Last November, all GM’s eight U.S. brands lost ground. As the automaker’s pretty much shot its vehicular wad, the falling stats have convinced many industry observers that GM’s turnaround is back in turnaround. Of course, there isn’t a turnaround to turnaround. Not now, and not in the last forty years. Since the sixties, GM’s market share has been on a downwards trajectory. In 1962, The General owned over 52 percent of the U.S. new car market. Today, The Big 2.8 combined can’t muster a simple majority. There’s a reason for that.

GM’s inability to see the big picture has led to its downfall. The irony is stunning– the carmaker that was once the world’s largest has proven itself to be the least capable of anticipating the large scale forces controlling its destiny.

For example, how did GM fail to see that the light truck boom was about to go bust? Years before Hurricane Katrina hit, the canaries in the coalmine were singing like Ethel Merman. Gas prices aren’t cheap! Gas prices aren’t cheap! If nothing else, the fact that Toyota, Honda and Nissan were eating GM’s passenger car lunch should have signaled management that the transplants knew something about making popular products– and money– that GM didn’t.

Never mind the inadvisability of GM putting all its eggs in a body-on-frame shaped basket. GM’s success in the car business depends on its ability to see ahead of its five year model cycle– which is often longer and should be shorter but that’s another story. It’s a sad state of affairs when a company with 99 years of automaking experience and virtually unlimited financial resources can’t predict trends as well as a bunch of pistonheads yakking on the internet. 

Whether it’s due to executive hubris or bureaucratic bloat or both, GM has been flying blind for decades. More to the point, they’re STILL in the dark. Saturn gets a sports car. Cadillac gets a sports sedan. Buick gets GMC’s crossover. GMC gets Buick’s crossover. Saab gets bupkis. Chevy doesn’t get Pontiac’s El Camino, while Pontiac gets Saturn’s Aura/Chevy’s Malibu. If a decision is only as good as the information it’s based on, well, garbage in, garbage out.

Even if you set aside the ongoing series of duds failing to fill GM’s sales ledger, there’s no indication of a far more important “awareness” turnaround at RenCen. At the moment, GM blames its American doldrums on the general economic climate; the “falling tide sinks all boats” excuse. This GM genuinely believes, despite the fact that domestic boats are sinking a lot faster and farther than the transplants’. But worse, far worse, they’re telling the world that the tide will raise them up by the end of next year.

As Blogging Stock points out, GM expects the key driver of their profitable pickup truck sales– the U.S. housing market– to recover in 2008. In a recent article in the New York Times, GM execs said they expected the American housing market to pick up in the second half of 2008 and that “the industry would finish that year in better shape." Try and find an independent observer who agrees that the downturn will be over in six months. Most experts agree that we’re looking at a two to three year slump. Where will THAT leave GM?

Without a pot to piss in. Say what you will about the brilliance of the new Cadillac CTS or Chevrolet Malibu or Buick Enclave. Tell me that the new Chevy Volt electric – gas plug-in hybrid is the future of automobiling as we know it. I’m not going to dismiss their prospects out of hand. But the thing of it is, at this point, they are an irrelevance. GM’s eight brand hole is so deep and so wide that no one, two, three or half dozen vehicles can fill it.

Just as GM suffered defeats on all eight brand fronts in November, their survival depends on making advances on all eight brand fronts in the future. To do that, GM has to be smarter, faster and sharper than it’s been in its entire corporate history. To think GM can pull off an octo-brand turnaround with the same management that has singularly failed to anticipate future trends, that says it's waiting for the new Energy Bill before finalizing its products plans, is even more delusional than expecting the housing market to magically right itself. 

How’s this for a long term view, from a Business Week article dated May Ninth, 2005: “The only question is whether that reckoning comes in the next year, if models developed by Vice-Chairman Robert A. Lutz fall flat; in 2007, when the union contract comes up for negotiation; or perhaps in five years, when GM may have burned through its substantial cash cushion.” So really, we only have part three of the prognosis to go.

