An overview of what happened in other parts of the world while you were in bed. TTAC provides round-the-clock coverage of everything that has wheels. Or has its wheels coming off. This column will be filed from Berlin until further notice—if & when time allows.

Time is money: GM Europe is running out of both, Carl-Peter Forster said to today at the Geneva Autoshow, Automobilwoche [sub] reports. GM needs the requested €3.3B “as soon as possible” Forster said. He’s not counting on private investors: “Each discussion with a private investor takes months, half a year at least, and we don’t have that kind of time.” Foster also said that GM has “three plants too many” in Europe. German Economy Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg said today he will not be pressured into making a quick decision on granting state aid to General Motors’ Opel unit, Automotive News [sub] says. Germany is considering whether to support Opel after GM Europe unveiled a plan to spin off Opel and its UK sister brand Vauxhall to try to avert job cuts and plant closures.

(Read More…)

OK, first Chrysler Co-Prez Jim Press flies to Geneva (first class?) to schmooze with . . . not Fiat. Oh no. Press told the press that their alleged small car partner had already been to Auburn Hills and called it good. So no need to hang out with what the company’s touted as Chrysler’s savior. “No formal meetings planned,” to use the proper PR parlance [via Automotive News]. So . . . how’s that “satisfying the government’s conditions to score another $5 billion from the federal bailout buffet” thing doing? Great! “Jim Press said today that the automaker was ‘hopeful’ the automaker had all the criteria necessary to receive additional U.S. government loans.” Automaker, automaker, let me come in! Tell me exactly who owns shares in ChryCo. No? Well, then, let’s have a closer look at Press’ hopes, dreams and fears re: Chrysler’s progress on Uncle Sam’s loan criteria, shall we?

(Read More…)

Mercedes has revealed their one-letter-more-advanced-than-the-SLR McLaren at the Geneva Auto Show. Well, not AT the auto show. At the same TIME as the Geneva Auto Show. Which is a smart move, really. Why bother spending a million bucks or so bring the SLS to Switzerland when you can get almost as much publicity by attaching a file and pressing “send”? Pistonheads re-writes the press release, so we don’t have to. Oh, and here’s hoping the SLS’ brakes are a touch more feelsome than Paris Hilton’s bitch—I mean, previous whip.

Roughly the same size as the SLR McLaren at 4640mm × 1939mm × 1255mm, the new SLS will also be 130 kg lighter at 1620 kg.

Power from a significantly updated version of AMG’s 6.2-V8 will be fed through a seven-speed double-clutch transaxle, positioned to help optimise weight distribution.

Revving to 6,800 rpm and making 479 lb·ft of torque, performance will be suitably staggering. Mercedes claims 0-62 mph in 3.8 s and a top-speed of 196 mph, while acceleration off the line will be aided by a race-style launch control system. Stopping power will be courtesy of 15.4 in front and 14.2 in rear discs, with optional carbon ceramic upgrades.

Ugly ain’t it? This Dodge truck looks like it got into a fight . . . and lost. Three front body panels need to be replaced, stat. The ladder rack is as big and surface rusted as a 1970s beater, and the truck has more nicks and scratches than Boy George’s last escort. This would be the type of vehicle most folks would run away from and be ashamed to have on their driveway. Screw ’em. I got a helluva deal.

(Read More…)

You’d think that Ford’s marketing department would have seen what the “Pontiac is Car” tagline has done to move the former excitement building brand’s moribund metal (i.e., nothing) and avoided generic genius like a pistonhead plague. But no, Ford is using its largest advertising platform—American Idol—to promote the 2010 Fusion under the banner “We Speak Car.” FoMoCo’s marketing comms maven explains [via The Detroit News] how the $60M to $80M ad campaign will shift expectations (taken). “We’re known as a truck and Mustang company,” said Matt Van Dyke. “This sets us up for our future car launches.” Speaking to Ad Age, Ford’s global group marketing manager for small- and medium-size cars insists that her employer’s “throw it up against the wall and see what sticks” approach is alive and well. Well, alive.

(Read More…)

Except that it isn’t, of course. “Pontiac still has a mission in the BPG channel and it’s one that a very dedicated team of engineers, marketers, and dealers is determined to complete successfully, one step at a time,” writes Buick-Pontiac-GMC VP, Susan Docherty, at Fastlane. Actually, that’s the last sentence of the post, tacked on in case its complete lack of substance failed to convince you of the endlessly repeated talking point. So what’s changing? “Very little,” in the near term, says Docherty. “Pontiac will continue to offer the G5, G6, G8, Solstice and Vibe, and we’re adding the economical G3.” Because, as Docherty puts it, “Pontiac’s top reason for purchase is “fuel economy” and we won’t disappoint with four of our six entries getting over 32 miles per gallon on the highway.” So Pontiac is efficiency. Glad we cleared that up. Also, “the Pontiac Torrent will be discontinued to enable the brand to “focus” on cars,” says Docherty. “But the good news is that a new, five-passenger crossover SUV entry will soon be found at GMC . . . stay tuned.” Uh, no, that’s bad news too. The point of the exercise to cut the number of nameplates, remember?

Planned obsolescence, or the constant replacement of existing models has been a mainstay of the US auto biz since GM started eating Henry Ford’s austere, one-size-fits-all lunch nearly 100 years ago. As automotive technology rapidly matured, new model year refreshes offered new gizmos, tweaked styling, along with more performance, space and status. Before long, the eternal quest for newer, hotter newness led to a near constant turnover in model names, styling and branding. Every three to five years now, we expect new headlights and maybe a fender vent at the minimum, signifying that the driver is far more in touch with the times than someone stuck in the instantly-dated predecessor version.

