Break out your recyclable paper party hats! Toyota's just sold it's one millionth sorta cute, kinda ugly sensible hatchback with Hybrid Synergy Drive. While the Prius is not quite the Model T (Henry Ford the Senior sold 501,462 Tin Lizzies in 1915 alone), a million vehicles sold in ten (or eleven) years is nothing to scoff at– at least these days (cough Lutz cough Ghosn). Right now, sales are jumping. In April, Priora sales rose 66.6 percent vs. last April. Year-to-date, they're up 22.6 percent. Happily (for Toyota), Priora are also selling like hot, gas/battery-powered hotcakes in Europe, where sales ascended by nearly 33 percent. Japanese Priora sales are up 24.5 percent. ToMoCo's press release calculates that the 1m hybrids silently cruising all over blind pedestrians the world have cut 4.5m tons of CO2 emissions compared to regular vehicles (et tu, Sequoia?). The Moving Forward folk claim that they'll be selling 1m hybrid vehicles per year. Chevy's Volt? Not so much.

Would it be churlish of us to suggest that GM Car Czar's Volt-related pronouncement is the most unintentionally ironic statement we've ever heard? Never mind then. Anyway, in a characteristic burst of unbridled bravado optimism, Maximum Bob Lutz is declaring a major victory in his employer's efforts to kick Toyota's ass with the electric – gas hybrid Chevrolet Volt. "Today is the first day [Volt drivetrain mules are] running on the street on battery power," Maximum Bob proudly told Edmunds Auto Observer. What's more, GM's Hail-Mary-on-wheels is "reliably meeting its objectives. Even with a rough calibration, even with the wrong drive unit, the wrong body, etc. etc., it has been hitting its 40 miles on electric power." Hey, who put the wrong drive unit on this thing? Anyway, the winner of TTAC's 2008 Bob Lutz Award didn't mention the speed used to achieve this triumph, and Edmunds didn't ask (surprise!). But who's quibbling– other than us? And we're just glad Bob's back to trash-talking the press and Toyota. Bob says the Volt [test] triumph shows "the fallibility of Toyota and the American press, which is totally enamored with Toyota… When we say lithium-ion is good and Toyota says they don't trust them and they are unproven, people say we're taking a huge risk." Huh? Toyota has already announced that lithium ion cells will power the plug-in Prius as of 2010. Oh right, we forget stick to the spin. Sorry, we were too busy gazing longing at all things Toyota.

Old fogies like me remember when BMW's GM-sourced automatic transmissions caused sturm und drang. Brand dilution! How can we Germans rely on a foreign competitor [at least in theory] for a key technology? So much for that. So why all the hubbub when BMW reveals they'll share engines with another carmaker? At last weekend's annual shareholder meeting, CEO Norbert Reithofer caused an uproar by announcing that the next-generation 1-Series will have a four-banger developed with PSA (Peugeot/Citroën). Reality check: BMW's MINI started life with a Brazilian-built Chrysler-designed Tritec engine. The MINI One D used a Toyota-built diesel engine. From November 2006, the MINI Cooper and MINI Cooper S models have been powered by a 1.6 litre engine co-developed by BMW and PSA Peugeot-Citroën. But propeller-heads don't want a Bimmer-badged car to mix genes with the French. The Financial Times Deutschland calls the move a "taboo breaker," while shareholders bemoan the brand's move from "class to mass." Ever the beancounter, Reithofer prefers to focus on saving money: "A car's engine is responsible for 25% of the car's total manufacturing cost." So that's alright, then.

According to perceived wisdom, GM's overseas ops will keep the corporate mothership afloat. Some 64 percent of first quarter sales came from outside our borders, as well as ALL of GM’s profits. The General claims that foreign markets will account for 75 percent of its profit by decade’s end. So why not just shut down the NA operations and firewall the rest as “Global Motors?” A closer look at GM’s three international units tells the tale.

GME (Europe) covers the EU15 countries, Eastern Europe and Russia. There might as well be a reverse iron (lead?) curtain when it comes to GM’s sales growth and market share in Europe; it’s all happening on the eastern side.

