Formula One has lost two of its unique drivers: Juan Pablo Montoya and Jacques Villeneuve. Montoya was dumped— I mean, Ron Dennis decided that "with so many things happening in Juan Pablo’s life right now, he should take some time out of the car and prepare professionally and personally for the future.” Perhaps Mr. Dennis was referring to Montoya’s appearance at a press conference in front of sponsors' banners not affiliated with McLaren Mercedes, announcing he'd secured a seat in next year's NASCAR series…

Jacques Villeneuve has also departed the sport. Immediately after the German Grand Prix, Villeneuve informed Sauber-BMW that the injuries he sustained during the race meant he was “not ready” to race in Hungary. Without any further ado, the team ditched the Canadian for Robert Kubica, who became the first Polish driver in Formula One. After a brilliant drive, Villeneuve's "temporary replacement" became permanent.

Say what you will about Montoya and Villeneuve’s driving abilities, they were two of the most colorful characters on the F1 grid. Montoya’s combative Latin temperament always shone through in his driving. He won the CART Title in 1999 and the Indianapolis 500 in 2000, both on his first attempt. Montoya’s skill and determination also gave Toyota its first CART win that same year. In 2001, he switched to F1 with Williams-BMW and won the Italian Grand Prix. In 2002, Montoya scooped seven pole positions with no wins. Disillusioned with Williams, he signed to drive for McLaren for 2005. With both Williams and McLaren he won seven out of the ninety-five races in which he competed.

Villeneuve was also a CART star. In 1995, only his second year in the series, he won both the Indianapolis 500 and the CART title. With the help of Bernie Ecclestone, he secured a ride in the Williams-Renault. Driving the best car in the field, Villeneuve grabbed pole position in his first race. He followed that accomplishment with two more poles and four wins in 1996. In 1997 the Frenchman earned ten pole positions, seven wins and the F1 championship. Since 1997 Villeneuve has neither been on pole nor scored a win. He won eleven races out of the one hundred sixty five in which he competed.

When explaining his decision to abandon Formula One for NASCAR, Montoya stated that he “wasn’t enjoying the races.” He also justified his decision by claiming “I had done everything I had to do and I had achieved almost all the goals that I had. I only needed to win a title and I realized my chances were very small. Leaving was the best decision that I could have made.”  And in case you missed the point: “to fight for fifth position is not amusing.” While the statement was a standard rhetorical spin out, at least it showed a bit of tact.

Villeneuve took a rather less diplomatic approach. His first target was seven times champ Michael Schumacher. “He's a racer – but a pure racer, nothing but a racer and because of that, I think the day he hangs up his helmet people will just forget him”. And, “Michael simply isn't a great Champion because he's played too many dirty tricks and because he isn't a great human being. Yes, Senna played dirty tricks too but he did it with more class, more integrity. When he took Prost out at Suzuka in 1990, he said he was going to do it before the race.” So, playing dirty tricks is acceptable as long as you tell your fellow drivers that you will do it beforehand?

[As of this writing, Michael Schumacher owns the records for wins (89), pole positions (68), championships (7), fastest race laps (74), and most total points (1,338). It will be a long time before anyone forgets Michael Schumacher.]

Villeneuve’s next target was his former team. “I’ve led races, I’ve won races. I know how to do that. So I guess the question as to whether I’d drive for BMW next year was this: did BMW think they needed someone next year who could lead and win races? If they did, then they’d need me. If they didn’t then they wouldn’t. It just depended on how ambitious they were.”

When I think of “Villeneuve” I will always think of Gilles Villeneuve and Ferrari. People still talk about his wheel banging with Rene Arnoux in the 1979 French GP while fighting for 2nd place. Same goes for his heroic win in the 1981 Spanish GP, where he held up the 2nd through 5th place finishers for the final 18 laps. When I think of Jacques Villeneuve, I remember his recently released music video, which makes George Michael look butch by comparison.

Montoya will be missed. Jacques who?

Play word association with the average American consumer. Say the words “quality cars.” Chances are they’ll respond with “Toyota.” For decades, the Japanese automaker has carefully nurtured and perpetuated a reputation for producing well-built/reliable cars and trucks. As a result, the company’s US sales have grown like kudzu. As of last month, Toyota now sells more cars in the Americas than Ford. If you discount fleet sales (so to speak), Toyota’s totals are within shouting distance of GM’s, both nationally and worldwide. Despite this startling, seemingly unstoppable success, or perhaps because of it, the company’s supposedly impenetrable façade has begun to show a few cracks.

Toyota’s first foray into US manufacturing began with a 25% federal tariff on foreign pickups. Toyota reacted to the punitive tax by importing bare chassis and attaching the truck beds in an American facility. When The Big Three (who were about to introduce their first domestic small trucks) pressured Congress into widening the tariff to include imported chassis, Toyota built an American plant to assemble complete trucks. Once the Japanese manufacturer realized they could build competitive vehicles stateside, they began expanding their American operations.

To avoid the United Auto Workers (UAW), Toyota situated their new factories in “right to work” states. As many industry analysts have concluded, Toyota’s clean sheet factories (eventually aided by state-funded tax breaks) and non-union workforce gave them an immediate and unassailable advantage over their “domestic” competition. While GM, Ford and Chrysler were busy appeasing their unions, draining funds which could have been used to upgrade their ageing products and antiquated production facilities, Toyota hit the ground running and never looked back.

