In Michelangelo Antonioni's film "Blow Up," Thomas (David Hemming) watches a rock guitarist smash his ax and toss the remnants into the audience. Caught up in the spirit of the moment, Thomas joins the scrum scrambling for a piece of the dead guitar. He grabs the lion's share and runs away. Dozens of fans give chase, attempting to wrest the prize from his grasp. Finally, Thomas is clear of the crowd. Alone with his treasure, he contemplates his booty– and then casually tosses it into a nearby trash can. Nissan GTR anyone?

Sacrilege! The new Nissan GT-R blasts from zero to 60mph in 3.5 seconds, navigates the Nürburgring as fast as the Porsche 911 Turbo and (allegedly) does so with more confidence than Stuttgart's finest. All this with a Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price (MSRP) starting just under $70k. Clearly, it's the performance automotive bargain of the decade.

On the day the initial U.S. dealer allocations of GT-Rs were announced, the mathematics made the problem clear. Nissan deemed exactly 691 dealers "qualified" (i.e. large and financially productive enough) to sell the GT-R. During the model's inaugural year, Nissan will build 2500 GT-Rs worldwide, only 1400 vehicles of which will make it stateside.

It doesn't take long to divide 1400 by 691 and conclude that the anointed U.S. Nissan dealers will receive two GT-Rs (on average). Since these dealers were obliged to make an investment in the equipment needed to service the GT-R's unique run flat tires, it makes sense that they'd want to recoup that investment ASAP, over the two model transactions they'll experience in 2008. And, lest we forget, they're car dealers.

Bottom line: a "buyer's premium."   

So when I contacted my local dealer to place an order for my very own Nissan GT-R, I wasn't surprised to encounter a lot of squirming and shadow puppeteering. This, of course, gave me a reverse Groucho Marx; I wanted to join a club that didn't want me as a member. BUT–  

I am allergic to paying more than MSRP for anything (I have a doctor's note to prove it). The idea of forking over a significant premium for a GT-R in its first year of release makes me feel both elated and stupid.

To delete "stupid" from this equation, I began an on-line investigation, hoping to tap the experiences of other enthusiasts desperately seeking a Nissan GT-R. Most of the stories I encountered indicated that dealers were adding a $10k to $25k additional onto the car's MSRP.

About a half dozen commentators listed dealers committed to selling their GT-Rs at MSRP. This information did me little good, as one sale accounted for half of their allocation. By the time I'd identified the virtuous dealer their other GT-R was also sold. Living in California didn't help; the Golden State's love for fast cars seems to blur the lines of whatever rational decision-making may remain within state borders.

Of course, the upshot of this hot model fever is a four-wheeled Ponzi scheme. Aside from the Ferrari Enzo, you can count on one hand the number of cars that garnered a premium from the onset, and maintained that value (and you'd still have enough fingers left to make gang signs). Anyone remember the $100k dealers placed on top of the dreadful BMW Z8? The SL55 AMG for $50k on top? And yes, people paid above the odds for a Pontiac Solstice.

Eventually, as the hot model cools, someone gets burned. IF you're going to pay a premium for a hot car, the "trick" is to do so straight out of the chute, then sell the car before availability catches-up with demand. Given that the Nissan GT-R ain't no Ferrari, and Nissan dealers love money, I reckon Nissan will up production after the 2008 model year, big style. At that point, the premium will disappear, for both buyer and seller.

You want to talk about killer depreciation? Then you need to contemplate the concept of "front loading" an asset destined to shed value. A 2005 SL55 AMG with less than 20k on the clock can now be yours for $86k as a certified pre-owned car from an MB dealer- and a lot less as a private purchase. With Solsti piling-up on dealer lots, there isn't a single soul in the U.S. who'll pay you above the odds for a new one. Not one. 

So I'm hot on this quest to find someone who will accept my order for a Nissan GTR at MSRP and I've never even seen one in person– let alone felt the driving experience. Two questions. How long will the hype last? With all this demand and little supply, how long will there be someone willing to pluck this discard from my trash heap and pay ME more than MSRP for the privilege? Second, would I even like it?  

"Managing expectations." It's a term near and dear to the hearts of the people who pull our politicians' strings. Increasingly, it's the rhetorical weapon of choice for executives seeking to maintain their grip on America's large corporations. While there's nothing wrong with casting your company's efforts in a positive light, the danger is both simple and lethal. When a company's culture becomes based on hype, it loses its ability to react to reality– both good and bad. It becomes lost in the fog of war. One such company is GM.

Last Tuesday, GM CFO Fritz Henderson did something his boss, CEO Rick Wagoner, has refused to do throughout his entire tenure at the top. Fritz set a deadline for GM NA's return to profitability. Well, not a deadline, exactly. More like an estimate. Actually, make that a prediction– with caveats. Anyway, in the now-familiar post-bloodbath (a.k.a. financial results) conference call with industry analysts, Fritz said General Motors' North American operations should be solidly profitable by 2010. Or 2011.

Now that's saying something. GM North America is currently in complete turmoil, verging on chaos, heading towards meltdown. It's losing market share, production capacity, skilled workers, profitability (incentives are up) and, most of all, cash money. If you exclude the mother of all tax credit write-downs (which placed GM's '07 losses at $38.7b), NorAm dropped $1.5b last year. Not bad? Lest we forget, that number was propped-up by the sale of the Allison Transmission unit for $4.3b.

Speaking of fire sales and clever accounting, Fritz claims GM has $27b in cash and "cash equivalents" in the kitty. Take away $10b for life-sustaining cash flow, and GM is only $17b away from empty.

GM's cash conflagration continues unabated. Despite dramatic downsizing, the American automaker still has enormous overheads: advertising ($2.6b per year), research and development, factory modernization, pensions, health care, administration, servicing its massive debt ($2.9b per year) and, of course, executive compensation.

If we presume that these costs are holding steady– at least until the new labor agreement yields significant reductions– GM's $6.8b '07 loss (with Allison removed from the equation) indicates that they've got two-and-a-half years to turn the ship around– or go down. In other words, if Fritz isn't right, if GM isn't "solidly profitable" by 2011, they will be bankrupt.

Of course, this also assumes there won't be any "exceptional" calls on GM's cash pile. Heading into a major industry downturn, that's about as safe as assuming that the IRS will forget that you're legally obliged to file a tax return.

For one thing, bankrupt parts supplier Delphi, is looking for a billion dollar plus cash infusion. If GM's former division doesn't find the financing, well… Chrysler's unresolved Plastech debacle shows how vulnerable GM's assembly lines are to a parts disruption (a.k.a. renegotiation/extortion). A quarter of Detroit's main parts suppliers are teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. Even if GM's suppliers simply ask for their money up front, The General's liquidity would take a massive hit.

And then there's GMAC. Since GM sold 51 percent of the lender to Cerberus, The General's former cash cow has cratered. GMAC just posted a $724m fourth-quarter loss; the ResCap mortgage-lending unit bled $921m worth of red ink. If ResCap collapses, creditors may pierce the veil and sink GMAC. Meanwhile, cheap GMAC loans to high risk debtors are a thing of the past, which pulls the rug from under one of GM's main weapons in its war on excess inventory.

