During my brief stint in British advertising, I had the distinct pleasure of working with one Paul Harvey Douglas. Paul was the world’s best headline writer. He could distill an entire advertising campaign down to a single sentence, a phrase, a word. I wonder what PHD would have made of Lexus' ad for its new F-Series automobiles. “What is F?” the two-page Autoweek center spread asks. “F is everything you thought we weren’t,” it answers. I could almost hear Paul’s derisive snort. “F means their brand’s in ‘effing trouble,” he would have pronounced. Too right, mate.

Let’s start by parsing the imagery. I have no idea what the smoke drifting through the heart of the “teaser” ad is supposed to mean. It’s not, as savvy enthusiasts might expect, tire smoke. It looks more like cigarette smoke. More specifically, advertising cigarette smoke. You know: the kind of photo-shopped psychedelic smouldering that’s been carefully crafted to hide nightmarish images that stimulate your subconscious desire to, uh, smoke.

After copious quantities of Clos De Bois, I can make out a dragon’s head, a couple of demonic faces and a Toucan-beaked hoodie-wearing beastie. And I feel a strange desire to fire-up a doobie. Anyway, the background above the horizontal plume is elegantly pin-striped, like a City gentleman’s business suit. The background below is jet black. As “F” is Lexus’ new performance sub-brand, the change is a subconscious signal that Lexus is about to offer both baby Bentleys and supersonic stealth bombers.

So here we have an ad that clearly signals Toyota’s intention to take the idea of Lexus as provider of floaty-drifty sarcophagi-on-wheels to America’s well-moneyed set and burn it in the same furnace the Vatican uses when the Cardinals get together to elevate one of their own to God’s CEO. Presumably, when you see the white [demon-filled] smoke rising heavenwards, you’ll know Lexus has been reborn, ready to kick some major league sports sedan ass.

Why? Why does Lexus need to build a sports or even a sporty car? I asked this question before, after attempting to cane the thoroughly unrewarding IS 350. I’ll ask it again. How many customers walk into a Lexus dealer thinking right, THIS is the place where I’ll finally find a car that’ll blow the doors off an M3 on the Nürburgring! That’s a bit like rocking-up to your local Volkswagen dealer looking for a $95k luxury sedan. Or heading over to a Porsche dealer for an SUV. Or journeying to a Chevy dealer for a $60k sports car.

Don’t get me wrong: those are all wonderful cars. And I know Mercedes’ in-house performance division sells more $100k+ automobiles than any other manufacturer in the world. But that doesn’t mean they should. In fact, the fact that they have may have had a little something to do with the fact that Lexus’ LS is kicking Mercedes S-Class in the ass (the score so far: 23.4k to 17.5k).

I also understand that you kinda expect a Lexus to offer at least modicum of body control and a soupcon of genuine forward thrust. But that’s because you’re a pistonhead. For the vast majority of Lexus buyers, it’s all about rock solid build quality, sumptuous materials, tomb-like silence, obsequious service, snob appeal and mindless wafting. IF the average Lexus customer thought about it, they’d probably think that the idea of a sporty Lexus is… confusing. And that’s because it is.

In fact, let’s say you weren’t a pistonhead and didn’t know that F is supposed to be the new M. If you read the AutoWeek ad headline literally– “F is everything you thought we weren’t”– you’d have to think a Lexus F is going to be cheap, nasty, loud, uncomfortable and unreliable. And that would make the new F Lexus’ evil twin. You don’t have to Google Garth Knight to know how THAT plot line turns out. 

In short, the whole Lexus F thing is what branding experts would call The Mother of All Stupid Ideas. And there’s only one reason why a brand so strong my appliance installer called my new Kitchen Maid the “Lexus of dishwashers” would want to launch an anti-brand brand: boredom. I firmly believe that halo cars, sporting sub-brands and wacky brand digressions are simply a way for bored executives to avoid facing the long, tough, often dull slog that good branding– and product development– requires.

If Toyota wanted to build Porsche-killers, it should have created a new brand. Of course, Lexus’ decision to take its eye firmly off the ball is good news for its competition. Well, it would be if the other luxury automobile brands weren’t making the same mistakes: too many models at too many price points, too many genres, conflicting subdivisions, etc. At this point, Ferrari, Maserati and Bentley are the ones to watch. At the moment, they’re everything you think they are. 

