Automotive News [AN, sub] reports that The Big 2.8 are responding to the general downturn in the U.S. new car market by slashing first quarter production– and beyond! CSM Worldwide says Chrysler will cut factory output by 15 percent, GM will cut production by 10.6 percent and Ford will cut trim throughput by seven percent. Models set for cutbacks include GM's [supposedly] hot selling Lambda crossovers (including the vaunted Buick Enclave), Dodge pickups, Jeep Grand Cherokee and Commander. Once again, the spinmeisters are blaming the downsizing on their determination to wean themselves off fleet sales. Chrysler CEO Boot'em Bob Nardelli has promised to trim fleet sales from 30 (yes 30) percent down to (just) 20 percent. Meanwhile, the transplants are preparing plans to boost production. And that means Toyota and Honda are about to grab yet more market share from Detroit. "Toyota President Jim Lentz said the company expects to boost U.S. sales 3 percent next year. If industry sales reach 15.6 million units in 2008, Toyota's market share would rise to 17.4 percent… Honda continues to gain share, too. Last week, American Honda Motor Co. President Tetsuo Iwamura told reporters the company expects to boost U.S. vehicle sales 2.5 percent. Assuming industry sales of 15.6 million units, Honda's market share would rise to 10.2 percent." And so it goes.

Ours is a global economy. Like water cascading downhill, carmaking naturally flows to those countries providing the optimal combination of exchange rates, natural resources, transportation infrastructure and, of course, inexpensive labor. As a result, the U.S. auto industry now stuffs its cars with Chinese parts and assembles them in South Korea, Mexico, Brussels, Australia and more. While pundits bemoan outsourcing’s effect on America’s blue collar jobs, this internationalization exacts a hidden toll near and dear to pistonheads’ hearts: it erases product personality.

Once upon a time, cars had national personalities. American cars were comfy. German cars were robust. Japanese cars were inexpensive (reliability came later). Swedish cars were safe. British cars were a pleasure to drive. Nowadays, everyone does everything. An American car must be robust, comfortable, inexpensive, safe and a pleasure to drive. As must a German, Japanese, Swedish and British car. That’s great as far as it goes; but it doesn’t go far enough.

In their feverish desire to meet regulatory standards and internationalize production– to create a “global car” that appeals to everyone everywhere– manufacturers have eliminated their vehicles’ culturally-derived quirks. In fact, today’s cars feel as though they’ve gone through an automotive spell checker, making sure that the car has been completely cleansed of error. The result: tremendous overall quality bereft of genuinely distinctive character.

More specifically, GM owns (part or whole) thirteen automakers spread throughout the U.S., Korea, Australia, Sweden, England and Germany. As The General rushes towards epic cross-border cross-fertilization, shuffling cars like a Las Vegas dealer, we can already see the loss of national character. Saabilac? Caddibu? Holdeniac? GM’s willingness to ignore regional character is quickly draining any remaining life from their once vibrant portfolio of car brands. 

To see the failure of the “global car” logic, consider Saturn. Justin Berkowitz’ review of the Saturn Astra praises its German-ness (e.g. handling, hatch configuration). Fair enough. But what happened to Saturn’s Tennessee roots? Where’s the straight-shooting all-American ethos that informed both the product and its dealers? Gone. And with it, Saturn as a coherent, indeed appealing automotive brand. Just like Saab. And Volvo.

Call me a recidivist, but I reckon a Saab is/was/should be a Swedish hatch– not a German-built sedan or modified American SUV. By the same token, a Volvo is/was/should be a sturdy sedan or wagon– not an inherently dangerous, frivolous convertible. Sure, you could dismiss these objections as senseless carping born of pistonhead preconceptions. But I view our brotherhood as an early warning system. Enthusiasts everywhere are signaling that something important is getting lost in translation, and we’re not wrong.  

On the mainstream side, it’s become increasingly clear to observers both inside and outside Toyota that their rapid expansion of American production has eroded vehicle quality. To protect their brand, ToMoCo is launching various initiatives AND quietly scaling-back plans to expand U.S. production. Not to diss American workers, it’s a sure sign that the Japanese automaker “gets it;” they understand importance of location, location, location. Or, if you prefer, culture, culture, culture.

In this, they are not alone.

