According to French philosopher Emile Chartier, “Nothing is more dangerous than an idea when it is the only one you have.” Chartier died in 1951, before les flics started using radar guns and fixed speed cameras to apprehend drivers exceeding the posted limit– regardless of the actual danger these motorists pose to themselves or other road users. Setting aside issues raised by indiscriminate government surveillance, Chartier would have been appalled by the single-minded fervor with which these devices have been applied. If you're looking for the logical extreme of the "speed kills" idee fixe, the UK provides it. Speed cameras are everywhere: real ones, fake ones, digital units, rear-facing, forward-facing, hidden, obvious, thousands of them. What's more camera vans (a.ka. "Talivans") roam the highways and byways, nabbing speeders from highway overpasses, country roads and city streets. The end result? No improvement in road safety and an enormous disaffection between the police and the population they're charged with protecting. Although the English are a generally passive people who hold to the idea that "if you're not doing anything wrong you don't have any reason to worry," there comes a point where enough is enough. Paul Smith of Safe Speed tells the tale.  

So, BMW develops a flex fuel gas/hydrogen powered vehicle and we're supposed to give them tree-hugging props? I don't think so. I give them far more credit for perfecting and selling the diesel engines in their European sedans; cars that are are clean-running, quiet, efficient and powerful. While pistonheads are generally considered selfish bastards whose love of speed, comfort and style is a luxury our country– indeed the entire world– can no longer afford, I say bollocks to that. There is no reason why this country can't develop its own sources of energy– so we can burn it as we will in our choice of automobile. Anyway, that's my warm-up for my September 11th column on America's national energy policy as it relates to your car or cars. If you have any thoughts on the matter, you can help me out by dropping them here. Meanwhile, enjoy the pre-rant precast. 

Mike Spinelli:  …ok…

Robert Farago:  I swear we can do this. Are you ready?

MS:  Yep.

MS:  OK. 

RF:  What take is this?

MS:  I don’t even remember it.  Six I think.

RF:  Geez… We’re way ahead there.  OK… 

RF:  Good morning Mr. Spinelli.

MS:  Good morning Mr. Farago.

RF:  How are you today sir?

MS:  Boy, am I excellent how are you?

RF:  I’m still well.

MS:  That’s fantastic.

RF:  How are things at www.jalopnik.com?

MS:  They’re great.  And how are things at thetruthaboutcars.com?

RF:  Wow! Are they hot. 

MS:  Ah.  Fantastic. 

RF:  All right.  Now BMW is making (laughter)… is making… (laughter) … a hydrogen powered car.    What can we say about that…

MS:  Hydrogen!

RF:  …we haven’t said before?

MS:  Well, it’s interesting because Autoexpress has the spy shots today of the production version of the 7 Series clean energy hydrogen car.  The thing is, it’s not fuel cell.

RF:  Oh?

MS:  It’s combustion… it’s a hydrogen combustion engine. 

RF:  A flex fuel?

MS:  Flex fuel.  Right.  Along with… in other words it’ll have two tanks.  One with gasoline and one for the hydrogen.

RF:  And never shall the two mix.

MS:  Hopefully, for, yeah, for those involved it’ll …..  yeah… not as..  yeah.

RF:  How, how,  just out of curiosity… I mean, I  know we really shouldn’t perhaps go down this road, but you know, that’s, that’s what we do.

MS:  Yeah.

RF:  How bad would hydrogen blow up if, you know, if it did blow up?

MS:  Ah…

RF:  I mean, I know gasoline is actually more combustible than hydrogen … more explosive.

IMS:  It’s interesting.  I don’t know exactly the volatility factor … it’s pretty volatile though.  I know hydrogen is…

RF:  I think those guys over at Top Gear should try and blow one of those suckers up.  

MS:  Hey, that would be an excellent idea,

RF:  Yeah.  Just to show that it can be done.

MS:  Right, through the mushroom cloud that ends up, uh, over Birmingham or wherever they are.

RF:  Yeah.  That would be…

MS:  They would have to account for that.

RF:  Proof positive, though, that maybe it’s not the best idea.  Actually I’m sure it’s safe cause you know…

MS:  I’m sure…no, it’s safe… it’s safe because they’ve been coming up with these these tanks that make it safe.

