Gore, you see, is a prominent backer of Fisker's Fisker Automotive, which just last week got a $529 million government loan to build a hybrid sports car. Gore also is a partner at the Silicon Valley venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, another Fisker investor. The Department of Energy said the former vice president's involvement did not sway its decision, but his involvement with the company can't hurt the firm's credibility with investors in this down economy. Musk's electric car company Tesla, meanwhile, is backed by rival Valley firm Draper Fisher Jervetson and Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin and is a media and celebrity darling. It got $465 million in government loans back in June.

Fisker once had an $800,000 contract with Tesla to design the Model S, the car central to the company's plan for profitability, and Tesla accused him in a lawsuit of stealing company secrets. Tesla also claimed Fisker did shoddy work, sabotaging their design and setting the company back three to six months, a delay that came during one of the company's darkest periods. Fisker won an arbitration ruling saying he did nothing wrong, but there's no reason to think that settled the grudge.

The government is now subsidizing both sides as they go head to head in the market for affordable electric-powered cars. Sure, one makes a plug-in hybrid and the other a pure electric, but the market for pricey, super-environmentally-friendly sedans is relatively small at this early stage. Not the best time to help the companies potentially undercut one another's profit margins. It would have been better to let Fisker get money from a government closer to where he'll be manufacturing the car, over in Finland.

After all, "I'm buying a Fisker!" probably doesn't sound nearly so dirty over in the European market.

Presumably, Martin Eberhard's acquiescence comes at a price. The ousted electric-car-company founder sued Musk (pictured) for libel, slander and breach of contract barely three months ago following months of building tensions. After Tesla won hundreds of millions of dollars in federal aid and started putting its affairs in order, Eberhard dropped his suit, and now the two sides have confirmed a deal, according to the blog Legal Pad.

Among many other allegations, Eberhard's suit had disputed Musk's right to call himself a founder, since he wasn't around for the actual birth of the company, while Musk claimed he could call himself that because he did so much to help the company in its early years, a dubious definition he also used to call himself a "co-founder" of PayPal. Eberhard has surrendered, and not just in a grudging manner: In an official statement, according to Legal Pad, he writes, "As co-founder of the company, Elon's contributions to Tesla have been extraordinary." Yes, Musk has made extraordinary contributions, not just managerially, but linguistically, as well.

(Musk pic: JD Lasica)

Musk and his private rocket company, SpaceX, are "urging the White House to come up with... financial support" for their Falcon 9 heavy rocket, the Wall Street Journal reports. SpaceX would then charge the government to send astronauts and space-station parts into orbit. Luckily for Musk, the president appears to have a soft spot for profligate futurists. In addition to funneling $465 million to help Tesla manufacture an electric sedan, the Obama administration is also considering hiring private companies — like SpaceX — to launch and supply a forthcoming space station, the Journal says.

The bailout could hardly come at a better time; despite private infusions totaling at least $120 million, and millions in fees from government customers for its first few launches, SpaceX has become famous for its failed launches. The company notoriously sent the ashes of Star Trek actor James "Scotty" Doohan into the South Pacific rather than toward the stars, giving the startup a perfect 0-for-3 record. In the intervening year, the company has successfully launched exactly one satellite, and been bailed out by PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel. Thiel, a libertarian, no doubt relishes the thought of displacing NASA bureaucrats. But he'll have trouble explaining to his pro-oil-drilling, anti-immigrant political buddies why he's helping a Democratic administration grow the federal debt through a massive pork-barrel subsidy to an environmental entrepreneur, from South Africa.

Come to think of it, the administration in question might have trouble explaining that, too.

(Pic: Musk, lower left, observing a rocket launch, via SpaceX)

Eberhard has suddenly dropped his suit, the San Jose Business Journal reports. It seems safe to assume some sort of settlement was reached; the $465 million in federal funds Tesla received from the Department of Energy after Eberhard filed could have freed up other cash for a payout, or convinced Eberhard that Tesla had the resources to mount a protracted fight. Or maybe Tesla was simply scared: it just lost a preliminary motion to throw out the case.

