“So, what was the best car you drove this year?” It’s one of those questions that routinely crops up during holiday party conversations once folks find out what we do for a living here at Motor Trend. And it’s a fiendishly difficult one to answer: The definition of “best” usually involves a highly individualized compromise between need and desire. One man’s Ferrari is another man’s total waste of money.

This compromise is at the core of every test we do. To get around it, we approach every new car, truck, or SUV we test with a key philosophical question in mind — how well does the vehicle do the job its maker designed it to do? Understand what a vehicle’s intended function is, what market segment it’s aimed at, and what price point it’s meant to hit, and you have the foundation for a first drive, full test, or multi-car comparison.

We drove or tested hundreds vehicles this past year; everything from low-buck econoboxes to 200-mph supercars. We picked the good, the bad, and the ugly, and told it like it was. But out of all those vehicles, which are the ones that hit our individualized sweet spot between need and desire; the ones that may not have been the fastest, the most stylish, the most economical, or even the best value for money, but simply were the cars we loved? Read on, and find out…

Angus MacKenzie: BMW M3 DCT

There were faster, more exotic, more expensive cars. But nothing touched me like the BMW M3 DCT. The M3’s chassis equilibrise is sublime; the steering surgically precise; the brakes bulletproof; that yowling V-8 utterly intoxicating. And now the lightning fast, seven speed, dual clutch, paddle-shift tranny ties it all together. On one mad, primeval morning dash crossways a heaving, twisting, deserted central California two lane, this car prefabricated me feel like Kubica on a limiting lap.

Kim Reynolds: Honda FCX Clarity

Every now and then you drive a car that seems more like a worm hole into the future than yet another rearrangement of four wheels, and the Honda FCX Clarity was mine for 2008. While it didn’t completely make me a hydrogen believer, for a few hundred miles at least, I felt like Kubrick had cast me into an automotive remake of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Better buckle up, HAL.

Edward Loh: Mini Clubman S

Reynolds and St. Antoine expect me to say, “Duh, GT-R”, but my love for 2008 wasn’t the world’s fastest, most captivating (believe it, Kim), all-wheel-drive coupe. It was the lust driven tryst I had with the Mini Clubman S. As I profiled in the Feb. 2008 issue, it was a breathless affair for the ages — a rush of smashed inhibitions and highly irresponsible behavior that came from driving the right car on the right road.

Matt Stone: 1961 Ferrari 250 GT SWB Spyder California
 
Like Audrey Hepburn in a Halston gown, you don’t need anyone to tell you that a Cal Spyder is elegant. And this was special among the special, as it was owned by person saint Coburn for more than two decades.  I trembled as I settled into this triple black beauty.  Driving Coburn’s Spyder around Ferrari’s Fiorano test track in Italy was the highlight of my automotive 2008.  Glad I brought it home in one piece too; the next day, it sold for at auction for $10.9 million.

Gavin Green: Ferrari California

There has never been a Ferrari with such a broad and breathtaking range of abilities. It can play the cushy riding comfy cruiser, a Bentley-by-Ferrari, coupe one moment convertible the next. Or be a Schumacher-at-Spa racer, helped by that brilliant seven-speed paddle gearshift and a handling equilibrise that takes Ferrari to a whole new plane of excellence. 

Arthur St Antoine: Jaguar XF Supercharged

Yes, the Alfa-Romeo 8C roared like a lion that’d swallowed Pavarotti, and, yes, driving the ZR1 was a 10-meter platform dive into a pool of adrenaline, but in 2008 I loved the Jaguar XF Supercharged most. Why? Because I’d own one. Superb comfort? Check. Rakish good looks? Check. Performance and handling worthy of a purpose-built two-seater? Check mate.

Scott Mortara: Audi R8

We first played with this car last year, but we had it back this year for our Best Handling test, and it won, that’s right, the Audi R8 was my favorite car of 2008. There is nothing I don’t like about this car, the look, sound, feel, everything is fantastic. It might not be the fastest in a straight line, or turn the quickest lap time but it will hang with almost anything out there, and I love it.