At some point, Toyota became a victim of its own success. The company’s double quick expansion, from perennial underdog to voracious overlord, has compromised their unique selling point: product quality. Specifically, Toyota has suffered a plague of recalls around the world. In 2003, the automaker recalled 200k American vehicles. In 2004, the number increased fivefold, to a little over one million vehicles. In the following year, the number leaped again, more than doubling to 2.2 million. So far this year, Toyota has announced five recalls affecting approximately 900K vehicles.

Again, Toyota’s rapid growth is to blame. For one thing, the company’s design centers have been understaffed. The shortage of in-house talent has forced Toyota to outsource, relying on its parts suppliers to design key components. At the same time, the automaker has increased the amount of parts sharing among different models. The practice has dramatically increased the scope of a "single" failure, as witnessed by last October's recall of 1.27m Japanese vehicles. Goldman Sachs estimates that design faults (e.g. rubber parts not thick enough to withstand engine heat and joints too weak to hold together) account for 68% of Toyota’s 2004 recalls. 

Andrew Phillips of Nikko Citigroup stated "Toyota's resources have been stretched quite a bit by the big increases in volume." Shinsei Securities analyst Yasuhiro Matsumoto lays the blame for Toyota’s declining quality squarely on Katsuaki Watanabe’s shoulders. He claims the CEO’s constant focus on cost cutting has created devastating production glitches. The resulting quality issues have become so alarming that Watanabe recently admitted, "I take this seriously and see it as a crisis." It’s just as well; Goldman Sachs analyst Kunihiko Shiohara estimates that it may take Toyota four years or more to achieve "a fundamental turnaround in quality levels.”

Toyota also seems to be off their game in predicting market shifts. True, the company displayed impeccable timing by importing the Yaris just as American demand for smaller, higher mileage cars kicked into high gear. But Toyota’s also about to begin production on a larger, heavier and more powerful full-size Tundra, assembled in a brand new $800m Texas plant. While Toyota sells the high mileage cars tree huggers love to hug, they also have the thirstiest truck fleet on the market. And now that large truck sales seem to be tanking, they’re gearing-up to produce them in record numbers. Only time will tell if they’ve made a smart move (i.e. if sales recover or GM goes bankrupt), but at this point their timing could hardly be worse.

Earlier this year, Toyota announced they were delaying the introduction of the new Corolla for a year to focus on the launch of the new Camry. This will leave the current generation Corolla in service for a Big Three-like six years. While the move could reflect a redoubling of Toyota’s commitment to quality, it gives the model’s competitors some much-needed breathing room. Is this a minor setback in Toyota’s relentless march on American market share or warning signs of a more fundamental, less easily solved problem? It’s too early to tell. But stay tuned. We’re on it.

An airport car rental attendant recently handed me the keys to my temporary chariot and declared “Your car is down the row to your right. It’s an ‘06 Uplander.” A what? “It’s kind of an SUV,” she kind of explained. The butt-end of a something large and ugly poked out of stall 97. The bow tie on the trim above the license plate revealed the vehicle’s manufacturer: Chevrolet.  Apprehensively, I slid behind the wheel of the awkward-looking beast. I looked around. I turned to my colleague. “No wonder GM is in such bad shape.”

Ever have one of those days where you seem to be at odds with all the motorized entities in your life? Where anything electrical fails, every warranty expires and all the things that you hope will hold out ‘til your next paycheck… don't? I had just such a day last spring, where I ended-up flat on my back, with the wind knocked out of me, lying under my own pickup truck.

The day started innocently enough, albeit at 10 degrees below zero. Needless to say, the driver's side door on my “vintage” Mazda hatchback was frozen shut. Sliding in through the passenger side and clambering carefully over the stick shift, I plopped into the driver's seat. My next indication that this wasn't going to be a shiny happy day came at the coffee shop drive-through. After realizing that my window was frozen, I tried to crank it open. With a sickening crack, the glass jumped the tracks and disappeared into the deep recesses of the door.

My patience evaporated as fast as my breath, as my fingers grew stiff in the bitter cold. I set my steaming brew beside me and fiddled with the manual window winder until the internal mechanism caught. I managed to raise the glass, protesting and clacking as it ascended. Despite the temperature, the sun was bright and my mood optimistic. I was looking forward to picking-up a test vehicle for review.

Three blocks from the dingy sprawling metropolis of General Motors, Oshawa, flashing lights appeared in my rear view mirror. Sighing with karmic resignation, I pulled over and watched Officer Krupke walk to my car. In anticipation of our cheerful conversation, I rolled down the window– which fell with a resounding "thunk" inside the door. Pocketing my ticket, I followed the officer's advice and made a mental note to replace the out-of-date insurance card with the new one sitting peacefully on my desk at home, still inside its original envelope.

My hatchback spends most of its time shuttling back and forth between car manufacturers. It sits for a week in the company car lot until I return the latest press car. Most car writers I know do the same. It's poetic irony to see a well-known car critic climb out of a gleaming Mercedes E-class and jump into a rusty, flatulent 20-year-old Toyota Corolla.  On that fateful day, I was looking forward to ditching my beater and hopping into a new vehicle. I had a  reasonable chance that everything would function as it should. If not, it’d be someone else’s problem.

