556 supercharged horsepower, five doors, and rear-wheel drive. And it's actually going to happen. Proof, if you needed it, that someone out there loves us.

Bob, we forgive you for everything you did to Wes.

[Car and Driver]

This isn't a huge surprise as they already make a wagon version of the Insignia in Europe, though it continues GM's interest in creating wagons. An interest we share. Can we please get a version based on the Vauxhall Insignia Sport Tourer VXR, please?

Rendering Credit: Tagline @ deviantART

[Car & Driver]

It's not what you'd really call a shocker. We kind of expected it given the vehicle situation (thanks Jag!) — but sad nonetheless.

A spectator — who may or may not have been Phil Floraday from Automobile Magazine — questioned whether his overly-tight pants may have contributed to the epic failure. We'll never know because clearly Wes will never wear loose pants.

Our guess is that Lutz is a pretty damn spry 77-year-old silver fox and the CTS-V is a damn capable car.

Still, there is the issue of that BMW M3 to deal with...

Wes ended up winning group 2, but his time wasn't what you'd call maximally fast. Speaking of that — "Maximum" Bob Lutz is up next — and we're bettin' he's gonna wax us — but Michael C. driving the BMW M3 looked damn good in group 1. Those were some seriously impressive numbers.

Secondly, there's standing water on the track. Advantage: Jalopnik.

Hmm, maybe the Evo — the people's car — was the better choice after all. We'll see. Siler's out practicing as we speak.

Despite being more similar in weight and size than you'd expect, the Evo is still significantly lighter and smaller than the CTS-V, but the Cadillac obviously has a huge power and torque advantage. Perhaps more tellingly, the Evo can lap the 12.93 miles of fast corners on the Nurburgring within 12 seconds of the CTS-V. Tomorrow, we'll see what that gap looks like after 4.1 miles of tight turns and one long straight.

The full 4.1-mile course at Monticello is a monster, with 20 corners and three straights. The Cadillac CTS-V isn't just muscle and no cornering, but with torque vectoring differentials and weighing 600 Lbs less, the Evo is still going to give it a run for its money. At the very least, this should be a close race.

Here's my own turn-by-turn analysis of what challenges Lutz and I are going to face tomorrow, who's going to have the advantage in which sections and where it's most likely we'll see the 77-year-old crash his 556 HP Cadillac.

Photo Credit: jdoggny @ Flickr
Section: Turn 1
Description: The map does neither the tightness of this corner nor the lack of runoff justice. A near 90-degree left hander taken at the bottom of 2nd gear, the downhill braking zone for which comes at the end of the second longest straight on the track.
Analysis: The more powerful CTS-V will reach a higher speed on the straight, meaning it'll need to brake earlier. The Caddy has a huge understeer issue in this corner if you try to push it, meaning Lutz will basically have to park the car, throwing away the corner and therefore the setup for 2.
Advantage: Evo X
Risk of Lutz Crashing: High

Section: Turn 2
Description: You take a late apex through this 2nd gear right hander in order to get your power down early so you can accelerate through turn 3.
Analysis: The Evo will be better setup going into this corner and, thanks to AWD, will be able to get its power down much earlier.
Advantage: Evo X
Risk of Lutz Crashing: Low

Section: Turn 3
Description: Sweeping right hander flat out in third gear. Don't track out all the way on the exit so you can brake in a straight line for turn 4.
Analysis: The Cadillac's power advantage will help here, but the Evo will benefit from a cleaner exit from turn 2.
Advantage: Equal
Risk of Lutz Crashing: Low

Section: Turn 4
Description: A deceptively tight right hander with plenty of grip thanks to slightly Itpositive camber.
Analysis: It's easy to get a lot of oversteer here, either through lifting to make it through the corner after failing to brake hard enough or getting on the power too hard on the exit. In fast, heavy cars like the CTS-V, you want to late apex and get on the power in a straight line to turn 5, without spinning it all away showing off. The Evo will be able to apex earlier and get its power down easier
Advantage: Evo X
Risk of Lutz Crashing: Moderate

Section: Turns 5 & 6
Description: The reverse esses, you can straighten this out pretty effectively so just power through and end up on driver's right for the entry to turn 6.
Analysis: Not much to say, just don't overcook it into 6.
Advantage: CTS-V
Risk of Lutz Crashing: Low

Section: Turn 7
Description: The Carrousel. Very wide, very long, 180-degree, uphill corner.
Analysis: A difficult turn to hit the right line in, you're supposed to stay out to the right till 2/3 of the way through, then tuck into the apex. You want to use as much power as possible from the apex out without straightening your wheel as it continues to curve to the left all the way up to turn 8.
Advantage: Equal
Risk of Lutz Crashing: Moderate

Section: Turns 8 & 9
Description: The Double Apex. It's actually more of a single late apex as you brake and turn late into 8 to hit a late apex on 9. Third gear.
Analysis: It's all about getting 9 right so you get a good exit onto the short straight leading up to 10. Not terribly challenging once you figure it out.
Advantage: Equal
Risk of Lutz Crashing: Low

Section: Turn 10
Description: The 90. A 90-degree right hander that leads on the very, very fast back straight, so exit speed is everything.
Analysis: Deceptively slow, it's easy to wait too late to brake then run wide, screwing up your exit. You don't want to do that. Slow in fast out. Slow in fast out. Sacrifice the entry speed for exit speed.
Advantage: Evo X
Risk of Lutz Crashing: Moderate

