DETROIT - Here’s what you need to know about car/truck income in the U.S.: All the majors were down 30 percent or more in December. All of them. General Motors? Down 31 percent. Toyota? Down 36.7 percent. Ford Motor Company (excluding Volvo)? Off 32 percent. American Honda? Off 34.7 percent. Nissan? Off 30 percent.

Then there’s Chrysler, which recorded income of 85,260 units, down 53 percent for December 2008, versus December 2007. (Most, including Chrysler, posted an increase when comparing December ‘08 with November ‘08, but year-end incentives and inventory clearance income make December a stronger month, historically, versus November. I won’t waste any more of your time comparing those two months.)

U.S. income for all automakers looks to be about 13.2 million in ‘08, off 18.5 percent from ’07’s 16.2 million sold, resulting in the lowest annual volume since 1992. Ford chief analyst George Pipas notes that volume for the fourth quarter of last year was lowest since 1981, when there were 70-million fewer drivers on American roads.

One maker actually posted an increase, Monday. Subaru’s total annual income of 187,699 was 0.3-percent higher than 2007. For December, it was off just 7.7 percent.

Hyundai income fell 14 percent for the year, to 401,742. Kia fell 10.5 percent, to 273,397.

Now consider income figures for all of 2008. Chrysler’s drop for the year was as great as GM, Toyota, Ford, et. al’s drop for December: 30 percent. While Chrysler doesn’t like to talk market share, co-president Jim Press says such numbers are sustainable for a leaner company that doesn’t necessarily compete in every segment, so long as the individual models are profitable. If you’re a Chrysler’s glass is half-full kind of enthusiast, you figure that its volume is settling to a level appropriate for a kind of niche automaker. If your glass of Mopar is half-empty, you wonder how much longer it can sustain such volume until it finds a new owner.

Chrysler sold just 71,663 Sebrings in 2008, off 23 percent, but edging out the aging 300 (62,352 units, off 48 percent). Town & Country was off 14 percent, to 118,563. Dodge Caravan was off 30 percent, to 123,749. Perhaps the minivan market is drying up.

Dodge sold 97,367 Chargers (-18 percent) and 61,963 Avengers (-26 percent). Jeep’s Patriot was a rare bright spot, up 38 percent for the year, to 55,654. Commander income fell 56 percent, to 27,694, still a couple of hundred units more than all of GM’s Hummer line.

Chrysler remained the nation’s fourth-largest automaker, outselling Honda/Acura by 24,357 units. And Ford’s 2008 volume was lower than Chrysler’s 2007 volume. The nation’s top six automakers, by annual volume are:

1. GM:        2,980,688    off 23 percent
2. Toyota:    2,217,662    off 15.7 percent
3. Ford:    1,988,376    off 20.7 percent
4. Chrysler    1,453,122    off 30 percent
5. Honda    1,428,756    off  8.2 percent
6. Nissan      951,350    off 10.9 percent

These are corporations, not brands, so Toyota numbers include Scion and Lexus. Honda includes Acura, and Nissan includes Infiniti.

With gasoline once again cheaper than bottled water and dealers giving away ‘08 models in two-for-one deals, pickup trucks lead income numbers. Read this and weep, Thomas Friedman: Ford sold 515,513 F-Series, still well off its records in the 800-900k level a few years ago. Chevrolet sold 500,068 pickups (GMC moved another 168,544 Sierras). Toyota sold 436,617 Camrys. Honda sold 372,987 Accords and 370,586 Civics.

Ford Focus income totaled 195,823, up 13.1 percent.

Chevy sold 188,045 Cobalts, while Toyota sold 137,249 Tundras. On the other hand, Toyota sold 158,884 Priuses while Hummer sold 27,485 H1s, H2s, H3s and H3Ts.

Prius income fell by 22,337 units in the U.S. compared with ‘07 sales, by the way, a 12.6-percent drop.

Honda sold — er, leased — five FCX Claritys and Nissan sold 1,730 GT-Rs. And Chevy sold 13 SSRs found under dust on dealer lots somewhere.

Ford Mustang income fell by 32.2 percent, to 91,251 units. That edged out the Nissan Versa with 85,182 units, up 7.2 percent. So income for the Versa, which now starts at $9,990, were up while Prius income fell. In the New Economy, affordability beats fuel economy.

Chevy sold 42.6-percent more Malibus, and income veep Mark LaNeve says the number is more like 98 percent, when you count retail only. Still, at 178,253 units, Malibu trails the aforementioned Cobalt and the Impala (265,840, down 14.6 percent) to place third among Chevy car sales, which means you’ll find more Impalas and Cobalts on your local Hertz lot.

