As the latest GM Death Watch predicted, the GM apologists are getting warmed-up. Note to The Big 2.8's PR departments: hire the Detroit News' headline writer. Better yet, don't. Why risk losing such a public champion? After all, there is no evidence that GM, Ford and Chrysler ARE successfully clinging to their U.S. market share. Or WILL cling. And while you're wondering who to thank for cutting the words "try to" from the headline, it's best to keep scribe Sharon Terlep happy. Ms. T starts, helpfully enough, by moving the goal posts: "But preventing foreign-based rivals from stealing more buyers will be crucial to putting Detroit's automakers in a good position once sales eventually rebound." And then she trots out Michael Robinet, vice president of global vehicle forecasts for CSM Worldwide. "Robinet said GM is likely in the best position to hang on to market share with a string of popular new products such as the Chevrolet Malibu, Cadillac CTS sports sedan and the Buick Enclave crossover." None of which are conquesting transplant buyers or setting the sale charts on fire; all of which are the GM turnaround poster girls. And just because GM may be in the best position relative to Ford and Chrysler doesn't make it a good position relative to say, Toyota. Or Honda. Or Nissan. Or Hyundai. Or Lexus. Or… 

I've got more reason to hate Edmunds than anyone at TTAC. After all, they recruited me away from both here, Jalopnik and a good day job, then 4.5 days later fired me for having an unpaid speeding ticket (55 mph in a 35 mph) and saying dirty words on my old movie review site. A month later, I was contacted by an Edmunds recruiter and asked if I was still in the job market, as they were hiring for an Associate Editor. The very same position I was canned from. Talk about piling it on. Another Edmunds employee (that I stayed friendly with) said one of the rumors floating around the office was that I was fired for a DUI. Which is not only totally false, but in this business a death sentence. So, I don't like them very much. However, there ain't nothing wrong with taking a Nissan GT-R out and seeing what it can do. First of all, high speed hijinks are why people read about cars. It's the vicarious experience, stupid. Seriously– I owe the IRS $3,000 because of all the money I make writing about cars and I can't even get into a GT-R, let alone run one (nearly) flat out. Second, since our dear leader admitted to traveling faster than 170 mph in a $400k Porsche. Is RF admitting that video is more relevant than text? Thirdly, since when is speed dangerous? Especially in the hands of an experienced driver, such as Ed Hellwig? As Clarkson said after showing the video of Hammond's 300+ mph crash, "And remember, speed kills."

I know we're not exactly safe on the moral high ground here. Eagle-eyed readers will be sure to scan TTAC's archives for any and all admissions that the reviewer drove at extra-legal speeds. (My entirely fictional take on the Porsche Carrera GT.) But it's clear from Edmunds' blog of their current road trip that they have no compunctions telling the world that they're driving the new Nissan GT-R at monumental speeds on public roads. The "Making Time" video of the GT-R's speedo shows Senior Writer Ed Hellwig pushing the car to somewhere between 165 and 170mph on a Western highway. In fact, the blog contains numerous off-hand (if not downright boastful) references to law-breaking velocities, including a flippant description of getting pulled-over for [a reported] 91mph. There's a video of Bonneville Salt Flats' hoonage sans helmet with the comment "that was only 130." I know many of you will view any objections to this type of journalism as sanctimonious codswallop, but doesn't the fact that impressionable teens idolize the GT-R oblige Edmunds to show a bit more journalistic responsibility? And aren't they criminally liable for that video?

Nissan wants you to buy the Armada LE 4×4 to "Live Big." Someone needs to tell these guys that conspicuous consumption is dead– at least for those car buyers who can no longer afford it. While the high and low ends of the SUV market are still relatively robust, big-ass trucks in the former "sweet spot" are giving potential buyers a toothache. It may have something to do with the price of gas. Or ruinous depreciation. Which is a shame. The Nissan Armada is a damn Skippy good truck; you know, if you used to like that kind of thing.

With the buff books claiming the Nissan GT-R does runs of 0 – 60 in only 12 parsecs (yes, I know a parsec is a measurement of distance, Han Solo) and over 470 horsepower on tap, it was only a matter of time until someone made their GT-R look like it went through a blender.. A member of the forums at Drift.Com.My, a Malaysian drifting community website, just posted a gallery of shots of a pile of metal that used to be called a GT-R. Posters there are saying the car appears to be from Singapore, although wherever it's from, it's hardly a car anymore. Just because you can afford it, doesn't mean you have enough brains to drive it responsibly. I'm not saying such a powerful beast should be illegal, just that its drivers should have to be chemically castrated and wear ankle GPS bracelets at all times and give up their search and seizure protections. In any case, here are the pictures of the wreckage [thanks to Autoblog for the tip]

