Stimt? The Porsche Cayenne is a gas pig built by a company that doesn't have an economy car in its lineup, in a world where automotive companies who don't sell an economy car– sorry, a low CO2-emitting vehicle– get the living crap taxed– sorry, "fined" out of them. So it's no wonder that Automobilewoche is reporting that Porsche is looking to fit their SUV with an oil burner for 2009. Porschephiles will know that this is not a new story. But it's a good one– as Porsche has previously denied rumors of a hybrid and/or a diesel Cayenne. Automobilwoche says not only is Porsche getting down and diesel, but they're looking to Audi to provide the Sultans of Stuttgart with 15k 240hp V6 diesel engines (up from 10k). It seems Porsche planned to introduce the diesel version in January 2009– along with the face-lifted Boxster– but postponed the launch so as not to steal the brave new Boxster's thunder.

Like any Big Lie, this one's based on fact. Automotive News [sub] reports "Through April, Chrysler reduced fleet sales by about 45,000 units, or 17 percent, from a year earlier. GM cut fleet sales by nearly 40,000 units, or 14 percent. And Ford Motor's fleet sales fell 25,000 units, or 9 percent." Both AN and our good friends at Autoblog are happy to parrot the "admirable restraint" explanation. In other words, Detroit could dump sales into fleets, but chooses not to to protect vehicle residuals. AN: "GM is not going to reconsider its decision to reduce fleet sales, said Brian McVeigh, GM's general manager of fleet and commercial operations. Residual values have been rising since GM started cutting daily rental fleet sales three years ago." Autoblog: "Showing great discipline amid declining sales, the Detroit 3 have held back on the temptation to dump vehicles on fleet customers in order to boost numbers." Bullshit. First, the rental car business is in the crapper; they're buying less cars. Second, ALL fleets are holding onto their vehicles longer. Third, they're not buying Detroit gas hogs (or even their relatively thirsty cars). Fourth, reflecting U.S. sales trends, fleet buyers are switching to more fuel-miserly transplant products (ToMoCo sold 100k units into the fleets in the first four months of '08). Fifth, if you think WE'RE nervous about Detroit's prospects, how would YOU like to be a finance company that gets stiffed with a hundred thousand cars made by a bankrupt automaker? And sixth, how gullible IS the U.S. automotive press anyway? 

If the Board of Directors at GM and Ford want to pay their CEO a billion dollars a year to run their companies into the ground facilitate their turnaround, far be it for me to tell them they should do otherwise. But if you're looking for a reason why these two automakers are on an engine out terminal approach, clock those annual pay packages and remember that they are the tip of the iceberg of over-paid unaccountability. Add in the rest of their executives' compensation and you have a culture of entitlement that makes Moctezuma's priests seem like chimney sweeps. The info [via The Detroit News] raises at least two important questions. First, why were we thinking that GM CEO Rick Wagoner earned $14.4m last year ($1.3m less than today's report)? Second, what was all that about Ford CEO Alan Mulally's pay being front-loaded to account for the fact that he left Boeing behind? Big Al's '07 $22.7m comes after last year's $28.2m. I make that $51.4m for two year's work. There are lot of other ways to crunch those numbers, as even the DetN feels it must. Wagoner's 64 percent rise "followed the posting of a $39 billion loss in 2007, a year when GM's stock price fell by about 19 percent, without adjusting for dividends." The DetN forgets to provide the same info for Ford. FYI FoMoCo lost $2.7b ($3.5b in NA) in '07 and their share price dropped 10.4 percent. Nardelli? Chrysler? That information is privileged…

Just when you thought it was safe not to watch an American bastardization of the UK's famously infamous Top Gear TV show, NBC and the BBC are proud to announce that they've put the defanged version into production. What's more (or significantly less), they've also revealed the final lineup: radio funny guy Adam Carolla, drift king Tanner Foust and TV construction guru Eric Stromer [pictured]. While we understand that Stromer has better abs than the nets' first choice, ace auto scribe Dan Neil, calling the failed soap opera star a car guy is like calling Vlad the Impaler a genial party host. To wit: "He’s a regular on Adam Carolla’s nationally-syndicated radio show giving out construction advice, and also appears on TLC’s “Clean Sweep,” NBC’s “Three Wishes” and is a special correspondent for “The Insider.”  Stromer prefers his Camry hybrid." To… what? No, don't answer that. Please. But don't worry: there won't be any "real" car reviews. The press release says the hosts will simply "drive the world’s most amazing cars, go on incredible road trips and blow stuff up." We can hardly wait. Oh wait; we can. [Fair disclosure: I applied for the job– and fell down.]

