Yesterday, Consumer Reports (CR) rated Cadillac’s new CTS a better whip than both a BMW 328i and Mercedes C300. Never mind that CR preferred the Infiniti G35 and Acura TL. A Bimmer had been bested by a Caddy! This is news! Bimmers are the buff book benchmark! Yes, well, tying the commercial success of BMW’s 3s and 5s to their on-road abilities is a perfect example of false synchronicity. While many models are justly coveted for their dynamic delights, their on-road performance is tangential to their sales appeal. BMW’s mojo lies elsewhere, in a more precarious place.

It’s worth repeating: in most head-to-head competitions, BMWs no longer deliver a knock-out blow. Their straight-line speed is impressive, but there are faster. Their interiors are nice, but Audi’s are better. Their seats are wonderful, but the passenger accommodations offer precious little lebensraum for the buck. Speaking of which, BMWs are significantly more expensive and/or under-equipped vis a vis their price-equivalent competition.

This leaves one strong link to BMW’s “Ultimate Driving Machine” brand boast: handling. Again, there are better handling cars– especially considering BMW’s recent penchant for passion-killing run-flat tires and active steering. More generally, does anyone seriously suggest BMWs are the best handling cars throughout their [enormous] model range? Plenty of Mazda, Infiniti, Mercedes and (now) Cadillac fans are willing to throw down to the Roundel’s rep for corner-carving kudos.

The truth about BMW is this: while the brand gets mad props from motor-journalists, the German automaker banks its bucks thanks to a very different demographic with a very different concept of “performance.”

While BMW still aims for the luxury car market stratosphere (the 7-Series and Rolls, neither of which amount to much) and slums it in the lower reaches (the premium-priced MINI line), the propeller badge might as well be a rifle sight. And yuppies are in the crosshairs. 

No car is more identified with a particular rung of the corporate ladder than BMW. Nothing says “mover and shaker” more than an alphabet soup 3 or 5 in a reserved parking place. We’re not talking about the top slot; the truly highly-placed drive something with more presence. BMW is the ne plus ultra for upper middle execs, corporate clones whose cars must stand out from the “ordinary” (cynics might say “practical”) machines driven by the company’s lesser lights.

Overpaying is part of the cachet, “I’m going places, and I don’t need to worry about what it cost.” Sure, Bimmer’s rep for speed and handling is a nice seasoning. But truth be told, the sort of person who regularly buys/leases a BMW probably doesn’t have the time to go joyriding. The exact position of this “Bimmer spot” within the corporate hierarchy varies from country to country, but the template remains the same: Urban Professional on the Move. 

On the Move. Ultimate Driving Machine. Done. It doesn’t really matter if a BMW lives up to its strapline– just as long as this business suit-wearing herd member buys the brief. The ultimate driving in question is symbolic; the BMW brand represents the single-minded “drive” known as personal ambition. Not to coin a phrase, if you own a BMW, you’re moving forward.Onwards. Upwards.

BMW’s recent, phenomenal success is tied almost exclusively to the explosive success of this well-fed corporate demographic. Some argue that the brand’s move down market has hurt their brand cachet. The opposite may be true. Ironic as it sounds, appealing to the upper middle class pack mentality may have propelled the propeller people’s products to even greater heights, saleswise. 

And now, the reckoning?

If there is a significant worldwide economic downturn, existing and potential BMW buyers may not make enough bonus– or simply feel “safe” enough– to take on a new car after three to five years. Should the corporate axeman’s blade swing through the lower executive level with particular violence, BMW sales will suffer widespread decapitation.

That’s the problem with near luxury products. They’re not expensive enough to rise aove the fray, and they’re not cheap enough to fly under the corporate accountant’s radar.

Meanwhile, exchange rates are making things even more precarious. To compensate for currency fluctuations, BMW must either raise model prices and enter into entirely different segments or hold the line and take the hit on profits. Whether here [U.S.] or abroad, the falling dollar threatens to move its models up one or more “classes.” Instead of merely being notably more expensive than their Japanese and American competitors– for which “badge cachet” compensates– BMWs are becoming especially expensive.

If you thought the end of the SUV boom was bad for Detroit, The Big 2.8s exposure looks modest compared with BMW’s potential exposure to a general economic downturn. As Porsche proved back at the tail end of the 80s, if the worst happens, all BMW can do is… wait.

For four months, the Canadian dollar has been flirting with U.S. dollar parity. And yet the same vehicles cost more north of the border than south. As America’s NAFTA neighbor imports more and more American cars, basic theory holds that automakers would eventually cut Canadian prices to eliminate arbitrage. “Eventually” hasn’t happened. Just as it was back in October 2007, the Lincoln Navigator is still $28k cheaper in the U.S. than Canada. Why?

The answer probably lies in that great evil that has ruined many naïve economists’ dreams since man began to theorize: asymmetrical information. If we assume Canadians are rational buyers who maximize their well-being, we must conclude that they simply don’t know how easy it is to import a vehicle, or that many vehicle warranties still apply after import, or that a price difference even exists at all. So let’s call it what it really is: ignorance.

Seeking some anecdotal evidence, I probed my immense social circle on the possibility of importing a car. Most don’t even realize it’s possible. One claims there is no price difference. One claims they can’t be imported (he’s never been to www.riv.ca). Another friend claims he’d have to pay huge duties (none on vehicles built in the NAFTA zone, 6.1% on others).

And then there’s the warranty—or the perceived lack thereof. Notwithstanding that the Toyota brands (Lexus, Scion, Toyota, Subaru) all honor U.S. warranties for non-residents, the savings on an import can easily exceed the expected value of warranty repairs. It’s a medley of counter-arguments that make as much sense as Star Trek technobabble; which is to say, none at all.

The automakers, predictably, are reacting in a manner that highlights the self-imposed captivity of the Canadian market. BMW and Mercedes USA have retained the decision to allow exports from the U.S. on a car-by-car basis, forgoing the Canadian legal process for approvals en masse.

Porsche has announced a “price-matching cut” on some of its Canadian models. Cut, yes. Price match, no. A quick look at the actual numbers reveals that the 2008 base Cayenne now costs Canadians C$55,200, down from C$60,100 in 2007. That seems like screaming deal– until you discover it’s still about $7k more than what Americans pay for the exact same vehicle.

Other manufacturers played legal games. Honda, Subaru, Toyota and General Motors all refused to certify that their 2008 USDM models were equipped with immobilizers, making them illegal in Canada. In a delicious irony, a 2008 Honda Civic built in Ontario and exported to the U.S. could not, for a few months, be repatriated and legally plated in Canada. As “illegal” cars piled up in driveways and border depots, manufacturers eventually relented and gave their blessing to Transport Canada. The latest RIV.ca update includes all of Honda’s 2008 models.

Honda didn’t stop there. Last fall, Honda Canada launched an insidious marketing campaign that highlighted differences in American and Canadian Hondas, noting that Canadian Hondas are better prepared for the rigors of Canadian winters. "The vehicles that are produced for Honda Canada are supposed to be sold in Canada to Canadian buyers," said Art Garner, public relations manager for American Honda Motor Co, at the time.

Needless to say, Upstate New York, Minnesota, Maine and New Hampshire all are cursed with winters that easily match anything experienced by the 95 percent of Canadians who live within 100km of the U.S. border.

Faced with unjustifiable price differences, the apologists eventually came out of the woodworks. Consider David Booth, of the National Post, who recently advanced the idea that having Canadian prices pegged to fluctuations in the U.S. dollar is not practical due to currency volatility.

Bollocks! The Canadian dollar’s movements have been quite predictable since January 2004: a slow, steady rise from about $0.67 U.S. to $1.00 US today. The average model life of a car is about five years. Since 2004, many manufacturers have had ample time to revise Canadian pricing on newly-introduced models. This, when the trend was obvious to all but the most financially disinclined.

