That's not exactly how Reuters spins the news that GM and its mandatory Chinese partner (Shanghai Automotive Industry Corp) have announced plans to build a hybrid vehicle in China by next year's Olympics. But you gotta give Reuters credit for sensing that selling hybrids to the Chinese market is what the Brits call a "non-starter." "Demand for hybrids is negligible in China, where fuel economy figures little in consumers' purchasing decisions,' reporter Chang-Ran Kim writes. "Hybrid cars are also expensive since the government offers no incentives on their purchase. Toyota Motor Corp is currently the only carmaker that builds a hybrid car in China. It sold just 2,000 of the Prius hybrid last year." Although the scribe reckons the Chinese hybrid is a part of GM's wider greenwashing campaign, what's the bet those Chinese-made hybrid powertrains find their way into GM's other markets? 

Look in Hyundai’s high school yearbook and you’ll see “most improved.” Almost every model the Korean automaker has sent stateside has been a quantum leap forward from its predecessor. The Elantra's roots stretch back to the Excel, which excelled at falling apart. The Elantra name survived; the model went from crap, to cheap, to "say that's not bad." Now we've got the fourth generation Elantra. Does the all-new iteration follow the Sonata and Santa Fe in Hyundai's relentless march from cars you buy because they're dirt cheap to cars you buy because why the Hell should I pay more?

As Gregg Easterbrook once famously proclaimed, torture numbers and they’ll confess to anything. As an accountant, I’ve always considered numbers to be a lot more malleable than most math-challenged people believe; they’ll confess the truth long before an interrogator gets out the metaphorical water board. For example, a simple analysis on a small subset of GM and Toyota’s voluminous public data can yield important insights into their relative corporate personalities. By looking at both company’s 2006 U.S. Sales and Inventory figures, the numbers sing like a canary.

Obviously, GM and Toyota’s sales and inventory stats are not 100 percent comparable. For one thing, The General is [still] largely a truck-based manufacturer. Despite a desperate shift toward CUV’s and increased investment in its passenger car brands, trucks account for 57 percent of the automaker’s 2006 unit sales. Toyota’s is far more of a car-maker. Despite upping Tundra sales to around 180k per year, 42 percent of the Japanese manufacturer’s 2006 unit sales were trucks.

In the 12 calendar months comprising 2006, General Motors sold 4.065 million vehicles in the North American market.  In the same time frame, Toyota sold 2.543 million units. To achieve these sales, General Motors carried an average inventory of 1.064 million vehicles throughout the year.

If you prorate GM’s Sales-to-Inventory relationship to Toyota’s, you would be forgiven for assuming Toyota would average about 600k vehicles in inventory at any given time during 2006. In actual fact, Toyota’s average 2006 inventory was just 216,536 vehicles.

Put differently, Toyota sold about 218k cars per month last year to Americans. At any given time, ToMoCo’s average inventory never contained more than 30 days worth of product. Ceteris paribus, had Toyota stopped producing cars on June 1, 2006, it would have run out of cars before July Fourth fireworks hit the sky over Bozeman, Montana.

During the same period, The General sold 335k mainstream cars and 3k Corvettes per month. The American automaker’s average inventory stood in excess of one million and never below 919k (in July 2006). So The General kept about three months and four days worth of unsold cars on hand-– many of which were still on dealer lots (remember, once a car ships to a dealer, GM recognizes a sale). Ceteris paribus, had GM stopped producing cars on June 1, 2006, its inventory would have lasted until Labor Day.

Why did Toyota need only 20 percent of GM’s inventory to sell 60 percent as many vehicles? Theories abound. Here’s mine…

In 2006, General Motors sold 78 models over eight brands. Toyota sold 27 models over three brands. Consumers seeking a family-friendly, Toyota-made car could opt for a Camry, Prius or, if well-to-do, an Avalon. In 2006, the General offered up about fifteen Camry alternatives. Pontiac, the would-be sport brand, accounted for three Camry-class cars alone: Grand Am, Grand Prix, G6.

Enter the new Chevrolet Malibu. How many do new ‘Bu’s do you keep in stock when a loyal GM customer could easily pick another car in the same segment, at the same dealer, or cross the street to a Saturn dealer and pick a badge-engineered clone of the “original?” Sure, the new car might generate conquest sales (and we could include non-fleet GM buyers in that metric), but how in the world do you guesstimate that number?

