Folks, when Alex Taylor III bails on GM, it's all over bar the shouting. In his most recent article for Fortune [via CNNMoney] , Three Sticks puts down the pom-poms and gives GM a mighty good shellacking. "The news coming out of Detroit is getting worse, and unlike in past years, there will be no full recovery. Analysts are betting that General Motors will be forced to take emergency financial measures this year that could hamper its competitiveness for a long time to come… This stunning sales decline means that GM is continuing to burn cash at a fearsome rate – perhaps $1 billion a month by some estimates. Rod Lache of Deutsche Bank figures that GM will consume as much as $19 billion in cash over the next two years. Since it began the second quarter with $23.9 billion on hand and needs $10 billion to $15 billion to keep the lights turned on, that leaves a big hole." Yes, Alex, a VERY big hole. A hole that's an extremely slimming shade of black. How black? "In GM history, 1992 is generally considered the worst year of modern times, with multiple plant closings, huge losses and the shunting aside of CEO Robert Stempel. Now it looks like 2008 will have that beat." And then some.

The Wall Street Journal [sub] reports some unsurprising news: "Toyota Motor Corp. is likely to struggle to make money at its two truck plants in the U.S. this year." The $2b San Antonio plant ran at about 92 percent of capacity last year. This year, it's limping along at 72 percent. Its sister truck/SUV factory in Indiana is said to be at a Chrysler-like 45 percent. Thanks to its flexible labor (i.e. non-union), Toyota has already re-assigned Indiana workers from the truck line to Camrys. Both Toyota truck factories are also cutting work hours: "Workers on each shift will work seven hours instead of eight assembling cars and will spend one hour in training." No layoffs, no jobs bank and no 95 percent pay for not showing up. Meanwhile, the car side of Toyota's portfolio remains strong and continues to gain share against Detroit. The Tundra is down, but Prius, Camry, Corolla and Yaris are rocking and rolling out the door.

VW has made big bucks in fuel crises past by offering diesel options where others had none. And though Wolfsburg has always charged a premium for its oil-burners, cheap-and-cheerful was the name of the TDI game back when it took an OPEC embargo to make Americans think about efficiency. Well, the 70's are over, man. VW's new Jetta TDI starts at $21,990 for the sedan, and $23,590 for the wagon. Er, SportWagon. That's five large more than a base sedan, and a $4,500 premium for the wagon. And not only are VW charging more for their diesels, they're also hyping non-EPA mileage ratings to claim 38/44 mpg in city and highway driving respectively. If, for some crazy reason, you want an apples-to-apples comparison to any other product on the market, the EPA ratings that everyone else seems to live with rate the Jetta TDI at 29/40 mpg. Factor in the fact that diesel prices have doubled in most markets over the last year, and you have a spin-free idea of how economical VW's TDI offering really is. Though the acolytes of Rudolph Diesel claim that battery replacement costs for hybrids give the TDI an edge, those costs are going down , while diesel prices continue to climb in most areas. The TDI will still serve well in those coastal enclaves where "powered by biodiesel" and grateful dead-affiliated bumper stickers offer TDI owners social status commensurate to the price premiums they paid. Otherwise, this baby has been priced right out of the market.

While my old man was a died-in-the-wool hoon, there were certain cars he'd never buy. Convertibles were the big one. He must have lectured me 500 times, "Contrary to what people assume, the convertible is always going to be heavier and slower than the hard top." Cowl shake, too. Of course he's right, as anyone familiar a 3-Series drop top can attest to. However, little in life feels as right as driving with the top down. I mention this because I'm thinking about a Miata. My girlfriend's lame duck (to put it kindly) Ford Focus needs to be put out to pasture. We need a second car. And since my WRX already has 5 doors and there's only two of us, why not a convertible? I mean, hello, LA? If not here, where? Feel like talking me out of it? Better yet, talk me into it.

In yet another Lutzie-worthy display, "Maximum" Bob Lutz tells the Seattle Times that even though first-gen Volts will retail for $40k and generate no profit for GM, "for the first time, our well-thought-of Asian competitors will be left in the dust" by its magnificence. And who wouldn't be terrified at the prospect of competing with a $40k profitless wonder? But Lutz didn't only highlight the tensions between the Volt's aspirations to neo-Model T status, and its mounting sticker shock. He actually gloats about the project, saying "We are simply quite startled and amazed at how everything is working according to plan." Because apparently making money and offering an affordable PHEV were never part of the plan. But Lutz isn't totally delusional. He estimates that by 2020 or 2025 between a quarter and half of all new vehicles sold in the U.S. will be electric or hydrogen-powered, and that nuclear power is "the only real option" for this mass electrification. So why can't he stop spewing disingenuous optimism about the Volt project? When even the die-hard fanboys of gm-volt.com are starting to say things like "If they retail it at $40,000, the Volt is going to switch from a 'game changer' to 'another EV-1 disaster,'" what else can you do?

