In all this heady Volt-o-mania, it should be remembered that GM is trying to boldly go where no lithium-ion battery has gone before. The vehicle’s success (i.e. its ability to live-up to the performance-related hype perpetrated its corporate shills) depends entirely on its li-ion battery pack’s ability to hold a suitable charge, discharge that charge, recharge that charge, and do so for a good long time, without losing its ability to charge, discharge and recharge appropriately. A Reuters article [via Planet Ark] kinda makes you wonder about all that… “Among the challenges to overcome are extending the life of high-power lithium batteries and bringing down their relatively high cost, Tien Duong of the US Department of Energy said on the sidelines of a lithium battery conference held at this government laboratory. ‘Life means 10 years, plus. For hybrids we know (their batteries) last 10 years plus. For the PHEV (plug-in electric vehicle), we don’t know… One of the phenomenons that cuts short the life of the battery is power. You may have a lot of energy, but if you run out of power, that’s no good.'” You might even say it’s bad. Speaking of which, “Toyota is making quite an effort to build a lithium-ion battery,” Toyota’s Noboru Kikuchi told the attendees. “Simply giving up nickel metal hydride batteries seems like a bad idea.” And so they’re not going to do it. [thanks to JT for the link]

First, Toyota decides it needs a U.S. luxury brand. It builds an S-Class killer, then repackages its mass market products for upmarket tastes. Then ToMoCo decides it needs a U.S. “youth brand.” It imports quirky, customizable, low-cost Japanese market vehicles; then sells them to older people (and repackages them for their in-house designers’ college professors). Now the world’s largest automaker’s talking [again] about launching a Prius brand. “You could have a series of derivatives under the Prius brand name that would allow you to market product at a much lower cost,” Jim Lentz, Toyota’s North American sales chief, told the Reuters Autos Summit in Detroit. “There is a definite desire for us to do that.” Internally or externally? Or was this announcement simply designed to steal some thunder from GM’s Volt-shaped one hundredth birthday bash? After all, on the same day that GM said they wouldn’t make money on gen 1 of their plug-in electric – gas hybrid Hail Mary, Toyota said they’re aiming to sell 175k Priora stateside this year. Before the Ole Miss Prius factory comes on line. “Overall, Toyota aims to sell more than 1 million hybrids per year globally by early next decade, and would need to sell more than 600,000 hybrid vehicles of all types in the United States to meet that target, Lentz said. “To do that effectively, I think we need dedicated hybrids and I would prefer them under the Prius name,” said Lentz. So what happens to the hybrid Camry, Highlander, LS, etc.?

Toyota is not a happy camper. “On the same day the Chevrolet Volt was unveiled in Detroit, a Toyota executive told a congressional committee that lawmakers would be wrong to enact tax credits that benefit only one plug-in hybrid design,” Automotive News [sub] reports. The legislation that’s pissing off the world’s largest automaker would offer a $7500 federal tax credit for any hybrid with a battery pack rated at six kilowatt-hours of electricity or more. That would be the Chevrolet Volt. And only the Chevrolet Volt. Speaking to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, ToMoCo’s national manager of energy and environmental research said pending legislation “redefines plug-in electric vehicles to seemingly eliminate consumer tax credits for all but one plug-in vehicle design.” That would be the Chevrolet Volt. And only the Chevrolet Volt. “We believe consumer incentives should encourage all plug-in designs,” Robert Wimmer railed. “And allow the consumer market to select winners, not legislation.” Note to GM: you do NOT want to piss-off Toyota. If the gloves come off, you’re so dead. I mean, sooner rather than later.

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

At least this time GM’s Car Czar is sticking to PR Supremo Steve Harris’ talking points. Namely, that The General makes some kick ass cars so give us an effing break (and/or $25b worth of federal loans). On the occasion of 9/11, Maximum Bob Lutz (or his designated spin driver) uses the FastLane Blog to set-up a multiple choice test that proves one thing: nothing. The eight questions– one for each of GM’s U.S. brands, but not really– posit the kind of biased non-queries that would make a GM-friendly journalist blush (albeit only long enough to make his or her way to the open bar). The first three brain teasers challenge readers to rate three vehicles’ “initial quality”– which, as we’ve discussed here ad nauseam, doesn’t mean Jack shit. Number four asks us to believe that, as per the “premier automotive analysis site” (Edmunds), the Chevrolet Aveo is the most-economical car in America, taking into “account not only mileage but all costs” (above the Honda Fit and Toyota Prius). Question five DARES to quote Dan Neil, the auto writer whose prescient anti-GM rant “inspired” The General’s petulant PR folk to pull ALL the company’s advertising from the L.A. Times. Questions six, seven and eight trumpet journalistic circle jerk awards, ignoring sales slumps for the media-blessed vehicles. So, what did we learn? That GM is so busy tooting its horn it still can’t see that the bridge is out.

