We reported earlier that new Jag and Landie owners Tata Motors want to take its once-proud luxury brands back upmarket. According to Auto Motor und Sport, boss Ratan Tata has suggested to investors that Jaguar could revive the Daimler brand to take on Bentley and Rolls. Daimler as in Mercedes? Nein. A little history… Gottlieb Daimler sold his cars in Germany under the Mercedes name. He also licensed the construction of his engine in England. Jaguar bought that company, known as Daimler, in 1960. By the time Ford bought Jaguar in 1989, the Daimler name had become [more or less] a Jaguar trim line, denoting the top level of XJ Sedans in every market but America (where it was called the Vanden Plas to avoid confusion with Daimler-Chrysler). Mercedes-Benz paid Ford $20m for non-exclusive rights to the Daimler name. Ford then sold the Jag, Land Rover and Daimler brands to Tata Motors. Now, for those of you who think think that reviving the storied Daimler name is a no-brainer for Ratan's mob, I have one word: Maybach.  

High gas prices are achieving what thousands of Euro-lusting domestic fanboys couldn't: an influx imported premium European sub-compacts. Automotive News [sub] reports that Mercedes has revived plans to bring its next gen A and B-Class stateside. Expect four-door, coupe and crossover variants to jump the puddle sometime after they make their 2011 European debut. And yes, we'll also get long-awaited, much-anticipated battery-powered versions– provided they escape development Hell. Meanwhile, Daimler's considering another U.S. price increase. "We will continue to go for pricing and lose some volume rather than see our contributions deteriorate," says CEO Dieter "Chrysler What Chrysler" Zetsche. So what's with the mass market A and B, then?

Remember how an Italian court recently banned Great Wall's GWPeri from sale in Europe for too closely resembling Fiat's Panda? Well, the Shijiazhuang Intermediate People's Court sees things more… sympathetically. Fiat had sued Great Wall in China as well as Europe. But the legal battle has been lost on the eastern front. Reuters reports that the Chinese court dismissed patent infringement claims against Great Wall, ordering Fiat to pay $1,290 in court fees. Fiat is "evaluating its options" (read: figuring out who to bribe), posing petulantly for the press. "We acknowledge the Chinese court decision notwithstanding we point out that it goes on the opposite avenue vis-a-vis a resolution taken on July 15 by a court in Europe on the same issue," say Fiat spokesfolks. Great Wall, on the other hand, is using this as one of those "no such thing as bad publicity" opportunities, letting everyone know that it will start selling a pickup in Italy later this year. What, you thought all that cheap labor didn't have its price?

Auto Motor und Sport reports on a cautionary study by Bain & Company on the Chinese automotive market. According to the report, automakers estimate that the Chinese market will demand 9.3m new cars in 2010. Nein! "Our study shows that automakers are overestimating the Chinese market and are calling for too much production," says analyst Jörg Gnamm. "We're talking about an overestimation of 1.5m vehicles. That's half of Germany's annual sales, and the production capacity of four to five car factories." In other words, they reckon the Chinese market will grow by "only" about 12 percent per year to 7.9m units. Did  Jörg mention increasing competition for those sales? Yes he did. Volume automakers like Toyota, VW and GM are the ones who will face the toughest pressures. The warning comes shortly after Renault-Nissan CEO Carlos Ghosn predicted that the Chinese market could cool off in the next few years. And it doesn't factor in any Chinese government move to favor home-grown automakers over mandatory joint-venture "foreign partners." On that score, it's only a matter of time…

We catch some flack around here for [allegedly] taking the fight to Detroit a little harder than patriotism demands. But compared to the latest spleen-venting by Chicago Tribune scribe Paul Mack, we're about as critical as a golden retriever puppy on benzodiazepines. Mack's thesis: "GM has traded in its navy blue suits and wingtip shoes for tie-dyed shirts and sandals, and is betting its future on the eco-trifecta of fuel efficiency, flex-fuel capability and electric motors. It is unclear whether the makeover is more than skin-deep, but history provides ample room for skepticism." So we're all on the same page right? Er, no. Because when you're criticizing GM, the very least you can do is stick to the facts re: its doomedness. After all, there are so many. So when Mack pooh-poohs the Volt program because critics have "argued" that the EV1 was DOA to "prove CARB wrong," he's trotting out the worst possible argument when so many better ones exist. And rather than criticizing GM's dependence on ethanol based on the fuel's inherent inefficiencies, he wrongly argues that America is "devoid of an ethanol infrastructure." And adding insults to weak criticism, Mack fills logic gaps with ad hominem put-downs. Calling GM's 30mpg mileage claims "the stuff of dreams for men like George Jetson," Mack says the Japanese automakers achieved the 30mpg goal in the 1970s. Which must mean he'd rather drive a Mk. 1 Accord than "the 2009 Chevy Malibu-now with Betamax!" By feeding his readers invective and insults rather than the truth, Mack has passed on a "teachable moment." Like Walter from the Big Lebowski, he's not wrong… he's just an asshole.

