Well, it looks like the American version of cash-for-clunkers is going to get past Capitol Hill, and I find myself conflicted. On the one hand, I’m getting a little sick and extra wary of more money going to prop up auto sales (I figure there is going to have to be a real reckoning before things can get better, and I’m leaning toward letting it happen). On the other hand, considering what it is (actual law-to-be and not an academic case study) this is about as good a clear-the-clunkers bill as we’re going to get. The New York Times Freakonomics blogger Steven Levitt looked at this one on Friday (I went over Germany’s version in February). Just about everything he says is true, but there is one point he missed (and was nice enough to call attention to) that throws the whole argument in opposition out of whack. We’ll get there, but first, what’s right about it?

The first thing they got right is the credit for scrapping. Back in February, I complained that the €1000 credit was too small to motivate much action. I was wrong, but only just—the hottest sales went to the cheapest car on the market. $3500 to $4500 is a good number, about a 20 to 25 percent down payment on a lot of practical vehicles (enough to keep from getting too far upside down), without completely messing up the used-car market.

Then there are the ownership and scrapping rules: simple, straight-forward and mostly enforceable (someone will run a scam, they always do, but that will be the exception). We want running vehicles taken off the road for good, so the vehicle must have been insured for a year and must be scrapped.

The mileage rules seem both too open and too restrictive. A lot of vehicles will fit the mileage rules and a lot more will qualify to be purchased. On the surface, this is greenwashing and pretty weak at that. It’s actually a good thing; the law is aimed at people buying actual practical vehicles, rather than propping up a handful of favorite models (most prospective buyers of “green-mobiles” don’t own a qualifying vehicle anyway). All of these rules are straightforward and defensible because of another effect.

For a blog about unintended consequences, Levitt really blew the most important (unwritten) part of the law. At least he was open about not knowing the true prices of used cars. Bad as the new car market has been, the used car market has been worse (though showing signs of recovery), especially older SUVs (the very target this kind of cull). A simple glance at his feedback shows him that 4000 odd dollars is a 400-500% improvement in value for a large number of formally “popular” vehicles.

It is this margin between “book” value and “bill” value that will drive most of the action on this bill (there will be exceptions, but bad cases make bad law). A better name for the bill would be the “Get the Blazers and Explorers off the Road Act.”

Once upon a time, these two vehicles ruled the car market, along with a few others (e.g., Durango) and foreign relations (e.g., Rodeos). This success came back to bite them when SUV demand dropped. Unlike their bigger cousins, they couldn’t offer much “utility” to justify their cramped size and thirst. There are plenty of alternatives, from sedans, to wagons, to CUVs that can do everything they can do and better while being roomier and more fuel-efficient. Also, they are notably thirsty (remember 18 mpg is the ceiling, not the floor). If you’re trying to push average mileage higher, the least useful gas hogs are a good place to start. Especially since oversupply and changes in demand have dropped trade-in values for these old-school SUVs down near three figures.

While most of the culled vehicles are likely to be domestic, the incentive applies to any purchase. The competition gets to sell to people who were likely out of their reach before, while the domestics get the additional bonus of getting rid of some of the most troublesome pigs in the python. Hopefully, this reduction will help push up residual values, which is the only practical way the car market will get to anywhere near the old peak. Of course, for a diet to work, you have to change your habits as well.

Again, I’m of two minds on this law. I don’t want to see an endless sea of nickel-and-dime assistance bills coming out of Washington (propping up two companies, one needing to die, and one that seems unlikely to change, is bad enough). On the other hand, once you strip away the trappings, the bill is well thought out and (comparatively) cheap. It’s no magic bullet, but at least it’s pointed at the right target.

Matthew 6:24: “No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other.” Applying this biblical admonition to General Motors, it’s clear that the federal bailout will accelerate rather than retard its ultimate demise. The automaker’s corporate culture was dysfunctional before the feds took the reigns back when its over-compensated suits made sure that failure was impossible (and not in a good way). Now that GM employees must answer (at least in the theoretical sense) to both management and politicians, it’s twice as screwed-up. As I indicated in this morning’s Wall Street Journal Op-Ed, the political interference with the company’s operations is already underway. Well of course it is. And it will continue. As will GM’s descent into oblivion. Simply put, there’s no way GM can get its house in order when Uncle Sam is the landlord. SNAFU × 2.

Today, GM CEO Fritz Henderson reported for work. In and of itself, that’s about as bad a sign of GM’s ongoing failure as you could get. Lest we forget, Henderson is old-school GM: the former CFO who watched the company’s balance sheet go tits up. Henderson is also guilty by association: the hand-picked successor to GM’s phenomenally failed CEO (also former CFO) Rick Wagoner.