GM’s woes in Western Europe closely mirror its death-rattle in the US. In fact, Opel/Vauxhall has pulled off a perfect imitation of GM’s US market share free-fall: a 30 percent share drop from 1995 to 2007. Opel’s market share has plummeted 55 by percent in its German home base. The Astra, the perennial number two behind VW’s Golf, now struggles for fourth or fifth place.

GME reported a loss of $514m in 2007, despite “strong demand for GM [Chevy-badged Daewoos] vehicles in Ukraine, Greece and Russia, where sales doubled”. But GM’s recent losing bid (to Renault) for Russian automaker Autovaz puts a crimp on future growth. And Toyota has just opened a modern plant in St. Petersburg.

But GM is throwing €9b at Opel, hoping (once again) that new models will turn things around. Opel’s brand image has morphed from boringly reliable to reliably boring, It’s caught in the pincers of the “premium” brands above it and discount brands below.

Thanks to Latin America’s bubbly economy, GM’s bright spot (for the moment) is GMLAAM (Latin America, Africa and Middle East). But dark clouds are already on the horizon (Argentina’s inflation is up to 25 percent again).

Brazil is GM’s third largest market. Because of numerous constrictions on the market, it has all the symptoms of a seller’s market bubble. Chevrolet’s Vectra (Cobalt) goes for $48k. No wonder GMLAAM booked a $1.3 billion profit in 2007.

But the Latin fiesta won’t last (it never does). Growth is slowing, and the competition is moving in. Toyota sees a 50 percent rise in sales. Hyundai is building a plant. And two Chinese firms are setting up shop in low-cost Uruguay to export to Brazil and Argentina.

That brings us to GMAP (Australia-Pacific). GM’s Australian Death Watch has been well documented here. But then there’s China, and as we all know, when it comes to car sales growth the East Glows. Or not.

GM has minted serious coin on their Buicks; $65k for each Park Avenue sedan. But GM’s China-fest is petering out. GM’s current growth is stalled at 7.4 percent. Meanwhile, the competition racks up big gains: Toyota: 62 percent, VW: 33 percent, Hyundai: 64 percent. Chinese drivers are shunning the aging Buick Excelle (Daewoo) in favor of Toyota’s Camry. But GM has a plan! Rushing our unloved (and now unbuilt) Enclaves and Escalades to China.

China’s most explosive period of growth is over, forever. The stock market is down 40 percent, and the real estate bubble has popped. As the car market turns into a buyer’s market, Chinese consumers will have greater choice in cost, quality, economy and reliability. And this is where GM faces a huge downside, not only in China, but in every other gold-rush market around the globe.

GM’s developing world cars are almost exclusively from Daewoo. Aveo’s US EPA numbers are 26 percent worse than the Yaris, and in China, it’s down 47 percent against a Lifan or BYD. Auto analyst, Jia Xinguang, says that “the Toyota Vios (Aygo) and Yaris will soon snap up a large share and dominate the small car niche”. Sounds familiar, once again.

In the hot global CUV market, the Chevrolet Captiva/Saturn Vue from Daewoo is uncompetitive. It weighs 4325lbs and has an EPA rating of 16/22, compared to 3500lbs for a Honda CRV with 20/26 EPA rating.

GM’s losses in Australia and the increasingly competitive market in China are showing up in the earnings statements. Whereas GMAP booked a $1.2b profit in 2006, in 2007 that shrank to $744m.

GM’s global expansion and profits were the result of two decisions made decades ago: to hang on to its roller-coaster Brazil operations, and to be an early pioneer in China. When these two are/were on the upswing, GM enjoyed oversized profits due to an imbalance in supply and demand. But as these and other hot-spot markets mature, GM will face the same final exam that it does at home: are its sub-compact (Aveo) and compact (Cobalt, Astra, etc.) products truly competitive with the best in the world?

GM may not have jumped the overseas shark yet, but it’s on the ramp.

