Thanks to Dr. Gad Saad and his research associate John Vongas (a former grad student of the good Doctor), we can now argue the physiological benefits of driving a Porsche. According to an article in Psychology Today (tomorrow the world), Saad cites several evolutionists who claim expectant fathers’ T levels (that’s Testosterone to you and me) decrease immediately after the birth of their child. This reduced T level is “nature’s way of freeing the expectant father from the incessant pursuit of sex, and refocuses his energy on his newborn child.”  Not in a hurry to see that T level dip? Don’t want to be free of your sexual drive? Saad suggest the remedy is as simple as taking a Porsche for a quick spin through a heavily populated area. More technically, “Put a man in a high status car, and his hormonal response will correspond to a social win (T levels go up subsequent to a competitive win). Place him in a ‘beta’ car, and his tail will be between his legs (T levels go down subsequent to a competitive loss). Furthermore, the changes in testosterone levels should be more pronounced as a function of whether the drive takes place in a public or private setting.” Finally, the mid-life crisis automotive purchase is explained through medical science. ‘Bout time.

[For the latest Porsche news, please visit http://993C4S.com]

[

You didn’t hear it here first. Autoblog reports that the 2010 Ford Mustang will start as low as $21,845 for a V6, with GT V8 power starting at $27,995. As AB points out, that makes the forthcoming Mustang less expensive than Chevy’s Camaro ($22,995 for the V6, $30,995 for the V8) and Dodge’s Challenger( $22,545, $30,545). If you put much stock in the whole MSRP thing that is. Besides, who doesn’t think these pony revivalists won’t have tons of cash on the hood within months of showing up on lots? Then again, these have been trying times for the folks who’s interest in cars begins and ends with styling and horsepower ratings. Long days of photoshopping album covers are clearly taking their toll, and nothing cleanses the Autoblog palate like a good Mustang post. In fact, a quick Google search shows that AB posted 1,480 articles with “mustang” in the title in the last year, and 35 in the last month. For comparison, TTAC logged 31 in the last year. Moral of the story? If you’re curious about whether Ford will survive long enough to offer the inevitable incentives on the 2010 ‘stang of your dreams, you’ve come to the right place.

As the battle over bailout bucks rages, it’s easy to get the impression that Fortress Detroit is unanimous in its support for the home team. As usual though, there’s more to the story than just the loudest voices. The New York Times conducted interviews across the state over the last two weeks, and found that opposition to the bailout, if only in private. “There are plenty of people who are rolling their eyes,” said Bill Ballenger, editor of Inside Michigan Politics newsletter. “You keep your head down if you’re one of them, but they’re out there.” And much of the opposition seems to come from Michigan residents who lost their jobs before the automakers even came begging for a bailout. “How many other, small companies would like a bailout?” asks Heather Davison, an unemployed graphic designer who lost her job at a real estate publication a year ago. “It seems to me that the car companies saw the banks getting a bailout and said, ‘Oh, let’s go!’”

Read More >

If anyone knows the pressures of covering Motown’s meltdown, it’s me. I’m putting in some serious time behind this keyboard (“that’s why they call it work” my wife reminds me) trying to keep up with a news cycle that makes a racing bike seem like a mobility scooter (or something like that). My favorite carmudgeon Dan Neil blew a gasket earlier today, arguing for– yes for— the creation of an American Leyland. The same Dan Neil whose criticism of GM’s management (before criticizing Motown’s management was cool) sparked a retaliatory ad boycott and, thus, the first GM Death Watch. And now Autoblog supremo John Neff has gone off the deep end. In the recently launched “Opinion” category– an inherently bad idea for writers with all the teeth of a Chrysaora fuscescens— Neff wails “Stop arm-chair quarterbacking the auto industry.” Huh? If that’s not a textbook example of pathological solipsism, Bob Lutz is. Anyway, Neff’s knickers are in a right royal twist.

Read More >

When Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” was first published, its sustained and unyielding irony lead more than a few to believe that the Irish scribe was actually advocating for cannibalism and infanticide. With the benefit of nearly 300 years, we can now recognize Swift’s detailed plan to serve the children of Ireland’s poor to their landlords as biting satire. Reading the LA Times‘ Dan Neil’s own “modest proposal,” one can’t help but go back and check for signs of self-aware irony (a far less scarce resource than it was in 1729). Sadly, there’s no much to go on, leading me to believe that Dan Neil actually wants the United States federal government to purchase General Motors. Or is there? After the usual litany of Big 3 woes, Neil “modestly proposes” as US takeover of GM. He then correctly anticipates the “gall of free-market ideology rising” in his readers, and he breaks down the case. And it’s off to irony no-mans land. Read More >

Ever quick on the media-scene-defining draw, The New York Times is dubbing the auto industry bailout battle the cure for “campaign withdrawal.” Also known as the bitter, divisive battle, du jour. Or, to use the Grey Lady’s honeyed verbiage, “The crisis in the auto industry is helping to fill a void left by the end of the long presidential race. It has also rekindled debate over many of the big issues of the campaign. Arguments have touched on the environment, national security, American identity, small-town values, the role of government and, of course, the need for change.” Hell, SNL even did a skit about it. Anyway, the Times figures that the Battle Of Detroit is easier for middle America to understand than the acronym-laced cognitive hell of the Wall Street bailout, while offering the PR gaffes, emotionally-charged arguments and outright lies that make big media business out of political campaigns. So, how does this campaign break down? According to Alex Castellano, a media consultant for Mitt Romney, “The auto industry, of course, is the new McCain. The auto industry is old America. It’s stuck. It’s one thing we haven’t been able to move into the future.” Does that make Warren Brown the new Sarah Palin? And where the hell does that leave TTAC, who’s been banging the Detroit doom drum for nearly a decade? On second thought, we don’t want to know. We’re actually glad the election is over.

