Jim Dollinger (a.k.a. Buickman) has been fighting the good fight for GM’s survival for a very long time. Yes, Jim’s a bit OTT. And no, I don’t agree with his recipe for recovery. But Jim doesn’t flame websites, their authors or fellow commentators. And so he’s always been welcome here. But then TTAC invites opposing points of view (as long as they conform to our no-flaming posting policy). Jim reports that the same can not be said of GM Inside News. “I’ve been a member of Insidenews for over three years and a regular contributor. No surprise that I was ridiculed initially for lashing out at RIR and calling for his ouster, this well before it became fashionable. These days many have come around to the same opinion. although the obvious company stooges still inhabit the forums, increasingly more and more members are voicing their dissatisfaction with GM management. After the latest stupidity of GMS for all and pulling of leases, I made the comment “to hell with General Motors.” Since then, I haven’t been able to log in (from any computer). My daughter [a Cadillac dealer in Florida] made some comments about GMIN being hypocites and sent private messages to those who agree with my positions. She was also blocked. Truly, I’m not all that upset; I have plenty of other things to occupy my days. I just thought you might be interested to know that these people, whoever they are, can’t handle the truth and display prejudice and editorial control while proclaiming to hold an open and honest forum for discussion (since they had zero call to “ban” me, they just “jammed” me instead). Funny how they also are quick to ridicule TTAC, all the while refusing to look in the mirror and see themselves for what they are.”

“Meanwhile, American business is taking seriously your concern about the cost of gasoline. General Motors is one of our sponsors. We are proud and honored that they are a sponsor of this program.

Everybody’s out there flapping their gums — Thomas Friedman, all these other people who don’t know what they’re talking about. General Motors is doing things, designing terrific cars, crossovers, trucks, SUVs, that use alternative fuels, different ways to power their vehicles. They even have the Escalade hybrid out there now to go along with the Tahoe hybrid, and they’re working on all kinds of different technologies that will help you use less gasoline. One of the alternatives they’re using is flex-fuel cars that use biofuels like ethanol if you want them, and they’re making them if you want them. They have four million of these flex-fuel vehicles on the road, across the globe, and they’re committed to building even more. GM has more modeled that are capable of running on E85 ethanol than any other manufacturer. The Buick Lucerne — that’s the one we’re getting next to tool around here — is one of the cars running on E85. General Motors, they respond to your concerns. They don’t tell you you’re stupid. You can see all their cars at RushLimbaugh.com. “

As someone who solicited and edited Brock Yates’ rants, and then didn’t, I can identify the former Car and Driver superstar’s style in a single sentence. “Now I tell the truth for a living,” “The Mechanic” declares on Edmunds Straightline, tweaking TTAC. “A good living. I get big checks to write this garbage. Big enough that I can buy any car I want. OK, that’s a stretch. The Mechanic cannot afford a Rolls or a Bugatti, but I’ve got money to spend. And I’ve got good taste. I’m also college-educated. Literate. And I appreciate the best. When I spend my money I spend it on quality goods. And the car I choose to be seen in must be a quality item. The finest of its kind. In other words, I would not buy an American car. It’s hard for me to even type that. Fact is, I’d like to buy an American car, a great American car. It just doesn’t exist.” It’s hard to tell if “The Mechanic” actually is a [heavily re-written] Brock Yates. But this much is for sure: publishing this belligerent throw-down under a pseudonym demonstrates Edmunds’ fear of losing its advertising revenue. In fact, I reckon it’s only a matter of time before those sponsors fix The Mechanic, if you know what I mean. [Thanks to HarveyBirdman for the link]

“This isn’t the same America that mustered the will and the fierce pride to counteract global evil in the Second World War. This isn’t the same America whose ‘blue sky’ thinking and unbridled creativity responded to a challenge and propelled the rocket age to new heights. And this isn’t the same America that once shared a common purpose and perspective on what this country stands for. Instead, this country has become a jaded and fractionalized nation of consumer sponges driven by the lackadaisical mantra of ‘whatever’ and ‘what’s in it for me?’ A nation whose people couldn’t be bothered with such esoteric concepts as this country’s eroding manufacturing base and the nation’s burgeoning inability to lead on the world stage.” Wow! It looks like Sweet Pete has gone beyond Shock and Denial, past Pain and Guilt, all the way to Anger and Bargaining. Yup. “At this juncture Detroit has only one move left, and that is to get through to the American consumer by building outstanding products that have no ‘ifs,’ ‘ands,’ or ‘buts’ attached to them. Machines that not only stand out, but stand above the rest.” What’s the hurry? Next up: Depression, Reflection and Loneliness.

