Whenever General Motors announces a hot, sexy sports car that’s supposed to dethrone BMW, a little piece of me dies. That’s the part of me that grew-up watching Smoky and The Bandit (over and over), yearning for my very own Trans Am adorned with a giant, screaming chicken. Nowadays, it seems everyone in The General’s army is allowed to have a bona-fide sports car except, ironically, their sports division. That ain’t right.

Let’s face it: the last few decades haven’t been kind to Pontiac fans. We’ve suffered through a roll call of automotive abortions: the listless Pontiac Firefly, the dishonestly named Pontiac Trans Sport, the justifiably maligned Aztek and Pontiac designers’ obsession with ungodly plastic body kit (its poster child being the jello-mobile known as the Grand Am). And the hits keep not happening.

With the recent announcement of a turbo-charged Chevrolet Cobalt SS, and the possibility of the SS moniker being applied to Corvette ZR1 and HHR-wagon, all hope for a Pontiac revival is now dead-– at least for me. For those of us who are counting, General Motors has missed five opportunities to re-invigorate Pontiac in the last five years.

This torturous prolongation of Pontiac’s imminent death began with the Solstice concept. Oddly enough, GM actually decided to badge the roadster as a Pontiac, rather than, say, a Hummer or a Buick. Having experienced the recent products of The General’s car-birthing process on countless visits to Avis rent-a-car, I can only attribute this brilliant decision to blind luck. Regardless, I was elated that, perhaps, the General was finally getting serious about their erstwhile excitement division. 

The Solstice was so gorgeous it was hard to believe it shares its DNA with anything other than the Chevrolet Corvette. Unlike the Corvette, the Solstice was born a work in progress: crude chassis, irritating ragtop mechanism, scary handling, and a useless trunk. In fact, the Solstice was outclassed by the Mazda Miata in every important metric save power and looks. Not to belabor the point, but looks and power are perhaps the least important attributes of a small, cheap roadster. Further dilution occurred when the Solstice was given a saturnine cousin.

Next came news that GM was developing a car on the Nürburgring. Terrific, thought I, a big brother to the Solstice! Unfortunately, that car turned out to be the Cadillac CTS. I have no doubts that the Caddy is a terrific value (once incentives are factored in, obviously) blessed with genuine grunt and pistonhead poise. Still, the question remains and must be posed: “What the Hell is Cadillac doing testing a car on the Nürburgring?”

GM then decided to import the aesthetically bland Holden Monaro from Australia and perform am utterly lazy re-badging that harkened back to the days of the Chevrolet Chevette and Pontiac T1000/Acadian. American muscle cars should adhere to what I call the “Schwarzenegger Principle.” Arnie didn’t grow muscles and depilitate his delts with the intention of buttoning his shirt. In automotive terms, muscle cars should never pack ridiculous amounts of displacement while looking like a suppository. The GTO, unfortunately, looked right at home beside the Pontiac Grand Prix. In other words, it was dead on arrival.

And still I kept the faith– until GM announced it was developing a world-wide, world-class world-heavyweight-title rear-wheel drive platform. Finally! Visions of a modern GTO or Firebird danced in my head. Then, Rick Wagoner pulled the veil on the all new… Chevrolet Camaro.

If it had all ended there, with GM throwing up its hands and admitting “We suck at brand management,” the story’d be over. Instead, the General chose to tease us with a rebadged Aussie import. GM Car Czar Maximum Bob Lutz announced this possible, hyper-likely, in-development, BMW-destroying, Hyundai-undercutting, CAFE-endangered GTO for 2010.

Yeah, right. We may be oxymorons, but Pontiac cognoscenti have heard that tune before– and we know it always manages to end-up off-key. We shall see what we shall see. 

Meanwhile and anyway, my bridge too far arrived when GM tossed the lion’s share of its racing budget at Cadillac and Chevrolet. Though Chevrolet is historically entrenched in NASCAR and endurance racing, the introduction of a competitive Cadillac CTS made me hurl. The “standard of the world” does not belong on a race track any more than it belongs on the Green Hell. Imagine how ridiculous a Rolls Royce Phantom would look with a racing spoiler. Pontiac, with its storied past in Trans Am racing, should have campaigned its G8.

For now, the upcoming Cobalt Turbo SS is the non-Vette buying, GM-supporter’s only new “performance” car. The new ‘Balt is just another promising machine destined not to darken a Pontiac showroom. This time, I won’t be waiting. If Pontiac can be boiled down to a bad roadster, a re-badged Toyota, a re-badged Holden and re-badged Chevy SUV, it’s time to move on.

Jet planes, armored personnel carriers and racecars all have nitrogen-filled tires. So it’s got to be cool, right? I mean, I wish my Honda Odyssey minivan was more like an F-22 in some way. Or in any way. Anyway, is it worth an average five bucks a tire to stuff your rubber with the seventh element? For the majority of American drivers– those who do not routinely drive through flaming pools of fuel, off-road on dunes hotter than Scarlett Johansson’s hips or hit 200mph on the straight-aways– the answer is a simple “no.” Yet thousands of vendors are setting up nitrogen pumps and enticing people to pop open their stems. What’s the point?

Purified nitrogen is more stable and less corrosive than a compressed version of the air we breathe. By its lonesome, nitrogen clumps in large molecules. Even better, it’s not oxygen, which is the root of oxidation, which eats rubber just like steel, just not as dramatically or visibly. All of this means the gas has two things going for it.

First, compressed air is a blend of oxygen and other tire degrading contaminants, including water. Your tires should last longer filled with pure, dry, nitrogen gas. Second, nitrogen’s larger molecules are less likely to seep through rubber. Nitrogen-filled tires delivers more consistent inflation pressure– especially under temperature fluctuations. Studies suggest nitrogen-filled tires will remain properly inflated three times longer than air-puffed companions.

Nitrogen’s advantages are solid (so to speak)– provided you’re a diligent motorist and nitrogen refills are free. Add some nonchalance and a dollar figure and the benefits evaporate.

Oxygen only accounts for about 21 percent of the ambient air (nitrogen makes up 78 percent). And oxygen is going to eat the outside of the tire– no matter would put inside. And if you don’t drive that much, you’re not getting the air inside all hot and bothered, which increases the decay rate.

In truth, most drivers are going to wear out their tires long before the rubber will decay enough to lower tire performance or safety; those radials will last until much of the gas– any gas– seeps out. I repeat: whether you drive a lot or a little, internal tire degradation isn’t much of a worry.

Proper inflation is the real issue. Under-inflated tires reduce gas mileage. They flatten out, creating more surface area and thus adding friction, which makes the engine work harder. The extra friction, and resulting heat, also increases the chance of a blowout. A properly inflated tire is always safer and more efficient than under-inflated shoes (unless you’re driving across a sand dune).

Nitrogen’s reluctance to leave the wheel is a blessing because it helps maintain tire pressure at optimal levels. Of course, checking your tire pressure once a month does the same thing. AND regular checks get you close to the rubber for a chance of seeing something else that might be going wrong: weird wear, a protruding rail spike, a chunk scraped away by that curb you forgot you hit, etc.

