Whenever General Motors announces a hot, sexy sports car that’s supposed to dethrone BMW, a little piece of me dies. That’s the part of me that grew-up watching Smoky and The Bandit (over and over), yearning for my very own Trans Am adorned with a giant, screaming chicken. Nowadays, it seems everyone in The General’s army is allowed to have a bona-fide sports car except, ironically, their sports division. That ain’t right.

Let’s face it: the last few decades haven’t been kind to Pontiac fans. We’ve suffered through a roll call of automotive abortions: the listless Pontiac Firefly, the dishonestly named Pontiac Trans Sport, the justifiably maligned Aztek and Pontiac designers’ obsession with ungodly plastic body kit (its poster child being the jello-mobile known as the Grand Am). And the hits keep not happening.

With the recent announcement of a turbo-charged Chevrolet Cobalt SS, and the possibility of the SS moniker being applied to Corvette ZR1 and HHR-wagon, all hope for a Pontiac revival is now dead-– at least for me. For those of us who are counting, General Motors has missed five opportunities to re-invigorate Pontiac in the last five years.

This torturous prolongation of Pontiac’s imminent death began with the Solstice concept. Oddly enough, GM actually decided to badge the roadster as a Pontiac, rather than, say, a Hummer or a Buick. Having experienced the recent products of The General’s car-birthing process on countless visits to Avis rent-a-car, I can only attribute this brilliant decision to blind luck. Regardless, I was elated that, perhaps, the General was finally getting serious about their erstwhile excitement division. 

The Solstice was so gorgeous it was hard to believe it shares its DNA with anything other than the Chevrolet Corvette. Unlike the Corvette, the Solstice was born a work in progress: crude chassis, irritating ragtop mechanism, scary handling, and a useless trunk. In fact, the Solstice was outclassed by the Mazda Miata in every important metric save power and looks. Not to belabor the point, but looks and power are perhaps the least important attributes of a small, cheap roadster. Further dilution occurred when the Solstice was given a saturnine cousin.

Next came news that GM was developing a car on the Nürburgring. Terrific, thought I, a big brother to the Solstice! Unfortunately, that car turned out to be the Cadillac CTS. I have no doubts that the Caddy is a terrific value (once incentives are factored in, obviously) blessed with genuine grunt and pistonhead poise. Still, the question remains and must be posed: “What the Hell is Cadillac doing testing a car on the Nürburgring?”

GM then decided to import the aesthetically bland Holden Monaro from Australia and perform am utterly lazy re-badging that harkened back to the days of the Chevrolet Chevette and Pontiac T1000/Acadian. American muscle cars should adhere to what I call the “Schwarzenegger Principle.” Arnie didn’t grow muscles and depilitate his delts with the intention of buttoning his shirt. In automotive terms, muscle cars should never pack ridiculous amounts of displacement while looking like a suppository. The GTO, unfortunately, looked right at home beside the Pontiac Grand Prix. In other words, it was dead on arrival.

And still I kept the faith– until GM announced it was developing a world-wide, world-class world-heavyweight-title rear-wheel drive platform. Finally! Visions of a modern GTO or Firebird danced in my head. Then, Rick Wagoner pulled the veil on the all new… Chevrolet Camaro.

If it had all ended there, with GM throwing up its hands and admitting “We suck at brand management,” the story’d be over. Instead, the General chose to tease us with a rebadged Aussie import. GM Car Czar Maximum Bob Lutz announced this possible, hyper-likely, in-development, BMW-destroying, Hyundai-undercutting, CAFE-endangered GTO for 2010.

Yeah, right. We may be oxymorons, but Pontiac cognoscenti have heard that tune before– and we know it always manages to end-up off-key. We shall see what we shall see. 

Meanwhile and anyway, my bridge too far arrived when GM tossed the lion’s share of its racing budget at Cadillac and Chevrolet. Though Chevrolet is historically entrenched in NASCAR and endurance racing, the introduction of a competitive Cadillac CTS made me hurl. The “standard of the world” does not belong on a race track any more than it belongs on the Green Hell. Imagine how ridiculous a Rolls Royce Phantom would look with a racing spoiler. Pontiac, with its storied past in Trans Am racing, should have campaigned its G8.

For now, the upcoming Cobalt Turbo SS is the non-Vette buying, GM-supporter’s only new “performance” car. The new ‘Balt is just another promising machine destined not to darken a Pontiac showroom. This time, I won’t be waiting. If Pontiac can be boiled down to a bad roadster, a re-badged Toyota, a re-badged Holden and re-badged Chevy SUV, it’s time to move on.

Last year about this time, we gazed into the crystal ball to predict a few changes in the automotive world. A lot of water's gone under the proverbial bridge since then: Toyota's world number one, the UAW's selling out their membership for a few dozen billion, Ford and Chrysler are attempting turnarounds with leaders who have no automotive industry experience whatsoever and GM Car Czar Bob Lutz is straining his personal credibility beyond breaking point. Well, OK, some things haven't changed. Anyway, with all that's happened in the past year, what does the future hold? Here are some of our predictions.

Hyundai Announces New Model:  Hyundai's Ford division has unveiled its latest offering: the midsized Torino II. Rejecting web reports that the "new" car is merely a rebadged next gen Sonata, Ford's Emperor of the Americas, Mark Fields, stated "The new Torino II resurrects a distinguished name from Ford's past in a bold move that brings an unprecedented level of sophistication to the Ford brand." 

The new model rounds out the Ford line, joining the subcompact Pinto II (built on the Accent platform), compact Maverick II (which shares drivetrain and other components with the Elantra), and the new F-150 II pickup (built on the Veracruz platform). Kia's Mercury division has yet to make any new model announcements. Rumors of a resurrected Lincoln Continental based on the Kia Amanti are unconfirmed.

GM Relocating to Follow Their Market:  In a surprise move late yesterday, GM announced plans to relocate the company headquarters to Mumbai, India. CEO-for-Life Rick Wagoner explains: "Since all of our assembly plants are in India, Thailand, Korea and China, it was only natural that we consolidate our operations in that region, too. This will allow us to get better control of expenses and begin the last phase of our turnaround plan."

GM plans to keep a small staff on floors three and four of the Renaissance Center to handle North American marketing, along with a warranty claims staff on floors five through 68. Nonagenarian Vice Chairman and Product Czar Robert Lutz was napping, and thus unavailable for comment on the move.

Gore Declares War on Environmental Hazard: Nobel prize winner, former Vice President and presidential also-ran Al Gore announced today he was beginning a campaign to limit the use of fuel cells in automobiles. Gore, who won his Nobel for inventing the internet and discovering greenhouse gases, stated that these so-called "zero emission" cars were, in fact, producing dangerous levels of dihydrogen monoxide (DMHO) and releasing it into the environment.

As he explained, once released, this compound collects in large clouds in the atmosphere which block the sun and increase the greenhouse effect.  It is found in acid rain and contributes to soil erosion. DMHO has become so pervasive it can be found in almost all foodstuffs and is even sprayed on "organic" produce, Gore warned. He has made eliminating DMHO from the environment his primary goal for this decade.

Business as Usual in the PRC:  Chery is being sued by Daimler for patent infringement. The suit centers around the rear suspension of the Cherysler 300. The suspension, originally designed by then-DaimlerChrysler, was based on the suspension of the Mercedes E-class. Since Chery's acquisition of the Chrysler division from Cerberus, Daimler claims they have done nothing to modify or redesign the suspension and in fact are expanding its usage to other vehicles.

Daimler legal counsel Max Schwanstüker, who filed the suit, asserted Chery has had plenty of time to redesign the suspension– but chose not to. Chery countered by stating they have indeed redesigned it; as it now includes parts from the latest E-class. The Chinese government has issued a statement saying there have been no patent infringements by domestic automakers, nor can there be.

