hasn't happened here (and I love to hear 'em), but the Duratec 35 is all you need from this point onward. Let economies of scale bring the costs of the 35 down, and dump the old 3.0 and 4.0-liter engines. KISS, baby.

It seems like just yesterday that we brought you pictures of Kia's concept car, the Soul. And it actually was just yesterday that commenter Russell noted that Kia doesn't have an "it" car. What a difference a day makes. Kia [via www.kia-buzz.com] has revealed the official production version of its newest compact hatch, the Soul. It's meant to compete in the smaller segments of the car population– although whether it's a B-segment car (Honda Fit/Jazz, Toyota Yaris, Ford Fiesta) or a city car (Fiat Panda) remains to be seen. What we do know: it retains most of the concept car's somewhat distinctive styling, and that Kia will do the reveal thing at the Paris Auto Show [RF: you are sending me, right?] in October. Considering Kia's optimistic goal of doubling non-Korean sales by 2010, you can bet your Rio that the Soul train's coming to North America as fast as they can crank 'em out.

Since it began, TTAC has called on all automotive publication to publish disclosure of all manufacturer-provided travel, lodging, food and gifts. The worst offenders: car sections of local newspapers. And no wonder; they remain one of the few profitable portions of many otherwise failing publications. To wit: Joe Clark's [Fawny Blog] take on the Toronto Star's Wheels section. Calling Wheels "a giant moneymaker" for the paper, Clark links to an editorial where the paper agrees that "accepting free travel to preview cars is not ethically or journalistically sound." So  no car junkets, right? Wrong. The Star simply hires freelancers and "outsources unethical behaviour." A quote from freelancer Ted Laturnus in an article in the Ryerson Review Of Journalism says it all. "All I can say to the people who think we shouldn't be taking free trips is, 'Go fuck yourself. Come back to me when you've grown up.' They don't know the side of reality to this business. I do. I've been in it for 20 years. I have no patience for that sorta thing. It's the way the game is played." Note to Ted: we're here to change the rules.

Back on tax day, we asked you what you were paying for gas. I was balking at the fact that I was paying $3.99 per gallon of premium. Well, bring back those salad days. Just five short weeks later (i.e today), I had to shell out $4.27 per premium gallon. And while I have it bad, the Ford Escape-driving lady in front of me had to charge $61 to AmEx. To fill up a teeny little SUV! Gulp. And a barrel of crude now goes for $135 on the open, OPECian market. Which means higher prices are yet to come. Case in point, John Horner shared with us the horrifying news that the IEA is predicting $12 a gallon gasoline. Quick translation: it would cost me $150 or so a tank to fill up my car. Big gulp. So I'm asking you, at what price does a gallon gas make you cry uncle?

GM's Vice-Chairman has (characteristically) been all over the map about the Volt's price. The Winner of TTAC's Bob Lutz Award has pegged the plug-in electric – gas hybrid's eventual sticker at everything from "around $30k" to $48k to $2.99 plus tax (just kidding; what's the bet there won't be any tax). And now Maximum Bob's boss has finally added his two bits on the Volt's msrp. In an interview with Germany's Frankfurter Allgemeine, GM Chairman Rick Wagoner threw down the gauntlet. "GM has a clear goal: we want to bring the Volt to the market in 2010 at a price of less than $30,000." Want. Not will. But wait there's more! Wagoner also says that "unlike Toyota, we want to make money on the Volt from the beginning. And the obstacles to that are reducing the price of the batteries and convincing the consumer of the advantages of the Volt." Profit? As in sell the Volt for more than it costs to make, from the get-go? Toyota didn't make a dime on the Prius for many years (the exact margins are unknown). Will Wagoner even be around to eat his words? Place your bets here.

According to the (appropriately-named) SubPrime Auto Finance News, you can blame the cratering housing market for collapsing new-car sales. "Lower equity translates into an inability to borrow against the house to buy a car," opines Art Spinella of CNW Research. This is especially true in California and Florida, where new car buyers lead the league table for tapping into their home equity to finance a new whip. As of six months ago, California's supply of unsold new houses was running in excess of 80 months. Spinella reckons the Golden State's (and thus America's) auto sales recovery depends on reducing the staggering inventory of unsold new homes. So, Art, when? "Probably not until the final quarter of this year or the first quarter of next, but in either case a California turnaround will benefit all auto sales in 2009." Meanwhile, the number of homeowners who are "upside down" on their home loans is adding more fuel to the pyre. In fact, some  68 percent of those who bought homes in 2005 owe more than the house is worth. Ouch.

The Wall Street Journal [sub] reports: "The world's premier energy monitor is preparing a sharp downward revision of its oil-supply forecast, a shift that reflects deepening pessimism over whether oil companies can keep abreast of booming demand." Previously, the International Energy Agency had forecast an ever-increasing supply to match ever-increasing demand. Oops. The U.S. Energy Department's own forecasting shop, the Energy Information Administration, has long adhered to the same demand-driven scenario. Now, both agencies have been caught with their analytical pants down. While some blame oil speculators for rapidly rising fuel costs, most economists and oil analysts point to increasing world-wide demand combined with the difficulties of finding new oil and oil suppliers unwillingness to spend the money to find more of the stuff. Speaking on CNBC's Squawk Box, Dr. Robert Hirsch, Management Information Services Senior Energy Advisor, fueled speculators' speculation. "The prices that we're paying at the pump today are, I think, going to be 'the good old days,' because others who watch this very closely forecast that we're going to be hitting $12 and $15 a gallon, and then, after that, when world oil production goes into decline, we're going to talk about rationing."