Tesla's money also helped it secure land in the Stanford Research Park, not far from Facebook's new headquarters, replacing a San Jose parcel it had planned to acquire but lost in January thanks to its lack of capital.

Now the company can turn its attention to the real challenge: Fighting off Nissan, which just rolled out its "Leaf" electric car, which it plans to introduce in 2012. Nissan, which will lease the battery pack separately, has said its car will compete with gas-powered vehicles costing $25,000-$30,000. Tesla CEO Elon Musk, meanwhile, has staked his company's future on the Model S, which is a full-sized sedan to the compact Leaf but starting around $50,000. In addition to an apparent price gap, Tesla must also wrestle with the recent departure of its science director, in charge of the critical battery system. And it must site and build a factory to manufacture the S itself.

Like most startups, Tesla has been through its share of booms and busts. Right now it's on a roll; the question is whether it can build up enough momentum for the inevitable crash back to reality.

[lawsuit news via Business Insider]

One of the real founders of Tesla, ousted CEO Martin Eberhard, argues that Musk didn't actually start the company. Reasonable! But no barrier to Musk: He has argued he should be called co-founder of PayPal for contributing to PayPal's "viral growth mechanism" and "business model." What really happened: Musk talked his way into a merger with payments company Confinity several months after Confinity launched a product called "PayPal."

Musk's arguments about Tesla are much the same; he just told the Associated Press "we had to basically rebuild the company," and thus he has claim on the title "co-founder." Of course, if cleaning up someone else's mess makes one a co-founder, every taxpayer in America can rightfully say he helped start Tesla, along with GM, Goldman Sachs and other corporation bailed out by the government. Be sure to thank Musk when you update your resumé.

Having amply documented Musk's shortcomings, we must give him his due: It was no small feat to convince the federal government of Tesla's financial viability, given his firm's recent struggles with liquidity and shakedown of customers for more money. It also must have been tricky to sell the Model S itself, given that Tesla has been showing off a "barely ambulatory" prototype, in the words of the Los Angeles Times.

And yet there's Tesla, mentioned in the same breath as automotive giants like Ford and Nissan as recipients of federal largesse. DOE convened a press conference confirming anonymously-sourced reports that the three companies will share an $8.5 billion stimulus fund for fuel-efficient vehicles.

Daimler's recent 10 percent stake in the company no doubt helped. Now Musk just has to build a $100 million powertrain factory and deliver an affordable electric sedan in less than two and a half years — or hope his new investors are as flexible about such deadlines as the rich California environmentalists who have funded him until now.

At least, that's the way Musk is telling it:

Given that Daimler prides itself on integrity and conducted exhaustive due diligence, they would not have insisted that I remain CEO as a condition of the deal if Eberhard's attacks had merit.

Daimler's "cash infusion" (Musk's word) should be crucial to Musk's electric car company; just before the money came in we reported Tesla was running on fumes after nearly running out of cash last fall. So Musk will be awfully hard to oust if the Daimler deal really does lock him as CEO, if only because Tesla needs all the liquidity it can get.

Musk is said to have kept cash tight at PayPal to advance his control of the company; the Daimler clause accomplishes a similar goal at Tesla, albeit by different means. It would appear Musk is in the driver's seat, at least until another sugar daddy comes along.

So it's nice that Musk has such lofty goals. Frankly, it's always been his forte. He leaves the "how to get there" to other, more little people. Like with an idea to build 100,000 cars per year by buying an idled assembly plant from a U.S. automaker. He'll leave the whole "design a mid-size sedan for it to build" to other people. Musk's an "idea man," ya know. And for an "idea man" the reality of building 100,000 mid-size sedans is kind of like trying to build a "kabillion" mid-size sedans — they're both impossible numbers when you don't even have a working design.