In any case, tire manufactures reckon your tires lose around one pound per month of inflation pressure. There are a ton of variables, but the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says that maintaining recommended pressure improves the average driver’s gas mileage by three percent. That’s about $50 a year just for paying attention– not to mention the better handling and reliability that come along for the ride.

Yes but– nitrogen is still going to leave the inside of your tires for the big, wide world; just not as quickly as oxygen. A pound’s worth of gas might seep out in three months, rather than one. Meanwhile, the idea that nitrogen-stuffed tires are a fill-it-and-leave-it alternative to air is an inherently dangerous supposition. Drivers still need to get down, stick on a gauge and hear the hiss whether they’ve used air, nitrogen or cream filling. Nitrogen hype can end up doing more harm than good.

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. is ambivalent about the use of nitrogen. The Rubber Manufacturers Association says it it’s a good thing– when it’s free. Michelin goes a step further. They recommend nitrogen only for tires used “in high risk environments” like aircraft landing gear and racing.

A quick look at a few of the nitrogen generator manufacturers’ websites can give you an idea what may be driving some of the interest in swapping tire gasses. N2 machines can operate for as little as 25 cents an application. The generators themselves go for as little as four grand. After the first 200 or so nitrogen fill-ups, these things are more profitable than pretzel carts.

As with most things, it’s all about me. I’ve got to be more conscientious about checking and rotating my tires. If I want them to be all they can be, I’ve got to be better. It’s what’s inside that counts-– or, in the case of nitrogen, not. So, to make my minivan more like a fighter plane, I’m looking at other modifications. Possibly chaff.

Also, if your tires suck and you’re shopping for new tires, help support TTAC’s work by doing your research at TireReviewsandMore.com. — TTAC Staff

I learned to drive in a 1985 Volvo 240. The Nordic boxcar's 2.3-liter four-cylinder engine deployed one hundred and fourteen horsepower against three thousand pounds of Swedish steel. For reasons best left to Roswell conspiracy theorists, the feds recently re-calculated the 240’s mpg: 19/26 (coincidentally the age of the average 240 driver).  That’s not bad for rust, but let’s face it: a used 240 is hardly a Prius driver’s second choice. Even so, the humble Volvo recently inspired an automotive epiphany that could lead to The Mother of All Environmentally Friendly Automobiles.

My [non Honda] insight arrived as I was sitting in traffic, ogling– OK, “observing” a Volvo 240 in the lane next to me. Hmmm. What if you ripped out the 240’s rear seats and installed a state-of-the-art, meltdown proof, South African-made pebble bed reactor? That’s right; it’s time environmentally conscious motorists went nuclear.

I realize that some people won’t immediately embrace the idea of a fission-powered Volvo wagon. Luddites. What’s not to like? Everyone knows nuclear power is safe, clean and cheap. Unlike all the internal-combustionists melting the icepack and drowning baby seals every time they open their car’s throttle body, pilots of a nuclear-powered Volvo 240 would release less carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than a flatulent Guernsey. Yup. Nuclear is the ultimate alternative fuel.

Ethanol? Please. Put that corn juice in your tank and you’ll get fewer miles per gallon than a Sherman tank, and pigs will have to pay supermarket prices for their feed. Are you in favor of more expensive pork chops? That’s un-American. Besides, devoting America's corn crop to E85 production makes about as much sense as reserving Bolivia's most popular export for insomniacs.

Biodiesel? Powering your car on french fry drippings might work if your local diner is willing to tolerate yet another bum lingering around their dumpster, but try running a fleet of FedEx trucks on McDonald’s goodwill. Hydrogen fuel cells? Sounds like a great idea– until you realize it takes more electricity to break water into hydrogen and oxygen than it does to power all the electric carving knives in America.

A few rivet counters will point out that a nuclear powered automobile is nothing new. The 1957 Nucleon concept car was [theoretically] powered by a trunk-mounted mini-reactor. Uranium fission generated steam that drove a set of turbines (one for torque, one for electricity). A cooling loop turned the steam back into water. When the reactor ran out of fissionable material in, say, fourteen thousand years, you just popped down to your local service station and swapped it out your old reactor for a new one.

That said, the Nucleon was Ford’s idea. Frankly, I’m not going to get too worked-up about a nuclear powered car designed by a company that tried to sell me an Aspire. And I’m thinking that it’s no coincidence that The International Atomic Energy Agency was established the same year as the Nucleon's debut.

Anyway, nuclear technology has moved on since then. The new pebble bed reactors consist of a radioactive material surrounded with a graphite coating. This reactor is gas-cooled, rather than water cooled. This breakthrough eliminates the most complex part of conventional reactor designs. Needless to say, the Germans came up with the idea. But the South Africans and the Chinese have started to run with it.

I know you’re all saying “Go with the lowest bidder.” But honestly, if the Chinese government can’t keep lead paint off toys that are going to go into Happy Meals, do you really want to trust that your contractor didn’t take a few shortcuts during the final assembly of your automotive reactor core?

Anyway, we all know that the bathroom is the average American's killing field, and gas is only slightly less explosive than TMZ.com. So a few risks must be assumed. And these must be balanced against the potential rewards, which extend far beyond satisfying the California Air Resource Board.

How many times have you looked around your car and found that you had a cell phone, iPod, radar detector, toaster oven and waffle maker plugged into every available 12-volt outlet? With the abundant electricity produced by a nuclear reactor, you’ll never have to choose between Mary J. Blige and chocolate waffles. In fact, you’ll be able to sell spare juice to the highest bidder. I suspect this capability will come in handy if you live in one of those left-coast states with rolling brownouts (which already sounds vaguely automotive). 

And just think what a nuclear-powered car could do for football season. Once you get your 75” plasma TV and satellite dish combo running, you’ll be the most popular man at the tailgate. Hey! If GM starts making a nuclear-powered car to run alongside the Volt, then this plug-in hybrid thing might actually take off. And here's hoping there'll be a retrofit for the Volvo 240, so that the old ones can, someday, go out with a bang.

Before I respond to Steven Wade’s article “In Defense of Saab” and the resulting comments, I want to say a few words about the medium of discourse: the automotive blog. A few years ago, when automotive blogs first appeared, I was thrilled that I could comment on objectionable opinions. The ability to lodge instant feedback instantly rendered car magazines an anachronism. Or so I thought. After a month of commenting, I reread my previous posts. I was shocked by what I found. My comments were filled with hearsay evidence, unfounded opinions, attacks on cars I had never owned and a general prevalence of bullshit.

Most dictionaries define the word “bullshit” as a lie. Bullshit is not a lie. A liar is a person who misrepresents the truth in an effort to convince another person of a falsehood. A bullshitter can be stating a truth or falsity; it is not the statement but their intentions which they misrepresent. Bullshitters are not concerned with what is true or false. They’re concerned with how convincing their statement appears. A bullshitter will say anything if it will help them to achieve their goal.

