If ever two automotive companies deserved each other, it's Tesla Motors and Fisker Automotive. The former is the erstwhile maker of an electric roadster that's the dictionary definition of irony (the discrepancy between expectation and reality). The latter is a failed "coach-builder" (of hideously expensive re-sculpted SL and 6-Series) turned EV tree-hugger. And now, Autoblog breathlessly reveals that Henrik Fisker designed Tesla's imaginary WhiteStar sedan. Apparently, Tesla kept the design (for its next prospectus) and told Fisker to f-off on the production front. In case you thought this means anything, here's a bit from yesterday's press release from Fisker, which I couldn't quite blog because of a sudden attack of hype-related biliousness. "Fisker Automotive, Inc., a green American premium car company, today announced Fisker Italia as its first International importer. With plans to allocate more than 50 percent of its production to overseas sales, Fisker Automotive is poised to become a leading exporter of premium U.S. automobiles. Additionally, Fisker Automotive, maker of the first of its kind plug-in hybrid premium sports sedan, further announced it has received great interest from 44 North American markets in which it hopes to have retail representation." Get ready to vote for this one during next year's Bob Lutz award. 

Yes, "it" is the new BMW 1-Series. Like many of James Healey's reviews, there's a huge disconnect between the headline ("BMW 1 Series is small but sassy"), the critic's observations and his conclusions. Combining the old "I'll ask myself a question and then answer it" format with the bi-polar "I'll raise an objection and answer it" routine, Healey plays it straight down the middle. After arguing with himself about the small Bimmer's large price tag, he concludes "Nothing unexpected for a BMW. Hey, here's one: the stupid trim pieces on the inside door handles of the test cars, a 128i convertible and 135i coupe. The pieces are mated so that you grab the joining line every time you use the door handle. Unattractive. Rough-feeling. So there." Nuh. Healey's three word summary: it's a keeper. While our Justin Berkowitz wouldn't agree, BMW might well describe TTAC's 1-Series review the same way Healey refers to the 1-Series convertible's roof rattles: faint but troubling squeaks.

In the growing war of words between bio-fuel producers and savvy environmentalists, pro-ethanol supporters often point to Brazil, claiming that the South American country's energy independence offers a template for America's future. Detractors already know that Brazil's booming ethanol production is based on geography (sugar cane rather than corn), takes a heavy toll on the [ideologically sacrosanct] rain forest and has little to do with the country's net energy consumption. And here's a new wrinkle. Energy Business Review says "Brazilian ethanol producers reportedly exported a majority of their fuels to Europe in 2007. Increased exports have saved Brazilian sugarcane producers from going bankrupt as sugarcane prices fell below the cost of production on commodity exchanges." This is a bitch because both the U.K. and Germany have recently "de-incentivized" bio-fuel consumption. And that means… "Brazilian ethanol exporters are pro-actively lobbying with common interest groups in the US, to help create a global market for ethanol." Energy independence be damned; what's the bet America's corn-fed politicians raise the barriers? 

Sorry, I know: it's all very Inside Baseball. And I just got through excoriating Automotive News for not publishing the Ford Taurus spy shot. And God knows TTAC is not perfect. (Ask me; I'm OCD.) But this website is nothing if not a bully pulpit for a certain otherwise unemployable automotive publisher/writer who considers the blurring of editorial and advertising about as defensible as Barry Manilow's Grammy Award for Copacabana. Anyway, the April 14th paper edition of AutoWeek contains a heavy cardboard, full-color, two-sided, pre-perforated advertisement for the Danbury Mint's $495 18" die-cast replica of the 1930 Cadillac V-16 Roadster. For some strange reason, page 22 offers a review of same by Jay Engel. The sub-head proclaims the toy– I mean, reproduction, a "work of art." Apparently, the Danbury Mint has launched "what some collectors who have seen the project up close consider to be the tour de force of Danbury 23 years of die-cast replication… From the gorgeous two-tone metallic green paint to the mechanical dazzle of the hallowed V16 engine to the cornucopia of functional features, this finely detailed replica does everything except burn gasoline." I gotta admit: it's a nice looking model. But AutoWeek's "review" is hardly what I'd call a model of editorial integrity. 