He also thinks gas should cost $10 a gallon. Hmm, we wonder why. Keep in mind it's not that we disagree with Musk, we just happen to believe it's also probably the price-point in which a $100,000 Tesla roadster becomes a good investment versus a sports car with similar performance. [CNet, Twitter]

After all, so much about Tesla is not what it appears. But a lawsuit just filed by Tesla co-founder Martin Eberhard, who says he was unjustly pushed out of the company, shows top company executives could be as jumpily obsessive about getting their hands on a company roadster as anyone else. That's a vote of confidence on the trendiness of the end product, if nothing else.

Even after he was shoved aside as CEO and left the company, Eberhard desperately wanted a promised Tesla Roadster. He was thwarted no fewer than three time according to Wired's Chuck Squatriglia, who took a deep dive into the lawsuit documents:

Eberhard claims he was to receive the first Roadster to roll off the assembly line, but [Chairman Elon] Musk allegedly insisted it was his. The suit says Eberhard agreed to take the second car - which he says would be worth far less as a collectible - and got the deal in writing, only to see Musk allegedly sell the car to a friend in February, 2008.

At about that time, Tesla allegedly told Eberhard his car was on its way but would have to undergo "endurance testing." Several months later, according to the suit, Eberhard learned an unnamed Tesla employee "had driven Eberhard's Roadster into the back of a truck, almost completely totaling the vehicle." The damage was so bad, the suit states, that the car "required the replacement of no fewer than 75 different parts."

(The crash had been previously reported.)

There's apparently two kinds of Tesla employees — current employees and former employees suing Tesla. Frankly, we're not surprised Eberhard's suing Musk and Tesla. We're more surprised that it took this long to happen especially given Musk's propensity for diarrhea-of-the-mouth types of comments. For the moment, the only thing we have to go off of is the PDF file from the California Superior Court — which you can see here.

In response, we're told Tesla plans to counter-sue Eberhard. That went over real well with Henrik Fisker — let's see how well it works here. All we know is we're just proud Eberhard quotes former-Valleywag Owen Thomas in his court filing. Gotta love the V-wag love! (Hat tip to Owen!)

Photo Credit: Yodel Anecdotal @ 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?

Morgenstern runs Valor Equity Partners, which led a $40 million investment in Tesla in February 2008 and controls a seat on the board. The badly mismanaged electric-car startup quickly blew through Valor's money; by October, it was down to $9 million in cash. Despite raising more money from investors, Tesla is running on fumes, and collecting deposits for its Model S electric sedan, a car which exists only as a barely drivable quasi-prototype. Tesla requires hundreds of millions of dollars more than it has to make the Model S a reality — which is why Morgenstern's talk of new money is so interesting.

Morgenstern is briefly visible in the video, apparently recorded by an unknown Tesla fan who hopped in with Morgenstern when offered a test drive, and his face matches another published photo. A Mexican restaurant in Highland Park, a suburb north of Chicago, briefly appears in the shot. According to public records, Morgenstern's family foundation is based in Highland Park. The car is one of Tesla's Founders Series, the first built, and Morgenstern has been reported as one of the buyers in that series. He did not return a message left for him at Valor.

As he pulls away from the restaurant, Morgenstern takes a call and mentions that he's driving around Highwood, a nearby suburban district. During the ride, Morgenstern took a call and discussed Tesla's finances, including rumors previously reported in Valleywag that Tesla was about to take money from a strategic investor. Morgenstern expressed confidence that the deal would be announced Monday or Tuesday. Other sources Valleywag spoke to are less sanguine. Tesla CEO Elon Musk is loathe to surrender control of the company to someone — and yet a new investor would be understandably reluctant to invest if Musk's replacement as CEO weren't a condition of the deal.

So here's the question: Is the video a genuine scoop — or a hoax staged by Tesla?

It does seem curious that Morgenstern's phone just happened to ring seconds after he starts cruising down the street. But if it's a hoax, it's a very foolish one. For one thing, investors don't like their deals getting leaked before the ink is dry. A leak like this, if intentional, may well scuttle the deal, or weaken Tesla's negotiating stance.

