Inside baseball alert. If you’re more interested in Metamucil than meta memes, this post’s not for you (I recommend any of the 1,345,483 website dedicated to bowel health). Otherwise, check out Alex Taylor III’s “Readers revolt over Ford.” Fortune’s carmudgeon apologizes for the grievous sin of suggesting that Ford’s product quality may be middling. “As I should have explained more fully in the [previous] column, the 2010 rankings averaged reports from CR readers on all the cars in a given company’s lineup. Ford’s results were pulled down by the poor performance of the F-250 pickup truck and the troubled all-wheel-drive systems on Ford passenger cars.” And that information should be excluded because . . . ? “While my column was technically accurate, it didn’t pass the smell test with readers who thought I showed bias against American cars.” Question: what the hell is going on here?

(Read More…)

I read the Autoblog headline—”Make it stop: Bad landau tops“—and I just knew Alex Nunez was the man responsible. Mr. Nunez earned my eternal admiration with his Knight Rider live blogging posts. I certainly don’t agree with his assertion that some Landau tops are acceptable. The phrase “a bad Landau top” is about as redundant/repetitive as you/one can get/be. Still, I’m getting the feeling that Alex has finally found a blog genre worthy of his dry-as-a-vermouthaphobic-martini humor. Here’s a taste of his Question of the Day thang: “Show us, say, a mid-to-late ’70s Olds Cutlass or Lincoln Town Coupe gussied up accordingly from the factory, and we’re liable to nod in approval and make one of those, ‘Ehh, not bad at all!’ facial expressions in appreciation of the old barge. That said, most modern landau roof applications are dealer-installed, and commensurately disastrous and stupid . . . Will anything ever stop these people?” Alex’s request for more examples of lame Landaus finds favor with Autoblog’s unmoderated mob. My favorite response after the jump.

(Read More…)

In yesterday’s housekeeping post, more than a few readers took TTAC to task for writing flame bait, and then expecting readers not to flame the site, its authors or fellow commentators. A commentator compared us to a seedy bar that expects its patrons to behave like ladies and gentlemen. Compliments on the metaphor, mate, but there’s a reason why TTAC has a ‘tude. It’s the same reason I started this site some nine years ago: the mainstream automotive press are, in the main, craven toadies living in the pocket of the industry that they cover. As a trained journalist, I can see it in the questions my colleagues don’t ask. The obsequious way they timidly point out slight flaws in vehicles, marketing or executives—-and the scurry back to the party line, hoping not to get swatted by the objects of their non-ire for daring to point out that not everything is sunshine and roses, really. With me or without me, this site’s raison d’etre: tell the the no-holds-barred truth about cars. If TTAC’s boisterous or (yes) bombastic in its editorial content, please, look what we’re up against. I present to you Automotive News publisher and editorial director Keith Crain’s revelatory masterpiece: “Whatever Happened to Ethical Behavior” [sub].

(Read More…)

If we’re learning anything from the twists and turns leading into GM’s Cadillac V-Series Challenge, it’s that a good stunt is hard to stage these days [unless you have access to China's rich reserves of stunt drivers, as shown above]. Jaguar’s US PR boss Stuart Schorr has informed us that his firm’s legal and safety advisers have put the kibosh on the XF-R’s planned entry into the event. Because Jaguar was previously the only manufacturer to enter the race, the pullout leaves TTAC, Jalopnik and the New York Times’ Lawrence Ullrich without an OEM-backed ride. As a result, the media challengers (as we’re being called) will go mano-a-mano with Bob Lutz in… a CTS-V. Which makes the event a bit more of “may the best man win” than “may the best car win,” but then that’s not exactly our problem, is it? [Don't miss the literal Chinese fire drill at 1:56]

(Read More…)

Edmunds Editor-in-Chief Karl Brauer apparently shares our ambivalence about GM’s in-car nanny, Onstar. And not for paranoid reasons either. He explains:

See, I like to think of myself as relatively self-sufficient. Sure, I’ll ask for help but I have to really need it first. However, on a semi-regular basis, when I’m in an OnStar-equipped car I find myself unintentionally activating the system, which in turn causes tremendous guilt because I feel I’m bothering an OnStar employee who could be helping another driver, maybe even someone with a true emergency.

(Read More…)

Mickey Kaus and TheBigMoney’s Matthew DeBord joined in the recent kerfluffle over GM’s market share predictions, Kaus on the side of TTAC’s pessimism, and DeBord on the audacity of hope against hope side. DeBord grabs his spade and starts digging, and it only takes a paragraph before he strikes a vast reserve of bubbling… excuses.

declining market share has been a GM reality for decades—the company at one time had so much share that it really had nowhere to go but down or into anti-trust prosecution. The Old GM was so preoccupied with holding share that it neglected what was obviously more important, profits. New GM has a reasonable opportunity to take its smaller portfolio of brands, several relatively successful new products, and given a recovery in the truck market in 2010, book some profits ahead of an anticipated pre-midterm-elections IPO.

