GM touts their new Chevrolet Malibu as "The car you can't ignore." I've driven the new ‘Bu. It's a handsome, well-built, thoroughly competent machine. As good as it is, Chevrolet's mid-size sedan will only remain psychologically inescapable as long as GM sustains the car's $150m ad campaign. To suggest otherwise ignores the quality and strength of the ‘Bu's competition. It's yet another example of GM's mindless arrogance. In fact, Chevy's first hit in years is already in deep trouble, as I discovered down at the dealership.

Sitting in the salesman's cubicle, waiting for the Malibu demonstrator to return, I watched a customer vent his ire. "I am NOT satisfied," he yelled at a manager sheltering behind the reception desk. "It's a new car. I've been back here FIVE TIMES and I am NOT satisfied."

This confrontation could have happened at any dealership. J.D. Powers, Consumer Reports and TrueDelta have documented GM products' increased quality and reliability. But the way the dealer's staff glanced at each other during the customer's diatribe told me that the distraught buyer's remorse was neither unexpected nor unfamiliar. Worse, I observed a frisson of fear spread across my fellow customers, as they contemplated what could- maybe even has- occurred to them.

Even if we assume that the new ‘Bu represents a new dawn for the brand, Chevy's past is a recurring nightmare that will not fade away. Call it import bigotry or sensible self-protection, but GM's marketing campaign should have addressed this problem head-on. Instead, they sent a subliminal message that their latest next big thing is good enough to convince customers to ignore Chevy's ignoble legacy of customer alienations. It's an intellectual leap that GM's marketing maven are making on their own.

A minute later, I asked the middle-aged Mom emerging from her Malibu test drive what she thought about the car. She was all smiles. "We came down to look at an Impala," she said, pointing to a picture in a discarded ad resting on the salesman's desk. "But this is one sharp car."

Cannibalization is one of GM's less-discussed afflictions. For example, the domestic automaker basks in the success of its Lambda-platformed crossovers. Yet many if not most of these sales came straight out of the hide of their more profitable SUV business.

If the Impala intender above clicked over to TrueDelta to compare base vs. base, she'd find that the new 'Bu is $1568 cheaper than the Impala. With incentives, it could soon be a wash. She'd also discover that the new 'Bu is just $807 more than its sister-under-the-skin, the Saturn Aura, and $364 LESS than Pontiac's platform sib, the slow-selling G6. Clearly, the new, better-built, sharper-looking Malibu will steal sales from other corners of the GM empire. 

Model and brand overlap is a luxury the Malibu's maker can't afford. If GM is to prosper/recover from its dramatic downsizing, it must attract NEW players to the table. Reshuffling the deck for the same old diehards won't do it- especially if the old cards were better stacked in GM's favor (i.e. more profitable) than the new ones.

Let's face it: the buyers most able to ignore the new Malibu- contented Accord, Camry and Altima buyers- are the ones GM needs the most. To be fair, the new Malibu is a highly credible alternative in a highly competitive genre. But…

GM didn't make enough Malibus. The dealer I visited had one Malibu. They'd sold another. Only two more were due this month. Next month, they MIGHT get four. Hell, even their own ad agency seems to be having trouble getting them; all the spots I've seen use computer-generated cars. 

This is the Mother of All Screw-Ups. Imagine you're a transplant-type who suddenly decided to shop for a mid-size car. You stop by the Chevy dealer for the first time in a decade- or ever- to clock the new ‘Bu. No demo car. No cars on the lot. All (and by that I mean a handful) of the cars coming are pre-sold. What are the chances you'll wait?

The competition won't. Not only do Honda, Toyota and Nissan (not to mention Ford and Chrysler) already have plenty of stock at all trim levels and colors in this class (duh), but they aren't about to be caught flat-footed by GM's nifty newbie. Look for them to amp-up their marketing campaigns and/or offer discounts– as Chevy dealers charge full sticker (just because they can). And then, soon, the 'Bu's foes will counter-attack with even better cars.

You only get one chance to make a good first impression. Chevy's blown it. Given the aforementioned bad vibes dogging both GM and Chevy, this is an irrecoverable mistake. The Malibu hype will die down. The new Chevy will be a solid seller when supplies ease, but it will have lost the chance to capitalize on GM's $150m marketing mitzvah to build the momentum it needed to provide The General with a breakout success.