And then there's this: Morgenstern uttered something particularly damning on the phone. He said the investment will "make people believers that the sedan will be produced."

Not, mind you, actually allow Tesla to produce its new Model S. It will merely make people believe that it will. That could be read as encouraging optimism among potential buyers. Or it could be read as an intent to deceive people into handing over deposit money for a car that Tesla currently cannot build. Would he really have said that if he knew he was being taped?

It's not that Musk's dreams — introducing a mass-market electric car, colonizing space — are ignoble. Far from it. It's just that he lacks the means and the mindset to realize them.

Every dreamer must turn huckster at some point, lest his fantasies remain just that. But Musk is taking the practice to an extreme.

He is touring the United States, showing off a barely driveable show-car version of his Model S electric sedan, hoping to drum up deposits — sorry, "reservation fees" — on which his cash-strapped company will live until, in theory, it lands $350 million in government loans to build the car — maybe in 2011 but more likely in 2012, years after Musk first predicted his company would sell a mass-market sedan. If it happens at all. Musk has been treating the loans as a sure thing for months, but the company's application has yet to be approved.

If he cannot stop human motorists from polluting the planet, he will try to help them escape it through his other company, Space Exploration Technologies, or SpaceX. But SpaceX, too, seems to be running aground. The latest launch of his Falcon 1 rocket was cancelled, and the vehicle is rotting in the moist salt air of Omelek Island in Kwajalein while his technicians scramble to fix a vibration problem.

Aside from Falcon 1, Musk has no tested vehicles. The Falcon 9, the rocketship which Musk hopes will replace the Space Shuttle in carrying crew to the International Space Station, has not yet had its maiden flgiht. According to an archived SpaceX launch schedule, that was supposed to happen last year. An updated schedule shows that SpaceX's paying clients from Malaysia to Sweden have had their launches delayed, in some cases by years.

Musk's personal life is another source of unmanaged distraction. He is in the midst of a divorce from his wife, Justine Musk; the couple has five children. He is engaged to a British actress, the recently blonde Talulah Riley, whom he is supposed to marry this year. (That launch's schedule, too, has seemed to shift.)

Musk's underlings report a fickle, reality-resistant boss, flitting from idea to idea but never quite landing. And yet we're supposed to believe that Musk will get us to Mars by 2020 on the dot?

There's the real danger: Not that Musk's dreams are wrong, but that his personal failings mean it's more than likely he'll never realize them. Then the danger is that Musk's frothingly dizzy fanboys and orgasmically giggling fangirls will turn not just against Musk but against the dreams of electric cars and spaceflight. That's why, if you hope to zip around this rock without polluting it, or escape its gravity altogether, Elon Musk should not be your hero. The dream is not the dreamer.

(Photo via SpaceX)

Mostly Letterman wanted to know why Detroit's big car companies didn't come up with mass-market electric cars, and whether Tesla's Roadster really would save the planet. (He made a good point about carbon emissions from coal-fired electrical plants.)

But Letterman, when he let Musk get a word in edgewise, let him off easy. He didn't quiz Musk, for example, on whether the Model S show car Musk drove on set was the real thing. According to Dan Neil at the Los Angeles Times, it's not. The slapped-together prototype, a rebuilt Mercedes with a Tesla-designed powertrain, is "just barely ambulatory — more like a glorified golf cart than a harbinger of tomorrow tech," Neil wrote. And Tesla executives confessed to Neil that the car was far from being finished in its design, let alone production.

Here's another thing Letterman should have asked about: How is Musk going to build the Model S? Even if Tesla gets the $350 million in government loans it's hoping for — far from a sure thing — it will fall hundreds of millions of dollars short of the real cost of bringing the Model S to market. An insider tells us Tesla is about to close a new round of financing from a so-called "strategic" investor — that is, some industry powerhouse, rather than a traditional financier. Tesla almost ran out of money last fall, and has run on fumes since then, despite raising a $40 million round of convertible debt from existing investors.

