Martin Eberhard now has driven 1000 miles on his Founders Series Tesla Roadster. Tesla's first CEO (now punted) took delivery of his lithium-ion-powered sports car two weeks back. (It's got orange stripes on grey, if you're in his neck of the woods and want to flag him down.) Eberhard estimates the Roadster's range at 125 miles on the "normal charge" settings, and 160 at "max range". "The 'normal charge' setting (accessed via the touch screen) limits charging the battery to something less than full. (I guess they go to 85 percent) and limits discharging to something above fully-depleted. The max range setting allows full use of the battery, though it warns you that doing this often will cause reduced battery life. It also reduces torque noticeably." And there you have it. He also notes that the rear suspension is harsh on sharp bumps, but that's to be expected from the Kim Kardashian version of the Lotus Elise.

The Detroit News reports that Senator Barack Obama wants to help Michigan et al. help him become president of the United States (surprise!). To that end, Barack will gladly use your tax money to encourage Detroit to, as my 14-year-old puts it, party like a Barack star. Speaking at the Lansing Center, "Obama proposed $4 billion in federal loans and loan guarantees to help the automakers meet his goal [of 1m hybrids by 2015]– a figure he first mentioned last month in a letter to United Auto Workers leaders — and a $7,000 tax credit to drivers who buy plug-in hybrids." That is, it has to be said, small beer. So Detroit's lackeys said it. "U.S. Rep. John Dingell, D-Dearborn, one of the auto industry's staunchest supporters in Washington, said the domestic companies could require $30 billion or more to meet the goal for their initiatives." Of course, if the real goal was more hybrids, why not let Toyota in on the action? Or the feds could just let the free market do its thing. Anyway… Obama also "modified" his position on domestic drilling (hey, sure, why not?), and proposed selling some oil from the U.S. strategic reserve [just before the election]. In case you were wondering… 

Ten Best Nominations Are Now Closed

The truth hurts. But not always. Sometimes the truth about cars is the key to genuine insight and automotive ecstasy. This is one of those times, when TTAC's Best and Brightest select their annual Ten Best automobiles. In other words, this is your chance to help the wider world discover genuine automotive excellence, and reward those who produce it with a much-deserved hat tip. The name of this collective endeavor changes, but the rules remain the same: you nominate the cars, our writers narrow your selection to 20, then you get the final say on the Ten Best [more details below]. But before we get stuck in, here's a recap of last year's winners…

When it comes to public policy, I don't often agree with the automotive industry in general and Motown in specific. That's because the car biz is ready, willing and lobbying to suck on the federal tit whenever and wherever they can. But when it comes to federal Corporate Fuel Economy (CAFE) regulations, I agree: the system is absurd. As the otherwise deeply misguided GM Car Czar Bob Lutz said, it's like trying to get people to lose weight by forcing manufacturers to sell smaller shirts. Anyway, none of the automakers or their camp followers have the balls to simply call for CAFE's abolition. Instead, they continually work to game, undermine and otherwise manipulate the system to appear to support it. You know; in principle. And now The Wall Street Journal reports that even that's in jeopardy. At a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) hearing on a new CAFE draft statement, "The auto industry said federal regulators are pushing too far, too fast in their effort to raise fuel-mileage rules [to 35mpg by 2020]. The complaints from the industry, which had previously voiced support for tougher standards, underscore how economic hardship is affecting a major policy debate.they reversing their former support by claiming hardship." It gets worse. According to Automotive News [sub], "The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers questioned whether the statement was necessary, calling on NHTSA to reserve its right to not draft a statement at all." In other words, can we please torpedo this thing in private, like always? So, anyway, I sent an email to NHTSA.

