“We will run Terrain competitive ads against the BMW X3. We won’t be shy about who we can compete with and beat.”

Quoting Automotive News: “Lutz acknowledges that the Terrain won’t beat BMW’s image but says GMC can beat the X3 on performance and fit and finish for much less money.”

Lutz: “For that extra $10,000, you don’t get anything more with an X3 than you do with a Terrain.”

That’s debatable, of course. I’m sure the Terrain will have some advantages over the older BMW (which has never been one of their best efforts, in any case.)

But a BMW buyer won’t look twice at the Terrain. So what is to be gained by spending marketing dollars money to make that comparison? Why not target all those crossover buyers who think GMC is just big pickups — if they know the brand at all?

Lutz’s fighting words ring familiar. He said virtually the same things about another GM car when he dared journalists to compare it to the BMW 3 Series. That car no longer exists: Pontiac Grand Prix.

But my mother was not impressed. Mainly, because she rode as a rear seat passenger when her friend’s husband drove them to work. She said she was surprised by the lack of room, and that the ride quality didn’t seem that special.

The 1975-1979 Cadillac Seville was special, though, historically speaking. It was probably the most successful attempt by an American brand to market a “smaller” model at a premium price. Ford and GM – and who knows, maybe even Chrysler – are pinning hopes on this strategy for upcoming smaller cars, such as the Ford Fiesta and Chevrolet Cruze.

They look at the MINI’s success, and, to some extent, VW’s product strategy, as examples. Premium dollars for premium smaller cars, so the idea goes.

Some say this is new ground for the U.S. automakers. But Americans have shown themselves willing to pay more for “less” when “less is more.” More or less.

Cadillac Gets Small
First, recalibrate your idea of the word “smaller” to 1970s thinking. The 1975 Cadillac Seville inherited its name from the Eldorado Seville coupe models of the 1950s. The mechanical package was based on the GM X-body, which also yielded the 1975 Chevy Nova and its Buick, Pontiac and Oldsmobile clones.

But the Seville was no mere grille-and-badge job. It’s body and interior were unique, and it used an exclusive engine: the Olds 350 with electronic fuel injection. The Seville rode on a longer wheelbase than the other X-bodies (114 in. vs. 111 in.) And Cadillac engineers went through the platform thoroughly to refine it. That took a lot of work, as the Nova was a buzzy thing.

Remember, the Nova and its clones of the 1970s were considered compacts, so the Seville, if not exactly small, was at least “smallish” by the day’s standards. It was over two feet shorter and a half-ton lighter than the leviathan Sedan DeVille. But the Seville, at $12,500, cost 40 percent more than the huge DeVille! Even the Eldorado convertible was about $2,000 less. (An optioned-up V8 Nova LN was about half the Seville’s price.)

And so, for 1975, Cadillac’s smallest, lightest car — and possibly, it’s least costly to build — was essentially its flagship model. (The Fleetwood 75, a low-volume factory limousine, was two grand over the Seville, but fewer than 1,700 were made that year.)

Seville was an instant and big hit – especially on the West Coast, if you can believe it. Even the European press praised it. The first-gen Seville’s peak year was 1978, with just under 60,000 sold. By then, the base price was nearly $15,000, same as the Eldorado.

Seville brought a lot of attention to itself and the brand. It was the domestic industry’s first legitimate attempt to compete with European luxury sedans, but still in a very American way. The second gen Seville abandoned the “small” theme and brought in the love-it-or-hate-it “bustleback” styling on the newly downsized Eldo’s front-drive platform. More people hated it than loved it, though, and sales suffered.

Out of respect for how far Cadillac has come in the past few years (Escalade aside), I won’t even mention the second time the Division tried to create a “premium” small car out of a cheap, buzzy Chevy.

I share this because I’ve long been intrigued by the Wankel engine, even though I’ve never owned a Mazda RX7 or RX8. Not that I wouldn’t want one. The last-gen RX7 was one of the most exciting cars I’ve ever driven, and I think the design was sublime.

I remember driving it back-to-back against the Acura NSX at Pocono at IMPA Test Day in the 1990s. The NSX’s handling was in its own class. But I preferred the RX7’s midrange torque.

After all these years in the market, the Mazda Rotary still fights for recognition and respect outside of enthusiast circles. I still see some dealers advertising them with “4-cyl.” or “V6” engines, because they truly have no idea that the Wankel is a different animal.

Smarter than a Sixth Grader?
Some journalists outside the core “buff books” can be equally unaware. A recent RX8 review by a known Detroit newspaper writer said “No one uses a rotary engine anymore, though it was once very popular 90 years ago for airplanes.”

