In their latest commercials Subaru tells us that dumping a junk car in the wilderness or driving a car you can't see out of equate to some strange form of love. The first shows some environmentally-challenged dufus driving two days to take his old Forester to "Subaru heaven," which consists of a spot somewhere in an otherwise pristine wilderness area where other Subaru owners have abandoned their worn-out rides. There, apparently, they sit until they rust to pieces, releasing their various petrochemical-based fluids and toxic metals into the environment instead of being responsibly recycled and reused. The other shows someone who must come from the same genetic pool as that guy because he refuses to wash his Outback, claiming it's a "badge of honor" and that he'll "let the universe take care of it." He'd better hope the universe is taking car of him when he pulls out in front of that bus or runs over that motorcycle in the lane next to him because his windows are so nasty he can't see what's around him. And this comes from a company that not long ago bragged about how their factory is a wildlife preserve and how safe their cars are. Maybe they just don't expect their customers to share their "values."

Go to Butler, Missouri and you'll find Max Motors, an independent car dealer that specializes in (i.e. only sells) American cars. Yup, under one roof you can buy a Buick, Cadillac, Chevy, Chrysler, Dodge, Ford, Jeep or Pontiac. Your guess is as good as mine if they sell Korean-made Aveos, Mexican made Fusions or Canadian made all sorts of stuff. Oh wait, I checked, they do. But that's not why we're telling you about Max Motors. No, we're telling you because through May 31st if you buy a new car from Max Motors you get your choice of free gas card or handgun. That's right, Max Motors is aware of both "the gasoline and crime problem [sic] in America." And while to some throwing gas at a gas problem and guns at a crime problem is like throwing fire at a fire problem or fat at a fat problem, Max Motors sees it different. Explains sales manager Walter Moore, around Butler people believe in "God, guts and guns," though they aren't handing out free Bibles or chitlin's. As you would (probably) expect, 80 percent of the customers are opting for the gun. And hey, why not? I just traded my Colt Python .357 Magnum for $250 worth of scotch and bourbon. The only drawback we see is that you don't get the gun immediately (you have to pass a background check). Max Motors might be inadvertently setting up the world's most ironic carjacking.

Just because you (and by "you" I mean us lucky auto journo types) won't be able to see the new prancing horse GT California until October at the Paris Auto Show, doesn't mean a fetish photographer can't. Employing the strange, up-the-skirt "teaser" tactics that Lutz and friends deployed with the new CTS, Ferrari has even produced a come-hither video complete with a Skinemax after hours soundtrack. But I'm not here to criticize Ferrari's advertising tactics. Oh wait, I am here to criticize Ferrari's advertising tactics. Still, it's Friday, the birds are chirping and this guy I know just picked-up a new M3. Point being: Ferrari's not talking to you anyhow. But just so we're clear, the GT California is only available as a hard top convertible and will be powered by a new-ish version of the 4.3-liter V8 that's already shared with nearly ever hot two-door in Italy (F430, Maser GranTurismo, Alfa 8C Competizione). I say new-ish because the relatively small eight-banger has a flat-crank and direct-injection, both of which combine to kick out 460 horses at a lofty 7,500 rpm and bring up 60 mph in four seconds flat, according to Motor Authority. The brakes are ceramic and the F1-style traction control system is the same as the 599. The big tech news: a seven-speed dual-clutch transmission, which of course sends power to the rear wheels, as God intended.

The internets are abuzz with Fiatitude. Motor Authority reports that CEO Sergio Marchionne fingers distribution, rather than manufacturing, as Fiat's greatest hurdle to selling cars in the U.S. True dat. Setting-up a factory in Mexico wouldn't be impossible. But setting-up dealers and warranty service departments (which Fiat will need to convince people their cars aren't the unreliable rust buckets of yore) will cost serious dough. Wth U.S. car sales on the wane, who wants to buy a franchise from a risky manufacturer? Marchionne says he's shopping for an American partner. You just know it's going to be Chrysler. Maserati TC redux? Meanwhile, Reuters reports that the Italians (who already own the Fiat, Lancia, Alfa Romeo, and Maserati names) are considering an additional brand to sell extremely low-cost vehicles in developing countries. Come again? The Fiat name has a lot of equity in the developing world (including Brazil, where the brand is popular). And besides, building cheap and cheerful cars is Fiat's forte. Anyway, my suggestion for a name for the automaker's low cost brand: Fiat.