Section: Turn 11 and the Long Straight
Description: An incredibly fast straight with a light sweep to the right. Turn that corner into a much of a straight as possible. Most cars, including the V end up needing a shift right in that corner, which is a little risky at such high speeds, so make sure you're in a straight line when you do that.
Analysis: This is my biggest concern. The V is well north of 170 MPH back here and the Evo can't manage much more than 150. Taking the sweeper flat out with an upshift is a pucker moment and the opportunity does exist to get it very wrong if you aren't careful with your weight transfer while shifting the Cadillac.
Advantage: CTS-V
Risk of Lutz Crashing: Moderate

Section: Turns 12, 13 &14
Description: The End Of Straight Esses. The map doesn't do this corner justice as there's a fair bit of elevation change. Uphill braking area for 12 helps late braking and turn-in, but there's a peak on the apex of 13 and it's a very tight, 3rd gear corner. Lots of weight transfer across the vehicle's front-to-rear and side-to-side axis.
Analysis: This is where I have to make up the time I'll lose on the straight. Lutz is going to be travelling considerably faster so will have to brake earlier and harder. If he doesn't, he'll lose it in 13 or at least screw up there, which'll mean he ruins 14 and the exit into the short straight that follows.
Advantage: Evo X
Risk of Lutz Crashing: High

Section: Turn 15
Description: A right hand kink with a standard line, you can carry a lot of speed and then get on the power hard and early.
Analysis: You think it's faster than it is, but still, this is a power corner.
Advantage: CTS-V
Risk of Lutz Crashing: Moderate

Section: Turn 16
Description: The Left Kink. A left sweeper over a blind crest. This is the corner that will catch you out if you're going too fast.
Analysis: The blind crest fools people into treating this like a straight and carrying too much speed through. You need to lift slightly just before you crest the hill, but of course if you lift too late you spin. You need to be very smooth on the downhill then turn the entry into 17 into a straight, you'll need to brake a lot for the next corner.
Advantage: Evo X
Risk of Lutz Crashing: Very High

Section: Turn 17
Description: A very tight hairpin. Another slow in, fast out corner where you want to sacrifice entry speed to get the power down as early as possible. Use the full width of the track on the exit.
Analysis: The back straight isn't that long, but it's still a straight coming off a very slow corner, so you're basically setting yourself up for a drag race and there's just no getting around the CTS-V's power advantage.
Advantage: CTS-V
Risk of Lutz Crashing: Low

Section: Turn 18
Description: A weird corner that I've never gotten 100% perfect. It's another apparent double apex that works better as a late single.
Analysis: There's a bump on the second apex and you don't straighten out completely on the exit while still needing to be on the power hard. I'm hoping that bump and the general trickiness weigh things in my favor here.
Advantage: Equal
Risk of Lutz Crashing: Moderate

Section: Turn 19
Description: The Backwards S. A fairly standard right hander with an entry that curves to the left. You need to compromise this corner so you can be all the way to driver's right for the entry to 20.
Analysis: Banking makes this corner a breeze, but it's all about setting yourself up for 20, not carrying speed here.
Advantage: Equal
Risk of Lutz Crashing: Low

Section: Turn 20 and the pitt straight.
Description: A tight left hander that sets you up for the back straight. Stay out late, hit the apex and nail the throttle.
Analysis: The Evo will be able to get on the power earlier, the CTS-V has more power. It's advantage in speed on the straight will be less than you might think, especially since it'll have to brake so hard for turn 1.
Advantage: Equal
Risk of Lutz Crashing: Low

As always, it's filled with maximum hyperbole. What more should we expect — his product's making the rest of the luxury sedan landscape look like a bunch of also-rans. The breathless Josh Oliver from The GM Source asked him what his reaction was to Jaguar's early pull-out. Here's the response from Bob:

I think it means that the European high-performance sedans are excellent, even superb cars, but quite possibly not ready for racing laps right out of the show-room. The CTS-V is not only quicker, but will, in totally untweaked, stock form, run hot laps at any race track until it runs out of fuel. Transmission oil and diff oil temps are stable, engine oil temp doesn't go up, brakes get a bit more pedal travel, but don't fade. The street tires get a tad greasy, but handling and control remain excellent. "May the best car win"! (It wins automatically if the competitors won't show up!)

He's right. He's already gotten the best of Mercedes, Jaguar and Audi. We've yet to hear from BMW or Porsche — so please, feel free to e-mail me below if you're interested in, you know, standing up for your honor.

Held at Connecticut's Lime Rock Park, I drove the Mazda MX-5 Cup Racecar over the Formula 2000 car in the hope that it'd be more relevant to the Jaguar XFR sedan I'll be driving in the race — both were sorta owned by Ford, so I figured it couldn't hurt. As an added bonus, completing the course qualifies me to race MX-5s in the Skip Barber Mazdaspeed challenge.

The advanced two day program is designed for students who've already completed the three-day fundamentals of racing course and is much more lap-intensive than that initial program. I've completed a few other racing and advanced driving courses at other schools, but going into this, hadn't had any experience with Skip Barber.