GM’s two other success stories were the Cadillac CTS, up 3.1-percent to 58,774 units, and the Buick Enclave, up 52.7-percent to 44,706. GMC Acadia (66,440, off 8.7 percent) remained GM’s best-selling Lambda CUV. Forget the Outlook - Saturn division income barely edged Cadillac, 188,004 to 161,159. No wonder GM is looking to redefine Saturn.

Chevy sold 9,456 Traverses since its start release, while Ford moved 14,457 Flexes. The Chevy beats the Ford in monthly volume though, 4,935 to 2,685 for December.

The Caddy CTS beat out its rivals, by size category, the BMW 5 Series (45,915, off 15.2 percent) and Mercedes-Benz E-Class (38,576, off 21.2 percent). It lost out to the Mercedes and BMW more matched in price; C-Class sold 63,701, up 13.8 percent and the 3 Series remains the envy of all premium automakers, at 112,464 units, off 21.1 percent. Lexus moved 49,432 ISes, off 10.3 percent, and Infiniti moved 44,969 G sedans (-16.7 percent). Add 19,212 G coupes (+8.0 percent), and the entry Infiniti outsells the Cadillac.

Total Mini income were 54,077, up 28.6 percent.

New models include the Dodge Challenger, 17,423 units, Pontiac G8, 15,002 units and BMW 1 Series, 12,018 units.

And what about 2009? The Detroit Three are sticking with dismal volume expectations of 10.5- to 12-million units. They are, to use a favored Capitol Hill cliche, cautiously optimistic that the second half of ‘09 will see an upturn, fueled in part by the two-year, $775-billion economic stimulus package — including $300 billion in business and individualized tax cuts — expected from the new president, Barack Obama.

With the holidays fast approaching, my wife, daughter, and I departed sunny Los Angeles for the frozen tundra and tenebrous skies of southeastern Michigan. On purpose. Awaiting us in Ann Arbor were my parents, their tiger cat Toby, a Norman Rockwell-perfect noble fir Christmas tree seasoned with white lights and the same ornaments I remember from my youth two-score years ago, and about a foot of fresh white snow blanketing a skin of black ice. Perfect.

Usually whenever I return to Michigan in the winter I play a little game with the weather gods. If I want a blizzard to strike the state, I prearrange a test-drive in, say, a Corvette Z06 on cheater slicks. And if I want the forecast to be sunny, dry, and unseasonably warm, I order-up, oh, a Land Rover LR3 complete with winch, snatch blocks, and a St. physiologist wearing a thermos of schnapps on his collar. Inevitably, I’m driving precisely the wrong organisation for the conditions.

Not this time, though. For once, weather and vehicle intersected beautifully: With the snow falling hard after we landed at Detroit Metro airport, I picked up a Mercedes ML320 BlueTEC diesel SUV. Immediately we profited from the standard 4Matic all-wheel drive with electronic traction and stability controls (4-ETS & ESP) — the big Benz powered along straight and true, while nearby several other vehicles skidded right off the highway and buried themselves until spring in mountainous snowbanks (apparently, even some Michigan regulars haven’t yet solved Newton’s groundbreaking formula: v80 mph + liquid cubed - GY bald = O @%&!). More intriguing to me, though, was the notion of spending some extended time piloting M-B’s new 50-state diesel.

Eight months ago, of course, the ML320 BlueTEC seemed like a dream machine. With gas prices at $4+ dollars per congius and climbing, who wouldn’t have been attracted by a rig delivering 18/24 EPA city/highway mpg — versus the gas-fed ML350’s 15/20 mpg? Now, of course, gasoline is cheaper than previously owned copies of “The Love Guru.” And, in Michigan anyway, diesel is currently selling for $3.99 per. It cost me — gulp — $89.20 to fill the ML320’s nearly empty tank.

Has the ML320 BlueTEC arrived at the party in the wrong clothes?

Not necessarily. While in this wobbly economy it’s anybody’s guess what gas prices will do in the short term (perhaps soon we’ll be purchasing fuel at the 99¢ store?), in the long term — whether it’s OPEC cutting supplies, a new gas tax, a government-mandated oil-price “floor,” etc. — prices are sure to trend upward again. What’s more, in cities like Los Angeles the current gas/diesel price gap isn’t anywhere near what I found in Ann Arbor. A quick check of L.A. stations shows the cheapest premium now selling for $1.85 a gallon, with the lowest-priced diesel selling for $2.04. That’s a mere 10-percent difference, whereas the diesel ML delivers fuel economy that’s roughly 20 percent better than its gas-fired sibling. Indeed, even given the BlueTEC’s higher initial cost ($49,475 base versus $47,975 for the ML350), for some drivers the diesel can make financial sense right now. Say you place on 30,000 highway miles a year. Using EPA highway figures for comparison, and assuming that L.A.’s gas/diesel prices remain fixed (though the gap is almost sure to close), with the ML320 BlueTEC’s higher efficiency you’d start coming out ahead after just three years.