UAW Seeks New Identity:  The United Autoworkers Union (UAW) is changing its name. Since their membership no longer includes any autoworkers, the UAW realizes they have to change with the times. In a press release, the UAW stated, "Unlike the Teamsters Union, which has nothing to do with horse teams, sports teams or any other kind of team, we want our name to remain relevant." Some of the names they're considering: Minimum Wage Workers Union (MWWU), United Service Industry Workers Union (USIWU) and Busboy, Waitress, Casino and Daycare Workers International (BWCDWI)

Motor Trend Modernizes Content:  Motor Trend (MT) disclosed plans to publish content consisting only of special advertising sections. MT publisher Beefy McBigmac justified his decision by saying, "Surveys show our readers don't know the difference between what we write and the advertisements, so why not save a few editorial bucks and let the advertising agencies write all of our copy? This way we can afford to keep giving away subscriptions while other automotive magazines are having to convert to on-line publishing." 

In an unrelated story, Motor Trend announced their Car of the Year is the all-new Hyundai Ford Torino II.

GM Death Watch Reaches Milestone: TTAC's GM Death Watch Series has reached a milestone. This week sees the publication of The Truth About Cars' GMDW 1,000. Publisher Robert Farago said, "That f-ing company has more f-ing lives than a f-ing alley cat. Just when you f-ing think it's going down for the third f-ing time, someone throws it a f-ing life preserver and it just keeps f-ing floating along, hanging on by its f-ing fingertips."  Farago is certain GM– which is now the world's sixth largest automaker after Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Hyundai, and Chery– can't last much longer.  "We're in it until the bitter end – either theirs or ours."

The Canadian dollar is back. After a thirty-year slump, the “loonie” is now staring eye-to-eye at the American greenback. The strong Canadian economy, the worldwide thirst for oil, and George Bush using The Fed as a money tree have all converged to push the Canadian dollar skyward. The meteoric rise of the dollar has given Canadians incredible arbitrage opportunities with American products; especially cars. The Canadian car industry ain’t pleased– and for good reason.

In 2006, Canadians imported 112k new and used vehicles from their neighbors to the south. That stat represents over 50 percent growth in US imports over the last two years. The crux of the problem: many retail prices in Canada are based on an exchange rate more appropriate for the Clinton era. To wit: Buying a Nissan 350Z Coupé in the United States will cost you $29,000. A similarly optioned car in Canada will cost – wait for this – $51,000.

Now, converting the US price of $29k at a rate of about 1.06 yields $30,740. Throw in $2k for shipping (you can drive it up yourself on a temp plate), $1800 in import duties (which you don’t pay on any vehicle assembled in the NAFTA zone), $5,200 in taxes (assuming Quebec and Ontario’s rates) and you’ve pocketed a cool CA$13k by buying your new Z stateside.

The downside, of course, is that Nissan, like most manufacturers, doesn’t honor warranties in any country other than the country of purchase. One notable exception (of course): Toyota. The Japanese automaker honors warranties all across North America. It’s good for the whole family, too: Lexus, Scion, Toyota and the newest addition, Subaru, are all included. Still, if you’re not expecting 13 grand’s worth of warranty repairs on a reliable car like the 350Z, the deal is hotter than a dancing bobcat with its ass on fire.

The other problem is red tape. In order to get a US-spec vehicle on the road in Canada, it must first be admissible for import. The government has printed a list of such vehicles on http://www.riv.ca. Conspicuous by their inadmissibility are the Pontiac GTO and the Mistubishi Lancer Evolution IX, which have failed Canadian bumper and emissions tests. Export papers need to be filed at U.S. customs, and import papers at Canadian customs, including a manufacturer’s letter stating that no outstanding recalls apply to the vehicle in question.

Once imported, a vehicle has to be converted to display kilometer-based readings, and have daytime running lights installed. Finally, the vehicle must be inspected and (possibly) emissions tested before it can be registered in a province of Canada. Other annoyances may apply. For example, if the vehicle comes from a state with lax tint and modification laws, you might end up needing to make cosmetic adjustments as well.

The fact that new cars start so much lower on the MRSP ladder in the U.S. also has ramifications in the used market. A 2005 Honda Accord EX-L with 14k miles will fetch about US$18k stateside. The same car will cost $23,400 in Canada. Converting 18-grand to Canadian and applying taxes will give us a car that costs $21,050. The best part? Since the Accord is assembled in Ohio, it’s a NAFTA car! On savings of $2,350, the day trip to upstate New York pays for itself. Even greater savings can be had on big-time depreciators like the Cadillac CTS-V or the Porsche 911 Turbo.

I picked the 350Z scenario because it’s a more extreme example of manufacturers being too greedily lethargic to adjust their Canadian pricing. Driving.ca recently quoted an average difference to be about $5,800 across international lines in one of its articles. The difference is still important enough to encourage a steady, increasingly large parade of vehicles across the border.

The government of Canada is hemming and hawing about ways to protect Canadian dealers while in some ways paying lip service to NAFTA. For their part,  manufacturers are now threatening U.S. dealers with a loss of franchise if they continue selling to Canadians. Meanwhile, the market is busy reacting predictably. For those too lazy to go through all the hoops, vast arrays of brokers and importers have put out a shingle and are waiting for your business.

Eventually, something will break. Either the manufacturers will adjust Canadian pricing, outright ban the sale of cars in the United States to non-residents or the Canadian government will impose an automotive tariff.

The medium-term outlook for the U.S. dollar is particularly bearish. Therefore, there is no reason to expect an abatement of any kind in Canadian imports. It’s a strange role reversal for many Americans, to think their country has become Canada’s automotive outlet mall. Quite soon, Canadians will be making fun of that “funny, two-tone money,” too.

In an article this past June, I looked at the disconnect between what some politicians say about automobiles, fuel mileage and the environment, and what they drive.   Exhibit A: presidential hopeful Barak Obama. Mr. Obama famously berated the Detroit Economic Club about Motown’s opposition to tighter fuel economy standards– with a Chrysler 300C stashed in his garage. The instant the media exposed this hypocrisy, Obama traded his Hemi-powered luxobarge for the PC pol’s pal: a Ford Escape Hybrid. That got me wondering what our other national leaders might have parked in their garages…

As TTAC’s resident numbers wonk, I was looking forward to tabulating a list of cars that our members of Congress drive. I’d then cross-reference it by party affiliation and auto industry involvement. Just for fun, I’d track down their voting record on issues like fuel economy and emission standards and see how they match up. (Yeah, I know. I need to get a life.) So I wrote a letter to every U.S. Senator, thinking I’d write the members of the House of Representatives at a later date.

I respectfully introduced myself and this website, and explained my request. “I’m working on an article on the personal transportation choices of our national leaders [which] will reveal the automotive taste and style of our most important congressmen and women.” I asked for the make, model and year of the vehicle or vehicles they drive for work, and which cars they own personally (registered both in their own or their spouse’s name). I also asked for their approximate yearly mileage.

After printing 99 letters (this was right after Senator Thomas of Wyoming passed away), licking 99 envelopes and affixing 99 stamps, I dropped the missives in a mailbox and waited. And waited. And waited. A little over three weeks later, I received an email from the “Office of Senator Saxby Chambliss.”

Thank you for contacting me regarding your website. It is good to hear from you.

I am flattered that you have chosen to include me in your article on the personal transportation choices of national leaders. However, because of my public status, I am unable to answer personal questions such as these.

I wish you the best of luck with your article and your website, and if I can ever be of assistance in the future, please do not hesitate to let me know.

I suspect the fact that I’m a Georgia resident– eligible to vote for Senator Chambliss the next time he’s up for reelection– inspired the politician to become the sole exception to Senatorial automotive omerata.  I repeat: no other United States Senator deigned to respond to my simple request for information.