That week's tester was a Hummer H3, the smallest of General Motor's interpretations of the military Humvee. Feeling slightly ridiculous perched atop a wanna-be rapper’s wet dream, I was nonetheless grateful that it was a subdued, sand colored model, and not a screaming, retina-burning yellow version.  From time served at the vehicle’s press launch and drive program, I knew two things.  First, the vehicle’s in-line five cylinder engine rendered GM's mucho macho machine woefully under-powered and 2) the H3 was virtually unstoppable. Or, so I thought…

Later that evening, I headed out to a former ski hill. Its backside was a sloping expanse of rugged, tree-studded wilderness. Chugging merrily over hills, barging through woods and devouring trenches to the accompaniment of AC/DC, the day's dirty deeds seemed redeemed. And then I applied the brakes at the edge of a ditch and felt… nothing. Sheer, traction-less ice lay just under the snowy carpet. Slowly, inexorably, I slid into the ditch, nose down.  The H3 was wedged in the snow, arse in the air, with its rear wheels barely making contact with the ground.

Trudging a couple of miles to a friend’s place– cursing my cell phone resting on the kitchen counter– I called a tow truck. After convincing the wary driver that I was sober, I directed him through the woods. We located the unfortunate Humlet by pressing the key fob.  It lit up like a beacon in the blackness. It took all of 10 minutes to extricate the Chevrolet Colorado-based off-roader from the ditch (two thumbs waaay up for rear tow hooks).  While I wasn't exactly happy, I was grateful that I'd somehow managed to find the only tow truck driver in Canada who could resist the urge to smirk.

Safely home, thawing my frozen feet, I suddenly remembered that it was mid-way through the month; I had to move my truck to the opposite side of the street if I wanted to avoid a parking ticket. Once the job was done, I exited the vehicle, gingerly edging between the pickup and a frozen snow bank. My feet slipped out from under me. And that's how I ended up flat on my back, under my own vehicle, vowing that under no circumstances was I going anywhere the following day.

Last month, Toyota sold more vehicles in North America than Ford. Understandably, The Blue Oval Boys have refrained from public hand-wringing over their displacement in the US sale charts. But there is no underestimating the development’s damage to Ford’s corporate psyche. Newbie CEO Mark Fields was already deep into crisis management. Now, suddenly, it’s obvious that Ford’s turnaround cannot rely on pushing (deeply discounted) products and hoping and waiting for a Hail Mary pass. A brand new plan is set to be hatched at the end of the third quarter. The way forward is now in fast forward.

Like GM, Ford is downsizing to match market share. According to Harbour Consulting, Ford used 79% of its production capacity in 2005 (FYI: Toyota’s plants ran at 106%). Originally, Ford planned to close fourteen plants (including seven vehicle manufacturing facilities) and “cut” (a.k.a. buy out) 30k union jobs within six years.  The new plan: lop a couple of years off the timeline. Speaking to industry analysts yesterday, Ford manufacturing chief David Szczupak promised that FoMoCo will use 100% of its production capacity by 2008.

The clock is ticking. Although Ford has a $23b cash hoard (Health Care fund included), the company needs $16b to keep the assembly lines rolling until the next product cycle. No wonder Ford is thinking outside the Oval. The sale of parts bin diva Jaguar and reliability krypton Land Rover is reportedly only a buyer away from happening. [As Mazda and Volvo account for some 75% of Ford’s current value and provide mission critical product integration, their sale is highly unlikely.] Ford Motor Credit and bailed-out parts supplier Visteon may also be in play.

With so many cards on the table, Ford has followed GM’s lead and turned to a high profile consultant for advice: Kenneth Leet. In 2003, President Bush asked the 18-year Goldman Sachs vet to be his undersecretary for domestic finances. That gig didn’t pan out. But when Billy Ford called Leet for similar guidance, Leet showed why bullshit walks (exact contract unknown). The mergers and acquisitions guru is reported to be on the prowl for alliance(s) with other automakers.

Nissan is the most likely target. Despite the initial rise in stock prices prompted by a possible partnership with GM, a Ford – Nissan alliance makes more sense. (Not much, but more.) Although the UAW would rather accept the bubonic plague than see Carlos Ghosn prowling Ford’s HQ, his arrival on the scene would certainly shake up the joint, and give Blue Oval’s Brass insight into Le Cost Cutter’s management style. Renault and Nissan would gain access to Ford’s distribution networks.

Yes, well, the Ford family holds 40% of FoMoCo’s voting rights. With such an oligarchy at the tiller, any outsider seeking a merger or alliance would be extremely wary. The set-up has triggered some fanciful talk. Rumors have the Ford family purchasing 1.9b shares needed to take the company private. For roughly $13b, Ford could find the way forward without the hassles of the SEC, the press or interim profit reports. While FoMoCo stock may appear cheap at the moment, it’s highly unlikely that the Fords would want to raid their personal portfolios for such an enomrous gamble. What does that tell you? 

Well, listen to this from today’s Detroit News: "The market for subcompact autos in the United States could reach 600,000 units annually by the end of the decade, according to Mark Fields, president of Ford Motor Co.'s Americas group. But he says Ford will not enter this growing domestic segment until it has something different to offer consumers." At the very moment Toyota’ small cars are eating up the US market, at the very moment Ford should be rushing a killer B-segment car to market, Fields is publicly declaring a “wait and see” approach.

This from the same man who admitted that America’s bold move to more fuel-efficient vehicles is not a passing fad. "I'd rather be proactive than wish things would go back to where they were,” Fields told analysts and reporters. “Because I don't think they will.” Don’t look for much fuel conscious proactivity over the next six months. Yes, nine new Ford vehicles are set to hit the market in that time frame. But we’re talking about a Mustang variant (based on the Hertz edition GT-H), a four wheel drive Fusion and Milan (same car, different wrapper), an F-150 with greater towing capacity, the Edge crossover, a refreshed Ford Expedition (thirsty) and Expedition EL (extra thirsty). 