In July, GM, Toyota, Ford, Honda and Chrysler accounted for almost 73 percent of new vehicle sales in the U.S. But individually, how are they doing? To answer that I'm going to start tracking their overall market share and comparing them to each other, plus trending their market shares for 2006, 2007 and 2008. In July, GM held onto 20.5 percent of the market and has a 21.6 percent average market share year to date. Toyota's nipping at GM's heels, though, with 17.4 percent of sales in July and is averaging 16.9 percent of sales so far this year. Ford slipped below Toyota in April, but they're managing to keep Honda at bay so far. Ford's share for July was 14.2 percent against Honda's 12.2 percent; year to date Ford hangs onto 15.3 percent of the market. Honda's 10.8 percent average market share so far this year is still below Chrysler's average 11.4 percent share, but Honda passed Chrysler in May and is well ahead of Chrysler's 8.6 percent share in July. Where will it all end up? Hard to say with today's volatile market, but we'll keep our eyes on it and let you know as and when the music stops.

In the beginning,TTAC had its TWAT: Ten Worst Automobiles Today. In the interests of positive PR, we changed the name of our reader-selected "award" to the "TTAC's Ten Worst." The re-christening worked out well; the mainstream media picked-up on the TWA. Much linkage ensued. And now it's time to choose TTAC's Ten Best Automobiles Going. Yes, that's TBAG. Well, it was TBAG. And then we changed THAT to Ten Best Autos (TBA). Which is almost as bad as TWA. So, people, we need some help. Yes, I know; you're about to do the coffee-through-the-nose thing with some extremely witty acronyms. Or some left field choices (the El Caminos?). By all means, fire away. But we seriously need some help with this. What can we call our awards that isn't boring OR offensive? OK, not THAT offensive. 

For the red-blooded enthusiast, it's the ultimate nightmare: a car that just doesn't want to be driven hard. For the under-frugal and over-cited drivers of the world, Nissan's ECO Pedal could be the mechanical conscience they need to adjust to our eco-friendly, speed-kills society. "Each time the driver steps on the accelarator (sic)," flubs Nissan's press release, "a counter push-back control mechanism is activated if the system detects excess pressure, helping to inform the driver that they could be using more fuel than required." Required for what exactly? An electronically-determined "optimal acceleration" based on transmission efficiency and fuel consumption rates. You know, like how polite people and Buick owners drive. Nissan claims that with the killjoy-graft "drivers can improve fuel efficiency by 5-10 percent, depending on driving conditions." Sadly, the intrusion is not limited to the gas-pedal recalcitrance. An "eco-driving indicator" on the dash stays green if your driving style does (get it?), but flashes and turns amber "to advise the driver of their driving behavior." Or remind the driver that they are merging onto an interstate. Luckily, you will still be able to eke whatever id-fodder is available to Nissan drivers who would consider this option by switching the nagging thing off. Nissan will "commercialize" the system in 2009, but they don't say what models it 'll be on. If it's cheap and it can be turned all the way off when the less-better angels of our natures need to have their way, it could be worth a look… if you're into that kind of thing.

Car makers like to take the credit, but auto suppliers have invented much of contemporary car technology. So when the boss of Germany's Bosch (the world's biggest auto supplier) talks about the future of automotive technology, people listen. Here's what Bernd Bohr had to say to Auto, Motor und Sport . "For the year 2015, we expect a total world market of 80 million new cars, of which only about 2.5 to 3 million will be hybrids and 800,000 will be purely electric. So gasoline and diesel engines will continue to predominate. Actually, we calculate that the world market share of diesel cars will rise by another 5 percent, to reach 28 percent." How come? "Despite disproportionate price increases for diesel fuel, in places such as France the share of diesels has increased from 70 to 80 percent, because of a new CO2 tax. Diesels are 30 percent more efficient, too. There is a political dimension: the EU's ambitious plans to reduce CO2 emissions are only reachable if Europe stays at least 50 percent diesel." But the U.S. has shown that diesel is a no go, no? "This is mainly because of high prices for low-sulfur diesel fuel which is caused by low refinery capacities. This bottleneck should be gone around 2010. We expect a diesel market share for the U.S. of 15 percent by 2015". Are you betting the company on these predictions? "We plan to reduce our dependence on auto technology from currently 61 percent to 50 percent."

