Well, I've sent it off: my email to the Detroit Auto Dealers Association. I've politely requested that their Credentials Committee reconsider their decision to deny TTAC press passes for the North American International Auto Show (NAIAS). As the Powers that Be didn't list any reason for their rejection, all I could do was throw some new stats into the mix and forward a letter of recommendation kindly sent by former Car and Driver editor and occasional TTAC contributor Stephan Wilkinson. The data was mined by Adrian Imonti, one of The Gang of Four that we hope (still) to send to Cobo to cover the car confab. Mr. Imonti reported that our Google page ranking is "7." That's equal equal to that of AutoWeek, Autoblog and the home page of the Business Week and CNN/Money Autos' sections. It's better than The Detroit News Autos Insider page, Car and Driver, Motor Trend, Automobile, Top Gear, Road and Track and Edmunds Inside Line (all rated "6"). I don't know about you, but I'm impressed. We have a tiny fraction of their resources. But we do have an unstoppable dedication to telling the truth about cars, and you, the autoblogosphere's best and brightest. And that's the key. These days, whenever I write/edit a review, editorial or blog post, I think of it as a starting point for your evaluation, discussion, context and yes, correction. In fact, we are a team. In the coming days, I may need team TTAC's help in this matter. But for the moment, let's assume that the Detroit Auto Dealers Association will recognize the importance of this website, and our potential positive contribution to Detroit auto show coverage. 

I'm not quite sure how Brandweek decided the winners and losers in their ROI (Return on Investment) analysis of automotive advertising. The Malibu campaign is considered a winner even though Chevy's spent a reported $150m (upped here to $300m) to sell 7,210 cars through November. I know: it's WAY too early to make that calculation. And how is the Tundra a winner when they forked-out $1,404 per Tundra sold– unless Brandweek's looking at total profit margin, which they're not. Sigh. I think scribe Steve Miller just took the money and ran, picking his favorite car ads and justifying them, then selecting a few sales dogs and doing the math. Speaking of which, Ford spent $108 per Taurus sold, which wasn't very many (26,720 through November). Miller's accompanying text hits the nail's head: "The relaunched Taurus tried to rally around safety, which is a one-trick game. Volvo wins with that gambit, not Taurus." And once again, Chrysler tops the bottom of a worst list. Chrysler spent $84 per Avenger (pithy quote above from George Peterson, president of Auto Pacific) and $110 per Sebring. Apparently "consumers have misgivings about Sebring’s overall quality." I wonder why…

Count me amongst those who consider the BMW X3 the ugliest vehicle the propeller people have ever inflicted upon an all-too-willing public. I also consider it to be about as much of an "ultimate driving machine" as a sit-down lawn mower. In fact, when the model was first unleashed, its ride was so harsh even the normally acquiescent mainstream automotive press felt obliged to warn potential customers to put their dentist on speed dial. As it's getting time to reinvent the X3, we turned to our resident photochopper for a guess where the mess might be headed. Mr. Avarvarii reports: "When I started working on this project I imagined a gorgeous looking car at the end of the road, as I am quite a BMW fan. So I started by mixing some X3 DNA with the latest tendency in BMW’s design philosophy (see flame-surfacing, axe-surfacing and non-surfacing) and a little drop of the “be-ahead-of-the-competition-by-any-means” secret potion. What I got out of that salad, as you can see, is no prince. In my defense, the first X3 was the ugliest Bimmer ever. Why should the next one be different? Seriously now, as BMW’s “X” family is expanding, the X3 has to step up, following his older brother, the X5, and making room for the new kid, the X1. As the sporty-sleek-charming role has been already taken by the X6, the next-gen X3 will get to be the macho-wannabe-chubby-evil-son."

[For more Avarvarii photochopistry, click here.]

