A couple of days ago, we published an editorial taking English auto scribe James May to task for flaming American cars. For this, we were flamed. Despite TTAC’s blanket ban on comments that diss the website, and our ban on [off topic] comments questioning our editorial stance or style, many of you cried foul. How could Mr. Swanson accuse a British writer of an anti-American car bias when TTAC [obviously] shared this same prejudice? After damping down the flames of perceived hypocrisy, I promised to provide offended readers a place to fire at will. And here it is.

Longtime visitors will know TTAC’s fought the bias battle before. From the very first GM Death Watch, any and all criticism of GM or GM products used to ignite a conflagration of condemnation. The flames soon spread to our coverage of Ford and Chrysler. For several years, TTAC was consistently and persistently attacked as a fundamentally anti-American website. We were considered the enemy within.

Many commentators felt compelled to vent their ire at our [perceived] anti-American bias at the bottom of any editorial that even touched on the subject of a domestic automaker or domestic car. When they were warned to make their point without personally criticizing this website, its authors or fellow commentators; more than a few penned expletive-laden emails accusing me of Stalinist censorship. Not to mention conjecture about sexual relations with farm animals, doubts about my patriotism and good old-fashioned death threats.  

As The Big 2.8’s troubles have become evident to all but the most blinkered observers, the majority of our readers have begun to appreciate the fact that TTAC’s take on the American automotive industry isn’t entirely divorced from reality. Of course, our policy of permanently banning flamers has also quieted this little corner of cyberspace. In any case, by and large, our domestic-oriented editorials and car reviews are no longer greeted with a not-so-stately line of flame throwers.

I mustard mitt I was a bit surprised when our Mr. Swanson's analysis of Mr. May's editorial reignited charges of hypocrisy and anti-American bias. Surprised, but not concerned. As I said, we’ve been here before. And at the risk of repeating myself, I’ll repeat myself: TTAC does not have an anti-American car or automaker bias.

Yes, a great deal of our coverage focuses on the foibles and failures of The Big 2.8. For this I make no apologies. The Decline and Fall of Detroit is arguably the most important automotive story of our time. While the media coverage of unfolding events has been generally excellent, I’ve attempted to write, commission and publish articles that look at the lay of the land that little bit harder. That dig that little bit deeper for the truth. 

At the same time, it should be noted that TTAC hasn’t spared non-domestic automakers the same scrutiny. We’ve taken Toyota to task for greenwashing, lambasted Lexus for ill-advised line extensions, mocked Mercedes for creating Maybach, bashed BMW for bad branding, and so on. In my more egocentric moments, I like to think that TTAC as the conscience of an industry. The ENTIRE industry: American, transplanted and foreign. 

It’s also worth mentioning that TTAC is a catholic (small c) website. We invite submissions from anyone who cares to tap plastic on our behalf. We do not dictate the writer’s editorial perspective, nor reject their work on that basis. There is no “house line” on any given issue. There are enough counterpoint editorials to back up the assertion that we genuinely enjoy genuine debate. And, lest we forget, our comments section is a playground for civilized dissent.

That said, yes, we are a group of like-minded people. Just as CBS' newsroom contains more liberals than a Hollywood madam's black book, the people who regularly write for TTAC share certain values, experiences, perspectives and abilities. But one thing they do NOT share is a bias against American automakers or their products per se.

Peruse our archives for reviews of American cars and you’ll find plenty of praise. Read our reviews of non-domestically owned or produced makes and models, and you’ll see plenty of criticism. NOBODY gets a free ride at TTAC. The fact that so many American cars take it on the chin hereabouts says everything about the cars, and little about our editorial preconceptions. 

So why did Mr. Swanson stick it to Mr. May if “we” generally agree about the relative quality of American (i.e. GM, Ford and Chrysler) cars? Because May was saying all American cars suck. Mr. Swanson felt that the criticism was based on anti-Americanism, rather than carefully calculated analysis. More importantly, Mr. Swanson believed it was untrue. As long as I’m at the helm of this website, I will continue to publish work that attempts to expose the truth, regardless of the consequences.  