The largest racing school in the world, Skip Barber visits 22 tracks in this country and is widely reputed to be the last word in driver training. The school's namesake and founder is one of only a handful of Americans to drive in Formula One and essentially invented the idea that driving could be coached, just like more traditional sports. The school was founded in 1975.

I was largely skeptical of the Skip Barber hype going into this-after all, how different could driving schools be?-but quickly found myself in a little over my head with classmates who were already up to a pretty good speed; two straight from the three-day course and one who'd already done this advanced course seven times this year.

One big advantage the other students had over me was confidence in braking while turning, something that none of the other schools I've attended have taught. Traveling flat out in fifth down the main straight, you turn into Lime Rock's turn 1 very, very late while braking and downshifting into 4th gear, then turning harder and shifting down to 3rd. The theory behind this makes total sense-just like accelerating, you can brake while turning in an inverse relationship to how far the wheel is turned-but after having "brake in a straight line" drilled into me over and over elsewhere it took a certain leap of faith to trust the car wouldn't spin, even if the classroom sessions explained clearly why it wouldn't.

Luckily, there were only three other students driving MX-5s and more instructors than students, so they had ample time to browbeat encourage me to pick up my pace. My lead instructor was Bruce MacInnes, widely considered the leading driving instructor in the country, his former students include Tom Cruise and Paul Newman. Positioned around the track during lapping sessions, they provide instantaneous feedback via radio and detailed analysis immediately following each session. Other instructors take to the track with the students, demonstrating how to apply the improvements that are being suggested. It's a system of continuous, individual feedback that's broken down corner by corner and delivered in a few different ways. I'm typically a slow learner (in addition to just being slow), but I found myself able to implement their lessons on the next lap, probably because their analysis was so clear and immediate. As a result, I felt myself improving lap after lap, throughout both days.

The cars we were driving weren't just plain Mazda MX-5s, but Cup Racecars. Over the standard vehicle, they add a $5500 Mazda racing package that includes a new intake and exhaust, boosting power from 167 to 200 HP. There's also remote reservoir Eibach dampers, considerably stiffer Eibach springs, solid antiroll bars, racing brake pads and 225/45WR-17 tires. The cars are also stripped of their interiors and soft tops, have a full cage welded in and you sit in racing buckets with five-point harnesses facing a removable wheel. The whole thing weighs just 2,600 Lbs. In short, it's a real race car with much improved throttle response, steering and outright grip. It's an extremely neutral car that'll understeer if you push it too fast into corners and let you tighten your line if you lift the throttle, making it near perfect to learn on. I just wish the Jaguar was going to half as adjustable on the limit.

In addition to the high instructor-to-student ratio, large amounts of lapping and the excellent instruction, the other thing that makes Skip Barber unique is that they treat their students like responsible adults rather than reckless children. Where most schools ban passing or even close driving, these guys encourage it and teach you how to drive competitively, safely. As long as you demonstrate responsibility, you're free to overtake other students or even instructors. The method they teach you for overtaking is also novel in its safety and efficacy, involving intercepting the racing line from the inside, then holding it against your opponent. No need to out brake anyone. The first time you try it you'll be amazed at how well it works; I can't wait to try it on an unsuspecting victim, it's just a shame that the CTS-V Challenge is time trial format or that victim would be Bob Lutz.

Like other Skip Barber courses, the two day advanced is anything but cheap at $3,500, but unlike purchasing a faster car or tuning your engine, that's an investment that's virtually guaranteed to make you a much better, much faster driver. Now that I've completed it, I am too and I'm going to kick Bob Lutz's ass.

If you're not sure what's going on — here's the back-story. In a media conference call last month, while announcing the General's new "May The Best Car Win" marketing campaign, Bob Lutz told journalists he'd race a CTS-V versus any production car on Laguna Seca out west. Matt Hardigree came up with the idea to call him out on his shenanigans. I agreed he should let Bob know we'd be willing to put Jalopnik's road test editor Wes Siler up against the "Maximum Madman." Lutz accepted and now it's on. Yes, that's right, we'll be racing Bob in a Jaguar XFR (Mercedes wasn't too keen on the idea of the C63 AMG vs the CTS-V, but that's OK, we're comfortable with the XFR) and better news? You can be there too.

Do you want to have a go at Wes and Bob in your own production vehicle? Here's how it's going to work.

● You go to Fastlane and read Bob's post.

● Then go to this website and sign up.

● Then we help pick the folks we'll see at Monticello.

● Then it's on like Donkey Kong on October 29th.

Human beings aren't strictly rational animals. Car enthusiasts, for all their emphasis on numbers and measurements, are roughly equal parts rational and rationalizing, and there's no end to the myths that have grown around car culture. We believe that many of those myths, while perhaps not strictly true, are beneficial and help make car culture a fun place to be. We therefore choose to live as if these myths are pure truth, and we fully support all those who do. Click Next to see some of our most cherished.

MYTH: Cars were just plain better in the old days.

WHAT'S WRONG WITH IT: Cars are safer, more reliable, more efficient, and perform better today than they were in any version of "the old days."

