News of Toyota and Subaru's joint $20k-$25k RWD coupe has Nissan scrambling to develop it own pocket rocket. 7tune.com reports that Nissan is testing a compact rear wheel-drive (RWD) coupe based on the new Z-car platform. The spiritual successor to Nissan's JDM Silvia is likely to be motivated by either the 2.0-liter NA engine, or a 1.6-liter or 1.8-liter turbo four (possibly equipped with Variable Compression Ration technology) making between 150 and 225 hp. The coupe should be about the same size as the last (S15) Silvia, offering the Z's wheelbase with shorter overhangs for "enjoyable handling." No word on whether the $23k-ish coupe will be offered stateside, but it will be available in Japan in the latter half of 2010. As far as we're concerned, the more light, zippy RWD coupes the better… no matter where they're sold.

Ford's developing their new compact car, the Fiesta, all over the world. America will be getting a sedan version (huzzah!) and, hopefully, at a later date, a hatchback or two. While ours is still covered in camo in test, the European hatch version is already out in the wild. And even in a hideous color, I think it looks great. Keep in mind that we're talking about a B-segment compact car here, While the European market for this car category is as crowded as Camden Lock on a sunny Sunday afternoon, stateside, the Mexican-built Fiesta will go head-to-CAFE against the Honda Fit, Toyota Yaris, Chevy Aveo and [sort of] Nissan Versa in the US. Even from a distance, the new Fiesta looks set to be the new class-leader (a Flexible Flyer would beat the crap out of the Aveo ). With Honda Fit sales up over 50 percent and even the not-so-wonderful Focus up 30+ percent, Ford's new Fiesta can't fail– or appear in the U.S. soon enough. 

Volkswagen has been toying with the pickup segment since the 2000 Advanced Activity Concept (AAC), a prototype that blended a luxurious premium interior with… a truck. As Elvis monologued, honey why I've never known (you LIED when you said you loved me; and I had no cause to doubt you). Anyway, the AAC was more of a prelude for the Touareg than a serious design exercise for a production pickup. Almost a decade later, VW's finally going for it, offering a competitor to the Toyota Tacoma, Nissan Frontier, et al. Spy photographs indicate that the VeeDub will lose the chrome, Alcantara and all the rest of the upmarket bits that don't look so hot when they're splattered with mud. Black plastic fender flares, bumpers and mirror casings will provide the requisite heavy-duty attitude and affordable price (U.S. full-size pickups are as cheap as chips these days). It's expected to be available as a single cab and double cab– and even in a full SUV version. Is this the small pickup American pistonheads have been pining for?

Worldcarfans reports that Nissan's new GT-R has logged the second fastest-ever lap time around the infamous "Green Hell." "GT-R chief test driver Tochio Suzuki [ED: how ironic is that?] completed the famous Nurburgring circuit in Germany in just 7 minutes 29 seconds. According to our records, this puts the GT-R in second place for fastest laps by unmodified production cars just behind the Pagani Zonda F which posted a time of 7 minutes and 27 seconds last November. The time completely destroys the GT-R's previous best lap of 7 minutes 38 seconds achieved last year in slightly damp conditions." Not to mention what it does to the Porsche Turbo's rep; a car that "only" laps the the 'Ring in 7:40. All that said, is it fair to compare the U.S. street legal $70k (without markup) GT-R to a Euro-spec-only $741k (ish) car that barely achieves double digit production numbers? In short, who's your Daddy?

Business Week's ed forgot the "compare" side of the "compare and contrast" assignment to scribe Ian Rowley re: Japanese and American automakers' fortunes. Wander 'round TTAC for the U.S. side of the equation (hint: falling market share is rarely a good thing). For Japan, BW tells us that reduced targets for operating profits paint a bleak picture for Honda, Mazda and Mitsubishi (trimmed by 32, 29 and 45 percent, respectively). But it ain't all that bad, when you think about it. "All $3 billion of the projected decline in Honda's operating profitability is explained by the yen's sudden rise against the dollar and other currencies. Against the greenback, for example, Honda is projecting a dollar-yen rate of 100, compared to an average of 114 in the previous year. That alone is enough to wipe off $2.4 billion from profits when sales made in dollars are translated back into yen. Yet when it comes to selling vehicles Honda shows few signs of slowing down, despite weak market sales in the U.S. and Japan, its two biggest markets." All the Japanese majors are expanding production– and for good reason. "In markets including China, India, and the Middle East there is a major change in their trend toward higher ownership levels and the Japanese majors are well placed to benefit from this trend,' says Deutsche Bank's Sanger. After a tough 2008, look for an earnings recovery at Japan's carmakers." [NB: Toyota and Nissan have yet to sign-in with their numbers. We'll update you as and when.] 

