CaMIRO

The Prius, too.

http://www.autoblog.com/2007/08/14/toyota-...ind-of-its-own/

"One Prius owner with only 600 miles on the clock told ConsumerAffiars of his car experiencing 'uncontrollable acceleration,' and another reported that after hitting a large bump in the road, traction control flared up before the brakes cut and the car started to lunge forward."

I'm reminded of CBS and the Audi 5000. Then, as now, I have yet to see a report of unintended acceleration that has any credibility. It's all usually driver error, although blaming floor mats is generally believed to be better PR strategy.

It is amusing, though, that this latest round has focused in on Toyota. The person who sent me the Prius link was quick to note the irony in smug drivers making such elementary mistakes.

I say we sit back and wait for Consumer Reports to file the Prius and ES next to the Suzuki Samurai; Isuzu Trooper; Lotus Elise, and other vehicles that this esteemed group of multifaceted watchdogs can't seem to learn how to drive.

I can't say I think much of the floor-mat excuse, particularly when the blame likely lies (as in the case of the Audi 5000) with the drivers. Then again, Toyota already tried blaming the idiot consumer over sludge issues, and that didn't work so well.

With all of that said, Toyota did recall a bunch of Lexus RXs last year for an underdash plastic piece that popped off during driving, above the driver's feet. Who says Toyota doesn't steal ideas from Alfa Romeo?

Yugo was the export name used on Zasatava's cars, not a subsidiary.

Right. Sorry - Yugo of America's parent company would have been more correct (Zastava took over the distributor in 1988/89).

The entire Zastava factory was known as "Yugo" at some point in the '80s, with all Zastava models - domestic included - renamed as "Yugo" products. The logo changed back from the "Y" to "Z" about a decade ago.

Regarding GM/ Zastava - it looks like the deal will go through.

Opel and Zastava agree to joint venture

After two years of will they, won't they, it appears that Serbian automaker Zastava Automobili and General Motors German arm Opel AG have finally agreed to a joint venture.

Astra Classic II's clean, Bertone lines have yet to date. When Zastava begins assembling the Astra II, the company must hope to get its base price as close as possible to that of a loaded Dacia Logan or Lada Kalina - say, 10,000 euros. Zastava's specialty has always been budget motoring, and at this price, buyers across the region would be hard-pressed to find a more elegant (yet practical) design. Certainly, Dacia's Logan seems visually crude by comparison.

http://www.autoberza.info/autobrief/?lng=e...d=593&rid=0

This deal has been talked about for two years, and it looks like it may finally see fruition. Demand for Chevrolets and Opels in Eastern Europe is growing by leaps and bounds, with GM shortly to open a third plant in Russia to build the Chevy Captiva. Chevrolet sales grew by 33% in Europe, to more than 100,000, in the first quarter of 2007. It is the best-selling brand in Macedonia.

Opel is Croatia's best-selling brand, Croatia bordering with Serbia and both of these being former republics of Yugoslavia. With Zastava having invested more than 15 million euros recently in new presses and machinery to build its new Zastava 10 (effectively Fiat's Punto), the company has begun exporting again. GM may be about to take advantage.

It appears Zastava's plant will assemble Opel Astra Classics.

http://www.autoberza.info/autobrief/?lng=e...d=585&rid=0

General Motors Corp., the world's largest automaker, is negotiating a deal with Serbia's Zastava Automobili for the import and local production, in Serbia, of its Opel vehicles, a spokesman for GM in Serbia said on Tuesday.

Fifty-four years old, Zastava was once the pride of the former Yugoslavia, making more than 200,000 cars annually, and exporting over 130,000 cars to the United States between 1985 and 1991. The Yugoslav Civil War has taken its toll on the company, however.

Other links on Zastava:

Zastava 10: The Savior?

http://www.autoberza.info/autobrief/?lng=e...d=423&rid=5

2007 Zastava 10 Euro 4

http://www.autoberza.info/autobrief/?lng=e...d=578&rid=5

Zastava Florida IN TDC

http://www.autoberza.info/autobrief/?lng=e...d=565&rid=5

August 2006 sales

• Chrysler 300 - 11,703 (and 95,475 year-to-date)

• Buick Lucerne - 10,822 (and 67,928 year-to-date)

• Dodge Charger - 10,461 (and 77,540 year-to-date)

• Nissan Maxima - 8,814 (and 48,609 year-to-date)

• Lexus ES350 - 7,973 (and 48,365 year-to-date - includes ES330)

• Toyota Avalon - 6,747 (and 58,540 year-to-date)

• Acura TL - 6,339 (and 48,940 year-to-date)

• Ford Five Hundred – 6,046 (and 62,028 year-to-date)

• Ford Crown Victoria - 5,091 (and 46,642 year-to-date)

• Mercury Grand Marquis - 4,036 (and 43,383 year-to-date)

• Hyundai Azera - 2,090 (and 18,577 year-to-date)

• Mercury Montego – 1,728 (and 16,244 year-to-date)

To answer the inevitable corollary, GM points out that retail deliveries of the Lucerne for August 2006 were 9,021.

"With all-around great product like the Lucerne and more coming down the pipeline, like the Enclave, it could be said that the brand is back. However, they now face a few challenges, mostly to change the public's perception.

"A certain group of Buick enthusiasts hopes to work on changing this though this is their story, and what they have to say."

http://crubsandfents.wordpress.com/2006/08...buick/#more-111

Interesting article. Crubs & Fents has been one of the more level-headed new blogs I've read of late.

The State of General Motors: Q1

General Motors reported its preliminary first-quarter financial results yesterday, and these were better than expected... every automotive unit improved upon financial results reported in the same period last year.

As of January 1st, 2006, the company has had one, single, product design and engineering budget. This integration is Lutz’s major task. Lutz, who measures his age in Celsius, has the experience to hone General Motors’ often disparate focus, both in its products, and in their engineering within what is a giant global company that has only recently begun to take advantage of its scale and reach. The key is to adapt the global organization to accept and empower people who are able to balance the use of global platforms and parts that are available to them, with an understanding of how to adapt these to the local markets their brands serve.

General Motors employs – directly – more than 120,000 people across the United States. It provides health-care coverage to 1.1 million employees; retirees, and dependents – more than any other company in the country. Given this responsibility, what purpose does unbridled doom and gloom serve?

Despite constant surmising about GM’s financial woes, the company raised its capital spending in 2005, and will increase it again by approximately $800 million in 2006 (to $8.7 billion).

Harbour Consulting’s 2005 survey found GM’s Oshawa, Ontario plant to be the most efficient in North America, at 15.85 labor hours per vehicle... this is all the more impressive when one considers that General Motors – unlike Toyota; Honda, and Nissan – reports all its plants to the survey. The three foreign automakers do not report statistics on their newest plants until they are up to speed. Toyota leaves out Princeton, Indiana, for instance; Honda, its Lincoln, Alabama plant.