Since Cerberus removed Chrysler from German control, the crisis corporation’s modus operandi appears to remain unchanged. Other than some relatively minor dealer antagonism (since smoothed over), there’s been none of the slash-and-burn stylings formerly attributed to ex-Home Depot CEO Bob Nardelli and his new, private equity employers. Perhaps a companywide excrement – fan collision awaits the conclusion of United Auto Workers negotiations. Meanwhile, Chrysler better start getting its you-know-what together on the product front, ‘cause the cupboard is almost completely bare.  

In the last year or so, Chrysler has rolled out over a half-dozen new models. Only one can legitimately be called a “hit”: the Wrangler Unlimited. Yes but– much of the buzz surrounding the vehicle can be attributed to low supply. We’ll have to wait for the initial rush to end before we'll know if the Jeep model has "legs:'" sufficient staying power to match increased production and become a corporate cash cow. 

Elsewhere, the bloom is off the 300 and its derivatives. Sales are down 15 percent year-to-date. The good news: Chrysler has the relatively affordable, large-and-in-charge American sedan market to themselves for a while longer. And the “niche” is generating a cool quarter million sales per year. The bad news: the previous regime pushed 300 production well past consumer demand, and then dumped 44 percent of total production into fleet sales. Owners are heading for a major hit at trade in time– which will do neither 300 sales nor the brand any favors. 

At the same time, the company’s REAL profit centers are rotting on the vine and taking it on the chin. The Dodge Durango and Chrysler Aspen (a TTAC Ten Worst Automobiles Today (TWAT) winner) are both down by double digits. And again, Chrysler sent its “extra” units to bulk buyers. Some 33 percent of Durangos and 31.2 percent of Aspens sailed with the fleets.

Ye Olde Ram pickup is also in dire straits. The Ram was always going to have problems keeping up with the refreshed Chevrolet Silverado and “newer than thou” Ford F-150. With the slump in the building trades and Toyota jumping in and playing price war games with their Tundra, the Ram is on a hiding to nowhere.

Chrysler’s “new” introductions are also lost in [dealer lot] space. Though let down by poor reliability, the designs that fueled Chrysler’s pre-merger renaissance were daring and innovative (e.g. the cab-forward line and the Neon). They kept their competition awake nights and wrote the tickets for more than a few former Chrysler hands (one of whom has been chasing the magic at GM ever since). 

After the 300, Chrysler’s new models landed with a gigantic thud. Jeep Commander excepted, they weren’t “bad” designs; just incredibly bland. The much-anticipated Sebring hit the market and went straight to rentals. Even the nicest of the buff books could find little nice to say. The Caliber was an interesting idea that can only dream of the old Neon’s volumes. And the lack of a model priced beneath the Caliber is crippling.

The Pacifica has been cut and reprieved several times. At the moment, as Chrysler supposedly considers paring down its offerings, there isn't even an update on the drawing board. As Chrysler’s only entry in the hot large-CUV market, the Pacifica should be capturing some of the more profitable parts of the SUV refugee and people-hauler business. The Pacific wasn’t quite good enough when it was new. It’s less so now.     

Other than their new minivan, Chrysler has one– count it one– more new vehicle on the near horizon. The new retro-styled Challenger has been getting good ink, but it’s diving into a shrinking pool (Mustang sales are tanking) and competing directly with Chevy’s new Camaro.

At least Chrysler doesn’t share GM’s and Ford’s worries about trying to eke out a profit from imported Europe-designed models. Chrysler don’t have any. One of the main “reasons” behind the now-abandoned DCX merger: Chrysler had no overseas presence. Their European subsidiaries were dogs, and got sold off during Iacocca’s reign. Chrysler Europe isn’t a great drain, but it sure isn’t going to be the company's savior.     

Worse, Chrysler’s old “partner/contract designer” Mitsubishi has been twisting in the wind for the last decade. Historically, designing and selling parts/designs to other manufacturers has been Mitsubishi’s path to success (such as they’ve had). Surveying Mitsi's equally aged line of lackluster models indicates that a last-second hook-up with Chrysler won’t help either of them.