One of the more prevalent forms of bullshit in our modern society is a statement or series of statements in which a person misrepresents themselves so as to be perceived in a more knowledgeable light. Automotive blogs are suffused with this kind of bullshit. Not to put too fine a point on it, The Truth About Cars is a website in which the editors and commentators are locked in a never ending cycle of unsubstantiated opinions and predictions presented as fact.

I read one automotive blog daily: Trollhattansaab.net . It’s written, moderated and published by Steven Wade, author of the Saab article that brought me to this site. In many ways, Trollhattansaab.net is no better than any other automotive blog in its output of bullshit. Mr. Wade is neither an engineer nor a member of the automotive industry. His information is often second hand. And although he is quick to point out the flaws he finds with Saab cars and the company, his opinions in regard to other brands are biased and largely unfounded.

I read Trollhattansaab.net in order to explore the main question that Mr. Wade often contemplates on his site. How does a brand that currently sells under 160k vehicles a year attract enough passionate owners that Trollhattansaab.net receives well over 5k unique visitors per day? Why is it that Saab drivers are so passionate about being Saab drivers?

I do not have the answer, and neither does Mr. Wade. However, on his site you will find thousands of comments from Saab owners describing why they love and occasionally dislike their cars. These statements are fact. They are real. They are based on years of owning Saab products. And these are the comments which should make up the majority of automotive blogs. Comments from owners about their experiences with their vehicles– and their vehicles only– are the only comments of value.

If I were asked to write an article on Saab for The Truth About Cars, I would not fill it with predictions, hopeful opinions or a detailed look at the company’s historical innovations. If this website is really The Truth About Cars, I would write the following:

The truth about the 1999 Saab 9-5 Wagon is that in eight years mine has never needed a single repair. I’ve never encountered a couch it could not carry, nor experienced weather too dangerous to drive through. In my 1999 Saab 9-5 Wagon, I feel confident and safe. And best of all, when there is no one on the road and I jam the accelerator into the floor and hear that turbocharger spool up as it flings me around the bend, I smile.

It is a Saab but also heavily influenced by its parent company GM. Does that make it a worse car? No. Does it matter to people who evaluate cars not on performance or design but based on biases about a company? Yes. To summarize: if automotive blogs are to be of any value to consumers or manufacturers then their editors and commentators have to reconsider why they are writing. Is it to present an unfounded opinion about a car they took for a quick test drive? Would it not be better if the reviewer presented just the empirical facts about the car, and left the first impressions for the consumer to form on his own?

Consumer Reports’ recent announcement that bias had influenced the reliability ratings of certain vehicles may trigger a change in that publication, from opinionated and biased car reviews, to the principles the publication was founded on: providing scientific testing of consumer products. I urge the editors and readers of this blog to follow suit.

It is time. You've nominated 136 candidates for The Truth About Cars' (TTAC) recently rechristened “Ten Worst Automobiles” awards. TTAC’s stable of underpaid and overeducated scribes surveyed the damage and did their duty: they've winnowed the roll call of automotive abominations down to the terrible twenty. Now it's your turn to tell the truth about cars. Go to the bottom of this post and vote for ten vehicles you consider worthy of public recognition as TTAC's Ten Worst for 2007.

Some Ten Worst nominees were as predictable as an episode of Scooby Do– and they would have got away with it too if it weren’t for those meddling pistonheads! A couple of choices seemed designed with TTAC's Ten Worst awards in mind. And here they are: the bad, the ugly, the worst of the worst.

Chevrolet TrailBlazer / GMC Envoy / Isuzu Ascender / Saab 9-7X (2006 Winner – 9-7X)

Chevy Aveo (2006 Winner)

Chevrolet Cobalt  (2006 Nominee)

Chevrolet Monte Carlo (2006 Winner)

Chevrolet Uplander (2006 Winner)

Chrysler Aspen (2006 Winner)

Chrysler Sebring

Dodge Caliber

Dodge Nitro

Ford Focus

Hummer H2 (2006 Nominee)

Hummer H3

Jaguar X-type (2006 Nominee)

Jeep Commander (2006 Nominee)

Jeep Compass (2006 Winner)

Lincoln Mark LT (2006 Winner)

Nissan Armada

Pontiac Grand Prix

Saturn ION

Subaru Tribeca (2006 Winner)

To assist you in your sacred duty, lend the Ten Worst selection process an air of legitimacy, amuse you and take us to the requisite 800 words, here are guidelines for assessing each finalist. 

Value (price, content, depreciation) – Does it scream "RENTAL UNIT?" Would you be better off in the long run if you just tossed your money down a sewer grate rather than buying this vehicle?

Market segment suitability – How well does the Ten Worst finalist stack up against other vehicles in its class or price range? Is there any real justification for its existence– other than placating dealers or keeping a factory running to satisfy the terms of a UAW contract?

Reliability – When you hear someone talking about "Total Recall," do you think about Arnie's magnum opus or this car? Would you buy one only if you could unload it before the 50K mile mark? Would you let your teen-aged daughter drive one across town at 1 AM? 

Build quality – Does the wiring look like a public service announcement for The Duct Tape Council? Can you see the panel gaps from low-Earth orbit? Was the trim applied by Salvador Dali after a three-day bender?

Quality of materials – Are the materials better suited for a city bus than a private vehicle? Would you rather touch a leper than a latch? Is the faux wood/aluminum/carbon fiber as convincing as Britney Spears speaking at a Mothers Against Drunk Driving convention?

Styling – Does it look like it was designed by three different blind people? In three different countries? Communicating via smoke signals? From a bong?

Performance/handling – Is the vehicle's zero to 60 performance best measured with a calendar? Does the hubbub under the hood have any correlation with forward motion? Does the car's cornering prowess bring to mind a rutting walrus?

Design – Are the ergonomics egregious? Is there less rearwards visibility than a 747? Is it a parts bin special bereft of anything remotely resembling "special?"  

Desirability– If your company gave you this vehicle as a company car, would you consider changing jobs?  If you had to drive one in public, would you pull a cap down over your face and assume the gansta slouch just to keep anyone from recognizing you?

Je ne sais quoi– That's French for "I know this car sucks, but I can't put my finger on the exact reason it makes me gag every time one passes on the street."

So, armed with these analytic tools, we place TTAC's Ten Worst in your capable hands. When you're ready, click at the bottom of this post and vote for up to 10 selections to be named the crème de la crap of the auto industry. (No repeat voting. Violators will be forced to drive the worst of The Worst for one week.) Please feel free to justify your decision and/or lobby your car-crazed cohorts below. Voting closes at midnight, Saturday 27 October. We'll announce the "winners" on November 1.

As always, RF, the entire TTAC team and I thank you for your participation. Although we use a light-hearted tone here, rest assured we understand the importance of naming and shaming the vehicles that bring dishonor to their manufacturers and disgrace our American roadways. And to those automakers whose products appear here, a message: the truth hurts. If your vehicle is on this list, regardless of short term gain, we urge you to do the right thing. For all of our sakes, it's time for the pain to stop. 