The Detroit Free Press takes its turn as hometown cheerleader, touting Michigan as the U.S. auto industry's current and future "think tank." "The state has reached a historic crossroads," Katherine Yung opines. "Even as it sheds much of the business of building cars and trucks, Michigan is quietly growing its ability to design and create the next generation of vehicles." Quietly eh? Sound kinda tenuous to me. To wit: note the word "can" in the following quote: "Experts say that even as Michigan diversifies its economy, it can grow by expanding its role as the auto industry's knowledge capital." In terms of hard facts, Sean McAlinden, vice president of research at the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, reckons The Wolverine State captures nearly 80% of the $16.7b spent on American automotive research and development. Buried amongst details of new investments and quotes from the happy campers who might expand their Michigan-based R&D facilities, CSM Veep Michael Robinet predicts that "basic development work for different vehicle platforms may decline." The future, then, is in "hybrid, electric and fuel cell vehicles." Although Yung sees Tesla's new Rochester Hills' research center as a sign of things to come, that could cut either way. 

Or it could be a heady combination of desperation and lust. Now that common wisdom holds that the Russian carmarket is The Next Big Thing, all the major playas are scrambling for a piece of the action. As we reported, GM was looking to buy into the Russian automaker AvtoVaz. As we didn't report (until now), The General got pipped at the post by the French. Blogging Stocks considers GM's failure to hook-up with AvtoVaz a major bummer and reveals that Renault stumped-up $1.6b for the honor of owning 25% of the Russian automaker. Undaunted (or perhaps foolhardy), GM now wants to fill-up with Gaz. msnbc reports that The General has already signed a letter of intent to develop an "affordable car" (as opposed to?). Despite the lack of said vehicle, GM wants to deepen its ties with billionaire Oleg Deripaska's company and expand their theoretical mutual efforts. Yes, well, meanwhile, the Gaz Volga already uses a Chrysler engine and underpinnings (ye olde Dodge Stratus), and Auburn Hills wants in as well. "Leonid Dolgov, chief executive of Gaz's car division, told the Financial Times it was 'no secret' his company was involved in talks with Chrysler." Well if it was before, it ain't now. [thanks to starlightmica for the links]

The Shelby American Automobile Club has been keeping the flame alive for Shelby-built and badged vehicles for 33 years. Now its namesake wants them out of the picture. As of January 1, Shelby's yanked their license to use the club's name (which Shelby trademarked), AND he wants all club's registry data going back to 1996, AND he wants to see the club's financial records. The automotive equivalent of Howard Beale, Peter DeLorenzo, sees the move as nothing but a logical extension of Carroll Shelby's long history of unbridled greed. "Shelby has once again confirmed for everyone what he's been about since Day One," the Autoextremist writes. "And it's not about the legacy of the Cobra or 'protecting' his name or anything like that. It's not about the championships or the men and women who helped him achieve racing history. No, it's about the money, pure and simple." As Autoblog reports, Shelby has fired back. In a press release, the Texas racer accuses the club's managers of selling loaned memorabilia, failing to provide financial reports or proof of liability insurance, licensing Shelby products without the old man's permission and, get this, not even paying the $1 per year licensing fee. It all sounds credible enough– until you remember the shambles that is Carroll Shelby's Childrens' Foundation. Do as I say, not as I do? 

Just as Ford prepares to sell-off its Land Rover division, the British brand has announced record sales. Year-to-date, 205,717 customers bought a Rover off-roader, helping Landie rack-up its highest sales total since Maurice Wilks hand built the first protoype on his Anglesey farm. CNNMoney riffs on the press release, attributing the brand's growth to burgeoning sales in Russia, China, France and Spain. If you read between the lines, amidst all the self-congratulation, a dark cloud is headed Land Rover's way. New European Union CO2 regulations will put Land Rover between a rock and a hard place, with precious little high mileage traction to get itself out. Hence Land Rover's managing director's quote, which is suspiciously heavy on the "this is no fluke" spin. "This sales achievement has been driven by exciting new products with improved environmental performance," Phil Popham announced. "Confidence is high – we're firmly in the black with innovative new products that will continue Land Rover's sustainable development." We reckon Ford's blundered into picked the perfect time to abandon ship. 

