Riding in a golf cart to the nether regions of a dealership lot, an aging salesman explained his selling strategy. “Chryslers appeal to either male or female buyers,” he declared through nicotine-stained teeth. “Take the Compass. That’s for the ladies. The Wrangler? Boys’ toy.” As our EV reaches the 2008 Avenger, it's clear that the latest entry in The Dodge Boys' lineup is no purple Barbie Sport Convertible. But does The Avenger deliver the goods, or is “he” an impotent superhero look alike?

While the United Auto Workers (UAW) were busy plotting their future, The Detroit News ran a Cyber Survey. “Have UAW members given up enough or should auto makers expect more concessions?” As of the time I’m putting electrons to pixels, only 26 percent of the respondents agreed with the ungrammatical assertion “there’s been enough concessions.” The other 74 percent voted that the “UAW needs to make more concessions.” It’s not too promising when the home town crowd starts turning against you. But does it really matter?

Admittedly, on-line surveys are far from statistically significant. However, the “put your hands up for Detroit” results are a clarion call to the UAW. The days when the union could demand the sun and get the moon are gone. Even a brief look at the automakers’ balance sheets indicates that they can no longer afford to keep idle workers on the payroll, or pay for full time employees who work on a part-time basis, or carry enormous “legacy costs,” or even keep pace with rising health care costs. 

Yet the UAW is like Oliver Twist on an endless loop; they keep asking for more. The speeches and 103-page Resolution approved at their collective bargaining convention all indicate they’re not willing to give many (any?) concessions to their employers. In fact, the UAW wants MORE benefits and job guarantees.

Saber rattling? Don’t be so sure. The UAW doesn’t seem to grasp the simple concept that they’re on the verge of pricing themselves out of a job. The organization is deeply infused with a sense of entitlement, a “Don’t mess with us, we ARE the company” credo that informs everything they do– even if it threatens to take them all the way to the unemployment line.

UAW President Ron Gettelfinger signalled that his union brothers and sisters are ready, willing and able ($847m strike fund and counting) to down tools should their employers get stroppy. Even though Big Ron’s got a look at the automakers' books, he doesn’t believe The Big 2.5 are on the ropes. The fact that Ford and GM have recently topped-up their checking accounts, that investment bankers are clamoring to buy Chrysler, merely reaffirms the UAW's bottom line: where there’s a contract, there’s a way.

Bankruptcy? Fuhgeddaboutit. Gettelfinger vehemently denounced Delphi for trying to use bankruptcy to break their union contracts. Yet Chapter 11 awaits any of the The Big 2.5, should their unionized work force choose to strike. Make that all. If any one of the domestics collapses, it will cause a chain reaction that will end the American auto industry as we know it.

Of course, the automakers aren’t innocent victims in any of this. No matter what you’ve heard, the paradigm has not changed. The automakers still threaten to close plants or withhold new cars from particular plants, using new models and continued employment as hostages to get what they want from the UAW. The workers at GM’s Lordstown, Ohio plant are sweating bullets right now.

What's more, auto company executives are equally mired in the entitlement mentality. According to Ron Tadross at Banc of America Securities, the base salary of the average GM, Ford, or Chrysler vice president is about the same as the total compensation for the CEO of Toyota (just under $1M). Add in the bonuses and stock packages (regardless of how well the company did) and Detroit’s top dogs are making 40 to 50 times as much as the workers they say they can no longer afford.

When was the last time you heard any of these executives offering to take a pay cut or refusing a bonus to preserve their company’s future?

You want to know why the Cadillac DTS, Lincoln Town Car and Chrysler Aspen’s interiors look and feel cheaper than a $17K Honda? Why Motown’s motors lag behind in fuel economy and alternative propulsion? Detroit’s overheads are so high, their bureaucracy so stratified and stultified, that they simply can’t afford to produce what the market demands at a price that the market expects. That’s why the American auto industry, once known for technological innovation and trend setting, is playing a perpetual game of follow-the-leader.

And so the UAW and the Detroit-based automakers continue to squabble like a couple of four-year-olds, each threatening to knock down the other’s blocks and go home. The first concession both sides should make is to reality. The reality is that the old ways no longer work. Those of us on the outside realize this, from top-flight industry analysts all the way down to the poor sap on the dealer floor, trying to sell lackluster domestics against the class leading transplants. But there is no indication whatsoever that the UAW, GM, Ford and Chrysler “get it.”

A wake-up call is on its way, and it ain’t gonna be pretty. 

By the end of the year, America’s automotive landscape will have changed dramatically. Chrysler Group will have new owners with new ideas (including, perhaps, dissection). Ford may or may not be in Chapter 11. General Motors’ fate is equally unclear. One big gas price spike and it’s all over bar the filing. And then there’s the United Auto Workers (UAW). This is the year the UAW renegotiates its contracts with The Big 2.5. If the union digs in its proverbial heels to maintain the status quo, Detroit’s doom will be delayed, but not prevented. As will their own.

The decisions made this week at Detroit’s Cobo Center will answer that question. The UAW’s quadrennial convention on collective bargaining opens today. About 1500 delegates representing over 800 locals from around the country will convene to discuss a number of issues facing the moribund union. They’ll have two days to establish their stand on issues ranging from contract concessions for healthcare and pensions, to what to do about their dwindling membership. They have two days to decide the future of the American automobile industry.

It won’t be easy. Just as GM is trying to extricate itself from rebate hell, the UAW must try to find a way NOT to give The Big 2.5 large concessions on healthcare, wages and pensions. Although the union’s “historic health care giveback” involved a $2b pay-off, common wisdom says the union is ready, willing and able to help Detroit roll-back their crippling labor costs. We’re going to find out exactly how far the union is willing to go to give aid and comfort to their employers.

That depends entirely on which faction within the UAW is sitting at the table. Although labor unions tout solidarity and the value of a united front, there’s a genuine power struggle going on behind the scenes. 

On one side, some union bosses are happily extolling cooperation; they’d like the press, their members and the rest of the car industry to think the UAW is management’s best friend. Jim Graham, president of UAW Local 1112 stated ‘‘Management is not the enemy. They’re trying to do the same thing we are: save plants. The enemy is the Asian market.’’

Yet Graham also admits the UAW wants to get in bed with “the enemy.” He notes the UAW is trying to organize workers in the transplants’ factories. Oblivious to the fact the workers in the non-union Georgetown Toyota plant made more last year on average than UAW workers did in Detroit, he states ‘‘In order to get a decent wage, people have to be organized.’’

While the UAW’s making nice with management and trying to move into enemy territory, they seem to have forgotten that their past demands got them where they– and their employers– are today. The bountiful benefits they demanded (and received) when times were good are the excess baggage dragging down Detroit, now that times are tough. When the concession demands begin, we’ll see how long this new friendship lasts.

