You may be wondering why the mainstream automotive press hasn't carried our story about GMAC's exit from the GM leasing biz. I've re-checked with my sources. Although there's a lot of confusion out there– at the corporate and dealer level– we stand by our story. In Canada, GMAC leases are dead. In the U.S., GM and GMAC will avoid a media shitstorm by "refocusing" its dealer finance products away from leasing. In that regard, GM will do whatever it takes to keep monthly payments roughly even on a finance versus a lease contract. They will promote longer term finance contracts with subvented rates on most lines, and combine that with "finance cash." Or they will offer customers cashbacks for use in cash deals or financing/leasing by third party sources such as a bank or finance company. (For example, a GM half-ton truck will receive zero percent financing for up to 72 months plus finance cash of $3K or a cashback incentive of $5,000.) We hear that GM will support leasing until Thursday night; the full changeover of finance/cash incentives will not hit until first thing Friday morning. (Just in time to get lost over the weekend, as usual.) Dealers speculate there will be a lot of fiddling with the incentive programs over the next few months to see what has the most customer appeal. But incentives there will be, and LOTS of them. [hat tip to you-know-who-you-are]

The WTF factor out of GM simply knows no bounds. The AP reports Saab's decision to reduce warranties for 2009 and later model year vehicles. Saab already is in a sales tailspin and is losing GMAC lease support. It seems to me that if a vehicle is designed, built and maintained properly there should be very few powertrain failures between the four year, 50,000 mile "new" Saab warranty and the five year, 100,000 mile warranty in effect for 2008 model year vehicles. True enough, most of Saab's competitors offer warranties similar to the new Saab plan… but Saab is very much the underdog is this market and needs some kind of persuasive selling point. Why exactly does ANYONE buy a Saab instead of a Lexus, Infiniti, Acura, Audi, BMW, Mercedes or even Volvo? GM spokesperson Joanne Krell "said lower costs and a more competitive edge over other importers were factors in the decision." Apparently Saab expects a lot of powertrain failures between years four and five, otherwise there wouldn't be much cost savings to be had. As to the "competitive edge", WTF indeed.

By some accounts, the new Australian Ford FG Falcon is a good car. It's said to have earned Ford Australia the right to develop Ford's new global rear wheel-drive (RWD) architecture. Former Lexus driver FoMoCo CEO Alan Mulally claims he covets the G6E Turbo model. So it's selling well, right? In a word: no. The Australian reports that the FG Falcon has "flown into a perfect storm, with high petrol prices and tumbling trade-in values conspiring to slam the brakes on sales of the new large sedan." Though sales are technically up eight percent over last June, Ford has moved only 4k of the new RWD sedan since its launch two months ago. There's been no appreciable bump typically associated with all-new products. Even Ford Australia boss Bill Osborne is worried: "The underlying market for large cars is even weaker than what was on display in June, and that's cause for concern for us." Ford is confident that they can "build momentum" because turbo models weren't available at the launch, but they also won't rule out layoffs or production cutbacks because they "don't know where fuel prices are headed." Anyone want to help them out on that?

We reported earlier that new Jag and Landie owners Tata Motors want to take its once-proud luxury brands back upmarket. According to Auto Motor und Sport, boss Ratan Tata has suggested to investors that Jaguar could revive the Daimler brand to take on Bentley and Rolls. Daimler as in Mercedes? Nein. A little history… Gottlieb Daimler sold his cars in Germany under the Mercedes name. He also licensed the construction of his engine in England. Jaguar bought that company, known as Daimler, in 1960. By the time Ford bought Jaguar in 1989, the Daimler name had become [more or less] a Jaguar trim line, denoting the top level of XJ Sedans in every market but America (where it was called the Vanden Plas to avoid confusion with Daimler-Chrysler). Mercedes-Benz paid Ford $20m for non-exclusive rights to the Daimler name. Ford then sold the Jag, Land Rover and Daimler brands to Tata Motors. Now, for those of you who think think that reviving the storied Daimler name is a no-brainer for Ratan's mob, I have one word: Maybach.  

High gas prices are achieving what thousands of Euro-lusting domestic fanboys couldn't: an influx imported premium European sub-compacts. Automotive News [sub] reports that Mercedes has revived plans to bring its next gen A and B-Class stateside. Expect four-door, coupe and crossover variants to jump the puddle sometime after they make their 2011 European debut. And yes, we'll also get long-awaited, much-anticipated battery-powered versions– provided they escape development Hell. Meanwhile, Daimler's considering another U.S. price increase. "We will continue to go for pricing and lose some volume rather than see our contributions deteriorate," says CEO Dieter "Chrysler What Chrysler" Zetsche. So what's with the mass market A and B, then?

Remember how an Italian court recently banned Great Wall's GWPeri from sale in Europe for too closely resembling Fiat's Panda? Well, the Shijiazhuang Intermediate People's Court sees things more… sympathetically. Fiat had sued Great Wall in China as well as Europe. But the legal battle has been lost on the eastern front. Reuters reports that the Chinese court dismissed patent infringement claims against Great Wall, ordering Fiat to pay $1,290 in court fees. Fiat is "evaluating its options" (read: figuring out who to bribe), posing petulantly for the press. "We acknowledge the Chinese court decision notwithstanding we point out that it goes on the opposite avenue vis-a-vis a resolution taken on July 15 by a court in Europe on the same issue," say Fiat spokesfolks. Great Wall, on the other hand, is using this as one of those "no such thing as bad publicity" opportunities, letting everyone know that it will start selling a pickup in Italy later this year. What, you thought all that cheap labor didn't have its price?

