If there’s a word to describe the feeling inside GM right now, it would be “nervous.” Though nobody was surprised that Fritz Henderson would leave at some point, it’s clear that his ouster was strangely timed and indicative of Ed Whitacre’s desire for rapid results. In an instant, Whitacre public image went from Iacocca-wannabe-pitchman to hard-charging Texas executive, seemingly defined by (get this) his penchant for killing rattlesnakes by pinning them with a stick and crushing their heads with a rock. So vivid is this metaphor, that according to Businesweek‘s David Welch, a number of GM executives actually offered their resignations to Whitacre immediately following the Henderson’s canning. Though Whitacre declined to let the bloodletting continue, a number of commentators now appear to believe that Whitacre wants to run GM himself. Though pay caps will be the easy excuse for not finding a new CEO, the board of director’s activism in clashing with Henderson over the Opel sale could discourage other executives from even considering the job. Moreover, Whitacre’s history of taking over companies and molding them in his image is well-established from his time at SBC/AT&T. So, will Ed Whitacre drop the pretense and the word “interim” from his title, or is he really just clearing the way for someone else?

As in Shiva, The Destroyer. It strikes me—has for some time—that nothing short of Chapter 7 could possibly “save” GM. (The title of GM Death Watch 1: “GM Must Die.”) The underlying idea is simple enough: capitalism is creative destruction. When something sucks, blow it up, start again. If the RenCen Mothership had been allowed to implode, its constituent parts (i.e. the brands, facilities dealers and talent worth saving) would have had a better chance of survival. As it stands now, with Fritz “The Lifer” Henderson and Ed “Everything Looks Like A Nail” Whitacre in charge, New GM is on a bear hunt (stumble trip, stumble trip, stumble trip) and they’re going to catch a big one (total dissolution). Alternatively, it’s like watching an endless, frame-by-frame version of MTV’s Scarred. With apologies to anyone who connects this video to “ Buda’s wagon,” my question to TTAC’s Best and Brightest: what else needs blowing-up in the auto industry? The dealer experience is an obvious candidate. I nominate lapdog journalism. You?

Last week Toyota followed the lead of Renault, Honda and BMW and bid adieu to Formula 1 racing. The Financial Times pins Toyota’s decision not only on financial belt tightening, and on the notion that racing just doesn’t move the metal in times of increasing environmental concern. When Leonardo DiCapro becomes the inspiration for an electric car and NASCAR talks about moving from carburetors to fuel injection to save some gas , you know something is afoot. Automakers and part suppliers have been backing away from the racing for many months now. Earlier this year both Subaru and Suzuki exited World Rally Championship racing and Bridgestone recently announced it’s giving up being Formula 1’s exclusive tire supplier.

Diners at the Motown bailout banquet are back at their tables, their plates groaning under the weight of federal “investment.” They’re just now beginning to tuck in, spending your hard-earned money on various plans to achieve what Oliver called “that full-up feeling.” The reluctant chefs (70 percent of American opposed GM and Chrysler’s second bailout) are showing signs of nausea. While the anti-GM/Chrysler bailout backlash has not been statistically analyzed (I wonder why), anecdotal evidence suggests that at least a small percentage of car buyers are shunning the welfare queens’ products as a protest against their government “affiliation.” Meanwhile, political analysts on both sides of the spectrum continue to debate the elections in Maryland and New Jersey, wondering if voters are rejecting the Obama administration’s heavy-handed economic intervention in the U.S. economy. Did I say “heavy-handed?” Plenty of pundits believe that not only did Uncle Sam have every right to nationalize GM and Chrysler, but they didn’t go far enough. What’s that all about?

