As a young man, I developed a profound distain for a neighborhood Corvette owner. Every week, he rolled his beautiful brand new C4 onto his driveway to hand wash the car and service the magnificent engine. When the washing ritual was done, the Vettophile slowly paraded the glorious machine though the neighborhood, and then carefully returned her to his garage. A waste of adrenaline stoking pleasure, to be sure, but the Vette owner’s behavior highlights an interesting, oft-overlooked aspect of automotive safety.

In a college industrial psychology class, we studied a California business that suffered significant losses from forklift accidents. A consultant advised the business to assign operators to specific forklifts. More radically, he convinced management to let the drivers personalize their wheels. The operators named them, painted them and blinged-out the forklifts to their heart’s content. Forklift accidents sank to zero virtually overnight. The operators’ efforts to personalize "their" vehicles created an emotional investment in the welfare of the equipment, which motivated them to become safer drivers.

Does this mean that pistonheads smitten with their rides (like our garage queen Vette guy) are less likely to drive like hoons? Maybe. Maybe not. It’s fiendishly difficult (read: expensive) to quantify and separate the huge number of overlapping variables that can have a profound affect on driver behavior: age, income, geography, driver training, driving skill, personal psychology, vehicle type, level of “emotional attachment” and so on. In the absence of hard data, common sense applied to anecdotal information is about as good as it gets.

For example, would anyone in his or her right mind dangle their beloved baby out the balcony window of a five-star hotel? Of course not; only a disturbed pervert would do such a bizarre thing. Likewise, a caring pistonhead would not knowingly endanger a car he adores. Sure, “knowingly” is a gray area. Some of us like nothing more than roughhousing with our machines. But common sense still suggests that the Vette owner's careful husbandry can be extrapolated into a theorem: we’re less likely to endanger a cherished whip with out-of-control recklessness.

Consider the obverse: if we don't care about the vehicle we drive, it becomes easy to thrash it. A dealer once asked me to name the fastest car in the world. “A rental car,” he pronounced. Fair enough: rentals are the automotive equivalent of a one-night stand. Other than the embarrassment of returning a broken car to the agency and the cost of a deductible, what do we have to lose if we ruin a rental car? Nothing. No wonder pistonheads tend to drive them like they stole them.

Likewise, I’d like to see some stats on the accident rates involving short-term leases. Like so-called serial monogamy, a leased car doesn’t require a “real” commitment. Why slow up and take care? After all, you're only going to have the car for a year or two. No matter how badly you race the engine or stomp on the brakes, they’ll be good enough until you get a new ride.

Speaking from statistically irrelevant personal experience, a car doesn’t have to be expensive, luxurious, quick or sure-footed to engender its owner's love. Years ago, I parted with a 16-year-old Toyota Camry. I loved that rolling piece of crap. My blood, sweat and tears were in that machine. I bloodied my knuckles dozens of times changing oil, replacing brake shoes and pads, spark plugs and distributors. Once, I even wrestled out the rear seats so I could replace the rear struts.

More times than I can count, that Camry shuttled me halfway across the country between my parent’s home and college. I drove the car to my wedding and my honeymoon. I drove my wife in the Camry to the hospital for the births of both of our children. I know many of you think that Camrys are soulless appliances that are impossible to love. But people do; these steadfast vanilla vehicles participate in their life experiences. As the ad says, at some point, they become more than a car.

I can think of no public policy or social engineering program designed to improve highway safety by encouraging an emotional connection between man/woman and their machine. (Hmm… Perhaps we should establish a North American Man-Vehicle Love Association? No, no. Bad idea.) However, I do know that as I changed the motor oil in my Honda Accord last night-– she is getting full synthetic these days-– my fondness for the car has grown. Driving safety improves because every act of caretaking for the car makes me that much more invested in its welfare, as well as my own.

The media’s failure to get ahead of The Big Two Point Five’s swan dive from grace is a source of constant amusement. The press’ collective reluctance to investigate the truth behind the automakers’ plight delivers endless wonder. But Motown media’s “eternal sunshine of the big ass automaker” shtick just plain rankles. In “Detroit Can Ride Out These Strange Days,” Free Press columnist Tom Walsh told his readers to hold fast and be of good cheer. ”These are nutty and painful times for Detroit's auto industry. But they are times for resolve, not for panic.” Hey Tom; are you sure about that?

Tom’s sure, and here’s why: “The most formidable challenge, the one so many in the global auto industry are obsessing about, is Toyota. Indeed, the Toyota monster is the underlying reason for GM's stock price drop after Wednesday's good-news earning report.” And there I was thinking that GM’s stock price drop was the “dump” part of Merrill analyst John Murphy’s “pump and dump” strategy. Or perhaps that GM’s sinking stock price had something to do with GM’s cash burn, employee-related liabilities, bloated dealer network and/or less-than-thrilling product portfolio. Nah; it’s all about ToMoCo.

At least Mr. Walsh is realistic about GM’s future prospects, in a denial-oriented, pay no attention to that man behind the curtain kinda of way. “GM is by no means in safe harbor… But whatever the short-term hiccups, Wagoner and Henderson and the rest of GM's management team are taking a disciplined approach to their issues. Costs are way down, revenue-per-vehicle-sold is up, and they handled the Renault-Nissan alliance issue smartly.”

Short term hiccups? You mean, like sinking market share and billions wiped from the corporate ledger? A disciplined approach meaning… the guys aren’t heading off for the links every Wednesday? Or an endless cycle of “no we won’t yes we will no we won’t” on discounts and spiffs? Sure, revenue-per-vehicle is up, but the company is still losing money. And if Walsh thinks GM handled the Nissan merger “smartly,” let’s hope he means quickly instead of intelligently. The really intelligent thing to do: an independent review of the deal (i.e. not putting the man in charge in charge).