... the March turn rate of the Chevrolet Tahoe was 19 days; of the Yukon, 16 days, and the Escalade, 7 days. What was it for the Toyota Highlander Hybrid and Lexus RX400h hybrid SUVs? 34 days.

At some point, much as AutoExtremist’s Peter DeLorenzo predicted last year, the positives of GM’s resurgence may well belie the negative press – and it will be a sad comment on the state of today’s media.

If General Motors’ products – or Ford and Chrysler’s products, for that matter – are uncompetitive, then let them sink. However, if they suffer more from perception than competence, then we all lose – particularly (and this is where Lutz’s numbers come in) when the stakes are so great.

As GM gets it together both in its product development process and in the products that process produces, it remains to be seen if our opinion leaders can forgive and forget the 1970s for long enough to take notice.

Don't Count the Dots

Brief quotes below...

GM Executive Lori Queen is reported to have fired back this week at Consumer Reports, through Automotive News, for the perceived injustice of its top-ten auto list this year. While we'll admit both that several vehicles on that list have better competitors, and that by corollary an all-Japanese list seems peripherally disingenuous, the real question is whether obvious inadequacies in Consumer Reports' methodology have any chance of being rectified.

  

It is these we propose to discuss, briefly, this morning.

How can a self-selective survey of subscribers possibly have external validity? Only Consumer Reports subscribers may fill out the survey, and they are selected not at random but, rather, participate on a volunteer basis. It is unclear what verification of their responses is performed but, this and other issues notwithstanding, the self-selective nature of this survey is a massive barrier to its trustworthiness and, ultimately, its relevance. By Champion's own comments to McElroy - "our job... is to serve our subscribers... the people that we are helping (are) the same people that are filling-in the survey" - Consumer Reports' findings require a serious disclaimer! (Autoline Detroit, October 30th, 2005)

How can one possibly compare the reliability factors of two vehicles to which (potentially) wildly different numbers of responses have been submitted? Consumer Reports has never disclosed these numbers, and will not upon request. To attempt to compare Consumer Reports' 'dots' between a Chevrolet Malibu and a Toyota Camry, without clear indication of the number of responses, flies in the face of margin-of-error, which holds that the accuracy of an estimate varies with the numbers of responses used in determining it.

However, given the clear problems noted here, Consumer Reports must be careful of perpetuating the perception gap. Even when done unintentionally, through inaccuracy and through the failure to provide critical information to ensure that a survey's results are properly interpreted, disingenuousness remains this end result. Moreover, perpetuating the perception gap does not serve the consumer - it does not "maintain and enhance the quality of life for consumers" (as Consumers Union claims is its mission) but, rather, it maintains the status quo, perhaps merely because not enough readers have caught on to these basic statistical faux-pas.

Sales for January 2006 were up 8.06% over January 2005, and down 22.65% over December 2005.

In the ten segments defined in the charts below, the following overall statistics apply (in order of display):

Entry-level segment was up 15.54% over January 2005, and down 2.4% over December 2005.

Midsize-Large Mainstreamers were up 15.04% over January 2005, and down 4.29% over December 2005.

Mainstreamer Coupes were up 11.46% over January 2005, and up 1.72% over December 2005.

Luxury, up 25.7% over January 2005, and down 29.6% over December 2005.

Sports & GT, up 7.81% over January 2005, and down 23.51% over December 2005.

Minivans, up 6.1% over January 2005, and down 22.51% over December 2005.

Crossovers were up 3.55% over January 2005, and down 28.95% over December 2005.

SUVs were up 0.29% over January 2005, and down 35.97% over December 2005.

Pickup Trucks were down 3.91% over January 2005, and down 38.23% over December 2005.

Hybrids were up 98.34% over January 2005, and down 10.3% over December 2005 (n.b: neither Dec '05 nor Jan '05 figures include Escape Hybrid).

I left it open because it allows someone like Scott, who's job it is to put together the autoshow for Chevy and HUMMER, to refute alligations that the Hybrid was not on the floor and help kill some of this stupid "plan".

I'd like to add to this thread with some pictorial evidence, if I may.

These photographs were shot at the Chevrolet Tahoe Hybrid's press conference unveiling on Sunday, January 8th:

Meanwhile, the following shots were taken today, at the NAIAS Industry Preview on Thursday, January 12th, 2006:

The Chevrolet Tahoe Hybrid, and associated displays, are clearly still present in Cobo Hall.

2006 Camaro Concept Confirmed for Detroit

... the key elements here encompass a more total, more involving ownership experience: rear-wheel-drive; a low center of gravity, and the hedonism of two doors, V8 power, and driver-oriented cockpits. Lest we forget, this aggressive power is wrapped in aggressive style, to which is affixed an affordable price tag.

It seems like a simple formula - perhaps, all too simple for some, but nonetheless a formula which has thrilled hundreds of thousands of people.

... a General Motors seeking to close the perception gap could do much worse than to look to a revived Camaro; a car that stands as a symbol of American performance in the '60s; that exemplified perseverance (perhaps, paradoxically, excessively so) under draconian, self-defeating legislation in the '70s; a car that suffered from ninety-percent execution, with ten-percent excess, in the '80s, and that evolved from troubled missteps into a superlative performer in the '90s, but found that its audience was no longer with it.

At Detroit 2006, however, one can bet that this audience will be watching. Post-millennial General Motors knows full well that the final ten percent in product execution is the key to prolonged success, and that cars cannot be left to stand a decade with infirm plans for their replacement.

Congratulations, Camaro, and welcome back; we've missed you.

from http://www.automobear.com:

For November 2005, 1.6 million vehicles were sold in the U.S. market, falling 2.8% over November 2004. The industry as a whole is now projected to figure at between 15.8 million and 16 million units for the year.

This is improved over the 15.4 million total units that were estimated after the trauma of October 2005, which saw a 14.1% fall over October 2004. It seems positive, too, to note that considerable inventory reductions have - correspondingly - taken place, with Chrysler in Thursday's teleconference noting that its overall inventory is down 20,000 units over this time last year, making for a 92-day supply overall. Ford's corresponding inventories have dropped by 66,000 units.

Chrysler's senior vice-president of sales Gary Dilts also emphasizes that Chrysler has been more focused than its competitors on retail sales, versus fleet. That said, Ford counters that its retail sales were 5% higher in November 2005, over October 2005, with fleet sales 7% down, although admits that retail sales declined 21% over November 2004, with fleet sales up 4% to 31% of its total.

