When Rick Wagoner told us GM would be making "significant reductions in promotional and event budgets," you could well have taken his vow as a shift in GM's priorities towards building solid products. Yes and no. Automotive News [sub] reports that GM will cut Chevrolet's marketing budget. BUT The General's American Revolutionaries will still spend a fortune, albeit with a new emphasis. "We've spent a lot of money this year promoting cars versus trucks, more than we have in a long time, and we're going to continue to do that," assures Chevy brand VP Ed Peper. To that end, Chevy will be leading the General's charge into new media advertising. "We actually think it's a very good idea," Peper commits. "And when budgets do tighten up, it's something we'll have to take an even harder look at," he de-commits. Snarks aside, Chevrolet already spends a larger portion of its ad dollars online than any other GM brand. Look for a Volt ad on TTAC in the near future. Say… 2010.

Reuters reports that Toyota sold 4.8m vehicles in the first half of 2008, while GM managed to move 4.54m. It's official: GM is no longer the world's largest automobile manufacturer. GM's spinmeisters promptly bragged that it reached record numbers in three of its four regions in the second quarter of 2008. Unfortunately, GM's 116k-unit growth outside of the U.S. was swamped by a 236k-unit decline in the home market. Also, GM continues to take full unit credit for sales in China– even though the Chinese business is majority-owned by Chinese partner SAIC. (For example, GM owns only 34 percent of the unit which builds the high-volume Chevrolet Spark.) GM's decision back in 2000 to ramp-up trucks and SUVs whilst eviscerating their US car efforts in order to boost profit margins has come home to roost. 

There's been much ado about GM's quiet launch of the 36mpg iteration of the Chevy Cobalt, both in the autoblogosphere and in promotional, warm-n-fuzzy TV spots (much like the  made-of-unobtanioum Chevy Volt). But the XFE isn't listed on the  "Shopping Tools" portion of the Cobalt microsite, nor on gm.com's "Find A Vehicle [any vehicle]" page. So I rang-up a friendly Chevy dealer who was embarrassed by his XFE-gnorance. Once he appreciated the model's existence, he said he didn't have any, there were none in Houston, and there was zero product information. "That must be a 2009 model," he countered. When I mentioned the XFE's web page on the 2008 Chevy website (sans XFE photos, BTW), there was a brief  pause. "They don't give us information as quickly you can get it." Well that sucks.

Nestled in a New York Times article about Ford's fight for survival– switching production to small cars, building world cars, reporting epic losses on Thursday, yada, yada, yada– comes news that FoMoCo is NOT killing their Mercury brand. The Gray Lady's head automotive cheerleader cites "people, who spoke on the condition that they not be quoted by name because of the timing of the official announcement on Thursday" as saying The Blue Oval Boys will make the brand "an integral part of its new small-car strategy." Well, my mind is boggling. But not Bill Vlasic's, a reporter who feels compelled to not add a damn thing to that revelation, other than "the company will keep the Mercury brand and use it as another distribution channel for small cars." Which is the same thing, only later. The rest of the article is padded with a potted history of FoMoCo's "troubles," with the usual Vlasic Motown-thrown bone. John Wolkonowicz, an auto industry analyst with the forecasting firm Global Insight, tells Bill "“It’s hard to blame Ford for building vehicles that consumers wanted to buy." 

Earth2tech reports that Tesla opened its second showroom last week in Menlo Park, CA. The new "palatial" space is three times larger than Tesla's original L.A. showroom, highlighting just how important the Silicon Valley is to Tesla's attempt to become a viable boutique automaker. And though the money could have been spent on say, a transmission, Tesla threw a party at its new showroom to celebrate the (eventual) delivery of cars to its patient customers. And what a party it was, by all accounts. "The parking valets seemed to outnumber the electric Roadsters," says E2T (ya think?), and an open bar served such cocktails as the Electric Margarita (great as long as you don't ask how it's made) and the Model S Mojito (if you wanted to get really delusional). Tesla President/CEO Ze'ev Drori and Chairman Elon Musk mingled with customers (martini glasses in hand) and spoke of plans for more showrooms (and accompanying parties) in New York, Chicago, Seattle and Miami. And while Tesla partied, the first dozen roadsters to be delivered to Silicon Valley customers sat in the back of the showroom, along with nine others scattered across the showroom floor in "different stages of development." They may be arriving in California at a rate of four per week, but since final assembly takes place at Tesla's dealerships, most are not yet ready for delivery. Which brings to mind the wise words of another, more famous electric innovator from a different Menlo Park: "genius is one percent perspiration, and 99 percent hype." Or something like that.

