When it comes to buying fish, stocks, bonds or cars, timing is everything. The factors determining a savvy buyer’s ideal window of opportunity are mercurial. And, like the mystery surrounding a good fishing hole, there are plenty of industry professionals whose livelihood depends on shrouding the “inside line” in secrecy. For example, you won't find prices for “leftover” ’07 Chevrolet Malibus on Edmunds or kbb. Of course, when it comes to car buying advice, The Truth About Cars is on YOUR side. We’re here to help.  

If you want to save money, it often pays to wait until a manufacturer introduces a new version of an existing model. Dealers hawk model year “close outs” on a regular basis. But the deals don’t get crack-a-lackin’ until the model undergoes a significant “refresh.” If the “old” model looks old or the “new” model is significantly better— like, say, the aforementioned Malibu— the discounts are intense.We've found new old ‘Bu's for $5k off list.

Normally, model “refreshes” are evolutionary, not revolutionary. And the price difference ‘twixt old and new is impressive, not astounding. But impressive ain’t bad. Let’s have a look…

The Nissan Murano has been a solid seller since its introduction in 2003 (with a 2004 model year designation.) This first major update has now shipped, as a 2009. As there was no 2008 model, disconcerted dealers now have 2009 AND 2007 Muranos on sitting on their lots side-by-side. 

What’s the diff?  The new model gets a more hideous nose and badly revised sheetmetal. Horsepower’s up 25, though mileage remains roughly the same. Nissan claims the new Murano has increased rigidity and decreased noise. In the main, that’s it.

There is a value to newness. It is nice being the first on your block with a car no one’s seen before, to feel special for a while, like you’re on the cutting edge. But there’s also value to be extracted from Nissan dealers with unlucky ‘07s who MUST lure customers away from the new and improved Murano. We're talking $1,500 from Nissan and the $2,500 between the dealer’s sticker and his or her invoice. Or more.

After six years, Volvo is also launching a heavily-revised V70 wagon. The new model takes their bread-and-butter load lugger up a whole platform, from P2 (shared with the S60) to P24 (shared with the S80). Bottom line: it’s a move up market, not up-size. In America, the engine gains a cylinder, the horsepower jumps from 168 to 235, (the 2007 turbo makes 218) and gas mileage drops by around five mpg. The new V-wagon extends a lineage of safety innovations and offers some unique new features, like a power tailgate.

Volvo's a done a good job reducing supplies of the outgoing model. But more than a few 2007s V70s lurk on the lots. In the notoriously cool buying climate of January and February, buyers could find discounts as deep as upstate New York snow. There’s around $2k between invoice and sticker, more with more depending on options and local incentives.  

In 2003, the Pontiac Vibe began rolling out of the NUMMI plant (a joint venture between General Motors and Toyota) and the Toyota Matrix emerged from Toyota's Cambridge, Ontario plant. Both vehicles are tall, harshly-styled Corollas– and I mean that in the nicest possible way. Both the Vibe and the Matrix are reliable, versatile, borderline fun vehicles. They just look… dated.

The models’ sheetmetal changes a bit, but the song remains the same; there’s no drastic increase in size. Horsepower is up, without a hit to gas mileage. For the base 1.8-liter engine, GM and Toyota lose the manual transmission option. Toyota and Pontiac are also offering a 2.4-liter powerplant putting out 158 hp. All wheel-drive is back as on option. If these things be important to you, stay home until March. 

Good news for the bargain shopper: the 2009 versions of Matrix-Vibe don’t look all that much better. Go poke around under the plastic pennants and you'll find aggressively-priced models aplenty. Dealers are watching flat spots grow on these all season radials, knowing the new 2009's are being assembled in California and Canada as I type. 

Here’s the caveat: resale. When a new model comes out, it dings the value of the previous model. In the grand scheme of things, over the long term, it’s not a huge hit. In the short term, it’s a big old whack. If you’re planning to sell your pre-model change car in two to three years, you will not get as much money as if you’d bought the “new” new car.

If you sell your pre-model change vehicle in five to seven years (or longer), factors like mileage and condition come to the fore. Of course, even then, timing is everything.

In the old fairy story, con men convince a naked sovereign that he’s wearing fine clothes. Applying that cautionary tale to General Motors is not as straightforward as it seems. Is GM CEO Rick Wagoner aware that the enormous automaker is tumbling towards bankruptcy? Or is he living in a dream world, demanding that his "kingdom" admire his invisible finery? Whether Wagoner’s deluded or deluding, his ”GM Statement on Turnaround Plan” indicates that GM is still buck naked.

"We're delivering on the turnaround plan we established in 2005, and have exceeded expectations on virtually all counts," Wagoner proclaimed.

Welcome to Wagoner’s world, where you can announce that you’ve exceeded your expectations without revealing them. In truth, Wagoner has never set hard targets for GM’s recovery. Not sales. Not market share. Not even a return to profitability. If GM doesn't say where they’re going, why should we believe they’re getting there?

Even a brief look at GM’s declining sales, lost market share and red ink-stained balance sheet reveals that Wagoner’s a legend in his own mind. GM’s decline is a trend that started before the unspecified 2005 “turnaround plan,” that’s continued unabated since its implementation. But never mind that, because “We've set a strong foundation that we can truly build on. We're encouraged by our progress in revitalizing our product portfolio, strengthening our brands, reducing structural cost and growing the business globally.”

Hang on; a few well-received products do not a turnaround make. For one thing, the Chevrolet Malibu, new Cadillac CTS and Lambda-based Crossovers may be media darlings, but none qualify as a runaway sales success. That's especially true as The General screwed-up the supply chain for all three cars, leaving dealers SOL. Lest we forget, GMNA is still juggling eight brands and 49 products (not including discontinued models still for sale or variants). Even if you spot GM five hit products, well, you do the math.

And while we’re at it, GM’s product portfolio is still truck-heavy in an increasingly truck-aversive domestic market. Using the EPA definition of a truck, 28 of those 49 products qualify. That’s 57 percent. Trumpeting the fact that [some of] the vehicles within GM’s product portfolio are “revitalized” is equivalent to boasting that you made a perfect three-point landing at the wrong airport. And that’s without questioning GM's trucks' diminishing profitability.

But we’re really off in “admire that naked man’s clothes” territory when considering Wagoner’s assertion that his administration has strengthened GM’s brands.

Chevrolet is gas-friendly to gas free (if you consider a diesel pick-up “gas free”), but it still sells everything from a rebadged Korean econobox to a $60k sports car without any unifying concept. Saturn asks potential buyers to “Rethink” without giving them anything coherent to think about. Cadillac, the supposed standard of the world, lacks a credible flagship– and looks set to fall further down market. What is a Saab? Does anyone care? Near-luxury Buick is near death (unless you’re in China). Buick's most aggressive competitor, GMC, is re-positioning itself as an upmarket Chevy. Which is what again?

Pontiac is in a Holden pattern, repositioning itself as an importer of rebadged Australian rear wheel-drive sedans. Meanwhile, it sells a farrago of rebadged Chevies (which is what again?), a couple of Toyota and Saturn homonyms and… the Grand Prix. Of all GM’s eight brands, weak-selling Hummer is the strongest; albeit one that’s a politically or gas conscious buyer's anti-matter.

If "strengthening brands" means eight automotive “companies” offering a range of mostly lackluster products that overlap each other in niche, price, engineering and style; products that don’t as a whole adhere to a clear branding strategy, mission accomplished. 