Back when Daimler was flogging Chrysler, Canada's Magna Corporation was supposedly hot to acquire the [soon to be ailing] American automaker. Given today's news– Chrysler is suing Magna for damages over defective seat heaters–  look for Frank Stronach's boys to help Chrysler out of a jam– by kicking Cererbus' bitch down the stairs. The background… For some time now, ambulance-chasers have been lining-up to suck some cash from Chrysler after heated seats in 1999 and '00 Chrysler minivans [allegedly] burned some butts. In a latter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in '04, "DaimlerChrysler said it had received 221 customer complaints about minivan seats overheating. Of those complaints, 26 were allegations of minor injuries and 33 were alleged fires. Five complaints resulted in lawsuits." That was then. As Automotive News [sub] reports, Chrysler spinmeister Michael Palese now says his employer had "only one reported case of injuries caused by the defective minivan seats." Chrysler's lawsuit demands that Magna take responsibility (i.e. pay for) for the recalls, after Magna "disputed any obligation to reimburse Chrysler for costs incurred in remedying the allegedly [?] defective heated seat assemblies." Palese was plenty testy on the advisability of suing a key supplier: "We're not a charity. If we deserve compensation or consideration, we will pursue it." As will the lawyers suing Chrysler, whether they deserve it or not.

We've heard a lot about U.S. corn-based ethanol production lately, what with E85 boosters saying it ain't got nothin' to do with rising food prices. In search of some reliable stats on this issue, TTAC's opened its wallet and bought some hard facts to fuel the debate. Industrialinfo.com [sub or PPV] reveals that "the United States now has 156 operational ethanol plants capable of producing a whopping 8.8 billion gallons of the renewable fuel. With an average of 2.6 gallons of ethanol per bushel of corn, that translates to more than 3.4 billion bushels of corn going toward fuel production. Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Agriculture released numbers that estimate the 2008 corn crop would be about 11.7 billion bushels, meaning that about 24% of the crop will go straight toward ethanol production." I'm not sure who did their math, but when I divide 8.8b gallons by 2.6 gallons/bushel, I get almost 3.4b bushels, which equates to about 29% of the crop. Either way, that's a lot of Fritos. And just in case you want to know whose Senators are behind the .51 per gallon federal subsidies for the corn go-juice, check out this handy little chart. Question: does America actually consume all this ethanol? Hell no. Ethanol Producer Magazine reckons we burned 414k barrels of E85 per day in '07. Round that up to 500k for increased E85 use, and that's 182,500,000 barrels, or 7.6b gallons, per year. I make that 1.2b gallons worth of E85 overproduction, so far. Somebody add some subsidies, quick!

Honda has started Japanese production of their spiffy-looking, highly-hyped hydrogen fuel cell-powered Clarity. And while the Clarity's a high tech halo machine destined for 200 carefully-selected customers, the same could be said of Tesla's EV Roadster. Of course, when Honda says production's begun, production's actually begun. More to the point, both companies are delighted to point-out their vehicles' zero emissions; and neither is particularly interested in discussing the full environmental impact– as in where does the power come from to charge the batteries or create liquid hydrogen? "Fuel-cell vehicles, which don't use fossil fuels and don't produce carbon dioxide, are necessary for the environment. We would like to make them more popular," Honda Chief Executive Takeo Fukui told Reuters. Methinks the media doth protest too little. "Fuel-cell vehicles are widely considered the ultimate longer-term alternative to today's conventional cars as they run on an inexhaustible and cheaper source of fuel — hydrogen, have no harmful tail-pipe emissions, and do not compromise driving performance." But here's the real news. "Among the first five customers for the FCX Clarity [who cleared the exhaustive qualification process] are actress Jamie Lee Curtis and U.S. filmmaker Christopher Guest." It's a sad day for Ed Begley Jr. and his wife, the over-spelled Rachelle Carson. 

