Even (or especially) as the Prez prepares to sign a bill increasing ethanol production to biblical proportions, The New York Times follows the Economist's lead and raises the alarm over ethanol production's impact on food prices. On the uh-oh side, Scott Faber, lobbyist for the Grocery Manufacturers Association, says E85 has the same “magical effect” on politicians as the tooth fairy and Santa Claus has on children. To which the vice president of government affairs for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association adds "We think there will be a day when people ask, ‘Why in the world did we do this?’” In the interests of balance, the Times points out that "experts with no stake in the argument" say ethanol is only one cause amongst many for rising food prices– and then fails to provide a single such expert. Ethanol baron Mark Leonard says nothing of E85's effect on food, only that “This is a national security issue more than anything else. We need to quit sending money to people who want to blow us up.” And [unnamed] researchers for the Renewable Fuels Association "contend that the link between corn prices and grocery prices is weak." I'm going with the guy from the National Grain and Feed Association. David Fairfield attribues "virtually all" of the increase in the price of corn– up 25 to 30 percent so far this year– to the demands of the ethanol industry. Put that in your corn cob pipe and smoke it.

I know it sounds like I'm being sensationalistic (perish the thought) and making this up (never!), but there's no other way to interpret NIKE's decision to feature "car jumper" Chris Bryant in a national TV ad set to air at 4pm today (Monday) on the Ellen Degeneres show. The ad, which can be seen HERE, shows Bryant, uh, jumping cars. After jumping cars in shoes of his own design, he says "You know what I'm going to say the next time someone asks me why I do what I do? Why don't you?" Now it should be said that the cars are stationary, but one of them is parked in the middle of a street. And what's the deal with glamorizing such a patently dangerous practice? (Anyone remember what a Lotus Esprit did to a car jumper's foot on Ye Olde That's Incredible!?) The Akron Beacon Journal reports that we're late to the Chris Bryant car jumping hoe-down, as today will mark the former busboy's third appearance on the show. Anyway, we've tried to reach NIKE's press office for comment, but they're out to lunch. And now… they're back. Podcast with Dean Stoyer, U.S. Media Relations Director for NIKE below.

U.S.News & World Report believes in editorial transparency. So they've published the methodology they use to rate virtually every new car sold in America. As you'd expect from such a soberly-titled title, the recommendations are based on "hard data and analysis." First, they convert reviews by unnamed "respected auto critics" into a numeric score, using an undisclosed process. Then, they add information "such as safety and reliability data" that's scored and weighted according to an unspecified formula. After that, they combine all the scores and calculate them using a process "based on [unrevealed factors that] consumers say matters to them most in a car." The result? An overall score that allows their editors to compare cars, "ranking them against each other." They do admit that sometimes "the overall score is higher or lower than the component scores we display" because they also consider the "author's level of recommendation or overall impression about the car." OK, to sum up, they arbitrarily assign scores based on their assessment of someone else's assessment, add in their ranking of someone else's safety and reliability data, and out pops a number that may or may not be the final score, based on their author's arbitrary opinion of the vehicle. And that's the truth. [thanks to starlightmica for the link]

Throughout the 1990s, the UK's CAR Magazine was known for its breathtaking photography, incisive analysis, pithy prose and independent spirit. Readers devoured the elegant and technically proficient ramblings of LJK Setright, John Simister's lucid descriptions of how cars can handle, the witticisms and lateral thinking of Russel  Bulgin, and the roly-poly eccentricity of James May. Sadly, Setright and Bulgin died, Simister left for The Independent and May joined forces with that fat egomaniac at TopGear. CAR became  just another boring, soft on cars (and the causes of cars) buff book that missed the Internet train. And so CAR's owner, EMAP Publications is selling the mag to Germany's Heinrich Bauer Verlag. Bauer publishes Bella ("Exclusive survey: Germany's favorite Christmas meal is potato salad and sausages!"), Das Neue Blatt ("A best-ager entertainment magazine for the 40-59 age group"), Romanwoche ("Romance tales for the mature lady") and Auto Zeitung ("The modern general-interest auto magazine"). There are also porn titles, but we won't go there. We wish Car a quick recovery. 

Slate's "Green Lantern" is the columnist who aspires to offer "illuminating answers to green questions." Brendan Koerner takes a quick look at the relative environmental impact of electric vs. gas-powered cars. Although you've got to wonder about Koerner's choice of the Tesla as an EV poster child– given that the Roadster remains unobtainable and the company's range claims are both vague and unverified– the man gets credit for almost shining his light on the entire environmental picture. (His calcs make mention of battery production and recycling.) Props for some fascinating energy-related links as well. And the winner is… the Tesla! In theory, the $100k plug-in go-kart requires 48.05 pounds of CO₂ per 100 miles, while the Corolla unleashes 63.11 pounds of carbon dioxide per 100 miles. [thanks to jpc0067 for the link]

