Forty years ago, Toyota’s invasion of America (and effectively, the world) began in earnest. In 1968, the newly-minted Corolla was sent stateside to do battle with the perennially best selling VW Beetle. Only two short years later, the Corolla was the second-best selling car globally. By 1975, Toyota surpassed Volkswagen as the top import brand. The Corolla has taken all the global production crowns (1.5 million sold in 2007; over 33 million total). It has been the engine powering Toyota’s rise to the world’s largest carmaker. Has the Corolla achieved immortality, or will it eventually lose its way like its spiritual predecessors, the Model T and VW Beetle?

Toyota’s “little crown” started out a bit under-armed to take on the world. More suitable for the crowded and slow streets of Japan, the first Corolla was tiny, narrow, lightweight (1637lbs), underpowered (60hp) and notoriously under-braked. But its $1660 sticker ($10k inflation adjusted) went a long way to compensate for any limitations.

Toyota’s ambitions were limitless, though. Tatsuo Hasegawa, Corolla’s chief engineer, expressed his lofty (and prophetic) goal: to build “a Corolla for the welfare and happiness around the world.” It’s certainly done wonders for the welfare and happiness of Toyota’s shareholders.

The Corolla was launched with a defining statement: “that quality, reliability and durability could be affordable.” That the statement is as true today as it was then can be credited to Toyota’s never-wavering focus. It is the key to the greatest automotive success story ever.

That defining statement would certainly be applicable to the previous global production record holders, the Model T (16.5 million) and the Beetle (21.5 million).

Yes, well, Henry Ford permanently destroyed his company’s market dominance by refusing to change his beloved T for twenty years. And VW experienced a deep crisis as a result of ten years of dithering about the Beetle’s replacement after its thirty year run. But Toyota committed itself to a rigorous self-renewal program with the Corolla, spitting out a substantially refreshed model every four or five years (ominously stretched to six for the latest U.S. generation).

The Gen2 Corolla (1971-1974) was the breakthrough success. It grew just enough to accommodate four adults in comfort (as it was defined then). In 1971, Car and Driver praised the Corolla for “its spacious and attractive interior, good overall quality and economy” as well as being “fun to drive… as it feels more like a sports car than the others.”

Given Toyota’s unwavering focus, if “fun to drive” had been part of the Corolla’s initial defining statement, we might still be grinning behind the wheel today. But we’re getting ahead of ourselves, because the Corolla was just hinting at fun when C/D tested that 73hp 1200cc four-speed sedan.

In 1971, Toyota introduced the legendary 2T-C engine, a 1600cc hemi-head that spit out 102hp. In the lightweight Corolla (1800lbs), it represented the best dollar/horsepower/weight/fun equation in the land. And when the five-speed SR5 coupe arrived (hand-in-hand with the 1973 energy crisis), the formula overwhelmed Detroit.

Confronted with bloated, emasculated, fuel-gulping 4,000lb “intermediate” coupes with opera-windowed padded tops and fake wire-wheel hubcaps, buyers voted with their feet and Toyota sales exploded. The Corolla SR-5 was the perfect antidote to seventies malaise.

Gen3 and Gen4 Corollas refined and consolidated the rear wheel-drive (RWD) era up until 1984. The Corolla’s durability became legendary; outside of the rust-belt, they’re still a common sight on the streets, earning their keep. But sportiness increasingly took a back seat, especially with the switch to front wheel-drive with the 1985 models.

The exceptional gifted exception to FWD dullness was the AE86 RWD GT-S coupe, with 124hp. It was the last of the old narrow, light RWD formula. Pistonheads still seek it today for its drifting potential.

U.S.-bound Corollas since 1985 have stayed true to the original concept, except that ride quality increasingly displaced any lingering hint of sportiness. But as the Corolla increasingly became a global commodity, it had to adapt, especially in Europe.

To compete against the class-leading Golf, the European Corolla took on Germanic attributes. (The current version has even dropped the Corolla moniker for Auris.) Its angular Golf-esque hatchback body doesn’t share a single panel with U.S. Corollas, and sports Toyota’s advanced diesel engines and a sophisticated multi-link rear suspension. It’s the equivalent of the euro Focus to our notoriously white-bread version.

The Auris clearly represents one point of departure from the old formula. The automobile market is becoming ever more stratified, in America. The Corolla-based Matrix is a reflection of the trend; Scion also provides in-house competition.

Undoubtedly, the Corolla formula still has legs, here and abroad. But the MINI’s effect on the small car market may turn out to be game-changing, where style and image trump dowdy practicality. The Corolla took the world by storm, but fashion is a fickle creature. Toyota’s fight for dominance must move in a different direction.

I once read that a successful PR department is one that has managed to make the press an extension of its own. As bad as this idea may sound for an independent-minded consumer, I couldn’t help thinking that it now works the other way around. With the Internet obliterating buff books’ editorial relevance, many magazines have shifted their sales focus from their readers, the traditional customers, to the PR departments of the companies whose ad bucks support their survival. In this respect Greek car magazines are hugely successful.

In the last 15 years, Greece went from one car title to almost ten; including franchises of foreign titles (Car, Car and Driver, Auto Motor und Sport, Autocar, Autobild and Top Gear.). Arguably, most of these new car magazines were created by publishing companies for the sole purpose of soaking-up new product advertising. From ’91 to ’02, car sales in Greece tripled. As did the car importers’ ad budgets. This car ad-fuelled hothouse was short-lived. As the Internet ascended, circulation numbers fell, from tens of thousands of copies monthly, to just a few thousand. Selling ads soon became more important than selling magazines; the business plan had no room to accommodate reader demands. The basic concept of a car magazine “providing information while entertaining” went out the window faster than Protestants in Prague.

In the past five years, the Greek new car market has achieved European-levels of saturation. Importers’ ad budgets hit the ceiling and bounced back, decreasing year on year. With less pie left to slice, with pistonheads migrating to electronic info sources in droves, car magazines quickly figured out the fastest (if not only) way to keep the ad bucks flowing: inflate reader circulation numbers. In Greece, there’s no official circulation watchdog. So the car magazines were free to claim an absurdly large, loyal following. [NB: Τhe only limit was/is taxation; magazines pay tax based on how many copies they “sell.”] And so they did.

Depending on a business plan based on greed, editorial prostitution and fraud has turned the vast majority of Greek car magazines into nothing more than a monthly new car catalog. Looking at it from the readers’ perspective, the buff books are filled with pages of glossy shots of cars that look little different from the ads subsidizing their dissemination. There is literally no significant demarcation between the magazine’s copy and a carmaker’s sales brochure or press kit. Editorial quality is completely beside the point.

Content has hit rock bottom so hard that franchised titles are having trouble holding on to their brand identity. Browsing a magazine with its title covered provides no clue as to which publisher’s product your perusing. The word “production” nowadays describes operations starting with the layout and ending with printing.

No wonder there are no big names in Greek automotive journalism. Greek (ex) rally drivers (as in Luxembourgian policemen) with no talent– just “fame”– provide little more than bylines. Clearly, they can’t (or won’t) tell an editorial from an advertorial, a test from a ride. Corporate and editorial is so interconnected that a parade of editorial directors or editors-in-chief are meeting one car exec after the other, seeking to establish a “spirit of cooperation.” During one such a meeting, I heard the words “you give us the car and we will make it a god.” This was a British franchise of a well-known magazine title.