The Financial Times reports that Toyota sliced production of its full-sized pickup by 29 percent last month, trimming November's output to 18,300 vehicles. Quite how that recently revealed factoid reconciles with last week's statement by ToMoCo's U.S. group vice president and general manager that the automaker had a good shot at meeting its 200k per year Tundra sales target is anyone's guess. I'm thinking Bob Carter's boast was a triumph of hype-fueled expectation over hard reality. And the hard reality is that the U.S. pickup truck market has tanked. Automotive News (AN, sub) reports that flatbed sales fell fat by 10.4 percent last month. To try to maintain the big Mo on the Texas-built Tundra, Toyota is hawking zero-percent financing or $2k cash rebates on the '08 model. In any case, as a non-union operator, winding down production doesn't put a major ding in Toyota's operating expenses. And there's LOADS of profit in the vehicles they do sell. 

We've been reporting on the insanity of growing crops to feed SUVs since the ethanol industry first appeared on the media radar. Aside from the fact that developing nations are cutting down rain forests to plant crops to provide fuel for western nations obsessed with global warming, there's GM Car Czar Maximum Bob's whole "taco riot" conundrum. Why use food crops for fuel when people need food more than fuel? The Economist analyzes the issue in their usual dry, authoritative manner, and it's scary stuff. "The demands of America's ethanol programme alone account for over half the world's unmet need for cereals. Without that programme, food prices would not be rising anything like as quickly as they have been. According to the World Bank, the grain needed to fill up an SUV would feed a person for a year… According to IFPRI [International Food Policy Research Institute], the expansion of ethanol and other biofuels could reduce calorie intake by another 4-8% in Africa and 2-5% in Asia by 2020. For some countries, such as Afghanistan and Nigeria, which are only just above subsistence levels, such a fall in living standards could be catastrophic." It's time for the fruited plain to stop. [Thanks to starlightmica for the link.]

GayWired.com says Toyota has sent a letter to Daniel Grangier, president and CEO of Switzerland-based EBoys Studios. ToMoCo's demanding that the porn producer stop promoting the actor named "Lexus." The automaker claims the name Lexus is a trademark of Toyota Motors Sales USA., Inc., and "by using Lexus in connection with adult films, EBoys Studio is in violation of § 43 (c) of the Federal Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c) and tarnishes Toyota’s business reputation." Toyota wants EBoys to highlight and delete any and all materials displaying the Lexus name. Grangier says his CumEater and SpunkLand star selected his stage name in honor of the Greek god Lexus, rather than a Toyota-produced luxury vehicle. [If anyone can find a reference to a Greek God named Lexus, please post below.] Ironically enough (well almost), Lexus the automotive brand began life staring at the business end of a name-based trademark infringement lawsuit. "Just prior to the release of the first vehicles, database service LexisNexis obtained a temporary injunction forbidding the name Lexus from being used as they stated it might cause confusion," Wikipedia reports. "Upon reflection, the court lifted the injunction, deciding that there was a low likelihood of confusion between the two products." I'm no lawyer, but I reckon the same principle applies in the EBoys case.

As GM and Ford entered '07, they swore on a stack of Kelly blue books that they were getting out of the business of churning out hundreds of thousands of crap cars for rental fleets and other bulk buyers. Every month, the domestics blamed their lowered market share and declining sales on this brave decision to turn their backs on churn and burn. Meanwhile, Chrysler did anything and everything to move the damn metal. Prior to the Daimler divorce, the automaker practiced epic channel stuffing (a.k.a. sending cars to dealers and abandoned airfields). And now it can be revealed that Chrysler is picking-up its Motown competitors' fleet slack on a similar scale. Last month, Chrysler told the world its sales had fallen by just 2.1 percent– a victory of sorts in a U.S. market that declined by around three percent. Yes but– CNN reports that Chrysler sent its dealers an internal memo revealing that retail sales fell by 16.5 percent. "In early October, when Chrysler reported its September sales results, U.S. sales chief Darryl Jackson noted that fleet sales were trending down more than 20% and that the decline was 'in line with our plan to reduce daily rental fleet during the second half of the year.'" Well, so much for that, then. In related news, we hear that Ford's honoring its pledge to cut back on fleet sales by giving the job to Mazda, accounting for the lion's share of their Japanese "partner's" reported growth. 

