The new GT-R from Nissan is a media darling, and deservedly so; a gran turismo with enough usable performance to tackle the Porsche Turbo. My question: does the GT-R still leave room for a smaller sports car like the Z-Series? The 350Z's decreasing sales and the increasing age (five years) tells us that the car will need a replacement soon. Hence Nissan test mules showing slightly longer and wider bodies. This "up-sizing" game has always amused me; the spot left empty by an enlarged car is often filled by a new "compact" model. Anyway, it seems the sixth Z will be a bigger, badder sports carl. I imagine the trademark sharp lines of the Z mixed with carbon-fiber parts (a CFRP roof would make sense), eye-catching LEDs and just a bit of GT-R. Enough to tell the two are brothers but not so much as to make the Z a GT-R wanna be. Let's see if fame runs in the family.

[For more Avarvarii photochopistry, click here]

Even as Detroit races to turn-off the production spigot, dealer inventories are building to abandoned airfield levels. You want to talk trucks? In an industry where a 60-day inventory is ideal, every single GM truck has over a 100-day supply; some many more. While all three automakers swore they'd sworn off incentives (and blamed the move for reduced sales), that was then, this is now. Chrysler's Jim Press signals the fire sales to come. "It is inevitable from our standpoint because we have pricing pressure in terms of cost from steel and plastic," Press said during an interview with Dow Jones Newswires. "Incentives will be a key part but the focus will shift on those products that are facing the headwinds, such as trucks and SUVs, rather than those benefiting from the tailwind like cars." Chrysler? Cars? Tailwind? What tailwind? Anyway, the bottom line: "Chrysler's average incentive per vehicle sold in the U.S. in May was $3,714, the highest figure among the six top-selling auto makers for the month, according to Edmunds.com. Ford's average incentive totaled $3,326 followed by GM at $3,477. Nissan Motor Co.'s (NSANY) average U.S. incentive in May was $2,090, while Honda Motor Co. (HMC) was at $1,256 and Toyota was $1,045."

Nissan has revealed its modest refresh of the 2009 Xterra, and it's more offroady outdoorsy than ever. The once iconic, now ironic vehicle is still ready to tackle trails or haul your more traditional domestic possessions. The enlarged 4.0-liter VQ V6 carries over, with 261 hp and 281 lb ft of torque, hooked-up to a five-speed slushbox or a six-speed stick. Only a few comments here, because the refresh really is very modest… First, if there was ever a vehicle ripe for a diesel, it's this one. Plenty of Xterra owners travel long distances to get to their off-road adventures and/or take the rug rats to the water park. Xterra owners are not acceleration addicts (ipso facto) and the diesel clatter (God forbid) would go with the image. Towing? Yes. Towing. Second, as a solid "lifestyle" vehicle with a strong image, the Xterra needs to really trade on that impression. The new [available] roof-mounted off-road lights are a good start, but they need to slam home the go-anywhere, no frills, off-roader style of this truck. That means keeping amenities to a minimum and avoiding the ever-present feature and content bloat.

Click here for Pixamo gallery of the new Xterra

Or, more charitably (if equally egomaniacally), great minds think alike. Or, even less charitably (to both the Freep and TTAC), duh. First, let me get this off my chest. We've done the GM Attention Deficiency Disorder thing here, here, recently here and just about everywhere since ever I started this website. The fact that the Freep's Tom Walsh has only just reached this conclusion- after trying to reconcile J.D. Power's IQS rankings with domestic auto sales– is mind-boggling. As is the format of his treatise: "conversation with self." As are the simple-minded counter-arguments forwarded by his Detroit-loving half. "This [J.D.'s survey results] means that Detroit’s Big Two – General Motors and Ford Motor – are back in the game again. Right up there in quality with Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Hyundai, Audi and all those other foreign brands.” “Who cares?” “Whaddya mean, who cares? I care. We’ve got lots of trouble here in River City with plants closing, suppliers bankrupt, lots of people losing jobs. Better quality means our hometown companies will stop shrinking and start growing again.” Like Walsh's column, this realization is too little, too late. And too optimistic, too soon. 

