When Ford announced it was pulling the plug on its Panther platformed rear wheel-drive cars, the livery and taxicab companies howled in protest. Ford’s ancient leviathans are welded to the new car lot, but they’re a carriage trade mainstay; there’s no cost-comparable replacement. While rental fleets favor smaller econoboxes and mediocre midsizers, taxis, liveries and police departments still favor big, basic, practical, roomy, reliable, robust, rear-wheel drive automobiles. Sounds like it’s the perfect time to resurrect the Checker Marathon.

When Daimler-Benz began its Apache dance with Chrysler in 1998, everyone wondered who was leading and where the Hell they were going. At first, the “merger of equals” looked like it would bless Chrysler with Mercedes’ best engineering. When the 300C was built atop some last gen Mercedes cast-offs, and ye olde SLK-based Crossfire [dis]appeared, it seemed that Chrysler would at least get some natty hand-me-downs. Then DCX leadership declared "a Mercedes will remain a Mercedes.” Now it's Dancing With the Stars gone bad, and it's bound to end in an elimination.

Trivia buffs, scholars of ancient history and encyclopedia-reading geeks know the first month of the year is named for the Roman god Janus. Janus didn’t have any special powers. His entire claim to fame was based on having two faces, one on the front of his head and one on the back. Since Janus could keep an eye on what was coming as well as what was going, he was placed in charge of gates and doors, transitions, and beginnings and endings. Being two faced also meant he could talk out of two mouths at the same time. Kinda like Toyota.

In the late ‘70’s, Chrysler and Mark Knopfler had a lot in common. The automaker and the guitarist were both in dire straits. Unlike the British rock group, Chrysler’s sales were stuck at rock bottom. Most of the automaker’s offerings were badge engineered clones. Overproduction and their so-called “sales bank” had pushed inventory to an all-time high, dragging profits to an all-time low. Enter Lee Iacocca. Lee took draconian measures: cutting models, restructuring, trimming fat and introducing radical new models. Within a few years, Iacocca’s intervention had transformed a company on the brink of disaster into a profitable enterprise. Twenty years later, Chrysler’s come full circle. And once again, it’s time for intervention.

I wouldn’t join any union that would have me as a member. And yet the United Autoworker’s Union (UAW) wants me. Yep, UAW Local 1981 represents freelance writers. The pen-pushing Local is part of a growing trend within the UAW. As more and more of their members accept buyouts and early retirements, as the UAW [secretly] realizes that they’ve milked their Detroit cash cow to the point of death, the union is pulling a Studebaker. They’re diversifying out of their core business before their core business goes tango uniform.

T’was a few weeks ‘til Christmas
And all through Detroit,
The car makers were hustling,
But they weren’t too adroit.

They all had such high hopes,
To end up the year,
With a good bottom line
To bring Christmas cheer.

Germans don’t like the phrase “assisted suicide.” The preferred term is aktive Sterbehilfe (active assistance in dying). Apparently, it's not a crime. Euthanasia is a crime. Assisted suicide is not. However you slice it, it's clear that this “activity” is not unknown in Germany’s corporate culture. While DCX’ leadership keeps insisting they want to nurture the Chrysler group back to health, they seem Hell bent on helping it meet its demise.

Just a few years ago, Walter Chrysler’s namesake was riding high. The “partnership of equals” between America’s Chrysler Corporation and Germany’s Daimler-Benz bore fruit in the form of the critically acclaimed Chrysler 300 and Dodge Magnum. “Hemi” was the performance buzzword. “SRT” indicated the performance deal of the decade. Fast forward to ’06 and everything Chrysler's doing seems strangely, willfully, specifically designed to push the automaker to the brink of self-annihilation. 

Imagine an alternate reality where General Motors operates state-of-the-art factories with flexible manufacturing systems allowing production of vehicles with different platforms on the same production line. Where they operate with a lean manufacturing philosophy that encompasses purchasing, logistics, manufacturing, sales and quality management. Where they use non-union labor to keep costs down and profits up, avoiding the legacy costs unions bring to the table.  Where sales are up more than thirty percent. Huān yíng guāng lín to China.

The polls are closed. We’ve tallied and rank-ordered the votes. You, TTAC’s ever faithful and always vocal readers, have selected the Ten Worst Automobiles Today (TWAT) from all the vehicles for sale in the US during calendar year 2006. Some of the votes were pretty close (only 35 votes separated the 10th place winner from the first runner-up at number 11), while others ran away from the pack from the very beginning. Here they are, starting with 10th place and counting down to number one, the winners of the 2006 TTAC Ten Worst Automobiles Today awards:

The Chinese automotive market has over a billion potential customers. Sales growth is well into the double digits. Labor rates are a fraction of those paid in western countries, without any union rules to slow down investment or add legacy costs. An ideal place for American investment? Depends on how you look at it. The Chinese market is controlled by a totalitarian government and regulated by an Automobile Industry Policy that’s more convoluted than a bowl of shahe fen noodles. As China nips at Germany’s heels to become the world’s third-largest auto producing country, let’s take a closer look at the sleeping dragon.

