It’s incredibly hard to figure out where MSN Autos came up with the headline “ CT&T Set to Take the EV Mainstream” for its write up on the South Korean firm’s presentation at the NAIAS. Hell, the author even admits:

Unfortunately, none of the vehicles is approved for “normal” use on America’s highways and byways. Instead, they are categorized as low-speed vehicles by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the same classification given to golf carts and other similar-sized, 4-wheeled vehicles.

Having been told by the Secretary of Transportation that the Chrysler Group’s motley assortment of new trim level names, rebadged Lancias, decal-sporting special editions represents “the cutting edge of developing the kind of products that I think people in this country, and also in other countries, are really going to feel very favorable toward,” CEO Sergio Marchionne apparently thought enough had been said about his struggling bailout baby. As CBS reports, Marchionne suddenly canceled a 45-minute scheduled press availability before he had the chance to confirm LaHood’s astonishing opinion.

Blogging, like most human pursuits, is perennially torn between two competing impulses: getting paid and keeping it real. On the internet, where the basest pandering tends to yield the most bounteous rewards in traffic (if not discourse), the temptation to lose focus in search of new traffic is ever present. In a striking piece entitled “ The Awesomeness Manifesto,” Jalopnik Editor-in-Chief Ray Wert admits that over the past year (or so) he and his website have strayed too far from the path of realness. The impetus for the decline in standards: pressure from Gawker bosses, and what he paints as a year of post-carpocalyptic malaise.

A year ago this month, I caved. I did what I was told, dampening our smart and snarky voice. I moved Murilee from daily to weekend duty and let go of many new names. Instead of looking forward while remembering the past, I forced my overworked and undersupported team to stumble blindly across the post-Carpocalypse automotive desert. We chased the same carrot as Autoblog, Motor Trend, and the rest, pursuing what we were told was the “growth segment” of the automotive universe — general consumers and non-enthusiasts…. we were hungry for cheap traffic, and we gorged, competing over meaningless press releases and page-view-whoring galleries because there was nothing else on the table. And dammit, we were good at it.

The good news is that Wert says he’s sorry. Jalopnik, he says, will once again focus on “a new breed of enthusiast… waiting to be freed from the shackles of a crossover culture.” The not-so-good news?

[Ed: part one of this piece can be found here]

Six hours of completely sober sleep! As I arrived at Laguna Seca for a double race day in the Skip Barber MAZDASPEED Challenge, I felt like a new man. It’s customary for most club race days to start with practice sessions, but Skip Barber chooses instead to put the drivers in their trusty Econolines for a morning ride-and-coach session. My rather humbling lack of pace on Saturday — two full seconds a lap behind the leaders — led me to take this one seriously.

Getting a car like the Volt on Jay Leno’s Garage seems like a no-brainer. America’s patron celebrity of car obsession has the gearhead credentials to help explain the Volt’s positive attributes, and the enthusiasm to draw a very different crowd than the usual Volt fanboy sites. And yet from the first, the Volt’s visit to automotive Valhalla seems to have chief engineer Andrew Farah in permanent flinch mode. Leno is never overtly hostile (alá Letterman), but from his comparison of the Volt to a 1916 Owens Magnetic, to his assessment that the Volt is “not a tiny car,” you can’t help feeling that he thinks it’s all a bit of a joke. It’s a four-seater. Literally. They’re shooting for a 2,900 lb weight goal. Your mileage may vary. The hood is held up with a stick. What is the deal with that? Like any comedian, Leno’s only as good as his material. Luckily, the yawning chasm between the modest reality of the Volt and its relentless hype is fertile ground indeed.

It’s getting late in the game today and we’re down a couple of points, so its time to go for a double. Thanks to an easy pitch from the UK government and AutoBlogGreen, I’m going to swing. The Nanny State Incarnate is encouraging local UK governments to introduce blanket 20 mph speed limits in all residential area. And ABG picks up the story from Autocar and adds its own little brilliant addition to the story: its going to save fuel. Now how is it that a writer for the biggest little green blog in the land doesn’t know that cars are way less efficient at 20 mph than at their peak efficient speed of somewhere between 35 and 50? And there’s more; in fact this might well be a triple:

It’s easy to blame GM’s new Chairman and CEO’s recent webchat performance on the format. Webchats invariably combine the awkward claustrophobia of conference calls with the eloquent clarity of text-messaging, for a match made in communication hell. That’s no place to properly explain what the NSFW is going on with your company. Especially when you have yet to comment on the “Opel drama,” “palace coup,” “tilt-a-executive,” and “getting in bed with the Chinese” storylines (among others). Needless to say, the MSM is not amused. Nor, frankly, am I. Which is why today’s quote of the day is actually nine days old.

