Jim Sikes’ Prius high-speed dash to fame or infamy is a media hype-fest, with wild swings in sentiment from Toyota bashing to Sikes trashing. The rush to judgment is innately human, and Sikes certainly makes an easy target. But in the process, very little effort has been made to analyze what actually happened, or what might have actually happened, on the basis of the facts rather than Jim Sikes’ financial history and sexual proclivities. Read More >

And the data beat goes on. I asked Edmunds if they had updated model information to filter out the spike of UA reports to NHTSA after the 9/29/09 Toyota mat recall in order to improve my attempt at coming up with a model-specific UA rate. Not only did they oblige, but they already did all the work! A big hat tip to Edmunds, who has taken a lead in the quest to make sense of the data as well as the whole UA fiasco. Read More >

Here’s TTAC’s and the web’s only complete guide to Toyota’s gas pedals (so far), with tear downs, pictures, analysis, explanation, the shim fix, and commentary, all consolidated into one portal:

Part 1: Exclusive: TTAC Takes Apart Both Toyota Gas Pedals: Tear down of both the recalled CTS pedal assembly and the non-recalled Denso pedal assembly. Note: Assumptions and conclusions in this initial tear down lack the more complete understanding of the importance of the friction arm aspect of the CTS unit.

Part 2: Toyota Gas Pedal Fix Explained – With Exclusive Photos: Describes Toyota’s proposed fix for the recalled CTS gas pedal assembly, with detailed photos and graphics. Explains the significance of the friction arm assembly and its limitations.

Part 3: Toyota Gas Pedal Fix Simulated – Friction Reduced, By Too Much?: TTAC simulates the fix prescribed by Toyota for the recalled CTS pedal assembly, and notes how the fix changes the degree of friction, and the possible unintended result. With detailed pictures

Part 4: Why Toyota Must Replace Flawed CTS Gas Pedal With Superior Denso Pedal: Detailed analysis with pictures of the two pedal assemblies, an explanation as to why the Denso design is superior, and a call for having all CTS pedals replaced with the Denso pedal.

Part 5: TTAC Does The Toyota Pedal Shim Fix:  Stop Gap Solution At Best: Toyota’s solution is carried out here with detailed pictures, the whole Toyota document detailing the fix, and our commentary.

Part 6: Toyota Floor Mat/Gas pedal Recall Includes Computer Reflash And Trimming Of Gas Pedals: Info on the details of the floor mat/gas pedal interference recall.

Part 7: Toyota Recall  Creates Unintended Accelerator Consequences: As predicted in Part 4 (above), the CTS shim fix reduces the carefully designed amount of friction required for comfortable and smooth pedal action to the point where pedal action may now be jerky and potentially unsafe.

(Thanks to you-know-who-you-are for access to these parts and info)

[Note: A significantly expanded and updated version of this article is here]

For most of the fifties, sixties and into the early seventies, automotive aerodynamicists were mostly non-existent, or hiding in their wind tunnels. The original promise and enthusiasm of aerodynamics was discarded as just another style fad, and gave way to less functional styling gimmicks tacked unto ever larger bricks. But the energy crisis of 1974 suddenly put the lost science in the spotlight again. And although historic low oil prices temporarily put them on the back burner, as boxy SUVs crashed through the air, it appears safe to say that the slippery science has finally found its place in the forefront of automotive design. Read More >

[A significantly expanded and updated version of this article is here]

In the “streamlined decade” of the thirties, automotive aerodynamics was promoted as the great breakthrough to the modern high speed automobile. It was almost a religion, and its influence was essentially universal. By the end of the thirties, highly streamlined concepts were in every manufacturer’s styling studios. Everyone assumed the post-war era would be dominated by further developments on the air-splitting Tatra theme. But the reality turned out quite different, especially in the US.

Read More >

[Note: A significantly expanded and updated version of this article can be found here]

That air presented the greatest obstacle to automotive speed and economy was understood intuitively, if not scientifically since the dawn of the automobile. Putting it into practice was quite another story. Engineers, racers and entrepreneurs were lured by the potential for the profound gains aerodynamics offered. The efforts to do so yielded some of the more remarkable cars ever made, even if they challenged the aesthetic assumptions of their times. We’ve finally arrived at the place where a highly aerodynamic car like the Prius is mainstream. But getting there was not without turbulence. Read More >

Yesterday, a strange love-fest between U.S. Ambassador to Japan John Roos and Japan’s transport minister Seiji Maehara ensued. After their meeting in Tokyo, as reported by the Nikkei, the ambassador and the minister said that everything is hunky-dory, and that Toyota’s recent recalls won’t undermine relations between the U.S.A. and Japan. Which is odd in itself: Since when does a $15 gas pedal get a leading role on the world stage of international politics?