In fact, when the dollar hit its historic low of $0.6179 U.S. back in January 2002, the Navigator I mentioned at the beginning of this editorial was only about $2k cheaper in Canada. Put another way, the only time the Canadian dollar sank low enough to bring Canadians to the economic point of indifference for a Navigator was when it was in the biggest slump it has known since… wait for it.. 1858! Where’s the unpredictability in that?

Canadians imported over 137k vehicles in 2007. It wasn’t enough to “readjust” prices. As long as Canadians do not force equalizing adjustments to prices, automakers will be happy to trot out shady marketing and legal mumbo-jumbo in the pursuit of profits. In the meantime, captive Canadians will get the prices they deserve.

The French haven’t had much influence on the car world for some time. Up until the last decade or so, their automobiles have been goofy little nuts-on-wheels from outer space– especially compared to machines from neighboring Germany, Italy or Japan, not to mention Detroit. But now we’ve got a Frog who’s in play worldwide. You want to talk about an internationalist? Carlos Ghosn was born in Brazil to Lebanese parents. The CEO who rescued both Nissan and Renault speaks six languages fluently and divides his time between Tokyo and Paris. If anybody understands the worldwide car biz, it’s Carlos Ghosn.

Ghosn doesn’t sell his Renaults in the USA. But Nissan is a strong player here and that gives him a major say in what goes on in Detroit— which he claims is in deep shit. During a recent interview with the Wall Street Journal, Ghosn said that GM, Ford and Chrysler may very well collapse as the imports seize more and more of their home turf. Ghosn slammed Detroiters, asserting that Motown’s ongoing reliance on pickups, SUVs and large luxury cars will dump them into this ditch.

Ghosn thinks that the little econo-boxes his companies sell elsewhere in the world are the future. He claims that one or all of Detroit’s Big Three will fail as the world switches to tiny machines powered by something other than aged but efficient petroleum-powered internal combustion engines. Without that kind of machine to sell in its home market, someone domestic’s going down.

Of course a lot of the guys in Detroit think he’s nuts. And I’m inclined to agree. Yeah, The Big Three are losing market share. But there are still some very smart guys in the Motor City. You never know what smart people can do when they have their backs up against a wall. And Detroit may be truck heavy in gas-conscious times, but SUVs and trucks still account for around half of the US market. 

Anyway, so what if one of the Big Three goes belly-up?

No matter who wins the race for president, you can be sure the powers in Washington aren’t going to sit around while our auto industry collapses. The industry is too essential not only to the state of Michigan, but all of the other states. Millions of jobs and billions of dollars are at stake. No one at any level of government is going to let Detroit disappear. A federal bailout is a done deal.

And yet Carlos’ prediction of doom and gloom will please the lefties and environmentalist nutcases who hate cars and the domestic auto industry and don’t mind if Detroit falls down— just as long as they force everyone to drive electric-powered cars.

Trust me: as long as bottom line thinkers like Carlos Ghosn remain in power, the world of conventionally-powered automobiles will be a part of our landscape for a long time. That’s where the money is.

That’s not to say Ghosn isn’t serious about developing electric cars. He’s signed-up with NEC to develop a lithium-ion battery for mass market automobiles. Nissan/Renault has also allied themselves with battery maker A123. And they’ve formed a partnership with Israeli entrepreneur Shai Agassi to test the waters for commercial EVs.

Many people say these li-ion-powered electric cars will be good enough for Americans and their short commutes. That remains to be seen, both in terms of actual practice and consumer acceptance.

But even if Nissan develops an electric car with sufficient range, even if America takes to battery-powered zero-emissions automobiles, it’s doubtful our overwrought power grid could cope. Expand the grid? Easier said than done.

Meanwhile, millions of modern automobiles and trucks are linked to a massive petroleum system that is not only efficient, but sustains our economy. Switching away from this system and developing other sources of power for modern vehicles is a huge concept that only a few people (including Ghosn) are prepared to suggest– never mind assault. 

No matter. Mr. Ghosn and many others both inside and outside the car industry are working hard to make their electric dreams come true. Based on Ghosn’s success with two companies, divided half-way around the world, one has to take his efforts seriously.

At best, EVs are a long term prospect. For the near future, this is all chatter aimed at shareholders, regulators and the media. Ghosn has to be smart enough to know that the current automobile— four rubber tires, a steel or aluminum body and the aforementioned gas-powered engine– is here to stay. (Yes, you can add batteries, but it’s still gas-powered.)

If Carlos is right and one of The Big Three files for bankruptcy, it won’t be because they didn’t “go green” and make small, electric-powered cars. It'll be down to the fact that they didn’t make the reliable, comfortable, stylish, reasonably fuel-efficient, gas-powered cars that Americans prefer.

If you’re a pistonhead, you have people. You know, Nick the mechanic or Joe the dyno. I got a tire guy: Ernie Bello. Bello tires is a performance car hangout, with all the right equipment for mondo mods and a lounge, decorated with a map of the Nürburgring, stocked with car mags, ice cream and kick-ass Cuban coffee. When my sports car needed new tires I clicked on Tire Rack for price and advice. I then went to Ernie. Hey Ernie! Whaddayathinkin here?

For a long time, Ernie was a Toyo guy. Ernie’s now nuts on Nittos. Trusting Ernie’s advice, I went with the Nitto Invo. I’ve now driven over five thousand spirited miles on the shoes, including a 1500 mile trek to the BMW factory in Spartanburg, SC.

Like many high performance cars, my BMW boasts staggered wheel sizes: 225/45 17” wheels in the front, and 245/40 17” wheels in the back (on the stock rims).  This setup improves handling, but eliminates front-to-back tire rotation. That means shorter tire life; the rears suffer from my aggressive driving style, while the fronts stay ahead of the game.

Bottom line: I got great G’s on the track, and then spent them down at Ernie’s replacing the rears on a regular basis. Readers of my reviews will not be surprised to learn that I wanted a tire that wasn’t overly expensive, offering reasonable wear life, without sacrificing performance. I was pleased to learn that the Invos are non-directional; I can rotate the rubber side-to-side to balance wear. Somewhat.

The Invos are classified by Nitto as ultra-performance street tires. Translation: they’re designed for both wet and dry traction– without sacrificing ride comfort and noise suppression. Competitors include the Michelin Pilot Exaltos, the General Exclaims (previously reviewed), Firestone Firehawks and Bridgestone Potenzas.

The Invo has a unique design. The tire incorporates standard tread design with a three channel-deep wide-rib, located on one side. Nitto claims that combining an inner rib with two circumferential grooves improves wet weather performance. The rest of the tire consists of a Silica-reinforced tread compound, variable pitched grooves and large inner and outer contact patches (for improved dry handling).

The Invos come in sizes ranging from 225/45 17” to bling-sized 275/25 24” monsters. The tires are “Z” rated; good for speeds over 149 mph. But they’re also limited by a “W” rating, which pegs the maximum safe speed at 154 mph. The 17” tires I purchased have a 91 rating for load, which means a maximum load per tire of 1356 pounds in the front. The larger rear Invos support over 2000 pounds per tire, for a 5000 pound total.

Nitto warrants Invo tires for uniformity problems for sixty months after purchase– subject to rotation every 3500 miles.  As expected with performance tires, no mileage warranty is offered.

Without sophisticated equipment, testing tire on a scientific basis is impossible. As to mileage tests, one requires either many years of patience or a machine to artificially add mileage. Having neither, I can only provide my subjective analysis of the tires based on years of experience.

The other issue with tires is the trade-off between comfort/noise/longevity versus performance and traction.  Tires that lean toward performance usually have comfort and noise issues. Softer, more compliant tires aid comfort but lose performance capabilities.

