Yesterday we asked about new cars and which one upsets you the most. Today we'll be discussing which new car makes you the happiest. And don't say your new Honda Pilot, because even if it's true, no one cares. Nope, we're here to talk supercars. New supercars, specifically (so don't answer 959). 'Cause lets face it: 99 percent of us wish we had loads more money for the express purpose of buying a supercar. That same 99 percent is jealous of Jay Shoemaker, too. Speaking of Jay, my favorite supercar isn't the Audi R8. First of all, it looks like a bulimic dolphin, the carbon fiber side panels are lame and even though it's a mid-engined car, it boasts a grill bigger than Goldie's. Second it has the same engine as the RS4, and I like the RS4 better. I'm not going to mention Ferrari, either. Yes, yes: fast, precise, impeccably made, luxurious. It all sounds quite German to me. And no Porsche, either. Maybe at one point in time I could have gone for the Carrera GT, but the world has moved on. So has Porsche. The new Corvette ZR-1 is pretty tempting, but it's still a $100k Chevrolet. The Nissan GT-R is getting warmer but contains too many electronic shenanigans for my taste. Aston Martins are too pretty these days, what happened to the bulldogs? I'm very close to choosing the Dodge Viper SRT10 ACR, because it's just so absolutely bonkers. Truthfully, the big Dodge is the supercar I would pick if there wasn't one even more insane: the Lamborghini Murcielago LP640. It's not even symmetrical. You?

Or not. Despite all the noise about a Chrysler – Chery hook-up, despite Chinese manufacturers' presence at the North American International Auto Show, we have yet to see a single Chinese-built (let alone designed) vehicle here in the U.S. So, are they really coming? The short answer is yes, some of them, eventually. But not for quite a while yet.

The number one reason we haven’t see Chinese (or Indian for that matter) cars on these shores: home markets. Right now, the Chinese market is growing at a rabid clip. Local automakers are more concerned with increasing production and filling newly emerging gaps and niches than sinking scarce foreign currency into expensive export drives.

Before Chinese automakers look east (or south or west), their home market must reach a saturation point– a pause that may take a decade or more to realize. Sure, they may dip their toes in low-cost developing nations, but the real action is at home. Taking their eyes off the domestic market is a one-way ticket to marginalization.

This brings us to point two: there are a LOT of Chinese automakers and just one party running the country.  

You might think this could lead to issues of favoritism, once some of the makers make the leap abroad. That ain’t the half of it. Being a single-party government does not mean that the government has only one thought process (look at Chicago). Any Chinese maker looking to dive into the U.S. market must trust that China’s government officials will go to bat for them in international trade negotiations.  At the same time, the automaker has to worry about all the officials they DON’T own cutting them off at the knees (or worse).

There’s an even bigger problem with cracking the American market: the sheer scale of the undertaking.

To capture American market share, a carmaker needs dealers, parts, lawyers (lots of lawyers), national advertising, administrative staff, buildings, food, someone to keep the U.S. government happy and God knows what else. These are huge sunk costs.

Worse, all of these capital costs, goods and services must be paid in dollars– one case where a Chinese company’s main cost advantage cuts back at them.  Toyota and Nissan took 10 years to crack the American market. Hyundai took about seven to eight years to gain a toehold. And those are the “successes.” The list of car companies who failed in the American car market is long and illustrious, including Fiat, Peugeot, TVR and many more.  

Of course the Chinese could get a partner. After all, there are plenty of “joint” Chinese/foreign companies in their home market (and a few pure Chinese ones). And yet none have brought a Chinese-made vehicle stateside.

Again, their recalcitrance may be a matter of rational economics (make money in the booming market, don’t branch out). It may also represent a lack of trust re: reliability/build quality of Chinese-made vehicles. The dearth may also reflect a desire by Chinese companies not to give their “partners” leverage– in case they try to “nationalize” the subsidiaries.

But the biggest inhibition is history. Emigrating as a “captive” import has never been a path to American manufacturing glory. Isuzu just left, Suzuki hasn’t yet (but no one can really tell), Renault/AMC didn’t exactly set the world on fire. “Going it alone” would be a dangerous path for a Chinese automaker, but it at least offers the chance of success. The major players make lousy pimps.

