For the past six years or so, I steered clear of SUVs. A car guy bought cars. End of story. And now, suddenly, I want one. Not a cute ute or anything as sensible as a Honda Pilot, mind you (I'd rather ride a Vespa). But an authentic, gas-guzzling off roader: a Land Rover Discovery or whatever the stupid alphanumeric is for it now [LR3]. Or a Jeep Wrangler. I'd even go supervulgar and ride around in a Mercedes G500. Or a Toyota Land Cruiser, FJ Cruiser or Nissan Xterra. If a stick shift is available, even better. Not that I'd actually take my SUV off road. I just like the image. Is that so horrible? Does it really make me a bad person? I certainly hope so. 

The automotive industry is the global leader in greenwashing. Whether through highly-touted donations to activist groups, misleading advertisements or assorted implausible claims, automakers will do most anything (or in some nothing) to seem eco-friendly. The New York Times reports that the ad men are worried that many consumers can discern now disingenuous environmental claims from environmental action. The Grey Lady traveled to Cannes for an annual ad industry knees-up, and found that green claims are being dialed back to the point reflecting reality. Forget morality, it's one of those impact deals. "After 18 months, levels of concern on any issue tend to drop off," said Jonathan Banks, Nielsen UK's business insight director. Another problem: watchdog groups are fact checking green claims. Britain's A.S.A. and the America's F.T.C. are looking into tightening eco-ad standards. How long before automakes can't advertise highway mpgs?

In 2002, my friend Patrick threw a glass ashtray at me in a bar in Boston. “Berzerkowitz!” he barked, celebrating the successful hit right in the middle of my forehead. That’s how he said hi. The next morning, once he sobered up, and my face still hurt like a sonofabitch, we went for a ride in the car he rented for the weekend. “It’s the most generic car I have ever driven,” Pat told me from the driver’s seat of a Hyundai XG350L.

Edmunds Inside Line has dropped some cash for spy photos for Honda's new Prius-fighting dedicated hybrid model. And it seems that IL and Honda are in the same boat: they've both dropped good money on something that looks identical to a Prius. Go ahead and follow the link for actual photos, or you can just feast you eyes on any image online of a current Prius, because you're basically getting the same thing either way. KGP photography caught the forthcoming Honda Hybrid undergoing hot weather tests in California's Death Valley, going head-to-head with Honda's Civic Hybrid and a current Prius. They say the new Honda is larger than a Prius and will be a global model, though its name and performance details remain under wraps. Expect its finalized looks to be very close to the fuel-cell FCX Clarity, itself something of a dead ringer for the Prius. It's obvious that Honda wants a model that screams "saving the planet" as it drives by. Still, one can't help wondering whether a hybrid Fit (the standard version of which faces high demand from eco-types) wouldn't have achieved a similar statement with a more flexible package and more familial resemblance.

In the ancient Buddhist text Visuddhi-Magga, "name" and "form" are described as powerless in their respective isolation. But when they propitiously combine and mutually support one another, they attain power and "spring up and go forth." GM's announcement that the 2010 Chevy Cruze would [eventually] replace the Cobalt marks a dubious milestone in its continuing struggle to establish a lasting presence in the all-important compact car market. The Cruze will be the recipient of the eightieth name that GM has used on one of its mid-sized or smaller sedans since 1968.

Why 1968? It's the year Toyota introduced the Corolla. We could have started with 1973 (Civic), 1976 (Accord) or 1982 (Camry). But you get my drift: consistency and the lack thereof.

A recent QOTD posed the question "Why are the Japanese so smart (successful)?" Smartness may have little to do with it. Try "tenacious" or "one-pointed." The last Japanese soldiers in the Philippine jungle didn't surrendered until 1974, and then only after their [former] commanding officers were flown-in with written proof that the war was over. The soldiers' rifles and ammo were still in perfect condition. I suspect strongly that my (possible) grandchildren will still be cross-shopping Corollas.

