I agree with TTAC reviewer Stephan Wilkinson : the new Nissan GT-R is the old Honda NSX. Once people actually start driving Nissan’s “everyday supercar”– as opposed to simply jumping on the hype bandwagon and bench racing numbers supplied by Nissan– they’ll appreciate the parallel. Although I'm still looking forward to my first hands-on experience with the GT-R, the reality of the car’s true nature and importance in automotive history is right under the fan-boys’ noses.

The GT-R allegedly 'outperforms' thoroughbred supercars at a fraction of the price. Yes, but what price? The sticker price, or the in-your-garage price? Considering the hype surrounding the car and the limited production numbers, it will be years before a single new $70k GT-R will be sold for under $100k. At the moment, comparing the Nissan to say, a Corvette Z06, obfuscates the truth. But what the [Green] Hell…

No small part of the current GT-R lovefest can be attributed to the car’s 7:38 Nürburgring lap time. As TTAC has pointed out, there are real questions about the Green Hellmobile’s qualifications for the title “second fastest production car around the ‘Ring.” The GT-R's suspension was modified from the current Japanese production model, supposedly to reflect the American and European spec. Supposedly. Will anyone get a chance to compare the fabled ‘Ring runner and a final production car? I doubt it.

Meanwhile, the YouTube video of the Nissan’s “historic run” clearly shows that the GT-R had a flying start. All other manufacturers testing at the ‘Ring use standing starts for published lap times. The video also proves that the car's lap time was not measured at the exact same location (start and stop). Take these two factors into account, and the 7:40 claim seems highly dubious.

The icing on the cake: GT-R chief engineer Kazutoshi Mizuno’s subsequent admission from that "We used cut slick tyres." If that doesn’t cancel their claim, nothing does.

In fact, a regular Corvette Z06 would probably beat the GT-R on the Nürburgring. When Road & Track tested the GT-R against the Z06 on a track much smaller than the ‘Ring, they concluded that the GT-R was fast in the corners, but they didn't shed a whole lot of light on how the GT-R performed on the straights. Although the ‘Ring has an enormous amount of corners, it also has some of the longest straight-aways in the world.

In Road & Track’s technical comparo, the GT-R was just as fast to 60mph as the Z06 (despite being less powerful). What many have over-looked is the trap speed at the end of the 1/4 mile. The Z06 is about seven mph faster than the GT-R. When you look at the graph that accompanies these numbers, the GT-R’s AWD system gave it a clear advantage– but only at the start. Applied to the Green Hell, the Z06 would outpace the GT-R on the straights.

The Z06’s fastest recorded lap time at the Nürburgring is 7:42.9 This lap was driven in 2005 by Jan Magnussen in 'muggy' conditions. Last year, Chevy revised the suspension on all Corvette models including the Z06. In theory, the new suspension and better weather conditions should be enough for a Z06 to equal or even better the Nissan GT-R's true time of +7:40. When you consider that the Z06 can achieve this time with a GM-standard standing start and production tires, it seems obvious that the GT-R is no match for the Z06 around the ring.

But what does it all mean? Well, not much actually. Every racetrack is different and some cars are suited to some tracks while others are not. The GT-R is suited to smaller tracks like the one R&T used, and the Z06 is suited to longer and faster ones like the ‘Ring.

So why did I bother ranting about this? Nissan has chosen to flaunt its Nürburgring lap times to show the world that their new, high-tech Nissan GT-R is the new bang-for-the-buck Alpha. But it’s not true. The cheaper Corvette Z06 is still the worlds best [unmodified] performance car bargain. What’s more, if the GT-R cannot handle a stock Z06, then how will it fare against the upcoming ZR1? Never mind the 'almighty' spec V model.

Given the GT-R’s looks and oft-reported lack of driving feel, there’s only one reason anyone would buy the uber-Nissan: to own the fastest thing on the road. In the corners, maybe. If you were committed enough to drive at 10/10ths (never mind how “easy” it is), you could probably blow-off a 911 or similar. Down the straights (the great American pastime), there are faster and cheaper choices– and that’s without exploring relatively inexpensive modifications.

In short, the GT-R is an awesome achievement, but Wilkinson’s right: it’s not all that. 

It’s Monday, December 27, 2010. A Chevy customer sits behind the wheel of his brand-new, fully-charged, plug-in hybrid Volt. He’s heading off to the office some fifteen miles away. Three years ago, our early adopter was one the first to put his name on the waiting list at gm-volt.com. Since then, he visited the site religiously for daily updates. And now the Volt looks set to deliver on all of GM Car Czar Bob Lutz’s promises. But… the Volt driver’s journey into the future is about to be a lot shorter than he’d imagined.

His thirty-mile round trip California commute is well below the Volt’s advertised forty mile all-electric range (AER). So the EV enthusiast confidently instructed the dealer to purge the range-extending gas tank. His new-found freedom from OPEC, Hugo Chavez, Middle-East terrorists and money-grubbing Big Oil is intoxicating. He’s on the phone telling his stock broker to short Exxon.

He keeps his speed five miles an hour below prevailing freeway traffic. After only thirteen miles, the low battery warning lights come on. The Volt coasts to a stop on the shoulder. A head is scratched, epithets uttered.

Meanwhile, Katrina II is bearing down on New Orleans. A Louisiana Volt driver packs his family into his EV and heads for relatives in Mobile, Alabama, some 130 miles away.

Since he normally uses his Volt strictly for urban all-electric driving, the gas tank is empty. Traffic crawls along jammed I-10. The gas stations have all closed. The shoulders are littered with cars that have run dry. As he pulls into his relatives’ driveway, 13 grueling hours later, the Volt’s low-battery warning lights are just coming on.

Non-EV drivers will have a hard time believing that any vehicle can achieve ten times the range in stop-and-go-traffic than it can attain on the open highway. EPA statistics have trained them to believe that vehicles operate more efficiently at highway speeds than they do in city traffic— even though it’s not an intuitive conclusion (they know it takes more energy to “push” the car through the air at increasing speeds).

This discrepancy between expectation and reality comes down to the internal combustion engine's (ICE) gross inefficiency. Most automotive ICEs in the world use about 30 percent of the energy content stored within their gasoline. (Most of fuel’s energy content disappears into heat and carbon dioxide.) And that’s under optimal conditions. Typically, an ICE's is in single digits or teens.

An EV is an entirely different beast. Due to the excellent efficiency of all parts of the EV system (batteries, inverter, motor), cumulative efficiency exceeds 70 percent at virtually all speeds. So an EV’s energy requirements almost perfectly reflect the actual energy being expended to move the vehicle.

This results in spectacular range in city traffic and traffic jams.

In our first Volt scenario, the cutting edge commuter had to “climb” a modest three percent grade at a constant 70mph. This challenge knocked 67 percent off the Volt’s 40-mile projected AER. In scenario two, the Volt achieved maximum efficiency during 10mph stop-start traffic.

In fact, gasoline packs 80 times more energy per pound than a lithium-ion battery. It’s only the EV’s superb efficiency that makes them feasible. BUT aerodynamic drag increases with the square of speed. In other words, the faster an EV travels, its power requirement increases disproportionately. So until battery density increases further, and quick charging becomes commonplace, EV’s are still best suited for urban environments.

[The Volt’s range projections—13 miles and 130 miles– may be off by a mile or two. But drive a Volt into a headwind at the eighty-mile speed limit in flat West Texas with the A/C on, and simple physics dictates that the Chevy’s AER range will be somewhere in the teens. You can’t fight Newton.]