Paul Horrell: Ferrari Scuderia

No question. Many supercars intimidate me by demanding Fangio-like skills, but this one seemed to bestow them on me. Its electronic wizardry augmented my own meagre abilities, while communicating its intentions in an animate, organic manner. Oh yes, the GT-R did that too, but the GT-R didn’t have that engine, those looks, this heritage.

Frank Markus: Maserati Quattroporte S

Maybe it was the Austrian Alpine scenery or the hip tunes my co-driver Steve brought along for the ride, but I doubt it. The Maserati Quattroporte S’s supermodel-svelte sheetmetal, Armani interior, Ferrariesque chassis and eight-tenors engine-note could probably seduce anybody reading this even on a North Siouan freeway with the broadcasting off. 

Ron Kiino: Lexus IS F
 
The M3 is nimbler and the C63 quicker, but give me the Lexus IS-F. Its V-8 warble above 4000 rpm is titillating. Its hunkered-down stance is menacing. Its green bourgeois (no gas-guzzler tax, 18-mpg combined fuel econ) is forests beyond the Teutons’. And its uniqueness (only one to hail from Japan, offer eight cogs, and get standard 19-inch forged alloys) is eminent.

Mike Floyd: BMW 1 Series

It’s not the greatest-looking coupe in the world, nor is it the fastest or most technically gifted vehicle the BMW stable (see M3 DCT above), but the 1 Series is hands down one of the most engaging and entertaining vehicles I’ve ever driven, and that goes for both the 128 and 135 — with either six speed tranny on board. Tight, light, and amazingly quick and agile, to me, the 1 Series is the Ultimate Ultimate Driving Machine.

Todd Lassa: Audi R8

Not because of its mid-engine balance. Not because with a clutch as light as an A4’s; it’s the next-generation NSX that Acura would love to build. It’s because Audi place Blizzaks on one last Jan and let us have fun in the cold and snow. And it worked.

What was once thought "unthinkable," that being Toyota cutting works workers, many come to pass. In the 24 years that Toyota has been building cars here, they have never had to let anyone go. That may change as their income continue to slump.

Jim Wiseman, vice president of external affairs for Toyota's North American production unit says this is a real possibility.

"We wouldn't anticipate it getting to that point, but we never say never," Wiseman said. Toyota has 30,000 North American employees spread among 14 assembly, engine and parts plants, and vehicles built in the region prefabricated up 56 percent of U.S. income through November.

If this happens, it will be interesting to see the response from the UAW, as these are all non-union workers at Toyota (not that by being unionized would have prefabricated any difference).

Full story here.

Is this truck another case of "too little, too late?" The current Colorado I-5 engine okay, but it's nothing to get your blood boiling; worse still, power-hungry small truck customers felt the same way, and have stayed away from Chevy (and GMC) dealers in droves. Shouldn't this V8-powered version debuted when this current generation Colorado was announced a few years ago?

When it was announced that the Hummer H3 was getting a 5.3L V8 option, it was also (unofficially) confirmed that the Colorado would also get that engine. No one, however, figured on the financial industry collapse, and the resulting domino effect it would have on the auto and other industries. So will this be a savior for this truck line, or just another example of a great intent coupled to miserable timing?

Full story here.

We don’t yet know if we’re going to have a government appointed Car Czar to watch over the American automobile industry, because yet don’t know if there will even be bailout funds that need watching over. 

But let’s say, for the moment, that money turns up out of the TARP plan, and the treasury department decides on someone to keep an eye on how the money is used.  I have a few things I’d like to tell that person, as they most assuredly, for better or worse, will come from outside the business. 

I’d been working on a Car Czar’s download of do’s and don’ts, and then I read a column about the same subject by Fortune’s Alex Taylor III.  Taylor is Fortune’s senior ed dedicated to car biz, and he makes some solid points about this topic. I’ve attached Alex’s column below, and I agree with much (although not all) of what he says.  I welcome your feedback about any of it.

This was published December 10, before the Senate place the kybosh on the plan that was in the oven.  But Taylor’s comments are still relevant, assuming that some sort of overseer would still come along with funding from TARP.  We’ll know a lot more about that in the next few days.