Click here to vote

How in the world did the United Auto Workers (UAW) boss Ron Gettelfinger think he could get his Chrysler members to ratify their proposed contract without providing job guarantees? Did he seriously believe a $3k signing bonus would convince his otherwise carrot-less union brothers and sisters to surrender their right to graduate into cushy “non core” jobs? Or was Gettelfinger blindsided by his own ego; figuring he could yell “roll over” and “play dead” at 45k well-paid autoworkers and make it so? Either way, the question must be asked: what the Hell is going on?

First, the latest point in our connect-the-dots sequence: a so-called “secret handshake” deal between the UAW and Chrysler. Reuters reports that UAW VP General Holiefield told Local leaders he made an unannounced pact with Chrysler to keep certain U.S. plants open if members ratify the new contract. Assuming Chrysler workers will believe Holiefield– a stretch given the rancor surrounding the po-faced contract– it’s a clever play. But is it true? 

If Chrysler owner Cerberus offered their UAW members job guarantees, surely BOTH sides would want them in writing to ensure the new contract’s ratification. There are two possible reasons why the union would hide assurances of job security. Either the UAW knows that this alleged job security is highly selective (i.e. they realize that Chrysler’s about to shut plenty o’ plants) and therefore divisive, or there wasn’t any “secret” deal. It’s just a desperate UAW officer blowing smoke up his members’ collective asses.

No matter how you look at it, the UAW leadership has rolled onto its back doggie style, their members aren’t buying the new deal and the union brass are growing increasingly desperate. To wit: not only did the International approve the contract by voice vote, but they aren’t reporting ANY member voting totals. The Locals are playing fast and loose with the numbers as well. The Detroit News says that three quarters of their yes/no stats arrive as percentages, rather than precise numbers.

Could the UAW cheat their way to ratification? Sure. And if the subterfuge is discovered, there will be Hell to pay– within the UAW, relative to Chrysler and, lest we forget, over at Ford. And what will happen if the rank and file reject the contract? The key to this conundrum, indeed, the explanation for this incipient chaos, lies within the UAW’s six-hour strike with Chrysler. 

It’s critical to note that the Chrysler strikette represented a split within the union, rather than a united push for more concessions. After the UAW walked out, they did not return to the bargaining table; they simply signaled Chrysler that they were ready to sign. Lead negotiator Bill Parker’s immediate and public opposition to the deal is proof positive that the UAW was of two minds. And the bit that said this is as good as it’s ever gonna get won.

Think of it this way: Union boss Ron Gettelfinger understands that Chrysler is a company staring down the barrel of Chapter 11. He also knows Cerberus stands ready, willing and able to let its 45k union employees go on strike– and break it. He must have figured it’s better to capitulate now and make it look like tough negotiation, rather than face Cerberus’ nuclear winter. And he may have been emboldened by his success at GM.  

But there’s one thing Gettelfinger didn’t/doesn’t understand: his members’ ignorance and militancy.

The average Chrysler worker doesn't believe that his or her employer is about to go under. They don't appreciate the fact that Chrysler’s lack of a foreign sales safety net makes it especially vulnerable. They don't understand that one of the world’s richest private equity firms will hang the company out to dry in a New York minute if they think it’s an irredeemable money pit. All they know is that someone’s getting screwed and it’s us. As usual.

Gettelfinger’s mob forgot to sell union members on the idea that Cerberus holds all the cards. Saying that, how could they? Big Ron couldn’t risk calling a “real” strike to get his members in line– because they would have lost. And he couldn’t tell the truth about his position, because he would have been considered weak, and the members might not have bought it anyway. But the truth is neither Gettelfinger nor his members can avoid the truth. 

If Chrysler workers are allowed to reject the contract, the UAW goes back to the bargaining table. Chances are nothing much will change. The leadership will re-present virtually the same contract and hope the members have “got it out of their system” and approve the deal (a la National Steel in the early ‘90’s). If Gettelfinger’s regime can’t withstand the fallout and/or gets caught cheating, the new leadership will call a strike. And lose.

[Interview with Greg Shotwell of the Soldiers of Solidarity below]

I’d just slipped the nozzle into my Cadillac XLR-V. A dark Merc SL550 rolled up, its driver eyeing my Bowling Green Batmobile. As he busied himself with the credit card ritual, every few seconds his eyes darted sideways to the Caddy. “Mind if I look inside?” He sat behind the wheel, running his fingers across the interior surfaces. “Nice,” he pronounced. “Comfortable. And it’s easy to see out. There isn’t as much storage as my SL, but I’d be OK with that.” As he exited the XLR-V, he issued his verdict: “I wish I had the courage.”

“It’s been completely reliable,” I assured the SL guy, figuring he was wary of GM’s reputation for mechanical “mishaps.”  “I’ve had it for over 23,000 miles without any problems.”

“That’s not what I meant,” he said. “I wish I had the courage to buy a car I’d have to explain to my friends. I love the style; I really admire it. But no one would understand if I bought a Cadillac. You have more guts than me.”

Americans scraped their way through the Depression, prevailed in two global wars, hung tough for 45 years of Cold War, went to the moon and opened our markets to help lift the world to prosperity. And now it comes to this: a man who likes a car designed and made by Americans in the United States– which he can clearly afford– is squeamish at the prospect of explaining an American-made automotive choice to his peers.

It may be unpopular to say it, but the existential threat to Detroit’s Big Three has a consumer component. There are 360 degrees of blame. Consumers must step up too.

Detroit’s products have changed. Whether you credit government intervention, consumer activism or foreign competition, there are no more rusting Vegas, exploding Pintos and 8-6-4 Cadillacs that can’t do math on the fly. As this website has pointed out on numerous occasions, product quality data says pretty much everything offered to American car buyers is mechanically reliable. Even if that salient fact hasn’t yet reached American consumer’s ears, reliability is not as important as it once was. Car choice often descends into pointless arguments over interior plastics, comparative depreciation and social acceptability.

This is why American manufacturers haven’t enjoyed the sales resurgence their new, improved products deserve: prejudice. American consumers share an irrational belief that American-made goods are inherently inferior to those produced by Japanese, German and even Korean manufacturers. A VW may find its way into the repair shop twice as often as a Chevrolet, but the German-branded car is still perceived as a higher quality product simply because it’s German.

A recent study by J.D. Power revealed that 80 percent of America's new car intenders won’t actively cross-shop either domestic or foreign, depending on their preference. While you can blame this horrific statistic on Detroit’s previous sins, it’s still a blanket condemnation of the Americans consumer’s idea of fair play. “You gotta put Mercury on your list,” the ad practically begs. And so it should be. Again, it may be unfashionable to suggest, but there is a penalty to pay for this blind bias against home-grown (or at least sold) products.

The United States is the only First World country projected to be substantially larger in population at the end of this century than it is today. The theory of comparative advantage says we should let our uncompetitive industries die. But of course, economists always neglect the human factor of politics. We have global responsibilities. We will continue to be a magnet for those with hope, and must accommodate an expanding, diverse population. We need a full-spectrum economy, not one divided between wealthy and struggling.

Manufacturing jobs are the bridge. As the US Department of Commerce reported in March, 2007:“Auto manufacturing remains one of the economy’s best paying industries. Production workers’ average hourly earnings were projected to reach $30.02 (excluding benefits) in 2006. Wages were 79 percent greater than the national average for all manufacturing industries.”