Could it be, as Sen. Chambliss’ email implies, that the Senators’ personal transportation is a matter of national security? I can understand a Senator not wanting to identify his/her specific family car because of security concerns, but I didn’t ask for anything that would uniquely identify their vehicle, such as a license plate number or color. Likewise, knowing what kind of car a U.S. Senator leases (or the GSA provides) for “official business” doesn’t exactly sound like NSA-quality information.

In fact, the U.S. Government Printing Office prepares reports on the subject: "Statement of Disbursements of the House" and "Report of the Secretary of the Senate.” They list expenditures– including transportation expenses such as automobile leases– for all members of Congress. However, these reports aren’t posted on line. And the most recent version of the Senate report in the GPO bookstore dates back to 2003. So even though it’s published twice a year, the information isn’t easily accessible to the public.

So what’s with the veil of secrecy over our political employees’ transportation choices?  My guess: they don’t want to be “Obama’d.” Given the recent media fascination with fuel conservation, carbon footprints, alternative fuels and the trade deficit, our elected representatives can’t risk the general public finding out that they or their families drive SUVs, gas-guzzling luxobarges or (gasp!) a car produced by a foreign-owned automaker.

It wouldn’t be the first time a member of Congress was caught with their pants down (so to speak) doing something contradictory to what they’ve said on the record. Fool them once? Anyway, it beggars belief that the men and women who are seeking to guide the automotive destiny for tens of millions of Americans, who will write the laws that will control the fate of one of our most important industries, would shrug off any idea of personal accountability. 

I’ve decided not to write the members of the House; I don’t want spend $170 on postage to be ignored again. If any of you know what your federal reps drive, please post it in a comment below. In the meantime I’ll keep digging. 

By law, foreign automakers seeking a foothold in China must form joint ventures (JVs) with domestic "partners." As we've outlined before , there's an immediate downside: China's scant regard for intellectual property rights (IPR). For example, GM found itself suing Chinese automaker Chery (whose name middle-finger salutes Chevy) over the QQ, a blatant copy of the Daewoo Matiz. The case was settled out of court, but the issue of IPR remains unresolved. And now that Chinese automakers are consolidating and striking out on their own, what's going to happen their foreign partners and their IPR? What do you think?

China's three largest automakers are Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation (SAIC), First Automobile Works (FAW) and Dongfeng. SAIC currently partners with General Motors and VW. FAW is hooked-up with Toyota, VW and Mazda. And Dongfeng works with PSA Peugot Citroën, Honda, Nissan-Renault and Kia.

China's Big Three own almost 50 percent of the domestic auto market. All three have announced plans to develop "house" brands with independent intellectual property rights. As Chinadaily.com puts it, "After churning out Buicks, Passats and other foreign models in tie-ups with global auto giants for years, many home-grown players are setting their sights on an own-brand strategy, hoping to wean themselves off reliance on foreign technology."

To that end, SAIC has budgeted $3.56b over the next five years for designing engines and complete sedans, and building a technical center. The automaker's also announced a massive bond initiative to fund development of their new cars. SAIC is looking to build factories capable of churning out a quarter million vehicles per year.

FAW is set to invest $1.7b in new product development, production facilities and "229 key technologies" over the next eight years. And Dongfeng is spending $1.01b to develop their own brand of cars and a new assembly plant. 

SAIC has a head start on its domestic competitors. They already own the IPR for the Rover 25 and 75 models, purchased from the now-defunct British brand at the end of days. SAIC has used the technology to launch the Roewe 750 based on the (BMW developed) Rover 75. So far they've sold 8k 750s.

SAIC is also considering a merger with smaller Nanjing Auto, owner of the MG brand. Nanjing has started production at MG's former plant in the U.K.; they're setting-up a similar facility back in The People's Republic. It wouldn't be hard to use the car as an anchor for a full line up.

And it won't take long for the other Chinese automakers to catch up. Dongfeng has plans to market a self-branded sedan that "imitates" the Elysee (currently manufactured by Dongfeng Peugeot Citroen Co Ltd.), starting this September. FAW is ready to begin mass production of their first independently designed sedan engine. Entire cars will follow.

Clearly, Chinese automobile manufacturers are cashing in on their crash course in auto manufacturing. They've spent the past 20 or so years studying their partners' design and engineering processes and production techniques, and establishing their own relationships with suppliers. They've also learned marketing, dealing with export and import regulations, and all the rest of the finer points of selling their products internationally.

China's automakers aren't going to want to keep sharing a large chunk of what is now the world's second largest auto market. Over the next five years China's Big Three will flex their muscle to retain their 50 percent market share. Those automakers who've entered these joint ventures will have to pay the price.

It won't be hard for the home-grown tigers to ease their partners out of the picture. Some of the models produced by the JVs are a generation removed than the same model in other markets; they need updating. Without modernization, their sales will start to drop "as core models become increasingly obsolete," warns Goldman Sachs. If the Chinese partners won't allow the foreign partners to update their designs, sales will dwindle, opening the door for the Chinese partners to introduce newer, self-branded models.  

Since Chinese law prohibits foreign auto companies from operating without a Chinese partner, this "planned obsolescence" scenario would effectively shut out the foreign automakers. Even if China's Big Three don't starve their JVs of new product, there is no doubt that the government of China will do whatever it takes to bias the domestic market in favor of home-grown automakers, including (but not limited to) punitive taxes.

Although GM and others rely on the Chinese market to help keep them afloat, there's not a lot they could do about any moves to diminish their profits. We're talking about a country run by a military dictatorship; as the current legal laxity over IPR indicates, there's no chance of legal redress.   

Meanwhile, the Chinese automobile market is expanding. The foreign players are making hay while the sun shines, even as the storm clouds gather above them.

Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal reported that Toyota executives have put the brakes on their American manufacturing plans. This rapid retrenchment comes against a backdrop of seemingly relentless growth in Toyota's U.S. market share. Sales of the Kentucky-built Camry are so high that Toyota is paying Subaru to build the model in Indiana. Thanks to generous incentives, the Texas-built Toyota Tundra pickup truck is keeping pace with the company’s ambitious targets. And just a few days ago, Toyota passed Chevy to become America’s top-selling automotive brand. So what’s up with the slow down? 

First up: union troubles. Earlier this year, employees at the aforementioned Kentucky production plant unearthed a ToMoCo memo outlining plans to reduce wages and benefits in accordance with local compensation. The United Auto Workers (UAW) smelled blood. The union held “town hall” meetings and set up a “worker’s rights board” to “hear personal stories of Toyota workers and recommend appropriate remedies when necessary.”

In theory, the numbers favor the UAW. At Toyota’s Tundra plant in San Antonio, unskilled workers earn about $15 per hour, increasing to about $21 per hour after three years. Workers at Toyota’s new Tupelo, Mississippi plant will start at around $12 per hour, increasing to some $20 per hour after three years. If you include benefits (not an apples to apples comparison but there you go), the average Big 2.8 worker earns roughly $73 per hour.   

In practice, Toyota pays bonuses to achieve parity with industry norms. And yet, as the leaked memo revealed, the wages they are a changin’. Toyota will now cap new hires’ salaries at 50 percent above the average local wage. That may seem generous, but Toyota understands the seductive power of union-inspired greed aspirations. And they know that a UAW stronghold in Georgetown would put them on a slippery slope to widespread unionization. 

Toyota is also extremely concerned about its declining product quality. The company’s rep rests on the bedrock of reliability, which has been shaken by massive product recalls. The world’s largest automaker has more faith in its Japanese factories’ abilities to right that wrong than its American equivalents’.

This belief is NOT an ethnocentric condemnation of America’s autoworkers. It reflects the importance of experience and geography.

For largely political reasons, ToMoCo has spread its production facilities right across the North American landscape: Alabama, California, Indiana, Kentucky, Ontario, Mississippi, Missouri, Texas, Tijuana, Victoria and West Virginia. Back in Japan, the automaker clusters its factories in and around Toyota City (twinned with Detroit ‘natch).