By the way, the photo shown here is not Taylor.  That would be Russian Czar Nicholas II

Advice for the car czar
What not to do while overseeing the U.S. auto industry
By Alex Taylor III, senior editor

NEW YORK (Fortune), December 10, 2008 – Dear Car Czar,

Now that the White House and congressional Democrats have agreed on the shape of an auto rescue package, it is time to get serious about your proposed new duties.

Under the terms currently discussed, you would be tasked with shaping a restructuring of the industry and keeping an eye on how the government’s money gets spent. That’s all well and good, but there is a lot of opportunity for mischief here, as well as inflicting some big-time damage.

So assuming you will be coming from outside the auto industry and share prejudices similar to those displayed by congressional representatives from non-auto states - as well as newspaper editorialists who ride bicycles to work - I thought you might appreciate some suggestions on what NOT to do.

1) Don’t ban the auto executives from their corporate jets. As much as we all enjoyed seeing General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner stuffing his lanky frame into a Chevy Malibu for the drive to Washington, that really isn’t a productive way for him to spend his time. Neither is flying commercial. You know what air travel is like these days, and you can’t get much work done on an airplane surrounded by all those prying eyes.

2) Remember that developing a new car is like a pregnancy: There is a defined length of time involved that can’t be shortened without dire consequences. So let’s not have any more questions about why Ford (F, Fortune 500) and Chrysler are introducing new pickup trucks in the teeth of a recession. Those trucks weren’t thought up yesterday; they have been in development for four years. To can them now - or even delay their arrival - would cost tens of millions of dollars.

3) Don’t expect the automakers alone to wean USA from its gas-guzzling habits. In the words of GM’s Bob Lutz, forcing Detroit to build small cars so that we consume less foreign oil is like trying to prevent blubber by forcing clothiers to make garments in smaller sizes. GM (GM, Fortune 500) prefabricated the right decision not to build hybrids when Toyota did: unlike in Japan, where gasoline is expensive, there was no market for them in North America.

Where GM did go astray, in case you are wondering, is in not moving quickly enough to switch from body-on-frame SUVs to crossovers, which are safer and get better fuel economy. They were making so much money on the old ones, they couldn’t bring themselves to change.

4) Never forget that you can’t force consumers to buy cars they don’t want. You may decide you want everybody in fuel-sipping minicars, or in rubber-bumpered country cars, but if the automakers can’t build them and sell them at a profit, what’s the point?

One of the reasons Detroit is in a bind is that government fuel economy regulations have forced them to build small cars that consumers don’t want and thus must be sold at a loss. You are probably tired of hearing this by now, but a $2-a-gallon gas tax would have gotten people into smaller cars without distorting the marketplace.

5) Inflict equal pain on everyone. One of the reasons GM still supports money-losing brands like Saturn and Saab is that it can’t afford to close down their independent dealers. State-by-state franchise laws offer them rock-solid endorsement should an maker eliminate a brand.

Dealers need to give a little and so do the United Auto Workers - they are still making more than their non-union counterparts at the transplants. If you want to punish the auto executives too, make them promise to spend half their time outside Detroit so they can see what the rest of the world is driving.

6) Don’t be too hard on the automakers. I’ve never met one (well, maybe one or two) who wasn’t sincere, honest, and hardworking. Sure, they have prefabricated some boneheaded calls by focusing on short-term results instead of long-term trends, but don’t forget - GM and Ford have both been in business for more than 100 years, and old companies become encrusted with customers and practices the way barnacles grow on a ship.

They haven’t been competing on a level paying field with import manufacturers who were healthy to start with a clean sheet of paper a few decades ago when it came to choosing and locating dealers and building factories.

Oh, and by the way, they haven’t been getting rich at the same time that they fleeced investors, the way some of the boys on Wall Street did. Every stock option ever awarded in Detroit is under so much water it has probably drowned by now.

Sincerely,

Alex Taylor III

www.fortune.com

When was the last time that you saw Ford having a better month than either Toyota or Honda, at least in terms of income loss percentages?