Ever since TTAC began, we’ve been arguing that carmakers (including everybody) are making too many models for too many brands, denying themselves the benefits of customer loyalty and ever-improving design, mechanical and service-related excellence. Perhaps the recent “downturn” would convince these manufacturers to throttle back on the whole BUT WAIT! THERE’S THIS! thing. Nope. The automotive Powers that Be (and the pistonhead chattering classes) continue to adhere to The Magic Feather School of Flying Elephants New Product Development. In fact, now that Detroit’s lack of foresight has put The Big 2.8 in a paddle-less predicament at the top of excrement creek, they’re even more desperate to throw a four-wheeled Hail Mary. In this The Detroit Free Press is a more-than-willing accomplice. “10 vehicles that will redefine the auto industry in the next year” perpetuates the myth that a turnaround is only a vehicle– or ten– away. And the “winners” are… 2009 Audi A4, 2009 Chevrolet Traverse, 2024 Chevrolet Camaro (I kid), 2009 Dodge Ram, 2009 Ford F-150, 2010 Honda Insight, 2010 Lincoln MKT, 2009 Toyota Venza, 2010 Toyota Prius, 2009 Mazda6. Redfinition? You’re kidding, right? No Volt action? Damn! Meanwhile… Camry, Corolla, Accord, etc.

In case you hadn’t noticed, I hate weasel words. If GM needs federal money to stay afloat, GM CEO Rick Wagoner should say it. Of course, that would open GM’s top suit, and all his fellow suitlings, to the long-delayed reckoning (a.k.a. a root and branch reform and anvil-shaped clock cleaning). So what we get is a hideously overpaid chief executive that’s willing to play rhetorical footsie in a [Bill] Cinton-esque style to secure an initial $25b your hard-earned tax money– without strings attached. “General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner said today that limits on use of low-interest government loans should be loosened,” Automotive News [AN, sub] reports from Rick’s testimony at a “so-called” [AN’s term] energy summit. “He called his recommendation ‘an amplification of terms’ rather than loosening. But he contended that a project that leads to production of vehicles with 10, 15 or 20 percent better fuel economy should qualify for federal loans.” Wagoner, who largely avoided talking about the loans, and didn’t mention either “b” word,  didn’t get a completely free ride. “Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., chastised Wagoner for the auto industry always fighting fuel economy standards and predicted companies will be back next year for a financial rescue.” Ya think? Meanwhile, “A Toyota lobbyist walking nearby was asked what he says if a lawmaker asks about loan funding, and he said, ‘We’re staying out of it.'”

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.

The unveiling of the production version of the Volt will go down in history as one of GM’s final coffin nails. Not only does it mark the death of the Volt cult, but it also signals the end of the whole “concept/dream car” era as invented by GM’s legendary Harley Earl in the fifties. Bob Lutz has thrown his “Hail Mary pass” right into the stands. The fans are furious, heading for the exits.

Strong words, considering GM has committed to actually building the Volt. But the promise of the Volt, as defined by the concept car, was something totally different from the perfectly ordinary-looking compact sedan revealed. The Volt concept was a blatant effort by Lutz to tap into the last vestiges of the Futurama psyche: a place where reality is suspended in the belief that a better (and greener) tomorrow really exists, thanks to GM’s infinite technical and styling prowess.

Never mind that the Volt concept was utterly impractical, and had zero chance of becoming the actual production car. In typically Lutzian fashion, the gut dominated the head. The car’s profile, the long, low hood, the chopped top, and those huge wheels, pushed out to the extremities, are nothing but a recapitulation of Lutz’s favorite concept, the Cadillac Sixteen. It’s a RWD concept intended to carry a sixteen cylinder engine under the hood, not a coffee-can electric motor driving the front wheels.

