Bob Lutz is a gift. The Car Czar’s uncanny ability to spout uninformed, arrogant nonsense makes analyzing GM’s corporate confusion a slam dunk. Unfortunately, the mainstream automotive press prefers to proffer a protest-free platform for Maximum Bob’s maximum BS. So be it. We can still read between the lines. In this case, Automotive News [AN] blesses us with a bit of Maximum Bob raw. It’s deeply worrying stuff.

AN begins by asking Lutz how the new Malibu can overcome its rep as a daily rental car. 

A lot of the advertising is designed to take that head-on. We're not going to erase that perception gap in this generation. People are still going to go to the Toyota store and are still going to get a Camry. They're not going to care that most of the models are no longer recommended, and they're not going to care about all the quality problems. It's a learned response. That's going to be hard to erase.

Lutz begins by feigning glasnost: we here at GM are not afraid to take on previous reputation with brand new most excellent automobile. And then Lutz commits marketing’s cardinal sin: insulting the customer. If you don’t consider the “perception gap” an inherently demeaning concept– our cars are as good/better as theirs; you’re just too stupid/bigoted to know it– Bob’s no-holds-barred attack on Camry buyers’ loyalty should convince you.

Earth to Bob: don’t diss the customers you can’t afford to miss. And is it me or does Bob’s idea of “erasing” Camry buyers’ “learned responses” sound way too 1984 for a car guy plying his trade in a free market? As he has so many times before, Bob seals the deal with outright ignorance; Consumer Reports dropped one of Camry’s three models from its thumbs-up list (the V6). “Most” Camry models remain recommended.

So, Bob, what will happen to GM's recovery if sales of the car you've touted as the Camry-killer misses its mark? 

It's not a make-or-break car. We expect it to do moderately well, and we expect it to be recognized by the media as one of the best mid-sized cars out there. We expect that not all but some import intenders will come back to this car or try it for the first time.

Huh? if the new Malibu is not GM’s make-or-break car, what is? Is this the same Malibu that Maximum Bob told Edmunds that "in terms of fits and finishes, gaps, interior quality and so forth, you’re going to find the Malibu is equal to, I think, the Camry. And with the V6 engine, it outperforms it and I think it outhandles it. It also outbrakes it. I believe personally, subjectively, that it’s more fun to drive. And we do have a price advantage”? Now it's "one of the best" that will do "moderately well?"

Has Maximum Bob run out of hot air gas? AN picks-up the bad vibe (so to speak) and runs with it. What's it gonna take to make GM profitable in North America?

We've made a major move with the labor agreement. What still remains to be done is getting better net pricing or better transaction prices on the cars, which means lower incentives. But the environment is pretty difficult right now because I think we're facing an increasingly weak market. The market has to come back a little bit.

Part A of Bob’s reply is boilerplate bluster. Part B is completely out of character for Maximum Bob. We know what we need to do but we can’t do it because the market sucks. We’re going to keep our heads down and wait.

Coming from GM's CFO after yet more market share decline, the statement wouldn't merit a second listen. Coming from GM’s Vice Chairman of Global Product Development, this wiggle room makeover is a shocking Volt from the blue. If Maximum Bob’s no longer GM’s dopey-headed cheerleader, what the Hell’s going on down there?

To cheer him up, AN asks Bob if the Chevy's hybrid Hail Mary is a goer. Bob reckons it's an ipso facto-mobile; if the Volt wasn’t doable, why would GM even try? (Note to Bob: you’re got 400 engineers on the job, not 200.) And yet…

So is there a possibility next spring when we have our first cars and we drive them, the batteries don't live up to our expectation or they don't accept the charge as quickly as we'd like or they don't deliver quite the range; they deliver 35 instead of 40 miles? That is a possibility. Right now, we don't think that will happen. Even if it does happen, it's an engineering problem that we will solve through further development.

Further development. It’s what GM does best! Just look at the… the…. In any case, it seems clear to this industry watcher that someone or something has knocked the wind out of Maximum Bob’s sails. Could it be reality? Jim Farley-esque really real reality? Stranger things have happened. Wait. No they haven’t. Expect Bob to return to form and/or– as we have been predicting for quite some time– a shit storm of epic proportions.

[The Automotive News interview with MB is available (by subscription) here.] 

Autumn in Texas plays host to a weekly cultural phenomenon known as high school football. Burgeoning grid iron gods burst on to the field of play from inflatable tunnels through mists of smoke and a phalanx of sparkly drill team coeds. A 300-student marching band plays the school fight song while two dozen cheerleaders power tumble across the field to herald the arrival of the young jocks. The stadium fills with ten thousand spectators-– mostly proud parents and rabid students-– who arrived to the game in typical Texas fashion: by truck. It is under the glare of these Friday night lights that I examine the value of GM's new hybrid SUVs.

Contrary to popular belief, these vehicular behemoths are seldom used as single passenger commuter transport. Nor are they all owned by rural hicks working a ranch. They’re mostly driven by busy parents hauling their children, kid’s friends and equipment to dozens of school, church and sporting events. And yes, many of the Lone Star State's SUV owners regularly pull boats to the north Texas lakes. These buyers are, indeed, the “power users” for which these massively-powered big-framed vehicles were designed.

Even if you reject this “justification” for SUV and pickup truck ownership as a luxury our country (or the planet) can no longer afford, even if you disallow the argument that small cars just don’t cut it in America’s rural heartland, know this: Texan big rig buyers aren’t blind or immune to high gasoline prices. They understand and appreciate environmental concerns. And they sure as Hell get the connection between foreign military entanglements and the politics of oil production. For this savvy SUV market at least, the General’s hybridization of the Tahoe makes perfect sense.

Toyota, and to a lesser extent Honda, have occupied the eco-friendly automotive mindspace by fitting hybrid engines into small or midsize front wheel drive cars; vehicles that are already amongst their most economical platforms. Gas – electric propulsion has generally boosted these cars’ fuel efficiency from EPA estimates in the 30mpg range, to the 40mpg range. It’s an amazing technological accomplishment that fully deserves the PR plaudits and financial rewards received. 

By comparison, the 4×2 hybrid Yukon looks like a misfire. The two-mode hybrid system “only” delivers 21/22 miles per gallon. Aside from buyers of high-priced luxury cars, no sedan driving consumer in his right mind would settle for that kind of mileage. Mileage in the twenties? How great is that? Counter intuitively, it’s quite amazing. Indeed, by my calculations it is 39 percent better in conservation terms than putting a hybrid engine in an already economical car.

Let’s run some numbers. 

The 2008 Honda Civic sedan is powered by a 140hp, 1.8-liter i-VTEC four-cylinder engine. Mated to a five-speed manual, the Civic’s EPA numbers clock-in at 25mpg around town, and 36mpg on the highway. In a year of combined driving (15k miles at 29mpg), a Civic owner would need to pump 517.2 gallons into his or her petrol sipper.

Honda’s effort to supercharge the mpg results with a hybrid electric elevates mileage to 40/45mpg. In a typical year of driving, the Civic owner burns 357.1 gallons of CO2-emitting gasoline (based on combined 42mpg). That’s a savings of 160.1 gallons.

A typical 4×2 Chevy Tahoe rumbling through Lone Star State suburbs has a 5.3-liter V8 Vortec engine mated to ye olde four-speed cogswapper. Tea leaves, chicken bones, and entrails tell the prognosticating bureaucrats at the EPA that the rig will achieve 14mpg while stoppin' and goin' and 20mpg while crusin'. In a year of driving at 16mpg combined, the Tahoe owner will have to feed the beast 937.5 gallons of dead dino juice.

