Today is election day, the time when good Americans process all the negative advertising they’ve seen over the previous months and decide on the lesser of several evils. But the best thing about election day isn’t the sense of civic pride or even the knowledge that you’ll be able to avoid political ads for at least a few months afterwords. The greatest thing about elections is that, for one moment, the nation gets a snapshot of itself, a picture of what really matters to us as citizens. So this seems as good a time as any to ask you, TTAC’s Best And Brightest, how you feel about the potency of the Auto Bailout as an issue. After all, the bailout is currently caught in limbo; impossible to undo, at yet still far from resolution, good or bad. If anything, the latest indicators show that the GM bailout was fairly compromised, in the sense that the new company will be worth about what the taxpayers put into it (in the $50b range).

But does it matter at all how much taxpayers get out of GM’s (and eventually Chrysler’s) IPO? And if so, is it important that GM repay the taxpayers completely, or do the bailed-out firms need only to be sustainable for a certain period to make the bailout a success? As I see it, the question isn’t so much one of politics. After all, the rescue is hardly the definitive political issue for any citizen not directly affected by it (a relatively small group compared to the American electorate). The real issue seems to be whether political opposition to the bailout will affect sales at GM and Chrysler, and whether achieving certain financial or taxpayer payback goals will eliminate any such political impacts on sales. Do the bailouts affect your relationship with GM and Chrysler, and if so, what do you need to see in order to leave the bailout in the past?

More than any other mainline automaker, Nissan has bet heavily on electric vehicles penetrating the mass market within a reasonable time period. Whether or not that gamble will pay off remains very much to be seen, but the firm’s post-Leaf EV plans are less than entirely inspiring. Yes, there will be an Infiniti version of the Leaf for the US market (and possibly an EV delivery van for Europe), but after that, Nissan says its next EV will be a retreat to the golf cart-style Neighborhood Electric Vehicles that spread rapidly when gas prices spike two years ago before dropping off the map. Called the “New Mobility Concept,” this open-air Nissan (the Renault version is called the Twizzy) will be faster than a NEVs, with a top speed of 47 mph planned. Range is also better than the typical lead-acid battery-powered NEV, with about 60 miles of range planned. Still, this is a huge step backwards from the Leaf, and it speaks to a basic lack of confidence in the Leaf’s radical mainstreaming effort for EVs. Given how much Nissan has riding on the Leaf, that’s a troubling sign indeed. [via Automotive News [sub]]

A lawsuit against Mazda is moving to the United States Supreme Court, reports Bloomberg, challenging whether automakers should have been required to install shoulder belts in all of its seats prior to current regulations requiring the improved belting systems took effect in 2007. The case centers on a 2002 accident in which Than Williams was killed when a Jeep Wrangler hit her family’s 1993 Mazda MPV. The Williams MPV had only lap belts because shoulder belts weren’t required by federal law until 2007. A California court has already barred the lawsuit from coming forward, arguing that federal regulations supersede any local rulings, and that then-legal seatbelts should protect manufacturers from personal injury liability. However a recent case casts some doubt on the precedents in the Mazda case…

(Read More…)

OK, so the EMAV PRU (Electric Motors and Vehicle Company Power Regeneration Unit) isn’t expected to go on sale until sometime next year, but it’s one curious approach to the “range anxiety” problem that caused GM to develop the Volt as a range-extended EV rather than a pure battery-only EV. The PRU takes a simple concept, a trailer that can both store goods and generate 25kWh of electricity from a 750cc diesel engine in order to extend range, and makes it considerably more complicated than it needs to be. For one thing, it’s self-propelled, necessitating on-board lithium-ion batteries, as well as an electric drive unit.

As a result, the projected pricetag comes to a prohibitive $15,000, and the weight reaches an EV range-sapping 1,220 lbs. And for all that, wouldn’t a $15k hatchback make a better “range extender” than this cumbersome trailer? On the other hand, a trailer like this just might work as a rental item, offering a portable generator as well as range extension that its makers say will work with any electric car. But would something like this be more appealing as a simplified, lighter unit (non-self-propelled), or will add-on range extension always struggle to offer more for money than having a gas car as a compliment to an electric car? Given that American families typically have several cars anyway, the answer would appear to be yes… [via GM-volt.com]

As Automotive News [sub] reports, GM has gone ahead and finalized the 500 dealer cuts that made up its bankruptcy-bailout-era dealer cull, despite resistance from some 22 members of the US House of Representatives. And despite the congressional pressure, a damning SIGTARP report, and an ongoing criminal investigation, GM hasn’t changed its tune about cutting dealers, telling AN [sub] that delaying dealer cuts

would only divert our collective attention at a critical time and would ignore the independent decisions of arbitrators and individual settlement agreements between GM and its dealers