"I've been in the industry nearly 28 years and never have seen anything even remotely close to this," states Mark LaNeve, GM's North American vice president of sales. "It's breathtaking."

It just gets uglier every month, and one has to wonder how much worse will it get? Oh wait… Domestic Motors and Congress have yet to do their second Doe-See-Doe. It could get much worse folks…

Here's AutoObserver's take: Funereal November Sales Provide More Ammo for Bailout Plea

Here's Inside Line's take: November Auto Sales Continue Their Death Spiral, With No End in Sight

DETROIT - General Motors, Ford Motor and Chrysler LLC all reported a relatively strong November for the first couple of weeks of the month. Then the “B-Word” — bankruptcy — reared its grotesque head. Talks broke down between GM and Chrysler regarding a merger or buyout and finally, Detroit Three execs were embarrassed by their Capitol Hill performance as they asked for $25 billion in bridge loans.

GM’s North American income chief, Mark LaNeve, said Pontiac will become a smaller, specialty brand but will continue to sell value-priced performance cars. Read news and analysis of GM’s plan for Congress here later Tuesday: GM is looking for a $4 billion bridge loan to see it through 2008, with the request for another $8 billion in a line of credit for next year.

The industry was off 36 percent for the month. The notorious Seasonally Adjusted Annual Rate (SAAR) was 10.6 million units per year, down from a SAAR of 16.4 million units per year based on November 2007 sales. All numbers in this story compare November 2008 income to November 2007 sales, unless I say otherwise.

Sales of pickup trucks, especially the new Ford F-150 and Dodge Ram, are rebounding, in that their income didn’t drop as much as other models. Chrysler attributes some of that to a strong farming industry, but the cheap price of gas has a lot to do with it, of course. Clearly, though, the utter demand of consumer confidence has hit the auto biz hard. Dealers have been hit on two sides: no customers in showrooms and demand of financing for their floorplans.

Here’s how November shook out …

GM: 154,877 deliveries, off 41 percent.

• Retail was off 45 percent, to 106,737 and fleet was off 29 percent, to 48,140.
• Four-cylinder take-rate for midsize cars remains high, at 63 percent (70 percent for Chevy Malibu).
• Malibu was the single GM model that outsold November 2007, up 31.3 percent, to 9,469
• Cadillac CTS, off 48.0 percent, to 2,902. Buick Enclave, off 40.3 percent, to 2,288. Hummer H3 was off 65.8 percent, to 1,048.

Toyota: 130,307 deliveries, off 33.9 percent.

• Toyota division cars dropped 31.1 percent, trucks dropped 37.4 percent.
• Lexus car income fell 40 percent, truck income fell 26.9 percent.
• The only gainers were brand-new models; the Toyota Sequoia, up 51.9 percent, to 1,873 units, and the Lexus LX, up from 71 units to 424.
• Prius was off 48.3 percent (to 8,660) and Camry was off 28.8 percent (to 25,224).
• Scion xB dropped 43.8 percent, to 2,161.
• Tundra was off 55.9 percent, to 6,607.

Ford: 118,818 deliveries, off 30 percent.

• Marketing veep Jim Farley sees the automotive market will continue to scrape bottom through the first quarter of 2009.
• Lincoln continued to outsell Mercury, 8,019 to 7,744.
• Ford Taurus was off 22.0 percent (3,040), Fusion off 27.4 percent (8,914).
• Focus freefell 38 percent, to 8,194.
• Mustang fell 50.1 percent, to 3,667.
• Ford sold 2,203 Flexes. Chevy Traverse beat it with 2,936.
• F-Series was 37,911, about 2,000 of them new models. Down 18.6 percent.
• Mercury Sable was up 4.2 percent, to 1,230.
• Volvo income was abysmal, off 46.5 percent, to 4,404. The S80 was the only gainer, up 10.5 percent to 844 cars.

Chrysler: 85,260 deliveries, down 47 percent.

• The discontinued Chrysler Aspen was up 33 percent, to 2,013. Credit hybrid sales.
• Dodge sold 2,815 Journeys and 3,364 Challengers.
• Chrysler 300 was down 70 percent, to 3,423.