And that brings us to the income side of the ledger. While GM boosters view the new Cadillac CTS, Chevrolet Malibu and GMC Acadia as evidence that the automaker has got its NorAm product-related shit together, it most decidedly does not.

As nice as they are, these vehicles are not class-leading import conquerers. Sure, GM's finally woken-up to the fact that they have too many brands  (eight), products (49) and dealers (6750). But their "throw the losers (Buick, Saturn, Pontiac, Saab) into a gulag and starve ‘em to death strategy" is a long-term play that will make things worse– before they get worse. No matter how you slice it, GM needs LOTS of turnover the keep the lights on.

Post corporate fire-sale, you could consider GM's brands its only remaining asset. If so, the company is already dead. Aside from Hummer, none of GM's brands has a clear remit or a coherent product line. There is overlap, cannibalization, confusion and chaos. Fleet sales aside, you can't sell products in a highly competitive environment without proper branding.

So, Fritz, how IS GM going to become solidly profitable by 2011? "We need to step on the gas on how we are performing in the market." At the moment, in terms of market share, branding and overall product desirability, GM is going backwards. Stepping on the gas will simply accelerate that process. Right until they hit something. That's the only realistic expectation.

Somewhere west of Ogallala, rocketing across the plains at ninety-six in a sixty-nine Plymouth Fury, a twangy voice lectured us with the old song: “love and marriage, love and marriage, go together like a horse and carriage.” My two female traveling companions and I exchanged glances, laughed and sang along. “…you can’t have one without the other.” In that precious moment, everything crystallized: what it meant to be nineteen in 1972, free as a bird, barreling down the freeway in a powerful American sedan. Read More >

If there’s anything that makes you swear faster than passing a cop aiming a radar/laser gun at your car, it’s seeing a cop car looming in your rear view mirror. Either way, you’re busted. You’re about to play your part in a carefully scripted interchange with tax-funded law enforcement. How you play your role will have a big impact on what happens next. 

First and foremost, don’t act coy. If the blue lights are flashing on your behalf, put on your hazard lights immediately and pull over. You can turn a simple traffic violation into a misdemeanor easily by missing this one. Remember that the officer has one thought as he yanks your chain: he doesn’t want to get hurt. So pull over somewhere safe, preferably off the main road, but always into a well-lit, open space. 

When Officer Krupke pulls you over, he doesn’t know if you’re an honest citizen with a heavy foot or a third strike felon with a weapon. So do not reach into your glove box or your coat pocket for your license and registration before the policeman approaches. Lower your window, put both hands on the steering wheel, relax your shoulders and wait.

In most cases, the officer will call in your plate and his location before he leaves the car. He’ll watch you and your passengers (repeatedly) for “furtive movements.” The cop will approach you over your left shoulder. It’s tactical: he/she can see almost everything you do and can respond quickly if you're stupid/drugged enough to “try something." By the same psychological token, the bright lights are supposed to scare you and illuminate the inside of your car.

When the cop approaches, let him speak first. Most times, he’ll ask for your license and registration. Sometimes, he’ll ask you a direct question, to determine your state of mind and whether or not you’re drunk or drugged. If the officer asks you a simple question (“Do you know how fast you were going?”), provide him or her with a simple answer (“No, I’m sorry, I don’t”). Keep your voice level and your tone respectful.

After the initial interchange, you can proffer an excuse, if you so choose.  Don't schmooze; friendliness counts for nothing here. All the cop wants is his safety and your respect. So be direct, courteous and passive. Make your excuse simple (e.g. “I’m late to pick-up my kid from school”) and always start with an apology. Yes, an apology. But do not admit guilt. Just “I’m sorry.” Not, “I’m sorry I was speeding.” It’s a fine line. Don’t cross it.

Many times, perhaps even most times, the officer simply doesn’t want to hear your story. In some cases, the cop might even walk off while you’re in mid-sentence. Don’t lose your cool. These guys have heard it all before. They may have other things they want to do besides listen to you lie, prevaricate or explain your criminal behavior. 

Once the officer gets your papers, the officer will usually go back to the safety of his car (roadsides are dangerous for all) and run your specifics. He will check out your car from time to time, looking for those “furtive movements.” After the policeman establishes that your license and registration are valid, and that you and your vehicle aren’t wanted for any reason, he or she will cite you for your offense(s). 

If you were polite, sometimes there will be a small “roadside reduction” or even a warning instead of a ticket. If you were rude, there will be no mercy. If you were very rude, then there may be several citations. I can often tell by the set of tickets presented how my client acted towards the police officer on the roadside. In States like Virginia, where a ticket (and various inventive surcharges) can be mortgage money expensive, you’ll want any “discretion” the cop has used in your favor.

When the officer gives you the ticket (s), he or she will briefly engage you in conversation. If the officer gives you a lecture, or asks you a series of questions intended to rub your nose in your offense, just grin and bear it. Under no circumstances should you ever argue with the police. If the ticket’s written, the deal’s gone down. If you’ve been hard done by, you’ll get your day in court (and do NOT use that as a threat of any kind).

For most normal traffic stops, the police officer has made notes on the back of the ticket as to the particulars of the stop, and your attitude. He will have forgotten about you (usually) as soon as he’s back on the pavement at patrol speeds. Which leads us to the next part of our story… the Courthouse.

You are, of course, pleading Not Guilty.

Ever since the Model T hit the silver screen, evading the long arm of the law has been a cinematic theme. From the General Lee outrunning Boss Hogg, to Smokey being outwitted by Burt Reynolds' mustache, the public imagination has always associated fast cars with police pursuit. While the majority of motorists would never dream of trying to outrun the long arm of the law, soon, they won't have to. It'll be resting on their shoulder. Consider OnStar…  

OnStar is a telemetry system providing a central data bank with real-time data on virtually every system in your car, including GPS. OnStar's computer knows where you were, when you were there, and how fast you went. It knows if and when you applied the brakes, if and when the air bags deployed, and what speed you were going at the time. It knows if and when your car was serviced.

OnStar operators can determine if you have a passenger in the front seat (airbag detection). All interactions with OnStar's operators are automatically recorded (hence the commercials). By the same token, under certain conditions, OnStar can switch on your GM car's microphone remotely and record any and all sounds within the vehicle (i.e. conversations). But wait, there's more…  

As of 2009, customers who upgrade to OnStar's "Safe & Sound" plan automatically receive the "Stolen Vehicle Slowdown" service. (Yes, it's an "opt out" deal.) If the OnStar-equipped vehicle is reported stolen and law enforcement has "established a clear line of sight of the stolen vehicle," the police may ask OnStar to slow it down remotely.  

