"As General Motors Corp. showed off its 2009 lineup Thursday," Scott Burgess writes in The Detroit News. "I found myself wondering, 'What's the next Malibu?' So I posed that question to a table full of GM employees during lunch at the automaker's annual event to roll out coming models for the media. The group looked at one another, stammered, and could not offer anything definitive." Wow, a cheerleader embarasses the football team? Well, not exactly. Despite Voltmania and Camarophilia, Burgess suddenly adopts the TTAC-standard position of evolution not revolution. (What else can he do?) "While no one at GM's lunch table could name the next Malibu, individually each of them talked about some of the changes being made to many of the vehicles. This year, the sum of the changes is bigger than any one improvement." Scott's talking six-speed Aura (remember that one?) and truck trannies, a hybrid pickup (good luck with that), the XFE Cobalt (don't they already sell that?) and… that's it. "It's refreshing to see GM take a good lineup and focus on how to make it better now," Burgess opines. "Instead of just talking about all of the vehicles in its product development pipeline. It may cut the lunch conversation short, but it will certainly satisfy consumers." Hang on; when did GM stop talking about future cars? And if GM customers are not satisfied now (never mind winning new customers), how will these changes change that?

According to the AP [via MLive.com], GM has said "no thanks" to a $56m tax credit and grant package designed to save its Moraine, Ohio SUV plant. Ohio Department of Development spokeswoman Kelly Schlissberg said the state is "disappointed and will continue to look for alternate uses for the plant, which employs about 2,400 workers." The General plans to close the plant by 2010, or sooner, because of "a customer shift to smaller vehicles." In other words, it wazzunt me.

Lincoln's version of the Flex, AKA MKT, has been green-lighted for production. The all-in-one utility-sports-comfort-performance-style (at least that's how the officials are selling it so far) vehicle has already been spotted in tests and is expected on sale as a 2010 model (of course). As far as we can see from the spyshots, the production MKT will have similar proportions to the concept car. In detail though, the changes are significant. Most of the cool showcar elements are gone: the huge wheels, the high-tech lights, the tiny mirrors, the small air intakes in the front spoiler (those couldn't possibly feed a full-size radiator). Gone is also the crease on the front door, but don't get upset, you now have real door handles, screen wipers, and decent-sized windows. But– is it just me or does this car seem a little late?

As Farago reported, the amount of federal money Motown would need to turn its business around– if money was, indeed, the determining factor– far exceeds the $25b first mooted. Or the $50b since suggested. And now, having floated not one but TWO trial balloons, Ford, GM and Chrysler are playing coy about the ballooning balloons. To its credit, The St. Louis Dispatch has tried to nail down the exact numbers and conditions, to see if their local minivan plant could be saved. "'We know the legislature authorized up to $25 billion, but the amount that could really make a difference likely is much higher,' GM spokesman Greg Martin told the Post-Dispatch. He declined to say how much additional money would be needed or confirm the $50 billion figure. Ford spokesman Mike Moran also did not confirm the increased loan amount. Chrysler spokeswoman Katie Hepler said the automaker is working to access the government loans. She declined to talk about specific dollar amounts or elaborate on where Chrysler would use any money it borrowed." And here's a surprise. "It also appears that some of the older plants owned by foreign automakers could apply for this loan, according to the original language of the legislation. Toyota Motor Corp.'s Georgetown, Ky., plant and Honda Motor Co.'s Torrance, Calif., location are two that fit the criteria." Only… The Department of Energy has until December to write the final rules that detail how to apply for the money.

Today marks my final day as Managing Editor of The Truth About Cars.  Never in my wildest dreams would I have imagined that when I forwarded a snarky letter I'd written to Car and Driver complaining about their lack of editorial direction to some guy at a web site I'd just discovered, it  would lead to this.  It's been a wild roller coaster of a ride, occasionally aggravating, usually entertaining and always educational –  but never boring.  I'm going to miss it.  A lot.