So all we’re left with is “reducing structural cost.” As GM’s NA market share is shrinking, and cost-cutting is GM’s Beancounter in Chief’s forte, you’d expect progress on that front. But it should be remembered that all this cost reduction adds to GM’s mountain of debt. The bill for all those employee buyouts and plant closures will eventually come due, and GM’s forthcoming $29.9b VEBA contribution ain’t chicken feed neither.

As for “growing the business globally,” GM North America was, is and will be a financial sinkhole. It will continue to swallow-up all the profits GM can generate abroad– until GM’s Board of Bystanders will be forced to cut North America loose (i.e. declare Chapter 11) to save its European operations.

If you’re happy to admire the Emperor’s new clothes, the “GM Statement on Turnaround Plan” will inspire reverence. But let me draw your attention to one small statement therein. Wagoner promises to “build GM's advanced propulsion leadership position.” For Wagoner to even IMPLY that GM is the leader in advanced propulsion, or SUGGEST that they’re going to build that leadership from scratch, moves beyond hubris into an entirely new realm of fantasy. News flash: the Emperor is naked.

[Read the “GM Statement on Turnaround Plan” here.]

The press preview for the 2008 North American International Auto Show is finally over. TTAC’s Texas twosome– Sajeev Mehta and I– did our level best to catch the major reveals, grill some suits and get a feel for the temper of the times. On the plane back to the Lone Star State, I collected my thoughts on the show’s winners and losers. Were the carmakers fiddling while Rome burns, or preparing to rise Phoenix-like from the ashes ahead?

BIG WINNERS: GM and FoMoCo. Call it a home field advantage, but The General’s troops and The Blue Oval Boyz did the most to impress, launching the drop-dead gorgeous, thundering Chevrolet Corvette ZR-1 ; the luxe yet yeoman-like new Ford F-150 full-size pickup and the AMG-alike Cadillac CTS-V. Hail Mary passes they may be, but connect they did. (Yoda am I.)

BIG LOSERS: Chrysler and Toyota. Dodge launched their new Ram pickup amidst a gen-you-ine cattle drive outside the convention center. Indoors, the automaker’s displays were equally unfinished and disorganized. Toyota, the masters of organization, revealed nothing more exciting than a station-wagon-on-stilts. While the Camry-based Venza will sell in [non-cattle] droves, it oozed nothing in particular from every pore. 

BEST SHOW TREND: diesel. Honda announced its plans to put a four-cylinder clean diesel engine into their [unintentionally] stealthy Acura passenger cars, as of next year. GM took the wraps off a new low-compression clean-burning 2.9-liter oil burner— a potential game changer in a Cadillac CTS coupe, no less. Mercedes, BMW and Audi all announced upmarket oil burners. And Chrysler promised to put a V6 Cummins turbo diesel into their half-ton Ram pickups, after 2009.

WORST SHOW TREND: alternative propulsion. The 2008 North American International Auto Show was the latest venue for the world automotive ecology Olympics. Unfortunately, all the athletes were pumped-up on PR puffery, and no events were actually run. Like the engine-less Cadillac Provoq “hydrogen” concept car, the hype surrounding the efficacy and practicality of a range of alternative propulsion powerplants has obscured the truth of reasonable expectations and anything like a practical timeframe.

CUTTING-EDGE WINNER: Former Aston designer Henrik Fisker’s mob made a major impact with their oh-so-sexy Karma all-electric sports car. Fisker execs say they’ll beat Tesla Motors to market with the first all-electric production sports car. Words are cheap, although neither car is. In theory.

CUTTING-EDGE LOSER: Tesla. Tesla’s no-show at the North American International Auto Show is a major miscalculation; with TTAC-fed doubts about the company’s viability, Tesla needed to fly the flag for their Lotus Elise-based all-electric Roadster. Either the silicon start-up couldn’t afford to lease the COBO real estate, or they didn’t want to face uncomfortable questions from an increasingly impatient press corps and public, or, sensibly enough, they’re conserving dwindling financial resources for more profitable endeavors. Anyway you look at this, they lose.

MEDIA WINNER: Autoblog, Jalopnik et al. The so-called new media continued their rise to prominence. Web slingers wrote stories, edited photos and transmitted the results for near-immediate posting on the Web. With Wi-fi, they didn’t even have to leave the show floor to do so. When The Old e-Gray Lady (the New York Times online) broke multiple photo embargos the night before the first press day, it was abundantly clear that print was dead.  

MEDIA LOSER: buff books. The reports and photos from the North American International Auto Show hit the blogosphere within minutes. The buff books’ reports won’t show up in tin mailboxes for at least a month, more likely two. The old tech publications are clamoring to morph themselves into something more relevant by utilizing video and feeding their own web sites. One ink-stained Hungarian-looking scribe called “Chubba” trailed around behind me with a film crew. He pretended not to know who I was but followed me everywhere. Creepy.

SHORT TAKE WINNERS:
• Audi – Major buzz around the R8, and deservedly so.
• Ford Verve – IF only…
• Nissan – The GT-R is gonna be a HUGE hit

SHORT TAKE LOSERS:
• Chinese automakers – Relegated to the COBO basement, where they belong
• Buick – Their only inspiration came from China. How great is that?
• Mercury – Who? What? Where? No one. Nothing. Nowhere.
• Jaguar – Jag needs a homerun. The XF ain’t it.
• Pontiac – Why would anyone buy a G8 over a CTS?

Taken as a whole, the 2008 North American International Auto Show did little to suggest that major manufacturers have busted any moves to meet the twin challenges of recession and regulation. Those that are ready, are. Those that aren’t, aren’t. I read somewhere that Nero was a pretty good fiddle player. So is Detroit.

[For full TTAC Auto Show coverage, click here.] 

In 1962, President John F. Kennedy made a pronouncement that made a lot of people think he'd lost his mind: "We choose to go to the moon in this decade." According to GM's Vice Chairman of Global Product Development, Chevrolet's gas-electric plug-in electric hybrid is GM's moon shot. Wired magazine recently sat down with Bob Lutz and asked the Car Czar what would happen if the Volt doesn't succeed. "What if Kennedy hadn't pulled off the moon shot?" Bob wondered aloud. "If it doesn't work, it's not fatal. But if it does work, it will be sensational and it will have the same sort of symbolism." The U.S. put a man on the moon by the end of the decade, as promised. What are the chances the Volt will appear in a Chevy showroom by 2010?

Ever since the Chevy Volt burst forth from the 2007 Detroit Auto Show, "Maximum Bob" has been feeding an adoring press a steady diet of sound bites on the Volt's technology and timetable. The statements are frequently contradictory, usually unrealistic and subject to frequent change.

It began in March of last year, when Lutz promised a running Volt prototype by the end of 2007. A test mule with the Volt drivetrain crammed into an existing model would have provided reasons to be cheerful, part one. But it wasn't to be. In November, Bob revised his estimate: "Let's wait for the Easter Bunny."

In January, GM revealed the Volt's development team was having problems getting the mission critical, new technology batteries for testing from one of their suppliers. Recently, GM said that they'll have appropriate lithium-ion batteries "ready to demonstrate" by June (of this year). The reason for the new date? "Acceleration issues." We now learn that a Volt equipped with the current state-of-the-art batteries would require a full minute to amble from zero to sixty miles per hour.  

