In 1991, Italian clothing maker Benneton released a controversial ad campaign. Huge billboards and full page magazine ads displayed rows of crosses in an American military cemetery, a priest kissing a nun on the lips, a black woman breast feeding a white baby and other images designed to shock even the most jaded sensibilities. In 1992, Benneton upped the ante with photos of a dying Aids victim, a Kalashnikov-wielding African guerrilla holding a human leg bone, a boat overcrowded with Albanians, a group of African refugees, a weeping family contemplating the bloody body of a Mafioso and two Indians caught in a Calcutta flood. “Reality advertising” had arrived. And now it’s here, courtesy of, of all companies, Chevrolet.

The ad in question is “Our Country, Our Truck.” The 60-second music video cum ad features a montage of historical and manufactured images, including civil rights campaigner Rosa Parks sitting on a bus, Martin Luther King mouthing “I have a dream” in front of the Washington monument, a half-naked peace protester clutching a US flag modified with a peace symbol, a recently resigned President Nixon waving goodbye from a Marine helicopter, a raging wildfire, a hurricane ripping the roof off of a house, post-Katrina flooding, the twin floodlight light tribute at Ground Zero, weary firefighters (geddit?) and, oh yeah, a new Silverado.

Needless to say, after the ad was aired, a number of viewers and more than a few media commentators took GM to task for using images of disaster and political strife to sell pickup trucks. Needless to say, Chevrolet’s spin machine was warmed-up and ready to go. "We were trying to strike that balance between provocative and not stepping over the line," Chevrolet Advertising Director Kim Kosak told Automotive News. "A brand like Chevrolet can do it. If you used those images to hawk a $199 deal that would be reprehensible," Kosak added, oblivious to the old joke that ends “We already know what you are; we’re just haggling over price.”

When asked WTF they were thinking, the edgy ad guys responsible for the spot were even, um, edgier. According to Bill Ludwig, Chief Creative Officer for the Campbell-Ewald ad agency, "If you want to make a statement that rings true with the majority of people, you are going to piss off some people.” This, we can presume, was a large part of Ludwig’s goal. In case you missed it, “There are a lot of cynical people out there who don't react well to this, and a lot of people who will never get behind the wheel of a pickup. So let them get into their Volvo sedans and complain about this spot that they see as exploitive. This is not for them."

Never mind the ad’s subtext, clock Ludwig’s anti-Volvo agenda. Following GM’s recent hiring of right wing commentator Sean Hannity for a national radio promotion, this kind of barely concealed blue state hate is designed to attract pickup buyers with an “us vs. them” political mentality. Paranoid? Then what’s with John Cougar Mellencamp’s musical tribute to the idea of “stand and fight” under an image of a Vietnam battlefield? How reactionary is that? And you’ve got to wonder about the politics of a man who uses death, disaster and turmoil to sell a truck calling his critics “cynical.”

All of which brings us back to the central question: does controversy sell pickups? If Benneton can sell sweaters by showing a black stallion humping a white mare (as you can see, I’m not making this up), surely Chevy can sell a light truck or two by reminding us of the tragedy of 911. Ah, but there is a crucial difference between the two campaigns. As you’d expect from the company that brought us the front wheel-drive Impala SS, Chevy wimped out. Benneton’s ads were/are designed to confront viewers, to make them question their values and preconceptions. Chevy’s “Our Country, Our Truck” was/is designed to reinforce the traditional pickup truck buyer's (if no one else’s) values and preconceptions.

GM’s ad guy’s right: for Chevy’s core audience, the “Our Country, Our Truck” ad is about as confrontational as The National Enquirer. Even the atomic bomb explosion removed from the final cut would not have asked any questions of the average pickup truck buyer’s psyche. Sure, the ad exploits a few uncomfortable moments of our national history for commercial gain, but it’s not as if they showed a bunch of flag-waving Chevy owners pushing a non-union made Toyota Tundra off a cliff.

Once again, GM shows it just, can’t, quite, get, there. Like the people in charge of designing and building their products, the execs responsible for Chevrolet’s advertising don’t understand that fortune doesn’t favor the semi-brave. If you’re gonna build a V8 performance car, it's gotta be rear wheel-drive. If you're gonna piss people off, you gotta really piss them off. As it stands now, the only people who are going to be angry about this Silverado thing are GM’s shareholders.

As part of the evaluative process, I cracked open the ES350's owner’s manual. Check it: there’s a "Lemon Law Guide" to help customers find legal recourse should their Lexus fail to, well, anything. Somehow, I don’t think that’s going to be a particularly useful part of the program. After all, under its swanky skin, the Lexus ES350 is little more than a reliable, durable and, let’s face it, forgettable Toyota Camry. Does that make the ES350 an example of the kind of badge-engineering that this site regularly condemns as lazy, cynical and brand corrosive? No, no and yes.

Volvo arrived late to the SUV party, but they brought some killer tunes. The XC90 was a full-sized soft-roader CUV thingie before full-sized soft-roader CUV thingies were cool. Well, OK, it’s hard to argue that any Volvo was or ever could be “cool;” but the instantly recognizable ride was an instant hit with America’s safety-minded Soccer moms. Although the initial model sported a decidedly anemic five-cylinder engine, the company rectified the situation (for a price) with Yamaha’s V8; an inline six finally replaces the five banger for ‘07. Oh, and there’s a new, smaller XC60 coming too.

Codenamed Y278, the XC60 shares Ford’s C1 platform and major components (including an optional Haldex four wheel-drive system) with the new Volvo V70 and Land Rover’s forthcoming Freelander 2. TTAC’s resident photochopmeister Andrei Avarvarii has prepared a couple of renderings to give us an idea of how Volvo’s new baby will appear when car hacks wet its head at the next Detroit North American International Auto Show (NAIAS).

Avi’s based his work on confirmed reports that the Swedes have opted for a “Honey I Shrunk the Volvo” design approach (which sounds a whole lot kinkier than it is). The XC60’s snout will feature the traditional Volvo grille and a new pair of headlamps, inspired by the company’s other models. The trademark pronounced shoulder lines will suggest the XC60’s “sporty” character (they hope), while the XC60's short front and rear overhangs will emphasize its height (we know). In the rear, new lights and a sportier spoiler differentiate the smaller model from its big brother.