There are nearly 100 automobile manufacturers in China.  Ninety-percent of the market belongs to eight state-owned companies. To meet soaring demand for new cars, these companies have partnered with automakers from around the world. These partnerships can appear strange; one Chinese company may have several partners which are competitors in the rest of the world. Here’s the list:

FAW:  Toyota/VW/Mazda
SAIC:   GM/VW
Changan:  Ford/Suzuki
Dongfeng:  PSA Peugot Citroën/Honda/Nissan-Renault/Kia
Guangzhou AIC:  Toyota/Honda
Beijing AIC:  DCX/Hyundai
Nanjing AIC:  Fiat
Brilliance:  BMW

While Chinese law prohibits any foreign company (or combination of companies) from owning more than 50% of their Chinese partner, these joint ventures have proven lucrative for all the parties involved. The Chinese companies get access to the engineering and design expertise of world-class companies, while the partners gain a quick inroad to what is arguably the hottest new car market in the world. 

As the market has grown, a number of independent (i.e. carmakers who aren’t affiliated with a foreign manufacturer) local companies have sprung up. They are usually either motorcycle manufacturers expanding into the auto market, new companies funded by capital from other industries (such as consumer electronics) or parts manufacturers that started assembling their parts into complete cars. The primary independent players are:

Southeast
Chery  
Geely
GreatWall
Zhongxin
Jianghuai
Hafei

Of these, government–owned Chery is the best known– thanks to Malcolm Bricklin’s professed intention to import cars built by Chery under his Visionary Vehicles nameplate. While Bricklin keeps pushing back the introduction of his Chinese-built products due to quality, production and safety issues (not to mention a lack of investors), he insists he will revolutionize the American market with his line of low-cost, high value vehicles. Recently, DCX has also been negotiating with Chery to produce a subcompact economy car for Chrysler.

Chery’s other claim to fame isn’t so, well, cheery. They jump-started their production capability by buying the defunct VW factory in Westmoreland, PA and relocating it to China lock, stock, and tool dies. They then procured blueprints from SEAT for a car based on the Jetta and began producing a clone. (Jetta is the biggest selling car in China and the Chinese market generates almost 20% of VW’s pre-tax profits). As you can imagine, VW was furious. They eventually accepted a financial settlement in compensation. 

To expand their operation further, Chery began hiring engineers from other companies including Daewoo. Two new models, the “Son of the Orient” and the “QQ” were suspiciously similar to Daewoo’s Magnus and Matiz (sold as the Chevrolet Spark). Chery introduced the QQ six months prior to the planned introduction of the Spark, priced $1500 lower than its automotive homonym. 

GM accused Chery of “copying and unauthorized use of GM-Daewoo’s trade secrets.” Chery countered by claiming they had developed the QQ independently and with only “inspiration” from the Matiz. Since this “inspiration” consisted of styling so similar you couldn’t tell them apart from more than 10 feet away and interchangeable body panels, doors and other parts, GM filed suit.

After three years of litigation, GM and Chery finally settled out of court. While the details of the settlement haven’t been released, GM did win one concession: Chery can’t sell cars in the US under its own name due to the similarity between “Chery” and “Chevy.”

The problems with Chery underscore the sword of Damocles hanging over foreign manufacturers operating in the Chinese market. Any time you’re dealing with companies owned by a dictatorial government, you’re at the mercy of the whims of the political leadership. The Chinese government (controlled by the army) provides all of the information used for business planning: economic growth, per capita income, projected sales, etc. They create the rules for the protection of intellectual property. They control the courts that interpret the rules on the protection of intellectual property. They control everything within the supply chain, from labor to raw materials to retail distribution to taxes to traffic laws. 

Like China’s so-called citizens, foreign auto companies are completely at the Chinese government’s mercy. If China’s rulers decide to nationalize all automotive production facilities, there’s nothing foreign automakers can do but leave. Meanwhile, they’re making hay while the sun shines, doing whatever they can to make sure their “partners” don’t pull the plug.

Let’s try an experiment. I’ll give you a shiny new multi-blade, swivel head safety razor and an old-fashioned straight razor honed to a fine edge. You shave one side of your face (or one leg, depending on your shaving proclivities) with one razor and the other side with the other one. With which razor will you finish more quickly, and which one will you use very carefully and deliberately? According to a study from a Purdue University research team, the same thing applies to our driving habits: the safer we perceive our cars to be, the less carefully we tend to drive them.

The Truth About Cars (TTAC) TWAT Award Selection Committee has convened. Fifteen members of our cadre of car critics and commentators carefully considered the full horror of your 131 nominations. They then selected 20 vehicles that deserve your consideration for the final 10 winners/losers. And so, now, we turn to you, our avid devotees and unshakeable critics, for your knowledge, passion, honesty and sarcasm. It’s time to VOTE for the ten vehicles which will be anointed TTAC’s top TWATs for 2006.

Earlier this year, FoMoCo assembled a panel of “futurists” and “trend spotters” from academia, nonprofit organizations and the private sector to identify trends that could impact future product development. While people who’d never read Wired might say Ford needs to put out the fire in the kitchen before they make blueprints for a new bedroom, it’s also true that those who do not see the future are condemned to flashing double zeros on their VCR– I mean DVD-R. Anyway, at the risk of clouding Ford’s crystal ball, I’ve taken the liberty of preparing a couple of potential news releases as a rough guide to future automotive trends…

According to Automotive News, jurors for the 2007 North American Car of the Year and North American Truck of the Year awards are currently considering some 26 vehicles. Yeah, well, 130 vehicles are competing for the 2006 TTAC Ten Worst Automobiles Today (TWAT) awards. And that includes badge-engineered clones which were nominated jointly. And you/we ain’t done yet. You’ve got ‘til 5:00pm EST to add your nomination to the list. Meanwhile, guess what? There's overlap!