USA Today reports that by (could it be? Yes, it is!) 2010, half of GM’s 181 manufacturing sites around the world will be “zero landfill.” In other words, The General’s factories won’t send most their industrial waste to the dump. Instead, GM’s plant trash will be recycled, sold for scrap or incinerated. “Ten GM plants, including an engine plant in Flint, Mich., already are landfill-free, and GM will have about 80 more producing little or no waste within 20 months, according to a source who would not be named because the announcement has not been made. GM had no comment.” Well, in fact, GM issued a press release on this, but I guess the whole Watergate meme is better when it comes time for that USA Today reporters’ pay review. Anyway, the EPA and GM are tighterthanthis, apparently. “The Environmental Protection Agency has worked for more than a decade with GM and other companies to cut waste through its WasteWise program. ‘The success of General Motors in creating zero-landfill facilities shows that zero-waste goals can be a powerful impetus for manufacturers to reduce their waste and carbon footprint,’ says Latisha Petteway, a spokesperson for the EPA.” And it sure won’t hurt GM’s PR campaign for their share of that $50b pot of gold at the end of the low-interest federal loans for re-tooling rainbow…

Yes, we all hate the alphanumeric nomenclature, snaking over the auto industry like poison ivy. And with only so many letters and numbers, we always expect some repeats (Lexus LS/Lincoln LS, Chrysler 300C/Mercedes C300, BMW X5/Mazda MX-5). Has Hyundai gone a character too far? The car we North Americans know as the Veracruz is being introduced to Europe as the ix55. Not only is this a bizarre thing to say down at the pub (Oh, I drove my ix55), but it’s awfully close to, well, a lot of other cars. Hyundai’s new scheme for European car names is to begin with the letter “i,” because if it worked for Apple, it’ll work for them. Or Mitsubishi’s “i car.” The X we can assume refers to this vehicle being an AWD crossover, and of course the 55 is because it has a 5.5 liter V8. Erm, no. Instead, it sounds to me like a mish-mash of BMW (xDrive 50) and the 55 immediately conjurs memory of a trillion Mercedes AMG cars with 55 at the end, from C55 to E55 to S55 to CL55 to CLK55 to ML55 to G55). Besides, what was wrong with Veracruz?

The LA Times blog reports that Aptera Motors, makers of press releases and $500 deposit waiting lists, have hired a new CEO. With its $30k EV still in development, Aptera has tipped to former Ford, Chrysler and Saleen man Paul Wilbur for the top spot. In a move that echoes Martin Eberhard’s ouster from Tesla, Aptera founder Steve Fambro has been pushed down from the CEO job to “chief technology officer.” This hiring of a new executive and exiling the founder to technical pursuits is fast becoming a rite of passage for up-and-coming EV companies. While Eberhart’s downgrade allowed him to “focus on…the advancement of our core technologies,” and Fambro’s demotion is being spun as allowing him “to concentrate on vehicle development,” the trendsetter was actually Phoenix Motors. Way back in 2006, Phoenix bumped its founder Daniel Riegert from CEO to (wait for it) chief technology officer. The LA Times sees a trend here, and unsurprisingly it has to do with money. Eberhart was demoted just as Tesla embarked on a $250m investment round, Riegert left Phoenix when a Dubai-based investor dropped $40m on the company, and Aptera just closed on $24m worth of venture capital. As these companies grow, their new investors do not always see eye to eye with their contrarian founders. Eberhard and Riegert both left their companies entirely after stints as technology gurus, and it would not be surprising to hear of Fambro following suit. Maybe the three former founders could start an EV supergroup?

