From wings to wingdings, the automotive industry has long been obsessed with adding technology to its products, often simply for the sake of adding new technology to its products. Two such “innovations” are coming down the pipeline from Honda and Audi, the first a camera system to offer a birds-eye view of your vehicle and the second a system which communicates with traffic lights. Automotive News (sub) brings news of the Honda system, which is set to debut o the J-market redesign of the Honda Odyssey minivan. The system would offer a bird’s-eye view of the car to help with parking and visibility in blind corners and intersections. Four wide-angle cameras placed around the vehicle offer the Gran Tourismo-like option of viewing your vehicle in the third person, theoretically making it easier to drive in congested urban environments. Similar technology has already been developed by Nissan. From Audi comes word of a new system known by the annoying “Travolution” moniker, which combines the terms “travel” and “convolution.” According to Automobile magazine, the system communicates with traffic signals and tells drivers how fast they should drive to minimize their time at red lights. After spending two years and 1.2m Euros to develop the system, Audi Audi has produced an A5 and an A6 Avant capable of communicating with three traffic lights in its hometown of Ingolstadt, Germany. That’s 400k Euros per light, in case you’re wondering. Undeterred by such expense, Audi plans on expanding the pilot project to include 20 cars and 50 lights. Automobile sums up its chances of a US debut with snark-laden terseness. “There is no word yet as to when such a system could migrate to the United States, although ‘never’ might be an appropriate guess.” And technology marches on.

There was a time when TTAC had excellent access to press cars; back when we were flying under the radar. And then I mentioned the striking similarity between the Subaru B9 Tribeca’s front end and a vagina. But even when I had a first-class seat on the four-wheeled gravy train, my local supplier had trouble feeding my Jones this time of year. The seasonal drought came courtesy of the North American Car and Truck of the Year Award (NACOTY). The peer-selected jurors– many of whom never met a junket they didn’t not disclose– get first crack at week-long stints in, well, everything. This despite the fact that winning the award is no guarantee of sales success– and can someone please explain how the Chevy Malibu won the ’08 gong when it’s a mild reskin of the NACOTY award-winning Saturn Aura? In short, I’m not a big fan. While we gear-up for TTAC’s Ten Worst awards, it’s still interesting to see what all these middle-aged (plus) white men think constitutes automotive excellence. Shortlist, cars: Audi A4, BMW 1 Series, Cadillac CTS-V, Dodge Challenger, Ford Flex, Honda Fit, Hyundai Genesis, Jaguar XF, Lincoln MKS, Mazda 6, Nissan GT-R, Pontiac G8, Toyota Venza, Volkswagen Jetta TDI. Shortlist trucks: BMW X6, Chevrolet Traverse, Dodge Ram, Ford F-150, Honda Pilot, Infiniti FX35/50, Kia Borrego, Mercedes-Benz ML320 BlueTec, Nissan Murano, Saturn 2-Mode Hybrid, Subaru Forester, Volkswagen Tiguan.

There’s more news re: Chrysler’s mysterious-yet-overhyped 2010 model line, this time from former Treasury Secretary and current Cerberus bigwig John Snow. Despite earlier conflicting reports from John Campi and Jim Press on the number of 2010 model releases, Snow says there will be seven new Chryslers come the mythical year. The International Herald Tribune credulously summarizes Snow’s assertions with the methinks-the-lady-doth-protest-too-much headline: “Cerberus: New Chrysler Products Will Have Appeal.” What form this appeal will assume is left to our imagination. Anyway… “I know there’s a deep commitment here to putting out better products,” says Snow. “In the end, this comes down to producing cars that people want at attractive prices, and having your dealers in concert with the manufacturer. I think we’re going to get that right. I really do.” Really, you do? Because right now the only thing indicating that Chrysler’s woeful quality will improve is the fact that at least one model in the upcoming “product revolution” (product revulsion?) will be a rebadged Nissan Versa. Otherwise, we’re just getting more of the “quality improvement” executive chatter we’ve been hearing since (then Chrysler employee) Bob Lutz famously remarked that “there is no other area in the field of human communications that is as rife with disinformation as the story on Chrysler quality.”