The fact that Henderson made it to the top of GM diseased corporate caste system is all you need to know about his suitability as a turnaround artist. Inmates. Asylum. Administration. That sort of thing.

This stout defender of GM’s status quo emerged from yesterday’s meeting with The Presidential Task Force on Automobiles (PTFOA) proclaiming that his job was safe. Ish. While Fritz expects to remain large and in charge of the small and getting smaller automaker as it exits bankruptcy, “nothing’s guaranteed.” How . . . reassuring.

In a familiar sort of way, it’s the same set of weasel words PTFOA jefe Ron Bloom used to hedge his promise not to keep plowing taxpayer money into the quagmire increasingly (and accurately) known as Government Motors. Am I the only one bothered by the fact that, despite having not one but two masters, GM’s strategy is still in flux?

I reckon two things are certain: GM’s death and your taxes. GM and its new presidential overlord are doing all they can to counteract that politically unpalatable reality, trying to make it seem as if there’s hope for change. Their latest attempt to give wing to these (recurring) delusional flights of fancy: the new Chairman of GM’s Board. GM supporters seized on former telecoms magnate Edward Whitacre’s appointment as a sign of “fresh” thinking.

Back on planet Earth, why the Hell interim BOD director and PTFOA lackey Kent Kresa picked a man without any automotive or manufacturing background is an interesting question. As in “clueless old white guys that not-so-interim GM CEO Fritz Henderson can con with a spreadsheet for $50,000, Alex.”

“He was someone who [PTOFA chief] Steve Rattner knew, or knew of,” Mr. Kresa told the New York Times, by way of explanation. And now Kresa says he’s searching for other board candidates “who have been involved in companies where there has been a dramatic change in the marketplace.” Oh, I know! What about the guy who put Kodak in the shitter?

No, wait; he was on the last GM BOD. And I guess Kresa’s looking for candidates who saw a dramatic change in the marketplace and reinvented a chronically unsuccessful company with a huge, bumbling bureaucracy into a leaner, greener, faster, smarter and enormously profitable participant in same. (Experience working for politicians a plus.) He just forgot that last bit.

Not that it really matters. A board chairman is, at best, a watchdog. (You might say Whitacre is a lapdog, but I couldn’t possibly comment.) Even if Eddy W. understands that culture eats strategy for lunch and caps Fritz’ ass, it must be remembered that GM’s Board of Directors is merely a front for the Powers That Be.

The PTFOA is the real BOD. They are the masters to whom the bankrupt automaker’s employees—which includes Whitacre—must answer.

So, ultimately, it must be asked: what the fuck do THEY know about the car business? I know: it’s not a new query. But it’s one that remains unanswered, even as GM continues to suck-up taxpayer billions and realign itself for the future.

By thy deeds thy shall be known. Only one problem: the deed required is a complete rehabilitation of a car company that’s screwed its customers for decades. Even if GM built a Camry and Lexus-killer, it would take them another decade and at least another $100 billion to recover their missing marketplace mojo.

Given the “dramatically changed” US auto scene, no one but the feds would sink that kind of cash into a GM-shaped money pit. And neither should we. That’s not a politically palatable conclusion, but it’s the God’s honest truth.

TTAC Spammer, goodluck.victorian, spams my inbox with:

Hello My name is miss Victoria. I saw your profile today on www.thetruthaboutcars.com and became interested in you. 

I will also like to know more about you, and I want you to send a mail to my email address so that i can give you my picture for you to know whom l am. I believe we can move from here. Remember the distance or colour does not matter but love matters allot in life. 

THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONCERN.  YOURS VICTORIA

Read More >

Over the last year, as this unparalleled automotive sales depression has picked up steam, I have observed unprecedented vitriol directed at both Chrysler and General Motors. Here on TTAC; on Autoblog, Jalopnik, CarDomain, et al.; and in the mainstream press, the companies receiving federal aid have been criticized. I just couldn’t understand it. It’s as if the only vehicles these companies ever built were the Jeep Compass and Pontiac Aztek. Critics seem to have completely forgotten all the great cars both companies are building right now and have built over the years. At the same time, they’ve overlooked Chrysler and GM’s importance to their employees, suppliers and countless communities from coast-to-coast. “Stakeholders” who have a direct impact on as many as one-in-ten domestic jobs.