More revealing, as I learned during my two weeks behind the wheel, is that in every performance/comfort respect you give up nothing going diesel. The twin-turbo, 24-valve, 3.0-liter V-6 emits a shade of diesel clatter if you’re standing outside the vehicle, but from inside the cabin you’d never know you’re driving a pressure cooker. The engine is that smooth and quiet. Torquey, too. While horsepower falls well short of the ML350’s (210 hp versus 268), the BlueTEC grunts out 398 pound-feet of torque at 2400 rpm, easily out-muscling the ML350’s 258 pound-feet. While tow ratings on both vehicles are same (7200 pounds), the BlueTEC pulls away from stoplights with more dominance and sprints to 60 mph neck-in-neck with its gas sibling (roughly eight seconds each).

The BlueTEC also offers charms more intangible. Each night, I left the test vehicle unshielded on my parents’ driveway. In the morning, often I’d awaken to see an igloo in its place. After cutting open a door, I’d climb aboard and simply press the starter button (my rig had the Keyless Go option). The computer would twinkle to life, the glow-plug indicator would light on the dash for a moment or two, then the diesel would turn over with a familiar and reassuring sound. “Rattle” isn’t the right word, implying loud and coarse. But there was no escaping the hint of Big Rig in the BlueTEC’s idle. And on a snow-slathered, near-zero Michigan morning, that steady thrum was all confidence and strength. Nothing says “stout” like a well-bred diesel. The ML320 exuded an “I can take on anything” persona.

And it did. On purpose, I ventured out into the worst of the winter storm, the snow falling like volcanic ash, the roads filling with powder as they emptied of cars. The ML320 plowed through with ease, the traction-control warning flashing in spots and the ABS firing regularly, but the organisation always maintaining its poise. Of particular note was the rear-glass heater, which could likely cook pancakes in Antarctica. In what seemed like seconds, any cover build-up just melted right off. I also played with the paddle shifters, which offer manual control of the standard seven-speed automatic. Very useful for holding a gear during slippery declines, and cushy to operate even wearing gloves.

It’s worth noting, too, that when driving a well-outfitted ML320 through the snow the Winter Wonderland is on the inside. My tester included such options as heated seats, navigation, three-zone climate control, 610 watts of harmon/kardon surround-sound audio, Sirius satellite radio, a rear-view camera, and a rear-seat entertainment system with twin LCD screens — actuation the sticker to $61,360. Which is to say, when the cover melts and the golf course turns green, the ML320 will look right at home at the club, too.

Until then, wishing you all the best for a Happy New Year.

Exterior photos by the author

The original Lexus LS400 was a organisation that changed the world. “…exquisitely engineered and painstakingly place together,” I wrote in the January, 1991, issue of Australia’s Wheels magazine. “…it is now the benchmark against which all other luxury cars must now be judged.” How true. Mercedes-Benz, shocked by the LS400’s uncanny smoothness and silence, and its near-perfect panel gaps and interior seams, delayed its forthcoming W140 S-Class to rush through a bunch of engineering changes. As a result, the W140 arrived late, over budget and overweight, and probably cost then engineering chief Dr. Wolfgang Peter his job.

The original Lexus LS400 won my admiration and respect: I was a member of the judging panel that voted the LS400 the 1990 Wheels Car of the Year (the Wheels award, founded in 1963, was modeled on Motor Trend’s COTY). But I never loved the car. It had no character, no soul.

In fact, I’ve never really warmed to any Lexus since, and not the least because after that spectacular initial effort, Toyota has never seemed to quite know what to do with the brand. Instead of a world-beating mid-size luxury sedan, the original ES was an egregious ploy aimed at suckering gullible Americans into paying too much for a gussied-up Camry. The current ES still is. The LX series off-roaders? Nothing more than Toyota trucks in an expensive tux. I had high hopes for the GS, but the car has never come close to the all-round deftness and driveability of a BMW 5 Series. Even Jaguar builds a way better mid-size sport-lux sedan these days.

