Later today, we'll share the results of TTAC's readers' poll. It proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you really are the autoblogosphere's Best and Brightest. One of the gems unearthed by this opt-in poll (yeah, I know) is that our hard-core surfs Autoblog and Jalopnik on a regular basis. This [non] revelation inspires us to continue following branding guru Al Reis advice: if you're not the market leader, define your brand against the other guys. Now no one can accuse Jalopnik of not having a sense of humor (or an anti-flaming policy). But Autoblog has just crossed into new dimensions of unfunny with this video. I mean, there I was thinking, fair enough, poke a little fun at the Ford Flex. Why not? And as I watched… nothing. Save some elliptical crack about Ford Thunderbird technology and the old FoMoCo logo at the end, this clip could have from come The Blue Oval Boys themselves. Lapdoggery never looked so… bland. Anyway, TTAC video will be coming to a screen near you soon. Expect the unexpected. 

Well, you can't accuse either side of the political spectrum of hanging around while gas prices have opened-up the debate on America's energy policy, or lack thereof. While President Bush has removed the executive order against off-shore drilling (over to you congress), former Vice President Al Gore has asked Americans to help foot the bill for a ten-year, three trillion dollar "moon shot" effort to switch to "clean" electricity from solar, wind and geothermal power. While this is an extremely inconvenient solution for coal mining states that leaves pro-nuclear partisans in the cold, I mention Al's plan here because it's implicit that the transition would enable a nation of plug-in hybrids or pure EVs. Hey, what about hydrogen? Big Al made no mention of water vaporware. But The Boston Herald reports that a group of scientists have priced-out a U.S. switch to hydrogen-powered vehicles at $200b. No mention was made of the energy source for the fuel, but apparently the the Committee on Assessment of Resource Needs for Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Technologies have bigger fish to fry (deep freeze?). "The cost of platinum is approximately 57 percent of the fuel-cell stack costs and represents the greatest challenge to further cost reductions," the study said. "Future platinum supply is a critical issue in forward projections of fuel-cell costs." If it's not one thing, it's another.

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?

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.

“This is not the time for niche vehicles," Maximum Bob told the world yesterday. "We can’t afford to hit singles and bunts. We need triples and home runs.” There's more, all dutifully, faithfully, credulously and supportively reported by The Detroit Free Press' Mark Phelan. Neither Lutz nor Phelan realize putting all their efforts into high-profit trucks and ignoring cars that weren't "high volume" is what got GM where they aren't today. If GM had gone for a few singles and doubles in small cars– or had even landed a few solid bunts– while they were swinging for the fences in SUVs and pickup trucks, they would have a few more runners on base today. But now GM's trailing, it's the bottom of the ninth and they're hurriedly calling in designated hitters from Korea. The problem is that the game goes on. GM can't call "time out" while they try to rewrite their playbook and rebuild their team. And while they're combing their farm teams trying to find someone who can play in the big leagues, the transplants continue bringing home the profits with a succession of solid base hits. And yet the cheerleading continues.

Oh dear. When USA Today car critic James R. Healey finds a car underwhelming, you can bet it has very, very little to recommend it. In fact, Healey is less impressed with the big Lincoln than our Justin Berkowitz. Where Berk praises the MKS' mission critical waftability, Healey says the MKS' ride and handling is "not so good. The former was a bit stiff, even harsh, on moderate bumps in one test car equipped with 20-inch-diameter wheels and their stubby-sidewall tires. The tester with 18-inch wheels was smoother, but still delivered an unpleasantly choppy ride… [The] MKS lacks the firm, lively, well-controlled feel of an Infiniti, which Lincoln says will be a rival. Nor does it match the creamy feel of Lexuses, also potential competitors." Although Healey couldn't top Justin's "Sucko the Clown" description of the MKS' six-speed, the USA Today guy was similarly unimpressed with the cranky cog swapper. So… what then? "It has the right size, features and power. But MKS is not knockout gorgeous, and it lacks the sweet, lively integrity of the best luxury sedans." Ford doesn't have much time to sort-out the MKS' deficiencies. The Blue Oval Boys better hop to it. 

While top 5 and top 10 lists are the crack of the automotive nickel press (cheap, low quality, likely to give you brain damage and felonious), Autoweek's Top 5 Fuel-Efficient Cars You Actually Want to Drive" is just too asinine, too absurd not to pass on to TTAC's Best and Brightest. Not only do they choose bad cars (that, according to Autoweek, bring a smile to your face), but their stats are largely incorrect.  

— 2008 Tesla Roadster (Exotic)   
        – $109,000 MSRP   
        – 220 miles per charge (256 mpg equivalent)    
        – 0-60 in 3.9 seconds

Oh, it's exotic alright. So exotic, it's not in production and you can't buy one. Autoweek should know better than to swallow the load from Tesla’s PR department. The Tesla isn’t in full production, the range is completely unverified, they are likely going to be selling for way over the $109,000 sticker. Then again, Autoweek’s list is “cars you want to drive” and in fact, we all do want to drive the Tesla. 

