I don't pretend to understand all the ins and outs of Lithium-Ion battery technology. I know the basics: they're smaller than the nickel metal hydride cells (as used by the Prius' Synergy Drive), potentially more efficient, catch fire from time to time and, when they do, they're more difficult to put out than my schnauser in a snowstorm. Battery maker EnerDel (owned by Ener1) is set to unveil the fruits of their Li-Ion labors tomorrow. Company Vice Chairman says they've nailed it; their 60 engineers and technicians have developed a hugely efficient, cool-running Li-Ion battery for automotive applications. In a telephone interview with TTAC [below], Charles Gassenheimer revealed some of the technical specs, discussed the company's safety tests and pointed-out that their patented technology is not [yet] applicable to plug-in hybrids or electric vehicles. And what of Toyota's Li-Ion work with Panasonic? Ironically enough, Gassenheimer says his competitor's efforts were recently dealt a blow by… a fire in their factory. [NB: EnerDel officials will be monitoring comments to answer your questions.]

The International Trade Commission has ruled that Toyota did not pilfer key technology from Solomon Technologies to create the Synergy Drive system used in ToMoCo's hybrids. Solomon CEO Gary G. Brandt is undaunted. "We believe the ITC made serious errors in interpreting the pertinent patent law and precedents in this case and as we have reviewed the case transcripts more fully we are even more convinced that we will eventually prevail." Speaking to TTAC [below] Brandt says his company had "numerous documented meetings" with Toyota prior to the release of the Japanese automaker's hybrid system. What's more, since the Prius was released, Toyota has licensed [what Brandt claims to be] Solomon technology to Ford. The legal action continues. Meanwhile, Solomon has posted an animation on their website highlighting the similarities between the two systems.

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and National Automobile Dealers Association have launched a new website dividing the country into "car states" and "truck states." If that doesn't give the game away, the url might: AutoChoice.org. That's right: the carmakers (BMW Group, Chrysler, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Mazda, Mitsubishi Motors, Porsche, Toyota and Volkswagen) are defending Americans' right to choose a light truck (SUVs, pickup, vans and minivans) instead one of them little high mileage runabouts. The villain of the piece: [unnamed] federal legislators who would regulate both car and truck fuel economy using the same formula. The official defense: "Continuing to meet the vehicle needs of recreation enthusiasts and American family vacations is a paramount concern of automakers. Pick-ups, SUVs and crossover vehicles are instrumental in meeting those needs." While it's kinda cool checking the percentage of car vs. light truck registrations by congressional district, I wonder why the industry is so worried about this potential facet of CAFE standards– as it doesn't have a hope in Hell of happening. So I called "The Alliance." 

Alfred J DiMora is one of the most "colorful" characters in the custom car world. In other words, the larger-than-life entrepreneur's ambitions have hit the skids more than once. In terms of cars, we're thinking of the 3000 lbs., three-speed, fiberglass-bodied (with MG doors) Excaliber-esque pastiche known as the Sceptre. Back when jeans had bells, DiMora's company built just fifteen of 500 planned cars before going belly-up. Since '06, the indefatigable DiMora is aiming a LOT higher. He's looking to build "the world's first $2 million production automobile." To that end, DiMora has hired (though not paid) Detroit's Advanced Technology & Design to perform the patternless casting needed to create the Natalia SLS 2's V16 "Volcano" engine components. Yup, DiMora's dreamed-up a 14-liter, 1200 horsepower powerplant for his baby "that gets excellent mileage." In case you were wondering about DiMora Motorcars' ultimate ambitions, their motto is "Let us drive your dreams." Just so. 

[podcast with Advanced Technology & Design Prez Clifford Sands below] 

I think it's safe to say to place this theory somewhere between Big Oil/Detroit's alleged conspiracy against the electric car and Erich von Daniken's Chariots of the Gods, ascribing human technological advances to alien visitations. Robert Horvath is the former Coral Gables Oldsmobile dealer who somehow decided that Oldsmobile's road to oblivion wasn't paved with good intentions and/or the inevitable result of a confederacy of dunces. While I haven't read Horvath's tome Project 2000, I read the press release, which, sensibly enough, makes no mention of the Toyota angle. By the end of our chat, I was feeling sorry for Mr. Horvath. No matter what you think of the wisdom of killing Olds, it behooves us to remember the executive actions have very real human consequences.

