Hey Eurocrats, what's the matter? Don't your guys trust the U.S. to continue supplying Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) data for your military and civilian sat nav systems? Or is it simply a question of doling-out billions of Eurozone tax dollars to aerospace contractors for your very own GPS system that you want, but don't really need? And the answer is… yes. Anyway, WardsAuto reports that Europe's Galileo GPS project has floundered on the rocks of the usual government mismanagement and waste, blowing-out its budget by billions and missing its launch date by five years… and counting. So the European Union has shut down the project, declared it an enormous waste of time and money, and apologized to tax payers. Just kidding. The EU Council of Ministers has decided to shovel another €2.4 billion ($3.6 billion) into the project. But hey, the "lion's share" of the money's coming from unspent agricultural subsidies. In their defense, "Galileo’s supporters say the network will provide navigational services that are more accurate than those available through the U.S. Global Positioning System." Oh, that's OK then.

Even (or especially) as the Prez prepares to sign a bill increasing ethanol production to biblical proportions, The New York Times follows the Economist's lead and raises the alarm over ethanol production's impact on food prices. On the uh-oh side, Scott Faber, lobbyist for the Grocery Manufacturers Association, says E85 has the same “magical effect” on politicians as the tooth fairy and Santa Claus has on children. To which the vice president of government affairs for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association adds "We think there will be a day when people ask, ‘Why in the world did we do this?’” In the interests of balance, the Times points out that "experts with no stake in the argument" say ethanol is only one cause amongst many for rising food prices– and then fails to provide a single such expert. Ethanol baron Mark Leonard says nothing of E85's effect on food, only that “This is a national security issue more than anything else. We need to quit sending money to people who want to blow us up.” And [unnamed] researchers for the Renewable Fuels Association "contend that the link between corn prices and grocery prices is weak." I'm going with the guy from the National Grain and Feed Association. David Fairfield attribues "virtually all" of the increase in the price of corn– up 25 to 30 percent so far this year– to the demands of the ethanol industry. Put that in your corn cob pipe and smoke it.

More than a few industry pundits have taken to calling Hyundai "the next Toyota." The spin: Hyundai is a formidable low-cost automaker whose high quality products are stealing side dishes from Toyota's table, eying the Japanese automaker's main course. As our Steven Lang has pointed out, the Sonata's lackluster U.S. sales help partially put paid to that theory. And now Chosun explodes the myth entirely. The South Korean newspaper reports that the Federation of Korean Industries has discovered that Korea's largest carmaker produced 29.6 cars per worker last year, 57 percent fewer than Toyota's 68.9 cars per worker. "Hyundai Motor’s sales and operating profit per worker were also no more than 40.8 and 22.2 percent of those of Toyota. The Korean company's productivity was worse than that of six other international automakers. Compared to the assembly productivity of 21.1 to 23.2 hours per vehicle by Ford, Honda, General Motors and Toyota, Hyundai and Kia recorded 31.1 and 37.5 hours, respectively." And here's the kicker: "Hyundai paid its workers more than Toyota, with an annual average salary per worker of W57m (US$1=W934) compared to Toyota's W55 million." 

UPDATE This just in from Deep Throat: "Methinks the Korean reporting on Hyundai is wrong. There is no way the production per worker is half that of Toyota and they get paid more. They’d be bankrupt. Also, IIRC, the Nummi plant in NorCal produces something like 400,000 units per year on 4,500 workers… but if you add sales/admin/corp staff to that, I can believe somewhere around 70 units/worker/year. And Toyota/Ford/GM take about 30+ manhours per unit of production, not in the low 20 hour range."