As body-on-frame SUV sales crater, a number of manufacturers are prepping a new generation of lighter, compact soft-roaders. One such cute ute is Audi's Q3, based on the A3 platform and closely related to VW's Tiguan. Motor Authority has a rendered preview, showing off styling cues from the recently debuted Cross Coupe concept. Expect Ingolstadt's standard 2.0-liter TFSI four-banger, the 3.0 diesel V6 or the 3.6 FSI V6 to motivate the three and five-door Q3s. With Toyota's Urban Cruiser, Ford's Kuga, Landies LRX and BMW's X1 all coming online soon, the Q3 will have plenty of competition when it debuts in July of 2009. An official concept will hit the Auto Show circuit sometime before this time next year. While a higher roofline should help alleviate the A3's cramped cabin, the sharply-falling rear C-pillar won't win any friends amongst those relegated to the Audi's backseats. Let's also hope Audi designers do something about the rendering's weird flank lines, which have a confused, Bangle-on-PCP feel– especially compared to the clean lines of the A3. 

Buried in a CTVnews.ca story about the upcoming launches of the Ford Flex and the 2009 F-150: Ford's view of the future. Reporter Jeremy Cato spent some QT with Ford execs (including FoMoCo CEO Big Al Mullaly himself) to find out if there's a future in their Ford. Once again, Ford's top brass tout their forthcoming product revamps to predict a return to operationally profitability by the last financial quarter. In that vein, Ford intends to release models that will be "polarizing" for most consumers. Huh? "That's is exactly what we want," proclaims the Flex's design chief. By the end of the article, Cato remains unconvinced that the Flex will be relevant. (Not everyone can– or should– be Chris Bangle.) Cato declares that all Ford's marketing-speak, brand sell-off and quality initiatives are essentially Big Al's push to turn Ford into Toyota. You know: one global brand, a solid reputation for quality and billions in profits posted like clockwork every quarter. Yeah. that one. Meanwhile, The Blue Oval Boyz concede a porno style loss for the fiscal year. Yes, "it will be a big one."

GM's Rick Wagoner clone, Fritz Henderson, recently told the AP's Tom Krisher that the U.S. auto industry is in a recession. (Insert "Duh!" here.) Regular, non-lobotomized reader of Frank Williams' By The Numbers series would have come to that conclusion two months ago. Fritz trots out the usual explanations for GM's woes: "troubled housing market, tight credit and higher gasoline prices that are sending consumers from trucks to cars at a rate much faster than the company has ever seen." The last part is particularly odd and GM-centric, because the truck-for-car swap hits GM a lot harder than Toyota or Honda given each company's respective product mix ratios. Fritz then goes on to confirm what many have speculated: "The 11-week strike at parts supplier American Axle and Manufacturing Holdings Inc. has had only a minimal effect on the company's retail sales, largely because it had built up a large inventory of pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles at a time when the market shifted to smaller vehicles." By minimal, of course, Fritz means $800m in lost EBT (earnings before taxes, which in this case, is sales to dealers) as the AP diligently reminds us. Be careful Fritz, $800m here, $800m there, and pretty soon we'll be talking about real money.

Does the head of Saturn have photos of important movers and shakers with goats? How else can you explain Saturn’s survival? All that’s left of GM’s “different kind of car company” is the same old spray of red ink. From import fighter to importer of Americanized Opels, Saturn’s been an abject failure for decades. And yet, GM’s has deemed Saturn one of their three “sales channels.” While there are few (non-goat-related) “image” reasons for Saturn to continue, a close look at the numbers shows its defense lies in what can be done, not what people [re]think.

There’s no two ways about it: Saturn has lost its “mindshare.” All those fond memories of American pride, homecomings, dealer barbecues, friendly sales folk and dent-proof plastic panels have faded away. Spring Hill has sprung. But then,let's keep Saturn's lost branding in perspective. GM’s “gang of three” (Pontiac, Buick, GMC; Saab, Hummer, Cadillac) doesn’t have much brand equity either.

Pontiac is defined by a handful of hot cars built because division-heads grew tired of flogging posh Chevies. Buick has history, but it hasn’t been a credible “luxe” car for anyone under 60 for 30 years or more. GMC is another exercise in “keeping the Chevies down.” And Cadillac is wandering all over the map, offering gilded pickups, bling SUVs and Nurburgring-fettled European-style sports sedans.

Equally important, Saturn hasn’t pissed in its customers’ cornflakes. Saturn remains relatively free from the incendiary “I’ll never buy a GM product again” consumer frustration with lousy build quality and disinterested dealers (a.k.a. the "perception gap"). In that sense, the brand’s amorphous rep offers a far better recovery point than the rest of GM's brands (save Hummer).