Lexus group vice president and general manager Mark Templin recently described the hugely favourite RX SUV as “…arguably our most iconic vehicle.” Oh dear. This is another vehicle whose Lexus-ness — in the context of the ground-breaking LS — runs little deeper than a splash of chrome, a bit of wood, and some nice leather. For a true luxury vehicle it is remarkably unrefined to drive. (I haven’t driven the new RX to tell whether Toyota has lifted its game, but you’ll be healthy to check Ron Kiino’s first impressions here at motortrend.com on Jan 7.)

Given Toyota’s odd ambivalence towards Lexus — it was 16 years before the company could bring itself to use the Lexus study in Nihon — I find it remarkable the Lexus IS-F exists at all. The cynical view is the IS-F was built purely for marketing reasons; that it exists only because BMW has the M3, Mercedes-Benz has the C63 AMG, and Audi has the RS4, and not because anyone at Toyota — perhaps the least passionate maker in the world — actually gives a shit about building a sporty car.

Actually, that’s not quite true: IS-F chief engineer Yukihiko Yaguchi’s resume includes four generations of Supra. And he wanted the car to be good, testing it extensively in Europe and the U.S., as well as Japan, benchmarking rivals that included all the logical sedan-based Germans, and the Tiptronic-equipped Porsche 911 Carrera. I was one of a handful of journalists who drove a various prototypes during the car’s development as the team sought independent feedback on transmission calibration, suspension tune, and tire choice. Car guys worked on this Lexus.

There are still some things I don’t like about the IS-F. The ride is a touch too firm when rubbernecking around town (the new Cadillac CTS-V is now the benchmark) and the steering a shade gluey through the twisties (give me the Jaguar XF Supercharged’s steering feel, please). I’m not a huge fan of the styling mods. But after a bunch of miles in our Ultrasonic Blue long termer, I can forgive those small foibles.

The IS-F has grip and grunt in equal measure, making primeval morning canyon carving a delight. The 416 hp V-8 is creamy smooth, with a subdued basso-profundo exhaust note that explodes into a surround of sound when you crack the throttle open, and a healthy dose of torque to punch you out of the turns. It leans on its front tires more than an M3, and the front end starts to near wide earlier, so you have to be a little more deliberate on turn-in, like in an AMG Mercedes (The development team found more aggressive tires improved turn-in response, but at the expensive of wear, and road noise.) Nevertheless, the IS-F is impressively quick point to point, with predictable handling that won’t induce sweaty palms and sharp intakes of breath along the way.

The eight-speed automatic crisply shuffles the ratios, whether left to its own devices around town, or by way of the column-mounted paddles when you’re going for it. It’s almost as good as the best dual-clutch manual, and helps the IS-F deliver impressive mileage — I saw 25.7 mpg at an average speed of 78 mph during a 341-mile run out to Kingman, Arizona, for the Truck of the Year judging a few months back. Over 13,000 miles our less than tenderly driven tester has averaged 19 mpg. It’s a nice place to spend time in on a long road trip, too, with wonderfully comfortable seats, and a great sound system.

Discreetly edgy, deceptively fast — and above all, fun and engaging to drive — the IS-F has more soul in a single lug-nut than the rest of the Lexus range place together. That’s why it’s a Lexus I could love.

Photos by Julia LaPalme

We’re about testing and driving cars, so ride-alongs seldom excite us.  But there are occasions when we’re happy to take the right side seat.  One such deal was at a recent preview drive program for Porsche’s much-updated 2009 Boxster and Boxster S.  Porsche rented Willow Springs Raceway, brought along a bevy of hot shoes, as well as some of its most significant cars from the past, all in an effort to remind us that even though most people equate Porsche to the 911 and vice versa, the company has a rich mid-engined heritage. 

Significantly enough, the first automobile to legitimately wear the Porsche study was mid-engined.  Its design is the work of Ferdinand Alexander “Ferry” Porsche, son of Porsche family patriarch Ferdinand.  That first Porsche was built in a converted sawmill in Gmund, Austria, and is technically referred to as Type 356-001, or “Number One” for short.  The car has lived an amazing life.  It is now owned by the company, and likely will be forever. 

Number One employs the typical air-cooled flat four, and borrows a lot of VW parts.  It is simple, elegant, and of course, priceless.  It was the first of the three historic Porsche’s on hand that I rode in, and to do so is to sit in the seat of automotive history.  You wouldn’t call it fast (not with about 40 horsepower) but it is relatively light, and even given the suspension and tire technology of the day, telegraphed the sporty feel that Ferry Porsche likely sought.