Despite having a larger 6.0-liter V8 engine, the Tahoe Hybrid increases 'round town gas mileage by 50 percent and highway mileage by 10 percent (21/22mpg). Over 15k miles, the hybrid variant chugs only 714.3 gallons; saving the Tahoe driver (and the environment) 223.2 gallons.

In other words, a Tahoe owner that opts for hybrid saves 63.1 more gallons of gasoline every year than a Civic driver who makes the same choice.

This demonstrates what GM has been saying for years: improving the gas mileage of the thirstiest (and most popular) vehicles is more important for reducing consumption, pollution and CO2 than wringing stratospheric mileage from the cars that are already among the most fuel efficient.

Of course, many environmentally-conscious people would like to see Yukon drivers trade-in their “obscenely large” family truckster for a more “practical” Civic Hybrid or suchlike. But as long as we live in a free country, individuals are free to determine which vehicle best suits their lifestyle, financial constraints and belief system. For those of us who huddle against the chill air in rural high school football stadiums, the Chevrolet Tahoe Hybrid looks like a remarkable, yes sensible, option. I wish it well.

A marketing guru once told me that many companies sell themselves based on their weakest attributes. By playing up what the market perceives as their limitations, the company seeks to reverse “misconceptions” which prevent greater popularity. The strategy is what Hitler called “The Big Lie:” a falsehood of such size and splendor that no one can believe that someone had “the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.” This explains why Ford Canada used the slogan “Quality is Job 1” while building the Tempo and Escort. It also illuminates automakers’ greenwashing.

The Big Lie is that automakers are environmentalists. Excuse me for stating the obvious, but cars are not now– nor will they ever be– good for the environment. You can argue about the relative amount of damage they cause. You can debate about the various ways to minimize their impact on world ecology. But every time I see the TV spot featuring a Ford Escape Hybrid frolicking with Bambi’s family in a pristine forest, it makes me want to hurl my TV through a window.

If you believe the ad, the Ford Escape Hybrid’s gas-electric hybrid engine emits nothing but organic, non-toxic pixie dust (at least until the internal combustion engine kicks-in). Even if that were true, it’s well worth noting that The Blue Oval Boyz sold just 17,551 Escape Hybrids (34/30mpg) year-to-date– as compared to 118,321 Explorers (13/19mpg).

In their rush to cover themselves in a Teflon-coated mantle of green, automakers are no dopes. They know that their key audience (their customers) are easily distracted by bright shiny objects. We’re good for the planet because of THIS. You don’t have to buy it, but THERE IT IS. They use The Big Lie to distract their critics (and customers) from The Big Picture.

While I’m no fan of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) legislation, at least the federal rules put automakers’ products into their proper perspective; highlighting the sum total of their vehicles’ environmental impact. Well, almost. No account is made of the pollution generated by creating and distributing these products. But I digress…

Honda provides my favourite example of green-tinged auto industry hypocrisy. This past year, Honda’s F1 group gave their race cars “Save the World” livery: a satellite image of planet earth and the signatures of thousands of people who visited myearthdream.com to pledge they’d reduce their carbon footprint. 

What could be less environmentally-friendly than an F1 race car? F1 cars burn 60 litres of fuel to run 100 km, with hugely fat tires that need replacing on an hourly basis. And they are NOT emissions tested. What’s more, each car requires a massive support team and a globe-trotting entourage that makes the President’s traveling toadies look like a mobile coffee klatch.

The hypocrisy is going to get a lot worse before it gets even worse. The LA Auto Show confirms the trend: the automakers have replaced their previous pursuit of unbridled horsepower, techno toys and drop-dead glamor with the single-minded promulgation of their environmental responsibility– or at least the perception of environmental responsibility. Ironically enough, the underlying message they’re sending is actually the absolution of responsibility, not its embrace. 

The LA Auto Show’s “Green Car of the Year Award” illustrates the point. The award's implicit rational: drivers can buy carbon footprint absolution, instantly divesting themselves of liability for the overall environmental impact of their personal choices. The fact that this year’s winner is not even a “car” but a great honking SUV tells us that hype has rolled over any reasonable analysis of individual consumption like a Tahoe Hybrid flattening a carelessly discarded Styrofoam cup.

Don’t get me wrong: there’s nothing wrong with making, promoting and buying vehicles that do less environmental damage than others. But any examination of these vehicles’ impact without considering the myriad of issues surrounding their creation, fueling and use is foolish.

So why are all these “green” automakers playing us for fools? Because we are fools.

Once again, carmakers are simply giving people what they want. Americans are the world’s most pampered people. I’ve got not problem with that– right to the point where it’s easier for the Earth-aware to buy a Escape Hybrid than change their transportation habits.

It’s a lot easier to commute to work in a gas – electric Ford cute ute than set up a carpool in a less exotic machine, deal with the hassles of mass transportation, change jobs for one with more telecommuting, move house to reduce journey times, etc.

In short: As long as it’s considered possible to change the world without changing habits, that’s what people will do. The rule applies equally to buyer AND seller. In that sense, just as we get the politicians we deserve, we get the hypocritical environmental advertising we desire. Sad, but true.

Enthusiasts have been tuning vehicles since the first car coughed into life. Back in the day, performance-minded pistonheads could enhance their car’s fun factor by putting stiffer springs on the distributor advance, or changing the top dead center degrees. In fact, there were hundreds of relatively simple ways a clever wrench could wring more performance out of his [formerly] humble four-wheeled steed. Today’s cars are too heavily computer-dependent for such simple tricks. Enthusiast-oriented entrepreneurs have created a whole new market of electronic modifications to fill in the void.

The ECU (electronic control unit) regulates various elements of the modern car’s activities: fuel delivery, spark plug detonation, etc. Manufacturers program the ECU’s software to balance the car’s performance with fuel economy, emissions, safety and reliability. In almost all cases, carmakers leave a large margin of performance on the table. If nothing else (cough warranty costs cough), the extra oomph would sacrifice some of the car’s commercial appeal.

Third party tuners download and disassemble the ECU’s source code (i.e. hack), and then recode portions of the software to unleash unused performance. Some chip tuners can dramatically increase horsepower and torque. In other cases, where power increases are limited, chip tuners improve the overall power delivery, remove top speed limiters and raise the car’s redline.

GEEK ALERT! OPTIONAL SKIP GRAPH

Until recently, ECU tuning required a hardwire modification. If the ECU software was socketed, a user could remove the factory programmed ROM and replace same with a new chip from the tuner. If the ECU software was soldered, then the pistonhead usually sent the ECU to the tuner for modification. Thanks to OBD-II access (now required by federal law) and the use of flashable ROMs (which allow for reprogramming by the manufacturer), tuners now can simply reflash the ECU without hardware modification.

APR offers several ECU options for Audi, Porsche and VW enthusiasts seeking extra oomph for their German-made, well-designed whips. In addition to modifications that remap the power delivery, customers can pay for the ability to switch between stock and “enhanced” modes, a valet mode (to reduce power below stock), and a 100 octane mode to accommodate race track gas. I tested APR’s competitively-priced 93 octane program upgrade ($599), with one mode ($100), on a 2006 Audi A4 2.0T.

Our local APR dealer performed the installation in about 1.5 hours. Once the software was installed, he showed me how to switch between no-go and go modes using the cruise control set button. Liberating the hidden horses was a bit tricky, and not always successful. In one case, I couldn’t start the car for a few minutes after activation.