Chrysler shared at its teleconference that it was expecting fuel prices to continue to drop, which bodes well for consumer confidence in December. The nation's best-selling hybrid, Toyota's Prius, dropped more than 20% over October 2005, making November among the lowest of its months on record this year. It is far too early to make much of this, but Ford's manager of sales analysis and reporting, too, expressed that Ford was "feeling a little better about the outlook for the economy than we were a month or two ago."

The optimism, despite the volatility of this year's sales figures, is borne out in a historical analysis of industry trends. Traditionally, December lifts November's retail pace by double digits, and given the terrible times of September and October, the industry's confidence is well founded. December figures will tell the entire story.

A few housekeeping items, then, before we move on to the analysis part of our monthly report.

General Motors, as a whole, is down 7.6% over November 2004, and 3.8% year-to-date. Ford Motor Company, as a whole, is down 14.8% for the month (over November 2004), and 4.5% year-to-date. DaimlerChrysler is down 3% for the month, but up 5% year-to-date. Honda/ Acura climbed 6.4% and 6.2%, respectively; Toyota/ Lexus/ Scion is up 5.6% and 10.3%, and Nissan/ Infiniti was down 3.9% for the month, but up 10.3% for the year.

By individual brands,

- Hummer is up 113.6% over November 2004, and up 90.5% for 2005, year-to-date, the new H3 midsize SUV making it the fastest-growing brand in the U.S. market.

- Scion is up 28.5% over November 2004, and up 62.6% for 2005, year-to-date.

- Land Rover is up 18% and up 30.8%, respectively.

- Suzuki is up 18.2% and 9.8%, respectively;

- Audi, up 15% and 5.6%;

- BMW, up 14.2% and 2.2%;

- Hyundai, up 12.5% and 8%;

- Honda, 10.4% and 6%;

- Porsche, 10% and 1%;

- Lexus, 7.7% and 5.2%;

- Toyota, 5.6% and 10.3%, and

- Subaru, 5% and 4.8%.

Saturn is up 12% for the month, and stable for the year.

- Cadillac is down 24.8% over November 2004, but up 2.5% for 2005, year-to-date.

- Mercury is down 20.8% over November 2004, but up 2.1% for 2005, year-to-date.

- Acura is down 14.2% but up 7.2%, respectively.

- Infiniti is down 14.1%, but up 4.3%, respectively;

- Saab, down 18.1% yet up 2.4% year-to-date;

- Kia, down 13.8%, but up 2.9% year-to-date;

- MINI, down 5.7%, but up 19.1% year-to-date;

- Dodge, down 4%, but up 1% year-to-date;

- Jeep, down 3%, but up 9% year-to-date, and

- Chrysler is down 1% for the month, but up 13% year-to-date.

Mazda; Mitsubishi; Pontiac, and Volkswagen went the opposite way, with Mazda up 1% for the month but down 2% for the year; Mitsubishi up 7.2% for the month yet down 24% for the year; Pontiac up 10.7% for the month but down 8.4% for the year, and Volkswagen up 4.8% for the month if down 15.5% for the year.

- Mercedes-Benz has dropped 3% over November 2004, and is down 1% for 2005, year-to-date.

- Buick is down 5.8% over November 2004, and is down 8.2% for 2005, year-to-date.

- Nissan is down 6.7% and 7.8%, respectively.

- Chevrolet is down 13.4% and 2.5%, respectively;

- the Ford brand dropped 14%, and 4.2% year-to-date;

- Lincoln, down 15.3% and 12.5%;

- GMC, down 27.4% and 4.7%;

- Jaguar, down 40.7% and 34.1%;

- Volvo, down 25.8% and 9.7%, and

- Isuzu (non-commercial) is down 51.3% over November 2004, and is down 55.6% for 2005, year-to-date.


As we noted last month, even though auto sales traditionally drop in the Fall, October 2005 was particularly trying for the industry - indeed, per Autodata Corp, the worst October since 1992. The industry will, on the whole, be relieved by both stabilization and recovery, in some segments, for November. Overall, a small uptick in sales for November 2005, over October 2005, can be noted.

Last month, we wrote that just 82 vehicles increased their sales performances in October, over September 2005. For November, the number climbs to 120 vehicles that improved over October 2005 (please note that patchy Mitsubishi sales reports introduce mild error in both figures; that our Mainstreamer Coupes section is sparse due to several manufacturers not reporting separate sales for such models, and that niche, stratospherically-priced brands - including Bentley; Ferrari; Lamborghini; Maserati; Maybach, and Rolls-Royce - are not incorporated, per our charts).

Compared to October 2005, in segments defined per our ten charts:

- Pickup Truck sales in November were up 12.9%;

- SUVs, up 9.1%;

- Crossovers, up 2.1%;

- Luxury, up 2.5%, and

- Minivans and Sports & GT were stable.


The biggest drop was suffered by:

- Mainstreamer Coupes (down 10.5%), followed by the

- Entry-Level segment (down 9.6%);

- Hybrids (down 4.9%), and

- Midsize-to-Large Mainstreamers (down 2.6%).


Please note that these month-to-month figures cannot quite be used to predict trends - one swallow does not a summer make, if you will - and it is all the more important to note this given the volatile nature of the year's sales performance, with strong and strongly incentivized figures earlier this summer followed by gas price hikes and a fall in consumer confidence producing traumatic September and, particularly, October months.

One must consider that, industry-wide, November 2005's car sales increased 4.5% over November 2004, while sales of pickups and SUVs declined 8.4%. Year-to-date, passenger cars are up 2.8%, while pickups and SUVs are down 0.6%.

We must also note that, despite gains in the SUV and Pickup Truck segments in November over gas-price weary October 2005, Ford manager of sales analysis and reporting George Pipas mused at the manufacturer's teleconference Thursday, "this would appear to be the first time since 1981 that passenger car sales have outperformed sales in the truck/ light truck category, on a year-to-year basis."

In the throes of last month's performance, we identified vehicles which had (literally) weathered the storm. In October, we were particularly impressed with sales performances of the new Chevrolet Monte Carlo; Cadillac DTS; Chevrolet HHR, and Lexus IS, not to mention the ongoing strength of the Mustang, and the excellent early launch of Ford's Fusion/ Milan/ Zephyr midsize trio, which bested Ford's Fusion expectations alone by 50% and led Ford U.S. sales analysis manager George Pipas to suggest, "I believe the Fusion has the potential to take the baton from the Mustang as this year's hottest car in the industry." We have seen commentary to suggest that observers were expecting more than a 34% improvement for Fusion; Milan, and Zephyr in November over October, but there are two important factors to consider here. First, dealers had 9,000 of these vehicles in inventory at the beginning of November (including 5,800) Fusions, and that is what they sold; Fusion/ Milan/ Zephyr cars are not expected to ramp upward to full production by March. In October 2005, the Power Information Network told the Detroit Free Press that the Fusion sits on showroom floors for an average of 11 days - 3 less than Toyota's Camry - before being sold, and that Fusion buyers have - at an average age of 46 - been five years younger than the average competition buyer.