Meanwhile, just what affect has the dealer cull had on surviving dealerships? Are they thriving? Well, not exactly…
(Read More…)

Well, there’s nothing quite like being wrong, is there? Exactly a week ago I registered my (somewhat hesitant) support for Chevy’s new tagline, “Chevy Runs Deep,” and though I still believe that the tagline itself is better than anything else GM’s marketers have dreamed up in a while, I probably should have waited for the brand’s ads to come up out before weighing in. After all, any good (or good enough) idea is only as good as its execution… and these ads really don’t seem to move the game past some of Chevrolet’s previous cornball ad efforts. The main ad in the series (above) is as bland as an Impala’s interior, and does nothing to inspire respect for Chevy in contemporary (read: post-bailout) terms. Can “the strength of the nation” be found in every Chevrolet? If so, does that strength refer to something other than the government money that kept Chevrolet from the scrapheap of history? Instead of inspiring a bold approach, it seems that the “Don’t call it Chevy” moment simply pushed Chevy’s advertising back into gauzy pseudo-patriotism of its recent past. But don’t take it from me… hit the jump for a sampling of the latest Chevy Runs Deep ads.
(Read More…)

Reuters has followed up its look inside the Government’s involvement in GM with a breaking report on the specifics of The General’s IPO. According to Reuters sources, the IPO will include 365 million common shares for $26 to $29 each, for a total of between $9.5b and $10b. The Treasury is expected to sell between $1.5b and $2b of its 61 percent stake in GM, likely to “four or five sovereign wealth funds,” bringing its stake down to 43.3 percent. The Canadian and Ontario governments are expected to sell down their stake from 11.7 percent to 9.6 percent, while the UAW VEBA trust-owned stake is likely to to drop from 17.5 percent to 15 percent. A Reuters source concludes that

The IPO would likely value the entire company at close to $60 billion, below the $67 billion needed if U.S. taxpayers are to break even on the common stock held by the Treasury

The WSJ adds

At the midpoint of the proposed price range, GM’s stock outstanding, including warrants, would be worth about $50 billion, roughly the same level as Ford Motor Co. The IPO’s underwriters are hoping to sell at the top end of the range, and for the stock to rise 20% or more when trading begins. At that level, GM could be worth $60 billion or more.

(Read More…)

You’re driving down the road at a spirited tempo when you see a big, black, tuned Taurus. No biggie, right?
(Read More…)

Even though Fiat CEO Sergio Marchionne’s disparaging comments about its over-reliance on Italian manufacturing have opened the door for more US manufacturing opportunities, United Auto Workers boss Bob King wants to make it clear that he won’t be taking advantage of Fiat’s rift with its Italian unions. Fiat tells Automotive News [sub] that failure to secure Italian union agreement with its new manufacturing plan could send increased production to Serbia, Poland and even the United States. King’s response [via Michigan Public Radio]:

They (automakers) won’t be pitting one worker in one country against another. We’re going to be part of working with our global partners in other unions and building a global middle class – and rebuild the American middle class, really.

Yes, in the brutally competitive international labor market, there is a way for everyone to win… really.

(Read More…)

Ever since it became clear that the government would rescue General Motors and Chrysler, the Treasury Department has made it clear that it would stay out of “day to day” decision making at the rescued automakers. Allowing the rescued firms to operate independently was a political calculation based on the desire to keep politics from affecting sales at the two rescued automakers, but according to a Reuters special report, Treasury has not been able to keep its hands completely out of important decisions concerning the future of the two firms. Particularly in terms of setting up GM’s Initial Public Offering, Reuters found that the Treasury made important decisions affecting

its speed and size, the fees paid to the bankers and the potential involvement of offshore investors

Though this has kept the IPO out of election season and all of its potential for political problems, there is some downside to the Treasury’s involvement, particularly because it will not be exiting its equity position in GM until about 18 months after the IPO. As a result, analysts predict problems securing investors in a firm that may still be subject to ongoing government control. Morningstar’s David Whiston tells Reuters

I’m sure that there will be some institutional investors, and even some individual investors, that it scares away

(Read More…)

Dodge’s re-boot of its product lineup is largely complete, and with new and refreshed vehicles heading to dealerships soon, it’s released pricing on its new lineup. Dodge’s new pricing list can be found here, or hit the jump for highlights.