Nissan North America: 80,683 deliveries, off 42.2 percent.

• Infiniti was off 28.0 percent.

American Honda: 76,233 deliveries, off 31.6 percent.

• That’s coming off a record November, in 2007.
• Honda Division was down 30.6 percent, to 68,345.
• Acura was off 38.9 percent, to 7,888.
• The new Pilot was the only gainer, up 4.5 percent, to 5,601.
• Accord was off 38.1 percent, Civic off 29.6 percent.

Others: BMW Group sold 19,762 vehicles, off 26.8 percent. Mercedes-Benz USA  sold 14,102, and said it was off 8.6 percent for the year to date. Hyundai sold 19,221, off 40 percent.

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.

DETROIT - While my colleagues in the auto-journo world are expecting a bonanza of new product news not seen since the 2007 United Auto Workers contract, a voice of reason on the Republican side of the aisle could place a device on the big day. Senator George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio) has warned Congress not to go public with the Detroit Three’s plans. Voinovich has “expressed concern about whether proprietary information submitted by the Big Three will be fortified from disclosure,” Congressional Quarterly reports Monday afternoon. Voinovich is part of the bi-partisan group of senators who introduced a plan after the D3 dog ‘n pony show on Capitol Hill last month, calling on Congress to direct $25 billion in low-interest loans originally part of the Energy Bill, and meant to help automakers switch to green, fuel-efficient cars.

Voinovich also has concerns Washington will continue to have problems understanding what Detroit has to offer. He asks whether members of Congress, including House Speaker metropolis Pelosi (D-California) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) would consult auto industry experts and executive branch officials, “or do you feel that Congress is eligible to draw such conclusions?”
 
Buicks Will Get Opel Styling

Here’s one revelation connected to GM’s reorganization plan. In the Jan 2009 issue of Motor Trend magazine, we report that Saturn’s connection with Opel styling is over. Following the current wave of Saturns, Opel styling will merge with Buick’s.

Believe it or not, the reasons are obvious. First, GM wants to near Opel back upmarket. It once competed nearly at Audi’s level of prestige. (Since then, Audi has moved upmarket, toward BMW and Mercedes, while Opel has gone common.) GM wants Chevrolet to have a bigger presence as an entry-level brand in the European market, competing directly with Ford. Evidence is the new Chevy Cruze compact, which is set to launch in Europe next April, about a year before its planned North American debut.

Buick, which was once a slight step below Cadillac in prestige, has countered Cadillac’s edgy Art & Science styling with more rounded, voluptuous sheetmetal…like on the new Opel Insignia. In both styling and interior quality, the Insignia would have prefabricated a perfectly decent 2010 LaCrosse (or Invicta). And smaller Opels already are built as Buicks for the latter brand’s biggest market, China.

Which connects with speculation in recent days that GM will finally rid itself of less-than-successful brands. Bloomberg has reported that GM may cut one or more, or even all, of Pontiac, Saturn, GMC, Saab and of course, Hummer. The New York Times reported Monday that one scenario has GM buying out its Saturn dealers, and combining the brand with its Pontiac-Buick-GMC dealerships. Saturn has the fewest dealers of GM’s full-line brands, at 400, so that scenario makes some sense.

And it’s easier for GM to close a brand in a consolidated dealership channel, an option it has as soon as all Pontiac, Buick and GMC dealers are one in the same.

While many Motor Trend readers may lament the end of the “excitement division,” fact is, it’s little more than “Chevrolet-plus,” with a low-end joint venture Toyota and a top-range car sourced from Holden. It would be cushy to get rid of Pontiac as well as GMC, and sell Saturns and Buicks in the same channel.

Saturn might even continue to have some overlap with lower-end Opel/Vauxhalls. The lineup would include a Chevy Cruze- (stretched Gamma platform) or Opel Astra-shared (Delta platform) compact, the Malibu-based midsize and a Sky replacement, perhaps based on GM’s endangered Alpha small RWD platform. Buick would consist of an Insignia-based LaCrosse, the Enclave (which has evidenced the brand can be premium, again) and, I think, a large, low-volume slightly decontented Sigma-based RWD sedan with V-6 and diesel engines.
 