Any new money will mean handing a large stake to the new investor. Daimler, which already has a deal to buy parts from Tesla for its own electric car, is a strong possibility. But will they leave a hothead like Musk, with his habit of stretching the truth, in charge? That's what Letterman should have asked — not if electric cars will come to market, but if Musk will be the man to do it.

More from the segment:

Lacy conducted an interview with Musk that appeared last Friday. But instead of probing Tesla's uncertain future, she invited Musk to talk about the past. The column that sparked his outrage, published last November, asked whether taxpayers should subsidize a company which makes $109,000 electric sports cars for the wealthy. Musk claimed that the Times had retracted the story. In fact, the newspaper had corrected a minor bit about Tesla's application — still not granted yet — for $350 million in government loans. Randall Stross, a San Jose State University professor and Times contributor, initially wrote that the loans would go to the production of Tesla's expensive Roadster, as opposed to funding its vaporous plans for a $57,400 sedan, the Model S.

The New York Observer has the he-said, she-said between Times Sunday Business editor Tim O'Brien and Lacy, a former BusinessWeek reporter who freelances for TechCrunch, Yahoo, and other publications. Here's O'Brien:

I think Sarah Lacy was too busy giggling to do Journalism 101 and call Randy or me for comment to make sure what Elon was saying was accurate. Because it was not only inaccurate, it was flat-out wrong. We wrote a clarification of the headline. We didn't retract the story at all; we stood firmly by the story, and I still stand by Randy's column. You can't help but watch that interview and marvel at the squishy familiarity between Lacy and Musk. And I wonder whether or not some journalistic blinders had popped off.... It was so ridiculous that it was entertaining. It was so misguided and inaccurate and I was stunned at the poor quality of the journalism.

Lacy's response:

I think it's embarrassing that The Times would try to throw me under the bus because they did shoddy reporting that they wound up correcting. If they want to throw me under the bus to make up for their own column that they massively rewrote, you know, go for it.

Actually, that was an error, too. As the Observer notes, the Times removed one sentence from the story and rewrote another.

In her defense, Lacy implied that the Times was sexist for criticizing her. But then she goes on to defend herself on the grounds that she's a girl:

I think everyone has their own style in journalism. Look, I'm a girl from the South! Sometimes I laugh. Someone can pejoratively call it giggling. But if you look at the body of my work, I ask lots of hard questions, and break a lot of hard news.

Another error. If you look at the body of Lacy's work, you'll see a pattern of oblique references to unspecified insider knowledge trotted out after someone else breaks a story. Lacy knows far more than she reports, she always implies — and yet this knowledge never seems to make its way out to the public in a way that benefits the reader.

Lacy is right that the Times is making a lame critique of her journalism. Here's what the Times should have said.

First of all, it ought never have corrected the story. Because the truth of the matter is that if Tesla persuades the government to give it loans, it will in fact spend at least some of that money on ongoing production of the Roadster. It plans to open several expensive new showrooms in the U.S. and Europe. Until late 2011 at the earliest, those showrooms will have nothing but the Roadster to sell. If the Roadster is profitable now, it is barely so. Tesla's overhead will almost certainly have to be funded through the loan proceeds.

A tipster, who's given us inside info on Tesla before, has sketched the back-of-the-envelope numbers for what it will cost to get the Model S sedan into production and thinks, even with the loans, Tesla's more than $500 million short of what it needs. The Model S "prototype" Musk showed off last month was a "show car": a one-off model of what a car will look like, but far from a finished design that can be sent into production. The tipster thinks the earliest Tesla can go from concept to delivery is 2013 — not 2011, as Musk promises, which means another two years of peddling high-end sports cars for the wealthy, as some "douchebag" dared to point out.

Here's the tip:

The untrained observer and the Government may be persuaded by typical industry show car building tricks, but insiders and auto experts know that the Model S that was revealed was a reworked Mercedes CLS. To top it off the components and parts on the vehicle are not even those ever considered in the design.

