Assuming Detroit is about scarf several billions of your children’s children’s children’s tax dollars, I think you have a right to decide what strings should be attached to the bailout bucks. So, what strings do you think should be attached to the bailout bucks? Although Washington and Detroit see all three ailing American automakers as much or a muchness, TTAC readers are well aware that there are three types of epic failure involved. In GM’s case, it’s everything: models, brands, dealers, advertising, management, product development, you name it, they’ve screwed it up (with the possible exception of pickup trucks). Some kind of wholesale management slaughter– from mid-level all the way to the Bored of Directors and every Wagoner, Lutz, LaNeve and Henderson in between– would at least give me some sense of vindication (and it IS all about me, no matter how much I protest). How you can restructure GM without playing the Chapter 11 “get out of 50-state franchise law and UAW contracts free” card is beyond me. But perhaps not you. (OK, now it’s about you.) In Chrysler’s case, how do you prevent those rat bastards at Cerberus making a penny on this deal at any point ever? And if GM’s glue-on-the-hoof, what of Chrysler? Personally, I’d rather invest in Tesla. But as Pooh says, what to do? What to do? Or is that Eeyore? Ford is the Golden Child. Or, more precisely, the kid who’s coughing but not showing any other signs of plague. Yet. Seems to me they’re on the right track, but running out of rail. And maybe we should get rid of those pesky Fords who call the shots at Ford (I originally typed “shits” but that’s just my subconscious talking). Or not. I dunno. I’m thinking about all this for an editorial. Little help?

In 1955, GM company reps testified at the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. The Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly was unhappy that The General’s five auto divisions accounted for 50.76 percent of all cars sold in the U.S. (peaking at 55 percent in 1956). The same year, GM CEO Harlow Curtice was named Time magazine’s “Person of the Year.” “Because of the success of the American economic system, the U.S. rolled through 1955 in two-toned splendor to an all time crest of prosperity, heralded around the world. Much of this prosperity was directly attributable to the manufacture and sale of that quintessential American product, the automobile. Some 8,000,000 of them were produced and sold, and a good half of them were made and marketed by General Motors under the direction of President Harlow Herbert Curtice—the Man of the Year. Yet this production alone would not make Harlow Herbert Curtice, 62, the Man of the Year. Nor would the fact that he is president of the world’s biggest manufacturing corporation—and the first president of a corporation—and the first president of a corporation to make more than $1 billion in net profits in a year. Curtice is not the Man of 1955 because these phenomenal figures measure him off as first among scores of equals whose skill, daring and foresight are forever opening new frontiers for the expanding American economy by granting millions to colleges, making new toasters that pop up twice as fast, or planning satellites to circle the earth. Harlow Curtice is the Man of 1955 because, in a job that required it, he has assumed the responsibility of leadership for American business. In his words ‘General Motors must always lead.'”

I know: we’ve been down this road before. But hey, GM provides us with these neat-o-keen videos for bupkis, and TTAC’s added thousands of new readers since the Best and Brightest last weighed-in on the topic. [NB: That’s one Hell of a condescending, snarky intro there GM.] There’s still a lot debate on the ideal frequency of oil changes given make, model, driving style, height, weight and blood group. And there’s still info out there predicting catastrophic consequences should you fail to change your oil religiously (votive candles optional). Personally, I change my oil whenever those damn idiot lights go off– even though I’m sure I don’t need to change my oil that often. My OCD won’t let me drive with warning lamps lit, and I’m not about to do the reset deal, ’cause then I’ll forget and… peace of mind. You?

TTAC commentator Redbarchetta writes… “I was wondering after seeing that NASCAR picture in the latest post. Has there been any word on what happens to NASCAR funding? I’m mainly talking about GM and Chrysler since they are closest to death and cutting EVERYTHING. It would make sense that they would stop supporting that also. I’m really not even a huge NASCAR fan so I don’t even know how something like that would impact the sport. I was also wondering, just for kicks since the government won’t let it totally collapse, but what happens to NASCAR if Detroit folds and they have no more manufacturer support or sponsorship? Would the sport collapse also or just become the Toyota Camry-athon?”