Meanwhile, satisfied (or dissatisfied) Camry buyers can choose… another Camry. Toyota can predict potential sales with astounding accuracy simply because their tightly focused brand portfolio eliminates a large number of variables. They can also draw upon statistical analysis of retail Camry buyers’ habits stretching back to 1983.

All of which brings us to the meat of the matter. Brand focus leads to increased consumer loyalty, which leads to better forecasts, which leads to better inventory management, which leads to lower inventory. While General Motors has long championed the “whatever sticks to the wall” approach, Toyota has been content to do a few things well.

Numbers are just symptoms of the corporate culture that produces them. Years into a “turnaround”, GM refuses to give a deadline on its return to long-term, stable profitability. In that light, it should come as no surprise that the same company can not proclaim, with any credibility, how many bread-and-butter sedans from its bread-and-butter brand it will sell. Funny thing about numbers: even in their absence, they can be significant.

So why would Canadian car brands refuse to lower their prices in the face of a huge wave of bargain-seeking cross-border shoppers, and the pricing policy's stultifying effects on the new car market? Because they can? Yes and no. The Globe and Mail tapped Bank of Nova Scotia economist Carlos Gomes for an explanation, and an explanation they got: auto makers are reluctant to cut MSRPs in Canada because a record 550k vehicles are coming to the end of their leases next year, up from last year's five-year low of 470k units. Cutting prices would reduce the vehicle's residual values leading to huge losses for the dealers and auto financing companies obliged to buy them back from the lessees. Oops. Instead of biting the billion dollar bullet, Canadian car companies have launched a less expensive PR war. The Globe says "several auto makers" sponsored an eight-page (!) advertising supplement. Within this magnum opus (methinks they doth protest too much), execs from Audi Canada, Toyota Canada and Volvo Canada justified their Canadian price premium and explained what they're doing about it. If any of our Canadian readers have a copy of yesterday's Mail, we'd love to read the quotes.

My name is Chris. I’m a car review addict. I spend an inordinate amount of my time and energy reading car reviews. Fortunately, there’s no shortage of online and print dealers dedicated to the not-so-obscure art of describing an automobile. With such a superabundance of automotive editorial, why do I have such a hard time reconciling professional reviews with my own test driving experience? Are car reviewers— TTAC’s included—blinded by bias?

Yes. The main problem is emotional. Whether professional car hack or amateur enthusiast, the ability to analyze a vehicle is occluded by the emotional imperatives that make us want to attempt the task in the first place. No matter how objective a car journalist tries to be, they can no more surmount their inherent emotional imperatives than they can resist cocking their ear at the burble of a V8 or cast a loving eye on the sophistication of a silent hybrid.

These subconscious patterns– what Russian behaviorists call “stimulus response patterns”– form early in life. My wife talks about her first car with tremendous enthusiasm. A Chevette. Say what you will about the Chevette’s relative or absolute abilities, she will always view the car in a positive light, associating it with her newfound mobility and expanding social life. In the same sense, author JK Rowling waxes lyrically about her Ford Anglia. And I have special place in my heart for the Datsun 240K.

Were the Chevette, 240K and Anglia good cars? Perhaps. But one thing is for sure: no rational person would consider my wife’s, Ms. Rowling’s or my own assessments of these models as objective analysis. Clearly, our opinion of these machines is colored by emotional events in our lives– rather than automotive excellence or lack thereof (although I swear that the 240K was a great car).

We never outgrow these automatic automotive responses; we simply build on them. And just as past behavior is the best guide to future performance, enthusiasts stash their emotional baggage in the trunk of any new car they test. You can often see it even before they clap eyes or climb aboard a new car.

For example, U.S. bloggers are buzzing at the imminent arrival of the BMW 1-Series stateside. The car has generated enough Internet sizzle to shame an Apple iGizmo. A great deal of this excitement is created by enthusiasts’ idea of what the 1-Series should be– a modern 2002– rather than the car itself (which appears to be a porky hatchback conversion). The 1-Series’ association with the “old” 2002 has permanently prejudiced many pistonheads' perception of the product.

Experience and expectation are not the only factors clouding car reviewers’ judgment. They’re also skewed (not to say skewered) by their perception of any given car’s place in the reviewer's real or imagined social associations. What Kurt Vonnegut called the “granfalloon.” 