While the chattering classes clamor for a fully-realized Nissan/Renault hookup with Chrysler, Nissault CEO Carlos Ghosn is in no rush to commit further to the U.S. market. In an interview with Business Week, the Brazilian/Lebanese wunderkind say the the American new car market isn't climbing out of the crapper anytime soon. "This year in the U.S. is going to be down, between 15 million and 15.5 million units for total vehicles [including light commercial vehicles]. Next year I think will be down as well.. I don't think auto sales will really stabilize until 2010. The U.S. auto market is not going to be great again. It has all the characteristics of a mature market." Ghosn also predicts (among other things) the increased prominence of small cars in the U.S., the rise of electric cars (including a Renault/Nissan for sale stateside by 2010), the resurgence of the U.S. as an exporter of commercial vehicles, and the unlikeliness of Chinese and Indian vehicles for sale in stateside. Lottery numbers upon request.

There’s an often-repeated statistic: U.S. Buick dealers sell just four cars per dealer per month. It’s true, but c’mon; that was last year’s totals. In March, Buick sales slipped to three cars per dealer. Thanks to TTAC’s Frank Williams, I’ve had a chance to examine the exact dealer and sales stats for the Beyond Precision people. Having deconstructed the data, I can declare that this seemingly absurd three cars a month number, while strictly true, isn’t the whole story. The “whole story” is much worse.   

First, to be strictly accurate, the 36 cars per Buick dealer per year stat doesn’t include trucks. Add-in Enclave sales and you’re up to 60 sales per dealer per year. (Only Ferrari, Isuzu and Rolls have lower averages.) You may wonder how any car dealer could survive on such meager portions. The short answer is, they don’t. GM’s 90 “exclusive” Buick dealers sell quite a bit more than a car per week. The problem isn’t these Buick stores; it’s the “dualed” and “tripled” Buick franchises; 29 of them for every solo dealer.   

To help you wrap you mind around those numbers, there are over 2700 places where you could, if pressed, buy a Buick. That “coverage” includes as many franchises as Toyota, Lexus, Honda and Acura. Combined. All to support numbers slightly larger than sales of Honda’s Odyssey. The scariest part ISN’T that the average Buick dealer sells a car a week (probably less). The bigger problem is that these franchises can survive selling so few.   

One of the less-mentioned side effects of The Big 2.8’s massive brand spread and bloated dealer networks: “franchise bloat.” GM, Ford, Chrysler have about 6500, 4000 and 3500 “dealerships” (i.e. buildings) respectively. Toyota/Lexus and Honda/Acura have about 1100 stores each; Nissan/Infiniti 1000. Now, let's talk franchises. Detroit automakers have 13,000, 6800 and 8300 franchises. Toyota clock in at about 1500; Honda and Nissan have about 1200 franchisees.    

Franchise glut means dealers are frequently bidding against each other on price, and fighting for product allocation. But there’s an even bigger downside for Detroit: multiple franchises give dealers greater leverage. A dealer receiving cars from two or more streams can concentrate their efforts where it’s most profitable (e.g. on whichever line is getting a marketing boost at the moment). The languishing brands can be milked for limited-allocation cars until a particular model catches fire. Or, in Buick’s case, not.

While it's been argued that single-line dealers lead to too many models spread across too many price points, at least a single-line car dealer can’t play Peter off against Paul at similar price points. In other words, they’re not hurting one brand by helping another.

But the single biggest problem caused by franchise bloat down Detroit way is that it’s made killing brands more difficult, rather than easier.

In theory, bringing in additional lines reduces the damages dealers can claim when you kill a given brand (Chrysler did this when axing Eagle). Yes, but– lopping off brands does nothing to trim the bloated number of dealers. A two or three-headed dealer may not be a money machine, but there is no real way to “starve” it.  

So, when you get right down to it, the real obstacle to killing Buick isn’t those 90 stand-alone dealers. They can be bought. It’s the 2600 other guys who will still be selling GM cars when the smoke clears.

Having to pay off 2700 dealers to reduce the “footprint” by less than 100 wouldn’t work even when GM was flush. Ford is in better shape; they at least only have effectively two brands (Mercury does not exist away from Lincoln or Ford). Of course, that makes terminating Mercury completely useless from the “reducing dealers” standpoint. And pity poor Chrysler/Cerberus. It really is a three-headed dog; some 75 percent of their dealerships are multi-branded, often offering all three marques.

Hang on. If franchise glut is such an enormous problem for Detroit, why is GM consolidating their dealer networks (Buick/ Pontiac/GMC; Cadillac/Saab/Hummer)? Hell if I know. The new multi-franchise system leaves GM with the same dealer glut as before. And now, if they really want to cut Buick dealers, they’ll have to kill Buick AND Pontiac AND GMC together.