While Toyota Motor North American Inc. has done a bang-up job mastering its long supply lines, it’s an expensive business prone to “complications” and “misunderstandings.” In contrast, Toyota’s Japanese centralization and the company’s longstanding relationships with its key domestic suppliers give the manufacturing mothership a distinct edge in quality and flexibility. At the risk of stoking xenophobic flames, an American-made Lexus flagship or Prius still seems… unlikely.   

And then there’s the yen. Currency manipulation or no, the yen’s recent weakening against the U.S. dollar has made the economics of importation that much sweeter for the Japanese automaker.

Union agitation, quality woes and a yen for profit– it’s no wonder Toyota’s pumped-up the volume on its North American imports, from 762k vehicles in ’04, to 1.27m in ’06. Nor should it be any major surprise that Toyota has already started scaling back American production capacity.

Toyota’s Highlander-producing factory was scheduled to open in Tupelo in ‘09 with an annual production capacity of 200K units. The new plan: throw the switch in ‘10 with a 150K annual capacity. By the same token, southern states can put down their tax abatements; Toyota won’t be building any more new plants in the U.S. for the foreseeable future.

What if U.S. demand for Toyota vehicles outstrips their American production capacity? In the short term, ToMoCo could add additional shifts or assembly lines to existing plants, staffed by temporary workers. Or they could farm-out the work to friendly transplants or, gulp, domestic manufacturers. Or just call home for reinforcements.

In the longer term, Toyota has plenty of plants in countries with much lower production costs than the U.S. It wouldn’t be hard for them to import Chinese- or Indian-built Camrys for less than it costs to build America’s most popular car in America. Even with the 25 percent tariff on imported trucks (a.k.a. the “chicken tax”), building Tundras or Tacomas in Thailand, China or India would still be a price competitive proposition. 

In the broader sense, Toyota’s American plants have already served their purpose. They’ve ingratiated the Japanese automaker to the American car buyer and insulated the company from a political backlash, should The Big 2.8 go Tango Uniform. And if these same domestics move the lion’s share of their automotive production overseas, what’s to stop Toyota from following suit?

On Tuesday, Detroit's top execs made another pilgrimage to Washington, D.C. The Detroit News reported that the troubled troika all arrived at Capitol Hill in fuel-efficient vehicles as a "symbolic gesture." Mulally belted across the Beltway in a Ford Escape hybrid. Wagoner wheeled up in a hybrid Saturn Aura. And LaSorda made the scene in a flex-fuel Town & Country minivan. Of course, none of these vehicles are their makers' most frugal cars. However, we can't have America's automotive aristocrats getting off their fuel-sucking private corporate jets and jumping into a run-of-the-mill Aveo, Focus or Caliber, now can we?

The hypocrisy is stunning. Lest we forget, when the Toyota Prius first whirred into view, Detroit dismissed the gas-electric hybrid vehicle as a meaningless PR stunt. And now, two out of three American automotive magnates cloak themselves in hybrid hype to convince Washington they're down with the whole hi-tech gas-saving thing. You know; now that they want some help competing on a "level playing field" with those tricky transplants. Again. Still.

Of course, this kind of running-on-empty automotive gesture is hardly restricted to Michigan's golden parachute-clad corporate con artists. No Hollywood star worth his or her Oprah confessional would dare show up at a red carpet event in a gas guzzler. They leave their multi-thousand-square-foot homes, heated pools and garaged exotics to make the scene in the latest hybrid or electric trendmobile- just in case anyone questions their environmental credentials. 

Likewise, politicians. Last month, Senator Barak Obama harangued the Detroit Economic Club with a scathing condemnation of the U.S. auto industry. The Democratic Presidential hopeful accused The Big 2.8 of unconscionable foot-dragging on CAFE standards. According to the man who would be President, Detroit's "spending millions to prevent the very reform that could've saved their industry" and "spending their time investing in bigger, faster cars." 

Almost as soon as Obama's anti-Detroit bombshell hit the PR newswires, hometown reporters revealed the inconvenient truth about the pol's garage, filled as it was with a Chrysler 300C. The Senator duly ditched his Hemified whip for a Ford Escape Hybrid.

No surprise there. The Missouri-made Escape Hybrid and its corporate clone (the Mercury Mariner Hybrid) are the politicos' gesturemobiles du jour. When she's not being ferried about in an armored Cadillac or Chevy Suburban, Hillary Clinton (well, actually, hubby Bill) drives a refrigerator-equipped Mariner Hybrid. John Edwards and Al Gore both keep the planet cool (warm?) with their Escape Hybrids. 

At least that's what their PR folks say. One wonders how much time our democratically-elected leaders spend in these cramped hybrids in lieu of the limos, SUVs and staff cars that transport these prodigious pork barrel purveyors around town, and block the streets around Capitol Hill.

And onto those storied streets drove Rick, Alan, and Tom, trying to neuter legislation designed to force them to build more fuel-efficient vehicles, like the ones they were driving. The heads of GM, Ford and Chryslerberus know they can't stop increases in the fuel economy standards. All they can do is minimize the federal minimum so they can keep selling more profitable gas guzzling trucks and SUVs have the time they need to engineer more fuel-efficient vehicles, like the ones they were driving. 

Rick Wagoner more or less admitted that the mandatory fuel economy gig was up. The GM lifer told long-suffering GM stockholders that it was time to move on to the other bulges in the Gordian knot strangling The General. "It looks like… it's very likely there will be increases in CAFE… Let's make sure that we also fix the real problems while we're doing that."

By "real problems," Rick was alluding to his company's [self-inflicted] unsustainable cost structure and ongoing failure to maintain domestic market share- problems shared by his friends indeed.

So… bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do? More specifically, what the Hell are you doing in DC when you should at home figuring out how to build products consumers want to buy at a price that makes you enough money so you can sort this out yourself?

Of course, Detroit's corporate lions prefer maintaining the status quo and jetting to Washington on someone else's dime. They're old pros at pressing the flesh at the center of an enormous bureaucracy; a bureacracy that sees nothing wrong with running-up massive debts, mortgaging their constituents' future to protect their own short term interests.

If CEOs Rick Wagoner, Alan Mulally and Tom LaSorda wanted to make an effective symbolic gesture, they should have driven from Detroit to Washington and back in an Aveo, Focus, or Caliber.

By enduring 1000 miles in those noisy, cramped, cheap cars– byproducts of their bean-counted design and engineering processes– they'd tell the world that their very best fuel-sipping products are good enough for government work. How appropriate is that?

How many of us sketched cars in the margins of our grade school notebooks? For a small minority, that’s the beginning of their life’s work. Those with the gift go on to enroll in design colleges to pursue a career in Transportation Design. Once there, the budding designers’ personal expressions are run through the meat grinder of de-constructive criticism. While the process is daunting, it is nothing compared to the “real world” of car design.

It doesn’t take a Human Resources Manager to recognize the automotive design studio’s crushing stoicism. Those with strong managerial allegiances get the credit they deserve. Others find their artistic expressions on the losing end of the cult of personality. In other words, being a good car designer doesn’t automatically make you a successful car designer. In the cloistered, hyper-competitive world of the automotive studio, networking, company politics and shameless self-promotion trump creativity.

So it’s much like your job, except worse. Imagine those no-nothing know-it-alls, pushy self-promoters and cronies clawing for recognition from the chief megalomaniac. Now imagine that your work, erupting from the very core of your soul, must be defended and nurtured in this environment. A cakewalk it ain’t.

Somehow, into this climate a car is born. To get the job done, the designer may create after the well-paid, well-dressed negative energy checks out for the night. Fraternizing with the clay modelers also helps: down to earth folks who translate a studio junkie’s 2-D rendering into a universally recognizable, high impact masterpiece.