Tata's Nano will officially become the world's cheapest car when it hits the Indian market this October. Sure, Tata blew its 1 Lakh ($2,500) price target, thanks to rising steel costs, but demand is still expected to exceed supply. Or so says Tata Chairman Ratan Tata [via Automotive News, sub]. Judging by the number of variants said to be in development, Tata's putting his money where his mouth is. A diesel version is on the way, and electric or compressed-air models could be next. And adding eco-friendly drivetrains can only help if the Nano actually attempts a launch in Europe in four years, as is rumored. After all, as an EV the Nano's weaknesses (made of cardboard, rolls in crosswinds) are actually strengths (light, cheap). And at the price point, it's more than competitive with the Zap Xebras of the world (pending a convincing road test). This may be why Automotive News Europe (sub) reports that Fiat is considering selling the Nano. "We have held talks about the Nano being marketed in markets where Fiat has already a strong presence," says Ratan Tata. "I am open to consider a partnership." Which means we'll all be able to buy the Tata Nano with a Fiat badge at a MINI store in, say, 2010?

With full-sized pickups taking a hosing, manufacturers may be looking towards smaller trucks to stem the bleeding. But a recent test of five compact pickups by the Insurance Institute For Highway Safety (IIHS) shows that they don't share the crash safety advantages of their full-sized brethren.The IIHS' first-ever side-impact test of compact pickups shows that all but the barely-compact Tacoma (which scored a "good") offer sub-standard side protection in crashes. The Dodge Dakota/Mitsubishi Raider, Nissan Frontier and Ranger/B-series earned "marginal" ratings, while the Chevy Colorado rated a dead-last "poor." The IIHS says that side-impacts are the second most common type of fatal crash, accounting for 9k deaths last year. Accordingly, the Institutes say that small pickups have the highest rates of driver deaths in accidents "of any vehicles on the road, including minicars," and that the small trucks "aren't good choices for people looking for safe transportation…until they improve." Still, some of the improvements that the IIHS recommends (stability control, side airbags) will soon become standard on some of these trucks, and optional on others. But if you think a compact pickup is any safer than say, a compact car, this might just be your wake-up call.

With Hail Mary PHEVs and two-mode V8s leading the American automakers' charge towards fuel-efficiency, its easy to call Detroit's executives out of touch. But it turns out that the idea of applying simple fuel-saving technologies across product lines is finally taking hold in the corporate offices of our domestic auto firms. The Detroit Free Press reports that executives at Ford, Chrysler and GM predict that stop-start technology will find its way into every domestically-produced vehicle within the next five to ten years. Speaking at NextCruise, the eco-friendly sister event to the Woodward Dream Cruise, Detroit's finest fell over themselves trying to prove their companies' commitment to adding this (relatively) low-tech, fuel-saving technology. GM's Micky Bly went one further, saying future GM vehicles will incorporate weight-saving materials currently found in hybrids. Careful on that limb, boys.

The LA Times reports that a federal appeals court has ruled that the government may not withhold Early Warning data from the public. The info is collected in accordance with federal law requiring vehicle and component manufacturers to report information on their products (related to defects, injuries, deaths) to The National Highway Transportation Administration (NHTSA). The law was passed in 2000 in response to the Explorer/Firestone rollover scare. Until now, the information has been shielded from Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Public Citizen forced the fork-over. To which The Rubber Manufacturers Association said phooey [paraphrasing]. "With this decision, unverified information released by the government can be misinterpreted and thereby unnecessarily alarm motorists about products that are safe." The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers reckons "data that could cause a company commercial harm" should be withheld, including warranty and service information. The courts must still rule whether all Early Warning data should be made available, or just the information pertaining to cases involving injury and death.

Environmentally friendliness is the flavor of day in the world of marketing. But let's face it: eco-friendly claims usually begin and end with mileage and CO2 emissions. But what about the environment you occupy when you're driving your car? The Ecology Center has released its Healthy Car Report, which monitors toxic chemical levels in car interiors. Using a portable X-Ray fluorescence device, the Ecology Center tests 11 interior components on a range of new cars for toxic chemicals like Antimony, Arsenic, Bromine, Chlorine, Chromium, Cobalt, Copper, Lead, Mercury, Nickel and Tin. Some of the worst offenders? Mitsubishi's Eclipse and the Suzuki Reno, which have more Bromine than the salt marshes of Montpellier. The Kia Spectra has a particularly high lead count. And the Nissan Versa scores a worst-possible 5.0 overall thanks to a smorgasbord of toxic interior materials. For a complete look at the best and worst cars by class, check out the report's vehicles of most and least concern. Or, for an overview on the report, check out the Ecology Center's mildly sensationalistic video "Toxic At Any Speed." And enjoy that new car smell!

