The EPA has just released its summary of the model year 2007 composite fuel economy ratings by manufacturer (or, in EPA-speak, "marketing group"). The average for all manufacturers was 20.2 mpg– no thanks to the SUV/truck-centric Big 2.8. Honda led the pack with an average of 22.9 mpg, squeaking by Toyota at 22.8 mpg. The other manufacturers slotting in above the industry average: Hyundai/Kia (22.7), VW (21.4), and Nissan (20.6). Falling below the average were GM (19.4), Ford (18.7) and DaimlerChrysler (18.3). GM has never managed to exceed the average, but they tied it three times, the last time in 1998 (20.1). Pre-Daimler Chrysler last placed above the average in 1984, bettering the 21.0 average by 0.1 mpg. Ford has never placed above the average; Toyota and Honda have never been below it. Click here for a graph showing a side-by-side comparison of the 2007 results.

Clearly, nothing about the United Auto Workers (UAW) proposed contract with GM is clear. Until we see the precise details, the agreement's ramifications are unknown and unknowable. Meanwhile, you'd expect the media to hang fire. Yeah right. "For GM, deal is a game changer" proclaims the Globe and Mail. "GM Labor Deal Ushers In New Era for Auto Industry" the Wall Street Journal advises. "Deal gives GM cash to build better cars" predicts The Detroit Free Press. Scanning these Pollyanna prognostications, the Freep provides the greatest insight. Not because I believe a word of Mark Phelan's thesis. Because I don't.

I reckon the UAW's new contract will not deliver one dime of short-term savings to GM. If anything, it will add to their overheads– especially the interest on the money that will pay for the multi-billion dollar union-controlled VEBA health care superfund). This has been the pattern since GM CEO Rick Wagoner started his campaign to trim his employer's overheads to match their falling income. Wagoner announces plant closures and union buyouts that transfer costs from now to later. Why would this new contract be any different? As Frank Williams pointed-out, the contract calls for a "targeted special attrition program" for "non-core workers."

But let's assume Phelan's giant leap of faith is correct and [for reasons I can't possibly fathom] this new contract reduces GM's labor costs by $2k per car produced (presuming GM's output hasn't declined further since he wrote the piece). Is the scribe right to suggest that GM would– sorry, "will" use the extra cash to build better cars? Could this really be a turning point, where GM rides to glory on the back of a product renaissance? In a word, no.

In any discussion about GM's future, you have to consider the unavoidable truism that you can't fix stupid. In other words, no matter how much more money GM spends on improving its products, it runs the [usual] risk of spending the "extra" money on the wrong cars, in the wrong way, with little of nothing to show for it. When it comes to creating competitive product, financial resources are key. But a coherent strategy is more important. And a healthy corporate culture is the most important element of all. In this case, one out of three sucks. To wit:

Building a down market Caddy is stupid. Selling two different versions of the same CUV in the same dealership (Buick Enclave, GMC Acadia) is absurd. Rebadging a Chevy Trailblazer as a SAAB 9-7x is dumb. Sticking a $65k Corvette next to a $13k Aveo in a Chevy showroom is idiotic. Building a Corvette-engined folding hardtop pickup truck (SSR) is seriously misguided. Letting the Pontiac Grand Prix rot on the vine for a decade is asinine. Selling better Buicks in China than the US is ridiculous. And so on.

Now you could posit that these mistakes are somehow cost-related. And you'd be wrong. An extra $2k lavished on any of these vehicles would not have corrected the underlying strategic blunders that led to their realization. As Phelan himself points out, the fact that GM could sell the new, improved Cadillac CTS for the same price as the previous model puts paid to the "we don't have enough money to build competitive models" argument.

We've spoken before about the all-conquering corrosiveness of GM's multi-divisional corporate culture. The automaker is a labyrinth of beancounters and middle managers whose interdepartmental skills make Kafka's nightmarish bureaucracy seem like a well-run America's Cup team. It's important to realize that this kind of diseased corporate culture spends resources with all the efficiency and effectiveness of a government agency.

When I moved to the UK, the Labor party had the same answer for every problem: more money. When they assumed power, they raised taxes and spent the money. And… nothing. Anyone who holds the belief that an extra billion or two or five pumped into GM's stultified product development process will be a "game changer" is sorely mistaken. The money would– sorry, "will" disappear down the same rat hole that currently swallows GM's development cash and produces substandard, bone-headed products.