Ambassador Roos effusively told reporters that the recall issue ”in no way has any kind of direct or indirect impact on the strength of the bilateral relationship between the United States and Japan.” Who said it would? Read More >

Here’s a challenge: try to find a review of the Toyota Corolla that doesn’t bemoan its numb steering. Now try with a Chevy Cobalt. Or a Venza, or Vibe, Or Rav4, or Equinox. What do these vehicles have in common? Column-mounted electric power steering systems from JTEKT, a Toyota spin-off supplier which has done a brisk business in these fun-eliminating steering systems. And though the motor press has been bashing electric power assist steering (EPAS or EPS) for its deleterious effect on handling, the explosive growth in these systems may put more at risk than mere enthusiast-approved steering feel.
Read More >

Update: A portal to all of TTAC’s related articles on Toyota gas pedals is here:

Toyota has released their official “fix” for the sticky CTS-made gas pedals on the recalled models affected. From their graphic, it’s difficult to understand what parts are involved, and how they work. Thanks to our recent tear-down of the CTS pedal, we have the pictures and familiarity with the unit to explain it in detail. Read More >

Update: To see all of TTAC’s related articles on the subject of Toyota gas pedals, go here:

In yesterday’s post , we offered a bounty for anyone to open up both the CTS (bottom) and Denso (top) Toyota gas pedal assemblies. No one took us up, and no one anywhere else has done it, so we took it upon ourselves . Here they are, both e-pedal assemblies taken apart and examined, in our quest to understand if and what the significant differences are, and how Toyota’s possible “shim” fix would work.  On initial observation, it appears that the CTS may be perceived as being the more solidly engineered/built unit, in that the pedal pivots on a traditional and solid steel axle whose bearings are brass or bronze sleeves. The Denso’s whole pivot and bearing surfaces are relatively flimsy-feeling plastic. But that can be deceptive, and we’re not qualified to judge properly if it is indeed inferior or superior.  So the question that goes beyond the analysis of these e-pedals is this: are these units really the full source of the problem, or are they scape goats for an electronics and/or software glitch? Pictures and tear down examination and analysis follows:

Update #2: It’s clear to me now that the CTS unit I took apart already had the side cover plates (sheet metal) removed before I examined it. One can see where they fit, and are obviously intended to protect the exposed axle pivot and bushing seen above and below:

(Update #3: Also see our follow-up stories on Toyota’s fix and our replication of the fix and its results)

Read More >

The steamer is the granddaddy of all engines, dating back some 2,000 years. All of the earliest “cars” were steamers, and the golden age of steam cars in the teens and twenties resulted in some fabulously refined vehicles. The Stanley was very successful and set the world speed record in 1906 that was only broken recently; and the ultimate development, the highly refined Doble, created a legend. The advantages of the steam engine are the ability to burn almost any kind of fuel, generate maximum torque at starting rpm, no need for a transmission, and the ability to power the loudest of horns. There have been numerous attempts at automotive steam engine revivals; but their many downsides have relegated them to the obscure pages of wikipedia: delay in getting up a head of steam, bulky condensers, oil contamination of the steam, inefficiencies, etc.. But Cyclone Power Technologies has been developing a radical update on a compact, efficient, eco-friendly steam engine. Before we dismiss it as more hot vapor in our usual dismissive TTAC manner, let’s take a closer look first: Read More >

Malcolm “Call Me Malcolm” Bricklin and I had our little chin wag this morning. As expected, the serial  entrepreneur dominated the initial conversation. Less predictably, Bricklin began by bludgeoning me with Google-sourced biographical data. “I know about the Subaru [flying vagina] thing,” Bricklin pronounced. “You’ve got balls. I assume you’re not just saying all this stuff to be controversial.” After admitting his own insanity, Bricklin started recounting the entire history of the Yugo. His no-word-allowed-in-edgewise tale included the Cadillac Allante’s inhibiting effect on X1/9 production and Henry Kissinger’s contribution to the car that launched a thousand jokes. At some point, I interrupted Bricklin to ask about his latest venture: hydrogen. Turns out I got it wrong. Bricklin isn’t proposing a societal switch to hydrogen fuel. He’s got one of those 100mpg carburetor things. Only his creates “hydrogen-on-demand.”