In fact, Saturn dealers have consistently exceeded their customer’s expectations. In customer satisfaction surveys, Saturn’s dealer network scores well above GM’s other brands– and many imports. Saturn dealers are carefully chosen (even company-owned where the law allows). And best of all, there aren’t too many of them. 

In today’s fragmented car market, a small number (435) of single-franchise dealers (90 percent) is a very good thing indeed. While Saturn’s sales aren’t setting the world on fire, their per-dealer sales are comparable to Chevy’s (about 550 vehicles per dealer a year). In comparison, the combined averages of Buick/Pontiac/GMC (BPG) dealers rack-up about 400 vehicles sales per dealer (Toyota and Honda average well over a thousand). 

Fewer, stronger dealers make controlling image and holding the line on promotions a much easier proposition. It’s worth noting that the Saturn Sky has nowhere near the lot problems of its near-relation the Solstice. With only 400-odd dealerships, a Saturn dealer would have confidence that if he asked for a Sky, he would get it. Pontiac dealers, less sure of new supplies, marked their first Solsti to the skies and killed sales momentum dead.

Saturn dealers may be strong, but it’s there are some real heavyweights in the BPG mix. The top 400 “combo” dealers– the top 20 percent– are at least as big as the Saturn dealers. So why would GM cull its BPG dealers— a rumor currently swirling around Motown– to protect a brand they’ve never really liked or understood? 

Simply put, if The General kills “any” dealers, they have to kill all of them. There’s no legally defensible way to separate “good” B/P/G dealers from the deadweight. The [epic] legal bills involved in killing 2000 dealerships would be far greater if GM tried to only kill the “worst” 1500. Whole lines have to be killed en masse.

Turning Saturn into “Opel West” may have been one of the least successful product strategies GM’s launched in a long time (and that’s saying something), but it has a silver lining. It separates Saturn from Chevy. Without B/P/G, without having to worry about stepping on corporate toes or badge-engineered clones, Chevy could begin to resemble the “full” car line it claims to be– instead of diving for the bargain basement.

Saturn would have space to become… something. This website has suggested Saturn become GM’s “green brand,” offering a range of all alt. power vehicles (the plug-in Saturn Vue is scheduled to proceed the Chevy Volt). Alternatively, Saturn could become the “stylish” alternative for more discerning (and well-heeled) buyers, a sort of “Atlantic Mazda.” Yes, this would place Saturn close to the classic Oldsmobile image, before that brand was killed off. But tempus fugit. 

Simple mathematics suggests it’s not time to give up on Saturn. Despite its incoherent branding, misfiring marketing, non-competitive products and declining sales, GM executives must know that the division looks more like where they want to go than any of GM’s other stores. Of course, to get from here to there, GM needs to find a way to make money off Saturn— a goal that has eluded them since January 7, 1985, the day the brand was launched See? There’s always a catch.     

Automotive News [sub] reports that Toyota is delaying opening its $1.3b Tupelo, Mississippi production plant from early 2010 to… sometime later that year. Toyota cites weakness in American sales and a tight credit market for the delay– which it downplays as a relatively minor adjustment. "We made adjustments within a certain range of time," Toyota Executive VP Mitsuo Kinoshita soothed. "The change wasn't that critical." The plant will employ some 2k Mississippians building about 150k Highlander crossover utilities. Toyota has seen its sales drop for seven of the last nine months, and recently announced an estimated 28 percent drop in profits. Toyota's San Antonio Tundra plant has already seen its production trimmed, as the global leader in auto sales volume struggles with North American overcapacity. With small, efficient Toyotas continuing to sell well, from the Prius to the Yaris and even the Camry, could Toyota simply switch production over from Highlander's to something that will, y'know, sell?

As all of us without what is euphemistically called "a life" know, Subaru and Toyota have joined forces to design and produce a new pair of coupes. Toyota is no stranger to coupes, Subaru is. Stranger that is. The new cars will most likely be based on a rear wheel-driver version of the Impreza, complete with boxer blowers. The new car(s) will definitely be a breath of fresh air in the cheap-sporty-fun class, which is currently dominated by front wheel-drive cars. As a Subaru, we expect a somewhat, uh, "different design" (nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition a gorgeous Subaru). I just hope the coupes won't share any genes from the B11S; a concept that was an evolutionary dead end way back in 2003. Keeping the lines simple would be so much better for Subaru– but it was hard for me to find a balance between my designer instincts and remaining faithful to Subaru's well-deserved reputation for aesthetic affronts. I have to admit I used the "unsexy-tool" on this one but only to make it realistic. I look forward to seeing how the real thing will turn out.