I tested the Invos for four characteristics: noise, comfort, dry traction and wet traction. The easiest to measure was the Invo’s noise level. I found the tires extremely quiet, with little noise intrusion with the vehicle’s top down, and none with the top up.

Comfort was harder to measure; the BMW M Roadster is already a somewhat harsh vehicle to start. Compared to the stock Michelin Pilots, I found no change in the comfort level with the Invos installed. I lean to a harsher ride on a sports car and the Invos did not make the ride any worse.

The fun part of testing is pushing tires to the limit on the street in simulated track tests in open lots. All tests were performed with the traction control turned off.

I tested dry handling by completing high speed turns and simulated slaloms. I found traction to be substantial, with the car failing to break away. This made reasonable drifting impossible. I also tried several panic stops, inducing ABS vibration. Again the Invos functioned very well.

Wet traction was only slightly worse with slower slalom speeds and longer braking. I never felt a loss of control. I’d trust these tires (though my M never sees rain, the spoiled bitch that she is).

With the install, I paid $600 for all four shoes at Bello Tires. Not the cheapest option, but well worth the price and competitive with the other tires mentioned above.  Now if I can only get 20k miles on them!

On January 2, 1974, President Richard M. Nixon signed the Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act. A provision of the Act imposed a new, national, 55 mph maximum speed limit. Overnight, the United States had a massive speeding “problem.” Within weeks, the feds gave huge amounts of money to police forces around the country to purchase radar guns. The speeding ticket, always a reliable cash cow for local governments, became a cash herd.

In response, the Fuzzbuster. The first commercial radar detector was a simple receiving unit. It picked up the high power continuous transmission of the early X-band police radar guns and sounded an alarm. Depending on the speed of the Fuzzbuster-equipped motorist, he or she had at least a half to a quarter mile before the signal was strong enough to bounce back to the police and provide a reading. 

Escort tendered the next major advance. The old school black box Escort was a quantum leap in quality: the first superhetrodyne radar receiver commonly available. The Escort’s X-band detection distance was twice that of the Fuzzbuster. Equally important, the Escort also picked-up K-Band radar gun signals, emitted by the cutting edge revenue collection device of the early 80’s. 

Once the police side switched to “instant on” radar guns, the game changed again. Detectors were no longer looking for a strong beam (think a set of xenon headlights shining down a dark highway). They were now trying to detect a child’s flashlight being turned on and off at random, during the day. Since a radar detector is essentially nothing more or less than a scanner, it has to cover the entire band over and over, looking for those wisps of radar. 

To find those tiny wisps of K-band emissions, a device needs some serious microprocessing horsepower. That kind of microwave technology isn't cheap. Radar detector buyers looking for something more than a dashtop ornament that provides a false sense of security must now go to the top of a manufacturer’s line for electronic satisfaction.

Still, many folks held onto their Fuzzbusters, classic black box Escorts and later grey metal Passports. While they’re still great for detecting police radar guns operating on the X and K-band radar signal, they’re blind to the latest Ka-band police technology. I still see these on dashboards in New York Courts every week, in a state where 95 percent of the police radar systems run on the Ka-band.

I’m often asked “why can’t I just buy a radar jammer?” There are two stumbling blocks: money and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

Any item which transmits a radio signal falls under the FCC’s purview. To properly jam police radar unit, a jammer needs to receive a signal, “read it” and fire back a signal strong enough to overwhelm the radar gun– or vary the returning signal’s frequency slightly to confuse the police radar gun’s computer. The military has some fantastic devices for fighter planes that do all this, at military price points. 

Even assuming you could create a usable civilian unit, the FCC would frown upon this endeavor in a most emphatic way. If they caught wind of even a single unit, they’d send you a “Notice of Liability” reminding you (with a huge fine) that you’re not allowed to jam any licensed service. (That's why Cell Phone jammers can't be sold in the US.) So back to detectors…

None of today’s radar detector can warn you of an “instant-on” police radar signal if you’re the first one through the trap. A detector is a radio receiver, no more, no less. Ka-band frequencies are tricky to detect. The frequencies used by many police radar guns for Ka-band are on the exact same frequency that some radar detectors transmit.

In traffic, surrounded by other cars, radar detectors are prone to a “Ka-false,” triggered by another radar detector. To keep users sane, detector makers will “notch out” that specific frequency– which is why police radar makers seek to transmit there. The expensive detectors have the computer power to figure out this riddle, which is why the $69 detector is more dangerous than nothing at all.

None of today’s most sophisticated radar detectors can detect all police radar guns all of the time in all situations, and do so with enough alacrity that the driver can check their speed before the police do. A safe driver will always drive only as fast as conditions allow, and use their cranium’s computing power (including memory) to avoid inadvertent speeding.

That said, a high-powered radar detector is a valuable tool for the serious driver with a lot of exposure time. It’s a little extra insurance, but, again, it’s not a free pass. Buy the best detector you can afford, but don’t change your driving style based on the box.

[Casey W. Raskob, Esq. is a NY-based lawyer who runs speedlaw.net]

Car and Driver fired me. Editor Csabe Csere sat down in my kitchen and said he had to "let me go.” The magazine could no longer afford my services. No surprise there. Car and Driver had become a pale shadow of its former self. Like Detroit’s carmakers, Csere and his team had refused to recognize reality. The internet had arrived, the game changed, they didn’t. The magazine got thinner and thinner, making my paycheck seem fatter and fatter. I was sorry to see it go (the paycheck). But what the Hell. Here we are. Now what?

Now I’m ready to take a shot at making trouble on the net. I know some of you guys hate my ass because I occasionally shit on your beloved cars or make cracks about the Winston Cup or whatever. So if you don’t like my writing, stop reading. But if you stick around, I’ll tell you exactly what I think. And I’m ready to hear from you, love or hate. And yes, I’ll respond to what you write. What do you think this is, a magazine?

Let’s get one thing straight. I did not work with the original Henry Ford on the first Model T. Yeah, I’m old. But I’m still ready to kick some ass on this kick ass site. What you’re going to read ain’t going to be cute, proper or civil. That’s the way I like it. Always have. Some things never die– even if you want them to.

Like the private automobile. Despite becoming Public Enemy Number One for self-serving, self-appointed, sanctimonious “policy planners,” the automobile remains this country’s life-blood.

To be sure, anti-pollution standards have reduced choking emissions. Seat belts, airbags, crush zones, etc. have reduced death and injury. And hybrids make part of the process someone else’s combustion, somewhere else. But what’s so different today from when Daimler first did his thing? Traffic.

Every day of the year, millions of miles of American roads jam up with workers heading for their stores, factories and cubicles. Meanwhile, countless Mr. or Mrs. Moms clog-up the side streets in their cars, minivans, SUVs and CUVs; ferrying children, groceries, dry cleaning and God knows what from one side of their suburban sprawl to another.

We’re wasting millions upon millions of barrels of increasingly rare and expensive petroleum products doing fuck all.

Yes, I love cars. But like any person who likes to drive fast cars, I hate congestion. I don’t see the point. So what’s the alternative?

Mass transit is a pipe dream. Outside of New York City and Chicago, there are no truly effective rail systems. After a flurry of high speed rail hype, both Washington and private investors have lost interest in commuter rail. Buses only serve a small percentage of the population. Bicycling? You’re kidding, right?

Moreover, as car-friendly suburbs spread like kudzu, there are no simple routes linking the geography of nowhere to center cities– never mind with each other. And we keep building these damn communities; “suburbs” where the disturbing lack of sidewalks mirrors the distressing lack of rail connections. 

Despite the understandable anger of the environmentalists, there is no substitute for the millions of private vehicles rolling across our nation. The plain truth is that “the people” aren’t interested. The most they’ll consider is telecommuting– but only a day or two per week. They like their co-workers. They like their cars. Congestion is nothing more than background noise to their everyday life.