In the meantime GM will have four competing “mainstream” distribution channels (including Chevy and Saturn). Well, at least sending one or two of these mega-franchises into that long good night is [theoretically] doable. Ford and Chrysler lack even that option.

And so three-cars-per-dealer Buick is, at the end of the day, a zombie. And now that GM (and Chrysler) doesn’t have the multiple billions needed to make these problems go away, there’s only way out of this entire over-dealered, over-franchised mess. But will anyone buy a car from a bankrupt automaker? From Buick NA’s perspective, it doesn’t really matter anymore. Now that’s scary.

After spending a few days in Nissan's Cube, I was reminded of Orange County's Mar Vista housing tract. Built in the 1940s by designer Gregory Ain, the development deployed basic shapes (squares and rectangles) to give the suburban spread a high degree of architectural sophistication. Of course, people considered these "flat roof" houses a commie plot (so to speak); builders only erected 52 of the planned 100 homes. The Nissan Cube sells for $11k in Japan. In the same way as Mar Vista, the Cube offers a whole lot of chic for a little bit of green.  

Motor Authority reports that the Dutch Cycling Federation (their equivalent of AAA) is calling on the Dutch government and the auto industry to make externally-inflating airbags standard issue on all cars. The external airbags would inflate upon impact with a cyclist or pedestrian, absorbing the impact and potentially saving lives. Swedish supplier Autoliv has developed such an airbag already, and Jaguar and Nissan have tested pop-up hoods which deflect pedestrian impacts in a similar manner. Of course, these technologies are too expensive to be included as an available feature on any vehicle, but that isn't stopping the Dutch Cyclists Federation. The spandex crowd claims that by making these technologies standard issue, some 60 lives could be saved each year and some 1,500 injuries prevented in Holland alone. If required by law, the expense would also probably cause most automakers to exit the Dutch market (score one for the cyclists) but at least it might make for some cool "Jackass" stunts. Critics say that cyclists are responsible for their own safety, and that several companies are currently developing an airbag-equipped vest for cyclists. Not that making people pay for their own safety makes any sense…

When launched, the Infiniti Q45 was infinitely more desirable than Lexus's stuffy LS400. Unfortunately, Lexus had already eclipsed Mercedes as the brand Black Sea immigrants asked for by name, and BMWs remained the must-have nouveau riche accessory. Although today's M45 is best-in-class, BMW 5-Series' still runs the schoolyard. Meanwhile, Infiniti (and everybody else) is striving to wrest control of the all-important, profit-laden next class down. So how does Infiniti's AWD 3-Series fighter stack-up?

My next door neighbor is one of those classic 'car traders.' He buys, fixes, drives, fixes, drives, fixes, etc. When the repairs finally get to be too much time and hassle, he sells the car. I've seen a lot of nameplates come and go through his driveway. Hondas and Nissans stay for a while. Saabs require constant weekend tinkering. And Volkswagens need more plastics than a Barbie factory. Only one brand has stuck around, for nearly a decade now: his family Volvo wagon. And therein lies the tale.

Back in the day, older Volvos were [rightly] known for their long list of standard safety virtues: side impact protection systems, whiplash protection, four wheel ABS disc brakes and traction control. Only an S-Class Mercedes or a few good friends from my home state of New Jersey offered more protection… and both required a lot more scratch.

These Volvo's of Yore were a lot more than just glorified safety barges. They were luxurious in a way that no Toyonda of the time could touch. The 'safest car on the road' was supremely comfortable, with Goldilocks perfect seats and terrific visibility. These thrones of near-luxury beatitude came complete with CD changers, turbochargers, all-wheel drive and a narrow girth. The combo made the Volvo wagon a favorite for buyers seeking a safe, European-style family car with a modicum of sporting character.

For a while, Volvo stood alone in the marketplace. Throughout the eighties into the nineties, while the Japanese and Americans followed the herd that became the SUV and minivan stampede, Volvo maintained its traditional virtues: a wagon (and sedan) that offered protection, build quality and comfort at a family-friendly price. It was a good bet– that unfortunately gave way to lots of bad bets.

In 1999, Ford bought Volvo. It wouldn't be fair to say that Volvo had jumped the shark by then. But you could say they'd lost their mojo. Or, more accurately, their competitors had found it.

At the turn of the last century, gas was [still] inexpensive, luxury was trickling down and, worst of all for Volvo, safety regulations had leveled the playing field. The Camry and Accord– once distant pretenders to Volvo's safety throne– released legitimate alternatives that cost thousands less than the mostly built-in-Europe S60's and V70's. Traction Control, standard ABS braking, side-curtain airbags, in-floor frame rails (used to move energy to the car body instead of the occupants) and new design architectures made these mainstream vehicles comparable to the sedan versions of Volvo's FWD models.