When Greek car magazines were specialized, focused, technical, knowledgeable and decent, imitation was impossible. As soon as they sold their souls and became generic, vague, tedious, clueless and blunt, they sowed the seeds of their own destruction. The laws of evolution tell us that saturation in a segment opens the door to fragmentation. In other words, familiarity breeds contempt.

Bigger publishers, with more publications (including first-rate newspapers) now offer better advertisement deals for car importers. Auto-related editorial is showing up as special sections in media with hundreds of thousands of daily readers, of all sexes, ages, and classes. They offer the same level of “journalism” at a lower price for advertisers, with a huge and more honestly calculated number of readers. At least ten such publications have appeared in the last three years, bulldozing car magazines.

And yet the buff books still can’t wake-up and smell the coffee. They’re still looking for more ads, not more readers. They continue to view the Internet as a sidekick to the print issues or an extra source of advertising space, rather than an opportunity to sharpen their coverage.

Up to this point, no Greek car magazine has gone out of business. But it’s only a matter of time before they start landing on their backs. Like Detroit’s long decline, the Greek car magazines’ slide into obscurity is a sad but inevitable result of their failure to stay true to their customers’ needs with integrity, passion and long-term wisdom. I await their reinvention.

I live in a hilly area of high-crowned, barely two-lane back roads. There are no center lines, lots of blind corners, hills and crests; and not much traffic. You could say it’s an enthusiast's paradise. But then… stupid drivers. It happened to me last week, for the third time in a year. A driver without the slightest situational awareness put me into a ditch, leaving me yelping moronically and bleating my horn while they sped off. This has got to stop.

In the last couple of years, the four o'clock rush has provided a perfect illustration of vehicular inattentiveness. That’s when the contractors and service guys in vans and pickups and the boys in the local U.S. Military Academy cadre jump in their big trucks and race home. Fortunately, I get to view the show from the opposite-direction traffic. It’s an inbound kamikaze squadron. Negotiating our only four-lane, I can almost hear Darrell Waltrip: “Lookit, lookit, they’re three wide into the corner and somebody’s gonna wreck!”

On the back road shortcuts, I meet guys in compact cars coming the other way. A simple, mutual flick of the steering wheel to move aside and we're by each other. But the pickup-and-SUV crowd hews to the crown of the road.  It’s move off the road or be killed.

Folks, I'm not talkin' Alzheimered grandmothers or soccer moms on cell phones. These are NASCAR dads with toolboxes in back who imagine that on a good day they could give Junior a run for his money. And yet they’re obviously unable to put their enormous right front fender any closer to the edge of the road because they haven't the faintest idea how much clearance is available.

To me, this lack of spatial awareness (SA) is the clearest sign of a national diminution of driving skills. And yet America’s driving instruction (and tests) still teaches new motorists that their safety depends on maintaining a “safe margin of distance”– rather than focusing on SA and car control. That’s two kinds of stupid.

Once upon a time, positioning skills– rather than simple speed– were the mark of an excellent driver. Ken Purdy’s classic book Kings of the Road contains a wonderful chapter about the Italian racecar driver Tazio Nuvolari. Though I’m working from 40-year-ago memory here, the author relates how Nuvolari accepted a dare to drive through an ancient stone arch. The passage provided his monoposto Alfa-Romeo with two inches of clearance on each side.  Nuvolari did it at a triple-digit speed. With ease.

In Germany, Autobahn-repair rubber cones sometimes funnel two lanes into a space earlier taken by one. Everybody slows, positions and keeps moving. In New York, Michigan or California, traffic comes to a standstill whenever they cut the flow down to a single-lane merge, since nobody could deal with such proximity. I always wonder what Europe must be like for the American rental-car drivers who can’t make it down their small-town streets without clipping side mirrors.

It’s hard to know which came first: American cars without enough road feel for proper positioning or American drivers’ lack of interest in cars with enough road feel for proper positioning (never mind cornering). In any case, the result is truly frightening. 

I’m an EMS volunteer. Our ambulances can’t even use our town’s quite ordinary Main Street when we’re in a hurry; we’re too likely to come up against somebody in an SUV who has to fearfully get out of our way and inch past, even with a foot of clearance on either side.

At the risk of offending someone with the truth, it’s  often a woman who has no more business driving a 6,000-pound truck with fingertip light power steering than she does piloting a Lear. But she likes the visibility and her husband insists. (My own doctor’s wife tells me that she loathes her towering Toyota Land Cruiser, but her better half feels better knowing his wife is encased in so much metal.)

If you don’t count my time aboard a Farmall tractor, I learned to drive in 1952, and the olden days were a time when you worked on your own skills and pretty much assumed everybody else on the road was reasonably competent.   These days, I spend far too much of my driving time looking out for the other guy– whether it’s the duallie Ram half in my lane, the Expedition bearing down unchecked in my rear-view mirror at the stoplight, the woman who looked left and right and then pulled out 20 feet in front of me awhile ago (in EMS, we call them “looked but didn’t see” crashes) or somebody inexplicably crossing from their lane into opposite-direction traffic.

Drunk? Distracted? Simply lost control? We’ve seen ‘em all, and they’re usually fatal for somebody. All too often the other guy,

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: the only realistic hope for increasing public safety on our roads is the automated car. Personally, I can think of nothing worse than surrendering control of my vehicle to a microchip. But then, like you, I’m not the problem.

TTAC's first annual Bob Lutz Award is given to the automotive executive who's made the most outrageous, politically incorrect or just plain dumb public pronouncements. When it comes to providing us with that special blend of hubris, tunnel vision and cognitive dissonance, nobody does it better than Robert A. "Bob" Lutz. And so, Maximum Bob gets the nod. Yes, there were other suits who made Lutz-worthy statements. But Maximum Bob scored extra points for volume and consistency. Hardly a day goes by that MB doesn't utter some bon mots that leave us shaking our heads. We proudly present a representative sample…

Bob Lutz on the Environment

"Global warming is a total crock of shit."

"General Motors is dedicated to the removal of cars and trucks from the environmental equation, period. And, believe it or don't: So am I! It's the right thing to do, for us, for you and, yes, for the planet. My goal is to take the automotive industry out of the debate entirely."

Bob Lutz on Fuel Economy

"Everybody thinks high gas prices hurt sport utility sales. In fact they don't. Rich people don't care."

"What obviously surprised us is gasoline rising from $1.50 to $3 a gallon."

"You can say in the future we downsize, and the Chevy HHR becomes the new Suburban. Now, what do you do when you want to tow a horse trailer? Work with miniature horses?"

Bob Lutz on Branding

"Buick and Pontiac are both damaged brands that have suffered from years of harvesting with very little reinvestment."

"…then we would have to take a look at a phase-out. I hope we wouldn't have to do that."

"Everyone always says that I was sort of implying we were going to cut Buick and Pontiac. I never said 'irrevocably damaged' or 'irreparably damaged" or 'terminally damaged.'"

Bob Lutz on Alternative Technologies.

"[Hybrid cars] make no economic sense."

"For us to go out with a half-baked system just to get a few months out, I don't think would be prudent."

Sitting next to massive V-16 engine on display in his office:  "I believe strongly that this country has to get off oil. The electrification of the automobile is inevitable."

"This is like JFK's call for the moon shot. I want to stick around to see the Volt come to market. Then I'll pack it in around 80."