The Volt’s range-extending ICE gen-set overcomes its labile range– at a price. To compensate for the battery’s inherent limitations, the extended range Volt will have to lug around hundreds of pounds of complex machinery. That extra weight reduces range further. Not to mention adding unwelcome/expensive complexity in the service bay.

Meanwhile, cheaper, long-range EVs and quick-charging batteries are around the corner. Nissan has announced its intention to sell an affordable 100-mile range pure-EV in the US by 2010. Nissan partner AESC has developed batteries that can be recharged to 90 percent in fifteen minutes, or 60 percent in five minutes. And with battery density increasing by some eight percent per year, by 2017 that 100 mile range could well be 200 miles. Cross-country trips for bladder-challenged moderate-speed drivers become doable.

Until then, don’t believe everything you hear. Our calculations suggest that “Maximum” Bob Lutz’ 40-mile EV-only jaunt in a Volt mule must have been at no more than 50mph average. That’s good, maybe even great. But it’s still not good enough. 

Why is gasoline so damn expensive? The mainstream media has rounded up the usual suspects. They demonize oil companies (for excessive profits), lambaste environmentalists (for blocking domestic drilling and refining), and sock it to speculators (for fear mongering over supply). Simply put, the current crisis is a speculative bubble whose impact to American consumers is exacerbated by domestic economic conditions. I fully expect crude oil will trade below $80 a barrel in the not too distant future. Meanwhile, let’s tackle this one myth at a time. 

Oil companies are easy targets for the public’s gas-price-related ire. ExxonMobil recently scooped second on the Fortune 500, with annual earnings of $40.6b. Chevron slipped in at number three, with $18.7b of profit. Surely these under-taxed wicked corporations screwed unwitting customers to amass these ill gotten gains profits.

Here's a politically inconvenient truth: most of the oil companies' profits are the result of volume, not market prices. ExxonMobil, Chevron, et al make in the neighborhood of 10 cents per gallon– whether gasoline costs $1.50 a gallon or four bucks. Big Oil’s making big bucks because there’s record worldwide demand, especially in India and China.

And let’s not forget history. The oil companies we know and despise today are the result of a devastating supply glut during the early ‘90s. That “crisis” pushed these companies to the brink of extinction. Record losses spurred Exxon to merge with Mobil, and Chevron to merge with Texaco.  During the same time frame, Conoco and Phillips combined and British Petroleum gobbled up Amoco.  The mergers lowered overhead expenses by eliminating redundant exploration and administrative overhead expenses.

The second myth is that supply shortages are sending U.S. pump prices skywards.

While demand is certainly at an all-time high with the emergence of the insurgent Chinese and Indian economies, supply is also plentiful. Have we passed “Peak Oil?” As far as the oil future’s market is concerned, it doesn’t matter. Even the greatest pessimists concede that known reserves will last at least another fifty years.  More optimistic (and realistic) estimates stretch hundreds of years hence. Either way, the delivery dates of oil contracts being traded today are days, not decades, from now.

On a more immediate level, fuel shortages are a fiction. I’m not aware of a single gas station that’s unable to refill its fuel tanks or factory unable to obtain required petrochemicals or plastics. To the contrary, in April, U.S. stockpiles grew nearly 12m barrels. Iran is now storing crude in old tanker ships floating in the Persian Gulf because they have run out of space in conventional storage tanks.  The world’s positively awash in oil.

How about this one: America needs more refineries; the greenies are blocking our energy independence.

Although no new refinery plants have been built in the U.S. in a generation, there’s no shortage of refining capacity. Oil companies have retooled to improve the refining capacity at existing sites.  Currently U.S. refineries are operating at only 85 percent capacity. Go figure.

The corollary to this erroneous supposition: domestic drilling would alleviate high prices.

Should Uncle Sam allow ExxonMobil to tap ANWR? As far as today’s oil prices are concerned, it really doesn’t matter. Even if there were pumps in the protected Alaskan field pumping at full capacity right now, crude oil trading in global markets would continue largely unfazed. If we pumped more, the rest of the world would simply pump less to prevent a glut. OPEC makes these kinds of adjustments every time they meet.

So here’s the truth about high oil and thus gas prices: the pain at the pump is the result of a weakening dollar and strengthening speculation. During the last year the U.S. dollar has fallen 14 percent against the Euro, nine percent against the Chinese Yuan, and 15 percent against the Japanese Yen. In other words, it takes more dollars to buy the same goods on the world market.

The other culprits, speculators, are taking their money out of the falling stock market and collapsing real estate investments and pumping them into the red hot commodities market. Buying oil futures has become intensely popular, driving prices heavenward despite an ample supply of product.

Who are these opportunistic speculators that are causing you so much grief every time you fill up your SUV? You. Most of us have pensions, insurance holdings, or various investment funds in our 401K that hedge losses in the commodities market-– usually without the knowledge of the ultimate beneficiaries, you and me.

Market fundamentals don’t support the current high oil prices. As surely and as predictably as the technology bubble burst after a decade of market excess, world oil prices will come tumbling down, as investor dollars flood back into revitalized stock and real estate markets. When will this occur? That’s the trillion dollar question.

Union problems, soaring gas prices and a faltering economy made April the worst month for new vehicle sales since 1995. Continued production in the face of diminished demand helped maintain the manufacturer's cash flow, but it lead to the inevitable: swollen inventories. In other words, even as U.S. new car sales go down the toilet, the toilet's backing up. Fix the number 60 in your mind (the ideal number of days' supply for a new vehicle on a dealer's lot) and take a look at what's going down at your local automotive emporium.

You'd think GM's production "hiatus"– caused by the American Axle strike– would have reduced the General's truck inventory. Nope. The U.S. automaker ended April with a 109-day supply of trucks, up from the previous month's 98-day supply. The Buick Enclave's and GMC Acadia's low dealer stock (38 and 54 days, respectively) couldn't offset lingering Chevrolet Silverados (122-day supply), Tahoes (125 days), GMC Sierras (122 days) and Yukons (188 days). All four trucks were more abundant than they were during the month previous.

Ford's truck inventory wasn't quite as scarifying. A 39-day supply of Rangers and a 54-day supply of Escapes helped lower their truck inventory average to 80 days by month's end. Meanwhile, the F-Series' dealer inventory jumped from March's 97-day end-of-month supply, to April's 129 days. The Expedition's inventory rose from 67 to 98 days. Even though it's one of Ford's best-selling models, the Edge went from a 69-day to a 107-day supply. 

With Chrysler's plummeting sales, it's no surprise their inventory's up. The lame duck Dodge Ram's inventory jumped from 99 days to a 109-day supply. Dealer stock of the unloved Dodge Dakota ballooned from 73 to 110 days' supply. After starting with an 81-day supply, Jeep ended up with a 102-day stock of Grand Cherokees. The new Dodge Journey was ChryCo's sole bright spot. The CUV started April with a 130-day supply and ended with 57 days' supply on the lots. 

Of the two truck-heavy transplants Toyota fared best. They don't list inventory by model, but they finished the month with a 52-day supply of trucks, up only two days from the end of March. Nissan's numbers represent the nadir. Murano (76 days) and Rogue (82 days) clogged dealers lots the least, while Armada (203 days), Titan (232), Xterra (198) and Frontier (137) were super-abundant. 