Anyway, despite Tom’s stricture to chill, the facts about GM’s predicament are pretty nerve-racking. In the third financial quarter, GM’s cash position declined by $2.5b. (Short-term liquidity now stands at $20.4b.) Cash flow from its automotive operations– including restructuring costs– was a negative $5.1b. During the quarter, GM turned $2b of short term VEBA funds into cash and scored a $500m dividend from its GMAC financing arm. At the same time, GM forked-over $2.5b to GMAC to cover the “buy down” of its Zero Percent sale; a figure that includes additional loan loss reserves to cover deadbeats. Uh-oh.

As we warned, the Anyone With A Pulse sale boosted GM’s sales and reduced inventory– and hit GM’s cash flow like a Silverado driving into a wall. Sure, GM will receive another cash flow boost when its new pickup trucks arrive at dealers over the next several months, just as it did when the GMT900 SUVs rolled onto dealer lots. But The General’s bottom line remains the same: GM can’t generate cash from its automotive operations. That’s got to be stressful. 

Oh, GM also tapped into its secured credit line this summer-– supposedly to “test the mechanics of the line.” In fact, GM needed the additional liquidity to cover payables during plant shutdowns. The amount of the drawdown is [strangely enough] unknown. The borrowed funds were repaid during the quarter. But it was still a completely unprecedented maneuver. Feeling nervous yet?

CEO Rick Wagoner’s claim that GM’s cost cutting will save $9b annually will actually save the company about $5b in cash. Meanwhile, GM says it needs $400m to cover the deal over at bankrupt parts supplier Delphi in the fourth quarter of ’06, and will then pay Delphi around $100m per year for an “undefined period.” GM is also set to make a $1b contribution to the DC-VEBA in 2007, as per the health care “concessions” made by the UAW earlier this year. Without the proceeds of the GMAC sale… fuhgeddaboutit. Ready to freak?

Actually, panic is a highly evolved behavior. When an animal is trapped and fighting for its life, when it’s tried the logical escape route (fleeing) or last-ditch strategy (fighting), all that’s left are illogical and random actions (a.k.a. panic). By the same token, when a carmaker is trapped (heading for oblivion), when it’s tried the logical escape route (downsizing) or last ditch strategy (“bold” new products), all that’s left are illogical and random actions (filing for bankruptcy, merger, leaving the biz Studebaker-style, triggering a union strike, etc.). Of course, you can’t predict chaos (or its aftermath). But you’d think one of Detroit’s auto hacks would at least, you know, try.

Before Magnum became a Hemi-powered station wagon (or a mustachioed P.I.) the term referred to elongated bullet casings with extra gun powder. Before the Caliber became synonymous with cheap, underpowered, poor-handling cars, it was the measure of a bullet’s diameter. Once again, The Dodge Boys have raided the Shooter’s Bible, naming their new entry level SUV after Nitro Express elephant gun cartridges (double entendre to NOX fuel a bonus). Does the Nitro deliver the rhino stopping power of Teddy Roosevelt’s big stick, or represent another damp squib for DCX?

The Brazilian Grand Prix at Sao Paolo marked the final act of the 2006 Formula 1 season. It was the scene of a pulsating and emotionally charged contest, where Michael Schumacher (Ferrari) battled Fernando Alonso (Renault) for the driver’s championship. Well, it wasn’t really a “battle;” all Alonso had to do to win was stay in the race. This he did, although Schumacher unleashed yet another in a seemingly endless number of superlative drives, proving that he was still The Man, mechanical misfortunes notwithstanding.

Many people had asked what would become of Formula 1 after Ayrton Senna’s tragic demise. The F1 world was asking the same question as Michael Schumacher hung up his helmet. Michael has decided to call it quits after winning seven world championships, and demolishing all previous records for race wins, pole positions and fastest laps. Although Schumacher had more to offer, he now faces the enviable challenge of administering his estimated $750m empire from the peace and tranquillity of his $50m estate cuddled in the Swiss mountains.

Meanwhile, praise to Fernando Alonso. At 25, Alonso has become the youngest driver ever to win back-to-back F1 championships. The Spaniard made the most of an impressive racing package, slightly betrayed by a fall in performance from Michelin at one stage of the championship. He also surmounted ‘political’ obstacles, such as the abolition of the ‘mass dumper’ device from his Renault, and the much-debated penalty for ‘apparently’ blocking Felipe Massa (Ferrari) during the final practice of the Italian GP at Monza.

Fernando will drive for McLaren next season, with the clear intention of reviving the fortunes of the Anglo-German outfit, hunting for his third successive championship victory. A quick overview of the 2006 season and the final race at San Paolo tells us that next year will bring many changes in driver line-ups, engine suppliers and technical regulations. Let’s take a quick look at the top teams:

Ferrari: Felipe Massa and Kimi Raikkonen will lead the challenge of the Scuderia. They have inherited the onus of keeping Ferrari on top, although that in itself is not a heavy burden to carry.

Renault: Deploying Giancarlo Fisichella and Heikke Kovalainen, Team Boss Flavio Briatore has opted for experience and exuberance. Renault’s compulsory switch to Bridgestone tyres (due to Michelin’s exit) may be a technical setback, but they have a winning basis from which to progress.

McLaren: Uncharacteristically, McLaren didn’t win a single Grand Prix race in 2006. Team Boss Ron Dennis will push his men hard to return to their winning ways. Alonso’s co-driver will either be Pedro de la Rosa and GP2 champion or McLaren protégé Louis Hamilton. Raikkonen, though always a front runner, was daunted by poor reliability. A demotivated Juan Pablo Montoya was dropped halfway through the season.

Toyota: The big spending Japanese team has again failed to reap the rewards of their huge investment. Jarno Trulli and Ralf Schumacher only produced flashes of brilliance, as their racing package lacked consistency. Toyota is supplying engines to Williams for 2007, in an effort to raise its prospects in the Formula 1 circus on two fronts.

Honda: Jenson Button and Rubens Barrichello may provide the only real competition to the Ferrari and Renault teams. Honda has certainly displayed a positive progression of performance through the ’06 season, culminating in Button’s maiden Formula 1 victory at the Hungaroring.