It’s two steps way forward, one step way back. Although Fields remains publicly committed to putting Ford back in the black by 2008, it’s hard to imagine how he could achieve the goal.  Ford will announce its accelerated restructuring plan by the end of the next month— at the same time its third quarter results hit the street. 

My local falafel joint has the world's smallest parking lot: just three spaces. The other day, I pulled in for supper and parked my sore-thumb standout Grabber Orange Mustang GT Convertible next to a Toyota Prius. The Prius owner was seated on the patio, munching his shawarma. The disparity between our two rides could hardly have been more stark. His: a futuristic, planet-saving, spaceship-looking personal statement.  Mine: a retro-tastic, oil-burning, bright orange throw-back drop-top. Sure, Prius person only has to visit the gas station once a week to my thrice, but c’mon, it was no contest. Unless you’re an accountant, the right brain wins every time. 

Last Thursday, Mark LeNeve declared that General Motors has “turned a corner.” Obviously, GM’s Vice President of North American Sales and Marketing was unaware of the phrase’s historical baggage. To wit: General William Westmoreland’s famous announcement that the American war effort in Indochina had “turned a corner”– just before North Vietnam’s Tet Offensive returned the corner. Since ‘68, any US authority figure announcing an angle exceeded instantly reveals themselves as a master of unintended irony, and sets themselves up for an ignominious defeat.

Metaphorical misstep aside, LaNeve’s triumphalism seems to reflect normal corporate dishonestly. Surely LaNeve was simply lying when he claimed that “interest in new vehicle models such as the 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe SUV and a potential sales lift from upcoming products are helping put GM back in contention after excruciating declines in recent years.” After all, the statement is positively dizzy with spin. “Interest in new models” (as opposed to actual sales) is leading to a “potential sales lift” (as opposed to an actual sales increase) which is “helping to put GM in contention” (as opposed to putting GM back in the black) and reversing “declines in recent years” (as opposed to, say, declines during LaNeve’s tenure). But no, I honestly believe LaNeve honestly believes the unbelievable: that GM’s on the rebound.

You see, the thing is, the above statement about GM’s prospects isn’t a direct quote. It’s paraphrasing provided by automotive journalist Brett Clanton. In a Detroit News article on the GM Veep’s unbridled optimism, LaNeve’s surrogate spinmeister failed to provide any evidence for “growing signs that a massive turnaround effort at GM is gaining strength.” Sure, the article flags several ways GM could be derailed by “factors outside its control.” But its tone, tenor and existence all indicate that LaNeve’s comments reflect an accepted Detroit shibboleth: GM’s on the rebound!

By now, even casual observers know GM’s unofficial turnaround strategy: we’re gonna do what we’ve always done better than we’ve done it in “recent years.” Remember those intractable problems that brought us to the brink of bankruptcy: legacy and labor costs, bureaucracy, a bloated dealer network, badge engineering, ill-defined brands, etc.? Forgeddaboutit. We’ll just sell our best assets, close some factories, pay-off some workers, release a dozen or so new products (most of which look suspiciously like the old products) and everything will be allllllright.

My God, how wrong can you be? At last Wednesday’s press launch of GM’s new(ish) pickup trucks, GM Car Czar Bob Lutz once again explored the possibilities. “The effect [of high gas prices] will decrease over time as people adjust to the thought of $3 a gallon, just as they did when it was $2 a gallon and just as they did when it was $1 a gallon.” In other words, sooner or later, GM’s truck sales will return to “normal” and everything will be allllllright. And then GM CEO Rabid Rick Wagoner stepped up to the microphone and raised the stakes on Maximum Bob's bluff. GM’s new(ish) pickups are “the most important part of our North American turnaround plan.”

If that statement doesn’t send a shiver down Detroit’s collective spine, nothing will. Last month, GM’s pickup truck sales slumped thirty-two percent. While that’s a year-on-year comparison against last summer's Fire Sale For All program, it’s clear that GM’s second string cash cow is being gored by gas prices and, less obviously, a downturn in the housing industry. A SMALL company called BIGresearch says over 50% of pickup truck drivers planning on buying a new vehicle in the next six months are considering a more fuel efficient sedan or… wait for it… a hybrid.

Shrinking market? You betcha. Less profitable market? Uh-huh. Ford’s dropped the price on America’s best-selling pickup (the F150) by $1400. Toyota is about to enter the fray with its keenly priced, full-sized Tundra. Bottom line: the pickup truck market is contracting even as margins are being squeezed. At best, GM is about to make a great landing at the wrong airport. At worst, it’s missing the boat.

In today’s market, small cars are where it’s at. If GM thinks the Cobalt and Aveo can carry the corporation through another gas price escalation— even as Toyota, Nissan and Honda flood the market with their latest fuel-sipping econoboxes— they’ve got another thing coming. I reckon it starts with a “b.”

But even if you dismiss the possibility of Chapter 11, why do GM watchers grant the company turned around status when its leaders [continue to] refuse to provide a timeline or targets for a return to profitability? Mark LaNeve’s and his supporters may hide behind vague claims that they can see the light at the end of the tunnel, but they fail to understand that the beckoning light in the distance is… death.

Six years ago, social commentator David Brooks published his book Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There. Brooks’ explained how the countercultural values of the ‘60’s and ‘70’s were adopted by the mainstream by the mid-‘90’s. Marketers devoured Brooks’ book like it was crab legs on a Chinese buffet. Ever since, we’ve seen an explosion of style in every aspect of our lives and every room of our homes– except, of course, the garage.  If Wal-Mart (of all places) sells dinner plates suitable for the Museum of Modern Art, why are today’s cars so dull?  My theory: car designers are still in the thrall of the 1984 Audi 5000.