Whatever the new regime has planned for Chrysler, it looks like DCX shot their wad before handing over the keys. The new minivan better be “number one with a bullet," 'cause it’s the only one Chrysler's got chambered. Meanwhile, the lack of bold decisions on the new/refreshed product front may indicate management indecisiveness, a secret plan to tie-up with foreign automakers or an equally covert op aimed at stripping and flipping the core business (loans). Or, perhaps, all three.

"Hybrids are technologically of doubtful benefit, and expensive, but necessary from a political and public relations point of view. The reduction in fuel consumption does not pay for the technological content and cost of the vehicle." GM Car Czar Bob Lutz, July 19, 2006. Fast forward to today… "While the overall U.S. vehicle market is down, hybrids are a bright spot in the automotive industry with this category projected to easily exceed 300,000 vehicles this year." This from R.L. Polk's Lonnie Miller. Compared to the first seven months of 2006, hybrid sales are up more than 49 percent. "Hybrids are being adopted by vehicle buyers in all regions at an increasing rate for many factors which include fuel prices, differentiating themselves from other consumers and environmental activism," Miller announced in a PRNewswire press release. Overall, the Toyota Prius captured over 50 percent of hybrid sales, followed by the Camry hybrid at 15 percent. Looks like the technology Lutz claimed best suited the "what-would-Jesus-drive crowd" is here to stay. “Hybrids have not hit plateau,” Miller affirmed.

The major automakers are breathing a bit easier, thanks to a recent court ruling. The International Herald Tribune reports that the California federal district court has dismissed a claim against General Motors, Ford, DaimlerChrysler, Toyota, Nissan and Honda for damages caused by vehicle emissions. In its case, the State of California was demanding several billion dollars in court-ordered and civil damages on the basis that these emissions constituted a public nuisance that inflicted climate change and health-related costs. Judge Martin Jenkins, a Clinton appointee and San Francisco native, ruled against the Golden State, opining that emissions regulations were the domain of the legislature and not under the jurisdiction of the courts. The state has hinted that it may appeal the ruling. No word yet from Sacramento as to whether the state will also be filing suit against its own Department of Motor Vehicles for permitting millions of state residents to drive all of those cars, or its Department of Transportation for building the highways that they used. 

Which carmaker has cleaned-up their act the most? Toyota with its Synergy Drive? Honda with its industry-high average fuel economy? GM with their fuel-cell Equinoxes? Nope. According to a study by Environmental Defense (reported by CARSguide), BMW wins the "most improved" award for its average fuel efficiency and CO2 emission rate. From 1995 to 2005, The Boyz from Bavaria increased their fleet's average fuel economy by 14 percent and carbon emissions by 12.3 percent. Toyota only managed a three percent drop in carbon emissions during the same period. Kia was the worst offender; their vehicle's carbon emissions jumped by 30 percent. Oxymoronically, GM placed at the top of one category with a 6.5 percent reduction in "overall carbon burden" (derived from factors based on vehicle emissions and the total sold), yet increased their overall carbon emissions by three percent. As Miss Piggy's paramour said, it ain't easy being green.

I sometimes get sentimental for the Good Old Days, a bygone era when gas was cheap (and the good stuff was called Ethyl), back seats were the ticket to romance, and tailfins were a mark of distinction, rather than bad taste. Back in the day, the coolest metal was Detroit born-and-bred, bearing real nameplates that paid homage to fast animals and faraway places and auto races, not to alphanumeric jumbles inspired by IRS tax forms. It was during one of these recent waves of nostalgia that I found myself looking forward to spending some quality time flogging one of America’s last remaining full-size touring sedans, the Grand Prix. That is, until I drove one.

Top Gear (TG) presenter James May’s nickname is Captain Slow. As you’d expect from a country where sarcasm is a team sport, the moniker disses Mr. May’s driving skills. But the nickname could just as easily refer to May’s intellectual agility. Like automotive alpha Jeremy Clarkson, May is always happy to take an analytical shortcut, especially if it leads to some good old fashioned America bashing. Writing about his recent stateside sojourn in the Telegraph– "Eat Junk, Drive Junk"– May once again reveals that the U.S. and the UK are two nations separated by British snobbery.

