It’s been a while since we gazed into the crystal ball to see what’s beyond the horizon on the automotive landscape. A lot has happened in the intervening eighteen months or so: GM and Chrysler are closer to bankruptcy, Ford is the only American auto company likely to survive the decade relatively unscathed, the market for hybrids peaked then bottomed out as gas prices did the same, and the only thing flowing out of Washington, D.C., faster than bailout money is political BS.  Join us as we check the tarot cards to see where it’ll all lead. Here are the headlines of the future.

2010 Hyundai and Tata Enter NASCAR: Following Ford’s announcement that they’re joining Government Motors and Fiat-Chrysler in withdrawing from NASCAR, Hyundai and Tata have revealed plans to compete against Toyota. Hyundai spokesman Kim “Bubba” Chun-Joon confirmed the company’s intention to fund three teams. Chun-Joon says Hundai’s ready. “Our front-engine, rear drive two door Genesis Coupe is closer in configuration to the NASCAR ‘Car of Whenever’ than the front-drive, four-cylinder four-door sedans they’ve been trying to pass them off as.” Tata Motors is raising eyebrows with their plans to race 850hp pushrod V8 racers labeled as Nanos. “Yes, it is a stretch,” said Tata director of motor sports, Samarjit Jaysukh Tata. “But it makes as much sense as labeling them Impalas or Chargers. Besides, our research shows that southern males love big Tatas, and these are the biggest ones we can give them.”

2011 American Leyland Volt Goes on Sale: After numerous delays and teething problems, American Leyland is finally offering the plug-in hybrid Volt for sale. Thanks to improved technology, the final version can travel an astounding 125 miles without using a drop of gas. “Once we ditched the gas engine, the subsequent weight savings really improved the Volt’s mileage,” claims chief engineer Reddy Kilowatz. AL is not concerned about the modified vehicle’s range or recharge time. The company’s Commissar points to studies showing that the average buyer in its target market—gated retirement communities— travels fewer than 125 miles per year. “Anyone who needs more range can buy the gas-engine-only version, the Cruze.”

2011 – Chrysler’s UAW Members Threaten Strike Over Health Care Payments – The United Auto Workers (UAW) have voted to go on strike next Thursday unless they meet their own demands to abandon a proposed 25 percent increase in health care co-pays. “We understand the financial pressures we’re under to become a profitable automaker, but we completely reject our own decision to raise these fees,” a union leader said, under condition of anonymity. “It’s entirely unreasonable for us to ask ourselves to make greater sacrifices when our members have already given so much to themselves already.”

2012 NHTSA bans Driving – The National Highway Safety Administration (NHTSA) has banned private vehicles from America’s roads. “The EPA has ruled CO2 a deadly gas,” NHTSA chief Charles Hurley wrote in an official statement. “Public safety demands that we remove the single largest producer of this gas (after all the rest). This move will have a dramatic impact on fatal automobile accidents and will finally remove the threat of drunk driving from America’s roads.” In a press conference later that day, President Obama pointed out that the NHTSA ban only applies to driving. Consumers are still free to buy, own and pay taxes on their cars. “We don’t expect this move to have any immediate impact on production at American Leyland,” Obama reassured. The president promised to increase federal spending on public transportation, which is exempt from the ban. “Getting on the bus is not just the right thing for motorists to do, it’s now the only thing they can do.”

2014 Last Car Magazine Standing – Proctor & Gamble has acquired AutoCar and Track Trend magazine, the last auto-related print magazine in publication. P&G assured readers that the magazine’s content would remain untouched.  “We don’t care what they write; their content is already 89 percent advertising, anyway,” stated Charmin division spokesman Hugh Jass. “Our research showed the only place anyone reads it is in the bathroom. That made it a natural fit into our product line, so beginning with the July edition AC&TT magazine will be printed on rolls of Charmin UltraStrong tissue. Not only will this decrease the amount of old magazines clogging our landfills, husbands won’t have to listen to their wives complaining about magazines cluttering up the bathroom.” Reliable sources tell us that P&G is also negotiating with Sports Illustrated to produce a limited edition “Swimsuit Edition” Charmin MegaRoll.