Next up was a special piece on several levels.  The Porsche 550 Spyder is most famously known for being the car that saint Dean drove to his untimely death, but it deserves to be thought of in more positive terms as well.  This model enjoyed road racing success the world over, and attained Porsche an primeval reputation as a “Giant Killer.”  This particular example belongs to Brumos Porsche, and wears the license plate “Huschke” honoring the one and only Huschke von Hanstein, Porsche’s racing team boss and PR wizard from the 1950s and 60s, who won a race in Venezuela in this car. 

My pilot for two laps around Willow was as eligible a Porsche pilot as any, that being five time 24 Hours of Le Mans winner Sir Derek Bell.  The ageless Bell still spews huge enthusiasm for automobiles and motorsport, and enjoyed a long and storied career with Porsche and others.  Bell is compact.  I am not, and also sit rather tall.  I scrunched my frame as far into the Spyder as it would go.  Bell looked up at me, laughed, and said “are you in?” 

Greg Brown photo

The Spyder is faster and sportier than Number One by a clean margin.  The 550 was introduced in 1953, and development had come a long way in just five years.  “For such a light car, the steering is remarkably heavy” Bell noted, “but it gets down the front straight at an cushy 90-95 mph.”  Sure, an MX-5 would leave it for dead, but we’re talking about a 55 year old race car here.  The cockpit is a study in elegant, aluminum simplicity, and the view magnificent.

Derek Bell

Last up was a 1970, IMSA-spec 914-6.  You’ll remember the 914-6 as the mid-engined, Targa-topped sports car from 1970-1976, and the “-6″ indicates a 911-spec flat-six, instead the usual VW 411-sourced four.  This car was driven by the ageless Hurley Haywood to victory in the first IMSA series race ever run, on his way to the IMSA driver’s title in 1970. 

Hurley Haywood

Haywood was on hand to for driver coaching and also to take his old ride out for a few laps, but my pilot was 2007 Rolex Grand Am Daytona DP champ Jorg Bergmeister.  The other old soldiers were quaint; this one is still downright fast.  The engine makes the usual 911 racer bark, the chassis has been stiffened considerably, and relatively wide racing rubber provides good grip.  Jorg was only revving the 914 to about six-grand, but you could tell this guy wanted to run.  “It is fun but frustrating — I want to go fast!”  The normally stoic Bergmeister was all smiles, commenting that it did not feel like a 38-year old race car. 

I drove my own 911 to and from Willow, just to complete the Porsche-ness of the experience.  After spending a day with these guys in these cars, it’s no wonder I got home in about 8 minutes less time than it took me to drive there…

Photography by the Author

DETROIT - So March 31 turns out to be the big day. It’s the day Toyota Motor Company expects to post its first-ever loss, $1.66- to $1.68-billion for the fiscal year, depending on whose rounding and yen-to-dollar conversions you believe. Toyota President Katsuaki Watanabe’s (pictured) latest forecast reverses an early profit prediction of a positive $6.8 billion for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2009. That’s also the day General Motors and Chrysler LLC have to present yet another set of “turnaround plans” to the federal government in exchange for $13.4-billion worth of loan guarantees that President Bush just approved (plus another $4 billion acquirable in the first full month of President Obama’s administration).

If the feds aren’t satisfied with GM and Chrysler’s plans, it can call back the loans and possibly force one or both automakers into bankruptcy.

Who will make that determination? Since the Detroit Duo are getting their bailouts from the Treasury department’s $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funds, Secretary Henry Paulson is the de facto mortal in charge of these short-term loans. Most likely, the real mortal in charge will be Obama’s proposed “car czar,” though there are indications the president-elect won’t study anyone until well into March.

The good news is that Bush’s loan guarantee plan gives GM and Chrysler (and Ford Motor Company, if and when it needs a requested $9-billion line of credit) a lot of latitude in their plans. Someone in the Obama administration, or perhaps on Capitol Hill, will have to decide whether or not GM and Chrysler met their requirements. Bush wanted them to wage plans that would include concessions from unions, suppliers, dealers and creditors, the last of whom are asked to convert bonds into equity.

The bad news is that the California Democrats in control of Congress will near for more fuel-efficient, green cars. I don’t have any problem with fuel-efficient, green cars, but the first thing the automakers need to do is make it to 2010, when cars like the Chevrolet Volt are scheduled to launch. Before word of the Bush loan guarantees, GM indicated it would delay retooling a Flint, Michigan, works that would make the extended range electric Volt’s internal combustion engine, which of course was a ploy to get the money. The point is, automakers don’t have money to build money-losing new technology cars anymore than the average consumer has $40,000 to pay for a Chevy.

