I was more than a little hesitant about blogging the LA Auto Show, As someone who abhors officious glad-handing, detests news conference narcolepsy and despairs at anti-ergonomic brochure schlepping, my natural inclination has been to surrender that bit of cybertorial to the heavy hitters. But this year TTAC has a "proper" new blog. And our most excellent contributor Alex Dykes offered his services. So I guess you could say Frank and I just kinda wandered into the gig. Although Autoblog and Jalopnik offered ten times the coverage, I was strangely excited by our minuscule contribution to the genre. I felt like our take was not just different, but worthwhile. It confirmed my growing suspicion that yes, dammit, TTAC has its own unique voice. Sure, our detractors see us as nothing more than childish snipers (now there's an image). But there are plenty of you who "get it," who share our sense of righteous indignation at the unsustainable hyperbole generated at and by auto shows. Even better, I was amazed at the quality of your contributory wit and wisdom. Would you have found your voice elsewhere? Perhaps. But I'm proud that TTAC can provide a safe haven for a literate legion of angry, bemused and insightful intellects whose sardonic attitude in no way impedes their love for all things automotive. Thank you for making it all– all of of it– worthwhile. 

As F. Scott Fitzgerald famously opined, the rich aren't like you and me. Ipso facto. What would you be like if you could do anything you wanted to do from childhood, without ever having to acknowledge (never mind deal with) the consequences of your actions? If you could simply walk away from school, job, marriage, even your home town and start again? It's no wonder that the children of the super-rich are prone to drug addiction, failed relationships and depression. No sympathy? At the risk of trampling on PC notions (for the fiftieth time today), these "poor little rich kids" have more potential positive impact on society than people with less financial resources. All of which is my way of saying my heart goes out to Bill Ford. Clearly, Bill wants to make a difference in this world. Clearly, he doesn't understand his own limitations– because he's never had to. Turning over the corporate reins to Alan Mulally was the right thing to do for Ford, but, perhaps, the wrong thing for Bill. In the same sense, starting-up this new think tank is a bad idea. Ford needs to ground himself in reality, rather than drift off into the world of fantastic ideas. How do I know this? Bill's legacy at Ford speaks for itself. And the man who left it behind. 

So the D.C. DMV reckons the best way to cut lines is to remove the human element from the parking ticket adjudication process. In other words, as of December '08, D.C. drivers who want to bitch that they were busted unfairly can forget the whole "Here come da Judge!" routine. They've got to argue their case via letter or email. If I were a member of the PC police, I'd immediately point out that the move from oral to literary parking ticket protests puts minorities who can't read or write English at an immediate and dramatic disadvantage. If I were a nativist, I would point out that this policy will give non-literate minorities an immediate and dramatic advantage, as the government will no doubt provide an exemption from the WBO (written bitching only) ordinance or provide a savvy translator to craft the protest. In any case, as someone who tutored Freshman English at Tufts, I can tell you that D.C. is making a BIG mistake. The vast majority of the letters and emails flowing into the parking office will be illegible and incoherent. The ones that aren't will be pompous, long-winded and riddled with spurious arguments and outright deceit. They might as well just get a big ass rubber stamp (and electronic equivalent) that says "APPEAL DENIED" and stamp 599 out of 600 letters/emails with it. (You know, to be fair.) And mark my words, that's exactly what they'll do. And you know what? People will write back asking why their appeal was denied– even though there'll be text telling them not to– which they can't read, won't see or will ignore. How great is that? 

I never understood the concept of an automotive-related news embargo. It's easy enough to see what's in it for the carmaker. They can time their marketing and promotion campaign to coincide with the "reveal." They can use the embargo to play favorites. But why would any self-respecting automotive journalist agree to hold onto a story for the convenience of the manufacturer? It's one of those carrot and stick deals. The carrot: primo access to future stories/products. The stick: NOT getting primo access to future stories/products. Either way, any scribe that allows a carmaker to manipulate the journalistic process through a news embargo is guilty of collusion. (That's just a fancy way of saying "selling out.") From my perspective, it's like this: I get the information. I publish the information. My primary responsibility is to my readers. Period. if you don't want me to publish info until Friday, don't give it to me until Friday. And if I find a way to get it before Friday, that's your tough luck. So if there are any news organizations out there who agree with me, but don't want to get their ass kicked by the carmakers, here's an invitation. Send TTAC the info and we'll break the embargo. And once we break it, you're free to follow suit. That way we can work together to end this perfidious practice once and for all. 