From the "Things That Leave Us Scratching Our Heads" Department: Nissan is going to build rebadged Frontier pickups to be sold as Suzukis. According to a press release on PRNewswire, the Suzuki Something-or-the-Other will begin rolling out of Nissan's Smyrna, Tennessee plant sometime in 2008. The truck is planned only for the North American market, where the Nissuki will join rebadged Daewoos in Suzuki dealers' showrooms. Maybe Suzuki should talk with Mitsubishi, Mazda and Isuzu about their success in trying to sell a mildly restyled and rebadged truck already sold by a larger auto maker, before Nissan starts cranking them out in numbers.

Since the [now stalled] Energy Bill was first mooted, TTAC warned its readers to read the fine print. Detroit's support for the legislation was a sure sign it contained enough loopholes to maintain the status quo and enough sweeteners to make Hemlock a palatable potion. On the former point, we've learned that the bill maintained the distinction between light trucks and passenger cars for Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) calculations. (The system that made SUVs a roaring success and allowed Chrysler's PT Cruiser to be classified as a truck.) We also discovered that the CAFE regs were switching from a fleet-wide average to a footprint-based system– which bases mpgs on vehicle size and allows automakers to finagle the bagel (so to speak). And now, thanks to WardsAuto, we finally hear the number for the federal loan guarantees that the United Auto Workers helped arrange, to keep production stateside. It must be said that $25b is a lot of billions– especially when its your tax dollars on the line. That's doubly true given that the money was earmarked for companies retrofitting factories built before 1987. That means virtually all of the cash would go to The Big 2.8, as the transplants (Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, Nissan, Mercedes, BMW, etc.) built the lion's share of their domestic production facilities after that date. A federal bailout by any other name would still smell so rancid. 

It’s doubtful that the AC-Delco engineers who devised the first electronic ignition system in 1961 envisioned the automotive revolution to follow. By then automobiles’ basic technological framework was well-established (piston engines, welded steel bodies, pneumatic tires, hydraulic brakes, etc.). Electronic ignition probably seemed like just another incremental improvement. Instead, electronics enabled quantum leaps in automotive performance, safety, comfort, efficiency and environmental impact. No other technology has been nearly so transformational.

Popular culture remembers the 1960s ‘horsepower war’ as the Golden Age of automotive performance. But twenty-first century cars with performance aspirations handily dust those Beatles-era relics.  Compare the gas-guzzling smog-belching 1964 Pontiac GTO Tri-Power. We’re talking about a 280hp (SAE net) vehicle that does the quarter-mile in 14.8 seconds. Compare that to the 20+ mpg Ultra-Low Emission Vehicle (ULEV) Mazdaspeed3. The 263hp Japanese hot hatch will do the quarter in 14.2 seconds.

How about a 1965 L78-engine Chevrolet Corvette compared to a 2006 Corvette Z06. You’re looking at 340hp vs. 505 hp,  0-60 in 5.7 vs. 3.6 seconds. No contest. We live in a fabulous age of 200hp Honda Civics, 300hp 3-Series BMWs, 400hp luxury sedans and 1000hp Bugatti Veyrons.

Even better: aside from the dangers of a lost license, modern muscle is almost consequence-free. Today’s power comes with reasonable fuel efficiency, squeaky-clean exhaust emissions, minimal maintenance and “Sure Grandma, you can borrow my car” drivability. All made possible because carburetors, distributors and mechanical linkages have been replaced by the precision dance of electronic sensors, digital computers and pulse-width-modulated solenoids.

While electronics have made engines cleaner, more reliable and increasingly powerful, the automotive safety acronym zoo (ABS, DSC, EBD, SRS, ATTESA, PSM, etc.) owes its existence to electronics. Some modern safety systems (e.g. airbags and antilock brakes) do have mechanical ancestors, but those mechanical systems were expensive, slow-acting and dubiously reliable. Reliable low-cost electronics has made those systems nearly universal in modern cars. Even the TTAC Ten Worst winning Chevrolet Aveo is graced with standard front and side airbags and optional ABS.