RF:  Right.  OK  and I… don’t they run trains into them just to show that they’re safe, or is that nuclear carriers?

MS:  Yeah, I don’t know that that is… running rains into stuff…

RF:  Anyway….

MS:  Sounds fun, but, uh, yeah…

RF:  Anyway, so if you think it’s hard to find an E-85 station, you just try and look for a hydrogen station.

MS:  Exactly.  Well, well… BMW earlier this year said this car is coming out in two years, but of course not to John Q. Public.  It’s coming out, uh, fleet sales.

RF:  Well, who would want to run a fleet of 7 Series? 

MS:  Um.  I don’t know.  I think there must be some…

RF:  There’s got to be a bank in Germany

MS:  Exactly I mean…

RF:  Zey are running zee hydrogen powered car…

MS:  Ja, ja.

RF:  For all our executives.

MS:  For every single one of our executives.

RF:  Has hydrogen power.  I can’t, I can’t understand this.

MS:  What fleet, I mean, I don’t think it’s…

RF:  I thought this…

MS:  …the Los Angeles cab company, I mean, I don’t… who knows?

RF:  Well, it’s really weird because, you know, all this alternative energy stuff tends to be on the sort of, you know, the economy, clean air, tree hugging, you know, lefty side of the…

MS:  Yeah, you had to throw that in didn’t you…

RF:  Well, but what I’m saying is, that, you know, the 7 Series is the plutocrat’s express.

MS:  It’s, it’s funny… right… exactly… really seems…

RF:  Not quite the image for this

MS:  It’s a little bit counterintuitive, but, but, then again, you know. Ford has the hydrogen combustion engine in an airport bus.  So, I mean, that actually makes a bit more sense from a fleet standpoint.

RF:  Yeah, well you just circuit, you’re only what, what two miles away from your gas station?

MS:  Yeah, you’re driving around and around in circles.  Right, you’re never, right, you’re never, you’re never really more than what, a quarter mile from a gas…uh… hydrogen fuel station?

RF:  Yeah.

MS:  But, but, you know, don’t forget, California’s working on this, uh, hydrogen highway, right?

RF:  Yeah, where they’re going to have hydrogen stations positioned every what, twenty miles?

MS:  I’m not sure how many miles…

RF:  What’s the range of a hydrogen car?

MS:  I’m not sure exactly, I think it’s more like, you know, hundreds of miles, or something, a hundred miles…

RF:  Well the other thing we need to point out is that hydrogen, uh, takes energy to… you have to spend energy to create hydrogen.

MS:  Yeah, that’s true…

RF:  So…

MS:  …you got to crack it.

RF:  Right.  So although the cars are going to have zero emissions at the tailpipe, there’s still going to be carbon, uh, by-product somewhere in the chain.

MS:  Well, yeah, unless, you know, a lot of scientists feel that in order for the hydrogen economy to work you need, you need nuclear, you need some nuclear reactors to more, you know, economically… of course, then you end up with the, uh, you know, brown water you gotta deal with

RF:  Yeah, exactly…

MS:  … uh, not brown water… heavy, heavy water.

RF:  Heavy water.

MS:  Yeah.  Brown water is something…

RF:  Totally.

MS:  Totally Different.

RF:  You get those spent rods as well.

MS:  Spent rods  uh.. yeah.

RF:  Which has nothing to do with the web site I was on 10 minutes ago.

MS:  He’ll be here all week.

RF:  Ok, but the important point about it is this, that hydrogen is not the solution to our energy needs.

MS:  Um.. it’s, it’s  interesting, I mean, you know, it’s not THE solution.   That’s kind of a, you know, uh, I mean it could be.  It’s not like it’s not…

RF:  Well the only thing that could make it work is if you had very small micro refineries using all kinds of alternative energy spread throughout the country.

MS:  Well, you see now you read, uh… I don’t know… Wired Magazine in, what, 1993, they were talking about doing that.  But of course, the, the… it’s a little bit prohibitive, I think, at this point.  But, yeah, I mean, in the future…

RF:  But then you’re asking the big oil companies to surrender production.

MS:  Right.

RF:  So…

MS:  So that’s another problem.

RF:  You know, that’s, that’s…  I don’t know… the hydrogen economy I think is a bit of a ruse.  I don’t really think it’s gonna be… it’s gonna be something we’re gonna see in our lifetime.