Bricklin’s latest, perhaps last baby: a 4″ X 6″ X 8″ box that bolts onto an internal combustion engine, turns water into hydrogen and squirts it in with the gas. Bricklin claims the technology will increase ANY engine’s mileage by 50 to 100 percent. He also says Visionary Vehicles has licked the three problems that have prevented hydrogen-on-demand from being hydrogen-in-demand: overheating, blowing out the engine’s O2 sensors and corrosion of the stainless steel housing unit.

So, specifics? Nope. No demos. No names of scientists or companies who’ve worked on the device. No link to the company that’s supposedly field-tested the system. Nada. “We’ll have a car to show the public in 90 days, Bricklin promised. And that’s it.

Note: car. Not device. (Although, ever the salesman, Bricklin tried to convince me to fit my Odyssey with his “bumblebee”.)

While you and I might think that developing and licensing a miracle mpg generator would be enough work in the current economic climate, Bricklin has bigger plans. He wants to buy the output of one otherwise shuttered GM and one wanna-be defunct Chrysler plant, equip their vehicles with his hydrogen-on-demand system, tweak ’em a bit, and sell them to GM and Chrysler dealers as a “Visionary GM” and “Visionary Chrysler” products. “Like a Shelby Cobra,” Bricklin suggests.

Details, schmetails. Bricklin couldn’t care less which automotive models get the gizmo and wear the company badge. “I’ll let the dealers decide,” he insists.

Meanwhile and in any case, he’s got his eyes on the prize: the $25 billion Department of Energy retooling loans. You know, the loans for building more fuel efficient vehicles that were, at one time, the be all end all of the feds’ Motown meltdown bailout billions. Bricklin reckons the DOE money will pave the way for his visionary Visionary Vehicles.

Mind you, that doesn’t make Bricklin a bailout booster. When I tell him about the Small Business Administration’s new dealer floorplanning guarantees, the automotive Maverick goes ballistic.

“Holy Crap! How the hell did we ever come to this?” Bricklin demands, rhetorically. “All this bailout money is crazy. I never thought this would happen. Never.”

Nor, apparently, did Bricklin foresee that China’s Chery would screw him on his deal to import inexpensive, Chinese made plug-in hybrid electric vehicles into the US market. “We had $200 million set aside for the project,” Bricklin says. “We were all set to import the cars by ’07. Then Chery went around us and cut a deal with Chrysler for $275 million. I guess that didn’t work out so well.”

On the other hand, “This complete stupidity is the only reason something like my hydrogen-on-demand system will ever be considered.”

Clearly, Bricklin likes to believe that everything happens for a reason. His current media campaign reflects this philosophy. He wants the world to consider his abortive, eponymous Canadian car factory and his recent Chinese misadventure as pre-ordained events, preparing him for this, his life’s crowning achievement. He really believes he can fix the “aura of a scam” surrounding hydrogen-on-demand devices (not to mention the devices themselves) and realize the country’s fuel-saving dreams.

“We already have a working prototype,” Bricklin asserts. “We’ve got it down to the size of a coffee cup.”

Bricklin also thinks the timing is right. “It’s easier to start a car company these days. With the majors on the ropes and the technology changing. Companies like Tesla and Fisker are going to be around for a long time.”

With Malcolm Bricklin’s history of ups and (a lot of) downs, the septuagenarian’s indefatigable spirit comes as no surprise. What I’d like to know is what lies beneath Bricklin’s irrepressible dreams of brand building. Is ego all, or is Malcolm Bricklin honestly trying to make the world a better place? If so, well, good luck with that.

Last year in Geneva, I grumbled about how the annual car show was all green talk and no green action. This year, in contrast, I found few new cars worth writing about: the VW Polo is a bore, the Daewoo/GM Spark is a joke, exotics are an anachronism, and the A4 Allroad is a good sequel—but why waste any bandwidth on it? On the other hand, there are some pretty exciting alternative-fuel vehicles on display. (And, predictably, some big disappointments, too).

One of the good things about a show is that you can talk with the industry’s grands fromages on an off-the-record level, to get a feeling of what’s buzzing. Basically, there seems to be an understanding that government support will make electric propulsion feasible for small, lightweight cars in selected countries such as France and Israel. Second, hybrids are a good idea for heavyweight cars and trucks. Finally, electric sports cars are good testing beds for new technology—but not much more. (But where does that leave the Volt? Exactly. But I digress).