Then came the contentious debate about bailing out Chrysler and General Motors which culminated in President Obama’s address on March 30. Obama gave Chrysler thirty days fix its balance sheet and close its alliance with Fiat—or face liquidation. GM was given an additional thirty days to restructure itself or face bankruptcy. While Chrysler came within days of escaping bankruptcy, a few of its dissident bondholders balked and Chrysler was thrown into a Chapter 11 filing that many pundits felt it would it would ultimately result in liquidation. While many observers rooted for it to failure, Chrysler has emerged from bankruptcy with unprecedented speed. Congratulations.

Back in early November, in what seems like a lifetime ago, the talk in the automotive world was of a possible “merger” between GM and Chrysler. I thought that this was a bad idea and would quickly lead to the dismantling of the Auburn Hills automaker and the loss of at least 30,000 US jobs. I came out and said that there was a far better partner for Chrysler who needed small car technology that they couldn’t afford to develop on their own. That partner was Fiat, which had the obvious and complementary need to sell vehicles in the United States in its quest to become a truly global automaker.

On January 20, Chrysler announced it was in serious partnership talks with Fiat to merge their operations; a move that would help both cope with and survive in the deepening worldwide automotive sales depression. This sales implosion was not only was impacting weak regional automakers but successful global ones like BMW, Honda, and even Toyota. All were seeing sales volumes declining by 40% or more as the virus was spreading around the globe.

Then, as now, I believed that an alliance with Fiat was Chrysler’s best and probably last hope for survival and was pleased to see yesterday’s deal between Chrysler and Fiat concluded. I truly believe that it will have a positive impact on both companies and will give us, as car enthusiasts, additional choices. After all, what can possibly be bad about Alfa Romeos returning to our shores?

Meanwhile, it should be said that other nations have taken extraordinary steps to protect their home-based industries. Why shouldn’t we do the same, especially since we have provided completely open access to our market allowing them to build their export industries? For example, I have absolutely nothing against Hyundai and Kia. But what’s fair about the fact that South Korean manufacturers can sell more than 600,000 vehicles a year here in the United States, yet our manufacturers sell fewer than 10,000 units annually south of the 38th parallel?

Last year, when driving to cover the Los Angeles Auto Show, I was forced to take a detour off the freeway. I stopped at a Starbucks in the Asian enclave of Alhambra off I-10 to get my e-mail. As I pulled into the parking lot, I noticed something strange: there wasn’t a single American brand car in the lot. While there were a few BMWs and Mercedes, every single car in the lot was of Asian origin. I walked into the Starbucks thinking to myself that Asian buyers, consciously or unconsciously, appear to buy homogeneously, supporting their nation’s car builders. Why don’t Americans? It’s because our market is so open that we can. In retrospect, maybe this explains why the American public—and our politicians—gives our own companies such a cold shoulder.

I hope the restructuring of General Motors is ultimately successful. The fact that some are calling for a boycott of “Government Motors” strikes me as absurd. Collectively, we as Americans will soon own 60 percent of New GM. Why would we not buy vehicles from a company we own?

[Read more of Rich Truesdell’s work at automotivetraveler.com]

In recent months we have seen the Obama administration nationalize the majority of the domestic automobile industry. A recent poll indicates that a decisive majority of Americans think this is a really, really bad idea. Furthermore, the action is illegal. The Constitution of the United States of America has endowed the congressional branch of the government with the sole power to spend money. Article 1, Section 9: “No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law [i.e., by the legislative branch].” This makes the financial seizure of General Motors with money appropriated by congress for the use of stabilize the banking system a brazen act of embezzlement. (The witless leader of the House of Representatives says that King Obama has not requested that they pass legislation authorizing expenditures to GM and Chrysler, so it must not be needed.) And so there has been cry among some right wing bombasts to boycott the purchase of GM cars. This too is a bad idea.

Twenty-six years ago my father traded in our family Buick for a Toyota Camry. It was the first time that a Buick had not darkened our family garage, but this car, a gas guzzling ’77 Skylark had been fraught with problems from the first day that we brought it home. I vividly remember watching the red vinyl-topped gray car get dragged by winch out of our La Mesa, California, garage onto a flatbed the morning after dad brought her home because the transmission had seized. The tranny was fixed and we had her back in a few days but at 30 thousand miles a multitude of other components began to fail. Before long my folks were ready for something much more dependable and something that provided a little relief at the pump.

The cream colored Camry was a breath of fresh air blowing in from across the Pacific. The Toyota felt light and maneuverable after the stodgy Buick and the high-revving I4 engine loved to sing while delivering 35 mpg on the highway.  The steering was nicely weighted and, other than excessive body roll, it handled reasonably well. And despite accusations to the contrary, it was safe, comfortable, and did not rust and blow away.