[Listen to branding guru Al Reis discuss Lexus' F below] 

The gloves are off; GM's Vice Chairman Bob Lutz and Toyota's U.S. VP for Communications, Irv Miller, are having an alternative powerplant smackdown. On a company web site today, Miller wrote "the advanced lithium-ion batteries that the Volt would use, batteries suitable for the long-term rigors of everyday automotive use, don't exist" while pointing out the Prius uses "market-ready" technology. Lutz, never one to let facts come between him and his opinions, still insists the Volt will be ready for the market in 2010. He countered Miller's remarks in an interview with Bloomberg at the Frankfurt Auto Show: "People have a very simplistic [view]: Toyota … are saving the planet from certain destruction, whereas General Motors … is the anti-Christ that's trying to plunge us into the abyss. The only way we can get out of that is by being more environmental and leading with more environmental technology than Toyota." Uh, hello? Bob? It's hard to lead when you're relying on technology that doesn't exist yet– and that the competition has publicly stated they'll also adopt, you know, as soon as someone invents it.

August's U.S. sales results are in. Upon their release, GM crowed about their market-bucking triumph– neglecting to mention the fact that 25 percent of those sales sailed with the fleets. Meanwhile, Chrysler blamed its sales decline on diminished fleet flogging. Ford was "encouraged by sales of their crossover vehicles" (i.e. stuck in the dog house). And Toyota pinned their sales drop on the subprime lending crisis and a supply-line-interrupting Japanese earthquake. Whatever. Bottom line: August wasn't kind to many of the models we're tracking on your behalf.

Passenger Cars

Despite GM's hefty commercial sales, their Chevrolet Impala fleet queen fell 4.5 percent below last August's sales total. Year-to-date (YTD), Impala sales rose 14.8 percent over 2006. Chrysler must have stopped dumping 300s into the fleets; sales plunged almost 23 percent from last August, down 15 percent YTD. The Ford Fusion dropped 19 percent from last August, although holding steady with a 0.38 percent YTD increase. Camry sales leveled off, up one percent over last August. The longer-term trend is upwards, with a 7.3 percent increase YTD. 

Pickup Trucks

After ramping up Silverado incentives, the pickup's sales picked up by 16K units from last August. While that's a whopping 31 percent surge, YTD they're down 2.2 percent. Huge rebates didn't help the Dodge Ram; sales fell 5.5 percent, down 1.3 percent YTD. Ford offered small-to-moderate rebates on their F-Series pickups, failing to forestall a 9.9 percent tumble, dragging the model down 12 percent YTD. 

Toyota backed off incentives on Tundra. Sales dropped by 5K units from July to August. But the new Tundra is still kicking the old Tundra's ass. Sales rose 69 percent from last August, up 58 percent YTD. 

Truck-Based SUVs

Sales of "traditional" SUVs continue to slide as fuel-conscious consumers make the move to CUVs and family sedans. Sales of Chevrolet's Tahoe went down by eight percent from last August, 14.8 percent YTD. The Dodge Durango plunged 41 percent from last August, down 27 percent year to date. The Ford Explorer's drop wasn't quite as precipitous but it was still down 26 percent from last August and 23 percent YTD. Toyota 4Runner sales were actually up slightly, rising one percent from last August. But they're still down 18.4 percent YTD. 

CUVs

As predicted, SUV refugees are igniting sales of CUVs; as the former drops, the latter rises. The Chevrolet Equinox helped power GM's August increase with a 13.5 percent gain. That said, Equinox sales fell by 23 percent YTD. Chrysler's Pacifica continues to tempt the executioner's blade, with sales down 48 percent from last August and 27.6 percent YTD.  

Ford continues to pin its hopes on the Escape. It didn't fail them. Sales of FoMoCo's cute-ute rose by 4.4 percent over last August, up 3.2 percent year to date. The redesigned-for-‘07 Toyota RAV-4 continues to sell well; August sales were up by 11 percent, 13 percent YTD. 

New Models

All three of our new-for-07 models had been dropping since May. All three showed some recovery in August. The GMC Acadia picked up almost 200 additional sales from July– but still clocked in some 3.2K below May's peak. Even so, the Acadia remains the most popular of GM's Lambda-platform CUVs, selling 5.8K in August (vs. Enclave's 3.8K and Outlook's 3.2K). The Ford Edge and Jeep Compass both showed strong gains over July, each selling around 1100 additional units.  

