Greentech Media reports that Tesla's "accelerating production" of their lithium-ion powered sports car. They're heading for their promised 100 cars per month. You know; once they get their transmission shit together. in October. Or thereabouts. Or later. Meanwhile, according to a Tesla newsletter released Wednesday night, the Lotus assembly plant in Hethel, England has fifteen cars "ready to be shipped" to CA sans battery and powertrain. I'll admit it: fifteen cars is fourteen more than I've built (don't ask). But have you seen Tesla's showroom? These Silicon Valley boys are not exactly Scrooge McDuck when it comes to overheads. Even if you figure each customer car at the new price of $120k, that's only $1.8m gross income. What's the bet that each of those cars will end up costing Tesla money (a la David Brown's Aston Martin era)? Never mind. Saving the planet is a tough job, but someone's got to do it. 

Why would Delphi's bondholders sue GM in Manhattan court to prevent a $300m cash infusion? Because Highland Capital Management and other bondholders fear GM's "undue" influence over the bankrupt parts supplier. [NB: the $300m is on top of an existing $650m loan.] In other words, GM's money could give it the leverage it needs to prevent its former division from selling off profitable bits of Delphi. Like, say, the parts of Delphi that supply the GM corporate mothership with parts. GM control would also mean that the artist formerly known as the world's largest automaker could forestall a Delphi Chapter 7, should the bondholders decided that the jig is up. "It is merely a band-aid (albeit an enormously expensive and porous band-aid),'' the bondholders told Bloomberg. "It is a truism that borrowing to fund losses is a loser's bet.'' You want to talk about cash burn? "Highland and other bondholders said in the objection to the additional financing that Delphi used more than $960 million in net cash to fund operating activities in just the first six months of 2008." Anyway, bankruptcy judge Robert Drain approved a $5m company payout for the legal costs of defending former Delphi officers and employees from lawsuits related to pension funds and the bankruptcy.

TTAC commentator Brent asked why fellow members of our Best and Brightest aren't cutting the new Cruze some slack. "All I ever see are comments (rightly) digging on GM for having no truly competitive small cars, and for having none in the pipeline. Now we learn of one that in fact *is* in the pipeline. Furthermore, it just might be competitive. And what do I see? A bunch of comments digging on GM for even trying." As a cynical bastard, I think the cynicism has been well and truly earned, through dozens of less-than-stellar (i.e. crap) GM small cars. And, lest we forget, Chevy is a brand that touts itself as "An American Revolution" whilst selling a Korean car. In fact, what equity/credibility remains within the Chevy brand? Like a Rock reliability? Not for cars. (Not yet, anyway.) So, really, it all comes down to one word: Corvette. And if that's true, what IS a Chevy? No matter how good the Cruze may be (Jonny), it simply can't traverse GM's branding issues. Nothing can. [PS: DON'T FORGET THERE'S A PODCAST BELOW]

2009 Corvette ZR1 - First Drive

TTAC prides itself on scanning obscure sources of info to keep you inside the loop on some loopy, car-related stuff. And nothing is quite as bizarre as America's corn-based ethanol industry, depending as it does entirely on government subsidies, mandates and market manipulation. One of the best sources for info: industrialinfo.com. In an "interview" with an endlessly annoying, pig-ignorant, honey-toned professional broadcaster, the news org's Alternative Fuel Group Veep offers a blunt assessment of a bio-diesel and ethanol industry deep in the doldrums. "We're in a bust cycle," Jay Brunson says. "Over the first part of 2008, not a single corn-based ethanol plant has started construction, and the biodiesel industry has had only a handful of construction starts." And then Jay moves quickly on to non-corn ethanol sources. Does this mean U.S. farmers are, you know? Not if their legislators have anything to say about it. And by God, they do.

After our characteristically snarky blog on the launch of ecodrivingUSA.com website– courtesy of The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers– the organization reached out to TTAC to defend its PR campaign. Like every professional spinmeister I've ever met, AAM's Senior Director of Communications proved to be an affable, sensible, persuasive guy. And how can you argue against saving gas? So I let the not-so-sibilant Charlie Territo make his case, then explored other mpg-related issues: federal fuel economy regs, state's rights in the matter and suchlike. TTAC encourages any newsmaker (or their rep) to contact us about any published story to make their case on the site, including, should they desire, unedited editorial space for their reply. (robert.farago@thetruthaboutcars.com) 