No one is immune from granfalloonery. If you’ve ever waved to another driver of the same car, or dismissed Hummer owners as right wing fanatics, or considered hybrid drivers tree-hugging hypocrites, or passed judgment on a car you haven’t tested, then you’re the owner of a granfalloon. As social creatures, there’s simply no avoiding it. In fact, our socially-determined prejudices are so pervasive they’re background noise.

Automotively speaking, these hidden biases center on brands. Our socially-derived experiences and expectations of car brands are powerful and deeply ingrained. They form the basis of all our product perceptions and choices and, thus, account for accusations of bias aimed at reviewers. Critics' critics operate under a fundamentally different granfalloon than the journalist’s.

Have a look at the one-star rating TTAC’s publisher Robert Farago recently awarded the new Ford Focus. Had the car been presented as a KIA or a new Chinese brand, would Mr. Farago’s final assessment have been more generous? Would he have lauded the Focus for possessing an above average interior for an economy car? 

Perhaps Farago was [consciously or unconsciously] comparing the new American Focus to the supposedly superior Euro Focus denied American consumers. I believe that Farago’s negative attitude towards the car was triggered by both the engine bay’s flimsy electrical tape AND what he believed a Ford should be.

In short, given the inescapable avalanche of emotional associations that shape human perceptions, no car reviewer can ever claim to be an “unbiased” critic. But maybe that’s not such a bad thing. As long as he or she uses “emotional intelligence.”

A car reviewer should try to balance emotional imperatives with rational analysis. It’s not a question of removing emotion. Take that away and we’d all be driving Toyota Corollas (my bad). It’s a matter of acknowledging emotional responses and then understanding, sympathizing and respecting people who don’t share them. A little more of that attitude on this site would add welcome light, and remove unnecessary heart.

[TTAC's posting policy: no accusations of bias against the site in the comments section. Normally, we ask commentators objecting to our editorial stance or style to email robert.farago@thetruthaboutcars.com to engage in a private dialog. In this case, you are free to vent any such concerns– provided you stay within the bounds of mutual respect.]

When it comes to creating reporting wild ass merger rumors, The Detroit News says game on! The latest chorus of "Daimler and blank, sitting in a tree" would have the artist formerly known as DaimlerChrysler selling 20 percent of itself to… BMW. Sussex scribe Neil Winton dutifully, perhaps even exhaustively lays out the rationale. "Audi is owned by German mass car maker Volkswagen, and Lexus by Japan's gigantic Toyota. This means that the cost of many basic components like engines, transmissions and components, which are used under the skin of ordinary as well as exotic machines, can be spread over huge numbers of vehicles allowing the interlopers what could be a killer long-term cost advantage." It's a simple if bogus premise: Mercedes and BMW could share parts and platforms to compete against Audi and Lexus. (Strangely for the home town paper, no mention of Cadillac.) It's also not Winton's idea. The entire story is based on a report written by Adam Jonas of Morgan Stanley. To be fair (why not?), Winton unearths a coherent naysayer in the form of Professor Ferdinand Dudenhoeffer, managing director of B&D Forecast. "The only thing that makes sense is that Morgan Stanley as investment bankers is going to make strong profits if they can sell someone a merger." Which makes the whole thing a bit of a non-story, don't you think? 

Daniel Howes thinks Detroit is jinxed. In his latest column, “Automakers vexed by external forces,” the Detroit News scribe suggests that The Big 2.8 are latter day Joe Btfsplks, doomed to walk through life with a dark cloud hanging over their collective heads. Just as they're improving their products and cutting production costs, the domestic automakers have become hapless victims of slowing economic growth, rising oil prices and a soft housing market. It's the "Motown curse." Or, as I like to call it, another peg upon which a loser may hang his hat.

"As much as the fundamental gains in this year's contract talks remain," Howes writes. "The queasy reality is that no matter what Detroit's Big Auto and Big Labor managed to achieve, their gains could be swamped by economic forces beyond their control." True but— It’s not bad luck. It’s bad planning. If America’s soaring gas prices and slumping housing market are about to "swamp" The Big 2.8’s best-laid plans, why is Toyota forecasting growth?   