I know: some of our Best and Brightest think we lower our editorial tone and surrender the moral highground when we point out the deficiencies of other automotive websites. (While others like a good cat fight.) Well, in this case, Hemmings Auto Blogs (notice the spacing) gives us a backhanded hat tip. "As much as I’m not a fan of of AOL and its online empire, and as much grief that TTAC gives the site, I still read Autoblog daily for my dose of new car news, and anytime Autoblog links to one of our posts – as they did the other day when they were equally as puzzled by the shorty Voyager as we – we still get a ton of traffic." And it is the latter fact that makes all the difference. But don't take my word for it. "Want to get your site mentioned in the Saturday shoutout? Have you not been paying attention? It’s simple: Link to us, send us lots of traffic, and we link to you." As Dinu01 said (and thanks for the link), "I understand the concept of supporting other bloggers, but this feels dirty for some reason." [NB: TTAC does not base its blog roll on traffic, or sell space on same. We only recommend sites we deem worthy of your time.]

"If you're sick of high gas prices, one remedy may be the V6 version of the 2010 Chevrolet Camaro." Oh for Pete's sake; AutoWeek [print] is pimping a Chevy that's half a year away from the showrooms. In that sense, Greg Migliore's "Camaro Cure" is re-volting. "Ultimately, the V6 is expected to make up 70 percent of the car's 100,000 sales," Greg unquestioningly reports. "And General Motors says that fuel efficiency– just as much as raw power– will be a key selling point. The V6 Camaro is expected to deliver 26mpg on the highway." It's one thing when a manufacturer quotes highway mileage in an attempt to draw attention away from gas-piggery. It's another when a car mag does so on its behalf, and makes that some kind of lame-ass "talking point." The rest of the article is pretty much as expected, save "…overall the car feels more nimble than Dodge Challengers we've driven." File that one under "invidious distinctions." 

Well, here it is, courtesy of LeftLane News. Maybe. The Chevy electric – gas plug-in hybrid sure doesn't look like the show car that GM's been advertising (as if you could go down and buy one). On the other hand, the Volt shown here isn't a Malibu-a-like, which is a good thing. (Unless you ascribe to Ye Olde German "Different Length of Sausages" School of Model Design.) On the other other hand, the Volt pictured lacks the Toyota Prius' instantly identifiable "quirkiness" and attendant green cred. In fact, in this guise, the Volt's front end shares more than a little gestalt with the current Ford Fusion. So, over to you, our Best and Brightest. Did GM's designers get it right? 

OK, so this isn't specifically about cars, but it could have ramifications for anyone who uses gasoline. Cars.com reports small-engine mechanics around the country are reporting an increase in damage in boat, lawnmower, chainsaw and other small engines. The culprit? They're saying it's the ethanol blended into gasoline. Apparantly it creates a gummy substance that "clogs valves and causes small metal parts to rust, destroying carburetors and other crucial components". The bad thing is, even if you drain the tank, this residue remains behind and does its damage. The same thing happens in our cars, but they're designed to handle "a certain amount of the residue that causes so much trouble in smaller motors." No one's done any studies to substantiate these allegations, but "a growing chorus of mechanics" say it's so. [Thanks to ppellico for the link]

After Captain Mike today posted that he was having a difficult time merely test driving a Challenger SRT8 before putting down his hard-earned cash to buy one, not everyone was sympathetic. In fact, Jen Dunnaway – the editor of the blog section over at CarDomain.com – thinks we're a bunch of whiners/cry babies.

"Sour grapes of the day: The Truth About Cars has been begging Mopar for a Challenger test car, only to be outraged by the fact that "Chrysler LLC refuses to acknowledge TTAC's existence." Gee, why would a domestic automaker do that? Maybe because all TTAC does is spew hate and vitriol for the Detroit automakers, loudly delight in their every misfortune, and smack their lips in gleeful anticipation of the collapse of our nation's auto industry? Obviously Ma Mopar hasn't heard the one about keeping your enemies closer—and TTAC, after being further thwarted from even taking a regular-joe dealership test drive, decided that the Challenger isn't really that big a deal after all.

[For the purposes of this thread, TTAC's normal restrictions on discussing the site's mission and/or biases are lifted.]

Personally, I am offended by this "remake." While Death Race 2000 wasn't exactly Five Easy Pieces, Paul Bartel's 1975 cult classic featured motorized combatants competing to cut pedestrians into at least that many bits. Which was– and still is– deliciously politically incorrect. The new movie pits convicts against convicts for mass entertainment. Been there, Running Man'd that. Ho-hum? Nope. "The car chases and most of the characters are thrillingly executed, with 5,000-horse-power smash-'em-ups shredding the screen," writes New York Post critic (or not) Kyle Smith. "If you run over the right manhole cover, you can activate additional weapons or bloodthirsty traps, and there aren't a lot of environmental restrictions ("Give me the napalm" is as routine a command as "find something on the radio"). If the warden feels like cheating, and that feeling often comes over her, she can throw into the mix something called the Dreadnought, which is to the other cars what a Chevy truck is to a roller skate." 