This brings us to the other end of the spectrum:  hardcore factions within the UAW who want nothing less than a return to yesteryear. Soldiers of Solidarity, comprised mostly of Delphi and GM employees, will picket their own union’s meeting this week. They want the union to take a hard-line stance against wage cuts, pension changes and healthcare concessions.

Believe it or not, the Soldiers don’t believe The Big 2.5 are in dire straits. And they continue to see the company through the prism of class war; why should the fat cats be allowed to take food off their table? Strange but true: there are plenty of union members who’d prefer their employer’s death before personal “dishonor.”

So where does UAW President Ron Gettelfinger stand?  On the fence.

"There is a great deal of uncertainty in the auto industry right now, which causes a great deal of concern among our members and their families. We're doing our best to address those concerns – but it doesn't do anybody much good to try to predict the outcome of a bargaining process that hasn't even started yet."

No matter. Gettelfinger knows that it’s make or break time for the UAW, without any clear path to “winning.” If the “modernizers” hold sway and the UAW makes company-saving concessions to save its own skin, the union’s power over its members will diminish. As Sean McAlinden from the Center for Automotive Research said, “What’s at risk here are the core values of the union.” 

On the other hand, as Dave Cole from the Center for Automotive Research stated, "The existing situation is not survivable. The choice is, are you going to do something different or are you going to die with the domestic industry."

Whatever happens in the next two days, either way, Detroit will never be the same again.

“A potent, new, 500-hp engine that uses less fuel.” While the newly refurbished Porsche Cayenne Turbo offers well-heeled buyers many delights, you wouldn't think fuel efficiency was the first amongst them. Yet Porsche’s print ads for the off-roader are touting their uber-SUV’s improved frugality, positioning the machine as a fun-to-drive grocery-getter for, gulp, environmentally conscious consumers. If Porsche were alone in this misplaced appeal to green values, it could be dismissed as aberrant lunacy. But they’re not so it can’t.

This month, Honda introduced their new Formula One car. As their F1 entry has no official sponsors, the car’s surface is free from the usual blizzard of sponsors’ decals. So Honda wrapped their hi-tech race car in an image of the Earth made from signatures of people who’ve pledged– via myearthdream.com– to limit their planetary “footprint.”

And so a vehicle that gets four miles to a gallon– for entertainment purposes– has been transformed into a rolling poster for corporate sponsored environmentalism.  

“The people who work in F1 and the F1 viewers are probably the most difficult people to turn around into making a difference,” proclaimed Jenson Button to the London Times. ”So this campaign is important.” Honda’s F1 driver was clear about his “other” mission. “The idea is to raise awareness of global issues that we have and hopefully it’s going to make a difference.”

Honda’s left its supporters’ difference-making methodology suitably vague. Of course, turned around F1 fans can choose from Honda’s wide range of high[er] mpg vehicles, buy one its hybrid Accords or wait for models powered by the automaker’s clean diesel technology. It’s what marketing mavens call a “virtuous circle” or “a very clever angle.”

Honda’s inherently ludicrous “Save the Planet” F1 car proves that global warming is the new marketing hot button (so to speak). Of course, Honda’s a bit late to this morality play. Toyota’s Prius hybrid set the pace for automobile manufacturers everywhere, giving the Japanese automaker enough green cred to withstand the heat generated by its efforts to build The Mother of All Full-Size ‘Merican Pickup Trucks.

Although the high-mpg low-carbon Prius has not exactly set the sales charts on fire, the distinctively shaped vehicle success vis-à-vis its standard bodied hybrid competition (e.g. the hybrid Accord) has taught the automotive industry an important lesson: it’s not enough to do good for the planet. You have to be seen to be doing good.

That’s why nearly every major automaker at this year’s 77th International Auto Show paid homage to the environment. Honda, Lexus and Toyota brought hybrid concept cars to the Land of Milk and Chocolate. Mercedes flaunted a new C220 sedan equipped with the latest clean-running BLUETEC diesel. Ze new C will produce nine tons less CO2 over its lifetime – from assembly line to junkyard – than the old version! Even supercar maker Koenigsegg presented an E85 powered version of their bonkers CCXR.

And no wonder. Throughout Europe, global warming has replaced the Soviet Empire as the invisible– though real– enemy. It’s got to the point where the European Union has “asked” Germany to consider putting speed limits on formerly sacrosanct derestricted sections of the autobahn. A Stern magazine survey claims 60 percent of Germans now favor autobahn speed limits to cut emissions, while 38 percent oppose them.

America’s response to global warming lags well behind that of our European allies. While there’s been a lot of talk (and an Oscar-winning movie) about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, policy changes have been illusory. Despite tax credits, hybrid sales are still paltry compared to CO2 belching full-sized pickups.

While environmentalists decry federal “foot dragging,” the free market is not insensitive to the issue. As petrol powered pistonheads have pointed out, even with gas at $3 a gallon, it’s hard to justify the “hybrid premium”: the difference in purchase price between a gas and gas – electric car based on fuel savings.

And yet more and more US car buyers are willing to pay a bit extra for a bit more mileage. Why? Representative Michael Burgess of Texas put it best, when discussing his personal Prius. “It gives me a good deal of moral superiority when I drive.”

This fact has not escaped the fine folks down in marketing and product planning. GM, Ford, Porsche, Mercedes, BMW, Honda and others are realizing a large proportion of their target market– both princes and paupers– are starting to watch their tailpipes. Low carbon and high mileage cars, trucks and yes, SUV’s are continuing to creep to the top of the average buyer’s wish list.

As the Cayenne Turbo ads prove, this development has created endless opportunities for deceptive and self-righteous hypocrisy. But that’s not necessarily a bad thing. If green becomes the automotive industry’s new black, the resulting pretense can be seen as a case of no harm, no foul.

Mention the word “hybrid” on an automotive internet site and commentators clump into two camps. It’s either “I save the planet while getting 97.467 mpg driving my Prius up Pikes Peak” or “I search and destroy hippy trust-fund Prius drivers with my jacked-up diesel F-350”. Despite this ongoing socio-political clash over mixed propulsion, hybrid sales have brought the technology into the mainstream. Which puts us in a better place to answer the obvious question: what’s the future beyond the hype?

In the automobile’s infancy, battery electric vehicles (BEV’s) outsold and, in many famous cases, outperformed cars powered by internal combustion engines. But lead-acid batteries limited the BEV’s range, dooming them to obsolescence. In 1902, Ferdinand Porsche attempted to forestall the inevitable by developing the first gas – electric hybrid. Needless to say, Herr Porsche had better luck with gas-powered tanks and sports cars.