Total Sales

As most anyone who follows the auto industry knows, GM's total sales were up six percent from the same month last year. However, even with that strong sales spurt, they're down 7.4 percent YTD, with production cuts set to slice both sales and share even deeper. 

Chrysler's down six percent from last August, down 14 percent YTD. While decreased fleet sales certainly played a part in the decline, we're thinking a combination of uncertainty over the future of the company and a truck/SUV-heavy product line were more significant factors.  

Ford's in a similar situation and their numbers show it. The Blue Oval Boyz' August sales sank by 14.4 percent; a 12.5 percent drop YTD. Proving that even a perennial sales champ isn't entirely immune to market forces and economic meta-fluctuations, Toyota's August sales dropped 2.8 percent. But they're still up 4.9 percent YTD. 

The Future

GM's set to introduce their latest Hail Mary model: the Chevrolet Malibu. Honda's refreshed Accord should keep the ‘Bu from conquesting quality-conscious buyers, and gives Toyota's Camry buyers something to think about. 

Chrysler's in flux; their new CEO's still figuring out what to keep and what to cut. Ford's still relying on their truck/SUV/CUV lineup to carry them. And Toyota's juggernaut chugs on.

All of them (and the rest) are sailing straight into economic headwinds. It's been a tough year for the U.S. auto industry– that's about to get a whole lot tougher.

Drive dutifully reports the results of a MINI-commissioned survey of 2,018 UK motorists on the subject of diesel cleanliness. Market-research agency YouGov (who me, Gov?) discovered that “diesel-powered cars are thought to be way behind hybrid models for cleanliness.” Those of you equipped with a functional PR BS-detector will immediately note the “thought to be” proviso and the vague “way behind” qualifier. You’ll also fail to be surprised when MINI’s UK brand manager Andy Hearn follows-up this startling factoid by revealing that his employer’s new, oil-burning model generates CO2 numbers that are “identical” to the Toyota Prius’. This despite the fact that “just three per cent believe a diesel vehicle could be considered a low source of carbon emissions.” On the subject of relative levels of particulate matter emanating from diesel and hybrid engined tailpipes, the survey and its PR lackey the Cambridge Evening News showed no interest whatsoever.

Desperate times call for desperate measures. Facing falling membership, the United Auto Workers (UAW) is rapidly expanding into non-automotive industries like education and health care. Meanwhile, the UAW continues its full-court press against Toyota and Honda's American factories. So far, the union's attempts to transplant unionism into the transplants' plants have been an abject failure. But try they must. And now there's a new object of their affections: Japanese parts maker DENSO.

Sean McAlinden, analyst for the Center for Automotive Research, outlines the target– and the stakes. "For the survival of the union, they have to start organizing the Toyota system in North America. Right at the head of the line is DENSO.''  

DENSO is Japan's largest auto-parts company. Twenty-one percent of DENSO's total $31.1b annual sales come from North America. Stateside, DENSO has ten factories in six states employing over 6,800 [non-union] employees. DENSO supplies all three U.S. automakers and Toyota (which owns 23 percent of the company). In North America, 45 percent of their business lies with The Big 2.8. And here's where the plot thickens.

The Big 2.8 are currently negotiating their UAW contracts. One of their main goals: dump transfer responsibility for retirees' health care onto the union via a union-administered Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Association (VEBA) superfund. The union is fully aware that Wall Street is hot for the deal, which means the automakers want the VEBA more than anything else (save sales). The UAW is using this leverage to their full advantage.

U.S. labor laws allow employers to openly campaign against a union's attempts to organize their workers. UAW negotiators have threatened to oppose a VEBA unless the U.S. auto manufacturers pressure DENSO to "remain neutral" while the UAW tries to organize their workers. 

According to Bloomberg, General Motors has indicated a willingness to roll over do as the union asks. No surprise there: GM has the most to gain from a UAW-run VEBA (and the most to lose if they don't set one up). The jury's still out on Ford's and Chrysler's reaction. But let's face it: if a mobster was leaning on sports promoter to pressure a fighter into taking a dive, it would be called  extortion. Apparently, when the union does the same sort of thing, it's called "negotiation."