When we heard that "Bearish" Bob Nardelli got the top spot in Auburn Hills by boldly predicting that Chrysler was in deep shit, we reckoned that the former Home Depot CEO would be soon bordering on clinical depression. Well, more evidence has emerged that Nardelli "gets it" that Chrysler is swirling down the sales toilet, this time in the form of an email circulated to the Pentastar legions. The Detroit News reports that Nardelli's email "warned of worsening U.S. automotive sales and encouraged employees to stay focused." So what strategy did the bearish vicar (oh dear) offer to his troops to get them through the hard times? Little more than a Bush-esque "stay the course," as it turns out. Acknowledging Chrysler's overdependence on  tanking pickup and SUV sales are a problem, Nardelli says that "further action" would be taken only (when) if sales continue to dip. Nardelli did justify his hefty salary by saying he predicted the current unpleasantness way back in November of last year. Then again, Chrysler doesn't pay Nardelli to be a fortune-teller; his job is to actually turn the company around. Or something.

From the birthplace of George Orwell, now the most-watched nation in the world, comes news of a car that has nanny-cams of its own. Car Magazine UK tells us that the new Vauxhall/Opel Insignia will offer a camera system that can read traffic signs, and  alert the driver when they have violated them. GM's Traffic Sign Recognition system uses a Hella-sourced (not in the Nor-Cal slang sense) wide-angle camera, that can take 30 photos per second at a range of up to 100 meters. It can recognize traffic signs, and by comparing them to an on-board database, it can tell if the driver is violating their edicts. When you drive your Insignia at 25 mph in a 20 mph zone, expect a "reminder" to flash on your dashboard, removing any doubt that you are, in fact, breaking the law. Though the proliferation of remote speed-control cameras in Britain give this option some merit there, less repressive societies will doubtless provide much weaker markets for GM's new technology. Still, when we heard that GM would "democratize technology" with its newly-upmarket Opel/Vauxhall brands, the last thing we expected was an option that facilitates continuous government intrusion into the driving experience. Sounds more like they've "totalitarianized technology."

Industriainfo.com reports on the largest-ever ethanol industry hoe-down in Nashville. Reading between the lines, the corn-fuel folks are feeling the heat from their critics. Lucky for us, the Renewable Fuels Association blamed Big Oil for the anti-ethanol backlash. "The oil companies are behind it all, Prez Bob Dinnean pronounced. "With the passing of the 36 billion-gallon renewable fuels standard, the oil barons saw one-third of their market share slipping away and concocted an enormous campaign against renewables. They sit on editorial boards of every major newspaper." What's more Big Oil "bought themselves some studies" and conspired with major food companies to create a giant smokescreen. "They need to stop us now," battling Bob told the assembled throngs. "But they won't." To that end, the 2008 Fuel Ethanol Workshop & Expo will discuss plant development, new enzyme technology, water utilization and conservation, and the utilization of non-fossil fuel to power ethanol plants. Hmmm, what that all about?

Analysts are predicting auto sales in June will drop below 13m units for the first time since 1992. The Detroit News reports the shift from trucks to fuel-efficient cars is hitting the truck-heavy Big 2.8 the hardest (ya think?). Ford market analyst George Pipas provided the auto industry understatement of the year: "Unfortunately, the consumer demand for [trucks and SUVs] is very low." Equally disturbing, "The inventory for products which are in high demand is very low." Even the transplants are feeling the pinch; their production can't keep up with demand for fuel efficient cars from buyers willing to all but give away their gas-guzzlers. What happened to those pre-May prognostications from the D2.8 that the sun will come out in September? *crickets chirping* Meanwhile, even as American automakers struggle to shut off truck production, they still don't have desirable small cars and hybrids anywhere near the production end of the pipeline. It's 1973 all over again. 

I recently bought a dishwasher. Investor Kirk Kerkorian (a.k.a. “The Lion of Las Vegas”) bought 20m shares of Ford Motor Company. As a percentage of net worth, we each spent comparative amounts. But I’m pretty sure I got the better deal. I’m positive I’m going to have guacamole-free dinnerware for the next five years. Capt. Kirk can’t make anywhere near as bold a statement about the longer-term value of his Ford shares. Or can he?