APR promises a 41hp increase and a whopping eighty-five pound-feet more torque. The change in the car’s performance was dramatic. In real world testing, I dropped over a second from my normal zero to 60mph sprint time. Equally beguiling: acceleration was notably stronger throughout the entire power band.

APR improves performance in the Audi [in part] by increasing the turbo’s boost pressure. From the factory, turbo pressure at maximum acceleration is about twelve psi. APR ups this pressure by five psi. APR insists that the Audi engine can easily handle twenty psi. As long as you use 93 octane fuel (hence the product’s name), APR claims their upgrade remains safely within this margin. Long-term effects are unknown, but I noticed no engine issues over a ten-thousand-mile test.

This brings us to the thorny side of these mods: their effect on your warranty. Some owners worry that an APR or similar upgrade will void their factory coverage. While some dealers are quick to use modifications to deny a warranty claim, the Magnuson Moss federal warranty act specifically prohibits denial of coverage unless the modification actually causes the claim. But do you really want a protracted court battle with your car dealer?

The chip tuners offer no guaranties– which is worrying. The ability to turn off APR’s modifications and “hide” them from the factory technicians (“valet mode”) offers some peace of mind. HOWEVER, should the factory update your car’s software, the APR software will be overwritten. And this is occasionally done as a matter of “routine” during scheduled maintenance.

Now, some more good news…

The APR upgrade didn’t reduce the Audi’s fuel economy; in fact, I measured a slight increase in fuel efficiency. The ECU upgrade also works well with other engine modifications, such as cold air intakes, headers and larger diverter valves.

Overall, the APR ECU modification is an impressive effort. It greatly improves engine performance with only a slight, ongoing financial penalty (due to its need for premium dino-juice). Outside forced induction, no other modification gives as much bang for the buck as an ECU upgrade. For those looking to increase performance on their Porsche, Audi or VW, the APR program should be on the short list.

Should this be a TTAC-approved product?
Vote here
View poll results here 

There’s something deliciously ironic about slogging through one of LA’s infamous rush hours to attend a “green” cars award ceremony. The multi-lane Harbor Freeway plays host to a long slow dance of cars and semis, tailpipes steadily churning out brownish plumes into a blue sky. The dominant hue is not green but red: the omnipresent brake lights mocking California’s long-abandoned promises of fast, efficient personal travel. It’s almost enough to persuade a driver to ride the bus. Like me, most just crank on caffeine and escape boredom via the stereo, instead.

Safely ensconced within the confines of the Convention Center, road rage gives way to the journalistic trough [fair disclosure] and a wander amongst enough exotic metal to give a 49er a heart attack. In my dreams, I can grab a fast steed from the floor and point it at a winding road and go. In reality, manufacturers employ Swiffer-wielding minions to dust the untouchables.

Anyway, back to this business of saving the planet. This year’s auto show has been transformed into an overhead cam version of Earth Day. Even our press room sponsor proclaims that it’s now “dedicated to a green future.” In past years, such unbridled vehicular earth worship from a tire manufacturer would be about as credible as Vogue promoting a positive body image to a bulimic support group. Today, auto industry types don’t as much play the green card as staple it to their forehead.

The third annual Green Car of the Year award comes courtesy of the Green Car Journal™; which is also the Green Car Journal Online™, GreenCar.com™, GreenCars.com™ and Green Car Online.com™. Whether or not Ron Cogan practices the TM that he preaches, the editor and publisher behind these ventures has fully grasped the marketing possibilities of cleaning-up the image of the [once and future] planet destroyer. Clearly. 

If you were expecting a sneering panel of hippy judges drenched in patchouli and incense, think again. In addition to such green luminaries as Jean-Michel Cousteau (eldest son of Jacques, the original Fish Whisperer) and Sierra Club executive director Carl Pope, both Jay Leno and Carroll Shelby voted in this year’s eco-electoral college. Not that the (former) champions of unbridled horsepower bothered showing up. Still, had they attended, the erstwhile eco-converts would have been flattered (not to say intoxicated) by the substantial media presence.

Mr. Cogan’s buff book has yet to find an alternative fuel that it doesn’t like. This year’s five nominees amped-up the hybrid hype, but good. GM dominated the entries, with its hybrid versions of the Aura, Malibu and Tahoe. Hybrid variants of the Mazda Tribute and Nissan Altima completed the list of contenders. 

The esteemed panel awarded the coveted prize to the Chevrolet Tahoe. Mr. Cogan burnished its halo with all the enthusiasm you’d expect from a man who jets around the world on someone else’s nickel to test “green” cars without disclosing the manufacturers’ contribution to his reports or carbon footprint. 

The cynicism is warranted. The powerplant installed in this belle of the enviro-ball Tahoe hybrid begins with a 6.0-liter V8. GM opted to graft its hybrid system onto a motor that’s substantially larger (e.g. thirstier) than either the 4.8 or 5.3-liter conventional motors used in other Tahoes.  Attach 400 pounds of batteries to this mammoth mill, and the resulting ecotank offers no improvement in highway fuel economy and slightly less towing capacity over the old-fashioned dino burner.

Employing a gasser 25 percent larger than the norm– instead of deploying a lighter motor of smaller displacement– only to weigh it down with nickel metal hydride, seems a lot more mean than green. Yet with battery acid on tap, apparently all is forgiven.

To be fair, not all of the runners-up deserve a slam. Both the Nissan Altima Hybrid and the Mazda Tribute Hybrid accomplish their missions: delivering relatively low emissions and strong fuel economy relative to their respective classes. If you want four-wheeled fodder for a general rant against gasoline-battery marriages, you won’t find it here.

Still, there’s no getting around it: this award is meant to be about “moving the bar forward” in the noble pursuit of slicing America’s overall fuel consumption through consumer choice. Unfortunately, the prize has delivered a less laudable lesson: how ecology-as-pop-culture can produce sub-optimal results. 

The recurring theme of the awards presentation: sacrifice is wholly unnecessary. But the belief that one can pilot a big block V8 for a grocery run while doing the planet a favor is just as absurd as it sounds. Irrespective of where you shake out on matters environmental, the message of burn-it-big-but-with-batteries is overtly hypocritical, an idea worthy of a spin-crazed carmaker, not an [alleged] environmental crusader.

For the majority of those with a desire to save fuel, swapping your ride for a smaller car remains the obvious and most effective solution.   

“Is that yours?” Millions of car buyers spend billions of dollars hoping that this statement will be born of admiration rather than pity. When these words come out of a car dealer’s mouth at trade-in time, they can be especially hurtful– even if the salesman is as honest as their spiel is long. That’s the moment when most car buyers finally discover whether or not their automotive “investment” has walked off a cliff and fallen into the financial abyss known as depreciation. Here’s how to avoid the freefall…

It simply can’t be stressed enough. Depreciation is the mother of all automotive operating costs. Even if gas soars to four bucks a gallon, depreciation STILL repesents the biggest hit to the car owner’s wallet. To wit: The average cost for a new car in these great United State currently hovers around $24k. After seven to eight years– not far from the ever-increasing average amount of time American new car buyers hold onto their whips– the car’s owner will be looking at a depreciation rate somewhere between 70 percent and 85 percent.

In other words, come trade-in time, they’re facing an average loss between $16,800 and $20,400. That’s before any considering of the “opportunity cost” (i.e. money lost by NOT investing the cash in a house/money market/alpaca farm). Or inflation.