Volkswagen has recently learned the perils of international outsourcing– and the importance of national character– the hard way. After years of producing truly dreadful North American-bound Golfs in Brazil, VW finally realized that protecting the model’s rep mandated moving production back to its ancestral home. The reborn GTI looks, feels and drives like a “proper” German car. It’s been rewarded with a well-deserved spike in U.S. sales, and a welcome return to street credibility.  

Vee Dub’s decision has paid off in all aspects… except financially. Industry analysts report that they’re losing money on their award winner, an inevitable result of exchange rates and financially onerous German labor contracts. Still, which is better: building a singular, world-class product domestically that forces you to address your cost basis at home, or building a meh car abroad that offers the chances of greater profits but doesn’t deliver them and, worse, eventually destroys the brand?

Of course, this raises another question: for a car to embody its national character, does it have to be owned by a local corporation? Maybe. On one hand, BMW’s MINI and VW’s Bentley say no. On the other, Daimler’s Chrysler and Ford’s Jaguar say Hell yes. The key differential: top management must be slaves to the brand, and recognize that the brand is deeply, profoundly, fundamentally national in origin.

When it comes to car design and quality, all but the most blinkered beancounter can see that ignoring the importance of national history and culture leads to machines devoid of personality. And in the current hypercompetitive car market, REAL personality is vital to any automotive brand’s long-term success. In this case, those who do not learn from history are condemned not to repeat it, and, inevitably, suffer the consequences.

A friend of my father's taught me there are only three markets: price, value and quality. Price-driven consumers want the lowest possible purchase price, period. In car terms, they want to pay as little as possible for a vehicle. Everything else is secondary. If the car falls apart, if it loses them money in the long run, it doesn't matter. Manufacturers catering to these customers need not concern themselves with anything other than purchase price. At the other end, quality driven car customers want the best car, money no object. Manufacturers catering to quality-seekers have a [relatively] easy time. All they have to do is secure the world's best talent, give them the resources they need and not get in their way. Value-driven customers balance price against quality. Automobile-wise, they want as much of everything as they can get– economy, features, safety, ride, handling, resale, the whole schmeer– for as little money as possible. Manufacturers aiming for value-driven customers are fighting an endless war against everything: low-end carmakers aiming high, high-end carmakers aiming low, direct competitors, production costs, fashion trends, technological innovations, you name it, they've got to sort it. Like Icarus, the one thing they must never do is fly too high. Ford GT. Chevrolet Corvette. The new Saab Turbo X, Mitsubishi Evo and Toyota Land Cruiser. If a consumer says, wow, that's a lot of money for a —–, it's a clear sign that a value-oriented car brand is shooting itself in the foot. Short term, it can work. Long term, it's a big mistake.  

In the movie “Out of Africa,” Denys Finch-Hatton’s 1923 International Harvester stalls on an open savannah amidst a herd of seriously cranky water buffalo. After a few nervous minutes tinkering with the engine, Denys tells Karen Blixen (Meryl Streep) to manually crank the engine. It explodes to life, and they continue their illicit journey into cinematic history. Substitute a Canon DSLR for Blixen’s .416 Rigby, and in my mind, I’m there. As for the Harvester… what about an all-new 2008 Toyota Land Cruiser?

Each year, automobiles kill more people than malnutrition, war and stomach cancer. That’s not including drivers and passengers. Obviously, the automobile – pedestrian toll is greatest in developing nations, where road safety is a strictly Darwinian affair. But the industrial world’s pedestrian “ksi” (killed or seriously injured) statistics are also pretty grim. Legislators in Europe, Japan and Korea have decided to take action. They’ve all developed legislative initiatives to force car makers to introduce new technology for reducing pedestrian deaths and injuries. America has no plans to get with the program. Should it?

The stats say yes. Over four thousand American pedestrians are killed in accidents with motor vehicles each year; some seventy thousand are injured. That's roughly eleven percent of all traffic fatalities. The percentage is on the rise. For obvious reasons, children and old people are the most likely to get in harms way. Children account for roughly 10 percent of all pedestrian deaths; that’s about 400 per year in the U.S. alone.

While American safety campaigners focus on law enforcement and driver training (good luck with that), the European Union has launched a technology-based campaign. By 2015, the EU demands that automakers’ products make collisions survivable when they occur between a pedestrian and a car moving at 40kph (24.9 mph). It’s a lofty goal that would save thousands of lives– that depends entirely on technology. 