My first car was a Ford. As was my second. And my third. They were all hand-me-down Ford Pinto station wagons. And I owned all of them in the space of one year. By the time these machines were under my care, they had around 60k teenage miles on the clock. At the risk of flattering my eventual driving skills, the transfer was a bit like giving an aspiring classical pianist Jerry Lee Lewis' old piano. But I loved my Pintos. Not just because they gave me my freedom (a.k.a. a place to smoke dope and exchange bodily fluids), but also because, well, they were cars. The thing of it is, back in the day, everyone knew what a Ford was: a cheap car. You didn't buy a Ford because you wanted to. You bought it because you had to. Don't get me wrong: there was no dishonor in that. There was working class pride involved. As you know, tempus fugited. Now that the Explorer is lost in the wilderness, I reckon the F-150 is the only Ford vehicle that keeps faith with that blue collar ethos. Even a Fusion is too… fancy. I know, I know; there have been plenty of fancy Fords. But not as many as there have been plain old Fords. Can the Blue Oval rekindle a friendship with America's economy-minded car buyers? I don't know. But as far as Ford having a feeling for the common guy's taste in cars, as a former Pinto owner, I've got one thing to say: there's another myth exploded. 

The truth is I never hurt you. Or at least that's U.S. Representative Candice Miller's take on Chrysler's back-in-black Thursday. Here's the full text of the Michigan Republican's statement on the issue. (Justin and mine below.) Look for more of this in the days to come. “It is a shame that Chrysler has decided to cancel the second shift at their Sterling Heights Assembly Plant. I had a chance to visit the plant recently and was impressed by the enthusiastic and innovative approach to manufacturing that the workers at that plant have exhibited. Simply put, these workers are second to none. I fully understand the challenges our manufacturers, particularly the automakers, have in adjusting to the global marketplace. Just yesterday in Washington, I voted for an expansion of job retraining for workers displaced by global competition so that outstanding workers such as those at Sterling Assembly can find greater opportunities in the future. Times are tough and my heart goes out to the families of the workers.”  

Sorry about this, but the winners of TTAC's Ten Worst automobiles will now be announced on Monday morning. The reason for the delay is simple: me. As you probably know, this website is, to paraphrase Battlestar Gallactica and Dire Straits, a ragtag fleet of high school English class survivors flying through cyberspace in search of a fabled refuge known as… money for nothing and your chicks for free! And that means a great deal of the work in these parts falls on my shoulders. I'm busier than a… Yada, yada, yada. Anyway, it's also true that our shy, self-effacing PR person said WHAT ARE YOU NUTS? NO ONE SENDS OUT A PRESS RELEASE ON A FRIDAY! So, in the interests of riding this annual no-love fest for all its worth, I had to demure. I appreciate your understanding in this matter, and look forward to the hue and cry on Monday. Hint: they're all domestic. Uh-oh.

My wife and I were talking about Tom Cruise the other day. After discussing the diminutive actor's parenting skills and religious beliefs, we came to the somewhat inevitable conclusion that Hollywood's number one Scientologist is as crazy as a loon. In this, he's not alone. At least not in Hollywood. You don't have to read the celebrity gossip mags or watch their TV equivalents to know that Tinsel Town's "elite" have lost all grip on what we outside of their realm commonly refer to as "reality." It's only common sense. Take a group– any group– of good-looking, highly ambitious, ultra-competitive people, give them each a couple of thousand toadies or so and ten or more million dollars, and watch their neuroses bubble to the surface like magma heading for the top of a pre-eruption Mt. St. Helens. Money on that scale still can't buy you love, but it can buy you drug addiction, divorce and up close and personal access to a panoply of mental illnesses. And if these well-loved and lawyered-up people happen to be actors/actresses, they'll be able to hide their insanity from the outside world. Until they can't. I mention all this because I've been searching for a reason why so many carmakers make such boneheaded branding decisions. And I've decided it's because they're cruising along without a care in the world, burning through other people's money as if it were… other people's money. When one of the heavy hitters goes Chapter 11, the resulting chill may cause a change. Then again, maybe not. And how dull would our world be if we couldn't laugh at the foibles of others?