The Center for Automotive Research (CAR) at Gelsenkirchen University of Applied Sciences has released a report which claims that 2007 will have been the historical high-water mark for diesel sales in Germany. Reported in Auto Motor Und Sport, the study shows a steady climb in diesel market share over the last decade, from 14.6 percent in 1995 to 47.7 percent in 2007. But CAR calculates that market share will retreat to 44 percent by 2010 before diving back to 30 percent by 2020. With US diesel sales still a ways from a predicted 15 percent market share by 2015, Germany is still the major, which is why the projected decline is so significant. The underlying causes are simply related to the shrinking economic incentives for buying diesels. Diesel has traditionally been cheaper than gasoline in Germany, but that difference is slipping away and in America diesel is significantly more expensive. Additionally, diesels require increasingly complex particle filters and exhaust cleaners to meet new emissions standards, driving up purchase costs. Finally, gas engines are simply becoming more efficient, especially as hybrid drivetrains proliferate. In short, if diesel's most favored market is moving away from the stuff, this trend will only grow. With news coming in that VW's new Jetta TDI won't be as efficient as the Prius, don't expect diesel sales to jump stateside anytime soon.

The United States Postal Service is the single largest buyer of E85-compatible vehicles. According to Bloomberg, from 1995 – 2005, the government agency has used your tax money (and customers') to purchase some 30k corn juice-compatible trucks and minivans. So how's that going then? "You're getting fewer miles per gallon, and it's costing us more,'' according to Walt O'Tormey, P.O. engineering veep. In specific, the mail carrier's gas consumption jumped by more than 1.5m gallons. Well, duh. E85 doesn't deal the mpgs like regular. Still, a Postal Service study put a number to their pain: the new vehicles got as much as 29 percent fewer miles to the gallon than their previous trucks. Oh, and the post office only fueled a thousand of their E-85 compatible fleet with Iowa's best, due to availability. (Stroke of luck, that.) The rest of the article bashes E85, but good. Including news (to us) that the Sierra Club's lining-up against the bio-fuel. "Not only does this [CAFE credit for E85 vehicles] do nothing to improve fuel efficiency,'' says Daniel Becker, an environmental lawyer and former head of Sierra Club's global-warming program. "It's also ensuring that we're going to use more gasoline.'' Yeah, that sucks. Unless, of course, you're a corn farmer.

January 13, 2008. Reuters. "Ford Chairman Bill Ford on Sunday said the automaker's plan to return its North American operations to profitability in 2009 is 'progressing very well.'" May 23, 2008. Automotive News [sub]. "Ford Motor Co. said today it will cut North American production and retreated from earlier profit outlooks, saying it expects only 'to be about break-even' before taxes in 2009." About? What's that, give or take a couple hundred million? Anyway, Ford's slicing North American production by 15 percent in the second quarter, down 20k units to 690k vehicles. And you can bet that the majority (if not all) of those not-produced vehicles will be high-profit trucks and SUVs. A statement from CEO Big Al Mulally just about said as much. "The challenge affecting the entire industry is the accelerating shift in consumer demand away from large trucks and SUVs to smaller cars and crossovers — combined with a steep rise in commodity prices and the weak U.S. economy." FoMoCo's "how low can you go" ain't done yet. The Blue Oval Boyz are dropping third quarter production by 15 to 20 percent and fourth-quarter production another two to eight percent. Or, come to think of it, more. 

Tesla Motors chairman Elon Musk plans to take the company public before the end of the year. Before you call your broker to get in on the ground floor, think twice. Blogging Stocks' Zac Bissonette advises prospective investors to "stay away!" He doesn't base this advice on any of Tesla's financials. In fact he says he hasn't seen a registration statement or prospectus. Instead, he's looking at the money that initial investors lost in the airline industry, the hundreds of startup automakers over the years, the internet bubble that went bust and the struggling satellite radio companies. He reminds us that "world-changing technologies often fail to lead to profits for the investors." And then he offers this last bit of advice: "If the Tesla IPO is a hot one and investors start dumping boring profitable companies to pile in, I say take the hint and run the other way." You have been warned.

GM Daewoo (GMDAT) builds cars in South Korea, and then sells them as a number of different brands around the world. In most markets they're rebadged as Chevrolets– in an attempt to make Chevy into GM's "global" brand (excluding the Corvette, which is a standalone brand in Europe). In South Korea, Daewoos are Daewoos. Blogging Stocks reports that GM is considering introducing the Chevrolet brand in Korea. If they do, what cars will they sell as Chevys? Do they change the "home team" GM Daewoo brand into an "import" brand? Do they introduce Daewoo-built models not currently sold as domestic models under the Chevrolet name? Or do they import cars built elsewhere to carry the brand? Who knows… maybe they'll introduce Korea to American full-sized pickups and finally have something to with that four-month inventory of Silverados they're sitting on.