My wife struggles with two automotive tasks: finding her destination and maneuvering the car into a parking space. (Locating a parking space is another issue, but why make her sound any more spatially challenged than she is?) The only voice my wife follows without question emanates from her car’s navigation system. So, issue number one sorted. Until now, she has endured her parking problem by opting for garages or HUGE spots. When she heard about the Lexus LS’ new automated parking system, she sent me to the dealer to check it out.

Who killed the electric vehicle? Range and recharge times. Alt propulsion supporters are happy to compromise “normal” modern day purchase parameters– a car’s looks, acceleration, cargo capacity, passenger space, safety, towing, convenience, range, price, etc.– to cater to their political or environmental beliefs.  Mainstream consumers are not. In other words, GM’s EV1 was not a mainstream vehicle. Hence its demise. The question for GM’s E-Flex Propulsion people now becomes: will the Volt EVer be ready for prime time? If so, will it be ready in time, or will transplant technology pass it by? Press play below for Part two of my interview with E-Flex Propulsion Systems' Line Director Tony Posawatz. 

When Chevrolet unveiled their Volt plug-in concept car at the Detroit auto show, skeptics derided the effort as a pie-in-the-sky PC PR ploy. The Volt project’s credibility certainly wasn’t helped when the company had to backpedal from GM Car Czar Bob Lutz’ 2010 production prediction. (Maximum Bob going off half-cocked at an auto show? Now there’s a surprise.) At the risk of whipping Tesla’s true believers into another self-righteous frenzy, I decided to call GM’s E-Flex Propulsion Systems to see if they’d firmed-up their plans. The project's Vehicle Line Director, the appropriately named Tony Posawatz, was happy to oblige. Click play below for part one.     

According to the Consumer Federation of America, most large insurance companies rely on computer programs like "Colossus" and "Claims Outcome Advisor." These spreadsheets calculate how much money an insurer can save if they deny ALL their customers’ claims. The companies then set an acceptable claim approval rate and instruct their adjustors to “delay, deny and defend.” Readers with children will recognize Mr. Incredible’s fictional employer Insuricare. Readers without sprogs should recognize DCX.

First, the corporate mothership determines how much money they want to "save." Then the word goes out. Delay. Do not address fundamental problems: runaway health care and pensions costs, stifling union work rules, bloated dealer network, lousy branding and relatively poor product quality. Deny. Keep telling everyone that everything’s going to be alright. Defend. Maintain the status quo at all costs; only make changes that tweak the existing system.

Obviously, Chrysler is not the only American automaker that bases its business on The Triple-D Defense. The media’s fascination with Chrysler’s German ownership has obscured the simple fact that the automaker's plight is, at the deepest level, no different from GM's and Ford's.

While Banc of America celebrity auto analyst Ron Tadross continues to fan the flames of the “Chrysler for sale” conflagration– suggesting that the American automaker is viable as an independent company because its smaller and not quite as FUBAR as GM and Ford–  Chrysler is plenty big enough to stress DCX’ independent-minded shareholders and just as FUBAR as GM and Ford. 

DCX CEO Dieter Zetsche’s response to industry speculation about his American subsidiary’s financial distress underlines Chrysler's underlying weakness. Dieter's public declaration that he's "considering all options" also highlights the point we’ve been making here for some time. Chrysler's equals Germans masters are happy to stand back and watch Chrsyler kill itself.  

Why else would Dieter allow Chrysler’s management to institute Plan X From Outer Space, a carbon copy of Ford’s Way Fordward and GM’s Jump Down Turnaround Sell Every Bale of Hay?

Chrysler will now cut jobs (mortgage its future to shed its union-protected workforce), close factories (amputate market share), reduce inventory (try to match supply against market share it’s already lost), sell the family silver (including “transportation services”), re-invest in what they should have built in the first place (allocate $3b for new engines, transmissions and axles), promise to build something that will sell (hybrids) and, last but not least, die.

The media seems entranced by any discernible difference in Chrysler's story and that of its cross-town rivals. Will GM and Chrysler share the rapidly deflating life preserver known as the GMT900 truck platform? Again, the similarities between Chrsyler's overall situation and that of GM and Ford are far more important than any SUV freak show.

