Holy emerging markets! According to Japan's Nikkei business daily [via Reuters], Toyota's luxury division is boosting production by 35 percent to cater to strong demand in Russia, China and other nascent automotive markets. No question: the brand's on a roll. Last year, ToMoCo sold 518,300 Lexi, a nine percent gain over 2006 totals. Lexus now accounts for roughly six percent of Toyota's total sales. As we reported previously, Toyota plans to expand production generally by 8.4 percent– despite the U.S. downturn and any ripple effect it may have on the global economy. According to Nikkei, that's just a start (continuation?). "Toyota has set an internal goal of producing 11.3 million vehicles globally in 2012, excluding its units Daihatsu Motor Co and Hino Motors Ltd. That would represent a rise of more than 30 percent from 2007." Toyota denied the report. 

Toyota will introduce two new hybrid models at the 2009 Detroit North American International Auto Show: the third-gen Prius and a new Lexus-badged hybrid. Motor Trend reports that the new Lexus will be based on the Prius platform and drivetrain, aimed squarely at the "lifestyle wagon" segment. Offering Toyota's proven Hybrid Synergy Drive in a category of small but pricey wagons (think Audi A3) seems like a smart move; the "hybrid premium" will not scare away shoppers who are already considering dropping $30k on what amounts to a compact car. Unfortunately, the artist's rendering which accompanies this announcement looks like little more than the Prius donor car. Hopefully ToMoCo will put a little more effort into the looks of the final product.

Backing-up the basic thoery behind Andrew Dederer's TTAC editorial on Chinese automotive exports, Toyota is countering a drop in domestic sales by aggressively expanding exports. The JCN Network reports that while ToMoCo's home market sales fell 4.4 pct (to 108,787 units), they ramped-up exports by 9.1 pct (to 208,156 units). Globally, the world's largest automaker increased production in January by 8.4 percent (compared to '07), cranking-out 719,646 units. If you add in sales of ToMoCo subsidies (NOT minority partnerships like some automakers we could name), January's total rises to 801,873 units.

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. 

OK, it's a love letter to Toyota, written by a local Mississippi paper pleased as punch that their audience are enjoying the economic uplift provided by a new, $1.3b Toyota factory. But The Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal still offers a fascinating look at how ToMoCo gets the party started at a new production facility. "Numerous training sessions at other Toyota sites, including Georgetown, Ky., and San Antonio, are part of the regimen. TMMMS [Toyota Motor Manufacturing Mississippi] employees will spend three weeks or so at one of those facilities, then return home for training at area community colleges for a few weeks. The schedule rotates for a few months until employees are ready to 'graduate.' Then the next batch of employees starts the process again. But the training doesn't stop… Toyota workers are cross-trained to do other jobs. The premise is simple – the more you know, the more you can do, the more valuable you are." Production at the new plant– just outside Elvis' birthplace in Tupelo– begins in late 2009 for the 2010 model year Highlander.

Another myth exploded. Hot off TTAC's Paul Niedermeyer's editorial shattering our high-octane illusions of a country content with big, RWD Australian-made sedans like the Falcon, The Age reports that Ford and Holden finished at the bottom of the first ever J.D. Powers customer satisfaction survey for Australia. A sample of Aussies with cars up to three years old were fed an "international standard questionnaire" and asked to rate their purchases on several factors, including performance and reliability. Scanning the top place finishers paints a familiar picture for many Americans: Mazda, Honda and Toyota. Holden spinmeister John Lindsay uses utterly generic understatement to diffuse any controversy, noting that "When you sell thousands of cars some people will have issues". Right up until they stop buying, John.

“Scion does not recommend towing a trailer… your vehicle was not designed for towing.” Welcome to the great American anti-towing conspiracy. Manufacturers of anything less than a big SUV or pick-up are trying to take away our God-given right to tow with our cars. For a guy who’s towed everything from a Radio Flyer wagon behind a pedal-powered John Deere sidewalk tractor, to a three-bedroom house, I feel like I’m being singled out. Of course, there’s a possibility that I’m the cause as well as the target of this jihad. A lot of lawyers do drive the Ventura Freeway, and one of them may well have seen my spectacular stunt with a trailer. Read More >

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.