So, GM finally built a commercially viable car, yet failed to make a meaningful marketing campaign, sort out its model lineup or assure adequate supplies. The new ‘Bu reveals the fundamental problem plaguing GM, the deficiency we've highlighted since this series began: a bloated, unfocused and incompetent bureaucratic structure. Until and unless GM corrects this fault, they're doomed.  

We’ve all heard GM’s party line too many times: “Sure, we’re not doing so well with our current products. But we’ve redesigned the [insert model name]. It’s going to bring new car buyers flooding back to [insert brand name]” Each time, the new product has fallen short. Each time, GM has surrendered market share, especially in the midsize sedan segment it once dominated. Does the latest object of GM’s hype, the redesigned 2008 Chevrolet Malibu, continue this downwards trend?

Toyota’s operating profits this year will exceed the entire market value of GM. This insight arrives via Ian Rowley in his Eye on Asia blog for Business Week. According to Rowley, with GM reporting a $39b loss and Toyota earning $11.2b, GM’s market capitalization (market cap) is now smaller than Toyota’s single-year profits. (To determine the market cap of a company, multiply its share price by the total number of outstanding shares and you get the financial size of the corporation.) Toyota is projected to have operating profits of $20.2b this financial year. At the end of the trading day yesterday, GM’s market cap was $19.21b. Rowley says yesterday’s announcement by GM makes the “huge earnings gulf” between the two companies obvious. While GM sells more cars annually in the US than Toyota does [for now], their “fortunes” are reversed when it comes to finances. The race for the title of world's largest automaker remains up for grabs, but any victory by GM at this point would have to be seen as Phyrric. 

Now that the dust has settled on the last of the United Auto Workers’ (UAW) contract negotiations in Motown, the other shoe has dropped. All three domestic automakers have announced new lay-offs and plant closings, atop already extensive cuts. Chrysler killed half-a-dozen models. Ford has shuttered plants and signaled that “things might change” if “things get worse.” GM has eliminated several third shifts. So what’s next? Basically, we’re looking at an auto industry version of “Three Bears.” GM wants to stay big, Chrysler wants to get small, and Ford wants to be “juuuuuust right.”

Chrysler's cupboard is bare, there's nothing much in the pipeline and they have nothing to speak of overseas to lean on. All they have is a few decent entries in a handful of profitable niches. In line with their new owner's philosophy (a.k.a. strip and flip), Chrysler will continue to reduce production and kill products. They want to cut Chrysler's product line down to the vehicles they can sell profitably at the volumes they can move and then get acquired or go public. Done.

Look for Chrysler to try to get the 300s, the minivans and Jeep down to profitable volumes. The Ram and the Sebring/Avenger will survive even if they have to give them away; owning a volume product in a major market segment looks good to a buyer, profit or no. The multi-billion dollar question is how much is Chrysler spending on developing new products? The answer would give us a better idea of when they’re planning on selling their stake.

Meanwhile, Ford's market share has been dropping like a stone– which is no surprise to anyone. The fall from grace isn't “good,” just expected, as Ford has vowed to cut way back on their fleet sales. Clearly, Ford’s strategy is to downsize to a profitable volume and call it good. To this end, they’ve emphasized the need to improve flexibility in manufacturing. Details are sketchy, but part of the UAW agreement mandated/allowed for just such an investment. Hopefully implementation will involve multiple body types on one line, Honda-style, rather than just vomiting forth the usual badgeneered clones from one factory.

Shrinking down to a profitable volume– and trying to hold the line on price– looks like a winning strategy for The Blue Oval Boyz. But the question everyone is asking– and no one can answer– is “will it work fast enough?” There’s nothing left to hock. If shrinking doesn’t work, and work soon, Ford will be booking some federal court time for a Chapter 11 petition.

While The General didn’t wrest the concessions from the UAW that the later-negotiating pair secured, GM still got most of what it wanted– offloaded health care benefits, a new two-tier wage scale– without having to promise much. That said, GM has been doing its utmost to hold onto market share: upping incentives, investing in terminally ill brands, putting-up with duff dealers, etc. Why? 

Is GM pushing sales to keep their bloated dealer network afloat, or simply attempting to drive one or both of their domestic competitors to the wall? Chevy is rooting for biz down-market (trading punches with Hyundai/Kia), well below where Ford seems to be aiming their name brand. GM’s leaving the competition with the Dai-san (Honda, Toyota, Nissan) to the old “premium” brands, and Saturn. Cutting brands and dealer networks has been back-burnered until the profits return– when the problem can be ignored.