Moreover, through November, no incentives were placed on Fusion; Milan; Zephyr, or on the Mustang, for that matter.

We also cited Hummer's new H3; Land Rover's new LR3 and Range Rover Sport; Mercury's new Mariner; Mitsubishi's Eclipse; Nissan's new Pathfinder; Saturn's refreshed ION and VUE, and Suzuki's new Grand Vitara as evidence that new products were the answer to weathering even the terrible time that was the October storm. We were also amused that Jeep's new, large 2006 Commander, still filling-in inventories, beat the market, much as GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz had predicted it would at the New York International Auto Show in April, and contrary to the media's Cassandra-like concern over gas price fluctuations.

For November, the 2006 Lexus IS sports sedan, in its first full month on sale, has now managed to surpass the last-generation's performance from January through September, in total! The 2006 Buick Lucerne luxury sedan, still ramping up production at Michigan's Hammtramck plant, put in a strong month, and we expect a new advertising campaign to help considerably in rejuvenating the Buick brand. In monthly numbers, Lucerne has now surpassed the LeSabre it was intended to replace, although between and three- and fourfold jump in production will be necessary to retake LeSabre's former position over Toyota's Avalon, launched as a 2005 model and taking full advantage of Lucerne's late arrival.

It must be noted, however, that every production Buick climbed over October. 30% more buyers discovered the charms of the midsize Buick LaCrosse in November than had in October, and - when it comes to this GM midsize W-Body platform - the performance of the 2006 Chevrolet Impala and Monte Carlo together beat the Honda Accord sedan and coupe by the same amount - 11-12% - that they came within the Toyota Camry/ Solara's monthly performance (please note that Toyota and Honda report Camry sedan and Solara coupe figures, and Accord and Accord coupe figures, together). Slightly smaller, Pontiac's G6 jumped 50% over October 2005, posting its best numbers of the year on the strength of what is now a full range. Those of you familiar with the Business Week and LA Times debate involving this site last April can rest assured that we are gratified to see these numbers take shape!

Meanwhile, Prius aside, other notable shortfalls for November included Ford's Explorer; Jeep's Liberty, and Honda's Civic, the 2006 Explorer and 2006 Civic offering an exception to the rule as far as the success of new products goes. Jeep explains the Liberty in suggesting that the Chrysler Group's heavy '05 model mix may have caused the '05 Grand Cherokee to "bump into it" a little bit, although a now-80% '06 model mix should allay this somewhat in the future.

Incentives will no doubt be a talking point as GM took the initiative to resurrect its Red Tag event for the latter half of November, discounting 2006 Buick; Chevrolet; GMC, and Pontiac models to a fixed sales, and fixed lease, price, both visible on a red tag that hangs from the vehicles' rear view mirrors. Jim Sanfilippo, a Detroit-based analyst with AMCI Marketing, offered that, "in some ways, (Red Tag) dovetails with (GM's) one-price strategy" ('Deja vu: GM sparks price war,' Detroit News, Tuesday, November 15th, 2005).

Industry incentive spending as a whole totaled $3 billion in November, up from $2.3 billion in October, per Edmunds excellent True Cost of Incentives (TCI) report, as published yesterday. The average automotive manufacturer incentive climbed 20% from October 2005, and 1% from November 2004, to $2,413 per vehicle.

In October, Edmunds announced that large SUVs offered the highest average incentives, while sports and compact cars were at the other end of the spectrum. For November, the same extreme between SUVs and sports cars applied, both in averages per vehicle, and as a percentage of MSRP.

Frankly, this (rather than Summer, it must be noted) is the time of year when metal requires incentivizing to move. Cadillac will continue its Season's Best promotion; Hummer will offer free rear-seat DVDs, and Saturn, a $500 gift card at Target. Ford and DaimlerChrysler have launched their own versions and, although the media has not contemplated it much, import manufacturers will be doing the same. December is traditionally higher than November, and you can bet that this industry, as a whole, wants to see a 16 million projected total vehicle sales for 2005 materialize after a difficult Fall.

The domestic manufacturers spent 77% of the total incentives, noted Edmunds, followed by the Japanese (14%); Europeans (6%), and Koreans (3%).

GM had been reducing incentives, in October 2005 at $2,844 per vehicle between Chrysler ($3,206) and Ford ($2,751). New Edmunds figures for November suggest that GM incentives have climbed to $3,225 per vehicle sold, and that Ford's incentive spending is up to $3,137 per vehicle sold. Chrysler still leads, pushing incentives up to $3,398 per vehicle sold in November.

Chrysler, however, took pains at its Thursday teleconference to point out that its 300C/ Magnum/ Charger LX family is operating incentive-free and, moreover, that it has been driving a greater mix of '05 models (approximately one-third) versus competitors' '06s, which puts its average at a higher rate. Chrysler now notes that its inventory of '05 models is now down below 20%, to a more traditional level, so perhaps incentive figures in later months will reflect the company falling in line with Detroit's overall effort, seasonal changes excepted, to reduce incentives. That said, rumor has it that Chrysler may increase rebates by as much as $1,000 on 2005 models, and $500 on some '06s.

Chrysler also notes that, although it will remain competitive on traditional cash-backs and lease offers, it wants to "talk on a different channel." Chrysler's incentives thus feature a Miles of Freedom program to allay buyers' mechanical expenses and - like Mitsubishi - to pay for customers' gasoline for two years. The idea is to provide added value (in this case, security) as an incentive, over hard cash.

On a side note, it seems interesting that Chrysler's entry-level PT Cruiser, per Chrysler's initial estimates, has been impacted particularly strongly by Chrysler's free-gasoline offer. Analyst Gary Lapidus mused at the manufacturer's teleconference that customer acceptance of the gasoline incentive is likely to be counter-intuitive, in that it is unlikely to be taken by pickup truck drivers, who - it can be assumed - will care less for fuel economy.

Meanwhile, the Europeans decreased incentives per vehicle from $1,936 in October 2005 to $1,884 in November; the Koreans were up from $1,562 per vehicle sold to $1,724 per vehicle sold, and the Japanese were up from $966 to $1,030 per vehicle sold.

Jaguar's per-vehicle incentive spending in November was $7,222, remaining the highest of all brands, per Edmunds. Jaguar remains down by a third for the year. Meanwhile, Jaguar's X-Type picked itself by a third from a torrid October, although its numbers will remain well below expectations of a car in its segment, and we remain convinced that it had no place in the stable of a brand which should focus on profitability over volume.