Until GM’s stylish EV-1 came along, electric vehicles (EVs) looked like they were made in shop class. Back then, very few people actually thought about owning an EV. Though many electric dreams have been literally crushed, green-thinking and/or peak oil-aware drivers now look to EVs as the natural successor to traditional fossil-fuel sucking and CO2 spewing motorcars. But are they worthy?

With standard nickel metal hydride batteries, no. Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEVs) demonstrate the best use– and limitations– of the technology. NEVs such as GEM and ZENN are fully functional, ready right now vehicles. But most of us would hesitate to (as in never) shell out $10K – $15K for a vehicle with a range of 30 to 35 miles and a speed of 25 to 30 mph– especially when we could get a Yaris or Fit for the same money.

The EV’s immediate and long-term future [still] depends on developing powerful, reliable and safe batteries. At the moment EV hopes reside in lithium-ion batteries, which are twice as powerful by weight as nickel-metal-hydride batteries.

Li-ion cells work great in our mobile phones and iPods. But automotive batteries must transfer much larger amounts of energy than a notebook battery. Safety, both real and perceived, is a huge problem. Fire can result from a ruptured separator: the electrically insulating porous polymer membranes that stop electrons (but let ions pass) between anode and cathode.

Automakers need high performance separators that allow greater ion flow and thus more power with safety membranes that close pores when overheated, thus stopping fire. Production is complicated; the Tesla Motor’s Li-Ion cooling system is a complex work-around with inherent risks and limitations, both practical and financial. Meanwhile, Evonik, Celgard, Asahi Kasei and even ExxonMobil are working on multilayer separators to make lithium-ion car batteries safe enough for soccer moms.

Even if they don't burst into flame, lithium-ion batteries are expensive. Their capacity often degrades in the first year. They don’t work well in cold temperatures. And they sometimes fail altogether after three years. Yet many EV startups confidently offer lithium-based electric vehicle conversions.

Hybrid Technologies lists a range of electric vehicle conversions. The Smart ForTwo becomes the $43.5K LiV Dash; the MINI Cooper becomes the $57.5K LiV Flash; the Chrysler PT Cruiser becomes the $55K LiV Surge; and most recently, the Toyota Yaris becomes the $39.5K LiV Wise. Hybrid Technologies claim 100 mile ranges, 70 to 80 mph speeds and at least 1500 charges.

Lion EV offers the $30K Ford Ranger EV, a $35.5K Ford Escape EV and a $37.5K Ford Escape Hybrid PHEV. They claim a base range of 120 miles for the Escape EV and 200 miles for the Ranger EV.

For serious EV shoppers, their manufacturers’ greatest weakness: you can pretty much forget about kicking the tires and taking your prospective purchase for a quiet spin. Hybrid Tech is looking for distributors other than the catalog at Sam's Club. LionEV claims their dealerships are home-based with no lots to visit. "How can I arrange a tour of your manufacturing plant?" asks the LionEV FAQ. "You can't," is the answer.

Prices for these unseen, untouched vehicles are expressed in general terms– many options cannot be specified before ordering. And ordering online requires paying an upfront deposit weeks, months and even years ahead of delivery.

Lion and Hybrid are two of the rare companies that actually let you order four-wheel electric vehicles with some expectation of delivery. The Tango looks great next to George Clooney, but it requires a $10K deposit and a two to three year wait (while Commuter Cars lines up investors). Phoenix and Think maintain Flash-y websites that promise breakthroughs, but never seem to have anything for sale (in the U.S., anyway). And then there’s Tesla’s Roadster. Or, as is the case, not.

Assuming that EV makers get their acts together and create lithium-ion batteries (or some better storage medium) that are powerful enough to offer the range and recharge times consumers demand, and safe enough to withstand America’s litigious society, the question remains: are EVs a suitable solution to our desire for personal mobility?