The EU would like to see brake assist technology as a standard feature in all vehicles. When a computer senses that a driver is using the brakes too hesitantly, the system increases brake force. Experts claim that Brake Assist decreases the number of pedestrian accidents by about five percent. They’d also like to see widespread use of radar or infrared-sensor-based collision avoidance systems. From there, the changes become more radical, and obvious.

To comply with the EU requirements, automakers are already adapting the design of their cars’ fronts— ground zero for pedestrian fatalities. Obviously, a smooth, soft front end is the way forward. That's why the styling of many European cars (e.g. Jaguar’s new XK) has already been changed, with higher, more easily deformable hoods. Much can be achieved by attention to details, within a comprehensive testing procedure.

To quell disquiet over post-accident repair, the U.K. insurance industry's Thatcham Institute recently tested various models to assess the expense of restoring deformed hoods. After a 10kph impact, they found that most SUVs incurred expensive body damage (in addition to having poor pedestrian ratings). In contrast, the Toyota (Euro-Corolla) Auris was both safer for pedestrians and relatively cheap to repair.

European automakers are already taking the next step: hoods with active safety devices that “pop up” the hood to reduce the severity of an impact with a pedestrian's head. Euro-NCAP crash tests have awarded the new Citroen C6 and Jaguar XK four out of five stars for pedestrian protection. Both models were the first to be equipped with “active hoods.” Sweden's Autoliv AB is developing hood airbags to make even inherently dangerous SUVs more pedestrian-friendly.

I recently attended the CTI Car Training Institute’s 2007 Pedestrian Protection Forum at Sindelfingen. It was quite touching to see nerdy auto engineers stand up and say things like "we have the technology, so let's get up off our backsides and do what we can to stop this killing of people.” U.S. officials were noticeably less keen.

In a phone interview, a NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) spokesman told me that America’s vehicle mix-– more trucks and SUVs— isn’t as conducive to pedestrian-friendly technology as cars in the Eurozone. NHTSA research suggests that there are unexplored trade-offs involved. “You can make a car front better for children, but then it may get worse for adults.” Why not publish pedestrian-safety ratings and let the consumer decide? “Again, we don't think you can find a one-size-fits-all solution”.

According to Prof. Florian Kramer at Germany's Dresden Technical University, those are weak arguments. “Of course it is difficult, but in constructing cars, everything is a compromise”, he says. “The point is, there is very much room for improving the pedestrian-safety of cars”. Kramer continued: “Actually, our European NCAP system was inspired by the U.S., and it's difficult to understand why the U.S. is not following up on their own idea, by including pedestrian protection.”

While American pedestrians will benefit from European action on pedestrian safety (given international trade), NHTSA’s reluctance to grasp the nettle and set standards for automakers doing business in the U.S. is likely to backfire in the long term. As was the case with fuel economy innovations, it's no good to pass the ball to foreign competitors if you lose your ability to compete technologically. And anyway: if plane crashes caused the death of 400 children each year, would legislators hesitate to enforce stricter regulations on the airline industry?

Last November, all GM’s eight U.S. brands lost ground. As the automaker’s pretty much shot its vehicular wad, the falling stats have convinced many industry observers that GM’s turnaround is back in turnaround. Of course, there isn’t a turnaround to turnaround. Not now, and not in the last forty years. Since the sixties, GM’s market share has been on a downwards trajectory. In 1962, The General owned over 52 percent of the U.S. new car market. Today, The Big 2.8 combined can’t muster a simple majority. There’s a reason for that.

GM’s inability to see the big picture has led to its downfall. The irony is stunning– the carmaker that was once the world’s largest has proven itself to be the least capable of anticipating the large scale forces controlling its destiny.

For example, how did GM fail to see that the light truck boom was about to go bust? Years before Hurricane Katrina hit, the canaries in the coalmine were singing like Ethel Merman. Gas prices aren’t cheap! Gas prices aren’t cheap! If nothing else, the fact that Toyota, Honda and Nissan were eating GM’s passenger car lunch should have signaled management that the transplants knew something about making popular products– and money– that GM didn’t.

Never mind the inadvisability of GM putting all its eggs in a body-on-frame shaped basket. GM’s success in the car business depends on its ability to see ahead of its five year model cycle– which is often longer and should be shorter but that’s another story. It’s a sad state of affairs when a company with 99 years of automaking experience and virtually unlimited financial resources can’t predict trends as well as a bunch of pistonheads yakking on the internet. 

