Despite the gloomy economic outlook in the NA car market, VW is surprisingly chipper. VeeDub’s convinced that the demand for the diesel Jetta may be higher than the forecast. “It certainly met and probably exceeded our expectations,” claims Mark Barnes, CEO of VW NA. August sales of totalled 2,417 units, 11,217 year-to-date. One reason for the cha-ching: the diesel Jetta qualifies for a $1300 federal tax credit. That put its “diesel premium” at just $770 over its gas-powered sib. VW CEO Martin Winterkorn sees the Jetta’s success as the particulate end of a NA wedge. Marty predicts a U.S. “diesel trend” based on the current oil burner’s robust powertrain and high resale values. Mike Omotoso is equally bullish. “We expect the diesel market to grow and actually overtake the hybrid market over the next seven years,” J.D. Power’s “engine analyst” remarked. Never mind the forthcoming release of the Chevrolet plug-in electric – gas hybrid Volt, the Mississippi-built Prius and the increasing popularity of frugal fours. In other words, in your dreams boys.

This past Sunday, while driving around the feudal kingdom that is Long Island, I spotted five Ferraris. They weren’t coming from a show – just rich people doing their rich people activities. With a huge concentration of wealth in the New York metro area, this shouldn’t come as a tremendous surprise. Yet despite growing up here, it still makes me shake my head and think “Nice day for a cruise. That dick.” But this particular Sunday was different, because one of the five Ferraris I saw was an Enzo. I always thought the Enzo was ugly, especially compared to its contemporary competitor, the Porsche Carrera GT (which I also saw on Sunday, I kid you not). But in person, it most definitely does have an aura. The license plate – “1 of 399” – tells you just how rare they are. That wasn’t 399 Enzos for a year; it was the whole production run. So I made a u-turn and pulled into the shopping center where the owner was eating lunch and likely thinking about buying Moldovia. And then you know what I did? I lined up with a herd of 13 year old boys and took pictures on my camera phone. The best of the pictures is included here. It’s awful. It’s bad for a camera phone. But as they say on the internet, “Pics or it didn’t happen.”

The Battle Creek Enquirer (where’s my cereal toy?) reports that The Lincoln Motor Car Foundation will be building a Lincoln-centric museum on the campus of the Gilmore Car Museum in Hickory Corners, Michigan. Naturally, Ford Motor Company will be kicking-in some dough for the project. With Lincoln all but dismantled at this point, a museum dedicated to such a storied marque makes a truckload of sense. Sort of like a pre-historic fly caught in amber, only nicer. And you can extract the design DNA without unleashing rampaging dinsoraurs. This new museum should provide car fans a terrific opportunity to check out some classic American Lincolns from the days when the only thing the brand worried about was Cadillac and the occasional Imperial. [Note to RF’s former press car provider John Lawlor: time to donate LBJ’s limo. Summer’s fine and the tax credit’s are easy.]

The flying car has long been the sci-fi terminus point for automotive technology. Such automotive luminaries as Henry Ford and Glenn Curtiss have been lured into costly, fruitless developments by visions of blasting away from traffic on the wings of flight. But the vision has never translated into production reality. The Moller “Autovolanter” is no closer to production than the flux capacitor, although far more complex. Green Car Congress reports that the sky-whip uses no fewer than eight of Moller’s proprietary Rotapower rotary-hybrid engines to power the Autovolanter. The plug-in hybrid two-seater can drive 150 miles on the road before lifting off vertically and flying a further 75 miles (at up to 150 mph), carrying up to 375 lbs and achieving nearly 15 mpg in the process. Well, in theory. Development of a prototype is estimated at $5m, though Moller claims low-volume production could make the Autovolanter available for $250k. But then there’s the problem of licenses, regulation and in-city use. Says Moller founder Dr Paul Moller “flying it in US cities is not going to be politically acceptable until it has been deployed successfully in other roles and environments. Practical or not, it excites the imagination to think about being able to rise vertically out of a traffic jam and just go!” Of course legal niceties weren’t really considered during development, as the Autovolanter was prototyped at the request of a “wealthy businessman who was unable to commute from the city to his country home due to the overcrowded streets of Moscow.” Dude, just bribe the cops.