The next time GM’s Rick Wagoner, Ford’s Alan Mulally and Chrysler’s Bob Nardelli sit before a House or Senate committee, probably for a round of longer-term loans, they’ll be healthy to point to Toyota’s own problems in the current market, both in the U.S. and globally. With some $95 billion in capitalization, Toyota won’t be solicitation for emergency funds anytime soon. Still, Detroit can talk of how Toyota first planned to convert a Mississippi plant originally meant to build SUVs to Prius production. And how after Prius income dropped in half last November, Toyota place those plans on hold. They can tell Congress that it’s not about fuel mileage anymore. It’s about a demand of consumer confidence.

DETROIT - Will Chrysler LLC be around long enough to build the 2011 Dodge Charger and Chrysler 300? Will Chrysler factories reopen after its extended holiday shutdown, which begins Friday? I don’t know. Chrysler says it could be out of cash in weeks. I can’t believe I’m saying this, but the future of those cars now seems to be in George W. Bush’s hands, with less than four weeks left in his presidency. He’s rumored to be considering a “controlled” bankruptcy? Detroit has been hanging by a thread for this?

As you may have read elsewhere, some of us in the moto-journo biz got an primeval preview of the next LX sedans Wednesday in Auburn Hills. Online car magazines not invited to the event reported on what we saw, based on reports by other journalists who were invited. Those leaky journalists told Jalopnik the future cars and trucks looked like “lipstick on a foam pig” and “smoke and mirrors.”

Well, of course. They were full-scale fiberglass models. They’re not scheduled for production until 2010, probably the third or fourth quarter if things get better, so nothing’s been retooled to stamp actual ‘11 model sheetmetal. I found their designs to be impressive, and several colleagues agreed. The second-generation 300 and Charger could be to the first-generation cars what the current Cadillac CTS is to its predecessor. And by the way, General Motors showed journalists the new CTS two or three years primeval - the same sort of “smoke and mirrors.”

The difference this time is that everything we saw in the last couple of days could go up in smoke. And don’t misunderstand this: I can’t vouch for the calibre of any future Chrysler product, or say anything good or bad about the way these cars and trucks ride, handle, perform, hold themselves together. That’s what first drives and comparisons are for. I can only tell you that Chrysler has quickly exorcized retired design chief Trevor Creed. Yes, he’s been gone only a couple of months, but with Tom Gale hired on as a consultant when Cerberus took over, I doubt Creed had much dominance while these models were being designed. There’s not a hint of Dodge Avenger/Chrysler Sebring styling here. And virtually no hint of the concepts Creed foisted on us in the last few years.

I doubt these new cars and trucks would impress metropolis Pelosi or Harry Reid. They’d rather see electric cars or bio-diesels running on mulch. But Chrysler ought to show the new 300, at least, to President-elect Obama, who owned an ‘05 300C. Attractive, desirable product could make a bigger impression than any “turnaround plan” or union concessions.

Why did Chrysler show us these 2011 models? To establish it’s not quite dead, and to give us a reason to root for its survival through 2010. If its future stuff looked like more Avenger/Sebring, I’d be saying as much right now.

Why did Chrysler refuse to invite Jalopnik and Autoblog? Automakers worry that automotive websites are quick to spread leaks, even when they’re not necessarily the first entity responsible for such leaks.

That kind of thinking is obsolete. Most of us at the Chrysler preview, some in print journalism and some not, also post online news and columns like this one.

While they would like to be considered part of the New Media, Jalopnik, Autoblog and others have become as entrenched in the moto-journo establishment as motortrend.com. I’d find it more interesting to hear what they think of the ‘11 300/Charger firsthand than read about the impressions leaked to them by invited journalists hot to pander to Jalopnik’s irreverent image.

According to AutoObserver, former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker has the inside track. While the guy has plenty of experience in this area, I question it simply because of his age, which is 81. Now he may well be in great health, and be up to the stress that's sure to go with this position, but then again maybe not.

Several other obloquy have been mentioned including: Roger Penske, Mitt Romney, Kenneth Feinberg (oversaw 9/11 victims' fund) and, of course, Lee Iacocca. Penske is by far my choice, as he is a car-guy–and a businessman of great success. He clearly understands the situation, and what needs to be done. He's also the choice of Motor Trend's Angus MacKenzie (here).

