What pistonhead doesn't like a V8 engine? This author has long argued that freedom of choice argues against outlawing gas-sucking automobiles. But I don't venerate the V8 engine as a sacred object, a talisman for those who feel that anyone outside of Motown is an eco-weenie Hell bent on ruining a way of life. But I know a man who does. "You see, the cars that lose money are the rage of the day for automakers — hybrids, electric cars and fuel cell vehicles — and would take even longer to develop if it weren't for the advanced technologies designed for powerhouses such as the Corvette ZR1, the Shelby GT500 or the Challenger SRT8, to name a few," Manny Lopez argues. "But perhaps most importantly, the green that these vehicles generate is of the cash kind, and for three automakers struggling to simply keep their North American operations afloat, that's not something to dispose of lightly." Yeah, and screw those tree-huggers! "Sure the trend is to downsize and the Big Three are developing smaller engines that are faster and more fuel efficient. They should continue that quest. Now isn't the time to create a new V-8, but it's also not the time to bow to public pressure from activists who want nothing more than for the V-8 to wither away." Boil that dust speck! Boil that dust speck!  

Readers who depend on this series to elevate their blood pressure will know that democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is not so tough on E85 or the causes of E85. In fact, he's downright giddy at the prospect of federal subsidies for corn juice, and getting the damn gas stations to sell it. And so we turn to The Socialist Worker for a run-down on Barack's "fly me to the moon"  (in an ADM private jet) relationship with the agribusiness interests who love them some E85. [We could have linked to The New York Times, but that was June, this is now.] Nicole Colson's rant is not new news, but it's a well-written summary and, dare I say it, accurate. "During his first year in office, Obama introduced a number of measures that benefited the agribusiness industry–such as the "Obama Amendment" that offered oil companies a 50 percent tax credit for building gas stations that offer E85 fuel. Obama also voted for the Bush administration's 2005 energy bill and opposed a proposal to lower tariffs on cheaper sugarcane-based ethanol from Brazil and other countries." Would John "Just Say No to Subsidies For Now" McCain dare confront Barack on this issue? What are you, kidding?

According to Bloomberg, Lehman Brothers' top auto analyst reckons GM "may" need to raise an additional $7.3b just to stay afloat through the end of '09. And that's just the start of it. "GM may 'burn through'' $6.9 billion of cash in the second half of 2008 and another $4.4 billion next year, according to the 'base case' of Lehman analyst Brian Johnson. If a worldwide economic slowdown causes auto sales to stall in the U.S. and fall by 10 percent in the rest of the world, GM may use an additional $4.9 billion of cash through 2009, forcing the company to raise as much as $12.2 billion, Johnson wrote in a note today." With the American automaker already paying $250m per month in interest on existing loans, with all of GM's "non-core" assets either sold or unsaleable, with its credit rating at Caa1 (seven levels below investment grade), with a negative shareholders’ equity, with profits from NA ops notable by their absence (and a short-term impossibility), where the Hell is this money going to come from? Answer: federal loan guarantees. And then what? 

GM's Chief Operating Officer has fired off a missive to The Wall Street Journal, taking the paper to task for its Op Ed "Can America's Auto Makers Survive?" Fritz is feisty– and full of it. "Contrary to Mr. Ingrassia's notion that U.S. auto makers did not anticipate the risk of rising fuel prices, GM has been preparing for the shift for several years toward more fuel-efficient models and developing diverse alternative fuel solutions that will redefine the industry." Hang on; isn't this the same company that said "no one" could have anticipated the recent gas price surge? "In fact, 11 of our last 13 U.S. launches have been cars or crossovers, as will 18 of the next 19. We have 17 models that get 30 mpg or better, and offer six hybrid models" All of GM's eight brands are losing sales and share. The hybrids are a drug on the market. But Fritz' last 'graph is far, far more worrying. It is nothing more or less than a pitch for a federal bailout. "The future of the auto business is important to America, and we are dedicated to seeing that GM continues to be a significant part of the American landscape for decades to come." Taxpayers, grab you wallets and ready those emails! Your money is at hand! 