Given that the XC90 is a five passenger SUV/CUV, you gotta wonder why Volvo feels the need to offer another five passenger soft roader that looks the same as the bigger one, only smaller. If anything, they should've gone the other way: creating a seven seat SUV or, better yet, a minivan. Industry wags suggest Ford’s Swedish subsidiary has its sights set on luxury cute utes: the Lexus RX330, BMW X3, Acura RDX and the upcoming Mercedes-Benz MLK-Class (yes, another MB class). Nope. All these baby utes hang-out in the neighborhood of 35 large, where the XC90 also lives. The XC60 will compete lower down in the cute ute food chain, in the low to mid-20’s. It’ll have to take on Toyota’s V6 RAV4, Honda’s VTEC four-powered CRV and (oops) the Mercury Mariner.

So forget luxury. To conquest sales from these highly evolved, much loved competitors (Mariner aside), Volvo will have to sell affordable safety, rather than “premium” branding. The XC60 is also aimed at any members of the Volvo faithful who wants to step out of their cars and step [up] into something larger (taller?) that’s not quite as big (long?) as the XC90– assuming anyone moves from a car to an SUV these days. Of course, a lot of drivers suffering from PTFSD (Post Traumatic Fuel-Sucking Disorder) are getting out of full-sized SUV’s into cute utes. Given the XC90's higher margins, downward migrating XC90 owners must be something of a worry for Volvo of NA.

On the upside, Volvo’s commitment to safety shtick gives their vehicles a huge competitive edge in certain demographics. For example, there may be a large number Volvo owners with university-bound kids for whom a safety-oriented cute ute would be an ideal going away gift. There are two caveats to this scenario: 1) Will style-conscious college kids “let” their parents buy them a boring old Volvo– especially one that looks just like Mom’s? and 2) Did the Ford Explorer SUV = Death equation convince parents that SUV’s are inherently dangerous, even if they own one themselves? More generally, can safety be cute? Does it have to be?

Anyway, in these "SUV's are the anti-Christ" days, much of the XC60’s sales potential depends on the cute ute's fuel economy. We hear that the XC60 will get the same 235-horse 3.2-liter powerplant recently bestowed upon the XC90. In that installation, the EPA awarded the six pot 17/22 mpg. If you add a few mpg’s to the XC90’s economy (allowing for the XC60's lighter curb weight), the smaller ute might just break the critical 20mpg barrier. Then again, it might not. Then again, it better. Toyota’s Toyota RAV4 V6 FWD clocks in at 21/28. Wild card: the XC60’s 158hp 2.2-liter diesel. If the oil burner is US (i.e. California) compliant, a high mileage diesel XC60 with sufficient torque to get out of its own way would sell all day.

The verdict
On one hand, I thought the Jaguar X-Type died (it is dead, right?) for the sin of building an affordable mini-me version of a pricey product. On the other hand, no one wants to die, and Volvo owns that not dying mind space like Pee Wee Herman owns that icky porno theater head space (they still have porno movie houses, right?). On balance, I reckon the XC60 will steal sales from the XC90– and still be a major hit.  

[For more of Mr. Avarvarii's work, please visit www.spyshots.carbonmade.com]

General Motors is at it again. After failing to flog captive imports from Opel, Isuzu and Suzuki, The General’s drafted in Daewoo to give Chevy’s “American Revolution” something to sell. Considering GM’s lack of success with captive imports in the past, and Daewoo’s Titanic troubles in the US market, you have to wonder about RenCen’s reasoning vis-à-vis the rebadged machine known on this side of the Pacific as the Chevrolet Aveo. Has GM made yet another logistical mistake, or will they have the last laugh as vendors of the only domestic nameplate selling a high-mileage subcompact car in the US?

I arrived at the Paris Mondial de L’Automobile too late for the press days. Big mistake. My first attempt to gain entry to the second largest auto show in the world fell on a weekend. I could barely squeeze through the entry gates, let alone get up-close-and-personal with the more attractive models. So I retreated into the Metro, vowing a working week return. Monday morning proved a bit more relaxed, although by midday the crush returned. Luckily, there were a few machines worth the scrum.

I’ve been fascinated with the mid-engined Audi R8 since it first appeared as a concept two years ago. Seeing it in the flesh, I wonder for whom the schnell tolls– other than eccentrics like me. Although the German supercar’s pricing has yet to be released, it will probably live in the neighborhood of $100k; which is rarefied air for an Audi. Still, if Ingolstadt keeps production volumes low, the price tag would make some kind of sense. If not, well, Audi’s historical problems with cliff face depreciation make an “investment” in an R8 seem as dicey as real estate south of North Korea’s lower border.

This is perhaps the first Audi where the oversized grill is pleasing to the eye. (Or maybe I’m just getting used to the brand’s open mouth bass look.) The R8’s overall dimensions are quite compact; the vehicle’s height seems much lower than even the new TT. The basic proportions are spot on. But I still can’t get over the large plastic shroud behind the side windows. It may have something to do with an eventual cabriolet model– or the German automaker’s determination to match the Toyota FJ’s trendy blind spot. It’s the only exterior blemish in an otherwise svelte and sexy design.

The R8’s powerplant gleams through its Ferrari did it first glass hatch. After much conjecture, the German roadster ends-up with the new RS4’s 4.2 liter, 420 horsepower FSI V8. So quipped, the R8 promises zero to 60 sprints in the low 4’s. Industry wags continue to suggest that the R8 will eventually holster a V-10 borrowed from the [Audi owned] Lamborghini Gallardo. Perhaps not. The move would undercut the Gallardo’s price and exclusivity, and deny the R8 the V8 growl it needs to intimidate Porsche’s blown six. 

Meanwhile, the R8’s interior looks far too pedestrian, too similar to the TT. The high seat bolsters make for an awkward entry. Still, I look forward to driving and possibly owning Audi’s first retail supercar.

The Peugeot 908 RC was the most striking and sinister sedan at the show, obviously influenced by the Maybach-based Exelero coupe. The French beast is powered by a 5.5-liter twelve cylinder diesel engine that generates 691 horspower and 885+ foot pounds of torque. The 908 promises astounding performance and something resembling reasonable fuel economy– adding a bit of environmental luster to the brand's RC sports models. 