MS:  Well… well yeah, I mean it, it’s gonna take a lot of, of changes and, and, uh, you know…

RF:  Well, who’s gonna do it?  I mean, you know, unless you have a national initiative to, uh, you know, unless we have something called, I dunno… what, an energy policy?

MS:  Right. 

RF:  You know.

MS:  Exactly right.

RF:   Until they can decide what we should be doing and how we should be doing it, it’s not going to happen.

MS:  Yeah, well there’s, you know, there’s too many… too many interests involved at this point so, you know, of course nothing is going to get done, and, uh… well I guess we need a dictator to say, OK this is the energy we’re using

RF:  Yeah.  Right.  That’s what we need.  A dictator.  Good answer.

MS:  Thanks.

RF:  Thank you. 

MS:  But anyway…

RF:  The first web site’s that’s going to be shut down by that dictator is yours.

MS:  But anywhooo…

RF:  Yes, we have the Chrysler.

MS:  We have a Chrysler that might… we might see.  Uh prob…

RF:  300C.

MS:  Uh.  300C drop top which we may see before we see a 7 Series hydrogen.

RF:  I think a lot better.   Certainly more desirable.

MS:  Ah… yeah.

RF:  Well for me.

MS:  Well, I… I mean, yeah, but you’re right though, the drop top looks spectacular.

RF:  It is an amazing car but you… you tell me that it’s no longer going… the original concept was made by ASC Inc.

MS:  Yeah.

RF:  And now they’re diverting to Magna-Steyr. 

MS:  Well, the latest we’ve heard is that,uh,yeah, that…that… that, uh, Chrysler is going to Magna-Steyr a supplier that they use to build Jeeps and other cars, um, in Austria.  Of course they’re a Canadian-Austrian firm.  Um… and yeah, according to this latest report they’ll have a Karmann-style, you know, like a retractable folding steel roof like Volkswagen has for the Eos you know.  I guess GM has with the um G6 now.

RF:  Well, listen, they build it for the right price and they’ll sell them all day long.

MS:  Ah, of course.  I mean, and when was the last time you saw a 4 door, a 4 door convertible?  What?  I mean on Entourage you see the, uh, Lincoln from what, ‘68 or whatever it was, you know, with that crane shot you pointed out,  uh, whenever that was.

RF:  That was in take 2.

MS:  Well, it was either take two or…

RF:  This is take 12.

MS:  You also said it l, I think in an earlier podcast.

RF:  OK  Well, there you go.  So yeah, I think it’ll be a huge hit.

MS:  In 2010 you can might, you may see that.

RF:  Oh Yeah?  That’s, that’s pretty close.

MS:  Yeah.

RF:  And speaking of cars of the future, what about the Infiniti G35, the next one?

MS:  Well, yeah, the uh the you know Infiniti senior VP uh Shiro Nakamuro, you know, says that it’s going to look like the, uh, coupe concept we saw in Detroit so there’s something.  I wish it…

RF:  Well it’s certainly a good looking car and I think Infiniti is set to take off.

MS:  Yeah, it’s interesting ‘cause, you know,  they, they really want to break into uh, into the European and, um, and even into their own Japanese market. Don’t forget the Japanese have been buying, you know,  Mercedes and BMWs as luxury cars for so long that you know their own luxury brands have a lot of work to do, you know, to get in there.

RF:  That’s often the case though, that the domestic brand doesn’t have the cache of the import.

MS:  Right exactly.  They have the same problem that, say, Cadillac has here.

RF:  Yeah.  Well, ok.  But I do think this is a good looking car and somebody has got to knock the 3 Series off its perch.

MS:  That’s true and, and this, this could be the car to do it.  I mean, we’ll see

RF:  They don’t have to but it’s worth trying to.

MS:  But it should.  I mean the 3 Series coupe at least, now that the 3 Series 5i, you know, it needs some completion.  This could be pretty potent competition.

RF:  I don’t think BMW executives would agree with you on that. 

MS:  That they need competition?  No, competition is good, I mean, didn’t, well, I mean, they probably don’t agree that they quite need it, but they do need it.

RF:  OK.  Well then, whether they agree with it or not there it is.