I've been kvetching about the overcylinderization of BMWs M cars for a while now. The first M3 had an inline four. The next two gens holstered straight sixes. And now the M3 has a high-revving V8. BMW's mighty M5 went from two generations of straight sixes to a V8 to a high-revving V10. All this horsepower excuses BMW from having to lighten its cars and focus on improving dynamics. It seems that BMW CEO Norbert Reithofer is thinking along the same lines. Speaking to the German magazine Auto Motor Und Sport, Reithofer said he wants to trim down to fewer cylinder engines in the M cars and the rest of the BMW range. In particular, he said that BMW's diesel V8 (which is rather popular over in Europe) would be replaced with a twin turbocharged I6. And he indicated that the M range would also probably be downsized as well. Turbocharging, not displacement and cylinders, would be the path to improvements in M cars' horsepower and weight distribution. (Not to mention CO2 emissions.) Hey, if it works for the Nissan GT-R…

It’s getting close to the first anniversary of Chrysler going to the dog. While there’ve been job cuts and “market adjustments,” the shoes are still hanging. Chrysler is still a long way from being profitable. But it appears to be an equally long way from breakup. What exactly is planned? The truth may be that Cerberus isn't “planning” so much as “waiting.”

For Cerberus, buying Chrysler was a gamble. As you’d expect from New York money men, they did several things to “stack the deck.” First, they got the company for a song (under seven and a half billion) with some working capital included. More importantly, they took the automaker private. With no shareholders to whine about dividends, no “captain Kirks” to try to swing a takeover, Cerberus can afford to take the long view. And the long view says… go public. Or strip and flip. Either way, now’s not the time.

Cerberus’ holding pattern has less to do with ChryCo’s declining fortunes than OTHER carmakers’ declining fortunes. In other words, you can’t flip a company without a flipee. The current U.S. automotive market leaves very few players flush with cash, looking for an American dance partner. And those that are, aren’t. Splitting-up Chrysler’s assets is the only realistic alternative, and that idea poses involves many of the same issues.

At the moment, Jeep is only spinnable hunk of Chrysler. (No surprise there; Jeep’s had more “partners” than the widow next door.) Jeep is the only part of Cerberus’ entire car making operations with a positive cash-flow. While the profits aren’t enormous, the brand’s “trail-ratings” carry enough cachet to allow big mark-ups on simple vehicles. 

There are several problems with Cerberus selling Jeep sooner rather than later. First, while Jeep’s hard-core fan base is less (more?) affected by fashion than most, SUVs are not the flavor of the month. The new U.S. federal corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) regulations are in flux, awaiting clarification and California-compliance (or not). In any case, whatever Cerberus could get for Jeep now pales is comparison to what Jeep would be worth in a hot, relatively settled market. 

Next and again, who’d buy Jeep? With credit in short supply, a US-market outsider would have trouble stumping-up the dough to snag it. And those foreign firms that could afford Jeep (BMW, Toyota, Honda, etc.) either already have off-road products or don’t want them. VW is busy. Daimler is sitting in the corner, grinning.

Renault/Nissan is the only like foreign suitor— only they aren’t. Carlos Ghosn may make noises about mergers, but there ARE limits. And lest we forget, NONE of the imports are brave/stupid enough to buy a unionized company, bringing the (free!) Trojan horse through the gates. Domestically, Ford just sold Land Rover. And although GM has decades of experience cannibalizing itself, even RenCen knows it doesn’t need Hummer AND Jeep.

Besides, what would Cerberus do with the rest of the company after they stripped-out the only part anyone wants? China is often named as a potential buyer, but even for pennies on the dollar for U.S. production capacity and access to thousands of dealers, they’d see Chrysler as the financial sinkhole that it is.

No matter how much— or more likely little— Cerberus made from a larger Chrysler breakup, it could be the volte face that launches a thousand lawsuits. Shuttering Oldsmobile cost GM billions; the General’s terminal brand wasn’t a fraction the size of Chrysler, Dodge or Jeep (never mind the three brands combined). Filing for bankruptcy and THEN selling off the bits would mitigate Cerberus’ legal risk, but it’s hardly a profitable exit strategy. If nothing else, Chapter 11 would decimate the brands’ street value.

As I stated at the beginning, any fool knows that Chrysler is a long, long way from profitability. But who said anything about profitability (other than me)? Cerberus doesn’t have to “build equity;” they don’t have to justify their decisions to institutional shareholders. Think of Chrysler as a slum landlord who bought a building on the cheap awaiting a buyout offer and you begin to get the picture.