On the positive side, nearly everyone has electrical power in their homes and businesses. No question: there’s a lot of unused nighttime generating capacity. EVs run clean, run quiet (too quiet, according to advocates for the hearing challenged).

On the negative side, electrical energy has to come from somewhere, and that source is usually CO2-emitting, fossil-fuel-fired plants and/or the ever-controversial nuclear power plants.  Except for the tiny contribution by wind and solar, and the modest contribution by hydroelectric, electricity is not clean power. Nor is electric power any more guaranteed to stay less expensive than oil and natural gas.

In short, EVs have a long way to go before they can go a long way towards transforming America’s transportation system.

You guys out-smarted me yesterday. (Not that I should be surprised, as TTAC is known far and wide for its brainy readers.) Still, you approached the American Time Capsule QOTD fom an angle I hadn't even considered. I was wondering which car would be worth the most filthy lucre in 2058. My answer? A Dodge Viper SRT10 ACR. (If a 1969 Mustang is fetching seven figures today, you can't even imagine what a sub-10 mpg V10 monster will be worth when gasoline is illegal.) But then y'all flipped the scrip and pondered what car best encapsulates (so to speak) our current automotive times. I've long held the opinion that future generations will look back at our 5,500+ lbs SUVs and think, "What in the fuck?" And pulling the Cadillac Escalade EXT (that's the pickup version) out of the ground will forever settle the argument that we share a common ancestor with chimps. But those are American cars. Today, we talk Japanese. Me? I'd bury a Toyota Century. But that's because you know ToMoCo will still be building the damn JDM-only things in 50 years when internal combustion engines are seen as worse than shooting-up babies with dope– big V12 and all. Hey, those upper crusty salarymen have needs, no? Plus, they're beautiful. You?

GM's humongous hybrid SUV's have garnered a lot of attention and copped a few awards, thanks to what is admittedly a pretty slick drivetrain (and even slicker PR campaign). What GM isn't publicizing is that it isn't "their" drivetrain; it was developed jointly with BMW and DaimlerChrysler. When the divorce became final, Daimler and Chrysler got joint custody, so now four different manufacturers get to share the wealth. The Detroit Free Press has a list of all the models where you can expect to see them use the magic tranny that makes it all work. While improving truck mileage is a good thing, cars are conspicuously absent from this list. So if you don't want to buy a truck but want more than GM's semi-hybrid passenger cars, you'll still have to look towards the Brands of the Rising Sun. It makes one wonder if they're avoiding that market because the system won't work in anything smaller than an SUV, and/or they don't want the inevitable comparison with class-leader Toyota Prius.

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.

Picture this: Toyota outsells GM and Ford combined. Chrysler is long gone, having sold their factories to a foreign automaker. Meanwhile, GM and Ford import all their products from low-wage countries except for large sedans, whose drooping sales figures are propped-up by fleet sales. Imports fill the top eight spots for retail sales. In the face of massive imports and a strong currency, the Big 3 (Toyota, GM, Ford) informs the feds that they’re considering ceasing all remaining domestic automobile production. Welcome to the Down Under (and out) car market of Australia.

American car enthusiasts tend to envision Australia as an American mini-me holdover from the good old days, when traditional RWD sedans with big straight-six and honking V8 engines dominated the roads and the sales charts. In that rose-tinted rearwards-gazing scenario, the Australian divisions of Detroit’s Big 3 carve-up big chunks of the market for themselves, stake claims on the best selling cars, and generate handsome profits for mother Detroit.

In reality, Australia’s domestic car industry is hanging on by a thread. In fact, the antipodean market offers a scary glimpse into the possible future of the American automobile industry.

Back in the day, Chrysler of Australia created some legendary machines with hemi six cylinder engines that Ford and GM’s V8s couldn’t catch. Ultimately, it was to no avail. In case you missed it (or you’re younger than thirty), Chrysler called it quits Down Under in 1980. Twenty-eight years after Chrysler handed the keys to their plant to Mitsubishi, they’ve announced its closure.