Yes, the automobile of today is safer and more efficient, available in every size and shape, from tiny smarts to stupid limousines. But the same basic old world engineering sits under the slick bodywork. It’s like the weather; everyone complains, but no one does anything about it. 

So Americans continue to lead the way into a dark future of more emissions, oil use and wasted time.  And here comes the third world, as India, China and other Tiger nations of the Far East start producing millions of private cars for a wildly eager population.

I have messed around for much of my adult life with these machines called “automobiles.” Like many car nuts, I too wish we could reduce the traffic and create communities around industries and commercial areas where populations could walk or use public transit.

But quite the opposite has happened– is happening. Industries are moving away from major cities, forcing workers to use private cars for work and their children’s education and economic survival.

And so it goes– until the underlying economics of private transportation changes. And then someone, somehow, will provide a solution. But until that day arrives, the world’s most powerful economies will be saddled with the private automobile, whether they like it or not. As my experience with Car and Driver taught me, nothing ever changes– until it has to. 

Brock Yates' column appears on www.ttac.com every Monday.

[Sign-up for our RRS feed (bottom right) for instant notification.]  

Inexpensive products that promise significant improvements to your car’s performance are almost always fool’s gold. This is especially true for engine additives (*cough* STP *cough*). However, there’s one company with a sterling reputation for delivering on its promises: Redline Synthetic. Since 1979, the Benicia, California company has been selling coolants, fuel additives and lubricants to the automotive, motorcycle, marine and industrial markets. As part of their range, Redline offer a product called WaterWetter®. They claim their potion can reduce car coolant temperatures by as much as 30ºF. That’s hot! I mean, not. 

I reckoned it’d be a doddle to test the bottle. I’d simply run my car sans Redline’s additive and check the coolant temperature. Then, following the instructions on the bottle with my usual precision, I’d give my mount the magic potion, drive the same test loop and measure the temp again.

For the mechanically challenged, installation of WaterWetter® could not be easier. Assuming you can open your hood, open your hood (when it is cold, otherwise prepare for a scalding). Locate the radiator fluid intake point (RTFM if necessary). If you have too much fluid in the overflow tank (above the line labeled max), simply siphon off 12 ounces before installing, as overfilling is a really bad idea. Open the radiator cap (or on most modern cars, the overflow tank) and pour in the full bottle of WaterWetter®, funnel optional.

Before I reveal the results of my test, let’s look at Redline's claims for WaterWetter®'s effects on your cooling system:

• Doubles the wetting ability of water
• Improves heat transfer
• Reduces cylinder head temperatures
• May allow more spark advance for increased torque
• Reduces rust, corrosion and electrolysis of all metals
• Provides long term corrosion protection
• Cleans and lubricates water pump seals
• Prevents foaming
• Reduces cavitation corrosion
• Complexes with hard water to reduce scale

According to Redline, WaterWetter®’s greatest benefits accrue to those cars running straight water in their cooling system– which doesn't include anyone living in snow country. Translation: WaterWetter® offers all the normal protection benefits of regular coolant to people who don't use regular coolant. Oh, at a lower temperature. Well, theoretically… 

Strangely, Redline’s own test results don’t square with their ad copy. Their technical literature only shows an eight degree Fahrenheit drop in a car with a 50/50 mix of water and coolant, and an eighteen degree Fahrenheit drop for a car running 100 percent water. 

I used a VagCom system (reads sensor data directly from the ECU) for my tests. The pre-WaterWetter® installation delivered temperatures between 96 and 98 degrees centigrade (or 205 to 208 degrees Fahrenheit for the Americans). The post-installation temperature stayed steady at 96 degrees centigrade. Clearly, not the results advertised.

Other websites have tested WaterWetter® and also concluded that the overall decrease in coolant temperature is marginal. So WaterWetter®’s benefits either lie elsewhere (or nowhere). That assessment requires a certain level of trust with Redline products. In my experience, based on their oil products, they deserve this trust.

In reviewing the technical literature on Redline’s website, WaterWetter® claims to reduce hot spots in a car’s cylinder head. In theory at least, this reduces the possibility of localized overheating, improving engine longevity. Supposedly, WaterWetter® also protects aluminum products in the cooling system from excessive heat and cavitation caused by vapor bubbles forming inside the cylinder head and water pump.

In addition, for cars running straight water, WaterWetter® provides some additional protection. This includes traditional coolant roles of reducing corrosion and lubrication of water pump seals. For cars caned on the track or driven in the summer only, a water-only engine and cooling system solution will lead to problems. However, for cars with a tradition 50/50 mix of water and trad coolant, these benefits are already present without WaterWetter®.

WaterWetter® is available at auto parts stores and online for less than $10 a bottle. One bottle is good for an entire cooling system, and lasts as long as you properly keep fluid in your system (assuming you follow the recommended practice of flushing your cooling system every two years or 30,000 miles).

Since WaterWetter® has no readily measurable benefit, should you consider putting this in your car? That depends on your personality and your relationship with your car. 

If you’re like me, you like buying stuff for your car in the HOPES of improving power, performance, mileage or longevity (I put Chevron Techron in my tank every 1000 miles). It’s true: I’m a sucker for products that have the POTENTIAL to improve the car, even without any possibility of measuring the results. This is doubly true if the cost isn’t prohibitive and there isn’t any risk of a downside.

In other words, fool’s gold is as good as gold to a fool.     

Back in the eighties, a GM executive congratulated a colleague who worked for the Cadillac brand. “Well done for reaching 300k sales.” The Caddy man was having none of it. “We didn’t sell three hundred thousand Cadillacs; we sold three hundred thousand Buicks.” The remark was prescient in two ways. First, it acknowledged Cadillac’s ruinous move “down market.” Second, more importantly, it reflected the fact that Caddy’s success was Buick’s failure. GM was already descending from a well-ordered familial hierarchy into the madness and chaos of cannibalism.

Alfred P. Sloan’s motto “a car for every purse and purpose” established the framework for this descent. Sloan encouraged GM customers to work their way up from cheaper to more expensive brands. When GM’s brand delineations were rigid, when there was a steady supply of customers at the bottom of the ladder, the system worked beyond Sloan’s wildest dreams. GM was the world’s biggest carmaker AND the planet’s most profitable company. 

Today, GM’s overlapping brand and product portfolio has rendered Sloan’s system meaningless. GM’s eight brands compete with each other for business with similar if not virtually identical products. Saturn Aura, Chevy Malibu or Saab 9-3? Chevy Traverse or Saturn Outlook? Or GMC Acadia?

Honda killed the Prelude when the S2000 came out, then killed the RSX when the Civic went up-market.  Toyota killed the Celica when the Scion-tC arrived. While all of these cuts had something to do with lowered sales, they were more about preventing cannibalism. Conversely, GM doesn’t seem to want to cut anything.

GM’s CUVs are selling reasonably enough, but their SUVs are still out there, somewhere. As GM’s shrinking market share proves, their CUV sales haven’t been anywhere near large enough to compensate for the drop in “traditional” trucks. Even if they were, GM’s unibody CUVs are more expensive to produce than their body-on-frame predecessors. Downsizing customers are downsizing GM’s profit margins, Big Style.

On the face of it, this CUV on SUV cannibalization seems logical and unavoidable. GM’s SUV customers are abandoning the genre anyway, so why not keep them “in the family?” Better some profit than none. But the counter-argument is far more compelling. Overlapping products dilute or destroy the central brand message. Product development and marketing resources are spread paper thin. This kind of cannibalism makes its practitioners weak, and lazy.

New vehicles always draw customers away from rival products. The cars that suffer the most are the least “competitive” in or near that market segment. Unfortunately for GM, they often own both the next big thing AND the tired old timer. Note how the Malibu push mirrors the Impala’s fall. And the Saturn Aura’s. And the Pontiac G6’. And God knows what else.