Many customers find OnStar immensely reassuring; their guardian e-angel. No question: OnStar has saved lives and provided its customers with valuable services. Otherwise, they wouldn't be in business. But what if…

The police are investigating a crime. They ask OnStar where your car was on a certain date and time, to corroborate an alibi. Or what if you're in a crash and the other guy's attorney would like to know how fast you were driving when you ran the red light? Would OnStar surrender the information? "OnStar is required to locate the car to comply with legal requirements, including valid court orders showing probable cause in criminal investigations." And OnStar may use gathered information to "protect the rights, property, or safety of you or others."

Imagine the following scenario. The FBI shows up at OnStar master command and tells them your car's been stolen by a terrorist, who may be using it to commit a crime at this very moment. Contacting the owner is out of the question; the owner may also be a terrorist. What does OnStar do? They cooperate with the FBI and give them everything they've got on your car. No warrant needed and no notification to you. Hell, you may not even have the service enabled. 

In other words, you not only have to trust OnStar to protect your privacy, you have to trust the police not to ask the questions in the first place.

The Constitution of the United States protects us from the heavy hand of government. However, when it comes to protection from private entities, it does little. Into this void, multiple privacy laws have entered, creating a farrago of local, state, and federal laws which provide limited and haphazard protection to citizens.  Whatever privacy protection these laws provide are usually nullified when companies violate them in "good faith" (e.g. while assisting the authorities.)

So who is going to stop the government from monitoring your car? The Bill of Rights protects you from an unreasonable search and seizure; the government can not take what belongs to you without a warrant. OnStar can owns the information they collect about your car. In short, there is nothing to stop the police or OnStar from using the information you paid for against you.

And the next step is even more insidious.  Imagine GPS speed limiters which only allow you to go the speed limit based upon a map uploaded into your car's navigation system. Now Sammy Hagar will only be driving 55 no matter how hard he stomps on the go pedal. This is the ultimate assault on pistonheads.  The only place where driving will be fun will be on the track– if OnStar and/or the car's manufacturer (e.g. the Japanese GT-R) let you.

There's only one sensible response to this trend: boycott vehicles equipped with OnStar, even if you don't sign up for the service. (Remember: it can be remotely enabled.) If customers actively avoid vehicles that spy on them, manufacturers will have to stop installing the monitoring software and hardware. And law enforcement agencies and prosecutors will have to get their information and apprehend criminals the old-fashioned way: through legally-sanctioned police work. In short, I don't buy OnStar, and neither should you.   

Politicians around the world were up against the wall. The World Trade Organization (WTO) was slowly picking away at all their fancy ways of sidetracking public funds into hopelessly anachronistic and inefficient agricultural subsidies. And the agribusiness beats the mil/industrial complex when it comes to lobbying skills. Even French politicians, famous for ignoring the plight of their people, tremble at the thought of another tractor phalanx of mad farmers pulling up in front of the National Assembly and launching putrid brie at their doorstep. Enter Peak Oil.

The WTO rulings are in place to regulate reasonable and equal trading practices between nations. But they cannot proscribe internal actions designed to protect the national infrastructure against potential disruptions. Running out of oil is one such potential downer. Enter a substitute that "solved" two problems at once:

1) How to keep moving money to the agribusiness without the WTO getting pesky.

2) Providing a palliative against Peak Oil. "See, we'll be driving on corn on the cob instead. Nothing has to change."

Well, now maybe it will have to. Bioethanol is a wildly inefficient way of propelling anything, whether aqua, auto or aero. Even in the most benign scenarios, the energy efficiency is pretty much 1:1. Add the fact that you're converting land from growing crops for food to growing fuel for cars, and you have a potential problem on your hands. To wit: rising food prices.

Turns out ethanol is bad in so many ways you don't even want to BEGIN thinking about it. Fortunately, we have people who are willing to do both the thinking and the research for us. The journal Science has just published two papers indicating that clearing land for biofuels will aid global warming.

Wouldn't you know it, the very thing that is going to cure us will kill us faster? Researchers from Princeton University, Woods Hole Research Center and Iowa State University (smack dab in the heart of E85 country) have all concluded that over 30 years, the use of traditional corn-based ethanol will produce twice as much greenhouse gas emissions as regular gasoline.

In the words of the report’s lead author, “this is not good news.” Surprise! There are hidden environmental costs to producing biofuels. "The land we're likely to plow up is the land that we've had taking up carbon for decades," Tim Searchinger at Princeton pronounced. "We can't get to a result, no matter how heroically we make assumptions on behalf of corn ethanol, where it will actually generate greenhouse-gas benefits."

Meanwhile, the governementos of the world are sleeping soundly in the knowledge that they have done a good thing, keeping rotting agricultural produce off the Capitol steps and letting people motor as usual.

Over at the Casa Blanca, the chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality isn’t surrendering the federal tit without a fight. James L. Connaughton says biofuels' benefits remain tangible.

"Like any issue, there are ways to do it right and there are ways to do things wrong, and the same is the case to biofuels. We move as rapidly as we can to second-generation [biofuels] because those offer the best opportunity for a low environmental profile."

And the Executive VP of the Biotechnology Industry Organization couldn't agree more. "It is much more logical to produce biofuels that recycle carbon,” Brent Erickson insisted. “Even if a short-term carbon debt is created. Even if it's 167 years, you're still better off than burning oil that can never be paid off."

He could have added that biofuels also offers the best opportunity for an abysmal energy ROI. Kind of like buying Eli Manning out of the Giants because you need someone to throw warmups to your starting High-School quarterback.

Michael O'Hare, who really knows his biofuels, is glum. Yes, another academic, from Berkeley of all places. What does he know?

"The bottom line of these complicated chains of events is that using crops for biofuels anywhere induces land use changes somewhere, and while the effect isn't a simple acre-for-acre replacement, and we don't know exactly how big the land-clearing carbon hit should be for a generic gallon of biodiesel or bioethanol, betting now is that it is most unlikely to be small enough to view crop-based biofuels as green substitutes for petroleum."

Well, doesn't that throw a wrench in the spokes of politicos and car honchos alike? Not to mention members of the green mafia who have been seduced by the notion they were supporting agriculture over oil wars.

It's worth restating. All those of us now alive have enjoyed an extended period with ridiculously effective energy readily available at an unbelievably low price. There are no viable substitutes to the energy efficiency of petroleum, and demand is outstripping supply, and faster than we'd like to think. What next? Sorry, but there is no easy answer.

If you think it's hard keeping up with the auto industry on a daily basis, you should try figuring out what the future holds. Just five years ago, no one would have predicted an aircraft executive would be running Ford, Chrysler'd still be selling Vipers (or Pacificas or much of anything) or GM would be embracing hybrids. So what's going to happen in the next five or ten years? It's hard to say. But since we've never been known to lack for an opinion on anything, here's a look at the future, TTAC-style.

GMNA Files for Nonprofit Status – After losing money for the past 25 years, General Motors North America filed with the IRS for status as a non-profit organization. CFO-for-Life Fritz Henderson explained the rationale behind the move: "After all that business with the Volt's windshield wipers, we finally realized we're never going to turn a profit with our North American operation. So Rick and I decided we should get the maximum benefit from our situation and write-off the salaries of all our executives." In other news, GM said it was developing a new, rear wheel-drive platform for its "premium economy" Saab, Saturn, Pontiac, Buick and Cadillac models.