Watch as Chrysler reins-in R&D while “consolidating” dealers (i.e. watching them die). This viewpoint explains “quicker than quick” Chrysler’s strange reluctance to cut vehicle lines that everybody (but their few remaining buyers) know are dead in the water. The superabundance of product forces dealers to go tits up, and leave their proverbial apartments.

Remember: Cerberus is in this to make money, not to “save Chrysler.” They need to get their $8b back, plus a little extra (Daimler holds 19.9 percent). To do that, all they have to do is run the business into the ground. When the time comes to “sell Jeep, liquidate the rest,” Chrysler’s corporate coffers will be conveniently bare (or pretty close). The lawyers can fight over the bones. And the “dog” will have had its day.

As sure as night follows day, you can count on seeing the following after news of an automaker in trouble.  “___ is in talks with Renault/Nissan CEO Carlos Ghosn.” The other thing you can count on: these talks won’t amount to a hill of beans. At most, the result will be some sort of technology-sharing venture in some peripheral market or an engine deal for a car you’ve never heard of. Why all this sound and spin signifying nothing? Because the Brazilian-born auto exec knows which side of his bread is buttered. 

The biggest problem facing Renault Nissan (R/N) isn’t failure; it’s their lack of “success.” R/N’s operations are profitable, their factories efficient, their cars respected. All this is true, but… while both companies’ model lineups contain plenty of fine cars, there are no “segment-busters.” Worse, these R/N machines aren’t languishing in second place; they’re forgotten cars. 

Nissan’s USA ops are a classic example. The Altima and Sentra are not even mentioned in the same breath as Accord/Civic or Camry/Corolla, sporty performance or not. The Quest is buried deep in the minivan heap. Nissan’s crossovers are a mishmash: two-row vehicles in two sizes (and price points) with no true three-row offering.

Nissan’s American SUVs tell the same tale: competent enough, but lost in the shuffle. The recent meltdown/price war in pickups hit Nissan even harder than the beleaguered Chrysler Corporation. The Titan’s profits evaporated. Toyota, the new new kid on the block, managed to shift four times as many Tundras as Titans.

And that’s where it hurts. If you were to boil Nissan’s corporate motto down to two words, they would be “beat Toyota.”

If you were allowed a caveat it would be “especially in Japan.” Historically, chasing down Toyota on its home turf has been the doom of ambitious Japanese makers. Mazda is no longer an independent automaker (part assimilated by Ford) because they tried to fight Toyota in Japan; Suzuki’s making a push right now (film at 11). Fighting Toyota in every niche (and keeping enough capacity to match them) almost killed Nissan ten years ago.

Ghosn is still hailed as a savior and great business leader in Japan for pulling Nissan’s fat from the fire. But it’s important to note that most of Ghosn’s miraculous “fixes” were nothing more than cutting Nissan down to its actual size, jettisoning their unrealized ambitions. And just because Ghosn made Nissan see sense– in the short term– doesn’t mean that Nissan’s old guard have to like it. To trail Toyota can be borne. To trail Honda (the Taro-come-lately of the Japanese makers) is unacceptable.

This is the rub at Renault/Nissan: while they’re holding their own in terms of profits and market share, their natural rivals– both above and below– ARE gaining ground. 

With organic growth stuck resolutely in neutral, Ghosn understands that there’s only one other path capable of placating his Japanese taskmasters: adding another “partner” to the firm. After all, it worked before. Hence the abortive merger talks with GM— which ultimately served to consolidate both GM CEO Rick Wagoner and Ghosn in their respective executive suites. Hence murmurs of a Chrysler conglomeration.

Without delving too deeply into Ghosn’s Machiavellian machinations, it’s highly doubtful that the Brazilian-born auto exec is doing anything more than a head fake when he speaks of cooperation. Ghosn is smart enough to realize that trying to recapture the “magic” of the Renault/Nissan merger would put the company on a hiding to nowhere. After all and again, it wasn’t THAT successful.

IF the Nissan – Renault merger would have been wildly profitable, leading to a true Toyota-rivaling corporate colossus, Ghosn would now be untouchable. If the R/N merger had been an abject failure, he would have been axed. Stuck in the middle, Ghosn keeps the acquisition pot boiling. Removing him would kill the [theoretical] deal that would deliver the last bit of wanted size.

And if such a merger should happen, Ghosn's the only logical person to handle the change-over. Clearly, demonstrable, he's the consummate integrator. Other auto execs are sharper with numbers (though Ghosn's no slouch with financials). Others have closer ties to product (though Ghosn is quite the car-nut). But it’s doubtful any other auto exec could have held two such disparate automotive companies together while keeping them out of each other's hair. This is, was and will be Carlos Ghosn's genius.

