For the Paris Auto Show and 2009 model year, Volkswagen subsidiary Skoda has updated its Jetta-based Octavia sedan. The refreshed car gets new headlights and tail lights; engineering changes are unlikely, even though this generation was introduced in 2004. This means it continues to be much cooler than the Jetta, by being cheaper (though having tragically bad resale value), offering the same engines and transmissions, and coming only in 5-door hatch and wagon configurations. I have argued for a news-cycle-eternity that VW should be selling the Octavia in the US with a VW logo right on the grill. This won’t happen, first and foremost because Volkswagen hates freedom and liberty. But also because … I’m not sure why. Have a look at the refreshed Octavia, and here’s to hoping the next gen Jetta (probably out in about a year) looks better than the current Corolla wannabe.

Pssst. Wanna buy a $25K Honda Civic with a 220-mile driving range and the trunk space of a Miata? Me niether. Since its introduction over a decade ago, the Honda Civic GX has sold between 500 – 1000 per year; production has just been boosted to a mere 1500 p.a. The Civic Hybrid sells more than double that every month. Honda cites parts shortage as a bottleneck, primarily the greenest Civic’s lightweight and costly carbon fiber fuel tank. The Cutting Edge News’ Edwin Black isn’t satisfied with that explanation. In fact, Black claims a conspiracy to suppress production of the GX. Citing the inability of the Spokane, WA school system to secure a fleet of CNG-mobiles, Black chides Honda for milking maximum PR mileage on a car they CLEARLY don’t give a damn about. Even worse (for hardly anyone), the Civic GX is going out of production until June 2009 while production is moving to Honda’s new Indiana plant.  Black contrasts this green conspiracy to GM’s promise to manufacture and sell as many hundreds of thousands of Volts and other electrified vehicles to as many as it can as quickly as it can at the best price that it can.” So why isn’t Black giving GM (and Ford) a hard time for discontinuing their CNG vehicles a few years back?

We pretty much knew this was coming when we heard that Michigan’s Economic Growth Authority approved state tax breaks for GM, but now it’s officially official. Insurance News Net has the full press release announcing GM’s $370m investment in a Flint plant to build small four-cylinder engines. The engines will be used in the Volt as range extender, and will power the Cruze in turbocharged form. Flint will become GM Powertrain’s “most flexible and competitive engine assembly lines in the world, with approximately 300 highly flexible stations that will allow assembly of multiple 4-cylinder engine families without retooling,” according to the General’s press release. The 552,000 square foot plan will be LEED certified and will operate as a landfill-free facility when it opens in 2010. Too bad it won’t retain more than 300 jobs, especially considering the state of Michigan will forgo $122.5m in tax revenue to attract the project. But hey, that’s a small price to pay to have blighted Flint associated with the immense Volt hype, right?

Though Automotive News [sub] is better known for their comprehensive industry news coverage than their take-no-prisoners opinion pieces, Editor David Sedgwick doesn’t pull any punches while slamming the Volt in a recent editorial. Sedgwick admits to “a queasy feeling that GM has painted itself into a corner by generating so much hype for a car that is too limited for most consumers,” noting that weaknesses in both price point and capabilities will limit the Volt’s effectiveness in the market. The price point issue is well documented, but the Volt’s performance is what worries Sedgwick the most. In particular, GM’s apparent decision to use the E-Flex’s range-extending motor to simply generate electricity and not to recharge batteries looks to be an extremely limiting factor. “If you can’t plug in your vehicle at night,” argues Sedgwick, “that high-tech battery pack will be as useful as an anchor for your bass boat.” Sedgwick reckons that the forthcoming Cruze should be getting at least as much attention as the Volt. “We’ve been down this road before. GM doesn’t need a halo car. It needs a car — a small car — that can make money. If GM can’t learn to make money on small cars, it won’t survive.” Given a choice, Sedgwick would pick the Cruze, and if GM wants to stay in business it would do well to listen. After all, if a man who lives and breathes cars and is well-compensated enough to consider “your bass boat” a folksy analogy thinks the Volt isn’t worth the money, well… you get the picture.