Bottom line: if you want to avoid depreciation, forget about buying a new car. Yes, a new car offers warranty-related peace of mind. But it's an extremely expensive security blanket. A carefully-selected used car may need repairs, but in most cases, they'll still cost a lot less than depreciation..   

If you're willing to forgo that new car smell, figuring-out your buying pattern is the next step. There are two basic buying types: Keepers (keep cars for the long haul) and Traders (trade them in after a few years).

Many Keepers are ready, willing and able to enjoy a vehicle for well over a decade. “Keepers” believe their car should be a cruising companion until the point where the perceived risk of owning it (usually the cash outlay for major repairs) outweighs the fact that ownership itself [eventually] costs them nothing/virtually nothing. In the automotive world, they are what we call "married."

The key to being a successful Keeper: marry genuine quality, not reputation. Say what you will about “import bigots” and brand loyalty, but the automotive market is a place where perceived reputation translates into dollars and cents. Toyotas and Hondas routinely receive price premiums– even though many of their products fall far short in value and performance as compared to their peers. By the same token, overlooked or unloved models represent an excellent way to keep the hounds of depreciation at bay.

In most cases, car buyers get more bang for their buck (power, features, etc.), lower up-front costs, and lower depreciation costs simply by buying a used example of a less well known/accepted car. Mitsubishi, Subaru, Saturn– there are plenty of brands that sell excellent products that simply fail to capture the public imagination. The fact that these cars take a huge initial hit on depreciation works entirely in your favor, both buying and selling. 

For example, if you’re looking at a midsized commuter, a 2004 Buick Century or 2004 Oldsmobile Bravada, both of which finished first in J.D. Power’s recent dependability study and received strong ownership ratings, will cost thousands less to purchase than a comparable Camry, Accord or Pilot. Remember: badge snobs must pay for the privilege. 

The Trader is a different animal, a shorter time horizon than the Keeper, requiring a different strategy.

To avoid depreciation, Traders are best off buying a carefully vetted five to seven-year-old car of their choice. At that point, depreciation has exacted the majority of its revenge. With due diligence, Traders can get a superb return on their money. The average five-year-old car kept for two years experiences minimal depreciation (20 percent or so). The average seven-year-old car experiences even less, and so on. It's a simple but highly effective buying pattern.

And then there is the Sage. The Sage can buy nearly anything and make a buck at it. Yours truly has enjoyed hundreds of vehicles over the last few years– and it’s only taken huge chunks of my free time to do it. Mechanics, auto auctioneers, wholesalers, retailers and hobbyists will always have an edge when it comes to depreciation costs. We know what’s hot, and we know plenty of people who appreciate hotness.

Again, wisdom comes at a cost. Sages don’t pay for depreciation (much), but their insight requires years of hard work, money (mistakes are never free) and a feel for the auto biz' cycles of fashion and fame.

Whether you’re a Keeper, Trader or Sage, remember: a car is an expense. It may excite you or be a daily nuisance, but it is still an expense. By minimizing depreciation you will avoid the single largest cost in the process. With that money you can save the world, buy groceries or save up for your next car.  

BMW, Mercedes, Audi and other performance-oriented manufacturers all place a high premium on providing their customers with massive stopping power, with minimal noise. To that end, they fit relatively soft brake pads. The Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM) brake pads are fabricated from a combination of high tech and simple materials: carbon fibers, metal filings and a powerful adhesive to hold the pad material together. These soft brake pads help the machines achieve astounding predictability, power and control but they do make your expensive wheels look like crap.

As soft brake pads press against the brake discs, they release copious amounts of brake dust. The harder and more frequently you press on the stop pedal, the greater the schmutz. Pistonheads love hard braking and abhor schmutz. If it’s hands-up for OCD clean wheelology, you have a number of options for keeping your expensive wheels a schmutz-free zone.

For example, you can wax the wheels’ interior (to make cleaning the dust easier) or fit Kleen Wheels’ brake shield inside the wheel to contain the schmutz. Or you can fit low dust brake pads. There are plenty of aftermarket companies tantalizing pistonheads with the prospect of wheel cleaning liberation: EBC, Hawk, AXXIS, Rotex and more. I tested the gold standard: Rotex Gold brake pads. I fitted the pads on a 2000 BMW with 17” alloy wheels.

Rotex Gold brake pads are made from Kevlar®, metallic soft steel wire and powdered sponge iron (for maximum heat transfer), and silver virgin graphite. Kevlar® is a lightweight synthetic fiber that’s five time stronger than steel (famous for stopping bullets). More to the point, Rotex claims their premium quality silver virgin graphite greatly reduces noise and virtually eliminates brake dust.

Installing the Rotex pads was a non-issue; the process is no different from OEM pad fitment. The Rotex pads are slotted and chamfered just like the standard stuff. They’re designed to work with conventional rotors as well as the more advanced slotted or drilled rotors often found on higher end automobiles.

Once installed, the brakes require approximately 150 miles to seat. Again, the conditioning process is standard operating procedure for all brake pads, designed to assure maximum braking performance. Once properly seated, I tested the Rotex pads in a variety of driving conditions.

First up: simulated panic stops in an open parking lot. The Rotex pads delivered a good strong bite, easily stopping the Bimmer. I repeated the test twenty times in rapid succession. The Rotex pads were NOT completely fade free. Braking performance didn’t degrade significantly, but there was SOME diminution in performance. If you’re looking for brake pads that you can use on both street and the occasional track day, these ain’t it.

On the positive side, brake feel remained consistent over time. And while we didn’t make any objective scientific measurements, a seat-of-the-pants subjective assessment says the Rotex provided equal if not better performance over the OEM kit (which is also not up to the rigors of vigorous track use) in “normal” use.  

The next test was less demanding: real world street driving, including bumper-to-bumper traffic and highway braking maneuvers. The Rotex pads performed flawlessly, providing smooth braking in all conditions. 

Thanks to the large amounts of rain in the fall in our South Florida test kitchen, I was also able to trial the Rotex pads’ wet weather braking abilities. Obviously, tires are a major factor in inclement weather stopping performance. The Rotex pads were able to slough off massive amounts of water quickly– even after powering through fairly deep water.

Noise issues are a common complaint for all new brake pads. The quality of installation of the rotors and calipers can greatly affect the resulting decibels. Again, no science here, but I reckon our test installation had no impact on brake noise. The Rotex pads were just as quiet as the OEM pads.

Last but by no means least: brake dust. Rotex claims a virtually dust-free brake pad. Our test didn’t bear this out. That said, the Rotex’ dust production was substantially less than the Bimmer’s original pads. And the OEM pads produced a thicker, darker dust covering versus the Rotex pads’ lighter, thinner grey covering. But the amount of brake dust generated by the Rotex pads during regular (if strenuous) driving was still significant. To maintain a proper shine, a Rotex-equipped driver must still wax and clean their wheels on a weekly basis.

Rotex Gold pads cost $75 for the front set, $60 for the rears. That’s a competitive price vis-à-vis OEM pads. Given the Rotex pads’ equivalent or better performance, potentially longer life (the jury is still out) and the lower quantity of dust produced, we can recommend these brake pads as an alternative. But Rotex gold pads are no substitute for waxing, brake dust shields and/or good old fashioned elbow grease. 

Should this be a TTAC-approved product?
Click here to vote

View poll results here

The automotive spinmeisters were busy at the beginning of the month. They were either bragging about sales increases or suggesting that they didn't suck as bad as they could have. While it's easy to play fast and loose with sales numbers– estimated vs. actual, the effects of reduced fleet sales, etc.– inventory levels are a reliable indication of showroom reality. When you examine the number of cars a manufacturer's franchised dealers have littering their lots, you begin to know what's what. Let's take a gander at October's numbers.