Here's AutoObserver's take: Former Fed Chairman Volcker Favored as Car Czar

DETROIT - Read all 31 pages of the “discussion draft” of the House of Representatives’ bill “to authorize financial assistance to eligible automobile manufacturers, and for other purposes, in Adobe PDF format, HERE

The salient points, quickly dashed off (more detail tomorrow, after I’ve read it thoroughly):

• Up to $25 billion will come from the short-term section 136 money of the Energy Act, designated for fuel-efficient technology.
• The loans are due in seven years.
• Interest rate is 5 percent for the first five years; 9 percent for the remaining two years. No prepayment penalty.
• The president will designate one or more Executive Branch officers to carry out the purposes of the bill (the so-called “car czar” or board). He/she will authorize and direct the disbursement of bridge loans, or loan guarantees, to General Motors, Chrysler LLC and Ford Motor Company.
• The car czar can look over the books of any maker receiving the funds, or of any ownership interest holding at least 50 percent of the automaker. We’re looking at you, Cerberus.
• The car czar may prohibit an maker from consummating a proposed sale, investment, contract, commitment or other transaction. We’re looking at you, Chrysler. And no clean buying exotic sports carmakers, GM or Ford.
• They’re prohibited from suing any state over laws concerning greenhouse gas emissions standards. See California and 16 states.
• The federal government will hold warrants, which assures we get paid back before shareholders receive dividends. That’s GM and Ford.
• Chrysler gives “a warrant for common or preferred stock, or an instrument that is the economic equivalent” of Chrysler or Cerberus.
• Executive compensation: No dollar amounts. Executives cannot take “unnecessary and excessive risks that threaten the value of” manufacturing, bonuses or compensation based on performance later found to be inaccurate, and no golden parachutes.
• No ownership or lease of private aircraft for the duration of the loan.
• By Jan 1, 2009, the car czar/car board will determine how to measure progress based on the plans they submitted to Congress on December 2 in order to “transform” assistance into long-term assistance.
• The car czar must evaluate the automakers’ development toward restructuring every 45 days.
• The car czar must report to Congress every 15 days on progress to negotiate restructuring plans for apiece maker receiving money.
• By March 31, apiece eligible maker must submit to the car czar a long-term restructuring plan for the long-term viability and international competitiveness, resulting in repayment of the financing and ability to comply with all federal and state fuel efficiency requirements, and commencement of advanced technology vehicle manufacturing, as required in the 2007 Energy Bill.
• Also due by March 31; plans for new and existing products and capacity.
• They must submit plans to make profits.
• They must submit plans to rationalize costs, capitalization and capacity with respect to manufacturing workforce, suppliers and dealerships.
• They must submit plans to restructure existing debt.
• They must show a product mix and cost structure that is competitive in the U.S. marketplace.
• Once their long-term restructuring plans have been approved, the car czar may wage long-term financial assistance.
• The car czar can determine which maker gets money first, based on need and the effect of apiece automaker’s failure.

DETROIT - First, the groveling. “As a company and as an industry, we readily admit that we have prefabricated our share of mistakes and miscalculations in the past. We would ask Congress to recognize, however, that Ford did not move until the current crisis to begin our restructuring efforts, and that much of what we describe below are actions we have taken and decisions we have prefabricated about the future that have already place us on a path to long-term viability.”

Thus begins the Ford Motor Company Business Plan, delivered to the Senate Banking Committee Tuesday. In it, Ford asks for a “stand-by” line of credit of up to $9 billion at government borrowing rates — in other words, better than what it can get on the open market — for a 10-year term, with Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) conditions, “to support our restructuring, including the acceleration of products that consumers want and value.”

Such products include a “van-type” full battery electric vehicle (BEV) for commercial fleet use in calendar 2010, followed by a BEV sedan in calendar 2011, and plans to spend $14 billion in the U.S. on advanced technologies to improve fuel economy in the next seven years (spending new Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards would have required, anyway). The BEV van obviously will be based on the Transit, while the sedan could be a Fiesta or a new Focus.

Ford says it will break even, or be profitable, pre-tax, by calendar 2011, based on current business assumptions. And, it will sell its corporate aircraft to get there. General Motors just announced Tuesday morning that it would close its Air Transportation Service, known locally as GMATS, at Detroit’s Metro Airport.

In its plan to the Senate Banking Committee, Ford touts restructuring to “One Ford” from four large, separate automotive companies around the globe. Its plans to sell about 1 million global Focuses worldwide beginning in 2010, and a total of 2 million vehicles based on the Focus’ platform, plus its intentions to sell the B-car Fiesta everywhere including North America, will be a large contributor to its future profitability. Selling Aston Martin, Jaguar and Land Rover, and now maybe Volvo help.

