Detroit News scribe Scott Burgess is the gas-guzzling Dodge Challenger SRT-8's target demographic: a 50-something white car guy who never met a big-bore V8 he didn't like. As such, as a writer for Motown's hometown paper, Burgess can't just come out and call the new $46k Chrysler Aspen HEMI Hybrid a deeply-misguided, over-priced, poorly-built piece of shit. Even though, clearly, it is. The resulting review is a study in inner conflict and rhetorical turmoil. (Or is that the other way around?) We're talking about a vehicle that gets a "???" on Burgess' report card. There's plenty of unintentional humor to be had here, as the reviewer plays good cop/bad cop with his own conscience. "This SUV handles like a bowl of Jello when going fast. The electric power steering is a little loose and the body rolls through turns heavily. I said it before: it's a big truck. The braking (which also helps recharge the batteries) is excellent, so I never found myself in too much trouble. There may be people who need this kind of vehicle, but the real problem is there are just not that many." And if you want insight into Detroit's chip-on-the-shoulder belligerence and product-related denial, well, here it is. "So before every hemp-wearing nut spills his green ice tea lemonade (no syrup) while in a hurry to send me a terse e-mail over his iPhone 3G about the evils of SUVs, let me tell you something: You're wrong. Americans may switch to smaller cars, but it's only because they have to; not because they want to." So now you know.

Suppose you are British, work for an ad agency, and your client wants you to promote an inoffensive but generic soft-ute with a vegetably name, so that it (the Nissan Qashqai) seems interesting, even sexy. Why, you'd go for Viral Marketing, as one does, and maybe even poke some cheap fun at eastern Europeans, just like Borat did! This YouTube video is but one of several "quirky" attempts to make the car that Clarkson calls the Cumquat seem both competent (look how it scales walls!) and non-generic. Does it work? Maybe– the idea of a Polish Harry Houdini works better than it sounds. Does it hurt feelings? Probably. Note to Nissan: when your uncle tries to pull off some Polish jokes after three martoonies, you grin and bear it, because you love him. And SB Cohen is OK because he employs subversive humor to show the darker side of frat boys and antisemitic cowboys. But when a company portrays Poles as dumb hicks in an attempt to push more product, it's plain evil.

In the beginning,TTAC had its TWAT: Ten Worst Automobiles Today. In the interests of positive PR, we changed the name of our reader-selected "award" to the "TTAC's Ten Worst." The re-christening worked out well; the mainstream media picked-up on the TWA. Much linkage ensued. And now it's time to choose TTAC's Ten Best Automobiles Going. Yes, that's TBAG. Well, it was TBAG. And then we changed THAT to Ten Best Autos (TBA). Which is almost as bad as TWA. So, people, we need some help. Yes, I know; you're about to do the coffee-through-the-nose thing with some extremely witty acronyms. Or some left field choices (the El Caminos?). By all means, fire away. But we seriously need some help with this. What can we call our awards that isn't boring OR offensive? OK, not THAT offensive. 

I like in-game advertising about as much as I like dealer-pimping license plate holders and badges. In the same way I'm happy to advertise my car dealer if he's wiling to fork over some cash for my personal automotive real estate, I'm all for in-game ads if the electronic entertainment's free, or at least heavily discounted. But no. While Grand Theft Auto keeps it real (by keeping product placements unreal), Midnight Club LA reveals that Rockstar is a complete whore, ready to sell my eyeballs to corporate America and charge me full whack for the privilege. OK, the extra money [allegedly] helps the game's designers make a better product. And I don't have to buy Midnight Club LA if I don't want to. Yada X 3. But I'm pissed that I can't prise the ads from the videogame or swap it out for a revenue neutral version. And I figured you might want a heads-up that DUB, TIS Modular (Wheels), Pizza Hut, Zaxby's (more fast food), The Coffee Bean, Pioneer, Quiksilver and BVLGARI are all supporting Rockstar's unconscionable advocacy of anti-social behavior. And that's just in this clip. And yes, that last bit was a head fake. It's all in good fun! Until someone puts an e-eye out. 

Ouch. The Summer of Detroit's Discontent (not to mention everyone else's) continues to hammer the worst laid plans of truck-heavy automakers. And while everyone gives FoMoCo CEO Alan Mulally credit for being the most "realistic" of The Big 2.8's helmsmen, he ought to have a word with his PR department. Do they really think headlining their all-caps press release "FORD FOCUS CONTINUES TO SURPRISE, OUTPACE SEGMENT" is going to distract anyone from the fact that Dearborn's darlings' overall sales are down by 14.7 percent versus last year? On second thought [via The Detroit News]… "Car sales were up 7.8% in July compared to a year ago. Meanwhile, sales were down 7.8% for crossovers, 54.4% for SUVs and 18.1% for pickups and vans." FYI, Focus sales (a horrible car by my snobby estimation), totaled 15,200 units. Toyota shifted 34,438 Corolla's in the same time period. Just sayin'.