Talking about when they'll have the first Volt prototype on the road: "Let's wait for the Easter Bunny. Somebody's going to have egg on their face. And I don't like having egg on my face."

"[The Volt's price] might get there on the second generation, and they say if they had a lot more time they might be able to cost-optimize it [but] I don't want to wait for cost optimization. I'd rather come out in 2010, and if it costs closer to 40 than 30, well, that's too bad."

"They put a bunch of bacteria in there that basically just eat and poop, eat and poop [ethanol]."

"Instead of just copying that same stupid message [about GM killing the electric car] that I have received at least one thousand times in identical form (don't you folks have any creative drive?), why didn't you use your energy to research GM's announced major effort on the range-extended Chevrolet 'Volt' EV, as well as our announcement of a plug-in hybrid version of the upcoming Saturn 'Vue?' Some recognition of how much and how fast we are moving in these areas would be a lot more motivating than bombarding us with that hopelessly-outdated standard letter."

Bob Lutz on The Industry/GM

"Being able to 'think outside the box' presupposes you were able to think in it."

"The choice is no longer between keeping the same job or keeping the same job at a lower wage. The choice is now keeping the same job at less compensation or having no jobs at all in this country."

"This business is finally all about making money. And buying market share with incentives to get an unsustainable share is just not a good strategy."

"I don't think about [global leadership]. And the answer would be the same whether today's numbers said General Motors is Number One, or Number Two…or tied!"

"The threat of [GM's] bankruptcy is absolutely out of the question."

"I'd say we're at the end of the beginning."

Bob Lutz on Bob Lutz

When asked to rate his performance though GM's market share slide and billions of losses: "I would give myself a B+ or an A-. I feel good about that because it means at some point I can pack it in and as long as Rick's around, nothing will change."

Amen to that! And congratulations to Bob Lutz for winning The Truth About Cars' First Annual Bob Lutz Award. We look forward to chronicling Maximum Bob's wit and wisdom through '08. We're also keeping our editorial radar on a wide sweep, so don't get to thinking next year's award is a foregone conclusion. Not in this industry it ain't.

The Buick Roadmaster Estate Wagon was God’s gift to Perry Como fans and the very last of the great all-American trucksters. It was also my gift to the family for last year’s Christmas road trip. I figured I’d nix my penchant for narrow European wagons to forestall the cantankerous habits of our two darling creatures. They needed space. We needed space… and boy, did this car have space!

The plan was to put my kids in the third seat, which was nearly a mile away from the Roadmaster’s front seats. Of course, I’d forgotten one important detail: no child tethers in the way back. So, there was to be no parole for Mom and Dad. On the positive side, by the time we were ready to take the Woody out of port, my wife had taken one look across her endless prow (the car’s) and decided that I would be the sole captain of the good ship Roadmaster.

Back in the day, the Roadmaster was an automotive mastodon. When the big Buick appeared in the late 90’s, large, bulbous, body-on-frame rear, wheel-drive wagons were about as fashionable as plaid pants and pipe tobacco. SUV’s, minivans and four-door pickups were all vying for the title of the all-American family vehicle. The Buick and its sister cars gathered dust in GM showrooms, lonely and unloved. Not even an LT1 small block V8 (transplanted from the Chevy Corvette) could save these siblings from instant obscurity. By 1997, the Roadmaster had gone the way of peckerwood golf clubs. It was, literally, history.

But what a piece of history. If ever a car represented the great American “living room on wheels” style, it was the Roadmaster. The expansive leather seats are thick and comfortable enough to turn the most aggressive pistonhead into a laid back Lay-Z-Boy. It came with electric everything, of course. The interior wood trim is made from a real tree, and the controls make iDrive seem like what it is (a ridiculously complex piece of equipment of dubious utility). You won’t find steering wheel buttons, and the GPS is a Rand-McNally map moldering in the glove box, but didn’t someone say “space is the ultimate luxury?” Or was it something about screaming?

Anyway, the Roadmaster’s a packrat’s dream. Big or small, short or tall, there’s plenty of space for it. The Buick’s rear glass window (close to the size of a solarium) slides up and down and the tailgate swings out or lowers. The fold down second row seats liberates a good hectare of cargo space. In fact, there’s more space in the back of a Roadmaster than entire small cars of its era. If the roof were high enough, a Geo Metro would fit inside.

When it comes to driving dynamics, the Roadmaster was built for drivers who understand both the metaphorical and literal meaning of staying on the straight and narrow. The 350 V8 and four-speed automatic will cruise all day at 85 to 90 mph, and never even see 2500 rpm.

Finally there’s the issue of exterior aesthetics. Contrary to what the modern day sewing circles and soccer contingents say, a woody wagon is indeed a beautiful thing to behold. Forget all those anodyne crossovers, minivans, SUVs and CUVs. The Roadmaster is American. And not just a ‘me-too’ American. A feel good, “I dig all things America!” American.

Maybe that’s why people smile at the Roadmaster, give it a thumbs up, and even mouth out the loving words (with and without irony) “Nice Woody!” A well-kept woody wagon is the equivalent of a well-lighted Christmas display during the holiday season. My kids fell in love with all the attention they got from the passer-by’s, which helped keep things on even keel during our sojourn. While my wife used the words “cold dead hands” when I asked if she would ever be willing to exchange her Volvo for the Buick, it’s not an inconceivable choice.

IF you’re willing to do without an LT1 engine, Buick Roadmaster wagons are reasonably priced. Taxis and police cars from that era were blessed with interchangeable parts; there were literally millions of parts for this powertrain combination, and they were all built to last. A car like the Roadmaster would in fact be the perfect cheap car for the long haul– if only you lived near an oil well.

Most owners of modern day trucks and trucklets won’t be fazed by the Roadmaster’s penchant for petrol. Still, as a daily commuter over long distances, as a vehicle that you have to, at some point park, the big Buick is all kinds of wrong. A Woody Roadmaster wagon is best for road trips, Home Depot runs and weekend rides with the family. It will give you a hankering for old cassette tapes and Norman Rockwell paintings. It’s Americana incarnate.

OK, you got a speeding ticket. You didn’t ignore it (right answer). You didn’t pay it and take the hit to you insurance premium (also the right answer). You decided to go to court. If you were offered lowered points and fine by the court, you turned it down (potentially the wrong answer). In the penultimate part of our guide, I’m going to show you how a speeder who defends himself has a fool for a client.

The officer who wrote you up will state his name and be sworn in. The policeman will say he was working a certain shift in a given marked/unmarked patrol car. The car was equipped with a fully-functional [insert gadget name here] designed to time vehicular speed. At 10 am on Rt. 66 he saw a purple Porsche on a two-lane road, with a yellow divider. He visually estimated the speed to be 100 mph, plus or minus X mph.

[NB: a police officer’s visual speed estimate is legally admissible evidence. In The Empire State, the cop’s guesstimate/word is sufficient to uphold conviction. Most courts want a gadget reading for confirmation, purely as a practical matter.]

The officer will tell the court that he activated his speed timing device, which gave him a reading of 97 mph. Without losing sight of the vehicle, he then pulled out and pursued the perp (you). He pulled the car over at a certain location. He identified the driver by his State Photo ID. The officer will then relay whatever you said during the stop (the “do you know why I stopped you” question).

He will then state the location of the signs posting the legal speed limit, unless you have violated a state maximum (55mph in my New York patch). He will state his training, and reveal when it was last refreshed.