And that's just the technology. When Bob first mooted Chevy's Plug-in Electric Hybrid (PHEV), he pegged the PHEV's price point at a Prius-competitive $30k. As soon as the Volt team realized what a suitable lithium-ion battery pack might cost, GM announced that they were considering leasing the battery packs for around $100/month– to keep the "total" price within reason. Easter Bunny or not, GM hasn't said whether or not they're still pursuing that particular hair-brained scheme.

Now the $30K selling price seems to be going the way of Jamie Lynn Spears' virginity. Speaking to Wired, Backpedalin' Bob stated "it doesn't look like that's going to be possible." The Volt's price "might get there on the second generation, and they say if they had a lot more time they might be able to cost-optimize it [but] I don't want to wait for cost optimization. I'd rather come out in 2010, and if it costs closer to 40 than 30, well, that's too bad." Too bad for the customer…

No matter what the final price, we still don't know when we might finally see a Volt on the road. At the beginning of this saga, Lutz claimed the Volt would be humming along in 2010. Then, at last year's Los Angeles Auto Show, Lutz said the Volt would hit the streets by November of '08. Now it's 2010. Or not. Apparently, November 2010 has become GM's "internal target." "You don't know what you don't know," Lutz told Wired. "Could it go later than 2010? Yes."

Deadline, schmeadline. Maximum Bob's still pumped on the Volt. He crows that it's "symbolic of a renaissance in the American auto industry… If we pull it off successfully, it can really put us back at the top of the heap of automotive technology instead of being called laggards that are being left behind by the Germans and the Japanese." That is, unless a Japanese manufacturer doesn't quietly introduce a fully-realized plug-in electric hybrid first, as Toyota's CEO has just promised to do. 

Even IF GM rolls out a Volt by 2010, even IF it offers better performance than the next generation PHEV Prius, even IF it can compete with the segment leader on price, even IF it sells well, even IF it proves to be a reliable automobile, even IF it continues to sell, GM's Car Czar has already destroyed the Detroit automaker's credibility. And here's the real problem: the Volt probably won't do any of these things. 

John F. Kennedy entered the space race saying a moon shot "will be done in the decade." GM has refused to fully  commit itself to any deadline for the Volt, making the Hail Mary PHEV's appearance a moving target. Why? To avoid responsibility. And it is that difference– the difference between a culture of genuine accountability and GM's culture of endless streams of false, unrealized promises– that hobbles the Volt, and has brought GM to its knees. 

I’m not big on ceremony. Throw in a couple of blowhard politicians, a bevy of self-congratulatory industry execs and a swarm of self-important journalist jackals; and meetings like the 12th Annual International Car of the Year Awards are like kryptonite to my modest superpowers. The invitation from the friendly folks at Road and Travel Magazine read, “Regrets not Required.” In my case, regret was inevitable. Still, I donned a monkey suit and took one for the team with as much enthusiasm as I approached my first doctor’s visit after my fortieth birthday. Fortunately my doctor was quick and his gentle finger was warm, so that experience was not as bad as I had grimly anticipated. Unfortunately, I can’t say the same for the green-themed ICOTY award pageant.

If you are thinking, I know C&D, MT and R&T, but what the hell is RTM, it’s probably because you aren’t a woman. Road & Travel Magazine was founded in 1989 by the lovely Courtney Caldwell to entertain and inform the fairer sex about all things automotive. The periodical founded the ICOTY in 1996, as an Academy Awards for automobiles.

The evening got off to a bumpy start with remarks by Michigan Representative John D. Dingell. Give the congressman credit; he boldly and proudly referenced the draconian increase in Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. His words hung in the air above the heads of the audience born by tension and uncomfortable silence. All was made right when the old Washington warhorse called for applause for all the workers and management who supported the legislation.

This year’s convocation marked the bestowal of the first ever Earth Angel Award. This sappy honorific is designed to laud the most environmentally harmonious automaker; the car company that best carries the torch for alternative fuel transportation and whose “company position and mission on global warming” is most politically correct.

“Global warming is top-of-mind for everyone these days,” said Caldwell. “Automakers are too often criticized for environmental insensitivity when the reality is that they’re really making enormous strides on a global level to improve the earth’s environment.” 

August former CBS newsman, Walter Cronkite, who wants mankind to turn back the tide of increasing global temperatures by driving new and improved cars, heralded in the inaugural Earth Angel Award via taped introduction. Carl Levin, Michigan's Senior Senator, bestowed the first-ever Earth Angel Award upon the General Motors Corporation. 

In the estimation of RTM’s esteemed panel, The General best allows pistonheads to purge themselves of guilt for ravaging the earth. How so? By mapping out a comprehensive plan that will transform the automobile from a filthy mechanical machine into a clean electric appliance. Riiiiight.

The culmination of the gala event: the announcement of the International Car of the Year Award winner. J.D. Power and Associates counts votes for the nominees (not a difficult job since the electorate is comprised of a panel of just 12 “respected” journalists).

Unfortunately, the group’s previous picks look like a menagerie of mediocre moribund models mired on a used car dealership: Pontiac Grand Prix (1997), Oldsmobile Intrigue (1998), Ford Windstar (1999), PT Cruiser (2001), Jaguar X-type (2002), and Dodge Charger (2006). This is hardly a lineup of the best cars in the world. More likely these pickings bear the undeniable stench of money mildewed by a passage under the desk of RTM’s advertising director.

If you still care, the night’s winners include:

•    Honda Accord Sedan, the International Car of The Year, and “Most Dependable” Sedan of the Year
•    Chrysler Town & Country, International Truck of the Year, and “Most Compatible” Minivan of the Year
•    GMC Sierra Denali, “Most Athletic” Pick Up Truck of the Year
•    Audi R8, “Most Sex Appeal” Sports Car of the Year
•    Mercedes Benz S63 AMG, “Most Respected” Luxury Car of the Year
•    Volvo C30, “Most Spirited” Entry Level Car of the Year
•    Chevrolet Tahoe Hybrid, “Most Resourceful” SUV of the Year

Clearly the Honda Accord was a safe choice, perhaps an attempt to atone for past indiscretions. The Audi R8’s selection proves that ugly is the new sexy. The only winner that seemed to rankle the crowd, at least those outside of the Ford family, was the inclusion of the pricy Volvo C30 in the entry level car category.

By night’s end, the sickening sweet smell of 1984 Ferrari-Carano Cabernet Sauvignon permeated the room and the band played on. In black ties and evening gowns, industry manager misters and their silicone sisters renewed old acquaintances within the attendant corps of scribes. To everyone’s relief, the charade was complete for another year. As for me, my doctor tells me that I have the prostate of a twenty year-old; the prognosis is good that I’ll live to suffer through the ICOTY Awards again in 2009. Assuming I'm invited.

Looking at last year’s Black Friday ads made it clear that a portable GPS (Global Positioning Satellite) satellite navigation device was the season’s most popular loss leader. Even department stores like Macys were offering a GPS device on the cheap. This strategy continues; last week our local Walgreen’s had a Nextar GPS device at the front counter for under $200, right there next to mints and quit smoking gum. I wanted to see if a cheap GPS unit could compete with the big boys. So I contacted Nextar, and they provided us with a Snap3. 

On paper, the Snap3 sat nav looks like a winner. It comes complete with a 3.5” touch screen, Navteq on Board® maps, super-slim design, mp3 player, photo viewer and mini-SD memory slot. In person, the packaging is very professional, especially for a GPS product sitting on the lowest wrung of the consumer ladder. Included in the deal: the unit, a USB/DC charger, car mount, detailed manuals and a carry bag. The Snap3 is very small, measuring three by four and less than an inch thick. The front is all screen all the time, with all the necessary buttons positioned on the sides and bottom.