As long as Nissan and Renault’s owners dream of expansion, Ghosn’s position is safe. The moment Nissan or Renault believe that Ghosn can’t fulfill their long-term aspirations, they will begin the process of finding someone who can. It is therefore in Ghosn’s best interest to fuel rumors of mergers that are not in the best interest of Renault Nissan or its [supposed] dance partners.

It turns out we got it semi-wrong when we reported that FoMoCo's new tagline is "Ford. Drive One" (pearl two). Wandering around their auto show stand, it's clear The Blue Oval Boyz' marketing mavens are hedging their bets. They're rotating their taglines a la Nissan (Shift BLANK), Pontiac (is BLANK) and Mercedes (BLANK like no other). Three separate LCD's proclaim three separate reasons to drive a Ford product: "Drive Smart," "Drive Green," Drive Safe." (It hardly seems likely that Ford will stop at three taglines, so feel free to suggest further variations on the theme below.) The lack of a single sales message does not bode well for branding, but it certainly should satisfy the divisional mandarins within Ford's Byzantine bureaucracy (our turn!). Meanwhile, a word of warning to prospective Flex buyers: if you want to put adults in the way back, opt for the convex non-sunroof sunroof option. Otherwise, neck compression is a given.

Click here to view other taglines 

Green Car Congress  reports that Subaru will announce testing of its R1e electric vehicle (EV) tomorrow, 20 March 2008, and will subsequently display a prototype at the New York International Auto Show. They will also provide two R1e's to the New York Power Authority for evaluation. Subaru claims that the 40kW drive motor will give the two-seater R1e a top speed of 65 mph and range up to 50 miles. NEC, NEC TOKIN and Nissan have formed a joint-venture, Automotive Energy Supply Corporation (AESC), to provide automotive lithium-ion batteries. AESC's 346V battery pack uses lithium manganese oxide spinel (LiMn2O4) as the cathode's active material. Besides recharging to 80 percent capacity in 15 minutes, the battery should be resistant to overcharging and thermal instability. At least that's what they say.

Today's intentional leak is brought to you by: Nissan. The 2009 Maxima is shown in the full flesh after we saw teaser photos a few days ago, and it looks pretty good. I find the headlights weird, but apparently this is to be some kind of new Nissan family headlight cluster; it's headed for the next gen 370Z sports car as well. Otherwise, the new Maxima is a decent-looking sedan that visually distinguishes itself from the Altima. Whether there is enough market space for the Altima, Maxima, and Infiniti G35 remains to be seen. Some point to Toyota's Avalon and say it shows Nissan can also sell a Japanese Buick. I think Nissan's intended sporty image is tough to reconcile with building a luxo-barge. It will be very interesting to watch how Mr. Ghosn's boys market the Maxima.

Pictures of the new Maxima at Pixamo (with the teaser shots, too) 

Well, who doesn't? But Jonny's willingness to accept a Mercedes-engined Aston Martin highlights an important trend in upmarket automotive marketing: the end of mechanical snobbery. Yes, there are still brand purists who believe that the greasy bits' provenance is more important than a well-turned fender, a respected badge or comparative performance. That the connection between track and road is a holy one, whose realization establishes the brand's all-important bloodlines. But these engineering-savvy enthusiasts– who were always a minority of any luxury or high-performance marque's buyers– are a dying breed. Today's 30 or 40-something sports car buyer is likely to desire Nissan's GT-R because of its status as a Playstation plaything, rather than any racing glory. (Ferrari is the exception that proves the rule.) They're willing to judge expensive automobiles on their own merits, regardless of what lies beneath, who made it or how it got there. This open-mindedness (a.k.a. ignorance) is no bad thing. It gives a deluxe car company greater freedom to be itself, if you know what I mean.

Huh? No, really. Before you call me weird, please read this from The National Post. To summarize (for our time-challenged cubicle dwellers), Nissan employs a designer named Shiro Nakamura. As a cellist, Nakamura uses music to design cars. No, really. "The Nissan brand is more is more like jazz, pop or rock, whereas the Infiniti luxury division is akin to classical music." I'm not sure where that leaves the new FX50, though Wagner springs to mind. And I'm positive that the QX56… I was going to make a Mozart bowel movement joke here. Anyway, you get the idea. As corny as this seriously forced metaphor sounds, let's ride it like a Valkyrie. I drive a blue Subaru WRX wagon. For some perverse reason, the Subie reminds me of Andrew W.K. Often bloody, but unbowed. And manic. You?