The cop will also tell the court how he set up his radar or laser, or produce a certificate of calibration for a speedometer (if paced). He’ll testify about tuning forks (radar) or internal self-tests (laser). Then, testifying that he was “satisfied that device X was performing according to manufacturers’ specifications,” he will close his case.

And now, it’s time for your cross-examination.

Most pro se defendants don’t channel Perry Mason, or even Denny Crane from Boston Legal. Instead, they launch into their “story:” a narrative account interspersed with “radar/laser sucks” information gleaned from the internet. When the Judge corrects them– “questions only, please,” they’re left feeling frustrated, flapping on the deck like a dying cod.

After a few easily parried questions to the cop– “no sir, there were no other cars in my radar” and “yes, you were the only purple Porsche on the road”– they’re sunk. 

Some defendants bring anti-radar/laser articles or papers to support their contention that the cop’s equipment and/or observations were inherently unreliable. These pieces of paper are routinely denied as not conforming to the “rules of evidence” (a full law school course), leaving the defendant flustered in their inability to land one of his or her cross examination “punches.”

In fact, the cop need only testify to the “direct case.” They will not give you the obvious leads you need to do a “wrong car” or “improperly setup radar” theory like you read on the internet. If the cop holds to the Direct Radar Case, for most straight speed cases, the result will be conviction. In New York City, for example, the Direct Radar Case is literally a “cookie cutter” dissertation which may or may not resemble your traffic stop.

The motorist is then convicted of the offense. I repeat, in the vast majority of speeding cases, motorists who defends themselves in court are convicted as a matter of course. It doesn’t matter how smart of savvy you are. You’re toast. Next case…

Many defendants feel extremely aggrieved by the process, and offended by the result. Unable to tell their side of the story, they conclude that the Judge was rude, insensitive and/or arrogant– even though the Judge was going by the Law, following the rules of evidence.

The motorist then pays the Clerk, complains to the Clerk about the Judge (usually her boss), and goes forth fuming– especially if he or she refused to plead to the “deal” offered two hours ago.

In the next and final installment of this series, I will make my case that anyone who wishes to fight a speeding ticket should hire a local attorney with a good track record and relevant experience. Yes, I know what you’re thinking: he would say that, wouldn’t he? If you choose to ignore a writer who’s seen literally thousands of speeding cases, that’s your prerogative.

But for now, my advice to [alleged] speeders is simple. Fight the ticket in every case. Take whatever deal you can get and/or hire an attorney. Period.

The automotive press is obsessed with new cars, and the automakers know it. As The Big 2.8 flounder on the shoals of their broken branding, badge engineering and bloated dealer networks, they highlight the latest bright shiny object as proof of future salvation. Jerry Flint: “The best news from the domestic industry is that the product, particularly at GM but also at Ford, is getting better.” Meanwhile, car hacks are ignoring the fact that the domestics' business is collapsing, as startling new data from J.D. Power illustrates.

For the first time ever, J.D.’s mob has combined customer loyalty and conquest survey data to create their “Customer Ratio” index. Speaking at the recent National Automotive Dealers Association (NADA) conference, J.D. Power's executive director of automotive research said a car brand must strike an ideal balance between customer loyalty (existing owners re-upping) and new-to-the-brand business. “When below-average loyalty makes up more than half your sales,” Steve Witten pronounced. “That's a brand in trouble." 

According to the J.D. Power, Ford's in trouble. Roughly 53 percent of Ford owners buy another Blue Oval model. On the face of it, that's a good thing. But it's a bad thing. These loyal customers represent 72 percent of the brand's retail sales. Translation: FioMoCo is losing twice as many existing Ford owners to rival brands as it’s winning from rival brands. Not to put too fine a point on it, the Ford brand is dying.

According to the survey, Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge also show “weak loyalty numbers.” What’s worse: Chrysler's three brands "mostly conquest sales from each other, while leaching sales to non-Chrysler brands.” Ominously, but not unexpectedly, “something similar is happening at Mercury, Pontiac and Buick.”

Only 13 percent of Saturn’s sales come from customers leaving transplant brands (Toyota, Honda, etc.). The majority of Saturn's new customers come from Chevrolet, Pontiac and Ford. And when Saturn owners leave the brand for other makes, they tend to migrate to Toyota, Honda and Nissan. As Witten remarked at the conference, the data shows that Saturn has utterly failed to fulfill its original remit as an "import fighter"

The study also reveals that GM and Ford’s so-called luxury brands are failing to compete with the German and Japanese luxury marques. Cadillac, Saab and Volvo are not even in the same ballpark as Mercedes, BWM, Audi and Lexus. Caddy, Saab and Volvo are gaining most of their customers from– and losing most of their business to– Toyota, Honda, Ford and Chevrolet. 

As this index demonstrates, Detroit’s biggest and most lethal mistake has been its chronic neglect of its branding. While Motown makes a number of terrific new cars, while the majority of these machines are now mechanically reliable, Ford, GM, and Chrysler have done nothing to protect, resurrect, redefine and "save" their brands. They continue to piss on whatever brand equity remains in their stable. When GM Car Czar Bob Lutz infamously described Pontiac and Buick as "damaged brands," he was guilty of epic understatement.  Virtually all of Detroit's car brands are terminally ill. 

Hummer is the exception that proves the rule. Last year, Hummer sold 55,986 new vehicles, down 21.7 percent from the year previous. The rising price of gas, Hummer’s negative image amongst the chattering classes and the contraction of the SUV market don’t bode well for the brand’s future. BUT J.D. Power says existing customers account for just 16 percent of Hummer's total sales. In other words, despite falling sales, Hummer is drawing in a large number (at least percentage wise) of new customers. In fact, of all GM’s eight brands, Hummer is the strongest.

Well of course it is. Hummer sells a limited line of vehicles that are all instantly recognizable as family members that all do roughly the same thing in roughly the same way. Their national advertising may be a joke to anyone with an environmental conscience, but Hummer's branding is focused, coherent and memorable. You could even say that the environmental blow-back has helped Hummer, setting it apart from the increasing diluted (but still relatively strong) Jeep brand.

Contrast Hummer’s tightly-gathered product line and brand focus with Saab, Pontiac, Buick, Chevrolet, Saturn, GMC, Cadillac, Ford, Lincoln, Mercury, Chrysler and Dodge.

If you really want a fright, contrast those weak, customer-leaking and fraternal brand-swapping car companies with Toyota. According to J.D., Toyota is “bringing in nearly three times as many new customers as it has old ones staying put. Toyota's 65 percent loyalty rating is the industry's best, yet represents just 41 percent of total sales. Its conquest sales are huge. Honda shows similar strong numbers.”

TTAC, the general public and the millions of people dependent on The Big 2.8’s health are not privy to the full data provided by J.D. Powers’ Customer Ratio survey. But even this snapshot provides a horrifying glimpse of a domestic industry in terminal decline. Never mind cost cutting. Why hasn’t Detroit fixed its broken brands? 

In the comments section below the most recent General Motors Death Watch, natredde asserted that the series' longevity argues against its existence. “Calling it a Death Watch after having the time to write 165 articles is silly… Somehow I think being on GM Death Watch 2752 wouldn’t necessarily add a lot of legitimacy.” As a student of GM history, I’ve been keeping my own private GM Death Watch for decades. It was suspended (at number 2751) when I discovered and joined TTAC. But the challenge of adding legitimacy to number 2752 was simply too great to resist.