When the Audi 5000 debuted in 1983, the motoring press slobbered all over themselves. They showered the model with endless praise, touting it as “the world’s most aerodynamic sedan.” In fact, the car’s styling was a remix of the previous year’s 5000. Its soft corners, unsculptured sides, flush glass, and understated “blackout” trim had all been done before. The new 5000 simply combined all these exterior features into an easy-to-fawn-over form.  Inside the car, the 5000’s interior belied its upscale aspirations; it was a Jetta wearing a corduroy blazer.  Maybe the sublime (for its time) experience of driving the 5000 blurred the critics’ judgment.

The 5000 died a quick, undeserved death in the American marketplace, stabbed in the sales chart by investigative journalism. Its influence, however, is still with us twenty-three years later. Within just a couple model seasons, most Japanese manufacturers had appropriated the 5000’s “no nonsense” persona for their own, more modest vehicles.  Mazda styled its late-80s 323, 626, and 929 sedans as knockoffs of Audi’s flagship saloon. The 1987 Toyota Camry and 1990 Honda Accord also carried surprising amounts of Teutonic styling DNA. It took American manufacturers a little longer, but eventually even they stripped their cars of chrome, complicated sheetmetal bends, and any other ornamentation.

As they say, imitation is the sincerest form of assassination. Typical of both Japanese and American auto companies, excessive me-tooism quickly turned the 5000’s look into a cliché. Even such decidedly non-wonderful cars as the Chevy Celebrity wound up looking like ersatz Audis.

Much of the 5000’s lingering influence isn’t immediately obvious. The ongoing effect lies in the car’s proportions: the relationship of the front and rear overhangs to each other and to the car’s total length, the relationship between the roofline and the beltline, the tumble-home of the side glass, and other minor details. Even manufacturers who were slow to adopt the 5000’s Bauhaus aesthetic enthusiastically embraced its proportioning. It’s as if designers had suddenly discovered the Golden Rectangle of automobiles. Again, the 5000’s influence is still with us.  Other than front wheel drive, what do the Acura TL and the Chevrolet Impala have in common?  The Audi 5000’s proportions, that’s what.

These days, when a carmaker deviates from the Audi 5000’s basic proportions even slightly, everyone notices. Consider the most roundly praised recent mainstream sedan, the Chrysler 300C.  Everyone is all over this car because to our eyes it looks so different from every other sedan on the road. What, stylistically, has changed in the 300C?  The relationship between the beltline and the road.  Otherwise, it too embodies the 5000’s basic proportions.

Occasionally, some designers will sneak a bit of subversion through the design process, even though much true design innovation gets the kibosh from platform engineers. Chrysler’s “cab-forward” styling of the mid-1990s is an example of this. Yet, in twenty-three years, there hasn’t been a serious challenger to the Audi 5000. Nothing else has even showed potential of becoming a new car design icon.

Well, that’s not entirely true.  There was one car: the 1996 Ford Taurus.  While the original Taurus was slagged by some as a 5000 rip-off back in ‘86, the ‘96 version could not really be accused of following any known influence.  It couldn’t have been more iconoclastic had Ford put all four wheels on the roof and asked the driver to sit in the trunk. Its Mercury Sable sister car was just as radical.  Ford’s multi-billion-dollar gamble didn’t pay off, however.  The Taurus eventually lost its status as America’s best-selling sedan. Some of that was down to Ford’s decision to price the car much higher than its Japanese-branded competition (and then cut and run by dumping the car into rental fleets).  But a lot of the blame for the Taurus’ demise is attributable to the car’s too-far-out-there styling.

Marketers may imitate successful products a little too much, but they go to great lengths to avoid imitating failures like the 1996 Taurus.  Why do cars all wear the same dull clothes these days?  Because the sales charts tell us that we can’t ever get enough of the 1984 Audi 5000.

Although GM’s woes are increasingly well known, the House of Ford is also in dire straits. The Blue Oval’s credit has been downgraded almost as often and deeply as The General’s. FoMoCo’s products– a truck-heavy mix in a time of fuel conscious fervor– languish on dealers’ lots with equal abandon[ment]. Both companies have too many lackluster products, confused brands and mainline dealers. In fact, other than the size of their relative problems, the chief difference between GM and Ford has been the Blue Oval’s bluster, bold moves and all.

In the first half of ‘06, Ford's US market share slumped another four percentage points. In the first financial quarter, the company suffered a $457m loss. In the second, they took a $254m hit. No surprise there. Even the F150, America’s best selling pickup truck and Ford’s perennial cash cow, seems welded to dealer lots (down 46% in June). To move the metal, Ford has increased incentives and lowered prices on models both old and new. And even the ones that've moved out are coming back; the company has just recalled 1.2 million trucks, sport utility vehicles and vans for potential engine fires. Ford needs something to pull itself out of its corporate tailspin. As Taylor Hicks might say, what are the possibilities?

Nothing much. Even with accelerated product development, it will be two to three years before Ford can readjust its product line to match the new sales environment. Most of Ford’s ‘07 to ‘10 models will be SUVs and pickups. At the same time, Ford is pulling the plug on its big rear wheel-drive sedans and ill-fated minivans: the Mercury Monterey (down 40%) dies next month and the Freestar (down 20%) goes away in April. FoMoCo’s move to deep-six (rather than re-engineer) their big sedans and people carriers when the American market is flooding with SUV refugees reflects a lack of resources, imagination, will or all three.