Williams: Team owner Sir Frank Williams characterized the ‘06 season as ‘decidedly humiliating.’ It was certainly a transitional season; running Cosworth engines, Nico Rosberg and Mark Webber struggled with reliability and committed points-killing racing blunders. For ’07, Rosberg will be partnered by Austrian Alex Wurz and Toyota engines.

BMW-Sauber: Joining forces was a wise decision for both partners. The arrival of young polish driver Robert Kubica, replacing Jacques Villeneuve mid-season, gave Nick Heidfeld and the team extra motivation. Kubica could well be the next big thing.

With a proposed 18-race calendar, a single tire manufacturer, the retirement of Michael Schumacher and a renewed tussle between the big constructors to edge their way to the top spot, one question springs to mind: who will be the dominant force in Formula 1 next season, and who will take the place of Michael Schumacher as the true Number One? Will Fernando Alonso make McLaren winners again? Will Kimi Raikkonen continue in Schumacher’s footsteps? Will Giancarlo Fisichella be top dog at the helm of Constructor’s Championship winners Renault? Can the young guns, Rosberg, Kovalainen, Kubica and Hamilton challenge the ‘old guard’?

Teams will fight to retain their supremacy. Others will attempt to regain lost glory, while the majority will work hard to present themselves with a competitive package. Winter testing may prove to be deceptive. As always, as it should be, the answers to these questions and more will only be revealed on race-day.  

Buy a Toyota Prius and you get a backup camera, keyless ignition, iPod integration and travel over 50 miles for every gallon of gas poured therein. Buy an Audi RS4 and you don't even get self-dimming mirrors, and you can only drive 11 miles per gallon of dead dinos (EPA notwithstanding). The Prius will set you back $25k. The RS4 costs three Prii. At freeway speeds, the Toyota is a near silent and comfortable cruiser, whereas the Audi sounds and feels like a volcano making love to an avalanche.

Yesterday, a Yahoo news bulletin popped up: “GM’s losses narrow.” If that’s the way you see it, please don’t tarry here. You know GM CEO Rabid Rick Wagoner’s turnaround plan is “gaining traction.” You know GM’s too big to fail, that the supertanker will change course and avoid the jagged rocks of bankruptcy. The fact that GM’s fundamentals are still broken— too many brands, models and dealers; excessive bureaucracy and crushing union obligations— is not your concern. For those of you willing to stare into the abyss, let’s take a closer look at those third quarter results.

First, GM’s cash flow is still negative. GM NA dropped $367m for the quarter. That might not seem like much compared to last year’s $1.67b hit, but it’s not chicken feed— especially considering its origins. As the official press release joyfully proclaims “This significant progress largely reflects improvements in structural costs, as the company executes the pension, health care and manufacturing cost reduction initiatives related to its North American turnaround plan.” In other words, GM has reduced its costs and it’s still taking in less money than it spends. Even worse, there ain’t much more GM can cut.

No wonder Rabid Rick Wagoner was talking up the chances of the new Chevrolet Silverado/GMC Sierra pickups and the Saturn Outlook/GMC Acadia crossovers. While these vehicles offer the prospect of higher profits, their market segments are heating up, driving margins down. And they only represent a fraction of GM’s lineup across its eight US brands. The fact that GM’s margins are being squeezed across the board is a far more important financial factor than the Silverado/Outlook’s potential success. With over a million unsold units on the ground, the pressure to slash prices will grow, reducing margins yet further, and continuing GM’s reputation as the K-Mart of cars.

And there's your fundamental problem: GM is not a price leader. It’s still a high cost producer selling products at a discount. Public demand for its retail products just isn’t strong enough for it to charge prices equal to Honda/Toyota/Nissan. Bottom line: GM makes little to no margin overall on its North American auto business. Not to put too fine a point on it, it’s unclear whether GM can ever make a profit in North America again.

As always, market share is key, and the signs are on the disastrous side of bad. Despite public pledges to reduce bulk sales, nearly 25% of GM's sales still go to fleets. Pull those sales out of the equation and GM's market share at the retail level is only about 19%, spread over eight brands. Take out employee/vendor pricing deals, and the true retail demand for GM products is less than Toyota’s.

Now consider this: GM's third-quarter North American market share slipped a percentage point compared to a year earlier. In light of Ford and DCX' falling market shares, GM’s highly-trumpeted “market share stabilization” actually means it’s losing ground to the so-called imports. That ain’t good. Conquesting sales from Ford and Chrysler is hard enough. Taking on the non-union guys over at Honda, Nissan and Toyota will be just about as hard as it sounds— if not harder.

GM’s balance sheet may not show this sort of mission critical information, but there’s plenty else to set off warning bells (for those who aren’t deaf to the dangers). What are we to make of the fact that GM drew on its secured line of credit in Q3, and then repaid the money? We’ve been saying for quite some time that GM’s wandering on the edges of a liquidity crisis. The sale of half of the GMAC finance unit grows more important by the day— especially considering the rapidly deteriorating asset quality of their mortgage/auto receivables. Are the loan loss reserves adequate? If not, bad things are bound to happen.

There are other "hidden" shoals, such as the psychological impact of federal changes in the rules regarding corporate accounting for pensions and other post-employment benefits. When they kick-in in ‘07, GM will have no stockholder equity. None. While the development won’t have any cash impact, the the development will bring to light the magnitude of the liabilities facing Generous Motors. It’s a huge negative, despite being downplayed by GM’s management. And if that isn't enough to convince GM execs to break out the Prozac, UAW negotiations are set to begin…

In short, GM’s future is far from secure. Wagoner’s highly touted “turnaround” is based on the idea that GM can return to profit without changing its business basics (downsizing does not equal change). It won’t because it can’t. It no longer has the time or the money to do so. But more than that, its management doesn’t have the will. The man who does— investor Kirk Kerkorian— knows that he’d have to destroy GM to save it. If he lives long enough, one way or another, it will come to pass. 