Autoextremist Peter DeLorenzo is an interesting figure in the auto commentary landscape. Though TTAC has often taken the pioneering car blogger to task for inconsistencies (especially during bailout mania), it’s no surprise that DeLorenzo’s ability to see things as they are comes and goes. After all, the guy is the quintessential insider’s outsider: as a former marketing and ad man, the Autoextremist is always in the Detroit tent… the only question week-to-week is whether he’s going to be pissing out or pissing in. Well, this week the deluge is headed straight for the part of the tent occupied by GM’s new CEO Ed Whitacre and his activist board. And it smells of well-aged vintage Deathwatch.

But before I get into Whitacre’s executive moves, you’re probably gathering I’m not buying “Big Ed’s” act, and you’d be right. After doing some digging around Whitacre’s previous executive life at AT&T, it’s easy to come away with a highly unflattering portrayal of GM’s “interim” CEO. First of all, the “aw shucks I’m just a country boy who has a few good ideas” persona is total bullshit. In his previous executive life Whitacre was known as an arrogant know-it-all who was never wrong, never listened to reasoned advice and who brought absolutely nothing to the table of his own on a day-in, day-out basis. Shocking? Hardly. Anyone who thinks The Peter Principle isn’t alive and well in corporate America today is kidding themselves.

Thank goodness for Autoweek. Someone has to ask the goofy questions that turn internet forums into raging wildfires of obtuse wishful thinking, and A-Dub is there to lay it all on the line. The latest episode centers around a line from Ralph Gilles’ press release on the new Viper ACR:

When we have partners across the ocean who are known as the best sports-car makers in the world, the future opportunities are huge

Which is like giving a two-thirds of a through-the-clothes handjob: just plain mean. If disappointment undimmed by crushing obviousness isn’t your thing, skip the next bit.

When Pontiac’s infamously retina-searing Aztek pops up in popular auto industry analysis, it’s usually as little more than a throwaway punchline. So credit Thebigmoney.com‘s Matthew DeBord for trying to leave the Thesaurus entry for “ugly” out of a recent piece dedicated entirely to one of the great modern styling miscalculations. Unfortunately, his admirable restraint serves only to further a wholly unsupportable thesis:

GM needs to remember the Aztek, because it represents the kind of risk-taking design that the post-bankruptcy firm will need to go forward. The temptation for the New General will be to copy successful market formulas, rather than try to define new market segments.

“U.S. encouraged by Fiat plan for Chrysler,” runs Reuters‘ headline, attributed to car czarlet Ron Bloom. After commenting extensively about GM, in which Bloom controls a 60 percent taxpayer stake, he had only this to say about the eight percent government owned Chrysler and its recent plans:

We see management with a huge sense of urgency. We see a huge dedication and commitment, working extremely hard. It’s an ambitious plan.

But did Bloom see the 7 hours of Powerpoint presentations? “Encouraged” wasn’t exactly the description being flung around at the line for porta-potties. Hell, even Detroit’s cheerleader-in-chief and Automotive News [sub] publisher Keith Crain beats Bloom’s take hollow with his headline “This Year The Math Adds Up To 110%.”

You know how terrorism experts talk about increased “internet chatter” as foretelling some kind of attack? On Monday, GM will release its post-C11 financial results which, thanks to dubious accounting, could very well mean nothing. Even so, I’m getting the feeling that there’s some bad news a brewin’, ’cause the MSM is kissing some major GM butt today. First, the Freep shows GM’s Chairman of the Board the love that dare not grant it an interview. Now the Times’ Bill Vlasic, late of the Detroit News, shows up with a piece that supposedly reveals the depth and breadth of GM’s much ballyhooed “cultural change.” Mea culpa comes in the form of “ After bankruptcy, G.M. Struggles to Shed a Legacy of Bureaucracy.” While I’m a firm believer that cultural change starts at the top—such as, I dunno, firing the ancien regime that led to GM’s nationalization—I’m all ears, Bill. Where’s the evidence that la plus ca change, la plus ce n’est pas la même chose?

