You have to admire Bob Lutz' chutzpah. After his boss publicly backpedaled on when we might finally see an operational Chevy Volt electric – gas hybrid vehicle in the showrooms, he goes on the GM FastLane blog wishing the Volt a happy first birthday. How something that has yet to be birthed can have a birthday is beyond me. Maximum Bob brags about everything done since they announced their intent to build something with batteries to sell someday:

– Shuffled around 600 scientists and engineers
– Signed three contracts for battery development
– Begin testing a couple of batteries
– Opened an E-Flex design studio

And in spite of media reports of him having said otherwise, he insists "we are holding tight to our 2010 deadline." Ahhhh, the optomism and hope that comes with the start of a new year. Or the miscellaneous ramblings of a madman. We report. You decide.

At the risk of flagellating the proverbial deceased equine, the Volt's development team is falling right in step with what Rick Wagoner is saying about its possibility of seeing a showroom floor in 2010 (well, DUH!). Lyle Dennis, editor of www.gm-volt.com (no affiliation with GM) asked Rob Peterson, spokesman for the E-Flex development team, what he thought about all the negative press surrounding Rick's recent reneging. "I think people are reading more into this than what's really there. Program timing for the Volt has not changed, nor has our commitment to this program." But, taking a page from the boss' playbook, he added, "we continue to work aggressively toward our 2010 internal target, but that date is dependent on the availability of battery technology…. Only through rigorous testing of the battery…will we be able to accurately determine where we are in the development of the battery and the ultimate production date of the Volt." So there you have it: it's all about the batteries. And when they don't make their originally proclaimed date for whatever reason, they have an excuse already prepackaged and waiting on the shelf. Pretty convenient, huh?

As we've pointed out many times, Strategic Vision's methodology is based on something wacky called the "Tree of ValueCentered Knowledge," and the company is on the take. So, with that in mind, Ford scooped first overall in the 2007 Strategic Vision "most delightful" vehicle ratings. And if that seems subjective and arbitrary… Strategic breaks the "multifunction" segment into three subcagetories: small (VW Rabbit), medium (Volvo V50 Wagon) and luxury (Audi A3). Apparently, the ultimate multifunction vehicles– CUVs and SUVs– don't count. And what's this? Owners of GM's worst-selling Lambda CUV, the Saturn Outlook, are more delighted than those who bought the GMC Acadia or Buick Enclave (the Outlook won the "medium crossover" category). And if that Tahoe-sized family hauler is considered "medium," you have to wonder what they'd consider "large." Anyway, TTAC is less than delighted that anyone takes anything that Strategic Vision says seriously. The Detroit Free Press has the full list of winners.

While Toyota Motors North America (TMNA) finished 2007 in overall better shape than its domestic competition, they failed to meet their goal of selling 200k of their new, full-sized, Texas-built Tundra pickups. Hope leaf springs eternal. Even as the market for large pickups follows the U.S. housing market into the crapper and fuel economy standards get tighter, ToMoCo's sticking with their goal of 300k annual sales by 2010. Toyota Division GM Bob Carter told Automotive News [sub], Downturn? What downturn? [paraphrasing] In fact, Carter predicts Tundra sales will hit the low 200ks in 2008. "There is no cause for alarm. We are on plan." When asked how long it'll take for Tundra to top the 300k mark, he clammed up. However he did mention they "have 44 Tundra models now, and in the future, that segment requires even a broader lineup than we have today." So let's see… they have a model that is selling below expectations in a market segment that is shrinking so their solution is to increase the complexity of the model line-up to generate sales. The Big 2.8 have been hiring TMNA executives right and left. With marketing logic like that, you have to wonder if Toyota's been reciprocating.

While the bad puns we like making with Chery's name are usually the pits, forgiving the prepositional sentence ending, the Chinese independent automaker isn't to be laughed at. Businessweek reports that in just ten years, the company has risen from relatively obscurity to become China's most successful domestically-branded auto maker, Chery now owns 7.5 percent of the PRC pie. Overall, Chery is number four in the very crowded Chinese auto market, behind the VW/FAW, GM/SAIC and VW/SAIC joint ventures. It's also one of the most aggressive Chinese companies, branching out into Russia, the Ukraine, the Middle East, Europe, Mexico and South America. Chery has factories in several overseas locations, including Iran, Egypt and Russia. They have a deal to provide engines for Fiat and manufacture Fiats and Alfa Romeos in China, as well as with Chrysler to develop a small car for the U.S. and sell Chery A1s under the Dodge banner in Mexico. With GM practically abandoning the U.S. market, is the time ripe for Chery picking up the slack and entering blossoming on American soil?