When GM's obituary is written, it will be long and complicated. But this line alone would be adequate: "they failed to execute a consistent program of small car development and refinement." Yes, there were random moments of transcendence: Corvair, Opel 1900, and… your nominations, please. Lots of these vehicles had one, sometimes even two uplifting features. The Vega, for example, was button-cute and handled really well.

But GM's utter lack of a consistent effort to cultivate any continuity, build name and, thereby, brand equity, is distinctly unenlightened. Even with its competitive Japanese captive imports (GEO), GM displayed ignorance. The current version of the Metro, Suzuki's Swift, is a highly regarded sub-compact. It would likely beat the pants off the Daewoo-sourced Chevy BEAT. Oh, right, we're not actually getting that cute hatch, despite almost one million votes cast in favor of the BEAT on Chevy's web site. Another GM exercise in mental masturbation.

Despite GM's claims to have learned from their mistakes, their (re)naming mania continues. The Cruze will supplant/replace the Cobalt. Is this a tacit admission that the Cobalt failed to live up to its makers' grand ambitions when it replaced the Cavalier? While not exactly a class-leader, the Cobalt's not quite the class dunce (you know who you are). It was a substantial improvement over the decrepit Cavalier in every way; it just needed more TLC. Given that the Cobalt and Astra share the competent Delta platform, the requisite interior parts and chassis calibrations are just a Saturn dealer away.

Instead, GM stumbles blindly down the same road of ignorance it has traveled so many times before. When the Cruze arrives in 2010, the Cobalt will continue as the low MSRP/fleet queen special. In GM's high-priest Bob Lutz's own words of prophesy, "the Cobalt is nowhere near the end of its life-cycle." Great; think immortal Buick Century and Chevy Malibu. Classic fleet-mobiles. Not only is GM living in delusion about building name equity, it has become the Shiva of car names.

Ironically, GM religiously guards the one exception, the longest-lived continuous name plate in the whole industry: Corvette. Need I say more? The Corvette is the perfect antithesis to everything that has ailed GM in its passenger car programs. The 'Vette offers its devotees– and they are legion– fifty-five years of focus and improvement, if not always in a perfectly straight line.

I'm not implying that name continuity guarantees success. But it tends to be emblematic of the pride and perseverance that a successful automaker commits to its cars. Think BMW 3-series. Mercedes S-Class. And it sure helps with top of mind name recognition: When a supplicant asks the auto-guru for a recommendation for a good compact car, he can always say "Civic" in an eye-blink without ever having to stretch the brain cells trying to remember what GM's current offerings are called.

For what it's worth, Toyota's only name-and-form stumble corresponded with relatively weak sales. The all-new Yaris (European Car of the Year 2000) was inexplicably called Echo for North America, as well as suffering from an ugly trunk and mug. It ended a long streak of popular sub-compact Tercels. Anyway, Toyota's eleven small and mid-size car names in forty years (Crown, Cressida, Matrix, Tercel, Echo, Yaris, Corona, Mark II, Carina, Camry and Corolla) seem downright profligate compared to Honda.

Civic and Accord. Name and form. The two best selling cars in the land have "sprung up and gone forth" for over thirty years. Automotive immortality attained. Note to GM: endless reincarnation is not a goal worthy of aspiration. Bad karma.

CNN Money quotes GM Product Planner Extraordinaire Bob Lutz: "The reason we made no money on small cars is because hello! nobody wanted them. At $1.75 and $2.25 (per gallon), everybody was happy with full-size utilities with V-8 engines. Now that's shifting, so the profitability is going to go down on trucks and the profitability on cars is going up." Um. No. The reason you made no money on small cars is because hello! you didn't build small cars anyone outside of fleet buyers would even think about buying. Toyota didn't have any problem making money selling small cars. Honda didn't have any trouble making money selling small cars. If you had been as serious about building small cars as you've been about building trucks, if instead of adopting a "throw it against the wall and see what sticks" marketing plan, if you hadn't all but forgotten Saturn existed until last year and if you hadn't parts-bin engineered whatever you could throw together for the rental companies, you'd be well ahead of the curve now. But now you're playing catch-up while the competition forges ahead. Maybe you need to think about something the Marines should have taught you in flight school: to hit a moving target, you have to aim ahead of it.