Buying out an unsuccessful U.S. dealer network would seem to be the quick way around many of these problems. The problem here is with what’s available, or likely to become available soon.  Isuzu’s dealer network was nothing to write home about: sparse, truck-centered and closely tied to GM. On the other hand, if Chrysler should go on the block, it would be if anything, worse.

The first problem is scale. There are far too many Chrysler dealers right now (it’s one of the reasons they’re in so much trouble). As they stand, none of the Chinese automakers could fill a supply channel larger than Honda’s (with two to three times the dealers). Also, any procedure that sees Chrysler go on the block is likely to void most of the dealer contracts. “Chery”-picking may be possible once the dust settles. But in that case, there’s little difference from starting an all-new network (certainly not in terms of cost).    

All that said, the Chinese may still venture stateside. Believe it or not, failure will signal their arrival. Sooner or later, the Chinese market will stabilize—or tank (saturation, outside economic factors, government instability). Once the domestic market cools off, an established Chinese domestic car company or three will fail. Some of the survivors will merge. Others will look overseas for their survival. Then, the Chinese automakers will finally arrive in America, in force. 

Nissan claims the Murano was the first crossover. Subaru claims that "honor" for the Forester. I think the first crossover was probably some variant of the Model T. Ladder frame construction or no, I'm never exactly sure what constitutes a CUV or SUV. Besides, as most truck buyers neither tow nor venture off-road, it's what semanticists call an invidious distinction. In other words, who cares? The more important question is whether or not a particular vehicle has the looks, packaging and performance it needs to survive. The new Nissan Murano must, again, still, stand on its own merits. Does it?

Barak Obama visited a GM plant in Wisconsin. Hillary Clinton visited a GM plant in Maryland. John McCain visited a Ford plant in Michigan. But who loves ya, Chrysler? Apparently nobody. The candidates have studiously ignored MoPar's plants. With Mike Huckabee barely hanging in there, maybe he should target them (you know, birds of a feather and all that). But then that leaves the Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, Mitsubishi, Subaru, Nissan, BMW and Mercedes plants. They're full of American voters just like the UAW-owned plants. So why isn't anyone paying any attention to them? A word to the wise: if you're supposed to represent all the people, you need represent all the people. Just pandering to those voters represented by a union may get you some votes in the short run, but it'll be a bitch when all those grandiose promises you've made return to bite you in the ass. Just sayin'.

In the world of hybrid-drive technology, far-sighted development can pay huge dividends. Just ask Toyota, whose sales of Hybrid Synergy Drive-powered vehicles passed the global million-unit mark last year. While Nissan is licensing Toyota's Synergy Drive for its Altima Hybrid, GM has passed on proven success in its pursuit of two-mode hybrid technology with BMW, Mercedes and Chrysler at their joint Hybrid Development Center in Troy, Michigan. Smooth move or just another example of GM throwing good money after bad? Yup, you guessed it.

The main reason for the cooperative approach on hybrid technology: the inherent complexity of the two-mode hybrid system and its correspondingly high development costs. At low speeds, the two-mode hybrid system operates in virtually the same manner as Toyota’s Synergy Drive and other “single mode” hybrids. The package uses one electric motor for drivetrain assist and another for power generation. It’s in the second “mode” of the system is where things get crazy… and expensive.

At higher speeds and heavier loads, an intensely complex twin-clutch system interfaces two sets of planetary gears with the two electric engines to create both stepped and continuously-variable transmission modes. The system moderately improves efficiency by routing power mechanically rather than electronically.

Coupled with “displacement-on-demand” technology (which shuts down cylinders under light power use), GM claims their system improves combined EPA fuel efficiency on full-size SUV's like the Tahoe/Yukon by as much as 25 percent. But the high development costs and technological complexity add about $10k worth of sticker shock over a stock Tahoe. It would take a whole lot of driving for an owner of a two-mode hybrid SUV to recoup the “hybrid premium.”

Even if GM sells tens of thousands of hybrid SUVs, it’s doubtful they will recoup their share of the investment in its development. But the only thing worse than overpaying for overcomplicated, under-performing technology is watching as your former development partners ditch you and innovate your technology into obsolescence. 