They also note that reductions in employment by GM, Ford and Chrysler will not be made up by transplant hiring. Beyond that, transplant sales do not support the tens of thousands of domestic high-salary headquarters jobs that a Detroit 3 purchase does today.

A holistic understanding of our mutual social contract suggests that we should at least give Detroit a fair shot at our patronage. In a 16 million units annual new vehicle market, can we find one million more buyers for the best, most competitive domestic iron?

Having driven the primary competitors in the volume car biz, I’m convinced that if a million import bigots dropped their bias against domestic iron and truly reconsidered what constitutes meaningful difference in a car comparison, they’d make the right choice– and not regret it. And we’d all be stronger for it.

If one word describes Saab’s recent past, it’s underinvestment. Back when the Swedish brand was self-sustaining, they operated their R&D department on a sko sträng. Despite the limitations, Saab created distinctively styled, innovatively engineered automobiles. Then, in 1990, GM bought half of Saab. Ten years later they bought the rest. Since that time, Saab has faced the same financial limitations as before, but without the managerial freedom to overcome them. Late in 2007, it looks like Saab is finally getting the money– and respect– they need. 

This nascent renaissance began last year, when GM began spruiking a newfound commitment to Saab. That’s when Saab unveiled the stunning Aero-X concept car. Launched at the Geneva Auto Show, equipped (at least theoretically) with a 2.8-liter BioPower V6 twin-turbo engine, the 400hp prototype gave Saab the kind of techno and style cred it hasn’t enjoyed since flowers had power. Suddenly, no one was talking about rebadged Opels, not even Saab.

"This concept shows the exciting possibilities that are open to us as we evolve a more progressive design language for the Saab brand," said Jan Åke Jonsson, Saab's Managing Director. "Our designers, engineers and marketers in Sweden are ideally placed to nurture and communicate the unique DNA of the Saab brand.”

That newfound commitment has finally begun to take shape in the 2008 model year, with the refreshed Saab 9-3.  The improved model is more physically aggressive, but it’s not just another facelift. It’s much quieter, more surefooted and incorporates a couple of genuine mechanical innovations: the twin-turbo diesel engine (TTiD) and Haldex’s all-new Cross-Wheel Drive system (XWD).

XWD is a box fresh all-wheel-drive (AWD) system; Saab is the first company to use it. (Remember when Saab was all about innovation?) Like most modern AWD systems, XWD can split power between the front and rear wheels, as one or the other loses traction. But it’s also capable of splitting power to the rear wheels from side to side, via a new electronic limited slip differential. The end result: Saab’s own testers put an XWD-equipped model through slalom tests quicker, and with greater control, than several premium German and Japanese AWD competitors-– including the Porsche 911 Turbo.

The brilliant new TTiD engine is an oil-burner that delivers a heretofore unseen combination of performance, economy and smoothness. It’s a 180-horse, in-line common rail diesel, with direct and multiple injection, turbocharged and intercooled. While US consumers won’t get a shot at purchasing this engine– GM reckons it can’t be made compliant with U.S. emissions regulations and remain competitively priced– European customers will.

In the medium term, Saab is busy creating an expanded range to boost sales to finally rid the brand of all that annual red ink. To that end, Saab’s crafting an all-new 9-3, an all-new and bigger 9-5 flagship, a midsize 9-4x SUV (a ground-up replacement for the TWAT-winning 9-7x), and a new smaller Saab (called 9-1, for now). All these models are set to hit the streets by 2011.

Saab’s value to GM isn’t just about what it can contribute to the bottom line through additional sales. Saab also brings to GM’s table a varied and valuable technological contribution; one which The General can use to benefit cars right across its brand portfolio, right across the world.

Recently, Saab has begun to expand their areas of technological expertise. With an outlook toward cellulosic ethanol, Saab have been given the lead role in developing GM’s future E85 capability. GM’s previous E85 efforts have been an exercise in CAFE dodging, resulting in low-mileage utes that rarely use the fuel. Saab’s E85 technology uses turbocharging to take advantage of ethanol’s high octane rating. The end result? Around 20 percent more power and torque when running on E85.

Saab served as a “test bed” for XWD technology– debuting in the 2008 Saab 9-3– and will handle the roll out for this technology to all of GM’s FWD-based offerings. And, lest we forget, Saab has been offering turbocharged cars for 30 years. They’re already GM’s leader on the technology, which is key to helping the General create desirable products in these CO2-conscious times.

Saab didn’t build its heritage and cult following based on doing things differently for the sake of difference. They have a noble history and loyal customers because their innovations made sense. Make no mistake: that same spirit of innovation is still alive at Saab– even if it’s somewhat muffled by being part of GM’s bigger picture. Saab are still GM’s only global premium brand, and it looks like they’re finally starting to make the contribution that a premium player needs to make. 

All that said, it remains to be seen if the “new” Saab is GM’s latest flavor-of the-month– or a company finally ready to capitalize on GM’s patronage.

[Steven Wade publishes www.trollhattansaab.net ]

Given the changing pace of technology, the price of factory-fitted satellite navigation and the itinerant traveler's tendency to rent their chariot, a portable GPS (Global Positioning Satellite) navigation system is the ideal solution. When choosing an electronic pathfinder, map quality makes all the difference. Magellan (like Garmin) uses the premier map data supplier Navteq. The Magellan Maestro Series offers three models with a "just right" screen size (4.3"). The 4000 ($399) is the base model. The 4040 ($499) adds Canada (the maps, not the country) and Bluetooth, which lets you access addresses lurking inside your phone/palmtop. Although you can upgrade the 4040 to real-time traffic data for another hundred bucks, that same Franklin buys you the 4050 ($599) with a built-in traffic jam info receiver. On the road, the Magellan's 4040's geek fabulous 20-channel sirfsStarIII chipset instantly locked onto a GPS signal and updated quickly. The maps are pellucid, the voice prompts clear and the touch screen ergonomically sound. On the downside, the map disappears during recalculation and full-on sunlight is still a bugbear (a built-in visor would help). While RV-ing seniors might appreciate the AAA's TourBook info and roadside assistance (trip A members only), it would be nice to be able to choose a more (ahem) upmarket guide. Overall, the 4040 is a decent but not outstanding GPS device– at $499. But Costco's got 'em for $349 (in store price, call ahead). For that money, you're good to go.

 Should this be a TTAC-approved product?

Click here to vote

View Poll Results

Kids love to play connect the dots. When the dots are numbered sequentially (with a few outlining details thrown in to keep 'em focused), it's easy to do. When the numbers are missing, it's hard to see anything more than random points on a page. And so it is with Chrysler, an American automaker that's generated enough bloggable news during the last six months to keep Google News-alerted surfers away from their designated job for hours at a time. Even though only Chrysler's new owners know their real game plan, there's been enough new "dots" to form a recognizable pattern. What it reveals is a company on the cusp of a major revolution.