In the July issue of Car and Driver, the BMW M3 coupe beat the Nissan GT-R in a comparison test.  I couldn't understand how this happened, or even why they'd be comparing the two, until I found a copy of this letter:

Dear Nissan,

You may have noticed (we hope someone does) that BMW's M3 beat your GT-R in our recent "Vision Quest" comparo. We want to apologize for this. Please don't feel bad. The GT-R really is a great car, as witnessed by the fact that we rated it higher than the Porsche 911 Turbo. But as BMW is secretly our parent company, they demanded that their M3 win any and all comparisons. As we are contractually obligated to have a BMW win at least four comparisons a year, well, it was your turn.

We did give Nissan the inside back cover and wrote a nice one-year update on the Altima. There are also a couple of complimentary articles about the Infiniti G35xS and the FX50S. Oh and by the way, that FX50S is an impressive ride, but you really need to do something about the silly "bionic cheetah" moniker that you've attached to it.

Anyway, rest assured that we feel very badly about placing the GT-R behind the M3. Even though the M3 is slower in the quarter mile, 0-60 and around a track, the BMW does have a bigger back seat and more usable trunk space. 

Again, please take solace in the fact that your GT-R totally demolished the Porsche 911 Turbo, which is a worthless car. By "worthless" we mean it's an OK enough car, but Porsche doesn't spend enough money advertising in our magazine. When was the last time you saw a two-page ad for a 911 or an inside cover ad for the Boxster? I wish we could stop covering their lame cars altogether, but they've weaseled themselves into an important position in the automotive industry with all of their performance, history and heritage. So try as we might, we can't ignore them. 

Enough about the third-place finisher, the over-powered 911 Turbo. We are here to apologize for that first place finish awarded to the M3.

If we were really honest, the M3 wouldn't have been in the comparison. It's in a totally different class than your GT-R. The thing is, our comparo is the first in a new series with cars competing out of their league. We think our advertisers (that's you!) will love this new marketing plan. It will give prestige to the lower end cars. Next month, a Nissan Rogue will beat the Porsche Cayenne. Just think how Nissan salesmen all over the country will be able to promote the Rogue as the "SUV that beat the Cayenne!"

The month after that, the Nissan Sentra will win against the Lotus Exige. Of course, we need to keep our journalistic integrity. So we'll use the base Exige vs. the Nissan Sentra SE-R Spec V. The little Lotus won't stand a chance. I mean have you seen the back seat in an Exige? No, you haven't, because there isn't one. The trunk? Tiny! Rear doors? Nada! The Nissan Sentra is obviously the superior car. A lot of automotive reporting outlets don't have the courage to compare an Exige to a Sentra, but we think it's time–once again– to put your money where our mouth is.

If you think about it, this will work out better for Nissan in the long run. The GT-R can withstand a second place finish to the benchmark BMW M3. (Sorry, we're contractually obligated to put the word "benchmark" at least once every time we write about BMW, and technically we are writing about them.) Anyway, as the first year supply of your GT-R is sold out, what do you care? It's not as if someone's going to say, I WAS going to buy a Maxima, but now that the GT-R got beat by a Bimmer I'll buy a high-mileage 3-Series.

Bottom line (our first and only concern): we're truly sorry for the second place finish to the M3. We wanted to write it as a tie, but the Germans have no sense of humor. (Just imagine if we'd written "Every other manufacturer should give up on building their own cars and just make GT-Rs instead.")

But we don't want this article to damage our mutually profitable relationship. And if you want to be mad at someone, have you seen what that "The Truth About Cars" web site is saying about the GT-R's record around the ‘ring? The nerve of some people. Adiosu!

