For the second time in just over a year, Britain’s Advertising Standards Authority has busted Lexus for making unsupported “green” claims in an advertisement. The Guardian reports that a recent ad for the Lexus RX400h has been pulled for implying “that the car caused little or no harm to the environment and gave a misleading impression of the car’s CO2 emissions in comparison with other vehicles.” The ad which asserted that the hybrid RX was “perfect for today’s climate (and tomorrow’s)” caused four complaints to the ASA, which apparently is enough to get an ad pulled in the Land of Hope and Glory. Meanwhile, Lexus said that the use of the word “climate” in the ad was meant to operate at “two levels.” As Farago says, irony is a bitch.

Where would we be without Digg? Thanks to the collective hysteria of a thousand Diggers, we learn that the Gas 2.0 blog is baffled by the fact that Toyota builds an AWD hybrid minivan that gets 40 mpg and doesn’t sell it stateside. Gas 2.0’s Nick Chambers has fond memories for Toyota’s old Previa, and damns its US-market replacement, the Sienna for being a gas hog. But the spiritual successor to the Previa, the Estima, has been sold to the Japanese in hybrid form since 2001. The baffling unfairness of it all even had the Union of Concerned Scientists in a tizzy, circulating an online petition urging Toyota to bring the Estima hybrid to the states. Which it almost certainly won’t. A hybrid Sienna is considered likely to arrive sometime around 2010, but that’s not impressing people who are new to the concept that US-market vehicles consistenly lag behind Euro- and J-market offerings in efficiency. “Yo, Toyota,” writes Chambers, “you’ve already got a minivan that half of the families in the US would kill for, what the hell are you doing investing so much energy in redesigning a has-been?” Dude, if you love it so much just buy one. Oh wait, does that say it costs $39,600? Now it’s starting to make sense…

The name “Lagonda” is one of those car brands you hear tossed around in historical context like the proverbial football. But I was the bad athlete in elementary school, and so no one threw me the football. Apparently Aston Martin, which owns the name, is going to start cranking out cars with the Lagonda badge again. Until recently, I had no real idea what a Lagonda was, is, or is supposed to be. So first thing’s first: prewar Lagondas. From the company’s first car in 1907 until World War II, Lagonda made the kinds of cars you sort of imagine when you think “sports car” and “prewar.” Some models were better than others, some had 1.1 liter 4-cylinder engines, others had 4.5 liter inline sixes, and even some had 4.5 liter V12s with a 5000 rpm “redline.” Many of these cars were even designed by W.O. Bentley, the founder of Bentley Motors, who was pushed out of his namesake company. And during that prewar era, Lagonda was (arguably, to history geeks) a real competitor to Bentley and Rolls-Royce. After World War II, the British car industry started to implode, everybody was merging, and Aston Martin bought Lagonda. And then Aston more or less croaked the Lagonda brand. They produced some of their prewar cars into the 1950s, and also did the original “Rapide” – which essentially looked like a four door Aston DB4. Very cool, but only 50-some cars were ever made. And then Lagonda became the badge for the crazy four door Aston Martin sedans from the 1970s and 1980s that we’ve all seen. And now you know.

Automotive News has sent an alert to its subs, and it’s not just because the autoblogsphere needs more lerts (submarine joke deleted). The publication reports the official announcement: “Daimler confirms that the company is in discussions with Cerberus Capital Management regarding the redemption of its remaining 19.9 [percent ownership of Chrysler].” Redemption? I don’t think so. Anyway, what’s up with that? Well, here’s a clue: nobody’s talking about price. Riddle me this Moustache Man: if ChryCo goes down the chute marked Chapter 11, could creditors go after the still-solvent Daimler? Uh-huh. So, just as Cerberus used OPM (Other People’s Money) to finance their original purchase of the soon-to-be-ailing American automaker, it’s entirely possible that Daimler’s paying them to take Chrysler off their hands. So why would Cerberus want that 19.9 back? It would be a lot easier to ask for an undisguised federal bailout with ChryCo as 100 percernt ‘Merican. Now matter how the deal goes down, if down it goes, it’s back to” The Big Three” ’round here. Only Honda’s bigger than Ford and Chrysler now. Oh dear.