Obviously, French carmakers enjoyed premiere placement in the show venue. There is no question that they design cars with flair. If the French (and the Italians) can find a way to add the build quality that Toyota has introduced to the American market, the imports might even find some sales success stateside. The Citroen C-Metisse is a bad example. While I love the name and admire the front wheel-drive diesel-hybrid powertrain, I found the car's styling too similar to the Dodge Magnum wagon– whcih is not a good design benchmark for a foreign car.

Speaking of odd design, the VW Iroc concept, meant to be the precursor of a new Scirocco coupe, looked strikingly similar to the silly Skoda Joyster. Take one Joyster and bake in the oven for an hour and out comes the VW. The choice of electric green– an homage to the "viper green metallic" paint offered on the 1976 VW Scirocco– did not enhance its appearance one whit. The twin-charged four-cylinder powerplant is supposedly good for 210hp– about the limit of what you'd want through the front wheels. 

Alfa Romeo 8C Competizione. I'd buy it just to be able to say the name to people. The car's design is a little too wacky, but the performance sounds awesome. As does the price: around $187k. 

Watch out for Alfa though. If the Brera, GT and Spider are any indication, this marque is going to be a lot more important in the world market. If their cars don’t break or rust, if their US dealers don’t treat customers like merde, the cars’ long-awaited return stateside might actually work. The Italian vehicles would certainly benefit from the fact that all the folks who are old enough to have first hand experience with Alfas are too old to remember how bad they were.

There was only one place I could find wide open spaces at the biennial Paris auto show: the General Motors pavilion. Seems that the French, like the Americans, have diminished interest in what was once the world’s most stylish and innovative automobile producer. Until GM can figure out how to Earl-up their designs and power their engines using pomme frites and mayonnaise, Renault, Peugeot and Citroen have little to worry about. Fortunately, I ran pretty well on the stuff, with help from some fine Bordeaux. Salut.

First the good news. For the first time in eight long months, George Pipas, Ford's man in the crosshairs Manager of Sales Analysis, could deliver glad tidings to anxious stockholders and stakeholders. September retail and fleet results reveal that sales of Ford’s cars and truck were up when compared against the same month in '05. Although FoMoCo’s sales increases didn’t come anywhere near Toyota’s dramatic advance, the Detroit-based automaker bested cross-town rivals GM and Chrysler by a considerable margin. And the hits keep happening. 

Ford’s Explorer explored territory it hasn’t seen since August of last year (up 22%), and the gargantuan Expedition enjoyed more attention too. Demand for the Hecho en Mexico Fusion fueled a sedan sized fiesta at the Blue Oval to the tune of a 5.3% gain.  These increases were enough to nudge Dearborn’s market share to 16.5%, more than a half point better than last September. With the cross border crossover poised to make its debut, FoMoCo enters the final quarter on an upturn with old metal moving and new metal buzz.

Now the bad news: Mulally’s much maligned motor company isn’t out of the woods yet. A closer look at the numbers indicates that little has changed. Fleet sales still bolster 26% of the movement. And while 74% retail composition is nothing to sneeze at, the fact that those sales are heavily incentive laden, is. Cash on the hood and no interest loans for anyone with a pulse continue to be the way fordward. October is truck month and as Toby Keith sings the praises of the venerable F-150, White Trash With(out) Money can drive the country star’s favorite whip off dealer lots and still have cash left to go “Get Drunk and Be Somebody”.

Inventory currently sits at around 650k units, and the fall season means model year closeouts. To make room for next year’s lot litter, 0% financing is being offered on all non truck vehicles, save Mustang and Fusion. While this will no doubt relieve dealer lots, it does little to help Ford, and will only cripple the profitable Ford Motor Credit unit. To have any chance of survival FoMoCo must deliver on its promise of profitability by the end of the decade. To do that, a “product lead turnaround” is going to need a healthy dose of cash flow. No matter how much metal is moved, virtual loss leaders are not the answer.

A study conducted by Harbour-Felax Group found that incentives and fleet sale discounts cost motor city manufactures an average of 11% in much needed profit. Japanese competition was able to generate an average of $24,289 per car, while homegrown products only put $21,597 back into the pot. Diluted profits translate directly into lost product development. In order to engineer and design market grabbing people movers, Dearborn must turn its knife to sticker play and maintain price points.

That’s not all though. Not only does Ford make less on each vehicle they produce, they also spend more doing so.  It’s no secret that FoMoCo faces incredible cost resistance to profitable production. Health care woes and the union straightjacket ensure that every lost work day results in a $70 per vehicle cost increase. Tack on another $70 each for the extra 16 minutes of break time that every blue collar gets during a shift. Assuming the best case/least likely scenario of perfect attendance by unionized workers, and steady annual sales of 3.1m vehicles, last year’s work breaks alone cost FoMoCo $217m. The money was literally pissed away.

Compared to Toyota, The Blue Oval coughs up an average of $2,165 more per vehicle produced.  Health care advantages, decreased warranty costs, cheaper labour and better use of flex manufacturing ensure that the megalomaniacal Japanese automaker has an immense $6.7b annual cost advantage over its competition in Dearborn. Note: Ford’s production capacity won’t reach 100% until 2008. Add to that the aforementioned 11% revenue lost from fleet sales and incentives and it becomes clear how difficult a job Alan Mulally has ahead of him.

Unfortunately, The Way Fordward 3.0 will fail. The cuts were too little too late. Despite the attempt to balance a projected 14% market share with right sizing production cuts, most analysts agree that Ford has a 0% chance of achieving profitability on three million annual units. Going Fordward, a product-led turnaround will require enormous amounts of cold hard cash. Given the current state of affairs and the fact that buyout packages will drain the corporate coffers throughout the first three quarters of next year, rising costs will eat the development cash, and take much of Ford’s hope with it.

In short, year-on-year post-Katrina and fire sale comparison aside, the mistakes of the past will continue to haunt FoMoCo for years to come.  The truth is in the numbers, and as we know, numbers don’t lie.

There are three basic ways you can build a low-priced automobile. You can use lower-cost materials (and workforce). You can limit the standard features. Or you can keep variations to a minimum. When making the Rio, one of the lowest priced cars sold in American, Kia employed all three strategies. Is that a good thing? It depends entirely on where you draw the line between “cheap” and “inexpensive.”