Edmunds has a new review on the InsideLine home page. “BMW M3 vs. Audi RS5. V8 German Supercoupes Face Off.” And they subtitle it “2010 Audi RS5 meets 2010 BMW M3 CSL.” Except that they don’t face off and they don’t meet. There is no RS5 as of yet. And BMW cancelled the M3 CSL program. Edmunds has no review to offer here, and instead puts forth an anticipatory preview of what the two cars might be like in contrast. The ample pictures of the cars in motion are photochops. This isn’t the first time Edmunds has pulled the “click on our link” bait and switch, either. In February, before either car was on sale or available for even the most committed online buff book (Edmunds Inside Line) to drive, EIL “conducted” a comparison test between the Camaro and Challenger. This kind of dishonesty is not necessary. There’s nothing wrong with titling a post a “prospective preview” or publishing it as TTAC has done: as an editorial. But to mislead people into thinking that this is a “face off” between two cars is nothing but misdirection. In Edmunds case, it is particularly difficult to tell this is just a stats-based preview because they so regularly have access to preproduction cars. So it’s plausible that they could have driven the 2010 RS5, even if they are describing it as “coming down the pipleline.” I’m not as angry as I sound, but it’s crucial to keep in mind that when large websites squander the advantages – and the clean slate – offered by being online, they leave themselves looking no different than the print buff books.

While Americans apparently go ga-ga for Honda’s Fit hatchback, other parts of the world get a Fit-based (or related) Honda City. While the City doesn’t share body panels with the Fit, they ride on the same light and compact platform. With the same 120 horsepower 1.5 liter 4-banger available in many markets, the City would be pretty zippy too. Frankly I think the City looks much better than the Fit – even if you have to give up beloved hatchback utility. I might go so far as to say it’s the best looking currently produced Honda sedan. The interior is a step up, as well. Honda would have zero problem selling these by the bushel in the U.S., but then they can’t even keep up with demand for the Fit right now. And a City sedan might just cannibalize Civic sales even more than the Fit already is (though the Civic is keeping up by cannibalizing Accord sales, it’s all good, as they say). Click on over to Carscoop for a full gallery.

Acura has released pricing on the all new 2009 TL, and it ain’t pretty. Nor cheap. The days of an Acura TL in the low 30s are long behind us (though the Acura TSX will happily take your dough), as their “mid-range” sedan is now starting at $35,175. The previous model Acura TL started at $34,485. Should you want to give Acura more of your money, you can opt for a whopping $4270 technology package that includes navigation and hopefully some kind of guided missile system. If the base 3.5-liter V6 with 280 horsepower just doesn’t cut it for you, and front wheel-drive is too 1998, then you can shell out $39k, 265 for the 305 horsepower 3.7-liter V6 featuring SUPER HANDLING ALL WHEEL DRIVE. Should this all be chump change to you because you really wanted a BMW 335i, you could consider the $43,995 TL SH-AWD with the bigger engine, technology package and 19 inch wheels with high performance tires. While this pricing is consistent with the TL’s competitors, it really underscores how this market moved from $30k -$40k, to $35k to $50k. That’s market segment inflation for ya.

Original Autoblogger Reverend David Thomas over at Cars.com has been combing through HR 6899 (warning: 290 page pdf), a Democratic-sponsored energy bill passed last night by the House of Representatives. Included in the text: provisions for limited offshore and Alaskan drilling and oil shale field exploitation exploration. A provision starting on page 177 requires that gas stations owned by Big Oil companies each have at least one alternative fuel pump by 2018. There’s a carrot ($50k tax-credit) and stick ($100k penalty) for each station. Alt-fuels are defined as E85 (or even more ethanol), compressed natural gas (CNG), diesel (of at least 20 percent bio or other renewable source) and hydrogen. So, where to begin with this lobbyist and re-election friendly clause? We’ve already stated the reluctance of independent chains to fork out the $50k cost of installing E85 pumps. CNG and hydrogen face huge chicken-and-egg problems: you want to buy or lease a new vehicle right now? (How much above MSRP?) Honda will produce just 1500 CNG-inhaling Civic GX’s for MY2009, and forget about getting a Clarity FCX unless you already own won a pair of Golden Globes. Anyhow, ExxonMobil is planning to get out of the gas station business because it’s not profitable enough. If the bill becomes law, don’t be surprised if the other majors follow suit to avoid having to fork out millions. Big if: the bill has yet to be voted on by the Senate. President Bush has promised a veto in the bill’s current form, and it passed the House by a less than a 60 percent (veto-proof) majority.