Newschannel5.com reports that the bloom may be off the rose when it comes to relations between local government and employees slaving away at Nissan’s new Tennessee plant. “Murfreesboro recently installed six red light cameras to catch people who ignore traffic signals. About 2,600 citations have been issued since July. Thousands of drivers have been ticketed and employees for one of Rutherford County’s largest employers have been repeat violators. ‘When we’re looking through the citations and Nissan North America did stand out. There were nearly 40 citations,’ said Murfreesboro Police spokesman Kyle Evans.” Problem: a lot of the violators are driving leased vehicles, registered to Nissan. Evans smells a rat. “‘When you have this many citations perhaps when you’re driving a vehicle that’s registered to you directly and you may have the idea you’re not going to be held accountable or responsible for it,’ he said. ‘Pretty much all these citations have not been paid.'” Good neighbor that it is, Nissan promises to trace the plates to the employee leasing the car and make sure they pay the citation. That ought to make everyone happy.

Today is General Motors’ one hundredth anniversary. Ironically, GM reached the century mark in the same year that it ended its reign as the world’s largest automaker. More importantly, the American automaker’s status as the world’s most profitable private enterprise has long been consigned to the scrapheap of history. The former economic powerhouse is now worth less than it owes, as it slouches towards bankruptcy. While The General’s camp followers may wish to set aide this day to bask in past glories, it’s the perfect time for the ailing American automaker to draw a line under the past and face the future.

To begin, GM must abandon its dreams of world domination. The automaker’s well-traveled centurions must surrender their multi-maniacal global ambitions. “World platforms” or no, GM will never again achieve international supremacy, let alone dominance. Not in the UK, China, India, Russia, South America or the United States. Not as Chevrolet or Opel or Saturn or any other of the company’s many guises.

Today’s GM lacks the focus, drive, determination, savvy and resources it needs to mount an all-conquering assault on any of the world’s major territories. Toyota, on the other hand, doesn’t. Hyundai doesn’t. VW doesn’t. Suzuki doesn’t. Not that it matters. All of these car companies (and GM and more) face each other in their international fight for survival. In today’s global economy, everyone is a niche player– even if some “niches” are more equal than others.

Ostensibly, GM has already made this jump from hyperspace. When Toyota wrested the world’s largest crown from Motown’s mavens, CEO Rick Wagoner and his Car Czar Bob Lutz both hummed hakuna mutata. Profits were the new black. Wrong. GM must face a future without profits. I repeat: GM must realize that it can’t make money in its current, bloated, Byzantine form. And it’s not going to make money for a long, long time.

Once GM files for Chapter 11, the automaker will enter the proverbial wilderness. Customers will run for the hills. Dealers will die. Executives will flee. Unions will attack. Regulators will interfere. Opportunists (i.e. lawyers and rivals) will pick at the entrails. Even so, a plan for GM’s emergence from C11 protections will arise. Whatever it is, it won’t be quick. The General’s recovery will require at least two product cycles, maybe more. It may not succeed. But the plan’s backers will, by necessity, take a long term view.

To make that work, GM must sever its ties to its historical business model. Death to CEO Alfred P. Sloan’s formerly transcendent strategy: an ascending range of automotive brands offering a car for “every purse and purpose.” GM must embrace the new paradigm: a wide price range of vehicles within one coherent brand structure (BMW, Mercedes) or two (e.g. Nissan and Toyota, discounting the Scion debacle).

In fact, General Motors as such must disappear, so that Chevrolet and Cadillac may rise from the ashes. And even these brands must be liberated from the weight of the past to find new resonance in the popular imagination. What separates a Chevy or Caddy (made anywhere) from any other existing brand’s products? Reliability? Longevity? Beauty? Opulence? Power? Comfort? Choose one. By euthanizing dead brands and gaining focus, the non-general General can fully capitalize on its squandered and stifled world-class talents.

But most of all, GM NA has to distance itself from GM of old.

No matter how invalid its foundation, the “perception gap” afflicting Buick, Chevrolet, Cadillac, GMC, Pontiac, Saab, Saturn and HUMMER products is a Grand Canyon-class chasm. In other words, GM is already dead to at least two generations of buyers: those who experienced the brands’ horrific quality and indifferent (to say the least) service, and those who never owned a GM product because they’ve always considered the automakers’ octo-branded handiwork deeply and completely undesirable.

Again, this effort requires reinvention rather than re-dedication. GM must be able to speak to customers about the “new” Chevrolet and Cadillac with factual sincerity. They must explain why these brands are different, now. America loves a comeback kid. But it will not tolerate, for lack of a better phrase, the same old shit in a different wrapper.

Of course, the full realization of that task would require GM to come clean about the mistakes of the past– if only internally. And that would mandate at least a notion of the meaning of accountability.