— 2008 Audi TT 2.0 TDI Quattro (Weekend Warrior)        
    – $49,000 MSRP (estimated)         
    – 44 mpg (hwy)         
    – All-wheel drive handling

Does Autoweek know something Audi doesn’t? This model wasn’t confirmed for US production. Audi is bringing a 3.0-liter V6 diesel for the A4 and Q5/Q7, but the TDI four-banger is VW only for now. If they want to go off on the European cars tangent, that’s fine, but in such a case I’m going BMW 120d.

  — 2008 Mercedes-Benz E320 BLUETEC (Executive Sedan)
     – $53,075 MSRP
     – 32 mpg (hwy)
     – 210 horsepower, 400 lb-ft of torque

  — 2008 MINI Cooper (Cheap Thrills)
     – $18,700 MSRP
     – 37 mpg (hwy)
     – 2546 lbs and go-kart handling

They were bound to get two out of the five right. But you still have to ask yourself if the diesel price premium actually makes sense over a Benz E350, which unlike the oil burner, is available with 4Matic. There’s no denying the diesel Benzes are wonderful. And as for the Cooper, it’s a gem.

  — 2008 Lexus RX 400h (Family Fun)
     – $42,980 MSRP
     – 27 mpg (city)
     – 84.7 cubic feet of available cargo space

The only “family fun” thing about the Lexus RX hybrid is parking it on a set of train tracks and walking home. This is a terrible vehicle, with observed mileage guaranteed to be much lower. Also, just try finding one without the $6000 navigation package.

You'd think we were back in second grade, what with all this "not" stuff. New York Times Op Editorialist Roger Lowenstein joins celebrity stock picker (and former GM booster) Jim Cramer and Merrill Lynch analyst John Murphy in accepting GM's not impossible nightmare. In his attempt to discover "WHO shot GM?" Lowenstein passes rising gas prices, a lack of hyrbids and bad design and goes straight to… the United Auto Workers' (UAW) legacy costs. "None of G.M.’s management miscues was so damaging to its long-term fate as the rich pensions and health care that robbed General Motors of its financial flexibility and, ultimately, of its cash." Huh? Apparently, without paying all that money to the UAW GM could have "designed new cars or researched alternative fuels. Or it could have acquired half of Toyota." Or bought Saab! Or HUMMER! Or started Saturn! Oh wait… sorry. It's all about universal health care and highly relevant shit like that. "The sorry decline of General Motors has proved Reuther right: the government is the better provider of social insurance. Let industry worry about selling products." Sure. That's the right approach. NOT! 

According to an editor's note in yesterday's LA Times, the Autos section, Highway 1, is no more. The likely reasons? The LA Times is having a hard time making money. Subscriptions and circulation are down, paper, ink, and distribution costs are way up. This is true for most print newspapers, and something's gotta go. Why they picked autos, I don't know, since the biggest part of the budget is Dan Neil's salary. And that will stay put as he moves over to the business section for his charming reviews (he hits the Alfa MiTo this week). The bulk of the rest of the section is advertisements, and I'm fairly certain the LA Times gets paid for those. Still, this was an accounting department decision, so we can be sure the math added up. For a city like LA, so steeped in car culture, this is a sad development. And yet not at all surprising. Kevin Roderick over at LA Observed thinks Home, Real Estate, Books, and Food are lined up for the guillotine, also. Meanwhile, Crain's Detroit Business reports that it's only a matter of time before The Detroit News sends its cheerleaders packing. "Dwindling circulation, plummeting retail and classified advertising sales and the tribulations of metro Detroit's economy make this two-newspaper town an 'anomaly,' said Rem Rieder, editor and senior vice president of the American Journalism Review." How ironic is that?

BMW International has posted a film, photo montage and downloadable soundtrack for its new 7-Series sedan. Yes, it's "The Dawn of a New Era." In watching the film and slideshow with its urbane classical soundtrack, I find myself crying. Whether it's tears of joy at this new marvelous vehicle or sadness at the human race, I cannot say. It might just be embarrassment that I care at all. Nevertheless, BMW calls the new 7er "A completely new interpretation on style, luxury, and driving dynamics." I suppose that when discussing a range-topping sedan, they might as well use-range topping ridiculous claims. Most importantly, from the films, it looks like the 7-Series looks far better in motion than it did in most of the still photos released last week (putting it in the context of lavish landscapes and palatial homes doesn't hurt either). Your thoughts?

So now, without referring ONCE to GM's point blank denial of the Wall Street Journal article claiming the automaker was considering chopping brands and firing bureaucrats, The Detroit News reports that GM IS "undertaking an in-depth review of its product portfolio that could include eliminating or selling a brand." "A" brand or "some" brands? Who knows? But according to "a source familiar with the plans"– which could be you by now– this whole kerfuffle will end-up being nothing more than a damp squib. The "strategic review' will "most likely will result in the Detroit automaker purging overlapping models and shifting its emphasis to more fuel-efficient cars." Whew! And there we were thinking something radical might go down. Meanwhile, GM spinmeister Tom Wilkinson assured the DetN that there's gold in them thar' hills, when should GM need it. "Additional measures could include further reducing structural costs, selling noncore assets, and retiming or eliminating other capital spending. In addition, we will consider opportunistically executing financing transactions in the global capital markets, although we have nothing to announce." While we await that announcement, add "opportunistically executing" to "operationally bankrupt" and "aggressively conservative" to your lexicon of two-word bankruptcy-related expressions. 