According to the official website, the Coates Spherical Rotary Valve System creates "a quieter engine with higher specific power output and longer life than conventional poppet valve engines due to better 'breathing' capability and higher speed capability." In fact, it's "the single most significant development in engine technology in the past thirty years." Not being the most mechanically-minded pistonhead on the planet, I asked Sajeev Mehta to check it out: "Its a logical extension of innovations like roller rockers: reduced friction, more power, efficiency etc. The general feel I got from people who know more than me: sealing a spherical valve isn't gonna work for a production car. Today's engines have to last over 100k miles without any trouble, and engine "blow by" will be even worse here… and don't even think about pressurizing these valves with a turbo/supercharger/ Good night! As for their claim of their valves not needing oil. Strap on an A/C compressor: sit in traffic in 100 degree weather on a heat-soaked hunk of tarmac and those valves will be begging for extra lubrication. The big red flag for me: their they compared it to a regular engine without an EGR valve. That's like challenging Carl Lewis to a 100m race and making him do it barefoot on hot asphalt. Everyone uses EGR valves for a good reason; they reduce NOx (the third row on their chart) emissions by something like 70% or more. "On the exhaust stroke the poppet exhaust valve stems allow "back" pressure through the valve guides into the engine casing. This pressure is then redirected through the fuel induction system and in turn is reburned in the engine creating yet more hydrocarbons, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide." Except that happens on high mileage motors with worn valve guides/springs (valves snap shut plenty fine when new). It took 150k miles for my 5.0 Ford to get weaker/slower/dirtier from valvetrain age. Newer engines are even better at valvetrain durability for many reasons. I seriously question if the Coates engine will fare much better after that type of punishment. I'm skeptical, but would change my tune with better info. EPA-style tests that carmakers do wouldn't hurt." 

you'll go broke. This was my father's admonition to my mother whenever she returned from the sales, triumphantly proclaiming she'd saved vast quantities of cash. He was right, of course, the spoilsport. Comparing what you would have have spent with what you actually spent might make you feel better, but the real comparison lies between what you spent and what you can afford. My father's words returned to me as I read  "Lutz: Astra a Huge Cost Saver" [Automotive News, sub]. In this erstwhile piece of automotive journalism, GM Car Czar Maximum Bob Lutz claimed that importing the Opel Astra saved Saturn about $900m in development costs. Given that Lutz admits that GM spent $100m Americanizing the Astra (which didn't stretch to additional cupholders or a center armrest), does this mean it costs GM a billion dollars to develop a compact car? (Someone should tell Telsa.) Also, does the money that GM didn't spend on the Astra figure into the calculations that Maximum Bob uses to assert that the Belgium-built hatchback will generate a profit for his employer? We're talking about a product that will sticker stateside for $15,995 to $18,495 (absent discounts and incentives). Automotive News didn't say. Which is why TTAC has a place in this world. 

OK, so, I called up the Alliance of Automotive Manufacturers to chase-up a few loose ends regarding the new Energy Bill headed for the President's John Hancock. Wayde Newton sent over a pdf. I'm bushed (so to speak), so if TTAC's best and brightest can give the Energy Bill the once-over and report their major and minor findings below, I'd consider it an important demonstration of the power of citizen journalism and a bloody great weight off my shoulders. Anyway and meanwhile, Wayde gave me some important insights. It seems the actual calculations that will determine what any given manufacturer's car or truck must achieve mpg-wise is STILL up in the air, headed over to The National Highway Traffic Administration (NHTSA) for their boffins to unravel (ravel?). Truth to tell, I was wrong about two key points. First, the bumper sticker– 35mpg by 2020– refers to the entire U.S. auto industry's annual output of both cars and trucks combined. No one manufacturer has to hit that target. They all have to do it together. Second, the new regs will NOT be footprint based. They'll be based on a range of potential "attributes" as determined by NHTSA, that could include engine size, torque, payload, four wheel-drive, towing ability, etc. In other words, the regs will vary by both manufacturer AND vehicle type. And that means that the Energy Bill fuel economy provisions are a nightmare for NHTSA's hard-working bureaucrats and a bit of a con for the average citizen. 

I know it sounds like I'm being sensationalistic (perish the thought) and making this up (never!), but there's no other way to interpret NIKE's decision to feature "car jumper" Chris Bryant in a national TV ad set to air at 4pm today (Monday) on the Ellen Degeneres show. The ad, which can be seen HERE, shows Bryant, uh, jumping cars. After jumping cars in shoes of his own design, he says "You know what I'm going to say the next time someone asks me why I do what I do? Why don't you?" Now it should be said that the cars are stationary, but one of them is parked in the middle of a street. And what's the deal with glamorizing such a patently dangerous practice? (Anyone remember what a Lotus Esprit did to a car jumper's foot on Ye Olde That's Incredible!?) The Akron Beacon Journal reports that we're late to the Chris Bryant car jumping hoe-down, as today will mark the former busboy's third appearance on the show. Anyway, we've tried to reach NIKE's press office for comment, but they're out to lunch. And now… they're back. Podcast with Dean Stoyer, U.S. Media Relations Director for NIKE below.