By the time the Camry arrived I was driving and was highly attuned to all things automotive. The country was in an uproar because the domestic steel industry was in full meltdown and Motown’s long decline was already underway. The mantra of those attempting to guilt trip the country into buying over-priced second-rate domestic manufactured goods was, “Buy American.”

My response was, “Buy the best.” Even then it was clear to me that sheltering the manufacturers from superior competition would only exacerbate the problem. Sure, “Buying American” might provide some short-term relief to the complacent industries, but it would rob American consumers the best goods and remove the incentive for what was left of domestic manufacturers themselves. If Americans “Buy the best,” the market will stay strong and healthy, fueling an economic engine that will continue to provide jobs and pull people—at home and abroad—out of poverty.

Today, to those that advocate boycotting General Motors, I say, “Buy the best.”  Right now The General has numerous products that should be on any consumer’s short list. Chevrolet Corvette, Cadillac CTS, Chevrolet Camaro, Chevrolet Silverado, Chevrolet Malibu, and the Pontiac G8, come to mind. In business we say, “Feed success and starve failure.” These cars are successes and deserve consideration—even if Mr. Goodwrench now lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

The Obama administration, or anyone’s administration for that matter, lacks the expertise and motivation to make a success out of something as complicated as the manufacture and marketing of automobiles. If they remain control of GM for long, its products will undoubtedly become outclassed by stronger free competitors. But that day is not here yet, so “Buy the best” even if it means condescending yourself to buy from a government-owned company.

To those who think that a government-owned auto industry is a wonderful marriage of the greatest attributes of the public and private sectors, I would ask, would you trust the next George W. Bush (Sarah Palin?) that gets elected to manage the domestic auto industry? Eventually it will happen and there will be regret, even if Obama manages to make lemonade out of GM lemons in the near term.

Let political considerations be political considerations and let your choice of cars be for that car that best serves your needs and wants at the price you are willing to pay. Eventually Congress will become re-staffed by those that recognize their mandate in counterbalancing excesses and misuse of Executive Branch power. As in the 1980’s, politics must be remedied in polling booths, not in dealership showrooms.

TTAC commentator doctorv8 writes:

My beloved 2005 CL65 AMG (https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/mercedes-cl65-amg/) is about to meet its maker after the lease ends next month. As a soon-to-be-displaced torque junkie coming off a 36-month fix, I must have another AMG-tuned twin turbo V12.  Because that’s how I roll: completely high on big-block turbo boost and grinning like an idiot. Never thought MB could outdo themselves after they introduced the 604 HP twin turbo V12 in 2005, but with the new SL65 AMG Black Series, they have seemingly done exactly that.

As much as I have tried to resist that muscular flared carbon fiber intense bodywork that conceals the most powerful engine ever installed by those nutjobs at AMG….after seeing an especially stunning one locally, it has become difficult to justify waiting for prices to drop.

But obviously there are concerns about an expenditure this large, so I wanted your opinion . . .

Read More >

Nezir writes:

Sajeev, I drive a 2004 Mazda RX-8 that I bought new. It currently has around 48k miles. As of late the seating has become uncomfortable and I seem to get strange cramps in my hamstrings from how the seat is pushing into my leg.

I’ve looked at some possible cars to replace it with such as the Evo X, etc. Love the Recaros on there and that alone would make me want to switch. However, I still love the RX8 and short of buying another one in R3 guise is there anything I can do to upgrade my seats?

As has become the custom these days, the seats have the side airbags built-in. So I’m not sure what options I have in the aftermarket for this. I know Recaro has the Sportster CS with airbags though I’m not sure how ‘universal’ they truly are. Mazda wants like 4k per seats for the R3 Recaros, so that’s not really an option either.

Also, I’d be ok with going for a seat without airbags, but I don’t know what effect that has on the rest of the SRS system.

Read More >

I’m a Jeep owner, a Jeep historian and a Jeep enthusiast. I’ve published more than a dozen Jeep articles. I’ve attended dozens of Jeep Jamborees and Camp Jeep events. I’ve driven a Jeep down the Rubicon Trail from start to finish, twice. So it pains me to write about the Jeep Jinx. But the facts are inarguable: virtually every company that’s owned the Jeep brand has fallen on hard times.

The original Jeep prototype was designed and built by a small company called American Bantam. The vehicle’s tendency to be both a curse and a blessing was assured from the start; the U.S. military liked it so much it they shoved Bantam aside. They commissioned competitors Willys-Overland and Ford to more or less copy the design.