MS:  Maybe they do agree with it.

RF:  Well the Pontiac Fiero coming back.

MS:  Well, that’s interesting. You know, uh, you know, our friends over at the, uh, Left Lane News sort of went trolling around in the, uh, the, uh, Patent, US Patent stuff yesterday and they, yeah, they came up with this.

RF:  Do you think they were actually trolling around or do you think someone sent them a heads up?

MS:  No, they said they were, he said, I was talking with Nick from over there yesterday, and he said, uh, that it was a boring news day so he was sort of messing around in there.  I mean, it could have been a tip, but who knows?  But…

RF:  Ok. Well, we believe…

MS:  But it’s easy enough to look around…

RF:  …Nick is as honest as the day is long.

MS:  Yeah.  But it’s easy enough to look around in the US Patent thing, just to look for key words and stuff, and it’s, you know, but it’s kind of fun.

RF:  But the Fiero as you pointed out in your post, uh, was actually just about coming right when they killed it.

MS:  Yeah,  you know, and, and this is just part of it cause he also found a couple of other things I’ll just mention quickly.  Eight speed transmission for GM and, uh, Firebird is also being re-opted as a trademark.  But, anyway, but yeah, the Fiero was uh yeah.  They were just getting it cause it sucked so badly in the beginning.

RF:  But they did bring it, right, and we’d like to see a small MR-2 style car.

MS:  It would be neat, I mean, I don’t, I don’t expect that, that something like that is coming back eminently, but uh, hey you never know.

RF:  And we are coming back eminently on Monday.

MS:  Yes.  We’ll do that.

RF:  Thank you for your time

MS:  OK
 

It's clear that GM's new powertrain warranty– 5 years, 100k miles– has set TTAC tongues wagging. To get on top of the story, I phoned Philip Reed, Consumer Advice Editor at Edmunds.com. Reed has written a book called Strategies for Smart Car Buyers, which covers the entire car buying process: selling, leasing, buying, used cars, certified cars, the whole schmeer. Reed knows what's what when it comes to warranties and, equally important, their value to both customer and manufacturer. According to Reed, GM's announcement could well be a great landing at the wrong airport.  

It’s one of those happy, clappy news days when pistonheads have a surfeit of stories to investigate from the privacy of their cubicle. I sometimes wonder what creates this compulsive fascination with four-wheeled transportation. The standard take on the subject is that the automobile represents freedom. Supposedly, congestion, high gas prices and environmental responsibility have destroyed this traditional romantic association between the car and the proverbial “open road.” (Personally, I think National Lampoon’s Summer Vacation had a lot to do with it.) But this perceived wisdom fail to realize that the car isn’t just about going towards something new and exciting, it’s about moving away from stuff that drives you nuts: Mom, Dad, the Boss, Wife/Husband, kids, etc. A large part of TTAC’s mission is to help aid this process of escape– if only for ten minutes and three seconds. If you haven’t tried this precast thing, go for it. The only thing you have to lose is the stress of not being behind the wheel.

You may have noticed this website tends to celebrate performance automobiles. While this predilection for dynamic distraction places us within the media mainstream, it doesn’t square with urban car culture. I'm sure you know that car owners who inflict double-dubs on their whips happily sacrifice ride and handling on the altar of, gulp, style. Even so, ladies and gentlemen, I’ve seen the light. Thanks to the Mercedes SL550, I now know middle aged white people can stunt and floss with the best (worst?) of them.

Car names are a happy hunting ground for motoscribes and headline writers. Nissan Armada? Please. Versa? Vice springs immediately to mind (and not because of any other websites I may or may not have visited recently). I'm not sure if Nissan was trying to flummox the press when they settled on Qashqai as a name for their new "cute ute," but I reckon it's a big mistake. First, naming a vehicle after an obscure ethnic tribe is a bit too me-too, what with the Toureg already twisting tongues at VW dealerships worldwide. Second, the Qashqai are a semi-nomadic, Farsi-speaking Shia Muslim tribe based in southern Iran. Nuff said? Third, it's unpronounceable. I've scoured the web, and still can't find a phonetic spelling. (Little help?) And fourth, capitalizing on a tribe's identity without paying them for the privilege ain't exactly what I'd call PC. Meanwhile, Spinelli and I kick around Mr. Mulally's appointment at Ford. Figuratively speaking. 

