Yeah, that sucks. But hey, they're banking billions while they count worry beads. And increasing production by half a million barrels of crude per day won't exactly hurt Saudi income. PLUS it wins the Saudis friends in the U.S., which still has a couple of aircraft carrier groups here and there. The New York Times reports that the reported increase comes on top of another reported increase. "Saudi Arabia is currently pumping 9.45 million barrels a day, which is an increase of about 300,000 barrels from last month." The Times theorizes that the Saudis largesse is based on the possibility of diminished demand (as above) and the threat that "current prices are also making alternative fuels more viable, threatening the long-term prospects of the oil-based economy." Yes, well, the increase will add one percent to world oil supplies. Meanwhile, The Gray Lady claims bipartisan Congressional support is "growing" for a bill allowing the Justice Department to "engage in antitrust proceedings" against OPEC accusing them of "curbing supplies to drive up prices." Good luck with that.

Few things in this world are as dramatic as the start of a NASCAR race. War, for instance. Or the launch of a Saturn V rocket. The crowd rises from their seats in anticipation. The starter stands in his box with flag in hand as the bestickered phalanx of cars rounds turn four. After the pace car scurries from view into pit lane the violence of dozens of highly tuned V8 engines is unleashed in unison. You can sense the invisible force of the sound approaching.  Like others, I reverently remove my radio headphones so that I can fully ingest the aural assault. I feel the high frequency vibration in the aluminum stadium seats beneath my feet. And then it hits – a sound so big I hear it with my entire body. You don’t get that on TV.

Today is Friday so I'm keeping this one short. Reading through the Ask the B&B from earlier, I noticed that the person asking was leaning towards a Subaru Tribeca because it's safe. Yes, but it's also hideous!! For certain, one of the very ugliest cars made during an ugly time. I might opt for a lacerated spleen rather than be seen in one of those. I really might. And it's an SUV, too. As the reader was asking about a vehicle for her two kids, she's probably thinking that SUVs are safer. They aren't, as you're more likely to lose control and fall off a mountain in an SUV than a car. Sure, if you run head-on into a Brink's truck the larger bulk of the SUV will insulate you more than a car. But in a car you can proactively avoid the accident, rather than reactively absorbing the impact energy. And finally, just to kick it up a notch, have safety ratings ever influenced your purchases? Put another way, you like one car better than the other but the former gets four safety stars to the latter's five — what do you do?

Hybrid cars have had one of the biggest impacts on the automotive paradigm since front wheel-drive became popular. Sadly, not everyone can accept change gracefully. Exhibit one: Hawaii-based auto-journo Bill Maloney. In last months autowriters.com newsletter, Maloney's "The Hmmm About Hybrids," purports to show (in one non-stop "sic") that "market researchers and their soothsayers have been busy blowing holes in the rationale (and high pricing) for (sic) many popular hybrid cars… they even provide stats." And with claims like that, they probably should, right? "Would you believe a big Chevy Tahoe SUV has a lower energy cost-per-mile than a small import hybrid [question mark]," wonders Maloney. Yes, it's the infamous CNW Research "Dust to Dust" study, thoroughly debunked here and here and elsewhere. Never mind. Maloney doesn't want to analyze hybrids– he wants to demonize their buyers. "A car is no longer a car when it's a hybrid. It's a statement. There are high visibility dudes who like to drive statements. Cameron Diaz, Ed Begley, Jar (sic? It's so hard to tell), and the two guys who own Google, who (sic) the CNW study says quote 'don't know "dick" about the environment.' These are people of the conspicuous consumption class who are into whole foods, wild oats/sprouts and keep Trader Joes extremely profitable. They don't drink Jim Beam and prefer Grey Goose and of course their home away from home is Starbucks and its designer coffee. Researchers say these folks are willing to pay to display their moral superiority and virtue." As opposed to Maloney, who needs only one deeply-flawed study, a few hundred words (and by the looks of things, a few tumblers of Jim Beam) to display his own self-satisfied derision for anyone who buys a Prius. Well played, sir.