Jeff Sanders lived this life. He was a master of Automotive Americana; someone who invented new forms without resorting to retro styling or cliché proportioning. He designed the custom trimmings on the first-gen Harley Davidson F150, a set of chrome wheels and a few gorgeous interior bits for the 2007 Lincoln Navigator. (Upcoming Ford products may flaunt the Sanders’ design language.)

The native Texan was a soft spoken, sensitive soul who somehow kept his head above the toxic soup filling Ford’s design studios. He kept the faith for two main reasons: his love of design and the dream of working for Ford, his favorite car company. His ‘67 Mustang project car provides ample proof of the artist’s emotional connection with The Blue Oval’s past, present and future.

Jeff weathered the design studio for five years in hopes of reaping the fruits of employment in a leaner, meaner FoMoCo. But things went sour after a particularly demeaning reassignment: his talent and creativity were neglected and ostracized for the last time. After turning down Ford’s white collar buyout plan, Jeff Sanders quit his “dream job” with his “dream company.”

Everyone thought Jeff’s analytical skills, gearhead personality and artistic talent made him a no-brainer for management-level success. But a phone call from the Michigan State Patrol shattered those beliefs. On March 8, Jeff Sanders drove his Ford truck to a secluded country road and committed suicide. None of his friends saw it coming, though we all wish we had.

Jeff and I were design students back in 1998. Aside from the Texas connection, his affectation for American Iron, effortless technique and acute BS detector made him my go-to guy. Jeff brought clarity to my muddy renderings and tightened up my sophomoric designs. I remember the good times; jumping in his truck in search of something, anything to take our minds off of next week’s verbal bloodbath.

I moved to greener pastures. Jeff joined Ford. He told me that somewhere between “Quality is Job 1” and “Bold Moves,” FoMoCo’s corporate design department had turned “teamwork” into a dirty word. I learned the personal struggles and political consequences of design rework. As Jeff put it:

“You want to know why cars look like shit? The designers are usually the last to touch the product.”

Jeff’s visits back to The Lone Star State were filled with laments about the cutthroat, ass-kissing environment and inflated rock-star personalities inside Ford’s design studios. I admired him for never playing that game, letting his brilliance shine on vellum instead.

Unlike most of our friends, I know why Jeff began his downward spiral: Ford’s design studio destroyed his soul. He lost the one thing that sustained him, that gave him a reason to live: his art.

Anyone in the car business knows that passionate designers suffer in the soul-crushing environment of the automotive design studio. While this website mercilessly punishes Detroit for not putting the product first, we got it wrong. People come first. No exceptions, ever.

People are the fertile soil that provides a bountiful harvest of products, innovations and profits. Losing a soaring spirit—especially one who single-handedly designed cars that might have restored Detroit’s fortunes– is a tragedy for all car enthusiasts. When a company stifles personal creativity, one way or another, something important is lost. Forever.

Driving through Switzerland makes you feel like a million bucks (the annual salary required for comfortable residency). In early March, the Alps are still covered in snow, but the sun’s warm enough to shelter a scribe savoring a steaming cup of coffee and slice of rueblitorte by the shores of Lake Geneva. The fresh air! The dictators’ money! The tidiness! And then it’s time to contemplate the effects of global warming and enter the hallowed halls of Geneva’s seventy-seventh International Auto Show.

The Toyota FT-HS Concept is a hybrid. OK, it’s a hybrid hybrid, a Synergy-driven car combining the blood-drawing creases of Ford’s old Edge design language and the wraparound glamour of the vaguely art deco cinematic Batmobile. As a Cadillac flack might say, it’s art and science fiction.

The FT-HS isn’t just another “gotta have one/ain’t gonna happen” pistonhead tease. The car raises an important question: why can't more cars have wheels that look like exotic flowers?

Keeping to the theme of keeping the planet cool (hot?) for humanity, the Honda FCX Concept is a confidently competent future barge. Or is that competently confident? In any case, the hyrdogen fuel cell powered FCX finally makes the creative leap from SUV nosecone (a la Civic) to whale mouth. Honda proves once again that they are the masters at blending high tech and high touch, what with an interactive floor that uses lighting to indicate changes in cabin temperature.

How come the French have enough time (or the inclination) to eat cheese before coffee AND after lunch? And how is it that Italians manage to convince everyone else to struggle to speak their native language, instead of them struggling with their English like everybody else? And can the British ever learn to get down with their bad selves?

The CX-F is Jaguar’s S-Type replacement concept (i.e. the ready to be gelded, denuded and watered down version). It’s swoopy, sporty and strong; with a hint of Quattroporte and a clean Lexus LF-A aftertaste. It’s also utterly serious minded, a slap in the face of pace and grace. I’ll take two (for obvious reasons).

Honda’s Small Hybrid Coupe breaks the usual Batman concept car template for a nostalgic trip to Tron. While the car’s design has nothing to do with Honda’s corporate image, it will do Honda’s corporate image no harm– if only because its rear window is an ode to the old CRX and its gigantic wheels relieve Honda tuners’ SUV wheel envy.

The strangely spaced Walter de’Silva says the new Audi A5 is one of his best designs. The Italian originator of the German brand’s big mouth bass look has devised a coupe that’s elegant, understated, grown-up yet young and thrusting. It’s the perfect Jaguar, best imbibed with a bold cab.

Maserati finally trades its dorky coupe for something altogether more desirable– in the same sense that Adriana Lima might make a nice bit of arm candy for the Oscars. The GranTourismo coupe is twice as sexy in the flesh as it is in the photos, in the same sense that Adriana Lima looks more fetching across a dinner table than in a catalogue.

Being within sniffing distance of the world’s best numbered bank accounts, the Geneva auto show is the spiritual home to small carmakers who brew that heady mix of sleek sheetmetal and monster engines. The Swedes at Koenigsegg threw their hand-built CCX-based CCGT (Competition Coupe GT) FIA-homologated GT1 racer into Geneva’s alphanumeric soup. True to the show’s theme, they also promised a bio-fuel powered CCXR. Make that the BFP-CCXR.

The Dutch-built Spyker C12 Zagato may forfeit the rocket-inspired name game, but the VW-engined coupe proves that scissor doors are still an excellent way to liberate tasteless enthusiasts from their drug money discretionary income. The Zagato takes Spyker’s nascent design language and throws it into the wood chipper. When a supercar starts to look like a TVR Chimaera– a car designed by the [then] company’s owner’s dog– there’s bound to be trouble down the mine.

Meanwhile, mine owners won’t mind the Bentley Brooklands. Oblivious to the whole planet saving thing, the German-owned English carmaker is emerging from their highly lucrative Phaeton phase to launch a more traditional gas-guzzling Bentley behemoth.

The Brooklands boasts “classic British proportions”– a claim which does nothing for the self-esteem of Britain’s female population. To propel this Balmoral-on-wheels, The Bentley Boyz pulled out all the organ stops. We’re talking a 530hp 6.75-litre V8 with so much torque the company feels compelled to list it in Newton meters (1050Nm). Very PC, I’m sure.

Back into the gloaming as a young girl strolls past the show without even glancing in its direction. What did the Swiss Miss miss? A show dedicated to environmental responsibility, stuffed fulll of toys. How great is that? 

For decades, Toyota has balanced superb management, impeccable quality, exemplary financial discipline and flawless product planning. As other manufacturers chased market trends and neglected core models, Toyota made incremental improvements to existing models and introduced new models slowly and carefully. Their perseverance has paid off; they’ve elbowed Ford aside and are nipping at GM’s heels. But as Toyota prepares to replace The General as the world’s largest automaker, they’re finding out that getting to the top is one thing; staying there is something else altogether. 