You know it's a slow news day when a Ford press release touts a wheeled-brick's aerodynamics and the story (such as it is) is picked up by a blog. Granted, we've just done juts that. And Ford needs every little bit of help it can spin to launch their 2.25 ton, 6.5 foot wide Taurus X derivative— especially in this dismal economic climate. "Boxy is the New Swoopy" gushes Edmunds. Our pals quote Ford's press release liberally, "revealing" how squaring the Fairlane's roof and bumper (among other equally subtle changes) gives the Flex a 0.02 aerodynamic edge (so to speak) over the Toyota Highlander and GMC Acadia. FoMoCo claims a one mpg advantage over the competition. Fueleconomy.gov has the Flex FWD pegged at 17/24. As well as the 2009 Acadia FWD with its new DI 3.6L V6. Oops. Nowhere in Edmunds/Ford gusher is the Flex's pesky frontal area number. Nor is mention made of the 500lbs. weight gain over the Freestyle, or the Freestyle's EPA 18/25 rating (2008 corrected #'s). We expect selective stats from Ford. But Edmunds? Yeah, OK, Edmunds too.

After its M250 concept went down in flames, many thought Lotus wouldn't try to build a "real-world" sportscar again. Though the Europa brought a little more livability (and a lot more ugly) to the hardworking Elise platform, it hasn't done much for Colin Chapman's progeny. Car reports that Lotus is having another go, reviving the M250 concept back with a new set of clothes and a new 'tude. With a 276hp Toyota V6, the Eagle (not its real name) does zero to 60 in five seconds, hits 160mph and laps the Nurburgring considerably faster than its Elise stablemate. Unlike the spartan Elise, the new 2+2 offers traction control, cup holders, AC, Alpine ICE and antilock brakes. At about $90k, the 2009 Eagle is a little short of the "911 for Cayman money" goal. Speaking of which, the new, 2010 Porsche Cayman jumps from 245hp to 265hp. The Cayman S will offer 320 directly-injected horses. And here's news: the S gets an optional PDK dual-clutch gearbox (all versions will be more fuel-efficient). So it's Lotus prestige and limited production versus Porsche performance and cost advantages. I call dibs on the comparo.

CNBC reports that Toyota is revising its sales estimates for 2008. ToMoCo had projected sales of 9.85m units worldwide. They've dropped expectations by 300k, setting a new goal of 9.5m units. Though sales are down in Europe and Japan, Toyota is blaming the stagnant American market for the expected decrease. Having already announced production cuts at three US plants, this could be bad news for Toyota's bid to become the global volume sales leader– were it not for the fact that its competitor for the title is General Motors. While Toyota is still likely to outstrip GM despite the sales goal cutback, it's unlikely to meet GM's single-year sales record of 9.55m set back in 1978. ToMoCo shares are currently underperforming even the weak Japanese transport equipment subindex, thanks to sell-offs in anticipation of slowing demand. But, Naoki Fujiwara, fund manager at Shinkin Asset Management, reckons that Toyota's high dividend and long-term positioning make it a good buy. Roger that.

Ford’s survival may depend on the U.S. success of the European-designed Focus and Fiesta. An embattled GM agrees with FoMoCo's "world car" strategy, talking up its "global platforms." Meanwhile, Honda and Toyota’s dominant Camcordias were designed predominantly with the North American market in mind. Does success in the brutally competitive American market demand specifically tailored designs? Or are “world cars” the salvation to Detroit’s passenger car woes?

Detroit has been vacillating on this subject since the fifties, when they imported Opels and Euro-Fords. After 1960, these “captive imports” took a back seat to home-grown compacts, on the assumption that the hometown team knew better what Americans wanted: lazy six-cylinders and soft suspensions.