This is not what I expected. Sure, I got the bankruptcy bit right. Big deal. Better analysts than me were making that call back when I was playing with Corgi toys (another car company destined for the scrap heap). But I never thought Uncle Sam would nationalize GM. Ace commentator PCH101 will tell you it’s all in good fun: a temporary government intervention that gives taxpayers a shot at recovering some of the tens of billions [we shouldn’t have] spent keeping the zombie automaker alive. Or at least postpones GM’s inevitable dissolution for a less financially fraught finale. But I reckon politics will rear its ugly head, create a distortion field around GM’s car making business and kill any hope of GM surviving in any way, shape or form. The acid test: the Chevy Volt.

Clearly, the Volt is a born loser. For one thing, it’s too late. If GM’s electric/gas plug-in hybrid had appeared ten years ago, before the Toyota Prius created and satiated the market for econo-hybrids, the Volt might have had a chance. Second, it’s born under a bad sign: bankruptcy. Third, it’s arriving (if it ever arrives) at the wrong time. With the economy in the doldrums, gas prices in Davy Jones’ locker and new car prices about to tank (thanks to GM’s aforementioned C11), a relatively cramped $30K high mileage sedan boasting untested technology that requires consumer behavior modification (i.e., plugging it in) is, well, doomed. Which reminds me: the Volt doesn’t work.

The undaunted cheerleaders over at Autoblog (AB) posted a behind-the-wheel test of GM’s “plug-in savior.” Click on the video and you learn that the EV boosters were treated to an “80 percent plus representation of what [the Volt buyer’s] electric vehicle driving experience will be in the Chevy Volt.” The test—such as it wasn’t— completely missed the point. It’s not the “experience” that counts. It’s the utility. Can the Chevrolet Volt drive a full 40 miles on battery power only? Uphill? Upwind? In an arctic chill? In the desert heat? How long does it take to recharge? And how does it drive on gas power AFTER the battery discharges? GM’s Volt man proudly proclaims The General’s about to build 75 Volt prototypes. Big friggin’ deal. Show us the practicality. Now.

Better yet, don’t. There is no business case for this car. In fact, the Volt is a near-perfect representation of the kind of half-baked, reality-divorced, over-optimistic product development that drove the artist formerly known as the world’s largest automaker into Uncle Sam’s loving embrace. It’s a Hail Mary from a company that doesn’t have a prayer of dislodging the Toyota Prius from its stranglehold on environmentally conscious, financially frugal car drivers. Never mind the Volt’s plug-in aspect. ToMoCo is already working on a plug-in Prius. If the Volt proves that power cords are pistonhead paradise, the Prius will have one. AND it will work.

Did I mention the Honda Insight? By the time the Chevy Volt gets around to getting around (for real), the Insight will have mopped-up the few thousand American consumers who want a Prius, but prefer someone else’s version. Lest we forget, GM has been producing knock-offs that singularly fail to knock the competition off their sales perch for the last thirty years or more. Be they economy, muscle or luxury cars. Truth be told, in the last two decades (at least), GM’s only consistently competitive, consistently profitable vehicles have been trucks and SUVs. Uh-oh . . .

Common sense says whatever’s left of GM after bankruptcy needs to make as much money as possible to pay us back. To stop sucking-up billions of our hard-earned tax dollars to provide work for union workers, management idiots and federal bureaucrats. The American automaker openly, brazenly admits that they’re not going to make money on the Volt for a long time. [See video above.] An indeterminate amount of time, in fact. Meanwhile, the Volt will require further billions to [maybe] make its technology work. And then tens of millions more to market the damn thing.

So kill it.

If the goal is to return to profitability, post-C11 “good” GM should focus on building the most profitable vehicles left in their arsenal. Then they should pick a couple of vehicles that have the most potential to be profitable and figure out how to make them profitable. There’s no way that niche products can pass this stress test. CTS Sports Wagon? Dead. Chevrolet Volt. Gone.