In four day’s time, my byline will appear on this website for the last time. During the previous nine-and-a-half years, I’ve watched the mainstream automotive press slowly evolve from paid cheerleader to . . . nope that’s it. No progress there. Despite having written literally thousands of diatribes against the media’s willful ignorance on the auto industry, I’m still galled that people who call themselves professional journalists have such little moral fiber and testicular fortitude. Only more so, now that GM and Chrysler’s endless turnaround promises have been revealed as a combination of epic self-delusion, outright lying and near-as-dammit criminal conduct (e.g. we never got the bottom of that SEC accounting case). This morning’s Detroit Free Press continues the tradition. “ GM Chairman Ed Whitacre clear he’s in driver’s seat” is the worst kind of non-journalism—the kind that enables the rape of the American taxpayer by a bunch of egocentric incompetents.

While reading through some of our analysis of Chrysler’s five-year plan, you may have found yourself wondering “what did the Pentastar boyz do to convince you of their company’s viability plan besides flash PowerPoint slides at you for seven hours?” To fully comply with TTAC’s stringent disclosure standards, we present Chrysler’s material compensation for the seven hours that auto journalists most wish they had back.

And here’s how the Wall Street Journal wraps sensationalistic video in the mantle of investigative journalism. [Thanks to clutchcargo for the link.]

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?

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.

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].

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]

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.

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!

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 . . .

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 . . .

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…

Yesterday, we learned that GM CEO Fritz Henderson was surprised by Marketing Maven Mark LaNeve’s departure. If true, it’s a revelation that puts paid to the theory that GM has finally learned how to fire someone for something. Make that anything. Today, we learn that Monster Mark LaNeve’s favorite ad agency, Modernista, “has elected not to participate [in Cadillac’s ongoing renaissance].” This from Automotive News [sub], quoting recently elevated Cadillac GM Bryan Nesbitt. Huh. So Modernista dumped Cadillac? AN’s spies say the ad agency didn’t fall on its sword; it was pushed.

The Federal Trade Commission has announced revised rules guiding advertisement, endorsements and disclosure for bloggers. These new rules will particularly affect car bloggers, due to the heavy influence that advertising relationships exert in editorial decisions by auto journalists. And the seemingly undying trend in mainstream auto “journalism” towards pimpatorials. Needless to say, they also validate TTAC’s long-standing disclosure policy. From the FTC’s release:

The revised Guides specify that while decisions will be reached on a case-by-case basis, the post of a blogger who receives cash or in-kind payment to review a product is considered an endorsement. Thus, bloggers who make an endorsement must disclose the material connections they share with the seller of the product or service. Likewise, if a company refers in an advertisement to the findings of a research organization that conducted research sponsored by the company, the advertisement must disclose the connection between the advertiser and the research organization.

Though I’m not as old as Bob Lutz (who rivals Mermaid Man for out-and-out age-related dottiness), I’m ancient enough to remember when Night Rider first put the pixels in pistonhead. I also recall an era when social commentators got their knickers in a twist about videogame violence. In terms of driving sims, they seemed to find the idea of running people over somehow anti-social. Personally, I saw nothing wrong with it—save the homicidal motorists’ tendency to imitate Beavis and Butthead when doing the deed. But I wonder what’s happened to the really violent stuff. Oh sure, you can find the odd gem— like this flash game called Blood Car. But the Carmeggedon franchise is dead; in 2005, the fourth installment was canceled without explanation. That’s the same year 60 Minutes reported on an alleged link between Grand Theft Auto and an actual cop killing—producing yawns for all concerned (save the cop’s family and the defense lawyers). So, for those of us out of the loop, what’s the current state of play when it comes to electronic automotive mayhem? [Warning: video NSFE… not safe for epileptics]

What’s happened to MINI’s advertising? The car company that defined clever TV commercials, highly effective viral marketing and rockin’ real-world signage has dropped their cute ’n‘ quirky post-modern arched eyebrow cock-a-snook-at-SUVs play up the handling and performance in a “less is more” kinda way branding message—most recently exemplified by their MINI Cabrio campaign. Now MINI’s going for simple shock tactics. Note to BMW: a brand is a terrible thing to waste. Note to MINI girls: fuck you, too. [Thanks to Seth L for the link.]