GM's main man told Bloomberg that he expects 75 percent of The General's car and truck sales to come from outside the U.S. within a decade. Meanwhile, while GM's setting sales records in developing markets overseas, they're losing money at home. Lots of money. To his credit, Rabid Rick did touch on that small issue with Bloomberg. GM's CEO claimed his "plan" to end those losses is about "50 to 60 percent complete." WHAT PLAN? Has anyone seen this plan or is he, like Indiana Jones, making it up as he goes along? Which ever it is, Wagoner [finally] admits things aren't quite going as expected. "Maybe the actions are a little farther along, but the results I don't think are that far along." With Wagoner conceding defeat in North America, the results probably won't get much farther along, either. What's that sound? Why, it's Toyota, Honda and Nissan letting out a war whoop as they thunder down their American happy hunting ground.

When the Chevy Tahoe Hybrid was named "Green Car of the Year" at the Los Angeles Auto Show last year, we had a "WTF?" reaction. Unlike the maudlin mainstream media, we didn't see the logic of putting that much effort into a gas-guzzling behemoth with lagging sales when it could be better used in smaller, more salable vehicles. The LA Times' Dan Neil had a similar reaction when he drove it. While the Pulitzer-prize winning auto critic found the execution of the technology flawless, he questioned the claimed milage imporvements. "What would the mileage of this vehicle be with all the improved aerodynamics [the hybrid has a Cd of 0.34 as opposed to the standard model's 0.39], low-rolling resistance tires and aluminum body panels, yet without the fretful weight (and cost) of the hybrid system?" Echoing a sentiment expressed on this site several times, Dan the Man asks, "Does this super-low-volume program do more for corporate image than corporate average fuel economy?" In his final analysis he concludes, "For now, we have this paradox, a fantastically fuel-efficient vehicle that's still a gas hog. A hybrid that's simultaneously good (promise) and bad (reality). Matters can only get more muddled when the Hybrid Hummer comes rolling out." Meanwhile, GM has announced they'll introduce a scaled-down version of the Tahoe's "dual mode" system in the '09 Saturn Vue Green Line.

Ethanol is all-around more expensive than gasoline. You don't need to do the math to prove it– because Professor Emeritus Don Elliott of the University of Northern Colorado did it for you. In a letter to the editor of The Tribune, he refutes their misleading claim that ethanol is less expensive and produces less pollution per gallon than gasoline. Using a more realistic measure of cost per miles driven, he shows that a vehicle running on E85 needs 40 percent more fuel to go the same distance as one burning gasoline, and E85 would cost 9.6 percent more per mile driven. On the pollution issue, he figures in the emissions from the fossil fuels used to produce the ethanol as well as the greenhouse gasses E85 produces. When looking at the total pollution produced by each fuel, he computes E85 produces 15.5 percent more greenhouse gasses per mile. How's THAT for an inconvenient truth?

Pickup trucks may not be the deathtraps the NHTSA and IIHS tests make them out to be. Forbes reports research done by Virginia Commonwealth University that compared crash test ratings against data on fatal crashes. They found that while cars with higher crash test ratings show fewer fatalities than those with lower ratings, the same wasn't true for pickup trucks. In the NHTSA and IIHS tests, trucks are crashed into stationary barriers while in the real world, most crashes are vehicle-to-vehicle. In those cases, researchers postulate, the ladder frame in the pickups act as a "battering ram," allowing it to withstand an impact from a smaller, lighter vehicle better than when striking a stationary barrier. Of course, the IIHS dismisses the idea, saying they have no evidence that ladder-frame construction has any effect on crashworthiness. After all, why let real-world facts get in the way of laboratory results?