And What About Chrysler?

But I’m just dreaming. GM doesn’t see much future in RWD cars, even if Chrysler does. Chrysler has announced that it can meet upcoming Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards with its 2011 Chrysler 300 and Dodge Charger.

That’s assuming that cash-poor Chrysler LLC survives the next few months. As a privately owned company, it has more issues than Ford Motor or GM in dealing with the government scrutiny that comes with a portion of the $25-billion loan guarantee/bailout. One insider warns me not to count the GM-Chrysler thing as done, yet, though I’m very dubious. If those other rumors are true, even GM knows now that it needs fewer, not more, divisions.

DETROIT - While my colleagues in the auto-journo world are expecting a bonanza of new product news not seen since the 2007 United Auto Workers contract, a voice of reason on the Republican side of the aisle could place a device on the big day. Senator George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio) has warned Congress not to go public with the Detroit Three’s plans. Voinovich has “expressed concern about whether proprietary information submitted by the Big Three will be fortified from disclosure,” Congressional Quarterly reports Monday afternoon. Voinovich is part of the bi-partisan group of senators who introduced a plan after the D3 dog ‘n pony show on Capitol Hill last month, calling on Congress to direct $25 billion in low-interest loans originally part of the Energy Bill, and meant to help automakers switch to green, fuel-efficient cars.

Voinovich also has concerns Washington will continue to have problems understanding what Detroit has to offer. He asks whether members of Congress, including House Speaker metropolis Pelosi (D-California) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) would consult auto industry experts and executive branch officials, “or do you feel that Congress is eligible to draw such conclusions?”
 
Buicks Will Get Opel Styling

Here’s one revelation connected to GM’s reorganization plan. In the Jan 2009 issue of Motor Trend magazine, we report that Saturn’s connection with Opel styling is over. Following the current wave of Saturns, Opel styling will merge with Buick’s.

Believe it or not, the reasons are obvious. First, GM wants to near Opel back upmarket. It once competed nearly at Audi’s level of prestige. (Since then, Audi has moved upmarket, toward BMW and Mercedes, while Opel has gone common.) GM wants Chevrolet to have a bigger presence as an entry-level brand in the European market, competing directly with Ford. Evidence is the new Chevy Cruze compact, which is set to launch in Europe next April, about a year before its planned North American debut.

Buick, which was once a slight step below Cadillac in prestige, has countered Cadillac’s edgy Art & Science styling with more rounded, voluptuous sheetmetal…like on the new Opel Insignia. In both styling and interior quality, the Insignia would have prefabricated a perfectly decent 2010 LaCrosse (or Invicta). And smaller Opels already are built as Buicks for the latter brand’s biggest market, China.

Which connects with speculation in recent days that GM will finally rid itself of less-than-successful brands. Bloomberg has reported that GM may cut one or more, or even all, of Pontiac, Saturn, GMC, Saab and of course, Hummer. The New York Times reported Monday that one scenario has GM buying out its Saturn dealers, and combining the brand with its Pontiac-Buick-GMC dealerships. Saturn has the fewest dealers of GM’s full-line brands, at 400, so that scenario makes some sense.

And it’s easier for GM to close a brand in a consolidated dealership channel, an option it has as soon as all Pontiac, Buick and GMC dealers are one in the same.

While many Motor Trend readers may lament the end of the “excitement division,” fact is, it’s little more than “Chevrolet-plus,” with a low-end joint venture Toyota and a top-range car sourced from Holden. It would be cushy to get rid of Pontiac as well as GMC, and sell Saturns and Buicks in the same channel.

Saturn might even continue to have some overlap with lower-end Opel/Vauxhalls. The lineup would include a Chevy Cruze- (stretched Gamma platform) or Opel Astra-shared (Delta platform) compact, the Malibu-based midsize and a Sky replacement, perhaps based on GM’s endangered Alpha small RWD platform. Buick would consist of an Insignia-based LaCrosse, the Enclave (which has evidenced the brand can be premium, again) and, I think, a large, low-volume slightly decontented Sigma-based RWD sedan with V-6 and diesel engines.
 