Strange to say, the e-ubiquity has created problems for high-end automakers. When even bargain-basement cars have state-of-the-art electronics going for them, these upscale makers need new features to justify premiums prices. Once again, electronics comes to the rescue.

The trend at the leading edge of automotive electronics: cross-system communication and integration. BMW’s rain-sensing windshield wiper system tells the ABS computer when it’s raining. The ABS computer then subtly pulses the brakes to keep the brake rotors dry. Lexus uses its adaptive cruise control system to determine if a crash is imminent. If a crash is coming, the SRS computer tightens the seatbelts and decides which airbags to deploy.

Crash a Mercedes-Benz CLK and its electronic systems automatically stop the engine, unlock the doors, turn on the emergency flashers, and provide GPS coordinates to an emergency response service. This near instantaneous safety dance would be impossible without modern electronics. The range and scope of electronic wizardry is only limited by the talent and imagination of software coders.

This electronic creeping feature-ism has also transformed the comfort and convenience of driving (or being a passenger). A plethora of entertainment and information technologies– multi-channel audio systems, on-board DVD players, GPS navigation units, OnStar, etc.– have eliminated much of the drudgery.

Even the physical effort of operating a vehicle has been minimized by electronic servants. Manually unlocking doors, manually-adjusted seats, hand-crank windows, radio tuning knobs and the like are rapidly going the way of full-size spare tire.

Approach a modern BMW while pressing ‘Unlock’ on the key fob and this modern paradigm of electronic magic goes on display. Sure, the door unlocks, but that’s just the beginning. Windows roll down. The sunroof opens. The seats, mirrors and climate control system adjust to stored settings. No need to turn the ignition lock, just stick the key in the dash slot and press the “Start” button One-touch buttons and voice recognition eliminate even the effort of changing the radio station.

Of course, this technology is mostly found on high-end cars like BMWs. But history indicates it will quickly spread to less-expensive brands. Ford has already implemented Sync voice-recognition in mass market models and Nissan’s Intelligent Key system is available throughout its model line. Wait five minutes and your personal computer gets cheaper. Wait five years and Mercedes-Benz electronics show up in your Hyundai.

This electronic dominance of our cars shows no signs of abating. Whether it’s the Toyota Prius powertrain controls, the Volvo S80 lane-departure warning system or the Chrysler Sebring’s heated cupholders, automakers keep shoveling in the wires and the microchips. They are the major reason our modern cars are so wonderful. Though not as obvious as the benefits, this electronic sophistication has drawbacks. In our next installment, we’ll see how what the boffins giveth, they also taketh away.

The majority of this morning's New York Times article on the auto-oriented provisions of the new energy bill profiles the industry's posturing, infighting and kvetching over higher Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. To wit, “'We’re not whiners,' Dominique Thormann, a senior vice president at Nissan North America, said in Washington during a lunch with reporters on Wednesday, in a thinly veiled jab at competitors that originally fought fuel economy increases." Breeze through this politically correct interpretation– transplants ready to rumble, domestics foot (not to say knuckle) draggers, Toyota playing both side down the middle– and Michelle Maynard finally reveals some of the more important "details." For example, we learn that the bill offers federal loan guarantees to "help auto companies that invest in factories that are at least 20 years old to build vehicles with advanced technology." Hey! Guess what? The General will [theoretically] build the new Chevrolet Volt plug-in electric hybrid at a Detroit factory that opened in the early '80s. No word on the new "footprint-based" CAFE calculations– which make a mockery of fleet-wide fuel economy averages– or ethanol credits– capable of transforming a gas-sucking SUV into a high mileage green machine (in regulatory terms).  

Ad agencies evaluate the effectiveness of their artistry using a "recall score." The metric measures how well consumers remember a brand and/or product within 24 hours of having seen its advert. A high recall score means the commercial hot-wired the product into the consumers' minds. A low score means the sponsor wasted their money. Although I watch quite a bit of TV, this semi-professional pistonhead can't recall more than a handful of car ads. So much for carmakers getting their money's worth.