Of course, a return to profitability is no longer GM’s goal. Since when does the US government care about profitability? Have you looked at the federal deficit lately? When President Obama outlined his reasons for rescuing Detroit, it was all about green jobs and a healthy planet. Not profits or ROI. Which means the Volt will not die. But GM will.

On the day that The General announces involuntary gastric bypass surgery at the hands of Dr. O and while Crash Cart Chrysler waltzes with the Grim Reaper, not all is well with Toyota. The nosy newsmen at Boston’s ABC affiliate exposed a nasty little secret hiding under Toyota’s hospital gown. Yesterday, Team 5 divulged “more than two dozen complaints filed with the National Highway Traffic Administration” regarding 2001 and 2002 model year Tundra frames that are rusting and blowing away. Today Toyota implied responsibility when they offered to buy back the rust buckets at full retail value. Keep in mind that this issue is limited to certain areas of the USA and Canada where salt is used as the predominant ice melting material.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot indeed. How could Toyota Prius, The Next Generation, not offer direct access to Apple’s technophile (technophobe?) gizmo? No USB paradise by the dashboard lights? True story, brought to you by PriusChat (motto: “Press our buttons”). “The USB integration won’t be available out of the factory until September, and it will only come with the Navigation option package that is available in the Prius III, IV, and V. Customers who buy their Navigation-equipped Prius before September will be able to have the USB kit installed at the dealer, but at their own expense. There are no specifics right now, but it looks like in September when the USB connectivity is added to the Navigation package, the price of the Navigation package will be going up. It hasn’t been established yet whether that price increase would be the same as the price a dealer will charge to install it, or if the dealer-installed USB will be more expensive.” It doesn’t take much Insight, or a Honda Odyssey without iPhone integration, to realize that this is a major marketing misstep by the ToMoCo. Did you know that Microsoft’s Zune can operate through your vehicle’s FM radio? Just sayin’.

Well, they would, wouldn’t they? Makes sense. Why be caught flat-footed when the inevitable occurs? What makes less sense is that this story, hailing from our good friends over at Automotive News [AN, sub], doesn’t mention Chrysler or GM until the eighth paragraph, and then only in passing. And not before the scribes take a swipe at the Japanese automaker for abandoning The Toyota Way: “The moves violate Toyota’s vaunted ‘just in time’ production philosophy,” AN writes. “which views warehousing as a symbol of muda, or waste and inefficiency.” But hey it’s muda out there!

Read More >

Michael K writes:

I have 2008 Corolla with manual shifter. There is almost no engine braking power when I downshift. I know it’s not a malfunction (it’s how it’s designed), but I would like to understand why.

For example, when I’m approaching a red light and I downshift, the car barely slows down. Even if I downshift to even a lower gear to keep the RPMs high, there is still very little braking power provided by the engine. Or, going downhill and downshifting to keep the car’s speed stable without touching the brakes works only on small hills. On a steeper downhill the car continues accelerating. Of course, it’s not as bad as if the car was in neutral, but still…

Before this Corolla I had a 97 Suzuki Swift with manual. One of the cheapest cars on the road, but the braking power of the engine was good.

Read More >

As GM’s journey to bankruptcy nears its conclusion, the punditocracy is busy contemplating the company’s afterlife. The current line of thinking: the feds will cleave General Motors in two. Bad GM gets Buick, GMC, HUMMER, Pontiac, Saab and Saturn. Good GM “buys” Chevrolet and Cadillac. It emerges from Chapter 11 unencumbered by outdated production facilities, warring management, befuddled marketing, over-priced labor, restrictive union work rules, astronomical pensions and onerous health care obligations. Chevillac rises from the ashes to steal share from both mainstream and luxury brands, repay its debts and thumb its nose at Bailout Nation’s critics. But here’s the thing: good GM is “saving” the wrong brands.