[NOTE: a 60-day supply is generally considered ideal. Anything above 90-days indicates serious bloat.]

And the crown for lot queen goes to… the Hummer H1, with a 381-day supply. OK, that doesn't really count, but I couldn't resist calling a Hummer a queen. So pass the crown to the Chrysler Crossfire. Even though Bob Nardelli's mob finally whacked the Mercedes SLK-based two-seater, there are still 1100 units waiting for new homes. At the current rate, Chrysler dealers have a 248-day supply. If that isn't bad enough, there's actually a 2008 model on its way. 

The once super-nova Solstice is suffering a full lunar eclipse. Pontiac dealers are looking (and looking) at the second slowest selling car in America, with a 211-day supply on hand. Predictably enough, once the initial excitement for GM's niche model was satiated, sales plummeted. Unfortunately, pre-new UAW contract production didn't. Solstii are piling up on dealer lots, hoping that spring drop top sales increases are eternal. Pontiac's dealers could use the biz; they averaged nine sales per dealer during October.

Honda's next up (or down) with a 192-day supply of their unibody pickup truck, the Avalanche-a-like Ridgeline. Honda dealers are also sitting on a 169-day supply of S2000s, a 123-day supply of Pilots and a 103-day supply of Elements. Fortunately for their dealers, the new Accord's a well-stocked hit (45-day supply), the Fit is no longer hard to find (48-days) and the rest of the lineup sits below the 60-day inventory level (including the Odyssey). Overall, the brand ended the month with a 59-day supply of vehicles.

Jeep dealers wish they were so lucky. They're stuck with a 169-day supply of the [why haven't they killed it yet] Commander. Vindication for TTAC Ten Worst voters: there's a 150-day supply of the Compass, up from the previous month's 121-day supply. There's also a glut of Patriots (142-day supply) and Grand Cherokees (111-day supply). Jeep had 11 sales per dealer in October, the bulk of which were Wranglers (62-day supply) and Liberties (74-day supply). 

As you've no doubt heard, pickup trucks sales are slowing. You can see the stockpiles piling-up down at the dealers. GMC dealers are sitting on a 127-day supply of Canyons, with enough Sierras to last 116 days. GM's last next big thing, the Chevy Silverado, is hanging-out with the Colorado for 117 days. 

Dodges aren't flying off the lots either. The Ram languishes for 117 days, joined by a 110-day supply of Nitros, a 104-day supply of Dakotas and a 100-day supply of Durangos. The Dodge Boys' cars are doing a bit better, but there's still a 93-day supply of Calibers out there, somewhere.

Mercury dealers are struggling to unload the Sable (122-day supply), while customers are lined-up none deep for the old/new/I'm confused Taurus (110-day supply). Like the Solstice, the Mustang's shelf life has ascended (to 104 days). It's not lonely; Rangers clock-in at a 102-day supply.

GM needs to rethink rethinking American. Saturn dealers are holding 109 days' worth of the North American Car of the Year 2007: the Aura. And despite all the praise heaped on the Outlook, Saturn's got a 118-day supply of the Acadia's twin. On the plus side, if sales continue at the same pace, they'll be out of terminated IONs in 15 days.

Nissan dealers have a few slugs on their hands. The Titan and 350Z ooze out of the lots after 107-days. And while you might think gas prices have emptied Nissan lots of frugal Versas, not so. There's a 100-day supply, earning the Versa the dubious honor of America's slowest selling economy car.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, GM has a few fast movers. They only have enough Cadillac CTSs to last 24 days, and enough Enclaves to last 27 days. Chevy's done a good job of clearing out the old Malibu. Dealers welcome the arrival of the new version with a 39-day stock of the old model. 

Sadly for armchair analysts, ToMoCo doesn't break down their inventories by model. Dealers have a 26-day supply of Lexus trucks, a 27-day supply of Lexus cars, a 44-day supply of Scion and Toyota cars, and a 53-day supply of Toyota trucks. With an industry-leading average of 141 Scions and Toyotas and 115 Lexii sold per dealer, ToMoCo is still the one to beat.

Draw what lessons you will from this report. One thing's for sure: too little inventory (Malibu, Enclave) and it's an opportunity missed. Too much and profits evaporate. As you might imagine, an automaker that can balance production against demand has an enormous competitive advantage. Game on!

GM touts their new Chevrolet Malibu as "The car you can't ignore." I've driven the new ‘Bu. It's a handsome, well-built, thoroughly competent machine. As good as it is, Chevrolet's mid-size sedan will only remain psychologically inescapable as long as GM sustains the car's $150m ad campaign. To suggest otherwise ignores the quality and strength of the ‘Bu's competition. It's yet another example of GM's mindless arrogance. In fact, Chevy's first hit in years is already in deep trouble, as I discovered down at the dealership.

Sitting in the salesman's cubicle, waiting for the Malibu demonstrator to return, I watched a customer vent his ire. "I am NOT satisfied," he yelled at a manager sheltering behind the reception desk. "It's a new car. I've been back here FIVE TIMES and I am NOT satisfied."

This confrontation could have happened at any dealership. J.D. Powers, Consumer Reports and TrueDelta have documented GM products' increased quality and reliability. But the way the dealer's staff glanced at each other during the customer's diatribe told me that the distraught buyer's remorse was neither unexpected nor unfamiliar. Worse, I observed a frisson of fear spread across my fellow customers, as they contemplated what could- maybe even has- occurred to them.

Even if we assume that the new ‘Bu represents a new dawn for the brand, Chevy's past is a recurring nightmare that will not fade away. Call it import bigotry or sensible self-protection, but GM's marketing campaign should have addressed this problem head-on. Instead, they sent a subliminal message that their latest next big thing is good enough to convince customers to ignore Chevy's ignoble legacy of customer alienations. It's an intellectual leap that GM's marketing maven are making on their own.

A minute later, I asked the middle-aged Mom emerging from her Malibu test drive what she thought about the car. She was all smiles. "We came down to look at an Impala," she said, pointing to a picture in a discarded ad resting on the salesman's desk. "But this is one sharp car."

Cannibalization is one of GM's less-discussed afflictions. For example, the domestic automaker basks in the success of its Lambda-platformed crossovers. Yet many if not most of these sales came straight out of the hide of their more profitable SUV business.

If the Impala intender above clicked over to TrueDelta to compare base vs. base, she'd find that the new 'Bu is $1568 cheaper than the Impala. With incentives, it could soon be a wash. She'd also discover that the new 'Bu is just $807 more than its sister-under-the-skin, the Saturn Aura, and $364 LESS than Pontiac's platform sib, the slow-selling G6. Clearly, the new, better-built, sharper-looking Malibu will steal sales from other corners of the GM empire. 

Model and brand overlap is a luxury the Malibu's maker can't afford. If GM is to prosper/recover from its dramatic downsizing, it must attract NEW players to the table. Reshuffling the deck for the same old diehards won't do it- especially if the old cards were better stacked in GM's favor (i.e. more profitable) than the new ones.

Let's face it: the buyers most able to ignore the new Malibu- contented Accord, Camry and Altima buyers- are the ones GM needs the most. To be fair, the new Malibu is a highly credible alternative in a highly competitive genre. But…

GM didn't make enough Malibus. The dealer I visited had one Malibu. They'd sold another. Only two more were due this month. Next month, they MIGHT get four. Hell, even their own ad agency seems to be having trouble getting them; all the spots I've seen use computer-generated cars. 