No matter what you call, this does not bode well. If The Big 2.8 are doing business with DENSO, it's because DENSO can supply the best parts for the lowest price. Applying pressure to DENSO could triger a counter-strike (so to speak). While 45 percent of DENSO's North American business comes from Detroit, that's 45 percent of the 21 percent of the company's total business that's done in North America, or just over 10 percent of the total. If DENSO tells the UAW's Detroit puppets to go pound sand, the company retains 90 percent of their current business. Safe!

But not so safe for Detroit. How long do you think it would take GM and Friends to find other suppliers, and how many UAW production lines do you think they'd have to shut down in the interim?

Alternatively, DENSO could agree to step aside and allow the UAW to plunder organize its workers. The cost of the parts they produce will rise accordingly. The Big 2.8 are complaining that union labor costs are driving them out of business. If Detroit's looking for ways to cut production costs and increase profits, forcing their suppliers into a situation where they'll have to charge more probably isn't a helpful strategy.

Hopefully, GM and the others will come to their senses and refuse to play the UAW's game. If they give on this one, they'll show the UAW how desperate they are. They'll signal the UAW that they're willing to be the union's bitch in other power struggles. But The Big 2.8 want that VEBA so bad it hurts. So is it damned if they do, damned if they don't? More like same old, same old. Once again, it's a question of short-term versus long-term thinking. 

If there's one thing American automakers need to learn, it's how to say no to those forces that have steered them onto the edge of the abyss, and hold fast for a brighter future. While there's no doubt that GM, Ford and Chrysler need to rethink their own role in creating their current predicament, acquiescing to the union's ambitions at this critical stage of the game would be like cutting off their nose so they can smell better. Going along to get along didn't work then. It won't work now.

There may be trouble ahead for Australian car makers who don’t offer diesel-powered large cars. According to GoAuto, a Roy Morgan Research survey indicates that some 38.2 percent of current large car owners say they’ll “seriously consider” a diesel model for their next car. If all 38.2 percent of these large car owners purchase oil burners, GoAuto figures “Ford, Holden, Toyota and Mitsubishi could stand to lose more than 100,000 sales combined a year.” GM’s Holden division begs to differ. After pointing out how a diesel-powered car typically commands a price premium in excess of $1K, mouthpiece John Lindsay goes for the financial jugular. “They are interesting statistics, but I think there is a follow-up question that needs to be asked – how much are they prepared to pay for it?” With unleaded gas in Melbourne averaging AU$1.27 per liter, some Australians might consider Lindsay’s comments to be a bit shonky.

"I just got a new wing mirror for my Skoda." "Sounds like a fair trade." And it's true: I remembered the joke; I didn't surf the web for it. Although these days, one wonders why you'd want to remember anything. Everything's on the web. OK, a lot of the information is inaccurate; as our resident rivet counters remind me whenever car info gleaned from the meta minds at Wikipedia proves to be erroneous. But it is a brave new world, where you can find facts (and pseudo-facts) on the most obscure aspects of motoring with just a few taps on the old plastic keys. Although Toyota's hired a guy to scan the blogs, I'm sure the big bosses throughout autodom don't get it. Their egos are too fragile to answer a question "I have no friggin' idea. Let's Google it." Why else would GM Car Czar Bob Lutz– a man who can remember the warm glow of vacumn tube radios– try to name all VW's brands, when it was clear he had no idea? By now, it should be OK to not know stuff. Lyndon Johnson knew the score when he proclaimed "A decision is only as good as the information its based on." Add in the old saw "A bad decision is better than no decision" and you have a recipe for executive success. And I'm looking at that picture of the Optima and deciding to get back to the real work of this site before the weekend closes in. Aloha.

Autoblog has blogged the blogger that blogwatches the blogosphere for other bloggers blogging about Toyota. Actually, Autoblog blogged the Brandweek article about the blogger that blogwatches the blogos… oh, never mind. The point is that Toyota actually has a "corporate manager of consumer-generated media" named Bruce Ertmann, whose job is to read and report on what's being said about Toyota's products on a variety of enthusiast and product-oriented blogs. Amazingly, the list of the blogs he monitors on a regular basis doesn't include TTAC. If you want to offer any suggestions for (ahem!) a blog he may want to monitor because it tells the truth about cars, you can email Toyota's corporate communications office at toyota_corp_comm@toyota.com. So now I've blogged Autoblog blogging the blogger that blogwatches the blogosphere for other bloggers blogging about Toyota. Somebody stop me!