As I’ve been saying since 1846, the Ford “brand” is so amorphous that it wears a set of air quotes. In other words, Ford doesn’t stand for much of anything. It stands for everything (another way of saying nothing): innovation, excitement, great value and family product [sic]. And those are just the four selling points FoMoCo CEO Alan Mulally mentions in the Taurus YouTube video before the editor cuts him off. These days, brand-wise, Ford’s greatest selling point (singular) is that it isn’t GM or Chrysler. Compelling as that may be, it’s not all that compelling. And so The Detroit Free Press reports that Ford is building on its non-GMness by launching a 24-week ad campaign featuring “actual [as opposed to?] Ford customers talking about the features of the Ford vehicles that they like.” Yes, well, does anyone really buy a Ford over a Toyondaissan based on “surprise and delight” features like a capless fuel filler or a built-in refrigerator, neither of which is unique to Ford? I still think The Glass House Gang would be better advised to re-build their brand on the “Built Ford Tough” meme. You?

Doug writes:

My girlfriend drives a 1998 SL2 with 185/65/15 tires. One of the four tires has started to dry rot enough that I have to add about 5 psi every two weeks to keep it near it’s neighbors. FWIW the sticker recommends 30psi front and 26psi back but I’ve found the car rides better if I inflate to ~35psi front and ~32 psi rear. The difference is especially noticeable going over speed bumps which are common in my neighborhood and around town. The reality is that the car sees regular use but in mileages that are low enough that dry rot will end a tire before the tread is gone. I don’t need super long tread life. I am however concerned about it being a truly all season tire. Snow depth here is a non issue but dustings of snow, ice, heavy rain, light rain, frequent rain, did I mention rain, oh and dry roads are common. Seriously we are in the SouthEast but East Tennessee is full of hills and valleys.

Chrysler, the U.S.-funded, Italian-run, formerly bankrupt American automaker is leaking its product plans, ahead of their official unveiling in November. Automotive News [sub] confirms that Sergio Marchionne’s minions have decided to spin off Ram trucks into a separate brand, removing the company’s most profitable product from underneath the Dodge umbrella. For once, AN (or at least its mysterious person of interest) understands the full implications. “The separation of the Ram truck brand will allow Fiat to make Dodge more of a performance car brand, the person said. But the move could also make it easier for Chrysler to spin off its truck business down the road if a continuing slump forced Fiat or U.S. officials to consider such a step.” Did you see that? “U.S. officials.” Pay some attention to the Presidential Task Force behind that curtain! In any case, Chrysler and GM are heading into a perfect storm: continued market share erosion, new product constipation and chaos and, sopra tutti, cash burn.

This pitch for a car sales seminar is based on one single assumption: car buyers today are better informed than ever before. Mr. Rodgers even raises the specter of 83-year-olds armed with information they found on the Internet, in hopes of convincing dealership sales staffs that it’s a whole new world out there. Of course the fact that car sales are at their worst levels in years probably helps his argument, but is it true? After all, as TTAC commenter Mike In Canada points out in our most recent Sebring/Avenger bashing post:

Here at TTAC we all love badmouthing these two hunks of junk (God knows I do). But, we are missing the trees for the forest.

Someone is actually buying these things….!

So there are still suckers born every minute, but on balance are car buyers better informed than they used to be? Is that coincidental to the car market’s recent downturn, or did one phenomenon cause the other? Personally, I don’t see a lot of “civilians” making particularly well-informed car-buying decisions because they usually believe a quick decision will be less stressful than taking the time to make the right decision. What are you seeing?

MB Chris posits the following:

A straight EV at this point isn’t very useful to many people because of the current technology’s limitations. And, for me, hybrids are far too expensive and complicated to consider buying. I’m an ASE certified mechanic (25 years) and work in automotive manufacturing (nobody very important). The big thing that I can’t figure out about hybrids is why have a conventional drivetrain at all? Why not have the car operate similar to a diesel electric locomotive? Drive a large alternator with a combustion engine designed to run most efficiently at [a certain] RPM. Have no idle at all. It’s either on driving the alternator or not running. NVH engineering would only be needed to cope with that one RPM and startup/stop. Put an electric motor to drive each rear wheel. Mount them inboard so unsprung weight will not be increased. Even 4 electric motors or one on each axle if you want AWD. No transmission, driveshaft or differential is needed. That would come close to offsetting the weight of the battery pack.