Lincoln in November continued to offer the second-largest incentives, per Edmunds, at $5,171 (although dropping by 12% on the strength of the no-incentives Zephyr) while Buick followed third at $4,133 per vehicle sold. Lincoln's new midsize Zephyr is a bright spot for a brand which is phasing out the thoroughly underrated, lamented (around here, at least), rear-wheel-drive LS. Zephyr climbed an impressive 37% over October's performance, while Town Car was flat, month-to-month.

On a lighter note, cross-town rivalries continue in Detroit as Chevrolet battles to take Ford's title as the best-selling U.S. brand of 2005. Chevrolet holds the measure in cars; Ford, in trucks, and the gap is now narrowed to under 13,000 vehicles.

... from an Edmunds press release that crossed the wire Monday morning ('Edmunds.com Forecasts November Auto Sales: Late Recovery Due to New Domestic Promotions Will Result in a Flat Month'), here are the sales predictions for November 2005.

All figures are Edmunds estimates. Actual figures to be released in two-three days, of course.

Total Vehicle Sales
Up 3% over November 2004, to 1.23 million units

Total Big Three Market Share estimated at 56.1% for November 2005
Down 0.2% from 56.3% in November 2004
Up 3.8% from record low of 52.3% in October 2005

General Motors (est. November market share 24.5%, +2.5% over Oct 2005, -0.5% over Nov 2004)
Sales Up 1% over November 2004
Sales Up 19% over October 2005

Ford (est. November market share 17.1%, +1.3% over Oct 2005, -2.1% over Nov 2004)
Sales Down 8% over November 2004
Sales Up 16% over October 2005

Chrysler (est. November market share 14.5%, +0.1% over Oct 2005, +0.8% over Nov 2004)
Sales Up 9% over November 2004
Sales Up 8% over October 2005

Toyota (est. November market share 14.3%, -0.8% over Oct 2005)
Sales Up 14% over November 2004
Sales Up 2% over October 2005

Honda (est. November market share 8.7%, -1.0% over Oct 2005)
Sales Up 12% over November 2004
Sales Down 3% over October 2005

Nissan (est. November market share 6.5%, +0.2% over Oct 2005)
Sales Unchanged over November 2004
Sales Up 11% over October 2005

The New GMT900s (from the perspective of GMT800)

Mr. Lutz's confidence, at a time when fuel prices are a talking point, is also understandable given a relative analysis of the segment. Chevrolet's Tahoe has always been segment-competitive (and often, the leader) in fuel efficiency, lacking only that it is not flanked in the showrooms by a perceivably pious, Prius-type vehicle.

Regardless of what the media might have us believe, these full-size vehicles continue to be relevant in today's marketplace - and, with the changes instituted from GMT800 to GMT900, more so than ever.

For pulling a boat with up to eight passengers and their cargo, additionally, in tow, these will be hard to beat.

As Buick-Pontiac-GMC General Manager John Larson puts it, "we believe very strongly that the full-size utility segment offers capability and functionality that you just can't get in any other segment."

Indeed. A hefty dose of outward attitude, belied by more luxury and livability within, will not hurt, either.

Cadillac is NOT "cooling off". Period.

You're right, it's not. Cadillac is one of just 19 brands in the U.S. market that is up, year-to-date, through October 2005 - at 4.8%, its rate of growth (in terms of sales volume) is above Audi's, and BMW cars'.

Saab is up 3.7%, year-to-date, incidentally. They say it will be profitable this year.

EDIT: my apologies, moderators and others, if I've placed this in the wrong area. Have not spent as much time on the board as I'd like to have, since the restart...

from http://www.automobear.com:

______________________________________

The Quest for Relevance in Refinement
Buick; Jaguar; Lincoln, and Lancia

...

One might include some Chrysler products – the Pacifica crossover comes to mind – and the Mercury division among our brief list of brands which espouse premium qualities, to varying degrees, with – alternately – both bespoke and plebian platforms in their recent histories. Yet, both for simplicity and for the sake of attempting a discussion of inherent dynamics over peripheral differentiation, we will talk here of Buick; Jaguar; Lincoln, and Lancia.

Buick; Jaguar; Lincoln, and Lancia practice (most of the time) the black magic art of ride quality, a quiet yet critical concept that has been thoroughly misunderstood and underappreciated. All four are premium labels (again, to varying degrees), and all struggle for differentiation within their parent folds. It is to the detriment of all four that their chosen differentiator – comfort, and chassis fluidity - is fairly difficult to quantify; it is easier, perhaps, to place a car on a skidpad and measure lateral grip at a low, fixed speed and steering angle, much though this may have little benefit in (and real detriment to) real-world performance.

Any focus on skidpad results (and such) that might obscure more qualitative – yet no less important – criteria might be dubbed, mag-racing.

The concept leads us into yet another discussion of the pertinence of our media, and of our opinion leaders.

While the maximum grip that a vehicle can generate at a particular speed and steering input, in a steady-state corner, is interesting as an absolute, theoretical measurement, it cannot be used for the purpose of judging a chassis’ overall competence. Let us take, as an example, Cadillac’s SRX crossover; despite a relatively average 0.77g skidpad rating, Car and Driver recently found that “(skidpad) grip isn’t everything, as evidenced by the SRX’s second-best emergency-lane-change run,” in a four-vehicle comparison test that included Porsche’s Cayenne.

In another recent Car and Driver test, the magazine found that the Chrysler 300 “herked and jerked its way to a 0.76g performance, the lowest of the group (including the Pontiac Bonneville GXP and Ford Crown Victoria).

“But in the emergency lane change, where a good stability-control system helps rather than hurts, it was fastest by a wide margin… in the real world, the 300C instills cornering confidence with negligible body lean, and steering that scribes precise arcs.”

Skidpad figures are, of course, inflatable with a set of tires; Road & Track, more than thirty years ago, found that “for cornering on a smooth, steady turn, the (Pontiac) Grand Am on its big radials will work up to a pretty decent lateral loading – nearly 0.7g, just below a BMW Bavaria in standard form” (‘Pontiac Grand Am,’ Road & Track, March 1973).

Yet the ’73 Grand Am driver who might, on an unknown road, search the chassis beneath them for the same confidence accorded the BMW pilot would find that “if the corner isn’t a steady-radius or smooth one, however, the Grand Am gets dicey – simply because its power steering is almost devoid of any road feel.

“Thus any corrections needed to keep the car on course have to be made on an observe-and-try basis rather than on the basis of direct reactions and counteractions at the wheel.”