Corporations don’t “die” in the human sense; failed executive stewardship along with changing circumstances causes them to be restructured (voluntarily or involuntarily via Chapter 11), sold, stripped and/or flipped. They’re reincarnated as very different entities than their creators originally intended. Think IBM, Kodak, Xerox, RCA, Zenith and a host of other once proud, high-flying household names. None of these companies are “dead” per se. But there’s no question that they’re mere shadows of what they once were, or could have become.

For example, IBM’s pioneering and potentially dominating personal computer business didn’t “die” when it was sold to China’s Lenovo; it began to wither in 1981 when IBM foolishly gave away the rights to its operating system to Microsoft. In the same sense, GM is never going to just roll over, die and disappear.

While it’s impossible to predict GM's final disposition, General Motors will never again be what it once was: the world’s largest and most profitable automaker. And as we monitor The General's transformation, again, it's important to note that the company began its long, lamentable decline several decades ago. But if I had to identify the company's zenith, the point at which it began to fall from its lofty perch, I would peg it at 1947…

GM Death Watch 1: Cadet RIP

In 1947, GM killed its Cadet small car program, after spending millions on development. In response to surveys showing that urban Americans wanted smaller, less expensive and more efficient and functional cars, GM set out to create the definitive modern small car. GM’s Financial Operating Committee, based in New York, refused to authorize the funds to put the Cadet in production. They feared the program wouldn’t provide the automaker’s [then] customary 30 percent return on investment.

On this day sixty years ago, GM began to die. The whole premise of its success was based on the ever-more rationalized manufacture of full-sized cars (and trucks). When GM refused to accept a less than full–sized profit on a small car, it sealed its future. To this day, GM has never had a successful, profitable small car program.

GM Death Watch 7 (1948): Inflation is Our Best Friend 

Prior to WWII, Alfred P. Sloan’s management of GM was based upon extracting continuous improvements in costs and manufacturing efficiencies, while providing an ever-improved product. The rise of inflation after WWII (and Sloan’s exit from the CEO position), allowed GM to simply keep raising prices. One executive, Donald Brown, sounded the alarm: “[I am] deeply concerned over the dangers of managerial inefficiencies creeping in due to the ease with which abnormalities in costs and expenses can be offset by price increases.”

This was the era when GM management became lazy, when the process of identifying and rewarding superior managers for their performance in finding efficiencies was tossed overboard, forever.

GM Death Watch 26: The Billion Dollar Cover-up

Riding the wave of the mid-fifties economic tsunami, GM announced a one billion dollar profit for 1955– the first for any corporation in the world. Hidden in the depths of GM’s financial statements was an ominous admission: return on investment (ROI) has been steadily declining since 1950 “due to declining efficiencies.”

GM Death Watch 31: Wheeler Dealer

In 1956, GM President Harlow Curtice unilaterally extended dealer contracts to five years, making it much more difficult to cancel inferior dealers. Curtice’s rationale: placate dealers furious for having unwanted cars forced upon them. Former GM President Alfred P. Sloan was aghast at the deterioration of “the once respectful and mutually-beneficial relationship with dealers due to GM’s heavy-handed tactics.”

GM’s tactics led to Congressional hearings and franchise laws that overwhelmingly favored dealers, making it extremely difficult and expensive to shed dealers and eliminate divisions. Forty years later, it cost GM over a billion dollars to shut down Oldsmobile.

Public awareness of GM’s decline only began in the mid-eighties. But by that time, forty years of rot had taken its toll (as well as providing fodder for some 1462 Death Watches). If it hadn’t been for the SUV boom of the nineties, my DW series would likely have ended with number 2107 in 1993, when GM came precariously close to bankruptcy.

So the chronicle of GM’s decline and metamorphosis continues, here on TTAC’s e-pages. Judging from the current situation, it’s much too soon to start a Death Watch Death Watch.

Or not. Despite all the noise about a Chrysler – Chery hook-up, despite Chinese manufacturers' presence at the North American International Auto Show, we have yet to see a single Chinese-built (let alone designed) vehicle here in the U.S. So, are they really coming? The short answer is yes, some of them, eventually. But not for quite a while yet.

The number one reason we haven’t see Chinese (or Indian for that matter) cars on these shores: home markets. Right now, the Chinese market is growing at a rabid clip. Local automakers are more concerned with increasing production and filling newly emerging gaps and niches than sinking scarce foreign currency into expensive export drives.

Before Chinese automakers look east (or south or west), their home market must reach a saturation point– a pause that may take a decade or more to realize. Sure, they may dip their toes in low-cost developing nations, but the real action is at home. Taking their eyes off the domestic market is a one-way ticket to marginalization.

This brings us to point two: there are a LOT of Chinese automakers and just one party running the country.  

You might think this could lead to issues of favoritism, once some of the makers make the leap abroad. That ain’t the half of it. Being a single-party government does not mean that the government has only one thought process (look at Chicago). Any Chinese maker looking to dive into the U.S. market must trust that China’s government officials will go to bat for them in international trade negotiations.  At the same time, the automaker has to worry about all the officials they DON’T own cutting them off at the knees (or worse).

There’s an even bigger problem with cracking the American market: the sheer scale of the undertaking.

To capture American market share, a carmaker needs dealers, parts, lawyers (lots of lawyers), national advertising, administrative staff, buildings, food, someone to keep the U.S. government happy and God knows what else. These are huge sunk costs.

Worse, all of these capital costs, goods and services must be paid in dollars– one case where a Chinese company’s main cost advantage cuts back at them.  Toyota and Nissan took 10 years to crack the American market. Hyundai took about seven to eight years to gain a toehold. And those are the “successes.” The list of car companies who failed in the American car market is long and illustrious, including Fiat, Peugeot, TVR and many more.  

Of course the Chinese could get a partner. After all, there are plenty of “joint” Chinese/foreign companies in their home market (and a few pure Chinese ones). And yet none have brought a Chinese-made vehicle stateside.

Again, their recalcitrance may be a matter of rational economics (make money in the booming market, don’t branch out). It may also represent a lack of trust re: reliability/build quality of Chinese-made vehicles. The dearth may also reflect a desire by Chinese companies not to give their “partners” leverage– in case they try to “nationalize” the subsidiaries.

But the biggest inhibition is history. Emigrating as a “captive” import has never been a path to American manufacturing glory. Isuzu just left, Suzuki hasn’t yet (but no one can really tell), Renault/AMC didn’t exactly set the world on fire. “Going it alone” would be a dangerous path for a Chinese automaker, but it at least offers the chance of success. The major players make lousy pimps.

Buying out an unsuccessful U.S. dealer network would seem to be the quick way around many of these problems. The problem here is with what’s available, or likely to become available soon.  Isuzu’s dealer network was nothing to write home about: sparse, truck-centered and closely tied to GM. On the other hand, if Chrysler should go on the block, it would be if anything, worse.

The first problem is scale. There are far too many Chrysler dealers right now (it’s one of the reasons they’re in so much trouble). As they stand, none of the Chinese automakers could fill a supply channel larger than Honda’s (with two to three times the dealers). Also, any procedure that sees Chrysler go on the block is likely to void most of the dealer contracts. “Chery”-picking may be possible once the dust settles. But in that case, there’s little difference from starting an all-new network (certainly not in terms of cost).    