I find the current Mitsubishi Eclipse a pretty sharp-looking car– in an entirely swoopy, bulbous kind of way. But I wouldn't drive it again if you paid me. Other than the Chrysler PT Turbo, the 263hp front wheel-drive Eclipse is one of the most torque-steerific cars I've ever driven. I reckon the Eclipse WANTS to throw itself at a tree. Anyway, our man Avarvarii has caught wind of Mitsubishi's RA concept car, set for its world debut at the TTAC-denied North American International Auto Show (NAIAS). "I've seen sketches of that concept and I am confident it is a prelude for the future Eclipse. Therefore in my rendering I used some details from those sketches, blended with the rationalities of a production model. As you can see, the next Eclipse will have a fascia resembling to that of the EVO X, obviously, modified to suit a lower and wider coupe." If Mitsu's still planning on sending the power through the Eclipse's front wheels, I reckon they should make it Aztek ugly to stop luring young drivers to their doom. Just sayin'.

[For more Avarvarii photochopistry, click here.]

Automotive News [AN, sub] reports that The Big 2.8 are responding to the general downturn in the U.S. new car market by slashing first quarter production– and beyond! CSM Worldwide says Chrysler will cut factory output by 15 percent, GM will cut production by 10.6 percent and Ford will cut trim throughput by seven percent. Models set for cutbacks include GM's [supposedly] hot selling Lambda crossovers (including the vaunted Buick Enclave), Dodge pickups, Jeep Grand Cherokee and Commander. Once again, the spinmeisters are blaming the downsizing on their determination to wean themselves off fleet sales. Chrysler CEO Boot'em Bob Nardelli has promised to trim fleet sales from 30 (yes 30) percent down to (just) 20 percent. Meanwhile, the transplants are preparing plans to boost production. And that means Toyota and Honda are about to grab yet more market share from Detroit. "Toyota President Jim Lentz said the company expects to boost U.S. sales 3 percent next year. If industry sales reach 15.6 million units in 2008, Toyota's market share would rise to 17.4 percent… Honda continues to gain share, too. Last week, American Honda Motor Co. President Tetsuo Iwamura told reporters the company expects to boost U.S. vehicle sales 2.5 percent. Assuming industry sales of 15.6 million units, Honda's market share would rise to 10.2 percent." And so it goes.

The LA Times reports a growing rift between supporters of plug-in gas – electric hybrids and fuel cell fans. In fact, it looks like we're headed for pistols at dawn. "Proponents of the two most hyped technologies… are vying for publicity, manufacturer acceptance, favorable regulation and, especially, funding for research and investment in infrastructure and marketing. The battle has been simmering for several years, but with the technologies coming tantalizingly close to commercial reality, the stakes are higher than ever.' And from the Why Can't We Be Friends Department: "'It's just unfortunate that there has to be so much infighting,' said Patricia Monahan of the clean vehicles program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, which calls itself 'agnostic' on which technology holds more promise. 'Sometimes it seems almost personal.'" Seriously. Plug-in hybridistas have taken to calling their rival's technology "fool cells;" claiming the hydrogen production process makes the propulsion system inherently inefficient. Hydrogen hypers counter that batteries can't offer sufficient range, and they get their power from electricity plants that burn fossil fuel. So there, nuh.  

If there's a silver lining to Britain's anti-democratic Oxbridge oligarchy, it's that the class-bound status quo allows the more enigmatic members of the elite to spout fabulously politically incorrect sentiments. To wit: the Torygraph reports that Professor Sir David King, the United Kingdom's outgoing Chief Scientific Adviser (how Mikado is that?), thinks "women must stop admiring men who drive sports cars." Translation: global warming (a theory to which Sir David wholeheartedly subscribes) requires that motorists stop burning petrochemicals for the sheer bloody Hell of it. To that end, babes must stop offering their eggs to carbon profligate males. No really. "I was asked at a lecture by a young woman about what she could do [to save the planet] and I told her to stop admiring young men in Ferraris," he said. Of course, Sir David's sexist castigation represents a fairly quaint not to say Victorian view of the world. Only the United Kingdom's sports car drivers don't quite see it that way. The secretary the Ferrari Owners Club is more than slightly miffed at the suggestion that his members may be melting the polar ice caps. "There are fewer than 5,600 cars made a year by Ferrari," Peter Everingham said. "To suggest Ferraris are a factor in climate change is unhelpful." For whom?