I have been reading the comments to the post "In Defense of American Automakers" with ever-increasing fascination and mounting excitement. As of this writing, there are 828 comments beneath Mr. Ressler's rant. Yes, there's a great deal of rhetorical repetition. Yes, the same half dozen or so commentators have set up fortifications on either side of the "import bigot" issue–  which neither side shows the slightest willingness to abandon. But despite this intellectual intransigence, I'm getting the feeling that something radical is gradually emerging. I'm not entirely sure how to characterize this development; slapping a label on the interchange would be premature. But I am sure that this is exactly the sort of discussion this website was created to engender. The argument's longevity and vitality reveals a fundamental truth that I have been championing for the last five years: the American automotive marketplace is, at its core, engaged in a strange new war of ideas. Ideas that involve art, science, politics, culture, psychology, commerce and national security. Prior to now, if debates on these topics occurred, they occurred within industry enclaves. As I've said many times, we're still a long way from the time when the "barbarians" muscle their way inside the gates– where they belong. But reading this post, knowing that it's making the rounds inside the manufacturers' servers, I sense we're closer than we've ever been before. We're being noticed. And we will be heard. 

Branding guru Al Reis has soothed this publisher's fevered e-brow on more than one occasion. "Chill out," Big Al recently advised. "The strongest brands start small and grow slowly." If that's the criteria for brand strength, TTAC is the Kleenex of automotive blogs. Thankfully, we are growing. As expected, the Ten Worst awards (results on Thursday) are pulling in the punters. Also unsurprisingly, a percentage of these newbies have decided to check up on us on a regular basis. Not to steal the UAW's obfuscatory techniques, the last couple of weeks have seen about a 10 – 15 percent bump in daily uniques (that's you and your best buds). To capitalize on our momentum, I've managed to raise addition funding for the site's editorial budget. To reward our faithful scribes, I'm doubling the editorial and review writers' fees, from nothing much to well something's better than nothing. I'm also tripling the bloggers' pay, from you must be joking to are you kidding? I've hired a product guru, to provide at least two 800-word product reviews per week. And, most important of all, I'm looking for a Review Coordinator. I'm looking for someone to keep track of our reviews, schedule new ones with our stable of car hacks (and write some SVP), talk to manufacturers about getting press cars, secure test vehicles from another (still undisclosed) supplier and generally get us closer to aheadofthecurvosity. The pay is eh, but it IS a paid (freelance) position. If you're interested, please send a CV and a plea to frank.williams@thetruthaboutcars.com with the words "Review Guru" in the subject bar. Meanwhile, if you could email Thursday's Ten Worst award post to all your pistonhead pals, I'd be MOST appreciative. 

After a few months of constant scanning the web for automotive stories, you get a real feel for who covers what, how and when. The Detroit News never fails to identify the stories that count–  but lacks the killer instinct needed to move the game forward. Automotive News is the authority on the hard numbers underpinning the biz, with unparalleled access to the maja playas– but fails to use their knowledge and face time to probe beyond the easy answers to tough questions. The New York Times is excellent at summing-up the issues affecting carland– that hasn't broken a major story in years. In fact, there is no dependable source for hard hitting investigative journalism about one of this country's largest and most important industries. I reckon if that kind of old-fashioned reporting has a logical spiritual home, then it's right here on TTAC. And here's the thing. I've had a word with my paymaster. He might have some funding for a little more editorial help. Now I could use the money to draft in an assistant to remove some of my daily burden. But I'm thinking that maybe, just maybe, there's someone out there who has the skills, passion and 'tude to help take TTAC assume its rightful title in the autoblogosphere: muckraker extraordinaire. If there's anyone answering to that description that will work for peanuts, let me know via the contact button. Meanwhile, we'll continue to do the best we can with what we got. And all you guys who previously volunteered to help, hang tight. I'm getting there.