It is this deficit that defines GM’s recent history. For the last fifty years or longer, GM’s been a company in the thrall of executive ignorance, greed, arrogance and hubris. In that sense, the only worthy celebration of GM’s past would be one where the automaker’s guardians could finally declare that its culture of entitlement and insularity has been sent off into the woods to die, alone and unloved. Gone, but not forgotten.

In Finnish, August is elokuu, the “month of life.” Automakers selling vehicles in the U.S. market missed the irony, as most A) don’t speak Finnish and B) finished one of their worst sales months ever. Even company-wide sales promotions didn’t do anything to put paddles to chest. Ford asked us to “Drive One” (wouldn’t it be more effective if they asked us to “Buy One”?), and GM shared employee pricing (maybe if they threw in the employee health program… ) while Chrysler invited us to “Shop until you drive” (again, where’s the “buy” part?). Toyota and Honda aren’t showing that kind of desperation. Yet. But they still felt some pain. Let’s take a closer look at the katastrofi.

Overall, light vehicle sales dropped 15.5 percent in August, compared to August of last year. Year to date, sales are off by 11.2 percent. Car sales were down 8.5 percent for the month and 2.4 percent for the year. Truck sales took a hard hit, dropping 22.0 percent from last August and are down 19.7 percent compared to last year.

Family Sedans

The star of every GM press release: the Chevy Malibu*. The model was up 8.4 percent compared to last August and up 32.4 percent for the first eight months of this year. Although Ford’s Fusion is still up seven percent year-to-date (YTD), the model dropped 27.5 percent on the month. Chrysler’s 300 continues to circle the drain, with a 59.1 percent plunge in August. YTD. Even with four out of every ten 300s sold went to fleets so far this year, sales are down 41.3 percent. The Toyota Camry* continues its slow crawl back up from June’s drastic crop, with a 3.3 percent increase over last August; it’s managing to stay ahead of last year by just 0.4 percent. After riding above the 2007 sales line since March, the Honda Accord dropped below the line in August, with a 7.9 percent dip. However, it still remains nine percent above last year overall.

Compacts

Busting the 30 mpg barrier with the XFE didn’t help the Chevy Cobalt. August sales fell 26.6 percent for the month (it remains up 9.6 percent YTD). Ford’s Focus soared 23.4 percent ahead of last August, and is up 25.8 percent on the year. Dodge’s unlikely fleet queen, the Caliber, sank 56.8 percent. With over half Caliber production sailing with the fleets YTD sales remained 8.2 percent above last year’s level. For the first time since gas prices went crazy, the Toyota Corolla** fell below last year’s line. The sales champ dropped 3.4 percent for the month, down 1.5 percent on the year. The Honda Civic* continues to ride above last year’s line, with sales up 5.3 percent for August, up 14.7 percent year to date. Nissan’s Sentra dropped sharply from July to August. But it’s still up 1.4 percent up on last August, 4.9 percent YTD.

Subcompacts

The hot market in gas-sipping subcompacts seems to be cooling down. The Chevy Aveo finished August down 21.3 percent from the previous year, down 1.8 percent YTD. Toyota may need to check into whether or not Yaris sales are cannibalizing the Corolla. While the staid compact fell in August, its subcompact sibling jumped 20.5 percent, with a 32.4 percent increase YTD. The Honda Fit was in short supply due to the model changeover, so it was down 25.1 percent for August. The Fit’s a healthy 55.7 percent ahead of last year overall. Nissan’s Versa fell below 2007 levels for the first time this year with a 5.2 percent drop. It remains up 15.7 percent year-to-date.

Prius

Even though it remains the darling of the green scene with demand to match, Prius sales were down 4.2 percent in August, down four percent on the year. Toyota better plug in that Mississippi plant and crank out Priora STAT.

Pickup Trucks

As you could guess, the big trucks continued to take it in the shorts. Chevy’s Silverado* extended its sub-2007 trend, with sales down 17.4 percent in August and 24.8 percent YTD. Ford delayed the launch of its ’09 F-150 so it could clear the ’08 inventory. With current model sales down 41.6 percent, 25.2 percent YTD, it’s not clear if there’s enough demand/space/credit on the ground for the new truck’s success. The Dodge Boys said “what the Hell” and launched their freshened  Ram— even though they aren’t moving many ‘08s. Ye Olde Ram was down 22.7 percent for the month, down 29.0 percent YTD. Toyota’s Tundra continues to fail to meet original expectations (200k annnual units) with an eight percent drop for August and a 14.1 percent slide YTD.