One ad that managed to stick in my mental craw: GM's $150m campaign for Chevy's new "now you see, now you can't buy it" Malibu. The ads show a computer-generated facsimile of the ‘Bu zooming around intimidating Camrys and generally showing off its sleek new lines. At first I wondered if the ad agency also couldn't get their hands on one, hence the computer animation. Then I wondered where they spent the remaining $149,975,000.

But at least the Malibu is in production. Another ad GM's running shows an ethnically blended troop of kids with their ears against a Volt, listening to it hum. The hip young spokesman tells them it's "the extended-range electric car powered by the miracle of the advanced lithium-ion battery pack." And hey! "They expect they'll get up to 40 miles without a drop of gas." The kids gasp their appreciation like they're about to snort Pixies Sticks.  "I've heard the future and it hums" the actor exclaims. The obligatory voice-over intones "Chevy- from gas-friendly to gas free. That's an American revolution."

What they don't bother to say, except in small print flashed momentarily at the bottom of the screen, is that you can't have get one– no matter how badly you want it. They also neglect to mention that the production model- whenever it arrives- will look nothing like the sexy beast whispering God knows what into kids' ears (where's Steve King when you need him?). Or that once you go past that claimed 40-mile range you're burning petrochemicals to recharge the batteries. Or that currently the only "gas free" model Chevy offers is a large diesel-powered pickup truck. 

The manufacturers all seem Hell bent on saving us from our own tailpipe pollution (i.e. alleviating globally-warmed guilt). From Accords driving through tunnels lined with images of nature at its best to Subarus coexisting with Bambi, carmakers want you to believe that it's OK to buy their car; Mother Nature won't mind a bit if you do. 

The most blatant example of eco-misdirection is from Toyota. They show a Prius made of twigs and leaves raising spontaneously from the muck of a bog only to return to it, convincing us (they hope) that their eco-mobile is one with nature. Just don't think about what's required to manufacture or dispose of those battery packs crammed within. Or the fuel oil burned to ship the cars here from Japan. 

The award for the strangest eco-mercial shows a group of hit men trying to take each other out with water pistols, super shooters and water balloons. The message? "What if we could replace something harmful with water?" You guessed it: it's an ad for Honda's yet-to-be-released limited production Clarity hydrogen fuel cell car. 

So hit men won't kill each other with water balloons (is there a hit man jobs bank?) and we won't kill each other with the Clarity because all it produces is water instead of that yucky greenhouse gas. Of course, we're not supposed to think about how much energy is used to make that hydrogen or what the by-products of that process might be. Or the fact that water vapor is a greenhouse gas. I'm beginning to think Norway had the right idea by banning car ads that extol the a car's benefit to the environment.

Meanwhile, trucks. Big. Macho Trucks. Ford, Chevy, Toyota, Nissan and Dodge all have the toughest truck. They're all the biggest, haul the most, tow the most, last the longest and offer "class leading" fuel economy. By implication, anyone who doesn't buy theirs is a weenie. And they practically take a sledgehammer to their truck to prove… some weird sado-masochistic point.

The Tundra ad best reflects this chorus of "any abuse you can take I can take more" pre-school of thought. The Texas Toyota hauls a trailer up and then down an iron teeter-totter poised over a cliff (I think) in a landscape that would give Mad Max the heebie-jeebies. What's the point? If you're ever performing truck tricks at a post-apocalyptic party, the Tundra's the way to go. 

And that's it. That's all I got. Except this: a new study of auto advertising found that Japanese auto manufacturers reached 22 percent more audience than U.S. automakers and 27 percent more than European manufacturers. Considering the car ads in question, it's clear that the entire auto industry's reach exceeds its grasp. 