Ford Renews Wagner's Contract – Even though Mercury's last customer died five years ago, Ford has announced that they've extended spokesperson Jill Wagner's contract for another three years. "Jill's got– I mean is our finest asset," said Ford's President of Public Appearances, Mark Fields. "She'll continue to appeal– I mean appear in all our commercials." When asked why there were no cars shown in the ads, Fields replied "That's not part of the process." 

smart USA Announces New Marketing Program – smart USA has revealed that they've formed a partnership with NBC's reality show "The Biggest Loser" to promote their ailing automotive brand. Spokesman Harold Clark denied that the company had asked Mark Burnett to change the show's title to "The Smallest Loser," and promised that the product placement deal would show the slow-selling city car in a highly favorable light. "This year, the first person to lose enough to fit into the smart wins the contest and the car. Additional prizes will be given to those contestants who finish the show weighing less than the fortwo." When reminded that the brand's tie-in with the reality show "Little People. Big World" hadn't stemmed the sales slump, Clark replied "I told you not to tell me that."

Lincoln Introduces New Model – Ford's worldwide luxury Lincoln division unveiled their new MK7W8R4Z. The new model's based on the latest U.S.-spec four-door Ford Focus. Continuing Lincoln's new "Reach Backwards" theme, it features a four-cylinder engine connected to a five-speed automatic transmission, with an upright grille, padded vinyl top and spare tire bulge in the deck lid. The MK7W8R4Z comes with SYNC 6.7, which promises to fix the bugs found in SYNC version 1.0 to 6.6.

Chrysler Completes Outsourcing – Cerberus has completed the final stages of Chrysler's "It's a New Day" program by licensing the Jeep name to Mahindra & Mahindra (M&M). This marks the end of Cerberus' venture into auto manufacturing. Over the last two years, they licensed the Chrysler model names to China's Chery and the Dodge model names to India's Tata Motors. "This certainly is a ‘New Day' for Cerberus, as they reap license fees from M&M Jeeps and Tata Magnums," explained former Chrysler CEO Bob Nardelli from his yacht, the Golden Parachute.

Kirk Kerkorian Dead at 117 – The AP reports that billionaire Kirk Kerkorian died three years ago at the age of 117. Friends of the "Lion of Las Vegas" were shocked by the news. "Who knew? Kerkorian mouthpiece Jerry York had spoken for him for so long that everyone just took it on faith that he was saying what Kerkorian told him."  "I just thought he was taking another nap," York explained. "Anyway, I've worked for him so long that I knew what he wanted in any given situation. I just didn't see the point of bothering him." When questioned about the future of Kirkorian's Tracinda Corporation, York indicated he wasn't worried. "Kirk gave me power of attorney 10 years ago."

President Clinton Raises CAFE Standards to 100mpg by 2030 – President Hillary Clinton announced she's working with Congress to raise Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) requirements. "There is no reason why a combination of good old American know-how and massive federal subsidies can't create vehicles capable of driving 100 miles per gallon of E85 gasoline, with zero emissions," Clinton said. When asked how much the new technology would cost the average consumer, President Clinton said "Nothing– at least as far as they know."  

I recently passed a highway billboard offering "A cure for your addiction to oil." It was another example of my tax dollars hard at work: an oversized ad for Madison Metro, the Wisconsin's city bus company. Yes, where once fuel conservation was the moral equivalent of war, it now seems to require a 12-Step program. With the price of sweet, light crude flirting with a $100 a barrel price tag, we're all supposed to get "on the wagon." I mean bus. So, off we got to Auto Owners Anonymous.

I find my group crowded into the bus dispatcher's office of the Madison Metro central garage. Metaphorically speaking, think Louis De Palma's cage from Taxi where the drivers line up to be the butt of insult jokes. The dispatcher's office is where the Q&A session goes down, before we're introduced to rows of engines and transmissions and then meet some two hundred city buses. 

A hand goes up. "What kind of gas mileage does a bus get?" It's a patently ridiculous question. Although fuel prices are high, the go-juice needed to run a fleet of buses is only a small fraction of their total operating costs. Tax revenues account for the lion's share of Madison's Metro budget, not fares. But I suppose the high cost of gas is on everyone's mind. Maybe that's because there's a big sign on the back of our local buses asking traffic-trapped motorists if they're "Feeling the pinch at the pump?"

"Oh, about six miles per gallon. The new hybrid buses coming in this year should get about eight or nine."

Discretion being the better part of withstanding politically correct peer pressure, I thought, "Six MPG for a bus in city traffic? Get outta here!" Rivet counting research engineer that I am, I couldn't keep quiet.

"Are you sure? One of your publications spoke of a system average of 30 passenger-miles per gallon. Assuming a load factor of seven to ten passengers, you are likely in the three to four mpg range."

Madison Metro's CEO directed me to the National Transit Database. Transit districts getting government support are required to report their fuel usage, ridership and budget to this central clearing-house. The data is freely available to those willing to spend a chunk of their precious life paging through it. My counselor suggested that I look at Indianapolis, Indiana for comparison.

I looked up the 2003 figures for Madison Metro and Indianapolis along with PACE, the suburban Chicago bus network. The diesel-powered bus mpgs were 3.8, 4.5, and 3.9. The average numbers of passengers per bus were 7.4, 8.1, and 9.6. Taking into account that gasoline has less energy than diesel, the gasoline-equivalent passenger mpgs were 25.3, 32.9, and 33.3. The average trip length was 3.1 miles in Madison, 5.0 miles in Indy, and 6.4 miles for PACE.

Only seven passengers on an average bus? On what planet? Every time I get on the bus, it's standing-room only. Heck, there must be 60 people fighting for my oxygen. And if a bus gets three mpg, I reckon I'm getting 180 mpg on the ride home. What kind of car gets fuel efficiency like that?

But you can't fight the numbers. Car drivers get chastised for driving alone, but buses operate with empty seats too.

I know this for a fact because my employer offers a driving cessation program called "Transportation Demand Management." In other words, I get a free bus pass (discounting taxes). And I've actually used the pass for the five-mile trip home when my wife borrows my car. It's standing room only when I get on. But by the time I get off, I'm the only passenger left, and the bus has a good part of its route yet to finish.

When that bus returns to make another rush-hour outbound trip, either "Out of Service" or running its route, it's probably carrying few to none passengers. Figuring-in off-peak service… I guess the seven passengers per bus average isn't so incredible after all.

Anyway, the Madison Metro bus' estimated 25 mpg ain't bad. It's probably better than a lot of people get from their ride, especially on a three-mile trip. That said, it's not out of reach for a Civic or Corolla driver, and you don't have to pay for the bus driver's pension. Oh wait, you do, either way. Never mind.

The signs on the sides of Madison Metro buses show people enjoying expensive warm-weather vacations, asking "What would you do with the $7k a year you could save by taking Madison Metro?" Even after therapy, I'd take that $7000 and make lease payments on a nice, roomy SUV so I won't have to park my backside in a too-narrow transit seat and travel to work in bodily contact with a stranger. Clearly, I need more help.