WHY WE BELIEVE IT ANYWAY: Because there are different versions of "better," and one definition has to include some sort of subjective measure of soul. As many have said, the rear end on that '59 Bel Air has enough soul for a Motown collection. And we believe that almost any older car, from AMCs to old Volvos, can have more soul, charisma, personality, or what have you have you than something modern designed to do nothing more than hold four sets of golf clubs and then crash. Plus, owning an older car almost invariably means you're working on it, and working on your own car makes your car more yours as well as making you a smarter and more capable person.

MYTH: Ferraris are the ultimate automobiles.

WHAT'S WRONG WITH IT: The overwhelming Ferrari mystique obscures the fact that these things are overpriced, overstyled, breakdown-prone pose-mobiles.

WHY WE BELIEVE IT ANYWAY: So who gives a damn? Frankly, the question of Ferrari ownership is probably never going to be one of our problems, and it's good to have someone at the epicenter of automotive lust. Even if you're not a Ferrari person, you probably have some equivalent ultra-car marque as the angel on top of your imaginary lottery-winning Christmas tree, and the same logic applies-someone has to be the ultimate, and the ideal of the ultimate will always be more important than the reality. At least this ideal comes with its own F1 team.

MYTH: The Indy 500 is one of the greatest races in the world.

WHAT'S WRONG WITH IT: It's been trading on its storied history as it slowly becomes a boring and expensive spec race.

WHY WE BELIEVE IT ANYWAY: Because we believe there's still a chance that it could return to its innovative, anything-goes, world's-best-drivers glory days. Exactly how this may happen is unclear to us, and it won't happen by next year if ever, but we hold out hope. And it's still much more fun and interesting to watch than the other Greatest Race traditionally held on the same day, the glitzier but far more past-its-prime Grand Prix of Monaco.

MYTH: Car dealers can't be trusted.

WHAT'S WRONG WITH IT: With contemporary consumer protection and access to information, you can probably trust them now more than ever before.

WHY WE BELIEVE IT ANYWAY: Because consumer skepticism, at least educated consumer skepticism, is a good thing, especially on major purchases. Trust must be earned, right? Now, this doesn't mean prospective car buyers should walk into dealerships and say "Prove to me you're not a crook!" because for one thing, you can't prove a negative. What it means is to do your research, don't let car lust carry you away, and always, always, always take a Jalopnik reader with you when buying a car.

MYTH: The Prius sucks.

WHAT'S WRONG WITH IT: The Prius is a perfectly competent automobile that delivers very good fuel economy and has thousands of satisfied owners.

WHY WE BELIEVE IT ANYWAY: In its quest to save precious energy resources it's created a shortage of material resources. It's hideous. For the first successful hybrid, it's remarkably uninteresting from a tech point of view-when our sister site Gizmodo featured one at their gallery and ran its 12-volt battery down showing off its flashy dashboard, we were a bit miffed to find that it couldn't jump-start itself. And seriously, we'd rather be taken out and shot out behind the storage shed than spend $28,000 on a perfectly competent automobile that delivers very good fuel economy.

MYTH: LeMans is a great movie.

WHAT'S WRONG WITH IT: LeMans is a collection of racing footage inside of a really terrible movie.

WHY WE BELIEVE IT ANYWAY: Because that's a really, really stupendous collection of racing footage in that terrible movie. Also, the terrible movie includes Steve McQueen, which softens the blow somewhat. It really seems like making LeMans was an excuse for the director, cast, and crew to hang around the Circuit De La Sarthe with race cars for a few days, and that's something we can all understand.

MYTH: Manual transmissions are better than automatic transmissions.

WHAT'S WRONG WITH IT: Automatics are catching up; the dual-clutch units can outperform manual boxes in many cases, and even their fuel-economy advantage may be disappearing.

WHY WE BELIEVE IT ANYWAY: Again, there's better and there's better. In this case, being in total control of your car is fun and interesting, and more fun and interest are better. To many, learning stick is still an achievement-although maybe it shouldn't be, heck, it isn't all THAT hard, but no matter-and being more capable is better than having everything done for you. We could really give a damn if the Porsche PDK systems are a tenth faster to sixty or whatever the numbers are; we didn't bother to look them up because we don't care. We would rather drive to
sixty a bit slower than ride there.

MYTH: Gaze upon my works, ye not worthy, and despair; for I am Bob motherfucking Lutz.

WHAT'S WRONG WITH IT: What, Bob Lutz? So-called Father of the Viper? He's just a marketing guy.

WHY WE BELIEVE IT ANYWAY: Listen, we need colorful figures in this world, and Bob Lutz is the most colorful person we have in the American car business. Perhaps in any business. His is a tradition going back as far as Barnum, or at least Don King. Are auto writers worried that Fritz Henderson will land a helicopter in their backyard, walk into their house, and yell at them? Is Alan Mulally or Scott Monty going to challenge us to a duel anytime soon? Nope. And seriously, without Lutz, we wouldn't have so much of modern car culture, from the phrase "The Ultimate Driving Machine" to the aforementioned Viper. Yes, there's way too much marketing in the world today, but that's not the problem. The problem is that Lutz isn't doing all of it.

In an exclusive interview with the Aussie hoons at Drive.com.au at the Frankfurt Motor Show yesterday, GM CEO Fritz Henderson said the company was making good progress with a plan to sell the Commodore to US law enforcement agencies. Specifically, as we've reported earlier this year, the LAPD.