For those of you unfamiliar with the secret language of telephone-based customer service representatives, RTFM means “Read the F-ing Manual.” Only now, for Chrysler, it’s PTF-DVD: “Play the F-ing DVD.” Automotive News [sub] reports that “Chrysler Group is replacing its traditional owner’s manuals with DVDs and an abridged printed guide in an effort to reduce costs and save 930 tons of paper annually.” Wow! Can you imagine how much better off the planet would be if Chrysler stopped making cars? Just kidding. As for costs, well, taxpayers have sunk over $10 billion in this bad bad boy, so every penny ChryCo doesn’t spend on paper manuals goes to their “Save the Sebrings!” campaign. Uh, how many pennies is that, anyway? “Spokesman Bryan Zvibleman . . . declined to say how much will be saved by the change, which is taking effect with 2010 models.” Declined? As in refused? I like “demurred,” but then I like my euphemisms shaken, not stirred.

Is this a big deal? It sure was to Chrysler (the artist formerly known as “under private equity ownership, we can move much faster than our competition”) . . .

We had a brief word with the IIHS’s Russ Raider, who was quite cagey on the origins and condition of the 1959 Bel Air that was destroyed for the Institute’s 50th birthday. What we were able to get out of him was that the ’59 Bel Air was in “good” condition, with only a little engine rust, leaky hood/trunk seals and non-original upholstery in the negative column. We also learned that the car was procured in Indiana, and with this information we went looking for Bel Airs on the internet. And you’ll never guess what we found . . .

That’s Porsche-sha. And how hard is it to say VW? Jeez.

GM’s “May The Best Car Win” campaign is beginning to take shape, and it’s turning out to be every bit as gimmicky as you might guess. In a conference call with the motoring press, GM’s Bob Lutz challenged all comers to beat him around the Mazda Raceway at Laguna Seca. Lutz will be driving a Cadillac CTS-V, and he promises to beat any production four-door sedan as a way of proving that Cadillac does build world-beating cars. Jalopnik‘s Wes Siler has taken up the challenge, and will be facing Lutz in a Mercedes C63 AMG. So we’re curious: what unmodified sports sedan would you mount up in to send Lutz back to the RenCen with his tail between his legs? Myself? I believe water skis are the traditional conveyance for shark-jumping competitions. Meanwhile, TTAC would like to take this opportunity to pit our own Jack Baruth in this competition for the ages. Do we have a deal, GM?

Other than the fact that they’re all hybrids, obviously. UPDATE: Answer after the jump.

[Click here and then click on HQ under the viewing window to see the scene in hi-res]

Old GM Liquidator-in-chief Al Koch tells Detroit News that there exists some unknown level of interest in The General’s cast-off assets. But he’s only saying that the level is greater than zero. “It’s not possible, until the process unfolds for a little bit, to tell the shoppers from the buyers,” Koch enthuses. “These are very, very large facilities. So the likelihood of finding a single user at any of these industrial sites — it’s not impossible — but it’s a relatively small buyer universe.” Universe? Wouldn’t it the list of buyers for outdated factories in perma-union states in an oversupplied market be more . . . sandbox-sized? A list of analyst-approved GM plants “for interest/sale” and an opportunity for wild speculation after the jump.

Omnicom Group Inc.’s BBDO is Chrysler’s ad agency. At least for now. The Wall Street Journal reports the ailing automaker “has grown dissatisfied with the agency’s creative output.” The semi-nationalized automaker’s looking elsewhere for someone who wants to take on the sisyphean task of convincing Americans they need to buy cars from a bankrupt automaker with stale inventory that’s owned by another automaker with the one of the worst reliability ratings on the globe. Of course, marketing being what it is, all that’s needed is a catchy slogan akin to Toyota’s “What a feeling,” VW’s “Think small,” or Chevy’s “Like a rock,” right? That’s where you come in. What slogan or catch phrase would convince you to buy a Chrysler product? “Most smartly different?” Or what?

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 “Toyota is the new GM” meme is a provocative one. After all, prior to GM’s decades-long unraveling its dominance of the industry put Toyota’s tentative top-dog status to shame. GM’s decline proved once and for all that no make, model or brand can coast on being “number one” alone. Which is why I want to believe that Lexus is shaping up to be the new Buick, as Mark Phelan insists at the Freep.