Look in Hyundai’s high school yearbook and you’ll see “most improved.” Almost every model the Korean automaker has sent stateside has been a quantum leap forward from its predecessor. The Elantra's roots stretch back to the Excel, which excelled at falling apart. The Elantra name survived; the model went from crap, to cheap, to "say that's not bad." Now we've got the fourth generation Elantra. Does the all-new iteration follow the Sonata and Santa Fe in Hyundai's relentless march from cars you buy because they're dirt cheap to cars you buy because why the Hell should I pay more?

Hot on the heels of TTAC's Ten Worst Automobiles award, Forbes has released their fourth annual "Automotive Turkeys" list. Their selection process is much more boring scientific than TTAC's reader nomination/voting method. Forbes bases their selection on such factors as NHTSA recalls, reliability ratings from Consumer Reports, depreciation and crash-test ratings. Like TTAC's Ten Worst, Forbes' is heavy with Chrysler products– althought the Ten Worst-winning Jeep Compass is conspicuous by its absence (the donor Dodge Caliber made it, though). Unlike TTAC's Ten Worst, the automakers had formal responses to Forbes' list, reacting "with surprise and some resistance to being included." Here's their take on 2007's ten worst, in numerical order.

1. Chrysler Sebring*
2. Dodge Nitro*
3. Jeep Liberty
4. Dodge Caliber**
5. Dodge Magnum
6. Ford Crown Victoria
7. Chevy Aveo*
8. Nissan Quest
9. Hyundai Entourage
10. Grand Prix**

*TTAC Ten Worst Winner
**TTAC Ten Worst Finalist

Speaking to Automobilwoche, consultants A.T. Kearney predict that Ultra-Low-Cost cars (ULCC) will be the industry's next Next Big Thing. We're talking simple, robust, safe, easy to repair vehicles costing between $2500 and $5k. Kearney reckons the cars will find favor with millions of middle class buyers. In 2005, Indian had about 391m inhabitants who could afford a ULCC. The number will grow to 628 million by 2020. Companies such as Tata, Mahindra & Mahindra or Maruti are chasing the dream of 24 percent yearly growth rates. Meanwhile, the LCC (Low Cost Car) market is already booming. Production of the Renault/Nissan/Dacia's €8k Logan is expanding to South Africa. And just in case you take a dim not-to-say Freidman-esque view of third world auto emissions, a tuned version of the Logan won second place at the yearly Challenge Bibendum. A diesel Logan bettered 72 other entrants by logging a parsimonious 2.72L/100km (86.5 mpg).

Nissan's freshly-minted North American sales chief reckons it's time to address the English patient in the automaker's model line: the Sentra. Mark McNabb tells Wardsauto that he's trying to figure out why, why dear lord, Sentra's sales are on a slippery slope to nowhere. And no wonder; year-to-date sales of the refreshed model are down 10.9 percent to 91,463 units. Helpfully enough, Wards' suggest that the Sentra falls between two stools (so to speak). They report that U.S. compact car sales (e.g. Nissan Sentra) are down 4.3 percent, while sub-compact sales (e.g. Nissan Versa) have increased by a whopping 37.3 percent. Is the Versa– up 364.3 percent in the first 10 months to 67,688 units– cannibalizing the Sentra? McNabb doesn't know and doesn't really seem to care. "He says his first priority with the Sentra will be 'to make sure dealers are engaged with the vehicle.'" Nissan dealers actively await McNabb's wedding plans. “There’s a big market here for that car," says Walter Dolan, senior sales consultant at Pinnacle Nissan in Scottsdale, AZ. "But we’re not seeing a lot of support behind the car coming out of Nissan." Rsponding to the crticism, McNabb promises to see “if there’s something [in Sentra advertising] we can tweak to get the car going a little bit stronger.” Anyway, it may be a big problem, but it's not a major concern. “It’s definitely, from a profit standpoint, not that bad,” McNabb said. Definitely. 