A hundred years later, Toyota had the guts, vision and cash to develop their groundbreaking series/parallel hybrid drive (gas engine and electric motor alternately or simultaneously propelling the car) using NiMH batteries. Despite its success, Toyota’s Synergy Drive has generally been seen as a transitional technology.

GM’s highly touted Volt concept (which follows Porsche’s principles closely) supposedly represents The Next Big Thing. It’s a serial hybrid– an internal combustion engine runs a generator that charges batteries that power the electric drive motor. Conceptually, it's the most efficient arrangement.  

Why the century-long wait? Lead acid batteries are simply too heavy and inefficient to git er done (e.g. GM’s EV1). Suitable alternatives are just now arising. Toyota has announced that Prius III will use lithium-ion cells. As will the Tesla and GM’s Volt. The industry is searching for (and closing in on) the new Holy Grail: a small, safe, powerful, fast-recharging, affordable battery.

Meanwhile, the industry is mad about hybrids. Even the highly diesel-dependent Germans are getting into the game. DCX and BMW have a joint venture with GM to share a sophisticated dual-mode full-hybrid drive. Mercedes and BMW (hmmm) just announced a partnership to develop a second, cheaper, mild-hybrid system. And VW and Porsche are hoping that hybridizing the Touareg and Cayenne will save their SUV’s.

And no wonder. A full hybrid system can boost real world mileage by some 35 percent; that’s as great an efficiency increase (over gas power) as a diesel. Diesel fuel’s higher cost stateside (seven to 15 percent) substantially reduces any pocket-book savings. What’s more, the cost of manufacturing clean diesels is roughly equivalent to gas – electric hybrids. Hybrid components are becoming cheaper; diesels are already highly evolved.

So why not build a diesel hybrid, doubling the efficiency gain? It’s an expensive proposition, and the efficiency differential isn’t there. The Atkinson-cycle gas engine (as used in parallel hybrids) already closes the gas vs. diesel efficiency gap considerably. Improvements in valve control, direct injection and upcoming HCCI (Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition) technology will narrow the gap further. And diesels have lost some efficiency with the latest emission controls, while the gas engine is poised for continuing economy gains.

Even if you’re not the pious Prius type, hybrid technology is already sneaking into your ride. Electric driven power steering, air-conditioning compressors and water pumps are all the fruit of hybrid technology, and spreading fast. Car builders love them; their use yields measurable fuel savings (up to 10% combined), allows quicker engine heat-up and disconnects the engine from other peripherals, making it micro-hybrid ready [see: below].

BMW just updated their 1 Series with these goodies. They also added brake energy regenerative system (iGR) that controls the alternator to charge the battery (as needed) when the engine is in over-run or going downhill. For good measure, an automatic-start-stop program kills the engine whenever neutral is engaged. Combined with improved Bi-Vanos valve control and lean-burn direct injection, the model’s efficiency has increased by 24 percent.

Prius purists may scorn, but “micro-hybrids” like the Saturn Aura Green Line are cheap ($1700 retail premium) and effective. The model’s belt driven motor/generator system yields roughly a 15 percent efficiency gain. With higher CAFE numbers on the horizon, look for more creative bundling of various degrees and forms of hybrid and related technologies. It’s not just about trying to catch or keep up with the Prius’ standard-setting full-hybrid approach.

Looking forward, plug-in hybrids like the [theoretical] Chevy Volt are inevitable. The DOE has said the US grid can recharge up to 185 million plug-in cars at night. Lithium for batteries is recyclable. Improvements in CO and other emissions are easier to deal with at the power plant source than in each car.

So if you’re in the “Prius search and destroy” camp, be prepared to keep your current battle tank going for a long time. The hybrid virus is regenerating and mutating quickly; it’ll be hard not to catch it.

After a bleak January, February offered Detroit automakers a whiff of spring. The Chevrolet Impala had a 60’s sales flashback. Thousands more customers went fission for Fusions. And Chrysler Wrangled plenty of loot from new Jeep owners (boosting their bottom line to help Daimler get the Hell out of Dodge). While The Big 2.5’s supporters may conclude that the numbers presage Motown’s long-awaited recovery, starting a Deathwatch Deathwatch may be a bit premature.

Scanning the February figures, looking at year-on-year comparisons, some models just plain took off. Sales of the Chevrolet Impala rose 43.9 percent. Sales of the GMT900-based Silverado increased 26.5 percent. Avalanches were up a whopping 109 percent. Over at Ford, 46.1 percent more folks fixed on a Fusion. Thanks to the new Wrangler four-door, the model moved 62.9 percent better than ‘afore.

Overall, Ford’s sales slipped 21.5 percent on the car side, 9.9 percent on trucks. Even with red hot Wranglers, Chrysler’s truck sales fell 4.6 percent, while car sales tumbled by 15.6 percent. Silverado sales pulled The General’s trucks up an eight percent incline. But steep declines in every division save Chevy and Saturn yanked car sales 2.7 percent lower.

To avoid premature recapitulation, you gotta factor in product freshness. For example, if you look at a February vs. February comparison for the new Avalanche, it looks like the model’s a solid sales success. However, this February’s buyers can sign away their life for a box-fresh design; last year’s buyers had to make do— or not— with a five-year-old design. The Silverado’s increase may conform to the same principle; “intenders” kept their powder dry until Chevy released the new truck. When Mellencamp’s motor hit the showroom floor, the pent-up demand created an initial sales surge.

By the same token, sales of the current gen Ford F-150 experienced a generous up tick for several months following the new model’s introduction. Now they're down 12.1 percent from last year. GM’s supposed salvation, the GMT900-based Chevrolet Tahoe, also started well. It’s down 24.4 percent. At some point, the Silverado’s momentum will require conquest sales and casual shoppers. With competition from Toyota’s new Tundra, rising gas prices and Ford’s new marketing push, it’s gonna be tough.

How did the “other side” (i.e. the foreign-owned automakers) do in this battle for domestic market share? Feb on Feb, Toyota Camry sales– benefiting from an '07 refresh– rose 17.5 percent. The increase seems to pale next to Impala’s 43.9 percent jump— until you clock the raw numbers. The Camry outsold the Impala by 14k units. The killer Camry also outpaced the Ford Fusion by almost 36k sales. The Honda Accord was Camry’s closest market segment competition– and it trailed the Camry by 7400 units.  

Inventory levels are staring to look good across the board. Production cuts and incentives have brought supply and demand into a better balance. Many beleaguered automotive divisions showed double-digit drops in inventory levels from January. Saturn went into “Like Never Before” mode, quickly moving from a deeply worrying 153-day supply of product to a merely troubling 93 day inventory. OK, yes, it’s still a far cry from the 60 day ideal, but Saturn dealers must be happy with the big drop in carrying costs.  