Earlier this year, FoMoCo assembled a panel of “futurists” and “trend spotters” from academia, nonprofit organizations and the private sector to identify trends that could impact future product development. While people who’d never read Wired might say Ford needs to put out the fire in the kitchen before they make blueprints for a new bedroom, it’s also true that those who do not see the future are condemned to flashing double zeros on their VCR– I mean DVD-R. Anyway, at the risk of clouding Ford’s crystal ball, I’ve taken the liberty of preparing a couple of potential news releases as a rough guide to future automotive trends…

Hummer H7 Debuts  General Motors have finally unveiled their latest Hummer model, the H7. The H7 is Hummer’s first front wheel-drive SUV, sharing its basic platform and drivetrain with the Chevrolet Aveo. Bob Lutz, GM’s 107-year old Vice Chairman Emeritus, spoke enthusiastically about the new model: “The H7 shows Hummer’s firm commitment to improving fuel economy while providing all the off-road capability our market studies show the typical Hummer buyer needs.”

The H7 comes standard with 18” chrome wheels, nine inches of ground clearance, running boards and a snorkel-style air intake for its 1.2-liter hybrid diesel engine (licenced from Briggs & Stratton), along with five cup holders capable of holding Starbucks’ new gigantesco latte. Options include brush bars, a skid plate package, parking assist and hands-free cell phone. Prices are expected to start in the low-to-mid-20s, and fall from there.

Bill Ford's Operation Called a Success The Ford Motor Company announced today that former Chairman Bill Ford recently completed a highly experimental medical procedure. According to company Press Secretary Haki Yamomota, Mr. Ford’s radical new spine transplant was a complete success. Ford, who surrendered control of the family-owned automaker to CEO Alan Mulally immediately prior to its sale to Toyota, is already making some “bold moves.”  “His digestion is obviously in working order,” Yamamoto said. “He’ll start making tough decisions any day now."

Ford’s rehabilitation will continue with a special regimen of tasks designed to help him stand on his own two feet. “He’ll begin by telling his valet what he wants to wear for the day, without being able to change his mind, delegate the decision, fire or change the job title of any member of his domestic staff. From there, we hope he’ll figure out something to do with Ford’s two remaining Brands.”

Porsche PU  Hot on the heels of the successful Panamera sedan, Porsche AG has released concept drawings of a new pickup truck designed specifically for the American market, based on its next-generation Cayenne SUV. “The partial success of luxury vehicles like the Escalade EXT and the Lincoln Mark LT just about proved that Americans will buy anything with a pickup bed attached, regardless of price, utility or need,” claims Werner Schnitzel, Chief of New(ish) Product Development. “Our research clearly shows that there’s a market for a luxury-performance- off-road pickup truck for owners who’ve already bought our sports car, SUV and sedan.”

Schnitzel said the prototype Porsche pickup has been tested at the legendary Nürburgring race track, where it removed large pieces of privately owned exotic cars without incident. Schnitzel denied rumors that Porsche was developing an amphibious performance-speedboat-off-road-delivery van.

Car & Driver Names 100Best  In response to Motor Trend’s new “Car of the Week” award, Car and Driver released their “100Best” issue today. Editor-in-Chief Portly Emmental explained, “There are so many good cars out there today that restricting ourselves to ten vehicles didn't make any economic sense.”  The winners included everything built by BMW and Honda, along with a token Chevrolet and Chrysler. In a totally unrelated press release, Hachette Filipacchi Media U.S. announced that the words "Special Advertising Section" will now appear on the main cover of the magazine.

BMW Rebuffs Criticism of iCan’tDrive155  BMW went on the offensive today in response to the criticism aimed at their new control system, referred to by its detractors as iCan’tDrive155. The new voice-activated system operates everything from the glove box door operation to steering, and only responds to commands in perfectly inflected German. BMW claims the device was designed to make BMW's the ultimate hands-free driving machine. Owners report that the “hands-free” part of the system works fine, as they can’t figure out how to get the doors open.

Rejecting the complaints, spokesmeister Dieter Badenhoff stated “We know what is best for BMW owners. If they are unwilling to learn the proper operation of the system there’s nothing we can do.” In other news, the BMW's legal department has been granted a restraining order prohibiting anyone working for The Truth About Cars website to move any closer than 100 feet from any vehicle produced by BMW, or use any word rhyming with "bunt" in any product description.

The Truth About Cars Begins Toyota Death Watch Editor Robert Farago says he began the series due to the large number of Chinese built cars stealing market share from domestically-produced Toyotas. "It's only a matter of time," Farago said.

We offer these predictions in the hope it will help Ford develop a clearer vision of the automotive future. It’s at least as accurate– and much cheaper– than calling the Psychic Friends Network.

What became of the ninth-generation Lincoln Mark series? Somewhere in the Lincoln brand's twisted nomenclature there is a missing link: a connection between the rip-snorting Mark VIII and Lincoln’s cute-ute Mark X. I mean MKX. While no one at Lincoln's brand-awareness roadshow bought this Houstonian's sly attempt to realign the disjointed Mark series, they still handed me a set of keys to their latest crossover vehicle and told me to go play. Well fair enough.

As the launch of Ford’s new Edge illustrates, the Big Two Point Five’s next “great white-walled hope” is something called the “cross-over.” It’s not a traditional SUV and it’s not a road-hugging car. It could be a station wagon on stilts with [optional] four-wheel drive and maybe even a hybrid powerplant, but it’s definitely not for towing [much] or plugging [deep] mud or surmounting [any] boulders. From the waves of hype you’d think this less-than-genetically gifted half-breed was a revolutionary development. Actually, it’s a vehicle design from the second half of the last century.

Back in the day, automakers mounted an engine, transmission and wheels onto a metal framework (called a “ladder frame” for its shape). The bodywork was then attached to the frame, which carried all the weight. It was simple, sturdy and made customization easy; whether turning a Model-T into a pickup truck or putting a custom body on a $10k Duesenberg chassis. The problem with this early construction technique was simple enough: weight. It takes more fuel to motivate heavy than light.