Those of us who lust after automotive products from afar are already pining for the Ford Mondeo and S-Max, Buick Park Avenue (China), Alfa Romeo 159 and Fiat 500. Mazda joins America's automotive unrequited love list with the new Mazda2. Mazda's subcompact car (B-segment, if that's your language) sells below the grand slam home run Mazda3. The Zoom-Zoomers are introducing an America-friendly variant to the Chinese market. Where most subcompact sedans look stubby, waving their metaphorical ass in the air, this is one sharp-looking wee beastie. It's also, purportedly, fun to drive. Fantastic mileage is a given. Subcompacts (which are actually compact size but who's counting) are making a comeback stateside: Nissan Versa, Honda Fit, Toyota Yaris, Hyundai Accent, Kia Rio, Chevy Aveo, Suzuki SX4. Mazda's entry would be a perfect fit for the U.S., and it snaps into Mazda's brand portfolio very well. But the daunting prospects of U.S. crash tests and limited profitability assures American pistonheads more long distance love.

As IT Wire reports, the European Federation for Transport and Environment (EFTE) is kicking ass and naming names. Well, naming names. The environmental pressure group– claiming to represent 49 non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in 21 countries– compiled a list ranking auto manufacturers by tailpipe cleanliness, based on 2006 date. And who's the fairest of them all? The EFTE gives the green gong to PSA Peugeot Citroën SA. On average, the French manufacturer's cars emit 229 grams of CO2 per mile. Fiat SpA was next with 232 g/mile. The worst? BMW with 297 g/mile and Daimler AG at 303 g/mile. Here's how EFTE's ratings shake down:

1. PSA – 229 grams CO2/mile
2. FIat – 232
3. Renault – 237
4. Toyota – 246
5. Honda – 248
6. GM – 253
7. Ford – 261
8. VW & Suzuki (tie) – 268
10. Hyundai – 269
11. Nissan – 271
12. Mazda – 279
13. BMW – 297
14. Daimler AG – 303

There’s something deliciously ironic about slogging through one of LA’s infamous rush hours to attend a “green” cars award ceremony. The multi-lane Harbor Freeway plays host to a long slow dance of cars and semis, tailpipes steadily churning out brownish plumes into a blue sky. The dominant hue is not green but red: the omnipresent brake lights mocking California’s long-abandoned promises of fast, efficient personal travel. It’s almost enough to persuade a driver to ride the bus. Like me, most just crank on caffeine and escape boredom via the stereo, instead.

Safely ensconced within the confines of the Convention Center, road rage gives way to the journalistic trough [fair disclosure] and a wander amongst enough exotic metal to give a 49er a heart attack. In my dreams, I can grab a fast steed from the floor and point it at a winding road and go. In reality, manufacturers employ Swiffer-wielding minions to dust the untouchables.

Anyway, back to this business of saving the planet. This year’s auto show has been transformed into an overhead cam version of Earth Day. Even our press room sponsor proclaims that it’s now “dedicated to a green future.” In past years, such unbridled vehicular earth worship from a tire manufacturer would be about as credible as Vogue promoting a positive body image to a bulimic support group. Today, auto industry types don’t as much play the green card as staple it to their forehead.

The third annual Green Car of the Year award comes courtesy of the Green Car Journal™; which is also the Green Car Journal Online™, GreenCar.com™, GreenCars.com™ and Green Car Online.com™. Whether or not Ron Cogan practices the TM that he preaches, the editor and publisher behind these ventures has fully grasped the marketing possibilities of cleaning-up the image of the [once and future] planet destroyer. Clearly. 

If you were expecting a sneering panel of hippy judges drenched in patchouli and incense, think again. In addition to such green luminaries as Jean-Michel Cousteau (eldest son of Jacques, the original Fish Whisperer) and Sierra Club executive director Carl Pope, both Jay Leno and Carroll Shelby voted in this year’s eco-electoral college. Not that the (former) champions of unbridled horsepower bothered showing up. Still, had they attended, the erstwhile eco-converts would have been flattered (not to say intoxicated) by the substantial media presence.

Mr. Cogan’s buff book has yet to find an alternative fuel that it doesn’t like. This year’s five nominees amped-up the hybrid hype, but good. GM dominated the entries, with its hybrid versions of the Aura, Malibu and Tahoe. Hybrid variants of the Mazda Tribute and Nissan Altima completed the list of contenders. 