Formerly minimalist U.S. Porsche dealer lots are beginning to look a bit lebensraum challenged. The Sultans of Stuttgart’s inventory levels have jumped from an unassailably delicious 42-day supply to a “come on down” 70-day level. Blame fading sales of Porsche’s pricey Cayenne SUV. Even though the new, refreshed model is here to save the day (after skipping a model year), the SUV slump in general and Cayenne doldrums in specific raise the question automotive marketeers dread to hear: “Has everyone who wants one got one?”

America’s most available model (how great does that sound) is the Mazda B-series truck. Can someone please turn off the tap? Mazda dealers now have enough petite pickups to last 228 days. Ford’s Zoom without a Vue subsidiary would happily swap with Honda. The econobox-of-the-moment Fit and increasingly creased CR-Vs are smokin’ hot, with 19- and 20-day supplies respectively.

On the vital sales per dealer (SPD) numbers, nearly everyone’s up from January. Even tumbleweed infested Buick dealers showed a slight increase, adding two sales per dealer (to a not-so-grand-national total of six). Saturn scored the highest increase, adding 19 SPD in January (from 31 to 50). At Porsche– normally a sales tiger as the weather improves– SPD dropped by five. In raw numbers, once again, Toyota reigns supreme. The automaker hit 136 SPD in February, up 10 sales from the month previous. Lexus dealers ranked second, with a whopping 105 sales per dealer.

The automakers are hoping for some March madness. But with gas prices on the rise, the housing market on the slow and sub-primes all lent out with nowhere to go, the madness could get seriously crazy. Watch this space.

Opportunity doesn’t always knock; sometimes it breaks down the door with a crash. When my daily driver became the caboose in a rush hour conga line gone bad, I found myself in that placeless place where car reviewers go when the press fleet is permanently out to sea. To the chagrin of Saturnistas everywhere, I passed on the Ion proffered by the perky rental car desk jockey. At the appropriate moment, I gratefully grabbed the keys to a 2006 Mazda3 sedan. The four-door filly had been ridden hard and put up wet, bearing 16k miles. Another TTAC road test had officially begun.

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: GM Car Czar Bob Lutz is a gift. To the media– not GM stockholders. The General’s Vice Chairman of Global Product Development feels free to make it up as he goes along, paying scant regard to the current state of the world market or his own company’s plans. Lutz proved the point, again, at his Swiss birthplace. Speaking to reporters at the Geneva auto salon, Lutz outlined his vision for Cadillac. Unfortunately, Cadillac’s General Manager was at the same show. 

So, Mr. Lutz, Caddy’s flagship sedan, the DTS. The model accounts for 25.6% of the brand’s U.S. sales. Does it? I’m not surprised. Yes, well, moving forward, front or rear wheel-drive? Rear wheel-drive. That’s the way we’re going with all our mainstream– I mean, upmarket cars.

Jim Taylor, General Manager, Cadillac. DTS. Front or rear-wheel drive? Good question. We could put the DTS on the Zeta rear wheel-drive platform– which we’re using for the new Pontiac G8– or merge it with the STS line. Or keep it in its current form. So no decision yet? No decision yet.

Mr. Lutz, what about a small Caddy? You guys sell the front wheel-drive Cadillac BLS in Europe, South Africa and Mexico. Any plans to bring it to the States? We don’t want a front wheel-drive Cadillac in the domestic market. As for a small rear wheel-drive car, "there's certainly an opening, whether we choose to fill it or not." 

Jim, you on board with that? "We're not going there. We're a $30,000-to-$40,000 player, not a $20,000-to-$30,000 player."

Even now, I find it astounding that a company as large as GM is run by people who don’t know the first thing about competitive strategy. Strike that– who don’t HAVE a competitive strategy. Or if they DO have one, the people in charge of implementing it have no idea what it is. How could the two men determining the fate of GM’s flagship brand have various, nebulous plans for its future?

No wonder GM is getting its ass kicked.

Even a cursory glance at Toyota’s success tells us the company’s top executives have read, understood and implemented Sun Tsu’s “The Art of War.”  To wit:

“The good fighters of old first put themselves beyond the possibility of defeat, and then waited for an opportunity of defeating the enemy.” Think Camry.

“He wins his battles by making no mistakes. Making no mistakes is what establishes the certainty of victory, for it means conquering an enemy that is already defeated.” Think Toyota’s rep for reliability and their limited product line.

“Appear at points which the enemy must hasten to defend; march swiftly to places where you are not expected.” Think Prius.

“We can form a single united body, while the enemy must split up into fractions. Hence there will be a whole pitted against separate parts of a whole, which means that we shall be many to the enemy's few.” Think Toyota’s three divisions.

Need I go on? The really depressing bit is that you can read Sun Tsu and marvel at all the ways GM has violated virtually ALL of the principles set forth by the master military strategist.

GM’s seemingly endless strategic failure seems preposterous, given the fact that Maximum Bob Lutz is a former Marine aviator. Surely a top flight military man should understand the rudiments of armed conflict enough to formulate something akin to a coherent plan for victory.

But then, Lutz served from 1954 to 1965, before Colonel John Boyd changed Marine fighting strategy to reflect Sun Tsu’s principles. Lutz was trained to execute what Boyd called "hey diddle diddle, straight up the middle.” In other words, Lutz and Co. still believe in a direct assault on Toyota, using strength of numbers to overwhelm the enemy.

Why else would GM even entertain the idea of buying Chrysler? Even though it’s clear to anyone with a modicum of common sense that the last thing GM needs is more cars, workers, bureaucrats, divisions and dealers, the fools running the company couldn’t immediately see that the concept offered nothing more than a corporate suicide pact. How many examples of ruined conglomerates do you need to see before you realize that “synergy” is another word for insanity?

If GM had some genuine mental firepower at the top, could they turn the company around? Absolutely. But they’d need to adopt Sun Tsu’s final strategy: if all else fails, retreat. Many see GM’s successful expansion into foreign markets as its final hope. Others do not. As Cadillac’s lackluster lineup proves, GM needs to regroup, conserve its remaining resources and marshal them for the fight on the home front. Otherwise, all will be lost. 

As I closed the rear door of the top spec Cadillac DTS, I watched the side light above my head literally sputter and die. And there you have it: proof positive that the bean counters have been hard at work on The General's luxury brand. You want the lights to slowly fade up and down? Why? Anyway, we don’t have that part. What else you do you need? Actually, despite the death by a thousand cost cuts, the DTS has almost enough upmarket mojo to make it. Only luxury carmaking isn't horseshoes or hand grenades. Almost doesn’t count.