“Since I'm still in the States this week, I thought I'd have another go at headbanging that old chestnut about American cars and why they never work in Europe. Because, let's be honest, they generally don't. There have been one or two surprising successes in recent years, such as the Jeep 4x4s, but on the whole you drive an American car only if you're an Elvis impersonator or a dealer in vintage Wurlitzer jukeboxes. That is, a bit unhinged.”

Fair enough. American cars are generally larger and thirstier than the European sedans. Provided you’re not an Elvis fan or jukebox collector, you can spot May the “unhinged” comment. But what follows has nothing to do with American cars and Eurozone roads. It’s impure, adulterated bile.

“I've been driving a few this week… the Dodge Grand Caravan (a large MPV, or what the yanks would call a ‘minivan’), the Dodge Ram 1500 Big Horn Edition (no, honestly, it's a pick-up) and the new Mustang convertible. And there is a common characteristic that is apparent in all of them and in every other mainstream American car I've ever tried. They don't seem to be very good.”

One wonders if May’s Ram was built in Coahulia, and whether his definition of “mainstream American cars” includes U.S.-built Toyotas, Hondas, etc. In any case, May’s Caravan and Mustang are part of a contracting niche. And while the Ram may not be class-leader, it’s very good at doing what it’s supposed to do. But Captain Slow’s driven a bunch of Yank tanks and they all suck. Really? Really.

“In the past, this has been explained away as a fundamental disparity in the remit of the car between the old world and the new… I think it might be something a bit more complex than that. American cars might genuinely be a bit rubbish, and to explain why I'd like to return to the tiresome and pretentious subject of food.”

And then May gets genuinely insulting. He slams American cuisine “because it would appear that the principal job of food is to be thrown away.” For some reason, this insight inspires May to buy some local ingredients and make a shepherd’s pie (ground meat and mashed potato topped with melted cheese). The pie turns out “twice as big [as UK pies] that had cost half as much and yet tasted pretty much of the square root of Monterey Jack.” 

“And if it's true of pie, it must be true of cars. We are constantly amazed at how cheap American cars seem to be, but only until we try one. The Grand Caravan is a miserable conveyance with a clumsy, antiquated gearchange, meanly upholstered seats and an interior that would make Alcatraz look inviting. The Ram is probably the worst car I've ever driven. It looks absurd, the ride is truly atrocious and the relationship between the steering wheel and its road behaviour borders on the hazardous. I dearly want to love the Mustang because it at least seems to stand for what the American car was once all about, but with the best will in the world it's a bit of a phoney pony with sloppy deportment and a cabin that came out of a Kinder egg.”

May’s unconsummated Mustang love says it all. On one hand, he admires America’s automotive exuberance. On the other hand, he can’t. And that’s because validating– or even tolerating– this country’s “can do” spirit would mean rejecting the po-faced, post-Empire, acid-tongued cynicism that informs everything he does, says, writes and is. 

Speaking to May’s main point, do American cars deserve such blanket dismissal? This collection of writers– scribes who regularly and fully criticize American automobiles as and when they deserve it– thinks not. As our forthcoming review of the new Honda Accord will testify, there are plenty of superb mainstream American cars. And yes, we’ve reviewed some solid “domestic” efforts as well.

In short, May’s prose is tainted by [the same old] British anti-American prejudice. In fact, the next time Captain Slow wants to visit the states; I suggest he needn't bother. As May’s clearly incapable of the intellectual rigor required to keep an open mind and a balanced perspective, he might as well just phone it in. Again. 

 [Read Mr. May's full Telegraph article here.]