GM looks the closest to healthy right now, which is both good and bad. They are the least likely to run onto the financial rocks, but if one of the other two reinvents themselves or survives a trip to bankruptcy court, GM will be playing by the old rules in a new world.

While these are confusing times, a few things are certain. First, The Big 2.8 are going to lose more market share. A fair amount of their current share is created by fleet and fire sales– that have devastated profitability without driving back the competition. To make money going forward, these have to go. 

Second, The Big 2.8 are off the radar for roughly half of the American new car market. The Motown manufacturers hope that profits can be made from the half of the US market still “in play.”  It's a viable stratgey; half of the US market is still a huge pool. But it leaves the Detroit boys playing a zero-sum game. Any increase in sales for one comes out of the hide of another.

This is a problem; the sum of the shares that the 2.8 are counting on grabbing literally will not add up. If 50 percent of the market is considered “in play,” the total of the 2.8s’ expected shares is likely closer to 60 percent. Somebody’s going to come up short.

Ironically enough, the name of the rare earth element "dysprosium" is derived from the Greek δυσπροσιτος [dysprositos] meaning "hard to obtain." But obtain it Toyota must; the element is crucial for the manufacturer of nickel metal hydride batteries and hybrid engines. The Guardian Newspaper reports that Japanese Trade Minister Akira Amari is lobbying China to ease-up on their tightening grip on dysprosium, platinum (needed for catalytic converters) and other rare metals. Earlier this year, China banned duty-free exports of rare earth ores for processing. On Wednesday, the PRC announced it would bar foreign investment in mining rare minerals or those that can't be recycled. China produces roughly 90 percent of Japan's rare earth earth minerals (i.e. "China's got Japan's manufacturers by the throat."). According to CBC News, that's because "Over the past two decades, China has tapped into a motherlode of cheap, easy-to-extract, rare earth resources, byproducts of the country's Bayan Obo iron ore operations in the north." Minister Amari isn't placing all his elements in one basket. He's also heading to South Africa and Botswana to secure alternative supplies. What was that about the total environmental impact of hybrids?

SFGate reports that a former quality control inspector at Toyota and GM's joint production facility in Fremont, California is suing her old employer for emotional distress. Katy Cameron, 54, claims supervisors at the New United Motor Manufacturing Inc. (NUMMI) factory subjected her to a campaign of intimidation after Cameron refused to ignore production defects. Cameron said cars were rolling off the assembly line with "defective seat belts," "water leaks throughout the vehicles," "mirrors falling off," "steering wheel alignment defects" and "missing radiator caps." Managers allegedly began altering her defect reports eight years ago to lower her daily Defect Per Vehicle reports. She says the alterations became "more substantial" two years ago, when she was recording an average of nine to 15 defects per car. At that point, Cameron began retaining her original pencil written reports (to document the changes) and turning-in photocopies. NUMMI spokesperson Lance Tomasu said that while he couldn't comment on the lawsuit, "we will investigate these claims thoroughly."

The International Herald Tribune reports that SHOCK! Toyota already offers lithium-ion batteries in a Japan-only vehicle: the Vitz. While the media seems to think the move indicates Toyota's got a leg-up on their Li-Ion chasing (cough Volt) competition, the truth is that the Vitz' laptop-style battery only kicks-in to maintain electricity (for the radio, AC, etc.) when the subcompact's fuel-saving stop – start motor stops. That's a far cry from providing motive power. And it casts doubt about the Trib's contention that the Li-Ion-equipped Vitz "delivers better mileage at about 25 kilometers a liter (60 miles a gallon) in Japanese testing, compared to about 22 kilometers a liter (53 miles a gallon) in the regular Vitz." Anyway, shhh. Mum's the word! "Toyota Executive Vice President Masatami Takimoto told The Associated Press recently the company hasn't marketed the feature aggressively because battery supplies are limited and the company can't respond to massive demand." At the risk of injecting some perspective into this story, Toyota has specifically rejected Li-Ion batteries for its next gen Prius due to concerns over safety, cost and reliability. Not to mention the on-going success of their nickel-metal hydride battery-based Synergy Drive hybrid system. Next?