The profusion of Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras amongst police forces has given privacy campaigners a tough "sell." How can you explain the possible abuse of a system that simply does a MUCH better job of what cops are supposed to be doing anyway (i.e. checking license plates for stolen vehicles and any outstanding warrants on the driver)? News10 reports that the privacy people may have an easier time fighting ANPR, now that Sacramento's Arden Fair Mall is using the system to scan vehicles entering and exiting its premises. Mall Security Supremo Steve Reed says chill, it's no biggie [paraphrase]. "The information from the cameras would only be shared with Sacramento Police and in those cases, only plate information would be passed on to law enforcement. Other personal information about shoppers, their vehicles or their purchases is not included." Whew! And guess who's footing the bill for these ANPR cameras with their self-enforced privacy limits? You are! "The cameras were paid for by a U.S. Department of Homeland Security grant to help keep a close watch on all the comings and goings at the busy shopping hub." How many other malls have federally-funded ANPR cameras? Can the feds get the info too? TTAC's investigating.

A friend of my father's taught me there are only three markets: price, value and quality. Price-driven consumers want the lowest possible purchase price, period. In car terms, they want to pay as little as possible for a vehicle. Everything else is secondary. If the car falls apart, if it loses them money in the long run, it doesn't matter. Manufacturers catering to these customers need not concern themselves with anything other than purchase price. At the other end, quality driven car customers want the best car, money no object. Manufacturers catering to quality-seekers have a [relatively] easy time. All they have to do is secure the world's best talent, give them the resources they need and not get in their way. Value-driven customers balance price against quality. Automobile-wise, they want as much of everything as they can get– economy, features, safety, ride, handling, resale, the whole schmeer– for as little money as possible. Manufacturers aiming for value-driven customers are fighting an endless war against everything: low-end carmakers aiming high, high-end carmakers aiming low, direct competitors, production costs, fashion trends, technological innovations, you name it, they've got to sort it. Like Icarus, the one thing they must never do is fly too high. Ford GT. Chevrolet Corvette. The new Saab Turbo X, Mitsubishi Evo and Toyota Land Cruiser. If a consumer says, wow, that's a lot of money for a —–, it's a clear sign that a value-oriented car brand is shooting itself in the foot. Short term, it can work. Long term, it's a big mistake.  

We've wondered about this for a long, long time: who's going to own America's internet-savvy car customers? It's a three-way race between carmakers, dealers and independent websites, all vying to provide the best automotive information in the most attractive form, and then leverage their e-relationship for long-term customer loyalty. Not a lot has happened on the CRM (customer relations management) front; when was the last/first time you received a well-targeted email from any member of this troika? Meanwhile, Peter Krasilovsky says the various players are successful at different stages of the car buying (what about owning?) process. "It's not winner takes all," the program director for The Kelsey Group tells Marketing Daily. "I think there is a realization that OEMs [Original Equipment Manufacturers] are not going to dominate the market. There is a realization that some people will go to the manufacturers' sites, and then there's a person who wants to shop different vehicles, and there are people who want to be part of the car universe and not just when they are buying a car." To increase their e-appeal, dealers are adding appointment-making capabilities to their websites and "increasingly doing e-mail offers with coupons for services, even newsletters." Is that the sound of the "junk" button I'm hearing? The battle continues. 

After stripping-out an alt energy directive to America's power providers, removing new taxes on oil companies and upping the ethanol mandate to 36b gallons by 2022, the Senate passed the Energy Bill. Huzzah! While the bumper sticker remains the same– 35mpg by 2020!– all the loopholes, subsidies and devious rule changes remain as well. As The Detroit News reports, we're still talking about $25b in federal loan guarantees to The Big 2.8 for "re-tooling"– in addition to a provision funneling 50 percent of fuel economy fines back to (domestic?) automakers. We're still looking at a switch to footprint (vs. fleet-wide) Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) calculations and separate numbers for cars vs. light trucks– which help protect the automakers' SUV heavy "blended families." [NB: the sticker mpgs you see are NOT the figures used for CAFE.] We're still going to see E85 "credits" for vehicles that raise their [theoretical] mileage figures. But most ridiculous of all, the Senate failed to establish whether the National Highway Traffic Administration (NHTSA) or the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) controls federal fuel economy standards, placing any and all such regulations in legal jeopardy. Oh wait, that wouldn't be the most ridiculous rider of the day. If Porsche got its exemption from CAFE regulations, THAT would be the icing on this saccharine cake. President Bush is set to sign this mishegoss next week.