Jeremy Clarkson's strident, xenophobic and bombastic opinions aside, he's a rare bird, a true master of the craft. Case in point: former car salesman and failed Top Gear presenter Jason Dawe. "How to test drive a car properly" begins in the great Clarksonian "I'll get to the car bit when I bloody feel like it" tradition, trying to amuse us with tales from the mattress department. (Snoring is sooooo funny.) And then… "How can you possibly get a proper feel for a new car when you find yourself driving around the local industrial estate with an over anxious salesman sat beside you bellowing into his mobile and indicating the next turn back to the garage? Rental offers a very simple solution, with a lot of the main fleets offering a huge choice of vehicles. The chances are that if you have your eye on a car, your local rental agency will be able to get it for you. And hire doesn’t have to be expensive – ignore the published tariffs and do some bargaining – you might be surprised at the deals with which you could end up. For the sake of spending just a couple of hundred pounds for a week’s rental, you could save yourself thousands if you find the car isn’t for you." I suppose if you're looking for the car that isn't for you, a rental is as good a place as any in which to look. And now a word from our sponsor– I mean another word from our sponsor: "Avis confirm that rental experiences influence new car buying decisions. On handing back the rental car 44% of UK renters said they were slightly or much more likely to add the model to their next new car shopping list." So Jason, which is it: slightly or much more likely? 

I've always liked Lamborghinis better than Ferraris. I have no rational basis for feeling this way. Oddly enough, that makes me the perfect Lambo client; except for the "I have no money" part. But let's say you have a bit of extra cash/credit/cocaine lying around the McMansion, but you're still a couple of tens of thousands of dead presidents short of the $201k needed to purchase the (now) entry level Gallardo LP560-4. You could by a Porsche. But that's a bit like spicing-up your mac & cheese with a can of tuna. Fear not! Lamborghini has a solution for you: a certified pre-owned (CPO) purchase program! Imagine, all the joy inherent to a dealership experience plus the calming charms of buying a used Italian supercar. How could you lose? After all, Ferrari and Maserati have had similar programs in place for years. Of course, paying a monthly nut for a used bull will still cost an arm and a leg and a lucky lotto ticket. How much? If you have to ask, you have to ask. Only we can't tell you and neither can Lamborghini. But when they can, we will. Any guesses?

Buried in a CTVnews.ca story about the upcoming launches of the Ford Flex and the 2009 F-150: Ford's view of the future. Reporter Jeremy Cato spent some QT with Ford execs (including FoMoCo CEO Big Al Mullaly himself) to find out if there's a future in their Ford. Once again, Ford's top brass tout their forthcoming product revamps to predict a return to operationally profitability by the last financial quarter. In that vein, Ford intends to release models that will be "polarizing" for most consumers. Huh? "That's is exactly what we want," proclaims the Flex's design chief. By the end of the article, Cato remains unconvinced that the Flex will be relevant. (Not everyone can– or should– be Chris Bangle.) Cato declares that all Ford's marketing-speak, brand sell-off and quality initiatives are essentially Big Al's push to turn Ford into Toyota. You know: one global brand, a solid reputation for quality and billions in profits posted like clockwork every quarter. Yeah. that one. Meanwhile, The Blue Oval Boyz concede a porno style loss for the fiscal year. Yes, "it will be a big one."

How else are we supposed to spin this? The Detroit News reports that Ford engineering veep Paul Mascarenas has announced an "international campaign (?) with five universities to develop a car that is simple, lightweight, practical and priced below $7,000." Something like, I dunno, the Tata Nano? Of for God's sake, you say, stop picking on these guys. The Model T redux is part of that national transportation week weak deal, and a laudable effort to encourage and reward young engineering talent. What's this then? Mascarenas says the program, which will award an $25k to the winning university, is more than an academic exercise. "The Model T has assured its place in history; perhaps 100 years from now, someone will be standing here honoring one of these cars." Which cars? The cars they haven't built? Or the cars that Ford won't be building? Or the ones Ford will be building, after all the paperwork's been signed. Meanwhile, GM's global sales veep has a thing or two to say about the whole past – future thing. "GM is venturing into the future with some ambitious plans, a solid determination, as we launch into our second century," John Middlebrook intoned. "We believe strongly about what we will deliver." For what they are to deliver, may the federal bankruptcy court make us truly thankful. Amen. [thanks to MgoBLUE for the link] 

Worldscreen.com reports that NBC will see Ford's Knight Rider and raise it an everything. In other words, GM has cut a product placement deal that should see the peacock network festooned with GM products, featured in everything from "My Own Worst Enemy" to "Top Gear." Yes, there is that. Anyone harboring the idea that the NBC version of the no-holds-barred British car program will be critical of advertisers' vehicles would do well to clock the fact that this GM – NBC tie-up is worth several tens of millions of dollars. That and the admission that the accord (so to speak) is "not just been about media units, it's also about how we as an advertiser can dig deeper into their brands… and ours." This from Dino Bernacchi, GM's director of marketing alliances and branded entertainment. But the inappropriately-branded car puns don't stop there. "NBC has really been aggressive to promote alternative ideas in-program and around-the-program that leverages multiple touch points. We call it Fusion Marketing— partnering with the creative community around ideas that build relationships with a passionate audience but done through the lens of the entertainment property to showcase the cool, new great cars and trucks we offer. This deal sets a tone for how we'll be approaching this year's upfronts." Hey, at least they're up front about it. Or, as far as viewers are concerned, not. 