Fortunately, not all journalists are lining-up at the GM water cooler to drink the company's Kool-Aid. Like many TTAC commentators, some news outlets are pointing out that GM CEO Rick Wagoner's post-strike comment– "This agreement helps us close the fundamental competitive gaps that exist in our business"– finally puts his ass on the line. By his own admission, Wagoner can no longer point to labor costs as the weights around GM's ankles preventing it from running with (ahead of?) the Toyotas, Hondas and Nissans of the world.

Yes, well, there's still Japanese currency manipulation, the mortgage crisis, a general economic downturn and all the other excuses the company has been trotting-out since GM found itself having to explain why its indeterminate turnaround plan has failed to gain traction. Look for more of the same.

Well exactly. GM's new union contract– if ratified– will not save the automaker from its fundamental weaknesses. Going forward, in 2008, GM will be in for a long, tough slog, warmed only by its own cash conflagration. During this time, GM's labor costs will not come down dramatically, its health costs will not be reined in and its Hail Mary products won't save its soul.

The major automakers are breathing a bit easier, thanks to a recent court ruling. The International Herald Tribune reports that the California federal district court has dismissed a claim against General Motors, Ford, DaimlerChrysler, Toyota, Nissan and Honda for damages caused by vehicle emissions. In its case, the State of California was demanding several billion dollars in court-ordered and civil damages on the basis that these emissions constituted a public nuisance that inflicted climate change and health-related costs. Judge Martin Jenkins, a Clinton appointee and San Francisco native, ruled against the Golden State, opining that emissions regulations were the domain of the legislature and not under the jurisdiction of the courts. The state has hinted that it may appeal the ruling. No word yet from Sacramento as to whether the state will also be filing suit against its own Department of Motor Vehicles for permitting millions of state residents to drive all of those cars, or its Department of Transportation for building the highways that they used. 

At the "Frankfurt Motor Show India Day," Indian government and business representatives scolded Germany for their lackadaisical attitude towards the world's largest democracy. "When I speak to German companies", said the Indian Minister for Heavy Industries, "they say the Indian market for small cars is too competitive. But I tell them, you cannot afford to ignore this country, because it is as big as all of Europe, and is growing faster than any other place." Volkswagen AG's Joerg Müller said hold up: VW's offering the Passat and (wait for it) Phaeton to India. Another Indian official said get on with it, mate. "You need to combine German engineering excellence with Indian software ability and low costs to produce a competitive, mass-market product." Meanwhile, according to Spiegel, France's Renault has established a new R&D center in India, where it is developing a Three-Thousand-Dollar car". 2,000 engineers will work on a model which will severely undercut Renault-Nissan-Dacia's present €8,000.00 "Logan" model, but will probably won't make its way to Europe.

We've said it here time and time again: there is no perception gap between what The Big 2.8 build and how the public perceives it. Or, a little more generously, it's a level playing field. If GM, Ford and Chrysler are reaping what they sowed, so are Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Hyundai, Mercedes, Audi, Porsche and every other automaker on planet earth, And yet today's Wall Street Journal confers renewed legitimacy upon this pathetic excuse for losers. "'Building a better car and assuming people will buy it doesn't work,' GM Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Rick Wagoner told reporters at this week's Frankfurt Auto Show. GM, he said, 'can do a better job' marketing its vehicles." So GM has better vehicles and their $2.9b ad spend ain't getting it done. Same old, same old. But the article's intro is by far the worst piece of diss-information. It reveals that CNW research takes a Toyota Camry, removes any identifying logos and tells consumers it's a new model from one of the U.S.-based auto makers. "If they think it's an American car, the perception of the vehicle falls dramatically," said Art Spinella, vice president of the Bandon, Ore.-based firm. "Detroit really gets a bum rap in the U.S." Or not.

Carmakers spend millions of dollars on producing concept cars for the Frankfurt Auto Show et. al. But what is a concept car? Is it something a car company is going to do, wants to do, or might one day do? Yes. There are three main categories: teasers (cars that will eventually hit the market in castrated form), styling exercises (masturbatory, image-building efforts that showcase a carmaker's abilities) and science fiction (the shape of things not to come). Needless to say, teasers first.

Ford's Verve may be a tease, but it sure left me feeling satisfied. The model’s lean proportions and aggressive stance are four-wheeled foreplay, while the detailing shows a masterful grasp of sex appeal. Check out those flush aluminum window frames and the interior lighting straight from a high-class mobile phone. I’m sure we’ll see elements of the Verve on the forthcoming Fiesta and Ka, hopefully without birthing a bastard. Cigarette?