In terms of perfecting the vehicle (including better torque), Willys-Overland did most of the heavy lifting. Not surprisingly, the feds gave Ford the nod for organizing mass production. Working together, the two automakers built some 600,000 examples.

After World War II, Ford got out of the Jeep-building business. Willys Motors produced the first civilian Jeep, the CJ-2A, on July 17, 1945. After a slow start (1824 units), sales of the farm-friendly vehicle took off. Willys manufactured the Jeep CJ-2A until 1949, racking up 214,202 sales.

The automaker replaced it with the CJ-3A. But agricultural sales dried up, as farmers turned to tractors. It was not the first time—nor the last–that Jeep found a market pulled out from under its feet, putting its corporate owners in financial jeopardy.

By 1953, Willys-Overland was struggling for survival. The ailing Kaiser-Frazer Corporation decided to buy Willys-Overland, ditch its own car business and produce Jeeps. The reconstituted Willys Motors, Incorporated was born.

In 1963, Willys became Kaiser-Jeep. Looking for new civilian markets, the company introduced the Wagoneer, the precursor to the modern SUV. While the recreational vehicle marketplace experienced sustained growth throughout the sixties, Kaiser-Jeep continued to lose money.

In 1970, American Motors (AMC)—who had its own bout with bankruptcy in 1967—purchased Kaiser’s Jeep operations. In spite of two oil crunches in the seventies, Jeep experienced rapid growth under AMC’s management. The market for dual-purpose vehicles expanded dramatically.

Unfortunately, AMC’s car-making operations were not competitive. Renault partnered with the troubled automaker, then seized control. As the eighties progressed, Renault fell on hard times. Sales of Renault-engineered small cars failed in the US market. The state-owned company also faced political difficulties in its home market.

Renault soon sold its stake in AMC to Chrysler, whose charismatic CEO Lee Iacocca coveted the Jeep brand. In 1987, AMC “merged” with Chrysler. In reality, Jeep was absorbed by Chrysler. This was no bad thing. Chrysler experienced one of the most-sustained growth periods in its history. The rising tide lifted all Jeeps.

This growth period was highly profitable for Chrysler, and Jeep. In 1992, Chrysler debuted the hugely successful Grand Cherokee, an AMC design. The American automaker’s success made it an attractive acquisition target for Daimler, who saw expansion as a way to avoid an unfriendly takeover. At the same time, Chrysler’s executives considered it an opportune time to “cash in their chips.”

And thus the now notorious “merger of equals” with Germany’s Daimler-Benz in 1998, forming DaimlerChrysler. DaimlerChrysler eventually sold most of its interest in Chrysler to Cerberus in 2007—even as Jeep produced some of the least worthy vehicles to ever wear the famous badge.

Two years later, Cerberus lost the rest of its stake as Chrysler descended into C11. With the fed’s help, Italy’s Fiat is pickng-up the pieces. To recap . . .

– Willys – Defunct, sold Jeep to Kaiser in 1953
– Kaiser-Jeep – Defunct, sold Jeep to American Motors in 1970
– American Motors – Defunct, absorbed by Chrysler in 1987
– Renault – Sold AMC to Chrysler in 1987
– DaimlerChrysler – Divested its Chrysler stake in 2007
– Cerberus – Bailed on Chrysler in run-up to Chrysler’s Chapter 11
– Chrysler – Sold to Fiat

Jeep is one of the world’s best-known brands. It was one of the pioneers of the sport utility category. Over the years, especially under Chrysler’s stewardship, Jeep sold millions of vehicles. The Wrangler is a worldwide icon. Until recently, the Grand Cherokee was a best-selling SUV, that sold 300,000 units annually.

But it core strength—go-anywhere capability—has always been its weakness. In other words, whether serving the military, farm owners, off-road enthusiasts or Soccer Moms, Jeep is a niche brand. As recent history has shown (e.g., Aston Martin, Jaguar, Land Rover, Saab, HUMMER, Volvo, etc.), large companies and niche brands make terrible bedfellows. Big companies seek volume above all; a tendency that tends to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

In fact, you could say that Jeep’s owners have been a jinx on Jeep. With Fiat eyeing Jeep as a way to help it grow to the size it thinks it needs to survive, one gets the distinct impression that bad things are about to happen. Again. Will Fiat be the company that ultimately breaks the Jeep Jinx?