I love The Autoextremist. What a great name! Sure, it’s better suited to a championship wrestler than an automotive analyst. But it’s also entirely, deliciously misleading. Peter DeLorenzo’s views on car sales, marketing and branding are about as “far out” as Brooks Brothers’ plaid pants. Even though Motown execs must surely view Peter as the nutter in the attic, DeLorenzo is always pulling for the home team. But I think he’s gone too far this time. In rant #464, Sweet Pete’s sweet on the Bavarian outside the gates. Specifically, BMW NA Prez Jim O’Donnell. After doing the WTF routine on the German brands’ model proliferation, DeLorenzo lauds the Bimmer suit for trimming imports by 44k, cutting leases by 10 percent, reducing spending on incentive marketing and spiking the marque’s blow-out December sale. (We’ll see about that one.) Supposedly, all these moves indicates genius. DeLorenzo reckons O’Donnel wants to return BMW to its upmarket– or is that four-cylinder downmarket?– roots: “hallefrickinluja.” Meanwhile, back in the real world, O’Donnel is doing sweet FA to trim product lines and the measures Pete describes are a reaction to declining market conditions and the credit squeeze– which will do nothing to reposition the brand. If Peter wants to give credit where credit’s not due, he should applaud GM CEO Rick Wagoner for putting GM dealers out of business trimming GM’s dealer count. In other words, if the truth doesn’t hurt, it may not be the truth.

As Farago mentioned earlier, the Senate has approved a consumer-end PHEV tax credit of $2,500-$7,500, which Automotive News (sub) modestly calls “Volt-friendly.” By which they mean it was designed specifically for the Volt, making the size of the credit dependent on how much charge a qualifying vehicle’s battery can hold. And though battery capacity is a poor measure of efficiency, choosing that metric handily favors the Volt’s EREV design which qualifies for the maximum tax break, while Toyota’s plug-in Prius won’t. And people say that GM’s $14.3m lobbying budget is a waste of money. But America’s Volt subsidy isn’t limited to DC. The Michigan Economic Growth Authority has approved $130m in tax breaks to attract Volt production to the state. The package includes a $122.5 million state tax credit over 15 years for the $838m overall investment and a $10 million brownfield tax credit for the Flint engine plant construction. Automotive News (sub) reports that GM need only retain about ten percent of the 20k jobs at the five existing sites to qualify for the tax benefits. With GM getting a chunk of the $25b bailout loans for production plus $130m in tax breaks and a $7,500 consumer tax break for consumers, the Volt had better freaking cost less than $40k. Not that anyone’s holding their breath.

Race Day is rapidly approaching for TTAC’s foray into the 24hrs of LeMons. Not good.  We have a 240Z body with a roll cage, most of a suspension and not much else. Granted the re-gasketed 2.8L short block met the high compression 2.4L cylinder head and there’s a blizzard of parts lying around, but the car just isn’t done. Hurricane Ike didn’t do us any favors, not to mention yours truly nearly broke his finger with a ball joint, a rusty control arm and a torquey air ratchet.  So after the obligatory tetanus shot and mad props to the efficiency of “Urgent Care” centers sprinkled across the city, I found my way back to the drawing board.  Namely, the Internet.  I never thought a street-stock flywheel had the potential to be a race-ready part, but I was wrong.  After coaxing my local mechanic (you want to do WHAT with my brake lathe?) I spent hours shaving 2+ pounds off the flywheel: its top hat shape gave way to something reminiscent of a lightweight, deep dish pizza pan.  This right here is bang for the buck, and why you build a LeMons beater in the first place. Um, provided it’s ready to race.

After revealing JIT bailout bait (i.e. three potential electric vehicles), Chrysler CEO Bob Nardelli had a “confidential” chin wag with his dealers. Needless to say, the bottom line was the bottom line. According to sources blabbing to The Wall Street Journal [via Reuters], Nardelli told ChryCo store owners that the corporate mothership had lost $400m year-to-date. Boot ‘Em Bob added that sales fell 24 percent through August and Chrysler had $11 billion in cash. I’m not sure where Nardelli got his 24 percent figure from, nor the $400m red ink stain, or the $11b in cash reserves. But the fact that the official spokesman declared that Chrysler’s “not in the black on a net basis” leads me to wonder if the books have been set on low or medium heat. Just sayin’…  Oh, and Chrysler owner Cerberus says it lost $1.6b so far this year. For a company generating a self-proclaimed “$100 billion in annual revenues,” that’s chicken feed. Still, to paraphrase the old Midas Mufflers’ commercial, “How do you think a company like that got to be a company like that?”