Speaking of teases, it seem like the “new” Chevy Camaro has been playing peek-a-boo since John F. Kennedy told Berliners he was a jelly donut. Although the convertible version shown in Frankfurt is fresh, there’s a fine line between a permanent tease and a damn bore. Transformer? I’m done with her. In contrast, Honda's Accord Tourer Concept is practically a done deal, set for introduction in 2008. It is a super-clean design that wanders over the aesthetic border into sterility– not unlike generic-Japanese cars of the 1990s.

BMW thinks its ready-for-’08 X6 is a "completely new kind of car." Ja, it’s part sports car, part SUV. The official description sounds like the beginning a bad joke, but people who don't know what kind of car they want (except that they want a BMW) will take it seriously enough to keep the factory humming. Unlike the majority of this century’s Bangled Bimmers, the X6 isn’t ugly. But I couldn’t find anything particularly likeable in this escapee from Dr. Moreau's island.

Mitsubishi’s Concept-cX showcar may be equally conflicted, but the execution is pretty darn good for an undead company. The cX has Scion’s typography and lots of Mitsubishi styling cues, such as the Lancer's shark's mouth. It’s also slathered in “Green Plastic;” a polymer made from bamboo stolen from hungry pandas. Anyway, the cX certainly improves on the Suzuki SX-4 which inspired it.

VW salesmen pining for the word “Up!” get their own car. Its slab sides and unimaginative design evoke the spirit [sic] of the existing Polo. It reminds me of Ulla in "The Producers,” who likes to "tidyy oop!" apartments (if only because I’m easily distracted). Sadly, the Up! is no four-wheeled Uma Thurman. With its rear-engine design, it probably won't drive as well, either.

The contrast to Toyota's iQ Concept couldn't be larger (smaller?). Toyota’s iQ is about the size of a Smart (go figure), looks more modern, seats three adults and one sprog (or four Oompa-Loompas) and shares crucial design clues with the Auris and Yaris.   

Fellow columnist Jay Shoemaker is right: the Mercedes F-700 is a hit (and no, it doesn't use hydrogen fuel cell technology). Whether or not the DiesOtto engine (1.8-liter, 258hp) ever comes to fruition, the next, or next-to-next S-Class Mercedes, looks stunning. There's some HR Giger evilness to it, which is a good idea for a plutocrat's car. Inside, there’s none of the present S-class' grandfatherly design clues.

The detailing of the cross-town rival BMW’s CS concept is difficult in parts. Do we really want scalloped arches above the rear wheels? It does look appropriately long and swoopy though. If the replacement for the current 7-Series looks likes this, then we won't bitch (as much).

Another pleasantly evil design for 2012: the Nissan Mixim. It dark, geometric style is all about the Vader. Which is exactly the way a small car should look: easy on the Chihuahua, heavy on the Death Star. The Mixim boasts three-abreast seating, a wraparound video screen and lots of origami detailing.

The Koreans are on a [pletzel] roll, and they have the concepts to prove it. The Kia Kee [first image] copies some elements of the Audi Awwwww– I mean, R8. But it’s a good idea of a sports car for 2010. And the Hyundai iBlue is a good (if blurry) vision of a one-box people-carrier of the future: large yet approachable.

Yes, the future is one-box– at least that’s what science fiction movies have been saying for the past 15 years. And thus, GM/Opel's Flextreme (take THAT Ford Flex and Mr. Funkmaster) provides the usual Sci-Fi elements: opposite-opening doors, low sills, flexible seating. We've seen it all before, but it looks pretty good when executed this well. One question, though: will all cars in the future have Segways coming out of their butts?

Sat nav, brake-by-wire, stability control, parking distance sensors, fuel injection– CNET reports that the average automobile requires $1997 worth of software code to keep it from crashing (in both senses of the word). That’s about nine percent of the showroom price. To stop programming prices from spiraling out of control and to help accelerate development time, Honda, Toyota and Nissan have teamed-up with Toshiba to create a standard operating system for automotive applications. Oh, here’s a surprise: U.S. auto companies may already be falling behind in software standardization. And who will ride to their rescue? CNET’s got the major league hots for IBM, after Big Blue scarfed Swedish “automotive technology powerhouse” Telelogic. (In fact, the dead hand of IBM PR is all over this piece.) Snicker if you must, but the smart money’s still on Microsoft’s mob to create a one-size-fits-all software solution. In any case, the battle for auto OS has serious long-term implications for reliability and repair costs. We’ll keep you posted with our Windows XP.