(Read More…)

The surprising answer, via Consumerist, is nothing. Well, sales-wise. Richard of tryingtostimulate.wordpress.com (the economy, you perv) built out a Jeep Wrangler online, and was quoted a price of $24k. Thinking that giving an American automaker some business would be as easy as showing up, writing a check and driving away, he visited not one, but two Jeep dealers. Both tried desperately to get him to finance (so much for shoring up cashflow) and neither would sell him the vehicle he “built” online. In short, the man wanted a Jeep and had cash, but Chrysler’s crack (smoking) dealers couldn’t make it happen. Maybe they need a few more bailouts before they’ll start accepting cash for their products.

C. Douglas Weir wrote GM about the Chevy plug-in electric – gas hybrid Volt’s extended range feature. GM wrote back. First, Doug…

My confusion is the issue of what, exactly, happens as the range is exhausted for battery-only propulsion. I keep seeing the phrase: “a small engine-generator creates additional electricity to extend the range of the Volt several hundred additional miles” or something to that effect.

So, what exactly does this mean? Is the performance of this small engine-generator adequate for cruising down interstate highways and up long steep grades?  Does the Volt become underpowered with this out-of-battery charge scenario? Say you were driving  a couple hundred miles to the mother-in-law’s and you own a Volt and a G-6. Would the Volt be left at home because it would be unpleasant to drive in extended range mode? Or would it drive just fine on the small motor-generator with performance similar to a standard small four cylinder midsize car?

Also, the wording implies that the drive train would remain electric, with the motor-generator producing enough current to power the electric motor(s) through or around the battery stack. So is it correct that there is no direct drive from the engine to the wheels…rather it is a serial hybrid like a diesel locomotive when the battery is exhausted?

I hope you can clear this up for me. Any added information would be much appreciated.

Answer after the jump.

(Read More…)

Gasgoo reports that China’s Jinan (Shandong) BaoYa are seeing US demand for its electric cars jump dramatically. BaoYa sold 500 of its electric sedans last year, and despite a weak export market, this year’s US-market orders have already topped 4,800. BaoYa sedans are Zap Xebra-like Low Speed Vehicles, with a top speed capability of 50 mph (limited to 25mph in the US) and a range of about 90 miles on a 5-8 hour charge.  We’re not entirely sure that the factory and production of BaoYa vehicles documented by Repubblica here is the same Jinan-based plant of Shandong BaoYa, but there’s little doubt that the nearly 5k BaoYas sold in the US were built in similar conditions. So Americans could gaze pityingly at their neighbors’ carbon emitting planet destroyers. Savor the irony.

TTAC hammers the auto manufacturers for their lack of branding fortitude on a daily basis. But my time earning an MBA mentioned something else: diversify your portfolio, lest you wither and die. Which, ’round these parts of the autoblogosphere, makes even more sense in tough financial times. So with RF’s blessing, The Truth About Cars ventures into the world of self-help auto advice. With a twist, because that’s how we roll. 

Right. So here’s the plan. You email me (sajeev.mehta@thetruthaboutcars.com) with a question about your car. It can range from a technical or cosmetic problem, basic maintainence, performance modifications, or even make-specific used car purchasing advice. Using my 10+ years as a forum moderator and my accidential grease monkey knowledge, I will shine some light on the situation in true TTAC style. And that becomes a blog for the B&B to discuss. After all, the people who read this website have a collectively bottomless knowledge base, why not use it for the Greater Good?

Not on a public road, anyway. Pistonheads reports that Ferrari will unveil its “invitation only” 599XX program at the Geneva Auto Show tomorrow. “Described as a rolling technological laboratory aimed at a select group of clients, Ferrari says the 599XX incorporates ‘the most advanced the technologies from road-going and F1 research, many being used for the first time and having been developed exclusively for this special car’ . . . the Ferrari FXX project introduced in 2005, the 599XX will be available only to a handful of extremely wealthy clients who will probably never get to drive the cars on the road. Instead they will be invited to attend regular sessions at Ferrari’s test track, where they can experience the latest performance innovations in the company of Ferrari engineers and test drivers.” So Ferrari’s customers will pay for the marque’s research and development, and don’t even get to park a car in their garage? Now that’s what I call brand power. Provided, you know, they pull it off. 2009 is not 2005, in case you hadn’t noticed.

Nissan is determined to sell electric cars in the US beginning in 2012, but the problem of building a charging infrastructure continues to bedevil product planners. Charging stations must be plentiful, convenient, and most importantly EV owners must be willing to wait there at least half an hour to complete a fast-charge of their EV’s batteries. Having added it all up and thrown in just a dash of condecension towards American culture (or lack thereof), Nissan’s boffins reckon that fast food joints are the perfect location for EV charging station, reports Automotive News [sub]. Of course the idea of sitting around a fast food joint for a half-hour while your car recharges for another 80 miles of driving kind of defeats the idea of fast food, but no matter.

(Read More…)

In a Letter to the Editor in today’s New York Times, Cerberus CEO Mark Neporent fights back against the widely-held opinion regarding his employer’s relationship with Chrysler: you bought it, you pay for it. And yet, the CEO refuses to divulge the “retirement plans, charitable and educational endowments and individuals” who’ve invested in Chrysler, who he claims to be protecting (with our money). Until Cerberus names names, the equity firm’s insistence that taxpayers should be on the hook for their mismanagement of a dying car brand lacks any hint of credibility. And man, does it piss me off.

Why Can’t Cerberus Foot the Bill?” (editorial, Feb. 23) imposes an unfair double standard by suggesting that Chrysler’s shareholders should be treated differently from the shareholders of General Motors or Ford.

Cerberus’s investors are pension and retirement plans, charitable and educational endowments and individual family savings. Our investment guidelines limit the amount of capital committed to any single investment.

(Read More…)