No question: 2008 is the year of the car. As consumers left ten-foot pole marks on high profit trucks and SUVs, car inventory numbers were their best in months. The Chevrolet Aveo dropped to 65 days (from March's 113) and Cobalt finished the month at the 52-day level (down from 75). GM dealers started April with a 37-day supply of Malibus; they ended it with a 36-day supply. A 21-day supply of Impala turned into a 22-day inventory. The only real dogs were the Pontiac G6– which went from a 43- to 64-day supply–and Saab. GM doesn't break out their Swedish division's individual models, but the ostensibly Swedish brand started the month with a 77-day supply, and ended at 151.

As you might expect, Ford dealers are moving more small cars than big. The Taurus started the month at 60 days' supply and finished at 73 days. Volvo ended the month with an 88-day supply of 70-series, up 11 days.  FoMoCo stores' supply of Fusions dropped four days, starting at 52 and ending with 48. Their stock of Focus dropped by 11 days, to 43.  The 30-series Volvo ended April at a 94-day level, down from 120 days.

April was a mixed bag for Chrysler. The 300 went from a 61-day supply to 82 days, the Sebring shot from 42 days to 69 ,and Avenger finished at the 51-day level after starting at 35 days. On the other hand, Caliber's inventory dropped from 48 days to 39, Charger went from 58 days to 41 and the reportedly doomed PT Cruiser ended the month at 38 days' supply, after starting at the 50-day level. 

Toyota began April with a 51-day supply of cars and finished up with a 53-day supply overall. Nissan began with the ideal 60-day level of Sentras and ended  with a 59-day supply. Versa's inventory dropped from 53 days to 51. Altima, however, went the wrong direction, finishing at the 71-day level after starting at 48 days. Honda had a 67-day supply of Accord on the lots on April 1; on April 30 they had a 72-day supply. Civic inventory dropped from 52 days to 48 and Fit went from 27 days to 22.

The manufacturers are taking steps to adjust these inventory numbers- GM has even stopped filling orders from dealers for many of their large trucks. However, with sales down it could take months to get things leveled out. In the meantime, look for increased fleet sales and bigger incentives as The Big 2.8 and Nissan do whatever they can to clear the lots. Also look for Toyota to ramp up incentive spending gradually, balancing the need to move the metal against creating incentive-dependent customers.  

Driving in London just for fun is as sensible as rollerblading on the autobahn. Enlisting a young fresh-off-the-boat Yank to indulge in such folly should be a felony. Yet there I was, strapped behind a steering wheel located where the glove box should be, with a carload of norteamericanos who had entrusted me with their sightseeing and their lives. As an avid reader of British car magazines who watched BBC documentaries on PBS, I convinced myself that I possessed the knowledge required for such an undertaking. I'd already shown courage under fire, surviving several days as a pedestrian on these streets without being hit, not even once. All we needed now was more petrol, and a bank loan to pay for it.

The driving truths Americans hold to be self-evident are nowhere to be found in the Land of Hope and Glory. English traffic engineers appear blissfully unaware of grid systems and four-way stops. Using street names to navigate can only lead to despair. Someone saw fit to bolt all those placards to the sides of buildings, out of eyeshot where they wouldn’t spoil the view. 

You couldn’t design a street plan like this without a hangover and a sense of humor. That centuries-old monument dedicated to King Somebodyoranother commands your immediate attention. As luck would have it, it’s in the middle of the road, and we’re heading straight for it. This marble relic has no patience for ambiguity. Choose sides. Left or right. NOW. No wonder we’ve been driving only ten minutes, and we’re already lost.

No matter. Losing your bearings doesn’t get much better than this. Stateside rental cars of that era were often shaped like soap bars and didn’t smell nearly as good. But in Old Blighty, even a mundane family saloon like this Ford Sierra could connect with your inner Schumacher.

For a kid raised on Tempos and Festivas, this shade of blue oval was nothing short of a revelation. The 1.6-liter mill wound out in ways that would have left many a bulkier Detroit four-banger for dead. The dash displayed Teutonic earnestness, controls placed where they should be. The shifter was nimble, albeit a bit awkward to an unfamiliar left hand. (Slam your customary shifting hand against the car door enough times, and you figure things out eventually.) While the passengers gawked at old buildings, my heel and toe enjoyed a workout on the roundabouts. This $4 gas was worth every pence.

Urban architecture gave way to suburbia, then to rolling verdant countryside as we barreled southward through Surrey toward West Sussex. The tourist office was kind enough to quarantine the English rain, replacing it with a glorious, warm sun. We’re not in Kansas anymore, and they’ve got the blacktop to prove it: tidy, properly paved tarmac, an invitation to dance. A Crown Vic would have been left flummoxed, but the Sierra remains composed, a willing partner for sharing this music.

We happen upon Arundel, a village known for a well-preserved castle doing double-duty as a tourist trap attraction and family home. (Note to self: Life in a drafty old house with a cover charge is overrated.) At the local café, my order of breakfast tea at 2PM was scandalous enough to unravel decades of Anglo-American diplomacy. At least we still had the car.

Back on the highway, I acquired a newfound appreciation for yellow paint. In the New World, we use it to separate opposing traffic from unplanned encounters. The Brits, however, reserve this shade to demarcate their omnipresent parking restrictions, preferring white striping for virtually everything else. Seemed like a harmless cultural difference, until a large lorry began playing chicken with us in what I could have sworn was my passing lane. With the aid of divine intervention, I hastily found fourth gear, redline and a slot on the left, barely avoiding a nasty rendezvous. One life down, eight to go.

Thankfully, the motorway spared us from further overtaking trauma. The limit was allegedly 70 mph, yet the natives took no notice. The speediest traffic easily surpassed the century mark, as slower members of the species respectfully dived out of the way. I had stumbled upon an exotic land where turn signals, courtesy and lane discipline were ways of life. As the lights of London loomed ahead on the M4, I prayed that I could be granted citizenship and a parking space. 

But alas, that England is one for the history books.  The new Cool Britannia is choking on the gristle of speed cameras, more speed cameras, congestion charges and $8 diesel. At this rate, it’s a matter of time before the Brits will have to pay just to think about driving.

Living in the past is looking like a better bet. It’s much faster there, and I can almost afford it.

Not for same reasons you do. You want a battery-powered Tesla Roadster because it’s a way cool car boasting bleeding edge technology. Or maybe you just like sexy sports cars. Or perhaps you’re looking for massive eco-auto props. As a free marketeer, I’m good with any of these motivations. As a Porsche Boxster S owner, I’m not bothered (I’ve already found my dream date). But as the publisher of this website, I want a Tesla Roadster BAD. I want to reveal the truth about the EV– whatever that may be.

The Tesla Birth Watch was born a fit of journalistic pique. It galled me to see my colleagues repeating the aspiring electric car company’s claims for their Roadster’s range, recharge time, safety and performance as fact. This before they'd turned a single wheel in anger. It made these media outlets– including mainstream publications that should have known better (I’m looking at you Forbes)– not-so-silent partners in the company’s PR and fund-raising efforts. The words “unproven” and “claimed” were conspicuous by their absence.

What’s more, Tesla’s Devil-make-care insistence that their unproven lithium-ion battery technology would deliver the claimed results (see how that works?) struck me as the worst kind of corporate arrogance– especially for a start-up. If BMW announces that their new twin-turbo 3.0-liter six will deliver 300 horsepower, accelerate the 335i from zero to sixty in 5.4 seconds and deliver 17/26 mpg, I have every reason to believe them. If a newbie named Tesla says their high tech Roadster will go from zero to sixty in under four seconds, travel 250 miles between charges and recharge in three hours, I say show me the money.