Because Detroit’s plans aren’t best laid. They’re, well, I think you know what I was about to say. Despite Howes’ proxy prevarication, Motown’s predicament relative to the current economic downturn isn’t a case of “when a bad economy happens to a good company.” These are simply the times that test an automakers’ soul, and Detroit’s is about to be found wanting. Again. Once again the Big 2.8 are caught flat-footed thanks to their inability to think or plan for the long-term. And in the long term, that’s ALWAYS a recipe for disaster.

Anyone remember the K-car? When the K helped pull the “Crisis Corporation” back from the brink of oblivion, Chrysler took the winning platform and milked it to death, using it for everything from minivans to luxury cars. Management gave two divisions identical vehicles with different badges– and then killed one of them because of plummeting sales. Again and again, great Chrysler products withered from years of neglect. “Cab forward" design anyone?

And what of the Town Car? Lincoln’s passenger product poured billions into Ford’s corporate coffers— which FoMoCo used to purchase brands they didn’t need, whose products then suffered from the cold dead hand of Ford’s erstwhile international brand management and leaden, impenetrable bureaucracy. Meanwhile, the engine of this excess was left to wither and rot on the vine, along with its similarly profitable Panther platform partners.

Mr. Howes might say all this is old news. The “new Detroit” has learned its lesson. And ain’t it a bitch: just when they’ve finally accepted what anyone with half a brain has known all along (like, say, Toyota), BANG! Fate kneecaps them.

Howes’ presupposition is fundamentally flawed. Detroit shows no evidence that it’s learned from its mistakes. Why did the K-car creator just kill the PT Cruiser, a vehicle with a huge following (and no significant update in the last eight years)? Where is the “new” Chrysler 300? While you can't argue with CEO Nardelli's desire to strip and flip rationalize his company's model lineup, where’s the long term commitment to the only thing that can sustain their business: product excellence? The same place it’s always been: nowhere.

Check out Ford’s new Lincoln MKS. It’s yet another travesty-on-wheels: a tarted-up something else rather than a glorious original, a car that embodies the values of a once proud brand, sold at the proper price point. GM’s effort to leverage its global assets to reinvigorate its U.S. brands is equally pathetic. They import cars from here and there without any coherent idea of who should get what and why—as witnessed by their continued insistence on badge engineering everything with even a glimmer of sales success. 

"The wild card in Detroit's collective turnaround has never been what it can control," Howes notes. "It's been what it mostly can't, which is everyone else." You can almost hear Warren Zevon belting-out “Poor Poor Pitful Me”— only without the irony. All of us have had to deal with factors beyond our control. But Detroit had control over the decisions that got them to where they are today: a leaf blowing in an economic whirlwind. Or you could say, the stronger your hand, the less trouble a wild card will cause.

Blaming Detroit's current plight on forces beyond their control is like saying it was bad luck that a mountain climber without a map got lost. When times are tough, the weak are the first to go. I feel sorry for all the people caught-up in Detroit’s decline— from Howes’ “poor slobs who hold mortgages” to the downtrodden creatives who know what could have been. But it’s not like survival of the fittest is a new rule. Or that no one in the industry understood that the “fittest” automaker is the one selling the best cars at the best price. 

Detroit’s weak because its brand and products are weak. Blaming external factors for this predicament is a loser’s game. One that Detroit’s knows all too well, and shows no sign of abandoning.

 You can read Daniel Howes' original column here.

Those of us who lust after automotive products from afar are already pining for the Ford Mondeo and S-Max, Buick Park Avenue (China), Alfa Romeo 159 and Fiat 500. Mazda joins America's automotive unrequited love list with the new Mazda2. Mazda's subcompact car (B-segment, if that's your language) sells below the grand slam home run Mazda3. The Zoom-Zoomers are introducing an America-friendly variant to the Chinese market. Where most subcompact sedans look stubby, waving their metaphorical ass in the air, this is one sharp-looking wee beastie. It's also, purportedly, fun to drive. Fantastic mileage is a given. Subcompacts (which are actually compact size but who's counting) are making a comeback stateside: Nissan Versa, Honda Fit, Toyota Yaris, Hyundai Accent, Kia Rio, Chevy Aveo, Suzuki SX4. Mazda's entry would be a perfect fit for the U.S., and it snaps into Mazda's brand portfolio very well. But the daunting prospects of U.S. crash tests and limited profitability assures American pistonheads more long distance love.