Imagine GM CEO Rick Wagoner in his RenCen bunker in the middle of August. Reports from the front indicate his North American division faces a third straight month of lowered sales. As the architect of a turnaround plan with no publicly defined goals (including a return to profitability), Wagoner’s given himself plenty of wiggle room. But a bad August– in the face of production cutbacks and a rapidly declining market– would finally trigger Wall Street’s alarm clock. So what does he do? He cheats. 

In August, GM’s year-on-year sales rose by 6.1 percent. In the same period, Toyota’s sales declined by 2.8 percent. On the face of it, it’s a stunning result. The media and Wall Street’s reaction was both swift and positive. “Investors given hope after GM bucks downtrend” MSNBC proclaimed. On Tuesday, GM shares rose by $1.18 (3.8 percent). Clearly, Wagoner's wily ways worked: he dodged the bullet.

Despite the obvious anomaly, industry experts weren’t all that interested in examining the figures for a suitable explanation. IRN Inc. auto analyst Erich Merkle spoke for many when he told Bloomberg “It was a quirky month.” Quirky or not, all GM's upward movement came from light truck sales, which rose by 16.5 percent. (Passenger cars sales tanked by a Toyota-beating 7.8 percent.) So the press credited the jump to a sudden increase in consumer demand for GM's pickups and called it good. Very good.

And yet, the clues to the real state of affairs were there for all to see, right in GM’s press release. “When combining retail sales with our growing commercial business, our sales were up when compared with last August,” Marketing Maven Mark LaNeve crowed. "With the double-digit decline in daily rental sales so far this year, and an overall market that remains challenging and competitive, we continue to stabilize our retail share and pricing in the market.”

Growing commercial business? Is this the same GM that said it loud and said it proud: we hereby swear-off fleet sales to protect retail residuals and get GM out of the “pile ‘em high and sell ‘em cheap” mentality? The numbers tell the tale. In August, GM’s total fleet sales rose by 21 percent. And as for LaNeve’s professed “double digit decline in daily rental sales,” note the “so far this year” qualifier. GM’s sales to rental companies increased by 24 percent during August.

In other words, Wagoner’s mob reneged on their promise to their retail customers. They sacrificed their retail customer's vehicular equity to goose the company's August numbers. They cheated. Sometime in mid-August, someone placed a call to fleet buyers and said OK, we’re done starving you of cheap cars. How many would you like ‘cause we got LOTS.

It’s hard to be specific. In a radical and deeply suspicious break with previous policy, GM didn’t separate out fleet and retail sales numbers for August. But the fact that sales of all the usual rental car suspects (Pontiac G6, Chevrolet Impala, Chevrolet Malibu, etc.) matched or exceeded last year’s totals in a declining market is pretty damn damning. If you think about it, that 7.8 percent drop in GM's car sales would have been catastrophic without bulk sales.

As for the trucks, again, we have no idea how many went to fleets. But you can bet it was a bunch. Whenever there’s a statistical anomaly–such as the reversal of GM’s sales losses and Toyota’s sales gains– common sense says something’s changed. On the retail truck side, there’s only one factor that could explain a Silverado or Sierra surge: increased incentives. From July 31 onwards, GM offered from $2k to $4k incentives or zero percent financing on their pickups– even as Toyota quietly dropped national incentives on their Tundra.

Sacrificing profits for sales might increase sales, but it does nothing for profits. So even if GM's 30 percent increase in pickup truck sales isn’t fleet related, the surge isn’t all that it’s cracked-up to be. Truth be told, The General’s recent pickup truck production cutbacks sent a clear signal to alert observers that the automaker's August sales increase must be a temporary bump on a rocky road to oblivion. Short term, GM’s headed straight for lower pickup truck sales AND reduced profit.

Since the numbers received so much attention, let’s finish with the numbers.

Frank Williams says GM’s August increase is based on percentage change per sales day. If you just compare the total numbers from Aug ‘07 to Aug ’06, there's only a 4.9 percent sales increase. Since both months had the same number of selling days (27), there’s only one reason to change the formula: to inflate the percentages. But no matter how they slice it, GM’s still down 7.5 percent overall year to date. While a few models may be showing some increases, the overall trend is decidedly downwards.

Mr. Wagoner can hide from the truth, but there’s nowhere left to run.