(Read More…)

Given that European luxury brands have generally had their way with Detroit-based competitors in the US market, it should come as no surprise that Cadillac has failed to make any appreciable headway in the European market. The brand has been launched and re-launched in Europe four times in the last twelve years, according to Autocar, and its latest relaunch was supposed to boost sales to 20,000 per year by 2010. Despite that ambitious goal, Cadillac has fallen flat with European buyers, having moved about 1,300 units this year. As a result, the latest re-launch of Cadillac has been accompanied by dramatically scaled-back expectations: 2,500 units per year within the next “several” years (Cadillac expects the new ATS to make up about 1,500 units of this volume). Only limited numbers of CTS sedans and wagons will be converted to right-hand drive for the UK, and diesel engines for the CTS range are on hold. But even with a more modest approach to Europe, Cadillac is widely expected to keep struggling in Europe. After all, Lexus spent some $2.8b attacking the European luxury market, but sales which peaked at 60k in 2007 have retreated to a mere 30k units. As Cadillac gets stuck into its fourth re-launch, analyst Ferdinand Dudenhoeffer is not optimistic

TTAC has long interpreted the industry’s trend towards global product lines and component-sharing as requiring a few strong, focused brands rather than the scattershot approach defined over several decades by General Motors’ mess of poorly-defined brands. But the industry wasn’t always marching to the beat of the fewer, better brands drummer. Once upon a time, the American car market teemed with foreign and domestic brands of all sizes and persuasions, offering consumers a nearly unfathomable level of choice. And though we know we’ll never return to the days that saw Borgwards and Crosleys sold alongside MGs and Matras, we do sometimes long for a return to those Wild West days when there were more brands than anyone knew what to do with. And since we’re approaching the corpse-exhuming-est holiday of the year, we’ll go ahead and ask: if you could resurrect a dead brand through a dark and unholy ritual, which would it be and why?

Would you rather have giant, coffin-nosed Cords rolling around, or would you like to see Chrysler reboot its small-car program by dusting off the old Rambler name? Or perhaps you’re hoping BMW uses the Isetta nameplate for its forthcoming city car, or that Fiat adds to its burgeoning brand portfolio by draping a Hemi-powered Challenger in sexy Italian metal and calling it the Iso Grifo. Whatever your unholy brand resurrection dream might be, this is the time to share it. Because you just can’t keep a good zombie down…

After spending years wandering the gray shadows that divide this life from the next, the undead brand Pontiac will be placed in its final resting place sometime tomorrow. Scientists at TTAC’s paranormal automotive brand research lab are still working to determine exactly when Pontiac slipped from relevance into the nightmare world of zombie-dom, but Pontiac has been living on borrowed time since being officially marked for death a year and a half ago. As of the end of October there were still 125 Pontiacs on dealer lots around the country, but dealer agreements covering the brand expire on Halloween, making the day of the dead the last day to buy a car from America’s biggest zombie brand. And what better way to celebrate Pontiac’s decades-long waking nightmare than by buying a G6 on the spookiest day of the year? Meanwhile, as Bob Lutz, Lee Iacocca, and Zombie Bunkie Knudsen converge on Oakland County to commit their faithful brand to the cold earth, let’s take one more moment to remember the brand that died too long before anyone noticed. Are your memories of Pontiac fond recollections of the brand’s vital youth, or spooky tales from its long, shambling un-death? Finally, will Pontiac actually stay dead this time?

With about $7.84b of cash on-hand and $7.4b in debt to the US and Canadian governments, Chrysler wants to take a page out of GM’s IPO playbook and secure a Wall Street refinance of its government debt, which bears interest of between 14 and 20 percent. CEO Sergio Marchionne had already complained that servicing its government debt prevented Chrysler from achieving profitability in the second quarter. According to Automotive News [sub] Chryler is shopping banks as it seeks loans at newly-low interest rates in order to shore up its balance book ahead of an IPO sometime next year. Chrysler needs $3b of cash on-hand for its operating and debt servicing costs, so a failure to secure new funding could cause its cash levels to dip to dangerous levels. GM has said that its recently-acquired $5b revolving credit line would not be tapped right away, but would provide a liquidity cushion of the kind that Chrysler arguably needs even more than The General. On the other hand, it’s easier to borrow money when you have money, and GM is sitting on considerably more cash than Chrysler. Meanwhile, Fiat has yet to inject a single Euro of cash into Chrysler. Maybe this is Marchionne’s chance to put some real skin in his Chrysler play.