This is the Mother of All Screw-Ups. Imagine you're a transplant-type who suddenly decided to shop for a mid-size car. You stop by the Chevy dealer for the first time in a decade- or ever- to clock the new ‘Bu. No demo car. No cars on the lot. All (and by that I mean a handful) of the cars coming are pre-sold. What are the chances you'll wait?

The competition won't. Not only do Honda, Toyota and Nissan (not to mention Ford and Chrysler) already have plenty of stock at all trim levels and colors in this class (duh), but they aren't about to be caught flat-footed by GM's nifty newbie. Look for them to amp-up their marketing campaigns and/or offer discounts– as Chevy dealers charge full sticker (just because they can). And then, soon, the 'Bu's foes will counter-attack with even better cars.

You only get one chance to make a good first impression. Chevy's blown it. Given the aforementioned bad vibes dogging both GM and Chevy, this is an irrecoverable mistake. The Malibu hype will die down. The new Chevy will be a solid seller when supplies ease, but it will have lost the chance to capitalize on GM's $150m marketing mitzvah to build the momentum it needed to provide The General with a breakout success.

So, GM finally built a commercially viable car, yet failed to make a meaningful marketing campaign, sort out its model lineup or assure adequate supplies. The new ‘Bu reveals the fundamental problem plaguing GM, the deficiency we've highlighted since this series began: a bloated, unfocused and incompetent bureaucratic structure. Until and unless GM corrects this fault, they're doomed.  

Once again, New York Times columnist Tom Friedman has addressed automotive issues. This time, Friedman weighs-in on the ultra-cheap car being posited for the rapidly-growing Indian market. The gist of Friedman’s proposal: tax the stuffing out of the cheap car and put the money into mass-transit. Like most of Friedman’s auto-related rants, this one combines a handful of valid points, a couple of keen observations, a soupcon of knee-jerk utopianism and enough muddled thinking to make it impossible to support his views.

Like most Western intellectuals familiar with (if not actual users of) their home town public transportation systems, Friedman believes government has a right (if not an obligation) to manipulate urban transportation patterns for its citizen’s well-being. If these pro-mass transit thinkers harbored any doubts about the costs or consequences of this intercession, the prospect of automotive pollution and global warming removed them. 

And so the New York Times scribe surveys India’s chaotic conurbations, imagines adding millions of private vehicles, and concludes that the Indian government should heavily tax cars to prevent this eventuality.

Never mind that taxing cars beyond the reach of the middle class is a fundamentally elitist proposition, reserving personal transportation for the small percentage of India’s “haves.” Preventing India’s urban areas from generating even MORE pollution serves the greater good. Besides, Friedman says that the money will (should?) get plowed back into mass transit, which is better for the middle class– and everyone else– than owning a car. 

Have a look at the picture. Why would any member of India’s middle class want to spend their hard-earned money on a car for commuting? Immobility would limit their ability to earn enough money to pay for the car. So unless a car aids an Indian consumer’s ability to commute, they won’t buy it for that purpose. In other words, congestion creates a natural limit to car ownership. An extra tax is both discriminatory and unnecessary.

Of course, Friedman is presuming that cars = commuting. Given gridlock, perhaps Indians will buy the new, cheaper car for something other than slogging back and forth to employment: commerce, shopping, trips to distant relatives, etc. For these tasks, mass transit is not the ideal solution. If mass transit WAS the answer, people wouldn’t buy a car. This is especially true at the economic margins, where India’s new, inexpensive car will find favor. Would Friedman discourage these sorts of trips for the greater good? Apparently so.

Whether or not you agree with that consequence of Friedman’s call for draconian private automobile taxation, Friedman’s argument fails to consider a key reason why a middle class Indian WOULD opt for a cheap car over mass transit (gridlock be damned).

To assure sufficient rider volumes and maintain political equilibrium, India’s mass transit network is widely affordable. Over six million commuters use the Mumbai Suburban Railway every day; it has the highest passenger density in the world. In a country with an entire class of people called “untouchables,” middle class Indians who have the means to buy the new inexpensive car do not now, nor will they ever, prefer to share mass-transit with tens of thousands of less fortunate souls.

It's not PC to say it, but Friedman’s plan for more Indian mass transit wouldn't keep India’s middle class off the roads. Increasing mass transit will simply increase the number of less wealthy people flooding into urban centers– exponentially. The consequences of this increase are unknown, but given that there are many types of pollution (including human waste), it’s entirely possible that a larger mass transportation system may not be in the environment’s best interest.  

It may pain a writer living in a "first world" country to admit it, but environmental concerns must be always be balanced against economic prosperity– if only because most citizens value the latter more than the former (sorry, that’s the way it is). In that sense it’s worth asking if traffic congestion actually HELPS India. The more urban congestion, the more business and people move away to outlying areas, where prices are cheaper and transportation more efficient. If it works for Atlanta, Houston, LA, London, Paris and Moscow, why wouldn’t– doesn’t it work in India?

Anyway, the whole frame of reference for this debate is seriously off-kilter.

Intellectuals who learned their history in the big city tend to forget that inexpensive personal transportation has the greatest impact outside urban areas. Out past city limits, cars open up an entire world of possibilities and, thus, raise the quality of life. For America’s vast rural population, Henry Ford’s Model T created new economic markets for labor and goods, fostered social mobility, improved public health and increased genetic diversity. By shrinking distances, a cheap Indian car would liberate time that the rural poor could use for more efficient economic endeavor and/or education. 

Any government looking to improve the well-being of its citizenry should think long and hard about raising the “floor” to automobile ownership. As should Tom Friedman.

[You can read Mr. Friedman's column here.] 

Now that the dust has settled on the last of the United Auto Workers’ (UAW) contract negotiations in Motown, the other shoe has dropped. All three domestic automakers have announced new lay-offs and plant closings, atop already extensive cuts. Chrysler killed half-a-dozen models. Ford has shuttered plants and signaled that “things might change” if “things get worse.” GM has eliminated several third shifts. So what’s next? Basically, we’re looking at an auto industry version of “Three Bears.” GM wants to stay big, Chrysler wants to get small, and Ford wants to be “juuuuuust right.”

Chrysler's cupboard is bare, there's nothing much in the pipeline and they have nothing to speak of overseas to lean on. All they have is a few decent entries in a handful of profitable niches. In line with their new owner's philosophy (a.k.a. strip and flip), Chrysler will continue to reduce production and kill products. They want to cut Chrysler's product line down to the vehicles they can sell profitably at the volumes they can move and then get acquired or go public. Done.

Look for Chrysler to try to get the 300s, the minivans and Jeep down to profitable volumes. The Ram and the Sebring/Avenger will survive even if they have to give them away; owning a volume product in a major market segment looks good to a buyer, profit or no. The multi-billion dollar question is how much is Chrysler spending on developing new products? The answer would give us a better idea of when they’re planning on selling their stake.

Meanwhile, Ford's market share has been dropping like a stone– which is no surprise to anyone. The fall from grace isn't “good,” just expected, as Ford has vowed to cut way back on their fleet sales. Clearly, Ford’s strategy is to downsize to a profitable volume and call it good. To this end, they’ve emphasized the need to improve flexibility in manufacturing. Details are sketchy, but part of the UAW agreement mandated/allowed for just such an investment. Hopefully implementation will involve multiple body types on one line, Honda-style, rather than just vomiting forth the usual badgeneered clones from one factory.