I always measure a gizmo’s user friendliness with a simple test: try and use without reading the manual. (Let’s face it, the vast majority of consumers at the bottom end of the market won’t read any user’s manual, ever, and the rest probably can’t.) The Snap3 flunked. The unit has to be booted before the main power switch can be used. Granted this requires about ten seconds; less time than it takes to call India– I mean, customer service. But who knew?

Once booted, you’re looking a main screen with choices of navigation, photo, mp3, Bluetooth, calculator and settings.

Selecting navigation takes you to the main map screen. Accessing the Navteq supplied software and maps is no different than most other GPS devices. I’ve had nothing but good experiences with this mapping software. The Snap3 offered more of the same– at least initially. And right from the git-go, at the main screen, you have to sit and wait while the Snap3 tries to acquire a signal. The search took all of 45 seconds, which indicates an older GPS chipset. 

On the road, the Snap3 failed to update our ETA (estimate time of arrival) as we drove. It clung to original estimate like grim death, despite the fact that we eventually arrived an hour earlier than the machine’s ETA. On the positive side, our car’s onboard sat nav system frequently lost the satellite signal in the mountains, while the Snap3 maintained a lock at all times– after the painfully slow signal acquisition.

We also took the unit hiking in the Carolina Mountains (better than going with some guides I know). In this application, the Snap3’s size is a definite plus, easily fitting in a pocket.

The Snap3 is touted as a multi-function device. However, once in the navigation mode, you can only access the other features by rebooting the device to go back to the main screen. The other functions are crude and basic. The mp3 player was too quiet even with the volume turned all the way up (fixed by going to settings, turning-up the volume and returning to the mp3 player). The photo viewer displayed jpegs but was slow and awkward.

The Bluetooth function never worked; my iPhone could not discover the Snap3. This may have been an iPhone issue, but my test Magellan sat nav device always paired quickly with the iPhone.

By the same token, the Windows CE spinning beach ball of death was a frequent sight. This means that the Snap3 is running some form of the embedded Windows Mobile software. This also means that the device should easily connect to a PC to allow data uploads for new maps and firmware. No such software was included with the Snap3, and nothing in the supplied box shows this capability. When I connected the Snap3 to my PC, the device was never found (even though the Snap3 was powered over a standard USB cable).

The Snap3 has sixty-four megs of internal RAM and one gigabyte flash RAM for map storage. Without the ability to connect to a PC, it can’t be upgraded; it’s only a matter of time before the maps will become “stale.” The inability to update the firmware is more worrying. In the settings menu, I noted that the system software was version 0.97. This indicates that I tested a pre-production version, so this capability could well be on its way.

After several days of use, one lock-up and several reboots, the Snap3’s mapping function eventually died, displaying a “can’t find navigation software” warning. It was a fitting end to an inexpensive device that proves that “value” and “price” are not always synonymous. 

[NEXTAR provided the unit tested.] 

Should this be a TTAC-approved product?

Click here to vote
Click here for results

Carburetors, fuel injection, headlights, satellite radios, ECU, ABS, air conditioning, drive-by-wire— today’s automotive technologies are variations on well-established themes. If “Crazy Henry” Ford resurrected, he’d have little problem driving– or understanding– a modern car. While automakers continue to tweak automotive systems for greater ergonomics, power, fuel economy and reliability; the improvements are evolutionary, not revolutionary. Even alternative powerplants aren’t game changers. But something else is…

To understand the next great leap, consider the camera. Never mind the changeover from film to digital image capture. Clock the fact that the device has morphed from a delicate piece of specialized equipment used by highly-trained professionals to an $8.99 mass market item sold at Walgreen’s. More importantly, drill down to the salient detail: a huge percentage of all cameras sold (even digital) are now disposable.

The car is about to repeat the exact same pattern. The era of the mass market disposable car is nigh. Let’s check the trend…

In 1909, Ford’s entry-level Model T cost $850. In 2008, the Ford Focus’ base price is $13,715. Priced in 1909 dollars, Ford’s entry-level U.S. model would cost $633. That’s a net savings of $217 in 1909 dollars compared to the Model T, or about 26 percent. And that’s without considering the vast improvements in safety, comfort, reliability, performance, etc.

According to the US DOT, there were 87m licensed drivers in 1960. Factoring 74m cars registered, we get a ratio of drivers to cars of 1.17:1. In 2003, 196m drivers owned 231m vehicles, giving a ratio of 0.83:1. As cars became cheaper, through cuts in technology cost or even through financing and leasing schemes, one-car families became two-car families. Two-car families bought a car for every person, parent or child. Then, dad bought a week-end whip. 

The innovation that arrived on the scene as a toy for the elite is firmly established as an “appliance” for the majority (while the elite have moved on to personal jets). While cars still have a ways to go before full commoditization, there’s no question they’re heading in that direction.

Well, if there WAS any doubt, India’s Tata Motors is about to eliminate it. Today’s the day the Indian automaker officially unveils their highly-anticipated “1-lakh car.” The name tells the tale; one lakh equals 100k rupees or roughly $2500. The 1-lakh car will be the world’s cheapest new car, and it’s a short trip from there to the truly disposable car.

How much of a car’s overall expense is due to its mechanical longevity? Remove that requirement and you’re suddenly free to substitute mass produced plastic, wood and other materials for the more expensive metal bits, from engine parts to the body panels. Combine this freedom with the “stripper” mentality (how many disposable cameras have a zoom function?), and your costs, and thus price, sink.

When we get a good look at the 1-lakh car, we’ll see just how much performance, safety and pollution control Tata could provide for $2500. But you can bet the car is not built for the long haul— because price is all. Ironically, even without fundamentally robust mechanicals, the 1-lakh car will probably “last” (i.e. remain in operation) a lot longer than western machines; by necessity, developing countries are endlessly innovative at repairing and recycling consumer goods. But the pattern of commoditization and [relatively] rapid disposability will be set.

Tata Motors anticipates that they’ll sell up to a million 1-lakhs per year. Going by America’s early automotive experience, it’s a highly conservative estimate. Once India’s enormous rural population has access to a fully functioning automobile, it will unleash an economic expansion the world hasn’t seen since, well, America’s early automotive history. And the more prosperous India’s population becomes the more Tata Motors 1-lakh cars they’ll buy.

And just as Henry Ford’s Model T (and its production process) spawned a hundred imitators, competitors for Tata Motors’ 1-lakh car will spring-up throughout the world’s largest democracy. Ford, Suzuki and all the other automakers operating in the Indian subcontinent are already rushing ever-cheaper small cars to market. It’s only a matter of time before the trend spreads to Africa and other so-called developing nations.

There’s only one thing standing in the way of the automobile’s commoditization: government intervention. It scarcely seems credible that a government could oppose its citizens increased mobility and, thus, prosperity, but, for numerous reasons, the Powers That Be have demonized the automobile. Western European thinkers and their like-minded foreign intellectuals see the disposable car as a global apocalypse. 

The truth is that it’s too late to stop the rise of the disposable car. The personal advantages of affordable personal transportation are too great to be denied. There’s too much money to be made fulfilling this desire. All we can do is make sure the disposable cars are properly recycled, as they should be.