While GM has jumped right in to the market with two-mode Yukon/Tahoe models for '08 and is gearing-up for more models, BMW is planning on releasing only two two-mode hybrids. What’s more (or less), they’re only selling their X5/X6 two-mode hybrids stateside. Beyond that tepid effort, the chances increase daily that BMW will join Mercedes in washing its hands of two-mode technology entirely. Bimmer and Merc are jointly developing a lithium-ion battery based mild hybrid, touted as a cheaper and more efficient alternative to GM's two-mode unit.

Why wouldn't the Germans dump the two-mode system? With clean diesels on the way, and the BMW mild hybrid diesel coming down the pike, BMW and Mercedes are likely nursing a severe case of two-mode buyer’s remorse.

By any reasonable standard, GM should be too. Although part of the two-mode’s appeal lies in its advantages in truck, SUV and other high-torque applications which hold the promise of reinvigorating GM's flagging bread-and-butter truck sales, once again a simpler solution lies well within reach.

The General's recently released Duramax diesel V8 delivers a nearly identical 25 percent reduction in fuel consumption as the two-mode hybrid. Thanks to its particulate filter and NOX after-treatment system, the Duramax oil burner meets 50-state, 2010 emission standards. While the Duramax doesn't grab the green-friendly headlines which seem to motivate every GM efficiency development, it does provide 310 hp in a package the size of a small-block gas V8, with comparable noise vibration harshness levels, without the two-mode’s colossal price tag.

It is precisely on the point of profitability that GM’s green dreams have been faltering. Rather than cut bait and fish, GM is once again displaying copious quantities of its patented arrogance and preference for PR over hard graft and long-term thinking.

Not to put too fine a point on it, GM is ignoring the old maxim: when you’re in a hole, first, stop digging. The automaker is continuing to spread its hybrid efforts thin with its (rushed and compromised) mild hybrid Malibu. It continues to pursue the hugely expensive, untried and untested Volt electric – gas plug-in hybrid. And it refuses to abandon its two-mode snafu. Meanwhile, Toyota is plugging away at its Synergy Dive, steadily lowering costs, bringing the fuel efficient drivetrain within the price range of similarly capable gas engines.

GM remains held captive by its unrealistic goal of creating a truly revolutionary drivetrain. Like a degenerate gambler with a shrinking bankroll, GM seems convinced that ever bigger risks are the key to emerging from its decades-long neglect of fuel efficient vehicles. Rather than chasing the big score, GM would be far better off ceding the hybrid market. If it can’t satisfy new federal corporate average fuel economy regulations using traditional technology, it should join Nissan and license Synergy Drive from Toyota. That way it could concentrate its time and resources on restoring its branding and quality, and, thus, its fortunes.

The Houston Chronicle reports that Nissan spent $3.9m last year on lobbying in Washington, D.C. What's Nissan's beef with the feds? "The U.S. segment of the Japanese automaker lobbied Congress on anti-dumping, currency exchange-rate manipulation and other trade competitiveness issues. The company also lobbied on renewable energy and average fuel economy standards, among other issues." While we'd like a LOT more specific info, it's worth seeing that number in context. According to Opensecrets.org, Toyota spent $2,730,000 and GM spent $6,420,000 on lobbying legislators in '07. Despite the recent battle over federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, both GM and Toyota forked-out about $2m less on their lobbying efforts than they did in the previous year. What does all that tell you? Seriously; I have no idea.

Some of you will remember our post concerning the possibility of Infiniti badge-engineering themselves a GT-R. Our stance? Perish the thought! However, we did end the screed by saying it would behoove the Franco-Japanese house that Ghosn built to consider a four-door Godzilla. Turns out we're quite the prognosticators. Ye olde Motor Trend is reporting that a "senior source" buried deep within Nissan has "confirmed" the possibility of "studying" the option of building just such a world-beating hyper-sedan. Easier said than done, maybe. The new GT-R is (kinda) based on Nissan's crowd pleasing Front-Midship (FM) architecture. But it's so 'roided-up that Nissan refers to it as PM (Premiere-Midship). They could stretch it and bolt on two extra doors, but it would cost about $5,000 more than the existing GT-R coupe. C'est rien: a small price to pay for the knowledge that my Infiniti can whip the snot out of your IS-F, M3, RS-Whatever, etc.