Such nuances escape mag-racers, however, and – as a corollary - the opinion leaders who provide these numbers have no motivation to explain how they should be used. This is disingenuous, if understandable in the context of those least enviable of human qualities.

For instance: if the lowest common denominator is willing to take Consumer Reports’ reliability surveys and predictions as gospel, without requesting margins-of-error, why should the magazine bother to publish the number of responses it receives per vehicle (even as this number is statistically critical before results can be compared across vehicles, as readers no doubt do)? Moreover, if no one demands the organization’s demographics before questioning the external validity of a survey to which only a nonrandom, self-selective subscriber sample responds, why should Consumer Reports make any concessions to accuracy? While we are on the subject, veteran automotive journalist and Autoline Detroit host John McElroy last week suggested this to Consumer Reports Senior Director of Auto Testing David Champion, who admitted the disclaimer: “our job… is to serve our subscribers… the people that we are helping (are) the same people that are filling-in the survey” (see the episode here, with RealPlayer). To us, it sounds like a comment on external validity that should, in the interest of accuracy, be given prominent place.

Similarly: the mag-racer would do well to note that, while a 2006 Jeep Commander pulled a 0.70g average lateral acceleration in a recent Motor Trend test, the same vehicle averaged just 0.54g on that magazine’s figure-8 circuit. Lateral acceleration at real-world speeds and in real-world corners is likely to be lower still.

Forgive us, then, if we question the metrics that purport to determine automotive excellence.

A vehicle represents the second largest singular purchase in most consumers’ lives, after their house. The consumer cannot expect to be truly informed by counting red and black dots or, more relevantly to this discussion, by determining that one skidpad figure is higher than another.

Should mag-racing begin driving design and engineering compromises made by manufacturers, we fear for this industry. Per Automobile Executive Editor Mark Gillies’ comments in 2001, it has already begun happening. “This fetish for winning magazine tests has led to a few anomalies, particularly Mercedes-Benz abandoning what it did best – solid, beautifully engineered cars that would run all year at 150mph on the autobahn – to produce more stylish automobiles that drive like BMWs but aren’t quite as good and feel cheaper,” Gillies mused.

“Blame that on Mercedes wanting to do as well in magazine comparison tests as BMW, and also wanting to attract younger buyers” (Automobile, September 2001).

Whether or not our opinion leaders have had much to do with it, and whether or not you might buy the theory of information flow from opinion leader to consumer, the court of public opinion has swayed into a decidedly perplexing realm.

As any well-read enthusiast knows, the peripheral annual changes which characterized cars of the ‘50s and ‘60s have been derided, in hindsight, by historians; engineers, and consumer organizations alike as being disingenuous. Yet a glance at the vehicles toward which the consumer is regularly encouraged to flock in this day and age – through either the statistically curious game of predicted reliability or the still more curious practice of mathematically distilling a vehicle’s value - might suggest that little but the nameplates have changed.

Front-heavy, front-wheel-drive platforms have been kaizen-ned (continuously improved) into sports sedans, as the need to provide products which appear new trumps engineering. All the while, increasing curb weights – as dictated by increasing standard and safety equipment – have produced at least one ‘sports sedan’ on today’s market with the ballast weight of an entire Toyota Echo over its front axle (we’ll leave it to regular readers to recognize which).

Secondly, these same front-heavy, front-wheel-drive platforms have been asked to support a second set of models designed to provide a comfortable ride. The difficulties of managing the weight of an unbalanced platform to offer pliancy; fluency, and grip are numerous, yet the challenge has not always been met ingenuously. Key decisions made on the basis of profitability two decades ago have – in some cases - produced hardware which, despite peripheral tuning in years gone by, is reaching the limits of acceptability, and yet the emphasis in cost and effort is on the aspects that the customer sees, in the hope that both media and consumer will not notice the deficiencies.
It appears to be working.

Almost 400,000 Americans this year will buy Toyota’s Camry, for instance, recalling the experience of the similarly mundane Ford Cortina, which spent unexplained years as Britain’s own best-seller.

Suffice to say that popularity does not imply pre-eminence. The number of soft-touch plastics used in the Camry, and the tactility of its auxiliary controls, is quite exaggerated; the (albeit immaterial) fallacy of the lack of exposed screws in its interior, disprovable with simply a turn of the wheel in a parking lot and a glance at the column –

- and yet, even while the image of this vehicle has run away from reality, few have stopped to wonder why Camry’s maker persists with MacPherson struts on the rear end of a vehicle whose weight has grown considerably over the years.

The continued, financial expedience of this dynamic choice forces the rear of Camry to be so stiff as to jounce noticeably over town and highway bumps. Only recently, in Motor Trend’s latest test of Camry versus Fusion; Accord, and Sonata, and toward the end of the current Camry’s life-cycle, has the media finally begun to point this out.

A slew of classic (and some current) French sedans never tire in proving the sheer redundancy of a car that must be so average as to lean neither in the direction of comfort, nor outright dynamism. Indeed, the Camry has all but disappeared from Europe, where more challenging roads have exposed it for the middling vehicle that it is, particularly in a class of more inspired European-market mainstreamer offerings.

Back in America, the substantively quieter and more fluent Buick LaCrosse, built to standards hailed by both J.D. Power and the Harbour Report and with a more potent chassis than Camry’s by any measure, struggles against a perception gap that at times seems insurmountable, if curiously so.

The comparison brings us to the relevance of this discussion to Buick; Jaguar; Lincoln, and Lancia.

Despite Buick’s emphasis – and proven performance – in the areas of build quality; reliability, and refinement, the new, full-size 2006 Lucerne flagship as launched last month finds itself vital for a storied brand now struggling to find relevance.

At the more upscale Jaguar, espousing similarly quiet elegance and refinement (albeit in greater measure and at higher prices), sales took the greatest hit of any division in October. Jaguar’s troubles have been bandied about for years; indeed, we ourselves published an article just over two years ago which predicted a necessary change in strategy from volume to profitability.
Lincoln, another label magnanimous in its sophistication (indeed once the choice of Picasso) yet now struggling for definition, announced in October that the hugely underrated LS would be discontinued. We shall mourn its passing.

Meanwhile, in Europe, Lancia – known for refined style as well as for innovation and racing victories of old – has been on and off life support for at least a decade.

The similarities between the current situations of these four divisions – Buick; Jaguar; Lancia, and Lincoln – cannot be denied. All are underperforming, given the value of their hardware. All have in recent decades, at one time or another, been handed considerably more plebian platforms to work with than their badges were worth, yet all have managed to attain ride quality and NVH characteristics – and, often, fluency - beyond those platforms’ stations. Although Jaguar and Lancia can count more innovations in their history (Jaguar, for instance, was the first to place a double-wishbone suspension in the rear end of a car), and a more sporting flavor, than the other pair, these vehicles all seek to cosset their driver without discouragement.

