If there's one thing I can't stand (which is a lie, obviously) it's a made-up quote. It's easy enough to do. First, analyze some industry trend using your informed insight and common sense. Then, make up a quote, attribute it to an unnamed source and call it news. Edmunds' Inside Line [allegedly] shows us how it's done. First, the warm-up. "Supplier sources familiar with the product cycle plans at Chrysler tell Inside Line that the automaker is 'trying to move investment up' in the effort to improve the Sebring, Avenger and Sebring Convertible even earlier than originally planned." And then, the pitch! "'The interiors are too cheap,' said one highly placed industry source. 'We call it 'the Sebring problem.' That vehicle is dying on the vine and it's only a year old. They got cheap on everybody and said 'the customer doesn't mind hard plastic and ugly grain [in the cabin].'" Anita claims these same sources say Chrysler is considering dumping the Viper to pay for the Sebring, Avenger and Sebring Convertible fix. (Which Autoblog reports as gospel.) How about either doing the hard work of proper journalism or just fess-up to your own analysis?

So, GM's toe-dip into web 2.0 yielded its first on-line chat in its "virtual media forum." The General's Web Slingers tapped GM Director Vehicle Emissions Issues Bob Babik for its inaugural e-chin wag. In case you thought GMNext was all about the glasnost, please note the word "media" in the title. As far as we can tell, only three (non-TTAC) members of the press were allowed to put questions to Mr. Babik. And either the transcript has been heavily edited or it was the world's shortest live chat. And yet there's still a gem or, uh, well there's a gem. “The key is offering technology at a cost-effective level so that the consumer values it and makes that choice," Babik e-opines. "This is why in the early years of a certain technology, GM supports government incentives when the technology may be more costly to help consumers make that choice.” Did any of GM's pet journos explore this issue? What kind of financial support was he talking about? For what? To whom? How much? If the journos did what journos are supposed to do, GM ain't sayin'. And there you have it: proof (if proof were needed) that GMNext is the same old you-know-what in a new wrapper. 

Wow, that's some kind of price jump. You might even file it under scarcely credible alarmist prognostications. But there it is. "Options to buy oil for $US200 on the New York Mercantile Exchange rose 10-fold in the past two months to 5533 contracts, a record increase on any similar period." The Sydney Morning Herald casts its journalistic net to find experts who say you ain't seen nothin' yet. "One hundred dollars a barrel is actually 14.9 cents a cup, so we're still talking about oil being remarkably cheap," said investment banker Matthew Simmons. Inventories "are tight as a drum and I don't see how we get out of this box." It's all about rising demand chasing static supply. "We haven't got to $US100 on just a whim," said Paul Horsnell, the head of commodities research at Barclays Capital in London. "This is at heart also about longer-term concerns that supply capacity investment needs higher prices to keep up with demand growth." Needless to say, if U.S. oil prices spike to $200 a barrel (29.8 a cup), truck-heavy U.S. automakers will go to the wall, double-quick. Detroit is a city of crossed fingers… [thanks to David Holzman for the link]

So GM wants to "spark a broader, global discussion" about the issues bedeviling The General. GMNext is their answer to the question how do we accept questions without [necessarily] providing answers? I'm no web designer (cough), but I like the look of the thing, and hey, it IS open source. Others in the biz aren't so sure. This from commentator filbrand on Slashdot: "The site is ugly. It looks like the marketing guys got into the buzz of Web 2.0 and told their Windows programmers that they wanted that for their site. The result? A .NET site with WordPress knee-jerked inside. The site (as most of .NET crap) doesn't even validate [w3.org]. Even the blog, based on WordPress, must have been so messed up that it doesn't validate [w3.org] either. And what an awful theme! Where do these guys get their webdesigners from? Although I think they still have a lot to learn about using open source, I have to applaud at least their try. Although it's one step back, it's two forward. :-)." TTAC's best and brightest, what say you? 

"All in all, it appears that the production Camaro will retain more of the concept's flair than we thought, so kudos to GM for seeing it through." All in all, Autoblog is either deep in GM's pockets, completely bereft of taste or legally blind. Their spy pic demonstrates that the only thing more ghastly than the Camaro concept's interior is the production mule's interior. I mean, seriously, this has got to be the Pontiac Aztek of automotive interiors; a cabin so self-consciously designed yet so overwhelmingly cheap that I'm worried that this pic will turn TTAC readers to stone. Make that "stoned," and, as Frank remarked, it looks like a '69 Camaro on a bad acid trip. I love cars with stupid amounts of horsepower and serious exterior cool. But this… this makes me empathize with Oedipus Rex. In fact, one of our commentators recently remarked that he was waiting for the day when a member of the automotive press would boldly demand "WTF were they thinking?" Well, today's your lucky day. WTF were they thinking? 