When these “compacts” became obese in the sixties, GM resumed importing the tin(n)y Kadett. By 1969, the Opel was the number two selling import. Turns out Americans really did like genuine Europeans– even if they were sold at the Buick dealer. So in its usual hubris, Detroit decided it could “leapfrog” the imports. Hence the Chevy Vega and Ford Pinto.

Suffice it to say, that didn’t work out so well.  Meanwhile, the Japanese invasion became a tsunami. GM’s GEO resumed importing captives from Isuzu, Suzuki, Toyota and Daewoo, with varying degrees of success. Ford’s European imports were a mixed bag. The “baby Mustang” Capri and the little front wheel-drive hatch Fiesta were genuine hits (for a while). But FoMoCo struck out with the [Bob Lutz-championed] Merkur-badged XR4ti and Scorpio.

Detroit’s big leap into “world cars” began in the late seventies, in response to expensive gas and inexpensive competition. First up: Chrysler’s 1978 Omni/Horizon twins. Designed in Europe, the “Americanized” Omnirizon (a.k.a Simca) was a success. But it didn’t receive the continuous development that the Japanese and Europeans lavished on their small cars. The models finally died in 1990, essentially unchanged from their original incarnation.

Ford’s global 1981 Escort was heavily (and dubiously) touted as the first “world car.” In its home market, the European Escort was a decent Golf-fighter. The U.S. version was flawed in the usual Detroit way: soft suspension, lousy gear ratios and cheap, ugly Americanized interiors.

GM committed its version of the crime on an even grander scale with its highly-promoted world car J-body of 1981. Known (and then despised) as the Cavalier in these Land of the Free, GM of Europe successfully adapted the same basic car as the Opel/Vauxhall Ascona.

These three world cars demonstrated that The Big Three were perfectly capable of designing world cars that could compete with Europe’s home grown best (e.g. the VW Golf and Passat). But it was their “Americanization”– especially reliability issues– that doomed them to declining market shares.

Even VW made the same deadly miscalculations. The Rabbit arrived in the US in 1975 as a totally unadulterated crisp German import. In 1978, the falling dollar inspired VW to open the States’ first transplant factory (sound familiar?) to build a U.S. version. 

Former GM exec James McLernon was hired to meet the 200k annual sales goal. His solution: “Malibuize” the Rabbit with cheaper and softer plush seats, softer suspension, dorky full wheel covers and (!) a smaller 1.4-liter engine. The result was largely a disaster, at least from the typical VW buyer’s point of view. The plant closed in 1989.

Meanwhile, the Japanese were happily selling their “world cars” in the U.S. It helped that seventies Japanese designs were closer to American tastes (think vinyl roofs, heavy chrome grilles and weird C-pillars). But Toyondissan’s ever-growing reputation for reliable, economical transportation transcended taste. That alone is a huge lesson. 

Ford essentially repeated its Escort mistake with the Mondeo/Contour/Mystique mid-size world-car. Designed jointly with the Europeans, the American version was flawed by being too compact, not to mention the usual reliability issues.

By the mid nineties, the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry were split from their home-market versions, due to the Japanese tax on vehicle width. But the “American” versions were– and are– also sold globally and in Japan, under different names.

The old rationale Detroit used for “Americanizing” their world cars or global platforms is now essentially dead. Taste in design was once provincial; it’s now global. We all shop at IKEA. Yes, some parts of the world prefer trunks while others hatchbacks. VW solved that problem decades ago with the Golf/Jetta twins. And European cars have grown to world standards (the new Mondeo is huge).

Ford and GM’s adoption of true world cars is economically obvious and long overdue. But their success hinges entirely on the exact same criteria that have always been the life-or-death determinants in this country: design, utility, price/value relationship, reliability, marketing and dealer support. That is, versus the competition. Which is… brutal.