"We've been working on a package for police applications. I just think that's going to work. We're pretty optimistic about it and that product will be sourced in Australia," he said.

But, while Fritz was all about the fleet applications, he wasn't geeked about other short term roles for the Commodore. But in the long term? He didn't rule out a wider role for the car in General Motors' plans going forward.

"It's a global architecture, it gives us options in the future but right now you'd say, near term, no," he said.

Holden has been searching for alternative export programs ever since, but in June GM shut the door on plans to revive the car as a Chevrolet Caprice.

It was thought the GM plan to import cars from Australia to US enforcement agencies would meet with strong opposition from GM's new owners, the unions and the Government, in light of the mass plant closures and job losses in the United States that followed the company's filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

But senior GM exectuive Bob Lutz played down those fears in a blog on a company website in June this year.

"While the large (rear-wheel-drive) cars may be made in Australia, they are an integral part of GM, contain US-built engines and transmissions and numerous other components, and are so ‘American' in character that I don't believe the law enforcement agencies would have any problems with the assembly origin of the vehicle. Plus, they'll love it," he said. (Hat tip to Ben!) [via smh.com.au]

As you remember, Lutz already agreed to a duel with us in a conference call on Friday. It's Lutz in a CTS-V versus Siler in a C63 AMG around a to-be-determined track. This all was initiated as part of GM's May The Best Car Win advertising campaign and we're wondering if maybe GM's afraid Lutz doesn't have the best car?

Or maybe this Is another case of GM's inability to do what it says it's going to do. We guess we'll just have to wait and see whether they're able to put up or shut up.

GM wants you to be heard, make sure at 3:00 PM EST they hear you.

Update: It's on!

The challenge took place earlier today on a conference call about GM's new marketing campaign: "May The Best Car Win." The theme of the campaign is the numerous new vehicles produced by GM that are as good, or better than, the competition. Given the GM products we've driven lately, we're not surprised they'd be pushing this message.

And to prove it, 77-year-old Bob Lutz told reporters he would challenge anyone in any production sedan to a race around Mazda Laguna Seca Raceway and try to beat him.

We're not sure he expected anyone to take him up on the challenge but we couldn't let it stand. We love the CTS-V, but we're at least going to try. So we told him we'd do it if he named the time and the place, and he accepted.

The details have yet to be worked out, but Lutz already told us and the assembled reporters "You're running into a trap because if you beat me by a second on the lap time, we'll just advertise the price difference."

We'll see...

So what did Bob have to say about the campaigns? Let's let AdAge's Jean Halliday tell you:

Specifically, he told the brand teams last week that Cadillac's generally well-received and popular ads with "Grey's Anatomy" star Kate Walsh from Modernista are too dark and said Chevrolet's campaign from Campbell-Ewald — still in the can and yet to run — is too lifestyle-focused.

But it was Buick that took the most public beating for the uninspired "photo shoot" TV commercial that aired broadly for about a month until last week. In his public webcast, Mr. Lutz singled out that spot, saying, "That Buick commercial tested very well, which is not the same as saying that it's an effective ad." Buick VP Susan Docherty told Ad Age the pretesting landed in the "top quartile" for originality and breakthrough work.

So apparently Cadillac's ads are too dark (we disagree. Kate Walsh makes us want to buy a CTS), Chevy's ads (which haven't run yet) are too lifestyle-y, and Buick's ads (the beach photo shoot) are not the "lyrical gangster" but rather, just stupid. So what will this mean for GM's ads? More than likely, given Lutz's love of the old school, he'll be looking for more "beauty shots" (aka car p0rn) and less screwing around with non-car crap. Also, expect less pre-testing and a bit more of the classic "Mad Men" marketing. We're also expecting Publicis Group's Leo Burnett — responsible for the terrifyingly bad Buick ads — will more than likely continue to be taken to the woodshed until eventually taken behind for a good ol' fashioned Ol' Yeller recreation. Sad ad agency is sad.

And as far as Bob Lutz's little trip to the Caribbean, the man's like 80-something — who am I to argue with him wanting a little vacation time? [AdAge via Detroit News]

It Seemed Like a Good Idea at the Time

By Bob Lutz
GM Vice Chairman

OK, I have some late-breaking news for you from the world of GM, where things are indeed moving quickly, and what I'm about to say is proof.

In fact, we're moving so fast, we're going back in time to, oh, about four or five days ago, when the Pontiac G8 was going away and was not going to become a new Chevrolet Caprice.

And therein lies the news: The G8 will not be a Caprice after all. I'd mentioned it, and said we were studying it, giving it a serious look, because a car like the G8 was just too good to waste.

That's all still true. But I have to say that, with my new "marketing" hat on, upon further review and careful study, we simply cannot make a business case for such a program. Not in today's market, in this economy, and with fuel regulations what they are and will be.

I know that we'll get a lot of complaints from G8 lovers, because I'm one of them. And the product guy in me is complaining as loudly as anyone. But the marketing guy says there's no case. With budgets being what they are for the time being, the resources must be allocated elsewhere.

In no way, and this is very important, in no way does this mean we are backing away from performance, or backing away from rear-wheel drive. Look no further for proof than the Corvette, the Camaro, the CTS or many other present and future Cadillacs. We have a strong lineup of RWD vehicles already and we will continue to have it.