We have it on good authority (from two independent sources, as required by All The President's Men) that Chrysler PR Chief Jason Vines was given the old heave-ho. This morning's Detroit News further substantiates the story. Scribe Eric Morath reports that Chrysler has "realigned" its communications team. They will now report to the head of human resources rather than the chief executive, indicating that their focus will switch from external to internal communications. The News speculates that the move is also designed to plunge the privately owned company into [relative] radio silence– which would suit the outspoken, combative Vines about as well as an actual muzzle. This from Gerald Meyers, the former chairman of AMC and current University of Michigan biz prof: "They're not trying to be public, they're not trying to be popular, they're not trying to be transparent. Private equity work very hard to be opaque and they probably won't miss a PR person who helped put things into black and white." Needless to say, the News ends its report with some positive spin. Mike Szudarek, a partner at Farmington Hills-based public relations firm Marx Layne & Co., sees the silver lining. "I think it's a positive move that breaks down silos and helps integrate internal and external communications." We shall see… Meanwhile, we invite Mr. Vines to contact TTAC when he bails on Auburn Hills in the New Year. 

I'm not quite sure how Brandweek decided the winners and losers in their ROI (Return on Investment) analysis of automotive advertising. The Malibu campaign is considered a winner even though Chevy's spent a reported $150m (upped here to $300m) to sell 7,210 cars through November. I know: it's WAY too early to make that calculation. And how is the Tundra a winner when they forked-out $1,404 per Tundra sold– unless Brandweek's looking at total profit margin, which they're not. Sigh. I think scribe Steve Miller just took the money and ran, picking his favorite car ads and justifying them, then selecting a few sales dogs and doing the math. Speaking of which, Ford spent $108 per Taurus sold, which wasn't very many (26,720 through November). Miller's accompanying text hits the nail's head: "The relaunched Taurus tried to rally around safety, which is a one-trick game. Volvo wins with that gambit, not Taurus." And once again, Chrysler tops the bottom of a worst list. Chrysler spent $84 per Avenger (pithy quote above from George Peterson, president of Auto Pacific) and $110 per Sebring. Apparently "consumers have misgivings about Sebring’s overall quality." I wonder why…

The Detroit Free Press takes its turn as hometown cheerleader, touting Michigan as the U.S. auto industry's current and future "think tank." "The state has reached a historic crossroads," Katherine Yung opines. "Even as it sheds much of the business of building cars and trucks, Michigan is quietly growing its ability to design and create the next generation of vehicles." Quietly eh? Sound kinda tenuous to me. To wit: note the word "can" in the following quote: "Experts say that even as Michigan diversifies its economy, it can grow by expanding its role as the auto industry's knowledge capital." In terms of hard facts, Sean McAlinden, vice president of research at the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, reckons The Wolverine State captures nearly 80% of the $16.7b spent on American automotive research and development. Buried amongst details of new investments and quotes from the happy campers who might expand their Michigan-based R&D facilities, CSM Veep Michael Robinet predicts that "basic development work for different vehicle platforms may decline." The future, then, is in "hybrid, electric and fuel cell vehicles." Although Yung sees Tesla's new Rochester Hills' research center as a sign of things to come, that could cut either way. 

Who'd a thunk that USA Today would plant an IED under the juggernaut that's the new Chevrolet Malibu? Reviewer James R. Healey sets 'em up. He praises the sedan's styling, hushitude, roomy interior (huh?), price, "mildly satisfying" driving dynamics and acceleration. Healey knocks 'em down. "Impressions were colored, however, by some glitches… The V-6 model was tainted by a light howl from under the hood, a vibration in the steering wheel at idle and low speed, and violent shifts by the automatic transmission in some low-gear situations… The hybrid delivered a scare. Its powertrain kept racing and trying to fling the car forward after hard acceleration followed by firm braking. It finally required a full-on panic stop — anti-lock brakes kicking in, car nose-diving — to overcome the wildly revving engine and obey a red light." Healey also slates Chevy's supposed Camry killer for its reluctant and clunky six-speed autobox and the 'Bu's limited visibility. Although the summation attempts to ameliorate the assault– "On paper, Malibu seems superior to the lionized Camry. In practice, judging by the test cars' foibles, maybe not quite"– the damage has been done. 

Well, somebody should. Dallas News columnist Chuck Bloom steps into the branding breach left open by FoMoCo's inability to define itself in the marketplace. In fact, Bloom doesn't just know what a Ford is, he's it: a Fat Old Rumpled Democrat. I know: nyuk, nyuk, nyuk. While Bloom's Op Ed raises the now-familiar Chevy Silverado-friendly America-first, look what they done to my factory jobs Ma socio-economic mindset, he distills the argument down to something altogether more interesting. "I have always believed that no man needs to own a Rolex or any other expensive watch in order to tell time. A Bulova or Timex does the same thing at a fraction of the cost. After all, isn't that the 'function' of a watch? Same holds true for being a FORD. My beliefs will get me to where I want to go; no need to own and maintain an expensive, overpriced philosophy. And when the others in this area realize that a FORD works as well, or better, than any BMW, things might get changed for the better." To which we might add, when Ford builds a car that works as well, or better, than a BMW, they'll sell a lot more cars. 