So I started the Tesla Birth Watch. If you go back and read the various installments, you’ll soon find the common thread: delays, disambiguation and disappearing claims. Transmission problems have forced the company to deep-six its sub-four second zero to sixty time. The 250-mile range is now 211 miles in “EPA Combined”- despite the fact that the EPA doesn’t have an electric vehicle mpg protocol. And no one– I repeat no one– has tested the Roadster’s batteries’ recharge time.

When Frank said we should pronounce T.O.B. (Time of Birth) on the Tesla Roadster and end the series– as the manufacturer claimed to have delivered a vehicle to a paying customer– I wanted proof. Given Tesla’s credibility (or complete lack thereof), the fact that this customer wants to remain anonymous doesn’t pass the smell test.

And if there is any wiggle room in our definition of “customer delivery of a production car,” I’m confident Tesla’s using it. For example, Tesla says it will retrofit the Roadster with a new transmission just as soon as they figure-out how to build one. Would we call a Ford Flex a proper production vehicle if it had to have a post-sale tranny swap? I don’t think so. As TTAC commentator PCH101 points out, “Even Vector delivered one vehicle. Technically, they’re still in business. It remains one of our oldest and best known vaporware companies.”

But you don’t hire a world-class Managing Editor, and then tell him he’s full of shit (at least not often). So I’ve deferred to Frank in this case. But I insisted we start the Tesla Death Watch. Think of it this way…

Tesla says they’ll deliver 400 cars by next March. Let’s assume they make, build and sell twice that and then some: 1000 cars per year, or 20 cars a week (pausing to note that Audi plans to sell 1k similarly-priced R8’s stateside in the car’s first year.) Let’s also assume they clear $20k per $100k car. So that’s $20m in ostensible net profit. Is there anyone reading this who thinks Tesla hasn’t already burned through $20m?

Now we know Tesla’s raised a lot more money than that, but that’s not the point. At some point, they’ll need to, you know, take in more money than they spend. At the same time, the Roadster runs the very real risk of catching “everyone who wants one’s got one” disease. It’s no wonder the company’s beginning to shift focus onto the WhiteStar EV– or partial EV– sedan. They need something to sell. To investors.

In truth, Tesla Motors is no more likely to produce and sell a viable, profitable, competitive, mass-market electric-powered sedan than General Motors. Given Tesla’s history of over-promising and under- (as in not) delivering on the Roadster, I reckon they don’t have a hope in Hell of achieving this goal. But that won’t stop them from raising tens of millions of dollars for their cushy offices and healthy salaries, and making a killing with an IPO. Nor will it stop us from telling the truth about Tesla, test car or no.

[Once again, we call on Tesla to provide a Roadster for third-party evaluation.] 

According to perceived wisdom, GM's overseas ops will keep the corporate mothership afloat. Some 64 percent of first quarter sales came from outside our borders, as well as ALL of GM’s profits. The General claims that foreign markets will account for 75 percent of its profit by decade’s end. So why not just shut down the NA operations and firewall the rest as “Global Motors?” A closer look at GM’s three international units tells the tale.

GME (Europe) covers the EU15 countries, Eastern Europe and Russia. There might as well be a reverse iron (lead?) curtain when it comes to GM’s sales growth and market share in Europe; it’s all happening on the eastern side.

GM’s woes in Western Europe closely mirror its death-rattle in the US. In fact, Opel/Vauxhall has pulled off a perfect imitation of GM’s US market share free-fall: a 30 percent share drop from 1995 to 2007. Opel’s market share has plummeted 55 by percent in its German home base. The Astra, the perennial number two behind VW’s Golf, now struggles for fourth or fifth place.

GME reported a loss of $514m in 2007, despite “strong demand for GM [Chevy-badged Daewoos] vehicles in Ukraine, Greece and Russia, where sales doubled”. But GM’s recent losing bid (to Renault) for Russian automaker Autovaz puts a crimp on future growth. And Toyota has just opened a modern plant in St. Petersburg.

But GM is throwing €9b at Opel, hoping (once again) that new models will turn things around. Opel’s brand image has morphed from boringly reliable to reliably boring, It’s caught in the pincers of the “premium” brands above it and discount brands below.

Thanks to Latin America’s bubbly economy, GM’s bright spot (for the moment) is GMLAAM (Latin America, Africa and Middle East). But dark clouds are already on the horizon (Argentina’s inflation is up to 25 percent again).

Brazil is GM’s third largest market. Because of numerous constrictions on the market, it has all the symptoms of a seller’s market bubble. Chevrolet’s Vectra (Cobalt) goes for $48k. No wonder GMLAAM booked a $1.3 billion profit in 2007.

But the Latin fiesta won’t last (it never does). Growth is slowing, and the competition is moving in. Toyota sees a 50 percent rise in sales. Hyundai is building a plant. And two Chinese firms are setting up shop in low-cost Uruguay to export to Brazil and Argentina.

That brings us to GMAP (Australia-Pacific). GM’s Australian Death Watch has been well documented here. But then there’s China, and as we all know, when it comes to car sales growth the East Glows. Or not.

GM has minted serious coin on their Buicks; $65k for each Park Avenue sedan. But GM’s China-fest is petering out. GM’s current growth is stalled at 7.4 percent. Meanwhile, the competition racks up big gains: Toyota: 62 percent, VW: 33 percent, Hyundai: 64 percent. Chinese drivers are shunning the aging Buick Excelle (Daewoo) in favor of Toyota’s Camry. But GM has a plan! Rushing our unloved (and now unbuilt) Enclaves and Escalades to China.

China’s most explosive period of growth is over, forever. The stock market is down 40 percent, and the real estate bubble has popped. As the car market turns into a buyer’s market, Chinese consumers will have greater choice in cost, quality, economy and reliability. And this is where GM faces a huge downside, not only in China, but in every other gold-rush market around the globe.

GM’s developing world cars are almost exclusively from Daewoo. Aveo’s US EPA numbers are 26 percent worse than the Yaris, and in China, it’s down 47 percent against a Lifan or BYD. Auto analyst, Jia Xinguang, says that “the Toyota Vios (Aygo) and Yaris will soon snap up a large share and dominate the small car niche”. Sounds familiar, once again.

In the hot global CUV market, the Chevrolet Captiva/Saturn Vue from Daewoo is uncompetitive. It weighs 4325lbs and has an EPA rating of 16/22, compared to 3500lbs for a Honda CRV with 20/26 EPA rating.

GM’s losses in Australia and the increasingly competitive market in China are showing up in the earnings statements. Whereas GMAP booked a $1.2b profit in 2006, in 2007 that shrank to $744m.

GM’s global expansion and profits were the result of two decisions made decades ago: to hang on to its roller-coaster Brazil operations, and to be an early pioneer in China. When these two are/were on the upswing, GM enjoyed oversized profits due to an imbalance in supply and demand. But as these and other hot-spot markets mature, GM will face the same final exam that it does at home: are its sub-compact (Aveo) and compact (Cobalt, Astra, etc.) products truly competitive with the best in the world?

GM may not have jumped the overseas shark yet, but it’s on the ramp.

Does the head of Saturn have photos of important movers and shakers with goats? How else can you explain Saturn’s survival? All that’s left of GM’s “different kind of car company” is the same old spray of red ink. From import fighter to importer of Americanized Opels, Saturn’s been an abject failure for decades. And yet, GM’s has deemed Saturn one of their three “sales channels.” While there are few (non-goat-related) “image” reasons for Saturn to continue, a close look at the numbers shows its defense lies in what can be done, not what people [re]think.

