A few weeks back, we told you that some of Chrysler's component manufacturers have been running their plants full bore, even canceling holidays to meet Chrysler's production demands. They've even had to ship parts in cardboard because they didn't have enough of the usual plastic packaging. Now we've learned Chrysler has called a hard stop, throwing suppliers into a tailspin as they halt production lines that were running beyond capacity last week to keep up with orders. Plant managers are scrambling to determine new production levels so they can get lay-offs started as quickly as possible. Is this the beginning of the Chrysler meltdown? We'll keep you up on what's going on as we find out more.

It sucks to be a Chrysler brand franchisee right now. Trucks and SUVs are piling up on lots as dealers try to come up with ways to clear the inventory before the '09 models start rolling in. They have their work cut out for them. At the start of July, Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep dealers had a 160-day supply of Rams gathering dust. If that weren't bad enough, the stores have enough Nitros to last 143 days and enough Aspens to last a lifetime. I mean, 218 days. The Jeep Wranglers they couldn't keep on the lot just a year ago are now piled up 129 days deep. With an average of only 16 truck sales per Dodge franchise, 10 per Jeep franchise and four per Chrysler franchise in June, it may take them a while to dig their way out. But, as they say, misery loves company. Honda dealers are sitting on a 160-day supply of Ridgelines and Mitsubishi dealers are dealing with a 222-day supply of Endeavors. Nissan blows them all out of the water, though. If a 215-day supply of Xterras, a 229-day supply of Armadas and a 247-day supply of Pathfinders aren't enough, the "Lot Queen" crown goes to Titan: there's a four hundred eighty-nine (yes, 489) day supply of the Mississippi-made haulers sitting around. Blow-out clearance sales can't be far behind. 

Bioethanol is so last year. Biomass Magazine (yes, there really is such a publication) reports the latest research in biofuels is directed at producing "green hydrocarbon fuels.' While biodiesel is becoming relatively commonplace, it's based on oils derived from plants and animal fats. Green hydrocarbon fuels are second-generation biofuels made from the same biomass materials used for bioethanol, with several advantages. Since they're chemically identical to the petroleum-based fuels, they carry the same amount of energy. Unlike ethanol, no vehicular modifications are required, AND they can use the current fuel delivery infrastructure. The down side: the process to produce the fuels is much more complex than either petroleum or ethanol production, requiring the conversion of the biomass to bio-oil before the refining process can begin. Researchers are working to simplify the solution, but it'll still be a few years before there'll be a bountiful supply of biogas– at least the kind that isn't produced by a diet of burritos and beer.

That's what The Star-Ledger columnist Bob Braun (via nj.com) concluded when he drove the same 55-mile route two times: once keeping pace with traffic, and once at just above the 65-mph speed limit. If you've driven on the highway anywhere lately, I don't need to tell you the outcome (but I will anyway). Keeping pace with traffic, Braun drove 80 – 85 mph and had no cause for concern. Driving 68 mph, he was passed by almost everyone, tailgated and found himself in dangerous situations more than once. He quotes Charles Lave, University of California at Irvine economist: "I find that there is no statistically discernible relationship between the fatality rate and average speed, though there is a strong relationship to speed variance. Variance kills, not speed." Perhaps the lawmakers need to be reminded of this fact as they consider lowering speed limits in the name of saving fuel. (An aside: does that mean the more fuel-efficient a car is, the faster it'll be allowed to go?) If our elected representatives are stupid enough to drop the national speed limit back to the double nickel, accident rates will go up as the variance between those who want to get there in a reasonable time and those who drive the speed limit increases. It makes more sense to raise the speed limit for safety's sake. As Braun points out, "if everyone uniformly sped, or, if everyone obeyed the limits, then we'd be safer." And you know the majority aren't going to obey the limits.

Full disclosure: I really like Audis. I own two of them: an A4 Avant and an A4 Cabriolet. So when Audi offered me the chance to review a Q7, Ingolstadt's answer to "how late can you be to an SUV party and still not wonder why you bothered to show up in the first place," I said game on. After all, it's an Audi. What's not to like? 

A couple of months ago, we ran a survey to find out a bit about our Best and Brightest. Our opt-in survey (with all that implies) asked about how often you visit and what you do while you're here, your car buying habits, involvement in the automotive hobby and (of course) some of the usual standard demographic stuff. Needless to say, we didn't tell you how to answer it, like your  friendly neighborhood dealership service department. The results are in and here they are. The PDF has numeric scores from most questions with a summary of the open-ended questions. It's given us an insight to who our customers are and how we can improve the quality of our product. And believe me… we'll look at every comment you made. Thanks to all who participated. BTW: advertisers need apply.