We reported previously that the McLaren Mercecdes partnership was in trouble because (amongst other things) Mercedes didn’t want an SLR replacement messing with its forthcoming gullwinged SLC (actual name may vary). Nicht wahr, says July’s print edition of Auto Motor und Sport. Mercedes doesn’t want to match the $115m the royal family of Bahrain paid for 30 percent of McLaren, and it’s getting petulant. According to AM und S, “a racing car for the streets doesn’t fit with Daimler’s corporate politics.” If Daimler lets McLaren build sports cars, there’ll be no Mercedes engine or star on the hood. This from the folks who brought us the CLK-GTR, AMG Black Series, Zonda engine, etc. Persistent rumors of a technical hook-up with Aston Martin may mean Mercedes has already made an exclusive deal for its best engines. But spurning McLaren for Aston (if that is what’s happening) doesn’t make much sense. The McLaren-Mercedes racing partnership is a halo exercise for Daimler, and a mid-engined McLaren (already in development) would add to that even without a Mercedes badge. Meanwhile, Aston is never going to start embossing “powered by AMG” into its fine Connolly leather. Besides, DB9s start at $170k, which is bound to be closer to the new SLC’s $150k target price than a mid-engined McLaren would be. Which might explain why renderings of the SLC in AM und S show it going all anti-retro despite the obvious gullwing heritage. So, is Aston going to become the “retro” Mercedes brand? Does McLaren need to find another royal family to buy its freedom from Daimler? Will the SLC still sound like “death on a stick” when it gets to market? As usual, there are more questions than answers.

“You’ll see some V-8s in trucks and high performance cars in the future, but they’ll be priced to discourage people from buying them,” GM Car Czar Bob Lutz told reporters in a recent interview. “In 5 to 10 years, the 4-cylinder will be the predominant engine.” This maximum prognostication is hardly a shocker when applied to GM’s mass-market offerings. But what about Cadillac? Motor Trend reports that The Standard of the World is working on a new model to replace the laughable, deeply unloved, front wheel-drive, Euro-spec, Saab 9-3-based Cadillac BLS. GM’s next attempt to take on the 3-Series couldn’t possibly do any worse will be based on GM’s new rear wheel-drive “Alpha” platform. According to Automotive News [sub], the new Caddy will be offered with, gasp, a turbocharged four-cylinder engine. Or not. “There is a big debate as to whether it is four only. I think that is a bridge too far,” says Cadillac General Manager Jim Taylor. “There is a piece of the team who is thinking, ‘Well, with this whole fuel economy and gas thing, we ought to go all the way, say, to fours.’ We are resisting that at this stage.” As the BLS and BLS wagon prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, at GM, resistance is futile.

There’s more news re: Chrysler’s mysterious-yet-overhyped 2010 model line, this time from former Treasury Secretary and current Cerberus bigwig John Snow. Despite earlier conflicting reports from John Campi and Jim Press on the number of 2010 model releases, Snow says there will be seven new Chryslers come the mythical year. The International Herald Tribune credulously summarizes Snow’s assertions with the methinks-the-lady-doth-protest-too-much headline: “Cerberus: New Chrysler Products Will Have Appeal.” What form this appeal will assume is left to our imagination. Anyway… “I know there’s a deep commitment here to putting out better products,” says Snow. “In the end, this comes down to producing cars that people want at attractive prices, and having your dealers in concert with the manufacturer. I think we’re going to get that right. I really do.” Really, you do? Because right now the only thing indicating that Chrysler’s woeful quality will improve is the fact that at least one model in the upcoming “product revolution” (product revulsion?) will be a rebadged Nissan Versa. Otherwise, we’re just getting more of the “quality improvement” executive chatter we’ve been hearing since (then Chrysler employee) Bob Lutz famously remarked that “there is no other area in the field of human communications that is as rife with disinformation as the story on Chrysler quality.”