Was he pushed or did he jump? Either way, Billy Ford’s resignation as CEO of the family firm is yet more proof that The Blue Oval’s in big trouble. Not that he’s been trying to hide the fact. In his Newsweek interview, Billy telegraphed his intention to fall on his sword: “I've always said that titles are not important to me… What's important is getting this company headed in the right direction." And the new man is… Alan Mulally, Boeing’s now former Executive Vice President. Not to coin a phrase, one wonders if Billy told the board, “If it’s not Boeing, I’m not going.”

Billy’s press release hails FoMoCo’s new President and CEO and explains the choice: “Alan has deep experience in customer satisfaction, manufacturing, supplier relations and labor relations, all of which have applications to the challenges of Ford. He also has the personality and team-building skills that will help guide our Company in the right direction.” The aeronautical and astronautical engineer joined Boeing straight out of college in '69. Mulally's “customer experience” is limited to convincing airlines to buy jets. Not to put too fine a point on it, the Kansas native sure ain’t no car guy.

Still, point taken on the manufacturing and labor relations side of things. An assembly line is an assembly line, whether you're building lumbering behemoths that can or can not fly. And a good chunk of Mulally’s Boeing career was spent investigating jet crashes caused by weather– a situation not a million miles away from the effect of gas prices on Ford’s SUV business. And he’s certainly familiar with Ford-sized executive salaries. Forbes reports that Mulally drew down $9,961,985 last year, with $6,362,599 in stock options taxiing for takeoff.

One of the main reasons Billy Ford likes Mulally is that Mulally likes Ford. In his book “Working Together,” author James P. Lewis chronicled Mulally’s success at Boeing, from the depths of post-911 to the launch of the new 787. Lewis reports that Mulally was inspired by Ford’s last turnaround, starring… the Ford Taurus. In their statements to the press, both Billy and Alan referred to this appointment as karmic payback: “Just as I thought it was appropriate to apply lessons learned from Ford to Boeing,” Mulally said. “I believe the reverse is true as well.”

In case you were wondering how Mulally pulled Boeing out its nosedive to earn himself the top slot at America’s number three automaker, it’s all about the product, stupid. Despite the post-911 crash in airplane sales, Mulally’s team pushed forward on streamlining the company’s Byzantine production process and developing new planes. When the market eventually bounced back, Boeing was ready. You could argue that a rising tide lifts all Executive Veeps, and what else could Boeing have done anyway, but there’s no doubt that Mulally helped the Seattle-based company make better, faster and cheaper jets.

There’s also no question about Mulally’s leadership abilities. His “team-building skills” within and without Boeing are legendary. In a March ’06 article for Design News, Boeing’s Chief Engineer of the 777's interior design sang Mulally’s praises. "Alan exhibits every quality that you would want to see in a good leader–vision, trust, integrity, and, above all, an overwhelming enthusiasm.” George Brody also said, “He's just dynamic when it comes to getting people to pull together." Of course, a big part of Mulally’s confidence comes from his technical know-how. One wonders how long it will take Ford’s new CEO to get up to speed on the intricacies of car building.

Or if Mulally can readjust his internal clock to the car industry’s three year product cycles. For 37 years, the Boeing man was attuned to a two decade gap between a new product’s conception and customer deliveries. (You can count the number of planes he’s worked on with one hand.) And that’s on top of strategic thinking that extends out 40 years or more (a modern aircraft can stay in service 60 years). Ford has eight brands and dozens of models, each of which require some form of design, engineering and marketing right now– in addition to the models on the drawing boards or in development.

Again, Mulally ain’t no car guy. In fact, his appointment is reminiscent of John Sculley’s ascension to the top post at Apple Computer. The Pepsi Prez was also a hugely successful, gregarious outsider charged with turning around a failing multinational with a deeply entrenched corporate culture, that enjoyed tremendous customer loyalty. Sculley was also overseen by the same man who used to run the joint. Suffice it to say, Sculley’s tenure did nothing to help Apple, and plenty to hurt it. It remains to be seen if Mulally can win friends and influence people who are already clinging to their jobs by the skin of their teeth.

