Running your car on E85 reduces your mpgs up to 26 percent. Common sense tells you the price of E85 must be lower by the equivalent percentage to cost the same as normal gas. It must be lower again to save you money. It behooves the entire ethanol industry– from corn field to pump– to make sure E85 consumers know this fact; once bitten, twice shy. Meanwhile, any media outlet that doesn't mention E85's relative lack of efficiency when covering the retail end of the biz is acting irresponsibly. But a story specifically touting E85 as cheaper than gas without highlighting the fuel economy penalty is entirely reprehensible. To wit, 11alive.com's "Fuel For Under $3 In Metro Atlanta." "'I couldn't believe it,' said [Mike] Hamilton. 'I couldn't believe it they were selling fuel that cheap.' He's one of the lucky ones. Hamilton drives a vehicle that runs on E85 fuel. At the Safa Express BP station on Highway 20 in Lawrenceville, E85 is selling for $2.99 a gallon. Hamilton estimates he saved over $20 with one fill-up." Still, E85 is "not for everyone," as "the majority of cars on the road today won't run on E85." And then, this "Some drivers have complained their gas mileage is down with E85. Not Mike Hamilton. In fact, he's looking for a way to convert his other vehicles so they'll run on the ethanol blend, now that he can find it." He likes it! Mikey likes it! I'm in!

Pity The New York Times. When presidential candidate John McCain suggested suspending the federal gas tax– a republican-anti-tax-compatible theoretical quick fix for pain at the pump– no problem. Off with his head! But when Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton threw her support behind the plan, well, that's heresy! Needless to say, the tax-loving liberal paper give both John and Hillary a proper bitch slapping. "Nixing the gas tax would increase demand for gasoline — exactly the wrong response to global warming and rising energy prices. So wrong, in fact, that both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. McCain support policies that would cut carbon emissions and increase the price of energy. (Talk about voting for something before they voted against it.)." Bad consumer! Bad consumer! "Americans — like the rest of the world — must find ways to curb their use of fossil fuels. Higher, not lower, prices are an important way to spur the needed technological innovation and curb demand." While they're at it, how about a good old-fashioned Bush bash? (Only 194 days 'til the next election!) "There is not enough oil in Alaska to provide a lasting solution. And Mr. Bush’s prescription would do nothing to address climate change or quench the thirst for oil." Barak wins! "Fortunately, Mr. Obama has not caved to the rising calls for cheap energy and has refused to follow his rivals down this misguided path." The editorial ends with just the right touch of sanctimonious self-congratulation. "We know pandering when we see it." 

Blogging is a crazy game.The sheer size of the internet means you can always get more traffic, and the best way to do so is to spark a little controversy, however unintentionally. [Ed: words to live by.] Take Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters' new blog fastlane.dot.gov, for example. In Ms Peters' rush to create "a true on-line community," she didn't realize the name "Fastlane" has already been taken by GM, no less. While it's great to see government and industry competing rather than colluding, you'd think that Peters could have had an intern do a quick Google search for "fastlane blog." As Ms. Peters says "If I'm going to insist on twenty-first century solutions for our transportation system, I better communicate in a twenty-first century way!" As of writing, GM has yet to take umbrage. As keen observers of FoMoCo's thetruthabouttrucks.com, we'll be content to enjoy the unfolding controversy from an editorial distance.

So much for moral outrage about the senseless (in a moral sense) violence in the videogame Grand Theft Auto. Well, at least amongst the eggeheads over at The New York Times. Critic Seth "No German Jokes Please" Schiesel hails Grand Theft Auto IV– released today– as "violent, intelligent, profane, endearing, obnoxious, sly, richly textured and thoroughly compelling work of cultural satire disguised as fun." Yeah, I bet it fools a LOT of impressionable kids. Clearly, as before, there's nothing PC about GTA IV (so to speak): "Hardly a demographic escapes skewering. In addition to various Italian and Irish crime families, there are venal Russian gangsters, black crack slingers, argyle-sporting Jamaican potheads, Puerto Rican hoodlums, a corrupt police commissioner, a steroid-addled Brooklyn knucklehead named Brucie Kibbutz and a former Eastern European soldier who has become a twee Upper West Side metrosexual." What, no 'ho's and bitches? Sure! Plenty! Uh, what about cars? Car theft? For that we must await reports from TTAC's Best and Brightest. You soldiers have your orders. Now get the fuck outta here!