Click here for survey results 

GM's CEO heir-apparent and current COO Fritz Henderson revealed GM's latest product-planning philosophy in an interview with the AP (via CNN Money). "Let's do cars that people love, even if they're small." And WTH, let's make some money doing it! Fritz's recipe: "close the price gap versus the market segment leaders and drive more volume. You're significantly improving aggregate profitability." The former CFO [who isn't Rick Wagoner] wants to aggregate profitability "one or two models at a time." But Fritz realizes "one product launch does not a success make… if we get the car right and we get the promotion right, we can make progress and we can actually bring people back to the car." Uh, what about all those cars GM's already launched? Fritz's remarks bring to mind an image of Wile E. Coyote, realizing he screwed up one of his Road Runner traps, racing the burning fuse to get to the dynamite before it goes off. And anyone who has ever seen a Road Runner cartoon knows how that scene plays out.

CNN Money quotes GM Product Planner Extraordinaire Bob Lutz: "The reason we made no money on small cars is because hello! nobody wanted them. At $1.75 and $2.25 (per gallon), everybody was happy with full-size utilities with V-8 engines. Now that's shifting, so the profitability is going to go down on trucks and the profitability on cars is going up." Um. No. The reason you made no money on small cars is because hello! you didn't build small cars anyone outside of fleet buyers would even think about buying. Toyota didn't have any problem making money selling small cars. Honda didn't have any trouble making money selling small cars. If you had been as serious about building small cars as you've been about building trucks, if instead of adopting a "throw it against the wall and see what sticks" marketing plan, if you hadn't all but forgotten Saturn existed until last year and if you hadn't parts-bin engineered whatever you could throw together for the rental companies, you'd be well ahead of the curve now. But now you're playing catch-up while the competition forges ahead. Maybe you need to think about something the Marines should have taught you in flight school: to hit a moving target, you have to aim ahead of it.

“This is not the time for niche vehicles," Maximum Bob told the world yesterday. "We can’t afford to hit singles and bunts. We need triples and home runs.” There's more, all dutifully, faithfully, credulously and supportively reported by The Detroit Free Press' Mark Phelan. Neither Lutz nor Phelan realize putting all their efforts into high-profit trucks and ignoring cars that weren't "high volume" is what got GM where they aren't today. If GM had gone for a few singles and doubles in small cars– or had even landed a few solid bunts– while they were swinging for the fences in SUVs and pickup trucks, they would have a few more runners on base today. But now GM's trailing, it's the bottom of the ninth and they're hurriedly calling in designated hitters from Korea. The problem is that the game goes on. GM can't call "time out" while they try to rewrite their playbook and rebuild their team. And while they're combing their farm teams trying to find someone who can play in the big leagues, the transplants continue bringing home the profits with a succession of solid base hits. And yet the cheerleading continues.

After Rick Wagoner's announcements this morning, GM Car Czar Bob Lutz was bubbling over with product news. Of course, Maximum Bob overlooked the fact that someone else's year-old warmed-over Pontiac leftovers may be nourishing, if they're seldom appetizing or appealing. Anyway, MB revealed that the Chevrolet Cobalt will be around for a lot longer than we'd been led to believe. It's "no where near the end of its life-cycle" and it's "finally coming into its own" (whatever that is). So what about the Cruze? It'll be sold eventually but not as the Cobalt's replacement. And then there's the news that's upsetting Autoblog's readers: the Beat won't go on, at least not in the U.S. Apparently, the small car that GM needs right now wasn't designed with federal crash and safety standards in mind (doh!). It would cost too much and take two years to fix that short-sighted screwup prepare the car for compact-loving 'Mericans. So when CEO Rick Wagoner said earlier today that GM has "a global operating framework that allows us to respond to changes in the U.S. market, a commitment to technology leadership, and an ever stronger and competitive product line-up," he wasn't talking about small cars. Except the Aveo and Cobalt. And the Pontiac-nourishing G3 and G5. 