Click here for Ford's sales press release 

(Note:  The numbers in the press release are adjusted for sales days, so they will vary from the unadjusted numbers reported here.)

Even Autoblog knows something's not right when GM announces a $15.5b second quarter hit. ("We're no industry analysts and we don't have any insights into the General's balance sheet, but a $15.5B Q2 loss and four strait [sic] quarters of red ink doesn't sound good at all.") Well, you don't have to be an industry analyst to know that GM's Attention Deficiency Disorder accounts for a large part of its misery. Representing our Best and Brightest armchair analysis semi-pro squad, I'd like to point out that Larry Burns, GM Veep R&D and planning (yes planning), does his employer no favors when he steps on the GM Fastlane Blog soapbox and declares "GM believes there is no single technology solution to displace petroleum." So compressed natural gas it is! "Natural gas, is enticing because it is abundant, affordable and relatively clean." Only… "We are not ready to commit to a future production plan." So, Larry, how do we get this party started? "If natural gas is to make a measurable impact, many vehicles need to use it, and it must be readily available. Collaboration with the energy industry and governments is key. Governments will likely need to provide incentives to encourage early adoption of the technology and to jump-start the fueling infrastructure." Will these guys EVER learn? Nope.

TTAC has its General Motors Death Watch Series and innumerable daily blogs on The General's fall and fall, but CNBC has it's own GM's Up Shit Creek website. In anticipation of next Wednesday's documentary "Saving GM," the peakcock people have added a new url to their e-arsenal: insidegm.cnbc.com. Of course, the title of this magnum opus and the fact that GM advertises heavily on NBC will have alerted TTAC's Best and Brightest that a major PR job is in the offing. (I'm thinking that if you downed a shot of Jack Daniels a everytime your heard the word "embattled," "beleaguered," "challenge" or similar, you'd be wasted by the first commercial break.) The program's strapline tells the tale: "In this original documentary, CNBC's Phil LeBeau goes inside GM [it was raining at the time] and reports on the company's dramatic struggle to transform its tarnished image and sagging fortunes." Even without whiskey, there's some funny shit coming down. In a clip from the show, Phil says, without irony, that Car Czar Maximum Bob Lutz' first job was getting his employer out of denial. And yet… "The quality gap only remains in the public's awareness," Maximum Bob asserts. "It's gone." Well something's gone; like CNBC's credibility. Wait, did they ever have any? 

Why would anyone gloat about The Great American SUV's spectacular fall from grace? Why wouldn't they? As for San Francisco Chronicler Mark Morford's gleeful epitaph, the main question here is, "Dude! What took you so long?" Whatever your take on the topic, you gotta admit MM dances on the SUV's grave with pugnacious panache. "Who didn't note the beginning of the end when, five years ago, the world's worst consumer vehicle ever took its place as the poster child for all that went wrong with the condescending American ethos, the oil-sucking war-drunk Bush-mauled mind-set? Ah, the Hummer H2. Has any consumer product embodied our misguided arrogance better? The ridiculous scale, the horrible handling, the contemptible road manners, the false machismo, the Cro-Magnon design, the ability to traverse 60-degree rockslides in a hurricane even though all you ever really needed to do was run over those little concrete bumps in the Wal-Mart parking lot. Dude! Righteous!" And here's the really scary part: Detroit Free Press' Matt Helms' po-faced, mea culpa response. Has Motown's mauling put it into a terminal funk?

WSBTV.com seems somewhat surprised by a J.D. Power study that shows the obvious reveals a new trend: sporty crossovers appeal to younger women. Roger that. Women are generally attracted to the appearance of sportiness (witness the VW Tiguan's 61.7 percent female ownership and relatively dismal performance). J.D.'s mob says they also go for utility. Also "revealed:" women like 'tried and true' safety features (newer technological safety advancements tend to come with high price tags– something more 'rational' women tend to avoid when purchasing vehicles. No doubt crossovers appeal to women who are a bit gun-shy on a gas-guzzling SUV, but still want space, a higher riding position and the eventual child-hauling ability (yes, some women do think that far in advance). Another non-stunner: 90 percent of Corvette and Porsche 911 purchasers are men. Mid-life crises? What mid-life crisis? The real surprise: automakers still aren't marketing to women. J.D. reckons women account for about half of all auto purchases, and influence 80 to 90 percent of all auto-purchasing decisions. You'd think they'd be marketing something more than Beetles and Mercuries to the ladies by now…