Chryslerberus is just full of surprises. First they unexpectedly demoted replaced Tom LaSorda with Robert Nardelli as CEO. Now Bloomberg reports that Jim Press, former President of Toyota Motors in North America is joining the dark side the Cerberus team as Chrysler's Vice Chairman and President. Press, the first non-Japanese to head TMNA, will "be responsible for North American Sales, International Sales, Global Marketing, Product Strategy, and Service and Parts for Chrysler LLC." Tom LaSorda, who is also Vice Chairman and President, will be responsible for "Manufacturing, Procurement and Supply, Employee Relations and Global Business Development and Alliances." It looks like they may have about one President too many. We hope LaSorda has his golden parachute strapped on nice and tight. 

As I drove to my neighborhood Kia dealer, the window signage caught my eye. Actually, make that grabbed both eyeballs and ripped them out, Oedipus-style. DRIVE TODAY! NO CREDIT! BAD CREDIT! I wondered how long before the words “What price are you looking to pay?” would effect the same injury to my ears. While dealerships like this make Kia’s 100,000 mile warranty look like a mixed blessing, let’s face it: they know their market. As does the Kia Optima.

Back in the day, the descriptive phrase "living room on wheels" applied to an automobile was a compliment. That I never got. I simply couldn't understand why anyone would want to experience the joys of driving completely insulated from the joys of driving. While I didn't expect everyone to lust after a Dino (the car, not the animated dinosaur), there were BMWs and Mercedes and Toyotas and VWs about that offered a Miley Cyrus solution. Why couldn't Detroit at least move in that direction? When I drove the first Honda Accord, I rejoiced: the Japanese "got it:" road feel, steering feel, handling, braking, the works. I remember thinking right then and there that Detroit was going to get its butt kicked. I was wrong and I was right. As the success of the originall Lexus LS proved, the Japanese understood that building better American-style (i.e. pillow-soft and deadly silent) cars than the Americans was the key to mainstream success. While there are plenty of driver's cars for sale these days, it behooves those of us who prefer them to remember that most people don't. Or do they? If you put an Avalon driver in a BMW 3-Series, would they eventually learn to stop worrying and learn to love the Bimmer? The success of the new Lancer suggests not.

Unlike enlightened TTAC readers, your average Wall Street type believes that The Big 2.8's survival recovery hinges on transferring their health care liabilities to a union-administered health care superfund (a.k.a. VEBA)– PROVIDED they pay somewhere around 60 to 70 cents per dollar of health care liability. BUT to do the deal, GM would have to find some $30b, Ford would need some $15b,and Chrysler around $7b. Guess what? They don't have that kind of money hanging around, and their current "distress" makes the cost of borrowing somewhere between "onerous" and "usurious." SO the automakers are looking at paying for the VEBA with a large percentage of their own stock– except for Chrysler who might want to pay cash on the installment plan instead. BUT the union doesn't like the idea of a health care fund paid for by stock or deferred payments all that much, because, well, what if the automaker goes belly-up? Only, again, Wall Street thinks they won't go bankrupt IF the carmakers create a health care VEBA. And THAT means if they do the deal the cost of borrowing to fund the deal would go down AND their stock would go up. And IF the union had agreed to take stock in lieu of cash money AND the stock goes up, the rise would cover the aforementioned discount on the full health care liability. That's IF the union cashes out at the top of the market and invests in something less volatile than their employers' stock. Like, I dunno, Toyota stock. Don't laugh. It could happen. Anyway, if you want to try that again, we recommend Kaisernetwork.org's summation.

As Motor Trend (MT) and its buff book brethren hemorrhage readers and cash to the Internet, they’ve reacted in the only way they know how: by kow-towing to their advertisers with even greater ardor and even lower journalistic standards (yes, “special advertising section” readers, it is possible). But what really galls is their continued belief that they’re superior to both Internet websites and those who visit them. MT’s first test review of the 2008 Subaru Impreza WRX is a perfect case in point.

”OMGWRXLOL: Subaru's latest rally-bred rocket crash lands on the Internet. We pick up the pieces and set the record straight.” 

The headline capping Edward Loh’s review of the WRX immediately exposes both Motor Trend’s superiority complex and their lack of clue. Here on the “internets,” abbreviations like “OMG” and “LOL” haven’t been used by anyone other than Dateline sex predators since 1998. Needless to say, Loh’s lead takes the ignorant arrogance-shaped ball and runs with it.