In an email to 67K employees, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) encouraged employees to buy more fuel efficient vehicles. Although the email mentions several American products– Ford Ranger, Dodge Caravan and Ford Escape Hybrid– it recommends twelve fuel-sippers: the Honda Fit, Civic, Civic GX and Civic Hybrid; Toyota Prius, Corolla and Camry Hybrid; Nissan Altima Hybrid, Kia Rio/Rio 5, Hyundai Accent and Elantra. Speaking to The Detroit News, Chrysler's Jason Vines asked "Can you imagine the Japanese government sending out an e-mail encouraging employees to buy American cars?" Without addressing the political hot potato, HHS spokesman Bill Hall dismissed the controversy as a simple misunderstanding. "People are reading more into this than is here. If people are taking this as an endorsement of vehicles, that's unfortunate." Let's see… employees of a federal agency get an email from HQ with a list of twelve specific cars prefaced with "when stopping for a vehicle consider these models." If that's not an endorsement, this is not a blog post.

TTAC pricing provider TrueDelta recently surveyed its consumer panel (join via our home page) on car dealers' customer satisfaction surveys. For anyone who's ever been "pre-prepared" for a post-sale or service survey by "helpful" dealer staff, the results confirm that the fix is in. Automotive News [AN sub] summarizes Mr. Karesh's findings: "Nearly half of the respondents in the TrueDelta poll said the dealership tried to influence their survey responses. More than one in four said they were overtly pressured by dealership employees to provide perfect scores. About one in eight admitted inflating their scores in response to such pressure." AN named three names as the worst offenders: BMW, Hyundai and Nissan. And get this: two percent of respondents said dealer staff asked to watch them complete the forms, asked to complete the forms for the customer and/or offered them a bribe for perfect score. How great is that? [NB: While this website has dealt with this subject before, it's great to see the truth hit the mainstream media.]

Aside from select Jeeps, Chrysler's sales suck. Given this inescapable fact, you'd think that the hard-pressed born-again domestic automaker would do everything in its power to keep the folks on the American front lines happy. After the sales bank debacle, after brazen "channel stuffing" (forcing dealers to take cars), after barring "under performing" Chrysler dealers from the company's life-sustaining used car auctions, after sending these dealers letters threatening to shut them down, you'd think Chrysler's corporate clowns would have run out of ways to alienate the troops. Wait! Here's a new one: exclude some dealers from the corporate Internet sales funnel. Way.

Automotive News discovered the Crisis Corporation's Internet shenanigans by searching online for Chrysler dealers within a specific zip code. They got a list of all the dealers in that area. When they clicked on the name of one of the dealers, they either did or didn't get transferred to the dealer's website. A decision made at the top level prevented some (if not most) dealers benefiting from leads generated (or now not) by the company's all-singing, all-dancing brand-specific websites.

Chrysler, Dodge or Jeep dealers who don't have the corporate "Five Star" dealer rating (Chrysler pentastar, geddit?) get screwed. If you select a Five Star dealer, you can request a quote, search inventory, schedule a test drive or set up a service appointment. If the chosen dealer didn't quality for the five-star designation, you get a message to call or visit the dealership. End of story.

What makes a Five Star dealership worthy of such consideration? According to www.fivestar.com, Five Star dealers must meet "specific requirements set by DaimlerChrysler." They have "strict facility requirements [so] you can expect a clean and pleasant place to shop for a vehicle or have your vehicle serviced" and employ "consistent, proven processes focused on satisfying every customer every time." 

Even better, they're staffed with "sales professionals [who] are product experts trained to make sure you find the vehicle that best suits your needs [and] service and parts professionals… trained by DaimlerChrysler to properly diagnose your vehicle, repair it right the first time, and get you back on the road quickly." At this automotive nirvana, "employees work together as a team to ensure that, once you purchase a vehicle from them, you have a seamless ownership experience that can only be called Five Star."

If you stop to think about it, a dealer answering to the above description is kinda what a customer has a right to expect from a "normal" car dealer. Chrysler's Five Star folk are only doing what any well-managed, customer-focused dealership should be doing. In that sense, maybe Chrysler's right to cut out its non-Five Star dealers from the cyber-loop. Of course, Chrysler dealers who don't have the Five Star rating don't quite see it that way. 