According to Autospies' spies, Volvo NA is shipping C30s "back to Sweden." Yes, well, the C1-based hatch is assembled in Ghent, Belgium. In any case, the C30 seems to be selling poorly; Volvo's dropped C30 prices in Australia and Old Blighty. This might have something to do with a $22k base price for what is, in essence, a tarted-up Focus. Though the C30 offers more cargo space than, say, a MINI Cooper, the C30's practicality is hurt by its awkward hatch shape. And then there's the Swede's EPA 20/28 mpg via a turbo I-5. The poisoned cherry on top: the Volvo brand is in the weeds, facing a date with Ford's corporate strimmer. Add it all up and the C30 boomerang story seems plausible. Throw a little anecdotal evidence into the mix (how many C30s have you seen on the road lately?) and well… if Volvo can't sell its smallest, most efficient car, what does that say about its odds of survival?

When it comes to alt power, The General's ADD ways continue. In addition to its BAS "mild" hybrids, two-mode hybrids and Volt plug-in hybrid, GM is working on yet another Hail Mary: a plug-in version of the two-mode system. The result will be a single mode, the Saturn Vue plug-in. Yes folks, just in case the two-mode system isn't complicated enough, GM is adding plug-in capabilities. GM's Fastlane blog worries that we may all be too excited about the eventual release of the Volt,. They want to remind us that the plug-in Vue is undergoing testing in Michigan and Arizona. The program started with NiMh cells, but has switched to more modern Li-Ion batteries, which have now undergone thermal management testing. Apparently, they're now "fully operational and undergoing refinement." Even though the regular two-mode Vue Hybrid is set to go on sale this year, GM is hyping the plug-in version. Based on technology that's undergone more tjhan 800k miles of dynamometer testing, GM expects the PHEV Vue to "set the standard for its combination of fuel economy and performance." For an SUV. Which is to say, not at all. Shouldn't these engineers be working on the Volt, considering that its development is "pushing the time envelope," according to Rick Wagoner? 

Opel/Vauxhall's Insignia sedan debuted this weekend at the London Auto Show. The first Epsilon2-based car in GM's portfolio appears to be off to a great start. The biggest surprise so far: the Insignia looks stunning. Needless to say, there was some suspense when Maximum Bob Lutz was asked to confirm that the Insignia is coming stateside as the next gen Saturn Aura. Which was closely followed by stunned disappointment as the Man Of Maximum revealed that the Insignia IS the new Aura– but only under the skin. "We've researched the Insignia around the world, including the U.S., as an internationally spectacular new design, but the Saturn version will be its own car," says Lutz. So GM builds a mid-sized, front-wheel drive car that even Jeremy Clarkson likes (inside and out), and The General sends it to America to be fitted with (doubtless) tacky American couture. Why is GM spending money to redesign the looks of a perfectly desirable car? 

When Rick Wagoner told us GM would be making "significant reductions in promotional and event budgets," you could well have taken his vow as a shift in GM's priorities towards building solid products. Yes and no. Automotive News [sub] reports that GM will cut Chevrolet's marketing budget. BUT The General's American Revolutionaries will still spend a fortune, albeit with a new emphasis. "We've spent a lot of money this year promoting cars versus trucks, more than we have in a long time, and we're going to continue to do that," assures Chevy brand VP Ed Peper. To that end, Chevy will be leading the General's charge into new media advertising. "We actually think it's a very good idea," Peper commits. "And when budgets do tighten up, it's something we'll have to take an even harder look at," he de-commits. Snarks aside, Chevrolet already spends a larger portion of its ad dollars online than any other GM brand. Look for a Volt ad on TTAC in the near future. Say… 2010.

So begins the Detroit News' recent editorial on John McCain's recent flippity-flop on California emissions regulations. And though industry gentlemen prefer McCain, the DetNews' critique is centered not so much on McCain's flip as his flop. After all, McCain originally supported California's right to set its own standards before coming around to support the industry-backed opposition to CARB– before flopping back to the federalist camp at a recent appearance at GM's Warren Technical Center. That has the Detroit News going after McCain on a host of industry-related issues. Calling his proposal for a $5k consumer tax credit for zero-emissions cars a "giveaway scheme" sounds good, and is certainly founded on strong economic principles.  McCain's proposed $300m prize for an advanced EV battery is similarly lambasted. Which is all well and good, except that the Detroit News would rather find itself dead in a ditch than hold its industry backers up to the same standard. Haven't  Ford's Mark Fields and Chrysler's Jim Press been pressuring the government for production incentives for EVs? Hell, didn't Slick Rick even ask Obama for the very consumer incentives that the Detroit News derides? But as hard as it tries to portray Detroit as just wanting to be left alone by the government, DetN fails to apply its free-market logic to the industry it pimps. With this flip-floping attack, the industry's paid rhetoricians have inadvertently exposed their critique of John McCain as the intellectually bankrupt hypocrisy it really is. You stay classy guys.