It does not bode well for these four divisions that true refinement is a somewhat underappreciated quality, perhaps for the reason noted above: our opinion leaders lack the fortitude to convey it. Fashion has dictated larger wheels and lower-profile tires, and – in the Camry’s case – kaizen and continuous improvement have forced the stiffening of a financially expedient suspension that cannot hope to manage wheel travel and rebound accurately without being stiffened to within an inch of its life.

Yet wheel travel – a subject that any offroad enthusiast might speak volumes on – is critical, even as few automotive opinion leaders overtly appreciate its benefits. Indeed, the off-roaders have taken the high ground in more than one sense, being the first to experiment with horizontal damping. Some BMW cars feature Dynamic Drive, which hydraulically controls stabilizers (anti-roll bars) to reduce body movements, but it is Land Rover’s new LR3 SUV (Discovery in Europe) that offers the ability to electronically disconnect its anti-roll bars for greater suspension travel, improving articulation when the going gets tough. Perhaps, eventually, stabilizers in cars might gradually be replaced by some form of horizontal damping, just as the industry eventually moved away from vertical damping that was solely dependent on wheels and tires, and to shock absorbers and struts. Certainly, it would solve the problem of stabilizers creating – rather than suppressing – roll, in a straight line over undulating surfaces.

So important was suspension travel to Britain’s Rover in the early-80s that it was the subject of a long argument with Honda, as the two companies co-developed the car that would become the Legend. Honda won the argument, keeping travel low and the suspension stiff. Given that it pitched the (Acura) Legend as more sporty than luxurious, things worked. When Legend became RL for 1996, and curb weight climbed as its springs were loosened in a marketing-driven, peripheral search for luxury, there remained not the suspension travel in that car to work with, thus accounting for that rare combination of poor ride and poor handling. In a rare example of the public seeing through the illusion, RL sales were a fraction of what Legend’s had been.

Have we forgotten what it means to be cosseted; to drive a vehicle with careful attention paid to suspension geometry? Ride quality is enjoyed continuously as a vehicle is driven. It is about – primarily – one thing: the oscillation frequency of the body of the vehicle. Almost since the inception of the automobile, engineers have known that optimum ride quality occurs at a body oscillation frequency of around 1.5Hz.

In greater depth, we might focus on low-frequency vertical; pitch, and roll motions and vibrations – up to 5 Hz – as the vehicle drives over imperfect roads; on shake, up to intermediate frequency vibrations (5-25Hz), and on harshness, to high-frequency vibrations (25-100Hz). Yet thorough examination of these will find ride to be reducible to a function of the oscillation frequency, encompassing spring rate; the vehicle’s weight, and the weight of the wheel. The body and wheel move along the same spring, which absorbs the initial impact. The greater the movement of the body along the spring, the better it is for ride quality, for it keeps the oscillation frequency of the body low.

It is fair to say that ride quality is, secondarily, affected by the tire, which damps the initial impact of the bump, and the dampers, which absorb body oscillations after the bump – and, by the wheelbase (without entering into a discussion of polar moment of inertia, we might generalize that ride quality usually improves with longer wheelbases).

Suspension geometry is a difficult animal with which to work. What is clear to even the layman, however, is that insufficient damping can cause wheel hop, in which the wheels leave the ground as they bounce up and down. The manufacturer which stiffens a vehicle’s dampers can avoid this; in the case of the Camry, one stiffens the dampers to a still greater degree since the springs must be stiff, in turn because the MacPherson setup’s inherent changes in camber are so undesirable.

Yet, over washboard-surfaced roads, these dampers cause excessively fast vertical motions of the wheel and tire – often referred to as bump-thump or, less colloquially, wheel patter. It is to this phenomenon that Motor Trend was referring in its most recent issue.

The need to keep the MacPherson’s travel at a minimum destroys ride quality, with respect to what might have been, for the vertical distance over which a wheel travels is a key piece of a pliant ride.

More interestingly still, proper focus on one goal results in the attainment of another; consider that the performance-minded Chevrolet Corvette C6 gained 0.3-inches of travel in the front, and 0.8-inches in the rear, over the outgoing C5 model it replaced. The new car’s ride is more resilient, with no detriment to handling (spring and damping rates have, of course, been revised to match). Greater suspension travel, when properly designed, is also characterized by progressive loss of grip, offering early warning as well as the involvement that enthusiast drivers tend to prefer.

Several media organizations which should know better – those which should theoretically be our watchdogs - seem wont to simplistically relate body roll to that complicated concept of handling. Although body roll can be detrimental to the lateral grip of the tires, so, too, is an overly-stiff stabilizer (anti-roll bar).

Although the bar itself reduces roll, and the amount of deflection in the tires (thus improving their chances of grip), it also increases the amount of lateral force they are required to counter. For instance, Renault’s superb little Clio V6 recently doubled its resistance to front roll, yet only slightly stiffened the rear – and fitted no rear stabilizer (such an addition would reduce traction out of corners, suggests Renault). Honda, in attempting to make the rear of its S2000 Roadster less apt to breakaway, found the same; the company shrunk the rear stabilizer for 2004 (also lowering the rear roll-center in an attempt to transfer more weight to the front end, whose springs were stiffened to cope).

Driving a Buick LaCrosse; a Lincoln LS; Jaguar XJ, or Lancia Lybra or Thesis, it is clear that their makers understand these things. For years, Jaguars even resisted rear stabilizers in favor of managing roll by stiffening the rear springs, this in the hope of attaining ride quality at lower speeds.

Indeed, one need not focus on low-volume quasi-exotica – Corvettes; Clio V6s; S2000s, and the like - to find a suspension with some thought put into it. Drive a ‘60s Renault 4, and the washboard ride of Scion’s Toyota Echo-based xB which apes – without equaling – that first hatchback’s functionality becomes dramatically apparent.

If a humble Renault 4 can demonstrate tractability over any road surface, one might note that the woes of Buick; Lancia, and Lincoln – at least – is not necessarily in the source of their platforms.

Let us take Lancia as an example. Might commonality with storied stablemate Alfa Romeo be a guarantee of success? To hear the Lancisti’s view of then-Fiat CEO Giancarlo Boschetti’s January 2002 decision to pull Lancia away from Alfa Romeo, one might imagine so. As Boschetti told Automotive News, “for every $100 we are going to invest in Fiat, we will invest $25 in Lancia, and in return will get a truly Lancia product.”

Yet those who believe that Fiat ownership and Fiat underpinnings necessarily mean that Lancia cannot flourish should consider the fate of Lancia’s Lybra sedan.

