NBC's fall lineup is out and American Top Gear (ATG) is too. According to Dark Horizons.com, the pilot for the American version of the British car show didn't light the suits' hair on fire (if only). The decision denies the entire autoblogosphere the chance to say "I told you so" to episodes containing neither the spirit nor the veracity of the original. (It also means that Dan Neil got pissed off at me for outing him for no reason and I needn't have fallen down on the job.) The show's death is probably one of those Murder on the Orient Express deals, where manufacturers (we're not really comfortable with this show), NBC ad execs (we're not really comfortable with this show) and suits (we're not really comfortable with this show) conspired to strangle the program in its crib. On the other hand, ATG may have been, as Dan Neil suggested off-camera, pre-castrated. And then tested with an audience who liked it about as much as every other car show NBC's ever-produced– only less. The move is yet another blow to the beloved franchise. Back in Old Blighty, TG's next season of has been delayed indefinitely. Our only hope for home-grown mass media motor-oriented mayhem now lies where an American Top Gear should have started in the first place: on PBS or a non-commercial cable network. 

Welcome to open mic night here at The Inside Joke. First up: you know and love him as The Autoxtremist… Peeeeter DeLorenzooooo! Hi guys. You know as bad as things are in Motown at the mo-ment, it's about to get worse. I bet at least half of you are about to come down with AFTERLUTZ. You know, "the state of shock destined to loom over GM after Bob Lutz hangs up his spurs". No seriously, I'm wondering how many of you've already been HUMMERED. That's "the state of eating or drinking to excess, as in, 'She was supposed to be here for the 7:30 media breakfast, but she got so hummered last night I doubt if she'll make it.'" Hey, no blowjob cracks back there! Anyway, it looks like you've already had a little SMOKEY-TIME. That's what happens during "the classic 'smoke and mirrors' presentations that go on every day in this town and in businesses across the country for that matter, as in, 'We were nowhere in that meeting until Harry went all smokey-time on them, and then we walked out with the order. Unbelievable."' Hey listen, you've been a great audience! Thanks Pete. Picking-up on Sweet Pete's theme, The Truth About Cars' Best and Brightest will now present a few new industry buzzwords of their own. Take it away TTAC!

Industry Week's David Blanchard offers an analysis of Just In Time (JIT) manufacturing's dangers, from Boeing's delayed Dreamliner to Motown's supplier woes ("woes" as in torpedoes aimed straight the mothership's hull). Blanchard says JIT is fine in theory. "Some Japanese automakers have done quite well with that type of win-win relationship, often symbolized by the idea of the keiretsu, or joint partnership. The Detroit Three automakers, on the other hand, apparently see greater promise in pursuing lose-lose relationships… Look at the relationship (if you want to call it that) between Chrysler and one of its Tier One suppliers, Plastech, who had fallen on hard times. Rather than offering assistance to a key supplier, Chrysler canceled its contract with Plastech, which not only led Chrysler to temporarily shut down production at four assembly plants, but also caused Plastech to file for bankruptcy protection." While that's not the way it went down– Chrysler bailed and bailed until it bailed– Blanchard's wider point is valid. "The key word in supply chain management is management, and when relationships aren't managed properly (or at all), then there really isn't much of a supply chain. What you've got instead is a mad free-for-all, and ultimately, a lot of unhappy customers." And, we might add, employees, shareholders and dealers.

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."

GM Car Czar Bob Lutz doesn't know who we are (which is a shame since RF gave him the "Maximum Bob" moniker and we've named an award in his honor). GM's jeffe of press releases, Christopher Barger, doesn't want to admit he does. However, we know through our "inside sources" (i.e. server stats) that quite a few people in GM read TTAC. In spite of that, you won't find TTAC on GM's Fastlane blog's list of "Auto Links" and especially not in their list of "Blogs We Like." And we have never, not ONCE had a post or email or interview with a single GM flack. However, no one seemed to let GM Europe know of our pariah status. Yesterday, I was searching the web and ended-up on GM Europe's "Social Media Newsroom" web site. I scanned down the page to their Blog Roll. The list was in alphabetical order (after the GM blogs listed at the top, of course). And there, fourth from the bottom was The Truth About Cars. Clerical error? Secret admirer? Glasnost? No matter how you slice it, the Euro-blog (not bog) roll is the only GM part of the GM Empire that acknowledges TTAC's existence. Regardless of the reason, we challenge GM to show some balls and put us in the listings on all their other blog sites. After all, we put stuff about GM on our front page all the time. And remember guys: 800 words, unedited, whenever you like.

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. 