Ford has also failed to refresh their fuel-sipping, dynamically superlative Focus– before it fades away like the once-great Taurus. And they've decided to shelve their well-publicized goal to build 250k hybrids by 2010, despite a huge jump in Escape Hybrid sales. Playing the flexible fuel card instead may earn Ford the environmental brownie points it seeks, but hyping vehicles that run on a fuel that’s not commonly available that gets worse mileage than “normal” gas will do nothing to cater to America’s changing vehicular tastes.

Fortunately, there are a few reasons to be cheerful.  In the short term, the Hecho en Mexico Fusion/Zephyr/Milan continues to depart dealer lots at around 19K units per month. Equally heartening, the Fusion and its badge engineered siblings are mining a rare vein of consumer loyalty; 93% of Fusion owners say they’d recommend the model to a friend. Yes but– the model isn’t generating enough sales activity for Ford to clamber back from the lowest market share since the Ford Pinto galloped onto the US sales chart.

To that end, Billy’s Boys have green-lighted three new 40mpg-plus B-segment vehicles based on the Mazda3 platform, two of which could arrive for the ’09 model year. There’s also a new small minivan slated for ’10 and the Fairlane box car.  In the medium term, Ford’s immediate future may well rest on the Edge/Lincoln MKX Crossover. The American automaker has set a sales target of 120k unit per year for the 265hp, all wheel-drive whip. If dealers fall short, Ford’s only bold move may be towards Chapter 11.

No wonder the Blue Oval is thinking the unthinkable. After spending some $10b trying to make Jaguar their upmarket brand (forgetting Lincoln), the British marque is now, finally, reportedly, up for sale. Industry wags also suggest that Volvo and Land Rover may be on the auction block. There’s also talk of Ford taking up GM’s offer to join the Nissan – Renault alliance– or marrying its fortunes VW, BMW, Honda, Toyota or Hyundai. And just in case you thought these options are the result of ill-informed conjecture, Bill Ford Jr. just hired former Goldman Sachs and Bank of America investment banker Kenneth Leet as his big picture guru.

Provided Ford has enough cash to see it through these dark days, Moray Callum is the more important man in this drama. Ford’s new Director of North American car design– the man credited for the RX8, Mazda3, Mazda6, Cx-7 and CX-8– has received carte blanche to create vehicles that inspire the American public to return to the Ford fold. The company has access to sixty-five thousand automotive R&D workers in Michigan alone and a $7.5b R&D budget. Like everyone else in the Ford Empire, Callum knows that his employer has to create at least one major hit, and soon. As always, a carmaker’s future ultimately depends on its ability to make the right cars at the right time.

During a business trip to Canada, my manager and I watched a Swedish colleague use his cell phone to hold a three-way conference call with Tel Aviv and Hong Kong. The boss was infuriated; his US cell couldn’t even reach Toronto from Toronto. He called Sprint on a land line. "This is unacceptable,” he screamed. “It’s un-American to sell technology that’s seven years behind the Europeans!" The exact same thing’s been said about Detroit’s inability to counter fuel-sipping low-emission hybrids.  Enter, finally, the Mercury Mariner Hybrid. Ah, but is the gas/electric Merc ready for prime time or is it just a Johnny-come-lately phoning it in?

In a recent comment, Stryker1 raised an excellent point: TTAC seems to have lost a bit of its "edge.”  Upon reflection, I agree.  I’m not one for excuses, but I reckon the loss of an internal organ threw me off my groove.  At the same time, TTAC welcomed a large number of new writers and lost touch with a few familiar voices.  The ad thing’s also jerking my chain.  And the light’s bad in here.  Anyway, I'm fully aware that TTAC will rise of fall depending on its ability to stick to its original remit: kick-ass reviews and take-no-prisoners industry-oriented rants.  Here’s how I’m thinking of playing it…   

The QOTD (Question of the Day) saw the site through my recent absence.  When I returned, I relied on the "hey you" format to pad content.  Sorry.  From now on, the QOTD will run no more than three times per week, probably less.  Equally important, the question will gain gravitas, covering subjects related to our mission, like Why Has Toyota Quality Gone South?  And Should Lincoln build a Rolls Royce?

I also realize the posting schedule has been a bit erratic (though not as bad as it was a month ago).  From now on, I’ll put up two posts per day on weekdays (AM and PM EST), with an additional podcast as and when.  The material will consist of vehicle reviews (and more of ‘em) and serious-minded rants.  On Saturday and Sunday, I’ll fire-up lifestyle, first personal narrative and nostalgia pieces.  We’ll also run our motor sports coverage on the weekend.

At the risk of sounding egomaniacal, I’ll also amp-up my own contributions.  Although TTAC’s administrative demands (and the need to earn some money elsewhere) have made it difficult for me to sit down and do the biz, I know that I need to deliver the goods and lead by example.  So I will make sure my byline appears here at least twice a week.  Stand back!  I’ve got a Vaio, and I’m not afraid to use it.

As for the specific content, I'm open to suggestions.  Obviously, the Death Watch continues, as do the reviews (our pursuit of a press car booker should bear some fruit later this month).  Which type of [new] cars float your boat: budget, mid-market, exotics or all and sundry?  Are there any editorial topics you enjoy more than others (e.g. alternative fuels, hybrids, muscle cars, safety, media/corporate critiques)?  Are there any you'd rather not see (I'm not gonna help you on that one)?  I've got an excellent team of scribes who enjoy editorial direction.  Help me help them to help you help me help you.   