I know it's not PC to say so, but I hate a lot of things. For example, I hate people walking around with those stupid cell phone earpieces looking like Lt. Uhura from Star Trek. They wear them like some sort of fashion jewelry, even when they're not asking John to phone Sally to tell Jorge he needs to phone Mary. For my sake, they should put their headsets away when not in use. Meanwhile, to find out what these people see in these devices and whether they have any practical use, I tested the suddenly very cheap Motorola HS820, a small Bluetooth, wireless headset.

The HS820 comes in one of those plastic containers that are NASA sealed for your protection. After repeated attempts to chew the package open, I got the scissors out and proceeded to cut my finger on the razor sharp plastic. Once open, I extricated the headset, charger and folded eight language manual. [NB: Yes, I’ve seen the TV ads for the Pyranna plastic cutter, but that’s not a car-related accessory.]

Stylistically, the HS820 is reasonably attractive, at least compared to some of the larger, uglier headsets adorning large swathes of the mobile generation. Motorola claims the HS820 possesses a “Funky surfboard design.” If true, it may be way too LA for many users. While the HS is smaller than your average ear thingie, and therefore less obtrusive, its small size may also affect battery life (discussed below). 

I plugged the HS820 into my car’s 12-volt socket (a.k.a. cigarette lighter) and waited two hours for a full charge. I then switched my IPhone into Bluetooth discovery mode and hoped for the best. The telephonic apple of Steve Job’s eye quickly discovered the HS820, illuminating its blue bluetooth indicator light. That's a lot more exciting than it sounds; I’ve had Bluetooth recognition issues before. I was relieved to see the two devices make nice so quickly.

I tried to make a call. Nothing. There was no sound in the HS820's earpiece. The IPhone said paired, but I despaired. So I used another phone to call someone to tell them to call me. When the call came through, I pressed the big ‘phone’ button to answer. Still nothing. So I unpaired and paired again (like the shampoo instructions say, lather, wash, rinse and repeat).

Second go. This time, when I went to phone a friend, the IPhone offered me a choice of phone, speakerphone, HS820 or ask the audience. Kidding. When I selected the HS820, I heard a beep in my ear. And then, finally, the earpiece went to work.

Calls were audible enough for rock and roll. All the people I annoyed on your behalf stated that my mellifluous tones were clear on the receiving end, and swore I didn’t sound as if I was calling from an undersea Plexiglas bubble.  No one complained of an echo, which was a real problem with the Bluetooth speaker in the previously tested Magellan 4040. Comfort was not an issue; at just 17 grams (about half an ounce to the metrically challenged), the headset’s weight didn't once threaten to deform my cranium.

The HS820’s range was within the Bluetooth specs of about 30 feet. The sound quality, such as it was, wasn't affected by a ten foot stroll away from the iPhone. Beyond ten feet, the caller’s voice warbled but remained audible, with no complaints about my voice on the receiving end. In-car use uncovered no range issues whatsoever. I suspect most users will stick to the mobile mobile environment– especially with the increasing number of states where operating a cell phone illegal without a hands-free device can land you in the hoosegow.

Motorola claims the HS820’s battery is good for six hours of talk time and 120 hours of waiting for somebody to call time. In the real world, even I can’t talk that long, so I have no idea if the six hours time limit is even remotely realistic. However, I do know that if I didn’t use the HS820 for several days, it was always DOA. So the promised five-day schmooze fest seems a tad optimistic.

When the HS820 first hit the market, it was priced at $99. I’m sure your friendly Verizon store still sells it for that price. You can now find the HS820 for significantly less. Amazon will sell you an HS820 for $31.95, and best-digital's giving them away at $19.99. At that price, it’s a no-brainer.

But if ultimate quality, sound and battery life matter to you, look for a newer Bluetooth 2.0 device. (The HS820 is 1.2 technology.) With fair sound quality, small size, okay battery life and a whole lot of cheapness, the HS820 is a decent choice for a wireless cell phone headset.

Should this be a TTAC-approved item?

Click here to vote
Click here for results

Four vehicles. That’s all you’ll find on Mercury's web site. If you’re as “lucky” as I am, Mercury will respond to your browsing by asking if you want to spend five minutes on a questionnaire. Say what? Asking for five minutes of your customer's time before you even show them your products? That isn’t the smartest thing to do to a spam-weary public. Then again, once you click on the word "No" and return to the actual products, you begin to realize that the entire Mercury product line represents the brand’s not-so-smart existence.

In fact, calling Mercury a “brand” is like calling a sampling of the touch-tone hold music version of Greensleeves a classical music concert. The erstwhile automaker represents nothing to nobody in a fantastically non-descript way. Every vehicle Ford sells as a Mercury is either a drab clone or a dying breed.

Milans are mildly redesigned Fusions that sit on dealer lots for nearly four months. Mariners are half-blinged Escapes sporting fake wood, fake leather and a very large and cheap fake plastic grille. Mountaineers are Explorers who’ve lost contact with base camp (which has given-up and moved further down the slope). The Mercury Sable is so boring and pointless that most full-sized car shoppers don't even know it exists. And the last of the great Panther-platformed sedans, the Grand Marquis (which outsells the Sable), appeals to customers who make Buick buyers feel like spring chickens.

In short, aside from Jill Wagoner’s comely curves, there is nothing compelling about anything Mercury says or does. Of course, Mercury’s non-existence is nothing new. The division hasn't had a competitive product or a compelling raison d’etre for at least 15 years. By the 80’s, Mercury’s model line up was as it is today: a dumping ground for slightly tarted-up Fords.

To wit, when Ford finally took the imports head on with the Taurus (and won), Mercury simply sent in the clones. As time and corporate idiocy went on, the 'non-Ford' Scorpios, XR4Tis, and Cougars flopped with increasingly predictable regularity. (Not to mention the Capri – an Aussie-built shitbox convertible.) Thanks to the “Ford first” culture, scant marketing dollars and limited engineering sources translated into a unique line of one generation wonders that were never improved the next go round. Nothing of any unique value endured in the Mercury division.

For Ford’s not-so-new-anymore CEO, Mercury’s mediocrity is déjà vu all over again. Alan Mulally was keenly aware of the importance of the “branding issue” when he took the reins at Boeing. Mulally knew the aviation Goliath had too many fiefdoms, which translated into too many products, which competed with each other, for no good reason. Big Al worked tirelessly to eliminate pointless redundancy of processes and products. And corrected Boeing’s nosedive.

Mr. Mulally is obviously far less beholden to Ford’s old guard than the gentleman that came before him. He’s been there, done that, killed the extraneous bits. And here’s the truth: when Mulally finally gets around to taking a good hard look at Mercury, Mercury will be toast.

For now, Mercury is merely milquetoast. The company adds zero uniqueness to Ford's product line. Mercury has zero technology, zero differentiation, zero prestige, zero class-leading products and zero long-term priority for the Ford Motor Company. Hundreds of Mercury dealerships, thousands of Ford employees and millions of advertising dollars are wasted trying to counter a counter clockwise death spiral. Every penny that goes into turning a struggling Ford product into an even less competitive Mercury is a penny wasted.

At a time when Ford is struggling to generate a profit anywhere within its North American product portfolio, what value can be had with Mercury? None.

There is but one, obvious solution: kill the brand. While politicians and lobbyists (one and the same) within the Ford fiefdoms will fight for Mercury’s survival– offering Saturn-like visions of imported import fighters– it’s only a matter of time before the death man’s blade swings its inevitable arc. 