Yours sincerely, 

Car and Driver Magazine

[read the Car and Driver comparo here]  

I love European "people's" cars. The Renault R4, the Fiat Uno and Punto, Peugeots 205 to 207, the early Golfs– they were all affordable and fun to drive with more character than Marcello Mastroianni. By the same token, I hate what Lee Iacocca called PODS. Lido was referring to Chryslers, but plenty of manufacturers have built cars for Poor Old Dumb Shits. PODS-mobiles are often Russian; Lada leading the pack. More recently, they hail from Korea or Malaysia. They're cheap to buy, miserable to operate and not at all economical to own (as CityRover owners found out). When considering Europe's cheapest car– the Romanian-built Dacia Logan– you have to wonder if the penalty box tradition continues.

Yeah, I know: car hacks always say that shit. But seriously, this one could hop the Pacific. It's Honda's Fit-based Freed, a Lilliputian van for the Japanese market named for the word yelled by occupants upon exit. Just kidding. The mini-minivan shares the Fit's 1.5-liter engine, which attempts (however fitfully) to move a maximum of eight passengers. Thanks to creative gas tank placement (shades of Toyota Previa), the Freed boasts a low loading floor and– get this– standard dual power sliding doors. Way-hey! The $16k Freed competes against the way cooler Nissan Cube3 and the Toyota Sienta. With gas prices eliminating SUVs as the stateside schleppers' wheels of choice, it's only a matter of time before one of these micro people carriers (or is that carriers of micro-people?) make it across the Pacific. But which one? And when will that vanning thing start anyway?

The Wall Street Journal reports that "Chrysler LLC is betting its new Dodge Ram pickup truck, coming this fall, can pull customers from rivals." Dodge is finally offering a crew cab version and is counting on it to for super-sized help. "I don't think there's any question that we can gain market share," said Ken Zangara, a Dodge dealer in Albuquerque, N.M. "The question is how big will the overall market be?" Yeah, that's the question alright! When even the dealers offer qualified optimism for a new product you know things are bad. Dodge has massive overcapacity in trucks with three factories poised to crank out over 600k trucks per year compared to 2007 sales of about 358k units (this year's numbers are even worse). Ram sales tumbled 24 percent so far in 2008, which means Chrysler has 1.5 truck factories too many. UPI and others report a massive glut of used trucks on the market which are both competing against new truck sales and killing trade-in values for potential new truck buyers. Year on year trade-in comparables are down 14 percent. A nose job and crew cab option are not going to lift Dodge out its permanent third wheel status. But not to worry, soon Nissan will get a version of the Ram to not sell. 

Automotive News (sub) reports that Toyota is investing $673m in new Japanese battery facilities, with the goal of building one million batteries per year by 2011. A new nickel-metal hydride plant is planned for northern Japan, and a new lithium-ion plant will be built southwest of Tokyo. They're also adding to an existing metal-hydride facility as Toyota expands operations to meet the million hybrid vehicles per year demand it expects in the next decade. Toyota's batteries are built by Panasonic EV Energy Co, a joint venture between Panasonic and Toyota. Details are not currently available for the two new plants, but once expanded, the existing metal-hydride plant will build 300k batteries per year. Reports indicate that lithium-ion production will not exceed the tens of thousands, indicating that Toyota will continue to rely on its proven metal-hydride technology for most hybrid applications. With Nissan jumping into lithium-ion production, and Honda announcing an increased hybrid lineup, Toyota's investment is a necessary step in building on its enviable lead in hybrid production. With about 430k hybrids sold last year, and sales of the gas-electric whips rising at a steady clip, Toyota should have few problems selling a million hybrids annually within the next five years.

The fastest way to kill an automotive brand: sell a POS. The bloodletting caused by a brand new clunker can be spectacular. Anyone remember the 1981 Cadillac Fleetwood V-8-6-4? How about the Cimarron? It has taken Caddy more than 20 years to climb back from that double debacle if, indeed, they have. But there’s another, slower and more insidious way to ruin a storied car brand: distraction. When a carmaker builds a vehicle that muddies the marque’s core message, it mortgages its future. To wit, the Lexus LF-A.