The Volt concept was a blatant lie, because nothing of its mini-Sixteen form spoke to its intended EV role. It was a bait-and-switch routine, consciously contrived to generate enthusiasm, such as the 30k names on the gm-volt.com “waiting list.” Lutz may imagine himself to be the modern day Harley Earl, driving his beloved (and utterly impractical) gas-turbine powered rocket-ship Firebirds. But no one took dream cars like the Firebirds seriously back then; they were part of the Futurama show of unlimited possibilities– which never actually came.

Lutz lied when he said the Volt just needed to be “aerodynamically optimized.” In reality, GM knew it couldn’t afford to develop the technology as well as a new platform and distinctive body too. The production Volt would, by economic necessity, be part of the Delta II platform and body family. It’s an electrified next-gen Cobalt/Cruze/Astra, plain and simple, with a stupid, fake blanked-out grill. It explains the Volt’s mediocre Cd of .28. The Prius may not be stunning, but Toyota shelled out for a unique platform and (more) aerodynamic body, sans fake grilles.

“Rolling turd-mobile” is just one (delicate) sampling of the profound sense of disappointment at Volt Nation. The “leaked” images of the production Volt unleashed a tsunami of negative comments (over 800 and still growing). Some asked to be taken of the (un-official) waiting list, and many are apoplectic. What gives? Weren’t they mainly interested in a car with a 40-mile electric-only range?

The Volt concept coupled the powerful emotional and visceral right-brain appeal of a snorting Cadillac Sixteen with the left-brain advantages of an EV. It was the royal flush, the four cherries, the completed Hail Mary pass that would resurrect GM from the ashes of its (self-induced) immolation. The Messiah/Volt would leap-frog the Prius (and the ascending Asia it represents) as well as shove a giant middle finger in OPEC’s face. America’s place in the world would be restored.

But the production Volt brings to light a grim and stark reality: it’s just an ordinary-looking car. Where’s the (Pontiac) excitement and fun in that? Yes, GM has made an important (and necessary) step in the long-term electrification of the automobile. But it’s hardly alone in that. And it may not be all that exciting, either. In fact, the electrification of the automobile represents the triumph of the left-brain/form follows function/Japanese approach to car building: rational, systematic, measured integration of technology, continuous improvement, and cost-effective (profitable) production. The very qualities that lead to the Asian dominance of the American car market, and cars like the Prius (there never was a Prius concept, it just appeared one day, production-ready).

The glorious fifties and sixties are long gone and dead, despite Detroit’s best efforts to evoke them with retro pony cars and Volt dream-car concepts. And the much-hated Prius represents the force that killed that era. No wonder so much of the scorn being dished out at gm-volt.com is laced with Japanese model names: “Ugh; it looks like a bastard child of a Prius and a Civic.” What the GM faithful were looking for, what Lutz got them excited about, was the equivalent of the 1963 Riviera coupe powered by a nuclear reactor. And they were willing to pony-up. But what they’re seeing now is a forty-grand Cobalt. And falling gas prices. And rising electric rates. Suddenly, the Prius and Insight look… not so ugly after all.

Troy Clarke, President of GM’s North American operations, decided answer back on some issues plaguing GM while addressing students at Southern Methodist University (home of the George W. Bush Presidential Library). Clark started with the usual PR blurb; GM is one of the largest auto manufacturers in the world, and that they bring us household brands, like Chevrolet, Buick, Saturn, Pontiac, Hummer and Cadillac. Well, until they kill Pontiac and sell off Hummer. And Buick slips in the shower and dies. While we could read into Clarke’s reference to GM as “one of” the world’s largest automakers rather than calling it “the largest,” there were other gems from the presentation. Clarke went on to trumpet GM’s phenomenal fuel economy stable: they have 18 models that get 30 mpg or better. Ray Wert trashed this myth previously: these 18 cars represent 30% of GM’s overall line up, whereas Toyota’s and Honda’s 30+mpg club represents 55 and 60%, respectively. Then came the thorny issue of “the bailout”. Or not. Because it’s not a bailout. Is it? Clarke told the crowd that actually, it’s not a bailout. It’s just a return for the taxpayer. Nice! “Congress has mandated an industry average of 35 mpg or better by 2020,” Clarke said. “This was the figure that they thought was reasonable and would not bankrupt the car companies, but it just depends on how valuable sooner results in this facet are to the American taxpayer.” Fancy that! Even though, I’m not a United States’ taxpayer, I’d hazard a guess that citizens would want their taxes spent on things like roads, defense and fixing social security, rather than a company run into the ground by clueless executives.