There’s no two ways about it: Saturn has lost its “mindshare.” All those fond memories of American pride, homecomings, dealer barbecues, friendly sales folk and dent-proof plastic panels have faded away. Spring Hill has sprung. But then,let's keep Saturn's lost branding in perspective. GM’s “gang of three” (Pontiac, Buick, GMC; Saab, Hummer, Cadillac) doesn’t have much brand equity either.

Pontiac is defined by a handful of hot cars built because division-heads grew tired of flogging posh Chevies. Buick has history, but it hasn’t been a credible “luxe” car for anyone under 60 for 30 years or more. GMC is another exercise in “keeping the Chevies down.” And Cadillac is wandering all over the map, offering gilded pickups, bling SUVs and Nurburgring-fettled European-style sports sedans.

Equally important, Saturn hasn’t pissed in its customers’ cornflakes. Saturn remains relatively free from the incendiary “I’ll never buy a GM product again” consumer frustration with lousy build quality and disinterested dealers (a.k.a. the "perception gap"). In that sense, the brand’s amorphous rep offers a far better recovery point than the rest of GM's brands (save Hummer).

In fact, Saturn dealers have consistently exceeded their customer’s expectations. In customer satisfaction surveys, Saturn’s dealer network scores well above GM’s other brands– and many imports. Saturn dealers are carefully chosen (even company-owned where the law allows). And best of all, there aren’t too many of them. 

In today’s fragmented car market, a small number (435) of single-franchise dealers (90 percent) is a very good thing indeed. While Saturn’s sales aren’t setting the world on fire, their per-dealer sales are comparable to Chevy’s (about 550 vehicles per dealer a year). In comparison, the combined averages of Buick/Pontiac/GMC (BPG) dealers rack-up about 400 vehicles sales per dealer (Toyota and Honda average well over a thousand). 

Fewer, stronger dealers make controlling image and holding the line on promotions a much easier proposition. It’s worth noting that the Saturn Sky has nowhere near the lot problems of its near-relation the Solstice. With only 400-odd dealerships, a Saturn dealer would have confidence that if he asked for a Sky, he would get it. Pontiac dealers, less sure of new supplies, marked their first Solsti to the skies and killed sales momentum dead.

Saturn dealers may be strong, but it’s there are some real heavyweights in the BPG mix. The top 400 “combo” dealers– the top 20 percent– are at least as big as the Saturn dealers. So why would GM cull its BPG dealers— a rumor currently swirling around Motown– to protect a brand they’ve never really liked or understood? 

Simply put, if The General kills “any” dealers, they have to kill all of them. There’s no legally defensible way to separate “good” B/P/G dealers from the deadweight. The [epic] legal bills involved in killing 2000 dealerships would be far greater if GM tried to only kill the “worst” 1500. Whole lines have to be killed en masse.

Turning Saturn into “Opel West” may have been one of the least successful product strategies GM’s launched in a long time (and that’s saying something), but it has a silver lining. It separates Saturn from Chevy. Without B/P/G, without having to worry about stepping on corporate toes or badge-engineered clones, Chevy could begin to resemble the “full” car line it claims to be– instead of diving for the bargain basement.

Saturn would have space to become… something. This website has suggested Saturn become GM’s “green brand,” offering a range of all alt. power vehicles (the plug-in Saturn Vue is scheduled to proceed the Chevy Volt). Alternatively, Saturn could become the “stylish” alternative for more discerning (and well-heeled) buyers, a sort of “Atlantic Mazda.” Yes, this would place Saturn close to the classic Oldsmobile image, before that brand was killed off. But tempus fugit. 

Simple mathematics suggests it’s not time to give up on Saturn. Despite its incoherent branding, misfiring marketing, non-competitive products and declining sales, GM executives must know that the division looks more like where they want to go than any of GM’s other stores. Of course, to get from here to there, GM needs to find a way to make money off Saturn— a goal that has eluded them since January 7, 1985, the day the brand was launched See? There’s always a catch.     

Why would gunslinger/investor Kirk Kerkorian want to buy Ford? After two decades living high off the [gas] hog, Ford’s still suffering the Mother of all Hangovers. The night before the day after, FoMoCo headed down to the Vegas strip and got hitched, polygamy-style (Hertz, Aston-Martin, Jaguar and Volvo). While town father Bill Ford's sobered-up and hired sheriff Mulally– whose drawn-up the divorce papers and cleaned-up the town– it still looks like tornado fodder. And here comes Captain Kirk, all guns blazing, looking to take over the joint. Why now? 

Thanks to his investment “experience” with Chrysler and GM, Kirk’s mob have had a good look at the automakers’ books. They know that GM and Chrysler are doomed. But they also know that the domestic auto industry is too large for all three to sink at once– if only because of brand/national loyalty and popular access to Detroit dealers. In Motown’s game of last man standing, Ford's become the odds-on favorite. That said, it takes a practiced eye to see it.

In April, Ford, Lincoln and Mercury racked-up 189,247 sales. Retail sales (down seven percent) are not falling as fast as fleet sales (down 12 percent), but both are still headed for the outhouse. Zoom in. The refreshed, Volvo-derived Taurus is a flop. Comparing ’08 Taurus to the ’07 Five Hundred, sales were down 21.3 percent last month. Zoom out. Jaguar, Land Rover and Volvo added just 11,480 units. Ford sold Jaguar and Land Rover to Tata Motors; Volvo now accounts for less than 5 percent to Ford's U.S. sales volume.

Yes, the Edge, Fusion trio and revised Focus are still helping to staunch the wounds. But Ford’s share of the U.S. new car market is down 15.1 percent from last year, to 15 percent.  And while there’s an upswing in car sales, none of these vehicles are generating the profit margins Ford needs to survive.

Now that the Explorer is lost (April sales were off by 38.5 percent, down 25 percent year-to-date), that task rests squarely on the F-150 pickup’s shoulders. What are the odds? Forthcoming refresh be damned; April sales of the country’s most popular vehicle fell 21 percent. 

The market is beginning to wake-up to Ford’s cash conflagration. The money they’re burning is all OPM; Ford hocked everything down to the executive china and its famous Blue Oval. Liquidity is now a life or death issue. Although Fitch Ratings has downgraded Ford on that basis, the agency seems to think that Ford will turn the corner and achieve a positive cash flow by 2009.  Unless, of course, more shit hits the fan.

The problem is, of course, product. There’s no doubt that Alan Mulally is kicking ass and taking names behind the scenes. Ford is becoming a smaller, leaner, faster and fitter organization. But Big Al’s done little to reenergize Ford’s branding or products. We still don’t know what a Ford is, Lincoln and Mercury are still gussied-up Fords, and Volvo overlaps everywhere. The new Flex, Fiesta, MKS and Taurus will all do well, but the competition isn’t standing still.

In short, where’s the vision thing? In truth, at the moment, as Kirk Kerkorian knows, Ford doesn’t need it. Assuming Chrysler files this summer– a probability of which Captain Kirk is not unaware– both Ford and GM will get a dead cat bounce. At that point, all Ford has to do is hang tough and not be GM, with eight brands stuffed with 40-plus lackluster products. When GM finally goes down, Ford wins. They’ll have all the time they need to [continue to] get their shit together. 