“It’s a New Day.” Unless you’re terminally ill or the guest of a terrorist cell, this observation won’t come as much of a surprise or, in itself, cause much delight. And yet that’s the tagline for the [now] combined Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep brands. In an explanatory TV ad, an animated child tells viewers that the American automaker will [now] listen to YOU and build cars the cars YOU want. The ad is an excellent example of what Adolph Hitler called The Big Lie: a falsehood so “colossal” that no one would believe that someone “could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously”. To wit: if any single automaker ISN’T building the cars YOU want, it’s Chrysler.

Ipso facto. Chrysler’s U.S. market share is swirling around the toilet bowl. Although they’re now a privately-held company exempt from full public financial disclosure, analysts reckon Auburn Hills accounts for just 14 percent of the America’s new car sales pie– and falling. Not to mention the bulk sales propping-up that share. And no wonder: Chrysler’s three brands are suffused with poorly-built, hugely discounted, high-depreciation product that YOU would be crazy to buy.

The timing of Chrysler’s new day new tagline adds to the cognitive dissonance. Why would Chrysler announce its newfound desire to build cars customers want (sounds crazy but it just might work) just as it’s about to decimate its entire model lineup? This forthcoming execution of ten or more Chrysler losers makes perfect sense: the first part of making the cars YOU want is shit-canning the cars YOU don’t want. But it’s a PR nightmare. Customers will [rightly] see the bloodletting as an abject admission that Chrysler isn’t clued-in to its customers’ need.

Don’t worry! It’s a New Day! (How Mein Kampf is that?) Yes, well, what about all those customers who helped keep Chrysler alive by buying all the models that the company is now killing? Unless these owners plan to take their lame duck car or truck to the grave (via their very own personal lifetime warranty), Chrysler’s producticide will add depreciation insult to depreciation injury. Should old acquaintance be forgot, and never brought to mind? Guess so.

The discrepancy between Chrysler’s New Day sloganeering and its past and current predicament isn’t the only reason that their new tagline is a Big Lie. The automaker’s inability to implement this consumer-centric philosophy in the future also puts paid to their Napoleonic declaration that history begins… now.

Let’s set aside the fact that Chrysler’s new owners’ intention to sell the company to someone else (talk about commitment: we’re going to build the cars YOU want until we can get SOMEONE ELSE TO DO IT). To bring meaning to Chrysler’s New Day promise to listen and respond to customers’ needs, they’ve got to change they way they do business.

Hence the tagline’s tagline: “you talk, we listen.” The evidence for this communications revolution is weak. The official website proclaims the New Day and invites customers to “see the difference” on 12 models. The majority of the enhancements are options (i.e. extra expense), rather than new “you asked for it, you got it” standard features. Are we really to believe that Charger customers clamored for “Cool Vanilla” paint? At best, these changes result from the same old focus group filtration. At worst, Chrysler’s spinning to create a false sense of consumer “empowerment.”

For evidence of Chrysler’s supposed desire to “get close to the customer,” we turn to their official blog. Not only is Chrysler leaving this electronic forum to rot on the [not Jason] vine, but even a cursory glance reveals that it’s nothing more than corporate propaganda written by insiders, hacks and Spinmeisters. “Yes a truck can be a family vehicle;” “A new day dawns at our dealerships;” “Unleashed.” In a web swimming with millions of car buyers and enthusiasts, most blog posts get single digit (including 0) responses. ‘Nuff said?

It’s too bad that Chrysler’s New Day is a Big Lie. They’ve missed a huge opportunity to make an enormous competitive leap. If Chrysler really wanted to revolutionize its business, to create a genuine new dawn, they could do so by throwing open the company to its customers, dealers and workers. They could use the net to destroy the walls separating “us” and “them,” and establish a sophisticated feedback loop where the company COULD listen to its customers— and act upon that information in a timely way.

Yeah right. Chrysler is owned by Cerberus, a private equity company known for its obsessive, Kremlin-like secrecy. Of all the automakers in the world, Chrysler is the LEAST likely to let its guard down. There will be no Glasnost in Auburn Hills. Chrysler’s New Day is nothing more than a false dawn for those gullible– or desperate– enough to believe that the sun will come out tomorrow for the product-challenged, financially troubled American automaker.

Detroit is a strange place, far away from the great cultural cities of New York and San Francisco. The men who run the city’s car companies are local men. They’ve risen to the top of GM, Ford and Chrysler after years of hard, intense work; clawing their way to the top of a huge, Byzantine bureaucracy. Backed-up by minions and and subalterns, these auto execs live in splendid isolation from the rest of the nation. They are out of sight and out of touch.

Unlike most moguls, car executives must have a profound understanding of their customers’ psychological needs. While selling tires or TV sets or erectile dysfunction drugs has little to do with the responsible corporation’s “identity,” automobile buyers form a deep, fundamental attachment to “their” carmaker. If a car exec does not truly understand his customers’ emotional drivers, his customers will drive someone else’s car.

The Big Three’s bosses work is unlike that of any other boss of a major manufacturing operation. In a sense, they must function more like television or movie executives. They must link with their audiences’ daily lives– and dreams– or lose business. They must be one with their sales people– and the “real” people. 

And yet, the geography of the business and its “show biz” component makes the men who run Detroit's car companies a culture unto themselves. They live in fancy houses well away from inner city squalor; their private clubs are among the finest in the world. Their social set links them with each other, and connects the major companies like Europe’s nobility linked eighteenth century nation states. They are seldom fired, downgraded or even moved laterally. They are stars in their own little universe. but this universe is distant, and finite.

You could even say these execs live cloistered lives. The Motor City’s Princes and Kings have more privilege and perks than other major executives, yet remain behind closed doors. They make millions from but rarely deal with the Union men who actually build the cars upon which their livelihoods depend. PR flacks protect them from the snooping media. And they seldom deal with the public– beyond an occasional visit to a motor show or a speech written by their media men delivered to some fawning special interest group.

In the world of powerful men, here or in Europe, few live within such a bizarre combination of privilege and insulation.

Like many bosses in industries under assault from "barbarians," Detroit’s isolated auto execs work tirelessly to maintain the status quo. Safe in their gilded cages, they continue to ignore their customers' changing needs. And they continue to build the same products over and over: the same damn automobiles that their fathers and grandfathers built.

Go back 40 years, when I scribbled a story that put me on the Motor City hit list: “The Grosse Pointe Myopians.” The sub-title pretty much outlined the premise: “Accustomed to silver-lined visions, the auto elite refused to see any gray clouds.

“Detroit can fire scattershot numbers to justify practically anything, including slumping sales.  However two vivid facts remain after all the ledgers have been shuffled; the domestic automobile industry is not growing as rapidly as expected and imports are making shocking inroads into the American market.”

Remember now, those words were written close to a half-century ago. Nothing, not a damn thing, has changed. Sales continue to slump as the Europeans take more of the upscale market and the Japanese and Koreans (and soon, the Chinese) chisel away at the center and bottom of the market.