Is TTAC’s influence spreading like butter on toast? David Welch of Business Week seems terribly underwhelmed by GM’s “Facts and Fiction” website. He believes that, in theory, it’s a good idea. In practice, he gives GM a right, royal kicking. “But the site itself is mostly unconvincing.” he writes, “In one entry, GM scoffs at the notion that the company ‘still doesn’t make cars that people want to buy’. As proof, GM cites that sales for cars like the Chevy Cobalt are up 10% this year. Malibu sales are up 32%. Yawn. Most of the company’s new vehicles have won praise from the motoring press. Why not refer to a good review in, say, Car and Driver?” Ouch! But wait, there’s more! He then questions GM’s version of events, ass-kicking style. In the “GM didn’t anticipate the shift towards fuel efficient vehicles” section, he points out that while the Saturn Aura and Chevrolet Malibu are good cars, they came to market AFTER the fuel jumps. “When GM got in trouble in 2005, it spent extra money to rush its large SUV’s to market, not its cars.” Even Toyota get an honourable mention, “And the company didn’t make a push to get advanced hybrids to showrooms until it had lost the technology image game to Toyota. That’s reaction, not anticipating.” His pièce de résistance: GM’s so-called evidence to support their claims. “There are five of them (websites and blogs) and all come from the company’s PR staff.” It’ll be interesting to see Bob Lutz’s reaction to all of this. “Business Week? It’s a crock of shit!”

The oil economists and auto experts over at ESPN.com have decided to lay down the law about automobiles and ending the fuel import issues that plague the United States. In a post called “Hold Your Horsepower,” writer Gregg Easterbrook begins a multifaceted festival of wrong that continues for several excruciating paragraphs. His thesis: cars should have less horsepower; if they did, we’d use less gasoline. He goes on to, in a manner vaguely resembling accuracy, describe how today’s cars are “overpowered” by their comparison to vehicles from twenty and thirty years ago. While we’d all concur that a 268 horsepower Toyota Camry just sounds silly, Mr. Easterbrook’s “solution” is comparable to a 12 year-old mapping out a trip to Mars with a box of Crayolas. Just cutting horsepower isn’t the answer to anything. Cars had less power in the 1970s because of emissions laws and insurance. The went on to be functional with less horsepower because Federal safety requirements like airbags and side airbags and antilock brakes and electronic stability control and rigorous NHTSA and IIHS testing just weren’t part of the gameplan. At the heart of Easterbrook’s article there is undoubtedly a kernel of truth, which is that many American-market cars have far more horsepower than we need. But that’s a qualitative perspective, not quantitative. Look at the best selling cars in America in August: among the top ten, there were four trucks. The other six are cars, and their sales numbers are almost exclusively made up of four cylinder engines with less than 180 horespower.  If you click over to the article, see how many statistical/data errors you can spot. Easterbrook should stick to sports. And I promise not to talk about the Maple Leafs; only cars.

Though Chrysler gets special attention from us for its supplier-gouging, the practice of sticking parts makers with cost increases is basically an industry standard. As further evidenced by a Bloomberg report that bankrupt supplier BHM is filing to be released from an unfair (it claims) contract with ToMoCo subsidiary Toyota Boshoku. BHM sells vehicle seat-frame components to Toyota Boshoku, which has refused to increase payments in line with an 80 percent rise in steel costs this year. “The supply contract is so unprofitable that the debtors’ continued performance on the current terms cannot be justified,” says BHM in its bankruptcy court filing. The firm had requested a new pricing schedule in June, which Toyota Boshoku has rejected. Interestingly, Boshoku may be facing pricing pressure of its own. BHM components go into vehicle seat frames that Toyota Boshoku manufactures for Chevrolet’s HHR hatchback. GM has not commented on the case, but the facts prove two imutable truths about the industry. First, that everything and everyone in the biz is connected, and second that every OEM would just as soon see suppliers go under as raise their own costs. Be they Chrysler, GM or Toyota.