Whether it’s due to executive hubris or bureaucratic bloat or both, GM has been flying blind for decades. More to the point, they’re STILL in the dark. Saturn gets a sports car. Cadillac gets a sports sedan. Buick gets GMC’s crossover. GMC gets Buick’s crossover. Saab gets bupkis. Chevy doesn’t get Pontiac’s El Camino, while Pontiac gets Saturn’s Aura/Chevy’s Malibu. If a decision is only as good as the information it’s based on, well, garbage in, garbage out.

Even if you set aside the ongoing series of duds failing to fill GM’s sales ledger, there’s no indication of a far more important “awareness” turnaround at RenCen. At the moment, GM blames its American doldrums on the general economic climate; the “falling tide sinks all boats” excuse. This GM genuinely believes, despite the fact that domestic boats are sinking a lot faster and farther than the transplants’. But worse, far worse, they’re telling the world that the tide will raise them up by the end of next year.

As Blogging Stock points out, GM expects the key driver of their profitable pickup truck sales– the U.S. housing market– to recover in 2008. In a recent article in the New York Times, GM execs said they expected the American housing market to pick up in the second half of 2008 and that “the industry would finish that year in better shape." Try and find an independent observer who agrees that the downturn will be over in six months. Most experts agree that we’re looking at a two to three year slump. Where will THAT leave GM?

Without a pot to piss in. Say what you will about the brilliance of the new Cadillac CTS or Chevrolet Malibu or Buick Enclave. Tell me that the new Chevy Volt electric – gas plug-in hybrid is the future of automobiling as we know it. I’m not going to dismiss their prospects out of hand. But the thing of it is, at this point, they are an irrelevance. GM’s eight brand hole is so deep and so wide that no one, two, three or half dozen vehicles can fill it.

Just as GM suffered defeats on all eight brand fronts in November, their survival depends on making advances on all eight brand fronts in the future. To do that, GM has to be smarter, faster and sharper than it’s been in its entire corporate history. To think GM can pull off an octo-brand turnaround with the same management that has singularly failed to anticipate future trends, that says it's waiting for the new Energy Bill before finalizing its products plans, is even more delusional than expecting the housing market to magically right itself. 

How’s this for a long term view, from a Business Week article dated May Ninth, 2005: “The only question is whether that reckoning comes in the next year, if models developed by Vice-Chairman Robert A. Lutz fall flat; in 2007, when the union contract comes up for negotiation; or perhaps in five years, when GM may have burned through its substantial cash cushion.” So really, we only have part three of the prognosis to go.

Retired Israeli Air Force ace Giora Epstein flew Mirage, Nesher and F-16 fighter aircraft during his career. When asked by the History Channel which aircraft he preferred, he replied “In the Mirage and the Nesher, the pilot flies the aircraft. In the F-16, the computer flies the aircraft and the pilot is just another input to the computer.” Modern automotive electronics have transferred Epstein’s complaint to millions of cars. We may purchase and maintain our vehicles, but we no longer truly drive them. Increasingly, we’re mere inputs for the computers that do.

This experience may be mostly transparent, but it is real. Press on the ‘gas’ pedal of an electronic-throttle car and it doesn’t open the throttle; it simply tells the engine computer the desired torque output.The brake pedal of a Toyota Prius doesn’t activate the brakes; it tells the ABS computer how much braking to supply. Turn the steering wheel in an Active Steering-equipped BMW and the direction change ranges from barely-noticeable to “Holy s***!”, depending upon what the Active Steering system decides is appropriate.

Under most circumstances, drivers don’t know or care that computers are intermediating their driving. But sometimes it does matter. Lift off an electronic throttle pedal and the computer may ignore it, holding the throttle open to reduce smog emissions. Panic brake in deep snow and ABS may threshold-brake the car into an intersection, when locked brakes might have stopped it much sooner. Try to ‘rock’ a vehicle out of slush and the traction control system may steadfastly thwart the effort.

This lack of control particularly frustrates driving enthusiasts. They want engine braking at lift-throttle, not when the computer decides they can have it. They want to take their favorite corner in a lurid tail-out slide, not electronic nannies telling them that they can’t. It’s a real killjoy when the HAL 9000 controlling the transmission rejects a downshift with an “I’m sorry Dave, I’m afraid I can’t do that.” Or when the simple act of simultaneously pushing the brake and accelerator pedals sets off an electronic hissy-fit.