Meanwhile, Kerkorian can’t lose. Ford’s stock will rise on the news of Chrysler’s fall. The head of Tracinda can sell his shares and walk with a gigantic profit. Even if he doesn’t bail at the new zenith, Kerkorian knows that Mulally’s Ford has the best chance of going the distance. Perhaps with a little strategic intervention…

As it stands, CEO Alan Mulally can ignore Kerkorian (and his minion Jerry York’s) advice. Thanks to the Ford family’s SuperShares, which give them 40 percent control, Mulally’s got “You Can’t Touch This” on his Sync. On the other hand… Ford has a long history of lynching outside CEOs. Donald Petersen turned Ford around in the dark days on the 1980s. Chief Executive Magazine named Donny "CEO of the Year" in 1989. In 1990, he was "retired" for resisting the naming certain family members to powerful board committees.

Short of shooting itself in the Mulally foot, Ford will be Detroit’s last man standing. Long term, there’s a line of gunslingers ready to take on the Blue Oval Boys. By that time, Captain Kirk will have cashed-in his chips, perhaps in more ways than one.

All hail Frank Williams. TTAC’s Managing Editor spent the best part of last week speccing-out our new website. Every current and future link, every button, every function, every everything. Frank’s road map contains the kind of “granularity” that code writers adore, that I consider “grit,” whose creation requires true grit. In the course of this odyssey, Frank and I made a lot of strategic decisions. Most were easy (a strong brand makes it so). While I’m completely confident the new TTAC will leapfrog the competition (no Volt comparisons please), there’s an 800-pound feature in the room that we need to discuss: forums.

We understand full well TTAC’s core strength: the relationship between our no-holds-barred rants, reviews and news; and our Best and Brightest (reader) commentary. Most sites offer sensible posts with deranged comments. We provide deranged posts with sensible comments. In other words, the commentators, our base, are an integral part of what makes us us. If we lose them/you, we lose our spiritual core.

TTAC sustains its Best and Brightest in three ways. First, our editorial team writes its collective, metaphorical ass off. We attract the B&B with our automotive zeal, literary courage, quality thinking and sardonic wit. You know, ideally. Second, we encourage cross-fertilization between [barely] paid editorial staff and commentators. This open-door editorial policy ensures that our writers are in tune with our readers because they ARE readers. Third, perhaps most importantly, we have a stringent no-flaming policy.

I reckon that five percent of all visitors to any “open” website are there for the express purpose of destroying it. Over the last three years or so, I’ve banned over 600 aspiring anarchists. (This doesn’t include all the commentators who were warned and disappeared.) I can’t overstate the importance of blanket moderation. The policy creates a safe space for vigorous debate. The quality of the commentary is a logical result of the protections we afford.

So, forums. We want to have lots of topic-related forums with user-generated threads. But how can we encourage/allow large amounts of user-generated content without losing our ability to moderate every comment, all the time?

Hiring professional moderators is the best, easiest and most logical answer. No can do. At least not yet. Alternatively, we could appoint unpaid moderators from within your ranks. That idea completely freaks my inner control freak, who knows that cash payments are the better part of assuring valor. I mean, eventually, maybe, it could work. But not from the git-go.

So Frank and I devised a plan to take us from here (excellent moderation, no forums) to there (excellent moderation, lots of forums).

Basically, we firewall TTAC-generated content. In other words, we keep the current set-up for our news, reviews and editorials: our post, tied to your comments. Example: “Tesla Runs Out of Gas,” “49 comments.” At the bottom of the page, we also offer readers an option to “Read Tesla-related topics.” This links you to “lightly moderated” user-generated threads. Although we’d have a prominent “report flaming” button, and do our best to police it, the area would be clearly identified as the “bad” part of town.

THEN we’d look for moderators for each topic. (Topics are based on categories in the drop-down menus.) Once we identify a suitable moderator, we upgrade the topic from a standard-looking forum thingie to a TTAC-looking home page, complete with its own topic-related news, reviews and editorials.

When we post TTAC-generated material on the home page on the topic (e.g. “Tesla Gets Another Lease on Life”) it ALWAYS appears on the Tesla page. But there would ALSO be topic-specific (user generated) material on the new, topic-related home page that DOESN’T appear on the home page.

And here’s another tricky bit: the ed staff surfs TTAC’s own topic-related home pages for user-generated material to post on the main home page— and pays for it.

It sounds crazy, maybe even incoherent, but it just might work! To my mind, the plan would assure current quality, allow a transition to fully-moderated “forums,” nurture new talent and widen our audience. To THAT end, the new site will also have the other stuff you might have expected, say, two years ago: photo and video galleries (both TTAC and user-generated), easier navigation, etc., and at least one killer app. We’re also going to clean-up the bugs (e.g. can’t post urls in emails to TTAC, iPod listings, etc).

This time ‘round, we’ll invite the Best and Brightest to stress test the site before launch. Meanwhile (and it could be a while), rest assured that we know who we are. I promise TTAC won't lose its heart, soul and integrity as we kick this thing up a notch.

For now, please let me know what you think of the forum plan. Thanks!

In 1971, I committed a crime, the repercussions of which still affect me today. I was a bored eighteen year-old whose over-developed automotive memory banks craved stimulus. In those pre-web dark ages, the information gap between monthly car magazines was excruciating. Desperate, I plied the 629.22 rack of the Iowa City Public Library, and found the font of automotive history. I slipped the heavy Rosetta stone under my baggy Army surplus jacket and walked out. I’ve been guiltily absorbing its contents ever since. Read More >

Remember back in 2004, Ford unveiled its new Focus and announced "The Year of The Car?" FoMoCo's cash cow was (and still is) a pickup truck. Clock FoMoCo's passenger car offerings four years later, and you'd be forgiven for thinking the auto show hyperbole was just that. But now it's here for real: the year of the car. In April, passenger cars outsold trucks in the U.S. new vehicle market for the first time in two decades. This is a truly amazing moment in U.S. automotive history, representing the roll-back of the SUV boom. With federal fuel economy regulations in the offing, it's unlikely that even a huge drop in gas prices can reverse the tide. Let's take a closer look at this watershed month. 

Passenger car sales rose 4.5 percent (April '07 vs. April '08). Truck sales fell by 17.2 percent. When the blood was cleaned off the carpet, U.S. new passenger vehicle sales ended-up 6.8 percent below last April's total. So far this year, car sales are down 1.5 percent and truck sales 13.4 percent, producing a 7.7 percent drop overall. That's the big picture; now let's look at a few specifics…

Pickup Trucks

The Chevy Silverado suffered a 24.7 drop from April of 2007; year-to-date (YTD) sales sank 20.8 percent. While F-Series still holds onto its "best selling vehicle" title, sales were off by 21 percent for the month, down 15.5 percent for the year. Even huge incentives and sweet deals couldn't pull the Dodge Ram out if its death spiral, finishing April 23.3 percent below last year; down 24.2 percent YTD. For the first time since the new model was introduced, the Toyota Tundra ended the month below last year; April sales slipped six percent. But they're still up 24.8 percent YTD.

Passenger Cars

The Chevy Malibu continues its sales climb, ending the month 39.5 percent above last April, 22.5 percent ahead of last year. Ford's Fusion also had a good month. Sales ascended by 22.4 percent for month, six percent on year.  Chrysler wasn't so fortunate. The 300 dropped 36.8 percent for the month, down 22.2 percent on the year. The Toyota Camry managed to stay 5.6 percent ahead of last April, 2.3 percent ahead YTD. Honda Accord sales jumped 17.5 percent for the month. But that's up just 0.2 percent for the year.