Truck-Based SUVs

Employee Pricing for Everyone– or fleet sales– seems to be helping the Chevy Tahoe*. It bounced back a bit from July’s drop, ending August “just” 10.2 percent below last August. However, for the year it’s down 25.7 percent. Ford’s Explorer joins the Durango in the toilet. Sales sank 53.9 percent in August, almost as bad as Durango’s 56.8 percent drop. Explorer’s still doing better YTD, though. It’s “only” 37.8 percent below last year, compared to Durango’s 51.8 percent loss. When you’re selling in small numbers, a 1500 unit increase can equal high percentages, as illustrated by Toyota Sequoia’s 86.1 percent jump above last August and its 38.4 percent rise over last year.

CUVs

After spending four months below 2007’s sales line, the GMC Acadia jumped 25 percent above the line for August; it’s up 8.9 percent year to date. The Ford Edge edged its way up from last month, but it’s still down two percent compared with last August. So far it’s 11.7 percent ahead of last year. The restyled Toyota Highlander* doesn’t seem to be making much of an impression on the buying public; it was down 15.2 percent for August, down 8.3 percent on the year. After staying below the ’07 line for three months, the Honda’s Pilot rallied and ended August 18.6 percent above last August. Meanwhile, Pilot sales are down 16.8 percent YTD.

By Manufacturer

Last year, all five manufacturers showed an uptick from July to August. This year all but Ford did the same, but at a much lower level than last year. Compared to August of last year, GM was down 20.3 percent, down 18.1 percent for the year. Ford dropped 28.6 percent from last August and shows a 16.5 percent drop year to date. While Chrysler showed a slight upturn from last month, it’s 34.5 percent below last August and 24.2 percent below last year. The Toyota juggernaut has reversed direction, losing 9.4 percent from August ’07 and dipping 7.8 percent year to date. Honda dipped below 2007 last year and stayed there for August with a 7.3 percent loss. However, they managed to keep their head above water year-to-date, with a 1.7 percent increase.

Down the Road

Automotive News predicted sales hit rock bottom in August and would rebound from there. Then they said “never mind.” That just shows it’s almost impossible to guess what’ll happen next. There are still a lot of 2008 models on the lots with the 2009’s showing up daily. Dealers are already offering full-sized trucks for half price and as the manufacturers ramp up incentives you may see even sweeter deals than that. The last five months of 2008 are shaping up to be one hurjasti ahdistaa.

* Includes hybrid models
** Includes Matrix
All numbers are unadjusted and reflect total sales

Chrysler’s one-time bailout fodder, the minivan, gets no love this time around. Auburn Hills plans on idling its St. Louis South minivan plant on October 31, a move that has drawn a protest from 600 local UAW workers. The St. Louis Business Journal reports that frustration among workers is mounting. “This membership has done everything this company has asked us to do,” says UAW officer Chuck Brodell. “We build a quality van. We made it more efficient and we lowered costs. What more does the company want us to do?” St. Louis is also being hit by a shift reduction at the St. Louis North plant that makes the Dodge Ram, causing locals to question Chrysler’s priorities. “There were 1.6 million vans sold in the U.S. in the last four years versus 240,000 in Canada,” says Brodell. “We should be building them in America not in Canada.” But the discontent isn’t limited to the United States. Minivan assemblers in Windsor, Ontario are pushing to increase production by rebranding the Caravan/T&C/Routan as a Nissan, plans which Chrysler say will never see fruition. “It’s a falsehood. I know for a fact it hasn’t been discussed,” Chrysler senior manager of communications tells the Ottawa Citizen. “Would Volkswagen even let us entertain the idea? I don’t know, contractually.” Or maybe it has something to do with the fact that Nissan acknowledges (unlike Chrysler and VW) that the minivan market has “collapsed.” Either way, don’t expect any pro-bailout photo-ops featuring Dodge Caravans this time around.