And just as The Big Two's dreams of resurrection are floundering on the rocks of reality, Chrysler's Plan X turns the phrase "product strategy" into an oxymoron.

The official bumph is pretty vague. Chrysler says it will shift its product mix away from trucks and SUV’s towards smaller and more fuel efficient vehicles. Plan X includes unspecified promises to cut three to six models from the company’s 32-vehicle lineup. It has also promised 20 all-new vehicles and 13 refreshed vehicles by 2009.

In other words, beating Ford and GM in the deck chair rearranging sweepstakes is Job One. While it’s true that Chrysler’s virtually perfected the art of badge engineering eliminating development costs (e.g. the "new" Avenger will be a rebodied Sebring), launching so many new models is an inherently expensive business; it costs tens of millions more to introduce a new nameplate than it does to improve and promote an existing one.

Meanwhile, the basic problems besetting Chrysler’s product portfolio remain: weak brands, a farrago of constantly changing, not-entirely-wonderful models, and an ADD-related failure to fully market and support any one model. Of these, bad branding is the company killer. What is a Chrysler? What is a Dodge? What do they make again? Only Jeep remains focused on a definable mission– which the company is busy diluting with soft-roaders and urban flava posemobiles. 

Given Chrysler’s financials, crushing union obligations and “throw it against the wall and see what sticks” product plans, Dieter would have to find The Mother of All Suckers to buy Chrysler. Perhaps he will. Probably he won’t. Which leaves DCX two options: fix their American patient or watch it commit suicide.

In today’s Automotive News, an analyst for investment bank Dresdner Kleinwort claimed that the official German document detailing DaimlerChrysler’s legal obligations makes no mention of Chrysler's health care liabilities. Dresdner theorizes that the Germans could “nurse Chrysler back to health” then float Chrysler on the stock market. The goal: attract the same sort of corporate buy-in that Daimler is so desperate to leave behind.

Back in the real world, Dresdner’s telling DaimlerChrysler stockholders that the German side of the business could leave Chrysler standing on the ledge while successfully defending itself against any future liability claims. So much for being a good neighbor.

[Click below to hear RF read the above text.] 

When Ford threatened to pull the plug on its Panther platformed rear wheel-drive cars, the livery and taxicab companies howled in protest and Ford backed down. Ford’s ancient leviathans are welded to the new car lot, but they’re a carriage trade mainstay; there’s no cost-comparable replacement. While rental fleets favor smaller econoboxes and mediocre midsizers, taxis, liveries and police departments still favor big, basic, practical, roomy, reliable, robust, rear-wheel drive automobiles. Sounds like it’s the perfect time to resurrect the Checker Marathon.

In the early 1900’s, America’s taxi business was booming. The demand for cars was so high that Checker Taxi of Chicago contracted with Commonwealth Motor Company to assemble taxicabs using bodies built by Markin Auto Body Corporation. The companies merged at the end of 1921. The Checker Cab Manufacturing Company was established in 1922.

By early 1923, Checker Cabs expanded its sales to New York City. In response to increased production demands (including sales to private buyers), the company relocated its assembly line to Kalamazoo, Michigan. Although the “Checker cab’s” driving dynamics were Paleolithic, the company’s vehicles were famous for their staggering durability and marvelous packaging. The design changed infrequently, which guaranteed consumer recognition and reduced maintenance and repair costs.

In the late ‘50’s, as personal car ownership increased, the demand for taxi and other livery vehicles decreased. In 1961, to offset the decline in taxi company orders, Checker entered the consumer vehicle market. Although the Superba (a Checker taxi with more chrome and a nicer interior) was not a big hit, it helped keep the company afloat. In 1962, the Marathon replaced the Superba Special. In 1963, it became the company’s only commercial model. 

The Marathon remained virtually unchanged for the rest of its production run, save for a gradual switch to Chevy drivetrain components. Checker’s limited marketing campaign touted the car’s unchanging style and focused on durability, promoting it as a 200K-car. Meanwhile, taxi companies continued to be Checker’s largest market.

The 1970’s saw Checker sputter to halt. While its vehicles were still a paragon of durability, they weighed two tons and averaged fifteen miles per gallon. Soaring gas prices, double digit inflation, increasing costs, demand for fuel-efficient vehicles and the increasing reliability of Big Three iron made the purpose-built taxi an expensive proposition. Cab companies began converting conventional cars into taxis. Checker’s fate was sealed. The last new Checker rolled off the assembly line in 1982.