Uh, no, not quite. I posted a comment on his story pointing out that the Wankel has nothing in common with the rotary piston engines used in old airplanes. (Or with rotary piston engines some are experimenting with today.) I’m no engineer, but I knew that in sixth grade. To be fair, I believe it was Mazda that first called the Wankel a “Rotary” engine. It was a smart move, because just having Felix Wankel’s name on an engine doesn’t describe it.

The “Renesis” version of the Mazda Wankel engine in the RX8 brought forth nearly the horsepower of the last RX7, but without that model’s sequential twin turbo setup, not nearly the torque. Lack of torque is the one thing that keeps me from truly loving the RX8. All other ingredients are there for me – original and even a little wacky design, a nod to practicality and an outstanding driving experience.

I’d been living near Seattle for four years and so did not get to drive the RX8 at IMPA until this year. I thoroughly enjoyed it on the road-driving portion but avoided it for the track – because the torque was so underwhelming. Not that the car is not fun. And the Rotary engine is so smooth, you want to rev it – it’s as smooth at eight grand as it is at two. But there’s really no punch. Drive the Mazdaspeed3, and you really wish the RX8 had that kind of power and torque.

In a story I did for AIADA Auto Dealer publishing this month, Mazda told me it is committed to the Wankel. I hope the next version will have more torque. Of course, a cure for lack of torque in a 3,100-lb. car is to pare 500 lbs. from the car’s weight, but then you’re back to a two-seater.

I admire Mazda for standing by its Rotary. And I admire the RX8, because it dares to be different. Though sales may be off now, it really did find a niche for itself.

At first glance, the published specs for the new Camaro had me thinking it was a bit too large. But a closer review showed that to be a hasty judgement. Purely out of curiosity, I decided to compare the 1969 Camaro — the designer’s inspiration for the new car — to the 2010 model. I was pleasantly surprised to see that the new Camaro is only modestly larger than its forbear, and, considering the gains in performance, safety and chassis sophistication, not much heavier.

I decided to share my comparison table with Super Chevy Editorial Director Jim Campisano, whom I had just seen at the annual IMPA Test Day in Pennsylvania. Jim decided to use it on his the Super Chevy web site and made me a bit of a “celebrity” by retelling some publishing history. A big shot editor today, Jim joined CSK Publishing (MuscleCars, Vette, High-Performance Pontiac, High-performance Mopar, Cars Illustrated and others) about a year after I departed for other endeavors. Here’s Jim’s take:

Comparing the new Camaro to the icon of the brand, the 69 Camaro – Super Chevy Magazine

Numbers junkies can also download my original chart. I make no claims of it being a definitive document. Camaro proportionsJK revised.doc

I’m partial to the MINI to start with; if this model were offered in the U.S., I might prefer it to the turbocharged gas S model … if the price were right. I’ve written about the challenge of pricing diesels for the American International Auto Dealers Association (AIADA).

First off, MINI USA did not bring the MINI Cooper d to the IMPA event; it was one of four Euro-spec diesel cars brought by BOSCH, which makes the fuel injection systems. Other diesels included a Chrysler 300 (Mercedes V6 diesel), a BMW 123d (sharp-looking 1-Series hatchback), and an Audi A4. I drove only the MINI Cooper d. BOSCH is making a pretty big bet on diesel cars for the U.S. and is presumably trying to generate positive press coverage to drum up public demand.

Torque Rules
The MINI Cooper d has a driving character unique from that of the standard or turbo “S” models. It’s 1.6-liter turbo diesel yields the same 177 lb.-ft. peak torque as the S, but within a tighter RPM spread (1,750-2,000 RPM vs. 1,600-5,000 for the S). Like the S, the MINI Cooper d provides a short-burst “overboost” mode good for another 15 lb.-ft. or so under full throttle.

On paper, the MINI Cooper d is not as quick as the standard MINI Cooper – 0-60 in about 9.5 seconds vs. 8.5 sec. (factory claim). But you would not know that by driving; the diesel MINI feels quicker by virtue of all that low-end torque. Externally, the only difference from the standard MINI Cooper is a small, stylized “D” on the rear hatch.

The MINI Cooper d revs up smoothly and quickly. I was caught off-guard when I saw it bang into the 5,000 rpm redline, which is 1,500 less than the gas model. I got used to that quickly, since the diesel MINI gave a nice kick in the 2,000-3,500 range. Handling is the same as the standard MINI, which is to say outstanding.