Of course, the Porsche Cayenne used to personify the problem– before the sports car maker released its SUV. Once the Cayenne smashed sales records, purists’ caviling quieted. How can you argue with success? Never mind the long-term effects on branding. Never mind that Porsche’s using the money to buy VW. The market has spoken. Which reminds me of the old punch line, “We’re just arguing over price.”

Talk to me in ten years, when the bloom is off the rose. Meanwhile, building a car that’s a genre too far is one thing. Offering a product that completely betrays your brand values is another. I don’t need to resurrect my arguments against the so-not-a-luxury-car Lexus IS-F. Actually, I do. The new LF-A supercar takes the exact same mistake made by the IS-F to the next level, combing brand betrayal with yet another cardinal sin for automotive brand managers: the halo car.

Like anything else, there are halo cars and there are halo cars. There’s the deeply misguided (I don’t have the money to buy a Nissan GT-R so I guess I’ll buy a Maxima instead) and the just plain dumb (who the Hell can afford THAT?). The best way to separate the wheat from the carbon fiber titanium-covered chaff (needed at those speeds): the price difference between the halo car and the next model down. Discounting aesthetic, genre and brand focus differences, the larger the price gap, the more ill-fated the endeavor. 

The Lexus LF-A will sticker for a cool $225k. The next model down, the LS600h hybrid sedan, costs $104,900. The $120,100 price gap elevates the LF-A from desirable range topper to WTFer– and dooms it to failure.

Just ask Daimler, whose slated-for-execution Mercedes McLaren SLR AMG supercar was a major flop at $495k (not including discount). Or Porsche, whose $440k Carrera GT ceased production 230 cars shy of its stated sales target. And these are brands with heritage, whose prestige and racing history makes their stratospherically-priced products inherently collectible.

The counter-argument is entirely emotional. Supposedly, all halo cars cast an unquantifiable glow over the brand’s more prosaic products. The LF-A will drop-kick Lexus’ stodgy image, making all Lexi more appealing. If I was a Lexus stockholder, I’d be uncomfortable with any multi-million dollar investment based on psycho-babble. If I was a brand manager, I’d want statistical proof that Lexus’ image is somehow lacking amongst owners or intenders, and that a supercar would rectify this theoretical problem.

Toyota is a wealthy company. They can afford to make mistakes like the LF-A without losing any metaphorical sleep. But it is a particular KIND of blunder, one that reveals a dangerous new turn in ToMoCo’s corporate attitude.

Speaking of baseless psychological speculation, I believe that building and selling a supercar is a bold statement of corporate health and vitality. Can you imagine Ford releasing its $140k GT now? A halo/supercar says to the world, look at us! THIS is what we can do! (Or never mind the Focus, THIS is what we can do!) But there’s a fine line between being bold and hubris, and hubris and stupidity.

This is why Toyota has cultivated a corporate culture based on paranoia. Fear keeps you focused. You never, ever forget the downsides of any of your potential actions. You always look for the safest option– especially when you’re doing something dangerous. Traditionally, the Toyota Way follows Sun Tzu’s dictate: never to fight a battle unless you know you’re going to win. It’s not for nothing the first Lexus looked like a Mercedes E-Class.

The new Tundra’s sales targets represented a huge miscalculation by the Japanese automaker’s product planners that will cost Toyota billions. And now, the LF-A boldly goes where Toyota has never gone before, both in terms of money and image. Why? For what are they trying to compensate? Lexus would have been far better off transforming their dopey SC into a credible Mercedes SL challenger. Or continuing to refine what they already have. Or just sending their loyal customers a nice “thank you” service voucher. 

I know TTAC’s Best and Brightest welcome automotive excellence in all its forms. But sometimes excellence is boring, and comes from slow, steady progress. It’s a lesson Toyota taught the world. The LF-A is another step towards unlearning it.