“What’s a Chevrolet?” branding guru Al Reis asks, rhetorically. “It’s a small or large cheap or expensive car, truck, SUV or sports car.” Reis has been sounding the alarm on Chevy’s branding for over twenty years, claiming the company lacks the focus it needs to survive in a market place with over 40 competitors.

So how could the liberated Chevrolet rebrand itself for success? “Get rid of the trucks,” Big Al suggests. “Take Chevy back to its roots. Make it what it was before Saturn arrived: an entry level car brand.”

Yes, well, what would distinguish this new Chevy from its competitors? Toyota owns reliability. Hyundai owns price. Nissan owns value. BMW owns driving pleasure. So. . . what? “It should be an American brand,” Reis says. Even if the cars are made somewhere else like, say, South Korea? “These days consumers don’t care where their products come from. Ralph Lauren’s clothing is made in China.”

When I push Reis for a unique selling point for Chevy, he hesitates. I can almost hear him shaking his head. “It’s too late to narrow its focus,” he says. “Other than appealing to patriotism, there isn’t anything left.”

I suppose Chevy could play the patriotic card, returning to the brand’s former “baseball, hotdogs and Chevrolet” appeal. It could even play off its taxpayer subsidy to assert itself as “America’s car company” (yes way). Chevrolet could offer comfortable, affordable and reliable American-styled sedans. Sort of like the groundbreaking Chrysler 300, only better.

Fine, but I doubt the US market would value four-wheeled flag waving enough to make Chevrolet profitable. Remember: Ralph Lauren’s WASPy brand ID convinces customers to pay a premium for his Chinese made apparel. If Chevy can’t charge a premium for these “all-American” products, it will have to compete on price with some of the world’s most efficient automakers. Why would the end result be any different than it is today?

Cadillac sits on the opposite end of the scale. As Lexus, Mercedes and Audi have proven, you don’t have to restrict yourself to one automotive genre to be a successful luxury automaker. But, like Chevy, like any car company, it’s all about the brand. The CTS may be as good as an equivalent BMW, but in this rarefied air, perception trumps product.

“If someone goes down to their golf club and says ‘I just bought a Cadillac,'” Reis says, “it doesn’t mean anything. It doesn’t mean you’ve made it.”

Restoring the Cadillac brand to the pinnacle of automotive desirability would require a multi-billion dollar investment in new products and an equally expensive marketing effort. At the same time, Cadillac would have to abandon its current willingness to maintain volumes with badge-engineered bling. Does Cadillac have the time/will/money to ditch/evolve their current lineup and make and promote the kind of world class cars that could reinvigorate the brand?

No.

Meanwhile, GM is throwing the baby out with the bath water. Buick, meh. But GMC is a strong brand that would gain strength the moment Chevy transfers all its SUVs and pickup trucks to the professional graders. Assuming the US economy recovers sometime before the next century, the pickup market will return. And after driving the Chevy Tahoe hybrid, I’m convinced there’s more room for the genre’s fuel efficiency, packaging, durability, safety, style, convenience, etc.

HUMMER may be the antithesis of President Obama’s vision of the American automobile’s future, but it’s an instantly recognizable brand. HUMMER’s underlying concept—SUV as survivalist’s enclave—still has resonance. Saturn has the touchy feely thing happening. It could be the home of green vehicles. American sports cars? Give Pontiac the Corvette, Solstice, Camaro and a performance brand is born. Saab could return to its roots an, uh, do whatever it is Saab used to do.

Alternatively, nothing. While resurrecting two or more of GM’s eight brands is doable, so is going to the moon. Judging from recent polls, Americans are more willing to fund lunar colonies than pour endless billions into GM.

That’s because they know that Uncle Sam isn’t “protecting ” or “investing” taxpayer’s money by subsidizing GM. They’re gambling on a loser. “GM has destroyed the equity of eight car brands,” Reis says. “You could almost say that’s what they do best.”

Mike writes:

I just thought I’d pass on an ongoing good/bad incident. First the bad: my wife’s 2003 Neon went into the dealer with a mysterious problem that they have determined requires replacement of the cylinder head. In a dramatic departure from my usual luck, the car is still under the 7/70 warranty so the expense will be small.