I was pumping gas into my WRX this morning when a man in a Ford F-350 yelled, "I had a 1983 Subaru GL. I drove it until 1992, sold it to a friend who drove it for another 5 or 6 years. Then he gave it to his son. Still on the road, with over 400,000 miles.Your car will never die." I responded that in the 160,000+ miles I'd put on my two WRXs I've replaced a battery and a headlight (though a buddy of mine burnt a clutch — let's not count that). Then there's my girlfriend's 2001 Ford Focus. She barely drives it. At 73,000 miles we replaced the radiator puke tank, thermostat housing and cooling fan and then discovered that all the engine mounts are shot. And those are just the iceberg tips in terms of crap that's malfunctioning. I give the transmission 5,000 more miles, tops. And we're not alone. Google "Ford Focus Radiator Overflow Tank" to meet our compatriots. And my question is why are some makes (or even some years within a make) so very much more reliable than others?

With great size comes great stupidity. General Motors' fall from grace– from world's largest and most profitable company to bailout bait– illustrates the point perfectly. And while it's about thirty years too early to suggest that GM's replacement will fall victim to the same size-related entropy, there are already hints that the profits powerhouse known as Toyota is capable of massive miscalculations. I speak here not of the full-size Tundra pickup, but of Scion, the brand that should have never made it out focus group.

Acura sources tell Automotive News (sub) that the Honda luxury brand will add an all-new model to its lineup in 2010. Earlier reports suggest that this model could be a four-seat coupe to replace the CL which was cut in 2003. With a $50k target price and a possible folding hardtop version, the new vehicle will almost certainly occupy a niche spot in the market. According to the Acura corporate office, this new model is what it will take for Acura to assume its rightful position as a "tier one" luxury brand like BMW or Mercedes. But according to to Acura dealers, a new model is needed simply to pep up showroom traffic.  Not that you can blame Acura for wanting to try something; June sales were down a staggering 25.7 percent. "We need to start creating more buzz about our products," says an LA Acura dealer. "I'm going to keep Acura in my prayers because they need it." But the NSX will create plenty of buzz before this new whip even arrives, so why go for it? Acura dealers currently sell only three cars and two crossovers, compared to Lexus' four cars, one crossover and two body-on-frame utes. And there are even more models from the true "top tier" luxury brands. But adding two-door and convertible TLs doesn't exactly banish Acura's rep as a seller of tarted-up Accords or launch it anywhere near the German teeth of the market. Which brings us to an interesting question about Acura's place in the market. With the economy flopping about an gasping for air, are "tier one" luxury buyers going to downgrade to Acuras, or are entry-level luxury buyers going to be squeezed out of the Acura dealership and into a Camcord? My guess is the latter. 

Turns out TTAC isn't alone with its Tesla Death Watch and Volt Birth Watch series: Toyota has its own going. EV World's (sub) Bill Moore got this and a few other juicy tidbits from a casual conversation with Toyota's "grumpy old man" Bill Reinert, National Manager of the Advanced Technology Group. Toyota has a Death Watch going on Fisker , Tesla, and…the Chevy Volt. Toyota doesn't think any of them will ever be built in large volumes, because their Li-Ion batteries are simply too expensive to be cost-effective. He also cited concerns over global supplies of lithium. Meanwhile, Toyota is hard at work on next-generation batteries , especially air battery chemistry, including zinc-air, as well as stepping up production of NiMH packs and starting Li-Ion factories. What's the line about not "having all your eggs in one basket"? Reinert also thinks it's unrealistic to expect owners of plug-in to only tap the mains at night. Utilities are going to have to step up capacity. And forget about all the 2010 Prius spy shots floating around the web, they're just cobbled-up mules based on the current Prius. Toyota is famous for keeping their final products under wraps (just one of the many differences with GM). And one more goodie from the grumpy Toyota brain trust: "liquid peak" (every conceivable liquid fuel from petroleum, coal and biofuel) arrives in 2018. That's when global demand will outstrip capacity to produce them all.