More importantly, the “Myopian” component of the domestic car business remains. Leading the near-sighted non-charge: Ford’s Alan Mulally, GM’s Rick Wagoner and Chrysler’s Bob Nardelli. Not one of them has what used to be called “the common touch.” None of them restlessly prowls the dealerships, motor shows or parking lots, away from their minions, trying to get a feel for what their customers really, really want. 

During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln spent more time away from the White House than in it. Not so Detroit’s CEOs. They and their executive staff are bunkered. And blind. In fact, Detroit’s leadership hasn’t changed in the slightest way since The Grosse Point Myopians was written at the start of what we might now call the domestic automobile’s “dark ages”.

A radical change in the Big Three’s power structure must take place, and quickly. If not, we could see Motown go away, as the imported cars and trucks seize the total market. Yeah, it’s hard to believe, but the world moves on, and very little in this rapidly shifting world can remain the same. 

What’s it going to take to get the “Gross Pointe Myopians” to finally take off their glasses and face cold, hard reality? Do you really want to know? 

Chevrolet hopes their plug-in electric – gas powered Volt will become America’s sweetheart. Yet GM’s boldly going where the fully electric vehicle (EV) has gone before. Forget the EV-1. I’m referring to the Baker Electric of 1899. Thomas Edison’s first car (as an owner) was a commercial success, with an effective range of around 100 miles. Today's prototypes, upon which manufacturers are presently lavishing hundreds of millions of dollars, can double that. So what’s the big deal?

The big deal: mass producing a comfortable, affordable electric vehicle (EV) that meets current safety standards, with sufficient performance, durability, driving range and recharge times to make it a viable alternative to existing, highly-developed gas or gas-electric powered alternatives. And that’s without considering recharging logistics.

Simply put, Americans depend on their cars to do too much to depend on current EVs. Even using the latest Lithium-Ion battery technology, electric cars work best for short commutes and errand runs in sleepy suburbs. Unless you can plug-in and recharge at a gas station in ten minutes, the average American owner will have to stash the EV on the weekend and break out the “real car.” Without credible highway capability and/or a quick recharge option, buyers with only enough money for one car will be making a petroleum decision. 

Yes, the auto industry’s best and brightest are on the case. Still, absent some miracle battery or materials breakthrough, it will be a long time before America sings the car body electric.

Of all the challenges obscuring America’s electric car future, safety is the biggest stumbling block. Simple physics tells us that the EV’s enemy is weight. Build a tiny EV out of balsa wood and the range issue disappears. Meanwhile, here in the real world, feather light, safe, mid-sized, mass-produced and affordable doesn’t compute.

To wit: the Tesla Roadster is a relatively minuscule, hugely expensive, light weight (carbon fiber) automobile with zero luggage space– and it still struggles to travel 200 miles on a single charge. Even with bleeding edge battery technology, a mass-produced (steel-bodied) mid-size car equipped with the requisite safety structures and devices (i.e. without Tesla’s airbag waiver) doesn’t stand a chance of matching a gas-powered car’s range or convenience. However, remove that barrier…

And you’re in the developing world, where safety takes a back seat to… everything. Which is why the development of the mass-produced EV will occur off-shore.

India’s Tata Motors recently unveiled the revolutionary $2500 Tata Nano. When Tata unveiled their "people's car," they claimed the machine passed frontal and side impact tests– without specifying whose tests they passed. It’s highly unlikely the Nano could meet American or European safety standards. More to the point, Tata immediately announced plans to build an electric Nano.

Ask any golf cart owner; cheap, small and light are the foundations for a successful EV. The Nano will make a perfect EV. It's small and light, thanks to a cardboard front axle and door panels made from ice chips. The machine’s target market isn’t overly-concerned with airbags, cupholders, leg room, highway cruising speeds or huge cruising distances. It's all about purchase price and operating costs. 

At the same time, Israel has just announced that it’s partnered with Renault-Nissan to build electric cars. In smog-soaked Tel Aviv, electric cars will shift much of the city’s transportation energy needs to from petroleum to cleaner energy generation sources, like solar, wind, and nuclear power (in Israel’s case, not using petroleum has other political benefits, too). The government’s action guarantees the economies of scale that will make it worthwhile for Renault to test the EV waters. Equally important, the gov’s inclusion will assure the lowering of any safety-related regulatory hurdles.

Phase one of EV mass production will begin in India, Israel, Africa, China and other “developing” countries, where driving conditions are right, the safety requirements are less substantial, and the government is willing to interfere with the market to make it worth a manufacturer’s efforts. And speaking of governmental interference…

Gasoline production and distribution in the developing world tends to be incredibly inefficient, expensive and corrupt (e.g. Zimbabwe’s ongoing gas rationing crisis). If these countries use electric vehicles, their citizens can generate motive power any number of ways on the local level: solar, wind, coal, burning garbage, whatever. So why wouldn’t they “skip” right to electric powered vehicles, and enjoy the economic prosperity that mobility brings? While realpolitik argues against this kind of energy “democratization,” the possibility exists.

America will not be left on the EV sidelines. Once millions EV batteries are field tested, once manufacturers are churning-out large numbers of electric vehicles and their related components, the economies of scale will bring the cost down substantially– and spur more development. At some point, we’ll have our EV cake and put it in a large, comfortable, safe and practical automotive package, too.

No new prehistoric zooplankton and algae are dying. That’s the best part of the peak oil argument. Oil prices currently hover around a $90 a barrel- and have shown a slight decline- because many people believe we’re getting to the bottom of this keg, while serving more customers than ever. That line of reasoning ignores the back room where there could very well be a stash that can keep this party going.

Oil doesn’t have to be $90 a barrel. That’s the short-term price, based on supply that’s more or less fixed for five years into the future. Looking at the long term is tougher, for both peak-oil Chicken Littles and the Hummer sales force. In other words, any price that goes up, can also come down.

If your two-year-old wants more fries, McDonalds will sell you more fries. They don’t have to find new fields in which to plant new potatoes, then harvest, chop and fry. If they did, and you asked for more, they’d ask what you’d pay. You and the other parents with kids screaming for more fries could bid the cost up to $100 bag. 

According to the International Energy Agency, the world is pumping out about 85 million barrels of oil a day. The world wants about 86 million barrels. That inequality forces up the price. Traders literally bid on futures, pushing it skyward. But, the more a barrel is worth, the more oil suppliers want to supply. And, the more a barrel costs, the less consumers are inclined to buy. All of which can– and should– pull prices back down.

Ironically, given how fast oil can propel a Gallardo or a Gulfstream, the world of gooey, gunky oil goes slow. Once significantly motivated to reach for higher fruit, it can take years for energy companies to pick it. Oil from shale, tar sands, deep Gulf of Mexico waters or the Arctic is ready and waiting; it’s just not easily accessible. It takes time and money to gear up. None of the tough stuff was considered profitable for $15 or $20 a barrel. When oil gets above $30 they wake up the engineers. When it nears $100, all sorts of new production possibilities arise.

