Automotive News [AN, sub] reports that “For automakers [that’s Ford, GM and Chrysler] to get access to up to $25 billion in low-interest loans included in the 2007 federal energy law, Congress must approve roughly $3.8 billion in new spending to cover default risk.” Bailout-wise, U.S. House of Reps Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) is on the case. Maybe. “Hoyer could not say precisely when or if any proposal would come before lawmakers for a vote before they are scheduled to break at the end of September — possibly for the remainder of the year.” That’s crazy talk! But if you want hardcore insanity, wait ’til Friday, when GM CEO Rick Wagoner hustles to the Hill to bring out his begging bowl in front of a Senate Energy Summit. The Wall Street Journal previews Rick’s party line: “The auto makers and their Congressional supporters also will argue that they need funding to meet new fuel-economy standards imposed by Congress, and that the debt markets have broken down in the credit crisis, leaving them few other options.” The WSJ reveals that Congress has 15 days to do the deal before our reps piss-off. Even worse (for Detroit) not everyone’s on board. “The industry’s chance of getting help may have dimmed, however the government announced it will provide a plan to provide as much as $200 billion in new capital as part of a takeover of the country’s main providers of funds for home loans, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac… Last week, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R., Utah) said he was concerned about the amount of money. ‘We don’t want our automobile industry to go down, but on the other hand, they’ve made a lot of bad choices.'” While I bet they get the bucks, methinks Rick’s cruising for a bruising.

So Google is planning to take over Yahoo’s internet search-surrounding advertising, scooping-up 80 percent of the market. Needless to say, the move has seriously pissed-off Microsoft, which scarfs the crumbs off that particular table, and tried to buy Yahoo’s ad interests before Google (not to mention Microsoft’s experiences on the business end of a U.S. Justice Department (DoJ) anti-trust case). Advertisers, who know a cornered market when they see one, are also chagrined (i.e. litigious). The UK’s Independent (discovered through an ad-free Google alert) reports “The Google-Yahoo alliance is scheduled to go into effect next month, but last week the Association of National Advertisers petitioned the DoJ to block it. The trade group, whose 400 members include Procter & Gamble and General Motors, said it would drive up ad rates and hand too much power to Google.” But wait! There’s more GM, if only hypothetically. “The two Silicon Valley giants have argued in the past that outsourcing Yahoo’s search advertising was akin to General Motors using Toyota’s hybrid technology, which does not lessen the ferocity of competition in the car industry.” Anyone remember Rick Wagoner’s “secret trip” to Japan to talk to Toyota? If only…

First impressions last. And many are formed by the appellation given a child at birth by well-meaning parents. Guys named Percival, Chauncey and Marion know the answer to “what is in a name?” And now, Tiguan. Pronunciation? Is it TEE-gwan? TIG-yoo-wahn? Tig-WAHN? Any way you say it, Tiguan sounds more like some species of sub-Saharan reptile than a girlie soft-roader. Like that boy named Sue, Smuckers or Huckabee, any vehicle with a bizarre name better be able to stand up for itself. So is VW’s new mini-ute good enough to compensate for its cumbrous cognomen (stupid name)?

Among other topics in today’s podcast, Jonny and I discuss the Audi A3. He and I both agree, we’re seeing them all over the place. But if you’re not deep in Audi country, you almost definitely are not. With sales of 646 nationwide for July of 2008 (the A8 only sold 205 in July, and I see those everywhere too), we’re not exactly talking about a volume vehicle. In fact, while Pontiac is moving 1500-2000 G8s per month, I rarely if ever see those on the road; maybe five of them in total since the car’s launch. But Audi’s expensive little hatchback? Ubiquitous here in the NY metro area, especially on the island of Manhattan itself. And why not? I often remark that NYC is the most European-style city in terms of its layout and density. Buyers in Manhattan want small cars, they want prestigious logos on the front grill, and they want the occasional dose of practicality. It must be one of the only places in America where the Mini Cooper convertible appears to outsell the Toyota Camry. But whatever the reasons, I’d contend that Los Angeles, San Francisco, and New York comprise a vehicular bubble that’s the exception, not the rule, even for big cities in the U.S.