Shrinking down to a profitable volume– and trying to hold the line on price– looks like a winning strategy for The Blue Oval Boyz. But the question everyone is asking– and no one can answer– is “will it work fast enough?” There’s nothing left to hock. If shrinking doesn’t work, and work soon, Ford will be booking some federal court time for a Chapter 11 petition.

While The General didn’t wrest the concessions from the UAW that the later-negotiating pair secured, GM still got most of what it wanted– offloaded health care benefits, a new two-tier wage scale– without having to promise much. That said, GM has been doing its utmost to hold onto market share: upping incentives, investing in terminally ill brands, putting-up with duff dealers, etc. Why? 

Is GM pushing sales to keep their bloated dealer network afloat, or simply attempting to drive one or both of their domestic competitors to the wall? Chevy is rooting for biz down-market (trading punches with Hyundai/Kia), well below where Ford seems to be aiming their name brand. GM’s leaving the competition with the Dai-san (Honda, Toyota, Nissan) to the old “premium” brands, and Saturn. Cutting brands and dealer networks has been back-burnered until the profits return– when the problem can be ignored.

GM looks the closest to healthy right now, which is both good and bad. They are the least likely to run onto the financial rocks, but if one of the other two reinvents themselves or survives a trip to bankruptcy court, GM will be playing by the old rules in a new world.

While these are confusing times, a few things are certain. First, The Big 2.8 are going to lose more market share. A fair amount of their current share is created by fleet and fire sales– that have devastated profitability without driving back the competition. To make money going forward, these have to go. 

Second, The Big 2.8 are off the radar for roughly half of the American new car market. The Motown manufacturers hope that profits can be made from the half of the US market still “in play.”  It's a viable stratgey; half of the US market is still a huge pool. But it leaves the Detroit boys playing a zero-sum game. Any increase in sales for one comes out of the hide of another.

This is a problem; the sum of the shares that the 2.8 are counting on grabbing literally will not add up. If 50 percent of the market is considered “in play,” the total of the 2.8s’ expected shares is likely closer to 60 percent. Somebody’s going to come up short.

The fat lady has finally sung. The Truth About Cars (TTAC) and its faithful readers have identified the Ten Worst cars for sale in America in 2007. We began with a list of 136 reader-nominated vehicles. Our writers narrowed the field of bad dreams down to 20 finalists. By popular vote, you selected the ten most odious automobiles. And the winners are… after the jump (we need the page views).

So Ford and the United Auto Workers (UAW) have hammered-out a new deal. Our fave sage Daniel Howes over at The Detroit News hailed the tentative agreement with the usual rhetoric: new paradigms, inflection points, fresh thinking, transformation and general bullishness. Yes, well, as over ten thousand Chrysler union workers recently discovered, there’s many a pink slip between the cup and the lip. Make no mistake: there are details bedeviling this Ford agreement. And the union rank and file are heading into the ratification process with their eyes wide open.

Obviously, job guarantees are job one as far as Ford’s UAW members are concerned. Post-Chrysler bloodbath, UAW president Ron Gettelfinger declared that he didn't know the Three-Headed Dog's chew toy would lay off some twelve thousand workers immediately after his members ratified their contract, and mumbled something about recovering lost shifts when “other products” arrive. Whether Big Ron’s lying or not doesn’t matter. If he didn’t know, he should have. If he did, he should have told his members. Meanwhile, Ford’s UAW members can be heard muttering “fool me once…”

Let’s be clear (even if the union isn’t): the new Ford contract does not, can not include iron-clad job guarantees. Post partum, Gettelfinger pointed to a two-page list of specific product and investment commitments to 19 Ford facilities and declared "This is one of our proudest moments right here in our negotiations." The papers in hand were an executive summary; the document the UAW boss will submit to his members for their consideration. Could the actual contract afford Ford the opportunity to do a Chrysler, trim model deadwood and cut shifts/factories? Well, duh.

Any union member laboring under the impression that Ford will keep building its current product line-up at the current pace at its current factories even as it sheds market share, burns cash and heads for Chapter 11 is dictionary delusional. One way or another, everything’s going over the side of this sinking ship: blue collar workers, white collar workers, plants, shift, models, brands, the lot. If Ford agreed to a contract with an iron-clad guarantee to maintain even three-quarters of its UAW workforce, you wouldn’t call that document a contract. You’d call it a suicide note.

UAW Supremo Ron Gettelfinger knows this. But rather than read his members the riot act and send the most vulnerable to the lifeboats (again), he’s chosen to pretend that Ford is on an even keel. In fact, Big Ron's minions have negotiated a seat on Ford’s Manufacturing Operating Committee, the ever-so-successful secret society that makes decisions about Ford’s future products. Like that’s going to help secure anything other than Big Ron’s power within the union.

But wait! There’s less! The contract has other “issues.”

In truth, the automakers’ multi-billion dollar payments into the union-controlled (i.e. lootable) VEBA health care superfund have been the engine of the UAW’s capitulation. GM and Chrysler got something of a discount on the deal (cash in vs. expected members’ health care liabilities). But Ford got a genuine bargain; they’re “contributing” just $13.2b (from God knows where) into the union-run “trust” to cover the Ford UAW members’ estimated $22b liability. In other words, Ford’s paying 60 cents on the dollar.

But union members don’t pay 60 cent dollars down at the doctor’s office. How will the UAW make up the difference between what they’re getting from Ford and what it costs to keep their Ford members healthy? Well, either they’ll invest the VEBA money wisely (as trade unions always do) and increase their members’ nest egg by 40 percent just in time for their old age or… they won’t. In that case, UAW members will face larger co-pays, health care cut backs, restricted doctor choice, etc. Occam’s razor anyone?

To soften this inevitable hit on union members’ health care, as part of the agreement, the Blue Oval Boyz have agreed to spend the money they WOULD HAVE given to the VEBA on modernizing their factories by transforming them into flexible manufacturing facilities (multiple vehicles, one factory). The clear implication: the UAW took a hit for the team to “help” Ford invest in securing UAW jobs.

First, this assumes that flexible manufacturing is the key to FoMoCo’s future. Ford doesn’t even have ONE mega-hot product– never mind multiple variations (and let’s not talk about the company’s miserable history of badge engineering). Second, it assumes Ford has the money. If it does, it belongs to someone else; the company is mortgaged up to its logo. And third, it assumes that Ford’s signed an iron-clad guarantee in this regard. What are the chances?

More to the point, what are the chances the Ford rank and file will ratify this new contract– or at least get close enough to ratification that the UAW can throw the vote? It’s hard to say. But this is not a done deal.

October was a tricky month with few treats for the auto industry. Overall, total U.S. sales just about broke even, ending-up with a 1.2 percent increase over October of last year. Year-to-date (YTD) sales sank 2.5 percent. Ford and Chrysler were the biggest losers; both domestic automaker suffered big decreases from the month last year and continuing to drop in the annual numbers. Here's how our bellwether models finished the month.

Passenger Cars

After a brief peak in August, Impala sales have been edging down, with a 1.6 per cent decrease for the month. However, thanks to robust spring sales, it's still up 12.6 percent YTD over 2006. Chrysler 300 sales have almost flatlined, sinking 15.2 percent below October last year. Annual sales show the same trend, with a 15 per cent decline YTD. The Fusion remains one of the few bright stars in Ford's fading firmament. It's up 13.1 per cent for the month and 2.3 per cent on the year. Toyota's stalwart Camry faltered a bit in October, dropping 0.2 percent from last October; for the year, though, it's up 6.4 per cent.