What's up with Sharon Terlep? This time out, the non-scourge of Detroit tackles the question rattling around her hometown: why is the United Auto Workers (UAW) striking GM, of all people? Terlep sees a devious disconnect, as outlined by the article's subhead: "Union pushing GM for rich Axle deal, some say; leaders cite other issues." Translation: the UAW is lying to its GM members (Heaven forfend!) to get them to carry out a disguised (i.e. illegal) sympathy strike for their brother and sisters over at American Axle. For this theory, Terleps cites "several sources familiar with negotiations." Evidence: when the Malibu factory didn't run out of axles, the UAW threatened a walkout over… something else. "The union's top leaders at the national level have been mum on the issue of local strikes. But local leaders, those in charge of carrying out a strike order and managing day-to-day life on the factory floors, have outlined issues they say are behind the local disputes. Word is coming though one-on-one chats at local union halls, in online newsletters and through interviews with the media." And none of them are saying it's a camouflaged sympathy strike. Perhaps a little more investigation (and a lot less speculation) would sort this out. Just sayin'…  

Regular readers will know of the kerfuffle following our decision to call-out the pudenda-nosed Subaru B9 Tribeca's front end for having a "flying vagina" design. In fact, we'd like to take credit for the Tribeca's redesign, which traded a passion for private parts for a Pacifica pastiche. But we in no way accept responsibility for Subaru's new ad campaign, which focuses on owners' big love for the brand. "Subaru owners are 'experience seekers' — they want to live bigger, more engaged lives," reveals John Colasanti, CEO of Subie's ad agency. "They choose Subaru as a conscious alternative to the mainstream. [ED: Is that a nod to the brand's lesbian following?] To them, the car is the enabler of that bigger life. [ED: Is that another nod to size queens? Does this have something to do with the naming of the Outback?] By focusing on the love they have for their car, Subaru is challenging non-owners: do you love your car?" Yes! Yes! YES! I'll have whatever she's having. To be fair (WTH, it's Friday), the new Subie ads are split into three tiers: The Heart, The Brain, and The Wallet. So this smutty stuff is all in my head. So to speak.

Autoweek's (AW) Special Earth Day Double Issue starts with an opt-out– "'Environmentally friendly' means different thing to different people"– and goes downhill from there. Surprisingly, AW didn't hype GM's next Next Big Thing: the Earth-friendly (providing you overlook the CO2 emissions at the power plants) plug-in Chevy Volt. OK, obviously, they did lavish ink on GM's gas – electric hybrid. Only it was a relatively small article called, get this, "Charged Up." Scribe Greg Migliore held GM's feet to the fire re: the Volt's 2010 deadline. Just kidding. AW hands its main advertiser a "get out of PR jail free" card in the last line. "As Roland Matthe, E-Flex engineering group manager put it, 'It's not a done deal. This project is not normal in regard to risk in the automotive industry.'" So much craven journalism, so little time. Where was I? Roger Hart's "Resurrecting the dinosaurs" road-tripping with the Chevy Tahoe Hybrid to GM ethanol acquisition Coskata? No. "Another Kind of Town" road-tripping the GMC Hybrid to NYC? Nope. Right! "The Believer," a profile of Larry Burns, GM's Veep of R&D. We learn "I personally brought four hybrid proposals before the board in the 1999-2002 period, and all were rejected. It was because of the business case. We just didn't get the courage to lose money on Gen 1." So now you know. 