Fortune Senior Editor Alex Taylor snagged GM’s attention with an editorial posted at CNN Money, in which he posthumously advocates for the General’s failed 2006 alliance with Renault/Nissan. “According to recent interviews with parties involved in the discussions, as well as a confidential analysis prepared for the deal that was obtained by Fortune,” Taylor writes. “The tie-up could have produced as much as $10 billion in operating earnings per year for GM by 2011.” So, why did GM just say no? Because its executives were making enough already, thank you. “One proposed strategy called for a ‘repopulation’ of GM’s executive ranks with outside talent. That presumably would have forced some incumbent managers out of their jobs – a shocking development at a company where executives seem to enjoy lifetime employment regardless of their performance.” The General’s Spinmeister General penned a mealy-mouthed response to Taylor’s “woulda, coulda, shoulda” analysis. Steve Harris compared Taylor’s dietribe to speculating “if Time-Warner, your magazine’s parent company, had not done the AOL deal.” Oh snap. So what are Harris’s points of substance? The Renault/Nissan merger plans “could have effectively foreclosed (GM) from entering alliances with other automakers.” And “benefits from the potential joint projects were highly skewed to Renault-Nissan.” None of which sounds bad enough to turn down up to $10b in annual revenue. But, says Harris, “today General Motors is focused on the future, not the past.” Like… a federal bailout.

When it comes to cars from General Motors, I’m always prepared for disappointment. No matter how promising the new vehicle is (Corvette!), GM finds a way to let me down (Corvette seats!) Take the Pontiac Solstice GXP. Flat gorgeous. More important, that sweet turbocharged engine with its (relatively) massive power and torque. Hell yeah, right? But the shift linkage is made from hamster bedding. The interior was designed for Gitmo inmates. And the brakes — when pushed — stink. I mention this because I was wholly ready to be let down by the new Pontiac G8 GT.

In a interview with ESPN, Cindy McCain admits to a tiny little addiction. And no, she’s not referring to Percocet stolen from her medical charity. It turns out the billionaire heiress and wife of Republican presidential nominee John McCain loves getting a car sideways. Six or seven years ago McCain was watching TV with her eldest son Jack, when a drifting competition came on. Both McCains were intrigued, and for billionaires, that’s about all it takes. Months later, Cindy and Jack headed to Japan to take drifting lessons from a top Japanese instructors. The two went on to rebuild (probably with some help) a Nissan 240SX, converting it into a specialized drifting machine and competing in amateur contests. “I’m probably a little too cautious with it because it is abnormal from what you’re taught when you’re taught to drive,” says Cindy, who describes herself as a below-average drifter. “You’re taught to keep control of your car. Everything you were taught in driver’s ed, forget. That’s what drifting is about.” This may come as a surprise to those familiar only with Cindy McCain’s buttoned-down public persona, but she admits to being a lifelong gearhead. From regularly attending drag races, the Indy 500 and NASCAR events to attending high-performance driving schools and flying her own airplane, McCain’s penchant for speed is well-proven. Of course, all that is a bit easier for those who’s privilege allows them to believe a $4m annual income qualifies as “middle class.” Still, the prospect of a first lady relapsing into an opiate bender and drifting through the White House rose garden is, well, intriguing. Top that, Michelle Obama!

As we’ve argued before here at length, Chrysler’s current “worst of the worst” predicament boils down to one word: product. And it’s not just that Chrysler’s current batch of products suck, there’s not much coming down the pipeline that shows any real promise. But that’s not stopping Auburn Hills from rolling out a new hype offensive, touting the awesomeness of Chrysler’s forthcoming 2010 lineup. Leading the charge is President and Vice Chairman Jim Press, who sees the Chrysler turnaround in historical terms. “For our company, we’re going to have a product renaissance in 2010 … just as the market is coming back,” Press is quoted as saying in the Detroit Free Press. “We’re not on the ropes,” he insists. “We’re not worried.” Why aren’t ya worried Jim? Because Chrysler’s going to be launching seven new vehicles in 2010, according to Press. Pinky swear. But then supply-chain philistine John Campi chimes in to promise “eight or nine” new Chryslers in the mythical 2010 model year. So which is it? Ask an analyst, and he’ll tell you that Chrysler is likely to have five new models for 2010: a new Jeep Grand Cherokee, a Dodge midsized SUV possibly called the Durango, a refreshed Chrysler 300 and Dodge Charger, and a reskinned Nissan Versa. Ask the same analyst (in this case Erich Merkle of Crowe Chizek and Co) where Press and Campi came up with their numbers, and your expert will suddenly be out of answers. “Maybe there is some variant that you could start counting. There are ways to double-count some things sometimes. It’s a bit of a stretch,” admits Merkle. Possibly indicating what the Cerburian dog might pull out of its “product pipeline” in 2010, Jim Press is going after the Chevy Volt. Having shown three “post prototype” EVs to its dealer council, Press notes “We don’t have enough money for a PR stunt. All we have is enough money to build a car that we can sell.” Luckily Chrysler still has the Freep for fawningly credulous no-cost PR. After all, getting a Chrysler dealer to publicly admit that “I am more excited about their product line than I have been in years and years and years,” is surely worth some kind of consulting fee. Or ad revenue.

