It's bad enough that filmmakers are so out of ideas they are on a rampage of "movies about stuff you liked as a kid" (and unfortunately only liked because you were a kid). But the cross marketing of cars in movies and TV is not only out of hand, it's just awful. Transformers was transcendently terrible. Knight Rider IS the dark side of product placement. And, now, the newest addition to the list: Iron Man, which stars a recovering drug addict and his Audi R8. To help convince you that their car will make you a superhero, Audi launched an Iron Man microsite that lets you begin watching commercials for free in advance of the two-hour commercial coming to theaters soon. How much of a role the car will have in the movie remains to be seen; sometimes filmmakers will just tease viewers with a supposedly hot car and then it's Gone in Sixty Seconds. Other times its a ten-minute set piece involving Robots Gone Wild. Or an R8 sneaking into Moe Green's bedroom to make him an offer he can't refuse. Anyway, we'll give you the link, but don't click on it or else you could accidentally buy an R8 and pay 10 bucks to see a bad movie. P.S. Iron? That's soooo 18th century.

So I get an email from Ford PR man Alan Hall re: "Microsoft To Launch Sync-based In-Car Advertising." Our previous blog post (based on a C/Net article) summarized plans voiced by the GM of Microsoft's Automotive Business. Martin Thall was discussing the possibilities of in-car advertising in general. Our headline and lead mislead readers into believing that these plans necessarily involved Ford's SYNC system. Ford's flackmeister pointed-out that SYNC is Ford's baby. The Blue Oval Boyz will decide whether or not to allow in-car advertising on their version of Microsoft's automotive operating system platform, not Bill Gates' minions. We apologize for leaving the wrong impression about the "ownership" of the possibility of advertising on SYNC-equipped Fords– which Hall wouldn't rule out. "We may have ads on SYNC at some point," Hall said in a telephone interview. "Everything's on the table." Glad that's cleared up. [NB: the original post has been amended to remove the word "Ford" from the headline and lead.]

"It is not hard to imagine a time in the not-too-distant future when General Motors Corp. will not exist. In fact, a lot of investors are imagining such a scenario… The GM-is-dying argument is certainly compelling, which is why the stock is down 75 per cent over the past eight years." Of course, the Globe and Mail's eye-opening lead is the prelude to an argument that GM's shares are undervalued. David Berman says GM could be a terrific buy IF the automaker returns to profitability. "A number of savvy institutional investors, not exactly prone to making silly guesses, are making big bets on a recovery." The "number" of investors adding to their GM shares seems to be one: "Legg Mason increased its holdings in GM by 5.4 million shares at the end of 2007, bringing its stake to 15 million shares." Yes, well, good luck with that. The more important point: the Mail's tacit admission that The General is in a fight for its life which it could well lose. This marks a fundamental shift in perception. If the [erstwhile] car-buying public picks-up this vibe (so to speak), it could further depress GM sales, which would push them further and faster towards Chapter 11. Send in the flacks, STAT!

One of TTAC's Best and Brightest– an automotive journo who wishes to remain anonymous– sent us this link to what he calls a "pimpatorial." It stars Jean Jennings, Automobile's Editor-in-Chief for the last seven years (with an '06 interregnum). Although Ms. Jennings does not reveal her title in the intro clip (or thereafter), she clearly identifies her employer before gushing about the Jeep brand. Apparently, Ms. Jennings disagrees with those critics who view the Compass as a brand abomination. In fact, she claims that Jeep has "remained true to its original mission." There's more. Lots more. Jennings spreads the video love over all seven Jeep models. I hereby declare Automobile's editorial integrity officially, irrefutably, defunct. 

OK, we're not just looking for the number of questionable E85 propaganda pronouncements in this video report on Autoblog founder Jason Calacanis' Mahalo Daily. We're also interested in the quality of your dissection (i.e. what they didn't say as well as what they did). Bonus points will be awarded for avoiding jargon and (of course) sarcasm. And yes, you can point out fascinating, non-E85-oriented details gleaned from the vid (music, dress, eyebrow work, attempts to avoid staring at certain biological bits, accents, etc.). There is no prize for your punditry per se, but Frank and I will choose the commentator who's the most infotaining and post their name underneath this text, in recognition of your (yes your) service to the cause of common sense environmentalism (the emphasis here on mental). We're talking major props from TTAC's Best and Brightest, as well. Take no prisoners. (As if.)
[Thanks to minion444 for the link]