BusinessWeek's David Kiley didn't take kindly to Holman Jenkins' "pretty tedious editorial" against the gas – electric plug-in Chevrolet Volt. To smack down Jenkins piece in yesterday's Wall Street Journal, Kiley hails the Volt as "a new lens through which the U.S. and world will view" GM. He defends GM's late-to-the-game [theoretical] game changer "because [GM] rightly saw that gas-electric hybrids were an inelegant engineering solution for higher fuel economy." (No comment on GM's eventual hybrid opt-in). Kool-Aid quaffed, Kiley turns on Honda. He lambastes the Japanese automaker for producing "the awkward looking Insight to answer the Prius, as well as the Ridgeline pickup and the Element." Huh? Mr. Kiley needs to get a grip; there are plenty of ways to defend the Volt and/or kneecap his critics. But, like GM, he needs to raise his game, quick.

According to Reuters UK, Sony's senior producer for Gran Turismo has revealed that Japanese consumer electronics giant has changed the videogame's, uh, emphasis. Taku Imasaki says "Our goal is to become another medium for car companies [to run ads], like magazines and TVs." The admission comes hot on the heels of a "teaser installment" of "Gran Turismo 5 Prologue," for PS3 (the full version of the driving simulator is due next year). Embedding automakers' ads into the game is just the beginning. Imasaki-san says "Ideally we could become the MySpace or Facebook for auto enthusiasts." As Sony's PS3 is fully net compatible, the commercial opportunities are endless (e.g. "click here for a real world test drive."). There's no word [yet] on more "subtle" if fast becoming "traditional" in-game advertising– background billboards, sponsor decals, architectural features (gas stations?). It appears that some of the world's best cars are already powering down that slippery slope. 

Our favorite climate change-denying British windbag is up to his old tricks. Recently, Jezza was out in Los Angeles where he was handed the keys to a Callaway Corvette C6. He and a friend took it to Orange County and the El Toro Airbase (where the NBC version of Top Gear is being shot) and then back up to the City of Angels. His verdict? "I absolutely bloody loved it." With 616 horsepower on tap, we're not surprised. But we're not writing this here blog because of hyper Vette. No, we're telling you about Clarkson's review because of this: "When it comes to motoring, the English language makes more sense in Albania than it does in Alabama. Almost every word in the Americans' automotive lexicon is different from ours, so when we talk about motorways, pavements, bonnets, boots, roofs, bumper bars, petrol, coupés, saloons, people carriers, cubic centimetres and corners, they have no idea what we're on about." Hey, he's taking the Mickey! That said, not only do we know what cubic centimeters are, he spelled it wrong. There's lots more piss and vinegar where that came from.

Nearly every time I turn in a review I get Farago hounding me that it's not manic and passionate as the RS4 review I wrote way back when. "But Bob," I argue "The [whatever] isn't as inspiring as the thunderous Audi." When I was over at Jalopnik, I got a chance to drive the then new Lexus IS-F for a week. And I loved it. Brash, powerful, stealthy and quite a capable corner carver, the IS-F is to Lexus as drunken orgies are to the Martha Stuart brand. But, the question I kept asking (both rhetorically and to other journalist buddies as we stood on the paddock at Laguna Seca) was, "How does the IS-F compare to the RS4?" Well friends, Web Rides TV has the answer, and I can't say I disagree.

I know what you're thinking: he grabbed the New York Times' columnist's most ridiculous assertion and repeated it out of context. If so, you need to read "Bring on the Right Biofuels," 'cause this Roger Cohen guy is the MR. Context Manipulation. After listing the charges against bio-fuels, Cohen says "hogwash and bilge"– and then admits he was somewhat wrong about ethanol's critics being somewhat wrong. "I’ll grant that the fashion for bio-fuels led to excess, and that some farm-to-fuel-plant conversion, particularly in subsidized U.S. and European markets, makes no economic or environmental sense. But bio-fuels remain very much part of the solution. It just depends which bio-fuels." So, on to [theoretical] production of ethanol from switchgrass, wood chips and garbage, right? Wrong. Cohen is too busy pinning the blame for rising food prices on oil prices and rising standards of living in third world developing nations. "They’re eating twice a day, instead of once, and propelling rapid urbanization. Their demand for food staples and once unthinkable luxuries like meat is pushing up prices." Perhaps. Anyway, what's to be done about ethanol? Remove the tariff against Brazilian ethanol! And? And that's it.