B.J. Brickle runs both a Chrysler-Jeep dealership and a Nissan franchise in South Carolina. Customers can access his Nissan inventory via Nissan's on-line services. Not so his Chrysler product. "I have a guy just handling Internet leads [at the Nissan dealership]. If you respond to me on the Internet, I'm back to you in an hour. With Chrysler, I don't have that option."

Chrysler's e-favoritism is a classic case of rhinectomy for facial spite. In areas where there are no Five Star dealers, customers looking for local inventory are denied a peek at Chrysler stock– unless a dealer with fewer than five stars wants to bear the expense of listing their inventory on their own site. Even if they do, the vehicles aren't accessible from the corporate mothership's site, where many buyers begin their car-buying adventure. 

In typical Big Three Kremlin style, Chrysler says it's "studying" the problem. They say the selective electronic referrals are designed to reward Five Star dealers and encourage lesser stores to work toward certification. "We're re-evaluating all elements of the Five Star program and hope to have a resolution soon," said spokesperson Lidia Cuthbertson. 

This is beyond nuts. With precious few exceptions, Chrysler's sales are down across the board, with no immediate prospects of resurrection. At best, the company has a truck-heavy, mediocre lineup. While you can certainly understand Chrysler's general desire to trim its bloated dealer network, there are dignified ways to go about it (e.g. Chapter 11). Now is not the time to demoralize dealers struggling to put food on their table and, by extension, Chrysler's.   

One thing's for sure: Chrysler needs to stop "re-evaluating" their web policies and understand the number one rule in sales: make it easy to buy. Stupid moves like this serve no useful purpose. The two-tier internet strategy pits dealer against dealer, and dealers against the company. It may not violate the letter of their franchise agreement, but it annihilates the spirit.

New owners or no, Chrysler still seems Hell-bent on self-annihilation.

By law, foreign automakers seeking a foothold in China must form joint ventures (JVs) with domestic "partners." As we've outlined before , there's an immediate downside: China's scant regard for intellectual property rights (IPR). For example, GM found itself suing Chinese automaker Chery (whose name middle-finger salutes Chevy) over the QQ, a blatant copy of the Daewoo Matiz. The case was settled out of court, but the issue of IPR remains unresolved. And now that Chinese automakers are consolidating and striking out on their own, what's going to happen their foreign partners and their IPR? What do you think?

China's three largest automakers are Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation (SAIC), First Automobile Works (FAW) and Dongfeng. SAIC currently partners with General Motors and VW. FAW is hooked-up with Toyota, VW and Mazda. And Dongfeng works with PSA Peugot Citroën, Honda, Nissan-Renault and Kia.

China's Big Three own almost 50 percent of the domestic auto market. All three have announced plans to develop "house" brands with independent intellectual property rights. As Chinadaily.com puts it, "After churning out Buicks, Passats and other foreign models in tie-ups with global auto giants for years, many home-grown players are setting their sights on an own-brand strategy, hoping to wean themselves off reliance on foreign technology."

To that end, SAIC has budgeted $3.56b over the next five years for designing engines and complete sedans, and building a technical center. The automaker's also announced a massive bond initiative to fund development of their new cars. SAIC is looking to build factories capable of churning out a quarter million vehicles per year.

FAW is set to invest $1.7b in new product development, production facilities and "229 key technologies" over the next eight years. And Dongfeng is spending $1.01b to develop their own brand of cars and a new assembly plant. 

SAIC has a head start on its domestic competitors. They already own the IPR for the Rover 25 and 75 models, purchased from the now-defunct British brand at the end of days. SAIC has used the technology to launch the Roewe 750 based on the (BMW developed) Rover 75. So far they've sold 8k 750s.

SAIC is also considering a merger with smaller Nanjing Auto, owner of the MG brand. Nanjing has started production at MG's former plant in the U.K.; they're setting-up a similar facility back in The People's Republic. It wouldn't be hard to use the car as an anchor for a full line up.

And it won't take long for the other Chinese automakers to catch up. Dongfeng has plans to market a self-branded sedan that "imitates" the Elysee (currently manufactured by Dongfeng Peugeot Citroen Co Ltd.), starting this September. FAW is ready to begin mass production of their first independently designed sedan engine. Entire cars will follow.