43 MPG Under the Gun
The MINI Cooper d was popular with the IMPA members, a steady stream of which had been hammering it on back roads all day. The onboard computer was still showing 43 mpg average when I was driving it. I’d guess an easy 50 MPG on the highway vs. the 37-MPG EPA rating for a standard MINI Cooper. The automatic stop/start feature takes some getting used to; put it in neutral at a stoplight and the engine turns off; press in the clutch and it re-starts quickly.

Automotive News reported “BMW plans to offer the Cooper diesel in the United States when the emissions system is robust enough to allow the car to be sold in all 50 states.” That would likely mean the urea injection system such as that in the upcoming BMW 330d.

Automotive News also said the MINI Cooper d would cost $7,000 more than a standard gas model – but did not cite a source for that figure. That’s about double the premium of the MINI Cooper S over the standard car. I’m sure American MINI customers would love the diesel MINI, but I think it would have to be priced between the standard MINI Cooper and the MINI Cooper S.

There is, by the way, an online petition to bring the car to the U.S.: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/minid/index.html

All American Racers … Sort of.
When Toyota clinched its first Sprint Cup race in March (Kobalt Tools 500 in Atlanta), NASCAR touted it as the first victory by a “foreign manufacturer” in NASCAR’s top series since June 13, 1954, when Al Keller drove a Jaguar to victory at Linden Airport in New Jersey. That was NASCAR’s first road race, and the Jags were the XK-120 sports cars.

On that day in New Jersey, Jags took four of the top six positions. Jaguar would in the late 1980s be adopted by an American parent, Ford, which this year pawned off the money-losing stepchild to India’s Tata. And to be nitpicky, any win by Dodge between its 2001 NASCAR return and the 2007 season was essentially by a “foreign manufacturer” – DaimlerChrysler. Remember, when Dodge returned to NASCAR, it was that mustachioed German “Dr. Z” guy doing a lot of the talking.

When Toyota decided to enter NASCAR racing, first in truck and then in the Sprint Car series, some fans were aghast. A Japanese brand in NASCAR? Ah, but this is 2008, not 1968. So, what does citizenship really mean in the world of NASCAR?

Consider the Sprint Cup’s four competing brands: Chevrolet, Dodge, Ford and Toyota. Chevy uses the “Impala SS” name on its NASCAR entry; the Dodge sprint car carries the “Charger” decal; Ford emblazons its Car of Tomorrow with the “Fusion” moniker, and Toyota uses Camry. In the real world, that would be two full-sizers (Charger and Impala) against two midsizers. All are four-doors, but among the four, the Charger and Impala offer the only V8s in the showroom, and the Charger is the only rear-drive production car in the series. In NASCAR, though, it’s all the same. Ford opened that door (or more accurately, four doors) when it petitioned NASCAR to allow the Taurus body a decade ago.

Citizenship lines get a little blurry in the real world of auto sales, too. The Dodge Charger has lots of stamps on its passport: it was born of a German-owned Chrysler entity, with plenty of Mercedes-Benz engineering throughout. The car is assembled in Canada, and its optional Hemi comes from a plant in Mexico. The German-designed 5-speed auto tranny is an older Mercedes-designed piece now made in the U.S.

Also hailing from Mexico is the Ford Fusion, a Mazda-based model with more Japanese DNA between its bumpers than the Charger has German, including its base 4-cylinder engine. Somewhat ironically, the Mazda 6 model on which the Fusion is based is built here in the U.S. in the same assembly plant as the unrelated Mustang.

The “baseball, hotdogs and apple pie” Impala also comes from that friendly foreign country to the north. So, of the four models represented in NASCAR Sprint Cup racing, the only model built in the U.S., including its U.S.-built powertrains, is, ta da … the Toyota Camry.

Sounds controversial, no? I think it’s a good idea, for all the reasons Kinnan cites in his column. Earlier this year, I wrote a piece for Mopar Action magazine about Dodge winning the Daytona 500. I included a couple of sidebars, the first of which, “Win on Sunday, Bankrupt on Monday?” was published as the editor’s column. I’ve posted it below. The second, titled “All American Racers?” was not published, for reasons that I think will be clear when you read it — I’ll post it in a couple of days.

Win on Sunday, Bankrupt on Monday?

It’s easy to understand the pride a NASCAR fan might feel by driving a car of the winning make. But does that translate to sales? Does the old adage, “Win on Sunday, sell on Monday” (coined by a Ford guy) still apply? At Mopar Action, we ask the tough questions (but get the same softball answers as everyone else).