In a interview with ESPN, Cindy McCain admits to a tiny little addiction. And no, she’s not referring to Percocet stolen from her medical charity. It turns out the billionaire heiress and wife of Republican presidential nominee John McCain loves getting a car sideways. Six or seven years ago McCain was watching TV with her eldest son Jack, when a drifting competition came on. Both McCains were intrigued, and for billionaires, that’s about all it takes. Months later, Cindy and Jack headed to Japan to take drifting lessons from a top Japanese instructors. The two went on to rebuild (probably with some help) a Nissan 240SX, converting it into a specialized drifting machine and competing in amateur contests. “I’m probably a little too cautious with it because it is abnormal from what you’re taught when you’re taught to drive,” says Cindy, who describes herself as a below-average drifter. “You’re taught to keep control of your car. Everything you were taught in driver’s ed, forget. That’s what drifting is about.” This may come as a surprise to those familiar only with Cindy McCain’s buttoned-down public persona, but she admits to being a lifelong gearhead. From regularly attending drag races, the Indy 500 and NASCAR events to attending high-performance driving schools and flying her own airplane, McCain’s penchant for speed is well-proven. Of course, all that is a bit easier for those who’s privilege allows them to believe a $4m annual income qualifies as “middle class.” Still, the prospect of a first lady relapsing into an opiate bender and drifting through the White House rose garden is, well, intriguing. Top that, Michelle Obama!

A member of the TTAC B&B wrote in to Robert this morning with some unhappy feelings. He feels that stars for cars are going out like free money in the recent months at The Truth About Cars. In this reader’s words:

I had no idea that writers’ star ratings are not edited.  Are writers given any instructions on how to rate?   In keeping with TTAC’s take no prisoners reputation, I would like to see some uniformity in the ratings where

Top 5% get 5 stars
Next 15% get 4 stars
Middle 60% get 3 stars
Next 15% get 2 stars
Bottom 5% get 1star

In other words, I want to see most cars get a 3-star rating and, as a corollary, a 4-star or 5-star rating to really mean something.  This would be really helpful to car shoppers.  Currently, however, your writers seem to be giving 4-star ratings out like hot cakes.

Well here’s your chance, B&B. Tell us if you think we are experiencing star inflation. Obviously, our usual rules about flaming the site are suspended. But keep it civil, or I’m going to bust out the whoopin’ stick.

Hyundai appears to be drawing up its own version of a constitution. The first on the list was “Quality shall be paramount” (moderately successful) and the second on the list is now “We shall work together with suppliers”. Hyundai’s corporate mothership has announced that it has signed a “fair trade agreement” with its 2368 suppliers. “The deal has paved the way for Hyundai-Kia Automotive Group to establish a fair trade order with partner companies and promote mutual growth through co-existence and cooperation,” said a company spokesperson. They also added that this is the first time a single company has agreed on a fair trade pact such a large number of firms. Before we break out the record books, which the “fair trade” aspect might possibly be fresh, the notion of positive, longstanding closely-knit relationships between industrial firms in Asia are a big part of the region’s manufacturing history. While I commend Hyundai for some serious long-term planning, how much of this was ethically motivated and how much was damage control? Sure Hyundai is promising transparency now. After their chairman stole $100 million for a secret bribery slush fund, and then received a pardon from the South Korean president, a former Hyundai executive.

In keeping with the horsepower numbers for the Hemi in the new Challenger, Dodge has announced that the Hemi in the Charger sedan will get an upgrade for 2009 as well. Rather than continuing to produce a puny 340 horsepower, the newly revised 5.7 liter Hemi will now crank out 368 horsepower. Take THAT, Pontiac G8 GT. In addition to the increase in ponies, the Charger R/T will also benefit from an additional 5 lb ft of torque, raising the total to 395 for 2009. The Hemi adds variable valve timing as well, meaning highway fuel economy gets a modest bump from 23 to 25 mpg (city remains the same at 15). You think this isn’t enough to save Chrysler? That they really need competitive small cars? That Chrysler is dead in the water? Well yeah, probably. But they only had enough money to either give the Charger R/T a little more power, or to buy Bob Nardelli a new toupee. Frankly, I think they made the right choice.