Analysts who think GM and Ford will get a boost if/when Chrysler goes bust in the US should consider the Australian example. Since Chrysler withdrew, GM's Holden and Ford-AU’s market share has fallen even more precipitously than their American parents'. Holden now accounts for about 15 percent of Australia's new car market. Ford is precariously close to single digits. Toyota dominates, with a commanding 25 percent market share and most of the top-selling cars and trucks.

And yet, Holden and Ford still claim bragging rights to the number one (Commodore) and number two (Falcon) selling cars in the land of Oz. Pay no attention to those men behind the curtain. In another eerie equivalent to stateside PR, their claims are based on smoke, mirrors and fleet sales.

In Australia, the major manufacturers have agreed among themselves to not reveal fleet sales. They believe (rightly) that the numbers would damage public perception of the home-town teams. The Sydney Morning Herald managed to get their hands on a set of stats– and no wonder they’re secret. No less than 81 percent of the Commodore’s sales and 88 percent of Falcon’s sales sailed with the fleets.

Amongst buyers paying with their own money, the Commodore was merely number nine; the Falcon a distant fifteen. Not surprisingly, the Corolla is tops with private buyers, followed by the Mazda 3 and the Toyota Yaris. Holden’s best seller (to the public) is the Korean-built Barina (a.k.a. Chevrolet Aveo).

It turns out that Australia isn’t a parallel universe, immune to oil prices and environmental trends. The market for large cars declined 37 percent in 2005 and 2006; and it’s still contracting. The Toyota Camry is the only locally-made four-cylinder large car. The Aussie Big Two never developed smaller cars, and didn’t build a single four cylinder car for… just about forever. Ford has only just started building the Focus locally.

Ford’s restyled Falcon has just been revealed, but it’s riding on a tired old platform that wouldn’t cut it beyond its loyal but rapidly shrinking fan base (think Crown Vic). Thankfully, Ford has just announced the final solution to the geriatric twosome: a clean-sheet next-generation RWD platform to be developed in Australia.

By the same token, Holden has become GM’s RWD “home room.” It’s vying for development of the small RWD Alpha platform. But exports of Aussie RWD vehicles are not viable (G8 excepted). In fact, Ford may import the next-gen RWD cars or stampings from the U.S. These development projects don’t guarantee a future domestic production industry.

Bottom line: GM and Ford’s Australian units are sinking fast. Holden reported a $145m loss in '06, and $146m in '07. Ford-AU nicked mother Dearborn’s pocketbook a bit more gently, with a loss of merely $40m. No wonder GM and Ford are throwing development dollars for rear wheel-drive (RWD) cars to the Aussies. Without the imported bucks, they might soon be toast.

Meanwhile, the Australian reports that senior auto executives are warning that “union trouble or higher wages would be a poison arrow” for local car manufacturing. And Toyota is “reviewing” local Camry production. At the same time, China has targeted Australia for future automotive exports.

Welcome to the future.

Scion sales finished 2007 24.8 percent below 2006. Last month, the once and future Gen Y brand dipped 12.6 percent. According to Brandweek, Toyota's sending three-person teams (including two "muscle men") into "hipster neighborhoods" in ten U.S. cities to promote the Scion xB RS 5.0. As the car only comes in Gold Rush Mica, they'll be making the scene in campaign-branded armored cars, handing out Scion-branded skullcaps in boxes made to look like gold bars, with cards that have the URL for a Scion microsite (and the pass code to access it). Whether this unorthodox approach will improve sales is anyone's guess. Meanwhile, analysts reckon Scion's facing external competition from the Fit and MINI, and internal threat from the Toyota Yaris. Looking a bit closer at Scion's overall sales figures, it seems Scion's promoting the wrong model. Even though the xB's sales were off last year, they appear to be recovering this year with a 17.2 percent jump in January. The tC, however, was down 19.3 percent last year, down a further 33.2 percent below last January's totals. Perhaps Scion should pay some real muscle men to prowl cubicles and offer secretaries shoulder rubs and a link to a tC-intensive webpage.