The last we heard (yesterday), GM NA VP of Chevy said the new Cruze will be "targeting having the best fuel economy in the small-car segment with Cruzeclass-leading mpg." Har-har. But seriously folks, where did the Detroit News come up with its new headline "GM plans $500M for 45-mpg small car." Extrapolation? Nope. Expectation. "The Cruze is expected to get about 45 miles per gallon and serve as a counter-punch to $4-per-gallon gasoline once it goes into production in April 2010." There's nothing in GM's press release suggesting that kind of fuel efficiency. The Freep reports "The Cobalt is rated at 33 highway miles per gallon and the new Cobalt XFE model gets 37 m.p.g. on the highway. The Cruze is expected to get closer to 40 m.p.g."  UPDATE: TTAC commentator Buick61 quotes Edmunds to provides an explanation: “On August 12, Beth Lowery, GM’s vice president of environment, energy and safety policy, told the Management Briefing Seminars in Traverse City, Michigan, that the Cruze will get better gas mileage than the vehicle it replaces — the current Chevrolet Cobalt. 'The Chevy Cruze will get an additional nine miles per gallon in fuel economy when it debuts in 2010 [versus the Cobalt].'"  

Why would Delphi's bondholders sue GM in Manhattan court to prevent a $300m cash infusion? Because Highland Capital Management and other bondholders fear GM's "undue" influence over the bankrupt parts supplier. [NB: the $300m is on top of an existing $650m loan.] In other words, GM's money could give it the leverage it needs to prevent its former division from selling off profitable bits of Delphi. Like, say, the parts of Delphi that supply the GM corporate mothership with parts. GM control would also mean that the artist formerly known as the world's largest automaker could forestall a Delphi Chapter 7, should the bondholders decided that the jig is up. "It is merely a band-aid (albeit an enormously expensive and porous band-aid),'' the bondholders told Bloomberg. "It is a truism that borrowing to fund losses is a loser's bet.'' You want to talk about cash burn? "Highland and other bondholders said in the objection to the additional financing that Delphi used more than $960 million in net cash to fund operating activities in just the first six months of 2008." Anyway, bankruptcy judge Robert Drain approved a $5m company payout for the legal costs of defending former Delphi officers and employees from lawsuits related to pension funds and the bankruptcy.

What pistonhead doesn't like a V8 engine? This author has long argued that freedom of choice argues against outlawing gas-sucking automobiles. But I don't venerate the V8 engine as a sacred object, a talisman for those who feel that anyone outside of Motown is an eco-weenie Hell bent on ruining a way of life. But I know a man who does. "You see, the cars that lose money are the rage of the day for automakers — hybrids, electric cars and fuel cell vehicles — and would take even longer to develop if it weren't for the advanced technologies designed for powerhouses such as the Corvette ZR1, the Shelby GT500 or the Challenger SRT8, to name a few," Manny Lopez argues. "But perhaps most importantly, the green that these vehicles generate is of the cash kind, and for three automakers struggling to simply keep their North American operations afloat, that's not something to dispose of lightly." Yeah, and screw those tree-huggers! "Sure the trend is to downsize and the Big Three are developing smaller engines that are faster and more fuel efficient. They should continue that quest. Now isn't the time to create a new V-8, but it's also not the time to bow to public pressure from activists who want nothing more than for the V-8 to wither away." Boil that dust speck! Boil that dust speck!  

I reckon if a product placement calls attention to itself, then it makes moviegoers groan and say (silently) "I paid for a goddamn movie, not a commercial!" Apparently, brandchannel.com couldn't care less. They base their Brandcameo Award on the number of cinematic product placements in number one ranked movies (1251 brands counted in total). "Ford— for the third straight time— topped all other brands, appearing in 30 of the 52 number one films at the US box office from January 1, 2007 through June 30, 2008. Ford’s 57.7 percent appearance rate in top films is a marked increase over its 18 of 41 appearances in 2005 (44 percent) and 17 of 41 in 2006 (41 percent)." (FYI: Transformers, Bucket List, I Am Legend, American Gangster and taxis aplenty). Unfortunately, the man responsible for all this screen time, Mark Kaline, was written out of Ford's script. Or perhaps he's just in development Hell.