All that said, the Chinese may still venture stateside. Believe it or not, failure will signal their arrival. Sooner or later, the Chinese market will stabilize—or tank (saturation, outside economic factors, government instability). Once the domestic market cools off, an established Chinese domestic car company or three will fail. Some of the survivors will merge. Others will look overseas for their survival. Then, the Chinese automakers will finally arrive in America, in force. 

As GM's fortunes head for their inevitable denouement, it's time to pause and reflect on the deal that revolutionized the American automaker's labor relations. I speak here of the multi-billion dollar bribe paid to the United Auto Workers (UAW) to cut their sky-high wages and benefits down to size. In exchange for a new Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association (VEBA) health care trust, the union accepted a two-tier wage system. At a stroke, Motown became competitive with the transplants, while the UAW protected its members' health care benefits for all time. In theory.

Until now, analyzing the agreement was impossible. After the strike-busting health care deal was announced in September, GM and the UAW asked for– and received– a legally binding blackout on final negotiations.

Last Thursday, the UAW sued GM in U.S. District Court. The “non-hostile” lawsuit is designed to secure court approval for changes to the union's health care coverage for 500k or so GM retirees and spouses, as well as thousands of current UAW workers. If the court approves, the new health care VEBA will commence in 2011.

Thanks to the suit, crucial details of the deal are finally coming to light. According to court records, GM has agreed to pay $33b to $36.5b into the trust. Although the figure is in line with expectations, it's an epic financial burden.

[For perspective, GM’s current market capitalization is $13.6b. As of December 31, 2007, GM claims that its total current liquidity– cash, marketable securities and readily available assets from the current VEBA– is $27.3 billion.]

At the moment, we don’t know the exact timing or formula for GM’s contribution to the VEBA– other than the fact that it includes varying levels of cash and notes convertible into stock. But we do know that GM has agreed to make up to 20 annual $165m “backstop payments” to the VEBA if its funding level “can’t provide current benefit levels for at least 25 years from the date of the required payment.”

In other words, GM is planning for failure. Of course, they’re not the only ones. According to UAW Vice President Cal Rapson, “Since the money for our benefits will be paid up front, our retirees will have important protections in case of changes in GM's financial condition."

Yes, well, who’s going to protect UAW members from their own union’s malfeasance? Under the terms of the agreement filed with the court, an 11-member committee will run the GM VEBA trust. The court will pick six members; the UAW International President appoints five, who "may be removed or replaced, and a successor designated, at any time by written notice from the UAW International president." All members must adhere to a code of ethics that bars them from holding a “substantial interest” in any company doing business with the trust. There's no word on committee members' compensation. 

Supposedly, the fact that a majority of VEBA administrators will be court-appointed “outsiders” will protect union members' health care coverage. Under the trust agreement, participants and beneficiaries will be "reasonably informed as to how the trust's assets are used and cared for" on an annual basis. In practice, one need only look at GM’s Board of Bystanders to understand the pitfalls of relying on "independent" overseers.

And GM’s Board is a model of probity when compared to the UAW's long, sordid history of corruption. The National Legal and Policy Center’s website lists 84 cases of UAW/CAW corruption, involving millions of dollars. The links only go back to 1998, and who knows how many cases of corruption weren't uncovered?

In short, anyone who believes that the UAW will keep its mitts off of the $36.5b VEBA does so in the face of common sense and a firmly established record of criminal behavior.

But even if you discount the possibility that the VEBA may be ransacked by UAW bosses and their cronies, who’s to say that this union-intensive GM VEBA committee will be effective? Lest we forget, GM is paying the trust pennies on the dollar– significantly less than the company's total anticipated health care costs.

There’s only way for the VEBA to maintain the current of health care coverage: improve efficiency. That’s a fancy way of saying the VEBA administration will have to cut costs, either by eliminating waste and fraud or finding new ways to "economize" on members' health care. What are the odds? And what are the odds that health care costs won’t continue to skyrocket, outpacing any efforts to rein them in?

And despite the UAW’s claim that GM’s health care VEBA will be front-loaded to protect union members from a GM Chapter 11, the court records tell a different tale. “Whether benefits or participant contributions would have to be adjusted by the VEBA trustees thereafter will depend on many factors, including whether GM remains financially viable so it can make the required payments on time.”

There’s no question that the UAW – GM VEBA agreement was a game-changer. But it is NOT a game winner. GM's eventual labor cost reduction will not, by itself, lead to competitive products. Meanwhile, UAW members’ health care now depends on its leaders’ integrity AND GM’s business acumen– neither of which should instill confidence in the rank and file who spent their lives building security for themselves and their dependents.

“Scion does not recommend towing a trailer… your vehicle was not designed for towing.” Welcome to the great American anti-towing conspiracy. Manufacturers of anything less than a big SUV or pick-up are trying to take away our God-given right to tow with our cars. For a guy who’s towed everything from a Radio Flyer wagon behind a pedal-powered John Deere sidewalk tractor, to a three-bedroom house, I feel like I’m being singled out. Of course, there’s a possibility that I’m the cause as well as the target of this jihad. A lot of lawyers do drive the Ventura Freeway, and one of them may well have seen my spectacular stunt with a trailer. Read More >

In the world of hybrid-drive technology, far-sighted development can pay huge dividends. Just ask Toyota, whose sales of Hybrid Synergy Drive-powered vehicles passed the global million-unit mark last year. While Nissan is licensing Toyota's Synergy Drive for its Altima Hybrid, GM has passed on proven success in its pursuit of two-mode hybrid technology with BMW, Mercedes and Chrysler at their joint Hybrid Development Center in Troy, Michigan. Smooth move or just another example of GM throwing good money after bad? Yup, you guessed it.

The main reason for the cooperative approach on hybrid technology: the inherent complexity of the two-mode hybrid system and its correspondingly high development costs. At low speeds, the two-mode hybrid system operates in virtually the same manner as Toyota’s Synergy Drive and other “single mode” hybrids. The package uses one electric motor for drivetrain assist and another for power generation. It’s in the second “mode” of the system is where things get crazy… and expensive.

At higher speeds and heavier loads, an intensely complex twin-clutch system interfaces two sets of planetary gears with the two electric engines to create both stepped and continuously-variable transmission modes. The system moderately improves efficiency by routing power mechanically rather than electronically.

Coupled with “displacement-on-demand” technology (which shuts down cylinders under light power use), GM claims their system improves combined EPA fuel efficiency on full-size SUV's like the Tahoe/Yukon by as much as 25 percent. But the high development costs and technological complexity add about $10k worth of sticker shock over a stock Tahoe. It would take a whole lot of driving for an owner of a two-mode hybrid SUV to recoup the “hybrid premium.”

Even if GM sells tens of thousands of hybrid SUVs, it’s doubtful they will recoup their share of the investment in its development. But the only thing worse than overpaying for overcomplicated, under-performing technology is watching as your former development partners ditch you and innovate your technology into obsolescence. 

While GM has jumped right in to the market with two-mode Yukon/Tahoe models for '08 and is gearing-up for more models, BMW is planning on releasing only two two-mode hybrids. What’s more (or less), they’re only selling their X5/X6 two-mode hybrids stateside. Beyond that tepid effort, the chances increase daily that BMW will join Mercedes in washing its hands of two-mode technology entirely. Bimmer and Merc are jointly developing a lithium-ion battery based mild hybrid, touted as a cheaper and more efficient alternative to GM's two-mode unit.