"Crucifies" may be a bit harsh. Or maybe it isn't. It's hard to tell. The New York Times article detailing the Golden State's new real estate development legislation waits until the eighth paragraph to chart the changes, and even then, it's not entirely clear how it works. "The bill yokes three regulatory and permit processes. One focuses on regional planning: how land use should be split among industry, agriculture, homes, open space and commercial centers. Another governs where roads and bridges are built. A third sets out housing needs and responsibilities… Under the pending measure, the three regulatory and permit processes must be synchronized to meet new goals, set by the state’s Air Resources Board, to reduce heat-trapping gases. Seventeen regional planning groups from across the state will submit their land-use, transportation and housing plans to the board. If the board rules that a plan will fall short of its emissions targets, then an alternative blueprint for meeting the goals must be developed. Once state approval is granted, or an alternative plan submitted, billions of dollars in state and federal transportation subsidies can be awarded. The law would allow the money to be distributed even if an alternative plan fails to pass muster." In English. "The goal is to encourage housing near current development and to reduce commutes to work." Or… "clustered communities," a new stick, the same old carrots and LOTS more red tape. 

What is a safe car? A car that prevents a crash, a car that protects the car's passengers, or something else? Safety testing groups around the world have their own, varying definitions. Euro-NCAP (the European benchmarking organization, or New Car Assessment Program), has decided it needs a new standard which will integrate several safety factors. I spoke with Cordelia Wilson of Euro-NCAP: "Consumers have told us they find the present system of star ratings which differentiates according to adult passenger crash protection, child passenger protection and pedestrian protection, confusing. A modern SUV will often get five stars at adult protection and one star at pedestrian protection, but how good is it in sum? So starting in 2009, we intend to introduce a fairer, clearer system which rates overall safety performance". Will car makers continue to advertise with excellent results in selected areas, but conveniently forget to mention when they score dismal results in others? "We won't use stars anymore. Instead, you can expect a percentage rating which will integrate adult safety, child safety, pedestrian protection, and 'safety assist', meaning electronic devices such as ESP". SUV makers are said to be horrified, since while perceived safety is a strong SUV selling point, they are normally lousy at pedestrian protection. Let me guess: Honda is happy about these changes in the benchmarking rules, while BMW and Land Rover are having a fit? "You said that, not me".

A little behind-curtain action for you: When I finished with the 2008 Nissan Murano, I asked Farago if he was interested in a "Take Two" review. He wasn't. As I had even less interest in writing one ("Ride is softer than butter… no! Softer than veal fat"), I didn't. Why waste time insulting a fat pig when I can be losing hundreds of dollars at online poker? As you can imagine, I wasn't exactly doing cartwheels when the Nissan Rogue showed up. For all I knew it was a half-pint version of its (uglier) big brother. And a CVT, too? I was upset. But was I right?

According to The Detroit News, Toyota has walked down its '09 global sales estimates by 700k units, from 10.4m vehicles to 9.7m. This is the second forecast downgrade; a tacit admission by the world's largest automaker that the U.S. sales slump will not experience the rapid recovery its native carmakers have been praying for predicting. "[Toyota CEO Katsuaki] Watanabe said he saw as 'fundamental' the slowdown in the U.S. market as soaring gas prices not only crimp car purchases but drives an unprecedented shift in consumer demand from trucks to smaller fuel-efficient models." And just like GM's suits, Toyota's big boss tried to apply a coat of green gloss to the loss. "In his annual outlining of the company's business plan, Watanabe tried to sound an upbeat note by promising green vehicles. He said Toyota will speed up the delivery of a plug-in hybrid — which can be plugged into regular household electrical sockets — initially promised for sometime in 2010, to the end of 2009." Meanwhile, "It is forecasting its first full-year profit decline in seven years as it faces more problems from the weakening U.S. market." 

The following Q&A was published on Chrysler's Firehouse media blog. TTAC republishes it here in its entirety, without editing, to provide insight into Chrysler's call on the public purse, and the ailing automaker's plans for the future. Such as they are… "The campaign season is in full swing, with the Democrats holding their convention in Denver this week, and the Republicans meeting in Minneapolis-St. Paul next week. John Bozzella, Vice President of External Affairs and Public Policy, will be at both conventions, hoping to win over Congressional support for funding the auto industry’s technology transformation to build a new fleet of fuel-efficient vehicles. We talked to Bozzella from Democratic Convention in Denver about the effort.