Sadly, GM executives seem completely oblivious to the problem. The new CTS may be a hit product, but no one in the organization seems to have stopped and considered the fact the bright shiny newcomer will consume Caddy customers who may have (for some reason of other) hankered for a pricier DTS or STS. By the same token, the rear wheel-drive (RWD) Pontiac G8 could well be an exciting ride, but if it’s too exciting, it could steal sales from both the (RWD) CTS and the now po-faced front wheel-drive G6. And God knows what else.

Dealers are active conspirators in all this. Whenever a hot product appears at a rival brand, they demand a “tit for tat” version. This leads to badge-engineering, which further divides the sales pool, which ensures that any successful new car will eat its “father” (or uncle) first. It’s a vicious circle that dooms all its participants to eternal feast and famine.

As GM’s recent history proves, there will always be a “bright spot” in the bigger, bleaker picture. Some vehicle will always be relatively healthy– as it feasts on its predecessors, ancestors and weaker siblings. The success of a new model builds executive careers down at RenCen, but it does the company no good. With GM’s lack of build flexibility, the automaker ends-up overworking 25 percent of its plants while idling another 25 percent somewhere else. 

GM’s not the only example of auto industry cannibalism. Chrysler’s four-door Wrangler has been eating away at the Liberty, while the Compass, Nitro and Patriot all nibble on each other as they vie for the same sort of customers. VW has some issues in the US market (bumping into Audi) and much worse ones back in Europe (SEAT/Skoda). But GM is crazy with cannibals.

There is but one way to end this misery. GM must either return to the kind of rigid brand/product discipline of Sloan’s day, or declare bankruptcy (to void dealer power), kill all but two or three brands and THEN return to the kind of rigid brand/product discipline of Sloan’s day. There is no other alternative.           

In '78, OPEC put America's balls in a vise. Responding to the Oil Crisis, Washington enacted a “gas guzzler tax.” The law levied a federal surcharge on the price of any new automobile that burned fuel at the rate of 21.5 mpg (combined), but less than 22.5 mpg (combined). The worse the car’s EPA mpgs, the higher the tax its buyer had to pay. The effectiveness of the federal gas guzzler tax is beyond debate. Literally. No one claims the purchase tax did anything whatsoever to reduce America’s oil consumption. And yet it’s still with us. What’s more, it’s about to make a comeback.

In case you were wondering, the federal gas guzzler tax rate hasn't changed since 1988. The surcharge still starts at $1k; rising to a maximum of $7,700 for vehicles that get less than 12.5 mpg combined. Did I mention that SUVs and pickup trucks are exempt?

Yes, there is that. When the gas guzzler tax was born, SUV and light truck sales accounted for less than 25 percent of total new car sales. According to Automotive News, the genres now account for 52.5 percent of all American automobile sales. 

So if the federal gas guzzler tax was such a great idea back when oil supplies were tighter than a figure skater’s leotard, why not close the loophole now, what with global warming threatening to exterminate billions of humans? Surely that’s a better plan than concocting a cockamamie scheme to force automakers to change their vehicle mix to satisfy an arbitrary average fuel consumption figure? Why not penalize buyers of gas guzzlers and, by doing so, incentivize fuel misers?

Obviously, the domestic manufacturers of said gas guzzlers– automakers who continue to depend on the four-wheeled big ‘uns for their survival– oppose any move to close the SUV/CUV loophole and reinvigorate an otherwise moribund measure. But Detroit’s political power ain’t what it used to be– as witnessed by their failure to win the “debate” over raising federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) requirements. So if "the people" are serious about forcing the country's motorists to switch to more fuel efficient vehicles…

They’re not. The vast majority of American motorists aren’t even up for higher gas taxes– never mind an “SUV tax” down on the showroom floor. Hence CAFE. CAFE maintains the illusion of free choice while “doing something” about the “problem” of low mileage vehicles. It hides the gas guzzler surcharge by passing it on to manufacturers in the form of fines and/or technological costs, which the carmakers then pass on to the consumer. The feds get their money, the carmakers get theirs, and everyone feels virtuous.

There is, of course, a fly in the ointment: California.

The Golden State is truly, madly, deeply committed to taking gas guzzlers off the road. After unsuccessfully attempting to do so by hijacking federal tailpipe regulations, they’ve now decided to think outside the witness box. They’re introducing their own, additional tax on gas guzzlers. 

Once again, CA legislators will vote on a plan that would levy one-time registration fees of up to $2500 on low-mileage vehicles. Some “cleaner” SUVs, pickups and minivans would be exempt. Buyers below twice the federal poverty level and businesses with less than 25 employees would be exempt. And  buyers of fuel-efficient cars (e.g. the Toyota Prius and Honda Civic) would get hefty “rebates.” Everyone else has to pay for the privilege of paying more at the pump.

No matter how they tweak it, AB493 is a greater a threat to Detroit than California’s ongoing attempt to supercede federal CAFE regs by classifying CO2 as an atmospheric pollutant. That effort was an arcane, back door maneuver destined to fail. This is a full-on assault that challenges environmentally sensitive consumers to put their money where their mouth is.

And it’s going down. A previous version of the bill was only narrowly defeated in June, when auto industry lobbyists convinced seven LA Democrats to abstain from the vote. (Note: abstain, not oppose.) While you can easily argue that the feds should reserve the right to set air quality standards (which they only “lent” to CA anyway), a state sales tax is, clearly, their own business.

So will it work? Will people stop buying gas guzzlers if they cost an additional $2500? Thanks to the SUV loophole, the federal gas guzzler tax has nothing to teach on this matter. We certainly know that onerous automobile taxes in various New England states have created hundreds of thousands illegal, out-of-state registrations. But the simple answer is no. As car salesman will say, $2500 is only $1.37 per day over five years.

Which probably means California is, like the planet, just getting warmed-up. Gas guzzler tax supporters fully embrace the European model, whereby any and all taxes aimed at motorists are a good thing, and those aimed at low-mpg models are great. But the plain truth is that no matter how they’re applied, punitive motoring taxes create an automotive underclass, and enlarge governmental powers. Two fundamentally un-American concepts.

Alan Mulally began last year as a passenger on a nose-diving Ford Motor Company. Clocking the company’s $12.6b fiscal flummox, FoMoCo’s CEO left no punches unpulled. "We fully recognize our business reality,” Big Al pronounced. “And we’re dealing with it.” Twelve months later, Mulally’s machine’s cut a new deal with the United Auto Workers (UAW), scaled back production and launched some new whips. During today’s announcement, Big Al proudly pronounced the new new turnaround a success. “Each of our automotive operations is improving, and we are encouraged by the progress.” That makes one of us.

The bulk of the Blue Oval Boyz blues arrived in the fourth quarter. Over the year’s final frame, the automaker posted a net loss of $2.8b, racking-up a $2.7b loss for the year. NorAm came-up $1.6b short, bringing the worldwide sector down $1.1b on the year. Special items took their share of the FoMoCo fortunes ($3.9b YTD). All that red ink leaves FoMoCo’s corporate coffers with $34.6b in begged and borrowed cash and cash equivalents (including VEBA assets).

Some of those bucks will (again) head off for blue collar buyouts. As reported by TTAC, Ford is (again) sweetening the deals and asking all hands on deck to abandon ship. In an effort to “help ensure we are able to deliver our commitments despite the difficult external environment,” Mulally is trimming fat (again) and (again) putting product development on the front burner, serving-up a new Verve and yet another version of Ford’s never-say-die Taurus/Five Hundred/Taurus. 