All of the sudden, Volvo's safety 'statement' became a debate. Still, if Volvo had simply progressed with the times in terms of product quality, the brand might have remained a serious contender. Unfortunately, Volvos were becoming expensive propositions for their soon to be disloyal customers. ABS modules, evaporator cores, severe engine throttle body issues (which required multiple recalls) and low-quality interior glues made virtually all the pre-Ford Volvos high dollar propositions for the automotive novice. The majority of whom represented Volvo's traditional conservative clientele.

The post-Ford 2001 refreshing of the V70 wagon resulted in numerous electrical glitches and transmissions that eventually went from a firm smooth ka-thunk to a $3000+ kaput. Volvo's clean competitive advantage gradually became a bit more hazy in the marketplace. J.D. Power reflected this new, less appealing reality when it released sub-par customer retention ratings for the Volvo brand.

By this time, Subaru had gained enormous traction amongst the Volvo crowd by offering cheaper and better made Foresters and Outbacks. In 2002, Volvo unleashed its XC90 into the American market. While the late-the-the-party SUV garnered tremendous sales success, the upmarket vehicle solidified a move away from Volvo's sensible, lower middle-class roots.

Despite its brand-faithful, class-leading safety, the thirsty XC was a "me too" vehicle with LOTS of lower-priced competition: compact SUVs with room, safety and features aplenty. Escapes, RAV4's, and CRV's posed a question for which Volvo didn't have an answer. "Why do we need to spend more for a Volvo?" At the same time, luxury brands' compact SUVs crowded Volvo from on high.

Today's Volvo is hanging in there. Sales have fallen 8.3 percent (to 106,213 units) year-to-date, but that's not bad in a generally down market. The bigger question is this: what is a Volvo? The revised V-wagons are an admirable attempt to recapture the old magic in America's post-SUV landscape, but the brand's defenders have positioned Volvos too high in the price ladder for its traditional clientele. The chances that Volvo can compete against the established luxury brands are, still, slim.

The term "Volvo wagon" as a phrase synonymous for affordable durability is dead. In the meantime, cars like my neighbors pre-Ford 1996 Volvo wagon are still running strong, giving serious street cred to a brand that really hasn't lead the field since 2001. Now what?

For those attending the 36th ADAC Zurich 24 Hour Race 2008 in May, Toyota has a treat for you. Motor Authority is reporting that a prototype racing version of the as yet to finalized LF-A uber-Lexus will be running round the 'Ring. This impresses us because any 24 Hour race is murder on a vehicle. But one at the Nurburgring? That borders on suicidal. Which we like. The final production specs haven't been released/announced yet, but just to jog your memory we're talking about a 4.8-liter V10 kicking out more than 500 horsepower that powers the hot Lexus to more than 200 mph. This prototype racer raises the bar with bigger wheels and brakes, a Superbird-inspired rear wing, tenny-tiny racing style side mirrors; and at least a dozen new inlets, scallops and scoops. Plus, the inside is stuffed with carbon fiber and a roll cage. With the soon-to-be on sale Spec-V version of the Nissan GT-R already lapping the Nurburgring in an insane 7:25 and most likely embarrassing the hell out of Chevy ZR-1 Chief Engineer Tadge Juechter's claim that the Blue Devil will, "beat any production car's track record anywhere in the world," what on earth will this Lexus test mule kick up? (Who cares that the video voiceover is Japanese– just listen to that engine!)

Did you just win the lottery? Has Ed McMahon been knocking at your door? Wondering what to do with your newfound wealth? Autotrader has just the thing: a wide selection of vehicles priced at over $1m. Want some examples? Scope out these deals:

2006 Infiniti Fx35 AWD – $3,058,100
2006 GMC Yukon XL Denali AWD – $2,966,995
2005 Nissan Altima – $1,497,014
1993 Honda Civic DX Coupe – $1,250,000
1995 Saab 9000 CS Turbo – $1,111,111

These bargains and many more like them are just a mouse click away!

(Sales Tax, Title, License Fee, Registration Fee, Dealer Documentary Fee, Finance Charges, Emission Testing Fees and Compliance Fees are additional to the advertised price)

With U.S. dealers complaining that VW's new Tiguan SUV is too small and too expensive, the Boys from Wolfsburg are planning to launch a new Passat-based ute. Autocar reports that the new seven-seater will slot between the Tiguan and the Touareg, with Volvo's new XC60 as its main competitor. VW opted against doing a Nissan Quashqai +2 style stretch of the Tiguan or an Audi Q5 reskin in favor of adapting a next-generation Passat platform. We're talking shared components (especially with the Golf), transverse engines and the possibility of Skoda and Seat versions. Volkswagen has dispatched a crack team of marketers to scour the globe for the weirdest names the planet has to offer. (They set the bar with "Tiguan.") Any suggestions?