Q – Why are you in Denver this week and what are you hoping to accomplish?

My time writing for TTAC is strictly limited. Farago asked me to pinch hit while he's otherwise engaged. As soon as this site's founder returns from his light bulb changing duties, I'm going back to my regular, better-paying job. So while I've got the floor, I'd just like to share a revelation…. I heard a radio ad today for "Cadillac employee pricing." Prior to that moment, I hadn't really given much thought to the concept of Caddy opting-in to GM's overall firesale. Not until the pitchman assured me "you pay what Cadillac employees pay." And then it hit me. Why would a Cadillac buyer want to buy a car that the people who build them can buy? I mean, if a Cadillac employee can afford a Cadillac, where's the status in that? At the risk of having my foul-mouth censored yet again, that brand is so screwed. Upmarket my ass. And why in God's name do they have to tell everyone about it?

The AP reports Bob Lutz' prediction that GM will be profitable by 2010. Well, almost. "Lutz stopped short of predicting when GM would return to profitability, but said if it can further reduce structural costs, get higher prices for small cars, and if the U.S. auto market recovers, its top executives say they hope to return to black ink in 2010." The Detroit News reports that Maximum Bob mentioned Uncle Sam's potential contribution. "[Lutz] also said GM and the other Detroit automakers would benefit from low-cost government loans to help them pay to update plants and speed up development of more fuel-efficient models consumers are demanding amid high gas prices." 

Speaking at a now-standard new model private press preview (our invite got lost in the mail), GM Car Czar Bob Lutz tried to put the kibosh on speculation that his employer was going Tango Uniform (as above)– even as he's pimping for federal loan guarantees. Automotive News [sub] reveals that Maximum Bob reckons "I do think the American automobile business is deserving of government loan guarantees because the financial institutions in the U.S. are so stressed out right now." Lutz said that Wall Street's "stress" led to a lack of financial support, obviating "a competitiveness that we may well need." At the same time, Lutz thinks federal loan guarantees are no biggie. "We are not accepting government money," Lutz insisted. In fact, "the last time the government backed a loan for an automaker — for Chrysler Corp. in 1979 — it made millions because Chrysler paid the loan off early." Millions? Bob Lutz makes millions. (Frequently.) Meanwhile, The Detroit News reports that Republican Rep Joe Knollenberg called President Bush's top economic advisor, Keith Hennessey, urging the president to support up to $50 billion in direct loans for automakers. Bipartisan support, eh?

After Captain Mike today posted that he was having a difficult time merely test driving a Challenger SRT8 before putting down his hard-earned cash to buy one, not everyone was sympathetic. In fact, Jen Dunnaway – the editor of the blog section over at CarDomain.com – thinks we're a bunch of whiners/cry babies.

"Sour grapes of the day: The Truth About Cars has been begging Mopar for a Challenger test car, only to be outraged by the fact that "Chrysler LLC refuses to acknowledge TTAC's existence." Gee, why would a domestic automaker do that? Maybe because all TTAC does is spew hate and vitriol for the Detroit automakers, loudly delight in their every misfortune, and smack their lips in gleeful anticipation of the collapse of our nation's auto industry? Obviously Ma Mopar hasn't heard the one about keeping your enemies closer—and TTAC, after being further thwarted from even taking a regular-joe dealership test drive, decided that the Challenger isn't really that big a deal after all.

[For the purposes of this thread, TTAC's normal restrictions on discussing the site's mission and/or biases are lifted.]

Warning: you might want to turn down your volume when that Audi TT with a new turbo upgrade hits full boost. The last time I heard a whine like that was when the Pratt & Whitney engines on my jet spooled-up, developing 21k lbs of thrust apiece; and it only does 0 – 60 mph in about 15 seconds (and then 60 – 250 mph in another 15). Which brings me to my question. I've seen many a car "tuned" beyond belief, many with ridiculous body kits to emphasize the fact. How much tuning on a car it too much? When does the tuning destroy the car's original character and turn it into a peaky, unreliable mess? I like it when people modify cars, especially when it builds upon the car's strengths and tones down its weakness (like the above Audi). But looking around me on Friday nights, sometimes I think it gets a bit extreme. What say you?