Today's editorial on the Nissan GT-R's Nürburgring record (second fastest-ever lap by a production car) raises some interesting questions about the veracity of that claim. On one hand, who cares? My first experience in a proper car on a proper track– riding shotgun in a tail-happy 911 with Jody Scheckter at Porsche's Weissach test track– taught me I could never do what professional drivers do to get a car around a track in as short a time as humanly possible. Nor, for that matter, did I want to. (Scary is just a word for nothing left to think.) Even if the GT-R can lap the 'Ring faster than a Porsche Carrera GT, I can't. Paint me respectfully unenthralled. On the other hand, what about the truth? Nissan knew full well that setting a 'Ring record would guarantee positive PR. If they cut corners or fudged the protocol to do the deed, they should be held accountable. In fact, Nissan should make a public statement on the issue, so that we may expose their weasel words, or murmur appreciatively over their mea culpa or issue an apology for besmirching their good name. The ball's in your court, Carlos. 

Edmunds' Inside Line quotes Lexus's corporate product planning manager as saying the price of the new Lexus LS-F price will "begin with a 2." We're guessing the V10 supercar won't be $29,995. In honor of this news, I've hit up the thesaurus: brainsick, off, daft, absurd and whack. See also: dismal failure, stillborn. Newsflash to Lexus. You're not Ferrari. This won't be a performance halo car (reference Acura's NSX and the amazing effects it had on making people think the RL was sporty). Also, people buying summer Sunday cars for $200k aren't motivated by factors like "reliability," especially when this hand built carbon fiber monster will likely not maintain the brand's hallmark reputation for non-breakage and low maintenance. And, because I especially don't care for this LF-A supercar, here's a list of cars that cost half as much with better looks (extrapolating), heritage or fun: Porsche 911 Turbo ($135k), Nissan GT-R ($70k +  ?), Corvette Z06 ($77k), Corvette ZR1 (estimated $100k), Ford GT (slightly used, $150k), Ferrari F430 ($175k), Aston Martin DB9 ($175k), and BMW M6 ($100k).

I agree with TTAC reviewer Stephan Wilkinson : the new Nissan GT-R is the old Honda NSX. Once people actually start driving Nissan’s “everyday supercar”– as opposed to simply jumping on the hype bandwagon and bench racing numbers supplied by Nissan– they’ll appreciate the parallel. Although I'm still looking forward to my first hands-on experience with the GT-R, the reality of the car’s true nature and importance in automotive history is right under the fan-boys’ noses.

The GT-R allegedly 'outperforms' thoroughbred supercars at a fraction of the price. Yes, but what price? The sticker price, or the in-your-garage price? Considering the hype surrounding the car and the limited production numbers, it will be years before a single new $70k GT-R will be sold for under $100k. At the moment, comparing the Nissan to say, a Corvette Z06, obfuscates the truth. But what the [Green] Hell…

No small part of the current GT-R lovefest can be attributed to the car’s 7:38 Nürburgring lap time. As TTAC has pointed out, there are real questions about the Green Hellmobile’s qualifications for the title “second fastest production car around the ‘Ring.” The GT-R's suspension was modified from the current Japanese production model, supposedly to reflect the American and European spec. Supposedly. Will anyone get a chance to compare the fabled ‘Ring runner and a final production car? I doubt it.

Meanwhile, the YouTube video of the Nissan’s “historic run” clearly shows that the GT-R had a flying start. All other manufacturers testing at the ‘Ring use standing starts for published lap times. The video also proves that the car's lap time was not measured at the exact same location (start and stop). Take these two factors into account, and the 7:40 claim seems highly dubious.

The icing on the cake: GT-R chief engineer Kazutoshi Mizuno’s subsequent admission from that "We used cut slick tyres." If that doesn’t cancel their claim, nothing does.