And the winner for the most infotaining post is...  AKM

Despite serious and ongoing questions about the wisdom of London's Congestion Charge, and popular opposition to importing the scheme to the Big Apple, The New York Times will not let the damn thing go. Not with the deadline for $350m in federal funds (i.e. your tax money) about to expire. At least this time the Op Ed folk aren't claiming that the congestion charge is anything more than a cash grab. Well, at least not initially… "Mass Transit Needs Congestion Pricing" begins by revealing that The Metropolitan Transportation Authority says it will need– yes need– $29.5b over the next five years for "improvements." The paper then argues that "New York [mass transit] riders pay a considerably higher share of the cost of mass transit than riders in other cities. Fares for buses, subways and commuter rails increased again this week to help pay the M.T.A.’s operating costs. It is time for New York drivers to help carry the burden. Congestion pricing fees can produce significant and recurring new money for mass transit’s capital expenses." Oh and "Congestion pricing, of course, has many other virtues. New Yorkers would enjoy the health and economic benefits of less gridlock and tailpipe emissions — and faster commutes." Riiiiiight. Just like they do in London.  

I'm a little confused about The New York Times' position regarding states' rights. On one hand, it's down with California's desire to enact CO2 emissions regulations that trump national standards. On the other hand, when it comes to teen licensing, it asserts "What the country needs is a uniform set of rules, based on the soundest research. That is the best way to keep teenage drivers, and everyone who shares the roads with them, safer." The Old Gray Lady argues that "Congress flexed its muscle in the mid-1980s and pressed states to adopt a minimum drinking age of 21. More recently, it did so to pass tougher drunken driving laws. The country’s highways are safer for those efforts. Congress now needs to do the same for teenage driving." To that end, the paper supports Senator Chris Dodd's proposal to withhold federal highway funds from states that refuse to set the minimum driving age at 16 and adopt graduated licensing for 16- and 17-year-olds (including nighttime and passenger restrictions). While the Connecticut Senator is prepared to run roughshod over states' rights in this issue, representatives from more rural regions may make that effort politically problematic. 

Looks like Honda, Nissan, GM and Ford need to slap their advertising agencies around. It appears some greenies don't know they make hybrids! From Ourgreenbabysteps blog comes this tidbit: "I ran into someone at work today who owns a Honda Civic Hybrid.  I didn’t even realize there was another family hybrid car other than the Toyota Prius." Toyota probably also needs to increase the advertising budget for the hybrid Camry and Highlander, since they seem to be semi-unknown as well. I wonder what will happen when the blogger finds out he/she can even get a humongous SUV or all-American pick-'em-up truck with a hybrid powertrain. I'm thinking spontaneous cranial combustion.

The famously chauvinistic German monthly Auto, Motor & Sport (AM&S) recently gave the Toyota Land Cruiser 4.5 V8 the thumbs down. They called it uneconomical, expensive and declaimed the uncomfortable rear seats. The major (and headline-making) factor: AM&S says the Cruiser's brakes suck. More politely, they "perform miserably." To reach this conclusion, the Germans conducted ten braking tests. With cold brakes, the Land Cruiser needed 44 meters to come to a halt from 100 – 0 km/h. When the brakes were hot, the car needed an "alarming" 56 meters to come to a complete stop. Hang on, who carries out repeated high-speed panic stops with a 4X4, or an SUV? For its part, AM&S says there's no real reason why a SUV has to fail this test, since the Mercedes GL and G models fare way better (natch). In the past, many cars from Toyota and Lexus have performed poorly in the braking department in various Auto Motor & Sport tests. The Land Cruiser joins the Jeep Wrangler & Commander, Mitsubishi L200, Hummer H2 and Cadillac Escalade as the worst braking SUV's tested so far. Of course, a SUV that's used for lugging a trailer through the Rockies needs good brakes, but it seems likely that better testing criteria could be found for this task.

After Bloomberg sounded the alarm re: The General's lousy prospects, phenomenal cash burn and potential slide into Chapter 11 (or foreign ownership or both), the Detroit News adds fuel to pyre. Of course, Sharon Terlep does does so in her own special way (i.e. it wazzunt me). "General Motors Corp.'s already fragile turnaround could be derailed by any number of threats looming in 2008, from more strikes at parts suppliers to a further meltdown of the housing market, according to the automaker's annual report filed Thursday." Without nailing GM for guarding the terms and conditions of its payment into the $34b union health care VEBA, the scribe hints at the implications. "GM's ability to spend in other areas of the business will be affected if it can't secure financing under favorable terms." After citing another possible downgrade in GM's ratings "if GM continues to burn cash in its home market or if operations outside the United States become less profitable," Terlep can't resist throwing GM a bone. The penultimate danger cited: "Competition from rivals introducing key new models this year. GM's product cadence will slow down this year after a number of successful, high-profile new vehicles in 2006 and 2007." Successful? Successful how? 