So writes former Chrysler outside counsel Steven Roby in a rebuttal Op-Ed in the Los Angeles Times today (the original LAT Op-Ed contended that the US government should not bail out American manufacturers). His thesis of “It’s not the Big 3’s fault” is supported with inventive arguments such as “It’s not the Big 3’s fault” and also “It’s not the Big 3’s fault.” More specifically, he writes that GM, Ford, and Chrysler are just ridiculously, unreasonably burderend by high health care costs, that foreign governments directly subsidize manufacturers, and that other countries manipulate currency. We’ve been through this, time and time again. (He also accuses foreign governments of indirectly subsidizing “their” automakers through grants to research universities. Apparently this lawyer has never heard of the Bayh-Dole Act, which allowed for private patents of government funded research at Universities. And I take it he also has never visited Stanford, Berkeley, Duke, UNC-Chapel Hill, Michigan State University, and so on.) But the big problem is that Roby’s article never recognizes any Detroit mistakes: that the Big 3 spent years raking in piles of cash because of SUVs, or benefitted from the chicken tax on pickups, or benefitted from the special EPA status of “light trucks,” or that Chrysler already was bailed out in the past 30 years, or that GM, Chrysler, and Ford haven’t built a truly competitive small car. Roby writes that “The Times should not judge GM, Ford and Chrysler unless it can walk in the shoes of the executives and production workers.” The production workers have gotten the shaft, and nobody is blaming them. But I’d love to walk in the shoes of an executive like Rick Wagoner, whose company can lose billions upon billions of dollars and still go home with a $14 million paycheck. No, the global market for cars is not completely fair. Time to stop complaining and deal with it. Still.

FIAT and Tata have been cosying up to each other for some time. Ratan Tata was elected to the board of Directors at FIAT at Sergio Marchionne’s request, FIAT are looking to supply engines for Land Rover and Jaguar (A Jaguar XK with a Ferrari sourced engine? Fancy that!) and their joint ventures in India. But it seems, FIAT want a slice of Tata pie now (no, dirty jokes, please). The Economic Times of India reports that FIAT want to launch their version of the “world cheapest car” by 2010. However, Sergio Marchionne (FIAT’s CEO) didn’t disclose the price of the car. I’m no Sherlock Holmes, but I’m guessing it’s got to be less that Tata’s $2500 for the Nano, if it’s to qualify as “the world’s cheapest car”. Marchionne also didn’t say how it would be built, where it would be built, how much would be shared with the Nano, or how many Bothans died to bring us this information. Meanwhile, doesn’t Tata need to sort out its own production issues first?

Oh my, where to begin. A no doubt well-intentioned David Kiley at Business Week writes in this issue about the new Ford Fiesta in ECOnetic trim. “The 65 mpg Ford the U.S. Can’t Have” is generous enough to accept that the Fiesta ECOnetic would actually get anything close to 65 mpg (we previously questioned the real-world drop for this model from MPG friendly European testing. Our pot shot guess was that it would be more like 44 in real life). Wherever the final number lands, it’s fantastic, though far less impressive for a tiny diesel engined car with low-rolling resistance tires. But attention-grabbing headlines aside, Mr. Kiley goes on to point out that Ford just “can’t afford” to sell this car in the U.S. You see, ” At prevailing exchange rates, the Fiesta ECOnetic would sell for about $25,700 in the U.S.” That’s a rookie error; direct currency conversion should never be used to calculate what one car would cost in another country. If so, a BMW 328i might cost us Yankees $52,000. While the theme is correct: the ECOnetic’s diesel engine, made in the UK, would be too pricey to import, Kiley suggests that Ford just can’t afford the $350 million to build a factory to produce it for North and South America. Perhaps that’s true, though the novelty-sized Capital One card in Mark Fields’ office might contradict it. But more likely, Alan Mullaly isn’t stupid. Americans and even South Americans are not interested in diesel cars. South America pumps millions upon millions of barrels of oil for cheap petrol out of the ground. Brazil runs on ethanol. And the US is the US. Credit where credit’s due. In this case, it’s not Ford’s bank account to blame; it’s their common sense.

Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the factory… As per normal, a contract is running out on an auto manufacturer and the UAW are planning on striking. But what makes this story unusual is that Detroit aren’t the auto maker in question. Mitsubishi are. Workers at Mitsubishi Motors’ only North American plant in Normal, Illinois, were instructed to pick up their picket times at the union headquarters, whilst negotiations were continuing. If an agreement is not reached by 23:59 on Friday, then, the strike will commence. Curiously, the union are playing their cards cautiously. Union bargaining chairman, Fred Morisette “couldn’t comment on negotations” and last month, the union held a strike authorisation vote, but hasn’t made the outcome of that vote public knowledge. 4 models are in jeopardy, the Eclipse, Endeavor, Galant and Spyder. But there’s little cause for concern. In August 2008, Mitsubishi Motors posted a 29.3% drop in sales (9200 units compared to 13020 units in August 2007). So they need to ramp down production little, don’t they?