Maybe I should put "smart" in quotes. But then again, maybe I shouldn't. I was commiserating with a friend of mine the other night how are respective 401k plans lost a third of their value last quarter. In his case, it was actual money. He commented that he had a lot of money in Blue Chips. I told him that GM's stock is worth less than two gallons of (Los Angeles) gas. He asked why. And I explained that the General had made billions of dollars selling trucks, bought Saab and then redesigned their trucks while losing over 30 percent of their market share in a decade and that Mr. Wagoner got paid $14,000,000 for his troubles, pre-bonus. My friend was incensed. "How is that American? That sounds like some third world, nepatistic despot shit?" He has a point. And what of the Japanese, he asked. Well, I began, Honda now makes the best-selling car in the country, Mazda and Subaru sales are up and Toyota has the ability to shift gears (and production) when they sense a looming great depression crisis. He asked me why, what is it about Japanese culture that lets them succeed where Detroit just falls flat on its face? I have my suspicions. But, I'd rather just ask you.

Fair and… mentally balanced? I'm not so sure. But one thing is certain: there's a new spinmeister in town. Speaking with Automotive News [sub], GM Chief Financial Officer Ray Young whirled a mean dervish. "There are reports that we were in crisis," Young said, confusing his tenses. "That's far from the truth. We run a dynamic planning process here, so we're constantly feeling the market. We have a certain view of the United States economy and a view of the oil prices. After the month of June, our assessment of the U.S economy made us realize there's a lot more risk in this economy than we thought initially." D'oh! And then scribe Jamie "I Ain't No Stinkin' Lap Dog" Lareau asks "Will this plan save the corporation?" Whoa, Dude! Or, as Young says, "It's going to allow us to handle a very conservative set of industry assumptions, a very conservative set of mixed assumptions and provide ample liquidity through 2009. We're still working through 2010 plans. To me that's still too far away." If only Toyota thought so short term. Anyway, Young says bankruptcy is "not in the cards" and Car Czar Bob Lutz is playing with a full deck [kidding]. Also, the Beancounter has not been asked to price-up the cost of a brand termination. "I keep on reminding our organization that cash is king. I'm not sure what it would cost to eliminate a channel, but when we closed Oldsmobile that cost $1 billion. That's a lot of money."

If there's one thing Wall Street’s wizards are taking away from Rick Wagoner's morning press conference, it's that money's too tight to mention. Meanwhile product is, was and always will be the real meat of the matter. On this score, Wagoner doesn't. "Eighteen of the next 19 products will be cars or crossovers." Sounds good– provided you don't ask "what are they?" The answer to that question flags the fact that General Motors still doesn't realize that they're in a business of building cars and convincing people to exchange their money for those cars.   

While cutting models presents labor and contract challenges, green-lighting new products is even riskier. And GM is approving cars that are either crossovers (sales in the crapper) or niche vehicles (competing in the most volatile, risky market segments). 

Cadillac, for example, is getting a new crossover: the BRX. The SRX it replaces was better than the Lexus RX, but never approached the Lexus's sales. Why follow-up with another trucklette, especially as the market is shrinking? And to this tall Cadillac wagon GM is adding… a CTS wagon. BMW can barely move its 3-Series wagon in the US. Benz passed on offering its new C-Class in wagon form to U.S. customers. So Cadillac is entering a market where even more established competitors fear to tread.

GM's "luxe" brand will add a CTS coupe to its showrooms. It’s the two-door version of the current entry-level Caddy, presented in concept form at the Detroit auto show. Armchair CEOs are fond of describing the coupe market as "fickle." Yes it is. It's also tiny, crowded, seasonal and shrinking.

And everyone knows it. Toyota is killing its Solara coupe. After selling 154 units in June, the Lexus SC430 is on death row. Lest we forget, the last Cadillac coupe– the Eldorado– ended in abject failure. And the current XLR coupe/convertible sold just 117 units last month. Unless you are Porsche, expecting to make money on coupe sales is akin to trying to earn an annual income at the horse track. 