We've said it here time and time again: there is no perception gap between what The Big 2.8 build and how the public perceives it. Or, a little more generously, it's a level playing field. If GM, Ford and Chrysler are reaping what they sowed, so are Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Hyundai, Mercedes, Audi, Porsche and every other automaker on planet earth, And yet today's Wall Street Journal confers renewed legitimacy upon this pathetic excuse for losers. "'Building a better car and assuming people will buy it doesn't work,' GM Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Rick Wagoner told reporters at this week's Frankfurt Auto Show. GM, he said, 'can do a better job' marketing its vehicles." So GM has better vehicles and their $2.9b ad spend ain't getting it done. Same old, same old. But the article's intro is by far the worst piece of diss-information. It reveals that CNW research takes a Toyota Camry, removes any identifying logos and tells consumers it's a new model from one of the U.S.-based auto makers. "If they think it's an American car, the perception of the vehicle falls dramatically," said Art Spinella, vice president of the Bandon, Ore.-based firm. "Detroit really gets a bum rap in the U.S." Or not.

GM vs. Toyota over alt. propulsion. Now it's Time vs. Newsweek over crap cars. Not to be outdone by Dan Neil's selection of the 50 Worst Cars of All Time for Time, Newsweek's Keith Naughton got a list of 8 Chryslers That've Outlived their Time. After an excellent article on Chrysler CEO Boot'em Bob Nardelli's speech at the Detroit Athletic Club ("Speaking without cue cards to a room full of automotive reporters, he was heavy on GE-speak, waxing on about his 'vertical learning curve' and 'granularity.'"), Naughton gets out the automotive cyanide. The models Naughton– I mean "industry analysts" would send to the crusher are the TTAC TWAT-winning Chrysler Aspen and Jeep Compass; the Jeep Liberty, Dodge Magnum, Nitro and Dakota; Chrysler Pacifica and Sebring. How many of these will make this year's TWATs? Stay tuned.

Bad branding was one of the prominent themes of TTAC’s 2006 Ten Worst Automobiles Today (TWAT) awards. No fewer than four vehicles on the list were derided for their corrosive effect on their brand. Ahead of our ’07 rundown (so to speak), RF has thrown a spear at Lexus’ decision to launch a performance-oriented F-Series sub-brand. The publisher claims a hot shit Lexus derivative is bad branding on wheels. So will a Lexus’ F-Series eventually find a place in TTAC’s Hall of Shame, or is it simply a case of line extension done right? 

Some thinkers claim that brand identification is a survival instinct. “Don’t eat the yellow frogs-– you’ll die” has become “Drive a Trabant and you won’t make it to work and your family will starve to death.” In that sense, branding is a learned response that’s passed down through the generations. “Like my pa and his pa before him, I am a Chevy man. Son, urinate on that Tundra.” Taking it a step further, branding can help an individual pass on his or her genes. “Yeah, but he drives a Super Bee!”  

Ultimately, branding is so strong because humans need it. The human body, especially the brain, tends toward efficiency. It’s much more efficient to remember a single brand icon– which represents impressions of quality, value and prestige– than keeping track of the thousands of variables that constitute a car. Some might call this intellectual laziness. I disagree. Analyzing every jot of information from the world around us is immobilizing. Utilizing well-developed brand constructs is a frequently reliable shortcut that allows us to think and act quickly.

People get grouchy when companies mess with well-established brand constructs because it disrupts the efficiency of our thinking. We rebel when Ford produces a pickup under the Lincoln moniker because it screws with our notion that Lincoln should make big cushy luxury cars.  Brand confusion results when a product is marketed that’s so different from our on-board expectations that it defies logical accommodation. The abominable LT forces us to rethink our inner definition of what “Lincoln” means.

If car buying were coldly logical, everyone would be driving the equivalent of a fleet car. Halo cars work because they strengthen emotional bonds that people develop for vibrant brands. People tend to cheer for the success of brands they love the same way they root for their favorite sports team. They feel vindicated when their team wins and are disgusted when they lose.

Is a “Chevy guy” more likely to buy a Monte Carlo just because Chevy makes the Corvette? Absolutely!  Okay, not the Monte Carlo. But they are more likely to stay within the Chevy family if they can’t afford the Vette because they are more likely to believe that the same engineering goodness that goes into the 505hp LS7 engine somehow blessed the lump of iron under their own car’s hood.

But Lexus is a brand without automotive quintessence. It lacks history. Its styling cues hail from images associated with other automaker’s cars.  An open cockpit wood-spoked Lexus never raced over grassy lanes through the English countryside.  JFK never rode in the back of a Lexus. No revered designers named Enzo or Ferry ever worked for Lexus creating disruptive technology innovations that fundamentally redefined what a car is.