As we've reported, thousands of Canadian cars buyers have headed south of the border to save money on new and used cars. Several manufacturers have [belatedly] responded to the exodus by offering incentives that bring Canadian new car prices back in line with their American equivalent. But not all, and used car prices are still significantly lower. So the trade continues apace. Only now the Canadian government has stepped in and staunched the wound. The Toronto Globe and Mail reports that Transport Canada now refuses to license imported American cars until they're fitted with a Canada-compliant anti-theft immobilizer. Seriously. They're stopping vehicles at the border and/or allowing new car buyers to drive them home– and that's all. At least until the device is fitted and the car inspected (and Honda of Canada says they know of no legal aftermarket conversion). Transport Canada spokesman Patrick Charette moved to quash conspiracy theorists (that's us) by pointing out the new reg was announced two years ago. Mr. Hill ain't buying it. The Calgary financial consultant bought a 2008 Sienna in the U.S. last month, saving CA$15k. The vehicle is currently sitting on a dealer's lot 320 kilometers away from his driveway. "This is either collusion or unintended consequences." While dozens of frustrated buyers cry foul, the list of banned vehicles was broadened last week to include 2008 models manufactured after Sept. 1 and sold in the United States by Ford, Hyundai and Suzuki; all 2008 GM models, several Honda vehicles and about half of the Toyota Motor Corp. lineup.

Now we know where GM is going to get the technology for the Volt's drivetrain: the Easter bunny. BusinessWeek reports that Bob Lutz escalated the war of the war of words between GM and Toyota at a meeting of the Western Automotive Journalists association. According to Lutz, Toyota's executive VP of R&D and product development said that the Volt is just an advertising ruse with battery technology that's "completely wacky." Max Bob's response? "Let's wait for the Easter Bunny," referring to his dream claim that GM hopes to will have a test mule with the Volt's drivetrain on the streets by spring of 2008. Maximum Bob also hinted that the General's the victim of a Japanese conspiracy. Japanese companies failure to bid on GM's battery proposals indicates "Lithium battery technology is being husbanded in Japan. It's like a secret weapon." Continuing his trip down paranoia lane, Maximum Bob blamed ethanol's bad press (re: questionable economic and environmental benefits) on a "multi-million dollar smear campaign" by the American Petroleum Institute. "They make it sound like ethanol is taking food out of the mouths of babes [and causing] taco riots in Mexico…" Let's just hope Santa Claus brings GM's Car Czar a clue for Christmas.

Toyota's freshly-minted CEO breaks cover in a Detroit News (DTN) profile with a home-town friendly headline: "Criticism shadows Toyota's success." The DTN repeats the charges: environmental insensitivity (for fighting higher CAFE standards) and quality control problems (that led to the Camry's ejection from Consumer Reports' recommended list). The blows go lower. "Unusually for Toyota, its U.S. sales growth for 2007 is running behind its forecasts, and its new Tundra's slow start in a slumping pickup market is viewed as further evidence of the automaker's fallibility." Rubbish. Along with every other U.S. automaker, Toyota has revised its forecasts to account for a shrinking new car market– but it still predicts market share growth. And while the Tundra's first year sales target of 200k units looks a bit dicey (unless they REALLY blow-out the price), they've sold 162k year-to-date. More importantly, check out Lentz 'tude: "What has always made Toyota strong is this sense of kaizen," Lentz said, referring to a tenet of the Toyota Way that means continuous improvement. "We have to use whatever shortcomings or criticisms we have as a way to re-energize that kaizen within our culture, to make sure that we fix issues that we have before they become targets of our critics." Are you listening Mr. Lutz?

Stop the presses! GM has a hit! Well, at least a hit with the media. In fact, the mainstream automotive press loves the new Chevrolet Malibu so much they’re ready, willing and able to tell the world that this is it! The product-led turnaround that GM’s quintessential non-car guy, CEO Rick Wagoner, predicted seven years ago. Arriving as it does immediately after GM’s new two-tier labor contract with United Auto Workers, the new ‘Bu seems the literal embodiment of a corner turned. But is it? Is the new Chevy a harbinger of a new dawn for the beleaguered America automaker? 