Starting with the lightweight-but-serious stuff, I really like the Michelin-Heuliez “Active Wheel” joint venture. The main thought is: an advanced electric car doesn’t have to have a conventional gasoline-engine configuration. You don’t need a large engine bay; why not save the space for luggage, crashroom and legroom? So the Heuliez (you pronounce it “Early-Ezz”) “Will” has its electric motors, brakes, and suspension elements encased in the wheels’ hubs. At 450 mm, the Will’s roll center of gravity is low. Each front wheel allocates the power it puts on the road according to available traction, and steering is 100% electronic: there is no mechanical connection between the steering wheel and the wheels, just as in an Airbus. But what about all the unsprung weight you get from putting everything in the wheel? This is where the Will is remarkable: unsprung weight in each front wheel is only 32kg. This means a mere 7kg more unsprung weight in comparison to a conventional layout. The Will (not the wheel) looks boring, but that’s because Heuliez concentrated on technology, not on the car’s appearance. Future generations will look more advanced, but in the meantime, the press will be allowed to drive the first Wills this July.

It would be great if the Mindset held the same promise, but I doubt it. Mindset is a company with a prototype designed by Murat Günak, the guy who penned epic cars such as the Mercedes SLK, Mercedes SLR and the Peugeot 206. It uses Heuliez’ e-technology. The Heuliez engineers I spoke with think it is a true dream car concept. I like it too as a complete re-think of what a modern car could be: fast but bench-seated, aerodynamic but unblobby, sporty yet replete with high ground clearance. The word in Geneva however was that Mindset is not getting crucial second-stage investors funding. We’ll see.

When I took the Mitsubishi iMiev for a test drive six months ago, I was impressed. And in Geneva, most e-engineers opined they have high hopes for the iMiev being a significant advancement because, uniquely, it is more than just an urban vehicle. PSA (France’s Peugeot Citroen group) in Geneva announced it will be adopting iMievs for their home market. It seems that once you have a usable electric drivetrain, it’s not too difficult to adapt it to different lines of cars. For a start, Mitsubishi in Geneva is showing a wacky coupe variant of the iMiev called the Sport Air. My girlfriend loved it, but I reserve judgment.

How to reserve judgment for Tesla when they hide themselves away in a sad, dark, minor area of the Geneva show, with Uzbeki LPG-adopters as neighbors? So these are the guys who want Europeans to send down payments for their pricey sports cars? It seems they’ve had a major management malfunction somewhere.

Talking about major malfunctions, it was endearing and bizarre to listen to the MSM journalists interview Opel’s operators about the Ampera, Europe’s Predator-faced adaptation of the Chevy Volt. Here are some questions I eavesdropped on: Will the rear-view mirrors look like that on the actual 2011 model? Regular or premium? How about the warranty? I was impressed with the Ampera’s claim of a 500km range, but I also like Orson Wells’ “F for Fake”.

For a taste of proper things to come, look at the official Swiss electric vehicle showcase stand, splendidly located in the middle of the most important hall of the motor show. There, the Honda Insight was displayed right next to the new Prius. Bad news: inside, in comparison to the Toyota, the Insight looks every penny saved. I was more than disappointed how cheap and unappealing the dashboard and some of the interior fittings appeared. Altogether nicer is the e’mo, a prototype developed by the University of Applied Science of Rapperswil (I’m not joking, and neither are they). The e’mo was designed to be superlight (350kg), fun to drive and sexy-looking. A sandwich-plate structure makes it stable and crashworthy, and non-golfcart-ish. I can hardly imagine a more appealing urban vehicle (but that may be because I yearn for a Citroen Méhari).

Another advanced electric car I could imagine driving is the Protoscar Lampo. Impressively, the Lampo has four-wheel drive and a GPS-based range estimator which they say is more accurate because it integrates data about hills and freeways. 268 hp and a range of 200 km sound nice for this LiIon sports car that sports a composite material body. The selection of beep tones (from freight train to wolf whistle) to alert pedestrians was an auto show hit, too.

Since it stores its energy in the form of compressed air, the MDI Airpod would probably be able to do wolf whistles, too. Honestly, how wacky can you get? It is hard to take such an odd job seriously, but MDI is actually already selling vehicles to various airports. The thing about compressed air, an MDI official told me, is that you don’t need expensive, heavy and complicated batteries. Sound logical? The AirPod, of course, is strictly urban, but the MiniFlowAir is a bit closer to, er, conventional concepts of what a passenger car might be. They showed it in Geneva and it was hard not to find it impressive.

In the mean time, some people will make do with the Smart ed, which is in the first year of four years of testing in England. A Smartish guy told me nobody had yet returned a FourTwo ed, and that the driving experience was generally seen to be superior to the regular Smart (with no jerky shifts). Surprisingly, only 60% of the 100 participants live in urban London. Mr. Smart said that in contrast to Germans, the English seem to take reducing their CO₂ footprint quite seriously. It’s strange times we live in.