However the factory has informed them that they do not have a replacement. They are now checking with other dealers. Given that the Neon sold in numbers that Chrysler can only dream about attaining now, I cannot imagine this bodes well for anyone who bought a current Chrysler product.

Read More >

Who needs ’em? Of course the soccer mom and sales folk amongst us really “need” the perpetual motion of a second car. But what about the married schlep who walks to work? Or the enterprising couples that work together? For them a second car may be nothing more than an inconvenience and an expense. Some folks in high places (and low places) say you should go for an alternative that conserves resources and costs less. Fair enough. But is that always a rational choice?

Read More >

Are electric cars a dead end? Just as Ho Chi Minh said when asked about the French Revolution, it’s probably too early to tell. In the meantime, interesting things are happening. Der Spiegel reports that a European consortium of car makers and utilities has agreed on a standard for plugs. That means you’ll soon be able to drive from Lappland to Sicily, or from Lisbon to Moscow (albeit in 50-mile spurts), without worrying about compatibility. The plug will be in a three-phase, 400V configuration. But what about loading stations connected to the plugs? The news here: a consortium including Volkswagen, Daimler, BMW, Ford, General Motors, PSA, Fiat, Toyota, Mitsubishi as well as major western-European utilities are working on a standard electric “filling station.” So much for infrastructure. But what about the cars?

Read More >

A few weeks of vacation from the blogosphere’s non-stop news cycle can leave a blogger feeling a bit behind the times. Two weeks is an eternity in internet time, but stepping away from the barrage of news, spin, hype and hysteria is good for the sense of perspective. Especially if the down time is spent exploring countries on the local typical family vehicle, complete with two wheels, four speeds and about 100ccs of thundering power. Beyond the sheer novelty of seeing entire families commuting on a moped (“Daddy, Nguyen isn’t staying on his side of the pillion seat”), travel in the developing world shows how insulated America is from the transportation realities of the rest of the world. If the $1,000 entry to the world of moped ownership is a major (if attainable) hurdle for workaday Vietnamese, even sub-$10K vehicles face what a GM sales release might call “a challenging sales environment.” Try to explain the “green premium” for hybrids and plug-in vehicles to an auto-aspirational third-worlder, and watch as the idea of paying more for less room and power draws only puzzled bemusement. Hair shirts, it appears, are strictly a fad for the western and wealthy. Case in point: the world’s first plug-in hybrid, the Chinese BYD F3DM.

BYD’s Corolla-aping PHEV raised more than a few eyebrows (many skeptical) when specs and concepts first appeared. Warren Buffet’s hefty investment into the cell phone battery maker quieted the skeptics and gave green-hued futurists a license to thrill. A 60-mile plug-in range, a multiple-mode hybrid system and a price tag under $25K had American hypermilers factoring in local tax credits and greengasming at the fantasy of it all. But in the world’s new largest market for automobiles, even $20K is a huge amount of money. And it turns out that one society’s eco-fantasy is another society’s overpriced, overly-complex answer to a question nobody has asked.

Xinhua reports (yes, nearly a week ago) that BYD’s F3DM has utterly failed to attract Chinese consumers; the firm has sold only 80 models since it went on sale in December. Apparently 20 of those were bought by the city of Shenzhen (think China’s Detroit) with the rest going to the local branch of China Construction Branch. In fact, BYD never even attempted to target private consumers with the model, despite the fact that an F3DM costs 30-40 percent less than a Toyota Prius (which only sold about 3,500 units in China between 2006 and 2008). Even the government isn’t rushing to put its citizens in the alleged volks-hybrid, offering a $7K hybrid subsidy to fleet buyers only.