No doubt about it: Toyota’s on a roll. They posted a record $3.6b third quarter corporate earnings and hope to exceed $13b profits for this fiscal year. In spite of growing profits worldwide, the picture isn’t so rosy on this side of the globe. Although their revenues in North America were up 17.3 percent, their North American operating profits were down 22.4 percent in the third quarter. 

Part of Toyota’s American problem relates to federal contract-sized cost overruns on their new truck plant in Texas. When ToMoCo started the project, they budgeted $850m to git ‘er done. To date, the company’s sunk almost $1.3b on the plant– and they’re still spending.  The expenditure seems manageable enough, until you tote-up the cash they’re also shelling out to build another Canadian facility and modify the Subaru plant in Indiana to build Camrys. 

Perhaps Toyota should be putting some more of their resources into making sure their products live up to their reputation for quality. As production numbers rise, their recall rate is keeping pace. The latest recall– involving faulty ball joints in the previous generation Tundra and Sequoia– could end up costing Toyota more than $600m.

And then there are the high hundreds of millions of dollars Toyota may need to settle the class-action suit for oil sludge (affecting about 3.5m Toyotas and Lexi). All in all, we’re talking about a serious chunk of change coming directly off the bottom line.

Meanwhile and in any case, sales of the Pious Prius are down. Whereas the automaker once measured the model’s supply in hours, there’s now a 30-day supply sitting on dealers’ lots. Though it’s nothing like the 80 day supply of GM product lingering on their dealers’ lots, the growing Prii glut is definitely trending in the wrong direction.

The extra inventory is attributable to a combination of factors which, uncharacteristically, Toyota didn’t read correctly. They increased production just as gas prices started going down, the hybrid tax credits started going away and those buying hybrids to make a social statement had bought them. So, for the first time in the model’s short lifetime, Toyota’s offering incentives.  They’re nothing on the scale of The Big 2.5’s spiffs of course, but it’s cash on the hood nonetheless.

These issues pale in comparison to one problem that could make or break Toyota’s North American operations:  their relationship with their hourly workers. In a confidential memo that accidentally ended up in workers’ hands, Seiichi Sudo, president of Engineering and Manufacturing in North America, discussed the cost of American labor and the steps they need to take to control those costs. 

The memo, which was inadvertently stored on a shared computer drive, states the US auto industry pays some of the highest manufacturing wages in the world. It compares American wages to those in France and Japan (50 percent higher) and Mexico (500 percent higher). They project their American labor costs will increase by $900m over the next four years.

Toyota’s concerned that even though their profit margin is increasing, it’s not growing as fast as their labor costs. Their strategy: “base our Hourly Wages more closely with the State Manufacturing Wages where each plant is located, and not tie ourselves so closely to the US Auto Industry, or other competitors.” Their “challenge”: how they’ll tell the workers “so that they can understand and accept change.”

The bottom line: “Human Resources is developing strategies which will reduce Labor Cost (and increase Profits) by $300 Million by Fiscal 2011 by focusing on: Headcount and Rate (Wages and Benefits).” This isn’t exactly what you want the rank and file to hear. 

This memo could do more to damage Toyota’s future than any other factor. Toyota got a lot of press when the (non-union) workers at their Kentucky plant made more than union workers on average last year. Now they want the same workers to take a pay and benefit cut. Is that the UAW I hear knocking at the back door?

Ironically enough, Toyota is in the roughly the same position (re: its labor relations) as GM during the ‘70’s. Of course, GM basically rolled over and played dead for the UAW, burdening itself with an unwieldy labor force and an unsustainable cost structure. Will Toyota make the same mistake? It’s not likely. But it is possible.

[Read the Toyota memo here ] 

On Wednesday, Ford Motor Company's freshly-minted Executive Vice President and President of the Americas took center stage at the Greater Los Angeles Auto Show and declared that the customer is king. And there you have it: Ford's Way Forward. To his credit, Mark Fields admitted (in just about every way imaginable) that Ford has lost its way with American car buyers (in just about every way imaginable). Those of us hoping to hear the wunderkind's secret recipe for reclaiming faded Glory, for better serving Ford's collective majesties, were still left wondering if there's a Ford in our future…

At least Fields' speech centered on cars. Although Ford continues to enjoy a lengthy and profitable love affair with its truck buyers– the F-series sold more than 901,000 units this year and remains the top selling private vehicle in the U.S.– The House of Henry doesn't share GM's desperate faith in a resurgent light truck market. Ford recognizes that its financial salvation depends on reinvigorating its car business. And to get THAT side of the operation back in the black, Fields announced his intention to launch new products with bold, distinctly American designs and a large dose of "innovation"– the salve for all that ails a struggling manufacturer.

Fields asked his attentive audience to compare Ford's current doldrums with Apple and Motorola's recent past. According to Ford's new kid on the [chopping] block, both once-proud American consumer corporations were recently on the skids, heading towards acquisition, dismemberment and/or death. But lo and behold, they shine today! Why? They figured out what their customers wanted and made it for them. And they were bold. And they were innovative. And profits rose. And yea, they made their employees, dealers, distributors, stockholders and yes, presidents, wealthy and prosperous!

While few would dispute the broad outline of Fields' inspiring tale of corporate comeback, it's important to note that both Apple and Motorola have a long history of bold marketing and innovative products. Both of these firms have made some huge missteps, but they pale in comparison with the gigantic mistakes made by Ford's plodding, doddering bureaucracy, especially during Detroit's Dark Ages (e.g. buying Jaguar, neglecting the Taurus, stonewalling the Explorer roll-over, etc.) In any event, you could hardly say that Ford's inexorable move away from cars and towards ladder frame trucks was either bold or innovative.

Like a long-term alcoholic, Fields now promises that this time things will be different. From now on, Ford will listen and respond to its customers' needs quickly and efficiently, with true capitalistic creativity. There's even an internal rallying cry for Ford's New Think: Red, White and Bold. With this patriotic, take-no-prisoners mantra in place, Fields promised that Ford will succeed in the good old-fashioned American way, as opposed to "trying to out-Korean the Koreans" (whatever that means).

More specifically, Fields believes his customers are bullish on crossovers, midsized sedans and small cars. Fields talked-up the forthcoming "Edge" crossover as a representation of Ford's newfound ability to build the cars America wants. The Fusion (a.k.a. the Mazda 6) remains Ford's answer to the question "Why not an Accord?" while Fields told his none-too-stunned audience that small cars are increasingly popular with young people. "Small cars are ripe for bold design and innovation," Fields said, adding that "no American manufacturer is putting a stamp on small cars."

As he headed for his conclusion, and his next gig at The Mother of All Auto Shows, Fields indulged in a final fillip of flag-waving. "Many brands want to be American," Fields asserted. "However, there is no uniquely and consistently American brand in the auto industry."

Obviously, Ford's Boy King wants to leave us believing that his employer will fill this neglected role. Yes but… Fields had nothing substantive to say about the exact nature of "an American brand". Surely the days when bold design and technological innovation set American cars apart from their foreign competitors are long gone. Of course, focusing on these issues has the benefit of drawing attention away from more politically-explosive questions: how much of any "American" Ford will be designed and built using American parts and workers? How is Ford an "American brand" when five of the eight brands in its corporate stable are foreign?

Anyone seeking clarification on these issues is bound to be disappointed. And even if you're feeling Fields' love (of customer-centered hi-tech), it may be a long time before the result appears in a showroom near you. Fields' pronouncement that all the past corporate entanglements would be vanquished by Red, White and Bold sounds all well and good. But, as an independent marketing executive told me afterwards, auto show speeches are a lot like concept cars. They're all very sexy on the display stand, but once the design heads for the factory floor, things never quite turn out as planned.