By its continued support for Dodge teams and the $1 million bonus for winning Daytona, Chrysler obviously sees value in NASCAR as a marketing tool. Mike Delahanty, Sr. Manager, Dodge Motorsports, told us so:

“NASCAR racing creates a halo effect for the Dodge brand. It reaches 75 million people a year through TV or who attend the races, and our research shows that many Dodge customers follow NASCAR racing. And that is 75 million people who we have the opportunity to talk to about our production vehicles. It’s the fourth largest sport in the United States. If you are a car manufacturer, it makes business sense to be involved with an audience that large.”

Support does not come without the occasional re-alignment, however. “Last year when Dodge announced it would not be the major sponsors of the #9 and #19 cars, it was so we could redirect resources to both engineering and marketing,” Delahanty continued. “The $1 million dollar bonus was an example of some of the marketing efforts, the coverage that resulted from the win and bonus far exceeded our investment.”

The popular NASCAR fan site, RaceFanVote.com put the question to its readers, loyal NASCAR fans: “Win on Sunday, sell on Monday: Does this theory still apply in today’s age?”

Results were mixed:

29 percent chose, “Yes because there are a lot of loyal fans still out there.”

19 percent checked, “There is still marketing value for the manufacturers to participate in NASCAR, but loyalties have waned somewhat.”

22 percent selected, “Maybe for the manufacturer, but not necessarily for the exact model of car they are racing.”

23 percent indicated, “Not much anymore.”

7 percent said, “No, not at all.”

So, nearly a third don’t see the connection between track and showroom. Admittedly, this was just an informal, non-scientific poll on one fan site, but its author, self-professed loyal NASCAR fan Greg Shultz, senses a trend. On the RaceTalkRadio.com site, he said, “Winning trophies just isn’t selling cars the way it used to. Loyalties seem to be mixed in a certain percentage of fans that for example, cheer for a Chevy driver and yet choose to buy some other manufacturer’s vehicle for their daily driver. This is not to say that NASCAR or the fans are responsible for the problems happening with the automakers, but times are changing. Prospective buyers are demanding higher quality vehicles, more fuel efficiency and an overall good value for their hard earned dollars.”

Chevy general manager Ed Peper told USA TODAY that “win on Sunday, sell on Monday,” does still apply. “In our case, we certainly look for (NASCAR) to help us sell product. That’s the name of the game.” He cited the brand’s NASCAR dominance with 622 Sprint Cup victories (going into this year’s Daytona 500). He did not, however, provide any evidence that NASCAR participation had prevented, perhaps even in a small way, GM’s historic $38 billion loss in 2007 from being even worse.

About 12 years ago, working in the Mercedes-Benz USA PR department, I was preparing to write the press kit and other materials for the upcoming “small” Mercedes coupe, the CLK. I’d seen photos of the CLK, of course, and I was pretty excited about it. This seemed to be my kind of car – a low-slung sport coupe but with a nod to everyday practicality. Then one day the product manager called and asked if I wanted a close-up look at a pre-production car.

As soon as I saw the CLK, I was sure – this is what the modern ponycar should be. I don’t mean the luxury trappings. I’m talking about the size and proportions and modern underpinnings. Like the American ponycars, the CLK was based on a sedan structure, the C-Class. The CLK sat on a 106-inch wheelbase and was 180 inches long, not far off the original Mustang. So, it was the same formula, but with better hardware.

The Mustang of the time was still riding (hard) on a warmed-over, short-wheelbase Fairmont platform, which had served Ford in everything from family sedans to Lincolns. Ponycar fans that find that criticism unwarranted should look underneath the new Dodge Challenger – it’s basically a shortened LX platform (Dodge Charger / Chrysler 300), which borrowed its suspension technology from the last-gen Mercedes E-Class. And the new Camaro will be similarly modern.

But back to the CLK … Mercedes designers had loosened up to do the first CLK, complementing the car’s classic long-hood, short-deck ponycar proportions with an uncharacteristic (for the brand) fastback roof style. Yet, the back seat was fairly hospitable for two if the front occupants sacrificed some of their legroom. And the trunk was more sizeable than any Mustang or Camaro had ever provided.

Engine lineup for the first-gen CLK was ponycar-like, too – a V6 (215 hp, 3.2-liter for the CLK320) and a year later, a V8 (275-hp, 4.3-liter for the CLK430.) Convertible models arrived that year, too, and a 342-hp CLK55 AMG model came for 2001.

The first CLK was the ponycar grown up. When the second-gen CLK arrived for 2003, the direction was more luxury-focused, and I think the design was less distinctive. As you read road tests of the new Dodge Challenger (and next year, the Camaro), see how many times they mention things like “suspension compliance” and “seat comfort” among the performance stats. The ponycar buyer also has grown up.