Volkswagen has announced the location of their new U.S. plant. And the winner is… pardon me boys… Chattanooga. The Tennessee plant will be located in an existing "industrial megasite" to "produce a car designed specifically for the North American consumer." (The last time VeeDub tried building something specifically for the American market, they "Malibuized" the Rabbit– and retreated to the Fatherland, (cotton)tail between their legs.) VW figures on a 150k per year initial capacity for the new facility, which will begin production in "early 2011." "The U.S. market is an important part of our volume strategy and we are now very resolutely accessing that market," Martin Winterkorn, VW's CEO said. "We will be selling 800,000 Volkswagens in the U.S. by 2018 … [which] along with our growth strategy, is a prerequisite for the economic success of the company in the dollar region." Does that boy even know how to speak English? Anyway, inhabitants of the Tennessee Valley area of "the dollar region" are bound to appreciate the $1b VW's expected to pour into the local economy. 

I love bad puns. This morning, during a lull in the action while we waited for the footware to fall on Slick Rick's press conference, I asked our esteemed publisher "if GM started designing the second generation of their electric vapormobile, would it be considered re-Volt-ing?" Lacking my finely honed sense of humor, he merely responded "har, har." Then I reminded him that if someone wrecked their S-Class, all you could so is say "well, that's the way the Mercedes Benz." OK… I know they're bad.  And I know there have to be a lot more automotive puns out there. So c'mon… hit me with your best (or worst) shot. I'll be mighty be-Holden to you if you do.

GM just sent out a press release outlining "further steps" they taking "to adapt its business to rapidly changing market conditions." The high points of Rick Wagoner's plan include:

∙ Reduction of salaried workforce via attrition and "other separation tools."

∙ Eliminating "annual discretionary cash bonuses for the company's executive group in 2008… For the company's top executive officers, it represents a reduction in their cash compensation opportunity of 75 to 84 percent. "

∙ Making "additional structural cost reductions… achieved through further adjustments in truck capacity and related component, stamping and powertrain capacity."

∙ "Revising its capital spending plan and reducing approximately $1.5 billion in expenditures versus prior plans… A major part of the reductions is related to the delay of the next generation large pickup and SUV program, as well as V-8 engine development and associated capacity."

∙ "Improv(ing) working capital…primarily related to the reduction of raw material, work-in-progress and finished goods inventory levels as well as lean inventory practices at parts warehouses."

∙ "Defer(ing) approximately $1.7 billion of payments that had been scheduled to be made to a temporary asset account over the balance of 2008 and 2009 for the establishment of the new UAW VEBA."

∙ "The GM Board of Directors has decided to suspend future dividends on common stock, effective immediately, which is expected to improve liquidity by approximately $800 million through 2009."

∙ "Undertaking a broad global assessment of its assets for possible sale or monetization."

∙ "Opportunistically access(ing) global markets to raise additional liquidity"

"The actions announced today are difficult decisions, but necessary to respond to the current auto market conditions," said Wagoner. "Even under conservative planning scenarios, GM is well-positioned to withstand the U.S. market downturn and emerge a stronger company. We have a solid position in the rapidly growing emerging markets, a global operating framework that allows us to respond to changes in the U.S. market, a commitment to technology leadership, and an ever stronger and competitive product line-up."

Click here for PDF of full press release 

Fisker Automotive is moving ahead with their plans to produce the Karma hybrid-electric sedan. Reuters reports that the former CO2-intensive custom coachbuilder (reskinned Mercedes SL and BMW 6-Series) has signed a letter of intent with Metso Oyj, the parent company of Valmet Automotive. The dynamic duo claims they're going to build 15k copies of Henrik's PC plug-in four-door. (Valmet currently builds Porsche Boxsters and Caymans; their contract with the Sultans of Stuttgart expires in 2012.) Even though there's no actual contract between Fisker and Valmet, and no one's disclosed any financial details, Metso reckons customer deliveries will start in the last quarter of 2009. If Fisker pulls this off, he'll beat GM's plug-in electric – gas hybrid Chevrolet Volt to market. You know, in theory.

Automotive News [sub] reports that the plug-in electric – gas hybrid Volt will be sold as a Chevrolet in the U.S. only. When they go on sale in Europe in 2012, they'll have different styling and wear Opel and Vauxhall badges– even though they'll be built on the same assembly line in Michigan. So why, with GM's push to make Chevy their "global" brand, are they rebadging the Volt for their Euro-brands? GM claims Opel and Vauxhall have larger dealer networks than Chevy. But let's face it… with Chevy's image as a bargain-basement brand in Europe and their current offerings of rebadged Daewoos, how many people would consider buying a high-tech, high-priced electric hybrid at a Chevy dealership in Europe? About as many as would consider buying a Corvette at one. Which is why Corvette is marketed in the Eurozone as a separate brand with Hummers and Cadillacs, and why Volts will become Opels and Vauxhalls. Stimt?