The next big idea in auto body construction came courtesy the airplane industry, where weight-saving is mission critical (yes I know it’s really “mass” physics boy, back off). Instead of setting the body on a load-bearing frame, the frame is the body, and vice-versa. The substantial weight savings delivered by this so-called unitary construction technique allowed for smaller engines and reduced vibrations. The first mass-produced American car to incorporate these ideas (and airplane-like streamlining) was Chrysler’s Airflow. It was a car that many manufacturers copied, but very few people bought.

Despite the Airflow fiasco, unitary construction slowly began to win favor within the American automobile industry. The Big Three lagged behind smaller companies like Nash and Hudson; body-on-frame construction was more practical for yearly model changes (since only the shell had to change). Even so, Lincoln went unitary in 1958, and other models slowly followed. Many of the American cars (and even the revolutionary Mini) kept a separate frame mounting to hold the engine, even when their bodies went unitary. While construction methodology changed, there was no great shift in the type of cars being built.

It wasn’t for lack of trying. Back in the ‘60’s, a team at Ford developed an idea for a people-carrier built on a unitary platform. As detailed in David Halberstam‘s “The Reckoning,” despite great customer survey results, they were never able to sell the vehicle internally. One reason: it needed a new (front wheel-drive) platform. A decade on, most of the Ford team had moved to Chrysler (who had the requisite platform). The minivan was born.        

While the minivan dented the ladder frame-based “conversion” market, the truck and van market remained the last great refuge of the old manufacturing technique (aside from the Ford Crown Victoria triplets). A ladder frame made it much easier to customize a chassis for special uses (delivery van, camper, flat bed, etc.). The extra weight involved was balanced by the need for additional strength for hauling/towing (which a commercial user actually needs). Plus, ladder frames are cheaper to build.

When SUVs began to take off in the late eighties, consumers discovered ladder frame construction’s weak points. The vehicles were heavy (i.e. thirsty), top-heavy (i.e. unstable), rode like trucks (of course) and interior space was not nearly as large as it appeared from the outside. The Big Three improved their truck’s brakes and fitted plusher interiors, but ladder frames ruled because, well, no one complained. And they’re cheap (i.e. more profitable).

Japanese automakers cashed-in on the SUV trend with whatever trucks they could muster. But they also saw a case for a small pseudo-SUV, especially in their own backyard. Toyota and Honda developed nearly parallel solutions on their small-car, unitary platforms: the RAV-4 and CR-V. The “uni-utes” found soon found fame and fortune on the other side of the Pacific. Eventually Honda and Toyota gave the same treatment to a family-size car, creating a macho brother to their mini-vans. Subaru already specialized in four-wheel drive wagons, so their Forester wasn’t much of a stretch (though interesting as a “missing link”).

While these “crossovers” couldn’t match their bigger brethren for towing or rock hopping, they carried more people for less gas and handle more like a car. In the last few years, The Big Two Point Five has finally responded, releasing a few crossovers to significant sales– without denting the existing competitors’ market share. And therein lies the problem with The Big Two Point Five’s desire to “cross over” into renewed prosperity: they’re not creating a new niche, they’re moving into an existing one. Sad to say, their track record in that regard leaves much to be desired. Besides, if you’re constantly changing your running shoes in the middle of a marathon, you may be quicker than you were, but you’ll also be last.

So that’s it. F1’s greatest talent will not win the 2006 World Drivers Championship (WDC). Michael Schumacher admitted as much after last week’s Japanese GP, when engine failure sidelined his car and his hopes of an eighth title. “One cannot always win and things do not always go as planned.” Although Schuey threw in the proverbial towel, there is a way he could snatch victory from the jaws of defeat: if he wins the final race of the season and Renault pilot Fernando Alonso fails to score a single point. It’s not likely. But one thing is for sure: next year’s F1 will be the sport’s new dawn.

Ferrari and Renault remain heavy favorites for the 2007 constructor’s championship, though they should face significant pressure from teams lower down in the pecking order. Red Bull Racing will bring the brand new Adrian Newey-designed RB3 to the track. Given Newey's reputation at McLaren, the  RB3 could emerge as a strong contender for the checkered flag– although the McLaren cars' rep for unreliability could mean that Red Bull is unlikely to remain competitive with the top teams for the duration of the season. Toyota’s impressive late-season performance has hinted at the team’s potential. With a blank slate and a blank check, we may well see Toyota challenging for the constructors' title– provided they can motivate the two stiffs they employ as drivers (Ralf Schumacher and Jarno Trulli).

In terms of the World Drivers' Championship, common wisdom holds Kimi Raikkonen as the front runner for next year’s title. Though universally acclaimed as a phenomenal driver, Raikkonen’s championship aspirations have been thwarted by the aforementioned mechanical "issues" over at McLaren. The Iceman’s move to the Ferrari team will finally provide F1 fans a chance to see how good the young Finn really is. Over the last few years, the Scuderia has shown itself peerless in race car design, quality and execution. Aside from the Ferrari team's mechanical prowess, their corporate culture will give the young Finn the backup he needs to concentrate on the job at hand.

Combined with Raikkonen’s well-deserved reputation for relying on his “attachments” (thank you David Hobbs), Kimi should set a blazing pace straight out of the box. In Hobbs’ immortal words, “that Kimi’s a brave boy." In other words, Raikkonen's a Ferrari ace in the classic mold. Back when Enzo Ferrari stalked the halls of Maranello, the Scuderia was known for bringing in young, reckless, extremely quick drivers; many of whom didn’t live out their time in scarlet (see Derrick “Death” Daley’s The Cruel Sport for a fascinating look at the period). Kimi should fit in well with the prevailing ethos, and provide the team with another guiding spirit.