Even when the pocket-protector set tries to apply their dark arts for enthusiasts, they usually end up spoiling the fun. At the extreme end, Formula 1 banned electronic driver aids in the early 1990s (the ban has since been modified) because winning became more a function of software engineering than driver skill. Lower down the food chain, automakers have no qualms whatsoever about rendering their sports-oriented customers’ driving skills irrelevant.

Several high end automakers now offer transmission ‘launch control’ modes, where a driver simply selects the mode and floors the accelerator. Maximum acceleration is provided; no clutch modulation skills required. The new F430 Scuderia is equipped with F1-Trac traction control, which Ferrari test drivers admit allows ordinary drivers to nearly match their lap times around Fiorano.

Where is the pride in mastering driving skills when any Tom, Dick or Harriet can duplicate them by pushing a button? The piss-ant paradigm now extends to off-roading, where Land Rovers offer Fisher-Price type buttons that configure a vehicle’s various e-Nannies for various terrains. Hill Descent Control allows feet free operation. No muss. No fuss. No skill. No fun.

Ordinary drivers have a different interaction with all this automotive electronic wizardry. It makes them worse drivers.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that about 25 percent of all American automobile accidents are caused by distracted drivers. That’s plain to see. Cruise the freeways in any U.S. urban area. Clock how many drivers are talking on their cell phones, fiddling with their iPods, checking their navigation screens, playing with their iDrive/COMAND/MMI interfaces, or looking for the Teletubbies disc for the onboard DVD player. Their focus is everywhere but their driving.

ABS, panic brake assist and stability control can help prevent an accident, but they can’t make the car brake or steer. Only an attentive driver can do that.

Automotive electronics are also dumbing down drivers through the subtle action of moral hazard. The old anti-driver’s aids shibboleth says that cars should be equipped with sharp spikes instead of airbags, to encourage drivers to drive very carefully. Perhaps. Meanwhile, manufacturers give them an electronically expanded safety envelope. Drivers respond to this safety net by driving more aggressively. As a result, the safety benefits of technology are cancelled out by dumber driving.

Studies indicate that ABS-equipped cars have about the same accident rate as their non-ABS equivalents. Similarly, automotive forums bristle with stories about highway medians filled with flipped-over SUVs whose drivers thought 4WD was synonymous with “invincibility.”

History indicates that as drivers adapt to these new technologies, many of the problems associated with them will decline. But there are other ticking time bombs in the automotive electronic world. In our next installment, we’ll look at the long-term implications of these high-tech wonders.

Since the [now stalled] Energy Bill was first mooted, TTAC warned its readers to read the fine print. Detroit's support for the legislation was a sure sign it contained enough loopholes to maintain the status quo and enough sweeteners to make Hemlock a palatable potion. On the former point, we've learned that the bill maintained the distinction between light trucks and passenger cars for Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) calculations. (The system that made SUVs a roaring success and allowed Chrysler's PT Cruiser to be classified as a truck.) We also discovered that the CAFE regs were switching from a fleet-wide average to a footprint-based system– which bases mpgs on vehicle size and allows automakers to finagle the bagel (so to speak). And now, thanks to WardsAuto, we finally hear the number for the federal loan guarantees that the United Auto Workers helped arrange, to keep production stateside. It must be said that $25b is a lot of billions– especially when its your tax dollars on the line. That's doubly true given that the money was earmarked for companies retrofitting factories built before 1987. That means virtually all of the cash would go to The Big 2.8, as the transplants (Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, Nissan, Mercedes, BMW, etc.) built the lion's share of their domestic production facilities after that date. A federal bailout by any other name would still smell so rancid. 

“GM has never sold a competitive small car in America.” Not true. The imported rear wheel-drive Opel 1900– the sedan version of the Manta– was a superb machine for its day. Unfortunately, a rising dollar and a lack of marketing and development vis-a-vis the Japanese competition (Datsun 510) doomed the 1900 to footnoted obscurity. And now, once again, General Motors NA turns to Opel to get back in the small car game. They've brought over the Eurozone’s best selling passenger car: the Astra. Starting this January, you can buy an Astra in America, only with the logo swapped from Opel’s lightning bolt to Saturn’s rings. Should you?