Paul Ingrassia, former Detroit Bureau Chief for The Wall Street Journal (and current biz guy for same) is not happy with “the Detroit situation.” Ingrassia warns that backing Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae deal with public funds encouraged management to make “reckless investments that have backfired badly.” He then scolds Detroit in a decidedly TTACian way. “The Detroit Three got into their current quandary by making decades of bad decisions, with some help from the United Auto Workers union,” with a special shout-out to lavish management bonuses and the UAW’s jobs bank. Ingrassia believes a company should only be bailed out if “its demise would wreak havoc on the entire economy.” Detroit doesn’t pass the smells bad test. “Even if Ford, GM and Chrysler were to go out of business — and it’s highly unlikely that all three will simply cease to exist — there will be plenty of good cars for Americans to buy. And many will be made in America, even if they carry foreign nameplates. Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Hyundai and other foreign car companies have expanded greatly their U.S. manufacturing operations in recent years. They’re doing so because Americans are buying their cars.” OK, so it’s no means no, yes? No. “All this said, if Detroit’s short-sightedness and political expediency make a bailout inevitable, let’s make sure taxpayers stand to get rewarded for their risk.” Illogically enough, offerring the re-tooling loans to ALL automakers is Ingrassia’s biggest string. “But if developing fuel-efficient and alternative-energy cars is deemed worthy of taxpayer subsidies for public-policy purposes, it’s just common sense not to put all our eggs in Detroit’s basket.” Bailouts for all? Go figure.

We’ve got to love Bob Lutz and his unabashed capacity to be wrong. In today’s Automotive News, he reports that “The Saturn Astra costs too much for U.S. customers, and sales and profitability of the small hatchback are suffering.” There is no question that sales have been anemic (between 1500 and 2000 cars per month) and that profitability for the Astra was always questionable at best. Or worse. Lutz went on to tell AN that “the profit is no longer there.” None of this has been in contention. But what is blindingly daft is GM’s explanation: the Astra costs too much for American consumers, at $16,495. Before we break out the slide rules and figure that the Civic starts in the mid $15,000s and the Mazda3 sedan starts just a hair under $15,000, keep in mind the comparable levels of equipment we’re talking about here. The Astra comes standard with loads of kit that you’d have to pay thousands more for in options. Many people don’t look at that when they are trying to buy the cheapest new car they can. But many people do want options on their Mazda3, or Corolla or Civic. And for those people, the Astra is not too expensive. The culprit from this writer’s mental CSI lab? First, zero advertising for the Astra. It’s not a legacy nameplate (i.e. Corolla or Civic) so they can’t just expect people to know it’s out there. Second, the mileage is a few pegs off from the class leaders: compare a 24/30 Astra to a 25/36 Civic. I don’t care, but lots of other people do. Third and finally, the Astra is hatchback only. I love hatchbacks. You might love hatchbacks. But Nissan was smart enough to realize that Americans are only warming up to hatchbacks; that’s why the ass-ugly Versa sedan outsells the more pleasant Versa hatch. Bottom line: the Astra (a truly decent car) is headed to the enthusiast’s scrap heap. There it can join other high-potential, half-executed Lutz ideas like the Merkur xr4ti, Pontiac Solstice/Saturn Sky, Pontiac GTO, and Pontiac G8. At least they’re all cheap to buy used.

Discovery Channel’s “Mythbusters” takes on urban myths that have been circulating through the culture. The show’s producers go to great extremes to prove or disprove the stories, and establish a coherent, no-nonsense scientific basis for their conclusions. Although copyright prevents them from using the term, GM has decided to play Mythbusters. Their new “GM Facts and Fiction” website claims to  rectify analysts and commentators (including this site) who have been trash talking The General and its wonderful products. Unfortunately, their “busting” consists of a lot of hyperbole. Their responses are short on facts, and constantly cherry-pick the stats they deploy in their defense. Let’s take a closer look, to separate fact from fiction.

Myth: GM didn’t anticipate the growing demand for fuel efficient cars

GM says: Early this decade, GM put a major focus on improving its cars and expanding the number of crossover vehicles that it offers. As a result, of the last 13 new GM products introduced in the U.S. 11 have been cars or crossovers. Of the next 19 launches, 18 will be cars or crossovers.