Infiniti is, for all intents and accounting purposes, a U.S. brand. Last year, Nissan's luxury division shifted American customers' expectations– I mean sold brand fans 127,038 new vehicles (93,717 cars and 33,321 SUVs). And now Infiniti's heading across the pond to convince European buyers that, uh, what's their tagline again? It's not on the press release. Or the Euro-press website. Uh-oh. Despite a deeply worrying lack of branding, Infiniti is set to open some 80 stores throughout the Eurozone. The world's snobbiest car market. Where logical competitor Lexus has gained about as much traction as a Prius attempting a hill climb in a blizzard. To gauge Infiniti's chances of carving out a niche in the home of the luxury car, I rang-up Infiniti Euro Comms. Director Wayne "No Comma" Bruce for the inside dope on the dealers and the marque's plans for luxury conquest sales. [Podcast below] Bruce reckons sporty value-priced products, exclusivity and bespoke customer service will carry the day. Yes, well, the longest journey starts with a single FX: the new model's ready for its Geneva debut. It'll be the first new Infiniti revealed outside the U.S. Infiniti's going to need that kind of commitment– and then some– to make this venture work. Meanwhile, the brand is being "nurtured" in the Middle East.

In Michelangelo Antonioni's film "Blow Up," Thomas (David Hemming) watches a rock guitarist smash his ax and toss the remnants into the audience. Caught up in the spirit of the moment, Thomas joins the scrum scrambling for a piece of the dead guitar. He grabs the lion's share and runs away. Dozens of fans give chase, attempting to wrest the prize from his grasp. Finally, Thomas is clear of the crowd. Alone with his treasure, he contemplates his booty– and then casually tosses it into a nearby trash can. Nissan GTR anyone?

Sacrilege! The new Nissan GT-R blasts from zero to 60mph in 3.5 seconds, navigates the Nürburgring as fast as the Porsche 911 Turbo and (allegedly) does so with more confidence than Stuttgart's finest. All this with a Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price (MSRP) starting just under $70k. Clearly, it's the performance automotive bargain of the decade.

On the day the initial U.S. dealer allocations of GT-Rs were announced, the mathematics made the problem clear. Nissan deemed exactly 691 dealers "qualified" (i.e. large and financially productive enough) to sell the GT-R. During the model's inaugural year, Nissan will build 2500 GT-Rs worldwide, only 1400 vehicles of which will make it stateside.

It doesn't take long to divide 1400 by 691 and conclude that the anointed U.S. Nissan dealers will receive two GT-Rs (on average). Since these dealers were obliged to make an investment in the equipment needed to service the GT-R's unique run flat tires, it makes sense that they'd want to recoup that investment ASAP, over the two model transactions they'll experience in 2008. And, lest we forget, they're car dealers.

Bottom line: a "buyer's premium."   

So when I contacted my local dealer to place an order for my very own Nissan GT-R, I wasn't surprised to encounter a lot of squirming and shadow puppeteering. This, of course, gave me a reverse Groucho Marx; I wanted to join a club that didn't want me as a member. BUT–  

I am allergic to paying more than MSRP for anything (I have a doctor's note to prove it). The idea of forking over a significant premium for a GT-R in its first year of release makes me feel both elated and stupid.

To delete "stupid" from this equation, I began an on-line investigation, hoping to tap the experiences of other enthusiasts desperately seeking a Nissan GT-R. Most of the stories I encountered indicated that dealers were adding a $10k to $25k additional onto the car's MSRP.

About a half dozen commentators listed dealers committed to selling their GT-Rs at MSRP. This information did me little good, as one sale accounted for half of their allocation. By the time I'd identified the virtuous dealer their other GT-R was also sold. Living in California didn't help; the Golden State's love for fast cars seems to blur the lines of whatever rational decision-making may remain within state borders.