What a difference a month makes. The euphoria created by October's U.S. sales gains ended abruptly; November numbers fell like autumn leaves. Total light vehicle sales sank 1.6 percent compared to November last year, down 3.4 percent year-to-date (YTD). U.S. light truck sales did a November nose-dive, down 6.8 percent if you include crossovers, down 15.5 percent if you don't. In this inhospitable climate, Toyota sales shot by Chevrolet for the month, leaving Ford in the dust. While Chevy should end the year in the number two slot, Ford's stuck at number three, accounting for just 13 percent of the market. And once again, The Big 2.8's combined market share fell below fifty percent. So, it was more of the same, only more so.

Passenger Cars

Chevrolet Impala sales sank 2.5 percent compared to November of 2006, tumbling below November 2005's total. On the positive side, they're cruising on the big Mo, up 11.2 percent YTD. After four consecutive months of diminishing sales, Chrysler 300 sales finally rose 6.9 percent. YTD. In the reverse of the Impala, 300 sales are down 13.1 percent YTD. The Ford Fusion made a strong showing, ending the month up a whopping 38.8 percent over last November, a 4.8 percent improvement for the year. The Toyota Camry continued its slow, steady growth, gaining 3.6 percent on the month and 6.3 percent YTD.

Pickup Trucks

Incentives or no, the collapsing U.S. housing market and the new gas price reality has whacked pickup truck sales, but good. Chevrolet's Silverado dropped 14.1 percent, down 3.3 percent YTD. The incentives king, the Dodge Ram, didn't fare quite as badly, dropping "only" 12 percent for the month. Ram sales are down 1.5 percent YTD. Ford's F-Series cash cow's still running dry. November sales were the second lowest since November 2005, down 11.7 percent. YTD, F-Series sales slumped 12.4 percent. The new Toyota Tundra racked-up a 42.2 percent increase over last November, up 58.3 percent YTD. Yes but– November Tundra sales were the lowest since April.

Truck-Based SUVs

Large SUV sales continue their slide backwards. After the best sales month in a year and a half (October), the Chevrolet Tahoe dropped 31 percent, its worst month since January of this year. Sales are down 7.7 percent YTD. The Dodge Durango had its best showing in three months, but still sank 46.3 percent on the month, 35.1 percent YTD. Ford's once-bestselling Explorer continues its seemingly endless downwards trajectory, finishing the month 18.8 percent below last year, down 23.5 percent YTD. Toyota's 4Runner dropped 17.5 percent from last November, 14.8 percent for the year.

CUVs

The Chevrolet Equinox is showing its age. Sales plummeted 32.6 percent from last November, down 21.8 percent YTD. The marked-for-death Pacifica ended the month 35.5 percent below last November's total, down 28.8 percent YTD. Ford's Escape continues to give The Blue Oval Boyz reason to live. Sales are up 22.3 percent from last year, 6.7 percent YTD. Toyota's RAV-4 dropped to its lowest level since February, but it's still 8.1 percent ahead of last November, up 15 percent YTD.

New Models

The GMC Acadia is still the Lambda king, accounting for 50 percent of the GM crossover platform's total sales. Acadia sales grew by 275 units in November. Ford Edge sales fell by 1500 units from October, but sales are still above the monthly average for the year. The Jeep Compass staunched a three-month wound, ending the month with 443 more sales than October.

Total Sales

As expected November was a cruel month for new car sales. GM 's sales were down 11 percent from last November, down 6.1 percent for the year. Thanks to fleet sales, Chrysler didn't fare quite as badly, but they're still down 2.1 percent for November, down 3.4 percent YTD. Ford had mixed results, showing a surprising 0.6 percent increase over last November. But they still have an annual deficit of 12.1 percent. Toyota finished in the black, barely–  they were up from last November only 0.3 percent. They're still up 3.6 percent YTD but that number has dwindled little by little each month. 

The Future

To end the year with an overall sales increases, Ford would require a major miracle. With big enough discounts, GM and Chrysler could conceivably finish on a high note– in sales if not profits. Toyota will do whatever it takes to make Tundra's sales projections, and end the year on the positive side of the sales leader. Whatever happens, there's bound to be a nasty New Year's hangover, as the carmakers either continue deep discounts or take it on the chin. 

It’s doubtful that the AC-Delco engineers who devised the first electronic ignition system in 1961 envisioned the automotive revolution to follow. By then automobiles’ basic technological framework was well-established (piston engines, welded steel bodies, pneumatic tires, hydraulic brakes, etc.). Electronic ignition probably seemed like just another incremental improvement. Instead, electronics enabled quantum leaps in automotive performance, safety, comfort, efficiency and environmental impact. No other technology has been nearly so transformational.