Ford is clearly– and rightly– bent on re-focusing its energies on becoming a smaller, faster, better carmaker. Once the corporate cancers known as Jaguar and Land Rover are removed from the body corporate, Mercury is next. I predict that within the next six months Ford will announce the closing of the Mercury division. The consolidation of Lincoln and Mercury dealers is such that the move will not be “another Oldsmobile,” requiring billions in dealer pay-offs.

Most likely Mulally’s minions will announce Mercury’s termination in conjunction with a 'realignment' of the Lincoln division (towards it original luxury roots). Lincoln will once again start building unique vehicles. It will become the anti-Mercury, if you will.

If Ford files for bankruptcy before the man at the top can get Dearborn’s ducks in a row, the end result will be the same for Mercury. It is, and has been, a dead brand walking. It’s time to say goodbye.

Santa left a lump of coal in the automakers' stockings this year. Even the usual Christmas sales failed to put presents under the tree. As the year drew to a close, new car and truck sales were down across the board, with carmakers jostling for the honor of doing less badly than the other guy. New Year's was a decidedly dour affair, with manufacturers clocking the housing downturn and the mortgage crisis and predicting either flat or "slightly lowered" sales in the year ahead. Translation: batten down the hatches; it's about to get rough. Ain't that the truth.

Compared to December '06, light vehicles sales sank 2.9 percent for the month, 2.5 percent for the year. The light truck market went dim, with sales four percent below last December's total. Annual truck sales dropped by 1.9 percent. Total car sales fell 1.7 percent compared for December of last year, ending the year three percent below 2006. Here's how the models we've been tracking fared at the end of the year.

Passenger Cars

Chevy's Impala plummeted 32 percent compared to last December. Robust spring sales forestalled total disaster; sales were up 7.3 percent for the year. The Chrysler 300 ended the month 38.8 percent below '06; total sales were down 16 percent from last year. Ford's Fusion was a life preserver; sales were up seven percent in December, 4.9 percent for year. Toyota's Camry showed an uncharacteristic 1.8 percent December drop, but finished the year 5.5 percent ahead of 2006. While Camry hybrid sales nose-dived 73.2 percent in December, the Prius was up 53 percent for the same period.

Pickup Trucks

After falling for four months, Silverado's sales clocked a 2.2 percent increase in December. GM's former Next Big Thing was down 2.8 percent for year. Dodge Ram sales also picked up– and finished December down 2.3 percent,  1.6 percent below 2006's totals. Ford's F-Series managed to retain it's title as "best selling truck," but only barely.  With sales down 22 percent in December, 13.2 percent for year, FoMoCo'd better hope they can hang on until the redesigned model is ready in 2009. Toyota's Tundra didn't make their goal of 200k sales in '07, but the redesigned model easily eclipsed its predecessor. Sales were up 54.1 percent in December, 57.9 percent for the year.

Truck-Based SUVs

The sun continues to set on traditional body-on-frame SUV. The Chevrolet Tahoe dropped 25.6 percent from last December, ending the year down 9.4 percent. Dodge's Durango sank a staggering 42.6 percent below last last December, some 35.6 percent off the previous year's pace. The Ford Explorer is still lost. December sales were down 18.7 percent, annual sales sank 23.1 percent. Toyota's 4Runner also lacked love, losing 16.6 percent from last December, dropping 14.9 percent overall from the previous year.

CUVs

CUVs may be the hot ticket, but older models are suffering. Ye Olde Chevrolet Equinox lost 16.1 percent of its sales from last December, finishing the year down 21.4 percent.  The soon-to-be-a-has-been Chrysler Pacifica fell an unbelievable 62.1 percent for the month, ending-up 31.1 percent below last year overall. The Ford Escape stumbled a bit, losing 8.9 percent from last December. But it finished the year with a 5.2 percent increase over 2006. Toyota's RAV-4 remains healthy, finishing the year up 0.2 percent for month and a whopping 13.6 percent for year.

New for 2007

Say what you will about cannibalization, GMC sold 7,393 Acadia mega-CUVs in December; an increase of 998 units over November. In total, GMC sold almost 73k Acadias in 2007. Ford's Edge did even better, finishing December with 13,722 sales, adding 1128 sales to November's total. Ford sold over 130k units in 2007. Jeep picked up an additional 612 Compass sales over November, putting 3,295 on the soft road in December; they sold just under 40k of the semi-Jeeps in 2007.

Total Sales

Scrooge reigned supreme in December with one minor exception. GM finished December down 4.4 percent from last December and down six percent year to date. Ford was in even worse shape, dropping nine percent for December and 11.8 percent below last year's total. Chrysler was the only automaker showing an increase over December '06: one half of one percent. For the year, Chrysler was down 3.1 percent. Toyota didn't fare as well, dropping 1.7 percent over last December, but finishing the year 3.1 percent ahead of last year.

Looking ahead

Let's just say it ain't gonna be pretty, and I'll be here to help keep your finger on the pulse.

[I'm making a few changes to illuminate overall trends. First, I'm dropping 2005's numbers to keep the charts to the current calendar year plus two. I'm adding Honda's numbers in the categories where they're a player. I'm replacing a few extinct models (e.g. Pacifica) and those that don't accurately represent that manufacturer's best efforts in their category (e.g. replacing Equinox with Acadia). I'm also thinking about adding a chart for the best-selling hybrid from each manufacturer (GM doesn't break out hybrids in their sales numbers, so they won't be included). If you have any other suggestions, let me know in a comment below.]

Contrary to popular belief, panic is a logical reaction to an external threat. When a cornered animal’s fight or flight responses are unavailable or exhausted, acting erratically is its only hope. GM has been showing signs of panic for some time: on-again off-again product plans, vainglorious boasts, mistimed marketing, ill-advised divestiture and more. Recent events indicate that the domestic automaker’s aberrant behavior is escalating; leading, I’m afraid, to extinction. But let’s start with the meta-weirdness and work our way back to specific inexplicability. 

“What should power the world's vehicles in 20 years? How can personal transportation become more sustainable in an age of increasing global competition for resources? What role will the automotive industry play in developing markets?” The PR folk introducing GMNext.com have a firm grasp on the do-or-die issues facing GM. Equally obvious: their employer doesn’t have a coherent plan for addressing them.

Why else would GM open the “debate” to the general public? OK, sure, CEO Rick Wagoner says the site’s about “introducing some of our ideas for addressing critical issues concerning energy, the environment and globalization” to “spark a broader, global discussion on these important topics.” But GMNext’s overarching, underlying message is that the company’s product plans are an ill-defined work in progress. No wonder GMNext.com suffers from the usual GM ADD, promoting everything from OnStar’s Slow Down technology to the Volt’s erstwhile battery.

On one hand, fair enough. It’s an internet world. Power to the people! (As if.) Technology is in flux. React quickly and go with the flow! (As if.) On the other hand, if General Motors doesn’t already have a well-established plan for its future– from next Monday to 20 years away– we know someone who does.

Unlike Toyota, GM is panicking; flailing about; trying to find a way out of truck-heavy Hell. Instead of rallying the troops and heading in one direction, GM’s flying off in all directions, with predictably bizarre results. For example, GM’s “import fighter” is importing and rebadging a Belgian subcompact– and taking pride in the fact that Californians can’t identify it as a Saturn (see: GMNext.com). It's launching a bread-and-butter sedan with a $150m ad campaign– calling the Malibu “the car you can’t ignore”– with only a handful of new ‘Bu’s on the ground.