I am SO fed up with all these automotive top ten lists. Yes, yes, I know: TTAC’s Ten Worst Autos list receives more “outside” attention than anything else we do. And for good reason: it’s got balls. And yes, we’re gearing-up for our annual mostly readers’ choice poll. But Jesus, can Forbes and Jalopnik and Autoblog and everyone else in the whole damn autoblogosphere PLEASE lay off the top ten lists? The obvious answer is no. No matter what I think of these self-appointed lists, they garner amazing page views. So, in the great TTAC spirit, I’d like to start offering the most absurd Top Ten Lists we can imagine. How about TTAC’s Ten Best Cupholders? Consider this a semi-collaborative effort. Email a jpeg photo of your choice for best cupholder to robert.farago@thetruthaboutcars.com with CUPHOLDER in the subject bar. Justin and I will arbitraily choose the ten best by Friday. This could be big! Or not.

It was I who invented the name “Maximum Bob” for GM Car Czar Bob Lutz. That said, I also coined “Rabid Rick” for GM CEO Rick Wagoner; clearly, I should have stuck with the Buickman-perpetuated “Red Ink Rick.” John Horner, a charter member of out Best and Brightest and yeoman TTAC blogger, first mooted the moniker “American Leyland” for the federally-funded (one way or another, eventually) GM – Chrysler mash-up. But it’s a keeper. Or is it? Evan Newmark’s column over at The Wall Street Journal’s Mean Street proposes another way of characterizing the insanity to come: “GM = Government Motors.” While I’m not completely enamored by the new name, Newmark’s arguments are entirely seductive. In fact, it’s the best anti-GM bailout diatribe I’ve encountered, here or anywhere else– not that the topic is large enough to deserve a genre, yet. Anyway, I’ve excerpted some of the best bits below, and put it to you, our B&B: American Leyland or Government Motors?

Read More >

While Toyota has frozen its full-size pickup truck and SUV production lines, GM is, surprisingly enough, about to do the opposite. A few months ago, GM announced production cutbacks at the Arlington, Texas plant that produces the Yukon, Tahoe, Suburban, Escalade and Dual-Mode Hybrid SUV’s. In addition to the usual two-week summer break, the plant was scheduled to be closed for five more weeks through the rest of the year. Ostensibly, the cutback was designed to prevent the trucks from piling-up on dealer lots. Starting next month, the previously laid-off workers will be back for an additional four-and-a-half hours overtime per week, plus a few Saturdays. GM cites the recent decline in gas prices and hefty incentives as the reason behind the volte-face. The General claims the “back to work you scurvy bastards” decision has nothing to do with the impending December 2008 closure of Janesville, Wisconsin plant–that also builds Yukahoes. Nor anything to do with future production cuts. What say you?

Yes, I know “Saved by Zero” is a song by The Fixx. I respect New Wave. But I don’t like how it tastes when Toyota crams it down my throat for my own good.

TTAC reader steronz writes:

“I’m sure you’re familiar with the advertising claim in the subject. I just noticed it on a billboard during my morning commute, sans question mark. I did a brief search to see if I could figure out what marketing math GM is using to back up this claim, but I’m coming up
dry. I did my own quick check on Edmunds and came up with the following list:

Chevy Honda Toyota
Aveo* 24-34 Fit 28-34 Yaris 29-36
Cobalt** 25-36 Civic 26-34 Corolla 28-37
HHR*** 21-30 CR-V? fail Matrix 26-33
Malibu 22-30 Accord 22-31 Camry**** 21-31
Malibu Hy 24-32 Accord Hy dead Camry Hy 33-34
Civic Hy 40-45 Prius 48-45

* GM may be trying to bill the Aveo5 and the Aveo as two different models. I’m not buying that.
** Cobalt numbers are for the elusive XFE model, but that shouldn’t make a difference
*** GM may be trying to bill the HHR Panel Van as a different model than the HHR, but I’m REALLY not buying that
**** If GM is indeed playing tricks with model counting, the Camry Solara could potentially count as a separate model here

I’m not even sure if I feel comfortable calling hybrid versions of regular cars as new models, but since it doesn’t give anyone an advantage, I’ll allow it. Therefore, by my count, Chevy has 5 models, Honda has 4, and Toyota has 6. Claim busted, right?”

The techies who bring you TTAC have informed me that they’re working on a back end solution (heyyyy) that will allow us to choose which stock to feature in our Yahoo! stock ticker. As there’s a plethora of patches in the hopper, it may not make it here by– well, it might take a while. But my man Bryan says he’ll spot us one change as an interim measure. So, B&B, what’s it going to be? Which stocks do you think we should list on our widget? I’d like to limit it to fifteen for the mo. Ford, GM and Toyota are a given. The rest are up for grabs. And what about a supplier or two, like Ener1, maker of hybrid batteries. Or sucklike. Whatever your opinion make it snappy, both in that usual way you do but also in terms of time. Bryan’s got a clarinet to play. Honest-to-God.