We’ve already reported that Forbes thinks buying a new SUV from just about anyone in these time of killer depreciation is a damn fine idea. Apparently, the mag’s enthusiasm for vehicles with barge pole marks also extends to other advertisers unloved automobiles. “Cars Worth A Second Look” can be roughly translated into “Four-Wheeled Dogs You Can Get for A Song.” Poster child for this ten worst best list: the Saab 9-5. “It’s not that the Saab 9-5 is a bad car, ‘it just doesn’t flow well’ with some people, says Stephanie Brinley, auto analyst at AutoPacific, an industry research and analysis firm. The interior is a little bit ‘off center’ with the ignition located on the center console and not the steering column or dash board, which is appealing to ‘a little different buyer with a little different personality,’ she adds. The fact that it sits on an ancient (i.e. decrepit) platform has nothing to do with it. This time out, Jacqueline Mitchell (for it is her) factors crap sales (sub-10k), safety (“acceptable” crash rating or better), EPA mileage (17 – 20mpg) and five-year cost of ownership (including depreciation!). [Mitsubishi Outlander, Mazda Tribute, Mazda5, Volvo S80, Audi A6, Hyundai Veracruz, Hyundai Entourage, Acura RL, Audi A3 (captioned A2 in the slide show), Saab 9-5]

Let’s get one thing out of the way right from the start: the Kia Borrego might list for a couple grand less than a 2008 Explorer, but the larger rebate on the Ford eliminates this advantage. The story is similar with other established SUVs. Since the Kia won’t cost significantly less than its highly evolved competitors— at least until Kia tosses some similarly serious cash on the hood—the late-to-the-party truck better have another major selling point. So…

According to AutoWeek, it’s currently a backlash of one: Scott Weires. The Florida attorney canceled his order for a GT-R after learning that Nissan’s taken the accident data recorder black box thing to a whole new level. “Unlike an EDR [electronic data recorder], which activates only when sensors indicate that a crash is imminent or has occurred, Nissan’s VSDR [vehicle status data recorder] runs constantly, collecting information such as wheel and engine speed. The device, thought to be a first in the automotive industry [tell that to BMW M3 owners], stores more than a few days’ but less than a week’s worth of data on the vehicle’s operation, Nissan says. The VSDR cannot be deactivated.” Never mind speeding, although that’s certainly a worry. It’s all about the warranty. “Nissan specifically warns owners that they could void warranty protection by running a car with its vehicle dynamic control (VDC), governing traction and stability, turned off. (In fairness to Nissan, the owner’s manual does allow owners to defeat VDC when wheelspin is needed to rock a car that’s stuck in snow or mud.)” Sure, that’s fair. And there’s another, justifiable concern: “We do realize that some customers will take their car to the track for all-out driving,” Ed Hibma, senior manager for technical support with Nissan North America. “But racing is different.” Pistonheads will remember (though I can’t recall the exact details) that manufacturers have been known to prowl the internets for racing photos. Paranoid? Consider the fact that the Japanese-spec GTR limits the car to 111 mph– unless the GPS knows you’re on a race track (not racing). Or the GT-R’s 156mph U.S. speed limiter.

Forbes hit the SEO (search engine optimization) mother lode when someone realized that Google hearts ten best lists. Since that fateful discovery, we’ve had The Ten Best Subcompacts for Badminton Players, The Ten Best Minivans In Which to Play Badminton and The Ten Best Muscle Cars for Overcompensating Badminton Players. Normally, I ignore these lists. But you gotta sit-up and take notice when Forbes expands their advertiser-pleasing OCD to a dead genre guzzling– SUVs– and ups the ante to “15 SUVs Worth Buying.” Huh? “Just because the movement in fuel-efficient or green cars looks poised to take another step forward [with the Volt], doesn’t mean SUVs are going the way of the dodo. It doesn’t even mean that they’re bad cars–or even bad buys.” The doubly negative (positive?) Jacqueline Mitchell reckons low prices and safety, safety, safety make SUVs OK again. But fifteen recommendations? I mean, who doesn’t get a look in? Just because you’re pandering to the major playas doesn’t mean you shouldn’t not widen the remit to the point where no one’s not included, does it? And let’s not even factor in depreciation, ’cause that would be a major downer. [Mercedes M-Class, Audi Q7, Acura MDX, Volvo XC90, Acura RDX, GMC Acadia/Buick Enclave/Saturn Outlook; Subaru Tribeca, Honda Pilot, Ford Taurus X, Volkswagen Tiguan, Saturn Vue, Hyundai Sante Fe, Honda CR-V, Mitsubishi Outlander and Subaru Forester.]