Lexus’ place in the mind of buyers is dependent on its archetype: Mercedes. Lexus is the sensible alternative to German luxury cars for one-third less money, with Toyota reliability. By itself, Lexus doesn’t exist in terms of definitive automotive performance or ride characteristics. So the company can safely extend its line following successful Teutonic templates– as long as it adheres to price point and reliability expectations.

By producing sportier cars, Toyota’s premium brand isn’t experimenting with a F-atal F-oray downmarket. The highway is littered with the bones of companies that made this mistake (Cadillac, Jaguar and even Mercedes). Neither is the circle-L making a play up market into exotic car pricing. Volkswagen illustrated the F-olly of that thinking. While I have not seen pricing on the F-Series, I expect is will be a F-raction of AMG; somewhere safely in the realm of one-half to two-thirds of the price of Stuttgart’s monster-engined luxobarges.

The first generation Lexus SC touring coupe has served as a performance-oriented placeholder in my mind for what kind of car the Lexus brand represents. There is no danger or dishonor in upping the performance level on this or any other Lexus-branded machine, provided it maintains the core values that brought Lexus the success it so richly deserves.

An F-optioned Lexus will be just that: an option. It will not confuse or distract or disappoint the brand’s “core” followers if only because they won’t buy it. In short, the exceptional Supra failed as a Toyota. I welcome its reincarnation as a Lexus.

Carmakers spend millions of dollars on producing concept cars for the Frankfurt Auto Show et. al. But what is a concept car? Is it something a car company is going to do, wants to do, or might one day do? Yes. There are three main categories: teasers (cars that will eventually hit the market in castrated form), styling exercises (masturbatory, image-building efforts that showcase a carmaker's abilities) and science fiction (the shape of things not to come). Needless to say, teasers first.

Ford's Verve may be a tease, but it sure left me feeling satisfied. The model’s lean proportions and aggressive stance are four-wheeled foreplay, while the detailing shows a masterful grasp of sex appeal. Check out those flush aluminum window frames and the interior lighting straight from a high-class mobile phone. I’m sure we’ll see elements of the Verve on the forthcoming Fiesta and Ka, hopefully without birthing a bastard. Cigarette?

Speaking of teases, it seem like the “new” Chevy Camaro has been playing peek-a-boo since John F. Kennedy told Berliners he was a jelly donut. Although the convertible version shown in Frankfurt is fresh, there’s a fine line between a permanent tease and a damn bore. Transformer? I’m done with her. In contrast, Honda's Accord Tourer Concept is practically a done deal, set for introduction in 2008. It is a super-clean design that wanders over the aesthetic border into sterility– not unlike generic-Japanese cars of the 1990s.

BMW thinks its ready-for-’08 X6 is a "completely new kind of car." Ja, it’s part sports car, part SUV. The official description sounds like the beginning a bad joke, but people who don't know what kind of car they want (except that they want a BMW) will take it seriously enough to keep the factory humming. Unlike the majority of this century’s Bangled Bimmers, the X6 isn’t ugly. But I couldn’t find anything particularly likeable in this escapee from Dr. Moreau's island.

Mitsubishi’s Concept-cX showcar may be equally conflicted, but the execution is pretty darn good for an undead company. The cX has Scion’s typography and lots of Mitsubishi styling cues, such as the Lancer's shark's mouth. It’s also slathered in “Green Plastic;” a polymer made from bamboo stolen from hungry pandas. Anyway, the cX certainly improves on the Suzuki SX-4 which inspired it.

VW salesmen pining for the word “Up!” get their own car. Its slab sides and unimaginative design evoke the spirit [sic] of the existing Polo. It reminds me of Ulla in "The Producers,” who likes to "tidyy oop!" apartments (if only because I’m easily distracted). Sadly, the Up! is no four-wheeled Uma Thurman. With its rear-engine design, it probably won't drive as well, either.

The contrast to Toyota's iQ Concept couldn't be larger (smaller?). Toyota’s iQ is about the size of a Smart (go figure), looks more modern, seats three adults and one sprog (or four Oompa-Loompas) and shares crucial design clues with the Auris and Yaris.   