On the year, excluding special items, the Blue Oval Boyz generated just shy of $174b in revenues, an increase of $13.8b over last year’s total. Doing so while moving 12% less metal, in the current economic climate, indicates that Mulally’s minions might have made good on their promises to stop strapping [as much] cash to the hoods of moribund metal. It also leads one to believe that Ford is keeping its promise to trim low-profit, residual-killing fleet sales; reportedly down 18 percent.

As always, the devil is in the details. While U.S. retailers were able to scale back rebates in the fall, Canadians were cashing in on exchange rate induced bonus bucks. This occurred while the Loonie was soaring at unheard of heights. Therefore, the trend was more costly overall to the bottom line greenbacks. 

Also, a closer inspection of FoMoCo’s fleet reveals that Edge buyers may soon feel snubbed. Yours truly was aghast at the site of Ford’s last next big thing (in full Limited trim) on a rental lot. While sampling some of Ford’s finest wares at an airport near you may help brand awareness, flooding used car lots with ex-renters never yields positive results.

The Blue Oval moved 2.57m units (down 350k) in 2006. Ford floggers attributed more than two thirds of those declining sales to discontinued models.  What kept 3600 dealers (400 less than last year!) afloat: the new cross-border crossovers (Ford Edge and Lincoln MKX) and (believe it or not) the fresh faced Focus. 

Ford’s Edge bested predictions by 30 percent (130k units)– although Ford doesn't say how many of these vehicles ended-up in the aforementioned fleets. The Focus did nine points better after its launch, but it could well be one of the “rising tide lifts all B-segment boats” deals, heading  for a dead car bounce.

Meanwhile, what was once high margin full-size pickup truck paradise, Bloomberg reports that Ford is losing the battle on hallowed ground, in Texas.  According to market research firm R.L. Polk & Co, ToMoCo’s Tundra market share skyrocketed 79 percent in the Lone Star State, while the domestics shrank by five percent. The trend is truly, madly, deeply worrying, especially as Texan Ford dealer Sam Pack reports that Tundra sales “are coming from traditionally Ford buyers."

Heading into ’08, the Glass House Gang figures total U.S. new car sales will continue to slip to around 16 million vehicles, and shrink their piece of the pie right along with it. Ford’s (once again) revised market share target is now set at the “low end of 14 to 15 percent.” This translates into about 2.3m new FoMoCo products hitting America’s highways and byways in the year ahead. In the current and predicted economic climate, based on previous years’ precedence, moving the metal is going to get a lot harder before it doesn’t.

Bottom line: profits aren’t on the horizon. As Dearborn continues to “right size” its operations, its transplanted competitors are already there. No wonder Ford’s stock price is only slightly better than January ninth’s 22-year low. While there’s no question that posting a year-on-year improvement resembling Paraguay’s GDP ($9.9b) is nothing to sneeze at; that the gain still leaves a net loss more than twice the size of Belize’s GDP ($2.7b) is. 

GM Car Czar Bob Lutz wants you to know what's on his mind. So, at last night's Automotive News congressional confab, Maximum Bob let rip, revealing the concerns triggering the suit's septuagenarian synapses. But, as usual, there are major gaps between Bob's thoughts and actual reality. 

Back in '03, I predicted that the automotive industry was on the cusp of a New Golden Age…To my credit, I didn't say exactly when this was going to happen… I would argue that the industry is in much better shape than it was five years ago, and that General Motors is in a lot better shape too.

News flash: The Big 2.8 are all losing money. GM has just lost its title as the world's largest automaker (if you discount cars made under a minority partnership agreement with China's SAIC and Wuling). To my simplistic mind, "better shape" doesn't mean closing factories, buying-out workers and losing market share in your home territory. But Bob's not worried.

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!

So why all the press releases proclaiming GM's still number one– by a mere 3k sales? Oh that's right: Maximum Bob doesn't think about it.

The bottom line is, we are running the business in the best interest of the customers, employees and shareholders.

Tell that to the laid-off employees and the remaining GM workers with reduced pay and benefits, because their employer can't make enough money to afford them. But hey, never mind, the circus is in town. And Bob's busy thinking about the press' comments about the Detroit Auto Show.

"How can you possibly not find any buzz at an auto show that includes so many examples of the world's most advanced propulsion technology? 

Like… a "hydrogen-powered" Cadillac without an actual propulsion system?  

[c]onsumer behavior is difficult to change, and it when it does change, it takes time, and a darn good reason.  

I'm not so sure about about the first part of that assertion. GM and the others managed to change American car buyers' behavior pretty quickly in the ‘70's and ‘80's. But MB's right that consumers need a good reason to change. Only Bob thinks Americans will give up their trucks and SUVs only if gas prices rise sharply to levels near what they're paying in Europe.

In other words, let's not focus our corporate resources on offering Americans a high-quality, well-engineered small car (at a profit) that might entice consumers to change. Let's legislate high fuel prices so consumers have to change– regardless of what we offer. And there I was thinking Lutz was against federal intervention in the free market. And speaking of boondoggles…

[t]he best route to a significant near-term reduction in petroleum usage is E85… [I]f all the flex-fuel vehicles that GM, Ford, and Chrysler have committed to have on the road by 2020… were to run on ethanol, we could displace 29 billion gallons of gasoline annually.

Considering the cost of converting existing products to "flex fuel" (a couple of hundred bucks), considering that GM just bought a chunk of an ethanol company, considering the federal fuel economy credits given to cars that will never touch a drop of corn juice, Bob's enthusiasm for E85 is no surprise.

But that doesn't make it right. E85 is an unsustainable con that will collapse under its own weight. While you can’t blame GM for playing the con, why do I think they actually believe that ethanol is the answer?

Electrically driven vehicles powered by lithium ion batteries represent the… future of the… industry. A year ago, everyone was saying, "What's GM doing with this car that's allegedly going to run on lithium ion batteries, which we all know won't work in a car?"

We're still asking what GM's doing with the Volt. Despite all their promises, they've yet to come up with a viable battery for the electric – gas hybrid. 

This and other advancements may be years away, in reality, but we're going to be ready, because we're developing the vehicles [and] the electronic control technology… today.  We are going to be ready, more ready than anyone else is going to be, when the battery technology is beyond what it is right now.  

A noble goal, indeed. But when tomorrow's batteries are ready, today's technology probably won't work with it any more than 1999's OnStar will work with today's digital cellular network.  

You're going to see, gradually but emphatically, the auto industry enter a whole new age. 

When this new age arrives, will GM be around to witness it? Either way, GM's future will be Bob Lutz' legacy.

[The GM fastlane blog links to a pdf of Mr. Lutz' speech.] 

Is there anything the average motorist hates more than police radar? While some citizens see radar “guns” and those who wield them as a necessary evil– police surveillance that saves lives– most drivers view the technology as a “sin tax,” an ineffective safety device, a waste of police resources, an invasion of privacy and/or a major violation of the Constitutional prohibition against “indiscriminate search.” While the battle for and against police radar (and now laser) rages on, TTAC has invited me to discuss the technology and your legal rights. We begin with some deep background.

Back in the early 60’s, police measured driver’s speed via “S-band” radar. These early devices used a huge antenna mounted on a tripod. It printed a paper read out on a rolling sheet of paper, like a lie detector. The S-band radar unit was a cumbersome contraption that only worked in good weather. And keeping the analogue tubes running was a tricky business– never mind trying to get the waves to live at microwave frequencies. Although the system [eventually] offered its police practitioners a reasonable ROI, it was a major PITA.

With the advent of transistors, radar moved to the 10 Ghz “X-band.” New solid state devices assured greater frequency stability at higher frequencies. The antennas got smaller. For the first time, police could mount a radar device on their car– although they were still restricted to continuous transmission from a stationary position.

Early Escort radar detectors worked a treat, picking-up the X-band signal a mile or more before it had the strength to bounce back to its police handler. And there were few, if any, radar “falses” from door openers. The detection – detector arms race began.