And we have a tremendous RWD team in Australia that gave us the beloved G8, a team that we will tap into at some point again in the future for its expertise and sheet metal. Just not right now.

For those of you keeping score at home, that's New GM 1 and Fun GM 0. [via GM Fastlane Blog]

We called GM PR staff for a comment and got nothing. GM spokesman and chief communicator Steve Harris also declined to comment. Bear in mind this report comes after the The Wall Street Journal reported earlier Lutz would stay, but didn't identify his role.

Lutz said in February he would leave the company for good at the end of the year. He has been replaced by Tom Stephens as vice chairman of global product development while remaining vice chairman and senior adviser. Guess he'll get to keep that job. [via Automotive News]

A picture is worth a thousand words and we look to you, the all-knowing, witty commentariat of the Jalopnisphere to provide those words. Can you provide the caption to this photo that'll wow your peers and make the stone-faced Jalopnik editors crack a smile? Image Credit: Flickr

For starters, Letterman gave a mea culpa and introduction to Lutz, calling him one of the "true greats in automotive design, marketing, sales and management...he's the man responsible for the Viper...a wonderful car. He's here with the Chevy Volt...and with any luck I'll get one of these babies for free."

Next, after the break, Letterman talked a little about the EV1 and how it's not from the planet Saturn. Then he wondered if building electric cars would have kept some dealers open. If it had, then damn, that's just one more reason to keep the internal combustion engine in our minds.

Then, after a Stephen Colbert interview, Dave made a bad pun about an electric car from Saturn running rings around...yeah...it was a bad joke. But, then "Maximum" Bob Lutz came out — looking quite dapper in his standard "old man business casual" threads.

Lutz started by walking Letterman through his C.V., then moved on to talking about marine aviation and owning two jets — probably not the best way to be seen as a company making cars for average A.I.G.-hatin' Americans.

Now we get into the meat n' potatoes of the interview. Letterman starts by asking whether there's light at the end of the tunnel for the American automakers. Lutz responds by saying that yes, they'll be restructuring and come out the end of the tunnel "leaner and lighter."

Letterman doesn't powder-puff it per se, but he's not exactly hard-hitting. First asking what people losing auto jobs should be expecting, allowing Lutz to throw down with "jobs returning in time." Still, he's able to pivot into asking Lutz about whether this was Detroit mis-management that got us here. Lutz responds by claiming there's more at play and lots of blame to go around — gas prices being a big part of it, but also that U.S. automakers built some bad cars from the 60s, 70s and into the 80s. He finishes his answer by saying the best way to combat that perception is by building better automobiles. We couldn't agree more.

Lutz addresses the issue of CAFE first by talking about building the type of vehicles Americans want to buy and how that's a shifting target thanks to fuel prices and American desire for buying the biggest vehicle they can for the cheapest price. Next, he responds with a hell of a good analogy that we've clipped and have over on the left. Something about how fat people won't get skinny just because you mandate clothing makers only making skinny clothes. Cue the commercial break.

And we're back with Letterman asking whether the EV1 would have kept the company in business. Lutz responds by saying "Sadly, no." He details the cost per vehicle was probably well over $100,000 per vehicle — and that it was a money-losing proposition.

Now let's get to the crux of the debate — Musk's Tesla versus the Chevy Volt. Lutz talks about batteries, price and practicality are the reasons for why it's a better fit for the American public. He even gives pricing details saying it'll cost $40,000, minus a $7,300 tax credit. Let's watch that now — plus the Chevy commercial at the break to see why Letterman's throwing softballs in his old age.

Back from the break and Lutz showing off the Volt and stating it meets regulations for all countries of any kind. And then my DVR crapped out on me. Let's rate the performance on a five star scale with five being the best.

Bob Lutz staying on message: ****
He's got to lose one star for the whole "I own two jets" thing in the beginning, but overall, a helluva job for a 77 1/2 years-old white Swiss-born man who works for GM. No "global warming is a crock" quotes for us to have fun with.

Dave Letterman's balls: *
Where did they go? Did he lose them in surgery a while back? Seriously — even if he was woefully ill-informed in his questions, we'd expect him to at least ask them, right?

The Volt project's often dismissed as a marketing stunt, a gimmick, too expensive for the segment, or a toy for wealthy eco-nuts. We withheld our judgment until we had the chance to do a test drive. Now, after driving a Volt-in-a-Chevy-Cruze-shell powertrain mule, we're prepared to declare it — much to the delight of the Volt's PR team, engineering crew and Bob Lutz — utterly unremarkable.

The Volt's unremarkable because it's exactly like driving any other appliance car on the road today, and that's the point. GM is trying very hard to make the Voltec system driving experience as familiar as anything before it and even at this early prototype mule level they've succeeded quite nicely. The Voltec system consists of a 1.4-liter four-cylinder gasoline engine driving a generator, an electric motor driving the wheels and a lithium ion battery pack in between the two to hold plug-in and regenerated power. This doesn't work like a Prius or an Insight, there's no transmission, the engine doesn't power the wheels; it's an EV that goes 40 miles and then it runs off the generator, and it works.