The fact is Tesla had an agreement with an OEM [original equipment manufacturer] to use their off the shelf parts in the model S. Unfortunately that agreement expires in 2010, a good three years before Tesla can get the Model S engineered (assuming they get federal money). No other OEM has been willing to give Tesla the rights to buy parts or component CAD to design to, hence Tesla would need some additional $300M to develop all of the necessary hardware (suspension, air bags and sensors, modules etc.)

Cost:

D&R the Model S $250M
Build the Factory $300M
Components to put in the car $300M
Retail outlets $50M

Asking Musk about that would have made for a fascinating interview, though Musk probably would have lobbed his insults at Lacy rather than Stross. When we asked Musk about whether he was going to personally guarantee the deposits his company's collecting on those Model S sedans, this is what he said:

I'm not going to answer your questions until you start caring more about creating a truthful picture of Tesla. I know you think you are doing good by offsetting what you see as positive spin with negative spin, but that doesn't count as being honest.

That's the moral universe of Elon Musk: Only positive spin counts as "truthful." Lacy seems very comfortable in that world.

Musk, responding to a question posed by Lyle Dennis at GM-Volt on his feelings about the range-extender concept behind the Chevy Volt and why he's not considered it it any Tesla products, says:

We looked closely at a range extender architecture for Model S. It ends up costing about the same in vehicle unit cost, a lot more in R&D and a lot more in servicing. Also, although performance is ok when both battery and engine are active at the same time, it turns really bad when the battery runs out and an undersized engine is carrying all the dead weight of the pack. Essentially, a REV is neither fish nor fowl and ends up being worse (in our opinion) than either a gasoline or pure electric vehicle.

That'd be perfect, make it clear you looked at the idea for the Tesla Model S Sedan and dismissed it after a simple cost-vs-return analysis, then pivot into a positive statement about your product. Musk, who's not yet figured out the best way to go after the competition is by talking flowers, sunshine and honey publicly, saving the knife-and-dagger treatment for his PR team during after-party drinks with the press later on, should have just left it there. He didn't.

An important consideration that people without a technical background don't understand is that you can either have a high power or a high energy cell chemistry, but not both. Since the battery pack in a plug in hybrid like the Volt has to generate the same *power* as a much larger battery pack in a pure electric vehicle, it has to use a low energy cell chemistry.

So, is he saying GM's Volt engineering team lack a technical background or is he saying potential customers lack a technical background? Unknown. Either way, he probably should have left it with just the "REV doesn't make sense" comment. Lesson learned? [GM-Volt]

Musk, apparently eager to give the magazine an exclusive and reassure buyers who must put down a sizeable $40,000 deposit for a car that they won't see until 2011 at the earliest, said that GE Capital was an investor:

Q: What can you say to reassure buyers fearing you might go under?

A: Even in the worst case of an Armageddon scenario, I'll personally refund people [their money] if need be. I think there's very little danger of that. We've raised around $40 million, and a bit of news that hasn't come out yet [is] General Electric is investing in Tesla. [GE Capital] will be the second-largest investor in this round, after me. Our business plan that we presented to investors gets us to profitability by the middle of this year, even if some negative stuff happens.

A Car and Driver spokeswoman confirms that the magazine is running a story on Tesla in its May issue.

Musk appears to speaking about Tesla's long-delayed $40 million debt financing round which just closed this month. We asked GE if they had invested in the company. Andy Katell, a spokesman for the GE Energy Financial Services unit said no:

We have not invested in Tesla, although we are closely watching it and several other companies in this area.

In January, speaking at a town-hall-style event for Tesla buyers, Musk had hinted that a major player with a "household name" would soon announce an investment in Tesla. So add this to the list of Musk's statements which later prove inoperative.

Update: Tesla now says GE had promised an investment at the time Musk gave the interview to Car and Driver, but backed out the day it was supposed to wire funds to the company.