GM’s September sales figures are out. Despite generous Labor Day incentives, zero per cent financing to anyone with a pulse and an easy year-on-year comparison (GM was in the post-Fire Sale mode last September), vehicle sales are down seven percent. Given GM’s upcoming production cutbacks, there’s only one way sales can go from here: down, taking GM’s declining market share with it. Never mind. According to GM Exec Maximum Bob Lutz, "Whatever our market share stabilizes at in the US— 22, 23, 24 percent— I don’t really care. The idea that GM… has got to get back to 30 percent is a wacky notion with all this global competition we’ve got."

Obviously, Mr. What Me Worry? is a whack job. The fact that the septugenarian ex-Marine has any power whatsoever within GM– never mind his multi-million dollar annual salary, huge pension and Gulfstream perks– tells you all you need to know about GM’s ability to manage itself. At the risk of stating the obvious, shouldn’t the guy who calls [at least some of] the shots for the world’s largest automaker understand that the faster GM’s domestic market share shrinks, the closer The General gets to the tipping point of no return? Call me a weenie (SIR!), but I’d expect an ex-Marine to know when he’s fighting a rear-guard action.

By the same token, you’d kinda hope that GM’s so-called “car czar” would know that The General’s inability to find new homes for their cash cows is putting his employer in a world of hurt. Pardon me for not being a goldfish, but I distinctly remember Mr. Lutz standing on the running board of a new[ish] Tahoe telling the world that GM’s GMT-900’s would take the [declining] market by storm and save GM’s bacon. Well they haven’t. Yukon, Tahoe and Suburban sales are soft, and getting softer. Surely the opposite of success is failure, and the logical response to failure is to acknowledge the damage and formulate a new plan– rather than obfuscation, prevarication and denial.

Top execs like GM marketing maven Mark LaNeve may be happy spinning the dismal parade of declining numbers– claiming that rental fleet sales and limited production are clouding an otherwise bright picture– but the numbers don’t lie. GM is in a death spiral that no amount of “missing” Chevrolet Aveos, Cobalts and Malibus can cure. GM claims its GMT900 pickups are the next next big thing, but they simply can’t create enough cash flow to sustain The General’s distended product portfolio.

In fact, Maximum Bob put his finger on the nub of GM’s problem: the company has lost its ability to fight import owned competition. GM’s September sales results are bad enough, but Toyota’s are far worse– for GM. The Japanese automaker’s sales climbed a staggering 25%. And it wasn’t just parsimonious econoboxes fueling the company’s financial combustion chamber. Year-on-year sales were up for the Sequoia (37.7%), Land Cruiser (1.7%), 4Runner (8.9%), Highlander (16.1%) and RAV4 (93.4%). Bottom line: Toyota’s September SUV sales rose by an average of 54.8%.

The numbers are alarming in extremis. GM's new[ish] GMT900’s have not only failed to sell in absolute terms, they’ve also failed to stem the growing tide of customers abandoning domestic products for import-owned vehicles– on GM's home turf. As for cars… fuhgeddaboutit. “All this global competition” has left The General in a corner, fighting Ford and Chrysler for a dwindling supply of hard core domestic-buying consumers.Unless Ford goes belly-up first, unless GM's new products beat-back Toyota, Honda, Hyundai and the rest of the “newcomers;” the market share stability GM’s Car Czar seeks is almost impossible to imagine.

Meanwhile, reports are filtering in that GM CEO Rabid Rick Wagoner has finally called off the Nissan – Renault alliance talks. This may have a little something to do with new rules enacted yesterday by GM’s Board of Bystanders. The language is a bit convoluted, but the rules make it easier for the Board to remove pro-Renault investor Kirk Kerkorian’s man Jerry York, and prevent Captain Kirk from adding new members. So Rabid Rick’s covered his ass and told Kirk to take a flying leap. As we predicted, things are getting ugly over at RenCen.

The battle for control of GM is just beginning. Kirk is sure to retaliate against GM’s CEO, and The Lion of Las Vegas is nothing if not resourceful. Regardless who ends-up the last man grandstanding, the war's already been lost. GM’s products are falling further and further behind the competition in the sales charts. The recent cuts to the automaker's production and staff will help the bottom line, but they indicate that GM's is fighting harder and harder for less and less. At some point, the company will starve to death.

GM Car Czar Maximum Bob Lutz’ recently stated that anyone who thinks that GM will shutter divisions is a “weenie” who doesn’t understand the cost of dealer lawsuits. Yes, well, one day, GM will have to jettison brands. Perceived wisdom dictates that The General should pare itself down to Chevrolet (low end cars), GMC (trucks and SUV’s) and Cadillac (high end cars). As for Saab, Buick Hummer and Saturn, bon voyage!  And then there’s Pontiac. Yes, Pontiac. I believe GM’s product starved “performance” division has the greatest potential of any of its current brands. With great products, Pontiac could go from neglected stepchild to superstar son.

The Solstice roadster is a huge step in the right direction for GM’s excitement division, in every way the ill-fated “new” GTO wasn't (except luggage room). Chiefly, the Solstice is gorgeous. The model also has an entry-level and hard core (or at least harder core) performance variant (GXP). As for the rest of the lineup… meh. G6: a rental car from birth that’s nowhere near as good as the Camry/Accord juggernaut. G5: ditto. Grand Prix: 303hp through the front wheels—who wants that? Torrent: as exciting as a cute ute can get (i.e. not at all). Vibe: a Toyota Corolla. GTO: dead and dead ugly.

So, now’s the time to apply a little art and a little science a la big brother Cadillac. First off, GM should decontent the beJesus out of Caddy’s outgoing CTS, give it Solstice-quality sensuous sheet metal and rechristen it the Pontiac Grand Prix. While the new CTS is due any time now, Chrysler’s 300– made with bits and pieces of the last gen Mercedes E-Class– shows you can get new money for old rope. This home-grown Grand Prix would keep both customers and the UAW happy. The Caddy set up’s rear wheel-drive opens-up the possibilities; can you imagine a Grand Prix Coupe with a 505hp Z06 engine? Eat that, Shelby GT500. More importantly, you’d have a family-priced rear-driver that would steal sales from DXC’s ageing Magnum/Charger/300C trifecta.