Popular culture remembers the 1960s ‘horsepower war’ as the Golden Age of automotive performance. But twenty-first century cars with performance aspirations handily dust those Beatles-era relics.  Compare the gas-guzzling smog-belching 1964 Pontiac GTO Tri-Power. We’re talking about a 280hp (SAE net) vehicle that does the quarter-mile in 14.8 seconds. Compare that to the 20+ mpg Ultra-Low Emission Vehicle (ULEV) Mazdaspeed3. The 263hp Japanese hot hatch will do the quarter in 14.2 seconds.

How about a 1965 L78-engine Chevrolet Corvette compared to a 2006 Corvette Z06. You’re looking at 340hp vs. 505 hp,  0-60 in 5.7 vs. 3.6 seconds. No contest. We live in a fabulous age of 200hp Honda Civics, 300hp 3-Series BMWs, 400hp luxury sedans and 1000hp Bugatti Veyrons.

Even better: aside from the dangers of a lost license, modern muscle is almost consequence-free. Today’s power comes with reasonable fuel efficiency, squeaky-clean exhaust emissions, minimal maintenance and “Sure Grandma, you can borrow my car” drivability. All made possible because carburetors, distributors and mechanical linkages have been replaced by the precision dance of electronic sensors, digital computers and pulse-width-modulated solenoids.

While electronics have made engines cleaner, more reliable and increasingly powerful, the automotive safety acronym zoo (ABS, DSC, EBD, SRS, ATTESA, PSM, etc.) owes its existence to electronics. Some modern safety systems (e.g. airbags and antilock brakes) do have mechanical ancestors, but those mechanical systems were expensive, slow-acting and dubiously reliable. Reliable low-cost electronics has made those systems nearly universal in modern cars. Even the TTAC Ten Worst winning Chevrolet Aveo is graced with standard front and side airbags and optional ABS.

Strange to say, the e-ubiquity has created problems for high-end automakers. When even bargain-basement cars have state-of-the-art electronics going for them, these upscale makers need new features to justify premiums prices. Once again, electronics comes to the rescue.

The trend at the leading edge of automotive electronics: cross-system communication and integration. BMW’s rain-sensing windshield wiper system tells the ABS computer when it’s raining. The ABS computer then subtly pulses the brakes to keep the brake rotors dry. Lexus uses its adaptive cruise control system to determine if a crash is imminent. If a crash is coming, the SRS computer tightens the seatbelts and decides which airbags to deploy.

Crash a Mercedes-Benz CLK and its electronic systems automatically stop the engine, unlock the doors, turn on the emergency flashers, and provide GPS coordinates to an emergency response service. This near instantaneous safety dance would be impossible without modern electronics. The range and scope of electronic wizardry is only limited by the talent and imagination of software coders.

This electronic creeping feature-ism has also transformed the comfort and convenience of driving (or being a passenger). A plethora of entertainment and information technologies– multi-channel audio systems, on-board DVD players, GPS navigation units, OnStar, etc.– have eliminated much of the drudgery.

Even the physical effort of operating a vehicle has been minimized by electronic servants. Manually unlocking doors, manually-adjusted seats, hand-crank windows, radio tuning knobs and the like are rapidly going the way of full-size spare tire.

Approach a modern BMW while pressing ‘Unlock’ on the key fob and this modern paradigm of electronic magic goes on display. Sure, the door unlocks, but that’s just the beginning. Windows roll down. The sunroof opens. The seats, mirrors and climate control system adjust to stored settings. No need to turn the ignition lock, just stick the key in the dash slot and press the “Start” button One-touch buttons and voice recognition eliminate even the effort of changing the radio station.

Of course, this technology is mostly found on high-end cars like BMWs. But history indicates it will quickly spread to less-expensive brands. Ford has already implemented Sync voice-recognition in mass market models and Nissan’s Intelligent Key system is available throughout its model line. Wait five minutes and your personal computer gets cheaper. Wait five years and Mercedes-Benz electronics show up in your Hyundai.

This electronic dominance of our cars shows no signs of abating. Whether it’s the Toyota Prius powertrain controls, the Volvo S80 lane-departure warning system or the Chrysler Sebring’s heated cupholders, automakers keep shoveling in the wires and the microchips. They are the major reason our modern cars are so wonderful. Though not as obvious as the benefits, this electronic sophistication has drawbacks. In our next installment, we’ll see how what the boffins giveth, they also taketh away.