Since then, no U.S. based manufacturer has stepped up to the plate with a line of vehicles specifically built for fleet use. With today’s reduced design, development and production costs (including platform sharing and flexible manufacturing), and plenty of component-related talent for hire, perhaps it’s time to resurrect the concept of a Checker Marathon-style vehicle.

If nothing else, such a vehicle could help limit the depreciation mainstream models experience when their rental fleets dump their inventory on the used car market. In fact, this “new Checker” could be parts-bin engineered by any of the domestic nameplates. There should be four models available for fleet discounts.

First up: a front wheel-drive midsize driving appliance for the rental car and company car fleets. It would have a distinctive body shape and one basic configuration, with limited color choices and optional satellite radio and nav system for those willing to pay a bit more at the rental counter.

The other three models would be variations of the same full size rear-wheel drive car. The basic model would be a no-frills machine with a tight turning circle, hose-out interior, V6 engine and optional diesel. The package would maximize interior space; no need for high speed aerodynamic efficiency here (e.g. London’s Metro Cab and TX4). The base model would provide a basis for a blingified luxury-oriented vehicle with a V8, all the amenities and a cushy ride for the livery car and limousine/hearse conversion industries. 

Finally, there would be the law enforcement model combining the taxi platform’s robust underpinnings with a hopped-up V8 from the luxury variant and improved aerodynamics, suspension, brakes, and steering for the inevitable high-speed chases. The interior would be specifically designed to accommodate the various gear that has overtaken modern cop cars. It could even have a standard telematic system used to track the car and provide instant communications and diagnostics back to the station (think On-Star on steroids). 

There wouldn’t be any annual model changes, only running changes to keep up with the latest federal and state safety and environmental regulations. Prices would be based on volume sales, not individual units.

None of these fleet-oriented vehicles would be offered directly to the public. Eventually, they’d turn up in the used car market. But if they’re not worth much as used cars, so be it. There’s always someone out there looking for the cheapest transportation possible. It might as well be something built specifically for the job.

[RF interviews Checker Taxi Stand maven Matt Fry below.] 

In last night’s State of the Union address, President Bush cooked-up a cute little saying: “20 by 10.” That’s a 20% reduction in American gas consumption over the next 10 years. In case you thought the Prez has decided to whack automakers with a 2 X 4, the fine print centers on renewable and alternative fuels: corn ethanol (E85), biodiesel, hydrogen and dilithium crystals. Bush also promised to change car fuel economy regs from current fleet averages to attribute-based (size) requirements. There’s a link to the plan below, and plenty of analysis online. So let’s talk about towing.

Before the State of the Union speech, the SUV Owners of America (SUVOA) sent out a press release blaring “99% of Car Towing Capacity Lost Since 1970s.” My first reaction: naw, c’mon, really? Other than bell bottoms, my 800 meter sprint time and the original Windows operating system, I can’t think of anything that’s declined so precipitously in the last thirty years. And yet it’s true: 70% of American cars could tow 2100 pounds then, just 1% now.

My second thought: who cares? It’s not as if a car’s ability to tow a bass boat is vital to our national security. Besides, today’s tow oriented buyers can buy any number of SUV’s (or decacab pickups) with enough towing capacity to haul most of Montana, and pay chump change for the privilege. Hell, they’re giving them away! Ah, the SUVOA asks, but for how long? 

The SUVOA warns that federal regs threaten to emasculate America’s SUV’s towing capacity, just as they did for the automobile.

"Federal auto policy doesn't always consider the tradeoffs that exist among national goals,” claimed SUVOA President Barry W. McCahill. “One day the focus is on new safety requirements. The next, it's on tougher emissions controls. Today, it's on both those and improving fuel economy and they are often at odds with each other… The loss of car towing capacity and reductions in safety because of vehicle downsizing are unfortunate historical evidence of what can happen."

Call Mr. McCahill a reactionary Luddite whose Ostrich-like head posture is warming the planet to oblivion, but he has supporters. The SUVOA press release summons Derrick Crandall, President and CEO of the American Recreation Coalition.