Clearly, Chinese automobile manufacturers are cashing in on their crash course in auto manufacturing. They've spent the past 20 or so years studying their partners' design and engineering processes and production techniques, and establishing their own relationships with suppliers. They've also learned marketing, dealing with export and import regulations, and all the rest of the finer points of selling their products internationally.

China's automakers aren't going to want to keep sharing a large chunk of what is now the world's second largest auto market. Over the next five years China's Big Three will flex their muscle to retain their 50 percent market share. Those automakers who've entered these joint ventures will have to pay the price.

It won't be hard for the home-grown tigers to ease their partners out of the picture. Some of the models produced by the JVs are a generation removed than the same model in other markets; they need updating. Without modernization, their sales will start to drop "as core models become increasingly obsolete," warns Goldman Sachs. If the Chinese partners won't allow the foreign partners to update their designs, sales will dwindle, opening the door for the Chinese partners to introduce newer, self-branded models.  

Since Chinese law prohibits foreign auto companies from operating without a Chinese partner, this "planned obsolescence" scenario would effectively shut out the foreign automakers. Even if China's Big Three don't starve their JVs of new product, there is no doubt that the government of China will do whatever it takes to bias the domestic market in favor of home-grown automakers, including (but not limited to) punitive taxes.

Although GM and others rely on the Chinese market to help keep them afloat, there's not a lot they could do about any moves to diminish their profits. We're talking about a country run by a military dictatorship; as the current legal laxity over IPR indicates, there's no chance of legal redress.   

Meanwhile, the Chinese automobile market is expanding. The foreign players are making hay while the sun shines, even as the storm clouds gather above them.

CNNMoney reports that Volkswagen is considering moving their North American headquarters from Auburn Hills (MI) to an as-yet-undetermined location on the east coast. A "high-level manager in U.S. operations" says the company's considering the move because VeeDub's suits have trouble getting direct flights in and out of Detroit, and potential recruits are not exactly clamoring to move to Motown. Also in the mix: VW's thinking about building a second North American plant. Taking a lead out of Nissan's Nashville songbook, the German automaker might be looking to get management, marketing and manufacturing within eyesight of each other. Fearing another exodus like Comerica or Pfizer, Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm's office said Tuesday the state is "in touch" with Volkswagen, but declined to "comment on rumors." If that changes, we'd welcome Jenny's shout out below. 

As if a new owner, a new CEO, housecleaning in the executive suites and negotiating a new contract with the United Auto Workers weren't enough to keep Chrysler's middle management mainlining Mylanta at the Pentastar Palace, the Detroit News reports that Chrysler lost $1,111 on every vehicle they sold in North America last year. That's a drastic drop from the $144 per vehicle they made in 2005, before sales of large trucks and SUVs hit the skids. The only bright spot: Chrysler didn't lose as much money as Ford. The Glass House Gang's losses ran over $1900 per vehicle. To rub salt into festering wounds, the transplants (Toyota, Nissan, Honda) averaged nearly $1600 profit per vehicle. 

The Detroit News gives us the inside dope on Nissan's latest gadget, which allows drivers to pay even less attention to their driving than they do currently. Nissan's engineers have developed a system that combines radar sensors with a computer to "make a car that judges dangers on its own" and lifts the gas pedal to warn the driver of possible collisions. If the driver takes his foot off the accelerator in response, the car will brake to a stop. However, if the driver keeps his foot on the gas, the car will continue to go. So now, that person on the cell phone in the car in front of you suddenly has to wake up and make a split-second assessment: is the car giving a false alarm and can they keep going, or is something happening that requires the car to stop? Nissan also has a lane departure prevention system that "swivels a car back into its lane if it swerves off" which will be offered later this year on the Infinti EX. Wouldn't it just be easier to pay attention to what's going on around you?

With Buick concentrating on the Chinese market, Cadillac going for a younger demographic and the Lincoln Town Car's future uncertain, someone has to take up the slack for us alter kochers. Toyota has a head start with the Avalon, but Nissan's making a move on the geriatric market. TheMatureMarket.co quotes Renault/Nissan CEO Carlos Ghosn as he states the obvious: "The average consumer on earth is going to be much older. We know also that usually the purchasing power is with older people. [That means] more money in the hands of the seniors and more seniors on earth." Watch for more Nissans featuring geezer-friendly technology such as backup cameras and perimeter sensors in the near future. Carlos didn't say if his company is working on a way to automatically cancel the turn signal after the car reaches a certain speed on the highway.