Strange but true: I possess a "GM Card" credit card. For every $100 charged to the card I get a $5 discount against a new GM vehicle (up to a certain amount, not to used in a blinding snowstorm, etc.). I signed-up for the fantastic plastic back when I was a loyal GM customer and shareholder. Two crappy GM minivans later, I've jettisoned both GM stock and vehicles. But the card still sits in my wallet, mostly unused. Saturns and Saabs have always been excluded from the GM Card program. Until now. I recently received notice that "Your GM Card Earnings are now redeemable on an eligible, new Saturn vehicle!" Rethink discounts? How long before Saturn gives up on their vaunted One Price policy? There are already reports of Saturn dealers using inflated trade-in values to get around undercut the no-haggle policy.  More to the point, what is so great about no-haggle pricing in the Internet Age?  Why would anyone be stupid enough to pay full sticker for an Aura when the Chevy dealer across the way is playing Let's Make a Deal on a Malibu? Hang on; remind me again why both the Aura and the Malibu exist?

First there was a "perception gap"– the alleged discrepancy between the quality of GM's products and public perception of the quality of GM's products. Now, for GM's import-fighter-turned-importer Saturn brand, we have an "awareness problem." GM NA Prez reached this conclusion based on some pretty solid evidence. As Automotive News [sub] helpfully points out, "Over the past 15 months, Saturn has launched a complete line of vehicles including the Aura sedan, which won 2006 North American Car of the Year. Yet Saturn sales are down 15.4 percent through April." So does Troy recognize the connection between Saturn products and the brand's disappearance off the consumer's radar? As South Africans say, ja nee. "In GM research of coastal markets, consumers who saw pictures of Saturn vehicles could not identify them," Clarke said, revealing that he regularly reads TTAC. On the other hand, “If you look at the purchase funnel, you ask, 'Do we have a consideration problem on Saturn or a conversion problem?' The fact of the matter is we have a basic awareness problem.” To sort this shit out [paraphrasing], Clarke says… lots. "Saturn's advertising must start over with something 'a little more basic' than the current 'Rethink' theme… Just as if you're introducing a new brand, we'll probably spend about the same amount of money, but we'll repurpose it so that it's more focused on awareness than consideration.” Sure; that'll do it.

Last month, Ford released the results of a self-commissioned study claiming their initial quality is as good as Toyota's. Well, Toyota ain't gonna take it; no! They ain't gonna take! On their Open Road Blog, corporate mouthpiece Mike Michaels goes to great lengths to explain that the Ford survey isn't the J.D. Power survey– which places Toyota above Ford. However, Michaels points-out that all of these initial quality surveys "deal with problems that surface only in the first 90 days." They're "useful, maybe, if you're going to rent the car for three months" (and God knows how many times we've done that.) Michaels then proclaims that brand loyalty– where Toyota and Lexus rank at the top– is the only true indicator of quality. That's the only way to know "how your car will treat you long after that new-car smell is gone." It's also a great way to know which car company has the most effective brainwashing marketing or the most risk-aversive customers. But there's one question Mr. Michaels left unanswered: why should we believe a survey that placing Toyota over Ford is any more accurate than one placing Ford on the same plane as Toyota when the methodology behind both of them is clouded in smoke and mirrors? Enquiring minds want to know.

We've don't pay that much attention to automakers' charitable contributions. While we're pro pro bono and love largess, we get hundreds of press releases each year, all touting contributions to causes from adult literacy to wounded veterans of Ford Granadas. Cynics might suggest that these payments are all drawn from carmakers' PR budgets, but we couldn't possibly comment. Well, in this case, we will. After Toyota's $20m contribution to the Audubon Society stirred-up a hornet's nest of questions surrounding SUVs and global warming, ToMoCo has announced the donation of $1m– and five vehicles– to the Florida Everglades National Park. This new donation is also targeted to "environmental education initiatives" rather than, say, culling gators. This is about as obvious as greenwashing gets, but moral relativists have already clicked through. And we agree: it's better for the Everglades to get some dough from Toyota than not. Victor vado share a little spolium. 

The AP (via NPR) reports that Ford plans to put six-speed automatic transmissions (AT) into 98 percent of its North American vehicles by 2012. Ford's seductively-named "6F35" transmission is the technological fruit of a $720m joint development effort between Ford and GM. Ford claims the new automatics– debuting in the ‘09 Escape and Mercury and Lincoln clones– offer four to six percent better fuel economy than their current four- and five-speed equivalents. Craig Renneker, Ford's chief engineer for the slushboxes, admits that "these technologies are all about fuel economy." No, wait! Ford VP Barb Samardzich is a bit more PR-savvy: "They also deliver improved acceleration and smoother shifting," she adds. Anyway, you can thank the 35mpg fleet average CAFÉ standards for the additional cog. "With today's high gas prices, the decision to deploy these across virtually
the entire Ford lineup comes at a good time."