While the mainstream media (with the help of some freelancing bloggers we could name) are happy touting alt fuel/laptop-powered concept cars and prototypes that will (supposedly) free us of our dependence on the sweet crude crack, the reality is often much less exciting. It's nearly impossible to find out the answer to the obvious follow-up questions about these vaporware or one-of-a-kind models. Infrastructure costs? Safety? Range? Recharge/refuelling time? Thanks to Reuters, we have a little real world information about GM's Equinox hydrogen Fuel Cell vehicle, and it is drastically different from the manufacturer's press release specs. I'll pause while you recover from the shock… While Motor Trend pleasantly regurgitated GM's estimate of three  to five minutes for refueling, Nichola Groom of Reuters observed that the fuel "only lasted about two days." She drove to one of four locations in Los Angeles where you can refuel the Equinox. "A GM engineer refueled for me, a process that took about 15 minutes for half a tank." For aspiring Fields Medal winners, that's 30 minutes to refuel a tank of gas. As the keys click away to comment that "You gotta start somewhere," remember that the first gen [1997 Japanese market] Prius took exactly as long to fill-up as any other car. What really rankles is that GM must know this, and intentionally or not, mislead the press/public. That's not how you build support for new technology, or enhance your credibility in this or any other field. In case you didn't know it.

Last year, when testing Saturn's Opel Astra, I really liked the car. But I also noted that it was obvious how hastily GM brought the import into the U.S. The leading indicator: the 24-hour clock and Day/Month/Year format on the display (time-traveling Michael J. Fox sold separately). For the 2009 model year, I'm happy to announce (to those of you that care) that GM has updated these critical functions to a more American-friendly format. The 24-hour clock gives way to a 12-hour clock for those that can't subtract 12 easily, and the date display will no longer make you think there are only 12 really long days in Febtober, the 25th month. Since it is a damn fine vehicle, the assumption might be that in the month when Honda Civic sales surpassed even the mighty F-150, the demand for any other small, practical vehicles would be at least somewhat higher. Alas, that was not the case. Saturn shifted 1091 Astras in May (contrast this with 1467 Hummer H3s). While these updates (and a new optional heated oil pan) are indeed exciting, one can't help but wonder how the Astra=– rated at a respectable-for-class 24/30 (with America-friendly 4 speed automatic)– would be selling with proper advertising support and an autobox that allowed them to advertise better MPGs. Rethink that.

Yes, GM's light truck sales are in the toilet. Yes, it makes sense to plan their future carefully, given questions about [the loopholes in] new federal fuel economy regulations. But it's also true that GM's stop/start development process hurts its competitiveness. If GM wants to maintain its co-domination of this wounded though high-profit sector– and why wouldn't they?– the automaker would do well to remember that the new Toyota Tundra and Sequoia are still out there, somewhere. AND there's a new Ford F-150 and Dodge Ram coming down the pike. But no. GM has revealed that the next gen trucks– scheduled to go into production in 2013– have been postponed. Bottom line: GM's saving $300m. Bottom line: GM's cash position must dire. Even The Detroit News gets it, kinda. "GM has said it needs more and better passenger cars for the U.S. market. But money to develop new vehicles is tight. The automaker, which hasn't turned a full-year profit since 2004, is burning cash, losing $3.3 billion in this year's first quarter alone." Over at RenCen, the spin starts there. "GM's Wilkinson said the automaker is confident that the existing trucks can compete with other companies' new models. Even without a total makeover of the platform, GM can change anything from the trucks' powertrains to the interiors. 'Our intention is to remain a leader in the segment.' What was that about the road to Hell? 

Truckers may not be spending much time in Nevada these days, but the big wigs from Ford are. The Wall Street Journal [sub] reports that Chairman Bill Ford, CEO Alan Mulally and CFO Don Leclair have gone to Vegas for a sit down with Kirk Kerkorian, his attorney Terry Christensen and wing-man Jerome York. What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. So no formal word on what went down between FoMoCo and the boss man at MGM-Mirage, and what kind of suite Ford got comped. If and when FoMoCo needs more cash to keep the lights on, it's unlikely to be able to borrow it legit. Everything up to and including the Blue Oval is already hocked with the well dressed pawn brokers at Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan Chase. . When the time comes, FoMoCo is going to need an equity investment, not more debt. Kerkorian seems like the only player who is in, but only on his terms. As we've speculated here before, those terms are likely to include full voting power stock, not the pretend stock normal shareholders get. Goodfellas indeed.

So GM's share price closes the day at $14.75, down 6.7 percent. The new historic low came in response to the news [reported here] that GM is going to borrow $10b to stay afloat. And yet tomorrow morning, GM CEO Rick Wagoner will report to work at RenCen and continue to do whatever it is he does to collect his $15.7m annual pay package. Obviously, I'm not surprised by this turn of events. Nor will I be surprised when Chrysler files for Chapter 11, or GM scores tens of billions of dollars in federal loan guarantees, tax incentives and good old-fashioned hand-outs. Or when Ford cries foul and makes sure it gets a piece of your tax money. But the thing that really amazes me: how long it's taken for the American media to wake up to the fact that our very own automakers have been going belly-up. This even as the carmakers have pulled the rug from under our feet, exporting our manufacturing base to Mexico, Canada, South Korea, etc. Or have they? What of all the transplants building cars in the U.S., presumably at a profit? More to the point, why should we reward companies that can make U.S. manufacturing work at the expense of those that can't? Ultimately, we can't.