During the first energy crisis, pundits predicted the death of the American V8. In those dark days (as opposed to these dark days), Detroit was desperate to supply an alternative to the gas-gargling engines they'd planted under the hood anything that moved. They developed a few dogs promising V8 performance with the economy of a cylindrically-challenged motor, with much talk of mechanical miracles to follow. History repeats itself; Ford is once again trying their luck with EcoBoost turbo-four technology. Once again, they could be barking up the wrong tree.  

As TTAC's Best and Brightest know, Ford's first attempts at smaller high-performance engines were shitcans. Slapping a turbocharger on a Pinto-derived, carbureted 2.3-liter in-line four with a thin shellacking of electronic sensors was an all-around nightmare. Finding a mechanic dumb smart enough to repair a hair dryer slapped on a toilet bowl draw-through turbocharged engine was not for the faint of heart. As for the V8 promise, this quirky mechanical mutt was dog slow and pig inefficient. Missed it by that much!

But that was the late ‘70s. By 1983, Ford leapfrogged the competition with a multi-point fuel injection system run by the biggest brain in the industry. It's name was EEC-IV, and it performed a quarter million commands every second. Even with a meager 128 bytes of read/write memory, EEC-IV played well with an AiResearch turbocharger feeding the four-pot Ford. The result was a "V8-ish" 145hp in the import-minded, Neidermeyer-approved, Thunderbird Turbo Coupe.

With newfound power and drivability, the American V8 faced a credible treat from within. Ford, the near-bankrupt automaker, coined a marketing phrase for their efforts: "Power on Demand." The return of gas on demand (for peanuts) put paid to that process.

Still, in the middle of the 1984 model year, The Blue Oval Boyz' skunkworks produced something quite EcoBoost-ish: the turbocharged and intercooled four-cylinder Mustang SVO. With a bevy of braking, suspension and cosmetic improvements, this top-dollar Pony Car courted BMW 3-series buyers with more performance for less bread. Of course, such badge snobbery requires a premium over a V8 motivated Mustang. To the tune of $6k. Ouch.

The extra clams bought you a full 175hp, equaling the Mustang GT's carbureted V8. Come 1985, this ‘riod-infused Pinto added thirty ponies and boasted better mileage than the V8. The four-pot Mustang delivered on all those early promises of cake-and-eat-it-too power and fuel economy combo. Sort of.

In reality, the SVO was a cobbled-up wannabe, still sporting that cheap fox-body Fairmont dashboard. The dynamic improvements simply didn't cut it for an upper-crust offering. In typical Detroit fashion, factory rebates countered the SVO's sticker shock and eventually moved the metal. But it wasn't exactly what you'd call breakthrough engineering.

By 1986, the four-pot Mustang SVO was dead– and not just because gas was cheap (and, of course, available). The V8 alternative– a fuel-injected, 200hp, 5.0-liter Mustang– sold for just $10k. Once these new fuel-injected V8 ‘Stangs hit the ground, even a Blue Oval bureaucrat could predict the SVO's demise.

Ford's "new" era of the small block V8s was EEC-IV powered, with a long runner intake and eight sequentially firing fuel injectors. In Mustang terms, the finale was a (1987) Pony Car with a robust 225hp and a jaw-dropping 300lb-ft of torque. With tall gearing, the V8 was one or two MPG thirstier than the turbo-four AND it ran on regular gas. It was cheaper, smoother and didn't know the meaning of heat soak or turbo lag.  

Today, Ford's putting its remaining eggs into an "EcoBoost" shaped basket: a line of turbocharged motors promoted as more efficient than "larger displacement engines." In fact, the autoblogosphere is buzzing over a rumored comeback of the mighty SVO, in EcoBoosted form. It appears that only the player's names changed.

Given today's Energy Crisis 3.0, Dearborn's quest for the last possible mile per gallon is understandable. And the small cars that the Blue Oval's rushing to market require small yet powerful engines. But compared to normally aspirated engines, turbo powerplants are relatively expensive and more complex. And that means they're more expensive to maintain and repair.

If Ford stands for one thing– which it should– it's simple, robust and affordable vehicles and powertrains. In the rush to satisfy federal fuel economy regulations, Ford would do well to remember history, and not overlook the modern, efficient V8's appeal to their core audience.

Hang on; while Ford PR is promoting EcoBoost like there's no tomorrow (which may well be true), the Blue Oval's boffins have been busy developing their next generation 5.0-liter V8. The new engine leapfrogs the 1980s upgrades with a cutting-edge direct injection system (similar to its EcoBoost siblings). The new 5.0 will be faster, cheaper to produce and easier to repair. It's an "honest" component delivered in the true spirit of the Ford brand.

Whew! 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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