Of course, the upshot of this hot model fever is a four-wheeled Ponzi scheme. Aside from the Ferrari Enzo, you can count on one hand the number of cars that garnered a premium from the onset, and maintained that value (and you'd still have enough fingers left to make gang signs). Anyone remember the $100k dealers placed on top of the dreadful BMW Z8? The SL55 AMG for $50k on top? And yes, people paid above the odds for a Pontiac Solstice.

Eventually, as the hot model cools, someone gets burned. IF you're going to pay a premium for a hot car, the "trick" is to do so straight out of the chute, then sell the car before availability catches-up with demand. Given that the Nissan GT-R ain't no Ferrari, and Nissan dealers love money, I reckon Nissan will up production after the 2008 model year, big style. At that point, the premium will disappear, for both buyer and seller.

You want to talk about killer depreciation? Then you need to contemplate the concept of "front loading" an asset destined to shed value. A 2005 SL55 AMG with less than 20k on the clock can now be yours for $86k as a certified pre-owned car from an MB dealer- and a lot less as a private purchase. With Solsti piling-up on dealer lots, there isn't a single soul in the U.S. who'll pay you above the odds for a new one. Not one. 

So I'm hot on this quest to find someone who will accept my order for a Nissan GTR at MSRP and I've never even seen one in person– let alone felt the driving experience. Two questions. How long will the hype last? With all this demand and little supply, how long will there be someone willing to pluck this discard from my trash heap and pay ME more than MSRP for the privilege? Second, would I even like it?  

I'm piloting a vehicle with a mid-mounted engine coupled to a close ratio transmission. The steering feel transmitted through the chunky helm is sublime, matching Bimmers of yore. Wearing a maniacal grin, I [hypothetically] pitch my whip into a corner at an [allegedly] injudicious speed, listening to the engine, passengers and tires scream. As I clip the apex, I punch the throttle. The powerplant howls as the chassis adopts hooligan-induced oversteer. I saw at the wheel, maintaining a sideways slide. Audi RS4? Chevrolet Corvette? Nope. I'm driving a tall, skinny, eight-passenger Nissan Urvan.

While BMW and Porsche look like they're intent on reducing their brand equity, other car makers are busy attacking the field of sporty & sexy. First, FIAT announced it's rejuvenating the Abarth brand. Abarths were small cars that buzzed and bit, and stung like the scorpion in the company's logo. Abarth was fierce in the 1960s, sad in the 1970s and dead by 1980, but enthusiasts still lust for the cachet. And now Alpine. I'll never forget a nail-biting drive a friend gave me in 1982 in his A110, when he out-accelerated and out-maneuvered a Porsche 911E. From 1954 to 1994, Alpines were ass-engined fun cars for pistonheads who wanted an alternative to Porsche, and could live with a degree of rawness, as well as with so-so reliability. And now, according to AM Online, Renault-Nissan (incidentally, upon acquisition of Russia's Avtovaz now the world's third largest carmaker) is working on two Alpine-branded models: an affordable, fun to drive sports car and a top-of-the-line luxury model. "Think Mazda MX-5 or even Smart Roadster and you are on the right lines", said a Renault exec. "Ideally we would like to have an affordable sports car on a rear wheel drive platform that is great fun to drive.” Renault is rumoured to be unveiling a 'desirable' concept car (possibly re-introducing the Alpine name) at the Geneva Motor Show on March 4. We will report from Switzerland, and rejoice should the day cometh.

“Why should a female auto journalist give you advice on great date cars?” CNN reporter Sheryll Alexander asks herself. “Because as far as cars go, I know what turns a woman on and what really turns her off.” Is this some kind of lesbian thing? Anyway, these days, the majority of women “are rather picky when it comes to a guy's ride,” Alexander opines. “Your car really does send her all the right or wrong messages about how much money you make and what gets your engine running. Let's be honest, some girls just like a flashy ride too.” But Alexander counsels clueless men not to go overboard when picking out a four-wheeled babe magnet. “Most women are wary of extremes… I think personal integrity and animal-like chemistry should count way more than what kind of vehicle you drive, but I guess some guys feel that spending the extra money on a racy ride is certainly worth the dating gamble.” In the pursuit of journalistic insight– nothing to do with a personal desire to drive a bunch of sports cars for free we're sure– CNN’s self-appointed (anointed?) car guru gives us the low-down on cruisin' while cruisin':

Nissan 350Z Roadster: “Truly a he-man's ride come true whether girls like it or not.”