"The only vehicles left that enable people to enjoy the great outdoors- SUVs and pickups- are under attack and could also lose towing capacity. Nobody intended to kill off the station wagon that was the mainstay for family transportation and recreation. But it happened."

Well, the minivan happened. But Crandall’s point is clear: Uncle Sam’s politically correct pursuit of high mileage vehicles ignores the bigger picture.

The U.S. is home to more than 11 million trailer boats and five million trailer RVs– and that doesn’t include trailers for motorcycles, ATV’s, snowmobiles, U-Hauled goods, farm equipment, etc. Mess with that and you’re messing with Americans’ ability to enjoy the great outdoors, move stuff around, grow crops and, um, fight obesity (Crandall’s idea). 

While none of this is bound to impress people fully committed to an immediate and dramatic improvement in America’s vehicular efficiency– many of whom will claim it’s entirely possible to reconcile environmental goals with the recreational industry’s “needs”– it’s certainly true that lawmakers working in this area are unlikely to consider the unintended consequences of their legislative actions.

The UK offers us a glimpse of what can happen when government’s heavy hands wrap around the neck of the automotive free market in the name of environmentalism. Our British cousins now tax cars based on their CO2 emissions and location (“congestion charging” and coming soon “road pricing”). Despite being an oil-producing nation, they also sport some of the world’s highest gas prices (three times US prices). Oh, and everything car related is taxed at 17.5% (VAT or “Value Added Tax”). The result: the vast majority of Britain’s so-called working class can’t afford a car.

This lack of car ownership restricts their citizen’s mobility, which restricts economic migration, which exacerbates the country’s vast North – South, urban – rural economic divide. Even if lower income UK consumers CAN buy a car, the vehicle sucks-up a large percentage of their income, which prevents them from spending it on other things (obviously). In other words, the government’s anti-car policies– which depend on the same oil addiction and anti-pollution rhetoric we know and love– depress UK inhabitants’ living standards.

Could it happen here? The State of the Union speech doesn’t provide much indication where the U.S. federal government will draw the line. Depending on your point-of-view, the fact that the proposed automotive efficiency standards offer a new set of loopholes (e.g. automakers can now buy and sell CAFE credits) is either a blessing or a conspiracy in disguise. Meanwhile, the free market is speaking, as consumers decide how much mileage they need. The question is, is their government listening? 

RF interviews the SUVOA's Ron Defore below.

[Click here for the president's proposals.]

It’s no secret that The Detroit News (DTN) likes to cheer for the home team. It’s also no surprise that the financially challenged paper imports low-cost out-of-town talent to satisfy their product needs– just like the domestic automakers they support. So when I read Washington Post writer Warren Brown’s analysis of GM’s fortunes on the DTN website, I was hardly stunned to discover a happy clappy Pollyanna puff piece. Like his prickly personality, Brown’s nose for news is distinctly stuffy; his piece embodies and elevates mindless pro-GM optimism to new heights.

“What is it about the human condition that so delights in the negative?” Brown’s opening sentence demands. (I’m feeling you Warren.) Clearly, GM naysayers have put Brown’s nose out of joint. To avoid any accusations of dancing on GM's grave– sorry, jinxing The General’s rehab, let’s skip to the bit of Brown’s bombast that has captured the attention of the GM faithful, and do a little factual intervention.

Never one to miss an opportunity to lord it over the boorish riff-raff commonly known as his colleagues (I’m feeling you Warren), Brown chastises auto scribes for continuing to question (publicly!) GM’s viability. In fact, these know-nothing car hacks are so blinkered by their negative nature they fail to recognize that The General has “rediscovered its fighting and innovative spirits.”  

“There is proof in the new Saturn Aura sedan and the new Chevrolet Silverado pickup truck, which together swept the North American car and truck of the year honors at the show — ironically, awards given by some of the journalists who later were questioning GM's ability to survive.”

While TTAC’s reviewer wouldn’t have given the gong to the Silverado, I’ll spot Brown that one (you feeling me Warren?). But pinning GM’s future on Aura sales is like depending on an infantry assault to defeat an entrenched machine gun position. The truth is the Aura is getting slaughtered.

