It's a piercing glimpse into the obvious in a New York Times article without any major revelations, but it's still worth noting the human toll of Ford's shrinking market share and concomitant race to slice its labor costs. As former Detroit News writer Bill Vlasic correctly points out, "Ford’s big new push is not to sell cars. Instead, it is trying to sign up thousands of workers to take buyouts, partly by convincing them that their brightest future lies outside the company that long offered middle-class wages for blue-collar jobs." To that end, the Times embeds a happy-clappy video “Connecting With Your Future" that shows Ford's please-leave-now ex-employees that yes, Virginia, there is life after Ford. Ah, but is there life for Ford? In the middle of Vlasic's sugar coated pill run down, a quote from analyst John Casesa is like a shot to the solar plexus. "These companies are trying to do in the last 24 months what they should have done over the last 24 years,” the head of Casesa Shapiro Group says. “That’s why it’s such a shock to the system.” Just as sadly, it's come to this: "One thing Ford workers are proud of is that their buyout options are more extensive and, in some instances, better paying than those at G.M." 

Officially, the GM embargo on G8 reviews (how quaint is that?) ends today. But since this is the internet, it means the embargo is over for everyone as soon as anyone decides to break it. [NB: any buff book or news source looking for a point man, here we are.] This time 'round, Motor Trend broke GM's embargo cherry; posting its homage de G8 on its site. Edmunds' Inside Line followed suit. And Popular Mechanics and Car and Driver joined the e-fray. In short, the G8 scoots from zero to sixty mph in about 5.4 seconds and… everyone likes the car a whole lot. As for TTAC, GM's press car ban remains the one embargo GM rigidly protects and enforces. Never mind. As soon as the G8s hit the dealers, my personal rear-drive savior has set one aside for a day for TTAC to evaluate. In the interim, enjoy the fluff!

[Pixamo gallery of new G8 here.] 

Not that they will, but they could. In fact, they should. Check it: today's The New York Times op ed reminds us that "The final [energy] bill correctly included environmental safeguards. The most important is a requirement that ethanol, regardless of its source, achieve at least a 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gases compared with conventional gasoline." Only the Times (and TTAC) noticed two studies in Science magazine that conclude that ethanol production increases global warming. So.. that's it then. Until ethanol can be made from non-corn sources, the Environmental Protection Agency (charged with calculating ethanol emissions) should pull the plug on corn juice and sink the subsidy-sucking ethanol industry. The chances of that happening are between none and none. Still, it's nice to see the Times (almost) acknowledge a green boondoggle when they see one. 

After calling global warming "a crock of shit," GM Car Czar Bob Lutz is using his fastlane blog to defend the remark that launched a thousand blogs. Instead of an apology, Maximum Bob declares himself– and you– an irrelevance. "Never mind what I said, or the context in which I said it. My thoughts on what has or hasn’t been the cause of climate change have nothing to do with the decisions I make to advance the cause of General Motors. My opinions on the subject — like anyone’s — are immaterial. Really." Bob then tells the tree-huggers to stop picking on him. "Instead of simply assailing me for expressing what I think, they should be looking at the big picture. What they should be doing, in earnest, is forming opinions not about me but about GM, and what this company is doing that is — and will continue to be — hugely beneficial to the very causes they so enthusiastically claim to support." I think that's what psychologists call "disassociation." But the best bit is here: "General Motors is dedicated to the removal of cars and trucks from the environmental equation, period. And, believe it or don’t: So am I! It’s the right thing to do, for us, for you and, yes, for the planet. My goal is to take the automotive industry out of the debate entirely." I guess he missed the irony of "taking GM out" of the equation. 