Transplant firms pride themselves on running NA operations differently than the D2.8, but the body-on-frame tailspin has no interest in pride or strategy. Automotive News [sub] reports that Nissan, which has never laid off a North American worker, will buy out about 1200 employees from its Tennessee plants. Workers at Smyrna Assembly and the Decherd powertrain plant will be offered up to $125k to leave over the next three years, saving Nissan 18 percent of its TN payroll and shutting the night truck production shift. By Detroit standards, this measure is almost not worth reporting on. But for Nissan and its employees, the stakes are considerably higher. At least that's what the UAW wants us to think; they're playing the told-ya-so card to Nissan's worried Tennessee employees with more than a little schadenfreude. "As a union member, contractually, I know what my rights are," says Mike O'Rourke, whose UAW Local 1853 has twice failed to unionize Smyrna. "Unfortunately, at Nissan, they don't know what the bottom is. And they're afraid… In their employee meeting, one of the employees said, 'If we don't go, are you going to reduce our wages?' And management wouldn't answer," says the UAW honcho. "I think you and I both know the answer to that question." Except that, absent any actual examples of transplants screwing workers, the evidence points rather away from O'Rourke's scaremongering suggestion. For example, rather than abandon or otherwise its employees at Tundra/Sequoia plants, Toyota is keeping employees busy (and paid) by training them and improving operations. While UAW shops are cut and shut left and right. Funny how that works.

There's one good thing about a crisis: it motivates people to create remarkable things that wouldn't have been possible (or necessary) in normal (or desired) circumstances. Remember: an oil crisis gave birth to the original Mini, a remarkable piece of engineering with incredible efficiency. Now that the days of efficiency are back, the car industry has once again been forced to awaken from its boringly predictable evolution and offer us some new efficient and smart solutions. The first signs have already been visible for a few years, with manufacturers showing a plethora of microcar concepts. Some producers even have such projects in advanced development. As spy photographs show, Fiat is currently testing a car smaller than the 500. At 3.2 meters the new Topolino ("little mouse" in Italian, named after the original model produced between 1936 and 1955) is expected to use the same 3+1 seats solution as the Toyota iQ concept (the rear bench is divided into a normal-sized and a smaller chair, placed right between the rear wheels at the very back of the car). With both rear seats in use, the car has virtually no trunk space. But fold the rear bench and now you got room for… a suitcase or two. Anyway, it's a remarkable achievement that could rival the original Mini. From a design POV, this layout doesn't allow for a sloped roof. I reckon a boxy rear will be the recognition element for all the 3+1 cars.

Get this: it wasn't last week. It was the week before. GM's Veep of Global Badge Engineering made this comment in an interview with Just-auto [sub] on the 23rd of July at the London Auto Show [sorry we missed it]. Given the $15.5b hole that opened-up in GM's second quarter financial results on the following Friday, I guess you could say Maximum Bob's remarks constitute pre-cataclysmic (post-modern?) irony. Anyway, the winner of TTAC's first annual Bob Lutz Award offered the usual grist for our collective mill. "The US press is full of pontifical analysts on television [Huntley Brinkley?] saying that the real problem with General Motors is that they are just not producing the vehicles that the American public wants. That's a complete fiction. We are producing the vehicles that the American public wants, we just can't produce enough of them because of the sudden swing in demand where all of a sudden everyone wants small passenger cars and a year ago everybody wanted big V8 trucks. We can't turn on a dime like that, but we'll get past that and our future product programmes are all in the pipeline and continue unabated." So, will The Big 2.8 make it? "We have a rough spot to get through in terms of liquidity…"