You'd think The New York Times would love the smart fortwo. It's trendy, chic and politically correct in an entirely metrosexual kinda way. True to form, Eric Taub's review starts with a love-in: "the Smart Fortwo may be the cutest and most unusual-looking production vehicle to arrive in this country since BMW’s front-loading Isetta 300 of the 1950s." Yeah, those wacky old Bimmers! Who needs a life can forget them! And then Taub gets waylaid by the smart's herky-jerky, unacceptably quirky automatic transmission– the only autobox in the world capable of competing with the M5's SMeGma cog swapper for the title "worst gearbox in the history of the world ever." "It may be enough to make you reach for the Dramamine: the engine temporarily slows as the car is about to upshift, jerking the driver forward and then back with each shift. Several times, my wife threatened to walk home. This may bring back fond memories of your first pathetic attempt to drive a manual transmission car. The solution — if you can time it right — is to lift your foot off the accelerator when you think the transmission is about to shift, something I was able to pull off about 50 percent of the time." Throw in mediocre mpg's and even Taub can't resist the conclusion that the smart is stupid. "With its limited carrying capacity, seemingly mediocre fuel economy, erratic handling and fitful acceleration, one question that potential buyers in this part of the world should be asking is, what’s the point?"

I know: it's been bugging me too. I mean, here we have "the world’s best-selling hybrid," a "must-have accessory for carbon-conscious show business players." A PC-mobile that's "cleaner than a smoking Beetle [and we know what it's been smoking, too]. Quieter than a roaring [where's the caps lock key when you need it] Mini. Able to leap through car pool lanes with a single occupant." And yet and Hollywood's going gaga over a multi-phallic race car from 1967. Sure, Speed Racer features a few vehicles described by The Old Gray Lady's picture captioneers as "post-petroleum cars." But c'mon! The Prius is… God! Well, it was/is His chariot. "God drove one, briefly, in 'Evan Almighty,' a [Bruce Almighty come lately] comedy that struggled at the box office when Universal released it last summer." Must've been the Prius. I'm not saying Michael Cieply's article reads like a press release for Toyota, but, as regular readers will know, I am. Why else would he include this little ditty (a.k.a. apologia)? "According to a Toyota spokeswoman the Prius goes from zero to 60 miles per hour in 10.1 seconds, but could go faster if, like the Lexus hybrid, it were tuned for performance rather than efficiency." And now, back to blogging real news. 

Peter DeLorenzo, the TTAC-aversive self-styled Autoextremist, has posted his Wednesday rant. Sweet Pete begins by claiming "It's all over but the hand-wringing for Pontiac." We would have gone with "bar the shouting," but true dat. DeLorenzo blames Pontiac's problems on GM's divisional confusion, it's lack of car culture and a dearth of Pontiac advertising. "Unless they can back those products with enough marketing and advertising horsepower," the former ad man insists, "It ultimately doesn't matter." Meanwhile, the Autoextremist's extreme adoration of GM Car Czar Bob Lutz shows incipient affection alienation. "The one thing that Lutz has misjudged since he began his tenure at GM is that he never did 'get' Pontiac. His idea that Pontiac should be the "affordable BMW" is flat-out wrong… Pontiacs should be raucous, distinctly American cars with real attitude, appealing to people who enjoy marching to a different drummer and who like to go their own way." Even so, DeLorenzo takes GM's beancounters to task for failing to follow the Motown Messiah. Sweet Pete says Maximum Bob has only succeeded in energizing a "network of True Believers." From there, it's the usual GM product renaissance shtick, DeLorenzo's potted version of Pontiac's history (so to speak) and a plea for restoring the former Excitement Division to it's imagined former glory. You know, GM should put DeLorenzo in charge of Pontiac. No, really. Why the Hell not?

A lot of readers have asked for the inside dope on legendary columnist Brock "fuck the double-nickel" Yates' disappearance from TTAC. And I'm not going to tell you. But I gotta say I was really looking forward to posting Peter DeLorenzo's weekly rants on this website. But when I gave TTAC's Best and Brightest (B&B) the heads up, the self-styled Autoextremist took umbrage at my characterization of our, uh, arrangement as an, um, "arrangement." He was especially not happy with my suggestion that he could or would respond to the B&B's comments to his work. So I modified the post to reflect Peter's understanding of our, uh, thingie. Once again, Sweet Pete was sweet. And then, despite his contention that he didn't have time to read comments, he read the comments. Once again, Peter felt TTAC was usurping his brand. He directed me to itaintgonnahappen.com and asked me to tell you that "Autoextremist.com is an independent entity and it will remain that way as long as we're doing it, so I am officially withdrawing permission for you to run my 'Rants' column or any other Autoextremist content on TTAC." And so I have. Shame.