Next up: the new Saab 9-4X. Wagoner announced that the ostensibly Swedish crossover is headed for production. And why not? GM spent a lot of money developing this beast (ahem, sunk cost). It’s the first new Saab product since the Saabaru and Saablazer debacles. But it’s not that simple. 

For one thing, GM's crossover sales have cratered. All of its Lambda-platformed barges are underwater, sinking fast or launching straight into the teeth of a howling gale. We're talking double digit sales declines.

Saab needs less expensive hatchbacks and wagons, not another competitor for the GMC, Chevy, Buick, Saturn and Cadillac crossovers. This is the time to rekindle Saab's green image, or at least offer adequate performance. The 9-4X's planned turbocharged 2.0-liter gas engine won't cut the lingenberry jam.  

Pontiac is getting the Solstice coupe (not a targa) and the G8 Sport Truck. They should be cool-looking and fun to drive. But this is niche within niche. Neither is bound to pass 1000 sales per month.

We now learn that Buick (U.S.) will be blessed a rear wheel-drive (RWD) Invicta sedan come spring 2009. GM’s RWD program is like Homer Simpson at the light switch (on, off, on, off), I’ll believe it when I see it. And anyway, awesome as it might be, Buick dealers are going to sell it alongside the Pontiac G8 GT, across the street from the Cadillac CTS and STS? Oy vey.

Chevy’s ostensibly good news: the mostly somewhat probably partially all new Chevy Cruze compact car is go. From spy shots, the wee bow tie beastie looks promising– especially inside. And the promised 40mpg is extremely appealing in these fuel conscious times– even if the turbo-charged engine will require pricey premium.

Marketing? Who needs marketing? Once again, GM is rolling-out a new product name. The Cruze replaces the Cobalt, which replaced the Cavalier, which replaced the Monza, Chevette and Vega.

Unlike the plug-in hybrid electric gas vehicles destined for the Eurozone, the Cruze will sell in Europe as a Chevrolet. And that means one of two losing options: (A) It's going to be a piece of crap, because Chevy Europe competes at the very bottom of the new car market; or (B) It’s going to be good; in which case they are competing with the established GM Opel brand.

GM’s die-hard (with a vengeance) CEO can talk all he wants about cutting costs and securing flammable cash. At the end of the day, The General’s in the automotive business. If it wants to stay in business, the automaker needs to build and sell the right cars at the right time. And do it better than their competition. This they haven’t done. This they aren’t doing. And it is this failure that will ultimately be their undoing. 

Things are bad for Chrysler, Ford and GM. The Big 2.8 are burning precious cash, shedding valuable market share, choking on unwanted trucks, attempting to nurture (or excise) damaged brands and outmoded models, and struggling to bring relevant products to market. Bankruptcy looms large. And yet, there’s a silver lining to the recent, calamitous downturn in the U.S. new car market. But before we reveal the sliver of hope, let’s check in with the main engines of their destruction: Honda, Nissan and Toyota…

For Toyota, whose annual profits are more than twice GM’s entire market capitalization, the American consumer’s switch from light trucks to lighter cars is extremely annoying.

After investing some $2b in a brand new pickup truck plant in Texas, ToMoCo had to slash prices to the bone to move the metal. Now that their sales target is a cruel joke, they’ve backed off on discounting. Sales are sinking fast. Although Toyota’s still selling over 100k Tundras per year (at current rates), the plant was designed to build more than twice that amount.

As ToMoCo shuffles and “right sizes” production, the prescient addition of Camry production in Subaru’s space is paying off in spades. The “extra” capacity has allowed an increase in U.S. rental sales. Even so, the increase in total sales means the fleet percentage is well under 20 percent for the Camry/Corolla, which bodes well for maintaining the vehicles’ re-sale value (historically what kills fleet-queens). 