While GM PR is milking the plug-in electric – gas hybrid hybrid Chevrolet Volt for all its worth, the automaker is shifting emphasis towards it latest savior. The Camaro. Wait. No. That's not it. The Beat. Nope. Hybrid SUVs? Uh-uh. The Cruze! "Wider and longer than most of its competitors, Cruze has a purposeful stance…" Yada, yada yada. Engines? At its European launch, the Cruze control will feature a choice of a 1.6-liter (112 hp), 1.8-liter (140 hp) or a new 2.0-liter turbo diesel (150 hp) four banger; with a five-speed stick or all-new six-speed auto. U.S. spec? Mpgs? No se. But here's the real news: GM reckons they can make money on building and selling this sucker in the U.S. "Small cars are becoming a permanent feature of the U.S. market, and the odds of earning a decent return have gone up" for domestic auto makers, auto analyst John Casesa told CNNMoney. "The window of opportunity for GM is now." Only, as Dow Jones' anonymous writer points out, "GM is counting on one more critical – but still uncertain – element to turn small cars into money makers, which is that consumers will ante up thousands of dollars more for a new small Chevy." Now what are the odds?

What pistonhead doesn't like a V8 engine? This author has long argued that freedom of choice argues against outlawing gas-sucking automobiles. But I don't venerate the V8 engine as a sacred object, a talisman for those who feel that anyone outside of Motown is an eco-weenie Hell bent on ruining a way of life. But I know a man who does. "You see, the cars that lose money are the rage of the day for automakers — hybrids, electric cars and fuel cell vehicles — and would take even longer to develop if it weren't for the advanced technologies designed for powerhouses such as the Corvette ZR1, the Shelby GT500 or the Challenger SRT8, to name a few," Manny Lopez argues. "But perhaps most importantly, the green that these vehicles generate is of the cash kind, and for three automakers struggling to simply keep their North American operations afloat, that's not something to dispose of lightly." Yeah, and screw those tree-huggers! "Sure the trend is to downsize and the Big Three are developing smaller engines that are faster and more fuel efficient. They should continue that quest. Now isn't the time to create a new V-8, but it's also not the time to bow to public pressure from activists who want nothing more than for the V-8 to wither away." Boil that dust speck! Boil that dust speck!  

Readers who depend on this series to elevate their blood pressure will know that democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is not so tough on E85 or the causes of E85. In fact, he's downright giddy at the prospect of federal subsidies for corn juice, and getting the damn gas stations to sell it. And so we turn to The Socialist Worker for a run-down on Barack's "fly me to the moon"  (in an ADM private jet) relationship with the agribusiness interests who love them some E85. [We could have linked to The New York Times, but that was June, this is now.] Nicole Colson's rant is not new news, but it's a well-written summary and, dare I say it, accurate. "During his first year in office, Obama introduced a number of measures that benefited the agribusiness industry–such as the "Obama Amendment" that offered oil companies a 50 percent tax credit for building gas stations that offer E85 fuel. Obama also voted for the Bush administration's 2005 energy bill and opposed a proposal to lower tariffs on cheaper sugarcane-based ethanol from Brazil and other countries." Would John "Just Say No to Subsidies For Now" McCain dare confront Barack on this issue? What are you, kidding?

According to Bloomberg, Lehman Brothers' top auto analyst reckons GM "may" need to raise an additional $7.3b just to stay afloat through the end of '09. And that's just the start of it. "GM may 'burn through'' $6.9 billion of cash in the second half of 2008 and another $4.4 billion next year, according to the 'base case' of Lehman analyst Brian Johnson. If a worldwide economic slowdown causes auto sales to stall in the U.S. and fall by 10 percent in the rest of the world, GM may use an additional $4.9 billion of cash through 2009, forcing the company to raise as much as $12.2 billion, Johnson wrote in a note today." With the American automaker already paying $250m per month in interest on existing loans, with all of GM's "non-core" assets either sold or unsaleable, with its credit rating at Caa1 (seven levels below investment grade), with a negative shareholders’ equity, with profits from NA ops notable by their absence (and a short-term impossibility), where the Hell is this money going to come from? Answer: federal loan guarantees. And then what? 

GM's Chief Operating Officer has fired off a missive to The Wall Street Journal, taking the paper to task for its Op Ed "Can America's Auto Makers Survive?" Fritz is feisty– and full of it. "Contrary to Mr. Ingrassia's notion that U.S. auto makers did not anticipate the risk of rising fuel prices, GM has been preparing for the shift for several years toward more fuel-efficient models and developing diverse alternative fuel solutions that will redefine the industry." Hang on; isn't this the same company that said "no one" could have anticipated the recent gas price surge? "In fact, 11 of our last 13 U.S. launches have been cars or crossovers, as will 18 of the next 19. We have 17 models that get 30 mpg or better, and offer six hybrid models" All of GM's eight brands are losing sales and share. The hybrids are a drug on the market. But Fritz' last 'graph is far, far more worrying. It is nothing more or less than a pitch for a federal bailout. "The future of the auto business is important to America, and we are dedicated to seeing that GM continues to be a significant part of the American landscape for decades to come." Taxpayers, grab you wallets and ready those emails! Your money is at hand! 

