#news

Here’s a simple truth. Virtually everything that I write online about cars gets ripped off. Whether I publish it here, at Cars In Depth, over at The Truth About Cars, or Left Lane News, I can go to sleep at night safe in the knowledge that I’m getting ripped off by other websites, usually single topic content aggregators. When the site operators are nice, they just excerpt the first paragraph and link back to the originating site. While that’s still a copyright violation (it’s not “fair use” because the excerpt isn’t used for the purpose of commentary or criticism), at least the original publisher gets some traffic out of the situation. Other site operators just go ahead and steal the entire post.

Take just about any post on TTAC, select and copy a complete sentence, drop that phrase in Google and you’ll probably find a plethora of purloining publishers. This site, copied Steve Lang’s post about repossessing cars verbatim. Another site, Edwards420.com, does nothing but publish content from TTAC, probably from our RSS feed.

It’s so commonplace that those of us who write for the site have a ho hum attitude about it because there really isn’t much that we can do about it.

Ed’s outstanding editorial largely disproved ten widely believed myths about Bob Lutz based on their candid interview. But my favorite Lutz myth apparently didn’t pop up in their wide-ranging discussion: that Lutz believes in designing cars from the gut, and opposes testing potential designs with representative car buyers in clinics.

You’ll often read that boring, even bad designs are the way they are because of clinics. Clinics have been blamed for the Edsel, the Aztek, and myriad other car design failures over the past half-century. Touted as the superior alternative: the golden gut, with Lutz as poster boy. The reality from Lutz’s new book, Car Guys vs. Bean Counters: the Battle for the Soul of American Business: he has found clinics to be an excellent indicator of a design’s future potential and firmly believes in their use.

A team of researchers at UC San Diego and the University of Washington, Seattle, has just published a paper titled “ Comprehensive Experimental Analyses of Automotive Attack Surfaces“. Behind that dry title is a very exciting research study. In essence, they bought a modern reasonably-priced car with lots of fancy features, including a built-in cellular phone interface, and did a serious reverse-engineering exercise to determine whether it had any security vulnerabilities. It’s the most comprehensive study of its kind.

March sales are coming in, and it looks to have been another month of steady growth for the US market. GM’s “core brand” sales were up 11 percent, Chrysler enjoyed a 31% increase in volume, while Ford’s sales grew 19 percent. For only the second time since 1998, Ford beat GM’s overall volume by 5,674. Meanwhile, Nissan recorded its strongest monthly sales in its history in the US market, and at came within 589 units of topping Chrysler’s volume. Honda’s sales rose 19 percent last month. Hit the jump for a developing table, and check back in for more sales data as it becomes available.

[Editor’s note: TTAC prides itself on covering the most compelling stories in the automotive world, connecting the biggest trends, and exploring the most momentous decisions. We endlessly pore over the ceaseless stream of automotive news and data, and bring the most significant and momentous stories to these pages for your enlightenment and debate. But sometimes we just plain need a break from all the seriousness. Luckily, former TTACer Justin Berkowitz has the perfect palate-cleanser after a long week of news and analysis. His site, Metacars.com, publishes some of the best auto humor on the web, and we’ve asked him to compile a weekly digest of the funniest car news that never happened over the previous seven days. Unlike AutoWeek, the MetaCars Week In Review will actually be published every week, and unlike Jalopnik it will actually be funny. We hope you enjoy it.]