Fellow columnist Jay Shoemaker is right: the Mercedes F-700 is a hit (and no, it doesn't use hydrogen fuel cell technology). Whether or not the DiesOtto engine (1.8-liter, 258hp) ever comes to fruition, the next, or next-to-next S-Class Mercedes, looks stunning. There's some HR Giger evilness to it, which is a good idea for a plutocrat's car. Inside, there’s none of the present S-class' grandfatherly design clues.

The detailing of the cross-town rival BMW’s CS concept is difficult in parts. Do we really want scalloped arches above the rear wheels? It does look appropriately long and swoopy though. If the replacement for the current 7-Series looks likes this, then we won't bitch (as much).

Another pleasantly evil design for 2012: the Nissan Mixim. It dark, geometric style is all about the Vader. Which is exactly the way a small car should look: easy on the Chihuahua, heavy on the Death Star. The Mixim boasts three-abreast seating, a wraparound video screen and lots of origami detailing.

The Koreans are on a [pletzel] roll, and they have the concepts to prove it. The Kia Kee [first image] copies some elements of the Audi Awwwww– I mean, R8. But it’s a good idea of a sports car for 2010. And the Hyundai iBlue is a good (if blurry) vision of a one-box people-carrier of the future: large yet approachable.

Yes, the future is one-box– at least that’s what science fiction movies have been saying for the past 15 years. And thus, GM/Opel's Flextreme (take THAT Ford Flex and Mr. Funkmaster) provides the usual Sci-Fi elements: opposite-opening doors, low sills, flexible seating. We've seen it all before, but it looks pretty good when executed this well. One question, though: will all cars in the future have Segways coming out of their butts?

Speaking to the Detroit Free Press, Saturn brand manager Jill Lajdziak's threw down the gauntlet to Toyota (again), promising a "2009-ish" debut for a plug-in hybrid Vue. The new Vue's drivetrain will differ from the "mild hybrid" Vue currently on offer; it'll be based on the two-mode hybrid system debuting on the Tahoe. And guess what? She's [smack] talking lithium-ion batteries! The plug-in Vue will be limited to a 10-mile range in purely electric mode. In other news, Lajdziak hinted that Saturn may also offer some of the diesel engines found in the Rethink American brand's Opel doppelgängers. Referencing the engineering connection between the two brands, Lajdziak said "it's a natural for us to consider diesel." OK Toyota, time to talk about your Isuzu oil burners.

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and National Automobile Dealers Association have launched a new website dividing the country into "car states" and "truck states." If that doesn't give the game away, the url might: AutoChoice.org. That's right: the carmakers (BMW Group, Chrysler, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Mazda, Mitsubishi Motors, Porsche, Toyota and Volkswagen) are defending Americans' right to choose a light truck (SUVs, pickup, vans and minivans) instead one of them little high mileage runabouts. The villain of the piece: [unnamed] federal legislators who would regulate both car and truck fuel economy using the same formula. The official defense: "Continuing to meet the vehicle needs of recreation enthusiasts and American family vacations is a paramount concern of automakers. Pick-ups, SUVs and crossover vehicles are instrumental in meeting those needs." While it's kinda cool checking the percentage of car vs. light truck registrations by congressional district, I wonder why the industry is so worried about this potential facet of CAFE standards– as it doesn't have a hope in Hell of happening. So I called "The Alliance." 

Take that Toyota! Not only is GM going to bring us a lithium-ion-powered plug-in hybrid by 2010, but they're going to produce an entire family of electric vehicles. So sayeth GM Car Czar "Maximum" Bob Lutz in Frankfurt. The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) described Lutz' remarks as "the latest salvo in a combined product-development and public-relations campaign… to dispel the image that it has its corporate head in the sand when it comes to advanced vehicle technology, oil prices and concerns about greenhouse-gas emissions." Lutz also said GM wants to build its E-Flex vehicles alongside mainstream models; a common chassis would accommodate either a conventional or alternative-propulsion powertrain. The WSJ cautions that the Volt– and any other electric vehicles in GM's future– depend on battery suppliers, and "it isn't yet certain the suppliers will come through." OK, Toyota– your turn!