October was a tricky month with few treats for the auto industry. Overall, total U.S. sales just about broke even, ending-up with a 1.2 percent increase over October of last year. Year-to-date (YTD) sales sank 2.5 percent. Ford and Chrysler were the biggest losers; both domestic automaker suffered big decreases from the month last year and continuing to drop in the annual numbers. Here's how our bellwether models finished the month.

Passenger Cars

After a brief peak in August, Impala sales have been edging down, with a 1.6 per cent decrease for the month. However, thanks to robust spring sales, it's still up 12.6 percent YTD over 2006. Chrysler 300 sales have almost flatlined, sinking 15.2 percent below October last year. Annual sales show the same trend, with a 15 per cent decline YTD. The Fusion remains one of the few bright stars in Ford's fading firmament. It's up 13.1 per cent for the month and 2.3 per cent on the year. Toyota's stalwart Camry faltered a bit in October, dropping 0.2 percent from last October; for the year, though, it's up 6.4 per cent.

Pickup Trucks

It looks like pickups are slowing down. With only moderate sales incentives, Chevy's Silverado finished the month seven per cent lower than last year, down 2.4 per cent YTD. Even with substantial cash on the hood, the hoary Dodge Ram fell 12.5 per cent for the month, and 0.6 percent for the year. Ford's F-series also had another bad month, ending 7.5 per cent below last year; year to date they lost 12.5 per cent. The Toyota Tundra remains much more popular than its [relatively] diminutive predecessor. Sales rose 77.9 per cent for month and ascended by 59.8 per cent for the year.

Truck-Based SUVs

Chevy's Tahoe bucked the downward trend for large SUVs with a 31.9 per cent increase over last October. It's down 5.4 per cent for the year, but that's nothing compared with Durango. Sales pf the once-popular Dodge SUV fell 66.5 per cent for the month, and 34 per cent on the year. The Ford Explorer was somewhat better off with "just" a 18.3 per cent decline for the month, and a 23.8 per cent drop YTD. Toyota's 4Runner showed a surprising 15.3 per cent jump over last October, but total sales were down 14.5 per cent from last year.

CUVs

Even though CUVs are this year's big thing, the Chevy Equinox was down 19 per cent from last October, down 21 per cent for the year. Chrysler's doomed Pacifica showed similar declines: down 12.5 per cent for the month and 28.1 per cent on the year. The Escape was another bright spot in Ford's otherwise dismal world, with a 26.8 per cent increase over last October, and a jump of 5.5 per cent over last year. The Toyota RAV-4 fared even better. Sales were up 31.2 per cent for the month and 15.6 per cent on the year.

New Models

The Acadia remains the most popular of the Lambda triplets with 100 more sales in October than September.  GMC's shifted 59K Acadias this year. Ford's Edge sold 3.5K more units over September, with 103.8K sold YTD. The worst of the TTAC's "Ten Worst"– the Jeep Compass— dropped 600 units from last month. Despite the hype, Jeep's managed to move 33.5K Compass this year.

Total Sales

October is traditionally a low sales month, as the old model year winds down and the new one gets underway. Nonetheless, GM managed to finish the month 3.4 per cent ahead of last October. However, for the year to date, they're down 5.7 per cent. Chrysler has been below their 2006 sales line since June. For October, they finished 8.9 percent below last October; that's down 8.9 total for the year. Strong showings from Focus, Escape and Edge couldn't offset Ford's dependence on truck sales. Total sales fell 9.3 per cent below last month, and 13 per cent year to date. Toyota continued their seemingly inexorable climb up the sales charts– up 4.5 per cent from last month, up 3.9 from last year.

The Future

The times they are a-changing. Will the new UAW contracts reinvigorate The Big 2.8? Will Chrysler's slice its way to a sustainable product portfolio? Will the Chevy Malibu be the hit Bob Lutz thinks it will, and/or will it cannibalize Impala sales? Is Ford's redesign of the F-Series too little too late? Will the mortgage crisis and other macro-economic issues kneecap the US or world automotive industry? As Bette Davis might say, "Fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy ride."