It’s the new Saab 9-4X! The fact that Fourex is an American brand of condoms and an Australian lager shouldn’t get [both remaining] fans of the brand up in arms (or wherever). Thanks to a “premature leak” on Saab’s Chilean website (David Hasselhoff is big down there too), The Motor Authority reveals an SUV-lite that looks reasonably appealing. And we’re willing to bet the key willl be between the seats. That said, the ostensibly Swedish model (built in Ramos, Mexico) could well suffer the same fate as the abortive 9-2X (Saabaru) and 9-7X (Saablazer), based as it is on Caddy’s new SRX platform. In fact, this time ’round, the Saabillac will be competing with a nearly identical iteration in the same GM “sales channel” (i.e. HUMMER, Cadillac and Saab). It could even appear in the same showroom. How great is that?

Chevy’s upcoming Cobalt replacement sibling replacement, the Cruze, has been spotted out in the wild wearing New York dealer plates. In rental white and with black door handles, it looks pretty generic and just a little strange. Compared to the original press photos, it also looks pretty large, which is not necessarily a bad thing. As we’ve said before, the key for this vehicle will be whether GM can live up to their 40+ mpg promise for this car. If it can, that may be enough to cut into sales of vehicles with immense intertia, like the Civic and Corolla. The Cruze will ride on the Delta platform that is also set to underpin the Volt, which oddly enough is also targeting 40 miles as its range on a full charge. Maybe. And while the Volt is set to cost some $40,000, this Cruze should be available for well under $20,000 when it hits dealers in the summer of 2010.

As much as we give The Detroit News shit for their indefatigable cheer-leading, there are times when Motown’s hometown paper surprises us with something roughly akin to journalism. The article entitled “Ford Fiesta draws raves in Europe” starts off with the usual PR-laden ecstasy (without the DJ Tiësto soundtrack). “The Fiesta will give Americans their first real look at what already defines Ford’s cars and crossovers on this side of the Atlantic. It will also be the litmus test for Ford’s as yet unproven theory that American consumers are finally willing to pay real money for a smart, sophisticated small car. ‘This vehicle represents the core DNA of the company,’ Jim Farley, Ford’s chief marketing officer, told journalists gathered here for the European launch of the Fiesta last week. ‘This vehicle is a catalyst for change.’ It also is a lot of fun to drive.” (Our invitation to the Tuscan junket must have got caught in the spam filter.) Then, just when you think you’ve had your fill of bilious boosterism, “The troubling thing about the Fiesta is that it speaks to Ford’s past just as much as it does to Ford’s future, some analysts say. [Me! Me! Oh pick me!] Ford is an automaker that has, time and again, escaped financial Armageddon on the strength of one really good car. The Model A saved the company after Henry Ford allowed the Model T to linger too long without a replacement. The Mustang pumped new life into the company. And the Taurus saved it from the Japanese. Farley acknowledges that counting on one car is a fundamental flaw in Ford’s culture. But he says it is an issue the company is working hard to exorcise. The Fiesta is not a product of that thinking, he said, because it is just the first in a big lineup of compact and subcompact automobiles.” Uh, I think that one– the importance of continuous development– went straight over Jim’s head. Oh dear.

The flying car has long been the sci-fi terminus point for automotive technology. Such automotive luminaries as Henry Ford and Glenn Curtiss have been lured into costly, fruitless developments by visions of blasting away from traffic on the wings of flight. But the vision has never translated into production reality. The Moller “Autovolanter” is no closer to production than the flux capacitor, although far more complex. Green Car Congress reports that the sky-whip uses no fewer than eight of Moller’s proprietary Rotapower rotary-hybrid engines to power the Autovolanter. The plug-in hybrid two-seater can drive 150 miles on the road before lifting off vertically and flying a further 75 miles (at up to 150 mph), carrying up to 375 lbs and achieving nearly 15 mpg in the process. Well, in theory. Development of a prototype is estimated at $5m, though Moller claims low-volume production could make the Autovolanter available for $250k. But then there’s the problem of licenses, regulation and in-city use. Says Moller founder Dr Paul Moller “flying it in US cities is not going to be politically acceptable until it has been deployed successfully in other roles and environments. Practical or not, it excites the imagination to think about being able to rise vertically out of a traffic jam and just go!” Of course legal niceties weren’t really considered during development, as the Autovolanter was prototyped at the request of a “wealthy businessman who was unable to commute from the city to his country home due to the overcrowded streets of Moscow.” Dude, just bribe the cops.