Let's start with the end of The Detroit News' HUMMER-related "analysis" and work our way backwards. "So, does Hummer stay or does it go? Right now, your guess is probably as good as GM Chairman Rick Wagoner's." WTF? If the man at the helm of GM, an executive pulling down $14.4m per year (plus) doesn't know whether or not he's killed HUMMER, let's hope his bankruptcy-prof health care bennies include Alzheimer's medication. Meanwhile, columnist Mark Phelan needs to adjust his own meds, or whatever it is that stops him from facing reality (his paycheck?). "With dealers in 37 countries and assembly in South Africa as well as the United States, 'the potential for global growth is a huge opportunity. It's one of Hummer's strengths,' spokeswoman Joanne Krell said. Developing markets in Asia, Central and Eastern Europe look particularly promising." Once again, GM is spinning the idea that its foreign ops will save North America. Once again, Phelan is happy to broadcast the corporate line (hook and sinker included). Phelan also forwards the idiotic idea that HUMMER could be re-jigged to build green vehicles, and the possibility of an overseas buyer. Let it go Mark. Just let it go.

A grand jury investigating a "charity" run by Revered Al Sharpton– the National Action Network (NAN)– has uncovered an extortion racket that set its sights on the U.S. auto industry. "A General Motors spokesman told The [New York] Post that NAN had repeatedly – and unsuccessfully – asked for contributions for six years, beginning in August 2000. Then, in December 2006, Sharpton threatened to call a boycott of the carmaker over the closing of an African-American-owned GM dealership in The Bronx, and he picketed outside GM headquarters on Fifth Avenue. Last year, General Motors gave NAN a $5,000 donation. It gave $5,000 more this year, a spokesman said, calling NAN a 'worthy' organization." The General wasn't the only automaker wetting Big Al's beak. "In November 2003, Sharpton picketed DaimlerChrysler's Chicago car show and threatened a boycott over alleged racial bias in car loans. 'This is institutional racism,' he bellowed. In May 2004, Chrysler began supporting NAN's conferences, which include panels on corporate responsibility and civil rights and a black-tie awards dinner to honor Martin Luther King Jr. Last year, Sharpton gave Chrysler an award for corporate excellence." Honda? "In 2003, Sharpton targeted American Honda for not hiring enough African-Americans in management. 'We support those that support us,' wrote Sharpton… Two months after American Honda execs met with Sharpton, the carmaker began to sponsor NAN's events – and continues to pay "a modest amount" each year, a spokesman said."

So, now that the feds are forking-out $30m of your hard-earned tax dollars to GM, Ford and Chrysler/GE for plug-in hybrid battery technology research, auto industry observers are asking the obvious question: what the Hell's that going to do? As reported previously, GM's paying $3b in a year interest on their loans. Ford's in hock up their logo (no, really). Chrysler's so hard-up for cash they're stiffing their suppliers. Our friends at Wired make the kvetch from deep left field. "What'd it do — scrounge change from couch cushions in the Pentagon? EV advocates were quick to thank Uncle Sam for the money but said it's going to take a whole lot more than that to wean us from oil — which, by the way, will collect $17 billion in tax breaks during the next decade." BTW? C'mon, you know what comes next (assuming you've read the headline). "David Sandalow, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and former Clinton Administration official, says we could transform the nation's vehicle fleet if we spent about $18.5 billion over the next decade." We're talking $5b for "retooling," $12b for plug-in hybrid buyer tax credits, $1b for 30k plug-in hybrids per year for 10 years for Uncle Sam's fleet and $500m to "underwrite warranties on lithium-ion batteries until the technology is proven." And if your business needs new investment to compete? Ha! 

Last night, I commented on the fact that Autoblog reported on Pamela Anderson's Viper sale– without postng a shot of her breasts. I was a little, uh, "under the weather" at the time. In fact, my alcohol-fueled analysis of AB's mammary aversion tested the limits of the phrase "in vino veritas." It was such a vituperative effort that Frank did something he's never done before: he pulled my post back from "published" to "draft" (ironically enough). For that I thank him. I have no business calling anyone anyone else's bitch, or pointing out that the words "I think" completely undermine a car reviewer's credibility. And just for the record, I never didn't sleep with a college girl because she had a poster of a saucer-eyed puppy on her wall. Anyway, I [now] applaud Autoblog for showing the editorial restraint that clearly evaded me in the wee hours. It's just one more reason TTAC will never be the autoblogosphere's "newspaper of record." In our defense, I bet we have WAY more fun than they do.

