I know really big cars are deeply unfashionable amongst people who know who Tim Robbins is. And driving fast is about as socially acceptable as smoking a cigar in a maternity ward. But I can't help it: I love driving huge cars really fast. I suppose it goes back to my first experiences in a seriously swift motor: my Dad's 1972 300 SEL 6.3. That car was a handful. Literally. You know how today's sports sedans all have those big fat steering wheels covered with some sort of hi-tech grippy fabric that never, ever gets slimy? Well the 6.3 had a helm as thick as a sparrow's leg made out of the same translucent, amber-like material you find at the end of a meerschaum pipe. With so much power underfoot, you had to grip that slender oval like grim death, ready to yank it one way or the other or both when the torque overwhelmed the tires and the chassis. Which was all the time. At least the way I drove it. In fact, I got my first speeding ticket in the 6.3. I was nailed doing 113 in a 55 on I195. It really wasn't a big deal. Straight road. Perfect day. Fresh pavement. The judge was not kind. But nothing he did put me off the idea of going like Hell in the automotive equivalent of the QE2. Other kids might look at a speedo of a sports car and ask "What'll she do?" Me, I reserve that particular enquiry for luxobarges. (Sports cars are for corners.) Which is why I totally get an AMG-fettled S-Class but can't make head nor tails out of Justin's C350 Sport. As far as I'm concerned, if you can't chill out and enjoy Mahler's Death in Venice at speed, why bother?  

Owning a Ferrari is like having a mistress. When you're with it/her, you understand exactly why you were willing to risk life, limb, your children's happiness and a huge pile of cash to indulge in inherently selfish, fleeting pleasures. And then the Ferrari breaks/crashes and the mistress goes hinky, as is their wont. And you wonder WTF you were thinking when you bought the Ferrari or indulged your libido [presumably] outside the marital bed. You swear on a stack of fifties that you will never, ever be so stupid as to think you could get away with that kind of shit again as long as you live. You will live within your means, within your sensible, proscribed comfort zone. And then the Ferrari's fixed and the mistress gives you "that" look. If the process becomes an endless loop, there's only one thing for it: buy a Porsche and marry your mistress. My gift to you Justin– and our two fine listeners.

Is the name of the coffee table tome resting underneath my left elbow. Michael Furman's photographic study of automobiles built from 1925 to 1948 leads with pictures of American models, and it's enough to make an American car lover cry. From the Bentley Blower-like 1927 Kissel 8-75 Speedster to the perfectly proportioned 1932 Lincoln KB Model 248 Convertible Roadster (I'm ignoring the hideous 1940 Lincoln Continental Convertible), the US section features some of the most beautiful and charismatic cars the world had ever seen. As TTAC continues to chronicle Detroit's dissolution, let it be said that we look forward to the flowering of talent that its conclusion will bring. There will come a time when the US once again return to the pinnacle of automotive design and engineering. Count on it.

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.

Again, for the record, TTAC has never accused Chris Bangle of being a racist. We accused the BMW designer of racial insensitivity. He singularly failed to realize the potential impact of his "axis of white power" remark on a minority audience. Invidious distinction? Well, the fact that Bangle's apology-free reply dealt entirely with the inadvertent origins of his faux pas— rather than its possible effects on sensitive listeners– does nothing to allay our misgivings. The subtext of his defense: it's all about me. Of course, it isn't about Bangle. It's about his desire (or lack thereof) to respect the dignity of those people who may be offended by an unfortunate turn of phrase. And BMW's responsibility to this same audience. TTAC is no stranger to these issues; we've stepped over these same boundaries. When commentators have pointed out our racial, sexual or political insensitivity, we have immediately withdrawn the offensive text and apologized– despite the fact that we meant no offense. That's the right thing to do. It also seems strange that Bangle felt obliged to deal with criticism of his work BEFORE dealing with the "axis of white power" remark. Clearly, that was really got his goat. Which is just as well. There are those of us who believe the aesthetic indignities that Bangle inflicted on otherwise superb automobiles is a longer-lasting and more egregious error. Your thoughts below.   

Samuel Slater started the industrial revolution in Pawtucket, Rhode Island. Slater's 1793 textile mill set-off a manufacturing boom in The Ocean State, which soon spread throughout New England. Nearby Fall River Massachusetts became one of the world's foremost textile manufacturing centers, generating untold riches for its masters. The human cost at the bottom of the social scale was immense. Immigrant labor– including thousands of children– worked in horrific conditions for minimal compensation, with little hope of a better life. No one who's ever fully contemplated the human misery inflicted on these workers would begrudge their right to form a labor union, to protect themselves from heinous exploitation. It's a story that played out across America, in a range of labor-intensive industries; including mining, construction and automaking. And yet, at some point, the balance of power shifted too far the other way. Unions controlled the cost, pace, scale and scope of labor, tying the hands of those who would organize it for commercial survival. As the local labor force became too expensive and unwieldy, the Fall River mill owners abandoned the town. All that's left are dozens of huge, empty mills, now occupied by laser tag, indoor golf and… nothing. It's the same right across America's northern states, the country's former industrial heartland. Could the exodus have been prevented? It's hard to know. Will it now happen to Detroit's once all-conquering automotive industry? It already has. 

