Archives are the foundation of historical research. Without access to primary material—be it documents, photographs, financial statements, engineering or test reports—historians lack the building blocks necessary to write the chronicles that inform our understanding of the past and illuminate the future. To their credit, America’s automakers have gone to great lengths and expense to preserve and protect the historical documents which chronicle and define their existence. Until recently. As Chrysler and GM plunged into bankruptcy, they turned their back on their own heritage and destroyed a priceless part of our collective past.

Chrysler was incorporated on June 6, 1925. Over the following decades, the automaker centralized and organized its archives, records dating back to the very beginnings of the American automobile industry. And then the company’s new owners decided history is bunk. Cerberus eliminated its archivist position. They stopped funding the documents’ maintenance. The company limited access to their archives and then stopped it altogether.

Worse was to follow.

With little notice and no planning, Cerberus literally abandoned the engineering library at the Chrysler Technical Center. The library was shuttered and the librarian laid off. And then the real crime: all the library’s books and materials were offered to anyone who could carry them away. I repeat: the documents were free for the taking. Within a week, a collection spanning decades was scattered to the winds; the books and other materials will never again be available in any coherent, comprehensive form.

The rest of Chrysler’s historical archives remain intact in a central location. Intense work by dedicated archivists has, over the years, provided organization and access to historians. Will FIAT consider these archives worth preserving? Do they even know they exist?

The situation at GM isn’t quite so dire—yet. While GM continues to fund a Heritage Center, the center has sold off hundreds of their historical vehicles. It’s a travesty that denies writers (and GM insiders) a hands-on link to the company’s best—and worst—work.

The location and status of GM’s paper archives is unclear. Historically, GM has allowed each division to keep or discard archival material as they pleased. Some, like Oldsmobile, transferred many of their key documents to an independent museum. Upon enquiry, it’s clear that many of the remaining GM divisions no longer know the location of their historical documents, much less how they are organized or how researchers can gain access.

Rumor has it that GM Research (at the GM Tech Center in Warren) has a library of technical papers dating back to its beginnings: a treasure trove of information about the development of the automobile. Who’s protecting this legacy? In fact, who owns it: Old GM or New?

These irreplaceable records must not be lost in the confusion of bankruptcy and reorganization. There are a number of potential homes for the material. The National Automotive History Collection in Detroit, the Benson Ford Archives, the archives at Kettering University, the Ransom E. Olds museum, or the University of Michigan, are all possibilities. There are others in and around Detroit.

It will take two things to make this happen: money and talent.

All of the archives and records could be transferred to a safe haven for under $2 million dollars. That’s roughly 0.04% of the latest check the feds cut GM to ensure the company’s “reinvention.” As the federal government has already underwritten the reorganization of GM and Chrysler, as Uncle Sam more or less owns these carmakers, underwriting the preservation of their archives is the least our elected representatives could do for our money.

Detroit has plenty of talent to make the rescue. The National Automotive History Collection, the Society of Automotive Historians, and countless other museums and libraries all have employees with the knowledge and the motivation to safely transport and secure the archives. With a little financial support from the federal government, and a little “empowerment” from the same place, teams of historians could ferret out the records within GM and protect them for future generations.

Ironically (given Henry Ford’s supposed view of history), Ford has shown us how it should be done. All of the company’s records have have been transferred to the Henry Ford [Museum] and to the Benson Ford Archives—and made accessible to researchers. Ford’s actions should be a blueprint for saving the rest of our automotive heritage.

Thanks to the $100 billion plus taxpayer Detroit bailout, Chrysler and GM’s historical records now belong to all of us. I urge you to e-mail your congressmen and senators, asking them to ensure that Chrysler and GM’s records are preserved in the public’s interest.

Few politicians, if any, are interested in automotive history. Witness President Obama’s absurd assertion that “America invented the automobile.” But all elected officials are interested in votes. Let them know you care. Let them know that the companies that failed to learn from history shouldn’t lose it for those who can.

I have nothing against the Toyota Prius. It’s the car’s mystique that irks me. You know what I’m talking about: the whole “Toyota Pious” thing. As someone who’s read rational reports from Prius-owning TTAC commentators, as a pistonhead who understands that there’s more to driving a Ferrari than beauty and performance, I swear I’m OK with the hybrid’s PC mantle. But the Prius’s high MPG numbers and green street cred tend to stifle the debate on some important points.

Point One — Are Prius Owners Hypocrites?

Prius drivers swear, “It’s not about all about me.” I’m not buying it. If owners didn’t want people to know that they’re doing their bit for the environment, why has the Prius’ distinctive shape been such a boon to sales? Is the Prius that much more fuel-efficient than its competitors that it deserves to dominate the US hybrid market?

Aside from a small badge and different wheels, the Honda Civic hybrid looked just like every other Civic. Did it sell well? No. Honda Accord hybrid? Nope. Is it any wonder the new Honda Insight is a Prius clone?

There’s no question that the Prius gets great mpg (51/48 for 2010). But I suspect Prius drivers want more: they want us to know they’re saving the planet one car at a time.

Again, that’s OK. But there are limits. A Prius is not a free pass for the hybrid’s owner’s total “carbon footprint.” Or is it? This summer, how many Priora will park in front of chilled McMansions?

Point Two — Shouldn’t the Prius be More Energy Efficient?