The Truth: “Crossover” vehicles are barely more fuel efficient than the SUVs they’re supposed to be replacing. Of the “last 13 new GM products introduced in the U.S.,” four are variations of the same vehicle (Lambda), two were based on an existing platform (Malibu, Aura), two were large pickups (Silverado/Sierra), and one is a re-bodied captive import with a gas-guzzling V8 (G8). As far as truly “fuel efficient” vehicles go, the only fuel-efficient car GM has on the horizon is the Cruze, which we won’t get here until two years after it debuts in the rest of the world.

Myth: GM quality is not competitive

GM says: GM quality is very competitive, and it continues to improve, according to both our internal measures and independent surveys. For example, in the most recent J.D. Power and Associates Initial Quality Study, Chevy Malibu and Silverado were the highest ranked midsize car and large pickup in the industry. GM’s 5 year/100,000 mile powertrain warranty reflects our confidence in the durability of our vehicles, as does our 12 month/12,000 mile bumper-to-bumper warranty on GM certified used vehicles.

The Truth: Yes, GM’s quality has improved, especially compared to what they produced in the 80s and 90s. However, so has everyone else’s. The General brags about having two cars as “highest ranked” in the Power IQS. That’s out of over eighty models they sell. Also, as we’ve discussed time and time again, the IQS survey only covers the first 90 days of ownership, when very few problems show up. If GM’s quality is so high, why don’t they offer a 10 year/100k warranty like some other manufacturers, instead of cutting off coverage at five years?

Myth: GM can’t make money selling cars

GM says: Well before the recent dive in truck sales, GM was moving to increase the profitability of its cars and crossovers. This starts with stronger products. Recent entries like the Cadillac CTS, Chevy Malibu and Buick Enclave have won praise from the press and public. Customers are willing to pay more for them, and they are selling strongly, even in a very weak market. Chevy’s next generation small car, the Cruze, should further strengthen GM’s presence in that important segment.

The Truth: This claim that “GM was moving to increase the profitability of its cars” should come as a surprise to the UAW. The fact that GM couldn’t make a profit on cars was the justification for union concessions. So was GM lying then, or are they lying now? And since they won’t be introducing the Cruze here for another two years (at least), how does GM know it’ll be profitable?

Myth: GM is looking for a government bailout

GM says: We are not asking for a bailout, or a handout. The program under discussion – part of major energy legislation signed in December 2007 — is intended to lower borrowing costs for carmakers and suppliers who are investing in energy-saving technologies. This would be done through direct loans, which must be repaid in full, with interest.

The Truth: The only “carmakers and suppliers” who will benefit from these loans are The Detroit Three. The legislation is written to specifically exclude the transplants. If this $50b loan isn’t a bailout, if it really is for carmakers to invest in “energy-saving technologies,” they should be available to everyone. The “loans” are at a much lower interest rate than anyone would give these companies. And if they “must be repaid in full,” what penalties are in place for late payment or nonpayment? And if “early this decade, GM put a major focus on improving its cars” because they anticipated “the growing demand for fuel efficient cars,” why do they need all this money at this late date? What happened to all the development they’ve been doing for the past ten years, and how did they pay for that?

Myth: The Volt is vaporware

GM says: While we can’t comment on the efforts of others, we can assure you, the Volt is for real. On June 3, GM announced that production funding for the Volt had been approved, and that GM’s Detroit Hamtramck plant has been selected as the assembly plant, pending government approvals. Meanwhile, development of both the car and its lithium-ion batteries continues apace. For the latest information, please see our Volt website.

The Truth: OK, they’ve announced the the plug-in electric – gas hybrid Chevy Volt is approved for production. They’ve named a plant that will produce it. They’re developing batteries. So when do we see a road-worthy version of the powerplant and the batteries? Oh, that’s right… they’ve just now decided who’ll produce those batteries for them so they don’t have any to install. And they’ve leaked photos of the headlights of what the “production” version. So where’s the rest of the car? And if they have one, why are they using the concept in all of their commercials? Define vaporware.

Myth: GM still doesn’t make cars that people want to buy

GM says: In 2007, the Saturn Aura and Chevy Silverado won North American Car and Truck of the year. In 2008, the Chevy Malibu was named North American Car of the Year, The Cadillac CTS was Motor Trend’s 2008 Car of the Year. Customers have responded just as enthusiastically as the critics. Despite a very tough market, GM cars and crossovers have enjoyed significant sales increases so far this year.