I am not the world’s most mechanically-minded person. Nor am I the world’s worst. But I’m definitely closer to the latter than the former. For example, I can’t make head nor tails of the above formula, even with the following guide [via howstuffworks.com]:

The letter v represents the velocity of the car, and the letters a, b and c represent three different constants:

The a component comes mostly from the rolling resistance of the tires, and friction in the car’s components, like drag from the brake pads, or friction in the wheel bearings.

The b component also comes from friction in components, and from the rolling resistance in the tires. But it also comes from the power used by the various pumps in the car.

The c component comes mostly from things that affect aerodynamic drag like the frontal area, drag coefficient and density of the air.

Bottom line? “if you double your speed, this equation says that you will increase the power required by much more than double.” Yes, yes, but the question was “What speed should I drive to get maximum fuel efficiency?” Can TTAC’s Best and Brightest provide the required dose of enlightenment, either specifically or generally?

“Are contracts between local governments and a private, for-profit entity inherently void as against public policy, where the contracts require the private entity to be principally responsible for vital law enforcement-related tasks, including generating, processing and defending in court the sole evidence of an alleged violator’s guilt, and the entity’s compensation is based on the number of criminal convictions obtained?” Is it true that “Such contingency agreements are condemned, particularly in the criminal law context, because even if they never result in actual harm, by their very nature they tend to invite corruption, and thus undermine the public’s faith in the fair and impartial administration of justice?”

From TTAC reader Dan: “My mom has owned two cars over the past twenty years: a 1988 Volvo 760 Turbo and a more recent late ’90’s Volvo 960 (I don’t know the exact year). Now she’s looking for a replacement. Apparently her top choice is a Lexus ES350, and she’s also considering getting yet another Volvo.

Pre-history: Mom’s first car was a Karman Ghia, which my dad made her toss when, whilst repairing it, he observed that he could see through the rusting-out floor. Next, she had a Buick Opel (GM briefly imported the Opel Kadett), followed by a craptastic 1981 Buick Skylark (“Limited”), on which I learned to drive. Thankfully, it died before my sixteenth birthday would have allowed it to be handed down to me.

According to my father, Mom is emphatically not interested in Mercedes or BMW (being concerned about reliability and operating expense), nor is she interested in Acura (despite having ridden in and driven my ’05 Acura TL). Mom’s the opposite of a speed demon, although she has occasionally expressed remorse over how the Volvo 960 isn’t as zippy as the earlier 760 Turbo. And she once surprised me by reeling off the relative performance characteristics of manual vs. automatic transmissions in a drag race. Where’d you learn that, Mom? Anyway, Mom needs a big trunk to move art projects around. She puts maybe 3000 miles a year on the car. She could care less about nav systems and the like, although she could well be sold on air-conditioned seats or other gadgets that compensate for living in a hot climate (Dallas).

So, dearest TTAC Best & Brightest, what do you recommend for my mom? Let’s assume, for the sake of discussion, that her budget is unlimited, but her tolerance for taking the car to the shop is nil. Whatever she buys had better last another ten years with little more than regularly scheduled maintenance.”

A member of the TTAC B&B wrote in to Robert this morning with some unhappy feelings. He feels that stars for cars are going out like free money in the recent months at The Truth About Cars. In this reader’s words:

I had no idea that writers’ star ratings are not edited.  Are writers given any instructions on how to rate?   In keeping with TTAC’s take no prisoners reputation, I would like to see some uniformity in the ratings where

Top 5% get 5 stars
Next 15% get 4 stars
Middle 60% get 3 stars
Next 15% get 2 stars
Bottom 5% get 1star

In other words, I want to see most cars get a 3-star rating and, as a corollary, a 4-star or 5-star rating to really mean something.  This would be really helpful to car shoppers.  Currently, however, your writers seem to be giving 4-star ratings out like hot cakes.

Well here’s your chance, B&B. Tell us if you think we are experiencing star inflation. Obviously, our usual rules about flaming the site are suspended. But keep it civil, or I’m going to bust out the whoopin’ stick.