After dismissing the hybrid Prius as a marketing gimmick, GM’s poured billions into their own gas – electric system– for 5000lbs. SUVs. Meanwhile, after pronouncing that the new Chevrolet Volt will kick the current and next generation Prius’ ass come Spring, GM’s pulled back from the timeline– while continuing to promote the Volt some THREE YEARS before its POSSIBLE launch.

The confusion continues. GM’s just announced that they’ve killed their Ultra-V8 engine project: the new powerplant that would have [finally] replaced the ageing Northstar to power the next generation of GM luxury cars. Are they seriously suggesting that big Caddies– supposedly the standard of the world– don’t need the world’s best V8? Which reminds me: GM’s on-again, off-again plans for a range of rear wheel-drive models remains… undecided.

The last issue brings us to the other hallmark of panic (besides illogical behavior): anger. A panicking animal is suffused with adrenalin. In this case, anger’s afflicting GM Car Czar “Maximum Bob” Lutz, the man who must [eventually] decide on GM’s new drivetrains and platforms in the face of a new, more restrictive legislative environment. 

"Now that we have the 35 miles-per-gallon fuel economy mandate by 2020, I am hoping that in 2008 'Professor Doktor' David Friedman (research director, clean vehicles program, Union of Concerned Scientists) and his 'highly-qualified' band of allegedly concerned, self-proclaimed scientists will turn their energy toward showing the world's automotive industry exactly how those numbers, using existing technology and 'costs of a few hundred dollars at the most' can be attained with a vehicle selection that even remotely resembles the cars and trucks Americans want to buy today.”

The new federal regs represent a sea change in the regulatory landscape that all but the most ostrich-like industry players saw coming years ago. It scarcely seems credible that GM was waiting for the laws to be officially official before deciding on how to meet their requirements, including GM's platform strategy. But that’s the simple truth of the matter. Having waited too long, having no concrete plans for answering the vital mpg questions, Maximum Bob lashes out.

Mr. Lutz’ anger is an astonishing indication of the denial, confusion, paranoia and panic going on behind the scenes at GM. But it’s no surprise. The automaker’s non-existent branding strategy is all the evidence needed that GM is simply lurching from crisis to crisis, without rhyme or reason. While it's true that panic can work to an animal’s advantage– combining energy, surprise and luck to overcome mortal danger– panic is the survival strategy of last resort. After that, nothing.

The dorsal fin is what put it over the top for me, literally. When I was a tyke of six in Austria, I ogled cars like a fifteen year old with X-ray vision at a cheerleading camp. But the most tataliscous bod my eyes could never get enough of was the Tatra down the street. Its radical aerodynamic form was already twenty years old, but with its dorsal fin, tear-drop shape, rear engine and uncompromising fluid lines, the Tatra positively screamed “futuristic” to me then. Hell, it’s still ahead of the times today. Read More >

Like most middle aged men, I had a car crisis. So, after convincing my wife that an Imola Red BMW M Roadster isn’t “chick magnet red,” I bought my dream car. Of course, the dream is never the reality. I rarely drove the M. Summers were too wet and hot (real men don’t drive a convertible with the top up and the a/c on). Fall was too wet. Ah, winter in Florida! It’s the best ‘vert weather but… I just got a new daily driver. So Emily became a garage queen. And died.

Yesterday, I went out to drive her for the first time in two weeks. Unlike The Grand National, she’s never failed to start. But this time, key in, quick turn and nada. The dash lights were on but she didn’t even bother emitting the dreaded click click click sound. A dead battery was the blindingly obvious call. So I rolled her out of the garage, grabbed the jumper cables, opened the trunk, removed the battery cover and– remembered that jump starting a car is generally a bad idea.

Jump starting a modern car is two kinds of dumb. First, we’re talking dumb and dumberer, or, if you prefer, the Darwin factor. That’s when you accidentally reverse the cables and/or cause so much sparking that the battery blows. Second, there’s the small matter of an overly sensitive $1k electronic control unit that can up and die from a spike in the voltage transmitted from the running car to the dead car via Old Sparky– I mean jumper cables.

Some jumper cables now include a special resistor to reduce voltage spike. Some manufacturers also include a jumping block off the battery, which should help prevent battery explosions. But, as you’ve read here, no one reads the owner’s manual anymore. And I’m a lawyer; I don’t trust anyone, with anything, ever.

As an alternative, Sears sells several battery chargers. I reckon they’re a must for any vehicle driven less than once a week. So I tested the Sears DieHard 10/2/50 amp Automatic Battery Charger. The unit MSRPs at $64.99, but way-hey! As of December 23, 2007, it was on sale for a bargain price of only $39.99.

The Diehard charger is your basic, garden variety metal box with one analog battery charging gauge, two leads (for power on and full charge) and a three-way switch. It has two plugs, a 110 amp wall plug (not grounded) and two small jumper cable style wires with a red and black clamp. The Diehard does so with a vengeance; the heavy and sturdy block weighs in at eleven pounds.

So, connect the Diehard to your Diehard battery (or similar), red to red, black to black (or brown, as apparently some car companies didn’t get that memo regarding the international colors for positive and negative). Select the style of charge, plug in the device and wait. The Diehard offers spark proof protection in automatic mode, and even includes a Darwin feature for fashion victims who insist on hooking up red to black and black to red because it’s more aesthetically pleasing.

The Diehard Charger offers three settings depending on your needs. The 50 amp setting is similar to a jump from another car and should allow most cars to start up right away (though I would still give it a minute or two, and keep in mind the warning above, though the voltage from the Diehard is delivered spike free according to Sears).

If you’re not planning on driving the vehicle straight away, set the Diehard in the ten amp mode and wait about two hours. A blinking light will advise you when the battery is fully charged. WARNING: the Diehard doesn’t have an automatic shutoff; leaving the charger in ten amp mode for extended periods can damage your car’s battery. How lame is that?

I used ten amp mode for my M. A couple of hours later the car started like a dream, and ran the rest of the day without battery troubles.

There’s also a two amp trickle charger mode. This is the mode I SHOULD have been using for my M before I let her die. A trickle charge feeds just enough juice to keep the battery charged and the electrical system refreshed without overcharging the battery. Since most cars continue to draw power when off, a trickle charger also prevents damage to electrical components that seem to freak at low voltage.

I recently sampled a rarely driven loaner 2006 M5. When I picked her up after a short lay-up, the dash was lit up like a Christmas tree with dreaded engine damage warnings. A flat bed to the dealer later, I learned that the low voltage had falsely triggered the warnings. If only I’d learned to live free and Diehard.

Should this be a TTAC-approved product?

Click here to vote
Click here for results  

I once worked for a colonel who'd address all obstacles by saying "you can solve any problem if you throw enough money at it." While our budget officer would have to breathe into a paper bag for a half hour afterwards, the colonel always managed to squeeze whatever was needed to resolve the crisis du jour from the budget– and solve the problem. Automakers native to the People's Republic of China (PRC) must have bugged his office; they've adopted the exact same philosophy.  

Successfully implementing the "I'll buy what I need" strategy requires two things: 1) money and 2) knowing where to spend it. The Chinese automakers certainly meet criterion number one. The PRC is now the world's second largest auto market; auto sales are booming. The Chinese law requiring all foreign automakers to buddy-up with a domestic partner has delivered unto them an enormous financial windfall.

Criterion two– locating mission critical knowledge and/or technology– is a no-brainer. While there have been auto factories in the PRC since the mid ‘50s, the Chinese auto industry discovered the technological benefits of the aforementioned joint ventures (JV) since A Flock of Seagulls first flew. For the last thirty years, Western JVs have been flooding the PRC with new automotive designs, products and processes. 