Next season will also go down as first “Year of the Manufacturers.” Manufacturer teams will compromise more of the field in 2007 than ever before. There will be only a handful on privateers on the grid, as many of the independent teams have become little more than adjuncts of the manufacturer teams that supply their engines. This is a trend that is sure to continue in the years to come; whether for good or ill remains to be seen.

The freeze on engine development instituted by the FIA could well be the most significant change for '07. The engines that teams ran over the last two weekends of this season will be homologated for use through the 2010 season. Given the political volatility surrounding F1, it's highly unlikely that the strict, [ostensibly] long-term regulations will remain as they are now. But they signal a significant shift in the sport’s technological development paradigm for the foreseeable future. “Free” from the need to spend significant funds on engine development, aerodynamic development will become paramount.

This development is good news for some teams, particularly Red Bull Racing. When RBR “recruited” Adrian Newey from McLaren this year, they secured one of F1’s premier aerodynamicists. While Newey arrived too late to make a significant impact on the current RB2 racecar, its successor, the RB3, will be a clean sheet Newey design. While untested, it should provide a huge performance leap for the team. In the off-season, we should also see some clever aerodynamic solutions from the rest of the teams vying for pole position.

In short, the 2007 F1 season will be like none before. Despite the much-lamented FIA rule changes, new story lines will arise to breathe new life into both the drivers’ and the constructors’ championships. Raikkonen in scarlet, the consolidation of manufacturer power and Schumi’s absence should all provide ample entertainment and a highly competitive championship. For the first time in years, F1 is wide-open.

According to Automotive News, jurors for the 2007 North American Car of the Year and North American Truck of the Year awards are currently considering some 26 vehicles. Yeah, well, 130 vehicles are competing for the 2006 TTAC Ten Worst Automobiles Today (TWAT) awards. And that includes badge-engineered clones which were nominated jointly. And you/we ain’t done yet. You’ve got ‘til 5:00pm EST to add your nomination to the list. Meanwhile, guess what? There's overlap!

Yup, there’s overlap between our list of TWAT nominees and the list of nominees for the North American Car/Truck of the Year (NACATOY) awards. In fact, over half of their nominees are also yours. Here’s the list of their candidates; the names in boldface are also nominees for a TWAT.

Acura MDX
Acura RDX
Audi Q7
BMW X5
Chevrolet Silverado
Chevrolet Tahoe/Suburban
Chrysler Sebring
Dodge Caliber
Dodge Nitro
Ford Edge
GMC Acadia
Honda CR-V
Honda Fit
Hyundai Santa Fe
Infiniti G35
Jaguar XK/XKR
Jeep Wrangler
Lexus LS 460
Mazda CX-7
Mercedes S class
Nissan Altima
Nissan Versa
Saturn Aura
Saturn Vue Green Line
Toyota Camry
Toyota FJ Cruiser

Finding so much commonality between two seemingly dissimilar groups of vehicles is somewhat surprising (and more than slightly amusing), but at least their list doesn’t include the number one TWAT nominee: the Jeep Compass. I reckon even co-opted journalists experience a blinding flash of reality from time to time.

So what criteria did NACATOY use to select their nominees? Hell if I know. I have no idea what voting process they’ll use to make their final choices either. (Perhaps one of their members would care to enlighten us below.)

We know that NACATOY nominees were selected by a hand-picked panel of automotive “experts” who are wined and dined regularly by the manufacturers, go on all-expenses-paid junkets and get box fresh, manufacturer-supplied examples of all of the cars delivered straight to their door, gassed-up and ready to go.

We also know that TWAT nominees were chosen by a group of passionate and very vocal pistonheads who spend their own hard-earned money for their transportation, know what they like (or dislike) and don’t have to worry about pissing off car makers, advertising agencies or media outlet beancounters. And, um, probably haven’t driven, nor will ever drive (mostly out of choice), a fifth of the nominated vehicles.

TTAC’s list of 10 most nominated TWATs seems to have reached an equilibrium point. Keeping up with the number of nominations and the vehicles nominated has been a challenge and privilege (in a perverse sort of way). However, it’ll soon be time to put those numbers away and begin the second round of the process.

In a week or so, the TTAC selection committee will convene to carefully consider the merits, or lack thereof, of each candidate. We’ll narrow the list to 20 finalists using our keen insight and every analytical tool available to us. Or maybe we’ll just put all of their names in a fishbowl and draw 20. Whatever method we use, we guarantee you’ll have 20 really good (bad) winners (losers) to select best (worst) of.  Then let the chips fall where they may!

Since this article was written, we've begun voting on the '06 TWAT awards.

Please click HERE to cast your vote on the final 10. You will be returned to the TTAC home page.

Once again, thank you for helping TTAC with our Ten Worst Automobiles Today (TWAT) award. We’ve been most gratified by the number and quality of the nominations. The nomination process will judder to a halt tomorrow at 5pm EST. TTAC’s staff (that’s me) will then begin the arduous process (which may or may not involve the use of dart boards, adult beverages and TV psychics) of paring a list of almost 200 losermobiles down to 20 really bad finalists. We’ll open the voting sometime next week, and announce the winner the following week. Meanwhile, here’s another quick recap.

Here are the top ten most nominated TWATs as of this morning:

Jeep Compass
Subaru B9 Tribeca
GM Minivans (joint)
Toyota Camry
Jeep Commander
Mercedes R-Class
Chevrolet Impala
Chrysler Aspen
Chevrolet Aveo
Chevrolet Monte Carlo

RF reports that he’s amazed at the quality of the writing from our nominators; he’s offered assignments to five of you so far. (If you’re interested in writing for us, don’t wait for an invitation.) We’re all extremely pleased by the fact that so many long time readers have finally broken radio silence to participate in this effort. We urge you to continue making your voice heard on other issues. By now, we’re a solid community of pistonheads. You’re all welcome.