"Other than a borrowed grille from the Camry SE, some 'character lines' in the sheet metal and the Camry’s 2.4L 4-cyl. engine/5-speed automatic transmission in the top trim, there’s little to get excited about with the new model." WardAuto proclaims that "Toyota has delivered a downright boring Corolla for ’09." On one hand, Christie Schweinsberg seems to appreciate the value of vanilla, pointing out that the Corolla didn't suffer a sales slump prior to the new model's introduction (a la Honda Civic). But she can't get her head 'round the fact that Toyota didn't do, well, anything about the Corolla's narcoleptic sheetmetal and driving dynamics. And that's bad because…? "Toyota says it is aiming to conquest Mazda3 buyers, the youngest demographic in the segment, with its new Matrix hatchback rather than the Corolla, but that seems shortsighted. A more dynamic Corolla would have given Toyota more ammunition with which to target that crowd." Or less pleasure for its existing customers. The article disses the Corolla's delayed intro while flagging ToMoCo's quality issues (the reason for the delay). Schweinsberg concludes with a quote that could have come straight from the mouth of a domestic competitor. Oh wait, it did. "But with Toyota’s quality reputation beginning to suffer just as competitors are building better small cars, there’s no guarantee the auto maker will be able to continue selling '350,000 appliances a year,' as a competing OEM exec recently put it."

Now that we're in the post-Christmas pre-New Year interregnum, the media is, as usual, attempting to fill the void with retrospectives. The New York Times Dealbook looks back at the wheelers and dealers that filled their column inches in '07. And you just knew Cerberus' takeover of Chrysler Corp. was going to be in there somewhere. Somewhat surprisingly, scribe Andrew Ross Sorkin decided to upbraid the private equity firm for its lack of PR skills, rather than its decision to invest billions in a sinking ship. Perhaps that's because Cerberus is only slightly more media-friendly than Leonid Brezhnev's Kremlin. Well, not exactly. While we were expecting criticism of Cerberus' decision to dump combative Chrysler Spinmeister Jason Vines, and the resulting circling of Chrysler's PR wagons, Sorkin seems to think Cerberus' management style makes them unlikeable. "To lead Chrysler, Cerberus chose Robert Nardelli, the former chief of Home Depot, whose high-handed style helped get him ousted from his previous job. Layoffs grew, but so did losses. Then Cerberus dented its deal-making reputation by walking away from two previously agreed-to deals — for H&R Block’s mortgage arm and for United Rentals. So far, this charm offensive is light on the charm and heavy on the offensive." Don't look for Cerberus to answer Sorkin's emails anytime soon. 

When BMW launched MINI stateside, its U.S. ad agency's unconventional approach (heavy on internet-based viral marketing) did wonders for the brand. Now that the new German-built, Jeremy Clarkson-reviled MINI Clubman is set to cross the pond, the automaker's "brand advocacy partner" Butler, Shine, Stern, & Partners (a.k.a. BSSP) has devised some, uh, "unique" cross-branded swag. Brandweek reports that the Sausalito-based agency has hooked-up with Visionaire, a NY publisher of themed, multimedia magazines to create the the $250 “Mini Clubman Vinyl Killer" edition. The package includes five picture-disc 12-inch records and a portable record player with a small Clubman replica for a cartridge. No really. There's also the MINI Clubman Onitsuka Tiger. The bespoke running shoe sports the MINI logo on the heel, and comes in color schemes to match those available for the Clubman (including black/silver and cream/British green). As you might expect, Brandweek analyzes MINI's most recent marketing plans with something approaching a Zen koan: "There is a place for Mini to work on selling to more hipster-oriented consumers, and it lies somewhere between Scion and Mini." So now you know.