"Peak Oil"– the theory that the planet is in imminent danger of running out of oil– is not, as yet, a mainstream media shibboleth. But God knows they're flirting with the idea. After all, it jibes nicely with the dare-I-say-it liberal idea that American is an arrogant gas/oil hog whose energy/foreign policy chickens are coming home to roost. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman provides an excellent analysis of the Peak Oil perspective, outlining the three possibilities: nonsense (it's speculation), maybe (it's the market catching-up with growing worldwide demand) and yes (we're fucked). Krugman's eminently sensible argument takes a swing to the left when he cites billionaire political activist George Soros (of all people) for the speculation theory. From there, it's a short trip to yup, we're screwed, and, by implication, still screwing others. "Rich countries will face steady pressure on their economies from rising resource prices, making it harder to raise their standard of living. And some poor countries will find themselves living dangerously close to the edge — or over it. Don’t look now, but the good times may have just stopped rolling." Damn! That sucks. 

Not that you'd know it from reading Jamie Lareau's lead in Automotive News [sub]: "As General Motors works on its corporate turnaround, a smaller version is under way at its Saturn brand." To use a phrase popular back when Saturn was GM's import fighter (as opposed to its import provider), gag me with a spoon. So how does Lareau justify his faith in Saturn's future? Not very well. "Customers have yet to arrive in a huge numbers. Through March, Saturn's U.S. sales totaled 48,306 units, down 15.3 percent from 2007." Ain't that the truth. Apparently it's not the whole truth; Lareau feels obliged to dredge-up a two-month old quote from GM CEO Rick Wagoner re: Saturn's recovery: 'We knew what we were doing, which is to change the profile of the kinds of products that we sell at Saturn from basically low-priced cars to cars that compete on the basis of being great cars, European influence, et cetera. It's fair to say that's not an easy assignment.'" Et cetera? Anyway, is it also fair to say Saturn's failed, considering the brand's shot its proverbial new product wad and still managed to under-perform a declining U.S. new car market? Of course not. Lareau gives the last word to Saturn's recently-snubbed brand manager Jill Lajdziak. "There's no question we have to continue to build the awareness of our new products. That doesn't happen overnight. You don't just walk into a segment. You have to earn your way into the segment." 

When The New York Times hired Detroit News writer Bill Vlasic, they acquired one of Motown's most enthusiastic cheerleaders. To be fair, Vlasic has raised his game. Today's tribute to Ford Marketing Maven Jim Farley is an epic hagiography that all but nominates the RI high school grad for sainthood. The lead paints Farley as a tortured (as in deeply caring) soul: "Yet as he sat in an empty conference room before his keynote speech, Mr. Farley was introspective. 'How am I doing? You know, I can’t answer that question, how am I doing,' he said. 'It’s too complicated.'" Not for Vlasic it isn't. Farley's doing great! "A mop of tousled brown hair and a boyish smile lend a disarming youthfulness to a 45-year-old executive who has already put together an enviable track record during his 17 years with Toyota. Despite that unassuming demeanor, Mr. Farley is zealous, driven to resurrect Ford’s image in the American marketplace." Vlasic puts one barb in his love letter: the then-Toyota exec's reaction to GM's criticism of Scion. “I couldn’t care less about Detroit,” he said in 2003. “My prediction is that they will follow us.” Pysch! It's a set-up for Farley's Road to Damascus moment. "'What do I want to be?' he recalled thinking. 'What do I want my legacy to be? Do I want to spend two weeks in Japan debating the price of a new Lexus, or do I want to make a real difference?'" And, lest we forget, real money. But hey, I'm cynical. After reading this four-page puff piece, you would be/will be too.