The next advance on the police side: a 24 Ghz “K-band” device with a smaller antenna with a new mode: ”instant on.” This feature made the radar detector less useful (it still triggered when someone up ahead was zapped). K-band radar guns were very expensive when they first appeared– so the older X-band guns were also rigged for “instant on.”

The next advancement: moving mode. For the first time, a radar device could separate the primary reflection (ground speed) from the second reflection (target speed). (This development mystifies a lot of drivers, amazed that the cop “was coming from the opposite direction.”) With the smaller. squad car-borne K-band antenna, any police car was a potential "threat" to a speeding driver. The modern radar enforcement era was born.

Today’s state-of-the-art radar devices have moved still further up in frequency, to the 34-36 Ghz Ka-band. (The Ka band is much wider than X or K, making the radar detector’s job harder, as it’s really just a glorified scanner.) Police radar antennas have miniaturized to the point where they’re hand-held devices with soda can-sized apertures. The entire speed detection device is now small enough to permanently mount in a squad car; many police departments use front AND rear antennas.

Whereas the primitive radars of the 70’s could pick out target vs. ground speed as they were going in opposite directions, today’s radars can pick out a target going in the same direction as the patrol car. State laws vary in whether or not this mode has “judicial notice” (i.e. would be accepted in a Court with the usual minimal Police testimony). But the bottom line remains the same: a police car behind you or in front of you can now get a reading. This mode is less frequently used, but it’s increasing, as the older units are retired and new ones enter active duty.

Police radar devices are sold through a public bidding process at the State level. Your local law enforcement agencies often buy at the negotiated State Police price. Many agencies, though, do not. If your state does not have an “official” radar device, you are facing a variety of threats. 

Here in New York, the State Police use a state-of-the-art Ka-band radar gun called (of course) the Stalker. Local agencies still have a lot of the Kustom Signals KR series K-band units; they have less money than the State and the units last a bit longer in regular use. Ye Olde X-band is mostly gone; the units have obsoleted out.

The newer radar units have variable power outputs, so that the officer can make the unit’s “zone of influence” smaller. Many of them allow the relevant law enforcement agency to lock out certain functions (e.g. the moving modes) if the law in their state does not support their use.

Fortunately, most police are not gadget geeks. They tend to run their radar guns in full power mode, in standard stationary or “instant on” modes.  Still, there's never a shortage of sheep to shear. Speaking of which, next week’s installment will focus on countermeasures– sorry, effective ways to check your speed before you get a ticket. 

[Casey W. Raskob, Esq. is a NY-based lawyer who runs speedlaw.net] 

I learned to drive in Philly in the winter. Although we were always warned to watch out for the dreaded black ice, the roads where I lived were plowed, salted and gently hilled. So there was little winter drama. The only slip sliding away in my ‘hood: Paul Simon’s doleful tune and the snow-covered mall parking lot where we went for late-night donuts. Flash forward to the winter of ‘07: a family vacation to the mountains of North Carolina in our rear drive Cadillac SRX. Before embarking, I glimpsed a warning on our cabin rental website: “four wheel-drive is a must.” Ch-ch-chains. Chains for fools. Or not.

Reviewing the Caddy's manual on the subject of winter traction devices advised me these automotive accoutrements had to come in the form of “s” class chains. The stricture is down to the SRX' passenger car roots; most “normal” cars can only accommodate s-chains in the [relatively] small spacing between the wheel and the body. So I started researching the “other” s-class. 

I learned there are three sub-categories of s-class chains. For under $125, you get your basic metal chain with complicated installation and manual tightening. In the $125 to $250 bracket, your money buys you more sophisticated chains with mounting tools and semi-automatic self tightening links. Finally, as befits an SRX, one can buy the Cadillac of chains: the $450 Spike-Spiders.

As an incorrigible Scrooge, I never would have paid this much money for chains, even if they were fashioned from gold. But my wife, who found these arachnid glorifying chains online, insisted. A week before the trip, we purchased them from the U.S. distributor at www.spikes-spider.com. The large box that arrived soon thereafter contained the "chains," the mounting plate and an enormous collection of nuts, bolts, spacers and clips.

The instructions were a bit confusing and over-complicated. Yes sir, I’m here to tell you that there were not one but TWO– count ‘em TWO– separate methods for mounting the plate. 

At first, the instrux seemed to imply that all of the car’s lug nuts would have to be removed. After a bit of re-caffeination, I divined it was only three. I proceeded to mount the plate to each rear wheel. Deploying the handy dandy measuring tool included with my purchase, it appeared that my SRX’s didn’t need no stinkin’ spacers. So I boxed up the extras, put the chains in the carry bag (included) and slapped on the decorative cover.

We arrived in a snow-free North Caroline on the last Sunday of 2007. Our driveway was so steep it could have served as a V2 launch pad. I knew if it snowed we were in big trouble. Or, as I preferred to think of it, I’d have the perfect opportunity to justify my wife’s heinous expenditure.

Lo and behold, three days later, two plus inches of the white stuff fell upon the hills. I was ready to test the Spike-Spiders.

Despite following the instructions for measuring the spacers, I was 1.5” short. I called the company on the cell, hot breath steaming in the cold mountain air. Spike-Spider immediately blamed me for not testing the mounting before the trip. Only after I gave the company my FedEx number– MY FedEx number– did they agree to send me extra spacers. 

Stuck in the cabin, I watched my neighbors struggle with cheap chains. First, they tried the rear wheels and promptly wrapped them around the axle. I advised them that their car was propelled by the front wheels. An hour or so later they were off, dashing through the snow.

The new spacers arrived late Thursday– on a chainless FedEx truck. After remounting the plate, I installed the Spike-Spiders. I laid them over the wheel, twisted on the mounting bracket and voila! They automatically locked on as I drove. 

Once down the mountain and onto the main paved road, I stopped, took off the mounting bracket, pulled off the Spiders, drove three feet and put them back in the bag.  I could easily mount or dismount them in the time it takes to drum your fingers during a long red light.

Of course, the real test is how they performed as snow chains. The Spike-Spiders were extremely effective. The Swiss-made contraptions bit well on the snow and ice. In fact, in test panic stops, the SRX came to a halt nearly as well as it does on dry pavement. We climbed steep hills without slipping, with better control than the four wheel-drive vehicle we followed up one particularly steep snowy road.

When properly installed, the Spike-Spiders are a well-designed product that provide an effective solution for tough winter driving. The only negatives are the price, the lame-ass instructions, and the major geek factor the mounting plates project. Otherwise, you're good to snow.

[German language Spike-Spider video here .] 

Acura’s finest marketing moment comes halfway through “Pulp Fiction.” Our “heroes” have made a mess of things; the boss has called in “the cleaner.” Cut to an NSX (the sensible man’s Ferrari) pulling into the drive. Clearly “the cleaner” is well paid, always in a hurry and has no time to worry about his car. Who but car geeks remember this seminal moment? Where is the NSX these days? In fact, where’s Acura? As Consumer Reports (CR) reported, the answer is simple enough: nowhere.

Acura executives were reportedly aghast at CR’s brand perception survey. The study placed the Japanese marque third from the bottom, just above Mitsubishi and Mercury. In many categories, such as “performance image,” not ONE of CR’s 1,720 respondents even MENTIONED Acura. A company spokesman claimed the study was inaccurate, unimportant, subject to change (new models are coming). But the simple truth is that Acura is invisible. 

First and foremost, Acura suffers from Honda’s success. Like most automotive brands, Honda offers plenty of toys that were once restricted to luxury cars, from electric windows to premium audio systems. Thanks to trickle down ergonomics, Acura has become a sort of “Mercury done right.” Acura sells a series of gently re-skinned, slightly posher, slightly faster Honda derivatives (sharing platforms, but not bodies). 