[For more Avarvarii photochopistry, click here]

Last month, Ford released the results of a self-commissioned study claiming their initial quality is as good as Toyota's. Well, Toyota ain't gonna take it; no! They ain't gonna take! On their Open Road Blog, corporate mouthpiece Mike Michaels goes to great lengths to explain that the Ford survey isn't the J.D. Power survey– which places Toyota above Ford. However, Michaels points-out that all of these initial quality surveys "deal with problems that surface only in the first 90 days." They're "useful, maybe, if you're going to rent the car for three months" (and God knows how many times we've done that.) Michaels then proclaims that brand loyalty– where Toyota and Lexus rank at the top– is the only true indicator of quality. That's the only way to know "how your car will treat you long after that new-car smell is gone." It's also a great way to know which car company has the most effective brainwashing marketing or the most risk-aversive customers. But there's one question Mr. Michaels left unanswered: why should we believe a survey that placing Toyota over Ford is any more accurate than one placing Ford on the same plane as Toyota when the methodology behind both of them is clouded in smoke and mirrors? Enquiring minds want to know.

Remember back in 2004, Ford unveiled its new Focus and announced "The Year of The Car?" FoMoCo's cash cow was (and still is) a pickup truck. Clock FoMoCo's passenger car offerings four years later, and you'd be forgiven for thinking the auto show hyperbole was just that. But now it's here for real: the year of the car. In April, passenger cars outsold trucks in the U.S. new vehicle market for the first time in two decades. This is a truly amazing moment in U.S. automotive history, representing the roll-back of the SUV boom. With federal fuel economy regulations in the offing, it's unlikely that even a huge drop in gas prices can reverse the tide. Let's take a closer look at this watershed month. 

Passenger car sales rose 4.5 percent (April '07 vs. April '08). Truck sales fell by 17.2 percent. When the blood was cleaned off the carpet, U.S. new passenger vehicle sales ended-up 6.8 percent below last April's total. So far this year, car sales are down 1.5 percent and truck sales 13.4 percent, producing a 7.7 percent drop overall. That's the big picture; now let's look at a few specifics…

Pickup Trucks

The Chevy Silverado suffered a 24.7 drop from April of 2007; year-to-date (YTD) sales sank 20.8 percent. While F-Series still holds onto its "best selling vehicle" title, sales were off by 21 percent for the month, down 15.5 percent for the year. Even huge incentives and sweet deals couldn't pull the Dodge Ram out if its death spiral, finishing April 23.3 percent below last year; down 24.2 percent YTD. For the first time since the new model was introduced, the Toyota Tundra ended the month below last year; April sales slipped six percent. But they're still up 24.8 percent YTD.

Passenger Cars

The Chevy Malibu continues its sales climb, ending the month 39.5 percent above last April, 22.5 percent ahead of last year. Ford's Fusion also had a good month. Sales ascended by 22.4 percent for month, six percent on year.  Chrysler wasn't so fortunate. The 300 dropped 36.8 percent for the month, down 22.2 percent on the year. The Toyota Camry managed to stay 5.6 percent ahead of last April, 2.3 percent ahead YTD. Honda Accord sales jumped 17.5 percent for the month. But that's up just 0.2 percent for the year.

Truck-based SUVs

It's no wonder that GM is shutting down SUV production for the year. Tahoe sales finished April down a whopping 29.4 percent, trailing 27.1 percent YTD. Ford and Chrysler may want to consider following GM's lead. Explorer sales declined 38.5 percent from last April; 25 percent YTD. Dodge Durango was even worse. Sales are now so low that a difference of only 2k sales from last April resulted in a 38.5 percent drop; year to date the Durango dies by 38.6 percent. Toyota's Sequoia continues selling above last year, with a 34.4 percent gain for April and a 17.9 percent growth for the year so far.