Surely a driver concerned about the environment can open and close their windows manually. The electric windows extra motors and wires add unneeded weight and use precious energy. By the same token, why air conditioning? Isn’t the A/C compressor and all of its needed wiring, blowers, hardware etc. wasting energy? What effect does r134a have on the environment?

Why does the Toyota Prius offer an optional ten speaker JBL sound system? For years, we got by with just two or four speakers. Prius drivers could listen to their favorite tunes without the extra power, draw and weight of speakers and amplifiers.

And what of the leather seats? Shouldn’t Toyota fashion the Prius’ chairs, carpeting and other interior materials from some composite derived from recycled plastic bottles or part soybean oil (a la Ford)?

And what about the extra money spent on all of these options? Wouldn’t it be better if Prius buyers purchased de-contented vehicles and sent the money to an appropriate environmental organization?

Point Three — Is the Prius REALLY That Efficient?

No question: the Toyota Prius is a clever piece of kit. The car’s Synergy Drive system’s internal combustion engine (ICE) generates electricity for a battery which supplants or assists ICE power in various ways at various times, according to engine load. The Prius also recaptures and reuses braking energy. Equally important, the car sits on skinny tires. And it’s slow.

So what would happen if you equipped a Prius with the world’s most efficient internal combustion engine; a powerplant that would match but not exceed Toyota’s Synergy Drive’s Prius performance?

I’m not suggesting a HUMMER is less energy intensive to produce, operate and recycle than a Toyota Prius. And again I’m not against the Prius, Toyota or Prius owners per se. But it should be asked: is the Prius set-up the best use of our resources?

The same question applies to electric cars. There is a lot of talk in the media about the merits of the electric car and not much debate about the reality. Electric cars need batteries. Batteries need electricity [mostly] generated by fossil fuels. A gallon of gasoline far exceeds a battery in its energy density.

And what of the batteries charge level?

A gasoline car maintains its performance right down to the last milliliter of gasoline. Whether you have a full tank or a quarter tank, there is no discernible performance loss. A battery, on the other hand, shows a significant power loss in a non-linear fashion as it discharges. Ever see what happens when your electronic device gets down to 25 percent power? It performs erratically. Discuss. Meanwhile, I leave you with one final question:

Point Four — Is There A Better Way?

Take the existing Corolla and strip out any unnecessary weight. Next, maximize the engine for gas mileage. The target demographic certainly be able to tolerate decreased acceleration times in the interest of more efficient fuel consumption. (Toyota has extensive experience with diesels; a diesel powerplant should be assessed as well.) Fit the interior with lightweight materials or recycled composites.

How would this low-touch, high-mileage Corolla carbon footprint stack up against the Prius? And if the stripper Corolla offered substantially better efficiency than the Prius at the same price, would Prius owners make the switch?

When columnist Daniel Howes at the Detroit News gets pissed off enough at GM to write anything other than “we shall see what we shall see,” you know the former bankrupt is doing something very, very wrong. The object of Danny’s ire: the lack of fresh faces at The New GM. “To read the announcement of GM’s new nine-person executive committee, the promotions and the retirements, as I did minutes after it was made public, is to hear the faint strains of Talking Heads singing ‘same as it ever was, same as it ever was’ and to hear more wailing about the chronically clueless GM.” Mind you, Howes isn’t calling GM chronically clueless (that’s our job). He’s angry that “the feds’ pay-and-bonus restrictions essentially make it impossible for CEO Fritz Henderson to woo outside talent for inside jobs.” Woo-hoo! Howes is on the money; out in the real world, $500K doesn’t buy you a reasonable Human Resources manager. But hey, did someone forget the GM stands for Government Motors?

In many ways, GM was born to be nationalized. Over a hundred years or so, the American automaker has gradually evolved to resemble nothing so much as the federal government. Same farrago of competing fiefdoms. Same lack of accountability. Same stifling bureaucracy. Same budgetary constraints (i.e., both too many and none at all). Same global aspirations. Same lack of strategic focus. Same inability to appreciate conditions on the ground. Same inability to make decisions in a timely fashion.

“Reinventing” GM would require massive and sustained root and branch reform; from the top down and the bottom up. Howes [rightly] seizes on Uncle Sam’s pay cap as the central impediment to GM hiring the kind of management that could even begin to refashion its dysfunctional corporate culture. But the curmudgeon fails to connect the dots. The automaker doesn’t want a shake-up.

More specifically, the idea that GM CEO Fritz Henderson’s hands are tied by the Troubled Asset Relief Program’s pay and bonus restrictions is ridiculous. Henderson is a GM lifer. The former Chief Financial Officer. Fellow GM lifer, fellow former Chief Financial Officer, and Ex-CEO Rick Wagoner’s hand-picked successor. Henderson owes his livelihood to the GM status quo. In other words, if Henderson was dedicated to upending the GM’s ossified apple cart, he’d start by firing himself. Since he hasn’t, we must assume that reshuffling GM’s motley crew of proven losers is a labor of love. An ennobling endeavor.