Mitsubishi Eclipse Spyder: “Guys, you definitely can't go wrong with this one!”

Mercedes-Benz CL 550: “With the $100,000+ price tag, the ladies will definitely be swarming around this hive of vehicular comfort and luxury.”

Audi TT Roadster: “On the outside, the Audis… look truly sexy with their bubble-like hood, curvy haunches and wide back side. Yes, the Audi TT goes both ways as a great date car for both men and women.”

Porsche Cayman: “Just looking at the Cayman's curvy haunches, sexy sloping hood and racing rear spoiler would make any woman want to go for a ride.”

Audi is in a quandary. Just Auto [sub] reports that the German automaker has reached their quota of SUV names starting with "Q." Nissan quarreled over Ingolstadt's use of Q7 for their Toureg/Cayenne-based SUV, claiming it impinged on the quintessence of their Infiniti "Q" model names. Then Nissan quickly reached an agreement to let Audi use Q5 and Q7. But Nissan now wants to quell Audi's plans to add Q3 to their model queue, saying it's time for them to remain quiescent. Audi has no qualms about pressing on, saying they've had quiet discussions about achieving their quest for the Q. Only one question remains unasked: when it comes to increasing the world's quantity of SUV's, why doesn't Audi just quench their plans and call it "Quits?"

According to EV World, smog-choked Mexico City requires taxi companies to replace their rides by their (the taxi's) tenth birthday. This year alone, some 30k Mexican taxis will become autobanditos. Looking for green creds, Mayor Marcelo Ebrard has mandated that ten percent of the new, replacement taxis must be hybrids, ten percent must be electric vehicles (EVs) and ten percent must run on compressed natural gas. It sounds crazy, but thanks to the $8k hybrid premium, Mexico's warm weather and the average cabbie's 200km daily drive, EVs might just work. Hence a consortium of RUTAS UNIDAS (bus and cab operators), Electro Autos Eficaces de Mexico (EAE) and Azure Dynamics (AZD) is developing the eLECTROTAXI®. Like they had to lower case the "e". And while we're at it, let's call this thing what it is: a Nissan Sentra taxi conversion. In a refreshingly honest statement, consortium spearhead Victor Juarez G. (no relation to Kenny G) cautions against speculative announcements. Sr. G says that premature prognostications by Phoenix and Tesla have been harmful to the EV movement. Amén.

Horsepower fetishists will recall that up until not that long ago, we weren't sure if the next Skyline (a.k.a. GT-R) would be sold in the US at Nissan or Infiniti dealers. Turns out it's Nissan. For now. "An Infiniti version is a future possibility. I have not done a study yet, but we are thinking about it." That's Nissan's global design chief Shiro Nakamura talking to Old Blighty's Car magazine. Nakamura adds that the Infiniti version could be a coupe or convertible. We sorta hope it's a convertible, but mostly hope it's neither. Recently, Nissan has done an admirable job of NOT badge engineering it's luxury brand to death. The RWD G35 is NOT a leathered up Altima. The V8 powered M45 is NOT a Maxima on steroids (No, it's a 350Z on HGH). A Murano is NOT an EX35. Etc. (You could argue that the G37 Coupe is nothing but a 2+2 350Z, but nobody would listen.) Why, then, would Nissan start badge engineering now? What pimply-faced, thumb-calloused Gran Turismo addict sits around Mom's basement thinking, "Man, I'd totally buy a GT-R if only it were MORE expensive?" Short answer, none. A counter-proposal. I like fast, smart handling four-doors, be it RS4, M5/M3, C63 or IS-F. The ability to outrun Corvettes on the bad roads fills my heart with glee. Recently, I spent some seat time in an Infiniti G35xS. That's the AWD version. When my handler asked me what I thought of the car, the first words out of my mouth were, "My mom would love it." So yes, I'm proposing a four-door Skyline. To hunt down the uber-Audis of the world. And kill 'em all.