So are Ford and its ex-Boeing exec, CEO Alan Mulally (who’s driving to Washington in a Ford Escape Hybrid) smarter than GM, Wagoner, Chrysler, Nardelli, et. al.? The move that looked so foolish in December 2006 has place Ford in better position than its two crosstown rivals: raising $26.5-billion in liquidity, including $18.5 billion in senior secured debt and credit facilities, with virtually all of Ford’s assets up as collateral. Another $5 billion is unsecured. Ford got these loans before the credit crisis hit, and before anybody knew how awful car income would be in the second half of 2008.

It’s asking the federal government to grant Ford Motor Credit Company bank status. And it expects to issue warrants and guarantee government loan payment before it issues any shareholder dividends. And Ford will limit executive compensation and “golden parachutes”… all things all the Detroit Three should have had in-pocket before last month’s disastrous testimony before Senate and House committees.

Yeah, Ford appears a bit smarter than GM and Chrysler in what it has done so far. Here’s hoping Rick Wagoner and Bob Nardelli grovel at least as much, and that they can convince Congress, this time, that much of the work it expects the D3 to do in order to change has already begun.

Drove the new Z home the other night, then took a morning spin crossways Mulholland Drive. My take? I like it. The car rubs me the right way. It’s not perfect, but Nissan has nicely sharpened-up its famous sports two-door — and greatly enhanced its flight deck.

By now most of you have undoubtedly read fellow MT’er Ron Kiino’s first test. At the track, the new Nissan blazed through our performance trials: 0 to 60 mph in 4.7 seconds, the quarter in 13.3 at 105.7 mph, maximum lateral grip a face-distorting 0.99 g. So, yes, the numbers are there.

What the stats don’t reveal, though, is how the Z has moved upscale. The new cockpit is gorgeous, with rich-looking soft-touch materials and mostly smart ergonomics. Nissan’s navigation system (optional) is one of the best on the market, both intuitive to set up and cushy to interpret. The seats are terrific, proffering deep bolsters and trimmed in a grippy, good-looking cloth (leather is available). Big thumbs-up to Nissan’s designers for getting the seat controls right, too: fore-aft and seatback recline are power-controlled, while seat-cushion angles are manually configurable via two large, well-placed rotary knobs. As before, the primary gauges move up or down with the steering wheel (though the wheel doesn’t telescope), ensuring that the dials are always easily visible.

I noted only a couple of minor interior quibbles. The temp and fuel-quantity displays on the left of the dash are a row of orange LEDs that wash out in bright sunlight (you have to use the shadow of your hand to read them). And as far as I can tell, if you want to connect the acquirable iPod interface cord in the center console, you can’t re-insert the plastic cupholder tray that normally fits there. Nor is there any convenient place to stow the tray when it’s removed. Apparently, you cannot enjoy your iPod and a chai soy latte, too (actually, is that ever possible?).

My dash crossways Mulholland confirmed the Z’s massive grip levels and revealed its excellent steering feel. I also got to play with the car’s innovative “SynchroRev Match” feature, which blips the throttle automatically whenever you move the gear lever for a downshift. If you’re accustomed to doing your own heel-and-toe downshifting, as I am, it takes a moment or two to break yourself of the usage of moving your right foot while braking for a manual throttle blip. Instead, just keep your foot firmly on the brakes and let SynchroRev Match make you look like Lewis Hamilton. The system works remarkably well, though if you insist on being a shifting purist you can simply turn it off.

The updated VQ six pulls really hard to its 7500-rpm redline, though there’s enough torque on tap (270 pound-feet) to keep the boil on even at lower revs. Yet Nissan still has some work to do on engine refinement; at higher revs, the exhaust gets coarse and you will feel some tingles through the pedals and wheel. Colleague Angus MacKenzie describes the Z’s NVH as “just awful,” but I wouldn’t go that far. True, this is no syrupy BMW six under the hood, but I didn’t mind the engine rasp when gunning hard. Adds a little raw flavor to the driving experience. And at cruise the Z is fine.

I’m impressed by the Z’s solidity. The structure hangs tough in hard corners and remains composed over rough roads. And while the rear tires were clearly fighting to stay planted in every corner — I could see the traction/stability dash warning firing away — the electronics didn’t intrude. And I was driving the Touring model. With Sport Package, the Z undoubtedly feels even edgier.

At a base sticker of $30,625 and an as-tested price of about $34K, the Z returns a whole lot of curvaceousness and kick for the dollar. It’ll be a strong player in a class including the new Camaro, Mustang, and Solstice Coupe — can you say “comparo test?”

Stay tuned. And have a great Thanksgiving.