After being bashed by the greenies for standing as one with Detroit on an easy-does-it hoik in Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards (while producing fuel-sucking pickup trucks), after taking a beating in the press over quality issues (for not being Rolex reliable), Toyota has decided to launch a PR counter-attack. The Japanese automaker has unveiled a new ad campaign to prove their "social responsibility, environmental commitment and economic impact." Speaking to Advertising Age [sub], Toyota spinmeister Steve Strum says the campaign will use print, online and "poignant" TV ads "to touch U.S. consumers and give them a better sense of the corporation's vision." One ad described by Ad Age shows a group of people in an outdoor setting assembling a vehicle using natural materials. The narrator asks, "Can a car company grow in harmony with the environment? Why not?" Incidentally, Strum says there's no link between the new ad campaign and Toyota's recent bad press. So there's one more thing Toyota has in common with Detroit.

In the battle for the American automotive market, Detroit’s fighting for its life, rather than supremacy. The truth is that the so-called domestic automakers are under siege; their non-union competition forced them inside the castle walls a long time ago. And while Toyota, Honda and Nissan are busy unleashing new and improved vehicles to vie for U.S. customers’ patronage, Ford, GM and Chrysler are busy retrenching, regrouping and re-arming, dreaming of both past and future glory. And when they’re not doing that, they’re tearing each other to pieces.

The most recent and obvious evidence of Detroit’s internecine perfidy: Chrysler’s decision to cut 12k jobs, kill models and downsize production just five days after the United Auto Workers (UAW) ratified their new contract. Never mind that the move reveals the UAW’s complete betrayal of their own rank and file, who would have never ratified the Chrysler contract (if indeed they did) if they’d known of the wholesale slaughter to follow. The more important impact of this [necessary] bloodletting will be on Ford.

Now that Ford’s UAW members have witnessed the fallout from the Chrysler contract, they will never ratify an agreement without iron-clad job guarantees. And if you thought that deep-pocketed, privately-owned Chrysler needed a free hand to downsize production, pity poor Ford; the sickest, most vulnerable automaker in the biz. It’s mortgaged up to its eyeballs, losing market share by the minute and drowning in an ocean of red ink. You can see their cash burn from Cincinnati. FoMoCo can afford job guarantees like the average pistonhead can afford a Bugatti Veyron.

Could Chrysler have waited THREE WEEKS before swinging their mighty axe, so that Ford could have secured the same sort of no-strings-attached deal for their UAW members? Sure. And there’s only one reason Chrysler CEO Bob Nardelli didn’t stay his hand: to shiv his cross-town rivals. 

If you read the reactions to yesterday’s Ford – UAW deal carefully, you can see the damage the Three-Headed Dog’s automaker has inflicted on The Blue Oval Boyz. "Our goals for this contract were to win new product and investment, to enhance job security and protect seniority,” pronounced UAW Veep Bob King, director of the union's National Ford Department. Yes, well, would the UAW be stupid/brazen/corrupt enough to ask its Ford members to ratify a guarantee-less contract after the Chrysler massacre? Not if you take UAW boss Ron Gettelfinger at his word: "We encouraged Ford to invest in product and people."

In fact, Ford needs to follow GM and Chrysler and invest in getting RID of products and people. They have too many brands, models, employees and production capacity to survive. While Ford’s new union contract includes a huge payment into the UAW’s inconceivably large, eminently lootable VEBA health care superfund– securing the automaker a cost-reducing two-tier wage system– Chrysler has made sure that Ford can’t downsize in time to reap its benefits.

And what of GM? It must be said that GM’s sitting relatively pretty in all this. With the help of the UAW management, they got away with making empty job guarantees to their union workforce (we’ll give plant X the new car– you know, IF there’s a new car). They’re now free to slice production to match demand, and slice they have. Even better, they’re eating Chrysler and Ford’s lunch. 

Check out last month’s sale figures. Compared to October '06, GM sales rose by 3.4 percent. Did the market expand? No. Did Toyota, Honda or Nissan sales slip, indicating that The General’s much-hyped new or revised products harvested conquest sales from the transplants? Hell no. The salient stat is that Chrysler and Ford sales plummeted. While there’s no hard data on this, common sense suggests that American car buyers who tend towards domestics (a well-documented predilection) are switching their patronage to GM.

We’ve mentioned that old joke about the “buddies” chased by the bear who realize that they only have to outrace each other to survive. Well, there you go. GM’s in the lead and Chrysler’s tripped Ford. Which is all very well and good for The General and The Dog, but Ford still has a secret weapon (that nobody sees): bankruptcy. While GM and Chrysler have dropped some of their union-related baggage through clever negotiation (i.e. paying off the UAW VEBA-wise), Ford could lighten even more of their load through Chapter 11.