[Read Fritz' letter here] 

Quick question: is there anyone who believes Cerberus managing partner Timothy F. Price's assertion [to The New York Times] that the private equity firm views Chrysler as a long-term play? Even ChryCo CEO Robert Nardelli is not brazen enough to make that sort of statement, preferring to go with "Yeah. What he said." Or, more literally, "Our job here is to run this company. Cerberus down the road will decide what strategic alternatives they intend to pursue.” Reporter Bill Vlasic can't come right out and say Chrysler's full of it; he plays one of those NYT nudge-nudge, hint-hint, these guys may be well and truly fucked games. "With limited access to financial data, analysts are skeptical of its overall health." Nothing like digging for a story, eh? Or sipping the Kool-Aid: "Now, Chrysler’s new leaders are settling in for what appears to be the long haul." Or, as we say in these parts, not.

According to our pals at pistonheads, old people are pissed that the UK's "watch out for old people" traffic signs depicts old people as, uh, old people. You know, hunched over. In pain. Feeble. Defenseless. Slow. (This is, of course, ignoring the fact that it looks like the woman bringing up the rear is giving the old coot a mobile reach-around.) Well, the idea is to get motorists to slow the Hell down. If a sign shows old people as "fitter, healthier senior citizens," then they can get the bloody Hell out of the way, can't they? The fact that the UK  government has already removed the words "elderly people" from the signs reveals that political correctness is becoming/has become more important than anything (save paying your taxes). If it was me– and thank God it isn't– I'd put signs up with a points systems for mowing old people down, sponsored by Death Race, with the attendant fines. And by the way, I can say shit like this because I'm old. Dag nabbit! Well, older than Justin, anyway. But not wiser. Apparently.

I reckon if a product placement calls attention to itself, then it makes moviegoers groan and say (silently) "I paid for a goddamn movie, not a commercial!" Apparently, brandchannel.com couldn't care less. They base their Brandcameo Award on the number of cinematic product placements in number one ranked movies (1251 brands counted in total). "Ford— for the third straight time— topped all other brands, appearing in 30 of the 52 number one films at the US box office from January 1, 2007 through June 30, 2008. Ford’s 57.7 percent appearance rate in top films is a marked increase over its 18 of 41 appearances in 2005 (44 percent) and 17 of 41 in 2006 (41 percent)." (FYI: Transformers, Bucket List, I Am Legend, American Gangster and taxis aplenty). Unfortunately, the man responsible for all this screen time, Mark Kaline, was written out of Ford's script. Or perhaps he's just in development Hell. 

You'd think "just-in-time" production techniques wouldn't extend to, say, Korea (Aveo) or China (Equinox engine). But you'd be wrong. And The National Association of Automakers view new anti-terrorism legislation– that's been six years in the making— as a threat to their business. "The U.S. Customs and Border Protection Bureau wants shippers to collect 10 new categories of data for U.S.-bound cargo 24 hours before it's loaded on ships in foreign countries," The Detroit News reports. "As well as to provide data about the physical location of cargo aboard a U.S.-bound vessel and status messages that report container movements… Automakers say the rule could upset the delicate 'just in time' shipping of parts to arrive at auto factories as they are needed for vehicle production, which saves the companies the cost of stockpiling parts… The automakers argue the rules would do little to make the country safer." And might be extended to Canada and Mexico. "Automakers argue in their letter that 'there is a better way,' saying that CBP [Customs and Border Protection] should focus 'on importers, exporters and countries that pose a risk.'" Isn't that exactly what they're trying to do?

If you want your brain to melt, ask a car designer to explain… anything. When it comes to torturing the English language and obfuscating meaning, these guys are the masters (these are not the Hoffmeister kinks you want). Ralph Gilles is different. Chrysler's freshly-anointed Design Chief is a man of the [Canadian] streets. OK, yes and an Art School grad. But when Ralph talked to Automotive News [sub] about his employer's new design direction (they have vehicles to design?), all we got, thankfully, was "We're done with the 'Edge' look." So it's in with "organic shapes." Like… the 300? Or those two-day-old moldering vegetables I no longer buy? I kid. Anyway, meanwhile, good luck getting that "monkey off our backs on interiors." And the following pledge (as reported by The Detroit Free Press): "With the Nissan project we're working on, we've got designers stationed there… and you'd never know it was based on a Nissan." Oops! I guess that cat's out of the bag!