The first dot: DaimlerChrysler dumping selling Chrysler. Several companies showed interest in buying Chrysler early on, but most industry analysts expected Canada's Magna Corporation to be a shoo-in. Magna had the balls; Chairman and founder Frank Stronach is the personification of unbridled ambition. Magna had Chrysler-specific auto building experience; they held the contract to assemble Chryslers and Jeeps in Europe and run the paint shop at the Jeep Wrangler plant in Toledo, Ohio. And Magna had the money.

But before the Chrysler deal went down, the automaker announced it was moving production of Euro-spec Chryslers from the Magna-Steyr plant in Austria to Chrysler's plant in Brampton, Ontario. Magna wasn't happy. The Canadian Autoworkers Union (CAW) loved it. Dot two.

Third dot: the private equity firm Cerberus came from nowhere to grab the golden ring. It was the union's turn to be displeased. United Auto Workers (UAW) president Ron Gettelfinger and CAW president Buzz Hargrove both suspected that Cerberus was about to "strip and flip" their meal ticket. They saw storm clouds gathering over Auburn Hills.

And yet, after just one meeting with the three-headed dog's masters, both union leaders did a complete 180. Gettelfinger said the sale of Chrysler to the private equity fund was in the "best interests of our members." Hargrove, who had said he was "pissed off" over the sale, suddenly decided "Chrysler is better off under Cerberus ownership than they would be under Daimler." Dot four.

Fifth dot: after taking over Chrysler, Cerberus revamped the company's upper management. Union-friendly CEO Tom Lasorda suddenly found himself shuffled aside to a vice president's position. Former Home Depot CEO Robert Nardelli took over as Chrysler CEO. Toyota's Jim Press moved in as co-vice president, to run sales and marketing. Both came from companies known for their decidedly anti-union stance, yet the UAW and CAW were both uncharacteristically quiet about their selection. 

Then came dot six: negotiating a new UAW contract. In return for ponying-up a bunch of billions for a health care VEBA superfund, the UAW's leadership agreed on a contract radically different from the GM deal. The Chrysler agreement doesn't include job guarantees or commitments not to close or sell plants. If the UAW's members ratify this agreement, it leaves Cerberus free and clear to shut down whatever plants they choose, whenever they choose. OR… sell those plants to someone else.

Last month, Magna surprised everyone. The fiercely anti-union company suddenly opened its plants to the CAW, inviting them to organize their employees. Owner Frank Stronach said the company "would embrace the union" under the "framework of fairness."  He claimed an epiphany: Magna and unions need to work together to save North American auto industry jobs and create new employment. Dot seven.

Dot eight: Chrysler has announced it's [finally] ready to trim models across all three brands. The executions could mean a Chrysler plant now building several variations of one model for three divisions would build one model for one division. Although the divisions might share some components (e.g. engines or transmissions), the new regime will tie a specific production facility to a specific brand.

Connect the dots. As we predicted when Cerberus assumed control of Chrysler, the money men are getting ready to sell part or all of Chrysler to Magna, or, at the least, outsource production to them. This they can do because Chrysler’s unions have been well and truly appeased, paid off in billions and granted access to Magna’s expanding worldwide empire. This they will do because they’re a private equity firm that has always preferred right-now cash cows to long-term plays. 

Magna is also on board because, well, it’s what Frank wanted then, it’s what Frank wants now and Frank’s got the cash to do the deal. Ah, but is this a picture of resurgent automaker? Nope. It’s an abstract image; one that allows both artist and onlookers to see what they want to see. One thing’s for sure: it's still very much a work in progress.

Nominations for TTAC's Ten Worst Automobiles awards continue apace. You, our not-so-gentle readers, are cordially invited to continue submitting your ruminations on these ruinations underneath this post. So far you've nominated 118 different vehicles (give or take a few clones). While we're not keeping track of how many nominations any given car receives, there are already a few clear front runners. Here's a roundup of the "leading" nominations and their pithy proponents…

Last year about this time, we gazed into the crystal ball to predict a few changes in the automotive world. A lot of water's gone under the proverbial bridge since then: Toyota's world number one, the UAW's selling out their membership for a few dozen billion, Ford and Chrysler are attempting turnarounds with leaders who have no automotive industry experience whatsoever and GM Car Czar Bob Lutz is straining his personal credibility beyond breaking point. Well, OK, some things haven't changed. Anyway, with all that's happened in the past year, what does the future hold? Here are some of our predictions.

Hyundai Announces New Model:  Hyundai's Ford division has unveiled its latest offering: the midsized Torino II. Rejecting web reports that the "new" car is merely a rebadged next gen Sonata, Ford's Emperor of the Americas, Mark Fields, stated "The new Torino II resurrects a distinguished name from Ford's past in a bold move that brings an unprecedented level of sophistication to the Ford brand." 

The new model rounds out the Ford line, joining the subcompact Pinto II (built on the Accent platform), compact Maverick II (which shares drivetrain and other components with the Elantra), and the new F-150 II pickup (built on the Veracruz platform). Kia's Mercury division has yet to make any new model announcements. Rumors of a resurrected Lincoln Continental based on the Kia Amanti are unconfirmed.

GM Relocating to Follow Their Market:  In a surprise move late yesterday, GM announced plans to relocate the company headquarters to Mumbai, India. CEO-for-Life Rick Wagoner explains: "Since all of our assembly plants are in India, Thailand, Korea and China, it was only natural that we consolidate our operations in that region, too. This will allow us to get better control of expenses and begin the last phase of our turnaround plan."

GM plans to keep a small staff on floors three and four of the Renaissance Center to handle North American marketing, along with a warranty claims staff on floors five through 68. Nonagenarian Vice Chairman and Product Czar Robert Lutz was napping, and thus unavailable for comment on the move.

Gore Declares War on Environmental Hazard: Nobel prize winner, former Vice President and presidential also-ran Al Gore announced today he was beginning a campaign to limit the use of fuel cells in automobiles. Gore, who won his Nobel for inventing the internet and discovering greenhouse gases, stated that these so-called "zero emission" cars were, in fact, producing dangerous levels of dihydrogen monoxide (DMHO) and releasing it into the environment.

As he explained, once released, this compound collects in large clouds in the atmosphere which block the sun and increase the greenhouse effect.  It is found in acid rain and contributes to soil erosion. DMHO has become so pervasive it can be found in almost all foodstuffs and is even sprayed on "organic" produce, Gore warned. He has made eliminating DMHO from the environment his primary goal for this decade.

Business as Usual in the PRC:  Chery is being sued by Daimler for patent infringement. The suit centers around the rear suspension of the Cherysler 300. The suspension, originally designed by then-DaimlerChrysler, was based on the suspension of the Mercedes E-class. Since Chery's acquisition of the Chrysler division from Cerberus, Daimler claims they have done nothing to modify or redesign the suspension and in fact are expanding its usage to other vehicles.

Daimler legal counsel Max Schwanstüker, who filed the suit, asserted Chery has had plenty of time to redesign the suspension– but chose not to. Chery countered by stating they have indeed redesigned it; as it now includes parts from the latest E-class. The Chinese government has issued a statement saying there have been no patent infringements by domestic automakers, nor can there be.