Auto Motor und Sport (AMuS) has it from "well informed circles" that GM is working on not one but two more versions of the new Saab 9-1. To get a feel for what GM should produce, AMuS commissioned Mark Stehrenberger. The design savant imagineers the first model as an aggressive two-box vehicle with a narrow greenhouse that looks a lot like MINI Clubman with a Saab grille (although maybe I've just seen too many Saab grilles grafted onto other people's designs). The second sketch shows us a weird little Saturn with Chevy Nomad-style removable roof elements. Word has it that the car could be built on either the Alpha or Kappa rear wheel-drive (RWD) platforms, and sport a Pontiac or Buick (cough crash cart cough) badge. Which means either A: GM is bringing a RWD hot hatch to the American market and badge engineering it to death or B: It isn't.

[View GM 1-Series fighter Pixamo gallery here.] 

TTAC is proud to bring you another "What the Hell Were They Thinking?™" moment. First, the facts. To launch MINI's new Clubman (an ugly ass vehicle boasting the world's smallest suicide doors), California-based advertising agency Butler, Shine, Stern & Partners have unleashed "ZIG. ZAG. ZUG." As you no doubt already guessed, the slogan is part of a host of so clever they require an entire explanatory paragraph to describe them print and "guerrilla" marketing campaigns (e.g. teaser billboards and "The Book of ZUG"). Now, the kvetch. Why would MINI want to riff on the Cadillac Catera– an "entry level" rebadged version of the Opel Omega MV6 that almost single-handedly destroyed the Cadillac brand? Students of automotive history will recall that the abomination was advertised as "The Cadillac that Zigs." That's like selling a new soup based on a brand known for botulism. Also, ZUG? Zug is a town in Switzerland. And while I'm sure the comedy website zug.com will appreciate the business, why would such an internet-friendly car brand miss that opportunity? If you need an alternative place to file this story, how about "Too clever for their own good." 

[BMW "respectfully declined" our request for an interview on this campaign.] 

Hummer is GM's only coherent brand. They have two models endowed with an instantly recognizable Picasso-friendly (cubist) appearance. Love 'em or hate 'em (and most people are firmly in the latter camp), everyone knows what a Hummer is: an overweight off-roader with a cheap, cramped cabin and/or a pseudo-military middle finger salute to any idea of fuel conservation. For reasons best left to students of the story The Golden Goose, USA Today reports that "General Motors wants people to start thinking about Hummers as big old trucks built to do a job, instead of as gas-guzzling SUVs for the rich." According to J.D. Power, Hummer doesn't deserve that rep. "The name Hummer connotes a much more gas-guzzling vehicle than really is on the road today," Jon Osborn declaims. "Really, it gets about the same or as good gas mileage as several other (SUVs)." Oh, that's alright then. Anyway, the new game plan: sell Hummers as vehicles built to do a job– that just happen to get 14mpg (or less). "Late last year, GM began airing ads that show other 'tools'— firefighters' gear, a flare gun, a climbing rope— and then show a Hummer, which the ad says can scale 60-degree [sic] inclines. In another commercial, newspaper clippings about blizzards and floods dissolve into a Hummer forging through the disasters to help. Both ads end with the tag line: 'Purpose built.'" Hummer owners may be saving the world, but environmentalists aren't buying it (literally). But then, why would they?

That is, of course, the logical headline for a column comparing Chrysler's main players to various dog breeds. But Ward's Automotive can't say that, so they go with "Chrysler Bares Teeth in Dog-Eat-Dog Business Climate." If you think that's a bit forced, try reading Eric Mayne's column. It starts off as a clever-ish lead: "This is an historic month. For the first time in Westminster Kennel Club’s 132-year history, a beagle won best-of-show. And precisely this time last year, Chrysler started going to the dogs. [ED: see?] Before the next quarter concluded, the pentastar pack had a new leader – one with three heads." Mayne is like a dog with a bone; he simply refuses to surrender his metaphor. "According to Puppyfind.com, [Chrysler Veep Jim] Press would be a Blue Tick Coonhound. Bred to track crafty game capable of fleeing through a woodland canopy, they are 'good problem-solvers,' the site says." Mayne identifies Vice Chairman and President Tom LaSorda's spirit dog as a Cane Corso Italiano, a.k.a. Italian Mastiff. CEO Bob Nardelli "can only be a Siberian Husky." And then Mayne finally gives us five sentences approaching genuine analysis. Pardon me while I get my pooper scooper.

