Mr. Witzenburg's recent TTAC editorial criticized Mr. Farago for his anti-GM bias and asked us to give the domestic automaker a fair shake. While I respect Mr. Witzenburg's loyalty and patriotism, he seems to have overlooked the fact that his former employer makes some truly awful automobiles. As the cornerstone of his defence, the automotive journalist asked readers to name one– just one– poorly-made car from the General Motors line-up. Alright then, what about the Chevrolet Cavalier?

My best friend, sister and mother all had the displeasure of owning a Cavalier ('94, '00, '04). During their stewardship, pieces fell off, the electronics failed (headlights, windows, and stereo) and there were several major mechanical failures (transmission starter, alternator and master brake cylinder). Witzenburg may dismiss these complaints as relating to an "old" design, but their saga is not peculiar to the Cavalier. Perhaps owners of other GM products would like to email their tales of woe to Mr. Witzenburg. Anyway, a car company is only as good/bad as their weakest model.

Car czars say the craziest things! In 2002, GM CEO Rick Wagoner said hybrids were only applicable to Japan, where gas cost $4 a gallon. About the same time, Flyboy Bob Lutz ridiculed edgy-looking, proto-300C concept cars as 'angry appliances'. And now Mercedes chief Eckhard Cordes says MB may no longer strive to top JD Power's survey of initial quality (IQ). For a brand whose reputation once rested on the bedrock of bullet-proof build quality, Mercedes' potential capitulation to the forces of mediocrity is startling– in the worst possible, most memorable way. If Jeopardy had a category 'Things Auto Execs Shouldn't Have Said', Cordes remark would only be a $100 answer.

From a PR perspective, Cordes' remarks are an unmitigated disaster. If there's one thing Americans hate more than a $80k German sedan with dodgy electrics– I mean, a loser, it's a sore loser. In J.D. Power's 2004 Initial Quality survey, Mercedes-Benz clocked-in at number ten, with 106 problems per 100 vehicles. (Lexus was first, with 87 problems per 100 vehicles.) When the tenth ranked company suggests it no longer aspires to the top slot in the most widely recognized measure of who builds the best damn car on the planet, it's the very definition of sour grapes, in a seven-year-old kinda way. Who cares about YOUR stupid quality survey ANYWAY? I'm going to do my OWN survey. So THERE.

Oh dear. It seems that the long predicted "perfect storm" is massing above the stricken supertanker that is General Motors. Storm cloud one: the Wall Street Journal reports that SUV sales have tanked in Texas.

Never mind today's sales figures, which reveal that GM's light truck sales dropped 17 percent last month, to 209,917 vehicles. Or today's S&P downgrade, which reduces GM's bonds to 'junk' status (raising their borrowing costs). If Texans are abandoning their Conestogas, GM's number one [non-finance] profit engine is running out of gas– without a service station in sight. Unlike Chrysler and Ford, GM doesn't have a plan B: a supply of more fuel-efficient sedans, SUV's and crossovers ready for sale. I'm not talking about hit products like the Mustang or 300C. I mean reasonably frugal vehicles appropriate to these $2.70 a gallon times, like the Ford Freestyle.

According to Rush Limbaugh, we’ve got plenty of oil. So I’m not really bothered about a given car’s fuel economy, from a “we are the world, we are the stars with air-conditioned mansions” perspective. More to the point, TTAC’s weekly test cars arrive with a full tank of gas. Of course, I’m not completely insensitive to working class priorities, or my profession’s desire to promote an anti-oil agenda. So I’m always up for a good hybrid bashing– I mean review. Only things didn’t quite turn out as I’d planned…

BMW recently surprised enthusiasts by announcing that they're adding a turbo-charged 3-Series to their line-up. For a company famous for its sweet-spinning, normally aspirated six-cylinder engines, a turbo-3 seems a quirky development– to say the least. Twenty years ago, sure. Back then, [gasoline powered] turbocharged cars were THE answer, promising all the power of a big engine with the fuel economy of a small engine. Of course, it wasn't true then, and it's not true now.

Yup, the Griswolds are back. Or as near as I can figure, anyway… because this Honda Pilot is surely the Clark clan carrier incarnate. Granted, someone's gone and prized off the Wagon Queen Family Truckster badging, coating its formerly pea-green flanks with something called 'Redrock Pearl'. But make no mistake: despite whatever lip service the Pilot pays to off-road cred, Honda has chamfered what few edges remain on the SUV franchise and produced a whale of a big foul-weather wagon.

At Microsoft's recent "Global Automotive Summit", someone asked Bill Gates if he thought the auto industry should aim for cars that "wouldn't let themselves crash". To which Mr. Gates replied "absolutely". Bill was, of course, sandbagged. The media love to paint the world's wealthiest man as the world's most powerful control freak– which, of course, he is. But the subtext is always there: Bill Gates is a fascist. In this case, the press got him to "admit" he wants his company to take control of your car.