Well, there's a few million dollars saved, then. Still, with a $2.1b annual ad spend, you gotta wonder why The General would axe its Superbowl spectaculars. Adweek has the answer. "The reduced in-game spot count is 'driven by product launch timing,' the [GM] rep said. New introductions this year for the Malibu and Cadillac CTS models are essentially complete. 'The timing is such that we just don't need to purchase as many in-game spots.'" You know, I'm thinking that Chevy should've launched their $150m Malibu campaign at the Superbowl, as the brand should have a bunch of new 'Bu's on dealer lots by game time. Anyway, GM hasn't pulled-out of the biggest TV event of the year entirely; Chevy's bought eight spots in Fox' pre-game show and Caddy's stumped-up the dough for three post-game ads. As for the in-game ad, those of you expecting another flying car spectacular (last year's 100k mile warranty unveil) may be disappointed. Or you may not. AdWeek reports that "creative has not been finalized for the ad yet."

Fitch Ratings isn't overly interested in Detroit News columnist John McCormick's assertion that Motown's recent model introductions promise brighter days ahead for his paper's hometown heroes (Big 3 get it right with new vehicles). The hard-nosed financial analysts are more concerned with the cancer eating away at the Big 2.8: debt. The automakers' recent agreement with the United Auto Workers to establish a union-controlled VEBA health care superfund threatens to evoke that old saw about straw-carrying camels. While Fitch doesn't reveal the total financial burden weighing down The Big 2.8, they reveal that Ford's debt has grown by $21b since 2001, while GM added $31b worth of debt in the same time period. Uh-oh. "Increasing interest costs from higher net leverage will represent a more significant claim on operating cash flows," Fitch managing director predicted to Reuters. Mark Oline was quick to add that liquidity isn't [yet] an issue, but "with few assets left to divest, liquidity positions will likely drop through 2008." So, how low can you go?

Far be it for us to suggest that Detroit's hometown newspaper would never attack a Big 2.8 product with as much venomous vigor as Scott Burgess unleashes upon Scion's revised xD. So we won't. We'll just share some of the Detroit News' scribes's spleen venting and call it good (well, that's what our Megan Benoit did; awarding the xD four stars). So, how ugly is it? "Scion calls the flat-edged exterior 'aggressive styling,' but it comes across more Elephant Man than Man About Town." Cabin OK? "The interior materials felt like rejects from Chinese toy manufacturers. There is nothing inspiring or even interesting inside the xD." Ride quality? "Coarse and extremely loud." Steering? "The electric power steering is too sensitive, causing the xD to weave from side to side at the slightest movement, and it feels disconnected to the road." Anything nice to say? "The one area where the xD excels is parking. With its size, it's easy to move into the smallest spots. Plus, when you're parking, you know the driving experience is nearly over and you've arrived at your destination." Props to Burgess for not pulling his punches and the DTN for publishing his xD diatribe. Now, can we get Mr. Burgess' take on the Chevrolet Aveo?

Rumors of BMW's Lexus-rivaling eight-speed automatic transmission surfaced over a year ago. Since then, the electronic grapevines have been quiet, leading some to suspect the octo-cog-swapper was merely vaporware. But rest assured, it's the real deal; it's in testing now. The blokes over at AutoExpress [UK] snagged some serious seat time in BMW's upcoming X6. The German automaker's crossover coupe thingamajig does, in fact, feature an eight gear slushbox. It's not totally clear why BMW is developing both this eight-speed auto AND a 7-speed dual clutch gearbox (soon to be slotted into the new M3), especially when the DSG transmission has "wave of the future" written all over it. Still, we'll never complain about more choice in transmissions. Or gears. But it's strange to think of downshifting into seventh.

Unlike the vast majority of their American counterparts, auto scribes scribbling in The Land of Hope and Glory are not shy about coming forward when they test a car that sucks. As American fans of Jeremy Clarkson will tell you, built-in ethnocentrism only makes things worse (better?). In this case, Mr. Clarkson's colleague at The Times, Andrew Frankel, rises to the rhetorical challenge of ripping Chrysler's new Grand Voyager (in Euro-spec diesel trim) a new one. First the good news: "Not only has it been renamed the Grand Voyager, it is also longer than a Mercedes S-class. And provided you don’t make the mistake of driving it anywhere, it’s really rather wonderful." After chronicling the toys lurking within Mr. Nardelli's Wonder Emporium, Frankel gets the party started. "If I tell you the engine is a close relative of that used by London taxis, you’ll perhaps see where the problems start. Chrysler won’t release any performance figures for this car and, frankly, nor would I… That’s not the only problem. The engine is clattery and unrefined, even at the modest speeds at which the Grand Voyager can be persuaded to cruise. And while Chrysler’s engineers seem pleased with the new suspension they designed for the car, its handling is vague and ponderous… Yes, the Grand Voyager can swallow all the people and possessions you could possibly want to throw through its electrically sliding doors. The only problem is that once they’re in, you’re not going to want to take them anywhere." Ow.