I like Automotive News [AN, sub]. Although AN often fails to ask American automakers the tough questions, at least they're not Detroit lap dogs, cheerleaders or apologists (like some news orgs I frequently name). But what's with their article on the Ford Taurus spy photo? It starts off innocently enough, chronicling the turn of events that led TTAC to post the shot (without any legal blow-back, I might add). "The buzz intensified when Ford's legal department moved quickly to force several of the Web sites to take down the picture — leading many to conclude that the photo was the real deal. The photo vanished from the Internet for about 24 hours before it reappeared and spread rapidly." And then, suddenly, they make a not-so-bold, not-so-Woodward-and-Bernstein run for the [allegedly] moral high ground. "But neither Automotive News nor our affiliate AutoWeek will run the photo. We don't have permission from the owner, we don't know where it was taken, and we wouldn't run a photo taken inside an automaker's property." Hang on; if they don't know where the shot was taken how do they know it was taken inside an automaker's property? And now that the photo's all over the place, why wimp-out? It gets worse. "If curiosity gets to you, just type '2010 Ford Taurus' into your favorite Web search tool." 

I'm sure LA scribe Dan Neil's extraction from the U.S. Top Gear team came as no surprise to anyone who's ever seen The Player, or any other Hollywood movie about how Hollywood movies are ruined by Hollywood executives (who probably ruined the movie about how Hollywood executives ruin movies). It's the rare creative venture that can survive the cold dead hand of executives working for a deeply-entrenched, publicly-owned media company. From the moment that an American Top Gear was first mooted, American pistonheads (gearheads?) suspected the worst. They just knew that Top Gear's anarchic yet elitist spirit couldn't survive the jump into ad-sponsored network hypespace. Still, some good will come of NBC strong-arm tactics. As TTAC commentator Tom Anderson points out, Neil's dismissal saves him from the possibility, perhaps probability, OK certainty of an ignominious loss of credibility. Dan's automotive criticism is too important– as recognized by Lilly Pulitzer, I mean the Pulitzer prize people– to suffer a massive loss of face. This way, his work will remain unsullied; a literary gift to future generations. Meanwhile, Justin and I try to show that goofing around has its place in the autoblogosphere. We kid, you deride.

So, radio funny guy Adam Carolla let the world know that he's one of the presenters of the new American Top Gear. And we can now, finally, confirm the rumor that drift king Tanner Faust is the Tiff Needel of the team. But the big news here is that NBC execs pulled L.A. Times auto writer Dan Neil from the U.S. show after a viewing his audition tape– despite a signed contract with the Pulitzer prize-winning critic. Neil says he's "very disappointed" with the network's decision, but understands their motivation. "They couldn't handle my heat," he joked. "Seriously. It's probably because I'm not very good on TV." The clock is ticking on finding Neil's replacement. Anyone heard anything?

Well, that's what happens when your employer pays you 80 cents on the dollar for your health care, and says here, you guys sort it out. The Detroit News reports that U.S. District Court Judge Robert Cleland considers Chrysler's $10.3b health care compact with its United Auto Workers (UAW) members "fair and reasonable." Under the terms of the agreement (a.k.a. health care VEBA), 170k active Chrysler workers, retirees, spouses and dependents will face new charges for their doctors' visits. In the short term, Chrysler retirees will now pay an $11 monthly premium and a $159 annual deductible. After that, a new 11-member supervisory board (six court appointees, five union reps) will ensure that the fund makes up the $8b shortfall AND makes enough money to cover soaring health care cost inflation, WITHOUT raising deductibles or further limiting patient choice OR allowing union members to plunder the fund OR letting cronies (lawyers, hospitals, etc.) get sweetheart deals OR waste precious VEBA funds. Meanwhile, Chrysler's lawyer says the VEBA's a good deal because her employer might go out of business. "We do believe in the light of the uncertain environment that Chrysler is operating that this settlement is the best for all parties," Nancy Ross pronounced. Ready for that summer vacation yet Nance?

will know that I'm a firm believer in branding guru Al Reis' dictum that the tighter a brand's focus, the more powerful it is. A Porsche that only makes sports cars is a stronger brand than a Porsche that makes sports cars and SUVs. TTAC's Best and Brightest will also recognize the blatant hypocrisy of this stance. This website does three things: news, reviews and editorials. The clumsy nature of our site design represents my ongoing– and largely unsuccessful– attempts to reconcile this triumvirate. An opportunity has recently arisen to right this wrong, and I want to get your feedback. How would you feel if we had three inter-linked car sites? The first would be a kick-ass news blog. TTAC would be the second: home of editorials, forums, social networking and all news-related comments. The third would be a car review site. TTAC writers would populate all three sites, which would maintain our high standards of editorial integrity. Your feedback would be most appreciated. Meanwhile, Justin and I discuss the day's news.