The “fun” starts at about 11:00 in, where the former Car and Driver Editor reveals that Ziff-Davis fired him for not apologizing to Blaupunkt for dissing their products. Throwing his trademark deference to the wind, Autoline host John McElroy then asks Davis (11:43) if “they canned your ass too, another time?” Which inspires David E. to continue his tirade, chronicling the birth of Automobile, launching a no-holds-barred attack (14:55) on his “protege” (and former welder) Jean Jennings. Davis paints her as a back-stabbing nutcase, and wishes her well (15:47): “I sometimes dream of a FedEx flight on its way to Memphis flying over Parma where she lives and a grand piano falling out of the airplane and whistling down through the air, this enormous object, and lands on her and makes the damnedest chord anybody has ever heard; this sound of music that has never been heard by the human ear. And the next morning all they can find . . . [are] some shards of wood and a grease spot and no other trace of Mrs. Jennings.” Apparently, Davis’ splenetic venting proves that Autoline is about “getting to the unvarnished truth.” Never seen an unvarnished piano.

Caution: The sycophancy and silicone in this paint-by-numbers preview may make you want to hurl. Note to Mr. Piven: those who went before salute you, albeit with a single digit. Yes, the silver screen (or flat panel HDTV) has a long history of amoral, blood-sucking, lying, cheating, scumbag car salesman. As Slate’s Matthew DeBord points out, “Don Ready” isn’t the usual sad sack salesman. A distinction without a difference? Anyway, DeBord has a nice little rundown on nine (I’ve subtracted four) automobile-selling assholes. So which one was your fave? Any additions? And have you ever met a real world car salesman to rival any of these?

The Detroit News reports that GM is removing its “Mark of Excellence” badges from its entire lineup, starting with the new Chevy Equinox. “We are just really focused on the four core brands and this provided us with another opportunity to make sure they were at the forefront,” say GM spokefolks. “Plus people on Twitter were making fun of them.” Okay, so the last part is made up. Still, about time, no? As industry commentators never tire of mentioning, consumers don’t buy GM as a brand, they buy Chevys, Buicks, Cadillacs and GMCs. Okay, they buy Chevys. Anyway, what’s the point of having four separate versions of every platform if there’s a badge reminding everyone that they’re all basically the same? Don’t answer that, it’s a rhetorical question. Instead, hit the jump to learn how to de-Mark of Excellence your ride.

The board of GM convened on Friday to finally decide Opel’s fate. The board did as expected: It did nothing. They left everybody hanging. The board decided to not decide anything.

According to Reuters, the GM board desperately needs critical information from the German government. To wit: What state financing would be available if GM would sell Opel to their darling RHJ International, and not to Magna, which is favored by Germany.

Excuse us?

Do we have a serious case of highly contagious ADD, which has befallen the complete GM board? We thought it had been made perfectly clear:

Motor Trend has replaced its “best handling car” with a “best driver’s car” competition. Is this an opening for the Camaro? Not so much. The new SS model placed dead last in MT‘s comparo, which was won by the Porsche Cayman S. And if you think the Camaro was simply there to serve muscle car whipping post duty, check out the rave reviews that the Shelby GT500 picked up. On the other hand, the fastest car around Laguna Seca, the Corvette ZR1, ended up in 6th place. There’s just no way to hide the fact that “best driver’s car” will always be a subjective award.

Jeff Puthuff is one of our (mostly unsung) heroes: a TTAC commentator who made the leap to editor. Initially, Jeff made the jump as our resident proof reader, grammarian and style guru. Since then, he’s begun patrolling the comments section and helping us figure out how to take TTAC to the next level. This is the month that VerticalScope’s boffins will cull the cranky code created by NameMedia‘s Estonian customizers. In short, TTAC will return to a bog standard WordPress platform, with a few bells on. We will, of course, keep things nice and simple. And then adjust the site’s style and functionality according to your feedback. Meanwhile, Jeff has created a new way for you to access all TTAC reviews: click here for more direct access to our arsenal of democracy. Meanwhile redux, thought you might like to know that our stats are approaching those of the dead tree version of Car and Driver.

I’m glad Mr. Rosenbusch, of Chrysler Group LLC, found my article on Chrysler archives interesting. It’s always nice to be read. And I’m sure Rosenbusch agreed with the article when I said “America’s automakers have gone to great lengths and expense to preserve and protect the historical documents which chronicle and define their existence.” I’m also reasonably sure that Mr. Rosenbusch doesn’t dispute the fact of the closing of Chrysler’s engineering library. “One of a series of necessary steps to cut costs,” as he puts it. And I’m glad Mr. Rosenbusch saved all of the important documents resulting from that change of fortune. But I stand by my report that people on site experienced a sudden and chaotic end to a resource someone thought was valuable enough to create and fund. That Chrysler has tuned its back on its history.