Launched in 2000, Lybra was based on the highly-praised Alfa Romeo 156. Richard Bremner, writing as a contributor to CAR magazine, concluded, “this is the best-riding Fiat Auto product bar none.
“It is also quiet; comfortable; spacious; easy to drive, and can corner with unexpected agility, given its comfort bias, and never mind the body roll” (‘Mixed grille,’ Richard Bremner, CAR, September 1999).

Words like Bremner’s were rare – and, in today’s media, are rarer still. The Alfa Romeo 156 was hailed; the mechanically similar, yet more comfortably tuned, Lybra, relatively ignored.

So, pulling away from Fiat platforms and toward Alfa Romeo did not guarantee Lancia success. Thus returning to Fiat may yet work.

Fiat understands suspension travel, regularly deriving excellent ride quality from the lightest of cars. The little 2004-present Panda, which has prolonged troubled Fiat Auto’s chances of survival, is possessed of long-travel suspension which absorbs road surface intrusions, yet retains composure and grip despite copious body roll. It bears remembering, too, that the 1988 Delta Integrale, a legend among enthusiasts, was based on the Delta, which arose from a humble Fiat Ritmo. More peripherally, Lancia’s latest Fulvia Concept – which absolutely must be built if the brand is to survive - was based on the Fiat Barchetta, yet managed to look convincingly like a refreshed version of the great originals of the ‘60s and ‘70s. Recalling the last, fully Lancia-designed Lancia coupes and sedans of 1964, it generated more press than has been granted to the brand in years.

One can take this logic too far, of course. Jaguar is the most upscale of these brands and, as we have said before, should have had nothing to do with the X-Type, no matter how suitable its Ford Mondeo underpinnings for all-wheel-drive, or its Ford Duratec 3.0-liter for a new set of heads. Lancia, certainly, should not be building a relatively undistinguished, co-developed minivan dubbed Phedra. Similarly, Buick’s Trailblazer-based Rainier was a questionable move, particularly given that the division’s Rendezvous crossover – which sold well last month - has been underdeveloped. Lincoln was judged adequate to co-develop the platform for use in Jaguar’s S-Type, but has recently had to make do with Ford platforms, and it is unlikely that the Zephyr – despite an interior that exceeds those of its class – can hope to equal the LS’ ultimate balance. The natural weight distribution advantages that rear-wheel-drive provides permit the layout to, in vehicles of curb weights which exceed 3,000lbs, lend itself to either comfort or dynamism – and, certainly, the LS was that rare mix of both.

We recently spent time with the LS, for a fond farewell piece to be posted shortly. Its periphery – what is seen and touched – is undoubtedly dated; in contrast, its ability is evergreen. With the new Zephyr, we see a new overtness of Lincoln’s refinement, now playing upon the idea that silence is deafening; note the 4.8mm side glass that, in the quest for added refinement as a premium quantity, is 25% thicker than in the Ford Fusion upon which Zephyr is based.

What our opinion leaders do not hear, Lincoln hopes, will combine with a class-leading interior that they see and touch, for print whose positive nature, had it been applied to the LS as that car deserved, would have required weeks of quality time behind the wheel.
The LS’ passing is a sad footnote in the history of the Premier Auto Group but, lest we place all blame upon one company, its demise is equally a distressing comment on those who have been asked to judge it. Ironically, perhaps Lincoln is playing the game correctly; playing to an unfortunately – nay, a criminally - short attention span.

What of the other three brands? Can they, similarly, express the necessary periphery to highlight the inherent goodness within?

Lancia will be one hundred years old in a few short months. It is, as we suggested last year, a brand defined by innovation borne out of a desire for elegant simplicity; luxury, and Italian flair in style and performance (with a few requisite, charming blemishes).

Having addressed the value of Fiat’s ability with small cars – and noting that Lancia’s little, Fiat-based Ypsilon is selling well – one might move to consider more overt refinement. There is room, we submit, within Boschetti’s 25% to ensure that each Lancia offers longer front overhangs than Lancia’s promise of performance might dictate; longer rear overhangs with respect to the front; a waterline parallel to the ground, and upright, formal, frontal fasciae, with the architectural cues their Baroque stance implies. Design has become a key differentiator, and Lancia has the in-house ability (and a working history with the carrozzerie) to play this game as well as anyone else. In 1998, Mike Robinson – who has claimed to have wanted to design Lancias since he was 16 – was made head designer for the manufacturer. Robinson designed the brilliant Dialogos Concept (which became the current Thesis flagship), demonstrating an avid understanding of Lancia design.

Jaguar has indicated that the X-Type will not be replaced. In October, the brand sold more XJs and S-Types – each – than substantially cheaper X-Types, and it seems clear that the presence expected of the Jaguar brand requires more than a dromedary hood, topped with ornament, capping a body whose elegance is constrained by Ford proportions. The Jaguar brand will soon field the new XK coupe which, together with the XJ, is a masterpiece of aluminum craftsmanship and palpable ingenuity. As it returns to the market’s rarefied stratosphere, in price, Jaguar may again find those who appreciate nuance.

As for Buick, the division this weekend is busy launching the new, G-Body, Cadillac DTS-based Lucerne. Glittering with a confident stance and blushing with four-port-hole jewelry, Lucerne replaces the LeSabre, long the most reliable car in its class, and with deserved owner loyalty.

We are already fond of the smaller LaCrosse, launched last year and possessed of perhaps the best ride quality in its segment. Based on a recent week we spent with Cadillac’s DTS, we expect excellent refinement from its Lucerne sister, now packing Cadillac’s excellent, optional Northstar V8, together with the standard 3800 engine that, while an eternal subject of the pushrod-versus-dual-overhead-cam debate, is part of a drivetrain to whose longevity hundreds of thousands of drivers across North America can testify. Just last year, the LeSabre outsold Toyota’s Avalon by several times over, and some in the media have been honest enough to admit that new Avalon (another rear-MacPherson culprit) is stiffer than might have been expected. There is, certainly, an opportunity for Buick here.

It is, however, only an opportunity taken, if Lucerne’s attributes can be relayed quickly.

Under G-Body Chief Engineer Ed Zellner, QuietTuning has developed into not only a differentiator for Buick, but an obsession, beyond laminated glass and sleeker side mirrors (a common problem area). Source noise is suppressed to the greatest extent possible; strategic barriers are placed to interrupt the noise traveling into the car, and noise is absorbed into the carpet; headliners, and door padding. In testing, cars are heated to desert temperatures, and cooled to below zero overnight to check how they ‘sound’ in different environments.

One might hope that the necessary, loud praise for the more quietly positive of Lucerne’s qualities is forthcoming.