No joke. By convincing the feds to keep GM out of the garbage disposal of a real C11, Fritz has protected the paychecks, pensions and benefits of hundreds of white collar compatriots. Top executives like Gary Cowger and Troy Clarke must have kissed Fritz’s feet when he knocked on their door with the “bad” news. In a genuine bankruptcy, these proven losers would have been ejected from the Renaissance Center without so much as a fare-thee-well (excluding any monies they may have stashed away during decades of serious rooting). You can hear failed Car Czar Bob Lutz’s gleeful cackles echoing through the automaker’s increasingly empty cubicles, as New GM’s new marketing maven tries (and fails) to assimilate his reversal of fortune.

As far as Henderson being “forced” to promote from within, does Howes really think that the CEO considers fast-tracking GM insiders to positions of greater power is bad for GM? Brent Dewar, Chevy’s new VP of Chevrolet, started working for GM in 1978. Bryan Nesbitt, new GM of Cadillac, is a relative piker, but he’s relatively young AND he’s been with GM for eight years. C’mon; these guys are Henderson’s people. Presidential Task Force on Automobiles or not, Fritz Henderson’s desire to protect, preserve and extend his BFF’s careers (to protect, preserve and extend his own) runs so deep it’s instinctive. It’s what GM employees do.

Howes had the strange idea that the New GM would be a new GM. He’s going through the grieving process, as the writer and his fellow cheerleaders realize that GM’s talking a lot, but it’s not saying anything. In fact, the moment Old GM accepted new federal money (and thus ownership) any meaningful idea of a re-imagined GM disappeared. The whole point of the federal bailout: preserve the status quo. And so it has.

New talent? Government agencies—for that is what GM is—are not known for hiring outsiders to create and implement radical change, to improve efficiency and foster accountability. Even in those rare cases where such appointments are made, the existing workers inevitably drag their heels and destroy the outside “virus” before it has a chance to reproduce.

There is only one way GM can truly “reinvent” itself: surrender to the creative destruction inherent in genuine capitalism. It’s an answer that Howes and GM and many, many others find too horrible to contemplate. But it’s the truth.

Earlier this week, J.D. Power gave the automotive world a new score to ponder: the Vehicle Launch Index (VLI). This addition to the survey giant’s quality canon aims to measure how well manufacturers launch new or redesigned models. It’s a worthy endeavor; a new model’s success in its first few months often predicts its long-term sales and profitability. But what do these new J.D. Power scores tell us? In the immortal words of Jeff Spicoli: I don’t know.

This first set of VLI scores includes 27 models introduced in the first ten months of 2008. The top scorer: the Hyundai Genesis. The bottom scorer: the Toyota Matrix. Speaking to Automotive News [sub], J.D. Power Senior Vice President Gary Dilts characterized the Hyundai luxury sedan’s launch as “flawless;” a characterization that captured the media’s immediate attention and pleased the Korean automaker to no end. The rear wheel-drive sedan’s score: 689 out of 1,000. Flawless? On a curve?

That’s only the first of many VLI oddities. The VW Routan falls just three points shy of the 582-point average. The slow-selling German-engineered (or not) minivan had a decent launch—who knew? The Audi A4 ranks much lower, tying with the now-defunct Pontiac G8. So should Volkswagen of America aim for more launches like the Routan’s, and fewer like the A4’s? Meanwhile, the Ford Flex, which has had an agonizingly slow start and (according to J.D. Power’s IQS) poor initial quality, ranks near the top of the VLI.

How can models that are selling poorly or that have poor initial quality attain decent, even high scores for their launch/re-launch? Drilling down, J.D. Power’s VLI scores include turn rate, vehicle revenue, dealer gross profit, incentive spend, credit quality, residual value, customer appeal and initial quality.

J.D. Power’s famous Initial Quality Survey (IQS) combines two totally different elements: design quality and mechanical quality. As a result, the line between them is muddled. In fact, it’s still not entirely clear what a particular IQS score represents.

With the VLI, J.D. Power has taken this lack of clarity to a whole new level. Where the IQS has two subscores, the VLI has [at least] eight. So when looking at any particular score, it’s impossible to say what it represents. The Ford Flex and VW Routan did well at . . . some things. The Audi A4 blew it with . . . maybe the same things. Maybe something else. Who knows?

These model subscores aren’t the only part of the VLI that J.D. Power’s keeping from public scrunity. The actual formula has also been kept under wraps. Nothing is said about how the variables and weights in this secret formula were determined—except that the formula followed from “carefully analyzing more than 90 vehicle launches.”

Without knowing this formula, it’s far from clear how much weight each factor receives. Judging from the scores, initial quality doesn’t carry much weight. Nor does how close a model comes to achieving its sales targets. Maybe all eight-plus factors are equally weighted, such that none of them carries much weight by itself?

One thing is clear: the VLI isn’t evaluating launches from a car buyer’s perspective.

Car buyers, who’ve learned to be wary of buying a new model in its first year, are focused on their need for information on a vehicle’s initial reliability. “Appeal” they can judge with their own eyes. They couldn’t care less about dealer profitability and inventory turns (whatever that is). Car buyers’ needs would be much better served by a metric that focuses on initial reliability and that provides this information as quickly as possible. [Fair disclosure: Mr. Karesh’s TrueDelta offers a Car Reliability Survey offers that information.]

Of course, it should come as no surprise that a J.D. Power-crafted metric would focus on the manufacturer’s needs. J.D. Power earns its millions by serving manufacturers, not by serving car buyers. Their M.O.: persuade manufacturers that they need a high score based on a proprietary formula, then sell them the data and consulting services that will help them boost their scores.