Meanwhile, bring on the Firebird! With FoMoCo selling massive herds of Mustangs (August being the best ‘Stang month since 1979), Pontiac needs to flip their cross-town rivals the bird. Release a new Pontiac Firebird with half a dozen variations right off the bat with various degrees of engine oomph. Build it off the Corvette chassis—not the Camaro’s. Most importantly, festoon it with flaming chickens. We love that. Point being: make it as visually exciting as the Solstice. Make it a sports car that people talk about, swoon over and ultimately desire.

Speaking of excitement, where are America's WRX’s and Evo’s? Sure, the Dodge Caliber SRT-4 puts out 300hp, but it’s a front-driver, the chassis is junk and it looks constipated. GM committed a horrible, almost unforgivable gaffe with the Saabaru, charging 5K over retail for nothing more than a badge. (That car should have been the new Vibe.) Correct the mistake. Imagine a small, American wagon with world class performance and handling. People would eat it up. The fat-faced Chevrolet WTCC Ultra that GM recently debuted in Paris would make a vicious Pontiac; assuming they raise the asphalt-scraping chin spoiler a yard. Even if that particular small, muscular car is not the solution, something is. Build it, and boy racers will come.

The world also needs an exciting and sexy fuel-sipper. Sure, you can buy Honda’s Fit – an outstanding car – but it’s just so goofy looking. There’s the Mini, but it’s over-boiled and too much of a statement for many. Most importantly, neither car is American. Instead of taking the lame, Lido way out and importing small, dorky Korean subs, let’s design and build one here. DCX is about to start building the Hornet in China, which despite what WalMart wants you to think, is not America. Moreover, the Hornet looks like an angry filing cabinet. Pontiac, this segment is yours for the taking.

Pontiac can of course choose to do none of the above, stay the course and follow Oldsmobile, Plymouth and Dead-Buick-Walking to the gates of automotive hell, with Lincoln/Mercury bringing up the rear. But that needn’t be the case. Performance divisions, no matter how stale the marketing shtick may be, are good things. Take a gander at Mazda, Ford’s defacto fun to drive brand. With the lone exception of the lame duck B4000 pickup, all of Mazda’s product offerings are at least sporty, if not outright sports cars. From the mutant CX-7 to the perfectly executed Miata, every product serves the driver first, last and second. And Mazda’s US sales are up 5% from a year ago. In a model cycle, Pontiac could be in the same boat, especially if they heed the example of what the CTS-V did for Cadillac; making enthusiasts care about a moribund brand. It’s the fast things that count.

Yesterday, Automotive News reported that octogenarian GM investor Kirk Kerkorian is "frustrated with CEO Rick Wagoner's lack of enthusiasm for an alliance with Nissan-Renault." That's like the DEA saying it's frustrated with Bolivia's inability to curtail its cocaine exports. Kirk knows that Rick would sooner pull the ripcord on his [bankruptcy proof] golden parachute than green light a hook-up with the French. Which is why the Lion of Las Vegas responded to Wagoner’s “no deal” comments to the Parisian press by threatening to buy up even more shares in the ailing automaker: to force Wagoner into a corner.

We now know that the Nissan negotiations began after GM Board Member and Captain Kirk crony Jerry York held a secret meeting with Nissan boss Carlos The Jackal Ghosn. Forget strategic alliances and supplier synergies; York simply offered Ghosn Wagoner’s job. Setting aside the outrageous not-to-say-criminal impropriety of a GM Board Member launching a clandestine plot against his company’s Chief Executive Office on behalf of an outside investor, the play finally reveals the intent behind the whole lawyer-enriching GM-Nissan mishegos: to remove Wagoner from the helm of the world’s largest automaker. Period.

If you recall, Wagoner fended-off the initial attack by convincing his boardlings to put him in charge of analyzing the potential of the proposed GM-Nissan-Renault alliance (much like a Bolivian drug lord electing himself president to police drug traffic). At the Paris auto show, Rabid Rick did the pro forma meeting thing with Carlos, announced (again) that GM’s turnaround is on track thank you very much, and then, outrageously and ominously (considering GM’s cash position), suggested Nissan should put a couple of bil on the table. Kirk immediately threatened to buy 12 million more GM shares. Message to Wagoner: don’t fuck with me.

Captain Kirk holds 56 million shares or 9.9 percent of GM’s common stock. He bought the shares at an average price of $31.50. At Thursday’s $33.06 per share closing price, Mr. Kerkorian’s paper profit currently stands at $84m. Upping his stake by 12m shares would cost The Lion of Las Vegas a relatively paltry $400m. The purchase would put his total GM investment at well over 10% or roughly $2.25b. Should he make the move, the additional shares would give Kirk more clout to demand an “independent financial review” of the GM-Nissan-Renault deal. To that end, he’s informed the Securities and Exchange Commission that he wants to change his official status from a passive (!) to an “active” investor.

Obviously, there’s no good reason for Kirk (or anyone else) to buy a chunk of GM based on its long-term future. Despite Red Ink Rick’s steadfast claims that his turnaround plan is kicking in now… no wait… now… oh hang on… NOW, GM’s death spiral continues. Kirk’s inside man Jerry York knows that GM’s new pickups aren’t going to pickup enough business to save the company’s bacon. He knows that GM’s summer of deadbeat love, the company’s increased incentives on products both old and new, their aggressive “book the deal when it leaves the factory” accounting and the negative effect of this fall’s heavily curtailed future production all spell disaster.

York and Kerkorian are also aware that the domestic automobile market is only getting more competitive. The so-called imports make stacks of money in the US because their domestic counterparts are high cost producers who set a floor on pricing. It’s an open secret that Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Hyundai et al. could bury GM/Ford/DCX simply by lowering the prices on their vehicles. Toyota’s new Tundra is a step in that direction that’s bound to show that none of The Big Two Point Five’s products are safe from non-union competition.

All of which tell/reminds us that Kirk’s in it for the money. Hence Kirk’s decision to put Wagoner in a classic you’re fired if you do (hello Carlos!) and you’re fired if you don’t (where’s Carlos?) position. Once Captain Kirk replaces Wagoner, especially if it’s with The Jackal, GM’s stock price will rise. Kirk will cash out and that’ll be that– for Kirk. The General will still be in chaos. Whether or not the Jackal could then recreate The General as a profitable car company– without taking it into Chapter 11– is an open question we may yet see answered.