Toyota doesn’t want to gloat or anything, but it’s going to make real money on its new Prius. “We reduced costs of hybrid systems for the current Prius by 50 percent from the first generation,” ToMoCo Vice Chairman Kazuo Okamoto tells Automotive News. “For the next-generation Prius, we will be able to cut costs by another half, so I think we’ve been able to ensure profitability will be similar to regular vehicles, such as the Corolla.” And though Okamoto-san comes across as lacking empathy for the plight of the American worker in these troubled times, this isn’t the case. In fact, emotion had nothing to do with Toyota’s decision to expand battery production to the United States. “It is very difficult to make the main parts of batteries outside Japan,” says Okamoto, “but we have to have battery production in North America. We just don’t know when.” Considering that the first American-built Prius is set to roll off the lines in 2010, US battery production was only a matter of time. And the fact that it should help Toyota pull down regular-car profits on the Prius is just the icing on the cake. Oh, and what of Bob Lutz’s hating on the plug-in Prius’s (theoretical) range? Okamoto confirms that plug-in Prius prototypes currently get only 8 miles of “initial EV range,” but that chasing the Volt’s (projected) 40 mile range would compromise cargo space and price point. What, that’s it? Aren’t space and cost are mere triflings, in the face of the monumental marketing achievement it will be when someday a company finally claims to sell cars that can go 40 miles without gas. I’m sorry, did I say someday?

The internets have been abuzz with news that anti-environmentalists have vandalized Toyota Priora in the Golden State. Autobloggreen dutifully reports one hybrid flambée in July, and vaguely alludes to seven Priora attacks back in April. The site ends its blog with a condescending if PC plea: “Come on, people, this is ridiculous. Just because some SUV and some hybrid drivers act like jerks, that’s no reason to get violent. Let’s just live and let live.” Tracing the story back to Edmunds Inside Line, we learn “Violence Against Prius Hybrids Hits All-Time High.” Yes, “In the most brutal of a spate of attacks against the Japanese import this year, investigators concluded that a fire that consumed a newer Prius on a residential street in Los Angeles seven weeks ago was the work of an arsonist.” While the April outbreak seems real– “All of the [seven] attacks occurred at night while the cars were parked and unoccupied. Weapons included large rocks, bricks, and a motor vehicle used to ram a Prius”– are we sure there were no other vehicles involved? And connecting those dots to a single incident some three to four months later is a bit of a stretch. Common sense suggest that any coordinated “anti-green” group would claim responsibility for their actions. Maybe this last one was insurance fraud, or a neighborhhod vendetta, or… a technical glitch. Perhaps the police/Toyota suppressed vital information. Anyone care to speculate?

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

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

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

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

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

Myth: GM quality is not competitive

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

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

Myth: GM can’t make money selling cars

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

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

Myth: GM is looking for a government bailout

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

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

Myth: The Volt is vaporware

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

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

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

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

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

Myth: GM has too many brands

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

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

Myth: GM opposes higher fuel economy standards

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

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

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

[click to gmfactsandfiction.com here]

Back in 1987, Mazda wanted a big piece of America’s midsize pie. So the Zoom Zoom brand requisitioned an idle plant from the Ford empire. For two decades, even with heavy fleet sales, Mazda’s family sedan struggled to utilize a quarter of the plant’s capacity. Ford re-assumed managerial responsibility in the early 1990s. A few years ago, The Blue Oval Boyz moved Mustang production into the Flat Rock factory to take up some of the slack. For 2009, Mazda’s totally redesigned the Mazda6. Will the new car finally fill Flat Rock?

Back when GM and Ford claimed that foreign sales would keep them afloat long enough to patch their hulls, turn their ships around and avoid reefs of their own making, TTAC called bullshit. First, we pointed out that the domestics’ American losses were simply too large to sustain with foreign profits. Second, we said overseas car markets were hardly immune to the forces sending the States into the doldrums. And so… The Daily Telegraph reports that rising petrol prices have lowered UK vehicle sales to their lowest level since England won the World Cup against Germany in 1966. “The latest sales figures from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) showed that the number of new cars registered last month was down 18.6 per cent on the same period last year. Worst hit were luxury marques and 4x4s, with monthly sales of Aston Martin cars down by two thirds in a year, Land Rover suffering a 58 per cent drop and demand for Porsche models 58 per cent lower than August 2007.” Worse– much worse– is yet to come. “The car market is now in real pain, real free-fall,” Professor Garel Rhys, director of the Centre for Automotive Industry Research at Cardiff University, told the Torygraph. “It is not just the private buyers who are not buying it is also the companies and the fleet side who have decided to pull their horns in, it is a sign of pretty awful times ahead.” Oh, and The Times of India says “Sluggish outlook in India has forced Japanese car major Toyota  to revise and extend further its market share target from the country by as much as 5 years.”