In the official press release, J.D. Power offers some tips to its corporate benfactors gratis: set realistic prices, set realistic sales targets, style the vehicle well, and achieve high initial quality. (Notable by their absence: advertising and PR.) Of course, everyone in the biz already knows this much; much as everyone knows that the way to lose weight is to eat less and exercise more. The hard part isn’t knowing what should be done, but doing it.

Meanwhile, J.D. gets another service to sell to the biz, while auto industry execs get more hardware for their ego shelf and another bullet point for their resume. Well good for them. But the VLI’s yet another example of car biz navel gazing, a metric that marginalizes a central, well-established fact: the customer comes first.

TTAC commentator psarhjinian writes:

Thanks to the terrible economy, I’ve recently been given the opportunity to pick up a project car on the (very) cheap. The catch: the project car is a Caterham SV, sans powertrain. Googling around has given me all sorts of options, from four-cylinder Zetecs to small-block Chevvies to Hayabusa powerplants. I’m sure some madman has shoehorned a Prius’ drivetrain in there, but thus far I haven’t turned up the requisite Youtube video of it.

To say “I don’t know where to start” would be an understatement. What I’m trying to figure out is what kind of powertrain would be good, given a perfect storm of cheap, quick and easy for someone with not a lot of tools, experience and time to work on.

Oh, and I do have young children. So as not to invoke my life insurance policy, I think we can skip anything that’s too far into “Death Car” land.

Read More >

TTAC Commentator don1967 writes,

What’s the deal with these platinum/iridium-tipped spark plugs? Is there any reason to go through the (sometimes very high) cost of dismantling half of your engine to replace them every 100,000 miles if the car is running fine? Also, what do you think about periodically loosening and retightening them to prevent seizing . . . does that ever actually happen?

Read More >

Toyota is the top automaker in the world and has grown to this point by using methods put into place by one lone individual crying in the American post-war industrial wilderness. His name was Deming, and his message was (paraphrasing) “make it right the first time and it’ll be less expensive, better for the customer and more profitable for the manufacturer.” He also laid out how best to continually improve. The Japanese took this message and ran with it, patiently decimating the competition over half a century.

Toyota supplanted GM as the world’s largest automaker—just as the world economy collapsed. Specifically, the US economy is tanked, kaput, flushed. For a long time to come. The Great Depression lasted from 1929-1942, after all; and that was when the nation was not trillions of dollars in debt (and adding $1.8 trillion more in 2009 debts alone).

Then, too, you have the Canadian and US governments tilting the playing field dramatically towards their domestic carmakers, by owning and supporting GM and Chrysler, as well as writing law and rebate language specifically for their benefits at the expense of free-market competitors. Toyota’s displeasure with the state of affairs recently surfaced when the Premier of Ontario aimed rebates at GM’s future hybrids—after Toyota have put thousands of new jobs into Ontario (while GM pulls jobs and sends them to China and Mexico).

In addition, multiple Chinese automakers stand ready to enter the US market with the tacit financial support of their government. How many US market “goods” are currently made in China that used to be made in Japan thirty years ago?

What if Toyota executives believe that the US economy is going to entirely collapse? Pulling out of a market temporarily is not unheard of, specifically for the on-again/off-again South American nations which have seen hyperinflation first hand over the past couple of decades.

Toyota as a company is, first of all, not used to losses. Where are their losses right now? Exclusively in North America. So says Toyota’s CEO in North America in the Detroit News. In plain English, Toyota says, “no level playing field, no profits, no prospect for profits; time to leave North America?”

I don’t just mean close down all of the plants and simply import cars. I mean, depart—as did Isuzu, Daewoo, Peugeot, Citroën, and many others.

Obviously, that’s an extreme scenario. If, in twenty or thirty years, the North American economy recovers sufficiently to again profitably export cars here, the company would no doubt wish to return under the guise of Daihatsu (50% owned by Toyota). A small remnant, Subaru, could stay if it is profitable in North America; Toyota just increased their ownership level of Fuji Heavy Industries (owner of the Subaru brand).

A Toyota withdrawal would be an enormous PR disaster for the current North American regime, in terms of showing a total lack of confidence in the US dollar, literally astronomical deficits and the NAFTA tied-economy (i.e. the lack of future economic health prospects for Canada and Mexico).

Backing off from the nuclear option, Toyota seems certain to pull the plug on NUMMI and close it down (having already been left to hold the bag by their “partner” GM), mothball the Mississippi factory indefinitely, consolidate production and use US plants for the US market, reduce hours of the workforce to match requirements, severely restrict the number and types of vehicle available to only the profitable and better selling lines, and massively lay off Ontario workers by curtailing exports to the USA.

The alternative (total pull-out) would be very damaging for the United States; therefore perhaps the US, Canadian and Ontario Governments should sit down with Toyota executives and have a frank conversation, starting with a great big “thank you” for first investing so much into North America, a second big “thank you” for investing so much into hybrid technology and finally by confirming that the playing field will be left level for everyone at the earliest possible timeframe.

Because if Toyota leaves North America, the only companies which would gain market share would be Honda, Hyundai/Kia, Nissan and Ford in that order (IMHO), as Toyota intenders would rarely, if ever, even consider GM or Chrysler products. Whether these companies could be profitable in North America even with Toyota out of the market is another matter entirely.