In fact, a regular Corvette Z06 would probably beat the GT-R on the Nürburgring. When Road & Track tested the GT-R against the Z06 on a track much smaller than the ‘Ring, they concluded that the GT-R was fast in the corners, but they didn't shed a whole lot of light on how the GT-R performed on the straights. Although the ‘Ring has an enormous amount of corners, it also has some of the longest straight-aways in the world.

In Road & Track’s technical comparo, the GT-R was just as fast to 60mph as the Z06 (despite being less powerful). What many have over-looked is the trap speed at the end of the 1/4 mile. The Z06 is about seven mph faster than the GT-R. When you look at the graph that accompanies these numbers, the GT-R’s AWD system gave it a clear advantage– but only at the start. Applied to the Green Hell, the Z06 would outpace the GT-R on the straights.

The Z06’s fastest recorded lap time at the Nürburgring is 7:42.9 This lap was driven in 2005 by Jan Magnussen in 'muggy' conditions. Last year, Chevy revised the suspension on all Corvette models including the Z06. In theory, the new suspension and better weather conditions should be enough for a Z06 to equal or even better the Nissan GT-R's true time of +7:40. When you consider that the Z06 can achieve this time with a GM-standard standing start and production tires, it seems obvious that the GT-R is no match for the Z06 around the ring.

But what does it all mean? Well, not much actually. Every racetrack is different and some cars are suited to some tracks while others are not. The GT-R is suited to smaller tracks like the one R&T used, and the Z06 is suited to longer and faster ones like the ‘Ring.

So why did I bother ranting about this? Nissan has chosen to flaunt its Nürburgring lap times to show the world that their new, high-tech Nissan GT-R is the new bang-for-the-buck Alpha. But it’s not true. The cheaper Corvette Z06 is still the worlds best [unmodified] performance car bargain. What’s more, if the GT-R cannot handle a stock Z06, then how will it fare against the upcoming ZR1? Never mind the 'almighty' spec V model.

Given the GT-R’s looks and oft-reported lack of driving feel, there’s only one reason anyone would buy the uber-Nissan: to own the fastest thing on the road. In the corners, maybe. If you were committed enough to drive at 10/10ths (never mind how “easy” it is), you could probably blow-off a 911 or similar. Down the straights (the great American pastime), there are faster and cheaper choices– and that’s without exploring relatively inexpensive modifications.

In short, the GT-R is an awesome achievement, but Wilkinson’s right: it’s not all that. 

It’s Monday, December 27, 2010. A Chevy customer sits behind the wheel of his brand-new, fully-charged, plug-in hybrid Volt. He’s heading off to the office some fifteen miles away. Three years ago, our early adopter was one the first to put his name on the waiting list at gm-volt.com. Since then, he visited the site religiously for daily updates. And now the Volt looks set to deliver on all of GM Car Czar Bob Lutz’s promises. But… the Volt driver’s journey into the future is about to be a lot shorter than he’d imagined.

His thirty-mile round trip California commute is well below the Volt’s advertised forty mile all-electric range (AER). So the EV enthusiast confidently instructed the dealer to purge the range-extending gas tank. His new-found freedom from OPEC, Hugo Chavez, Middle-East terrorists and money-grubbing Big Oil is intoxicating. He’s on the phone telling his stock broker to short Exxon.

He keeps his speed five miles an hour below prevailing freeway traffic. After only thirteen miles, the low battery warning lights come on. The Volt coasts to a stop on the shoulder. A head is scratched, epithets uttered.

Meanwhile, Katrina II is bearing down on New Orleans. A Louisiana Volt driver packs his family into his EV and heads for relatives in Mobile, Alabama, some 130 miles away.

Since he normally uses his Volt strictly for urban all-electric driving, the gas tank is empty. Traffic crawls along jammed I-10. The gas stations have all closed. The shoulders are littered with cars that have run dry. As he pulls into his relatives’ driveway, 13 grueling hours later, the Volt’s low-battery warning lights are just coming on.