In this not-so-brave new market, Toyota’s biggest obstacle to further growth is structural; they can’t build popular models fast enough. The vehicle that best exemplifies gas-sipping, the Toyota Prius, can’t be constructed in anything other than a purpose-built (or highly modified) assembly plant. Equally important, battery suppliers must expand to meet the demand. Back when Toyota announced a target of over 200k Priora per year, there was talk of them being too ambitious. Turns out, they weren’t ambitious enough.

If the pickup truck debacle dented Toyota, it gutted Nissan. Even matching mad pricing only moved 80k Titans last year. With the ’08 numbers plunging off a cliff, Nissan is looking to get out of big-truck building (sourcing the Ram, if Chrysler’s still around). Meanwhile, the company’s juggling output to keep their factories busy. This is the first major market downturn since Nissan merger with Renault; it’s time to find out if they can thrive in adversity. 

The biggest issue Nissan faces in the U.S.: a lack of “first choice” vehicles. The Quest is off most minivan buyers’ radar. As good as they are, the Altima/Versa are on the tip of no one’s tongue. The Murano, one of Nissan’s only “stand out” vehicles, is slumping badly. The model’s thirst, extra size (without a compensatory third row) and cannibalistic smaller sib (the Rogue) have done it in.

So, while a truck-liberated Nissan will have the production space to grow, there’s not much hope for growth in the near future. 

Right now, Honda is the only major manufacturer increasing U.S. sales over last year– by about five percent. Offering a small-car heavy line-up has helped their bottom line. But so did limiting large vehicle production.

Last year, Honda changed over one line from making Pilot/sized vehicles to Civics. That left them with a natural cap of around 200k Pilots, Ridgelines and MDXs, and a similar limit on Odysseys. If the Odyssey outsells the Dodge Caravan this year, it will be a result of the Caravan falling (which it has been), not increases on Honda’s side.

All this shuffling freed production space to increase the sales of Civics, Fits and CRVs. The Accord is selling well enough, but there is a natural “cap” of about 450K. Given strong TL and Inspire (JDM US-style Accord) sales, they may not reach that. The limit on Civic sales are much higher; half a million would not be a shock. 

Even better, Honda is getting ready to open a new assembly plant in Indiana. While it has been listed to build Civics, it may directly or indirectly allow higher Fit sales. Even with a new plant online, Honda’s U.S. sales cannot get much above two million units per year without even more investment and time.

The good thing about this market-share-loss is that it’s mostly relative. Chrysler, Ford and GM have too many factories for what they sell, but they are also the only companies that could fill the gap if/when one of them shuts down. 

And there’s your silver lining. Assuming Chrysler's the first to go, assuming the American market doesn’t contract even more violently than at present, Ford and GM will be uniquely positioned to increase production to take-up the sales slack; which could be measured in hundreds of thousands. No one else has the necessary plant capacity. Last man standing. Dead cat bounce. Silver lining. Take your pick.

You want to talk about high gas prices? Hertz used to charge its customes $7.99 a gallon to refuel a car. In an interview with The New York Times, the rental car company's chairman and chief executive says Hertz has modified the charge to stop gouging their customers [paraphrasing]. "We are now reducing that to the pump price, which is $4 or so, plus a one-time fee of $6.99," Mark P. Frissora reveals. "We also have a fuel-purchase option. In the past, if you elected to buy the tank of gas in advance, we charged a 10- to 20-cent premium on that tank. But now we give a 15-cent discount to whatever the price is at the pump." Hertz is hoping new customers will cover the lost revenues. But what about the old biz, the vacationeers facing pump shock? "In general, gas prices going up is not a positive thing. However, it is not nearly as negative as you might imagine in rental car land. Typically, the rental car itself and gas are no more than 10 percent of the overall cost of a vacation. We are finding that people aren’t cutting vacations right now. You would think that with gas prices being high, there would be a deterioration, but we haven’t seen that." Yet. In other news, Hertz has just 3k Priora in its Green Fleet; Toyota's hyrbid's residuals are safe. For now.