CUVs

For the first time this year, sales of GMC's Acadia dropped below the previous year's, ending the month down 8.8 percent. However, thanks to a very strong showing in the first quarter, Acadia sales are up 43.3 percent YTD. Ford's Edge edged ahead of last April by 13.1 percent, bettering last year's sales by a whopping 37.9 percent. The Toyota Highlander was down 1.1 percent for the month, but still managed to stay 5.3 percent ahead of the first four months of 2007. Honda's Pilot went the other way, ending 1.3 percent ahead of April 2007, down 5.4 percent for the year.

Prius

It's no wonder that Toyota is thinking about expanding Prius into an entire line of vehicles. Sales are booming. We're talking about a 66.6 percent surge in April and a 22.6 percent gain over this time last year. With gas prices continuing to climb, demand for Toyota's rolling computer doesn't seem to be likely to diminish any time soon.

Total Sales

Historically, overall vehicle sales tend to dip in April. When you start the year well below the previous year, dips tend to look more like a swan dive off the ten-meter board. GM ended April 16.2 percent below last April and starts May down 13.2 percent for the year. Ford did slightly better, dropping only 12.1 percent for the month and 9.8 percent for the year. Chrysler would gladly swap places with either of them, with sales down 23.5 percent compared to April '07 and down 17.6 percent for the year. The transplants fared a bit better than the natives. Toyota finished the month 3.4 percent ahead of last April but down 3.3 percent on the year. Honda had the best showing of all, increasing 6.8 percent in April and up 1.5 percent year to date.

The Future

Next month, we'll see if GM's production cutbacks (and strikes) have any impact on their sales. Toyota's announced price increases may throw a spanner in the works. (Or not.) And Chrysler's cut-rate gasoline promotion could ignite sales. (or not.) One thing's for sure: it may be the year of the car, but for the domestics, it's not the carmaker's year. 

Once upon a time, the myth of Icarus personified the warning that pride goeth before a fall (literally). These days, the RMS Titanic’s death by iceberg– on its maiden voyage no less– illustrates the dangers of hubris. That’s because the public considers the concept of an unsinkable ship patently ridiculous. In fact, the Titanic should have been unsinkable (save tsunami, torpedo or ballistic attack). The reasons the ocean liner eventually slipped into the depths have much to tell us about the ship’s corporate equivalent, General Motors.

Many students of this maritime tragedy reckon the Titanic should have avoided the iceberg entirely. When First Officer Murdoch heard the lookouts’ cries, he ordered an abrupt turn to port (left) and full speed astern. His subordinates stopped the ship's main engines, and threw them into reverse. Thanks to an outmoded rudder and a speed record-chasing engine design (a turbine-driven central screw that couldn’t reverse), Murdoch’s order actually decreased the ship’s mobility.

By the same token, when Toyota and other U.S. imports capitalized on the first Oil Crisis, GM’s corporate “rudder” was antique and ineffectual. The automaker’s arrogant administration and byzantine bureaucracy made maneuvering around the crisis impossible. By the time GM produced smaller, thriftier products, it was too little, too late. Flash forward to Toyota’s hybrid Prius and the SECOND oil crisis, and nothing has changed. How could it change when GM has never been to dry dock for a retrofit? 

Again, the same sloth that hobbled the Titanic afflicts GM. By refreshing their products more quickly than the General, Toyondissan have kicked the American automaker's ass. Although GM has updated the vast majority of its vast product portfolio (with the notable exception of the eight-year old Cadillac DTS), the refreshes were WELL overdue. The Chevrolet Cavalier lasted almost a decade; the Pontiac Grand Am hung around for six years. How long will GM’s latest products languish?

In “What Really Sank the Titanic," authors Jennifer Hooper McCarthy and Tim Foeke (of the National Institute of Standards and Technology) claim the liner was done-in by the failure of the metal bow plates' seams. Inferior riveters couldn’t produce enough high quality (i.e. slag-free) rivets to ensure sufficient hull strength. The deficiency is partially down to the fact that Harland and Wolff were building THREE of the world’s biggest ships at the same time. In short, the shipyard bit off more than they could chew and cut corners to get the job done.