And you’re all nuts. Again, what’s with the Camry? Finding the most popular car sold in America associated with this group was like finding your Aunt Matilda in the holding cell after a whorehouse raid, guilt or innocence not withstanding. In fact, this topic generated the bulk of yesterday’s discussion. Here are a few representative comments:

The Camry and RL may be boring, soulless appliances, but they are not bad cars. Nor are they particularly ugly. Just forgettable. – Zarba

I’d vote for the Camry because it gets bigger and uglier every generation and it is to cars what Novocain is to gums. – artsy5347

A TWAT is a vehicle that fails to live up to its purpose. If its purpose is to be the most comfortable, reliable, and vanilla way to get from point A to B, then the Camry is no TWAT. – Jeff in Canada

I tested the LE model and found land-yacht handling thresholds (unacceptable for Soccer Moms, don’t even let pistonheads get in the equation), misaligned interior panels, RATTLES, high asking price (24k and it’s a 4-banger?) and one butt ugly design.  – Sajeev Mehta

The Camry delivers the boring vehicle that people who buy them want. It’s not a bad car, just a case of giving people what they want. – Claude Dickson

The new one looks eye-poppingly awful from the outside; really really bad; worse than ‘96 Taurus bad. – maxo

The Camry is a soulless drone of a car but it is absolutely flawless piece of machinery made to accomplish what it was designed for: A to B anonymous dependable transportation. You can hardly qualify a best seller that consistently fulfill that niche, forbidding any competition (except the Accord which should then be nominated as well!) a bad car or a TWAT.  – rashakor

The reason I feel the Camry is deserving of the nomination is the styling. They have taken what was supposed to be a boring family sedan and attempted to add style to the exterior… It’s like putting a tuxedo on a pig… It looks stupid and makes the pig mad. – BimmerHead

Looks like it’s a hung jury on whether soullessness and bad styling make a car worthy of a TWAT. We would be less than honest if we didn’t admit right from the start that the selection committee will have to consider the effect of a Camry TWAT on this website’s credibility. On one hand, it would certainly fit TTAC’s brand positioning as the nutter in the internet attic. On the other hand, anyone predisposed against our, um, style, would use it as another excuse to dismiss TTAC with the old “anyone with a keyboard can run a website” argument.

Suffice it to say, our first obligation is to the truth. It will probably come down to a single question: would we, the jury, rather gnaw off our hands than wrap them around a Camry’s steering wheel for any length of time? Or something along those lines.

In any case, keep those nominations coming. Remember: the more justifications for a given nomination, the more likely it is to make the top 20. So let’s get those TWATs out in the open for everyone to see.

Since this article was written, we've begun voting on the '06 TWAT awards.

Please click HERE to cast your vote on the final 10. You will be returned to the TTAC home page.

For any journalist covering the American auto industry, The Big Two Point Five's insularity is a constant source of amazement. And so it has been, for well over six decades. Over the last forty years or so, the names have changed, but  the message hasn’t. The party line: “foreign” cars are a fad (especially the small ones), ours are as good as if not better than theirs, prosperity is only a couple of cars away and, oh yeah, it's all the union’s fault. One insider coined the perfect term for this combination of reckless denial and mindless optimism: “Grosse Pointe Myopia” (GPM).

Note the term’s geographic specificity; Grosse Pointe is the swanky suburb just outside of Detroit favored by highly-paid automobile executives. Every member of The Big Two Point Five– which includes no less than fourteen domestic sub-brands– are headquartered in and around Detroit. This concentration of industrial energy, all directed towards the creation of products within a single consumer category, is not the norm for manufacturers in most industries. Even within the car biz, America's insularity is without parallel.

Even in much smaller countries, there’s a greater physical separation between the main players in the automotive sector. In Japan, the Dai-san are separated by almost as much distance as they are in the US. While Honda, Nissan and Toyota all have offices in Tokyo, they also have “home turf” in very different parts of the country. Volkswagen, BMW and Mercedes all have their own lebensraum in a country roughly the size of Texas. Even SAAB and Volvo weren’t neighbors until they were bought. When it comes to cross-corporate cultural incest based on simple geography, Motown rules.

The biggest single problem with sharing your home base with your rivals: it stunts your perceptions. Every new development– whether it’s a design, technological advance, personnel policy or marketing technique– is analyzed in terms of what your not-so-friendly neighborhood competition is doing. The “what would BLANK do?” debate slows the adoption of new ideas, especially in manufacturing. It also retards the pace of innovation. After all, the “visible” competition is moving just as slowly as you are.

Equally important, Detroit and its environs are a terrible place from which to survey the domestic automotive scene. Even in the days when The Big Three ruled the American market, their distance from the left and right coasts made import-related trends seem much less important than they really were. Just about all the foreign competition made their first inroads on the coasts, away from Detroit (and nearer to where the economic heart was moving). Is it any surprise that The Big Two Point Five are most dominant in America’s economic backwaters, including their rustbelt fiefdoms?

Detroit is one of the few major metropolitan areas in the US where imported automobiles are still a relatively rare sight (and even this is changing). Like ancient potentates unaware of the barbarians at the gates, the current Kings of Detroit look out their windows and find false reassurance. Ford moved Mercury to California for this very reason. They scurried home soon thereafter; what the rest of Ford couldn’t see, didn’t exist.

Obviously, this plethora of monomaniacal, short-sighted executives wasn't trained from birth (though a large number of Detroit's movers and shakers are second and third generation automobile executives). Rather they’re plucked from a narrow range of design, engineering and B-schools. Those who fit the profile and succeed soon find themselves living in glass towers– literally– seeing the rest of the world through a strange prism of executive privilege. They know real customers don’t drive box fresh, hand-picked vehicles. They know they don’t fly first class or private jets. But the execs gratefully submit to the common, alternate reality, and, eventually, become oblivious to its distancing effect.

Of The Big Two Point Five, GM suffers the most from its GPM. Ford's recent decision to poach their new boss from Boeing reflects a historical willingness to hire executives from other auto companies and industries. A fair chunk of the Dai-san’s American management (especially Nissan’s) started with The Big Two Point Five. GM is different, a royalty unto itself, pure, unsullied, and inbred. The fact that their current CEO Rick Wagoner has never worked for a company other than GM tells you everything you need to know about The General’s terminal myopia.