The esteemed panel awarded the coveted prize to the Chevrolet Tahoe. Mr. Cogan burnished its halo with all the enthusiasm you’d expect from a man who jets around the world on someone else’s nickel to test “green” cars without disclosing the manufacturers’ contribution to his reports or carbon footprint. 

The cynicism is warranted. The powerplant installed in this belle of the enviro-ball Tahoe hybrid begins with a 6.0-liter V8. GM opted to graft its hybrid system onto a motor that’s substantially larger (e.g. thirstier) than either the 4.8 or 5.3-liter conventional motors used in other Tahoes.  Attach 400 pounds of batteries to this mammoth mill, and the resulting ecotank offers no improvement in highway fuel economy and slightly less towing capacity over the old-fashioned dino burner.

Employing a gasser 25 percent larger than the norm– instead of deploying a lighter motor of smaller displacement– only to weigh it down with nickel metal hydride, seems a lot more mean than green. Yet with battery acid on tap, apparently all is forgiven.

To be fair, not all of the runners-up deserve a slam. Both the Nissan Altima Hybrid and the Mazda Tribute Hybrid accomplish their missions: delivering relatively low emissions and strong fuel economy relative to their respective classes. If you want four-wheeled fodder for a general rant against gasoline-battery marriages, you won’t find it here.

Still, there’s no getting around it: this award is meant to be about “moving the bar forward” in the noble pursuit of slicing America’s overall fuel consumption through consumer choice. Unfortunately, the prize has delivered a less laudable lesson: how ecology-as-pop-culture can produce sub-optimal results. 

The recurring theme of the awards presentation: sacrifice is wholly unnecessary. But the belief that one can pilot a big block V8 for a grocery run while doing the planet a favor is just as absurd as it sounds. Irrespective of where you shake out on matters environmental, the message of burn-it-big-but-with-batteries is overtly hypocritical, an idea worthy of a spin-crazed carmaker, not an [alleged] environmental crusader.

For the majority of those with a desire to save fuel, swapping your ride for a smaller car remains the obvious and most effective solution.   

The 2008 Green Car of the Year winner will be announced at the LA Auto Show in moments! [NB: that's an ironic spear.] The candidates were selected because they "stand out as exemplary models that forward environmental performance in meaningful and quantifiable ways" (per the LA Auto Show press release). They are: the Chevrolet Malibu Hybrid, Chevrolet Tahoe Hybrid, Mazda Tribute Hybrid, Nissan Altima Hybrid, and Saturn Aura Hybrid. Our man on-site, Alex Dykes, sent back photos of the draped winner, and we're going to tell you who won. If you play with the contrast, brightness, and midtones on this shot, you can make out a gold Chevy bowtie in the middle of a split grille. That narrows it to the Tahoe and Malibu hybrids. The size of the vehicle means it has to be…. the Tahoe! How they can give a tank like that a "Green Car of the Year" award totally escapes me.

[UPDATE: A GM rep at the show just confirmed Tahoe's win, saying "Yep, the Tahoe is the winner, we're really proud."]

Click here to download the full-size photo.

The automotive spinmeisters were busy at the beginning of the month. They were either bragging about sales increases or suggesting that they didn't suck as bad as they could have. While it's easy to play fast and loose with sales numbers– estimated vs. actual, the effects of reduced fleet sales, etc.– inventory levels are a reliable indication of showroom reality. When you examine the number of cars a manufacturer's franchised dealers have littering their lots, you begin to know what's what. Let's take a gander at October's numbers.

[NOTE: a 60-day supply is generally considered ideal. Anything above 90-days indicates serious bloat.]