Unless you’re The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries. OPEC can probably increase production tomorrow afternoon. They talk about it all the time, because while they’re making tons of money now, they don’t want their gravy train to, you know, end up like America's passenger trains.

In 1981, while oil traded at $39.50 a barrel (roughly equivalent to $100 today), Saudi oil minister Sheik Yamani warned, “If we force Western governments into finding alternative sources of energy, they will.  This will take them no more than seven to ten years.” Yeah, and that’s before global warming had it’s own Oscar and hybrids were bred for Merlot.

High gas prices can also enhance– if not trigger–  an economic downturn, which fuels decreases in demand for oil, again forcing a return to a more palatable equilibrium. “Prices may move substantially lower if the economy keeps worsening and OPEC continues to boost production,” Rick Mueller, Director of Oil Practice at Energy Security Analysis Inc., told Bloomberg News recently. “There could be a series of large inventory builds as demand slips. Prices could easily fall into the $70s if this occurs.”

The price could drop even lower. Ethanol flows now, with new development techniques on the horizon and subsidies on the books. Energy from natural gas, nuclear and conservation increases each quarter.

Not that we’ll ever see $10 barrels again. While supply CAN climb, the world’s demand for oil IS climbing. It goes up by around a million barrels per day, every year. The US is the biggest pig at the trough, but China and India slurp up more and more each year.

Jeroen van der Veer, Chief Executive of Royal Dutch Shell (the world’s second largest oil company), told his staff in late January that output of conventional oil and gas was close to peaking. He wrote: "After 2015 supplies of easy-to-access oil and gas will no longer keep up with demand."

British Petroleum (the world’s third largest oil company) Special Economic Advisor Peter Davies agrees in part. But Davies believes demand is going to reel in production. Reporting to Parliament in January: “BP has proven the world has oil reserves of 1.2 trillion barrels, enough to sustain current output for 40 years.” Davies thinks the globe can crank out 100 million barrels per day, covering demand and pressuring price.

Put another way, enough ancient plant matter died to get us to 2050. We’ll need more sustainable energy after that, regardless of whether or not you believe humans spit in the winds of climate change. Sure, oil consumption will eventually be extinct, but in the near future gas may stop taking such a big chop out of your paycheck.

Back when Seagulls were flocking, a small electronics company called LTI was in grave danger of going broke. They had but one product: a speed detection device (a.k.a. gun) that used laser light instead of radio waves. LTI’s laser gun was a $3500 item. Police agencies could outfit three patrol cars with state-of-the-art radar detection devices for that kind of money. Laser guns were DOA. And then the lizard people stepped in.

In a brilliant merger of public relations and greed, GEICO bailed out LTI. The insurance company bought LTI’s newfangled laser guns. In ceremonies held in each State nationwide, GEICO donated a few laser systems to the State Police or large local agencies. This produced many, many photos of a GEICO rep giving a high tech laser gun to the head of the local and/or State police agency in many, many newspapers in the many states where GEICO does business. 

The handover was accompanied by the usual “speed kills” propaganda. As the nationwide 55mph speed limit was still the federal law, GEICO’s lazy-journalist press release got plenty of play. The PR stunt also put “free samples” of LTI’s laser guns into the hands of the agencies who would have never bought them in the first place. Once the cops gained operational experience with the new gadget, once the revenues started rolling in, laser guns became all the rage. 

GEICO also banked big bucks with this initiative. The laser-wielding cops ticketed their policy holders. The resulting insurance surcharges more than paid for the cost of donating the laser guns. Brilliant! Well not entirely, on a whole range of levels.

Laser speed detection is an inherently problematic process. Calibration is the biggest “issue.” When police initially set up and/or test the accuracy of a given radar detection device, they use a tuning fork. This provides external verification that the radar unit is working properly. Police laser guns have no such external testing methodology. In fact, the laser guns use a proprietary algorithm to determine a vehicle’s speed. This they will NOT divulge in Court; apparently, it’s not patentable. 

As strange as it sounds, a laser gun can only verify its own accuracy. Courts are not big fans of self-verifying devices, which is why Breathalyzers use an ampule of known alcohol for calibration. Even so, your legal guardians made an exception on your behalf. New Jersey uses other tests to allow a calibration “work around.” Most other states have either passed a law allowing laser readings, or just turn a blind eye to this possible objection.

Over time, police agencies acclimated to laser and made their legislative peace. The guns are now a part of most states' speed detection arsenal. And yet, laser hasn’t replaced radar, for one simple reason: laser is a bitch.

For one thing, laser doesn’t work on the move. Police have grown accustomed to using radar to monitor oncoming or distant traffic to detect and apprehend speeders in the course of other activities. There is no such thing as a patrol car-mounted laser gun; nor can there be, given the necessity of aiming a pinpoint beam of light.

This highlights another limitation: the laser gun’s laser beam must be shot directly at a car's front plate to create a valid reading. So cops can’t stuff their patrol car behind a bush, wait for a hapless/dangerous motorist to go by, and then hit them with a beam (the parallax error in this case underestimates speed). Police can fire the laser gun out of the window of a stationary cruiser, but that’s only in good weather. And anyway, then they’re sitting in a billboard labeled “POLICE.” 

Accuracy is another stumbling block. Those of you familiar with handguns know how tough it is to group your shots. Laser is the same way. What’s more, most laser “shots” are initiated as far away from the target vehicle as possible. Most laser sightings are taken from around a thousand feet away (beyond that it is hard to get a reflection without a tripod mount). The beam is small; it’s quite easy to miss an offending vehicle, or, God forbid, mistake one for another.  The majority of laser arrests need multiple shots before a reflection can be read, which is why a detector can sometimes save you.

Lastly, laser is also fallible. The guns only work on front plates. On states where front plates are not legally required, many motorists don’t have them (imagine that). Also, as it would be pretty hard to restrict a segment of the light spectrum for police use, most states allow laser jamming; devices which react to a weak laser signal by sending out a stronger one to trick or confuse the police gun.

In short, laser guns are highly effective when used properly, but standard issue radar guns will still be the police officer’s speed detection device of first resort. 

Even before 2008 arrived, industry experts were predicting a bad, bad thing. So far, they haven't been disappointed. While January tends to be a low sales month, as everyone tries to recover from holiday overindulgence, this January was worse than expected. There were a few inexplicable bright spots (*cough* channel stuffing *cough* dealer fleet sales *cough*). Sales of the Dodge Caliber (up 25.5 percent over last January), Ford Focus (up 44.4 percent), Buick LaCrosse (up 69.3 percent) and Chevy Cobalt (up 32.9 percent) all shot up. But these four-wheeled anomalies weren't enough to salvage the month. Let's break it down… 

You'll notice we've made a few changes in the models we're tracking. Last year, we didn't include Honda because they didn't offer models in all our categories. This year we said "what the Hell" and added the Accord and Pilot to the passenger car and CUV categories. With a new crop of CUVs available, we dropped the hoary Chevrolet Equinox and DNR Chrysler Pacifica and added the ascendant GMC Acadia. We'd like to track GM's hybrid sales but, for some reason, they don't break them out of the totals. So the Toyota Prius will be our hybrid bellwether.