Ford talks of Bold Moves. GM speaks of on-track turnarounds. Chrysler says wait and see. Meanwhile, Nissan’s moved to Tennessee. There is no question whatsoever that The Big Two Point Five should also up stakes and split town– for three different destinations. They can leave whatever technological and manufacturing operations remain in Michigan in Michigan, but their executives should abandon Detroit as soon as possible. It’s the best way for The Big Two Point Five to learn to see the world in sharp focus, as it really is. Only then can The Big Two Point Five start the process of psychological recovery that financial recovery demands. Otherwise, whether they like it or not, whether they know it or not, they're all going down together.   

Thank you for helping The Truth About Cars select the Ten Worst Automobiles Today: The TWAT Awards. We’ve been most gratified by your enthusiastic participation in this important exercise in automotive criticism. Although RF has been busy deleting over-zealous nominations and flame-broiled retaliations, the vast majority of you have made strong and eloquent arguments for a whole mess of incredibly weak products. The nomination process will continue for the remainder of this week. To help avoid carpel scroll syndrome, please continue to submit your nominations underneath this post. Meanwhile, a quick summary of the action so far…

As of last night, our gentle readers have nominated 115 separate vehicles for a TWAT. (Yes, anal retentive car hack that I am, I’m making a spreadsheet of all your nominations, including your main objections to each vehicle.) The early results have been a bit surprising, in the sense of a Hellfire missile streaking off a Predator out of the clear blue sky. While the selection process is not a one-man, one vote process (I refer you to the Rules of Engagement in yesterday’s post), check out fourth place in our top ten most nominated list.

Jeep Compass
Subaru B9 Tribeca
GM Minivans (joint)
Toyota Camry
Chevy Impala
Chevy Monte Carlo
Chrysler Sebring
Chevy Aveo
Chrysler Aspen
Hummer H2

Who’d a thunk it: a completely unrepresentative sample of pistonheads considers one of the most popular cars in America a TWAT. The most common complaints surround the Camry’s faux-Chris Bangle style and its utter lack of dynamic character. Clearly, our esteemed [unpaid] contributors haven’t pulled any punches in their assessments. Here are a few of the many comments made so far:

Jeep Compass:

This insult to a legendary brand’s image has got to be one of the dumbest and poorly executed vehicles out there, and will eventually prove to be Jeep’s biggest mistake. – Hutton

Saturn Ion:

I actually felt sorry for the earnest Saturn sales associate riding with me who had to sell this clunker against a Civic, Corolla or Focus – geeber

Chrysler Crossfire:

Looks like they took a 1967 AMC Marlin and put it in the hot-wash for too long, then into the dryer for too long, badge-engineered a Chrysler grill, slapped ‘er on there and shazam, y’all. Lookidad! Wow, UGLY. – Glenn

Monte Carlo:

That thing could handle like a lotus and wail like a ferrari and it still wouldn’t be able to get past its looks. Let’s not forget, though, that it in fact handles like a wheelbarrow and wails like my lawnmower. – Mitch Yelverton

Pontiac Solstice/Saturn Sky:

It’s like that beautiful supermodel who has to ruin it by opening her mouth, at which time you realize she has a less than room temperature IQ – nweaver

Saab 9-2x:

In a drunken stupor, Saab said “We need an entry-level model capable of attracting young buyers to Saab’s sporting nature, but we don’t want to actually develop anything.” That’s verbatim, or so I’ve heard. – JoeO

Toyota Camry:

In every form it has taken, it has progressively destroyed the soul of anyone who dares sit behind its rudder. – murphysamber

Cadillac Escalade:

Oversized for those with undersized original equipment – alanp

Jeep Compass:

Why do they need the Compass and the Patriot in the lineup? Wasn’t one road-bound Jeep vehicle enough of a disgrace? – gotsmart

GM Minivans:

It looks like the designers could not figure out if they wanted to design a minivan or a SUV. So they took the worst parts of both and stuck them together. – gcmustanglx

Ford Focus:

Once a proud contender for the most recalls on record award, now a forgotten out-of-date bargain basement sedan/hatch. – KurtB

Acura RL:

This vehicle has the uncanny ability to suck the soul right out of my body in the same way as a trip to Costco. – Austin Green

Ford Freestar:

One can see the lack of refinement just with one glance. The metal parts and whatnots underneath the car were jutting out at weird, oblique angles. And even though I’ve only witnessed the Ford Freestar as a passenger and not as a driver (thank you jesus) I can say with confidence that I’d rather ride in a ‘92 Toyota Camry. – Nam Duong

International MXT:

It’ll get you looked at! Just like if you stuffed a potato in your Speedo. – Ty Webb

Mitsubishi Raider:

Didn’t care for the new Dakota, so the Raider is like salt-dipped burning shards of glass in my eyes. Ugly. – lambo

Onward and downward! There are a lot of truly, madly, deeply horrendous cars out there just waiting for someone to recognize them, or add fuel to their pyre. Let us know what they are and why they deserve a TTAC TWAT. Remember: a nominee must have been offered for sale (if not actually sold) as a new car sometime between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2006.

Since this article was written, we've begun voting on the '06 TWAT awards.

Please click HERE to cast your vote on the final 10. You will be returned to the TTAC home page.

Off-road capable SUV’s are an increasingly rare breed. More and more of our roads are occupied by SUV look-a-likes that can hardly ford a burst water main or clamber over a vicious pothole– never mind tackle the great American outback. Flying in the face of this trend towards soft-roaders and CUV’s, Toyota recently launched their mud-plugging, rock-crawling FJ Cruiser. Huh? The carmaker responsible for more “cute utes” and hybrid half-breeds than any other now wants to mix it up in the rough stuff? No wonder the Japanese automaker invited TTAC to run one of their rigs at a two-day mudfest in Mount Olive, Alabama: Toyota's dirt cred needs a little help.