If the most profitable and efficient automaker cannot make a profit here, what of the lesser companies? Is North America a cesspit of money-loss for the automotive industry? The current regime believes they have forestalled a cataclysmic auto industry collapse. That market forces cannot overcome their magical thinking. History proves them entirely wrong.

There’s no doubt about it: the automotive landscape is changing. Carmakers around the globe are embracing electric propulsion, whether the volts are generated by a gasoline motor, a fuel cell, a distant power plant or a combination thereof. New companies seem to be springing up overnight to take advantage of the government’s desire (and money) to wean motorists from their petrochemical “addiction.”  While everyone rushes to produce politically-correct powerplants, one fundamental question that remains largely unexamined: from where will manufacturers secure the raw materials needed to mass produce this new technology?

Back in the good old bad old days, cars were literally lumps of iron. The bodies were made from steel. The engines from cast iron. Even as new features were added, the primary raw materials remained ore-based. New-fangled electrical accessories like starters, power windows, power seats and stereos brought copper into that mix. As metallurgical science progressed, aluminum and its alloys entered the mass market mix. No problem there: aluminum is the most abundant metallic element on earth. It’s lightweight and eminently recyclable (today’s beer can is tomorrow’s bumper). Dropping market prices continue to move the metal from exotic cars to daily drivers.

Along with various materials derived from petrochemicals, modern cars are made from iron, steel, aluminum and copper. Manufacturers use other metals (e.g., magnesium) in structural and other applications, but The Big Four reign supreme.

In the 1960s, a research effort between the Air Force and General Motors made a discovery: if you combine the rare earth element neodymium with boron and iron you can make incredibly strong magnets. These magnets are mission critical for the compact-yet-powerful motors used in today’s gas-electric hybrid vehicles. “Doping” the magnets with a bit of dysprosium (another rare earth metal) makes them even more effective, helping them withstand the automotive application’s high operating temperatures.

Industry expert Jack Lifton estimates that manufacturing the battery pack of a second generation Prius required 60 pounds of assorted rare earth metals. And there’s more. Carmakers use rare earths for catalytic converters, computer chips, UV-filtering glass, LCD screens and solar panels. In fact, many of the new technologies that inform advanced vehicles owe their existence—one way or another— to rare earths.

Thankfully, rare earths aren’t that rare. China has huge deposits of rare earth ores and (until very recently) little regard for the environmental impact of mining and refining them. In 2007, China exported 49k tons of rare earth products, down 14.93 percent. BUT the export value surged 51 percent to $1.179 billion. In 1992, Deng Xiaoping stated “There is oil in the Middle East. There are rare earths in China. We must take full advantage of this resource.” And so they have.

The U.S. used to be the world’s biggest producer of rare earths. That ended in the ’90s when the Mountain Pass mining operation in California shut down due to “market pressure” (i.e., cheap Chinese product). Environmental regulations also helped seal the mine’s fate; rare earth mining can produce some pretty nasty byproducts like thorium.

And so the Chinese rare earth industry has grown unchallenged to the point where it essentially owns the market.  Molycorp recently reopened the Mountain Pass operation. There are efforts underway to develop mines in Canada, Australia (where Chinese companies just bought big portions of two Aussie mining companies), Vietnam and India. As of now, none of these future mines offers significant competition to China’s efforts to dominate the rare earth market.

Adding to the problem: while there are mines producing rare earth ores and oxides elsewhere, China’s the only one country on earth where the ores are refined into the rare earth metals. For the time being, no matter where the rare earth materials are mined, the production pipeline flows through—and is controlled by—China.

So far, China hasn’t tried playing silly buggers with rare earth prices, as OPEC has been known to do with oil. However, any company that manufactures anything using rare earths is at the mercy of the Chinese government’s production and pricing.

China has raised the export tax on some rare earth metals as high as 25 percent. Foreign companies aren’t allowed to invest in exploration and mining. There are limits on foreign involvement in ore processing. Industries that use rare earth metals are “encouraged” to produce their end product there.

Because China hasn’t curtailed supplies (i.e., raised prices significantly), there’s no interest in recycling rare earths from discarded autos. When that wrecked hybrid is sent to the crusher, the copper, iron and aluminum in it will be recovered. The rare earth metals will not.

As the government pushes the automakers to improve mileage and cut emissions, they’re practically demanding carmakers produce electric or hybrid-electric vehicles. Even though the government and industry know how important these rare earths are critical to their environmental goals, they’ve failed to consider the potential impact of a “rare earth” gap, trusting that the free market will provide the required raw materials at a cost-effective price.

For now, yes. In the future, who knows?

Brad writes:

Some years ago in an effort to quiet hydraulic lifters, I ran a quart of ATF in my Isuzu Trooper for 500 miles before I changed the oil. ATF supposedly has a bunch of detergents and this would clean out all the oil passages. I can tell you, the drained oil was the blackest I’d ever seen come out of one of my cars. It also seemed to help with the valve clatter, but didn’t completely cure it.

So here is my question . . . I’m getting close to an oil change in my 1988 911 Carrera, I was thinking of doing the same thing to it, to really clean out the engine. What do you think?