Automotive News (sub) reports that the National Automobile Dealers Association will not be joining the Detroit Alliance to lobby congress for bailout loans. In stark contrast to the collective approach to bailout lobbying taken by the three Detroit automakers, NADA is leaving those efforts up to individual dealers. “We represent all dealers,” said David Regan, the association’s vice president of legislative affairs. “NADA members likely will have different opinions on whether government loans would be in their economic interest.” This is, in effect, the same reason for the Ford-Chrysler-GM collective approach to lobbying, rather than going through the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. In short, the bailout is only good for Detroit, so there’s no reason for the successful automakers to waste precious lobbying money on it. Needless to say, this all further undercuts Detroits head-in-the-sand assertion that this is not a bailout. GM admits that it has recruited its dealers to shoulder some of the lobbying burden, though Ford and Chrysler remain cagey on the subject. If the once-big three want to convince America that the entire auto industry is suffering, and that the loan program is not corporate welfare for their failed business models, they’re going to have to recruit more help from across the industry. The lack of industry interest is highly instructive.

As we’ve argued before here at length, Chrysler’s current “worst of the worst” predicament boils down to one word: product. And it’s not just that Chrysler’s current batch of products suck, there’s not much coming down the pipeline that shows any real promise. But that’s not stopping Auburn Hills from rolling out a new hype offensive, touting the awesomeness of Chrysler’s forthcoming 2010 lineup. Leading the charge is President and Vice Chairman Jim Press, who sees the Chrysler turnaround in historical terms. “For our company, we’re going to have a product renaissance in 2010 … just as the market is coming back,” Press is quoted as saying in the Detroit Free Press. “We’re not on the ropes,” he insists. “We’re not worried.” Why aren’t ya worried Jim? Because Chrysler’s going to be launching seven new vehicles in 2010, according to Press. Pinky swear. But then supply-chain philistine John Campi chimes in to promise “eight or nine” new Chryslers in the mythical 2010 model year. So which is it? Ask an analyst, and he’ll tell you that Chrysler is likely to have five new models for 2010: a new Jeep Grand Cherokee, a Dodge midsized SUV possibly called the Durango, a refreshed Chrysler 300 and Dodge Charger, and a reskinned Nissan Versa. Ask the same analyst (in this case Erich Merkle of Crowe Chizek and Co) where Press and Campi came up with their numbers, and your expert will suddenly be out of answers. “Maybe there is some variant that you could start counting. There are ways to double-count some things sometimes. It’s a bit of a stretch,” admits Merkle. Possibly indicating what the Cerburian dog might pull out of its “product pipeline” in 2010, Jim Press is going after the Chevy Volt. Having shown three “post prototype” EVs to its dealer council, Press notes “We don’t have enough money for a PR stunt. All we have is enough money to build a car that we can sell.” Luckily Chrysler still has the Freep for fawningly credulous no-cost PR. After all, getting a Chrysler dealer to publicly admit that “I am more excited about their product line than I have been in years and years and years,” is surely worth some kind of consulting fee. Or ad revenue.

The oil economists and auto experts over at ESPN.com have decided to lay down the law about automobiles and ending the fuel import issues that plague the United States. In a post called “Hold Your Horsepower,” writer Gregg Easterbrook begins a multifaceted festival of wrong that continues for several excruciating paragraphs. His thesis: cars should have less horsepower; if they did, we’d use less gasoline. He goes on to, in a manner vaguely resembling accuracy, describe how today’s cars are “overpowered” by their comparison to vehicles from twenty and thirty years ago. While we’d all concur that a 268 horsepower Toyota Camry just sounds silly, Mr. Easterbrook’s “solution” is comparable to a 12 year-old mapping out a trip to Mars with a box of Crayolas. Just cutting horsepower isn’t the answer to anything. Cars had less power in the 1970s because of emissions laws and insurance. The went on to be functional with less horsepower because Federal safety requirements like airbags and side airbags and antilock brakes and electronic stability control and rigorous NHTSA and IIHS testing just weren’t part of the gameplan. At the heart of Easterbrook’s article there is undoubtedly a kernel of truth, which is that many American-market cars have far more horsepower than we need. But that’s a qualitative perspective, not quantitative. Look at the best selling cars in America in August: among the top ten, there were four trucks. The other six are cars, and their sales numbers are almost exclusively made up of four cylinder engines with less than 180 horespower.  If you click over to the article, see how many statistical/data errors you can spot. Easterbrook should stick to sports. And I promise not to talk about the Maple Leafs; only cars.