Mulally’s first test will be overseeing the deal or no deal happening or not happening at Aston, Land Rover and Jaguar. And then, it’s union time. Then we’ll see if Mullaly’s got what it takes to pull the yoke and save Ford from a death spiral into Chapter 11.

I've been podcasting with Mike Spinelli of Jalopnik on a daily basis for quite some time. I hesitate to say exactly how long because then I'd have to think about the precise meaning of "hobby trading" and I've always found that term more than a bit humiliating. Anyway, Mike has graciously allowed me to air these podcasts on TTAC. So I'm going to posting them for a week or so. If they prove popular, the kid stays in the picture. If not, well, Tamora is another TVR. Or something like that.  

So, General Motors has pulled its sponsorship from Survivor. Flackmeister Ryndee S. Carney claimed GM came to its decision “months ago, before the show made its recent announcement." The announcement in question: Survivor will divide its competitors by race and ethnicity. Carney quashed the idea that GM pulled the plug in response to the controversial formatting in no certain terms: “I think it's just a coincidence.” Think? Carney’s comment brings into question GM’s ability to tell the truth and, thus, to survive its evaporating market share, bloated dealer network, distended brand portfolio, lackluster product lines and horrendous cost structure.

Not to belabor the point (much), GM claims they pulled their $14.7m plug on Survivor three months ago. Yet on May 12th, GM and CBS publicly revealed The General's intention to increase their Survivor ad spend. In any case, Carney played dumb, insisting that GM was simply shifting support to TV shows offering product placement. "There's a limited number of possibilities as to how you can integrate a car or truck in a show [when] people spend their whole time on an island." Despite (or because of) the fact that a Pontiac Aztek played a role in a Survivor episode, Carney’s stab at PR humor set exactly the wrong tone. Instead of addressing a serious issue head on, GM smiled and sang “It wazzunt me.”  

Not to belabor the point (again), is it too much to ask GM to tell the truth? OK, Survivor sponsorship isn’t a big deal– even if would be nice to see one of America’s largest companies declare its distaste for a TV program that engenders racial or ethnic divisiveness. What about the fact that GM is cutting production in the fourth quarter by 12 percent, or 150k vehicles?  Now that’s serious; the move will torpedo fourth quarter revenues. The company’s press release states that the cut "does not reflect a reduction in GM's sales outlook but is consistent with our strategy to reduce low-margin daily rentals, and takes into account the plan to shift production of pickups to the next-generation pickups during the fourth quarter." No shit?

I guess I’m the only one who remembers that GM originally planned to cut production by eight percent, and consider the fact that the axe is falling on GM’s new[ish] gas-guzzling SUV’s somehow related to the increased decrease. To wit: during a recent conference call with reporters and auto industry analysts, GM’s Supreme Spinmeister Paul Ballew declared that GM’s production cutbacks were not a response to “a sudden deterioration in conditions.” "It's new news to you," Ballew said, "but it's not new to us." In other words, we know what we’re doing and we sure as Hell don’t have to tell you about it.

The first proposition is highly suspect, the second highly inadvisable. As I’ve said here before, GM CEO Rabid Rick Wagoner’s failure to articulate a specific, honest, clear and coherent turnaround plan that includes all of GM’s “stakeholders” will be his undoing. Yes, Rabid Rick says he has one, and frequently tells the world that The General’s adherence to this unexpressed timeline proceeds apace. Is it inconceivable that Wagoner’s reluctance to publicly declare his comprehensive recovery strategy reflect his unwillingness to be held to its dictates?

Yes, it’s inconceivable. If I held GM stock, or worked for the company, or ran a GM store, I would be furious at The General’s lack of transparency and accountability. “Keep the faith” is all well and good when you’re minting money, but that and $1.45 won’t get you downtown when the buses are no longer running (so to speak). Clearly, GM adheres to America’s new de facto standard for corporate citizenship: spin, gloss, weasel and waffle.

Take GM’s latest sales results. What are we to make of August’s 3.8 percent retail sales jump? First, it’s a year-on-year result, compared to last August’s cataclysmic post “Employee Discount for Everyone” hangover, when GM’s sales fell off a cliff. Second, sales of GM’s low-profit plain Jane sedans account for much of the rise. And third, we hear tell that GM’s “Anyone with a Pulse” financing continues, a development that will eventually hoist GM by its own petard. According to GM Marketing Maven Mark LaNeve, “Customers clearly are responding to the quality, value, versatility and fuel efficiency of our cars and trucks.”