Read More >

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) woke up to a New York Times hatchet job. “In 2003, researchers at a federal agency proposed a long-term study of 10,000 drivers to assess the safety risk posed by cellphone use behind the wheel,” the NYT begins, without specifying who, what, when, where or how. But we do get a general sort of why: “They sought the study based on evidence that such multitasking was a serious and growing threat on America’s roadways.” And then, da da DA! “But such an ambitious study never happened. And the researchers’ agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, decided not to make public hundreds of pages of research and warnings about the use of phones by drivers — in part, officials say, because of concerns about angering Congress.” Dive! Dive! Dive!

So, here’s the “secret” preliminary data (all 266 pages of it). Now, a bit further down the Times article, we get the smoking gun. Allegedly.

Dr. Jeffrey Runge, then the head of the highway safety agency, said he grudgingly decided not to publish the draft letter [to Transportation Secretary Norman Minetta “warning states that hands-free laws might not solve” the cell phone distracted driving problem] because of larger political considerations.

At the time, Congress had warned the agency not to use its research to lobby states. Dr. Runge said transit officials told him he could jeopardize billions of dollars of its financing if Congress perceived the agency had crossed the line into lobbying.

The fate of the research was discussed during a high-level meeting at the transportation secretary’s office. The meeting included Dr. Runge, several staff members with the highway safety agency and John Flaherty, Mr. Mineta’s chief of staff.

Mr. Flaherty recalls that the group decided not to publish the research because the data was too inconclusive.

Who are these “transit officials” of which Dr. Runge speaks? And why are we to believe Dr. R’s characterization of events when Mineta’s main man Flaherty says the data was withheld due to its quality?

He recalled that Dr. Runge “indicated that the data was incomplete and there was going to be more research coming.”

He recalled summing up his position as, the agency “should make a decision as to whether they wanted to wait for more data.”

But Dr. Runge recalled feeling that the issue was dire and needed public attention. “I really wanted to send a letter to governors telling them not to give a pass to hands-free laws,” said Dr. Runge, whose staff spent months preparing a binder of materials for their presentation.

DOT telling NHTSA not to play politics? Sounds sensible to me. Now, can the NYT backpedal? Sure!

The highway safety agency, rather than commissioning a study with 10,000 drivers, handled one involving 100 cars. That study, done with the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, placed cameras inside cars to monitor drivers for more than a year . . .

Not all the research went unpublished. The safety agency put on its Web site an annotated bibliography of more than 150 scientific articles [here] that showed how a cellphone conversation while driving taxes the brain’s processing power. But the bibliography included only a list of the articles, not the one-page summaries of each one written by the researchers.

“It became almost laughable,” Mr. Monk told the Times. “What they wound up finally publishing was a stripped-out summary.”

It’s a conspiracy! Or not.

Mr. Monk and Mike Goodman, a division head at the safety agency who led the research project, theorize that the agency might have felt pressure from the cellphone industry. Mr. Goodman said the industry frequently checked in with him about the project and his progress. (He said the industry knew about the research because he had worked with it to gather some data).

But he could offer no proof of the industry’s influence. Mr. Flaherty said he was not contacted or influenced by the industry.

In summary, then, we now know the NHTSA is not in the business of releasing preliminary data, which is open to misinterpretation. In fact, suggesting that agency torpedoed a study of 10k drivers because they don’t care about driver safety, or care too much about congressional oversight, is a slur against the NHTSA’s history of protecting American motorists and calling it like they see it.

At least the NYT ends (as do we) with a quote from the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Rae Tyson, the spokesman who’s helped us investigate potential fraud re: the fed’s “Cash for Clunkers” program.

Rae Tyson . . . said [the DOT] did not, and would not, publish the researchers’ fatality estimates because they were not definitive enough.

He said the other research was compiled as background material for the agency, not for the public.

“There is no report to publish,” he said.

Curbside Classics takes you back to 1971 for a virtual comparison test of six small cars, based (and partly borrowed) from a C/D test.

Hail the conquering hero! Well, not of C/D‘s comparison test, but who cares, as long as the sales are there. And by 1971, the Corolla was well along in its conquest of the US small car market, despite being only three years fresh. In 1969, only its second year on the US market, the Corolla leapt to the number two import sales spot, and was nipping hard at the Beetle’s pointy tail. Try replicating that today! And by 1975, the “little crown” was lording over the defeated krabbeltier. So what exactly were the Corolla’s remarkable qualities that sent VW (and Opel) into such a deep and permanent retreat? And its shortcomings that kept it from winning this comparison? Read More >

Darwin S. writes:

I have a 1999 Buick Century that now needs constant water. It happens pretty slowly. I recently drained all the water and refilled with water and antifreeze. It doesn’t appear to be leaking anywhere. What’s happening? Thanks.

Read More >

TTAC Commentator pleiter writes:

Convince me one way or another, about OBD-II. I want to know if I should invest in it for personal use. I need to know things like what are the major options, is it just pigtails and a PC laptop interface, now, does it work very well with one publication or not (Chilton’s, Haynes), will I still have the risk of purchasing wrong electronic parts that are not returnable.

Also, is there any emerging market for economy chips or economy (mpg) reflash? I know cold camshaft profiles are starting to show up, but I’m looking for something easier to implement and reversible, because I’m lazy.

I have a Scion tC and two 325i’s.