Though Chrysler gets special attention from us for its supplier-gouging, the practice of sticking parts makers with cost increases is basically an industry standard. As further evidenced by a Bloomberg report that bankrupt supplier BHM is filing to be released from an unfair (it claims) contract with ToMoCo subsidiary Toyota Boshoku. BHM sells vehicle seat-frame components to Toyota Boshoku, which has refused to increase payments in line with an 80 percent rise in steel costs this year. “The supply contract is so unprofitable that the debtors’ continued performance on the current terms cannot be justified,” says BHM in its bankruptcy court filing. The firm had requested a new pricing schedule in June, which Toyota Boshoku has rejected. Interestingly, Boshoku may be facing pricing pressure of its own. BHM components go into vehicle seat frames that Toyota Boshoku manufactures for Chevrolet’s HHR hatchback. GM has not commented on the case, but the facts prove two imutable truths about the industry. First, that everything and everyone in the biz is connected, and second that every OEM would just as soon see suppliers go under as raise their own costs. Be they Chrysler, GM or Toyota.

It was only a matter of time until someone had something negative to say about the ever-expanding fleet of hybrid taxis in New York City. While I’m not in the hybrid car fan camp generally, they make perfect sense for a place like Manhattan. Driving takes place nearly exclusively short of 30 mph (except for costly interboro trips), meaning the electric motor really gets a workout. They’re quieter, and considering the traffic density in Manhattan, the reduced emissions actually are appreciated. Not to mention, hybrids need high intensity field testing. What better than 24-hour a day abuse? Well, not everybody agrees with me. C. Bruce Gambardella, P.E., an engineer that claims to be nothing short of a world renowned expert in the field of taxi cabs, thinks the hybrids totally suck (paraphrasing). Mr. Gambardella’s report was funded by a lobbyist organization called the Metropolitcan Taxicab Board of Trade. We’ll give you one guess who they represent – the taxi owners. The report claims that the modifications required for hybrid taxis make them inherently unsafe. Among the charges: plexiglass partitions between the drivers and passengers will interfere with side airbag systems (how often do those go off when everybody drives under 20 mph?), that hybrids are unsafe as taxis because they aren’t built for heavy duty driving (Manhattan potholes apparently better the Rubicon), and because hybrids are horrible, terrible vehicles. Also, Gambardella reports, hybrids are for grandmothers and liberals. Taxicabs need to be robust Panther platform cars that get 11 miles per gallon. Oh, and the Metropolitan Taxicab Board of Trade filed a lawsuit yesterday against the City of New York, fighting the requirement that all cabs switch over to hybrids in the next several years.

Selling eight brands’ worth of vehicles under the “Employee Pricing for Everyone” banner does nothing to reassure jaded “I won’t ever buy domestic” car shoppers that GM isn’t Wal-Mart. Even so, GM makes some great– well very good anyway– rolling stock. But a quick bailout from the Feds won’t fix the cash-burning automaker in time for consumers to discover this fact. It will simply prolong The General’s “we’ll muddle through” mess until the next crisis. What GM’s North American ops really need is a full, head-on crash into the wall of bankruptcy, followed by private DIP (debtor-in-possession) financing. Meanwhile, it’s a real Saab story.

Automotive News [AN, sub] reports that “For automakers [that’s Ford, GM and Chrysler] to get access to up to $25 billion in low-interest loans included in the 2007 federal energy law, Congress must approve roughly $3.8 billion in new spending to cover default risk.” Bailout-wise, U.S. House of Reps Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) is on the case. Maybe. “Hoyer could not say precisely when or if any proposal would come before lawmakers for a vote before they are scheduled to break at the end of September — possibly for the remainder of the year.” That’s crazy talk! But if you want hardcore insanity, wait ’til Friday, when GM CEO Rick Wagoner hustles to the Hill to bring out his begging bowl in front of a Senate Energy Summit. The Wall Street Journal previews Rick’s party line: “The auto makers and their Congressional supporters also will argue that they need funding to meet new fuel-economy standards imposed by Congress, and that the debt markets have broken down in the credit crisis, leaving them few other options.” The WSJ reveals that Congress has 15 days to do the deal before our reps piss-off. Even worse (for Detroit) not everyone’s on board. “The industry’s chance of getting help may have dimmed, however the government announced it will provide a plan to provide as much as $200 billion in new capital as part of a takeover of the country’s main providers of funds for home loans, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac… Last week, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R., Utah) said he was concerned about the amount of money. ‘We don’t want our automobile industry to go down, but on the other hand, they’ve made a lot of bad choices.'” While I bet they get the bucks, methinks Rick’s cruising for a bruising.