The new Chevrolet Malibu is hardly Detroit’s first “world beater” since the transplants transplanted stateside. Some of these automobiles never deserved this appellation (e.g. the old GM J-cars)– and proved the point in the commercial marketplace. Others fully deserved the plaudits. Even as its market share erosion began in earnest, The Big 2.8 has produced some genuinely remarkable, class-leading cars. So, what happened to them?

Cast your mind back to the turn of the millennium. What was the “wonder car” from Detroit that year? That’s right: the new Ford Focus. It was Car of the Year on two continents. It was an American-built small car that Americans actually wanted. And yet here it is, just seven years later: a finalist for TTAC’s Automotive Hall of Shame; an awkward-looking car that’s so uncompetitive in its class that even FoMoCo considers it little more than “place holder” for a future replacement.

Recalls were the first sign that the best of the best wasn’t so good. While the Focus never approached Vega-levels of self-destruction and lacked the “massive single flaw” of the Pinto, the Focus was recalled 14 times (steering, structure, suspension, etc.) in 2000, and another 10 times the following year. However much they liked their hatchback, the recalls had a damping effect on actual and potential customers’ enthusiasm.

All those warranty claims sliced the Focus’ thin profit margins. Rather than significantly renew or refresh the car’s mechanical components to keep pace with (never mind outpace) its inexorably improving competition, Ford “de-contented” (i.e. cheapened) the [American] Focus and used low price to keep its competitive hopes alive. Marketing support simply disappeared, as FoMoCo moved onto the Next Big Thing. Ironically, a lack of focus transformed a Car of the Year into a TTAC Ten Worst finalist.

Ford is hardly the first automaker to fail to maintain new model momentum. Volkswagen’s entire history post (original) Beetle is the same story writ large. Chrysler also has a long, sad history of slowing but surely extricating defeat from the jaws of victory.  

It is hard to explain the Neon’s impact when it first hit the market in 1994. It was good looking, well-sized and American-made. The combination of the spiraling Yen and special bare-bones construction gave the Dodge Neon a solid price advantage. The ever-paranoid Japanese media even dubbed the Neon “the Japanese car killer.”

Flash forward 13 years and the Neon is toast, while the Corolla and Civic are still here, still selling in vast quantities.  

While the Neon had some early mechanical issues, they were not Focus bad. The Neon’s troubles arrived later, as the model aged. Thanks to beancounting, the car’s mechanicals weren’t built to last. The Neon morphed from “new car” to “heap” after just a few years. As a result, resale value dived low and stayed there. The difference in depreciation confirmed the fact that Toyota and Honda were selling their cars on “value” not “price."

Believe it or not, this came as something of a shock to Toyonda; their management had no idea of their own strength. The men who designed the Neon literally paved the transplants’ way to prosperity. As for the former “killer,” the Neon received only one half-hearted update. By the time it vanished, most of the kids who got stuck with one had no idea how revolutionary the car had once been.

What does this mean for our friend the Malibu?  First, it’s far too early to declare victory. The slow rollout brings hope that Malibu’s quality will be kept high. But no one will know what’s what until real volume hits the streets. Even then, it will take a couple of years to see if the ‘Bu’s bits are built to last— a key quality for success in this segment.

And after THAT, there remains the nagging suspicion that GM, a company with well over 100 models spread over eight brands, will repeat its history of neglect, aggressive corner cutting and itinerant marketing. 

For those of you who say of course GM’s learned its lesson, two questions. What has been done to fix the Saturn Aura’s less than stellar gearbox? And when was the last time you saw an ad for the car? Well exactly.   

Bob Lutz is a gift. The Car Czar’s uncanny ability to spout uninformed, arrogant nonsense makes analyzing GM’s corporate confusion a slam dunk. Unfortunately, the mainstream automotive press prefers to proffer a protest-free platform for Maximum Bob’s maximum BS. So be it. We can still read between the lines. In this case, Automotive News [AN] blesses us with a bit of Maximum Bob raw. It’s deeply worrying stuff.

AN begins by asking Lutz how the new Malibu can overcome its rep as a daily rental car. 

A lot of the advertising is designed to take that head-on. We're not going to erase that perception gap in this generation. People are still going to go to the Toyota store and are still going to get a Camry. They're not going to care that most of the models are no longer recommended, and they're not going to care about all the quality problems. It's a learned response. That's going to be hard to erase.