Yeah, right. That makes perfect sense; for all the common sense reasons you're about to post below. And yet, Fortune's senior editor Alex Taylor Three Sticks offers the possibility within his '08 auto industry preview. "Speculation is building about Cerberus' exit strategy from Chrysler, as well as its timing. Will it try to merge Chrysler with Ford or sell it to another automaker, or go to the public with an IPO?" At least Taylor's on board with TTAC's Chrysler Suicide Watch theme: "Crosstown rivals are watching carefully because a Chrysler in distress could lead to suicidal industry-wide price-cutting." Wow, all three Motown automakers could be jumpers? Now that we didn't consider. While he's at it, Taylor allows himself some xenophobic posthumous projection regarding India's Tata motors assuming control of Jaguar. "Winston Churchill must be spinning in his grave." And speaking of theoretical quotes… "The other day, a GM executive was speculating that the auto industry was sorting itself into two categories: two super-companies, GM and Toyota, with annual production of nine million vehicles each, and all the rest." Alex torches his straw man and concludes "the world is becoming a fluid place." This is news?

Newspapers on both coasts are reporting that Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) chief Stephen L. Johnson ignored his own staff's unanimous recommendations when he refused to allow California to set its own CO2 tailpipe emissions standards. The EPA ruling means that California– and all the states that adopted The Golden State's air quality standards– will not be able to trump the new fuel economy mandates [almost] specified in the Energy Bill. "The decision set in motion a legal battle that EPA's lawyers expect to lose and demonstrated the Bush administration's determination to oppose any mandatory measures specifically targeted at curbing global warming pollution," the Washington Post proclaimed, sweeping aside the 1000-page Energy Bill's CO2-diminishing provisions. The LA Times was quick to jump on the "we wuz robbed" bandwagon. "The head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ignored his staff's written findings in denying California's request for a waiver to implement its landmark law to slash greenhouse gases from vehicles, sources inside and outside the agency told The Times on Thursday." Just in case the EPA's opponents need more goading, the Times also reported that "In a PowerPoint presentation prepared for the administrator, aides wrote that if Johnson denied the waiver and California sued, 'EPA likely to lose suit.'" While Johnson's reasoning is sound– better a national standard than a patchwork of state regulations– the environmentalists are screaming blue murder. This one will run and run., 

Motor Trend (MT) has named the Tundra their Truck of the Year. Yes, "The new Toyota Tundra is now ready to take on any American-made pickup truck– on all levels." To get the gong, an aspiring pickup had to be new or redesigned in the 12 months before Jan. 1, 2008. So the only "American-made pickup trucks" that qualified were the heavy-duty versions of the Silverado, Sierra and F-series. Hang on; how come the new Tundra, introduced as an '07 model, qualifies? It's about as much as mystery as why MT considers "significance" one of their three judging criteria. Anyway, in their official reveal, MT spends a paragraph sloughing off the Tundra's well-publicized recalls and quality problems. "Our guess is many of these stories spread like wildfire, given the lightning-rod effect this new truck is having with enthusiasts and the speed with which an Internet item can travel." And of the latest recall for a soft joint in the rear driveshaft, they add, "(EDITOR'S NOTE: Testing, judging, and story for the February 2008 issue of Motor Trend were completed and printed before the latest safety recall involving 15,600 2007 Tundras to correct a potential driveshaft issue)" It's amazing how much spin a generous advertising budget can buy.

Car bombs are the poor man's nuclear weapon. The devastation unleashed by this relatively inexpensive explosive delivery system– to human life, political discourse and military strategy– is staggering, in both scope and scale. Car bombs are, in a word, horrific. So is it alright to joke about them? You may recall the UK viral ad that showed a car bomber blowing himself up in a VW Polo, which contained the blast ("Polo. Small but tough"). And now spoof.com takes it a step further: "Toyota replaces Ford as world's #2 car-bomb manufacturer." The author jests that "Mulally then announced Ford had reworked its Explorer SUV to accomodate [sic] bombs and renamed it the 'Exploder'. [By changing only one letter, Ford was able to save money by re-using slightly modified Explorer nameplates.] But Iraqi insurgent analysts ridiculed the Exploder as just repackaged junk: 'Changing the 'R' to a 'D' – they think that's fooling anyone? That thing doesn't blow up any better than before.'" From there, "websmuggler" sails a LOT closer to the wind: "Meanwhile Toyota stunned the industry by announcing the first vehicle specifically DESIGNED as a car-bomb. Named the Toyota Blast, it features seats easily removed to accomodate [sic] more explosives, 35% more window area than competitors to assure more flying glass shards, a high-capacity gas tank designed to quickly rupture, and controls which arm and detonate the explosives with one touch of a button. Options include having the bombs pre-installed at the factory, with the customer's choice of TNT, napalm or nitroglycerine." Are you OK with this?