Still, there are plenty of critics who have it in for GM, notably The Truth About Cars, which has been heralding GM’s demise since gas was 30 cents a gallon and Sinatra was headlining the Sands. (And yet … GM lives! This has to be something like being Cuba, grimly eyeing the United States across that brief expanse of ocean, waiting decade after decade for the imperial giant to finally fall.)

So grab a Pina Colada and pull up a chaise lounge, comrades… the glorious revolution waits just behind the jump!
(Read More…)

The public plan is 19 percent and change. That is what everything is being based on

GM board member Steven Girsky repeats Fritz Henderson’s assumption that GM’s market share will be stable and predictable . Of course, if that’s the case, someone’s got some ’splainin to do about the last 30 years. Luckily though, we’ve got some good news for Messrs Girsky and Henderson. According to Autoobserver:

Edmunds.com, the premier online resource for automotive information, has preliminarily forecast General Motors (GM) retail market share for October to rise to 22.4 percent from the third-quarter retail average of 19.1 percent

Wait, Edmunds’ forecast is based on unique pageviews for GM models at Edmunds.com? Never mind then. Let’s go instead to TTAC’s unique sales forecasting and analysis department and see  if GM will hit 22.4 percent market share in October. Forecasters? Shakes vigorously. What’s that? “Signs point to no?” Aw, too bad.

Yesterday’s New York Times published an article dissing Detroit in the Breakingviews.com bit of their Business Section. In a stunning if perhaps singular piece of journalism, the Gray Lady affirms TTAC’s nine-year rant record of castigating Chrysler, Ford and GM for refusing to remove their rose-colored glasses. In fact, Anthony Currie calls Motown’s mavens a bunch of deluded, delusional and/or deluding dunces—albeit in that gently chiding, hugely condescending, entirely arch way that typifies the Times. To wit: “It did not take long for Detroit’s carmakers to return to one of their favorite pastimes. As General Motors approaches 100 days since emerging from bankruptcy, each of the Big Three’s bosses has been indulging in painting rosy scenarios for their firms. But like pronouncements past, they’re a tad premature.” I used to play tennis with Tad Premature. Smashing fellow. A bit too cocky. Anywho, Currie starts his diatribe by taking Ford’s semi-canonized CEO to task for predicting a phantom sales revival for the end of 2009 (who saw that one not coming?). Followed by the usual FoMoCo fellating. Still, point taken. As for Chrysler and GM . . .

(Read More…)

On this Wednesday’s wailing wall, Autoextremist.com lambastes Motown’s marketeers for their cowardice and creative poverty—without naming names, providing egregious examples or suggesting rectification. “Automotive marketers are too often squeamish, risk-averse or clueless. There, I said it. Yes, at least 75 percent of the people involved in automotive marketing don’t know what the hell they’re doing – it’s a pathetic fact but it’s the High-Octane Truth.” Not in these parts it isn’t. You want the truth? DeLorenzo is guilty of the same timidity that he assigns to unnamed auto execs and their equally unidentified ad agencies. Where’s the indignation at GM for cutting Caddy’s cutting-edge ad agency adrift? Or some good-old-fashioned finger pointing at Bob Lutz, for his infinitely asinine decision to put Chairman Wiseacre at the front of the nationalized automaker’s laughable “May the best car win” ad campaign? Where’s Chrysler? What’s up with Ford’s epic failure to figure-out Lincoln? Someone show DeLorenzo how to sample crickets chirping. Meanwhile, truth be told, DeLorenzo’s dissing the competition for no greater goal than feathering his own nest . . .

(Read More…)

Cadillac has confirmed that TTAC’s very own Jack Baruth will be allowed to compete in Bob Lutz’s SuperSedan Shootout (also known as the Cadillac V Series Challenge). The race will consist of five hot laps in any production sedan, and will take place at the Monticello Motor Club in upstate New York. Sadly, because of the time-trial format, we will not be treated to awesome footage of Jack putting Maximum Bob into the wall with some trademark “avoidable contact.” Still, TTAC’s resident speed freak will have the opportunity to take on GM’s resident cranky old man (as well as other bloggers) in a face-off that’s been nine years of online confrontation in the making. The only problem at this point is that the bastards at Jalopnik have stolen our whip…

(Read More…)