Last night's banner headline over at the gadget blog Engadget read "2010 Prius revealed, sneakers still a major design influence." But no, it wasn't revealed and no, that's not the Prius. (Props to Engadget for being snarky, at the least.) This was a great case of how misinformation spreads like a gasoline-fueled fire in the ol blogosphere. Here's how it went down: Car and Driver put up a story with some not remarkably new details and a CGI of the next generation Prius just to illustrate. Of course, they didn't actually say it was a photoshop or "artist's rendering." TG Daily picked up the story from Car and Driver, along with the picture. Then Engadget – one of the largest gadget and tech blogs on the 'nets – ran with the story from TG Daily. Eventually a reader alerted Engadget that they were holding onto a not-so-hot photochop. The site added a disclaimer at the bottom of their post "Update: Our bad, looks like the image above is apparently just Car and Driver's illustration of what they think it COULD look like. Thanks, Dave." Dave? Dave's not here. Anyway, that's cool. But why is the headline still saying "revealed?" And for whatever it's worth, Vince Burlapp already posted the same CGI – as well as a back view – on Saturday.

Huh. There can only be three explanations. One: The Wall Street Journal was seriously duped by a stock manipulator or a member of one of GM's warring factions. Two: The Wall Street Journal made shit up– there are no "these people" or "people familiar with the matter" or "people close to senior leadership." Or three: GM is lying; they are considering terminating/selling Buick, GMC, Pontiac, Saab and/or Saturn. Bloomberg ignores the implications and reports the refutation: "GM spokesman Tony Cervone… said no brands are under 'strategic review' beyond Hummer." Well, that's unequivocal. Then again, we know for a fact that GM's use of the term 'strategic review' is misleading; the automaker has shut off all HUMMER's dealer support and new product development. Anyway, the denial puts paid to my theory that GM PR planted the story to bolster the ailing automaker's sagging stock price and help it raise a little money (as in $15b). I mean, GM PR wouldn't purposely plant a story and then deny it, would they? Nah. It's probably one more example of the panic and confusion aboard the holed, listing ship that is General Motors. 

That was then, this is now. Oh wait; that's now too– at least according to our friends over at Autoblog. Scribe Dan Roth offers the testimonial upon hearing the news that Volvo's COO is spinning faster than a supersonic dradle. ""We want to continue to compete with Mercedes, BMW and Audi," Steven Armstrong, Volvo's COO tells Automotive News [sub]. "We're working to improve the premium-ness of the brand and our products." Shouldn't that be premiumnessosity? And who considers Volvo an alternative to a Merc, Bimmer or Audi? You know; other than Autoblog? Not U.S. consumers apparently. "Volvo sold 458,323 units worldwide last year, of which 106,213 were sold in the United States. Volvo's U.S. sales peaked at 139,067 units in 2004, but they are expected to fall to around 95,000 this year." While we await the Swedish brand's long-denied sale, we're left wondering about Roth's comprehension and sentence construction skills. "The possibility of building its cars in the United States might bring prices down [Ed: the possibility will bring prices down?] and allow better developed performance versions, versus the outclassed R models of the past," Roth contends. "The issue is not quite as high on the agenda as it was in January," Armstrong said. 

Last week, we remarked that the Motown media had finally put down the pom-poms. The Detroit Free Press' Mark Phelan seems determined to prove us wrong. First, the scribe offered us a rah-rah-siss-boom-bah on the plug-in electric gas hybrid Chevrolet Volt. To which Phelan adds a who-do-we-appreciate? look at The Big 2.8's "race to build fun, fuel-frugal cars." Yes, "They are honing new technologies, refining designs and scouring the Earth for fun, fuel-efficient cars they can build or sell in North America. From Chevrolet Corvettes and Ford F-150s to small cars engineered in Europe and Asia, every vehicle is being rethought as fuel prices skyrocket and new fuel-economy rules loom." That's all well and good if this was 2003ish. But it isn't. GM's market share is below 20 percent, Ford's racing against "last orders" and no matter how you measure it, Chrysler is in the toilet. Meanwhile, the transplants are eating Detroit's lunch. Never mind. Phelan reckons it's a "level playing field," now. "Unlike the 1980s, when small Japanese cars started the race a full lap ahead of the Detroit Three, the new technical challenges are equally daunting for everyone. 'They've all been dealt the same hand this time,' said Michelle Krebs, editor of AutoObserver.com. 'Now it's a matter of how they play it.'" Huh? "Vast and slow improvements in the cars the domestics build haven't been enough to change that perception. The massive, fast changes every automaker must make in the next few years could be their last chance to hit the reset button on how the American public sees them." Or not.