Back when I started this site, I decided not to register every "The Truth About" url in the urlniverse. Although I am prone to bouts of megalomania (usually restricted to violent videogames), I knew there was no way I could muster enough energy/focus/moola to effectively run an empire of "truth abouts." I also knew that truth-telling is an inherently difficult and risky business that requires complete commitment. So when Ford launched thetruthabouttrucks.com, it was no biggie. As soon as visitors see it's a Ford site, they know exactly how much objective (i.e. truthy) information they'd discovered. When Audi launched "truth in engineering" as their ad strapline, again, it wasn't a problem. About the most controversial thing about Audi's engineering is how to spell Vorschprung Durch Technik. Thetruthabouttoyota.com's kvetching about ToMoCo's greenwashing was/is more like it. But not quite. And so, now, I'm thinking the new UK website thetruthaboutsmart ain't gonna cut it. Yes, it's a cleverly-written, well-produced website that does an excellent job dispelling common misconceptions (not "rumors" Autoblog) about the under-capitalized fortwo. But net savvy folk know the difference between corporate and independent info. There are a few members of the automotive press corps (e.g. Dan Neil), and a few websites (e.g. Motor Authority) whose truth levels I respect. Which simply proves you don't have to say you're going to tell the truth to do it. But it can't hurt, can it?

With the release of Grand Theft Auto IV, the internet and nonprofit sector are abuzz about the game's "inappropriate" content. No surprise there; GTA is designed around the commission of felonies. In fact, if there weren't a slew of outraged press releases decrying something about the game being overly-violent, sexist, racist, homophobic, etc., Rockstar Games (owned by the NASDAQ-traded Take-Two Interactive) would have been mightily disappointed. This time 'round, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) has inadvertently aided and abetted Rockstar's PR efforts. Not-so-surprisingly, MADD slams GTA IV for the simulated drunk driving portion of the program. Not to take a shot at MADD's important real life message, but this is a little overboard, isn't it? I'm not going to ask the most obvious question– does driving drunk in a videogame encourage impressionable teens to think drink driving is acceptable– because I trust that TTAC's Best and Brightest aren't morons. So here's the more complex question: could GTA IV have been both anarchic and didactic? 

Settle down people. Autoextremist Peter DeLorenzo isn't creating original content for TTAC. The no-holds-barred Motown pundit has agreed to double post (DP?) on his recently redesigned website and the soon-to-be-redesigned TTAC. DeLorenzo's latest rant will go live on AE and TTAC every Wednesday morning. As TTAC's Best and Brightest surely realize, this arrangement provides our readers with a unique opportunity to bat around DeLorenzo's combative ideas in a forum-like thingie. To get the ball rolling, I submit the following podcast. I apologize for the abrupt intro (guess the subject). My high-tech digital recorder suffered a loose connection; Frank had to lop off the first minute or so. And the levels are over the place. Still, it's worth it. Welcome to Sweet Pete! 

In the quarterly conference call to offer excuses discuss the latest financial report– the one where GM lost $3.5b in Q1— CFO Ray Young reassured someone that GM has no plans to kill any of their eight North American brands in North America. Advertising Age [sub] reports he's standing behind the recent reorganization that divvied-up the brands amongst four marketing chiefs. Young called it it "the right way to go." However, the CFO termed their North American operation's losses last quarter as "unacceptable." (Yeah! Someone should be fired! Oh wait…) GM's North American market share is now down to 21.7 percent, compared to 22.5 percent a year ago. In the global market, The General's share dropped 0.5 percent to 12.5 percent. Without North America's numbers, their share went up 0.1 percent to 9.6 percent. So, instead of addressing the problems at GMNA, the General will "beef up" its overseas activities and put "our foot on the accelerator… and jam it through to the floor" in emerging markets like Russia and India. They'll probably succeed, too. After all, it's a lot easier to peddle utility grade beef to someone who's starving than to discerning diners in the restaurant district.

In 1970, gas was cheap, horsepower was king and Dodge introduced a slightly stretched rebodied Barracuda they called Challenger. It offered huge engines that delivered pavement-scorching acceleration. After just four model years of poor sales, The Dodge Boys pulled the plug. Fast forward 38 years. Gas is expensive; the average car buyer is more interested in fuel economy than horsepower. Dodge has introduced a slightly cut-down Chrysler LX they call the Challenger. It offers a huge engine, pavement-scorching acceleration and they've pre-sold the first 6.4K. The Detroit News— and practically every other automedia outlet– have lavished the Challenger redux with praise. But then again, the media loved the big-engined 1970 model when it first hit the market. I predict the same rapid demise for the new Challenger. There are just so many baby-boomers wanting to relive their 20s; a 34-year gap means the model has no relevance to younger buyers. Even with a V6, demand will be extremely low. In fact,should Chrysler avoid C11, I give the Challenger two years. Good for collectors, bad for Chrysler. They failed to learn from Ford's "re-imagined" Thunderbird and direct their time, talent and money into developing a small car– instead of trying to recapture past glory they never really had. Next up: the Camaro!