[Read Fritz' letter here] 

Quick question: is there anyone who believes Cerberus managing partner Timothy F. Price's assertion [to The New York Times] that the private equity firm views Chrysler as a long-term play? Even ChryCo CEO Robert Nardelli is not brazen enough to make that sort of statement, preferring to go with "Yeah. What he said." Or, more literally, "Our job here is to run this company. Cerberus down the road will decide what strategic alternatives they intend to pursue.” Reporter Bill Vlasic can't come right out and say Chrysler's full of it; he plays one of those NYT nudge-nudge, hint-hint, these guys may be well and truly fucked games. "With limited access to financial data, analysts are skeptical of its overall health." Nothing like digging for a story, eh? Or sipping the Kool-Aid: "Now, Chrysler’s new leaders are settling in for what appears to be the long haul." Or, as we say in these parts, not.

First of all, I want to say great job this year on the Top 10 list. I'm lucky enough to have spent seat time in every car on the list save the Caddy and the GT-R,and there isn't a single one I wouldn't be happy to own. But let's talk top slot. Mazda3? Look, I know gas prices are high and small is in, but the Mazda3 ain't exactly frugal. With the 2.3-liter engine, the six-year-old design gets less than 30 mpg– on the highway. Around town you're talking 22 mpg. That's about the same as a Chevy Silverado Hybrid. The dash is kooktastic and I still think the four-door's funny looking (the wagon is the sex). Yes, it drives quite well and I recommend the 3 to people all the time. But I recommend the cheaper, better-driving Honda Fit even more. What's that you say? You're not talking about the standard Mazda3, but in fact the rip-snorting 263 hp MazdaSpeed3? Again, a good car, but not #1. Why not? The all new Subaru WRX and Mitsubishi Ralliart blows its FWD, torque-cutting doors off. And then there's the little matter of STI and EVO. Am I wrong? Are you?

GM Car Czar Bob Lutz dropped quite the load of “Between the Lines” fodder (Justin’s working on it) in his interview with Charlie Rose. One real jaw-dropper: Lutz’s comment that the Volt has a Cd (coefficient of drag) of “between .28 and .29”. Folks, that is seriously bad. Was GM running the wind tunnel fan backwards, or did they put the model in upside down? My 1985 Mercedes 300E had a Cd of .28. As did a 1995 Mitsubishi Diamante. The current Prius scores a .26, and next year's model will undoubtedly improve on that. Lutz specifically said some months ago that the Volt would have better aerodynamics than the Prius. Oh well. Meanwhile, a whole raft of current sedans have a better Cd: Lexus LS430: .26; Hyundai Genesis: .27; Camry hybrid: .27; Mercedes W203: .27; the old B5 Passat: .27. Even the Saab 9-3 ties/beats the Volt with a .28. Keep in mind, that for an EV, aerodynamics plays a much more crucial role in highway range than for a conventional car. That’s why GM’s EV-1 had a spectacularly low Cd of .19. Nothing like progress in the span of fifteen years. 

GM's reported "done deal" to sell their medium-duty truck line to Navistar has fallen through. In a tersely worded press release – reprinted here in its entirety – GM stated:

Due to significant marketplace and economic changes, GM and Navistar have decided not to renew the memorandum of understanding to purchase GM's medium duty truck business, which has expired. GM will continue to run the medium duty business as it has in the past, including providing sales, service and marketing support to GM dealers for its medium duty trucks.

GM will continue to review strategic options for the business, including continued discussions with Navistar.

So what impact this will have on GM's finances, since you know they'd already counted this as part of the "as much as $17 billion" cash they were going to use to get them through the next year? Do they drop the price low enough to entice Navistar into buying? Or do they try to sell to someone like Mahindra and Mahindra? OR do they stay in the medium truck business and just lay off a bunch of workers like they have elsewhere and cut production to match sales? No matter what the final resolution, it won't be good for GM.

According to our pals at pistonheads, old people are pissed that the UK's "watch out for old people" traffic signs depicts old people as, uh, old people. You know, hunched over. In pain. Feeble. Defenseless. Slow. (This is, of course, ignoring the fact that it looks like the woman bringing up the rear is giving the old coot a mobile reach-around.) Well, the idea is to get motorists to slow the Hell down. If a sign shows old people as "fitter, healthier senior citizens," then they can get the bloody Hell out of the way, can't they? The fact that the UK  government has already removed the words "elderly people" from the signs reveals that political correctness is becoming/has become more important than anything (save paying your taxes). If it was me– and thank God it isn't– I'd put signs up with a points systems for mowing old people down, sponsored by Death Race, with the attendant fines. And by the way, I can say shit like this because I'm old. Dag nabbit! Well, older than Justin, anyway. But not wiser. Apparently.