[Read more of Rich Truedell’s work at automotivetraveler.com]

I drive a Prius regularly. It’s time to correct a few myths about hybrids:

1. A hybrid’s drivetrain is the most important part of the car

Sometimes a drivetrain is just a drivetrain. The hybrid gets all of its fuel from gasoline, so it’s just a way to drive a bigger car with a smaller engine and save gas. The hype from those who haven’t driven them much is about saving the planet, and using less gas is certainly an environmental benefit. But, really, the Prius is just a well-built practical car with good economics (100k miles, great maintenance record, cheap fuel cost, paid off, etc)—with enough cachet that you don’t look poor when you drive it. If you really want to save the planet, ride a bicycle (which I do, several days a week), walk, or make your own fuel somehow.

2. The Prius is a lousy car

Jay Shoemaker’s recent review of the 2010 Prius totally missed the point of the car. He essentially claims it is a weird car and wasn’t fun to drive. He’s entitled to his opinion, and it’s clear that he shouldn’t own a Prius (Jay should stick with the sports cars and performance sedans that he likes so much). However, for the rest of us, the Prius is an A to B car. It’s a grocery cart. It’s a household transportation appliance.

The Toyota Prius isn’t the car for everyone, but it is a nice little practical car, if that’s what you need. Green-evangelists and automotive pundits miss this entirely, though for drastically different reasons. Boring A to B cars for boring people like myself; they should probably be evaluated by different standard than a fun car that happens to be able to carry people and cargo. The volume and shape of the cargo area is more important than the 0 – 60 time.

3. Hybrids are just like any other car

Like switching from a manual to an automatic, switching to a hybrid drivetrain takes some getting used to. Toyota went to extraordinary lengths to hide this fact, but the fundamentals shine through. My girlfriend, who has driven the Prius for most of it’s 100k miles, is weirded out by the jerks and the abrupt RPM changes that happen when a automatic transmission shifts. It sounds like it’s CVTs and hybrids for us for the “family” cars from here on out. Personally, I’m most comfortable in a manual or a hybrid, since that’s what I’ve driven for most of my miles. No wonder the guy who panned the 2010 Prius didn’t like it.

4. Hybrids are the only “real” way to save gas

In addition to driving the Prius, I’ve owned a VW Jetta TDI. It was a wonderful car (except for the accursed 01M 4-speed automatic transmission), and its mileage approached that of the Prius. My 500cc Kawasaki Vulcan regularly exceeded 50mpg, and it only cost $4500 brand new off of the showroom floor. Also, I hear that a Geo Metro can exceed 50mpg. The easiest way to save gas is just to make the vehicle smaller and lighter.

The term “Hybrid” isn’t code for “saving the world.” Hybrid is code for a smooth efficient drivetrain that some people don’t like because it’s not “fun”, whatever that means. “Hybrid” does mean “I get to drive a bigger on the same amount of scary foreign oil”. Fortunately, the Prius and the Volkswagen TDI series are both small cars — so, if you were going to be driving a Ford Explorer, they do translate to real-world savings.

Volvo deserves its What Car? Green Car award. Saving gas the conventional way is just as valid. “Hybrid” isn’t magic anything, though it does help to save a little gas. The Prius would be a grocery cart with any engine.

Out of adversity arises creativity. Alec Issigonis’ brilliant Mini was conceived in the depths of the oil import embargo brought on by the Suez Canal Crisis of 1956. Just like our energy crises gave birth to the Chevette and the Cavalier. Ok, no more GM references. This is the Mini’s fiftieth birthday, and it deserves our undivided adulation. Well, at least from a safe distance, anyway. Read More >

The brilliant lawyer, author, and ex-blogger, Bill Patry (now senior copyright counsel at Google), wrote on his Patry Copyright Blog back in 2005 about the greatest Biblical scholar of all time, Rabbi Shlomo Yitzhak (whom everyone affectionately calls “Rashi“).

Bill wrote:

TTAC commentator bumpy ii writes:

I have an S2000 with just over 50,000 miles on the clock. The first thing I did when I bought it three years ago was to change the oil to Mobil 1 10w30 and install the OEM filter. I’ve put about 4,000 highway miles and a few autocrosses on the oil since then, with two or three minor top-offs. I’m planning on changing the brake fluid and coolant this summer (did the transmission and differential last summer). Should I change the oil too, even though it’s still that happy golden color? How about the filter?