And the crown for lot queen goes to… the Hummer H1, with a 381-day supply. OK, that doesn't really count, but I couldn't resist calling a Hummer a queen. So pass the crown to the Chrysler Crossfire. Even though Bob Nardelli's mob finally whacked the Mercedes SLK-based two-seater, there are still 1100 units waiting for new homes. At the current rate, Chrysler dealers have a 248-day supply. If that isn't bad enough, there's actually a 2008 model on its way. 

The once super-nova Solstice is suffering a full lunar eclipse. Pontiac dealers are looking (and looking) at the second slowest selling car in America, with a 211-day supply on hand. Predictably enough, once the initial excitement for GM's niche model was satiated, sales plummeted. Unfortunately, pre-new UAW contract production didn't. Solstii are piling up on dealer lots, hoping that spring drop top sales increases are eternal. Pontiac's dealers could use the biz; they averaged nine sales per dealer during October.

Honda's next up (or down) with a 192-day supply of their unibody pickup truck, the Avalanche-a-like Ridgeline. Honda dealers are also sitting on a 169-day supply of S2000s, a 123-day supply of Pilots and a 103-day supply of Elements. Fortunately for their dealers, the new Accord's a well-stocked hit (45-day supply), the Fit is no longer hard to find (48-days) and the rest of the lineup sits below the 60-day inventory level (including the Odyssey). Overall, the brand ended the month with a 59-day supply of vehicles.

Jeep dealers wish they were so lucky. They're stuck with a 169-day supply of the [why haven't they killed it yet] Commander. Vindication for TTAC Ten Worst voters: there's a 150-day supply of the Compass, up from the previous month's 121-day supply. There's also a glut of Patriots (142-day supply) and Grand Cherokees (111-day supply). Jeep had 11 sales per dealer in October, the bulk of which were Wranglers (62-day supply) and Liberties (74-day supply). 

As you've no doubt heard, pickup trucks sales are slowing. You can see the stockpiles piling-up down at the dealers. GMC dealers are sitting on a 127-day supply of Canyons, with enough Sierras to last 116 days. GM's last next big thing, the Chevy Silverado, is hanging-out with the Colorado for 117 days. 

Dodges aren't flying off the lots either. The Ram languishes for 117 days, joined by a 110-day supply of Nitros, a 104-day supply of Dakotas and a 100-day supply of Durangos. The Dodge Boys' cars are doing a bit better, but there's still a 93-day supply of Calibers out there, somewhere.

Mercury dealers are struggling to unload the Sable (122-day supply), while customers are lined-up none deep for the old/new/I'm confused Taurus (110-day supply). Like the Solstice, the Mustang's shelf life has ascended (to 104 days). It's not lonely; Rangers clock-in at a 102-day supply.

GM needs to rethink rethinking American. Saturn dealers are holding 109 days' worth of the North American Car of the Year 2007: the Aura. And despite all the praise heaped on the Outlook, Saturn's got a 118-day supply of the Acadia's twin. On the plus side, if sales continue at the same pace, they'll be out of terminated IONs in 15 days.

Nissan dealers have a few slugs on their hands. The Titan and 350Z ooze out of the lots after 107-days. And while you might think gas prices have emptied Nissan lots of frugal Versas, not so. There's a 100-day supply, earning the Versa the dubious honor of America's slowest selling economy car.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, GM has a few fast movers. They only have enough Cadillac CTSs to last 24 days, and enough Enclaves to last 27 days. Chevy's done a good job of clearing out the old Malibu. Dealers welcome the arrival of the new version with a 39-day stock of the old model. 

Sadly for armchair analysts, ToMoCo doesn't break down their inventories by model. Dealers have a 26-day supply of Lexus trucks, a 27-day supply of Lexus cars, a 44-day supply of Scion and Toyota cars, and a 53-day supply of Toyota trucks. With an industry-leading average of 141 Scions and Toyotas and 115 Lexii sold per dealer, ToMoCo is still the one to beat.

Draw what lessons you will from this report. One thing's for sure: too little inventory (Malibu, Enclave) and it's an opportunity missed. Too much and profits evaporate. As you might imagine, an automaker that can balance production against demand has an enormous competitive advantage. Game on!