Three years. That's how long an eight-member GM hit squad's been working on defining The General's eight North American brands. Let's start at the end of The Detroit Free Press article on Liz Wetzel's team in GM's Global Brand Studio. Pom-pom-wielding autoscribe Mark Phelan concludes "…the automaker appears to have a solid product plan and design vision for its other brands for the first time in decades." OK, now, here it is: "Buick and Cadillac owners both have money, but they choose to spend it on radically different things. A Buick owner would be inclined for a quiet vacation on an isolated beach, while Cadillac is more about dressing up for a night out on a weekend in the city. A Pontiac will be designed for the nightlife, too, but for a fashion-forward agenda with pounding bass and flashing strobes. Chevrolets aim to look good as well, but with the effortless appeal of blue jeans and a good shirt, not Pontiac's club-hopping flash. Saab sells cars around the world, so it can speak to a smaller audience: people who consider themselves independent thinkers and want a car with Scandinavian style and environmentally responsible performance. Saturn attracts buyers who wouldn't touch a Chevy or Pontiac with a 10-foot-pole and its theme will build on Opel's European strengths: design, handling, fuel efficiency and interior room." Before you ask, in GM's world, that IS a plan.

The Financial Times reports that new Jaguar owners Tata Motors are taking the leaping cat up market. What's more, "there are no plans to replace Jaguar's cheapest model, the X-Type." Not so strangely, the once interim and now permanent CEO of Jaguar and Land-Rover is lifetime Ford financial guy (and ex-Aston director) David Smith. But while Smith may have tactical control, group chairman Ratan Tata is the man with the plan. Booming demand for conspicuous consumption by the newly wealthy in China, Russia and the Middle East has driven Bentley and Aston Martin sales of over $200k vehicles into the 10k unit per year range. Jaguar (and Land Rover) are already doing land office business in these expanding markets; Ratan wants a serious slice of that scrumptious pie. How exactly Land Rover fits into this new picture is a bit fuzzy, but taking Jaguar up against Bentley and Aston-Martin seems clear enough. The X-type is dead. Long live Jaguar.

The automotive industry is the global leader in greenwashing. Whether through highly-touted donations to activist groups, misleading advertisements or assorted implausible claims, automakers will do most anything (or in some nothing) to seem eco-friendly. The New York Times reports that the ad men are worried that many consumers can discern now disingenuous environmental claims from environmental action. The Grey Lady traveled to Cannes for an annual ad industry knees-up, and found that green claims are being dialed back to the point reflecting reality. Forget morality, it's one of those impact deals. "After 18 months, levels of concern on any issue tend to drop off," said Jonathan Banks, Nielsen UK's business insight director. Another problem: watchdog groups are fact checking green claims. Britain's A.S.A. and the America's F.T.C. are looking into tightening eco-ad standards. How long before automakes can't advertise highway mpgs?

GM's flailing Rethink brand is holding a contest that just BEGS to be punked, on every possible level. You can almost hear the titters at GM as the brand managers read the irony-free press release. "Contestants can kiss their own Astra, a friend’s Astra or drop by any Saturn retailer and kiss their Astra, and then upload a photo of the kiss at www.ImSaturn.com [strapline: UR2]. The contestant with the funniest, most creative photo – as selected by the online Saturn community – will win a 2008 Saturn XR 5-door." And if that isn't enough of an open invitation to chaos, yes, that is GM Car Czar Bob Lutz putting flesh to metal on the Belgian-built vehicle that racked-up all of 888 sales in June, 4365 year-to-date. There's plenty more hilarity where that comes from (click here). And MAN what I wouldn't do to see the photos that didn't make the site. But I won't do that. No I won't do that.

With GM slashing wildly at any line items that aren't nailed down, how much of its precious cash will The General remove from its motorsports budget? The Car Connection poses the question based on the following choice snippet from Rick Wagoner's latest fireside chat o' doom: "We will implement significant reductions in promotional and event budgets, motor sports activities and back-office expenses." To be perfectly honest, cutting motorsport makes a lot of sense right now. After all, they're not winning many NASCAR races and TV ratings have been in decline for two straight years (although there's been some writers-strike rebound this year). So if GM's woes are based (even partially) on a lack of fuel-efficient vehicles, can you win on Sunday and sell on Monday when gas is over $4 per gallon? I'd hope GM will cut almost all of its motorsport to focus on the only product that even remotely relies on racing credibility: Corvettes in GT racing. Your thoughts?

GM's CEO heir-apparent and current COO Fritz Henderson revealed GM's latest product-planning philosophy in an interview with the AP (via CNN Money). "Let's do cars that people love, even if they're small." And WTH, let's make some money doing it! Fritz's recipe: "close the price gap versus the market segment leaders and drive more volume. You're significantly improving aggregate profitability." The former CFO [who isn't Rick Wagoner] wants to aggregate profitability "one or two models at a time." But Fritz realizes "one product launch does not a success make… if we get the car right and we get the promotion right, we can make progress and we can actually bring people back to the car." Uh, what about all those cars GM's already launched? Fritz's remarks bring to mind an image of Wile E. Coyote, realizing he screwed up one of his Road Runner traps, racing the burning fuse to get to the dynamite before it goes off. And anyone who has ever seen a Road Runner cartoon knows how that scene plays out.