Even with government help bringing the F3DM’s price under $20K, fleet sales aren’t as strong as BYD had hoped. Shenzen’s plan to buy more for the city’s taxi fleet is on hold as even BYD officials admit that the price needs to come down. BYD’s CEO Wang Chuanfu says that increasing production volume could help bring the F3DM’s price to a more-realistic $15K, but without institutions stepping up to prime the sales pump, the promise of a sub-$10K PHEV (after government subsidies)—and mass market sales—remain out of reach.

And even though the F3DM isn’t dependent on a charging-station infrastructure, price isn’t the only concern keeping buyers away. BYD faces an image challenge having never made anything more car-like than a laptop battery just a few years ago, and even its much-vaunted battery technology seems to struggle to meet on-paper performance numbers. According to Xinhua (hardly bomb-throwers when it comes to Chinese businesses), the 60-mile electric range is only attainable driving at a steady 30 mph. And recharging from a home wall socket takes nine hours.

But these tradeoffs and the correlating plug-in efficiency rewards only have meaning in the context of price, and here the lesson for Chevy’s Volt are plain to see. GM’s $40K profitless wonder defies fiscal logic on a comparable scale, offering only the most image-conscious greenies a value proposition worth even including. Like the F3DM, the Volt’s target audience (if not consumer) is the government, and the same increased volume-decreased price mirage lingers on the horizon. But unlike China (BYD expects its sales to double for the second year in a row, hitting 400,000 units), America’s demand for automobiles is in double-digit decline. And that includes demand for the much cheaper hybrids that are already available in the marketplace.

But we don’t have theorize about private PHEV sales levels for much longer. Shenzhen rolled out hybrid subsidies for private consumers this month which would cut the price of an F3DM in half, to about $10K. This coincides with a BYD plan to launch “a mass marketing excercise to promote the car to private buyers.” But if the car-crazed, yet pragmatic Chinese do start buying the F3DM, it will be at half the original MSRP, a feat that GM can’t hope to pull off with its Volt. Unless they just slap in powertrains from BYD, which is hedging its consumer-market gamble by offering to license technology to Western firms. In any case, BYD’s consumer sales push will give us some idea of private PHEV demand (and its required stimulus) by the time the Volt launches. Sales trends are easier to follow when they start at 80 units per quarter.

Props to automotive consultant Maryann Keller for calling for GM to get its shit together, I mean “create a sense of urgency” since 1875, or thereabouts. Kudos for Keller’s willingness to predict a GM C11 early and often. And praise be for loaning TTAC the writing talents of Mr. Ken Elias. OK, so. . . Keller’s column in Automotive News [sub] is suffused with Annie-like optimism for a post-C11 GM. With one a catch. Chevillac’s success depends on the “smaller, leaner and cost-competitive company‘s” ability to secure a champion who can administer strong medicine to GM’s poisonous corporate culture. Before we deal with Ms. Keller’s “if you build it, he will come” theory, here’s a taste of her sunwillcomeouttomorrowism:

Let’s face it: Much of the success of the Japanese auto companies in the United States came about as a result of Detroit’s failures. GM, Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler made it easy for the competition by not matching them in quality, not renewing their product lineups on a timely basis, virtually ignoring the sedan buyer and diverting resources away from North America and even away from auto assembly.

If GM restructures quickly, it can emerge as the low-cost producer in North America and use that position to gain market share quickly.

I don’t see how Chevrolet or Cadillac can become low-cost producers in North America. Does anyone seriously expect Chevillac’s UAW employees to labor for lower wages than their non-union American counterparts? Or, for that matter, Korean or Chinese workers? So where’s the competitive cost advantage going to come from? More efficient factories? Streamlined management? Better marketing? What?

Even if Chevy could undercut its competitors’ costs, gaining marketshare, never mind gaining market share quickly, is so far from a done deal it may not even be possible, never mind likely.

Chevrolet is not a viable automaker. Aside from pickups and a superabundance of dealerships, they ain’t got game. The Volt is an inside joke.The Malibu isn’t stealing significant sales from Toyonidssan. The new Camaro is a niche product. Ditto the Corvette, only more so. The Aveo is a piece of crap. The Traverse surmounts nada. Etc.

