Under former Toyota Prez Jim Press, Chrysler has decided to get a bit more touchy-feeling with their customers. Nothing wrong with that. Their new blog, Chryslerlistens.com, follows GMNext.com's desire to pay lip service to web 2.0 establish closer contact between automaker and consumer. In case you thought Chrysler might begin this exercise in e-Glasnost with a mea culpa of some kind (as if) or at least a little humility, a writer named Jordan Graham opens the "dialogue" with a mighty blast of bombast. "In case you hadn't heard (living in a cave, perhaps?), Chrysler has unleashed the mother of all promotions, aptly titled 'New Day.' Calling this a 'major deal' would be akin to calling the Jeep® Wrangler 'outdoorsy.'" Wow; insult the customer to draw them into a conversation. I've got one thing to say about that: 0 comments. Anyway, we Googled the unattributed Jordan. LinkedIn tells us that he's a "Writer – Electronic and Broadcast Media; Executive Speeches at Chrysler LLC." In the past, he was "Marketing Communications Intern at Michigan Suburbs Alliance; Marketing Communications Intern at Michigan Veterinary Specialists." Some might say Jordan's elevation to spokesperson for Chryslerlistens.com indicates the company's gone to the dogs, but I couldn't possibly comment. Anyway, here's Graham's intro to this ad: "Without further ado, some visual aids to help you process this mind-blowing development…" 

Thanks to John Steinbeck and Nat King Cole, Route 66 is an American icon. But Highway 77 in South Texas gives "kicks" of the international kind. As this highway winds down Mexico way, we find neglected and discarded compact trucks in pairs, towing their belittled brothers to a new life south of the Border.  And while America's insatiable demand for new product continues apace, Highway 77 speaks to a silent majority who favors cheaper and smaller vehicles.  It's the spiritual home of the Ford Ranger.

In 2002, Leon County (Florida) commissioners passed an ordinance earmarking three dollars from every traffic ticket for driver-education programs. This year, educators got $230k to spend on teaching the next generation how to navigate our roadways. They spent the money on salaries for one full-time and one part-time teacher and cars for the county's five high schools. But Tallahassee.com reports they didn't buy just any cars– they bought a fleet of Toyota Priora. You have to wonder how the students will react going from one of those with its video game dashboard and engine cut-off back to the family chariot where they actually have to learn to read an instrument cluster and listen to the engine idle.

The U.S. automotive industry's '07 retail sales stats are in, and the Detroit Free Press pronounces Ford the biggest loser. The Blue Oval Boyz' share of the American new car market sank from 15.1 percent in 2006 to 14.2 percent last year. As the Freep's Sarah H. Webster points out, that's better than the '06 decline: a two percentage point drop. But she also notes (further down in the piece) that "Ford's decline, though, is also noteworthy as Ford's incentives, as estimated by Autodata Corp., a private firm in Woodcliff Lake, N.J., remain among the highest in the industry. Ford offered an average of $4,001 in discounts on its cars and trucks last year." We also learn that Chrysler and GM's market share held steady, Toyota lost a fraction of a percentage point and the Big 2.8's combined share of the U.S. market dropped a full percentage point. Heading into a down market, it remains to be seen if the truck-heavy domestics can hold the line. 

Well, they would, wouldn't they? In what Spiegel Online calls a "remarkable change of trends," ADAC (the German equivalent of the AAA) says their car-breakdown stats (2m call-outs per year) indicate that VW, BMW and Mercedes are no longer guaranteed to fail. For the past 10 years, Japanese brands have led the ADAC reliability index. In 2003, nine out of ten of the most reliable cars in Germany were Japanese. But in the 2008 rankings, no Toyota made the top ten of least-likely-to-break-down. ADAC attributes the Japanese automaker's fall from grace to their rapid growth. Meanwhile, ADAC says that German carmakers' attention to "quality as reliability" (as opposed to "quality as tight panel  gaps") accounts for their "win." Here's the company's rundown of Germany's most reliable machines…

1 – BMW X3
2 – Audi A2
3 – BMW 1-Series
4 – BMW MINI
5 – Mazda 3
6 – Mercedes CLK
7 – Audi A4
8 – BMW 3-Series
9 – Mercedes SLK
10 – Mitsubishi Space Star