Can 30,311 British citizens subjects be wrong? That's how many inhabitants of the North Sea island nation have signed an online petition calling for Prime Minister Gordon Brown to step down and make way for Top Gear presenter and notorious "Little Englander" (a.k.a. xenophobe) Jeremy Clarkson. Yahoo! News reports the petition is getting more attention than petitions for issues like fuel duty rates. Apparently Downing Street is taking the petition seriously; they routinely remove petitions from the official government website that The Oxbridge Powers-That-Be consider spurious. If they leave the Clarkson for PM petition alone, it will hang around until its closing date of April 17. Even the conservative Daily Mail newspaper is getting on the bandwagon: they ran a page full of suggested policies Prime Minister Clarkson should adopt. If he'll accept suggestions from the Colonies, I humbly recommend appointing Hamster as Transport Minister.

Bob Lutz said it last month. Rick Wagoner confirmed it this month: you won't see a Volt on the road until after 2010. According to The Detroit News, GM's CEO had an online chat about GM's 100th anniversary yesterday. During this e-schmooze, Wagoner said "We continue to put massive resources into production as soon as possible. 2010 would be great, but (we) can't guarantee that at this time. We'll keep you posted regularly on our progress." He wouldn't say exactly why they were backpedaling so fast on their promise to have the plug-in electric Hail Mary hybrid on the road by 2010, but Rabid Rick did say they were still working on the design of the production version and testing battery packs. Even though the current Volt looks nothing like the production model– the brass is tap dancing around the design of the tweaked production version– GM still uses the "cobbled together" (Maximum Bob's term) concept car in its ads as if it was readily available for purchase right now. But then again, GM's doing the exact same with the Malibu so why should we be surprised?

When Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation (SAIC) bought Nanjing last month, Fiat pulled out of their money-losing joint venture with Nanjing. Now China Car Times reports Chery has announced they're creating a joint venture with Fiat in 2008. The partnership will produce the Fiat Linea, Bravo and Grand Punto for the Chinese market. Fiat and Chery already had an agreement to build Alfa Romeos for China and supply engines for Fiat. It'll be interesting to see if there's any bleed-over between the agreements between Chery and Fiat, and Chery and Chrysler. With Chery and Fiat wanting to get into the American market and Chrysler starved for small cars, it could be a ménage à trois made in heaven. Or the San Fernando Valley…

First there were rumors of "tortilla riots" in Mexico. Then, as the price of corn-based feed skyrocketed, meat and egg prices rose. As hops farmers switched to corn, beer prices followed suit. And now MSNBC reports the booming corn-for-ethanol market is expanding the "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico. As farmers plant more corn and use more nitrogen-based fertilizer, they're increasing the amount of run-off that ends up in the Gulf via the Mississippi River. The nitrogen surge is leading to heavy algae growth, which depletes the water of oxygen (as it dies and decays), which suffocates shrimp, crabs, oysters and other sea life. Environmentalists say if something isn't done, the ethanol industry's knock-on effects threatents the Gulf's entire ecosystem and the livelihood of thousands of fishermen along the coast. Not to mention the escalating price of shrimp gumbo and oyster po'boys.

Even a freshman marketing student knows you don't launch a multi-million dollar ad blitz for a new product if you don't have the product on hand to sell. Yet that's exactly what GM did with the redesigned Chevy Malibu. GM says they sold about 7K Malibus in December. That's about the same number as in December '06. What they haven't said is how many unfilled orders or deposits they've taken for future delivery. Yet GM marketing maven and spinmeister extraordinaire Mark LaNeve told the Detroit News it'll be spring before production meets demand. That's despite ramping up production at a second plant. Monster Mark gushes, "they're selling well in Southern California. They're selling well in Flint." I'm happy to hear they're selling somewhere– because Malibus don't seem to be going anywhere in the southeast. I have yet to see a new 'Bu on the road in the Atlanta area; the only one I've seen outside a showroom was somewhere on an interstate in Texas. On my way to visit the family at Thanksgiving, I saw the car you can't ignore at a Chevy dealership in central Alabama. When I went back at Christmas it was still sitting in the same spot. How about you? Have you seen the new Malibu in the wild, or have you only spotted GM's next next big thing at dealerships (if at all)? Let's get empirical! Em-piri-cal. 

I once worked for a colonel who'd address all obstacles by saying "you can solve any problem if you throw enough money at it." While our budget officer would have to breathe into a paper bag for a half hour afterwards, the colonel always managed to squeeze whatever was needed to resolve the crisis du jour from the budget– and solve the problem. Automakers native to the People's Republic of China (PRC) must have bugged his office; they've adopted the exact same philosophy.