In fact, rebuilding Chevy isn’t simply a matter of throwing billions at existing products, or spending billions on creating new ones. It would take at least decade to do something about the brand itself, which is both damaged and virtually meaningless.

In contrast, Cadillac doesn’t need cost savings; it need vehicles that are significantly better than those made by Lexus, Audi, BMW and Mercedes. Cadillac also needs a stronger brand than its German or Japanes competitors. This for the automaker hell bent on building a station wagon, a rebadged SUV-lite, a blinged-out Tahoe and a lower-priced sedan than the CTS.

While MAK’s right that the transplants built their initial success on Detroit’s failures, there’s no reason to think the “usurpers” will now drop the ball. Though MAK tries to make the case:

Ironically, some of GM’s competitors aren’t looking invincible anymore. At ¥100 to the dollar, imports from Japan aren’t profitable. Nissan Motor Co. will lose money this year; and, despite Carlos Ghosn’s magic, it has yet to demonstrate consistent product strength.

Toyota Motor Corp.’s quality is not rock-solid anymore. The residual values of its vehicles are falling, and product proliferation is confusing buyers and dealers. The blind quest to be No. 1 left Toyota with global excess capacity.

Sorry, but Toyota and Nissan are hardly standing still. They’re rectifying their mistakes, readying themselves to keep kicking Motown’s ass. And what of Honda? Hyundai? Ford? Fiat? Just joking.

Anyway, MAK thinks Chevillac’s future comes down to people. True, but what are GM’s chances of finding someone to lead Chevillac to victory?

The GM board of directors bears responsibility for the company’s fate. The most important responsibility of the board is naming and firing the CEO. . .

The GM board deserves a failing grade, and the new GM deserves directors who will be fully engaged. The new board has to ensure that the vitality of the new company isn’t squandered as soon as there is evidence of a comeback.

This would be a good time to mention the fact that a federal committee is in complete control of GM’s Board of Directors. They just fired GM’s CEO, and installed his clone at the helm. How confident does that make you feel?

Not that I’m suggesting that an unelected federal quango made up of bankers and non-auto industry types is incapable of choosing a kick-ass BOD for GM, who would choose the right CEO for the job. I’m saying it.

I never owned a share of General Motors during my 28 years on Wall Street and in the 10 years since. But if bankruptcy delivers a low-cost, competitive company, I’m ready to buy.

And if there’s a clean, low-mileage 2007 Ferrari F360 going for $20k, I’m in. Meanwhile, not.

One of our Best and Brightest offered the following observation:

Isn’t there another problem lurking for Presidential Motors?

Is my grasp of history wrong (or did I just live for a while in the wrong part of the country) but is not there a perception or urban legend or canard, how to put this gracefully, that Fords were for rednecks, and that Ford dealers were rednecks, and that GM, especially Pontiac and Cadillac, was much more open to the idea of having minority-owned dealerships, and that that went back to the early days of both Ford and GM?

When I lived in the South, I was told “Pontiac” meant “Poor Old N[egro] Thinks It’s a Cadillac.”

What if “too many” of the dealers whose contracts are about to be impaired outside the bankruptcy process and in clear violation of the clear text of the Constitution, turn out to be minorities?

Read More >

In November 2007, VeeDub head honcho Martin Winterkorn announced his version of the Schlieffen Plan. Dubbed “Strategie 2018,” Winterkorn plotted the overthrow of GM and Toyota from the top of the worldwide sales charts. Winterkorn called for VW to rule the world in sales, profits, innovation and customer satisfaction by 2018. When the plan was announced, the MSM feted it, insiders (this reporter included) rolled their eyes and denounced the announcement as the usual hubris of an incoming CEO, a suit who’d be busy collecting his pension by the time 2018 rolled around. In any case, by 2018, the Generalstabsplan would long be forgotten and superseded by at least five other grand strategies.