Selling eight brands’ worth of vehicles under the “Employee Pricing for Everyone” banner does nothing to reassure jaded “I won’t ever buy domestic” car shoppers that GM isn’t Wal-Mart. Even so, GM makes some great– well very good anyway– rolling stock. But a quick bailout from the Feds won’t fix the cash-burning automaker in time for consumers to discover this fact. It will simply prolong The General’s “we’ll muddle through” mess until the next crisis. What GM’s North American ops really need is a full, head-on crash into the wall of bankruptcy, followed by private DIP (debtor-in-possession) financing. Meanwhile, it’s a real Saab story.

News flash! During the last GM fire sale, I bought a 2007 Saab 9-3 2.0T. The 9-3 offers a great combination of comfort, handling, performance and decent fuel economy. Safety? Top pick of the IIHS. In an era of high gas prices, when every automaker scrambles to make small cars “cool,” GM’s got a darn good one.

Only no one knows about it. Instead, The General is busy trying to convince the public that the electric car of the future is on its way. Wake me up when the Volt arrives. Until then, why bother? What IS the point, especially when it comes to Saab?

GM began its Swedish odyssey in 1990 (with 50 percent ownership). The takeover reached fruition in 2000, with complete ownership. GM’s thinking at the time: Saab would provide the company with a Euro entry lux vehicle for the U.S. market. GM would gain sales by expanding the Saab offerings upwards, fending-off rising competition from both the new Japanese and stalwart Euro lux brands.

Wait. Wasn’t Cadillac supposed to be GM’s upmarket brand? Did GM really need Euro-badged vehicles? Perhaps Saab’s takeover was an admission of the damage already done to Cadillac. Or maybe it was reverse badge snobbery from the Powers that Be. No matter how you look at it, GM never figured out what to do with Saab.

Saab launched its volume leader, the 9-3, in 2003. It had a host of problems, mostly electronic. Vehicle testers/raters like Consumer Reports ranked the 9-3 as “problematic,” giving the brand a black eye. No one really expected a Saab to be as reliable as a Toyota; the car’s quirkiness, Swedish design elements and turbocharged engine offered a trade-off. But for a company (GM) as supposedly committed to vehicle quality to build and sell a modern era car that didn’t work well (to put it mildly), well, the damage was done.

In subsequent model years, the problems were mostly resolved. But Saab’s sales never recovered. They declined from 2003’s peak of 48k units to last year’s 30k last year. Sales in ’08 are set to be much, much worse. It’s been widely reported that GM’s lost money on Saab for all of the years it’s been involved.

During this decline, RenCen decided to expand the Saab lineup on the cheap. It looked to leverage its investment in Fuji Heavy by rebadging a Subaru WRX as a Saab 9-2x. No one was fooled; the small Saabaru never sold more than a few hundred units a month, and the experiment quickly ended. GM also decided Saab needed an SUV on the other end. The General repackaged it’s less-than-stellar Chevy Trailblazer as a Saab 9-7x. Same result. Like anyone really thought this vehicle-– built in Ohio– had any linkage to the brand? Where was the true Euro-flair, the ride, the design? Gone.

To make matters worse, GM launched a new tagline for the brand in the fall of 2005 with a massive (for the brand’s size) media campaign: “Born from Jets.” Ok, like anyone in the USA had any clue that Saab started life as an airplane company? Can anyone name a Swedish jet? Did anyone care? Suffice it to say, as mentioned above, the campaign failed miserably.

Strangely, the Saab 9-3 today could be the right car for times. But GM bungled the handling of the brand from the beginning, and then compounded mistakes. It’s too late to breathe fresh life into this dead brand.

Think of other GM brands where this exact pattern has been repeated. GM’s mistakes with the Saab brand reflect the problems GM faces with consumers across its entire vehicle line-up: poor build quality and mechanics (now mostly resolved), lagging technology, stale designs (much improved today), overlapping vehicles (still an ongoing problem) and weak brand equity (getting worse all the time).

I want GM to make it. I’m an American. But why should the Feds give money to a corporation that’s done such a piss-poor job handling its North American business, such as selling one of its only competitive cars? What makes anyone think GM will do better with a bailout? No, GM needs to crash in North America and then rise from the ashes. It’s the only way.