Why wouldn't the Germans dump the two-mode system? With clean diesels on the way, and the BMW mild hybrid diesel coming down the pike, BMW and Mercedes are likely nursing a severe case of two-mode buyer’s remorse.

By any reasonable standard, GM should be too. Although part of the two-mode’s appeal lies in its advantages in truck, SUV and other high-torque applications which hold the promise of reinvigorating GM's flagging bread-and-butter truck sales, once again a simpler solution lies well within reach.

The General's recently released Duramax diesel V8 delivers a nearly identical 25 percent reduction in fuel consumption as the two-mode hybrid. Thanks to its particulate filter and NOX after-treatment system, the Duramax oil burner meets 50-state, 2010 emission standards. While the Duramax doesn't grab the green-friendly headlines which seem to motivate every GM efficiency development, it does provide 310 hp in a package the size of a small-block gas V8, with comparable noise vibration harshness levels, without the two-mode’s colossal price tag.

It is precisely on the point of profitability that GM’s green dreams have been faltering. Rather than cut bait and fish, GM is once again displaying copious quantities of its patented arrogance and preference for PR over hard graft and long-term thinking.

Not to put too fine a point on it, GM is ignoring the old maxim: when you’re in a hole, first, stop digging. The automaker is continuing to spread its hybrid efforts thin with its (rushed and compromised) mild hybrid Malibu. It continues to pursue the hugely expensive, untried and untested Volt electric – gas plug-in hybrid. And it refuses to abandon its two-mode snafu. Meanwhile, Toyota is plugging away at its Synergy Dive, steadily lowering costs, bringing the fuel efficient drivetrain within the price range of similarly capable gas engines.

GM remains held captive by its unrealistic goal of creating a truly revolutionary drivetrain. Like a degenerate gambler with a shrinking bankroll, GM seems convinced that ever bigger risks are the key to emerging from its decades-long neglect of fuel efficient vehicles. Rather than chasing the big score, GM would be far better off ceding the hybrid market. If it can’t satisfy new federal corporate average fuel economy regulations using traditional technology, it should join Nissan and license Synergy Drive from Toyota. That way it could concentrate its time and resources on restoring its branding and quality, and, thus, its fortunes.

So, you got a speeding ticket. After the police officer leaves, there you are, with an official document in hand. You are unhappy. Your basic fight or flight or freeze response has you in its grip. You feel guilty, angry, shocked, insulted, humiliated, outraged or some combination thereof. Your heart rate is elevated; you’re stressing about money or points or the wife or the boss or just about everything. What happens next is up to you…

Secure in the knowledge that they haven’t had a ticket in ten years, some drivers figure they won’t get another ticket in another ten years. They pay the fine promptly and forget it. These folks are unhappy when the insurance bill, Abuser Fee, or Driver Responsibility Assessment comes in– at which point it’s usually too late to do a damn thing about it.

By the same token, some drivers simply ignore the ticket. They are even less happy when the suspension notice comes, or worse, when they’re pulled over again and [perhaps] taken to jail for “failed to answer ticket.” 

Some drivers talk to a few friends, troll the internet and discuss it (or NOT) with their significant other and decide to contest the ticket. They arm themselves with a smattering of speed detection device theory, a few legal buzzwords and maybe some information (often valid in some other jurisdiction). Delighted with the “fresh knowledge” that radar and laser guns are far from infallible, and that other speeders fought the law and the law lost, they head off to court.

[As a lawyer specializing in motoring offenses, my office motto is “never take your legal advice from real estate agents, police officers or the internet”– present editorial excluded, of course. If you actually want to win your case, a local attorney with relevant experience is worth every penny.]

Some jurisdictions allow motorists to “call ahead” for a court date. Do not discuss the ticket with the Court Clerk. The Clerk’s heard every story in the history of the world ever. Beyond verification of your mailing address and scheduling your court date, he/she is not interested, and he/she has no authority to “make it go away” (the secret hope of every defendant in the world). Rudeness to a clerk will ensure that you get no consideration in scheduling preferences, should such a thing be available. 

Speeding and other motoring offenses are “processed” in many different ways around the country. In many cases, the alleged perpetrator goes to court, waits forever, pleads not guilty, and then waits another eternity for a trial date. The potential “deal” that you can make on a ticket also varies widely. Just because your buddy got a “parking ticket” reduction a few years ago in another town is meaningless to the Judge in YOUR town.

Some places, notably New York City Traffic Violations Bureau, refuse to deal at all. To put it kindly, they are relentlessly pro-prosecution. Other jurisdictions will favor the motorist, or at least give them a fair shake. As any good attorney will tell you, Judges also vary widely, from by-the-book/throw the book at you to “lenient.” Traffic court is no exception.

When Court day arrives, dress decently and leave your attitude at home. The correct mindset: assertive, not aggressive. You are now on government (a.k.a. geologic) time, so bring a book. Cell phones, iPods and Blackberries are frowned upon in most courtrooms; a ringing cell phone during a session can punt you to the last case of the day.  One of the basic rules of Civil Service: “We are here all day… YOU can be too!” Being polite and courteous counts in this arena.

Come to Court, sign in and wait. You may be called to discuss your case with the Prosecutor or Police officer who wrote you up. They may make you an offer (that you can refuse). If you’ve studied your state’s point system, you’ll have an idea what’s at stake.

The Judge and Prosecutor are not there to give you legal advice; don’t expect it and don't be disappointed if you don’t get it. In most places where negotiation is allowed, you’ll be offered something. I find that an attorney will normally be able to secure “the best deal in the house.” If you're a “frequent flier” or just don’t feel confident playing this game, again, a lawyer is a wise investment. 

At the time of the offer, do NOT launch into your carefully rehearsed and novel (to you) arguments as to why the ticket was in error/illegal. The police officer or Prosecutor in front of you has but one answer to any such suggestion: “I’ll mark you for trial at the end of the calendar.”

Next up, next Thursday: your day in court.

Until GM’s stylish EV-1 came along, electric vehicles (EVs) looked like they were made in shop class. Back then, very few people actually thought about owning an EV. Though many electric dreams have been literally crushed, green-thinking and/or peak oil-aware drivers now look to EVs as the natural successor to traditional fossil-fuel sucking and CO2 spewing motorcars. But are they worthy?

With standard nickel metal hydride batteries, no. Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEVs) demonstrate the best use– and limitations– of the technology. NEVs such as GEM and ZENN are fully functional, ready right now vehicles. But most of us would hesitate to (as in never) shell out $10K – $15K for a vehicle with a range of 30 to 35 miles and a speed of 25 to 30 mph– especially when we could get a Yaris or Fit for the same money.

The EV’s immediate and long-term future [still] depends on developing powerful, reliable and safe batteries. At the moment EV hopes reside in lithium-ion batteries, which are twice as powerful by weight as nickel-metal-hydride batteries.

Li-ion cells work great in our mobile phones and iPods. But automotive batteries must transfer much larger amounts of energy than a notebook battery. Safety, both real and perceived, is a huge problem. Fire can result from a ruptured separator: the electrically insulating porous polymer membranes that stop electrons (but let ions pass) between anode and cathode.