After I labelled the Volvo P1800 ES a hideous mutation, TTAC commentator beetlebug questioned my aesthetic sensibilities. The usual reply to such cavil: beauty is in the eye of the beholder. My fellow pedants will have grasped the facile nature of this aphorism long ago. Hearing is also in the ear of the listener. And? Of course, this oft-repeated gem is nothing more that a rhetorical upraised middle finger to anyone who disagrees with its proponent's idea of beauty. In other words, your opinion of beauty is as subjective as mine. So if I think a Pontiac Aztec is a beautiful vehicle who the Hell do you think you are to tell me it isn't? Nonsense. I once read a study wherein an anarchic academic set out to prove the fallacy of this shibboleth. He schlepped a range of pictures of female beauty all over the world and asked representative of over a hundred different cultures to identify which photographed females were babes, and which ones were dogs. Some eighty percent of ALL respondents identified the same ten percent of subjects as the most comely amongst them. This is not a long-winded and unctuous way of saying I'm right and beetlebug's right. I mean, wrong. OK, it is a bit long-winded, but my main point is this: I'm satisfied with both our readers' initial Ten Worst nominations and the TTAC writers' final twenty. Just as humans have an innate ability to choose which women deserve a little genetic blending, pistonheads are a reliable indicator of automotive excellence or lack thereof. We may not be the ultimate arbiters of which cars suck and which cars soar– the commercial marketplace serves that role– but we are pretty damn good at identifying a pile of steaming crap when we see one. If someone then steps in it, well, disgust is on the foot of the easily offended. 

Henry Ford firmly established the economic benefits of leveraging large economies of scale– for both the automaker's profits and the customer's wallet. But time and technology have moved on. If you look closely enough, you can see we're heading for the end of corporate consolidation in the automotive industry, slowly heading towards the long-predicted era of mass customization. So-called "flexible manufacturing" allows carmakers to build various vehicles on the same line (e.g. Honda's Civic sedan, Ridgeline pickup and Acura MDX CUV). MINI has reinvigorated the idea of "have it your way." Uber-tuners and ride pimpers have graduated from bolt-on to bespoke. Tender shoots to be sure, but there's no reason to think mass customization shouldn't continue. Just have a look at the staggering number of vehicles for sale, and the consolidation of franchised dealers into multi-branded mega-dealerships. I'll go out on a limb here and say that we'll start to see MORE car brands, rather than less, as manufacturing hives-off from tied retail (a.k.a. franchised dealers). In short, motoring's golden age lies ahead, in a radically different form than we know it now. Put that in your UAW contract and smoke it.

I just finished editing a piece by Steven Wade about Saab's [alleged] renaissance. Bolstering the arguments of a writer whose opinions I don't share may seem a bizarre way to spend my time, but it's a necessary part of TTAC's dedication to platforming ALL viewpoints. (I love verbizing in the morning; its victorizes smells.) As a Jewish Quaker, I do believe there is but one truth. But I'm not so egomaniacal as to believe that I alone am able to discern it. More prosaically, I maintain a steadfast conviction that I can be wrong about anything at any time for any number of reasons. I know that sounds kind of weird coming from the founder/gatekeeper of the most strident of automotive websites, a site that earns more ire than any other. But I reckon that's because our legions of critics mistake our passion for arrogance. The truth is TTAC's writers and commentators care. Which is why I'm not really bothered by Mr. Wade's single-minded belief that Saab's products are vastly underrated. and will rise again. The guy's got heart. He's one of us. And it seems to me that "we" are gathering strength. I see it in our numbers. I see it in the comments sections (check out the 459 comments on "In Defense of the Big Three"). And I see it in my burgeoning in-box, where readers do their level best to contribute to our mission. Some day, we'll be breaking news instead of regurgitating it. Some day, we'll be ahead of the new car curve. But right now, tonight, I feel a sense of satisfaction. And for that I thank you, from the bottom of my heart.

There's something reassuring about talking to employees who work for a really large company. You can almost hear a well-stocked 401k plan in their voice. Now I'm not saying that Ford suffers from the kind of complacency that brought it to the brink in the first (second?) place. But it is certainly true that group think is the enemy of relative quality in all things. So I want to thank Ford for opening a dialogue with TTAC, which is, after all, a mighty hostile environment for an industry used to well-paid cheerleaders and toothless hacks. I invite Ford to continue on this openness arc and allow their employees to post on the Focus review and/or anything else that captures their attention. Of course, we're years away from that kind of non-spun honesty and PR-less transparency. But I'll say this: the first car company that fully embraces the internet in this way will have an enormous advantage over its competitors. And that's down to one simple reason: it will help them build better cars.