When it was first introduced in 2000, the S60 was a real "reVolvolution" (term used in the advertising campaign): a significant departure from the traditional Volvo boxy design. It used styling elements from the S80, but in a more daring manner. The (now) trademark Volvo shoulders are at their best on this car. But time flew by and the S60 has grown old and needs a replacement. Volvo officials say that the 2010 (way hey!) new car will be as revolutionary as its predecessor. Following the design language of the XC60 concept, the new sedan will even share the platform with the SUV. Novelties include the new large Volvo emblem and larger spaced letters in the brand name on rear. A wagon version is also expected.

When the going gets tough, the tough amp-up the ads. As the Detroit News reports, that's certainly the philosophy behind GM and Toyota's increased ad spend. In the teeth of the perfect storm (or dead calm) afflicting new car and truck sales, the automakers upped their first quarter ad budget by 13 and 8.4 percent respectively. That's a not-inconsiderable additional $535m for The General and $291m for the world's largest automaker. On the uh-oh side, cash-strapped Chrysler decreased their ad spend by a full 42 percent (-$186 million) while Ford sliced their ad outlay by 31 percent (-$292m). Ford mouthpiece Jim Cain provided the necessary piercing glimpse into the obvious: "The economy and vehicle sales do affect total spending." However, the DetN points out that "Ad expenses also fluctuate depending on when the Dearborn, Michigan-based company is introducing new and redesigned models." So the fact that Ford's launching the Flex in the first quarter means… what? Meanwhile, once again, Chrysler says… nothing.

It's been a bit over six months since you, our Best and Brightest, picked 2007's Ten Worst Automobiles. A lot's happened in the industry since then, not much of it good. SUVs are out and econoboxs are in, gas prices are insane and manufacturers are closing factories and realigning those left. To lighten the mood during these dark days, let's see how our biggest losers have fared amidst all this turmoil.

Before Black Tuesday, the autoblogosphere was abuzz with news of Fiat's return to the U.S. market. Details have been sparse and shifty, but the message is clear: American Alfisti will finally get their hands on the automotive brand renowned for Italian passion and style. Maybe. Eventually. Of course, when Alfa retreated from the eastern seaboard to the Amalfi Coast some 14 years ago, their cars were also known for Communist Bloc reliability. Assuming Alfa's got that sorted (deep breath), I've tracked down an Alfa Romeo Spider Graduate to see what the fuss was– and perhaps will be– all about.

The Detroit Free Press confirms what we've been reporting: Chrysler is forcing a five percent price cut and change from Net 45 to Net 60 on their indirect suppliers. A "company document obtained by the Free Press" states Chrysler predicts they'll save $100m over the next 12 months by doing this. Chrysler wouldn't comment on the document, saying somewhat redundantly "The type of information described would be considered confidential. … We do not discuss confidential information on a public basis." The document acknowledges they'll piss off their suppliers: "It seems that this action is in direct conflict with Chrysler's desire to rebuild relations with suppliers… [but] Chrysler is committed to improving its relationships with suppliers through open, honest communication — no matter how difficult the subject." I don't know which school of management teaches this kind of logic, but common sense says the way to improve your relationship with someone you're buying stuff from is to pay them on time and at the agreed price, not name your own price and pay when you're jolly well ready. Just sayin'.

Sharon found TTAC via a Google search, read our Tribeca and Compass reviews and freaked. "We are pretty clueless on car shopping and have spent way too many hours already. I would like someone's opinion that gives it to me straight." Here's the deal… She's buying the vehicle for two college-bound children. They'll be driving it in Fort Collins, CO, commuting back to Mom and Dad some six hours away in Santa Fe, NM. "One of them will keep the car as long as they can hold onto it and ensure proper maintenance." She's leaning towards the Tribeca, from a safety POV: "good test ratings, side bags, overhead curtain." Current vehicles: 2003 Tahoe (love it); 1996 Pathfinder (good condition); 1999 Honda Accord ("the transmission blew out and that's why were are in the market") and 2002 Nissan Frontier. Sharon's looking to spend $18k – $22k for this, their first used purchase. "We got a good offer (or we think it is good) on the Tribeca that happens to be fully loaded. The gas cap says 'premium preferred', but they tell us that it is not required. A Jeep salesperson just told me that Jeep is not going to make Compass in 2009 and just stick to the Patriots. His dealership in Santa Fe does not have a Compass to test drive new or used." OK guys, she asked for it: give her the inside dope. (Lateral thinking allowed.)