Financial Times reports that Johnson Controls and Saft have joined forces to build a factory to produce lithium-ion batteries for automotive applications. The factory in Nersac, France will supply batteries to GM, Chrysler and Mecedes, amongst others. Initially, the new venture will be turning out about 5k battery packs per year, increasing production from then on as demand increases. The partnership also plans to produce batteries in Asia and other locations. Meanwhile, Toyota is making preparations with Panasonic to produce Li-Ion batteries for the Prius, while GM works with Continental and LG Chemical to develop batteries for the Volt, and Nissan partners with NEC for their electric car project in Israel. Anyone want to place a bet on how long it'll be before we're fretting over the lithium supply like we do crude oil?

Do you like violent land acquisition games? You're in luck! And we even know the ad schedule for this weekend's Bowl of Superness; the playbook leaked out onto the net (was it secret to begin with?). Not surprisingly– considering the perks (Percs?) bestowed upon the top brass funding the athletic endeavor– the auto industry will be attempting to divert you from the salsa. The cost for 30-seconds of your (and a billion of your friends') time: $2.7m. Or less. Here's the run down.

First Quarter:
Audi finally unleashes the ad that's supposed to redefine luxury: "Audi selected The Godfather as a thematic foundation for its Super Bowl ad because the film expresses the idea of a new power rising in an established hierarchy." Stop smoking the ad crack boys; the Godfather is about a bunch of hoodlums killing hoodlums to become the top hoodlums. How's that for a business plan? Cars.com uses their 30 seconds of fame to persuade you to visit their slow, boring, bloated website to increase your buying confidence. I'm not hotlinking their page because I'd have to call it tepid-linking, and that doesn't sound right. Bridgestone will remind you that tires are important, and theirs are worth buying.

Second quarter:
Rumor had it that Chevy was going to try to keep viewers from heading to the toilet by explaining the transition from gas-friendly to gas-free. Now GM's spot will show one or more hybrids from Chevy, Saturn or GMC. Toyota will debut the new Corolla. Here's hoping the game is still exciting.

Third Quarter:
More Bridgestone, then more Cars.com. The Cars.com ad will include Alice Cooper and Richard Simmons having sex in a Chevrolet HHR. Or something like that. Hyundai really will attempt to redefine luxury, launching the new Genesis rear wheel-drive budget luxury sedan. The ad will attempt to make Mercedes, BMW and Lexus owners feel like they're suckers. Hyundai will take a second bite of the advertising apple to present… It's OK honey, I'll get the beer.

Fourth Quarter:
Toyota's 30-second spot about the Sequoia will be "family focused." As Toyota is already airing a family focused Sequoia ad, perhaps they're moving from high mileage to recycling.

[See the rundown here. TTAC will provide post-game Audi ad analysis on Monday]

In recent years, General Motors has had something of a change of heart regarding hybrids. In 2004, “Car Czar” Bob Lutz dismissed hybrid cars as “impractical” and “a fad.” By 2007, Saturn gained a Green Line off-shoot dedicated exclusively to selling such endeavors. While GM doesn’t separate out sales stats for Saturn’s sub-brand, suffice it to say sales suck. This bodes badly for Saturn’s newest green machine: the 2008 Aura Green Line. Does the hybrid version of last year’s North American Car of the Year deserve a chance?

BusinessWeek describes the experience: When you arrive at the dealership, you're checked in at the gate. You're escorted into the showroom, where you're greeted by name. Gentle tunes waft from a baby grand piano in the corner. In the service department, you find leather couches, coffee, snacks and internet access. When your new car is delivered, it's wrapped in a red ribbon and presented in a ceremony with friends and family present. Rolls? Bentley? Maybach? Nope. Toyota. In China, the Toyota Camry is a high-end car, and the dealerships treat customers accordingly. The salesmen don't pressure the customers because that'll make them think there's something wrong with the car, and they're available to take care of customers' needs 24/7. The down side? Even the top salesmen make only about $14 commission per car, and that's only if they manage to sell extras like GPS and backup sensors; otherwise they clear about $7. Perhaps they could make a bit more money running seminars on how to treat customers like customers instead of victims for their American counterparts. 