Initially, these JV partners used Chinese labor to assemble automobiles already in production elsewhere. The Chinese partners learned how to bolt together a car, but not much more. By the 1990s and early 2000s, the foreign partners had started designing models specifically for Chinese consumption, retooling their plants for full-scale manufacturing.

At this point, several "independent" Chinese auto manufacturers (i.e. companies not enmeshed in joint ventures) began leveraging their newfound carmaking skills to send in the clones: selling exact replicas of other manufacturer's models built for Chinese consumers. 

Blinded by golden goosehood, stymied by laughable and unenforced Chinese copyright and trademark laws, GM, VW, Ford and others turned a blind eye to this sincerely flattering fraternal competition. Western automakers wrote it off as the cost of doing business in a military dictatorship. Besides, in China's burgeoning automotive market, there was– and is– plenty of pie for everyone! Of course, Chinese manufacturers had bigger plans…

For the last decade of so, Chinese automakers have started eying foreign markets. As they dipped their entrepreneurial toes into Western climes, they realized they lacked competitive cars, and the engineering expertise to design them. Disastrous European crash testing literally drove the point home.

So Chinese automakers have started throwing money at European and North American automotive companies. Michael Laske, president of Austrian-based AVL China, says "The Chinese fundamentally lack products and knowledge, but they need to get into the market very quickly." And so AVL is banking big bucks, designing an entire engine line from the ground up to pop China's Chery.

Companies selling world class technology in so-called mature markets are falling all over themselves in their rush to cater to China's hunger for the best of the best. The list of successful sellers includes BorgWarner (turbochargers, clutches, transmissions), Sweden's Autoliv (safety systems), Austria's Magna Steyr (marketing strategy, legal requirements), Robert Bosch (diesel technology),  Italdesign-Giugiaro and Pininfarina (design assistance) and A.T. Kearney (management consultants). 

The joint venture partners are infusing their Chinese partners/competitors with cutting edge technology. GM has an engineering and design center in Shanghai, soon to be joined by a hybrid research center. To provide Chrysler with a small car for the U.S. market, Chrysler's engineers are tweaking every aspect of Chery's operations. So what happens next, once this technology transfer is bang up-to-date?

China's domestic automakers will use their imported expertise to export cars abroad. Chery is already selling cars in Mexico; they've declared their intention to enter the U.S. market in the next two to three years. Chinese automakers will be out in force at this year's North American International Auto Show.

To further the cause of global export, the Chinese government is pushing their domestic auto makers to merge into a "Big Three" and a "Mini Three." Given the government's protectionist views, once the mergers and reorganizations are over, GM, VW, Toyota et al will find themselves out in the cold.

Western manufacturers seem blissfully unaware of their own usurpation. They keep pouring money and engineering talent into China– even as the Chinese manufacturers are taking the first steps toward merging into megacompanies. Once again, western car companies are so blinded by the money they're making that they can't see the dangers lurking beyond the next quarter's bottom line. 

But hey, that's the way the fortune cookie crumbles. If we don't do it, someone else will. Make hay while the sun shines. Pump and dump cuts both ways. That kind of thing. But any automaker that doesn't see China as a short term play, that stakes its long term financial future on the PRC, is headed for a rude awakening. Sooner rather than later.

Wiki.answers.com challenges visitors to ask a question, any question; from “What is the meaning of life?” to “Dude, where’s my car?” Realizing that the site’s Google-style entry bar may prove a tad daunting, the webmasters also provide a list of 20 categories for intellectual exploration. Enquiring minds can click on a relevant area and then drill down to see if someone’s been there, asked that (via unfortunately worded questions like “What’s the best food to eat with diarrhea?”). As you’d expect from a wiki site, you can also switch to “Answers” and put questioners out of their intellectual misery. I decided to apply my expertise to the automotive arena. And down the rabbit hole we go.

After signing-up as an expert, I received my first shock: volume. My inbox received 100 automotive questions per day. And then the aftershock: the questions. 

“Why won’t my (insert a car name here) start?”

Dozen of surfers sent me this question. Daily. I could have written a long list of possible explanations, starting with the blindingly obvious (a dead battery), working my way to the completely implausible (alien energy abduction). But I was dumbstruck by the idea that hundreds of thousands of people somehow never “got” the basic methodology underpinning “20 questions,” yet still managed to learn how to type.

“Where do I put the oil in a [insert car name here]?”

Again, a popular question. I’ve got one: when did American consumers decide that car owner’s manuals are coated in powdered anthrax? Imagine hundreds of pages of questions with the word “RTFM” next to them. I did.

“Can you drive with a broken radiator?” 

Yes but not very far. Back in the day, a TTAC editorialist lamented the precipitous decline of domestic garage skills. He pointed out that the trend had a catastrophic effect on the average motorist’s knowledge of simple mechanical repairs and upgrades. Well no shit.

Hundreds of questioners wanted to know how to change head, tail, stop, turn and dash bulbs. I reckoned it was only a matter of time before “How do I change a tire?” appeared. Equally sadly, there were hardly ANY questions about maintenance issues (changing oil, rotating tires, etc.) or relatively simple repairs (replacing shocks, etc).

How do I put double deuces on 16” wheels?

I want to see THAT buggy rolling down Woodward Avenue. Anyway, don't laugh. Think of all the people who didn't think to check their bling strategy. And of course, LOADS of people wanted to know how to remove/install a sound system. I reckon most of these questions come from midnight auto parts & accessories stores.

And then there were the off-the-wall, left field, where-the-Hell-do-these-people- come-from questions. Questions so bizarre I was constantly tempted to write equally fantastic replies. 

“What’s your rpm at zero?”

Somehow I knew that “Your rpm is zero at zero” wasn’t going to cut it. But I didn’t want to launch into a long discussion of engine function, and I couldn’t write “The same as yours” or “Idle tachometers are the Devil’s plaything.” So I simply ignored the question, and many more like it. But how can you ignore a question like…

“How can cheese get on the car engine?”

What’s that you say? You've got goat cheese on your GTO? The question raised an infinite number of possible flippant replies, slapstick routines and jackass misadventures. On the other hand, perhaps he meant the heroin-based drug that that killed a Texas teen last year. If so, a dealer may have hidden the cheese in the questioner’s engine bay to evade the Narcs. Yes, the mind boggles.

“Can right hand drive cars be imported along with their regular left hand drive cars to US to meet needs of deaf person with little money?” 

Why would a poor, deaf person want to import a right hand-drive car into the U.S.? You might suggest that they’re also dumb, but I would never make such an insensitive remark.  

“How many payments can I miss before they take my car?”

Never mind the infinite spellings of the word "repossession." Again, why in the world would anyone think I could give them specific advice on their personal situation– such as "Who took my car?"– without any specific details? Maybe there's a widespread belief that "they" control the internet; "they" already know everyone's personal details. Which is as close to common sense as most of these wiki wanderers will ever get.

Speaking of "uninformed," I went into this gig expecting to tackle questions like “What’s the difference between all wheel-drive and four wheel-drive?” and “What are desmodromic valves?” and “Who imported the Borgward Isabella?” I now realize that I’m part of an elite group of well-educated pistonheads interested in stuff that most people don’t know exists– and couldn’t possibly understand it if they did. Call me a snob/rivet counter, but one way or another, the truth hurts.