Who'd a thunk that USA Today would plant an IED under the juggernaut that's the new Chevrolet Malibu? Reviewer James R. Healey sets 'em up. He praises the sedan's styling, hushitude, roomy interior (huh?), price, "mildly satisfying" driving dynamics and acceleration. Healey knocks 'em down. "Impressions were colored, however, by some glitches… The V-6 model was tainted by a light howl from under the hood, a vibration in the steering wheel at idle and low speed, and violent shifts by the automatic transmission in some low-gear situations… The hybrid delivered a scare. Its powertrain kept racing and trying to fling the car forward after hard acceleration followed by firm braking. It finally required a full-on panic stop — anti-lock brakes kicking in, car nose-diving — to overcome the wildly revving engine and obey a red light." Healey also slates Chevy's supposed Camry killer for its reluctant and clunky six-speed autobox and the 'Bu's limited visibility. Although the summation attempts to ameliorate the assault– "On paper, Malibu seems superior to the lionized Camry. In practice, judging by the test cars' foibles, maybe not quite"– the damage has been done. 

We here at TTAC have gone out of our way not to characterize Toyota Prius owners as left-leaning tree-hugging pompous, uh, people. As the Toyota gas – electric hybrid's gone mainstream– sales north of 50k per month– we've taken pains (pains I tell you) to point out that its success is down to the fact that the Prius is a well-built, practical car that makes economic sense. And then I get this press release from Scarborough Research (fayre enough?) that boldly declares "Hybrid Vehicle Owners are Wealthy, Active, Educated and Overwhelmingly Democratic." [Fair disclosure: I've been personally overwhelmed by more than a few Democrats at dinner parties.] It gets worse/better. Thirty-three percent of hybrid owners belong to a health club (as opposed to 18 percent of the generally obese population). They're sixty-six percent more likely to have gone biking in the last year and twice as likely to practice yoga. They're also twice as likely as the average Joe to hold a college degree. Some 27 percent of Prius owners hold a post-grad degree. Forty-two percent of them have household incomes above $100k per year. All of which raises an interesting question: if the Prius appeals to such wealthy, active, socially conscious people, why did sales take off when Toyota lowered the price? Cheap, rich AND smug? What's that all about?

Playboy and the Mazda MX-5 in the "2008 SCCA Playboy Mazda MX-5 Cup" race series. Hmmm. And there I was thinking that Playboy was all about ultra-expensive (or at least highly refined) European sports sedans, or at least something big, brutish and heavy on the testosterone. Unless they get actual Playboy bunnies to race the ultimate chick car (sorry guys, I know how great they are to drive), I can't really see the brand intersect. In the official press release, Jim Jordan, Mazda NA's [really] Alternative Marketing Manager, gave it a go. “This is a great way for us to grow the series and reach an audience of enthusiasts who may not have had the chance to see an MX-5 Cup race in person." They didn't have a chance to see the racing because it didn't have the T&A factor? How does that work? Never mind. Playboy's Vice President and Publisher Lou Mohn knows what's what. "“We look forward to putting all of Playboy’s brand assets into high gear to leverage this initiative and reach racing enthusiasts and Playboy fans alike.” In other words, we're going to give this sucker some good old-fashioned (i.e. pneumatic breasts and bleach blond hair) sex appeal. I dunno. Think itit''ll work?

We turn to BusinessWeek (BW) for the skinny on J.D. Power and Associates' just-released 2007 Customer Retention Study (you can get the straight dope from J.D.'s press release here). Once again, Toyota tops the chart, followed closely by Lexus (63.0 percent) and Honda (62.8 percent). Three Detroit brands land in the top ten. Chevrolet takes the fifth slot (56.8 percent), Ford comes in seventh (52.9 percent) and Cadillac takes eighth (52.8 percent). Discounting MINI (not on the radar long enough to rank) and Isuzu (who?), Scion, Pontiac and Jaguar have the hardest time keeping customers; re-upping 30.8, 27.8 and 24.5 percent respectively. Although (or perhaps because) Mercedes scooped sixth at 52.6 percent, BW's boffins reckon it's not all about the product. "Marketing analysts say a solid record of quality and reliability combined with clarity and consistency of advertising keeps customers coming back. 'There are still many companies that do not understand that consistency of image over time is as important as making sure the quality is up to snuff and the dealers are doing their jobs properly,' says independent marketing consultant Dennis Keene, who advises companies on long-term brand strategy.