Our ride in the Volt was up to about 55 MPH on the grounds of GM's Warren Tech Center and the cars are, dare we say it, peppy. There are no whirs or whines or whistles like in a traditional EV, just silence, like the motor has stalled out and you're coasting along on momentum. There's no shifting going on as there are no gears to shift, just direct power, and unless you're paying attention you don't even notice. Stab the go-pedal and it responds happily, it's even got a little get-up and go. According to Lutz the current prototype accelerates from 0-to-60 MPH in around 8 seconds — that's about 2.0 seconds faster than a 2009 Toyota Prius and about 3.5 seconds faster than a Chevy Aveo. Not too shabby for an appliance if you ask us.

There are two drive modes, a normal highway type where you accelerate and coast normally, and a second drive mode which maximizes regenerative braking in city traffic. It feels like you're hitting the brakes but you aren't hitting the brakes. We had hoped the Volt would give us a back-rub and deliver a milkshake, but it's just a car, even bridging on the pedestrian, the bland, the appliance. But this is again, the point, to make this huge paradigm shift and make it seem easy.

The Volt is coming, and from a powertrain perspective, it's pretty darn good. Lutz was adamant on that point saying "Volt is currently on time and we fully believe it will hit the market as expected." The Chief Engineer, Frank Weber, a rather intense German who has been extraordinarily cautious in the past about the program's hurdles, seems to be seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. Yesterday he remarked "There are no more large elephants in the room, only hundreds of small ones."

In June, GM will be completing the first full prototype vehicles, nearly 80 in total, which will look and feel and operate like real Volts. They'll have all the correct body panels, interior bits, and system calibrations and we'll be driving those eventually. At that point we'll be much more able to judge the complete vehicle. Until then, we're kind of hopeful the Volt might actually be fun to drive, along with being frugal at the pump.

Bob Lutz, who just dumped all his GM stock, is apparently taking issue with Letterman's mockery of the Chevy Volt's 40-mile EV range. Two weeks ago, Tesla CEO Elon Musk used the advanced technology of his home planet to holographically project a 3D image of the Tesla Model S onto the Late Show's stage, tricking Letterman into believing that it was real. The comedian then drew upon his encyclopedic knowledge of the auto industry to rail against automakers for failing to bring an electric vehicle to market and disparaged the usefulness of the Volt's range, failing to mention the hybrid drivetrain.

Lutz, who had to surrender custody of Chevy Volt when he announced he would quit GM, got special permission from its new guardian, Barack Obama, to take it all the way to the Big Apple to appear on television.

Now head over to iMotor for all ten look-a-likes!

We just finished penning the following letter we'll be sending to GM's retiring Vice-Chairman, Bob Lutz.

Dear Bob,

Your transition from GM's Vice-Chairman into the role of "Senior Advisor" won't occur until April 1st, and you'll still be with the General through the end of 2009, yet we understand you're already starting to plan for a future beyond the walls of the Warren Design Studios and the Detroit RenCen. Given what we're sure are a plethora of suitors, we wanted to firmly and publicly throw our hat into the ring with this official non-exclusive offer of employment as a compensated special contributor to Jalopnik.

You may be asking yourself "Why Jalopnik?" We've given some serious thought to that question beyond the mere retort of "Why not?" Here's why:

• You already have blogging experience with GM's Fastlane Blog. You've heard of the internet. So that's one hurdle we won't have to deal with.

• You have a very special way with words. It's not just that you say whatever comes to your mind, it's that you say it with such a passion that although listeners may not agree with you, they can't help but listen. True, we won't want you being our public voice (can someone say Colbert Report? Oy!), but we'd love to have your voice added to the chorus.

• We've got editorial freedom. We promise you'll be your own model of writer, not some re-badged Opel of blogging. Do you think Motor Trend's going to always let you say what you want? Road & Track? Edmunds? Ha. Fuck that, we've got more freedom over here. See, like right there. I just said "Fuck" for no reason other than to prove a point. Try doing that on TV.

• We're the cool kids and so are you. Some still see us as the bad boys of the automotive internet world. Kind of like you. There's so few of us now who embrace our love of cars, those of us who do need to stick together — kind of like "Band of Brothers" but without the shooting and war and stuff (Yes, that means no live ammo in your L-39 Albatros, ok?).

• We don't demand exclusivity. If you want to write for other publications too, that's fine. Just don't try to coast. I don't let the other guys do it and you'll get yelled at too. No, I don't care if you created the Viper or wrote "Guts," you bring your A-game over here.

• We've been told our readership is a "good size." We're not gonna brag or nuthin', but we've got like 2.6 million people reading us each month — and no, that doesn't include sketchy AutoWeek-type shit like counting magical "pass-through" readers (and see, I said "shit" there — what'd I tell ya about that editorial freedom, eh?)

• We'll pay you. We're not, like, rolling in it, but we've got a few ducats stashed away. So yes, we're not looking for pro bono work. Not that we won't take the pro bono work. By all means, if you're independently wealthy, feel free to work for nothing but press cars and, you know, beer money from the editors.

So there you have it, Bob. We think you'll find Jalopnik and Bob Lutz are like peas and carrots. Or even more like a Dodge Viper and scorched calves. Whatever. Anyway, e-mail me here if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Ray Wert
Editor-in-Chief, Jalopnik.com

Shoot, we don't have any stamps. What do you suppose the chances are he'll be able to read this without us mailing it?