Why the Hell would it? The U.S. “housing crisis” is far from over, money’s too tight to mention, getting credit’s a bitch and the consumer shift to more fuel efficient vehicles has left millions of SUV owners backwards/underwater on their loans. Amongst other things. Anyway, the idea that U.S. new vehicles sales have “bottomed-out” is a combination of wishful thinking and boilerplate bullshit, largely perpetuated by the weasel-word factory known as General Motors’ PR. (Show me ONE MONTH of sales gains and THEN we’ll talk.) As I wrote in my latest General Motors Death Watch, Automotive News [AN, sub] fell for– indeed perpetuated– this spinmeistery hook, line and sinker. In an attempt to atone for their shameless capitulation to Mark LaNeve’s mob, AN has followed-up with a micro-story on Toyota’s take on the American car market’s doldrums [via Reuters]. And here it is: “Despite signs of steadier U.S. auto sales in August, it remains uncertain whether industrywide sales in the largest vehicle market have hit bottom, Toyota Motor Corp. Vice Chairman Kazuo Okamoto said today. ‘It’s hard to say whether the U.S. market has hit bottom,’ Okamoto told reporters. Okamoto, speaking through a translator, also said that despite the recent decline in oil prices, Toyota, the world’s largest automaker, was still assuming oil prices would be higher over the long term as the basis for its product planning.”

Here we go again — the always churning, ever yearning, never learning rumor mill is speculating that Pontiac might be headed for an Oldsmobile style fate (i.e. murdered without dignity). But I remember that when Olds was put down, it had no reason to live. Does Pontiac? And seeing as how my very first car was a Pontiac, do I care if the brand gets driven off one final cliff? Looking at their line up, that’s a tough call. Shall we go one by one? G6 — meh. G5 — double meh. The new G3 (a rebadged Chevy Aveo) is actually grounds for homocide. Grand Prix? OK, that’s just sad. I mean, it’s old, not much bigger than the G6, and its only selling point — you can get the maniac GXP version with a V8 — has been rendered moot by the G8. Torrent — what the hell’s a Torrent? Anyhow, I couldn’t care less. The all new Vibe is a Toyota Corolla. So far, I wouldn’t shed a tear. The Solstice. Oooooh. Suddenly my heart is in this. The Solstice is gorgeous, and a wonderful counter punch to all that the General has accomplished over the last three decades (outliers like the Vette and GNX excepted). Then there’s the aforementioned G8. You will be reading my review of this car next week but let me just say that in my mind the G8 and the G8 alone is reason enough not to kill Pontiac. What do you think?

While GM, Toyota, Nissan and Mitsubishi are readying their electric vehicles, a new contender has emerged and is aiming to beat them all to the punch. Tata motors, in conjunction with Norway’s THINK!, plans to launch an electric car themselves. Reuters reports that the car will be based on the Tata Indica and be launched in Norway within one year. S. Ravishankar, senior general manager at Tata Motors’ engineering research centre, says that the car can run for 175 km (110 miles) to 200 km when fully charged with a “two-pack” battery, but mileage could vary according to the battery used. (Ya think?) There’s little doubt that, if successful, Tata will use the Jaguar/Land Rover global dealer network to sell these cars. “Could I interest sir in a Jaguar XJ? A Supercharged Range Rover sport? A Tata Nano? or an Electric Tata Indica?” Uh, maybe not.

The market for diesel technology just got a little more interesting. Nissan has announced they’ve become the first Japanese car maker to launch a diesel vehicle in Japan for six years. Nissan and Renault co-developed the X-Trail 20GT SUV’s oil-burning engine to create the world’s first Japanese emissions-pleasing “clean” diesel. The only other diesel car that meets the world’s toughest particulate regs: the Mercedes-Benz E320 CDI sedan. The Merc costs 8 million yen ($73,510); the X-Trail 20GT just 3 million yen ($27,710). Other car makers aren’t far behind. Volkswagen, Honda, Mitsubishi and Subaru are all planning to offer diesels in Japan. Meanwhile, Toyota’s pulled all diesels from their Japanese line-up (the last being the Land Cruiser Prado) and continue to push hybrids. With the Japanese government planning on placing consumer incentives on diesels meeting the new standards, and Toyota and Honda’s hybrids set to fall in price, it looks like Japanese enthusiasts will have a genuine diesel vs. hybrid debates. Lucky them.

As Farago pointed out in his latest General Motors Death Watch, Automotive News [AN, sub] has suddenly decided enough is enough. The currently moribund U.S. new car (truck?) market is about to rebound. Excellent! I was getting tired of berating Motown for its unsustainable optimism. So, what are the facts that underpin scribe Richard Trout’s faith in the immediate future? “Heavy incentives on pickups and SUVs, combined with gasoline prices that are down about 40 cents a gallon from the July peak, may help the Detroit 3 and Toyota Motor Corp. shore up sagging U.S. sales.” Yes, OK, they “may.” But where’s the evidence they will? In fact,  Trout relies entirely on GM’s spinmeistery. “But GM executives found some cause for encouragement in sales of the Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra pickups and the giant Tahoe and Yukon SUVs. The big light trucks had their best months of the year, stoked no doubt by GM employee pricing incentives that whacked thousands off sticker prices.” Folks, not to belabor the point that RF made so eloquently, this is not what responsible adults call journalism.