In its first three months, Saturn sold 19,746 Auras. If the model sustains those numbers– and that’s a big “if”– the Aura will generate roughly 80k sales per year. While the projected annual tally would dwarf ’05 sales of the similarly platformed Saab 9-3 (24,133), it would fail to surmount the, gulp, Buick Lucerne (96,515). To put that into perspective, last year GM sold 323,981 Chevrolet Impalas, 312,747 Cobalt/HHR’s, 157,644 G6’s and 163,853 Chevrolet Malibus.

To put THAT into perspective, between 34 and 60 percent of those models went to rental fleets. In other words, in the battle for the mass market, the award-winning pride of Detroit Saturn Aura is another, even smaller, damp squib.

Anyway, Brown’s nose may not be growing like Pinocchio’s, but he certainly doesn’t know a scam when he sees one. Our Capital correspondent views the press' skepticism about the Chevrolet Volt concept car as yet more evidence that GM critical TTAC-types are simply cynical bastards. Brown considers the Volt “tangible proof” of GM’s right-minded “intentions.”

Yes, well, the road to bankruptcy is paved with good intentions. While GM has hoodwinked Brown and his ilk by claiming that the lithium-ion battery-powered Volt will hit showrooms in three to five years, experts are snorting coffee out their noses.

“Lithium-ion chemistry still has issues for automotive applications,” Don Runkle told Bloomberg News. The former GM engineer and chairman of battery maker EaglePicher Holdings Inc. isn't buying GM's development timeline. “Everyone tries to pooh-pooh thermal runaway (overheating), but this is nasty stuff. If it screws up, you have a dead serious fire on your hands.”

Never mind analyzing the facts; Brown is too busy mocking the “media murmuring”: “Is GM serious? How can they afford it? Is this just a ploy to get money from the federal government? Toyota will probably beat them to the punch first, don't you think? It's a good idea but so what? It'll take them 10 years to bring it to market.” 

As the Brits would say, you gotta laugh, mate. The same man who raises a condescending arched eyebrow at the “irony” of automotive journalists handing out awards to the company whose survival they question smirks at implications that the Volt is a ploy for federal subsidies. Yet he recognizes, welcomes even, The Big Two Point Five’s post-Volt request for a $500m federal hand-out to develop automotive battery technology.

Hang on; doesn’t the fact that GM [alone] can’t afford such mission critical, company-saving research trigger any alarm bells for the Capitol curmudgeon? Nope, he’s off politicizing the debate, defending the government handout as a way to avoid foreign troop engagements.

Oh wait, that’s just me being negative again. Luckily, Brown's gonna cut us death watchers a bit of slack. “Perhaps such chatter is inevitable. It is easier to believe in failure than it is to achieve, or sustain success.” Hey Warren; do me a favor. Tell it to GM.   

As read by Robert Farago below. 

[Read the original DTN article here.]

I’m 31, single and happy. So obviously my mother is constantly nagging me to get hitched and give her grandchildren. Even my sister’s impending marriage has failed to distract her; she’ll never be content until, presumably, I am not. Perhaps she’s right. I’m the only unmarried man at my weekly poker game. My best friend is expecting his first child this summer. If I were honest, I might admit I’m at the age when oat-sowing men settle down, produce offspring and molt. I can, however, offer at least one compelling reason for not introducing my spawn upon the world’s stage: I'd fit the Suzuki XL7's psychographic profile.

What the Hell’s a Suzuki’s SX4? I know it’s my job to know about these things, but I swear the test car greeting me upon my return from Old Blighty was the first one I’ve ever seen. If first impressions last, this tall, decidedly Japanese runabout says Subaru Forrester meets Scion xA on the suburban side of town. (In keeping with the parlance of our times, Suzuki shuns the “w” word and calls the SX4 a crossover.) A quick walk around revealed four big wheels, four big disc brakes, a Prius style double A-pillar and an AWD badge. Hmmm…? Could this sub-radar Suzuki be a sleeper?

I’ve had a thing for the BMW 6-Series ever since “Spenser: for Hire” shared airtime with Mötley Crüe. While Robert Urich had a cool Mustang, Avery Brooks had a vehicle worthy of his icy-cold demeanor: a white BMW 635CSi. Could there ever be a better vehicle in which a man could do the right thing by any means necessary? There is now. The BMW M6 has tons of M-tuned street cred and many of the right moves. Many, but not all.