Fellow enthusiasts and SUV salesmen fear not: gasoline will be cheap again within a year or two. The price will return to the $1.00 – $1.50 range, just like it was back in December of '02. How could this be? Start with this: if high gas prices were solely and inexorably linked to the price of oil, why are there still enough cheap plastic toys to keep your local Dollar Store in business? Why have disposable diapers, polyester pillows, Tupperware, hula hoops, toy dump trucks and other petroleum-based products not jumped to three times the price, too? Because they're not subject to the same political and economic pressures affecting gasoline.

When voters elect the latest gladhander to their municipal and state governments, the chemical makeup of the gas down at their local pump is not usually high on their list of priorities. BUT if you're an agricultural activist who wants to sell corn to the government to produce Ethanol, or an environmentalist who believes you possess the magic formula for reducing baby-killing smog in western cities, well, that's a different story. These groups are extremely effective at lobbying government at the state and local level to create a 'boutique' gasoline formula to further their cause. As a result, Missouri gas isn't good enough to burn in California, whose gas cannot legally be sold in New York City or parts of Arizona.

According to Michael Ports of the Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of Americas, 'Twenty years ago, there were two blends of gasoline offered in three octane levels, and essentially one blend of diesel fuel. Today, there are more than 18 unique blends of gasoline mandated across the nation — again offered in three octane grades — and at least three different blends of diesel fuel.' Okay, let's do the math. I make it… 59 different blends of gasoline spread out over 50 states. Just to make things that much more complicated, no one refinery produces all 59 blends of gas; nor is any refinery typically dedicated to any one grade.

OK, let's say a particular blend of gas for the Atlanta area is made in, oh, Louisiana and Mississippi. And let's further imagine that a Category 4ish storm named something like Katrina pounds through the area, heavily damaging the refineries, destroying their ability to blend Atlantagas. So, all Atlanta has to do is call up Florida and ask for some Orlandogas, right? Well, no. Turns out the closest supplier of that particular formula of gas might be somewhere like… Europe. Until some big boats brimming with Atlanta-friendly gas cross the pond, load up a few thousand tank trucks and deliver the requisite blend, the local population is forced by legislative fiat to ponder pump prices hovering around $5.57 a gallon.

What's more, all three octane levels of Atlantagas are all likely to have unique chemical constituents that the other 56 official blends do not. Those ingredients must be transported to the refinery. Some of them, such as Ethanol, may have special production and handling requirements, which adds time, effort and, of course, money to the equation. By the time a new refinery is ready to make Atlantagas somewhere else in the country, the original refineries may start trickling back on-line. The producer must weigh the simple advantages of riding out the storm. If they're really unlucky, another storm (call it Rita) could be heading towards the new refining location.

Speculation is another factor adding to the recent gas price fluctuations. Back when gas was $2.00 a gallon, industry experts speculated that speculation was adding five to seven cents to a gallon of gas. In the wake of hurricanes, the "investor effect" has been both more volatile and more pronounced. Basically, some heavily moneyed folks are betting against The Truth About Oil; they're making a short-term gamble that the price of oil will keep going up. Because this strategy has been successful in recent years, more commodities investors are doing it, which inflates the demand (and price) of oil (and gas).

These factors blend together (so to speak) to create a sub-economy so complex it takes a Congressional inquiry or four to prove that 'big oil' is not guilty of price gouging. Although scoring political points seems to be our elected officials' official business, Congress would be better advised to simplify the regulatory chaos surrounding US gas production and distribution. I'm all for clean air, but there is no way that 59 different formulas of gas are necessary to accomplish this laudable goal. Picking a winning formula, even if it is more expensive to begin with, would help prevent supply and distribution problems. During times of crisis, the ability to borrow a cup of premium unleaded from your neighbor would be a strong force against severe price fluctuations, speculation and gouging.

Cars are sexy, techy and cool. These simple facts tend to obscure any objective analysis of their utility. Like the Space Shuttle or my imaginary clerical staff, if it's sexy, people find a way to justify their love. So it's no wonder that T-TAC's resident pistonhead Robert Farago creased the outside of the envelope when he claimed that cars are the green choice, and labeled public transportation a disgusting aberration fueled by cancer juice and liberal lies.

Not so. Farago's rant relied heavily on a study by Roger Kemp of Lancaster University (UK). Mr. Farago claimed that the study proves that cars are more fuel efficient than trains. Unfortunately, a closer read of Mr. Kemp's study finds that BOTH the train AND the car cited in the study were diesels. The automobile used for comparative purposes was a 1.9L Teutonic miser of a VW, with four passengers on board.

Mr. Kemp's argument on passenger-miles-per-gallon falls further into disrepute when applied to the United States. As opposed to the 55 mpg four-up VW, the average US car carries a gruesome 1.61 passengers at 18 mpg. That's nearly ten times worse than the VW studied– even discounting aerodynamic drag from activist bumper stickers.

Farago's rhetorical reliance on the ultra-cleanliness of new cars is also interesting, but irrelevant. The average US car is more than nine years old. As for his off-hand analysis of bus loading, it's impossible to rebut where there are no facts. At the same time, it's important to note that US trains and buses are far cleaner and more efficient than those in the UK. For a quick comparison of respective air quality standards, visit London, walk around for two hours, and pick your nose.

Of course, that's an entirely subjective measure. Perhaps it's best to leave the air quality debate for others and return to Mr. Kemp's own words about efficiency: 'These findings only apply to long-distance journeys, and then only under an unrealistic assumption of uncongested conditions…. the vast majority of journeys… will remain much less environmentally damaging if we take the bus or train– and use our cars only where no alternative exists.'

Does this mean cars an unforgivable indulgence of a declining civilization, blindly crouched at the vomitorium while locusts mass on the horizon? No. Sometimes, especially in rural or suburban areas, they're the best-– or only-– option. And like Mr. Farago, I love them. But there's no denying that much of what we do with them is stupid.

As a car enthusiast, it breaks heart my heart to see a WRX STi idling next to me for an hour on the Beltway, like a leopard chained to a cement floor, or, worse, abandoned for 20 hours out of the day. Commuting trips-– and they're most of the trips we make-– are the wrong place for cars. Hell, I'd ship myself to work if I could. Since FedEx has proven to me they can't be relied on in this capacity, I use the next best thing: the DC Metro. And I'll try to make you, too.

Farago claims that environmentalists want to use a "political, moral or financial sledgehammer" to "bludgeon" you out of your cars. I don't. But I am sick of paying for them.

My taxes bought the road you're idling on and the troopers and snow plows and medevac flights that come with it; as sure as they bought the El train blowing past you on the left. More than $40 billion per year in the next highway bill, not including state taxes. I also work on a volunteer rescue squad, cutting you out of, and where possible, patching you up after innumerable wrecks, gratis. (Admittedly, sometimes a non-metaphorical sledgehammer is required.)

Overall, that's fine. The government pays for train tracks and air traffic control, too. A free, modern nation has to allow free movement throughout the country, and this can only be privatized so far. The costs associated are immense; we have to spend public money to get people places. My problem comes when we do it stupidly.

We do a lot of bad mass transit; Amtrak is an inexplicable zombie corporation hideously mutated by pork-barrel politics. In a giant country, long-distance rail travel really can't be more than a curiosity. But done right-– regional rail lines, commuter trains, car sharing services, intelligently-scheduled buses, carpooling facilities and HOV– public transit makes things cheaper and cleaner for everyone. Leave your cars for the places they make sense and produce fun.

Bottom line: I'm keeping my car, and you can have yours. But I'm not voting for $600 million for an eighth commuter lane for us all to drive to, park on, and swear at each other. I'd rather drop my "financial sledgehammer" on a fast intercity train, where I can have a quiet coffee and read through some studies-– before I post them on the net.

Why aren't mechanical skills taught in driver's ed anymore? Aspiring motorists learn obscure signage, passing safely (an oxymoron to any parent) and when to pay their motoring taxes. But basic automotive maintenance is a total no show. In my home state, a new driver can get a learner's permit or driver's license without having the slightest idea how to check their car's oil or change a tire.