Over at The Huffington Post, ad man Adam Hanft argues that “Lousy Marketing – Not Lousy Cars – Killed Detroit.” Like most experts (and Buickman), Hanft suffers from blaming the bit he knows best (if you’re a hammer…). But he makes some good points. If Wal-Mart catches flack for paying so little, then why didn’t Detroit seek positive PR for paying too much? More broadly, Detroit’s ads have long been forgettably mediocre (at best) thanks to a stifling creative process. Many ads have targeted an America that no longer exists, if it ever did. Ditto Detroit’s un-fun dealerships. Sure, those for imports have often been at least as bad, but this gave Detroit an opening. Which it failed to take advantage of. Add numerous PR blunders to the mix, along with improving reliability scores, and it’s easy to see why Hanft blames marketing. Except that there’s more to cars than not breaking, and the cars have also had shortcomings. The problem hasn’t been the cars or the marketing. It has been both.

When USA Today carmudgeon James R. Healey pours hate on a vehicle, you just know it sucks. Healey’s evisceration of the oil-burning Bubba Benz ML320 BlueTec begins with a slam at the powerplant’s herky jerky acceleration, then mentions Merc’s obfuscation: “M-B, in fact, disputes about every gripe. The gripes are serious, so it’s appropriate to give them a word.” And that word is? California compliant. OK, so it’s two words, but at least it wasn’t the two I was expecting (fans of German management culture will know what I mean). Anyway, Healey lets rip in his own not-so-special way, chastising the diesel ML for mediocre mileage (19mpg), terrible ride (“surmounting a branch felt like a major dynamic event”), lagging brakes (“Push, push, push the brake pedal and just when you think something’s amiss, the brakes start to haul it down”), hard seats (“Not firm. Not stiff. Not you’ll-get-used-to-it Teutonic. Hard. Like a board, or slab of concrete”) and sub-par details (“climate control was too hot at 70 degrees, too chilly at 68”). Healey being Healey, the litany is followed by amorous amelioration. But not much. And not for long. “Fifty thousand bucks for an uncomfortable, not-so-classy machine that’s unpleasant and unsatisfying to drive. Wonder who signed off on that business plan?” Jimmy, are you saying that diesel dog won’t hunt? Uh-huh. “Overall: Nope.”

CNN Money’s Chris Isidore writes that if all the stars aligned, the Big Three could return to profitability by 2010. He qualifies his comments often, with phrases like “if they make it to 2010,” but the bigger issue is the specious nature of his explanations for how the companies would return to profitability. Isidore’s claims are essentially underpinned by the philosophy of “cutting your way to profitability” — as such, he highlights the Big Three’s smaller workforces, supposedly reduced pension obligations, and cuts in overcapacity. The only actual increase in income Isidore speculates about is increased new car sales, an argument barely more sophisticated than “they’re really bad now, so obviously they have to get a lot better.” This kind of journalism is dangerous, not just because it’s overly optimistic (in spite of its own acknowledgements to the contrary), but because it’s wrong. There is no reason to believe sales will be up to 14 million units in the US by 2010; there’s even less reason to believe that GM’s share of those 14 million units would be the same percent that it was in 2007. Isidore’s math on the potential savings from cost cutting is calling the glass 1/8 full at best, by assuming the UAW will allow GM to just defer its contribution to the pooled-benefit VEBA account to another year. That might work in accounting ledgers, but the bottom line is that this is the kind of nonsense that contributed to GM’s collapse in the first place.

In honor of the imminent celebrations, Consumer Reports has picked its “Automotive Turkeys” of 2008, and they got some good ones. Tax credits for Hybrid Tahoes, Chrysler’s four-week Aspen/Durango Hybrid reign of terror, Acura’s styling, the Smart’s pricing and much more get the thumbs down from CR’s Mike Quincy. In advance of TTAC’s Ten Worst awards, I’m asking: what makes your list of automotive blunders for 2008? Personally, the Volt transformation, the bailout beggary and Chrysler’s Project D(isaster) would be near the top of my list. Yours?

We’ve already reported Nissan’s decision to take a powder from the hugely expensive business of cock-walking at Cobo. As the Brits would say, the other shoe has dropped. Honda has announced that it will announce bupkis at this January’s North American International Auto Show. It’ll show show-goers what it’s got– and that’s it. Bloomberg reports the reason: “The Asian brands are mired in the industrywide slump that cut U.S. auto sales by 15 percent through October. U.S. automakers led by General Motors Corp. are seeking $25 billion in federal loans to help stave off a financial collapse.” Cutbacks fer sure, but the missing message is clear enough: Detroit’s auto show is fading fast. The fact that unions have driven-up the cost of the show is one show-collapse-related irony. Toyota’s decision to stay the course and unveil new models is another.

The night before the LA Auto Show, Mazda had a select group of journalists drive the new Mazda3. We from TTAC were not among them. But digital buff book (buff site?) Edmunds’ InsideLine was, and so were the very graphic-saavy guys at Motive Magazine. Overall they both seem to like the car, though in all honesty the assessment is predictable. Bigger, better MPGs, not as sharp as the original. I’m more troubled that an “economy” car has a 2.5 liter engine. Yes, the 2.0 is still standard, but seriously 2.5? Mazda3? I mistakenly presumed that Japan’s engineers believed there is a replacement for displacement. In any case, check out the reviews if you dare at Edmunds and Motive.