The Financial Times reports that Toyota sliced production of its full-sized pickup by 29 percent last month, trimming November's output to 18,300 vehicles. Quite how that recently revealed factoid reconciles with last week's statement by ToMoCo's U.S. group vice president and general manager that the automaker had a good shot at meeting its 200k per year Tundra sales target is anyone's guess. I'm thinking Bob Carter's boast was a triumph of hype-fueled expectation over hard reality. And the hard reality is that the U.S. pickup truck market has tanked. Automotive News (AN, sub) reports that flatbed sales fell fat by 10.4 percent last month. To try to maintain the big Mo on the Texas-built Tundra, Toyota is hawking zero-percent financing or $2k cash rebates on the '08 model. In any case, as a non-union operator, winding down production doesn't put a major ding in Toyota's operating expenses. And there's LOADS of profit in the vehicles they do sell. 

GayWired.com says Toyota has sent a letter to Daniel Grangier, president and CEO of Switzerland-based EBoys Studios. ToMoCo's demanding that the porn producer stop promoting the actor named "Lexus." The automaker claims the name Lexus is a trademark of Toyota Motors Sales USA., Inc., and "by using Lexus in connection with adult films, EBoys Studio is in violation of § 43 (c) of the Federal Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c) and tarnishes Toyota’s business reputation." Toyota wants EBoys to highlight and delete any and all materials displaying the Lexus name. Grangier says his CumEater and SpunkLand star selected his stage name in honor of the Greek god Lexus, rather than a Toyota-produced luxury vehicle. [If anyone can find a reference to a Greek God named Lexus, please post below.] Ironically enough (well almost), Lexus the automotive brand began life staring at the business end of a name-based trademark infringement lawsuit. "Just prior to the release of the first vehicles, database service LexisNexis obtained a temporary injunction forbidding the name Lexus from being used as they stated it might cause confusion," Wikipedia reports. "Upon reflection, the court lifted the injunction, deciding that there was a low likelihood of confusion between the two products." I'm no lawyer, but I reckon the same principle applies in the EBoys case.

We here at TTAC have gone out of our way not to characterize Toyota Prius owners as left-leaning tree-hugging pompous, uh, people. As the Toyota gas – electric hybrid's gone mainstream– sales north of 50k per month– we've taken pains (pains I tell you) to point out that its success is down to the fact that the Prius is a well-built, practical car that makes economic sense. And then I get this press release from Scarborough Research (fayre enough?) that boldly declares "Hybrid Vehicle Owners are Wealthy, Active, Educated and Overwhelmingly Democratic." [Fair disclosure: I've been personally overwhelmed by more than a few Democrats at dinner parties.] It gets worse/better. Thirty-three percent of hybrid owners belong to a health club (as opposed to 18 percent of the generally obese population). They're sixty-six percent more likely to have gone biking in the last year and twice as likely to practice yoga. They're also twice as likely as the average Joe to hold a college degree. Some 27 percent of Prius owners hold a post-grad degree. Forty-two percent of them have household incomes above $100k per year. All of which raises an interesting question: if the Prius appeals to such wealthy, active, socially conscious people, why did sales take off when Toyota lowered the price? Cheap, rich AND smug? What's that all about?

We turn to BusinessWeek (BW) for the skinny on J.D. Power and Associates' just-released 2007 Customer Retention Study (you can get the straight dope from J.D.'s press release here). Once again, Toyota tops the chart, followed closely by Lexus (63.0 percent) and Honda (62.8 percent). Three Detroit brands land in the top ten. Chevrolet takes the fifth slot (56.8 percent), Ford comes in seventh (52.9 percent) and Cadillac takes eighth (52.8 percent). Discounting MINI (not on the radar long enough to rank) and Isuzu (who?), Scion, Pontiac and Jaguar have the hardest time keeping customers; re-upping 30.8, 27.8 and 24.5 percent respectively. Although (or perhaps because) Mercedes scooped sixth at 52.6 percent, BW's boffins reckon it's not all about the product. "Marketing analysts say a solid record of quality and reliability combined with clarity and consistency of advertising keeps customers coming back. 'There are still many companies that do not understand that consistency of image over time is as important as making sure the quality is up to snuff and the dealers are doing their jobs properly,' says independent marketing consultant Dennis Keene, who advises companies on long-term brand strategy.