Have a look at the comments on the bottom of the Intellichoice blog post. The Editor/Publisher of the sham scam org (codenamed Flujo) signs-in to defend his employer's methodology. Apparently, the VW R32 did deserve "Best Value Award" for "Base Sport." So then, tell us how you came to that preposterous conclusion? "IC is completely above board and that point is not up for review." That got me thinking about marketing maven Al Reis' magnificent tome "Positioning." Specifically, his advice that sometimes it's best to position a brand against the competition, rather than for anything. "Avis. We're Number Two. We Try Harder." While The Truth About Cars says what we're for, using Al's strategy… "We're number 12,958 on Alexa's U.S. web ratings. But we annoy more industry blowhards than the other guys." Not the pithiest of straplines. I did favor "Vincit Omnia Veritas" for a while. These days, that line strikes me as something you'd see sewn into the slippers of an English aristocrat (who are generally coke-crazed scumbags, but that's another story). Anyway, whilst fumbling for my Ambien CR in the dead of night, the above declaration popped into my head. Pretentious moi? Your suggestions? 

Saab is releasing teaser pictures of a new car. But it's not a production model. They're teasing you about a concept car skedded for Geneva. The images have drummed-up a fair bit of attention and press (ahem, Blog about Autos). Considering Saab's lack of credibility on concepts, that's amazing. Do you remember the 9-4X crossover? How about the Aero X sports car? What about the 9-3X concept? And earlier there was the 9X crossover coupe. Now Saab is trumpeting another all new concept car, a new model, a new direction, and a new change of socks. "Insider sources" tell some auto pubs that the concept previews an upcoming Saab 9-1X model (a VW Golf sized car). I'll believe it when I see it. In the interim, maybe Saab wouldn't be in so much trouble today if they had actually built all three of the aforementioned beautiful concepts (and made them AWD) rather than just grafting the grille onto Ye Olde 9-3.

[Pixamo slide show of past Saab concepts here.] 

"Talking in circles" must be an executive training course at GM. You'll find a perfect example at GMNext, where GM's chief of American sales operations, defends GM against charges of greenwashing. To that end, Brent Dewar held an on-line question and answer session– make that an "evade the question" session– with no less than 50 online journos (TTAC's invitation got lost in the email). Even the condensed version is dizzying. When asked when we'd be seeing E85 available across the country, Dewar launched into a tale of his six year stint in Brazil– without answering the question. One participant asked Dewar point-blank about GM exploiting the E85 loophole in the CAFE standards. His response? "As I just mentioned it is a huge opportunity now. The problem is we are often American centric. This is not a CAFE loophole, but a solution. We did this in Brazil. Cafe in south america means coffee…" The complete transcript is on line, if obsfucation is your cup of cafe tea.

Yes, I know: that's a bit like asking if Hillary Clinton believes in social Darwinism. But given the amount of grief TTAC receives for its purported "anti-GM' and "anti-Detroit" bias, I want to point out that we avoid editorial decisions that unfairly portray Motown's playas as incompetent. For example, we don't report every Big 2.8 recall (fairness would demand coverage of all recalls). And we take exception to the Detroit News column "Teacher is plagued by theft of 15 Chryslers." Neal Rubin's piece blithely calls Chrysler products "easy pickings." "Historically, says director Terri Miller of Help Eliminate Auto Thefts [HEAT], Chrysler 'has not been as proactive as other automakers at putting standard anti-theft devices in their vehicles.'" That's it? HEAT is a tip line that doesn't break down of thefts by manufacturer. Rubin also unfairly disses Chrysler's customer service. "Among Jenny's suggestions [emailed from Chrysler] was to park in 'lighted areas, garages or neighborhoods without a history of stolen vehicles activity, whenever possible.' 'Great," Fulton fired back. 'Are you going to drive me to work?'" (Nice 'tude.) In his conclusion, the writer casts aspersions on Chrysler's current security systems. "Most of all, she wonders about this new Sentry Key, an ignition immobilizer offered on every Chrysler product except the Dodge Viper since last year. The company says it's foolproof. Says Fulton, 'We'll see.'" I call hatchet job– which is what you won't see here. 