UAW Seeks New Identity:  The United Autoworkers Union (UAW) is changing its name. Since their membership no longer includes any autoworkers, the UAW realizes they have to change with the times. In a press release, the UAW stated, "Unlike the Teamsters Union, which has nothing to do with horse teams, sports teams or any other kind of team, we want our name to remain relevant." Some of the names they're considering: Minimum Wage Workers Union (MWWU), United Service Industry Workers Union (USIWU) and Busboy, Waitress, Casino and Daycare Workers International (BWCDWI)

Motor Trend Modernizes Content:  Motor Trend (MT) disclosed plans to publish content consisting only of special advertising sections. MT publisher Beefy McBigmac justified his decision by saying, "Surveys show our readers don't know the difference between what we write and the advertisements, so why not save a few editorial bucks and let the advertising agencies write all of our copy? This way we can afford to keep giving away subscriptions while other automotive magazines are having to convert to on-line publishing." 

In an unrelated story, Motor Trend announced their Car of the Year is the all-new Hyundai Ford Torino II.

GM Death Watch Reaches Milestone: TTAC's GM Death Watch Series has reached a milestone. This week sees the publication of The Truth About Cars' GMDW 1,000. Publisher Robert Farago said, "That f-ing company has more f-ing lives than a f-ing alley cat. Just when you f-ing think it's going down for the third f-ing time, someone throws it a f-ing life preserver and it just keeps f-ing floating along, hanging on by its f-ing fingertips."  Farago is certain GM– which is now the world's sixth largest automaker after Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Hyundai, and Chery– can't last much longer.  "We're in it until the bitter end – either theirs or ours."

In this morning's Detroit Free Press, Tom Walsh declares that United Auto Workers (UAW) president Ron Gettelfinger had to "flex worker's muscles" by staging a six-hour strikelet against Chrysler. Gettelfinger "felt compelled to deploy the biggest weapon in his arsenal, the strike" to get agreements from GM and Chrysler. Granted, a strike is any unions' ultimate bargaining tool. But get real. I've had doctor's appointments that lasted longer than the Chrysler "strike." Exactly what did the UAW accomplish yesterday– besides costing its members six hours' pay?

When Detroit was king of the American automotive hill, The Big Three were loathe to shut down an assembly line. Factories were churning out cars 24 hours a day; they were making billions by feeding the American public mediocre products based on other mediocre products. So the automakers gave the union pretty much whatever they wanted, just as long as they helped keep the money train on the track and on time.

Then them damned furriners showed up and spoiled the party. Fast forward forty years and everything is turned upside down. The Big Three Minus Twenty Percent are losing money on almost every car they produce in North America. Their "foreign" competitors have invaded their home turf. With the weak dollar, more automakers are threatening to set up operations stateside.

On the union side, UAW membership is the lowest its been in decades, as factories shut down and workers take buyouts. Apparently no one bothered to tell the UAW they no longer have the upper hand. At the UAW's bargaining convention in March, Gettelfinger said they'd fight in whatever way necessary in order to defend their members' pay and benefits, even "if need be, on the picket line." 

Perhaps he should have taken Teddy Roosevelt's advice about soft talk and big sticks. After issuing nuclear option threats, Big Ron had no alternative but to call a strike at some time during the negotiations. He had to put his members' money where his mouth was. 

So Gettelfinger decided he'd take on GM and call a strike. Industry analysts were all abuzz, speculating how long it would last. The more jaded amongst them wondered how long before GM followed protocol and caved to whatever demands the UAW was making. Two days later it was over.

UAW leadership claims the strikelet broke the logjam with GM and forced their employer to settle on terms favorable to the membership. In reality, shutting down production for two days did GM more good than harm. GM entered September with a 67-day supply of vehicles, most of them 2007 models. The strike gave them most of what they wanted– a two-tier wage system and a health care VEBA. AND it saved them two day's union pay and cleared a bit of inventory. When seen in this perspective, this UAW strike was, at best, a mosquito bite on an elephant's ass.

The six-hour coffee break at Chrysler was even more meaningless. Chrysler had a 72-day supply of vehicles going into September. Six hours didn't even give time for the impact wrenches on the assembly lines to cool down. The details of the agreement aren't available yet, but there's no way the UAW's token tantrum got Cerberus to change their mind on anything.

Ford's next. They had a 68-day supply of vehicles going into September. No question: they're in the worst financial shape of The Big 2.8. The Blue Oval Boyz will be demanding the most back from the union. How will the union respond? Based on performances so far, they'll probably have the workers bow their heads for a moment of silence on the assembly lines, and then capitulate on all fronts (as long as they get some more billions into the plunder-ready health care VEBA). 

The Freep's Walsh sings Gettelfinger's praise. He claims Big Ron "is on the verge of doing something … historic, forging the most important UAW contracts since the GM sit-down strikes of 1936 – 37." David Cole from the Center for Automotive Research agrees: "When all this is over we'll look at Ron Gettelfinger and say this is an amazing guy to have pulled all this off."

The only thing Gettelfinger pulled is the wool over his members' eyes. The entire strike scenario was just a way to get them to buy into a contract that gave up a lot more than it gained. By having them walk a picket line, even for a few hours, he convinced them they had a part in making management cry "uncle."  They'd look pretty foolish to reject a contract they went on strike to get. 

And it worked. Sixty-six percent of GM's UAW workers ratified their new contract. Gettelfinger called the approval a "triumph." He crowed: "we helped protect middle-class manufacturing jobs in communities throughout the United States." Of course, in protecting them, he put their retirees' health care benefits at risk, lowered the wages for many of them and got unenforceable promises of future jobs. That doesn't sound much like a positive strike outcome to me, in either the short or the long-term.

It’s true. The United Auto Workers (UAW) six hour strike against Chrysler was nothing more than a bit of empty posturing, some meaningless moaning and a quick and unsatisfying climax. Oh I’m sure the union bosses are basking in the warm afterglow of successful pattern bargaining; safe in the knowledge that Chrysler will render unto Caesar the same plunderiffic health care deal as GM, as they look fordward to their next payout. And Chrysler’s new masters must also be happy with the deal. (Ipso facto.) But anyone who’d hoped that someone in Detroit would have the balls to finally shaft the UAW has been left high and dry.

Truth be told, I was one of those observers who assumed that a switch from public stockholder to private equity ownership would help Chrysler grow a serious set of stones. With no one to answer to but their free-spending wives, ex-wives and children, with pockets deeper than an Icelandic ice core, Cerberus' directors could do what The Big 2.8’s erstwhile guardians had never done (if the thought even occurred to them): walk. Hey Ron! You want job guarantees and a bazillion dollar health care VEBA? See you in China. Anyone want to buy Jeep?

That said, my belief in Cerberus’ ability to upset the union applecart disappeared long before the UAW negotiations began. A few weeks after Chrysler’s overlords installed former Home Depot CEO Bob Nardelli into the top slot, I suspected Cerberus couldn’t get wood. There was only one good reason to hire the Prowler-owning auto industry virgin, a man whose largest contribution to his previous employer was self-checkout terminals (for which he paid himself $210m). To cull the deadwood and strip Chrysler like the Grinch looting Cindy Lou Who’s house.