In what appear to be leaked excerpts from the May issue of Car & Driver, CEO Elon Musk says that GE Capital participated in a recent round of convertible-debt financing for the troubled company.

Welcome news indeed. Under Musk, Tesla Motors has been running on financial fumes. An engineer troubled by the company's mismanagement leaked word that the company was down to $9 million last October. In response, Musk announced that the company would raise $40 million in debt financing. He also told Tesla buyers that he would personally guarantee their deposits.

Musk has been saying publicly, since November, that the company had raised the money, implying it was a done deal. But tipsters tell us that he actually didn't close the round until two weeks ago. He may well have been delaying the news so he could include word of a deep-pocketed investor like GE in the round.

It's just another sign of Musk's troubling relationship with reality. Every entrepreneur must dream of things that have not yet come to pass. But Musk has a history of presenting futuristic fictions as facts on the ground — like the time he claimed the government had approved his company's $350 million loan application. It hadn't, and his flack was forced to issue a retraction.

Musk is now asking Tesla buyers to pony up $40,000 in deposits for the new Model S, even though he has yet to reveal a site for the factory where he plans to build them or financing for production. It's eerily reminiscent of the career of automotive entrepreneur Preston Tucker.

With Tesla desperately short on cash, and breaking even at best on its sales of its Roadster sports car, Musk is clearly planning to use Model S buyers' deposits as a source of capital. It's a sneaky way of turning them into lenders, without giving them the recourse that, say, GE Capital might have.

And Musk is not being straight with buyers on how safe their deposits are. On Thursday, when he unveiled the Model S in Los Angeles, he stated flatly that buyers could lose their money:

For those who are worried about what will happen to their deposits if the car is never produced, since the money will be spent on development and not held in escrow, Mr. Musk said: "The worst-case scenario is they would lose their money. They are at risk."

That's not what he told Car & Driver readers:

Even in the worst case of an Armageddon scenario, I'll personally refund people [their money] if need be. I think there's very little danger of that. We've raised around $40 million, and a bit of news that hasn't come out yet [is] General Electric is investing in Tesla. [GE Capital] will be the second-largest investor in this round, after me. Our business plan that we presented to investors gets us to profitability by the middle of this year, even if some negative stuff happens.

(A nice bit of misdirection, that — shifting the subject from the company's present losses to the "plan" for profitability.)

So which is it? Are buyers' deposits at risk, or aren't they? Is Musk good for the money, or isn't he?

One reason for Musk's ever-chaning answers may be his shifting fortunes. We hear he's been complaining to friends about being short on cash and having to sell investments at a loss in order to invest in Tesla's recent debt round. He's living in Los Angeles and flying up to the Bay Area to work at Tesla. We're told he's staying with friends — possibly a move to defray the costs of his commute. Add to that an almost certainly expensive divorce from his wife Justine. If buyers are going to rely on Musk's backing for their deposits, they should be asking him to open up his books.

Rose has deleted the pictures after someone at Tesla requested that he take them down. But Tesla flack Rachel Konrad seems thrilled with the leak, praising Jalopnik editor Ray Wert for his site's coverage of the leak. Here's Konrad's email to Wert (who took issue with recent coverage of Konrad's blogger-outreach strategy):

So was the leak a violation of Tesla's intellectual-property rights, or a "really, really nice job"? It's about as clear as anything at the electric-car startup these days.

For Tesla, any publicity is good publicity. The Model S unveiling is Tesla's last-ditch hope at a future in the business. Although it does not have financing for the production of the Model S, or even a site for a factory to produce it, Tesla plans to take deposits for the $58,000 vehicle from customers, a move at least one Tesla executive deemed fraudulent, prompting his departure.

We asked Tesla CEO Elon Musk who sent Rose the takedown request and he replied, "I think it was your mom." And then added, "By the way, I have a crow sandwich coming your way soon." Good to know that this standard-bearer of the green revolution isn't working himself to death to launch his new vehicle and still has time to toss playground insults at bloggers.