As you’ve no doubt noticed, things they are a-changin’ on The Truth About Cars. Our new look is evolving, several new writers have made the scene and a whole lot of new readers/commentators are joining us every day. With all that going on we thought we’d better answer a few of the questions we’ve been getting (and throw in a few more we just made up). 

What is The Truth About Cars?

The Truth About Cars provides no-holds-barred, take-no-prisoners automotive reviews and industry-related editorials. Our writers call it like they see it, and pull no punches. We also provide a comments section for readers to voice their informed and passionate opinions in a atmosphere of mutual respect.

How did the site get its start?

About four years ago, Robert Farago was a freelance writer living in the UK. After Autocar blacklisted Farago for slating then Editor-In-Chief Steve Sutcliffe (for boasting about driving a Lamborghini with his eyes closed), Farago started posting rants on www.pistonheads.com. Despite (or because of) Fahrenheit 451 temp replies, he created a regular series called "The Truth About Cars." When Farago moved to the U.S., he started TTAC.

How are you different from other automotive sites?

The Truth About Cars prides itself on its editorial independence. Even though we accept advertising, the ads do not influence our editorial content. We also believe in full disclosure. Any time we receive a car loan or travel considerations from a manufacturer, we state the fact in the review.

What is going on with the web site?  Why does it look so… uh… plain?

As they say in the construction business, pardon our appearance. We’re making improvements to the site; many of which were suggested last Sunday (we haven’t forgotten). Due to budgetary constraints, the changes are incremental. Rest assured, Farago's OCD guarantees that TTAC will return to its Zen garden aesthetic– cleaner, sharper and brighter– once the remodeling is done. Meanwhile, thank you for your patience and understanding.

Why haven’t you reviewed a _________?

TTAC’s a small but feisty site. As far as access to manufacturers' press fleets is concerned, that's a lethal combination. Our poorly-paid, single-minded reviewers must beg, borrow and go to dealerships to drive a car. Mind you, there are advantages: we tend to drive the same car you can buy, rather than carefully prepared press cars NB: If you're a TTAC supportive manufacturer, dealer or owner who would be willing to provide a TTAC scribe with a test drive of something new we haven't reviewed yet (we're nationwide), please contact us ASAP.

I can’t see the comment I just entered.  What happened?

Normally, when you enter a comment it’ll show up as soon as you submit it. If your comment contains certain flagged words or several web links or comes from a questionable-looking domain or looks like comment spam (we've received thousands of them), the WordPress spam filter may trap your comment. And there it sits, waiting for manual approval. If there’s a legitimate comment in there we’ll rescue it (and edit it if necessary) before we delete the real spam. Meanwhile, patience.

Why can’t I enter a comment? 

To enter a comment you have to be registered on the site, and signed in.

What's TTAC's comments policy?

TTAC has a strict policy for posting comments:

1. No flaming the website, its authors or fellow commentators  "Flaming" means personally insulting. For example, you are free to suggest that a TTAC editorial should consider Toyota's green policies, but you are NOT free to say "we've got it in" for domestic automakers (or anyone else). You are free to argue that a reviewer should take the new Jeep Patriot off-road, but you are NOT free to call the writer biased or unfair. You are free to say Ford makes reliable vehicles, but you are NOT free to question a commentator's right to recount his personal history of unreliable Fords.  

2. No trolling "Trolling" means making comments deliberately designed to encourage flamers. For example, you are free to suggest that TTAC should consider Toyota's green policies, bit you are NOT free to say "Toyota's a bunch of lying scumbags." You are free to argue that a reviewer should take the Patriot off-road, but you are not free to say "anyone who doesn't take a Jeep off-road is a wimp." You are free to say Ford makes reliable vehicles, but you are not free to say "people who don't love Fords are lousy drivers."

Any commentator who flames or trolls receives email notification that the comment was edited or deleted. If the comment is deemed excessively offensive or mean spirited, the commentator also receives a warning. After the second offense, the commentator will be banned from posting on the site. Permanently. I repeat: there is no coming back. Ever.

If you encounter an offensive comment, do not respond in the comments section. Send an email to Robert Farago or Frank Williams and we’ll take care of it. 

And one more thing. There can be a fine line between passionate commentary and flaming/trolling. If you have any doubts, err on the side of civility. Or write an editorial.

How can I try my hand at writing for TTAC?

Email us for a copy of TTAC’s Writers’ Guide. It’ll give you the proper format and procedure for submitting articles or reviews.

What’s coming down the pike?

Once the site redesign is complete, we’ll have a lot of new features. Old time readers will remember the ratings and stars for each review; these are coming back. We also hope to have links to specifications and pricing data on the cars reviewed. And we’re in negotiations with a purchasing service to get the best deal possible for our readers who are in the market for a new vehicle. Through all of it, we will continue to provide the finest fully independent automotive journalism on the web.

Frank Williams

Managing Editor 

In 2002, Toyota sued Chinese automaker Geely for copying the Japanese automaker’s logo. In November 2003, a Chinese judge threw out the case. He claimed China’s trademark office had to reject Geely’s logo before Toyota could seek civil damages. The verdict provided yet more proof that China isn’t willing to lay down– or enforce– its copyright law. This lack of legal resolve is a clear and present danger to foreign automakers, and a stark warning of things to come. 

Until roughly 30 years ago, the concept of private property was an anathema to The People’s Republic of China. When the country’s communist leaders decided to abandon Soviet-style central planning for a “mixed” (i.e. controlled) market economy, they eventually allowed individuals to own property and commercial enterprises. Shortly before joining the Word Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001, these rights expanded to include intellectual property (IP). 

Since then, the number of IP cases in China has increased by some nine percent a year. A large number of these disputes involve China’s nascent automobile industry. And no wonder. China is now the world’s second largest new car market (having passed Japan in ’06). It’s expanding at about 17 to 25% a year. Tens of millions of Chinese are trading two-wheeled transportation for four.

Given the lack of copyright enforcement and the cost of developing a new car for sale– versus the cost-effectiveness of “borrowing” designs, manufacturing, parts, brand names and logos– it’s no surprise that the country’s native automakers are flooding the Chinese market with unabashed, automotive knock-offs.

For example, the [GM] Daewoo Spark and the [Chinese] Chery QQ are sheetmetal homonyms with, get this, interchangeable parts. (Rumor has it that Chery used the Spark with a Chery logo glued on to pass government crash tests.) Even when the running gear differs, Chinese manufacturers feel free to “riff” on trademarked designs. The Honqi HQD sedan looks like an ugly[ier] Rolls Royce Phantom– for about half the price.