Lutz begins by feigning glasnost: we here at GM are not afraid to take on previous reputation with brand new most excellent automobile. And then Lutz commits marketing’s cardinal sin: insulting the customer. If you don’t consider the “perception gap” an inherently demeaning concept– our cars are as good/better as theirs; you’re just too stupid/bigoted to know it– Bob’s no-holds-barred attack on Camry buyers’ loyalty should convince you.

Earth to Bob: don’t diss the customers you can’t afford to miss. And is it me or does Bob’s idea of “erasing” Camry buyers’ “learned responses” sound way too 1984 for a car guy plying his trade in a free market? As he has so many times before, Bob seals the deal with outright ignorance; Consumer Reports dropped one of Camry’s three models from its thumbs-up list (the V6). “Most” Camry models remain recommended.

So, Bob, what will happen to GM's recovery if sales of the car you've touted as the Camry-killer misses its mark? 

It's not a make-or-break car. We expect it to do moderately well, and we expect it to be recognized by the media as one of the best mid-sized cars out there. We expect that not all but some import intenders will come back to this car or try it for the first time.

Huh? if the new Malibu is not GM’s make-or-break car, what is? Is this the same Malibu that Maximum Bob told Edmunds that "in terms of fits and finishes, gaps, interior quality and so forth, you’re going to find the Malibu is equal to, I think, the Camry. And with the V6 engine, it outperforms it and I think it outhandles it. It also outbrakes it. I believe personally, subjectively, that it’s more fun to drive. And we do have a price advantage”? Now it's "one of the best" that will do "moderately well?"

Has Maximum Bob run out of hot air gas? AN picks-up the bad vibe (so to speak) and runs with it. What's it gonna take to make GM profitable in North America?

We've made a major move with the labor agreement. What still remains to be done is getting better net pricing or better transaction prices on the cars, which means lower incentives. But the environment is pretty difficult right now because I think we're facing an increasingly weak market. The market has to come back a little bit.

Part A of Bob’s reply is boilerplate bluster. Part B is completely out of character for Maximum Bob. We know what we need to do but we can’t do it because the market sucks. We’re going to keep our heads down and wait.

Coming from GM's CFO after yet more market share decline, the statement wouldn't merit a second listen. Coming from GM’s Vice Chairman of Global Product Development, this wiggle room makeover is a shocking Volt from the blue. If Maximum Bob’s no longer GM’s dopey-headed cheerleader, what the Hell’s going on down there?

To cheer him up, AN asks Bob if the Chevy's hybrid Hail Mary is a goer. Bob reckons it's an ipso facto-mobile; if the Volt wasn’t doable, why would GM even try? (Note to Bob: you’re got 400 engineers on the job, not 200.) And yet…

So is there a possibility next spring when we have our first cars and we drive them, the batteries don't live up to our expectation or they don't accept the charge as quickly as we'd like or they don't deliver quite the range; they deliver 35 instead of 40 miles? That is a possibility. Right now, we don't think that will happen. Even if it does happen, it's an engineering problem that we will solve through further development.

Further development. It’s what GM does best! Just look at the… the…. In any case, it seems clear to this industry watcher that someone or something has knocked the wind out of Maximum Bob’s sails. Could it be reality? Jim Farley-esque really real reality? Stranger things have happened. Wait. No they haven’t. Expect Bob to return to form and/or– as we have been predicting for quite some time– a shit storm of epic proportions.

[The Automotive News interview with MB is available (by subscription) here.] 

Autumn in Texas plays host to a weekly cultural phenomenon known as high school football. Burgeoning grid iron gods burst on to the field of play from inflatable tunnels through mists of smoke and a phalanx of sparkly drill team coeds. A 300-student marching band plays the school fight song while two dozen cheerleaders power tumble across the field to herald the arrival of the young jocks. The stadium fills with ten thousand spectators-– mostly proud parents and rabid students-– who arrived to the game in typical Texas fashion: by truck. It is under the glare of these Friday night lights that I examine the value of GM's new hybrid SUVs.

Contrary to popular belief, these vehicular behemoths are seldom used as single passenger commuter transport. Nor are they all owned by rural hicks working a ranch. They’re mostly driven by busy parents hauling their children, kid’s friends and equipment to dozens of school, church and sporting events. And yes, many of the Lone Star State's SUV owners regularly pull boats to the north Texas lakes. These buyers are, indeed, the “power users” for which these massively-powered big-framed vehicles were designed.