“Immediately after subscribers received our May issue– the one with our exclusive first look at the 2008 Subaru Impreza WRX– the cover and story photos lit up Internet forums and blogs around the world. Auto enthusiasts flocked en masse to their favorite sites to weigh in on the new look.”

The scribe is implying that Motor Trend’s WRX coverage scooped the net, and then inspired it to sound-off. Not so, Loh. Australiancaradvice.com had full WRX pics and specs on March 27. Cars.ign.com covered the WRX on April 4, and Autochannel.com posted on April 5. Even if the magazine’s editor or ad manager had “convinced” Subaru to hide the WRX from the world for MT, the idea that a buff book with a two-month lead time still sets the automotive agenda is simply preposterous. 

After quoting Internet posters’ pithiest comments (without paying freelance fees), Loh condescends to set the record straight.

“Amidst the knee-jerk reactionaries were a few cooler heads willing to wait out the hype until they drove the car before rendering final judgment. What a novel idea.”

Keep in mind that the vast majority of the Internet comments slated the WRX for its looks (which are, let’s face it, hideous). After vilifying any such conjecture, Loh immediately concedes that “WRXs have never been lookers,” and attempts to reframe the debate while displaying his [supposed] Internet savvy.

“They've always been drivers, and whether you're sprinting across town or around a mountain pass, the new 2008 WRX should make you LOL. Why? Because under the controversial new sheetmetal is much the same WRX you know and love.”

Well exactly. While the WRX’ competitors have moved on, offering more horsepower and plenty of dynamic fluidity, the “new” Legacy-based WRX offers only two important differences from its predecessor: the horsepower and torque arrive 500rpm earlier and the car gets five percent better fuel economy. And that’s what pissed-off the “forum trolls” [sic].

In this disappointment they are not alone. Even the traditionally gentle mainstream publications have trashed the new WRX. Automobile concluded “we’re not convinced: since when should a Subaru look and drive like a Toyota – and an ugly one at that?” Edmunds’ Inside Line summarized a pile of bad news: “Engine runs out of steam early; soft suspension with lots of body roll; sleepy styling.” Car and Driver: We suspect [the “WRX faithful”] will transfer their affections to the STI or other brands.”

Even though Loh admits that the new WRX turns in identical acceleration and slalom times as the old car, he’s determined to prove the Internet arrivistes are wrong. Or, if you prefer, fellate Subaru by praising handling-oriented changes that don’t actually improve the car's handling. Oh and…

“Gone are the stark silver plastics and restrictive rear legroom; occupants are now treated to more room in every direction, richly textured surfaces, and seats redesigned to support the entire back. Getting in and out is easier, too; the rear doors now open wider by one full stop and close with a satisfying thunk.”     

Again, Mr. Loh’s doesn’t understand that the Subie-loving Internet denizens aren’t interested in surface textures or thunking doors; they wanted better looks, more bang-for-the-buck and major handling advances.

Mr. Loh’s cheery assessment of the 2008 WRX finally ends with– get this– an olive branch. 

“What's the take-home message for the forum trolls? Give it a chance. With all the content Subaru has managed to cram under its controversial skin, the new WRX should have you laughing out loud.”

We take home a different message. Consumers are expressing themselves in huge numbers on the Internet. Their perspective is just as valid as the “pros.” In fact more so; it’s their money that keeps carmakers afloat. Or not. Meanwhile, so long as the mainstream press perches on its pedestal, it won’t be able to see everyone else sawing away at the base down below.

[Read MT's WRX review here.] 

Sat nav, brake-by-wire, stability control, parking distance sensors, fuel injection– CNET reports that the average automobile requires $1997 worth of software code to keep it from crashing (in both senses of the word). That’s about nine percent of the showroom price. To stop programming prices from spiraling out of control and to help accelerate development time, Honda, Toyota and Nissan have teamed-up with Toshiba to create a standard operating system for automotive applications. Oh, here’s a surprise: U.S. auto companies may already be falling behind in software standardization. And who will ride to their rescue? CNET’s got the major league hots for IBM, after Big Blue scarfed Swedish “automotive technology powerhouse” Telelogic. (In fact, the dead hand of IBM PR is all over this piece.) Snicker if you must, but the smart money’s still on Microsoft’s mob to create a one-size-fits-all software solution. In any case, the battle for auto OS has serious long-term implications for reliability and repair costs. We’ll keep you posted with our Windows XP.