Our brothers-in-arms over at Consumer Reports just released their not-so-creatively titled "Top Picks" for 2008. Surprises? A few. For starters, CR chose the Hyundai Elantra SE as their top Small Sedan. We'd of course pick the Mazda 3 instead– and they even admit the Mazda handles better– but CR feels you get more safety stuff for your buck. Who knew? And man, how far has the Civic fallen? Want to guess what car scored highest ever on the Consumer Reports road test? Why it's the Lexus LS 460L. Not only did the big limo score 99 out of a possible 100 points, but it's a top pick in the Luxury Sedan category. I spent some time with the hybrid version, and I'd have to give it 99 out of 100, too. If you didn't count handling. If you did include handling I'd score it 99 out of 110, as the car moves like a submarine. The Chevrolet Silverado beat out the Toyota Tundra in their Pickup Truck category. In point of fact, the Tundra scored more points, but the first-year Japanese V8 has been having reliability problems, so the Chevy got the nod. Go figure. Not so surprising is the Mazda MX-5 Miata beating out the Porsche Boxster in the Fun to Drive category. Consumer Reports reports that the Miata does everything the Boxster does, but for half the price. I agree with that, though the Boxster gets better gas mileage. And smells better. No, really.

In early April, Nissan is blessing me with a GT-R for five days for my Conde Nast Traveler “Great Drive” articles, and a review on this website. My hotshoe daughter (also a Traveler editor) and I will be departing Lake Tahoe after the car's press introduction, bound for Lost Wages and, if possible, some empty desert roads. The press event will include some serious track time. In their initial e-mail invitation, Nissan said– politely enough– that they realized writers like me weren’t buff-book semipros. Yet they're so confident that the GT-R is the world's safest and most controllable supercar that they're letting us loose on a closed ciruit. (I immediately got on my high horse and told them Brook and I run a well-modified 911SC track car, so there.) I asked the Nissan press rep if we should bring our helmets. She said no, not needed. Porsche is the only other automaker I know that allows the press to tackle a track sans helmet. The German automaker believe that helmets bring on "the red haze;" that drivers are safer without them. Anyway, it'll be interesting to see if the GT-R's electronics make travel-magazine editors, beauty-and-fashion writers, movie reviewers and other can’t-drive-a-stick scribes from the non-automotive press into track demons…

You know things are pretty bad for GM when Bloomberg starts sounding like TTAC. Doron Levin's column "GM Turnaround Collides With Dismal U.S. Car Demand" begins by turning around GM's "poor poor pitiful me" PR spin, which would have us believe they're unlucky rather than stupid. "Don't be fooled. That interpretation of GM's latest woes ignores years and years of dallying and denial. The No. 1 U.S. automaker delayed drastic action, hoping that growing automotive revenue might be enough to outstrip ballooning costs. GM has known at least since the early 1990s that its business model in the U.S. was defunct." Levin dismisses the foreign profits as life preserver argument, tosses aside GM's new products and predicts a cash crunch. And here's the twist: Sovereign Wealth Funds to the rescue! "The lenders include the governments of Kuwait, Singapore and Saudi billionaire Prince Alwaleed bin Talal. Perhaps sovereign funds willing to take a flyer on the second biggest U.S. bank [Citigroup Inc.] might be inclined to invest in its biggest automaker." Where did they get that $8.9b for the union health care VEBA from anyway? Meanwhile, Levin says "Without a financial cushion, GM no longer has the luxury of putting off until tomorrow what it should have done yesterday." We say: it's too late. 

While GM was wooing the greenies with their big PR event at the Oscars, Audi was busy thumbing their nose at The General. GM trotted out the Yukon Hybrids, Equinox Fuel Cells and "ethanol-compatible GMC Yukons" and put the concept Volt (that looks nothing like the eventual production model) on display to impress the easily-impressed. Audi, on the other hand, "chauffeured [nominees and winners] through the Audi VIP fleet of more than 55 exclusively equipped A8L W12's and Audi Q7's." The press release lists a number of stars who "selected Audi as their preferred mode of transportation for Oscar week." Not surprisingly, Ed Begley Jr. and George Clooney don't appear on that list.

Check out the ad for the new Citroen C5 above. I shall translate. "We at Citroen have a sense of humor (you see, we're not REALLY German). We are taking this new car seriously, so we are spending millions on a gorgeous campaign by ad agency EuroRSCG. This is a car for anal-retentives and it won't be unreliable. BMW has won the [carmaking] war, so all we can do is parrot/parody them. We'll do anything to promote the car, including negating what's left of Citroen's brand values (which were: hydropneumatic suspension, quirky styling, value-for-money, French esprit)." Like you, I'm amused and confused. "Vorsprung Durch Gobbledygook" or "Fahrvergnuckgnuck." Those were (kinda) OK, because they said: "We are German, but we no longer invade other countries, we just build good cars". In other words, those compaigns transported a coherent message about branding and national identity. This Citroen ad? Not so much.