I don’t mean UAW pay or benefits; as [non-co-opted] union members maintain, that’s not the real issue. I mean dealers. All three so-called domestics are hamstrung by their bloated dealer network, which prevents them from consolidating models and killing brands. If Ford files, they can ditch their duff dealers, drop bad brands, beat-up (not remove) the UAW and emerge a far leaner and meaner carmaker than either Chrysler or GM. 

Of course, none of this gets rid of the "barbarians" pounding on Detroit's gates.

Autobild reports that the soon-to-be-Porschefied Volkswagen Group is adopting a low-price strategy for the US market. Beginning in 2011, VW US will sell several relatively cheap, not-for-Europe models: a $20k frumpified Passat, a $15k Jetta and a $25k Passat-sized SUV. (India and China will also be blessed with these Vee Dub strippers.) VW prays hopes this "mid-term strategy" will boost their American sales from last year's 235k units to a cool million vehicles per year. Autobild reckons this plan creates a conundrum: how to prevent gray-market exports to Europe? How to protect VW's international brand values? The magazine recommends introducing a new low-price brand (e.g. Toyota's Scion and Renault-Nissan's Dacia). Meanwhile, in Tokyo, VeeDub's upmarket sib has introduced the new, slightly-larger-than-Mini-sized A1. Badge-engineering alert! Although the new Audi A1 shares its atrocious gaping grille-mouth with the Q7, it sits on the VW Polo platform. The model also introduces Audi's new soft-touch, synthetic cow hide, trademarked "velvet leather." As Grace Jones will tell you, it just doesn't have the same ring to it as warm leatherette. 

U.S. auto sales showed their first overall increase since May, with a 1.2 percent gain over last October– if you don't adjust for selling days. If you do, (as does BusinessWeek) then sales were down about 3 percent.. The good news: sales growth by GM, Toyota, Honda, and Nissan. The bad news: Ford and Chrysler weren't so fortunate (as in very, very unfortunate). Bloomberg attributes their sales tumble to the popularity of small cars and car-based SUVs (aka CUVs), one or the other (or both) of which are poorly represented in Chrysler's and Ford's lineups. Here's how the top seven fared overall:

Nissan – up 13%
Toyota – up 4.5%
Honda – up 3.8%
GM – Up 3.4%
Hyundai – down <1%
Chrysler – down 8.9%
Ford – down 9.5%

We'll have the detailed By The Numbers breakdown for our bellwether models next week.

Whenever General Motors announces a hot, sexy sports car that’s supposed to dethrone BMW, a little piece of me dies. That’s the part of me that grew-up watching Smoky and The Bandit (over and over), yearning for my very own Trans Am adorned with a giant, screaming chicken. Nowadays, it seems everyone in The General’s army is allowed to have a bona-fide sports car except, ironically, their sports division. That ain’t right.

Let’s face it: the last few decades haven’t been kind to Pontiac fans. We’ve suffered through a roll call of automotive abortions: the listless Pontiac Firefly, the dishonestly named Pontiac Trans Sport, the justifiably maligned Aztek and Pontiac designers’ obsession with ungodly plastic body kit (its poster child being the jello-mobile known as the Grand Am). And the hits keep not happening.

With the recent announcement of a turbo-charged Chevrolet Cobalt SS, and the possibility of the SS moniker being applied to Corvette ZR1 and HHR-wagon, all hope for a Pontiac revival is now dead-– at least for me. For those of us who are counting, General Motors has missed five opportunities to re-invigorate Pontiac in the last five years.

This torturous prolongation of Pontiac’s imminent death began with the Solstice concept. Oddly enough, GM actually decided to badge the roadster as a Pontiac, rather than, say, a Hummer or a Buick. Having experienced the recent products of The General’s car-birthing process on countless visits to Avis rent-a-car, I can only attribute this brilliant decision to blind luck. Regardless, I was elated that, perhaps, the General was finally getting serious about their erstwhile excitement division. 

The Solstice was so gorgeous it was hard to believe it shares its DNA with anything other than the Chevrolet Corvette. Unlike the Corvette, the Solstice was born a work in progress: crude chassis, irritating ragtop mechanism, scary handling, and a useless trunk. In fact, the Solstice was outclassed by the Mazda Miata in every important metric save power and looks. Not to belabor the point, but looks and power are perhaps the least important attributes of a small, cheap roadster. Further dilution occurred when the Solstice was given a saturnine cousin.