Automakers need high performance separators that allow greater ion flow and thus more power with safety membranes that close pores when overheated, thus stopping fire. Production is complicated; the Tesla Motor’s Li-Ion cooling system is a complex work-around with inherent risks and limitations, both practical and financial. Meanwhile, Evonik, Celgard, Asahi Kasei and even ExxonMobil are working on multilayer separators to make lithium-ion car batteries safe enough for soccer moms.

Even if they don't burst into flame, lithium-ion batteries are expensive. Their capacity often degrades in the first year. They don’t work well in cold temperatures. And they sometimes fail altogether after three years. Yet many EV startups confidently offer lithium-based electric vehicle conversions.

Hybrid Technologies lists a range of electric vehicle conversions. The Smart ForTwo becomes the $43.5K LiV Dash; the MINI Cooper becomes the $57.5K LiV Flash; the Chrysler PT Cruiser becomes the $55K LiV Surge; and most recently, the Toyota Yaris becomes the $39.5K LiV Wise. Hybrid Technologies claim 100 mile ranges, 70 to 80 mph speeds and at least 1500 charges.

Lion EV offers the $30K Ford Ranger EV, a $35.5K Ford Escape EV and a $37.5K Ford Escape Hybrid PHEV. They claim a base range of 120 miles for the Escape EV and 200 miles for the Ranger EV.

For serious EV shoppers, their manufacturers’ greatest weakness: you can pretty much forget about kicking the tires and taking your prospective purchase for a quiet spin. Hybrid Tech is looking for distributors other than the catalog at Sam's Club. LionEV claims their dealerships are home-based with no lots to visit. "How can I arrange a tour of your manufacturing plant?" asks the LionEV FAQ. "You can't," is the answer.

Prices for these unseen, untouched vehicles are expressed in general terms– many options cannot be specified before ordering. And ordering online requires paying an upfront deposit weeks, months and even years ahead of delivery.

Lion and Hybrid are two of the rare companies that actually let you order four-wheel electric vehicles with some expectation of delivery. The Tango looks great next to George Clooney, but it requires a $10K deposit and a two to three year wait (while Commuter Cars lines up investors). Phoenix and Think maintain Flash-y websites that promise breakthroughs, but never seem to have anything for sale (in the U.S., anyway). And then there’s Tesla’s Roadster. Or, as is the case, not.

Assuming that EV makers get their acts together and create lithium-ion batteries (or some better storage medium) that are powerful enough to offer the range and recharge times consumers demand, and safe enough to withstand America’s litigious society, the question remains: are EVs a suitable solution to our desire for personal mobility?

On the positive side, nearly everyone has electrical power in their homes and businesses. No question: there’s a lot of unused nighttime generating capacity. EVs run clean, run quiet (too quiet, according to advocates for the hearing challenged).

On the negative side, electrical energy has to come from somewhere, and that source is usually CO2-emitting, fossil-fuel-fired plants and/or the ever-controversial nuclear power plants.  Except for the tiny contribution by wind and solar, and the modest contribution by hydroelectric, electricity is not clean power. Nor is electric power any more guaranteed to stay less expensive than oil and natural gas.

In short, EVs have a long way to go before they can go a long way towards transforming America’s transportation system.

Picture this: Toyota outsells GM and Ford combined. Chrysler is long gone, having sold their factories to a foreign automaker. Meanwhile, GM and Ford import all their products from low-wage countries except for large sedans, whose drooping sales figures are propped-up by fleet sales. Imports fill the top eight spots for retail sales. In the face of massive imports and a strong currency, the Big 3 (Toyota, GM, Ford) informs the feds that they’re considering ceasing all remaining domestic automobile production. Welcome to the Down Under (and out) car market of Australia.

American car enthusiasts tend to envision Australia as an American mini-me holdover from the good old days, when traditional RWD sedans with big straight-six and honking V8 engines dominated the roads and the sales charts. In that rose-tinted rearwards-gazing scenario, the Australian divisions of Detroit’s Big 3 carve-up big chunks of the market for themselves, stake claims on the best selling cars, and generate handsome profits for mother Detroit.

In reality, Australia’s domestic car industry is hanging on by a thread. In fact, the antipodean market offers a scary glimpse into the possible future of the American automobile industry.

Back in the day, Chrysler of Australia created some legendary machines with hemi six cylinder engines that Ford and GM’s V8s couldn’t catch. Ultimately, it was to no avail. In case you missed it (or you’re younger than thirty), Chrysler called it quits Down Under in 1980. Twenty-eight years after Chrysler handed the keys to their plant to Mitsubishi, they’ve announced its closure.

Analysts who think GM and Ford will get a boost if/when Chrysler goes bust in the US should consider the Australian example. Since Chrysler withdrew, GM's Holden and Ford-AU’s market share has fallen even more precipitously than their American parents'. Holden now accounts for about 15 percent of Australia's new car market. Ford is precariously close to single digits. Toyota dominates, with a commanding 25 percent market share and most of the top-selling cars and trucks.

And yet, Holden and Ford still claim bragging rights to the number one (Commodore) and number two (Falcon) selling cars in the land of Oz. Pay no attention to those men behind the curtain. In another eerie equivalent to stateside PR, their claims are based on smoke, mirrors and fleet sales.

In Australia, the major manufacturers have agreed among themselves to not reveal fleet sales. They believe (rightly) that the numbers would damage public perception of the home-town teams. The Sydney Morning Herald managed to get their hands on a set of stats– and no wonder they’re secret. No less than 81 percent of the Commodore’s sales and 88 percent of Falcon’s sales sailed with the fleets.

Amongst buyers paying with their own money, the Commodore was merely number nine; the Falcon a distant fifteen. Not surprisingly, the Corolla is tops with private buyers, followed by the Mazda 3 and the Toyota Yaris. Holden’s best seller (to the public) is the Korean-built Barina (a.k.a. Chevrolet Aveo).

It turns out that Australia isn’t a parallel universe, immune to oil prices and environmental trends. The market for large cars declined 37 percent in 2005 and 2006; and it’s still contracting. The Toyota Camry is the only locally-made four-cylinder large car. The Aussie Big Two never developed smaller cars, and didn’t build a single four cylinder car for… just about forever. Ford has only just started building the Focus locally.

Ford’s restyled Falcon has just been revealed, but it’s riding on a tired old platform that wouldn’t cut it beyond its loyal but rapidly shrinking fan base (think Crown Vic). Thankfully, Ford has just announced the final solution to the geriatric twosome: a clean-sheet next-generation RWD platform to be developed in Australia.

By the same token, Holden has become GM’s RWD “home room.” It’s vying for development of the small RWD Alpha platform. But exports of Aussie RWD vehicles are not viable (G8 excepted). In fact, Ford may import the next-gen RWD cars or stampings from the U.S. These development projects don’t guarantee a future domestic production industry.

Bottom line: GM and Ford’s Australian units are sinking fast. Holden reported a $145m loss in '06, and $146m in '07. Ford-AU nicked mother Dearborn’s pocketbook a bit more gently, with a loss of merely $40m. No wonder GM and Ford are throwing development dollars for rear wheel-drive (RWD) cars to the Aussies. Without the imported bucks, they might soon be toast.

Meanwhile, the Australian reports that senior auto executives are warning that “union trouble or higher wages would be a poison arrow” for local car manufacturing. And Toyota is “reviewing” local Camry production. At the same time, China has targeted Australia for future automotive exports.

Welcome to the future.