The concept of killing the Saturn brand makes sense — it's the most standalone of any of the General's brands.

Since they're all single-brand dealerships, Saturn dealers are the easiest to kill. The rest on the chopping block like Saab, Pontiac, Hummer or GMC? Not quite as easy given the sales channel changes of the past decade mean killing one brand will bring about all sorts of lawsuits from the dealers who recently forced to add the brand to their sales operation.

Of course, FoMoCo News is reporting CNN International claims Saab talks have broken down. So who knows what the final plan will look like at the end of the day tomorrow. [Automotive News, FoMoCoNews]

Lutz will move to the role of "Senior Advisor" beginning April 1st and will retire at the end of 2009. Lutz will be replaced by Tom Stephens as Vice Chairman of Global Product Development. Here's the full press release. More as we get it.

Bob Lutz moves to Senior Advisor Role; Will Retire at End of 2009; Tom Stephens Becomes Vice Chairman - Global Product Development

DETROIT – GM Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner today announced that Robert A. Lutz, GM Vice Chairman – Global Product Development, will transition to a new role effective April 1, 2009 as Vice Chairman and Senior Advisor. Lutz, 76, will provide strategic input into GM's global design and key product initiatives until his retirement at the end of 2009. He will continue to report to Wagoner.

Wagoner also announced that effective April 1, 2009 the GM Board of Directors elected Thomas G. Stephens, Vice Chairman – Global Product Development, reporting to President and Chief Operating Officer Fritz Henderson. Stephens, 60, is currently Executive Vice President, Global Powertrain and Global Quality. In this new assignment, Stephens will maintain his responsibility for overseeing GM's global quality activity.

Concurrent with this appointment, GM is restructuring its global powertrain group to integrate powertrain functional activities into their respective global GM functions. Accordingly, in his new role, Stephens will have responsibility for global powertrain engineering, in addition to global design, product engineering, product planning and program management. Powertrain manufacturing will report to Gary Cowger, Group Vice President of GM Global Manufacturing and Labor Relations. Other staffs that support the GM Powertrain organization will be integrated into their respective global functions. These moves represent another important step in GM's restructuring initiative to create a leaner, more efficient organization.

"Bob Lutz was already a legendary automotive product guy when he rejoined GM in 2001," Wagoner said, "and he's added to that by leading the creation of a string of award-winning vehicles for GM during his time here. His 46 years of experience in the global automotive business have been invaluable to us. I've personally learned a great deal from Bob and have very much enjoyed the time we've worked together," Wagoner added. "I'm looking forward to Bob's continued contributions to GM for the remainder of 2009 – and I know the impact of his efforts leading GM global product development will continue for years to come.

"Tom Stephens is the perfect guy to take the reins of GM's global product development," Wagoner continued. "He's had extensive experience in virtually every aspect of our global product development activities. With his 40 years at GM, Tom has an extraordinary understanding of our products and our organization, and is highly respected worldwide. I'm confident that with Tom's passion for great products and vast knowledge of advanced propulsion, he will continue to raise the bar in executing outstanding GM cars and trucks.

Note: Biographies of Lutz and Stephens are available on the GM Media and Investor websites. Photos are available on the GM Media site.

About GM – General Motors Corp. (NYSE: GM), one of the world's largest automakers, was founded in 1908, and today manufactures cars and trucks in 34 countries. With its global headquarters in Detroit, GM employs 252,000 people in every major region of the world, and sells and services vehicles in some 140 countries. In 2008, GM sold 8.35 million cars and trucks globally under the following brands: Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, GMC, GM Daewoo, Holden, Hummer, Opel, Pontiac, Saab, Saturn, Vauxhall and Wuling. GM's largest national market is the United States, followed by China, Brazil, the United Kingdom, Canada, Russia and Germany. GM's OnStar subsidiary is the industry leader in vehicle safety, security and information services. More information on GM can be found at www.gm.com.

Bob Lutz Career Chronology:

1963 - 1971: GM
The CEO at GM for the first four years was Frederic G. Donner and James M. Roche for the latter half of Bob's time at GM Europe in the 60s and 70s. Ah, those were the days. You know, when GM was totally getting sued for making cars "unsafe at any speed."

1971 - 1974: BMW
While at BMW, the CEO was Eberhard von Kuenheim, who helmed the company from 1970 to 1993. During those 23 years, BMW went from 23,000 employees to 71,000 and annual revenue rose from €15 billion from €880 million. Maybe the best CEO Lutz has actually worked for, but this was in the 70s and he probably doesn't remember that far back.

1974 - 1986: Ford
Bob got to work with all sorts of fun folks like Lee Iacocca and Henry Ford II during some of the most tumultuous years of the automotive industry. Well, until this year. Also helming Ford were non-luminaries such as Phil Caldwell and Don Peterson. Remember them? Yeah, we don't either.

1986 - 1998: Chrysler
Heads to Chrysler to work with his buddy Lee again, then Bob Eaton. Gets to design the Dodge Viper (yay!) and the PT Cruiser (boo!)

1998 - 2002: Exide
Bob actually IS the CEO here, so presumably he believes Rick's better than he is. We've no doubt of this.

2002 - present: GM
Bob workin' it with "Slick" Rick Wagoner where the two get along like peaches n' cream.

[CNBC]