Truck-based SUVs

It's no wonder that GM is shutting down SUV production for the year. Tahoe sales finished April down a whopping 29.4 percent, trailing 27.1 percent YTD. Ford and Chrysler may want to consider following GM's lead. Explorer sales declined 38.5 percent from last April; 25 percent YTD. Dodge Durango was even worse. Sales are now so low that a difference of only 2k sales from last April resulted in a 38.5 percent drop; year to date the Durango dies by 38.6 percent. Toyota's Sequoia continues selling above last year, with a 34.4 percent gain for April and a 17.9 percent growth for the year so far.

CUVs

For the first time this year, sales of GMC's Acadia dropped below the previous year's, ending the month down 8.8 percent. However, thanks to a very strong showing in the first quarter, Acadia sales are up 43.3 percent YTD. Ford's Edge edged ahead of last April by 13.1 percent, bettering last year's sales by a whopping 37.9 percent. The Toyota Highlander was down 1.1 percent for the month, but still managed to stay 5.3 percent ahead of the first four months of 2007. Honda's Pilot went the other way, ending 1.3 percent ahead of April 2007, down 5.4 percent for the year.

Prius

It's no wonder that Toyota is thinking about expanding Prius into an entire line of vehicles. Sales are booming. We're talking about a 66.6 percent surge in April and a 22.6 percent gain over this time last year. With gas prices continuing to climb, demand for Toyota's rolling computer doesn't seem to be likely to diminish any time soon.

Total Sales

Historically, overall vehicle sales tend to dip in April. When you start the year well below the previous year, dips tend to look more like a swan dive off the ten-meter board. GM ended April 16.2 percent below last April and starts May down 13.2 percent for the year. Ford did slightly better, dropping only 12.1 percent for the month and 9.8 percent for the year. Chrysler would gladly swap places with either of them, with sales down 23.5 percent compared to April '07 and down 17.6 percent for the year. The transplants fared a bit better than the natives. Toyota finished the month 3.4 percent ahead of last April but down 3.3 percent on the year. Honda had the best showing of all, increasing 6.8 percent in April and up 1.5 percent year to date.

The Future

Next month, we'll see if GM's production cutbacks (and strikes) have any impact on their sales. Toyota's announced price increases may throw a spanner in the works. (Or not.) And Chrysler's cut-rate gasoline promotion could ignite sales. (or not.) One thing's for sure: it may be the year of the car, but for the domestics, it's not the carmaker's year. 

Once upon a time, the myth of Icarus personified the warning that pride goeth before a fall (literally). These days, the RMS Titanic’s death by iceberg– on its maiden voyage no less– illustrates the dangers of hubris. That’s because the public considers the concept of an unsinkable ship patently ridiculous. In fact, the Titanic should have been unsinkable (save tsunami, torpedo or ballistic attack). The reasons the ocean liner eventually slipped into the depths have much to tell us about the ship’s corporate equivalent, General Motors.

Many students of this maritime tragedy reckon the Titanic should have avoided the iceberg entirely. When First Officer Murdoch heard the lookouts’ cries, he ordered an abrupt turn to port (left) and full speed astern. His subordinates stopped the ship's main engines, and threw them into reverse. Thanks to an outmoded rudder and a speed record-chasing engine design (a turbine-driven central screw that couldn’t reverse), Murdoch’s order actually decreased the ship’s mobility.

By the same token, when Toyota and other U.S. imports capitalized on the first Oil Crisis, GM’s corporate “rudder” was antique and ineffectual. The automaker’s arrogant administration and byzantine bureaucracy made maneuvering around the crisis impossible. By the time GM produced smaller, thriftier products, it was too little, too late. Flash forward to Toyota’s hybrid Prius and the SECOND oil crisis, and nothing has changed. How could it change when GM has never been to dry dock for a retrofit? 

Again, the same sloth that hobbled the Titanic afflicts GM. By refreshing their products more quickly than the General, Toyondissan have kicked the American automaker's ass. Although GM has updated the vast majority of its vast product portfolio (with the notable exception of the eight-year old Cadillac DTS), the refreshes were WELL overdue. The Chevrolet Cavalier lasted almost a decade; the Pontiac Grand Am hung around for six years. How long will GM’s latest products languish?

In “What Really Sank the Titanic," authors Jennifer Hooper McCarthy and Tim Foeke (of the National Institute of Standards and Technology) claim the liner was done-in by the failure of the metal bow plates' seams. Inferior riveters couldn’t produce enough high quality (i.e. slag-free) rivets to ensure sufficient hull strength. The deficiency is partially down to the fact that Harland and Wolff were building THREE of the world’s biggest ships at the same time. In short, the shipyard bit off more than they could chew and cut corners to get the job done.

You don’t have to speak with the millions of customers who've suffered financial and emotional losses due to General Motors’ engineering failures to know that the automaker shares the same over-reach that sunk what should have been Harland and Wolf’s finest hour. But if you did, you’d be shocked at all the corners– both big and small– GM has cut over the years. The world’s largest automaker, the company that OWNED the U.S. new car market, nickel-and-dimed its way into pariah status.

What started as Alfred P. Sloan’s “a car for every purse and purpose” became (and remains) a desperate struggle to produce enough “rivets” (i.e. product) to keep the GM corporate mothership afloat. Is it any wonder that most of GM’s vehicles are uncompetitive when so many must be? We can debate past strategies, but it’s been clear for some time that GM needs just two brands: Chevrolet and Cadillac. Like, say, Toyota (which needs Scion like a hole in the hull).

If GM had just two automotive marques– which could be the plan even as the ship’s lower decks sink beneath the waterline– the quality of each vehicle would be much higher. The company would have had the strength to survive the oil barrel-shaped iceberg.

As most accident investigators will tell you, epic disasters usually occur when there’s a confluence of mistakes. The Titanic wasn’t designed or built properly. It sailed through iceberg-laden waters to set a speed record on its maiden voyage. The First Officer made a lethal mistake [NB: the Titanic may have survived if she’d simply rammed the ‘berg.] Change any one of these factors and the results would have been vastly different.

But none of this alters one important, arguably over-riding consideration: the captain. Titanic Captain Edward J. Smith should have known his ship’s limitations. He should have refused to follow the route chosen for the Titanic’s maiden voyage and/or participate in the record run. He should have trained his crew to execute an appropriate evasive maneuver (or, as above, not) in the face of an entirely predictable event. He should have ensured that there were adequate plans for survival (enough lifeboats). Fate may have dealt him a cruel blow, but he was responsible for his passengers’ safety.

When the history of GM's final fall is written, CEO Rick Wagoner will feature prominently. As well he should.

One year ago [Chrysler Suicide Watch 12] I opined that Jeep was morphing from the world's most uniquely-American brand into a schizophrenic abyss of muddled models. Of course, this analysis hardly required the keen insights of branding guru Al Reis.  Jeep had just introduced the unconvincing Compass and platform partner Patriot to the market. And they were preparing to launch a re-skinned Jeep Liberty.  The Liberty was the reigning best selling small SUV on the market. So one year later, how has the brand progressed?  As a Jeep owner and acolyte of [what's left of] the brand, I'm sorry to say that Jeep's crisis is far deeper than before.

After the "merger of equals" between Daimler and Chrysler, the Germans correctly surmised the Jeep brand's importance to ChryCo's overall health. When Jeep did well, Chrysler did well. When Jeep sales flagged, Chrysler tanked. The bellwether brand was ripe for expansion; it only had three models (Wrangler, Grand Cherokee and Liberty/Cherokee).  So the good Doktor wrote a prescription for more models.  From a business standpoint, it fit the "feed your successes, starve your failures" template to a T.