Even if you reject this “justification” for SUV and pickup truck ownership as a luxury our country (or the planet) can no longer afford, even if you disallow the argument that small cars just don’t cut it in America’s rural heartland, know this: Texan big rig buyers aren’t blind or immune to high gasoline prices. They understand and appreciate environmental concerns. And they sure as Hell get the connection between foreign military entanglements and the politics of oil production. For this savvy SUV market at least, the General’s hybridization of the Tahoe makes perfect sense.

Toyota, and to a lesser extent Honda, have occupied the eco-friendly automotive mindspace by fitting hybrid engines into small or midsize front wheel drive cars; vehicles that are already amongst their most economical platforms. Gas – electric propulsion has generally boosted these cars’ fuel efficiency from EPA estimates in the 30mpg range, to the 40mpg range. It’s an amazing technological accomplishment that fully deserves the PR plaudits and financial rewards received. 

By comparison, the 4×2 hybrid Yukon looks like a misfire. The two-mode hybrid system “only” delivers 21/22 miles per gallon. Aside from buyers of high-priced luxury cars, no sedan driving consumer in his right mind would settle for that kind of mileage. Mileage in the twenties? How great is that? Counter intuitively, it’s quite amazing. Indeed, by my calculations it is 39 percent better in conservation terms than putting a hybrid engine in an already economical car.

Let’s run some numbers. 

The 2008 Honda Civic sedan is powered by a 140hp, 1.8-liter i-VTEC four-cylinder engine. Mated to a five-speed manual, the Civic’s EPA numbers clock-in at 25mpg around town, and 36mpg on the highway. In a year of combined driving (15k miles at 29mpg), a Civic owner would need to pump 517.2 gallons into his or her petrol sipper.

Honda’s effort to supercharge the mpg results with a hybrid electric elevates mileage to 40/45mpg. In a typical year of driving, the Civic owner burns 357.1 gallons of CO2-emitting gasoline (based on combined 42mpg). That’s a savings of 160.1 gallons.

A typical 4×2 Chevy Tahoe rumbling through Lone Star State suburbs has a 5.3-liter V8 Vortec engine mated to ye olde four-speed cogswapper. Tea leaves, chicken bones, and entrails tell the prognosticating bureaucrats at the EPA that the rig will achieve 14mpg while stoppin' and goin' and 20mpg while crusin'. In a year of driving at 16mpg combined, the Tahoe owner will have to feed the beast 937.5 gallons of dead dino juice.

Despite having a larger 6.0-liter V8 engine, the Tahoe Hybrid increases 'round town gas mileage by 50 percent and highway mileage by 10 percent (21/22mpg). Over 15k miles, the hybrid variant chugs only 714.3 gallons; saving the Tahoe driver (and the environment) 223.2 gallons.

In other words, a Tahoe owner that opts for hybrid saves 63.1 more gallons of gasoline every year than a Civic driver who makes the same choice.

This demonstrates what GM has been saying for years: improving the gas mileage of the thirstiest (and most popular) vehicles is more important for reducing consumption, pollution and CO2 than wringing stratospheric mileage from the cars that are already among the most fuel efficient.

Of course, many environmentally-conscious people would like to see Yukon drivers trade-in their “obscenely large” family truckster for a more “practical” Civic Hybrid or suchlike. But as long as we live in a free country, individuals are free to determine which vehicle best suits their lifestyle, financial constraints and belief system. For those of us who huddle against the chill air in rural high school football stadiums, the Chevrolet Tahoe Hybrid looks like a remarkable, yes sensible, option. I wish it well.

Automakers are adding more and better safety features into new cars, right across their model lines. Needless to say, the insurance industry is down with that. According to MSNBC, the number of cars considered “safest” by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has grown by nearly 300 percent. Last year, 13 vehicles made the list. This year, 34 new models can tout an IIHS “top safety pick” award. Ford joined Honda on the virtual podium to claim the largest number of vehicles garnering the gong. According to the report, Toyota could have had 10 additional vehicles on the list (and Volkswagen four) if they offered better seat- and head restraint designs. Sidestepping the criticism, Toyota spokesperson Bill Kwong diverts your attention points out that their ‘08 vehicles have active headrests, which provide a “great level of safety for the customer in the real world.”