Read More >

We have met the Obamamobile, and it is a train. Just ask Commerce Secretary Gary Locke. Locke was in Michigan recently, while SecTrans Ray LaHood, VP Joe Biden and MI Governor Jennifer Granholm were discussing a Detroit-Pontiac-Chicago high-speed rail line in Washington, D.C. The HuffPo‘s Susan Demas asked Locke if he saw the rail project as a way to wean Michigan’s manufacturing base off its centuries-long auto addiction. To which Locke replied, “Oh, yeah,” faster than the Kool-Aid man after a post-college Eurorail adventure. “As you see more construction of rail cars, high-speed cars, it’s going to require new engineering, new products and services and that’s the natural fit and extension for automotive dealers and suppliers and manufacturers.” And Demas agrees, arguing that “linking up with rail makes perfect sense for a contracting industry, at a time when environmental and economic factors make expanding public transit a necessity.” Yes, necessity. As in the mother of invention. And political intervention.

Demas does point out that the rail project in question could face political opposition. “It will take a real will on the part of the states and the Congress to get it done,” she quotes former Rep Joe Schwarz (R-MI) as saying. “Members of Congress from non-high-speed rail states will fight it.” Meanwhile, the self-serving dynamic identified by Schwarz illustrates a major problem with the US rail industry, and how (car-to-train transition aside), the US ownership of GM could make it a political pawn at every turn.

Over at The Daily Beast, former GM and Amtrak man James Langenfeld recounts how the publicly-owned rail firm has become a perennial victim of DC’s politics-before-economics. “Amtrak had a government-affairs department rather than a finance department,” he writes. This “proved to be an omen: Train service was provided to states with powerful senators, even if this involved huge losses and few passengers.” A preview of coming factory placements? Meanwhile, at “38 years old and [showing] no sign of moving out of the taxpayer’s house,” Amtrak subsidies are currently $85,000 a year for each employee, or about $35 every time Amtrak sells per ticket sold. In the absence of profitability, Amtrak and now GM merely provide another opportunity to send pork home to the district.

And Langenfeld isn’t the only one who sees parallels between Amtrak and the new Government Motors. “I see no hope whatsoever for the situation,” says Wendell Cox, who served as a policy consultant for the government-appointed Amtrak Reform Council a decade ago. Cox tells Fox News that political considerations have led to poor decisions at Amtrak, “like maintaining costly, long-distance lines and setting up inefficient routes that detour through low-population areas.”

Even among those who support the bailout and improvements to America’s rail system, there should be concern about any mention of the auto and rail industries in the same breath. After all, the government’s open-ended commitment to GM is sure to become a focal point for political opposition to the Obama administration. And for those who are already disposed towards criticism of Obama, Amtrak is a preeminent symbol of government mismanagement. From George Will to the National Review‘s K-Lo to Ron Paul, GM-as-Amtrak is becoming the meme of choice for the emerging anti-auto-bailout mainstream. Anyone who thinks GM won’t be held hostage to political battles clearly has another think coming.

And though Amtrak has the excuse that rail industries are typically subsidized by governments, GM can’t fall back on the “everyone’s doing it” argument. Meanwhile, suggesting that the auto industry should look to yet another government-stimulated sector as a way forward provides further incentives to accept mediocrity in its automotive products. All of which illustrates how slippery the bailout slope really is. Remember, the bailout has been justified since day one with rhetoric about the unique role of the automobile industry in American life. If there’s any possibility for hope in the emerging American Leyland, it comes from the ability to invest huge amounts of money at a time when the auto industry is going through a period of transformative change. Rail business is a distraction at best, and a life sentence of government angency-dom at worst.

Locke’s talk of “transitioning” the auto industry towards rail shows exactly how far politics could go towards affecting the future of the new Government Motors. And without a clear exit strategy, there’s no telling where it could end. There’s nothing inherently wrong with more rail transportation in the US, but painting the rail biz as an alternative for a struggling US auto industry ignores the ugly reality of public Amtrak ownership. As badly as GM has done building cars for several decades, it will either exit Uncle Sam’s nest on the strength of its cars or face a downward spiral into political adventurism to which there is no bottom. In the case of the latter scenario, the last 30 years of GM’s decline will look like the work of true genius.

General Motors is at war with itself. Thanks to a staggering, though not unexpected, lack of decisiveness, GM’s management has managed to completely alienate its major, public-facing “stakeholder”: GM dealers. Without the guys on the sharp end moving the metal, General Motors might as well declare bankruptcy and surrender the keys to the executive washroom to a 25-member federal quango led by Washington insiders with no manufacturing experience whatsoever. Oh, wait. In fact, GM needs its dealers even more now that it’s a zombie than before, when it was also a zombie (but didn’t know it). And of all the items of GM CEO Fritz Henderson “to do” list, not throwing GM’s entire US dealer network into chaos should have been somewhere near the top. I want to say something about a “race to the bottom,” but I’ll let you connect those dots.