This he didn’t do. If anything, Nardelli’s added complexity to the system. First, he failed to fire Chrysler Prez Tom LaSorda; the exec that helped the Germans run the ailing American automaker into the ground. Next, Nardelli appointed his office manager as his new turnaround titan. Then he hired Toyota’s Jim Press as Chrysler's car czar; a self-professed "servant leader” whose consensus management style poses no threat to Chrysler’s dysfunctional bureaucracy. These are not the actions of a revolutionary intent on a destroying a busted business model.

I know: it’s hard to believe that Cerberus would allow Chrysler’s new management team to adopt the same “steady as she goes” strategy that’s helped GM shed huge chunks of market share and drop billions over the last 17 years, and led Ford to mortgage everything up to and including their logo. With bankruptcy’s long shadow hanging over Detroit, how could anyone with even the gentlest grasp on recent history assume that tweaking overheads, products, sales and marketing is a recipe for success?

And yet, where’s the game changer? 

The weird thing is that Chrysler seems to know what it should be doing to reinvent itself. They made a head fake in the direction of cleaning their dealers’ clocks, looking to trim a bloated dealer network Chrysler can’t afford. And then they backed off. They talked about killing overlapping, brand-defiling models and refocusing their product line. And then added more complexity: a new hybrid-building hothouse. AND we're still waiting for the Pacifica, Durango, Aspen, et. al. to die. Chrysler hinted that a GM-style union health care VEBA superfund wasn’t for them. And then they agreed to it.

Perhaps the UAW agreement is simply Cerberus’ attempt to buy some time. Let’s get the best union deal we can, keep the dealers’ doors open and the factories humming a while, and THEN we’ll blindside them. THEN we’ll close factories, kill models, import Chinese products, cut deals with other automakers to retail their products, sell off brands, face the dealers in court, etc. It’s a heartening thought for those who see Chrysler’s re-invention as the key to its survival, but the facts don’t fit the theory.

Cerberus’ is famous for implementing a “100 day” plan on their new acquisitions. The 100 days have come and gone; if they were going to kick out the jams, the jams would be kicked. Aside from adding new management, the carmaker Cerberus owns today looks strikingly similar to the carmaker Cerberus purchased on May 14– new union contract and all. 

In fact, the day before the UAW strikelet, Chrysler announced they were cutting 415 full-time white collar jobs from their Auburn Hills HQ, and saying sayonara to 1000 temps. The bloodletting was part of LaSorda’s pre-Cerberus turnaround plan, which dictated that the automaker shed 11k hourly and 2k salaried jobs over three years. So the “old” turnaround plan was/is still chugging away behind the scenes, even as Cerberus headed into and out of UAW negotiations. That ain’t good.

It’s time to face facts: Chrysler’s new boss is the same as the old boss. Same game plan. Same results. The UAW non-strike strike proves that the real indecencies are yet to come.

September wasn't kind to the auto industry. Total U.S. light vehicle sales ended the month 2.9 percent below September 2006. The year-to-date (YTD) news wasn't very encouraging either; sales for the first nine months of 2007 are 2.8 percent below the same time last year. Of The Big 2.8, only GM finished the month (barely) in the black. Ford, Chrysler, and Toyota all posted declines compared with last September. Looking at our four-wheeled sampler, separating the winners from the losers is a matter of seeing who lost less. 

Passenger Cars

The bad news: Chevy's Impala dropped about 1800 sales from August. The good news: the sales stalwart's up six percent compared to September last year; up 13.9 percent YTD. Chrysler's once-mighty 300 ain't so mighty no mo'. September sales dropped 13.2 percent, while annual sales fell 14.9 percent. Fusion sales offered Ford a glimmer of hope, rising 9.6 percent for the month, racking-up a 1.3 percent gain for the year. Toyota's killer Camry continues its sales growth, up 5.7 percent on the month and 7.1 percent for the year.

Pickup Trucks

Rebates reigned supreme. Despite slapping more cash on the hood and even more generous financing incentives, Chevy Silverado sales rose just one percent for the month. YTD, sales are down 1.9 percent. Dodge is also throwing cash at Ram buyers, which helped jack-up sales by 20 percent. Annual sales are up just 0.6, but it's still a victory (of sorts). Smaller cash rebates and not-quite-so-cut-rate financing aren't helping Ford's F-Series; sales were off a whopping 20.8 percent, running 12.9 percent total behind last year. Toyota revived its incentive campaigns on the Tundra, sending the texas-built pickup on its way to meeting its first-year sales goal of 200k units. Tundra sales rose 55.2 percent for the month and 57.9 percent YTD.

Truck-Based SUVs

Although Chevy's Tahoe sales for the month leaped by an amazing 52.2 percent (fleets?), YTD sales slipped 9.2 percent. Dodge's Durango's sales are MIA, sinking a titanic 49.6 percent; it'down 29.8 percent YTD. The Ford Explorer was almost as lost, dropping 31.9 percent, losing 24.2 percent YTD. Toyota's not immune to the SUV exodus: 4Runner sales sank 2.7 percent, down 16.8 percent YTD.

CUVs
 
After a brief rally in August, Chevy's Equinox dropped almost 5k units in September. It's down 4.1 percent for the month, and 21.1 percent for the year. The Pacifica is all at sea. September sales of Chrysler's hoary CUV are down a staggering 43.8 percent, and 29.6 percent below the first nine months of 2006. Ford's Escape helped The Blue Oval Boyz escape bankruptcy for another month. Escape sales rose 10.3 percent  on the month and up 3.8 percent on the year. Toyota redesigned RAV-4 rocks. Sales increased 24.8 percent, 14.1 percent YTD.

New Models

Overall, GM's Lambda triplets (Acadia, Enclave, Outlook) racked-up over 12k sales in September. GMC's Acadia, up 800 units from August, continues to be the most popular of GM's Lambda CUVs. The Ford Edge continues edging-up from its drastic drop in July, with an increase of 1500 sales over August. Jeep's Compass wasn't so fortunate. It dropped 800 sales from August.

Total Sales
 
Although September sales fell below August's peak, GM finished the month 0.3 percent above the previous year. They're still below 2006 for the YTD, with a 6.6 percent drop. Chrysler and Ford both ended the month 5.4 and 20.4 percent respectively below September 2006. Chrysler is down three percent YTD and Ford is 13.3 percent lower YTD. Toyota finished below 2006 for the second month in a row, this time with a 4.4 percent deficit. However, YTD, they show a 3.8 percent increase.

The Future

As the 2007 model year winds down– with the usual clearance sales and the '08 models flooding into the showrooms– GM begins the new year with a new UAW contract. Under the new agreement, they're sure to force encourage a lot of their experienced workers to retire, resulting in a large labor turnover. What impact these changes will have on production, prices or quality remains to be seen. All three domestic automakers are saying the new union contracts will give them parity with Toyota and the other transplants. How quickly this will translate into better designs and an improved product– if at all– anyone's guess.