You don’t have to speak with the millions of customers who've suffered financial and emotional losses due to General Motors’ engineering failures to know that the automaker shares the same over-reach that sunk what should have been Harland and Wolf’s finest hour. But if you did, you’d be shocked at all the corners– both big and small– GM has cut over the years. The world’s largest automaker, the company that OWNED the U.S. new car market, nickel-and-dimed its way into pariah status.

What started as Alfred P. Sloan’s “a car for every purse and purpose” became (and remains) a desperate struggle to produce enough “rivets” (i.e. product) to keep the GM corporate mothership afloat. Is it any wonder that most of GM’s vehicles are uncompetitive when so many must be? We can debate past strategies, but it’s been clear for some time that GM needs just two brands: Chevrolet and Cadillac. Like, say, Toyota (which needs Scion like a hole in the hull).

If GM had just two automotive marques– which could be the plan even as the ship’s lower decks sink beneath the waterline– the quality of each vehicle would be much higher. The company would have had the strength to survive the oil barrel-shaped iceberg.

As most accident investigators will tell you, epic disasters usually occur when there’s a confluence of mistakes. The Titanic wasn’t designed or built properly. It sailed through iceberg-laden waters to set a speed record on its maiden voyage. The First Officer made a lethal mistake [NB: the Titanic may have survived if she’d simply rammed the ‘berg.] Change any one of these factors and the results would have been vastly different.

But none of this alters one important, arguably over-riding consideration: the captain. Titanic Captain Edward J. Smith should have known his ship’s limitations. He should have refused to follow the route chosen for the Titanic’s maiden voyage and/or participate in the record run. He should have trained his crew to execute an appropriate evasive maneuver (or, as above, not) in the face of an entirely predictable event. He should have ensured that there were adequate plans for survival (enough lifeboats). Fate may have dealt him a cruel blow, but he was responsible for his passengers’ safety.

When the history of GM's final fall is written, CEO Rick Wagoner will feature prominently. As well he should.

I know: it's been bugging me too. I mean, here we have "the world’s best-selling hybrid," a "must-have accessory for carbon-conscious show business players." A PC-mobile that's "cleaner than a smoking Beetle [and we know what it's been smoking, too]. Quieter than a roaring [where's the caps lock key when you need it] Mini. Able to leap through car pool lanes with a single occupant." And yet and Hollywood's going gaga over a multi-phallic race car from 1967. Sure, Speed Racer features a few vehicles described by The Old Gray Lady's picture captioneers as "post-petroleum cars." But c'mon! The Prius is… God! Well, it was/is His chariot. "God drove one, briefly, in 'Evan Almighty,' a [Bruce Almighty come lately] comedy that struggled at the box office when Universal released it last summer." Must've been the Prius. I'm not saying Michael Cieply's article reads like a press release for Toyota, but, as regular readers will know, I am. Why else would he include this little ditty (a.k.a. apologia)? "According to a Toyota spokeswoman the Prius goes from zero to 60 miles per hour in 10.1 seconds, but could go faster if, like the Lexus hybrid, it were tuned for performance rather than efficiency." And now, back to blogging real news. 

The New York Times reports that Toyota reports (and we report their reporters reporting the report) that Toyota's profits sank by 28 percent. "For the year to March 31, 2009, the Japanese automaker forecasts net profit to fall 27.2 percent to 1.25 trillion and operating profit to decline yen 29.5 percent to 1.60 trillion yen, breaking a seven-year string of record results." That's a whole lot of yen. And make no mistake: ToMoCo is hurting. Stateside sales of the new Texas Tundra are up 24.8 percent year-to-date– but that's an increase of fewer than 7k units. And despite several hot-selling products, overall U.S. sales are down 3.3 percent (789,447). This after Toyota put the pedal to the metal on production, building big-ass factories worldwide. Equally painful in that "be careful what you wish for" kinda way, worldwide market growth has sent commodity prices through the [optional sun] roof. Not to mention the fact that all that Detroit-sourced kvetching about Japanese currency manipulation has proven to be so untrue it literally hurts (the dollar's down 10 percent on the yen). Still, these guys are strong enough to weather the storm. The Times concludes by pointing out that Toyota is still valued at about $180b, and compares that to Daimler and VW combined. We'd like to point out that Yahoo!Finance puts GM's "enterprise value" at $32.94b.