I would have simply noted the return of the "Tata Motors Hearts Daimler" Autoblog blog in an update in the original blog, but there are two things that need saying. First, thanks Autoblog for removing the slam and keeping the link to TTAC. That was big of you. Second, we don't expect perfection from anyone. Which brings me to a mea culpa. I've pulled the last Tesla Death Watch because, well, it was bullshit. Wired's original blog on the subject suggested that Roadster Number 6's crash may have had something to do with the fact that the car runs silent, runs fast. Obviously, we weren't buying that. But my post on the pile-up cast doubt on the performance of the Roadster's airbags (airbag?). After considering several of our Best and Brightest's comments, I decided that I had no factual basis to make any such accusation. Or even imply it. I apologize for my over-zealous reaction. We will, of course, monitor the situation and report the truth of the matter. 

Just a little "Inside Baseball" stuff here folks. Those of you who aren't interested in a throw-down between the Simon Cowell of the autoblogosphere (us) and the Paul Abdul (Autoblog) are free to wander about the cabin. Autoblog's Noah Joseph was kind enough to link to TTAC for a post about Tata Motor's rumored resurrection of the once-storied Daimler marque. I mean, the Maserati-loving, Italian junketeering scribe (just sayin') could have followed his colleagues' lead and simply linked to our source for the story; following our news agenda without alerting their readers (most of which never darken our server) that they'd done so. All's fair in love and linkage. But no. Joseph felt compelled to take a shot at TTAC. "NOTE: I didn't know what our policy was about sourcing TTAC with all their flame-throwing, so feel free to remove the via from below." Howzzat? The site that allows more flame-throwing in its comment section than ever produced by the Silent Scope's heavy accuses US of incendiary behavior? Anyway, cool! Bring it on! But, uh, how does an Autoblog reader remove an attribution? Is it one of those "don't think of a pink elephant deals?" UPDATE: AB's pulled the post. 

Vanity Fair's "Society and Style" blog has introduced "StickShift: The Gay Car Blog." Note: it's not a "Car Blog for Gays." It's a "Gay Car Blog." So what constitutes a "gay car?" According to blogger Brett Berk, "a car's gayness is based in its inhabiting the margins of conventionality. A Gay Car is quirkier, more enigmatic, or more fiercely accessorized than the average vehicle. (It also likes to sleep with other Gay Cars)." If that weren't stereotypical enough, and we think it is, Berk says he "won't go after low-hanging fruit like Saturns or Subarus." Instead he'll look at "cars that emit the subtle semiotic signals that register on my GayCarDar." Not to mention answering burning questions like "How Do Gay Guys Keep Their Cars So Clean?" Berk concludes by saying "So gas up, fasten your seatbelt, and get ready to suck some tailpipe." Needless to say, the folks over at Gaywheels aren't particularly amused. 

We catch some flack around here for [allegedly] taking the fight to Detroit a little harder than patriotism demands. But compared to the latest spleen-venting by Chicago Tribune scribe Paul Mack, we're about as critical as a golden retriever puppy on benzodiazepines. Mack's thesis: "GM has traded in its navy blue suits and wingtip shoes for tie-dyed shirts and sandals, and is betting its future on the eco-trifecta of fuel efficiency, flex-fuel capability and electric motors. It is unclear whether the makeover is more than skin-deep, but history provides ample room for skepticism." So we're all on the same page right? Er, no. Because when you're criticizing GM, the very least you can do is stick to the facts re: its doomedness. After all, there are so many. So when Mack pooh-poohs the Volt program because critics have "argued" that the EV1 was DOA to "prove CARB wrong," he's trotting out the worst possible argument when so many better ones exist. And rather than criticizing GM's dependence on ethanol based on the fuel's inherent inefficiencies, he wrongly argues that America is "devoid of an ethanol infrastructure." And adding insults to weak criticism, Mack fills logic gaps with ad hominem put-downs. Calling GM's 30mpg mileage claims "the stuff of dreams for men like George Jetson," Mack says the Japanese automakers achieved the 30mpg goal in the 1970s. Which must mean he'd rather drive a Mk. 1 Accord than "the 2009 Chevy Malibu-now with Betamax!" By feeding his readers invective and insults rather than the truth, Mack has passed on a "teachable moment." Like Walter from the Big Lebowski, he's not wrong… he's just an asshole.