Pickup Trucks

As gas prices keep going up, pickup sales keep going down. The Chevrolet Silverado was down 5.9 percent from last January. The lame duck Ford F-Series continued its downward trend, ending the month 8.4 percent lower than the same month in 07. The lame lamb Dodge Ram plummeted 18.4%. The Toyota Tundra showed a 91 percent increase, but that's because the previous model was winding down in January last year. 

Passenger Cars

Instead of the Chevrolet Impala, this year we'll be tracking the new Malibu. Initial sales numbers are strong; sales are 57.9 percent above last January. Chrysler's 300 continues on slippin', slippin'; shedding 9.7 percent from last year's total. Ford Fusion sales were uncharacteristically low, dropping 12.8 percent. Camry held steady, showing a 0.4 percent increase. The Honda Accord's redesign hasn't helped it much so far; sales are down 6.8 percent from the same month last year. 

Truck-based SUVs

The mass exodus from massive SUVs continues. Chevrolet Tahoe sales dropped 12.1% from last January. The Ford Explorer ended the month 18.7 percent lower. The Dodge Durango took it on the chin, tumbling a jaw-dropping 32.8 percent. Instead of tracking 4Runner this year, we'll see if Toyota's redesign has any effect on Sequoia's numbers. For now it seems to be working. The Sequoia finished the month 15.5 percent ahead of last January.

CUVs

The current CUV poster child, the GMC Acadia, is up 335 percent from last January. That's not quite as startling as it seems. The model was introduced in January '07; production had just begun. The Ford Edge has edged the Ford Escape out of our charts. The Edge is up 94.9 percent for the same reason as Acadia. Toyota recently redesigned the Highlander, so we'll follow it instead of RAV-4. As the newish Highlander was up 19.4 percent from last January, the redesign was a good thing. Will it have legs? Honda's Pilot may not. It makes a less-than-spectacular debut on our charts, finishing the month 10.7 percent below last year's sales totals.

Prius

Is the hybrid boom going to go bust? If you assume that the Prius IS the hybrid boom– a fair assumption considering that the gas-electric sedan has no real sales competition– we're still booming. The Prius gained a whopping 37.1 percent over last January's totals. Whether sales will continue to grow remains to be seen, but this is one of the few models that's helped by rising gas prices. 

Total Sales

Anyone who looked at the business page or any automotive publication knows GM finished in the black in what was an otherwise dismal month. GM's sales were up 2.6 percent over last January's, but it must be remembered that last January was horrific for The General. Ford was down 3.9 percent and Toyota and Honda were both down 2.3 percent. Chrysler really took another head shot, starting the year 12.1 percent below last year.  

The Future

GM and Ford analysts have pretty much written off financial quarters one through three. And for good reasons: a moribund housing market killing consumer confidence, the possibility of widespread car loan defaults, rising subprime interest rates tightening consumer credit, bankrupt suppliers, rising production costs, rising gas prices and changing markets. Now more than ever, survival of the fittest are the industry watchwords. And watch we will. 

Given half a chance, most car guys would spend big bucks pimping their wheels. Needless to say, their better half ain’t buying it. So neither are they. While aerodynamic addenda and wikkid wheels are [ultimately] a less costly ego enhancement than regular spa treatments, all car mods tend to appear fairly low on the list of financial priorities known as the family budget. But guys, it’s time to go to the mat. Literally.

Floor mats. Yes, I said floor mats. But not just ANY floor mats. I’m talking high quality rubber, deep-grooved floor mats specifically designed to keep the water and mud off the carpet of your mint 92’ Pontiac Sunfire. I know, I know; contain yourself. The best is yet to come!

If you’re looking for the sine qua non of rubber floor mats, it’s WeatherTech®. Their all-weather mats withstand sub-zero weather without curling, cracking or hardening, for at least ten years! That’s one decade, or seventy dog years (which is just as well if you let Fido in your car). Guaranteed.

Navigate to www.weathertech.com, input your car make and model, and voila! A set of black, tan or gray mats custom-contoured to your car’s curves for about $55, AND you can add matching rear mats for an additional $45 (must be trimmed). 

Problem: WeatherTech® mats look a lot like the cheap rubber mats you get at the local auto parts store for ten bucks. Sure they work better. But we’re looking for maximum pimpification. Stand back folks; I’m going OEM!

Audi sells custom-fit floor mats for various models for about $100 to $130. They come in any color you like as long as it’s black, with a contrasting car name logo in white. Yes, that’s twice the freight of a WeatherTech® set, but you gain the fancy logo. So if you forget what car you’re driving, you can simply look down for a reminder (closed course, professional driver). My mats proudly and accurately proclaim allroad. 

The mats include mounting holes that affix the rubber widgets into place on the carpeted floor. The design features WeatherTech®-tonic deep-ribbed channels PLUS a high surrounding lip designed to keep liquids from spilling onto the carpet. I tested this premise by removing the driver’s mat from the car and slowly pouring water into the mat until the liquid spilled out of the mat.

As I poured the water ever-so-slowly into the mat, I pondered the usefulness of this experiment. Liquids get to the car’s floor either from the outside via rain, car wash, garden hose, water balloons, etc., and from the inside from drinks, leaking ac, involuntary urination, exploding bottles, etc. Any liquid intrusion (save slow leaks from your shoes) would likely go all over the place– not just on the mat (regardless of the mat’s fluid holding capacity).

I was able to pour seven fluid ounces into the Audi mat before the liquid spilled over the mat’s edge. This is one-sixth the amount of soda in a McDonalds super-sized drink or if you prefer (God knows I do) a twelve-ounce Bud Light.  With this low capture level, I concluded that drink spills of any real quantity are going to end-up on the carpet. Therefore, in truth, the mats can only really handle very small spills and minor drips from wet shoes.

Of course, that still leaves another claimed benefit for floor mats: mud and snow protection. However, all floor mats provide a similar service. At least with rubber mats you can easily remove the mud which would have otherwise clung to– and stained– a carpeted floor mat.

The rubber solution also offers psychological benefits. Even if you never go anywhere near mud, having Audi floor mats tells passengers you’re a hardy, adventurous spirit, unafraid to venture off the beaten path to someplace… muddy. Or snowy. Or both.

Well if floor protection is not a major benefit, how about durability?

I used a similar set of Audi mats in an Audi A4 for a period of eighteen months and 15k miles. No snow, mud or spills of any sort occurred on my watch (nor involuntary urination). After that time, the driver’s side mat was worn down where my feet rest. The mat had split along one of the deep ribbed channels, making those dreaded leaks a potentially ruinous problem. This quick wear was really no better than a quality carpeted mat that costs less than half the price.

Overall if you’re into rubber, like to express your ruggedness in your floorware and share my customization compulsion, you will want a set of stylish Original Equipment Manufacturer mats in your car. Yes, they’re basically useless. But your wife won’t mind if you do. Take your victories where you can find ’em lads.