An investment banker once told me business isn't risky. People are risky. One guy can take a dumb as toast business plan and make millions. Another guy can take a slam dunk and forget to throw the ball. Divining where risk lives is a lot harder than it seems. The same biz brain said planning for failure is easy. If Cadillac's new sub-CTS doesn't sell, well, the brand has plenty of experience not selling small cars. But what if the mini-Caddy sells like hotcakes? Could the average Caddy dealer deal? What would it do to the Cadillac brand? Or Buick? Or Chevy? For GM execs who mutter "we should be so lucky," be careful what you wish for. Meanwhile, I wish governments would ease-up on the whole risk elimination business. Even global warming's most vociferous adherents will admit that the possibility of rising ocean levels flooding our coastal conurbations is a risk, not a dead cert. How far are we willing to go to eliminate that risk? Do we really need to force people out of their cars to do so? And who's planning for the potential problems that success would bring? No one. Until I see that kind of thinking on the issue, I'm staying out of it. Well, at least until Monday. 

Few people will recognize the name Salman Rushdie. Those who do will know know Rushdie as the Indian-born fiction writer whose novel The Satanic Verses inspired the Ayatollah Khomeini to issue a death sentence against its author. After attempting to read the work in question, I can tell you that it’s far more likely that the the fatwa was, in truth, an act of literary criticism, rather than a divinely-inspired retribution for Koranic blasphemy. Suffice it to say, the rest of Rushdie’s literary canon can be safely placed in that special category pretentious people call “challenging.” In fact, Rushdie’s greatest work was penned when he worked as advertising copywriter for Ogilvy & Mather. The headline above is one such Rushdie meisterwerk, written for the UK’s Egg Council. He also wrote “Naughty but Nice” for a cake maker. But just try and find a bio that gives proper credit for these bon mots, or explains the creative process they required. As Justin and I dissect ad slogans on this podcast, try to remember that it takes a blazing talent to find a few words that can carry a car brand into the hearts and minds of consumers. And a great company to recognize and embrace them.

Failing upwards is a very strange concept, one that I don't pretend to understand. For example, Mark Fields took the reins of  Ford's doomed-from-birth Premier Automotive Group (PAG) from founder Wolgang Reitzle in 1998. During Field's four-year tenure, PAG continued its inexorable decline. Fields didn't staunch Jaguar's wounds (i.e. kill the X-type) or introduce hit models (i.e. the Jaguar F-type) or do anything to pull PAG into profit (i.e. launch the Volvo XC90). And yet his service at PAG earned Fields the position of President of the Americas and a temporary slot as CEO-in-waiting. No doubt Fields is a handsome, energetic, personable, intelligent and hard-working Ford employee. But it seems that his ascension has more to do with these traits than what business people like to call "results." The fact that Fields is still in situ tells me that Ford's diseased corporate culture remains intact– which is far more worrying prospect than even its bone dry product pipeline. Can ex-Boeing CEO Alan Mulally retrain Ford's old guard in his new (old) ways? Maybe. But I'm reminded of a piece of advice I found in an Atlantic magazine article some 20 years ago. What's the trick to training a dog? Answer above.  

I'm sure many of you share "the one that got away" syndrome. You know: the car you should have bought for peanuts and stashed away. My two four-wheeled pangs are a neighbor's Dino and my old man's Mercedes Benz 300SEL 6.3. I know both of these cars were/are hideously expensive to maintain, and that time has this way of making cars you haven't driven in twenty years seem like great cars when, in fact, a Volkswagen GTI could run rings around them. Well not so fast Mr, Bond. I had the pleasure of driving a 6.3 in England before the country's anti-speeding jihad lead to the existence of more speeding cameras than ear, nose and throat specialists. It was just as fun steering that bad boy with my right foot. It was still a blast watching puff of blue smoke as the points cleared themselves at rock steady triple digit speeds. And it still smelled wonderful. As for the Dino, a properly restored (rebuilt?) model proves the old saw about having more fun driving a slow car fast than a fast car slow. It's wonderfully balanced and incredibly charismatic. If I looked around today for cars I would stash if I could stash cars, I'd go with my Boxster S (3.4-liter, 19's), the E55 Mercedes station wagon and, get this, a Corvette-engined Chevrolet SSR. Which you can still buy new.  