The Truth: COTY awards have no relevance to sales (e.g. Saturn Aura). GM’s “debunking” lists several cars, bragging about their sales increases this year. However no fewer than two of every ten Vibes and Auras built the first half of this year went to fleets. With the Cobalt and Malibu, it was more like three of every ten. And the G6? Almost half. The hard fact is that GM’s sales for the first seven months of this year were down 26.1 percent from last year and their market share dropped 3.6 percent over the same time, regardless of how well a few individual models sold.

Myth: GM has too many brands

GM says: GM has grouped its eight U.S. brands into four retail channels: Chevrolet, Buick/Pontiac/GMC, Saturn and Cadillac/Saab/Hummer. This allows GM to offer the broad range of choices that customers want, while streamlining product development and back-office operations. GM has announced a strategic review of the Hummer brand, which will study options ranging from revamping the product portfolio to selling the brand. GM is also using its global operations to develop distinctive new products for its U.S. brands. Fact is, to continue growth, many carmakers have entered new segments or added new brands as the market has grown and fragmented. The number of brands is not the key, but rather GM’s ability to provide strong products and efficient marketing support for them.

The Truth: GM has more brands in the U.S. than Toyota, Honda and Nissan combined. All they’ve done by creating these “retail channels” is enforce the point that they have about twice as many brands as they need. Their “streamlined” development and “efficient marketing” of their “strong products” seems to consist of degrading brands by giving everyone versions of the same car or bringing cars from overseas. Other carmakers may be adding brands, but none of them approach GM’s brand complexity, lack of coherent ideentity and model overlap.

Myth: GM opposes higher fuel economy standards

GM says: GM fully supports new national corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards of 35 mpg by 2020, a dramatic increase of 40% over previous standards. Along with other interested parties, we will work with the government throughout the rulemaking process on details of the new regulation. GM continues to believe that a single set of tough national fuel economy standards is the best way to focus the industry’s efforts and to reduce fuel consumption and CO2 emissions nationwide.

The Truth: When the new CAFE standards were coming up for vote, GM and the other automakers lobbied Capitol Hill not to pass the new standards. Once again, they protested that the new standards would mean the end of the auto industry as we know it. Now, suddenly, when they see a chance of getting a multi-billion dollar handout for “investing in energy-saving technologies,” they’re the perfect corporate citizen, standing behind the new standards. If they truly supported the standards, they wouldn’t be trying to influence the “rulemaking process on details of the new regulation.”

There are several “myths” that GM forgot to bust. The “myth” that they are the victims of an unforeseen rise in gas prices, and related shift in consumer tastes. The myth that their current business model is sustainable– but for a few hit products. The myth that the Volt could possibly compensate for lost pickup truck and SUV profits within the next five years. And the myth that federal money will not disappear down a rat hole. Then again, I guess that kind of mythbusting is best left to someone who’s willing to tell The Truth About Cars.

[click to gmfactsandfiction.com here]

Way back in 1995, a certain Robert A Lutz, then president of Chrysler, proclaimed “there is no other area in the field of human communications that is as rife with disinformation as the story on Chrysler quality.” Much water has passed under the bridge since ’95. These day, Chrysler’s quality occupies the basement of most reliablle rankings, while overstuffed suits cry perception gap. Despite flying under the industry standard in J.D. Power and Consumer Report rankings, Chrysler has recently taken to trumpeting a 29 percent decrease in warranty costs. Now the Cerberusian dog is putting its lack of money where its mouth is, telling the Detroit Free Press that it’s setting aside less money for warranty costs. “When you ship a car, you reserve the money for its whole lifetime of warranty. Based on where you think you’re at, that’s how much money you reserve,” explains Chrysler’s chief customer officer and former Nissan man Doug Betts. “A decrease of “30% … is hundreds of millions of dollars.” But the Freep catches something that deserves some attention. “Betts said Chrysler is measuring quality by the rate of warranty claims within a new vehicle’s first 3 months in service, a reliable bellwether for predicting total problems for the life of a vehicle’s warranty.” But doesn’t reliability become most important towards the end of a vehicle’s life? Isn’t that why Chrysler introduced its “lifetime powertrain warranty?” And all this while Chyrsler’s is squeezing suppliers for a 25 percent cost reduction? Auburn Hills must be incredibly cash-starved confident to light this financial time bomb now.