Earlier today, TTAC commentator Joe ShpoilShport asked if we had any good news. Here it is [via Business Week]: "If the company [GM] can gut it out through today's miserable car market, GM will reap billions in savings from last fall's landmark labor contract and come out a real moneymaker in about three years." Unfortunately, that's the theory. In practice… "Since last fall, its hoard has shrunk from $30 billion to less than $24 billion. And given the accelerating decline in sales of pickup trucks… one analyst figures that GM's cash pile could dwindle to $14 billion by the end of 2009. That's not much more than GM needs monthly to buy the parts and materials to keep its assembly lines rolling." Our spies tell us GM's set to top-up its cash hoard by $10b– which would raises its debt to $50b. Yes, GM owes $40b. It pays $3b a year in interest. BW floats the "Delphi strategy" (mooted here previously): hive-off GM's international ops and throw NA into C11. Meanwhile, in the magic year 2010, GM will have to pay $4.7b into its union's $37.5b health care VEBA. "Company insiders say GM might get the union to agree to let them pay its bill at a later date." And if you believe that, you'll believe that COO Frederick A. "Fritz" Henderson's contention that GM will learn to "generate bigger profits on smaller vehicles."

Yeah, that sucks. But hey, they're banking billions while they count worry beads. And increasing production by half a million barrels of crude per day won't exactly hurt Saudi income. PLUS it wins the Saudis friends in the U.S., which still has a couple of aircraft carrier groups here and there. The New York Times reports that the reported increase comes on top of another reported increase. "Saudi Arabia is currently pumping 9.45 million barrels a day, which is an increase of about 300,000 barrels from last month." The Times theorizes that the Saudis largesse is based on the possibility of diminished demand (as above) and the threat that "current prices are also making alternative fuels more viable, threatening the long-term prospects of the oil-based economy." Yes, well, the increase will add one percent to world oil supplies. Meanwhile, The Gray Lady claims bipartisan Congressional support is "growing" for a bill allowing the Justice Department to "engage in antitrust proceedings" against OPEC accusing them of "curbing supplies to drive up prices." Good luck with that.

When the going gets tough, the tough amp-up the ads. As the Detroit News reports, that's certainly the philosophy behind GM and Toyota's increased ad spend. In the teeth of the perfect storm (or dead calm) afflicting new car and truck sales, the automakers upped their first quarter ad budget by 13 and 8.4 percent respectively. That's a not-inconsiderable additional $535m for The General and $291m for the world's largest automaker. On the uh-oh side, cash-strapped Chrysler decreased their ad spend by a full 42 percent (-$186 million) while Ford sliced their ad outlay by 31 percent (-$292m). Ford mouthpiece Jim Cain provided the necessary piercing glimpse into the obvious: "The economy and vehicle sales do affect total spending." However, the DetN points out that "Ad expenses also fluctuate depending on when the Dearborn, Michigan-based company is introducing new and redesigned models." So the fact that Ford's launching the Flex in the first quarter means… what? Meanwhile, once again, Chrysler says… nothing.

Sharon found TTAC via a Google search, read our Tribeca and Compass reviews and freaked. "We are pretty clueless on car shopping and have spent way too many hours already. I would like someone's opinion that gives it to me straight." Here's the deal… She's buying the vehicle for two college-bound children. They'll be driving it in Fort Collins, CO, commuting back to Mom and Dad some six hours away in Santa Fe, NM. "One of them will keep the car as long as they can hold onto it and ensure proper maintenance." She's leaning towards the Tribeca, from a safety POV: "good test ratings, side bags, overhead curtain." Current vehicles: 2003 Tahoe (love it); 1996 Pathfinder (good condition); 1999 Honda Accord ("the transmission blew out and that's why were are in the market") and 2002 Nissan Frontier. Sharon's looking to spend $18k – $22k for this, their first used purchase. "We got a good offer (or we think it is good) on the Tribeca that happens to be fully loaded. The gas cap says 'premium preferred', but they tell us that it is not required. A Jeep salesperson just told me that Jeep is not going to make Compass in 2009 and just stick to the Patriots. His dealership in Santa Fe does not have a Compass to test drive new or used." OK guys, she asked for it: give her the inside dope. (Lateral thinking allowed.)