I'd love to produce a TTAC TV program. Can you imagine? Now, try to imagine a network that accepts automotive advertising putting us on the air. It behooves fans of Top Gear to remember that the program is a BBC production. In other words, it's aired on a non-commercial channel funded by a mandatory TV tax that's enforced by roving cat loony TV detector vans. There's no way the egomaniacal Mr. Clarkson could bully his co-hosts and pontificate on the crapitude of crap cars (or the sexual pleasures of fast ones) with such ill-mannered, bombastic, no-holds-barred abandon if his cart and pony show aired on American commercial TV. Realistically, the only U.S. media outlet that could/would air a TTAC TV show would be PBS or one of the paid cable channels. While we're ready to go on our end, I'm not actively pursuing such a venture. No time. Which reminds me: we're looking for an intern. No pay, lots of responsibilities, work from home. Applicants must suffer from at least mild auto-related OCD and have a basic command of the English language as she is spoke. Drop an email to robert.farago@thetruthaboutcars.com. Oh and no major ego issues please. That's my purview. 

Sorry; I went off on a major tangent. Let's try the on-message thing again. So… the podcast focused on Newsweek's list of eight vehicles Chrysler should kill. Me, I'm Machiavellian. Cut more deeply than you have to. So I'd terminate everything Chrysler makes except the 300. If you must, keep the Town and Country minivan. But make it the world's fanciest minivan. Move both models WAY upmarket. Why not? Who's representing American luxury? Caddy doesn't get it. Lincoln's dead. Once more into the breach, dear Chrysler! Dodge? If their current passenger car lineup proves anything, it's that Dodge can't build a competitive small or mid-sized car. No way Jose (or the Chinese equivalent). Just drop it. Build pickup trucks. Three sizes: small (remember small?), medium and friggin' gigantic. Done. Jeep? Kill everything except the Wrangler (two sizes) and the Grand Cherokee. Sound risky? Never was anything great achieved without danger. Anyway, who cares about cars, minivans or trucks? Boot'em Bob's first job should be booting them. Why is LaSorda still in situ? Why is Nardelli embarking on a full court press when he hasn't retired the losing team members? In fact, why haven't thousands of Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep white collar workers been fired? It's completely obvious to me– and Nicolo– that the only way to "cure" a diseased corporate culture is to leave it knee deep in blood. If Bob isn't true to his moniker, mark my words, all will be lost, both for Chrysler and Nardelli. As Big Mac said, "it is much more secure to be feared than to be loved."

My career at CNN prepared me for this work. Like TTAC, Ted's 24-hour news channel was an insatiable maw that required constant feeding. Miss a deadline? Never happened. Couldn't happen. You did the best you could within the time frame available and that was that. I soon discovered that quality was not a function of time. CNN's hourly newscasts were as good as the net's daily productions, if not better. Nor was money the deciding difference between "us" and "them". We had a hundredth of NBC's budget; yet we missed nothing. So what made it work? Contrary to some books on the subject, it wasn't esprit de corps— there was far too much alcohol, cocaine, envy and ambition for that. I reckon it was the sheer joy of having a voice. Of being able to say something without a stultifying bureaucracy reigning-in our style, creativity and passion. Obviously, that's changed since then. But freedom of expression has a home here at TTAC. So whenever I wonder how the Hell I'm going to raise this brand out of its ghetto with just one full-time staff member (me), I think back to those crazy days when everyone– everyone— said CNN wouldn't cut it. We didn't believe. We just enjoyed. In other words, sorry I missed yesterday's podcast Justin, and put this one up late. But you gotta admit: it IS fun. 

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." 

Over the weekend, I ate at little Rhody's most celebrated (i.e. expensive) death-by-meat-house. The experience was more-or-less as expected. As I left, the waiter confronted me with his best crestfallen/concerned expression. "Was everything all right?" he inquired. In other words, why'd you stiff me? As I'd left 10 percent of a very hefty tab, I ruled his plea out of order. Besides, the bastard had [temporarily] confiscated my knife. MY knife: a prized folding lock-back whose sharp edge makes slicing meat as easy and sensually satisfying as corner carving in a Boxster S. "Oh no, you need this!" he'd said, removing MY knife and proffering a cutting instrument straight out of Pirates of the Caribbean, with a blade as dull as Congressional testimony. In general, I don't mind surrendering authority to someone who knows what they're doing. But when someone's a bully AND an idiot, well, like I said, the waiter had removed MY knife. This reaction also explains why I detest car dealers. Sounds like Justin feels the same way.