Read More >

Hitting 50 was tough. I’ve reached the point in my life where I no longer ask “Is That All There Is?” I now ask, “Why did I eat that bowl of mocha chip?” I’ve entered the phase Passage’s author/plagiarist Gail Sheehy calls “Refreshed (or Resigned).” Paint me parenthetical. Recently, I’ve been wondering if I should resign myself to the fact that the car industry is full of liars, weasels, cheats and sons of bitches. And lighten-up. See the good in the people and products which make pistonheads purr. And then my daughter refused to go to bed; she trashed her room like a coke-fueled 70’s rock band. “I have anger issues,” Lola said, when she finally ran out of steam. “That’s OK,” I assured her. “It runs in the family.” So here are five things I hate about the August issue of Car and Driver.

5. August – It’s July. Car and Driver’s “August” issue was put to bed two month’s ago. Despite the obvious immediacy gap (chasm?) between CandD and the autoblogosphere, the storied car mag and its buff book brethren continue their feeble attempt to maintain the illusion of newsworthiness. Their failure to embrace change perpetuates manufacturer-enabled news embargoes, a Kremlin-style practice that prevents the free-flow of information to the consumer and perpetuates junkets that restrict and pervert automotive journalism. Car and Driver should stop chasing faux actuality and get back to the brand’s [former] core value: keeping it real. Meanwhile, I hear rumors that ex-bankrupt Source Interlink Media (Automobile, Motor Trend) has seen the light; they’re looking at improving their paper stock, upping photos and shifting focus towards features. Car and Driver should have done this ten years ago.

4. Cheerleading – Who knew new Editor-in-Chief Eddy Alterman was a Detroit altar boy? For the August issue, Eddy keeps David E. Davis Jr. on life-support, for the sole purpose of recycling reactionary claptrap that passed its sell-by date when jeans had bells at the bottom: “If you’re going to sell ’em here, build ’em here;” “ban cell phones;” “don’t bitch about SUVs;” etc. For this Davis gets paid? Again? But it’s more than that. Despite the “new” voices, Car and Driver is still shaking the pom-poms for Motown’s spinmeisters. While the August issue finally gives GM some shit about the Volt, the taxpayer-owned automaker ultimately gets a get-out-of-bullshit-free card: “work in progress.” There’s an entirely too credulous report on the 2011 (really?) Dodge Circuit EV. And the BMW MINI-E is cool ’cause . . . something to do with tattoos.

3. Gotta have it – TTAC’s Best and Brightest have ripped CandD a new you-know-what over this one before: the mag’s tendency to overturn the results of its comparison tests using the “Gotta Have It” category. In the August issue, the Ferrari California bests the Mercedes-Benz SL63 AMG by two points (207 to 205). Remove the Fezza’s three point Gotta Have It score and the Mercedes would have won by one. Never mind the mag’s blatant Bimmer bias; this kind of crap stinks of middle-aged white guy elitism. Which is OK—if Car and Driver would stop pretending to be “fair.” Factor-in the quality of the shrimp at the junket, and the length of the PR babe’s skirt. I dare you.

[Note: TTAC’s reviews include a desirability rating. But we don’t rate/compare cars according to an ostensibly objective formula. We openly admit that ALL of a reviewer’s ratings are ENTIRELY subjective. We actively seek out second and third opinions on a vehicle. And we solicit reader comments which run directly underneath the review. Thank you Al Gore.]

2. Pimping – What’s the difference between cheerleading and pimping? I reckon it has something to do with article origination; whether or not a feature began life as a “let’s kick some ideas around” lunch at an expensive restaurant with “the client.” Or maybe it’s just a question of money. Either way, “VETTE DREAMS” errs on the side of solicitation. “V-8 POWER FOR THE PRICE OF A HOT HATCH, WITH THE SECURITY OF GM’S CERTIFIED USED-VEHICLE PROGRAM” is a strap-line, not an advertising headline, apparently. To his credit, former Editor-in-Chief Csaba Csere warns readers that www.gmcertified.com sucks. Sorry, “the site’s search functions aren’t strong.” Neither is Car and Driver’s credibility.

1. Boring – I could forgive Car and Driver’s carmudgeon anything if their writing didn’t bore me to tears. The mag’s literary quality is a crying shame. I’m not saying CandD’s prose is stiff, but the porn industry should be so lucky. By the same token, you’ll find more more passion in GM’s accounting department on Temazepam Tuesdays. While all the August issue’s articles are inert, the piece called “Unprotected Text” is the quintessential snoozer. I leave you with the opening sentence, which is so dire on so many levels that it’s put my ire to rest. Well, hibernation. “If you use a cell phone, chances are you’re aware of ‘text messaging’–brief messages limited to 160 characters that can be sent or received on all modern mobile phones.”

Last night, make that early in the morning here in Beijing, I received a pleasant phone call. The lady identified herself as working for a large and reputable German newspaper. We exchanged German pleasantries, as much as they exist. Then she said: “You wrote about RHJ, Ripplewood and Opel? Do you know anything about Tim Collins’ connections?” I confessed that I know of a recording artist named Collins, but his first name is Phil.

“TIM Collins, the owner of Ripplewood,” she said. “Sorry, never met the guy” was my answer. She says: “Okay, maybe I have to dig around his old compatriots myself.” With these words, she bid me ta-ta.

