President-elect Obama, Your New Chrysler 300 is, er, Fiberglass...for Now

DETROIT - Will Chrysler LLC be around long enough to build the 2011 Dodge Charger and Chrysler 300? (Editor's note, a present Chrysler 300 is pictured) 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 early 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 early - 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 quality 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 authority 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 Nancy 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 prove 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 eager to pander to Jalopnik's irreverent image.

To Ride in the Seat of Mid-Engine Porsche History

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 name 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 James 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 earned Porsche an early 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 qualified 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 fair 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 easy 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 Social Web del.cio.us Digg Furl Netscape Yahoo! My Web StumbleUpon Google Bookmarks Technorati BlinkList Newsvine ma.gnolia reddit Windows Live TailRank

Is a Gas Tax Now in the National Interest?

Detroit's hanging by a thread, the economy's in the tank, and unemployment's on the rise. The last thing we need right now it a gas tax, right? Not so fast.

Whether we like it or not, America is at a transformational moment in its history right now. The economic model we've been running for the past twenty years or so - with its emphasis on deregulation and free market rhetoric - has been revealed to have feet of clay. Even former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, an arch deregulator and free marketeer, and the man whose word was regarded as holy writ on Wall St. for almost 20 years, has admitted as much.

And now we need to clean up the mess.

We need to enable Detroit to sensibly retool for the future, otherwise any bailout will be a waste of money. One of the reasons the Detroit Three became so vulnerable is few of the products they make in the U.S. are suitable for sale anywhere else in the world, primarily because they are too big and too thirsty. It doesn't sense to perpetuate that mistake. Strong demand for more fuel efficient vehicles in the U.S. would allow much more clarity and efficiency in product planning and capital allocation in any bailout scenario. It would also help drive down the cost of fuel efficient technologies, as automakers would be able to amortize them across larger volumes.

We need a long term national energy and transportation policies that seek not only to reduce emissions, but also our reliance on foreign energy sources and technologies. We can drill, baby, drill all we want here in the U.S., but in the long term we're never going to find enough cheap oil to satisfy demand, and besides, the oil companies are under no obligation to sell oil found here to American consumers if they can make more money selling it to someone else. We need an economic imperative for companies to commit to serious alternative fuel and alternative powertrain research and development programs in this country, and to stimulate investment in better public transport infrastructure projects.

And finally, we need to pay for the cost of the bank bailouts, the auto industry bailouts, and the massive public works programs planned by the Obama administration to kickstart the economy. Hey, there's no point whining about whether we should do these things. We're committed, and the money has to come from somewhere - well, us - anyway.

Against this background, a gas tax seems a logical option. The federal gas tax rate is currently 18.4 cents a gallon, and it hasn't been raised since 1993, while diesel is taxed at 24.2 cents a gallon. The federal government collected $29.4 billion from fuel taxes last year. It wouldn't take much of a tax hike to double that number, even allowing for a drop in gas consumption as consumers switched to more fuel efficient vehicles.

Of course a gas tax is regressive, but most taxes are, so that is hardly an argument against having one. And yes, there is a danger that if gas is taxed too high, it could hurt economic growth. But with the average price of gas now under $2 a gallon, and likely to remain under $3 a gallon for some time, based on oil futures, there is a lot of room to maneuver without causing immediate harm while creating some long term benefit.

We need to restart our battered economy, reinvent our shattered auto industry, and re-imagine our tattered future. It's time to invest nation building again; after all, we can't sponge off the legacy of the 1950s forever. So maybe a gas tax is now in the national interest.