CNN Money quotes GM Product Planner Extraordinaire Bob Lutz: "The reason we made no money on small cars is because hello! nobody wanted them. At $1.75 and $2.25 (per gallon), everybody was happy with full-size utilities with V-8 engines. Now that's shifting, so the profitability is going to go down on trucks and the profitability on cars is going up." Um. No. The reason you made no money on small cars is because hello! you didn't build small cars anyone outside of fleet buyers would even think about buying. Toyota didn't have any problem making money selling small cars. Honda didn't have any trouble making money selling small cars. If you had been as serious about building small cars as you've been about building trucks, if instead of adopting a "throw it against the wall and see what sticks" marketing plan, if you hadn't all but forgotten Saturn existed until last year and if you hadn't parts-bin engineered whatever you could throw together for the rental companies, you'd be well ahead of the curve now. But now you're playing catch-up while the competition forges ahead. Maybe you need to think about something the Marines should have taught you in flight school: to hit a moving target, you have to aim ahead of it.

You know it's a slow news day when a Ford press release touts a wheeled-brick's aerodynamics and the story (such as it is) is picked up by a blog. Granted, we've just done juts that. And Ford needs every little bit of help it can spin to launch their 2.25 ton, 6.5 foot wide Taurus X derivative— especially in this dismal economic climate. "Boxy is the New Swoopy" gushes Edmunds. Our pals quote Ford's press release liberally, "revealing" how squaring the Fairlane's roof and bumper (among other equally subtle changes) gives the Flex a 0.02 aerodynamic edge (so to speak) over the Toyota Highlander and GMC Acadia. FoMoCo claims a one mpg advantage over the competition. Fueleconomy.gov has the Flex FWD pegged at 17/24. As well as the 2009 Acadia FWD with its new DI 3.6L V6. Oops. Nowhere in Edmunds/Ford gusher is the Flex's pesky frontal area number. Nor is mention made of the 500lbs. weight gain over the Freestyle, or the Freestyle's EPA 18/25 rating (2008 corrected #'s). We expect selective stats from Ford. But Edmunds? Yeah, OK, Edmunds too.

PickupTrucks.com reports that Ford's veep for product development, Derrick Kuzak is considering (what's the hurry?) "right-sizing" the F-150's power plant. Ford may stick an EcoBoost four-banger into the base the F-150 pickup truck. And why not? The current V6 F-150 is dead for 2009; the base V8 offers better performance and fuel economy. So FoMoCo needs something smaller and more fuel-efficient underhood to elevate sales from apocalyptic to merely catastrophic. At the same time, FoMoCo needs to satisfy upcoming CAFE regs: 28.6 for light trucks by 2015. Headline: a V6 with the performance of a V8 and the fuel economy of a V6! In the F-150, the 2.5-liter turbocharged direct injection straight four would be good for 260 horses, 300 lb ft of torque and around 28 highway mpgs. This is all just potential product planning (for 2013, no less). With the smaller F100 being planned (and not ten years too soon), the four-banger F-150 would have a kid brother to share engines. Upon hearing this news am I the only person thinking "260 hp EcoBoost Mustang, please" or at least "Mmmm, Compact pickup."

Cypselus von Frankenberg. Now that's what I call a name. (Even Mel Brooks would approve.) It belongs to MINI's spokesman. When Cypselus (can I call you Cypselus?) isn't busy calling media outlets to tell them to CAPITALIZE THE GOD DAMN NAME FOR CHRIST'S SAKE, he's updating journalists on the latest MINI variant. Did you know the MINI Mars Lander is due soon? Speaking of which, Automotive News [sub] reveals that the German-owned British brand is going to sell an electric vehicle version of the Cooper in the Golden State. "The [500] electric Minis [ARRGGGHHHH] are being built at the Mini [NOOOOOOO] factory in Oxford, England, without engines, gearboxes or fuel tanks, then shipped to Munich, Germany, where they are being fitted with electric powertrains." Needless to say BMW will take a bath on every EV MINI they sell. But the PR value will be priceless. Not only will the vehicles help satisfy CA Zero Emissions regs, but they'll be "leased to selected customers" (i.e. Hollywood's green glitterati). Hang on; how will bystanders distinguish an EV MINI from a "regular" MINI? "The electric Minis are painted silver and have yellow roofs." Although range and recharge times are unspecified (of course), it's unlikely that EV MINI will be slower than the original, 1.4-liter, 90hp MINI ONE, a vehicle that kept bumping into itself (i.e. it couldn't get out of its own way). But it's not impossible.