When Toyota got slammed by Consumer Reports (and others) for declining product quality– the brand's raison d'etre– ToMoCo CEO Katsuaki Watanabe practically committed seppuku on the spot. Of course, he didn't; Watanabe said his company would do whatever was necessary to ensure that Toyota raised the bar for its product quality worldwide. Despite Toyota's southern plants, the man wasn't just whistling Dixie. Canada's Globe and Mail reports that the automaker has put the brakes on a new assembly plant in Woodstock, Ontario to ensure product quality. “We're very optimistic that we're going to have a good ramp up but I'm going to go slow,” admitted Ray Tanguay, president of Toyota of Canada. “Quality first before anything.” Either the Mail forgot to ask– or Toyota refused to reveal– the precise reason for the holdup. Perhaps, as the Mail hints, it's got more to do with the slowdown in the North American market. Or not. In which case, point taken.

Is it dangerous to drive a Prius in the snow? ConsumerAffairs thinks so, based on reports they've gathered from several states. It seems that the traction control system in some of the gas-electric hybrids shuts down the power to the drive wheels when they start slipping, a complaint that's been around since last year. Back then Toyota admitted the traction control system could impact performance but isn't a safety problem. Spokesman Bill Kwon stated that a "fairly steep grade [eight to 10 degrees] and … snow would cause a loss of traction which will activate the traction control system and therefore reduce or cut power." Reducing power is one thing, but cutting it out altogether? "In my opinion, it's better to have the vehicle stop then to have the wheels spinning and out of control." That would be fine if the vehicle did stop, but on a snow-covered incline slippery enough to activate the traction control, a powerless car isn't going to stop. For our Prius-owning readers living in snow country, have you experienced this, or has your traction control been behaving itself?

Back in the eighties, a GM executive congratulated a colleague who worked for the Cadillac brand. “Well done for reaching 300k sales.” The Caddy man was having none of it. “We didn’t sell three hundred thousand Cadillacs; we sold three hundred thousand Buicks.” The remark was prescient in two ways. First, it acknowledged Cadillac’s ruinous move “down market.” Second, more importantly, it reflected the fact that Caddy’s success was Buick’s failure. GM was already descending from a well-ordered familial hierarchy into the madness and chaos of cannibalism.

Alfred P. Sloan’s motto “a car for every purse and purpose” established the framework for this descent. Sloan encouraged GM customers to work their way up from cheaper to more expensive brands. When GM’s brand delineations were rigid, when there was a steady supply of customers at the bottom of the ladder, the system worked beyond Sloan’s wildest dreams. GM was the world’s biggest carmaker AND the planet’s most profitable company. 

Today, GM’s overlapping brand and product portfolio has rendered Sloan’s system meaningless. GM’s eight brands compete with each other for business with similar if not virtually identical products. Saturn Aura, Chevy Malibu or Saab 9-3? Chevy Traverse or Saturn Outlook? Or GMC Acadia?

Honda killed the Prelude when the S2000 came out, then killed the RSX when the Civic went up-market.  Toyota killed the Celica when the Scion-tC arrived. While all of these cuts had something to do with lowered sales, they were more about preventing cannibalism. Conversely, GM doesn’t seem to want to cut anything.

GM’s CUVs are selling reasonably enough, but their SUVs are still out there, somewhere. As GM’s shrinking market share proves, their CUV sales haven’t been anywhere near large enough to compensate for the drop in “traditional” trucks. Even if they were, GM’s unibody CUVs are more expensive to produce than their body-on-frame predecessors. Downsizing customers are downsizing GM’s profit margins, Big Style.

On the face of it, this CUV on SUV cannibalization seems logical and unavoidable. GM’s SUV customers are abandoning the genre anyway, so why not keep them “in the family?” Better some profit than none. But the counter-argument is far more compelling. Overlapping products dilute or destroy the central brand message. Product development and marketing resources are spread paper thin. This kind of cannibalism makes its practitioners weak, and lazy.