While Acura’s lineup resembles Mercury in execution, Acura’s inherent– and unexpressed– sales appeal is slightly different. The brand’s current tagline is Advance? Fuhgeddaboutit. At best, Acura is the sensible person’s BMW. (At worst, it’s the poor man’s BMW.)

Luxury cars generally come in two different flavors: wafters and carvers. Wafters emphasize smooth cosseting ride and rich interior fittings. Lexus is the ideal’s poster child. Jaguar and Caddy aim for it. Mercedes and Audi kinda want it, kinda don’t. Acura can’t do it.

On the flip side, carvers emphasize performance uber alles, selling sporty style and aggressive driving dynamics (again, we’re talking about perception). BMW is America’s upmarket carving King. Again, both historically and practically, this is Acura’s natural stomping grounds. This is why Acura’s line-up neatly mirrors much of the propeller people’s products.

In a Honda-sensible way. BMW’s are built for autobahns (though the top end is restricted to 155mph). Acura is built for highways, where 90-some-mph cruising is enough. BMW sells sedans with fussy controls, ridiculously priced options and penalty box passenger seating. Acura sells cars with virtually no options, intuitive ergonomics and actual rear seats. BMWs are expensive. Acuras are not. 

So, there’s the template. Now, how do you sell it?

For one thing, Acura needs to return to naming its cars. The Japanese brand ditched its legendary model names for alpha-numerics after Lexus successfully aped Mercedes’ and BMW’s model designations. It cost Acura a huge amount of momentum. Initials are not necessarily the kiss of death; the Honda CR-V sells in huge numbers– it was/is for Acura. But when you’re invisible, making it hard for people to remember your name is just plain dumb.

Acura also needs to address the huge gap in its line-up. The TSX and TL (confused yet?) slot-in neatly as lower-priced BMW 3 and 5-Series alternatives. The RDX and MDX also line up perfectly against Stuttgart’s X-series SUVs. Although Acura doesn’t compete against Bimmer’s ever-expanding line of niche vehicles (thank God), Acura’s top-‘o-the-range RL lacks a logical German competitor. 

Critics contend that the RL’s six cylinder engine can’t cut it in a market segment awash in testosterone. But price is the real problem. The RL stickers for around $50k. The 7-Series starts at $70k. More to the point, the Acura TL clocks-in under $34k. Except for a few gadgets and AWD– which the TL may soon receive– the TL is arguably the better car. 

That $15k gap contributes to the Acura RL’s less than stellar sales. It’s simply not a sensible choice. The TL is market-slotted right where the original Legend found favor: as the cheapskate’s BMW. Whereas the BMW 7-Series could be considered the wealthy snob’s 5-Series, the RL is nobody’s nothing. It needs to grow, grow stones or disappear. 

The importance of a “sensible supercar” at the top of Acura’s range is debatable. As the Consumer Reports brand perception survey indicates, Acura’s need for a powerful and sustained advertising campaign is not.

Lexus and Mercedes aim at the CEO who runs the company. BMW aims at the execs who think they run the company. Acura should be for the middle managers who actually run the company. This is a salable niche. In fact, the demographic is far less vulnerable to economic downturns in the economy than the Lexus, Mercedes or BMW model. But just like the higher-ups, they need to feel that their car is special.

If Acura can build the cars these men and women want and make them Acura-aware, they will be born again. If not, not. 

Day three of the North American International Auto Show in Detroit is comparatively quiet. I took advantage of the lull to chin wag with Clay Dean, Cadillac’s Global Design Director and Dave Caldwell, Caddy’s top spin man. Both men were refreshingly candid. So I challenged the duo on the brand’s marketing mix: product, price, place, and promotion. While the adulation heaped upon the CTS, CTS-V and CTS Coupe indicate that Cadillac’s lineup is better off now than when ‘Slade sales started slipping, what of Caddy’s future?

“When someone [at Cadillac] comes up with a really bad idea, we call it a Cimarron,” Dean declared. The Cadillacs of my formative years predate even this debacle. Back in the day, Caddy was the purveyor of over-sized flaccid barges for middle-income Florida retirees and active Mafiosi. Compared to the tightly-built imports of the day, Caddies seemed poorly packaged, clumsy handling and sloppily built— if only because they were.

To the automaker’s detriment, Cadillac clung to their bigger-is-better, living-room-on-wheels, mid-market brand identity while their target demographic was gradually interred en masse into nursing homes or burial plots. Meanwhile, the rest of the world continued to evolve technologically. Upmarket Americans gradually forsook wreath-crested wafting for a European snob appeal and driver-centric dynamics. By the turn of the century, the once-proud Cadillac brand embodied middle-income America’s obesity and sloth.

Finally, five years ago, Cadillac got serious about adapting to the market trends that they’d derided, denied and declaimed for the better part of two decades. In 2003, Cadillac introduced their 5-Series killer, the CTS. It was no hardened assassin, but the model signaled a fundamental change to the brand.

“Today, the closest vehicle Cadillac makes to the old standard is the Escalade,” Caldwell explained, echoing a sentiment oft expressed by TTAC readers.  “It’s really the only old style model left.”

Fair enough. But I harbor the radical notion that brand extensions are inherently dangerous. For example, pickup trucks are for hauling manure and pulling stumps. A pickup truck is fundamentally and irrevocably incompatible with luxury. I view the Escalade EXT a perfect example of Cadillac’s ongoing inability to stay focused. To do one thing better than anyone in the world. To just say no.

“Cadillac should never make a pickup truck,” I challenged the guys. “It erodes the brand.”

Spinmeister Caldwell carefully considered my take on luxury and thoughtfully responded. “Cadillac doesn’t make a pickup truck.”

“Maybe not in PR speak,” I calmly replied, “But if you ask one thousand people on the street one thousand of them will say that the Escalade EXT is a pickup, not whatever non-truck euphemism you’ve invented for it.”

Sensing that our conversation had taken an abrupt left turn, Caddy’s seasoned mouthpiece changed tack. “Sometimes we make products on a short-term basis to satisfy a particular market demand,” Caldwell corrected.

His answer underlined– rather than explained– Caddy’s willingness to tarnish their brand identity and sacrifice long-term viability on the altar of short-term gain.

Today, a Cadillac can cost less than $40K or more than $100K. It can be a two-seat roadster, executive sedan, SUV or pickup truck. So how does Cadillac sell itself as a strong and concise brand when it spans so many prices and genres, when it means so many different things to so many potential customers?

“Modern sporty Cadillac’s are not incompatible with the Cadillac legacy. Cadillac engines were long used in race cars because they were the most powerful,” said Dean. Yeah, but that was before I was born.

“A Cadillac can be any kind of vehicle, even a minivan,” Dean continued, referring to the hydrogen fuel cell Provoq (pronounced “PROvoke”) Concept. “Just as long as they deliver a Cadillac experience.”

And what, pray tell, is that? “To me, Cadillac is about desirability and drama,” Caldwell answered, once again releasing the PR vapors. “Yes, a Cadillac is flamboyant,” Dean added. In other words, it’s like porn; you can’t define it, but you know it when you see it.

I left the show with mixed feelings about Cadillac’s future. The new CTS is one of the best cars Cadillac has built in my lifetime. In fact, while it's still not quite up to world-class standards, the model's attention to detail represents a new high water mark for the entire U.S. auto industry. Yet the definition of what constitutes a Cadillac remains dangerously nebulous.

Cadillac’s brand identity seems to be at the end of a pendulum that’s swung from pathologically recalcitrant in the ‘80s and ’90s, to schizophrenically indefinable today. To achieve brand health, Cadillac find one path. It must integrate its multiple personalities into a cohesive core identity while setting defining parameters wide enough to accommodate changing market conditions, a stringent regulatory environment and fickle public tastes. Until and unless it does, Cadillac’s current success will be a fleeting phenomenon.