If you’re a gearhead monitoring the international media, you’d be forgiven for thinking the Frankfurt Auto Show was run by and for Friends of the Earth. Low-emission Mercedes! Low-consumption VWs! Hydrogen Kias! Ethanol Saabs! Non-existent plug-in hybrids! A casual visitor to this event might wonder if he’d gone to the wrong show. Why is it that all the interesting new cars premiering in Frankfurt are non-green? Why do people crowd around sexy new cars such as the 1-Series BMW, while nobody (save the press) gather ‘round the various not-quite-developed Mueslimobiles? 

Frankfurt’s eco-mania a sign of the times I suppose, when it’s not enough to do well; you have to be seen to be doing good. Well good for them. As for me and my fellow pistonheads, we’re more interested in the more exciting not-so-very-PC fare: sexy new sheetmetal concepts and machines ready to leave donut marks on any road paved with good intentions.

Let's start with the car that thousands of North Americans Bimmer fans are lusting for: the BMW 1-Series Coupe. I had to touch base with my inner pedant to think of any niggles… Since when is the two-door sedan version of a hatchback called a Coupe? Why does a small sports car have to have electric seats, electric sunroof, electric everything? Surely there’s a better play: make it all manual and charge the snot out of Bimmer’s long-suffering optionistas. Otherwise, the 1 could be The One: Neo– I mean, Bangle’s best.

The new Audi A4 is another sure-fire hit. Ingolstadt’s once entry-level model oozes sophistication in an entirely A5 kinda way. The exterior has grown more elegant and substantial. The car's new architecture, with the engine moved back for better handling and a shorter snout, promises a better drive. If it works as well as it looks, then I predict a runaway success.

Audi interiors still set the bar. Anyone coveting a Cadillac CTS’ cabin should have seen the envious looks non-Audi executives were giving the cabin as they stood in line to sit inside.

I can't predict such success for the new Jaguar XF. Sure, it looks OK. As a relative to the new, long and wide Ford Mondeo, it has a nice stance. But is it special enough to put Jaguar back on its pedestal? If it drives better than  the competition, then we will say congrats to Jag, and good riddance to retro styling. Otherwise, thumbs down.

Speaking of Mondeo-related, I liked the new Mazda6. The design is suffused with Lexus-like elements, but it’s so anonymous that it’s almost invisible. (Did I say “but?” Perhaps I should have said “and.”) Nobody really seemed to care about the poor thing. There it sat. Unappreciated. Unloved. Under-admired. Ready to kick ass in the marketplace.

The new Cadillac BLS Station Wagon would probably be happy to be anonymous. Does anybody have the foggiest idea of what GM is thinking with this thing? I'll be ****** if I do, but let’s speculate.

First stage: uh, let's do a small Cadillac and sell it in Europe– no harm in that, right? If that doesn’t work, we can also not sell it in Mexico and South Africa. Second stage: Nobody is buying the BaconLettuceSalami, so let's slip a FIAT diesel up front. Chapter three: the BuLlShit is still a flop, so let's try a station wagon. Jeez, what's next, a BLSamino pickup truck just for our friends at Jalopnik? This is a car that nobody asked for, or ever will.

Moving from the sublime to the ridiculous, I was curious to check out the new Fiat 500. They’re advertising it with the slogan "You Are, We Car.” No; it’s not one of those bi-lingual in-flight magazine translations. It’s supposed to be enigmatically cute. I wanted to feed– I mean like the 500, but the We Car’s inside is cramped and gimmicky and the whole thing is not even as nouveau retro as the old New Beetle.

And that is about it. Yes there is a Mini Clubman, which is about as exciting as a mini club sandwich. And Mercedes served-up a C-Class Station Wagon, which has enough carrying capacity to transport a decade’s worth of C-Class Station Wagon brochures. VW’s got a mini-SUV for those who STILL don’t get it, and a pleasant Skoda station wagon for those who do.

Next up: concept cars. Guess how many are green themed?