"I just got a new wing mirror for my Skoda." "Sounds like a fair trade." And it's true: I remembered the joke; I didn't surf the web for it. Although these days, one wonders why you'd want to remember anything. Everything's on the web. OK, a lot of the information is inaccurate; as our resident rivet counters remind me whenever car info gleaned from the meta minds at Wikipedia proves to be erroneous. But it is a brave new world, where you can find facts (and pseudo-facts) on the most obscure aspects of motoring with just a few taps on the old plastic keys. Although Toyota's hired a guy to scan the blogs, I'm sure the big bosses throughout autodom don't get it. Their egos are too fragile to answer a question "I have no friggin' idea. Let's Google it." Why else would GM Car Czar Bob Lutz– a man who can remember the warm glow of vacumn tube radios– try to name all VW's brands, when it was clear he had no idea? By now, it should be OK to not know stuff. Lyndon Johnson knew the score when he proclaimed "A decision is only as good as the information its based on." Add in the old saw "A bad decision is better than no decision" and you have a recipe for executive success. And I'm looking at that picture of the Optima and deciding to get back to the real work of this site before the weekend closes in. Aloha.

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] 

Back in the day, the descriptive phrase "living room on wheels" applied to an automobile was a compliment. That I never got. I simply couldn't understand why anyone would want to experience the joys of driving completely insulated from the joys of driving. While I didn't expect everyone to lust after a Dino (the car, not the animated dinosaur), there were BMWs and Mercedes and Toyotas and VWs about that offered a Miley Cyrus solution. Why couldn't Detroit at least move in that direction? When I drove the first Honda Accord, I rejoiced: the Japanese "got it:" road feel, steering feel, handling, braking, the works. I remember thinking right then and there that Detroit was going to get its butt kicked. I was wrong and I was right. As the success of the originall Lexus LS proved, the Japanese understood that building better American-style (i.e. pillow-soft and deadly silent) cars than the Americans was the key to mainstream success. While there are plenty of driver's cars for sale these days, it behooves those of us who prefer them to remember that most people don't. Or do they? If you put an Avalon driver in a BMW 3-Series, would they eventually learn to stop worrying and learn to love the Bimmer? The success of the new Lancer suggests not.

VW may be moving from Detroit to Washington, DC. So it's out of the frying pan, into the home of liars. Other than DC's proximity to the regulators who determine what kind of cars get built and the city's more convenient airline connections to the Fatherland, I can't fathom any good reason for the brand to move to Cap City (in both senses of the word). I've got nothing against DC, but it's another highly insular company town. I mean, if you were the head of a car company looking for a place to attract world class talent and keep them from sticking their collective heads up their collective asses, wouldn't you go to the home of car culture? As Jed Clampett's friends said "California's the place you ought to be!" Actually, I'd put my people in Knoxville, TN. Low-cost of living, friendly folk and The Tail of the Dragon, one of this country's wildest public roads. Yeah I know: the police have cracked-down on TOD hoons, big time. But you could cut a deal. Anyway, as much as I love Little Rhody, this is not motorhead mecca– as Mr. Berkowitz so KINDLY pointed out. I wonder how much houses go for down in Knoxville…

Sorry for the late post, Justin. My daughter's musical education demanded an emergency trip the Bundus to secure a larger violin from the only gray-haired man I've ever seen with a Beatles-style (a.k.a. bowl) haircut. Stepping out of the Volvo S80– a press car that my wife had scratched only hours before while choking on a mint in an underground parking garage– I noticed that the Bee Gees-era Chevrolet Caprice parked adjacent was adorned with a sticker: "RI State Troopers. Always there when you need them." I had to laugh. I mean, you pay a "donation" to a "benevolent fund" (how mafia is that) and you get this sticker that asks the cop not ticket you 'cause you reached into your pocket when a highly paid telemarketer ignored the national Do Not Call list to tell you how many police officers died so that some meths-crazed loser wouldn't interrupt the crucial last five minutes of Iron Chef America– like he just did. I say, if you're that worried, drive a Volvo S80. If ever a car discouraged rapid progress, this is it. In fact, the Caprice driver would have LOVED the S80; same floaty drifty dynamics, touchy brakes, unsupportive seats, slow and complaining engine and family-friendly packaging. In fact, it's the missing link! Anyway, I digress. Here's the podcast.

I really do wonder about the clash of ideologies inherent in the green movement. I'm just about old enough to remember America's transition from seemingly boundless self-confidence and optimism (retro-actively captured by Donald Fagen's masterpiece The Nightfly) to cynicism, doubt, fear and self-loathing (typified by Buffalo Springfield's "Stop, hey what's that sound"). Automotively speaking, what greater contrast could you have than the bold, brash, befinned Cadillacs of the '50's vs. today's Kremlin-style DTS? But the wider point perplexes. Are we really supposed to be the generation that turns it back on conspicuous consumption in favor of social responsibility? While I am, at heart, a minimalist, I find the idea of peak oil and global warming and don't drive an SUV or a Ferrari 'cause you're killing my child, your child, everyone's children to be somehow antithetical to the American way. I know that the 50's weren't a lot of laughs for a lot of people, and that "the American way" as described revolts many people, but is it really so wrong to celebrate conspicuous consumption? While some– and I'm thinking Tesla here– capture the public imagination with a "cake and eat it too" solution, I'm not so sure we can have it both ways. Nor am I sure I can give up the things I love for the greater good. Just sayin'. 

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.

You may have noticed a few changes to the site over the last few days: disappearing and reappearing car reviews, some new functions, a flaming warning above the edit box, a bigger edit box in which not to flame, etc. Yes, our most excellent programmers have been busy doing a little pre-winter cleaning. The editorial side of this endeavor thank them for their hard-work, creativity and perspicacity (in cyberspace, no one can smell you sweat). And now, finally, we can return to podcasting. I've chosen Mr. Justin Berkowitz for our daily cast. He's got the right 'tude for the job and doesn't actually have a job– the "real" kind that doesn't let you podcast from a company-sponsored cubicle. We'll be riffing on our content for your dining and dancing pleasure. Enjoy. Oh, and the best way to clear your cache to see the prettified site: click on "classic" in the header bar, then click on "new" in the top right corner. 

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.     

I once drove off the road, screaming, at 80mph. Why? I was in love. When love turns blind, men do irrational things. As far as healthy, loving relationships go, the one presaging my off-highway excursion was a malignant tumor wrapped in an iron lung. I imagine that owning a Pontiac Solstice GXP is a similar affair. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury; the prosecution calls her a “femme fatale on wheels.” I ask you: how could something this beautiful be so damn dangerous?

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.]