Non-EV drivers will have a hard time believing that any vehicle can achieve ten times the range in stop-and-go-traffic than it can attain on the open highway. EPA statistics have trained them to believe that vehicles operate more efficiently at highway speeds than they do in city traffic— even though it’s not an intuitive conclusion (they know it takes more energy to “push” the car through the air at increasing speeds).

This discrepancy between expectation and reality comes down to the internal combustion engine's (ICE) gross inefficiency. Most automotive ICEs in the world use about 30 percent of the energy content stored within their gasoline. (Most of fuel’s energy content disappears into heat and carbon dioxide.) And that’s under optimal conditions. Typically, an ICE's is in single digits or teens.

An EV is an entirely different beast. Due to the excellent efficiency of all parts of the EV system (batteries, inverter, motor), cumulative efficiency exceeds 70 percent at virtually all speeds. So an EV’s energy requirements almost perfectly reflect the actual energy being expended to move the vehicle.

This results in spectacular range in city traffic and traffic jams.

In our first Volt scenario, the cutting edge commuter had to “climb” a modest three percent grade at a constant 70mph. This challenge knocked 67 percent off the Volt’s 40-mile projected AER. In scenario two, the Volt achieved maximum efficiency during 10mph stop-start traffic.

In fact, gasoline packs 80 times more energy per pound than a lithium-ion battery. It’s only the EV’s superb efficiency that makes them feasible. BUT aerodynamic drag increases with the square of speed. In other words, the faster an EV travels, its power requirement increases disproportionately. So until battery density increases further, and quick charging becomes commonplace, EV’s are still best suited for urban environments.

[The Volt’s range projections—13 miles and 130 miles– may be off by a mile or two. But drive a Volt into a headwind at the eighty-mile speed limit in flat West Texas with the A/C on, and simple physics dictates that the Chevy’s AER range will be somewhere in the teens. You can’t fight Newton.]

The Volt’s range-extending ICE gen-set overcomes its labile range– at a price. To compensate for the battery’s inherent limitations, the extended range Volt will have to lug around hundreds of pounds of complex machinery. That extra weight reduces range further. Not to mention adding unwelcome/expensive complexity in the service bay.

Meanwhile, cheaper, long-range EVs and quick-charging batteries are around the corner. Nissan has announced its intention to sell an affordable 100-mile range pure-EV in the US by 2010. Nissan partner AESC has developed batteries that can be recharged to 90 percent in fifteen minutes, or 60 percent in five minutes. And with battery density increasing by some eight percent per year, by 2017 that 100 mile range could well be 200 miles. Cross-country trips for bladder-challenged moderate-speed drivers become doable.

Until then, don’t believe everything you hear. Our calculations suggest that “Maximum” Bob Lutz’ 40-mile EV-only jaunt in a Volt mule must have been at no more than 50mph average. That’s good, maybe even great. But it’s still not good enough. 

The AP [via The Auto Channel] reports that Nissan is teaming-up with electronics giant NEC to mass produce lithium-ion batteries for the "next-generation of green cars." The Automotive Energy Supply Corporation is charged with making advanced li-ions for electric vehicles, hybrids and fuel cell thingamabobs. The plant should be up and running by 2009, producing 13k batteries annually. Eventually, AESC hopes to crank-out 65k batteries per year. Nissan's Executive VP Carlos Tavares says the Franco-tinged Japanese automaker wants to be a global leader in zero-emission vehicles. (Hey, who doesn't?) The man whose last name reminds us of the song "That's the sound the loneliness makes" insists that Nissan will introduce an electric vehicle in the U.S. and Japan, as well as its own hybrid, in 2010 [yes, there's that date again]. Nissan also plans to produce a zero-emission vehicles in Israel and Denmark by 2011, and market electric vehicles on a global scale by the year 2012. We would like to take this moment to remind Nissan of "Crazy" Henry Ford's maxim "you can't build a reputation on what you are going to do." Thank you.