And What About Chrysler?

But I’m just dreaming. GM doesn’t see much future in RWD cars, even if Chrysler does. Chrysler has announced that it can meet upcoming Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards with its 2011 Chrysler 300 and Dodge Charger.

That’s assuming that cash-poor Chrysler LLC survives the next few months. As a privately owned company, it has more issues than Ford Motor or GM in dealing with the government scrutiny that comes with a portion of the $25-billion loan guarantee/bailout. One insider warns me not to count the GM-Chrysler thing as done, yet, though I’m very dubious. If those other rumors are true, even GM knows now that it needs fewer, not more, divisions.

You know you’re in real trouble as an industry when the about only takeout from your plea to Congress for a low interest government loan to help survive the global financial meltdown is a media frenzy over private jets, and a savage sketch on Saturday Night Live.

By any measure, the Detroit Three CEOs’ trip to Washington last week was a disaster. Mere days before the Feds tipped another $20bn into Citibank with minimal fanfare (bringing the total amount handed over to this one company to $45bn), Rick Wagoner, Alan Mulally, and Bob Nardelli’s request for a share of $25 billion in bridging finance was humiliatingly waved off. All three men were sent packing without a nickel, and told to come back on December 2 with a plan outlining how they would use federal money.

It’s now crystal clear Detroit, once the engine room of the American economy, has no influence worth having in Washington these days (and in truth, probably hasn’t had it for at least 15 years). More worryingly, though, Motown doesn’t seem to have a lot of sympathy outside the Beltway, either. America’s ability to retain ownership of the intellectual property of the automobile — in other words, the ability of an American-owned enterprise to design, engineer and manufacture the automobile here in USA — is hanging by a thread. Yet most folks outside Michigan don’t seem to think it’s a big deal.

And that, in a nutshell, is the problem.

Memo Rick, Alan, Bob: December 2 may be your last chance to convince USA your businesses are worth saving. So forget arcane financial detail, and nuanced policy discussion. Just bring a plan; one all three of you have worked on, and agree with. Make it bold, make it simple, and, most importantly, make it easily understood by Main St.

Now is the time to admit, openly, that you all have too many factories employing too many people, building too many cars and trucks and SUVs that you are trying to force through too many dealers. Now is the time to ask for government help to fix a chanceful structural imbalance in the American auto industry that’s been 30 years in the making. (And if asked, explain simply that decades of low priced gas and the way CAFE regulations were framed prefabricated investing in highly profitable big trucks and SUVs seem a logical use of shareholders’ funds until very recently, even for Toyota.)

Now is the time to say you need assistance to transition your North American operations from businesses structured around 1960s market expectations, to businesses structured around 21st century market realities. Now is the time to point out you were all working towards this goal, but have been king-hit by the speed and severity of the global financial crisis. And — take a deep breath — now is the time you should ask for more money than you originally intended, because just getting to where you planned to be by 2010-2011 may no longer be enough of a transformation.

Come straight to the point. Admit that to survive — for America’s own auto industry to survive — you must immediately:

• Reduce the number of dealers you have by at least two-thirds
• Eliminate your low volume, low margin, low growth potential brands
• Close manufacturing plants building cars and trucks you can’t sell
• Renegotiate UAW work practice agreements and fund the VEBA program
• Restructure your debt loads

You need to show clearly and simply what these actions mean, why they are important, and, most importantly, how much they will cost.

Above all you need to make it very clear that rapidly right-sizing your businesses is the key to surviving this financial meltdown, not whether you have the technical capability to produce good quality, fuel efficient vehicles. Because you do have that capability - and to forcefully make that point, I suggest you have a fleet of your best European market diesels and small cars, along with a fleet of your newest and most fuel efficient American vehicles (but no trucks or SUVs, not even hybrid versions), on hand in Washington for members of Congress, and the mainstream media, to experience.

Rick, Alan, Bob: Detroit once owned America’s heart, enjoyed America’s trust, evoked America’s pride. Last week evidenced beyond any doubt those days are long gone. Now you have nothing left to lose. Remember that as you get ready for December 2.