Things will get ugly if Kerkorian doesn’t get his way. For one thing, GM will have to show good financial results– even if they’re less credible than last quarter’s. GM’s accounting department has been sailing close to the wind for well over a year now. Federal regulators may flex their muscles post-November elections, perhaps aided by Jerry York (providing yet another way to axe Wagoner). In fact, this whole Kirk – Rick thing has become a Detroit death match. Anyone betting on Wagoner better hope that GM’s octogenarian investor forgets to take his medicine, or dies in the arms of Anna Nicole Smith.

After Germany’s unconditional surrender to Allied forces in 1945, the allies stripped the country of all its patents. Germany’s former Axis ally, Japan, eventually exploited this situation by plagiarizing and mass-producing legendary German cameras and lenses. Today, Japanese manufacturers continue to look to Germany for “inspiration.” Case in point: the 2007 Acura RDX. It couldn’t look more like a BMW X3 if it tried, and by God, it did.

The RDX Crossover Utility Vehicle (CUV) is one inch longer and a fraction wider and shorter than its German inspiration. Stylistically, the RDX is only a nip-tuck away from the baby Bimmer. The RDX’ steeply raked windshield, blackened B and C-pillars and tailgate spoiler all say BMW– and signal the Acura’s shared distaste for the rough stuff. The RDX is, in fact, another deeply metrosexual machine: a handsome manly form attired in delicate garments, whose manicured toes are meant for polished wingtips, not hiking boots. If you know what I mean.

Inside, Toto, I get the feeling we’re not in Bavaria anymore. The RDX’ cabin offers the all hushed minimalism we’ve come to expect from Honda’s upmarket homonyms. In fact, the CUV’s attention to tactility– from the meaty steering wheel bulges at the ten and two positions to the sensually shaped leather shift knob– takes us deep into Audi territory. That said, you can take the Acura out of Japan, but you can’t take the Japanese out of the Acura. The RDX’ three-ring gauges’ red-on-blue lighting strikes just the wrong note of Japanese spizzarkle. And the RDX’ climate control/media center shares Infiniti’s predilection for a high and mighty backwards tilting dash position.

The RDX’s traffic aversive satellite navigation system is voice controllable– which is just as well. The widescreen display is difficult to read in daylight, especially when the future's so bright you're wearing shades. The nav system and on-board computer are controlled by a distinctly phallic nubbin protruding through the center of the dash. Despite the gizmo’s indelicacy, its intuitive ergonomics put BMW’s iDrive to shame (as if it needed any help in that regard). As is the norm for this “so not an SUV” genre, cargo storage space is sacrificed on the altar of passenger comfort. Drivers with longer legs will find lots of room for their stems in either the front or rear seats, which provide much-needed lateral support.

The RDX is propelled by a turbo-charged 2.3-liter four-cylinder powerplant producing 240hp @ 6000rpm and 260 lbs-ft of torque @ 4500rpm. The much ballyhooed variable flow turbos keep the engine spinning at low revs, but it’s still not enough. The engine must climb above 3500rpms before it can get its boogie on. Fortunately, like all the best Honda power plants, this baby loves to twirl, redlining at 6800rpms. To keep the mill in the grunt zone, the RDX’ brushed-aluminum accented steering wheel (all the rage this year) sports F1-style paddle shifters. Unfortunately, the steering is a little slow; cornering tends to put the paddles out of reach.

Should you be so churlish as to engage in a little stoplight sprinting, the RDX makes the zero to 60 dash in a shade less than eight seconds. That’s respectable acceleration for a vehicle that weighs one Labrador retriever less than two tons and stands nearly 5’5” tall, but you’ll pay the price at the pump, diminishing the official 19/24 EPA mpg by a considerable margin. Worse yet, the new RAV4 V6 will best the RDX to 60 by more than a second.

A mid-day tear through the winding hills of Irving, Texas proved that Acura’s taut front strut / rear multilink suspension makes their cute ute feel light and tight– until you come to a corner. There’s no masking the leaning tower of SUV effect, or the vehicle’s tendency to nose-dive during hard braking. Acura’s Super Handling All Wheel Drive (SH-AWD), Vehicle Stability Assist and ABS systems conspire to keep the RDX’ wheels firmly gripped to the pavement, despite all the leans, pitches, rolls and yaws. For what it’s worth, the RDX is the best handling Crossover in its class. 

The RDX goes head-to-head against the similarly sized and priced fraternal twins, the Nissan Murano and Infiniti FX35, and the aforementioned BMW and RAV4. The RDX out-luxuriates the Nissan and Toyota, but still seems a little austere compared to the BMW and Infiniti. It straightens corners better than the others but has the least amount of straight line oomph.

Thanks to its superb build quality and [optional] mind-blowing surround sound, mp3-compatible stereo, I can’t imagine anyone sitting in an RDX, regretting purchasing Acura’s X3 knock-off instead of the “real deal.” Still, as I walked away from the RDX, I was left longing for a vehicle that holstered that sweet-spinning turbo four in something shorter, lower and lighter. Something like the Acura RL. Sometimes it’s best to just copy yourself, and call it good.

Germany was first, followed by France, England and Italy. Japan arrived a few years later, with Korea trailing by several decades. Since 1949, foreign car makers have mounted assaults on America’s automotive market. A few have flourished, others have had moderate success, but many have retreated after failing to establish a beachhead. And now another wave is forming, threatening to storm our shores. Entrepreneur Malcolm Bricklin is leading the charge, establishing Visionary Vehicles LLC to import a line of “aggressively priced, beautifully styled, high-quality vehicles” built in China.  Are we about to witness the next automotive revolution, or are we being asked to buy the Bricklin bridge?

Malcolm Bricklin has a, uh, "colorful" business background. When he was in his 20’s, Bricklin built his father’s building supply into a chain of stores. When the company became embroiled in lawsuits, Malcolm took his millions and left– just before the company went bankrupt. Bricklin’s next business venture: selling motor scooters built by Fuji Heavy Industries. After he realized Fuji’s Subaru 360 automobile was so light it could slip under the government’s safety regulations, he formed Subaru of America to import the tiny car.