First and foremost, in terms of Nissan, four times more EV range equals 250 miles. This according to Mitsuhiko Yamashita, Nissan's executive VP of R&D. That's slightly more distance than the all-new Toyota Land Rover can cover with a single tank of gas. Nissan's first-generation lithium ion packs are good for just 75 miles. The second-gen batteries will arrive in that most magical of years (2010) to propel an unspecified vehicle a bit over 100 miles. Third-gen lithiums will show-up right when the Mayan calendar ends (2012), and propel a car 185 miles on a charge. As AutoblogGreen's Dom Yoney points out, it's best not to compare these (hypothetical) numbers to the Tesla Roadster's (hypothetical) numbers. Apparently there's a metric called "watt hours per kilogram" involved, but my brain is too small and lizard-like to comprehend. Nissan lithium ion battery production will begin in earnest next year at 13k units before ramping-up to a 65k units. Eventually. 

Twenty-four hours after Ford's PR man Mark Fields declared battery research a "national priority," the US Department of Energy (DOE) announced it's giving $30m in research money to General Motors, Ford and General Electric. (Don't despair Mopar fans, as GE is already working with Chrysler on a plug-in hybrid.) Each company will work on a different aspect of battery technology. GM will focus on lithium ion packs and their integration with vehicles and homes. Ford will attempt to tackle the manufacturing process. GE will concern themselves with "dual-battery" technology, whatever that may mean. While the DOE's grant isn't exactly the $500m Fields declared necessary to secure our technological borders, it's still a hefty chunk of change. Expect the initiative to bear PHEV fruit in 2016, some six years after the plug-in electric gas hybrid Chevrolet Volt's supposed debut.

Detroit's not flying the white flag just yet, but you can hear the unmistakable sounds of unfurling. Post Black Tuesday, GM CEO Rick Wagoner set about painting General Motors as a victim of unforeseeable circumstances; the switch from truck to car sales was faster than "anyone" could imagine. Chrysler CEO Bob Nardelli simply said everything's fine– a sure sign that nothing is. And earlier today, Ford President Mark Fields pleaded for government intervention to protect/create a domestic electric vehicle battery industry. Clearly, finally, The Big 2.8 are thinking ahead. To government bailouts.

Commerzbank (Frankfurt, Germany) senior commodity analyst Eugen Weinberg joins the growing chorus of finance gurus predicting the popping of over-inflated oil prices. Weinberg sees oil dropping below $100 per barrel in 2009. His crystal ball also tells him that crude prices haven't yet quite hit their peak in this rally. He expects the price of oil futures contracts to collapse only after soaring to $150 and $170 in the next three months. Who's to blame? Weinberg say, "The trigger for this extremely fast-growing bubble is above all the poor performance of other investment classes, like stocks, bonds and property."  (I swear, Herr Weinberg must read TTAC!) I guess this means that I'll keep my Jeep parked and drive the Honda until next spring. Over to you, Stein…

Paul Eisenstein of The Car Connection's Industry Insider blog thinks that China's going to cut the fuel subsidies that have insulated the Middle Kingdom from rising gas prices. Prices for gas have risen only nine percent since January 2007, compared to the nearly 80 percent jump suffered by American drivers in the same period. With the Chinese paying about $2.60 per gallon of unleaded (the exception to China's love affair with all things leaded), demand is still rising in China, with 1,300 new cars hitting the road every day in Beijing alone. So when will China make the much-needed subsidy cuts? Eisenstein joins the growing consensus that suggests the bitter medicine will be administered sometime after the Olympics, when China will be basking in global PR afterglow. With neighboring developing economies recently cutting fuel subsidies (Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Taiwan and India), the International Herald Tribune reports that the such cuts are necessary across the board to help keep global oil prices from spiraling out of control. With the International Energy Agency taking up the fight against subsidies, expect pressure to mount on China to end incentives for fuel consumption. Eventually.