Stop selling. To be fair, it’s no surprise GM NA Prez Troy Clarke Troy felt obliged to respond to The Christian Science Monitor‘s anti-bailout ed. “Years of mismanagement, high executive salaries, and overly generous worker benefits have indeed hurt the Big Three… Detroit is no more deserving than many other US industries – textiles, furniture, toys – that have failed to compete well against foreign companies.” In response, Clarke quickly trots out the usual arguments: GM provides American jobs, GM’s [drug on the market] alt power cars help U.S. energy independence, climate change is a bitch, Mars is in retrograde, etc. And then we’re off in uncharted territory. For one thing, Clarke confirms the memo on the Volt’s non-ICE rechargable batteries. “The Chevy Volt, an electric vehicle that will go on sale in late 2010, will deliver 40 miles of gasoline- and emission-free driving on a single charge and hundreds more miles by using a small gas engine to generate additional electricity.” For another, he’s already talking about widening the federal loans’ retooling remit. “The capital raised through these loans can be spent on such efforts as increasing our nation’s R&D in advanced batteries and alternative fuels, and retooling our factories to build new vehicles that use these advanced technologies.” As for proof that GM has the brains for the job… “Nearly a century ago, GM introduced the automobile self-starter, a technological breakthrough that banished the hand-crank forever. As the Volt demonstrates, GM is still at the forefront of advancing automotive technology.”

Edmunds Inside Line reveals that GM has changed their propulsion plans for the plug-in electric – gas hybrid electric Volt. We were laboring under the impression– created by GM’s itself– that the Volt would complete its [theoretical] 40-mile all-electric range and then use its internal combustion engine to recharge the batteries on the fly. Nope. “A release from the day of the production prototype’s reveal reads, ‘a gasoline/E85-powered engine generator seamlessly provides electricity to power the Volt’s electric drive unit while simultaneously sustaining the charge of the battery.’ And by ‘sustaining’ GM says that it means only that no additional power is drained from the batteries.” Get it? If not… “Once a driver uses up his 40 or so miles of electric power, the 1.4-liter gas engine generates electricity to power the electric drive motor, but does not recharge the batteries. After the 40 or so miles, the battery becomes 400 pounds of uselessness, at least until the owner can plug the car into the electrical grid for a recharge. This means that regardless of how far one drives the Volt, the driver will only ever get up to 40 miles of electric-only range.”

Congress will approve $25b worth of federal low-cost loans under the 2007 Energy and Security Act. The funding will be included in a general bill that keeps the lights on down in DC. In other words, it’s a sure thing. And, let’s face it, a sweetheart deal. As The Detroit News reports, “The Big Three automakers, which have poor credit ratings [!!!], could save more than $100 million per $1 billion borrowed and will get as much as 25 years to repay the loans. They could also ask the Energy Department to defer repayment for up to five years.” And now, the bad news: the program won’t be expanded into a slush fush for the struggling Detroit automakers. The language continues to mandate that the money be used for retooling old factories to build fuel efficient vehicles. The good news: “…the U.S. Department of Energy will have broad latitude to determine how and which projects will qualify for loans under the program.” Let the lobbying begin! The bad news: “This is a $25 billion loan program (and) we’re going to carry out our due diligence in implementing a program this large,” Energy Department spokesman Healy Baumgardner promised. Translation: automakers aren’t likely to see any loans until spring of next year at the earliest. The consolation prize: the Volt will qualify for a $7500 federal tax credit. You know; after Uncle Sam gives GM billions to build it. Sweet!