Maybe so. But GM’s failure to change its business model, the implementation of forthcoming production cuts, the resulting affect on its cash position and the ongoing threat of a strike at bankrupt parts supplier Delphi overshadow any August cheer. And now that Billy Ford has admitted The Blue Oval’s dire straits, it’s clear that GM’s execs continue to live on an island of their own making, facing stronger, smarter and better fed opposition. News flash: GM’s tribe will not survive.

Something, anything, is worth exactly what someone will pay for it, no more and no less. Human beings being what they are, that "willingness" has a strong emotional contingent. When it comes to cars and car collectors, all sorts of strange commercial transactions can occur. For example, the muscle car market is red hot; proper GTO's, 'Cudas and Shelby Cobras are regularly fetching triple digit prices. This despite the fact that the majority of these machines are foul-handling beasts whose power-to-weight ratio seems carefully designed to kill its driver dead. Still, you can understand aging baby boomers' desire to own the car or cars they couldn't afford back in the day. Does that mean a carefully preserved Honda Integra Type R will someday fetch serious money at auction? Or a Chrysler 300C SRT-8? I turned to RM Auctions' Terry Lobzun for the skinny on future classics.  

Our West Coast Bureau Chief is one persistent son of a bitch. Every day I get emails or phone calls from Jonny Lieberman asking me to pimp him a ride, preferably a Porsche Turbo or Audi RS4. Since we've cut a deal with The Aston Lawrence Group re: sourcing press cars for our troops, he's… still on my case. But I respect that. Cars are my drug too. If I wasn't so busy answering JL's emails and other equally vital administrative tasks, I'd be sending myself emails asking why I haven't found a ride for… me. Anyway, Jonny rang me up to discuss his MX-5 review, his forthcoming F150 King Ranch review and Frank's ad article. At least it kept him away from his computer for 10 minutes… 

My Space's success has not gone unnoticed. No, I'm not talking about pedophiles. I'm referring to the Lords and Lordettes of the "new media," who are busy trying to make your space their space so they can make advertisers' money into their money. It didn't take a great leap of imagination for entrepreneurial e-pistonheads to imagine a My Space for cars, where owners throw down pics and stats of their wheels to engage in the guilty pleasures of automotive exhibitionism. Boompa.com is one of the more interesting examples of this new genre, combining the usual "rate-a-ride" meters with some genuinely useful features with relatively clean (if cartoonish) design. I rang up co-founder Ethan Lance to find out if a lack of taste makes waste, or, eventually, a cyber fortune. 

You've got to feel sorry for the Brits. Once home to some of the world's best– er, most charismatic vehicles, the country has seen their automotive crown jewels sold off to Johnny Foreigner and/or fade into the mists of time. With the disappearence of the once-proud MG Rover Group, it's no wonder that British automotive analyst Michael Wynn-Williams doesn't like the idea of Ford selling off Jaguar and Land Rover. In a recent white paper "Jaguar’s part in rescuing Ford," Trend Tracker's trend tracker said "Whoa! Slow down there Billy Boy! Why sell the family silver when you may want to throw a dinner party or two when things settle down a bit." OK, I'm paraphrasing. But Wynn-Williams' main point is there for the taking. So, I called-up WW and took it like a man.  

Fresh from some serious seat time in the Ford Mustang GT Convertible, Jonny Lieberman rang up TTAC HQ to schmooze about all things automotive. After listening to JL sing the praises of Ford's rear wheel-drive rag top, I tried to ease the conversation towards the tectonic shift from fuel-sucking SUV's to more economical cars. Only Loverman wasn't having it. Sure, he noticed a fleet of Prii and scoped a seaside parking lot stuffed with SUV's, but whether or not the Prii were statistically relevant or the SUV's were GMT900's escaped his attention. Anyway, speaking to Jonny reminds me of a line from "My Favorite Year," when one of the writers for a New York-based comedy show announces his intention to move to Hollywood. "How can you be funny in Hollywood?" the head writer demands. "No one's miserable enough!" And yet, somehow, he manages. 