“‘The ultimate solution is the electrification of the vehicle,’ said [Ford Car Czar Derrick] Kuzak, who stressed he was speaking as an engineer and was not commenting specifically on Ford’s future product plans.” God forbid Ford should commit to a single technology, ’cause that might cause more of the old bureaucratic infighting for which The Blue Oval Boyz are famous. Anyway, The Detroit News reports that Derrick’s mate Jim Farley (of the RI Farleys) also reckons ethanol hydrogen the flux capacitor electricity is the “gas of tomorrow’s cars.” “Speaking to reporters separately [so as not to coordinate their stories], Ford’s chief marketing officer, Jim Farley, echoed Kuzak’s enthusiasm for electric vehicles. ‘All I know is that when I talk to customers about electrification they say, ‘That’s cool!’ We better be prepared as an industry.'” Yes, well, by the end of this electrifying cheerleading session, Kuzak backpedals from his “one alt power to rule them all” prognostication. “Kuzak said government intervention or consumer preference could ultimately make one of the other alternative power technologies a more viable choice and that’s why Ford is committed to developing all of them. ‘We have to, because we don’t know how it’s going to play out.'” That’s cool!

An accord is, by its nature, a compromise. While enthusiasts bemoan the Honda Accord’s increased size and lowered fuel efficiency, in truth, the automaker’s done the right thing. They’ve relentlessly identified and ruthlessly removed every possible reason why a cost-conscious American car buyer wouldn’t sign-up for a four-cylinder Accord. In my responsibility to my readers, I can highlight a couple of places where they’ve missed the bloat, I mean boat. But it ain’t easy…

Perusing Motor Trend on the throne, I contemplated angus mackenzie’s rant “the future of the american muscle car.” My first thought: when did capital letters go out of style? My second thought: spending nine paragraphs forwarding the not-so-radical idea that american muscle cars will become lighter, rear wheel-drive, turbo-V6 or diesel-powered somethingorothers is an awful waste of editorial space. But then, we are talking about Motor Trend, a walk-softly-and-carry-a-small-shtick buff book. And as my mentor said, there are no boring stories, only… Anyway, the American muscle car’s eventual evolution– or lack thereof– is a fascinating topic. How do automakers adapt these snorting, snuffling, gas-sucking examples of automotive Americana for a federally-mandated fuel-efficient future? Can they? Should they? Instead of debating it below, I invite our Best and Brightest to put fingers to keyboards and share their thougths on this life-or-death-car subject in long form. Send 800 words– not one word more or less— to robert.farago@thetruthaboutcars.com. Put MUSCLE CAR in the subject bar. Get it done by next Wednesday, September 10. Justin and I will sort through the entries and publish the three best (wihout editing) for a final vote. The winner will receive a one-year subscription to the UK’s Octane magazine. Let’s show angus how it’s done.

Hell hath no fury like an executive scorned. Since being ousted from Tesla, its founder Martin Eberhard has dutifully spoken truth to hype about his erstwhile brainchild at the Tesla Founders blog. Eberhard’s latest opus is a breakdown of running costs for the Tesla Roadster based on Northern California’s PG&E electricity rate structure. Calling answers to EV running costs “squishy,” Eberhard has assembled a truly impressive spreadsheet to evaluate and compare true EV running costs. These costs vary wildly depending on whether you have a standard-rate plan, or a “Time Of Use” (TOU) plan which discounts off-peak electricity use. Other factors include whether you use electricity to heat and cool your home, and whether you have solar panels on your home. Without solar panels, Eberhard calculates that operating a Tesla Roadster will cost PG&E users between two and six cents per mile, with his own use coming in at about 3.6 cents per mile. In the comments section, Eberhard admits that these numbers are higher than initial Tesla hype indicated. “My first (naive) comments while at Tesla were between 1.5 cents and 2 cents per mile, if I recall correctly. These were just based on the lowest tier, off-peak rate for the E9 schedule. I didn’t take into account the impact of domestic consumption, usage that pushes you into higher tiers, or all the taxes and meter charges – these make a big difference.” Elsewhere, a commenter points out that the official Tesla website still lists a running cost of “roughly one cent per mile.” Though Tesla qualifies this claim with the usual “off-peak” and “your electricity rates may vary” boilerplate, it’s unfortunate that it fell to a man with no further association with the company to give consumers the real truth. If you are blessed with a fierce spreadsheet kung-fu, follow the link to help Mr. Eberhard modify his template to include other local utility rates.