I have fond memories of enjoying both the CLK320 and CLK430. I think the Mustang has redeemed itself, but I believe the Camaro will be the one to have.

Both vehicles were part of a driving test called “Spring Brake,” organized by the International Motor Press Association (IMPA), of which I have been a member for 20 years. The group had organized the event at short notice and invited carmakers to bring their “greenest” models. The result was a mix of high-MPG models like the Mini Cooper, Honda Civic and Hyundai Accent, plus hybrids from Toyota, Lexus, Nissan, Ford and GM.

The “Spring Brake” event itself was itself is a telling sign of the times. Every September, IMPA runs an event called “Test Day” at Pocono Raceway in Pennsylvania. Members (journalists and PR folks) get to flog the newest models on the track, and there’s nothing green about it. The “Spring Brake” shindig put the focus on high fuel economy.

Driving the Equinox Fuel Cell vehicle, Chris Colquitt, General Motors vehicle project engineer, rode along with me and later confirmed that the vehicle had averaged just under 50 MPG during the day’s driving over the hilly, twisty roads. There’s nothing unusual about driving the Equinox Fuel Cell Vehicle, and that’s the idea. It drives like a “regular” model, but it’s quieter and it does feel quicker. A fuel cell vehicle is, after all, an electric vehicle, and electric motors develop their peak torque immediately. So, while the official zero-to-60 mph performance is about 10 seconds, it felt much quicker. Anyone driving a current midsize V6 SUV would be impressed.

The power for the electric motor comes from the fuel cell stack that strips electrons from the hydrogen fuel. The big question mark for fuel cell vehicles is, when will there be a hydrogen infrastructure in place to fuel them? Colquitt was carefully monitoring mileage to ensure he’d have enough fuel to make it home that afternoon.

The day before this event, GM also confirmed it would begin production of the Chevrolet Volt extended-range electric vehicle in 2010. This type of “plug in hybrid” uses a small gasoline engine as a generator to charge the onboard lithium ion battery pack.Colquitt explained that, ultimately, a fuel cell stack would replace the gas engine in such a setup. That could be a decade out.

Fuel cells are coming, and I look forward to their arrival. But I told Colquitt that I still wanted the new Camaro. He replied, “I want one, too.”

2010 Camaro

“Four-Cylinder Camaro.” Now there are three words that, in a perfect world, would never come together. It’s true, though, GM is studying the “feasibility” of a 4-cylinder Camaro. It’s difficult to look at pix of the upcoming Camaro and not hear only the rumbling of an LS3 V8 through dual tailpipes. So, is GM mad or on the money?

With $4 gas, a 4-cyl. Camaro starts to make sense – but only when you know which 4-cylinder they’re talking about. Chevy tried a 4-banger Camaro in the early 1980s. With 92 horsepower and 134 lb.-ft. of torque from the “Iron Duke” 4-banger, that was a clear mistake.

Flash forward to 2010, and you might see a 4-cyl. Camaro with the direct-injection turbo 2.0-liter currently used in the Chevy’s Cobalt and HHR SS models, as well as the Pontiac Solstice GXP and Saturn Sky Redline roadsters. In those models, this mighty mouse pumps out an impressive 260 horsepower at 5,300 rpm and a really impressive 260 lb.-ft. of torque at just 2,000 rpm. That compares well to the 252 hp and 251 lb.-ft. for the Malibu’s optional 3.6-liter V6. A 300-hp version is rumored, too. (The direct-injection, 300-hp Cadillac version of the V6 will likely power a mid-line Camaro.)

The turbo 2.0 can pull the 3,000-lb. Cobalt SS from zero to 60 mph in under 6 seconds and through the quarter mile in 14 seconds flat at nearly 104 mph, according to Edmunds.com INSIDE LINE. That kind of performance would put many a classic Camaro on the trailer. And just as impressive are gas mileage ratings higher than those of the normally aspirated Cobalt motors. More power with less gas — hard to argue with that.

Without knowing the new Camaro’s weight, one can only guess at performance and fuel economy numbers. But figure 3,600 lbs. for a turbo 4, and zero-to-60 in under 7 seconds and a high-14 quarter-mile seem doable, along with 27-29 highway mpg. Ford tried turbo Mustangs in the 1980s, and the SVO model was right in that performance/economy ballpark. But with $1.20 gas, most shunned the cultish SVO for the cheaper and faster V8 models.

Let’s see if $4 gas changes buyers’ attitudes.