Again, there’s very little incentive for a Chinese automaker to avoid building this sort of “homage.” According to China’s "Supreme Court Patent Trial Provisions," copyright thieves face a maximum statutory damage of 500,000 yuan (roughly $64k). And as Toyota discovered, “creative jurisprudence” makes attempting to legally right these wrongs a difficult bordering on pointless enterprise.

Further complicating matters, Chinese law stipulates that any foreign-owned automobile manufacture must share 50% of its Chinese division with a Chinese “partner.” The pattern of intertwined ownership works in the thieves’ favor. For example, GM held off suing the publicly listed Jiangling Motors for stealing one of The General’s designs. Jiangling Motors is partially owned by SAIC, GM’s Chinese partner. Nuff said?

While China’s foreign owned automakers wrestle with copycats and clones, trying to defend their technological investments and local brand equity, Chinese automakers are busy ramping up their export business. Last month, 500 Brilliance BS6s sedans left Dalian for Bremerhaven. This week, HSO Motors Europe announced it will distribute Brilliance vehicles in France and Switzerland.

Although Geely’s exports are currently restricted to Syria, Egypt and Latin America, the Chinese automaker plans to export 400k cars by 2010. The company’s recently announced deal with Chrysler to import a small Chinese-made car into the American market should account for a large amount of that business.

While many foreign manufacturers are willing to look the other way regarding IP infringement inside China, the advent of Chinese automotive exports threatens to bring the issue of IP rights to a head.

Later this year, Great Wall will export a small vehicle called the Peri to Italy. The machine looks an awful lot like Fiat's city car. With its Chinese ambitions and the obvious legal limitations within The People’s Republic, Fiat has been hesitant to take action against the Peri. But the arrival of a cheaper Panda clone on their home turf may well force their hand. It remains to be seen if a potential export backlash could dampen Chinese automaker’s “flattery.”

There is a darker side to these developments. The Chinese government’s willingness to turn a blind eye to cheap copies of foreign-designed automobiles may reflect their longer term strategy. At some point, when China’s joint venture automakers get up to speed, the government may give foreign automakers the boot, and allow their Chinese partners to assume full control. The student will become the master.

China's State Economic and Trade Commission’s tenth “Five-Year Development Plan for the Automotive Industry” predicts/dictates that "there will be two to three large automotive groups that have considerable strength in international competition. The domestic-market shares of products will exceed 70%, with some for export.”

How does that shake-out square with foreign interests? It doesn’t. Any foreign automaker that imagines itself as one of China’s Big Three better take a closer look at those clones. They may be China’s future. 

Driving through Switzerland makes you feel like a million bucks (the annual salary required for comfortable residency). In early March, the Alps are still covered in snow, but the sun’s warm enough to shelter a scribe savoring a steaming cup of coffee and slice of rueblitorte by the shores of Lake Geneva. The fresh air! The dictators’ money! The tidiness! And then it’s time to contemplate the effects of global warming and enter the hallowed halls of Geneva’s seventy-seventh International Auto Show.

The Toyota FT-HS Concept is a hybrid. OK, it’s a hybrid hybrid, a Synergy-driven car combining the blood-drawing creases of Ford’s old Edge design language and the wraparound glamour of the vaguely art deco cinematic Batmobile. As a Cadillac flack might say, it’s art and science fiction.

The FT-HS isn’t just another “gotta have one/ain’t gonna happen” pistonhead tease. The car raises an important question: why can't more cars have wheels that look like exotic flowers?

Keeping to the theme of keeping the planet cool (hot?) for humanity, the Honda FCX Concept is a confidently competent future barge. Or is that competently confident? In any case, the hyrdogen fuel cell powered FCX finally makes the creative leap from SUV nosecone (a la Civic) to whale mouth. Honda proves once again that they are the masters at blending high tech and high touch, what with an interactive floor that uses lighting to indicate changes in cabin temperature.

How come the French have enough time (or the inclination) to eat cheese before coffee AND after lunch? And how is it that Italians manage to convince everyone else to struggle to speak their native language, instead of them struggling with their English like everybody else? And can the British ever learn to get down with their bad selves?

The CX-F is Jaguar’s S-Type replacement concept (i.e. the ready to be gelded, denuded and watered down version). It’s swoopy, sporty and strong; with a hint of Quattroporte and a clean Lexus LF-A aftertaste. It’s also utterly serious minded, a slap in the face of pace and grace. I’ll take two (for obvious reasons).

Honda’s Small Hybrid Coupe breaks the usual Batman concept car template for a nostalgic trip to Tron. While the car’s design has nothing to do with Honda’s corporate image, it will do Honda’s corporate image no harm– if only because its rear window is an ode to the old CRX and its gigantic wheels relieve Honda tuners’ SUV wheel envy.

The strangely spaced Walter de’Silva says the new Audi A5 is one of his best designs. The Italian originator of the German brand’s big mouth bass look has devised a coupe that’s elegant, understated, grown-up yet young and thrusting. It’s the perfect Jaguar, best imbibed with a bold cab.

Maserati finally trades its dorky coupe for something altogether more desirable– in the same sense that Adriana Lima might make a nice bit of arm candy for the Oscars. The GranTourismo coupe is twice as sexy in the flesh as it is in the photos, in the same sense that Adriana Lima looks more fetching across a dinner table than in a catalogue.

Being within sniffing distance of the world’s best numbered bank accounts, the Geneva auto show is the spiritual home to small carmakers who brew that heady mix of sleek sheetmetal and monster engines. The Swedes at Koenigsegg threw their hand-built CCX-based CCGT (Competition Coupe GT) FIA-homologated GT1 racer into Geneva’s alphanumeric soup. True to the show’s theme, they also promised a bio-fuel powered CCXR. Make that the BFP-CCXR.

The Dutch-built Spyker C12 Zagato may forfeit the rocket-inspired name game, but the VW-engined coupe proves that scissor doors are still an excellent way to liberate tasteless enthusiasts from their drug money discretionary income. The Zagato takes Spyker’s nascent design language and throws it into the wood chipper. When a supercar starts to look like a TVR Chimaera– a car designed by the [then] company’s owner’s dog– there’s bound to be trouble down the mine.

Meanwhile, mine owners won’t mind the Bentley Brooklands. Oblivious to the whole planet saving thing, the German-owned English carmaker is emerging from their highly lucrative Phaeton phase to launch a more traditional gas-guzzling Bentley behemoth.

The Brooklands boasts “classic British proportions”– a claim which does nothing for the self-esteem of Britain’s female population. To propel this Balmoral-on-wheels, The Bentley Boyz pulled out all the organ stops. We’re talking a 530hp 6.75-litre V8 with so much torque the company feels compelled to list it in Newton meters (1050Nm). Very PC, I’m sure.

Back into the gloaming as a young girl strolls past the show without even glancing in its direction. What did the Swiss Miss miss? A show dedicated to environmental responsibility, stuffed fulll of toys. How great is that? 