New vehicles always draw customers away from rival products. The cars that suffer the most are the least “competitive” in or near that market segment. Unfortunately for GM, they often own both the next big thing AND the tired old timer. Note how the Malibu push mirrors the Impala’s fall. And the Saturn Aura’s. And the Pontiac G6’. And God knows what else.

Sadly, GM executives seem completely oblivious to the problem. The new CTS may be a hit product, but no one in the organization seems to have stopped and considered the fact the bright shiny newcomer will consume Caddy customers who may have (for some reason of other) hankered for a pricier DTS or STS. By the same token, the rear wheel-drive (RWD) Pontiac G8 could well be an exciting ride, but if it’s too exciting, it could steal sales from both the (RWD) CTS and the now po-faced front wheel-drive G6. And God knows what else.

Dealers are active conspirators in all this. Whenever a hot product appears at a rival brand, they demand a “tit for tat” version. This leads to badge-engineering, which further divides the sales pool, which ensures that any successful new car will eat its “father” (or uncle) first. It’s a vicious circle that dooms all its participants to eternal feast and famine.

As GM’s recent history proves, there will always be a “bright spot” in the bigger, bleaker picture. Some vehicle will always be relatively healthy– as it feasts on its predecessors, ancestors and weaker siblings. The success of a new model builds executive careers down at RenCen, but it does the company no good. With GM’s lack of build flexibility, the automaker ends-up overworking 25 percent of its plants while idling another 25 percent somewhere else. 

GM’s not the only example of auto industry cannibalism. Chrysler’s four-door Wrangler has been eating away at the Liberty, while the Compass, Nitro and Patriot all nibble on each other as they vie for the same sort of customers. VW has some issues in the US market (bumping into Audi) and much worse ones back in Europe (SEAT/Skoda). But GM is crazy with cannibals.

There is but one way to end this misery. GM must either return to the kind of rigid brand/product discipline of Sloan’s day, or declare bankruptcy (to void dealer power), kill all but two or three brands and THEN return to the kind of rigid brand/product discipline of Sloan’s day. There is no other alternative.           

If the refreshes go as well as the Five Hundred to Taurus redo, it may not make a Hell of a lot of difference. But it probably will. This website has constantly derided The Big 2.8 for letting popular (and unpopular) models wither on the vine, as their transplanted competition raced one or two or even three (four?) steps ahead with newer, shinier, better versions of existing products. So we're happy to report that FoMoCo's global product chief Derrick Kuzak put his hand on a stack of Automotive News' [sub] sales stats and swore by all that is saleable that his employer will now be "carrying out a product cadence that calls for change at three-, six-, nine- and 12-year markers." And Derrick's he's not weaselling, either. "At every one of those milestones, every one of our products, (we will make) a change that is marked and recognizable by the customer." Yes, well, that assumes consumers can identify Ford, Lincoln and Mercury's anodyne models in the first place– never mind their updates. But we quibble. Clearly, Ford CEO Alan Mulally's desire to emulate Toyota continues apace. Which is just as well; the clock is ticking. 

In '78, OPEC put America's balls in a vise. Responding to the Oil Crisis, Washington enacted a “gas guzzler tax.” The law levied a federal surcharge on the price of any new automobile that burned fuel at the rate of 21.5 mpg (combined), but less than 22.5 mpg (combined). The worse the car’s EPA mpgs, the higher the tax its buyer had to pay. The effectiveness of the federal gas guzzler tax is beyond debate. Literally. No one claims the purchase tax did anything whatsoever to reduce America’s oil consumption. And yet it’s still with us. What’s more, it’s about to make a comeback.

In case you were wondering, the federal gas guzzler tax rate hasn't changed since 1988. The surcharge still starts at $1k; rising to a maximum of $7,700 for vehicles that get less than 12.5 mpg combined. Did I mention that SUVs and pickup trucks are exempt?

Yes, there is that. When the gas guzzler tax was born, SUV and light truck sales accounted for less than 25 percent of total new car sales. According to Automotive News, the genres now account for 52.5 percent of all American automobile sales. 

So if the federal gas guzzler tax was such a great idea back when oil supplies were tighter than a figure skater’s leotard, why not close the loophole now, what with global warming threatening to exterminate billions of humans? Surely that’s a better plan than concocting a cockamamie scheme to force automakers to change their vehicle mix to satisfy an arbitrary average fuel consumption figure? Why not penalize buyers of gas guzzlers and, by doing so, incentivize fuel misers?