Meanwhile, if you look up on the top right of the main menu bar, you’ll see the word “blog” has snuck in.  As these behind-the-scenes, stop-me-before-I-make-a-fool-of-myself deals have proven popular in their own right, I decided to give you the chance to steer TTAC on a regular basis.  Just as soon as Redwing tells me how to upload text and photos, TTAC’s new blog will be a daily feature.  I’ll still bring the noise to the main page when needs must, but the blog will provide the kind of detail that gives OCD’s a good name and keeps things party real.  Or something like that.

And there you have it.  I’ve got a good feeling about the site these days.  As Sam might say, by fall, we should have our varkies by maker (pigs in a row).  TTAC will be tight, right (more often than not) and commercially viable.  Of course, your comments, criticisms, suggestions and submissions are always welcome.    

Every race day, over a billion people watch Formula One on live TV.  No wonder Mercedes Benz, Honda, Toyota, Renault and Fiat spend hundreds of millions of dollars to race their hi-tech cars at circuits all over the world.  No wonder we’re witnessing a fight for the future direction of F1. In one corner, wearing red, silver, blue and white, are the teams, led by the Grand Prix Manufacturers Association.  In the other corner, wearing dark blue blazers, is the sport’s governing body, the FIA.  The battle comes down to two issues: technology and (surprise) money.  

Once again, the FIA wants to change the sport’s technical regulations to slow the machines down.  In 2004, the governing body mandated that from 2005, all F1 engines must last two races.  The theory behind the rule was simple enough: manufacturers would reduce engine power to increase engine life.  Less engine power would mean slower cars, and slower cars would be safer cars. To the same end, the FIA also introduced a number of aerodynamic regulations to lower the amount of pavement-sucking downforce.  The net effect?  By the end of the ’05 racing calendar, F1 cars were about one second per lap slower than before. In the ’05 Chinese GP, Schumaker’s Ferrari’s fastest lap was 1:32.238.  In the ’06 Chinese GP, Raikkonen’s McLaren-Mercedes’ fastest lap clocked-in at 1:33.242.

In late 2004, the sport’s governing body amended the rules again.  For the ’06 race season, manufacturers were forced to reduce their cars’ engine size from 3.0 liters to 2.4 liters, and switch from V10’s to V8’s.  Once again, the FIA reduced the maximum allowable amount of aerodynamic downforce.  The end result?  Another second added.  In the ‘05 British GP, Raikkonen’s McLaren-Mercedes scored the fastest lap time at 1:20.502.  In the ’06 British GP, Alonso’s Renault won the same honor with a time of 1:21.599.  Clearly, car designers and engine builders are managing to minimize the impact of FIA’s restrictive rules. 

Judging by the past development cycle, it’s only a matter of time before the 2.4-liter V8’s are faster than the previous unrestricted 3.0 liter V10’s.  And now, in the name of “safety,” the FIA has responded to F1 teams’ ingenuity by calling a near-complete halt to the automotive arms race.  They’ve introduced new rules mandating that all engine specs will remain as raced in June 2006.  They also want to freeze any further engine development, install a standard electronic control unit (supplied by Microsoft) into all cars, control tire choice and restrict aerodynamics yet further.

The teams– who provide the entertainment upon which the entire F1 circus is based– are fighting this proposal tooth and nail.  They’re angry that the FIA is disregarding its own procedures in the drafting and adoption of the technical and sporting regulations.  As far as they’re concerned, FIA is invoking the safety clause as an end run around the builders, to sanitize the sport, to increase "competitiveness" (by decreasing innovation), to make the races more "exciting" for TV, to maximize revenue.  An unnamed team manager was recently overheard comparing the FIA to “a heavy handed pimp.”  

The teams are right to revolt.  F1 has been, and always should be, the most innovative of all racing series.  Who can forget the Tyrell P-34 six wheel car of 1976, or the Brabham BT-46 “fan car”?  Where would F1 history be without the Tyrell 019 (first car with a raised nose) of 1990?  Today’s paddle shift sports cars owe a debt of gratitude to the Ferrari type 640 (first paddle shift) of 1989.  The innovative aerodynamic appendages tried by Sauber-BMW during the French Grand Prix are just another example of racing improving the breed.  

These are the ideas that make F1 racing different and (dare I say it) better than other series.  The FIA’s rules have clipped the designers’ wings and draining the life essence from the sport. Before the Sauber-BMW aerodynamic addenda, what was the last memorable F1 design that stood out from the crowd? The Sauber twin keel of 2001? The McLaren “Viking wings” of 2005? Those cars did not offer what I would call major technological innovations.  

I want to see cars with huge differences in their designs. I want unmistakably unique cars. The FIA rules will prevent that. Enthusiasts can remember when they could tell the cars apart by their exhaust note (Ferrari V12, Honda V10 or Ford V8). With each restrictive rule change, the FIA brings F1 closer to NASCAR. While a true F1 fan can tell the difference between a Renault and a Toro Rosso, how many causal fans can spot the differences between a McLaren and a Midland?

Let’s hope that a compromise is reached whereby F1 will retain its traditional role as the most technologically free and advanced form of motor sport. Where a small team can design a car in a unique way and take the fight to the larger teams.  If we lose, it won’t be long until we have the Euro IRL. And that won’t make anyone happy.