Auto Motor und Sport reports on a cautionary study by Bain & Company on the Chinese automotive market. According to the report, automakers estimate that the Chinese market will demand 9.3m new cars in 2010. Nein! "Our study shows that automakers are overestimating the Chinese market and are calling for too much production," says analyst Jörg Gnamm. "We're talking about an overestimation of 1.5m vehicles. That's half of Germany's annual sales, and the production capacity of four to five car factories." In other words, they reckon the Chinese market will grow by "only" about 12 percent per year to 7.9m units. Did  Jörg mention increasing competition for those sales? Yes he did. Volume automakers like Toyota, VW and GM are the ones who will face the toughest pressures. The warning comes shortly after Renault-Nissan CEO Carlos Ghosn predicted that the Chinese market could cool off in the next few years. And it doesn't factor in any Chinese government move to favor home-grown automakers over mandatory joint-venture "foreign partners." On that score, it's only a matter of time…

University of Minnesota's Center for Excellence in Rural Safety (CERS) has unveiled a new web site using Google Maps to display 2006 NHSTA motor accident data. SafeRoadMaps.org's widget lets you search the accidents by state or street address. [NB: The site's just been launched; it's a bit slow and kludgy.] The data shows the type of vehicle involved, whether or not a seatbelt or helmet was used, the presence or absence of alcohol, and speeding. CERS is hoping to "create greater levels of awareness, commitment, and informed decision making at all organizational levels, contribute to a change in thinking about the nature of the problem of road traffic injuries and what constitutes successful prevention, and strengthen institutions and create effective partnerships to deliver safer road traffic systems." Whew! But why the emphasis on rural safety? "Half of the 42,000 crash-related fatalities in the United States each year occur on two-lane rural roads."

We catch some flack around here for [allegedly] taking the fight to Detroit a little harder than patriotism demands. But compared to the latest spleen-venting by Chicago Tribune scribe Paul Mack, we're about as critical as a golden retriever puppy on benzodiazepines. Mack's thesis: "GM has traded in its navy blue suits and wingtip shoes for tie-dyed shirts and sandals, and is betting its future on the eco-trifecta of fuel efficiency, flex-fuel capability and electric motors. It is unclear whether the makeover is more than skin-deep, but history provides ample room for skepticism." So we're all on the same page right? Er, no. Because when you're criticizing GM, the very least you can do is stick to the facts re: its doomedness. After all, there are so many. So when Mack pooh-poohs the Volt program because critics have "argued" that the EV1 was DOA to "prove CARB wrong," he's trotting out the worst possible argument when so many better ones exist. And rather than criticizing GM's dependence on ethanol based on the fuel's inherent inefficiencies, he wrongly argues that America is "devoid of an ethanol infrastructure." And adding insults to weak criticism, Mack fills logic gaps with ad hominem put-downs. Calling GM's 30mpg mileage claims "the stuff of dreams for men like George Jetson," Mack says the Japanese automakers achieved the 30mpg goal in the 1970s. Which must mean he'd rather drive a Mk. 1 Accord than "the 2009 Chevy Malibu-now with Betamax!" By feeding his readers invective and insults rather than the truth, Mack has passed on a "teachable moment." Like Walter from the Big Lebowski, he's not wrong… he's just an asshole.

Last week, I pointed out that there are a lot of brand new trucks sitting on U.S. dealer's lots gathering dust. I illustrated the fact with an ad from a Dodge dealer selling Ram Quad Cabs for 50 percent off manufacturer's suggested retail price (MSRP). As bad off as Dodge is with their 160-day supply of Dodge Ram full-size pickup trucks, they didn't hold a candle to Nissan's 489-day supply of Titans. An email from Cleek tells us that a Nissan dealer in Rock Hills, SC took matters into his own hands this past weekend. He's advertised 45 percent off MSRP sale of pickups, vans and SUVs.  It looks like massively discounted truck clearance sales may be the wave of the immediate future. So far, the biggest discount we've see is 50 percent. How low do you think they'll have to go to clear inventory as the model year winds down and inventory piles up? How long before we see brand new pickups for under $10k? (God help light truck residuals.) Have you seen any dealers in your area offering huge discounts like these on trucks, vans and/or SUVs?

To loan money to its lease customers, GMAC borrows the bucks from large-scale institutional investors. The money is backed by assets: the leased vehicles. GMAC "investors" are scared shitless [parphrasing] by the huge drop in Chrysler and GM products' residual values. But as bad as that is, the REAL fear is that Chrysler or GM will go belly-up. Once an automaker files for Chapter 11, the value of the leased vehicles craters deeply and completely, leaving the bankers exposed to billions and billions of dollars of EXTRA losses. There are lots of implications to this announcement. For one, as reported yesterday, GM stands to write-off over a billion dollars in lost residuals– which they paid up front to GMAC. For another, GM owns 49 percent of GMAC. (Chrysler's owners Cerberus own the other 51 percent.) GMAC's exposure to the gap in residual values is around $3.5b. And another: Cadillac/Saab's inability to lease their vehicles is going to cost them BIG in sales and market share (GM's other higher dollar rigs will be hurt by a lesser but not inconsiderable extent). It's highly unlikely a third party lessor will step into the breach for GM, and Toyota/Honda/Nissan or any of the premium marques are not about to exit leasing. The key takeaway: GM's going to lose a ton of deals without leasing. Their decline and fall continues.

In The Land of the Free our choice of automobile brands is highly limited. Well, relatively. Dozens of European import brands have long fled our shores, curtailing our automotive freedom of expression. What happened to all those storied marques, such as Alfa-Romeo and Peugeot? And what’s keeping American pistonheads from once again enjoying the forbidden fruit of Europe’s exotic brands?