Obviously, the domestic manufacturers of said gas guzzlers– automakers who continue to depend on the four-wheeled big ‘uns for their survival– oppose any move to close the SUV/CUV loophole and reinvigorate an otherwise moribund measure. But Detroit’s political power ain’t what it used to be– as witnessed by their failure to win the “debate” over raising federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) requirements. So if "the people" are serious about forcing the country's motorists to switch to more fuel efficient vehicles…

They’re not. The vast majority of American motorists aren’t even up for higher gas taxes– never mind an “SUV tax” down on the showroom floor. Hence CAFE. CAFE maintains the illusion of free choice while “doing something” about the “problem” of low mileage vehicles. It hides the gas guzzler surcharge by passing it on to manufacturers in the form of fines and/or technological costs, which the carmakers then pass on to the consumer. The feds get their money, the carmakers get theirs, and everyone feels virtuous.

There is, of course, a fly in the ointment: California.

The Golden State is truly, madly, deeply committed to taking gas guzzlers off the road. After unsuccessfully attempting to do so by hijacking federal tailpipe regulations, they’ve now decided to think outside the witness box. They’re introducing their own, additional tax on gas guzzlers. 

Once again, CA legislators will vote on a plan that would levy one-time registration fees of up to $2500 on low-mileage vehicles. Some “cleaner” SUVs, pickups and minivans would be exempt. Buyers below twice the federal poverty level and businesses with less than 25 employees would be exempt. And  buyers of fuel-efficient cars (e.g. the Toyota Prius and Honda Civic) would get hefty “rebates.” Everyone else has to pay for the privilege of paying more at the pump.

No matter how they tweak it, AB493 is a greater a threat to Detroit than California’s ongoing attempt to supercede federal CAFE regs by classifying CO2 as an atmospheric pollutant. That effort was an arcane, back door maneuver destined to fail. This is a full-on assault that challenges environmentally sensitive consumers to put their money where their mouth is.

And it’s going down. A previous version of the bill was only narrowly defeated in June, when auto industry lobbyists convinced seven LA Democrats to abstain from the vote. (Note: abstain, not oppose.) While you can easily argue that the feds should reserve the right to set air quality standards (which they only “lent” to CA anyway), a state sales tax is, clearly, their own business.

So will it work? Will people stop buying gas guzzlers if they cost an additional $2500? Thanks to the SUV loophole, the federal gas guzzler tax has nothing to teach on this matter. We certainly know that onerous automobile taxes in various New England states have created hundreds of thousands illegal, out-of-state registrations. But the simple answer is no. As car salesman will say, $2500 is only $1.37 per day over five years.

Which probably means California is, like the planet, just getting warmed-up. Gas guzzler tax supporters fully embrace the European model, whereby any and all taxes aimed at motorists are a good thing, and those aimed at low-mpg models are great. But the plain truth is that no matter how they’re applied, punitive motoring taxes create an automotive underclass, and enlarge governmental powers. Two fundamentally un-American concepts.

CSM Worldwide [via Automotive News, sub] is the bearer of bad tidings: the slowing new car market will force The Big 2.8 to cut even more production in the second quarter than the first. The auto forecasting firm says Chrysler will slash second-quarter production by 19.1 percent (compared to the same period last year). Ford will trim production by 16.3 percent. And GM production will drop 8.1 percent. Joe Langley, CSM senior market analyst for North American forecasts, sees an end to the pain for Ford and GM in the fourth quarter, with production edging ahead of year-ago levels. He doesn't see a Chrysler turnaround until 2009. Saying that, Langley attributes Ford's potential upturn to the debut of the MKS (Lincoln somethingorother) and Flex (xB on steroids) and ongoing sales of a TTAC Ten Worst finalist, the Ford Focus. And just in case you were thinking this is "a falling tide sinking all boats" deal, "the three biggest Japanese automakers expect to ride out a recession without serious pain. Toyota is expected to boost North American production 3.1 percent, Honda 1.9 percent and Nissan a whopping 11.0 percent."