Those of us who lived through the 1970’s have thrown out, remodeled or psycho-analyzed away any lingering echoes of those economically, socially and politically divisive years. But the decade of pet rocks, big hair, anti-war protests, moon landings, presidential pardons, drug-addled introspection, Middle Eastern war and convulsive oil shocks left the Big Three’s collective psyche permanently altered. In some ways, they never recovered.

The Big Three entered the bushy-sideburns decade with the super-size-me version of the formula they’d been frying up for decades. Mega-full-size cars (longer than today’s Suburban), double-pattie mid-sizers, and quarter-pounder “compacts” were deemed the ideal diet for “real Americans”. And for those financially challenged unpatriotic import lovers: a barely-edible gruel of half-baked Pintos, Vegas, and Crickets.

If you had to pick a moment when The Big Three’s hegemony ended, it’s October 17, 1973. On that day, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) initiated an embargo that effectively doubled the cost of crude oil. And the resulting price shock tipped the U.S. economy into recession. Even worse, Americans experienced massive gas shortages.

Overnight, the American gas guzzler ceased to be an unassailable statement of personal prosperity. For many, it became a symbol of individual and national vulnerability, irresponsibility and weakness. Without warning, The Big Three’s big car dreams had become a nightmare.

As big car sales plunged, the federal government began tightening safety and emissions regulations. CAFE regulations were born. The rules uglified bumpers and choked the life out of Detroit’s V8’s. Imports, especially Japanese, flooded into the U.S. And this time the cars were well-built, durable, efficient, and backed by nationwide dealers. There was no getting around it: Detroit’s way of thinking was under serious attack.

The General launched a wave of Vegas and badge-engineered clones, and derivatives: Pontiac Astre and Sunfire; Buick Skyhawk, Chevy Monza and Oldsmobile Starfire. The engine choices were an abomination: Vega’s shake, rattle and blow four, Buick’s “odd-firing” V6, and a small-block Chevy V8 sleeved, de-stroked and strangled to 110 hp. All these H-Bodies came with a 24 month “will-rust-through” guarantee (36 months in CA) and a crow bar to pry out rear-seat passengers.

GM’s answer to the Toyota Corona and Datsun 510, for buyers looking for an economical 4-door compact? The not-so-small Nova and its clones the Pontiac Ventura, Buick Apollo, and Olds Omega. Just the ticket, especially with the 5.7 V8 and 16 EPA-optimistic miles per gallon. A practical wagon version? No such luck.

Ford (predictably) imitated GM’s genetic-engineering experiments. Unfortunately, their stem-cell line was no more distinguished than GM’s. The Pinto was cloned (Mercury Bobcat) and genetically-modified (Mustang II) with unpalatable results.

Chrysler’s Omni-present daydreams about a small, modern FWD car were still on the far Horizon. In the meantime, their desperation-driven hook-up with Mitsubishi set a pattern for the Big Three’s “if you can’t fight them, hop into bed with them” anti-Japanese import strategy.

Or was it a reverse Trojan horse deal? While the arrangement put Japanese-made Colts into Dodge showrooms, Mitsubishi eventually hung out their own shingle. Ditto for Suzuki, Isuzu and Mazda. These tenuous trans-pacific affairs wouldn’t be resolved for decades, but it’s pretty obvious who walked away smiling from the inevitable divorce.

Nineteen seventy-six saw two significant car introductions: Honda’s Accord and Chevrolet’s Chevette. They weren’t direct price-range competitors, but they were prescient examples of their respective manufacturer’s best shots in the small-car arena.

The Chevette arrived in celebratory red, white and blue bi-centennial bunting. Its only claim to fame: it single-handedly created (and dominated) a new category– pizza delivery vehicle. Chevette-amnesia became a national phenomena in the 1980’s.

The Accord threw down a gauntlet that literally shocked everyone– including Toyota– with its sophistication, refinement and poise. The Accord set the enduring template for the modern American car.

Suffering from rapid-onset ADD, GM was distracted by its big-car problems. In the largest US industrial investment since WW II, GM and Ford retooled their factories to “downsize” their range of cars. Chrysler, the perpetual poor relation, couldn’t match the spending spree.

Their solution: kill the big cars, and transfer their names unto the mid-size range. This shell-game strategy landed them on the Capitol steps with hands outstretched.

GM’s first round of downsizing was relatively successful, especially with its full-size models. Case in point: the new 1977 Impala was within inches and 200 lbs. of the classic ’55 – ’57 Chevy. The Impala looked clean and handled well. And it became an evergreen– until the 1991 “blob-mobile” Caprice reverted to old habits.

The economic recovery of the late 70’s and GM’s enormous downsizing investment paid off (for a few short years). In 1978, GM reached its all time US market share high of almost 50%, and the Feds were seriously talking about splitting up the company. Once again, cigars were passed. Kool-Aid drunk. This time Chrysler abstained.

Consumer Reports has released the 2007 edition of its “Annual Auto Issue.” For the second year in a row, all CR’s “Top Picks” come from Japanese makes. For some industry observers, that’s a problem. They believe the magazine’s results indicate a hidden bias, especially against vehicles produced by domestic manufacturers. Which both is and isn’t true.

Consumer Reports’ road test engineers subjected every test vehicle to a thorough evaluation, using a pre-established set of criteria and weights. For example, emergency handling might get ten points, front seat comfort might receive eight and “feels like a Honda” might be worth 37 (just kidding— I hope). Whatever the formula, when the magazine totaled-up the points, they ended up with a list composed entirely of Japanese cars.

This process leads to an obvious question: what criteria and weights– what formula– does Consumer Reports use to rate any given vehicle? The press and Consumer Reports have a policy in this regard: don’t ask, won’t tell. 

At the last Detroit auto show, I asked a Consumer Reports road test engineer why the magazine doesn’t publish its formulas. After all, nearly every enthusiast-oriented magazine does when conducting a comparison test. “It’s policy,” he replied. He went on to suggest that he didn’t make the policy, he didn’t necessarily support it, but as a Consumer Reports employee, he had no choice but to follow it. 

It's time for Consumer Reports to declassify its formulas. Two days ago, someone made the same request on their forum. The moderator’s response was revealing (or not):

“Thank you for your comments. These forums are designed to help subscribers in selecting and buying a car. They are intended to be primarily peer to peer, with our Auto test experts helping out when available.“If you find errors we will be glad to look into them and make corrections, but we just don’t have the time or resources to engage in lengthy debates here.

“You can channel your inquiries through Customer Service. There is a link on the bottom of every forum page, and at the top of every CR on-line page. You are also welcome to visit our facilities when we hold an open house and speak directly with our test staff at that time.”