[You are free to discuss TTAC's bias or lackthereof in this thread] 

Of all Ford's fiascos to flail-on about, FoMoCo's "F" fanaticism seems the most fantastic. And yet Detroit News columnist Dannny Howes figures "Ford's 'F' fixation fouls its future." Howes focuses on the fact that Ford's new "Fiesta" joins a farrago of F-named product, and fustigates Ford for its Fabian fustiness. The fastuous scribe's also freaked about the Flex. "Are they really gonna call it the Flex, a person familiar with the situation tells me the new guy asked. Yes, Chairman Bill Ford replied, echoing [VP of Marketing Jim] Farley's skepticism. Then the über-boss added that Mulally wasn't too keen on the name, either. Which ought to tell you something, and it's this: 17 months of the Mulally era — a $23 billion recap plan, a landmark contract with the United Auto Workers, a global effort to coalesce Ford's fiefdoms into a single unit — have failed to relegate the past to the past and instead focus intensely on the future." It tells me that Mulally's minions have made their mentor meable to Manichean mansuetude. Or something like that.

“A younger version of Fountains of Wayne, minus the pretentiousness (and some of the talent). Sound-wise they're very FoW-ish.” That’s how TTAC contributor Megan Benoit describes the band “Honest Bob and the Factory-to-Dealer Incentives.” They’ll be at “T.T. [no relation] the Bears Place” in Cambridge on June 7th, blasting out Megan’s fave “Red Integra.” And yes Jalopnik fans, it’s a slow news day.

I saw you sitting there on Fruit Street
But I'm not any good with words
I'm the red Integra parked behind you
So I'll leave this little note instead:

"I think that you should be more careful parking. There were no
damages but next time, be careful. They might not be as nice as
myself. I saw you back up into my car."

“Why should a female auto journalist give you advice on great date cars?” CNN reporter Sheryll Alexander asks herself. “Because as far as cars go, I know what turns a woman on and what really turns her off.” Is this some kind of lesbian thing? Anyway, these days, the majority of women “are rather picky when it comes to a guy's ride,” Alexander opines. “Your car really does send her all the right or wrong messages about how much money you make and what gets your engine running. Let's be honest, some girls just like a flashy ride too.” But Alexander counsels clueless men not to go overboard when picking out a four-wheeled babe magnet. “Most women are wary of extremes… I think personal integrity and animal-like chemistry should count way more than what kind of vehicle you drive, but I guess some guys feel that spending the extra money on a racy ride is certainly worth the dating gamble.” In the pursuit of journalistic insight– nothing to do with a personal desire to drive a bunch of sports cars for free we're sure– CNN’s self-appointed (anointed?) car guru gives us the low-down on cruisin' while cruisin':

Nissan 350Z Roadster: “Truly a he-man's ride come true whether girls like it or not.”

Mitsubishi Eclipse Spyder: “Guys, you definitely can't go wrong with this one!”

Mercedes-Benz CL 550: “With the $100,000+ price tag, the ladies will definitely be swarming around this hive of vehicular comfort and luxury.”

Audi TT Roadster: “On the outside, the Audis… look truly sexy with their bubble-like hood, curvy haunches and wide back side. Yes, the Audi TT goes both ways as a great date car for both men and women.”

Porsche Cayman: “Just looking at the Cayman's curvy haunches, sexy sloping hood and racing rear spoiler would make any woman want to go for a ride.”