Und now…

The good news: Jeep sales are relatively flat in a sinking market, averaging 473,840 from 1996 through 2007. The bad news: the numbers are flat (Jeep sold just 475,237 vehicles in 2007). Remember: all three of Jeep's core models have been completely revamped in the last three years, and three new models (Commander, Compass, and Patriot) darken dealership doors. Jeep should be a lot further ahead.

In fact, call it "Are We Not Jeep?" Devolution is everywhere. The once ubiquitous Grand Cherokee has fallen the farthest. In 1999, Jeep sold more than 300k units. In 2007, they sold less than half of that total (120,937). The result seem quite so bad if you add in Grand Cherokee's platform-sharing sibling, the "we swear we're going to kill it" Commander. But even so, the platform is losing ground at an alarming rate.

Meanwhile, Liberty sales plummeted from a high of 171,212 in 2002 to just 92,105 last year. In 2007, Cherokee/Liberty sales fell below 100k for the first time in the last eleven years.

Much digital ink has been spilled deriding the Commander and its woeful sales. But it's the Jeep Compass that really needs to go. 

Jeep managed to sell more than twice as many Commanders during its first full year of production (88,497 in 2006) as the Compass did in it first full year (39,491 in 2007). Even if the Compass has a huge profit margin, one has to wonder why Cerberus would continue producing a chunky little Jeep with all the appeal of Hillary Clinton in a tankini.

Sales numbers for 2007 indicate nothing conclusive about the Patriot, which sold 40,434 units in a partial year. The Patriot at least looks like a credible Jeep and gets excellent gas mileage– compared to the rest of the Jeep lineup. It's a keeper, even though it's not nearly as good as it needs to be to compete with the likes of the RAV4 and CRV.

The only clear hero in the lineup is (may we have a military drum roll please)… the Wrangler. The jeepiest of Jeeps is shouldering the load of the brand-diluting models that Daimler, Chrysler and Cerberus leadership have in their infinite non-wisdom devised. Sales of this crude gas hog jumped 33 percent in 2007 to nearly 120k units. That's more than any other Jeep model except the Grand Cherokee (which barely edged it out, so to speak). Wrangler's year-over-year increase (39K) almost matched the number of Patriots sold during ‘07.

Clearly, the suburbanization of the Jeep brand has been an utter failure. Daimler failed to recognize that Jeep is not a plastichrome badge on a car. 

Jeep is an outdoorsman's lifestyle.  Jeep owners want to feel the wind in their hair– even if they don't have any– and the roar deafens them at highway speeds. They would rather have more torque than better fuel efficiency. They aren't as concerned with zero to sixty and quarter mile times as they are with ground clearance and break-over angles. They want the ability to drive anywhere; going around an oval doesn't much interest them. Jeep owners are participatory hands-on lovers of the untamed world.  They want to be in nature with the top down and doors off.

Even if they don't. Either way, Jeep's customers are most decided NOT bobblehead dolls chillin' in the ‘hood. Has Cerberus figured this out? If only. Consider this: the automaker quietly and unceremoniously scuttled the annual Camp Jeep for 2008. At a single stroke, the automaker betrayed the brand faithful and signaled to the keepers of the flame that said blaze flickers on the brink of extinction. America's Ferrari is an endangered species.

For nearly a century, powertrains and vehicle design have followed a largely evolutionary development path, slowly improving on one basic concept. But rising fuel prices for our inherited automotive paradigm point to radical changes ahead. Hybrids have already established a beachhead for the coming revolution. Like the dot-com boom just a decade ago, the EV gold rush is on. From pure vaporware to Hail-Mary-mobiles to groundbreaking machines that threaten real world practicality and affordability, there's lots to learn from and laugh at in the post-combustion world.

With so much to be depressed about (the death of affordable gas, the new Knight Rider TV series, etc.), you gotta laff, mate. And that's where Volt Nation comes in. Your online headquarters for (GM) Volt-o-mania, gm-volt.com recently covered the breaking news that Bob Lutz didn't actually say the Volt would cost $48k. When pressed, Lutz tells gm-volt.com's Lyle Dennis “(The price) keeps going up. Every time you ask, Lyle, it goes up again.” Lutz also calls the battery “a big unknown”– a fact which doesn't prevent one commenter from declaring that the unborn Volt “could change the world economy.” Another gushes “I vote that we quit asking price. If it’s right, then I’ll buy one or two.” Enjoy the love-fest, but remember: reality is just a hyperlink away.

The antidote to clueless cheer leading, greencarcongress.com is the place for hard-core EV (electric vehicle) and alt-energy nuts to geek out. The site offers a smorgasbord of super-wonky details and discussion of new developments such as a new $10k plug-in conversion kit for the Prius and the possibility of a renewable, organic electrode material for lithium-ion batteries. No detail goes unnoticed– from ZF's development of "hydraulic impulse oil storage element that can be integrated in the new generation of its 8-speed automatic transmissions to better support start-stop microhybrid systems," to the latest hybrid sales numbers.

Evworld.com brings us news of a plugless plug-in hybrid Skoda Fabia developed by the UK's Motor Industry Research Association. The retrofit is said to "eliminate the primary limitation of the 'plug-in hybrid' concept." Sadly, this isn't a cure for high prices and overly complex technology. Nope, this e-doo-hickey simply allows you to lug your batteries to a power source to charge them up, so on-street parkers can still rock a plug-in. Hmmm, sounds like an extension cord might have been cheaper.

Let's take a moment now to dispel the notion that EVs are all overly-complex yet boring city boxes. Sometimes they're slightly-complex yet impractical sports cars. Case in point, the Dutch firm Evisol threw a Siemens engine and some lithium polymer batteries into a Lotus Seven replica. Blijdschap! The Thorr was born. Like Tesla (after several epic fails), Evisol left the gearbox out, figuring the (up to) 450nm of torque at zero rpm would suffice to haul the 1600 lb Thorr to speed while still returning a 125 miles range. Too bad Evisol can't tell us what it will cost, when it will be available or the final performance. Still, it's a good blueprint for a sweet shadetree EV project car.

For a snapshot of the EV companies with the best PR departments products, Dvice.com has a list of the Top 10 World-Changing Electric Cars. Ignore the hyperbolic headline, and the inclusion of such oddities as the cartoonish Venturi "Eclectic Car" (pictured) and the Baker Electric Vehicle, which went out of production in 1915, and you have a snapshot of some of the products coming down the EV pipeline. Whether cars like the Fisker Karma even make it to production is still a question, and the Aptera Typ1 is unlikely to change anything outside of Southern California, but hey… the future has to come sometime, right?

Still not convinced that EVs have a future in the US? The optimistically-named solveclimate.com covers a Deutsche Bank study which might just change your mind. The German beancounters went over the numbers for Project Better Place's charging station and car-leasing business model. They were impressed to say the least. PBP's plans to market EV's like cell phones with set-mileage service plans could reduce the cost of driving to as little as seven cents per mile, compared to an average of 15 – 20 cents per mile currently available in the US. PBP proves that EV technology isn't enough on its own. Someone has to overcome their cost downsides.

Finally, the no-longer-presented-by-Acura Jalopnik takes us inside a Chinese factory which builds counterfeit Smart ForTwos. The ripoff rides might not be EVs, but they offer an insight into the conditions in which ultra-cheap EVs like Zap's Xebra are built. Just in case you thought your EV was, y'know… saving the planet.