Pickup Trucks

It looks like pickups are slowing down. With only moderate sales incentives, Chevy's Silverado finished the month seven per cent lower than last year, down 2.4 per cent YTD. Even with substantial cash on the hood, the hoary Dodge Ram fell 12.5 per cent for the month, and 0.6 percent for the year. Ford's F-series also had another bad month, ending 7.5 per cent below last year; year to date they lost 12.5 per cent. The Toyota Tundra remains much more popular than its [relatively] diminutive predecessor. Sales rose 77.9 per cent for month and ascended by 59.8 per cent for the year.

Truck-Based SUVs

Chevy's Tahoe bucked the downward trend for large SUVs with a 31.9 per cent increase over last October. It's down 5.4 per cent for the year, but that's nothing compared with Durango. Sales pf the once-popular Dodge SUV fell 66.5 per cent for the month, and 34 per cent on the year. The Ford Explorer was somewhat better off with "just" a 18.3 per cent decline for the month, and a 23.8 per cent drop YTD. Toyota's 4Runner showed a surprising 15.3 per cent jump over last October, but total sales were down 14.5 per cent from last year.

CUVs

Even though CUVs are this year's big thing, the Chevy Equinox was down 19 per cent from last October, down 21 per cent for the year. Chrysler's doomed Pacifica showed similar declines: down 12.5 per cent for the month and 28.1 per cent on the year. The Escape was another bright spot in Ford's otherwise dismal world, with a 26.8 per cent increase over last October, and a jump of 5.5 per cent over last year. The Toyota RAV-4 fared even better. Sales were up 31.2 per cent for the month and 15.6 per cent on the year.

New Models

The Acadia remains the most popular of the Lambda triplets with 100 more sales in October than September.  GMC's shifted 59K Acadias this year. Ford's Edge sold 3.5K more units over September, with 103.8K sold YTD. The worst of the TTAC's "Ten Worst"– the Jeep Compass— dropped 600 units from last month. Despite the hype, Jeep's managed to move 33.5K Compass this year.

Total Sales

October is traditionally a low sales month, as the old model year winds down and the new one gets underway. Nonetheless, GM managed to finish the month 3.4 per cent ahead of last October. However, for the year to date, they're down 5.7 per cent. Chrysler has been below their 2006 sales line since June. For October, they finished 8.9 percent below last October; that's down 8.9 total for the year. Strong showings from Focus, Escape and Edge couldn't offset Ford's dependence on truck sales. Total sales fell 9.3 per cent below last month, and 13 per cent year to date. Toyota continued their seemingly inexorable climb up the sales charts– up 4.5 per cent from last month, up 3.9 from last year.

The Future

The times they are a-changing. Will the new UAW contracts reinvigorate The Big 2.8? Will Chrysler's slice its way to a sustainable product portfolio? Will the Chevy Malibu be the hit Bob Lutz thinks it will, and/or will it cannibalize Impala sales? Is Ford's redesign of the F-Series too little too late? Will the mortgage crisis and other macro-economic issues kneecap the US or world automotive industry? As Bette Davis might say, "Fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy ride."

In the battle for the American automotive market, Detroit’s fighting for its life, rather than supremacy. The truth is that the so-called domestic automakers are under siege; their non-union competition forced them inside the castle walls a long time ago. And while Toyota, Honda and Nissan are busy unleashing new and improved vehicles to vie for U.S. customers’ patronage, Ford, GM and Chrysler are busy retrenching, regrouping and re-arming, dreaming of both past and future glory. And when they’re not doing that, they’re tearing each other to pieces.

The most recent and obvious evidence of Detroit’s internecine perfidy: Chrysler’s decision to cut 12k jobs, kill models and downsize production just five days after the United Auto Workers (UAW) ratified their new contract. Never mind that the move reveals the UAW’s complete betrayal of their own rank and file, who would have never ratified the Chrysler contract (if indeed they did) if they’d known of the wholesale slaughter to follow. The more important impact of this [necessary] bloodletting will be on Ford.

Now that Ford’s UAW members have witnessed the fallout from the Chrysler contract, they will never ratify an agreement without iron-clad job guarantees. And if you thought that deep-pocketed, privately-owned Chrysler needed a free hand to downsize production, pity poor Ford; the sickest, most vulnerable automaker in the biz. It’s mortgaged up to its eyeballs, losing market share by the minute and drowning in an ocean of red ink. You can see their cash burn from Cincinnati. FoMoCo can afford job guarantees like the average pistonhead can afford a Bugatti Veyron.

Could Chrysler have waited THREE WEEKS before swinging their mighty axe, so that Ford could have secured the same sort of no-strings-attached deal for their UAW members? Sure. And there’s only one reason Chrysler CEO Bob Nardelli didn’t stay his hand: to shiv his cross-town rivals. 

If you read the reactions to yesterday’s Ford – UAW deal carefully, you can see the damage the Three-Headed Dog’s automaker has inflicted on The Blue Oval Boyz. "Our goals for this contract were to win new product and investment, to enhance job security and protect seniority,” pronounced UAW Veep Bob King, director of the union's National Ford Department. Yes, well, would the UAW be stupid/brazen/corrupt enough to ask its Ford members to ratify a guarantee-less contract after the Chrysler massacre? Not if you take UAW boss Ron Gettelfinger at his word: "We encouraged Ford to invest in product and people."

In fact, Ford needs to follow GM and Chrysler and invest in getting RID of products and people. They have too many brands, models, employees and production capacity to survive. While Ford’s new union contract includes a huge payment into the UAW’s inconceivably large, eminently lootable VEBA health care superfund– securing the automaker a cost-reducing two-tier wage system– Chrysler has made sure that Ford can’t downsize in time to reap its benefits.

And what of GM? It must be said that GM’s sitting relatively pretty in all this. With the help of the UAW management, they got away with making empty job guarantees to their union workforce (we’ll give plant X the new car– you know, IF there’s a new car). They’re now free to slice production to match demand, and slice they have. Even better, they’re eating Chrysler and Ford’s lunch. 

Check out last month’s sale figures. Compared to October '06, GM sales rose by 3.4 percent. Did the market expand? No. Did Toyota, Honda or Nissan sales slip, indicating that The General’s much-hyped new or revised products harvested conquest sales from the transplants? Hell no. The salient stat is that Chrysler and Ford sales plummeted. While there’s no hard data on this, common sense suggests that American car buyers who tend towards domestics (a well-documented predilection) are switching their patronage to GM.

We’ve mentioned that old joke about the “buddies” chased by the bear who realize that they only have to outrace each other to survive. Well, there you go. GM’s in the lead and Chrysler’s tripped Ford. Which is all very well and good for The General and The Dog, but Ford still has a secret weapon (that nobody sees): bankruptcy. While GM and Chrysler have dropped some of their union-related baggage through clever negotiation (i.e. paying off the UAW VEBA-wise), Ford could lighten even more of their load through Chapter 11.

I don’t mean UAW pay or benefits; as [non-co-opted] union members maintain, that’s not the real issue. I mean dealers. All three so-called domestics are hamstrung by their bloated dealer network, which prevents them from consolidating models and killing brands. If Ford files, they can ditch their duff dealers, drop bad brands, beat-up (not remove) the UAW and emerge a far leaner and meaner carmaker than either Chrysler or GM. 

Of course, none of this gets rid of the "barbarians" pounding on Detroit's gates.