GM’s North American Operations will go bankrupt. This statement will not come as a “revelation” to many TTAC readers. Of course, there are still some who will continue to claim that this website is “crying wolf” regarding The General's descent into ignominy. But to challenge any outcome other than a Chapter 11 filing borders on lunacy. As its centennial mark approaches, the vertex of the perfect storm now engulfs The General. Like it or not, believe it nor not, it's a tempest that will engulf the ship and send it to a rocky bottom. 

Back in March at the New York Auto Show, Brian Shipman of Pontiac told me that the G8 ST (Sport Truck) – a direct import of the Australian Holden Ute – would not offer a V6. It made sense, as this was a glamour truck rather than a work vehicle. Since they figured 40 – 50-year-old guys would just buy them fully loaded (the car, not the middle-aged buyers), it didn't make sense to offer cheaper, lower-spec versions. They'd never be as cheap as a two-wheel drive, four-cylinder compact truck. So a done deal – V8 only? Nope. GM confirmed today that they WILL be building a V6 version of the G8 ST for the American market, because of the whole gas price thing. Except that in the sedan, the V6 returns essentially the same mileage as the V8. So, uh… The good news: the V6 for both the ST and G8 sedan will be the 3.6-liter direct injection V6 with 304 horsepower from the Cadillac CTS and upcoming Camaro. That's really nice and all, but c'mon, I still want the V8. At least we know GM is still interested in driving any of its credibility into the ground by faking-out their remaining customers.

I reckon if a product placement calls attention to itself, then it makes moviegoers groan and say (silently) "I paid for a goddamn movie, not a commercial!" Apparently, brandchannel.com couldn't care less. They base their Brandcameo Award on the number of cinematic product placements in number one ranked movies (1251 brands counted in total). "Ford— for the third straight time— topped all other brands, appearing in 30 of the 52 number one films at the US box office from January 1, 2007 through June 30, 2008. Ford’s 57.7 percent appearance rate in top films is a marked increase over its 18 of 41 appearances in 2005 (44 percent) and 17 of 41 in 2006 (41 percent)." (FYI: Transformers, Bucket List, I Am Legend, American Gangster and taxis aplenty). Unfortunately, the man responsible for all this screen time, Mark Kaline, was written out of Ford's script. Or perhaps he's just in development Hell. 

Now that the 2008 Honda Fit's scooped fourth place on TTAC's Ten Best list, it's time for the winner to get evicted. Buh-bye! The 2009 Honda Fit goes on sale in the U.S. next week; Honda's already introduced the model in other markets. The next gen is slightly larger and better packaged than its predecessor, with the Magic Seat able to drop into the floor without having to slide the front seats out of the headrests' way. Honda's boffins have bumped the 1.5-liter powertrain to 117bhp. The five-speed auto gets slightly better fuel economy (28/35), while the stick-shift Fit and Sport– with wider tires and spoiler– suffer a one mpg drop on the highway cycle (27/33.) The Sport gets a nifty USB audio interface for direct control of iPods. The Sport is also available with a touchscreen navigation system plus ESC, for an MSRP over $18,500. The Fit's rear torsion bar suspension and drum brakes remain, but the whimsical blue dot in "Fit" is gone. But not forgotten.

You'd think "just-in-time" production techniques wouldn't extend to, say, Korea (Aveo) or China (Equinox engine). But you'd be wrong. And The National Association of Automakers view new anti-terrorism legislation– that's been six years in the making— as a threat to their business. "The U.S. Customs and Border Protection Bureau wants shippers to collect 10 new categories of data for U.S.-bound cargo 24 hours before it's loaded on ships in foreign countries," The Detroit News reports. "As well as to provide data about the physical location of cargo aboard a U.S.-bound vessel and status messages that report container movements… Automakers say the rule could upset the delicate 'just in time' shipping of parts to arrive at auto factories as they are needed for vehicle production, which saves the companies the cost of stockpiling parts… The automakers argue the rules would do little to make the country safer." And might be extended to Canada and Mexico. "Automakers argue in their letter that 'there is a better way,' saying that CBP [Customs and Border Protection] should focus 'on importers, exporters and countries that pose a risk.'" Isn't that exactly what they're trying to do?