A month ago, the worker’s council at Volkswagen said that the plan has merit. “All at Volkswagen agree that the targets of Strategie 2018 haven’t changed and that we will reach them,” said workers council chief Bernd Osterloh. That story didn’t get much traction. The few who read it sighed. Through plain dumb luck and the incompetence of others, VW may be closer to “mission accomplished” than anybody dared to think.

It’s a done deal: VW will surpass GM in sales this year to become world number two, behind Toyota. Now, Reuters reports that “Volkswagen AG may have overtaken Toyota Motor Co to become the world’s top-selling carmaker in the first quarter, thanks to government incentives that fueled demand in VW’s major markets.”

VW’s overall deliveries to customers worldwide fell 11 percent to around 1.39m vehicles in Q1. Others fell faster and harder, enabling VW to increase its share of the global passenger car market by 130 basis points to 11.0 percent.

“Toyota has given no forecast for retail sales, but its latest estimate for shipments for the 2009 first quarter is 1.23m vehicles, down 47 percent from a year earlier,” Reuters says.

“Volkswagen has the luck of being strong in the markets that are currently growing, while Toyota is exposed to those that are collapsing,” says motor mouth Ferdinand Dudenhoeffer in a rare case of seeing the obvious. VW’s failure to get anywhere in the toxic US market is now its savior. Where you have no significant sales, you cannot have significant losses.

Volkswagen has a very strong position in the world’s only significant growth market, China. In the PRC, VW surpassed the 1m mark last year. It produced more cars in China than Germany. Toyota has seen sales fall every month of this year in China, its third-biggest market. Volkswagen is benefiting from government stimulus plans for the car industry that have boosted demand in Germany, China and Brazil, its three biggest markets that together accounted for half of all group sales in the first quarter.

While VW is lucky to be in the right place at the right time, Toyota definitely finds itself in the wrong places at the wrong time: Toyota’s first-quarter US sales fell 36 percent, while sales in Japan for the core Toyota brand plummeted 31 percent. The two markets account for just under half of its global sales.

Volkswagen China’s Winfried Vahland quickly positioned himself as the top general in Volkswagen’s audacious plan to subjugate Toyota. “We have launched Strategy 2018 in line with the long-term objectives of the Volkswagen Group in China,” Vahland said to China Daily. Note the “We have launched.” Vahland said he would increase annual vehicles sales in China from the current 1 to 2 million units as well as enlarging its fleet by least four models per year by 2018.

The former controller, Vahland, had an uneventful career at VW and his dispatch to Beijing as head of the Volkswagen Group in Beijing was widely seen as a promotion to Volkswagen’s Siberia. The real power centers of VW China are at SAIC in Shanghai and FAW in Changchun. Now, Vahland basks in the limelight of being the frontline general of Volkswagen’s attack on a weakened Japan.

In Germany, VW benefited from the Abwrackprämien boom. Deliveries rose 4.5 percent to about 251,500 vehicles during the quarter. More than 160,000 new orders were booked as owners turn in their clunkers for a new one and €2.5K from the government.

Even in cratering Russia VW grows. Despite a 39 percent contraction in overall Russian demand, Volkswagen grew its volume by 14 percent, making VW the fourth-largest manufacturer in the country.

NPR can’t believe their ears: “Come on? Volkswagen? The world’s top selling automaker? That sounds impossible. Last year, Toyota crushed VW, selling almost three million more cars and trucks. But in the first quarter, Volkswagen sold more vehicles than Toyota even estimates it shipped. Analyst John Wolkonowicz at IHS Global Insight calls it a fluke.”

The disturbing news of the arrival of the former axis member at the gates of Aichi, Nagoya, results in grave head-nodding in the land of the rising sun. “Volkswagen is a big competitor for Toyota,” said Koji Endo, auto analyst at Credit Suisse in Tokyo. “Audi is strong, Volkswagen is strong, and they’re making good use of their small cars.”

The stock market greeted the news by lifting VW’s tock price. VW has also moved up in stock value ranking, grabbing the No. 2 spot behind Toyota, whose market capitalization of $133b still outstrips the German carmaker’s $100b. For now.