Way back in 1995 a certain Robert A Lutz, then president of Chrysler, modestly claimed that “there is no other area in the field of human communications that is as rife with disinformation as the story on Chrysler quality.” Much water has passed under the bridge since ’95, but that maximum maxim echoes in eternity. As then, Chrysler’s quality ratings occupy the basement of most reliablle rankings while overstuffed suits cry perception gap. Despite flying under the industry standard in JD Power and Consumer Report rankings, Chrysler has recently taken to trumpeting a 29 percent decrease in warranty costs. Now the Cerburian dog is putting its lack of money where its mouth is, telling the Detroit Free Press that it’s setting aside less money for warranty costs. “When you ship a car, you reserve the money for its whole lifetime of warranty. Based on where you think you’re at, that’s how much money you reserve,” explains Chrysler’s chief customer officer and former Nissan man Doug Betts. “A decrease of “30% … is hundreds of millions of dollars.” But the Freep catches something that deserves some attention. “Betts said Chrysler is measuring quality by the rate of warranty claims within a new vehicle’s first 3 months in service, a reliable bellwether for predicting total problems for the life of a vehicle’s warranty.” But doesn’t reliability become most important towards the end of a vehicle’s life? Isn’t that why Chrysler introduced its “lifetime powertrain warranty?” And all this while you’re trying to squeeze suppliers for a 25 percent cost reduction? Auburn Hills must be incredibly {cash starved} confident to light this financial timebomb now.

While, GM, Toyota, Nissan and Mitsubishi are getting their electric cars ready within the next few years and new contender has emerged and is aiming to beat them all to the punch. Tata motors, in conjunction with a Norwegian firm, plans to launch an electric car themselves. Reuters reports that the car will be based on the Tata Indica and be launched in Norway within one year. S. Ravishankar, senior general manager at Tata Motors’ engineering research centre, says that the car can run for 175 km (110 miles) to 200 km when fully charged with a “two-pack” battery, but mileage could vary according to the battery used. There’s little doubt that, if successful, Tata will use the Jaguar/Land Rover global dealer network to sell these cars and wouldn’t that be an image? “Could I interest sir in a Jaguar XJ? A Supercharged Range Rover sport? A Tata Nano? or an Electric Tata Indica?”

I went from New York to Pittsburgh, PA for a wedding last weekend. Rather than ride in my cramped car with two college buddies of much greater stature (and girth), we departed for the Iron City in a 160,000 mile Honda CR-V. I was just shocked at how pleasant it was for a road trip (albeit a very short 6 hour one). The amount of interior space – especially that afforded by the high roof, was fantastic. While the back seat probably wouldn’t have seated 2 all that well, it was fine for two people to stretch out their legs, and the same went for the cavernous front passenger seat. While it was a little short on amenities (no front passenger armrest, for example), it was a comfortable and mostly quiet highway cruiser. With only 44 horsepower underhood, we even managed MPGs into the mid 20s. What’s not to like? It drives like crap. But hey, I was just riding. In related news, Jonny and I discuss Ferraris.

Hiroshi Kobayashi, deputy chief operating officer for Japanese sales operations for Honda, reckons that they will easily achieve its sales forecast of 640,000 cars (down from revised figures such as 800,000 and 700,000) in Japan. “A lot depends on market conditions, but we should be able to easily reach that target at the current pace,” he said. With cars like the Honda Fit and Civic on sale, it’s hardly surprising. Kobayashi carried on, saying that the figures could have been higher if there was more supply of the Fit around and its Freed compact minivan. Unfortunately, Issac Newton was right. For every action there’s an equal and opposite reaction. Increase in Honda’s smaller cars has led to a decrease in more profitable higher end cars such as the Step Wgn and Elysion minivans. This also means plans to launch the Acura marque in Japan are cooling. Honda are still pushing their hybrids and plan more models But they’d better work on their profit margins for these cars, as they’ll be selling a bit more of them in years to come.