It's a shame. Our schools teach our kids how to cook, use a laptop and avoid sexually transmitted diseases. Today's techno-savvy teens can whip-up an omelet, send batch emails from Starbucks and open a condom one-handed, but they don't know how to keep their car running smoothly and safely. They consider automotive maintenance and repair something their hopelessly nerdy Dad does, or something that happens when their parents [arbitrarily] interrupt their freedom by sequestering the car at the local dealer.

This glaring omission can be traced back to the modern cars' increasing reliability. Even before Cadillac's zero-maintenance Northstar engine appeared, manufacturers had been Hell-bent on eliminating any non-cabin customer-to-car interaction. The Japanese have been particularly zealous in this regard, and successful; drivers no longer expect anything to go wrong with their cars. Ever. In fact, reliability has come to mean inviolability: hood and trunk locks are protective shields against 'amateur' interference.

This mechanical dumbing down has gone over the top. For example, more and more cars are being fitted with run-flat tires. The technology completely eliminates the need to know how to fit a spare; which is just as well as there usually isn't one, and if there is, most young drivers wouldn't know where to find it or what to do with it when they did. Electronic oil gauges are also becoming the norm, virtually eliminating the need to be able to find or use a dipstick.

Once upon a time, automotive mechanical skills were passed from father to son, mother to daughter, friend to friend. Now, much to my amazement, I've yet to meet a teenager who knows anything about their car other than how to hook-up their iPod. Recommended oil? Pass. Battery location? Dunno. How to tell when the brakes are wearing out? Nope. The enthusiasts amongst them want NOS and coffee can exhausts, but they have no idea where or how to affix the parts to make them work (other than the local tuning shop). We've lost an entire generation to the microchip mentality: if it's broke, replace it.

Obviously, no car is 100% reliable. Even a Toyota can fail when you least expect it. If you're paranoid or believe in Murphy's Law (or both), the breakdown will inevitably occur in the most dangerous place possible (e.g. a busy highway at night in the rain, or the part of town where tow trucks refuse to respond). It's also obvious that we can no longer rely on the government, schools or the social network to impart mechanical skills to young drivers. Which means it's down to us, the "car nerd", to teach our genetic inheritors the basic repair and maintenance skills they need; before their ignorance kills, injures or strands them in the middle of nowhere.

So how do you broach a subject that your children find about as trendy as Herb Alpert and his Tijuana Brass? Cunning and subterfuge. Choose a day when their social schedule is either relative empty or completely full. Run the car's battery flat, let the air out of a tire, pull a bulb from the tail lights, remove a fuse, extract a wiper blade and hide the keys under the spare. Then gently inform your hormone charged loved ones that they're not going ANYWHERE until they learn how to take care of the car.

Start with something simple. Hand them the tire iron and ask them what it's for. (If necessary, duck.) Then have them change that flat tire. Remember: laziness makes people clever. Don't end up changing the tire for them. Next, move on to the engine compartment. Get them to open the hood (trickier than it sounds), check the oil, refill the windshield washer fluid, locate the battery, and so on. Then watch them replace the wiper blade, headlight bulb and fuse. Finish with the jumper cables to get the whole thing started.

Once you're satisfied that your children can take care of family car fundamentals, you'll sleep a little better at night. You can go back to worrying about that guy your daughter is dating, instead of worrying about that AND whether the car will make it home.

Despite the capable stewardship of GM Grand Pooh-bah Bob Lutz, Saturn is quickly falling out of orbit. That's the unavoidable conclusion after learning that General Motors plans on pushing its resident flower child upstairs, to an office from whose door a janitor is hurriedly scraping the "Oldsmobile" appliqué. Oh, how the flighty have fallen…

Remember when Saturn was 'A Different Kind of Car Company'? From Day One, the brand was a utopian marketing and social experiment in need of decent product-– a calamity that grew more acute over time. Apparently, the powers that be finally realized the Bohemian goodwill of its dealers and a no-dicker sticker weren't grounds enough to sustain a brand. As a result, over the past few years, GM has been steadily reeling in its wayward progeny, with an increasing percentage of its operations falling under the corporate umbrella.

Ergo its revised marching orders: abandon ye dent-resistant plastic body paneling, broom the 'Minnesota Nice' act, and fall into lockstep with the Brave New General. At the cost of a few lousy billion dollars, the General's Saturn mission will soon consist of a mildly differentiated Relay minivan (a homely offering bungeed to an unremarkable chassis that could take charm lessons from a Ford Freestar), a rear-wheel-drive roadster whose crest is an anathema to enthusiasts, and yet another mid-size front-driver to capitalize on all the warm-fuzzies garnered from those legions of L-Series devotees. Yippee.

And from what stylistic and dynamic wellspring is GM seeking to gloss Saturn's rings? Opel. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with that; the EuroGeneral's recent automotive efforts have possessed of a surety of design and constitution not seen out of the company's overseas outposts in quite some time. However, given the EuroGeneral's less cluttered stable of divisions, Opel enjoys a comparatively open playing field for its products. Back in America, things are more complex.

Stateside, Lutz's grand blueprint sends Buick Lexus-hunting, Cadillac dicing with BMW for the 'sporting executive' dollar, Pontiac reasserting its affordable performance heritage and Chevrolet underpinning the GM constellation as the 'everyday' line. Given this overstuffed cornucopia of brands, there exists precious little soil from which Saturn can (re)cultivate an identity. Hence GM's decision to aim Saturn at Oldsmobile's old market segment.

So, the General is proudly crowing about relocating what was once its most promising division into the digs of one of its most spectacular failings, Oldsmobile. Doesn't this strike anyone as disingenuous, or at least odd? Despite blustery talk of better product and expanded dealer networks, no statement has yet been made of anything remotely approaching a brand strategy or market placement. Apparently, a little Mercury has found its way into Saturn's watercooler. Poisonous logic, indeed.

To his credit, car czar Lutz has repeatedly rammed home the virtue of "Product Uber Alles". It's a message clearly ignored by Saturn execs, who thought they could make bank by foisting the disastrous Ion and L-Series appliances on an ignorant public. Said Lutz: "The idea behind the product was that it would be used as a tool… that's totally wrong. It's all about the car." True dat. So why the Relay, a rolling half-measure but a badge-swap away from being a Chevy Uplander or Pontiac Montana SV6? What audience will a Saturn roadster reach that a performance-branded, platform-sharing Pontiac Solstice won't?

If the consequences weren't so dire, the whole thing would be comical. General Motors is cribbing product-planning strategy from Lincoln's bastard stepchild. Take a basic platform, spackle on some fresh insignias, forge some new alloys, and voila! Wait a second. Didn't a pre-Lutz GM already try this with Oldsmobile? Hell, didn't all of Detroit try this throughout the entire '80's? Amazingly, GM execs have apparently blotted from their collective cortexes the 'badge engineering' slur that's played such a pivotal role in defining the Big Three's current malaise. In fact, most of Detroit has yet to digest this fundamental automotive truth: "trim and tape" operates uncomfortably close to "tar and feather."

Okay, so things have changed. With its noble Saturn mission, GM has learned the hard way that there's little money to be made in small cars. That means Saturn is no longer going to be GM's Cheap and Cheerful Automobile Factory, or the car buyer's moral refuge. However, all of this does little to temper the reality that the gaps in Saturn's revitalization plan threatens to dehisce like the panel fitments on an SC2 in winter. Just what will Spring Hill offer consumers that another GM brand doesn't already do with greater conviction? Who, exactly, is the brand's prototypical buyer?

It boils down to this: Whatever latent goodwill engendered among early buyers of the 'Brand with a Heart of Gold' is slowly being quashed as consumers cotton on to the reality that Saturn is gradually devolving into another GM 'me-too'. What a pity.