Next came news that GM was developing a car on the Nürburgring. Terrific, thought I, a big brother to the Solstice! Unfortunately, that car turned out to be the Cadillac CTS. I have no doubts that the Caddy is a terrific value (once incentives are factored in, obviously) blessed with genuine grunt and pistonhead poise. Still, the question remains and must be posed: “What the Hell is Cadillac doing testing a car on the Nürburgring?”

GM then decided to import the aesthetically bland Holden Monaro from Australia and perform am utterly lazy re-badging that harkened back to the days of the Chevrolet Chevette and Pontiac T1000/Acadian. American muscle cars should adhere to what I call the “Schwarzenegger Principle.” Arnie didn’t grow muscles and depilitate his delts with the intention of buttoning his shirt. In automotive terms, muscle cars should never pack ridiculous amounts of displacement while looking like a suppository. The GTO, unfortunately, looked right at home beside the Pontiac Grand Prix. In other words, it was dead on arrival.

And still I kept the faith– until GM announced it was developing a world-wide, world-class world-heavyweight-title rear-wheel drive platform. Finally! Visions of a modern GTO or Firebird danced in my head. Then, Rick Wagoner pulled the veil on the all new… Chevrolet Camaro.

If it had all ended there, with GM throwing up its hands and admitting “We suck at brand management,” the story’d be over. Instead, the General chose to tease us with a rebadged Aussie import. GM Car Czar Maximum Bob Lutz announced this possible, hyper-likely, in-development, BMW-destroying, Hyundai-undercutting, CAFE-endangered GTO for 2010.

Yeah, right. We may be oxymorons, but Pontiac cognoscenti have heard that tune before– and we know it always manages to end-up off-key. We shall see what we shall see. 

Meanwhile and anyway, my bridge too far arrived when GM tossed the lion’s share of its racing budget at Cadillac and Chevrolet. Though Chevrolet is historically entrenched in NASCAR and endurance racing, the introduction of a competitive Cadillac CTS made me hurl. The “standard of the world” does not belong on a race track any more than it belongs on the Green Hell. Imagine how ridiculous a Rolls Royce Phantom would look with a racing spoiler. Pontiac, with its storied past in Trans Am racing, should have campaigned its G8.

For now, the upcoming Cobalt Turbo SS is the non-Vette buying, GM-supporter’s only new “performance” car. The new ‘Balt is just another promising machine destined not to darken a Pontiac showroom. This time, I won’t be waiting. If Pontiac can be boiled down to a bad roadster, a re-badged Toyota, a re-badged Holden and re-badged Chevy SUV, it’s time to move on.

You may remember Sweden's infamous Älgtest (a.k.a. moose or Elk test). A kamikaze professional driver guides a fully-laden vehicle (simulated passengers, genuine cargo) down a closed course at 35.5mph. He/she then swerves to avoid an object, then swerves back; simulating the manoeuvres needed to to miss both an errant moose and oncoming traffic. Back in '97, pictures of Mercedes' newly-launched A-Class flipping over during moose testing led the German automaker to retrofit every single car sold with a new Electronic Stability Program module. And now those crazy bastards at Teknikens Värld have put the Toyota Hilux through the same test — with similar results. (TTAC's American readers may remember the Hilux as the previous generation Toyota Tacoma pickup.) The video in the link brings back memories of the 1988 Consumer Reports exposé on the Suzuki "Somersault" Samurai. Anyway, hands-up anyone who thinks Toyota is going to retrofit ESP on old Hilux pickups? Yeah I thought so.

Audi has the A3. Mercedes has the B-class. BMW has the 1-series. And now Lexus is jumping on the small car bandwagon. According to Redbook (the Aussie website, not the thirty-something fashion mag), Toyota's upmarket car brand is dumping plans to build a RAV-4-based SUV in favor of crafting the Lexus of small cars. An unnamed, overly-grammatical Lexus executive claimed "the booming small passenger market in Europe has required us to rethink the situation in terms of the sub-RX entry-level SUV. In response, we have decided to shift from SUV to passenger car, under the project name of C-Premium." The new baby Lexus will be offered in both sedan and hatchback versions. It should arrive just in time to help Lexus meet stricter CO2 and fuel economy standards. Let's just hope the "C" in "C-Premium" doesn't mean "Corolla."