We're not quite sure how one of TTAC's Best and Brightest got ahold of this image of the new Ford Taurus, but ours is not to question why (ours is to do and, uh, that's it). It sure is a handsome beast– throwing the new new Taurus' (né Five Hundred) Audi-aping shape into the bin where it belongs. Imagine if this car turns into a mega-hit for Ford? How ironic would that be? The car that saved Ford before saves Ford again, birthed by the exec who's career was inspired by the tale of the first Taurus' birth. At this point, all we know is that Ford's legal department is very busy this morning. Or it could be a head fake; an intentionally leaked shot. We'll give you more information as it arrives.

Or not, in this case. Sorry guy, I got back from Beantown kinda late and I sent you an email and you weren't in and Jonny was hot to trot so… we threw this proverbial shrimp on the e-barbie. But I heard the good news, that will surely turn Mr. Lieberman green with envy (JL being a perfect example of a hypocritical hyper-car loving tree hugger): Mercedes is lending you a C63 AMG. Now THAT ought to be fun. Although God knows how we're going to get a Mercedes dealer– sorry, AMG dealer– to lend us a C63 so we can do a mini-review and honor my pledge not to rely on pampered press cars for TTAC review. But the good news (for you and me and not Jonny) is that A) You're going to drive and review a Mercedes C63 AMG for TTAC and B) Mercedes joins the list of automobile manufacturers who don't hate TTAC on sight (site?), any more. Not that we need their love. But their respect is nice. It tells us there are those on the other side of this business who "get it." Meanwhile, don't feel too bad for Jonny. He says he's getting a BMW M3 to review on our behalf. Perhaps you two should meet-up somewhere in the mid-west near our Captain Solo's base. Now wouldn't that be something?

Although TTAC remains highly cognizant of the difference between carefully-prepared press vehicles and the cars people buy off dealer lots, we are not against press cars or manufacturer's junkets per se. (Nor have we ever been.) Our policy is simple: we declare any and all manufacturers' contributions to our coverage so you can read our copy with your bullshit detector switched-on to maximum sensitivity. Jonny Lieberman's junket-fed X6 review (from Spartanburg) marks an important turning point– at least from the automakers' point-of-view. Longtime readers will recall that the German automaker banned us from their press fleet for dissing the Subaru Tribeca B9 (go figure). So now we're back in their good books; provided they don't take offense to today's review or read that link and have a "they shouldn't have had a V8!" moment. Anyway, the Texas Toyota rep who offered us whips has stopped answering our calls. And TTAC's still on Subaru, Honda and GM's shit list (amongst others). How reassuring is that?

The Seattle Times reports that the U.S. Secretary of Transportation wants to lower federal gas taxes. The bad news: Mary Peter wants to replace the taxes with tolls. "Peters aired her views Friday to the Washington Roundtable, a group of business executives who have backed transportation campaigns. She argued that Americans lack 'investor confidence' in higher gasoline taxes, because she said the money is spent inefficiently and hasn't reduced congestion." Reduced congestion? Since when was that the point of federal gas taxes? Since… "Her department is offering $139 million to launch congestion-price tolling on the Highway 520 floating bridge by September 2009. Peters said the federal government will yank a similar grant from New York City if the state fails on Monday to approve a toll for driving into Manhattan. And there's another unstated reason for the policy shift: as U.S. vehicles become more efficient (by law) and/or cash-strapped motorists drive less, Uncle Sam's fuel excise income will tumble. And just in case you thought toll taxes are regressive (they are), how about this? She praised an experiment on Highway 167 that begins April 26, when solo drivers will be able to pay to enter the uncrowded high-occupancy-vehicle lanes." [thanks to Ryan Kauzlarich for the link]

Buried in a Detroit News story about further disruption at GM– courtesy of the United Auto Workers (UAW) strike at American Axle (AA)– we learn GM has "found" enough parts to restart production in Oshawa, Ontario and Fort Wayne, Ind. (Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra pickups). This after GM announced that they'd "found" enough Malibu parts to hold-off a shutdown for an "extra week." Turns out the fortuitous happenstance comes courtesy of American Axle's Mexican ops. "[GM Spokesman Dan] Flores wouldn't specify where the parts are coming from, though several analysts have said GM is likely using parts from an American Axle plant in Mexico. The move is evidence American Axle's ability to get parts from Mexico gives it leverage in the dispute with the UAW, said labor expert Harley Shaiken of the University of California Berkley [sic]." So… why aren't the United Auto Workers bosses screaming bloody murder and threatening to strike GM in support of their members at AA? Maybe it's because The Star-Telegram reports "GM leaders have decided to divert the Arlington plant's supply of truck axles to other plants in order to augment production of pickups affected by the ongoing UAW strike against American Axle." We report, we're confused.