Sales went fairly well until Consumer Reports named the 360 “the most dangerous car in the United States.” Sales plummeted and Bricklin bailed out of the business. But not before securing a thousand 360s in an attempt to establish a private race series (no really). Not long afterwards his financial backer sued Bricklin for misappropriation of funds. Bricklin moved on to his next– and arguably most infamous– project: the Bricklin SV-1.

Bricklin’s automotive namesake created a high price sports car clad in an acrylic plastic shell. The SV-1’s gullwing doors– its most distinctive feature– weighed almost 100 pounds apiece. The electro-pneumatic system controlling their operation was so failure prone Bricklin’s boffins had to design a way to exit the “Safety Vehicle 1” via the cargo hatch. To help Bricklin and his investors finance this venture, the entrepreneur convinced the province of New Brunswick, Canada to provide a $2.88m loan guarantee (in exchange for Bricklin’s production facility). Bricklin sold 200 dealership franchises and produced 2854 plastic fantastics. In 1975, the company went into receivership, leaving the citizens of New Brunswick with $23m in accumulated debt.

Ten years later, Bricklin resurfaced on the automotive scene, importing the Yugoslovian-built Zastava Koral under the name Yugo. By 1988, Yugo America was in financial trouble. Bricklin sold his share to Zastava for more than $15m. In 1992, after selling 120,000 cars, Zastava withdrew from the US market. A year later, Bricklin partnered with none other than Lee Iacocca to found the Electric Bicycle Co. The company sold expensive battery-powered bicycles through automobile dealers. In 1995, Electric Bicycle went bankrupt. Which brings us to Bricklin’s latest undertaker– I mean, undertaking.

After briefly considering bringing Zastavas back under a different name, Bricklin journeyed to Wuhu, China looking for a source of bargain-basement vehicles. Finding a willing partner in Chery, Bricklin started making plans to "redefine the price of luxury" by importing an inexpensive line of high-content vehicles into the US market. The company is a joint venture: a 60 – 40 split between Chery (i.e. the Chinese government) and Visionary Vehicles. Bricklin’s deal insulates him from competition; Chinese government regulations restrict American manufacturers operating in China (e.g. GM) from building cars for export. For now…

Bricklin’s plans call for importing a quarter-million units beginning in 2007. His business plan also estimates 100% growth per year for the first several years. If all goes according to plan (hardly a given), Chery’s first export into the American market will be a “BMW 3-Series/5-Series challenger for about $19k,” followed by a two-seat roadster for $15K and a “BMW 6-Series fighter at around $25k.” No less than twenty models are planned for the future, including a hybrid, an AWD sedan and a crossover.

Like many of Bricklin’s other ideas, Visionary Vehicles has hit a few “snags.” Thanks in part to a $2m franchise fee, the company has signed up only 20 percent of the desired 250 dealers. Chery has rescheduled its US launch to late 2008 or early 2009, while Malcolm looks for alternative sources of adventure capital.

There are many unanswered questions surrounding this venture. If Bricklin doesn’t secure 250 dealers, can he proceed? Can he succeed? What effects will recent talks between DCX and Chery re: building a cut price Chrysler or Dodge for the US market have on Visionary’s “exclusivity?” The biggest question is, of course, whether American car buyers will want Bricklin’s automobiles. Undercutting established econoboxes like the Toyota’s Yaris ($11,050) will take some doing. Despite all the talk about BMW's, will Bricklin's Chinese vehicles come with same cheap and not so cheerful stigma that killed Yugo's ambitions? Can Bricklin finally build a viable business? It’s too early to say, but I wouldn’t bet on it.

Even as it struggles for its short term survival, GM has unleashed a cloud of hydrogen-powered publicity. A week ago last Sunday, GM announced that "Project Driveway” will deliver 100 Chevrolet Equinox Fuel Cell “test” vehicles to consumers in LA, Washington and New York City. The following Monday, GM unveiled their hydrogen fuel-cell powered Sequel. And last Thursday, The General delivered a fleet of fuel cell Chevys to the US Army. Does this mean that GM Car Czar Maximum Bob Lutz is finally right about something; that GM’s “moon shot” will put Toyota’s hybrids to shame and save GM?

In these environmentally sensitive times, it’s hard to criticize the world’s largest automaker for developing “clean” hydrogen fuel cell technology. But not impossible. Even if hydrogen fuel cell vehicles were ready to compete with gasoline-powered vehicles, the technology would require a massive new hydrogen production and distribution infrastructure. Even if the trigger was pulled five years ago, we're still talking decades. In fact, Bob’s boasts are more pie-in-the-sky than moon mission. [Note: How about some independent confirmation of the Sequel’s 300 mile range? GM has a bit of a checkered history in this area.]

Bottome line: GM can no longer afford the distraction, currently pegged at $100m per year. But don’t take my word for it. When posing next to the Sequel, Maximum Bob promised to nudge GM’s Board into investing more money in the hydrogen economy. "It would probably replace some other programs that we'd like to have in the high-performance area," Bob admitted. Just in case you thought GM’s resident loose cannon might present a coherent case to the Board, he then declared that fuel cell vehicles would cost less to develop than engineering diesel-powered vehicles that meet the EPA's 2010 Tier 2 Bin 5 regulations.

Meanwhile, Honda has just announced a high mileage diesel engine that meets those stringent new pollution regulations. Although the system still faces some technical hurdles, Honda says it will sell the powerplant stateside within three years. Oh, and they’ve also created a flexible fuel system that can run on any ethanol to gasoline blend between 20 and 100 percent, which they’ll sell in Brazil later this year. Oh, and they’ve figured out a way to make a hydrogen fuel cell stack 20 percent smaller and 30 percent lighter, improving their FCX hydrogen-powered vehicle's operating range by 30 percent, beating the Sequel’s stat by 54 miles (354).

Once upon a time, GM led the world in automotive engineering. While the company still shows the occasional glimmer of greatness (e.g. Magnetic Ride Control), The General has lost/is losing the technological arms race. There may be nothing fundamentally wrong with the company’s pushrod engines, but the market says that hi-tech, high-mileage, variable-valve, free-revving four cylinder powerplants are the business. Gas – electric hybrids may not suit the majority of GM’s customers, but there’s no denying that the Prius has convinced The General’s public that Toyota owns both the high tech and environmental responsibility rep (in addition to reliability).