Tribute bands are a beautiful thing: talented musicians who use their artistic gifts to duplicate other people's creativity and style for stupid easy money.  Toyota’s full-size Tundra pickup is cut from the same cloth.  Much like your favorite KISS wannabes, the big T's truck earns its keep by imitating Detroit’s core competency.  Supposedly, that ain’t enough; US pickup truck buyers are thought to be more brand loyal than Queen fans (if you pardon the reference).  So does the Tundra have what it takes to evoke the masters and rock the house?

When the Toyota Prius first came out, I drove one around West Virginia.  When I pulled into a gas station, the owner sauntered out, all curious-like.  “What’s that?” he demanded.  “I never seen one of them before.”  It’s a hybrid, I explained.  You can run it on either the electric motor or the gas engine, or both of them together.  “They ought to have a switch,” he said. “So you can run it only on electricity.”  So much for my Harvard degree.  The guy was way ahead of me.

Toyota should be all over the plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) concept like stink on bumwad.  Perhaps their unintentionally non-commercial experience with the all-electric RAV4 EV put them off the concept.  They probably figured that a mainstream motor requiring nightly recharging would be as popular as a compact Cadillac diesel with 8-4-0 cylinder deactivation.  Still, Toyota’s beginning to get with the program— as are Ford, DaimlerChrysler, George Bush and every green-leaning op-ed columnist.  Appropriately enough, the change of heart’s down to a small group of Californians long derided as rich hippies with too much time on their hands. 

These much-maligned Left Coasters are engineers and entrepreneurs rallying around an e-banner called CalCars.org .  They’ve been known to spend an extra $10k to $12k per car to add plug-in capability to their hybrid transportation.  They plug in their Prius at night, charge a special set of drive batteries, roll out of bed and commute and/or run errands entirely on amps.  Their modified Prius won’t fire up its internal combustion (IC) engine until they’re doing 35, provided they stay light on the throttle. 

Obviously, a PHEV isn’t going to help drivers with an 80-mile, 80-mph commute.  But it works for me.  Once every weekday, I loop around the local post office, gym, hardware store, Radio Shack, dentist or whatever.  Give me a range of 35 in-town electric miles and I’m there.  If I deplete my plug-in hybrid’s batteries, I’ll simply go to gas and carry on.

The PHEV eliminates the fatal flaw of electric cars: limited range.  If your commute is reasonably short, plug the puppy in at work and motor back home with a full tank of volts.  You probably won’t need to fire up the IC engine until the weekend trip to Vegas. Based on the American driver’s typical daily runs (they average seven miles each), a PHEV could deliver 100 mpg or more.  People who ride Vespas do half as well.

Toyota’s standard it-won’t-work whine: the Prius’ nickel-metal hydride (NiMH) battery puts out lots of power for a short time.  It wouldn’t survive daily deep discharge/recharge cycles.  In fact, Japanese and Euro-spec Prii have an electric-only switch, so owners can move their hybrid to the other side of the street [in accordance with local parking laws] without having to start them up, apparently.  That said, a Prius won’t even travel a mile on its standard internal battery.  Bottom line: a useful plug-in hybrid requires a lead acid “energy battery,” which are notoriously heavy and short-lived. 

At first, CalCars’ hackers circumvented this limitation by installing a secondary set of lightweight lead-acid batteries, originally intended for electrical bicycles.  They’ve since moved on to lighter, longer lasting (and more expensive) lithium-ion batteries.  The secondary batteries don’t put out a whole lot of power, but it’s enough to chug a light car along for an hour or two.  Of course, you need controllers and wiring to make it all work.  But as they say, if it was easy, everybody would be doing it.

Spare batteries in the trunk, homemade wiring, thousands of dollars per car for electronics, a week’s DIY work… of course the PHEV makes no sense.  But I suspect Toyota, Mercedes or even GM could make it a lot more sensible.  Hey, don’t tell me a society that can develop the Ionic Breeze air purifier and sell expensive pills to reduce stress-induced belly fat can’t invent better batteries…

Yes, I know: electricity comes from “somewhere" and arrives complete with its own environmental costs.  But one huge factor in electricity’s favor— and why it will supplant both gasoline and hydrogen as the power source for future cars— is that amps and volts already have a perfectly good transportation and supply infrastructure: power lines, household wiring and extension cords.  No other source of alternative energy starts with such an obvious advantage.

Best of all, electricity comes from a wide variety of existing, plentiful, independent, domestic sources: coal, nuclear, natural gas, hydro, garbage, even solar and wind power.  Worse comes to worst, I could even recharge my plug-in hybrid vehicle’s batteries by hooking it to my Exercycle, since it’s actually an alternator that provides variable resistance when I pedal.  Try that with diesel, fuel cells, hydrogen, fusion or Kryptonite.  Clearly, the PHEV is a shockingly good idea.

Forbes has just released another in their never-ending series of ten-best lists– a feature which stretches credulity, interest and patience. To wit: the latest list trumpets the ten best cars for single people.  Being a perennially unattached person, my index finger only managed to hover over delete. Oh man… "Best Car For Eco-minded Singles: Toyota Prius Sedan." No, really. But one item intrigued me: "Best Car For Boosting Your Sex Life"  Aside from looking like an uncircumcised penis, I can't think of anything even remotely sexy about BMW's M6 Coupe.  But there are some drop-dead gorgeous cars on both the new and used market.  What car(s) do you find sexy?  More to the point (so to speak), can a car get you laid?  And if it can, is it really a good idea to share your precious bodily fluids with a sexual partner who's turned-on by your taste in whips?