Last Thursday, Mark LeNeve declared that General Motors has “turned a corner.” Obviously, GM’s Vice President of North American Sales and Marketing was unaware of the phrase’s historical baggage. To wit: General William Westmoreland’s famous announcement that the American war effort in Indochina had “turned a corner”– just before North Vietnam’s Tet Offensive returned the corner. Since ‘68, any US authority figure announcing an angle exceeded instantly reveals themselves as a master of unintended irony, and sets themselves up for an ignominious defeat.

Metaphorical misstep aside, LaNeve’s triumphalism seems to reflect normal corporate dishonestly. Surely LaNeve was simply lying when he claimed that “interest in new vehicle models such as the 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe SUV and a potential sales lift from upcoming products are helping put GM back in contention after excruciating declines in recent years.” After all, the statement is positively dizzy with spin. “Interest in new models” (as opposed to actual sales) is leading to a “potential sales lift” (as opposed to an actual sales increase) which is “helping to put GM in contention” (as opposed to putting GM back in the black) and reversing “declines in recent years” (as opposed to, say, declines during LaNeve’s tenure). But no, I honestly believe LaNeve honestly believes the unbelievable: that GM’s on the rebound.

You see, the thing is, the above statement about GM’s prospects isn’t a direct quote. It’s paraphrasing provided by automotive journalist Brett Clanton. In a Detroit News article on the GM Veep’s unbridled optimism, LaNeve’s surrogate spinmeister failed to provide any evidence for “growing signs that a massive turnaround effort at GM is gaining strength.” Sure, the article flags several ways GM could be derailed by “factors outside its control.” But its tone, tenor and existence all indicate that LaNeve’s comments reflect an accepted Detroit shibboleth: GM’s on the rebound!

By now, even casual observers know GM’s unofficial turnaround strategy: we’re gonna do what we’ve always done better than we’ve done it in “recent years.” Remember those intractable problems that brought us to the brink of bankruptcy: legacy and labor costs, bureaucracy, a bloated dealer network, badge engineering, ill-defined brands, etc.? Forgeddaboutit. We’ll just sell our best assets, close some factories, pay-off some workers, release a dozen or so new products (most of which look suspiciously like the old products) and everything will be allllllright.

My God, how wrong can you be? At last Wednesday’s press launch of GM’s new(ish) pickup trucks, GM Car Czar Bob Lutz once again explored the possibilities. “The effect [of high gas prices] will decrease over time as people adjust to the thought of $3 a gallon, just as they did when it was $2 a gallon and just as they did when it was $1 a gallon.” In other words, sooner or later, GM’s truck sales will return to “normal” and everything will be allllllright. And then GM CEO Rabid Rick Wagoner stepped up to the microphone and raised the stakes on Maximum Bob's bluff. GM’s new(ish) pickups are “the most important part of our North American turnaround plan.”

If that statement doesn’t send a shiver down Detroit’s collective spine, nothing will. Last month, GM’s pickup truck sales slumped thirty-two percent. While that’s a year-on-year comparison against last summer's Fire Sale For All program, it’s clear that GM’s second string cash cow is being gored by gas prices and, less obviously, a downturn in the housing industry. A SMALL company called BIGresearch says over 50% of pickup truck drivers planning on buying a new vehicle in the next six months are considering a more fuel efficient sedan or… wait for it… a hybrid.

Shrinking market? You betcha. Less profitable market? Uh-huh. Ford’s dropped the price on America’s best-selling pickup (the F150) by $1400. Toyota is about to enter the fray with its keenly priced, full-sized Tundra. Bottom line: the pickup truck market is contracting even as margins are being squeezed. At best, GM is about to make a great landing at the wrong airport. At worst, it’s missing the boat.

In today’s market, small cars are where it’s at. If GM thinks the Cobalt and Aveo can carry the corporation through another gas price escalation— even as Toyota, Nissan and Honda flood the market with their latest fuel-sipping econoboxes— they’ve got another thing coming. I reckon it starts with a “b.”

But even if you dismiss the possibility of Chapter 11, why do GM watchers grant the company turned around status when its leaders [continue to] refuse to provide a timeline or targets for a return to profitability? Mark LaNeve’s and his supporters may hide behind vague claims that they can see the light at the end of the tunnel, but they fail to understand that the beckoning light in the distance is… death.