This was not the first time I had received one of those calls. Usually, after a juicy installment of the Porsche/Piech soap, people call me and say they are from some news organization. They usually want my sources. On the off-chance that they may be plumbers looking for a leak, I usually refer them to people I don’t particularly like: “Maybe he knows something.”

This lady sounded different. She was a professional journalist. So this morning, I fire up my laptop and peruse the big disintermediator of investigative journalism: Google.

Wait, before I google through gadzillions of pages, a quick glance at Reuters: “Merkel back’s Magna’s Opel bid” it says here. On the occasion of Russian President Dmitry Medvedev’s visit to Munich, Germany, Angela said that except for some minor issues that need cleaning up, “the Magna concept offers excellent starting points. It offers Opel a chance and also creates the possibility of establishing a strategic partnership in the car sector with Russia.” Medvedev was pleased to hear it. A rare endorsement straight from the top, even before the final bids are in? Sure looks like a slam-dunk to this reporter.

The other bidder, Ripplewood/RHJ, appears to be in deep doo-doo. Their plan to grab Opel and as much government money as possible, close some plants, fire some workers, and then sell a squeaky-clean Opel back to GM got out too early. The states where Opel has factories basically told Ripplewood/RHJ to take a hike. Germany’s central government echoed the notion. Message as follows: If GM sells its European car business to anyone other than Magna International Inc., then Germany might (make that: definitely will) withdraw its offer of state aid. 10-4?

To my utter amazement, today’s Reuters also carries the headline: “RHJ offers $388 million for Opel stake.” The article reveals that RHJ has the nerve to offer chump change to the sad tune of €275m for a 50.1 percent stake in General Motors’ Opel business. They also offer “production cutbacks and pay cuts for staff.” RHJ’s spreadsheet “sees Opel posting a positive cash flow before funding of €1b by 2011.” (Outline of RHJ’s plan here. It won’t sit well in Belgium, Spain and the U.K.)

$388m for a majority of Opel? I beg your pardon? That’s all they’ve got? China’s Geely wants to shell out $2b for tiny Volvo! And what’s with “before funding?”  For RHJ, there won’t be any funding from the lender of last resort, the German taxpayer, that has just been made abundantly clear.

I nearly had forgotten about last night’s call.

I never cared before to look behind the curtain of RHJ, they were a dark horse which nobody took seriously. The Germans have an ingrained aversion against strip-and-flip private equity houses. Too many companies were stripped naked, flipped over and left dead.  RHJ was a sideshow. Car guys want to deal with car guys. RHJ has been told to scram, there will be no government support for them, and NOW they are back with a $388m charitable donation? (They need a public handout worth several billions. Their plan is mute on that topic.)

Who ARE those people?  RHJ is one of a bunch of companies owned by Ripplewood Holdings LLC, a New York private equity firm. It owns companies such as Interstate Bakeries Corp. and good old Reader’s Digest (good luck with that.) RHJ International is based in Belgium, they have investments in a number of companies. Ripplewood was founded 1995 by Tim Collins, after he had left Lazard, one of the world’s largest investment banks.

Tim Collins is one of the few people who publicly acknowledge that they are a member of the Trilateral Commission. Tim Collins is also reported as a frequent attendee at the secretive Bilderberg conferences.

“Trilateral Commission” and “Bilderberg” makes many true blue Americans grab their guns, head for the hills, and scan the skies for black helicopters.

Before you brand me as a total nutjob, the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg Group actually do exist. Whether they own black helicopters, I don’t know.

Now guess who is also listed as a Bilderberger? Steven Rattner, the recently departed head of the Presidential Task Force On Autos. So is Timothy Geithner by the way, he was seen at the recent Bilderberg meeting in Athens, Greece, in May.

Collins and Rattner have more in common than rubbing shoulders at meetings that give plain people New World Order nightmares.  Collins and Rattner were colleagues at Lazard. Rattner joined Lazard in 1989 as General Partner. Collins was Vice President at Lazard from 1984 to 1990. Both are listed at Statemaster.com as “notable employees” of Lazare.

Was that what the nice lady meant when she recommended to dig around old compatriots?

Let’s back up to May: When Opel was put up for bid in May, it was the Magna v.v. Fiat show. Car guys. The day before the bids were to be surrendered in Berlin, Bloomberg suddenly floated Ripplewood/RHJ. RHJ handed in a surprise bid. It was ignored. After a spat in Berlin that nearly caused a diplomatic incident, Fiat dropped out and Magna was declared winner pro tem. Then, as the negotiations bogged down, the bidding was open again.

Speaking of Bloomberg: The New York Times says that Rattner “is friends with the mayor of New York City, Michael R. Bloomberg, and Quadrangle manages the mayor’s personal fortune.”

In the meantime, pension funds in New York and New Mexico are unhappy. Accusations involving Quadrangle were included in an S.E.C. complaint.

Bloomberg’s report on the German/Russian meeting downplayed Merkel’s magnanimous Magna endorsement to a “We’ll express our support for this deal.” If you are a conspiracist, you could make the case that Bloomberg is more sympathetic to RHJ than to Magna.

Want more conspiracy? Google “Trilateral Commission” “Bilderberg” “Steven Rattner” “Tim Collins”  So why couldn’t the nice lady on the phone do that herself?

Question to the Best & Brightest: Which plan will GM recommend? Magna or RHJ? Which plan will Berlin accept? Any dark choppers?