Last week, GM CEO Fritz Henderson faced a Spanish Inquisition from the company’s paymasters. Senator Rockefeller wanted GM’s former CFO to explain his rationale for cutting over 2000 dealers from the roster. Fair enough, right? If you’re going to unleash a political shitstorm by shit-canning a large, politically-connected, highly litigious, battle-tested, lyin’, cheatin’, boozing, whoring, testosterone-fueled group of GM “customers” (the dealers are the ones who actually buy the cars from GM), then you want to make sure you have your proverbial ducks in a row.

Oops! Fritz forgot his Ross Perot-ian “We’re In Deep Shit for Dummies” charts back at Days Inn. Or did he leave them on the plane? Rick friggin’ Wagoner just HAD to fly to D.C. in the Gulfstream to beg for bailout bucks, the bastard. Senator Rockefeller also wanted an actual list of dealers culled. Damn! I must be wearing a different jacket! Anyone remember the scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark, where Indy casually shoots the scimitar flailing baddie? GM’s the dope with the flashing steel.

THIS is how the new, “smarter” GM rolls? It gets worse. On the same day that Henderson failed to defend the company’s decision to downsize its dealer network, Fritz granted eleven axed dealers a reprieve—without revealing the exact methodology used to separate the wheat from the chaff. Yeah, that’s a good idea: play favorites. That’ll REALLY piss off the disappeared. And if that didn’t do it–which it did—GM’s crafted a new state-trumping franchise agreement for their remaining dealers that makes slavery seem like an oral contract.

According to Automotive News, New GM’s New Deal with its new dealers puts the “con” into “draconian.” To remain a part of “the family,” all GM stores must agree—in writing—to increase sales by 10 percent (maybe twenty), carry larger inventories, eliminate non-GM brands from their showrooms, upgrade dealerships, maintain high customer satisfaction scores and STFU if a new GM store locates more than six miles away from their dealership.

In other words, GM’s new contract includes a “just shoot me now” tick box at the bottom.

Sell more vehicles? The fact that GM’s market share has been on a downwards trajectory since the last century (news flash: the company is now bankrupt) should tell the corporate mothership a little something about how easy it is to sell GM vehicles these days. Hang on; shouldn’t GM make better products before they “force” dealers to sell more cars?

By the same token, what’s with the dealership upgrades? GM stores are hurting for cash. Wait, let me guess. The feds are going to provide loans (or loan guarantees) so that GM dealers can put Ford, Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, etc. dealerships to shame. Because Uncle Sam believes that rewarding losers is really just “leveling the playing field,” and when it comes to debt, more is always better. Meanwhile, pay no attention to that $1 million per dealer HUMMER upgrade fiasco. That was then. This is crazy.

As for the mandate to “maintain” consumer satisfaction scores (a.k.a. CSI), it’s Big Mac time. They CANNOT be serious. GM’s CSI scores have been a complete sham since they were first foisted upon their retail operations. I’ve got two words for anyone who thinks otherwise: Bill Heard. And another two: blind eye.

If GM was actively trying to screw-up its future, they couldn’t do it more effectively than they are right now. Saying that, I have every confidence that GM will somehow find a way. Let Barney Frank fuck with your plant closing plans? Sure! Piss away resources on a new green car that can’t compete with Toyota’s last generation hybrid? To paraphrase Albert Einstein, “employing the same people to do different things is the definition of eternal insolvency.”

Meanwhile, remember Fritz Henderson’s pledge to We The People promising transparency as it “reinvents” itself to repay our hard-earned tax money? How’s this for opaque: dealers are prohibited from discussing the agreement with anyone other than employees or business partners without GM’s expressed written consent.

Dead automaker walking.

Due north of Toronto, TTAC reader Nick R writes:

My dad’s Ford Thunderbird 30^th Anniversary Edition (i.e., 1955-1985) hasn’t been started in about two years. It has 140,000km, never been winter driven and its original save for the radio (I still have the non-functioning original one though). I want to start cleaning it up and fixing a few little things, but to do that I have to get it started and run it.

It has been stored outside, under a cover, in my driveway. I know the oil was replaced and the tank filled up just prior to being put in storage. Prior to storage the battery was removed, the oil and coolant changed and the tank filled with gas.

After prolonged storage, is there any special I should do other than dropping a new battery in it? Are the tires likely to be flat spotted? I also need to fix the antenna, which got bent; any tips on finding a replacement for that would be helpful too!

Read More >