As an automotive data provider, I find Consumer Reports’ arrogance, intransigence and unaccountability completely unacceptable. Any company that depends on the public trust must strive for transparency. If you have nothing to hide, you hide nothing. That’s why I respond to any and all questions about TrueDelta’s methodology. Besides, engaging in open public debate can teach data providers better ways to do things.

The Consumer Reports moderator’s non-response indicates that the magazine doesn’t see how knowledge of its overall score formulas could further improve anyone’s ability to find the right car. These formulas are divulged on a need-to-know basis, and as far as they’re concerned car shoppers don’t need to know.

Sorry, but it just isn’t so. To keep things simple, let’s assume there are only two criteria, ride and handling. Let’s further assume that Consumer Reports’ editors have decided that ride quality is twice as important as handling when evaluating a minivan. Keeping the overall score formula secret implies that any reasonable minivan buyers should also weight ride quality twice as heavily as handling.

This is just plain wrong. There is no objective way to arrive at one best formula for everyone. For some minivan buyers handling is twice as important as ride quality, and there’s nothing inherently superior about either set of weights. These are necessarily subjective value judgments. The Toyota Sienna is Consumer Reports’ “top pick” among minivans. But a buyer who values handling above ride quality will be happier in a Honda Odyssey.

This is not to say that overall evaluations are necessarily useless. If the formula was provided, our minivanista could determine that giving extra weight to handling would tip the decision in favor of the Honda.

But the formula is not provided, so there’s no way for minivan shoppers to know how closely Consumer Reports’ criteria and weights match their own or how adjusting these might affect the decision. By withholding its formulas, Consumer Reports takes the stand that readers should let the Yonkers mob decide for them what matters most– and least– when choosing a vehicle.

It’s true that many, even most car buyers are intimidated by the process– to the point where they want an authority figure to tell them what to buy. But buyers truly interested in finding the best fit for their personal tastes are going to have to put forth more effort. Currently they’ll have to rely on sources other than Consumer Reports, since the magazine withholds information needed by people who want to think for themselves.

[Michael Karesh operates www.truedelta.com, a vehicle reliability and price comparison website.]

When a chain smoker develops lung cancer after thirty years of habitual self-annihilation, their ill-health should come as no surprise to either the smoker or a casual observer. Likewise, The Big 2.5’s current tailspin is the direct result of bad habits stretching back some fifty years. Like a pack-a-day puffer, the Detroit automakers “felt just fine” for several decades. Eventually, inevitably, their dirty little habits caught up with them.

In the 1950’s, The Big Three rode America’s post-war economic boom to unprecedented profits. Their seemingly unstoppable success crowded out the domestic competition (Hudson, Nash, Packard, Studebaker). The Detroit capos reigned supreme, addicted to the high profits generated by a one-size fits-all strategy. So they cranked out nothing but full-size cars and trucks, counted the cash, paid off the unions, sat back and enjoyed the view. After all, why do anything different when the sun’s shining and hay’s being made?

The annual model change summoned forth more fins, chrome and horsepower– while hiding undersized drum brakes, marshmallow handling, numb steering and declining efficiency. While there were moments of brilliance amid the glitz and glamour, The Big Three decided Americans were suckers for sheer size and superficial flash.

Despite the eternal sunshine of Detroit’s spotless minds, European import cars started trickling into the domestic arena. By the late 50’s, the trickle had become a torrent. Corner car lots sold every conceivable (if obscure) European make: two-stroke DKWs, two-cylinder Lloyds, Renault Dauphines, Hillman Minx, Austins, Simcas, Peugeots, Citroens, VWs, Mercedes, Borgwards, etc. The Big Three launched their first counterattack in 1960.

Enter the Falcon, Corvair, Valiant and later, Chevy II. They were mostly seven-eighths scale full-size cars; vehicles that shared as many components with their bigger brothers as possible. The end result had certain relative merits, but import-style steering feel, handling and efficiency were not amongst them.

The new compacts sold well enough. Sales of “exotic” imports imploded in 1960– and no wonder. By then, most of the fragile machines were either dead or falling by the roadside. VW and Mercedes were a notable exception, importing robust cars within a proper dealer network. But the rest of them weird ferrin jobs couldn’t withstand American-style driving abuse—long distances and minimal maintenance. The lack of parts and service from fly-by-night dealers didn’t help.

The Big Three misread the tea leaves– they saw their compacts’ success and the collapse of import sales as complete vindication.

In Detroit’s mid-sixties’ euphoria, the domestics failed to notice that VW’s reputation and sales continued to grow. Soon, they were closing in on half a million sales per year. In fact, The Big Three’s compacts were stealing sales from the compact Rambler American and Studebaker Lark and their own land yachts– not the sturdy little German cars.

Anyway, the U.S. market was expanding so rapidly that the domestic compacts’ failure to stem the import tide was lost on their creators. Falling back on old habits, they put their compacts on a super-size V8 Juice diet.

By the late 60’s, Fort Detroit once again became aware of the foreign invaders. There were termites in the walls– VW bugs– and the sound of their collective chewing could not be ignored. At the same time, Toyota and Nissan put their heads over the parapet.

GM and Ford responded with a salvo of four cylinder compacts: the 1971 Chevy Vega and Ford Pinto. We’ll dispense with all the old jokes. Let’s just say that one nadir attracted another. Never mind the Pinto’s exploding gas tanks and the Vega’s self-destructing engines (aluminum block with cast iron head?), the terrible 2+2-some were packaging efficiency anti-matter.

At least the Vega handled well. Customers looking for a shrunken Camaro with a suicidal, gutless tractor engine, a three-speed stick (or two-speed Power-Glide) and interiors with all the ambience of a Rubbermaid storage bin loved it. Chrysler’s solution– The Plymouth Cricket (the imported English Hillman)– was no better, and a lot worse.

Meanwhile, Nissan had a hit with its Datsun 510, the “poor man’s BMW.” The Japanese import boasted a lusty OHC four, slick transmission, independent rear suspension and a practical but good-looking body. Toyota’s Corona was a little more boring (the company DNA?) but sturdy and fully equipped.

Never mind. The Big Three entered the 1970’s brimming with confidence. Their all-new ‘71 big cars were the pinnacle (and blow-out) of the American car’s evolution– from the 1200lb Model T to 5000+lb big-block barges longer than a Suburban.

Detroit firmly believed that the cute-as-a-bug Vega and um, inexpensive Pinto would finally show those nasty, cheap, tinny little imports what for. Once again, the big boys in and around Detroit convinced themselves that they had dealt with a problem that would eventually go away, just like the last time.

Cigars were passed. Kool-Aid drunk. A reckoning was on its way.