If Maximum Bob thinks GM is in a financial position to catch up with its rivals in hydrogen fuel cell technology– or any other major technical development– he’s wrong. MB’s suggestion that spending big money on fuel cells would only require the sacrifice of a few high performance models was disingenuous– which is why he later said that the money required might mean a “slight delay” for mainstream products. Although the press failed to push Lutz on the point, one wonders if GM’s Texas turnaround chainsaw massacre has left the company with sufficient warm bodies to engineer new models with existing technology, never mind perform ground-breaking “blue sky” research. 

In fact, there’s only one way GM can catch up with its high-tech rivals: buy their technology. When GM CEO Rick Wagoner jetted off to Japan to meet with Toyota’s CEO and talk about God knows what back in May ’05 , it was widely anticipated that Rabid Rick would license Toyota’s Synergy Hybrid Drive for The General’s vehicles. Whether or not such a deal was even on the table, GM missed an important opportunity to get its shit together. If The General’s new[ish] SUV’s had been released with Synergy Drive powertrains in situ, it would have at least limited the gas shock SUV exodus.

And here comes the bus again! When presenting his new clean diesel, Honda President Takeo Fukui said he was “open to considering” a licensing deal with interested automakers. While GM put a Honda engine into the Saturn Vue, the chances of The General going hat-in-hand to Honda for new engine technology are extremely slim. Despite all the talk about GM’s “new sense of urgency” and its ability to “finally face reality,” the same hubris that got GM where it isn’t today is still in place. If The General really understood the gravity of its position, if it really knew just how bad its products are relative to the competitions’, it would do whatever it takes to rectify the situation. It doesn’t so it won’t. 

I'm good with names. Meet me at a party. Five hours and seven beers later, I'll cruise up and say, "Hey Benjamin, how goes it?" That’s assuming A) your name is Benjamin and B) you’re interesting. If a person is as dull as Tuesday afternoon C-Span, then the part of my brain that puts faces to names shuts down. I mention this because I had to click over to mazdausa.com to figure out if I’m driving the B4000 or B4400.  Turns out it’s the former. Who knew?

I remember reading about an environmental group that argued for zero population. Not zero population growth, zero people. They figured there was only one way to return nature to its, um, natural state: take humans out of the equation. I don’t recall their plan to achieve this goal, but I don’t think it involved automobiles. After all: no people, no cars, no pollution. Done. California’s tree huggers may not adhere to the same logical extreme, but c’mon, can someone please knock some sense into the state’s eco-warriors before they do something really stupid?

Yesterday, California Attorney General Bill Lockyer filed a lawsuit against Toyota, General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, Honda and Nissan. The suit alleges that these companies’ vehicles damaged the ozone layer hovering over California. The People seek unspecified financial damages for the diminution of the state’s snow packs, beaches, ozone layer and endangered animals. Clearly, The Golden State has kicked their anti-car agenda back into high gear.

Now we could ignore the political grandstanding that triggered this eminently dismissible lawsuit (they followed all your environmental regulations and you’re suing them?) and get into a debate about whether or not carbon dioxide is an environmental hazard. But let’s just assume it is. Is treating law-abiding automakers like criminals really the best way to sort out their products’ environmental impact? It’s like a bunch of social workers suing the Attorney General’s office for not forcing the legislature to pass more stringent laws against pedophiles, so they could enforce them. 

Of course, there are plenty of people who assume that automobile manufacturers are criminals. The movie “Who Killed the Electric Car” reflects the generally held belief that automakers are deeply, fundamentally corrupt organizations who will gladly sacrifice “the public good” for their shareholder’s gain. They’ll rip up mass transit lines, pretend they can’t build cars that get 100 miles to a gallon, subvert safety and environmental regulations, send jobs abroad, lie, cheat and steal— anything to avoid doing the “right thing.” The logical corollary: the carmakers’ [alleged] foot-dragging must be stopped at any and all costs.

Never mind that these same critics drive cars. Never mind that the society in which they live depends on the automobile for its social, economic and genetic well-being. Never mind that automakers have eliminated virtually all of their products’ harmful pollutants AND increased their fuel efficiency AND increased passenger safety AND maintained the finished products’ affordability AND generated billions in annual tax revenue AND created tens of thousands of skilled and unskilled jobs. Automakers– and automobiles– are the enemy within.

If you want to know where this is heading, look at England. In the name of public health, London hits-up motorists entering the city center with a “congestion charge." In the name of public health, large public areas have been pedestrianized and the number of public parking spaces reduced. In the name of public health, the government levies astronomical taxes on petrol, cars and car licenses. In the name of public health, the government dictates the number of houses that can be built, the number of parking spaces those houses can provide and the location of those houses (to minimize car use and maximize the use of public transportation).

Maybe you’re OK with all that. But the results aren’t exactly as intended. Car use (i.e. “pollution”) has continued to increase. Meanwhile, the country’s public transportation system has become extremely over-crowded (in addition to dirty, unreliable and expensive). Urban congestion (and jobs) has been exported to outlying areas. Decent, affordable housing for middle class buyers is practically non-existent. And speaking of class, motoring’s prohibitive expense puts automotive ownership completely out of reach for lower income workers and lowers the standard of living for the middle class. This situation does nothing to alleviate class resentment, and much to increase it.

And that’s the single biggest issue facing those who would seek to limit America’s automotive “addiction”— whether they know it or not. The automobile is, literally, social mobility. Cars are the platelets in the body politic. By keeping cars and car ownership relatively cheap, our populace can feed outlying areas with employment and business, spreading economic well-being both socially and geographically. Of course, detractors would argue that our cars are also spreading pollution and environmental destruction further and faster, but they’re missing the point.

Politics is supposed to be the art of compromise. If you view the car as a planet-killing demon and move to restrict its use, or try to tax it to death, or regulate it into a corner, success will evoke the law of unintended consequences. Greenhouse gasses may be a threat to our children’s future, but there are other threats we should also consider before we take drastic steps to “solve” the problem. Perhaps California should work with automakers, rather than against them.