Axe the CTS Coupe, GM

That's right, the upcoming Cadillac CTS coupe is going to fail. GM should stop further development on this car before it becomes another loser in the automotive financial model.
http://www.cadillac.com/cadillacjsp/model/landing.jsp?model=cts&year=2009 Why? Because there are far, far more appealing alternative two-doors in the market.

This is my prediction. Quite frankly I'm sick and tired of seeing failures by GM, the demise of Pontiac, the disbanding of their performance division and the cancellation of the Camaro Z/28. Read further regarding that.

No doubt this will be a very nice car based on the CTS sedan. The performance will be average at best and the styling, while somewhat unique, may be awkward. That is an opinion, but coupes don't do well unless they stand out. This one doesn't. But unless the sales of the 'V' version support the research and development of the coupe, and that is highly doubtful, it will be more egg on their face. My heart goes out to the development team but senior product development is either polling the wrong market group or simply not listening.

The high-performance 'V' version will do better. Most likely in the mid $60k to $70k range and 556 horsepower like its four-door sibling, it offers a compelling argument because of its performance. I just don't think the CTS-V coupe will sell enough copies to justify the existence of the platform.

See, coupes are a discretionary buy now more than ever. Not only is it rare for a coupe to be a daily driver, there better well be a compelling reason like styling, performance, etc. And if you can get more for less money, you've got a serious competitive disadvantage.

The reasons the base CTS coupe will fail are numerous. The sedan base price is $37,585. So realistically it's a $40,000 to $48,000 coupe depending upon option groups. What is the appeal? Here it is competing against the new best bang-for-the-buck Camaro SS in the mid/upper $30k range with iconic styling and far better performance, also with usable rear seats. http://www.chevrolet.com/allnewcamaro/#camaro=build-your-own
GM competing against itself? Well take a look at entire GM fiasco of impractical duplication of platforms with different nameplates You know, goodbye Pontiac....

When you're in the $40k range and you can get away with a two-door, a new or used sixth generation Corvettes are the next step in value for performance with great styling. And you better believe in this day and age, at over $40,000, there are some phenomenally attractive used cars available, not to mention new. http://www.chevrolet.com/corvette/?seo=goo__2008_Chevy_Retention__IMG_Chevy_Corvette__Corvette_Website__corvette_website
Then there is the Dodge Challenger reviving the classic muscle car from long ago with instantly recognizable styling. http://www.dodge.com/en/2009/challenger/It also has better performance with usable rear seats.

Ford's answer? The never discontinued Mustang GT. Featuring some improved refinement and interior styling for 2010, $30k for the GT or the monster GT500 in the mid $40s quite frankly makes the CTS coupe look like a photoshop exercise. http://www.fordvehicles.com/cars/mustang/models/ You know what, when you have 540hp for $47k, who cares about usable rear seats? If you need practicality, you're probably not shopping a coupe.

And imports? The entire BMW 3series lineup, especially the 335i and if you're going to spend $40k+ on a second car, there is a good chance $70k isn't too scary for the M3. http://www.bmwusa.com/Default.aspx

Back to the V. It is something special because of its performance. A really cool alternative to someone shopping for a Vette or Porsche but desires (vs. needs) some practicality. And it undercuts the competition from Mercedes and BMW significantly. The M6 is $100k: http://www.bmwusa.com/standard/content/vehicles/2010/m/m6coupe/default.aspx and the M3 isn't a whole lot cheaper and will be slower in a straight line. http://www.bmwusa.com/standard/content/vehicles/2009/m/m3coupe/default.aspx The owner of, and I'm guessing here based on the obesity suffered by cars lately, a 4200lb coupe probably isn't too worried about his tire or brake wear at Laguna Seca hot lapping right behind his BMW M3 buddy. And that is making a big assumption it even gets on the track.

The problem is that the V most likely needs standard CTS Coupe sales to justify its existence. So GM, please tell us differently. But I think GM already told us something different. The cancellation of the Camaro Z-28. Lighter than the CTS-V Coupe, same engine, better styling. It wasn't cancelled to save money. The platform is rockin', the car is in demand. It was cancelled because it would take away from the CTS Coupe and even worse, the V. http://www.autoweek.com/article/20090323/CARNEWS/903239993

Surf on autotrader for 2door coupes in the $40k to $50k range. http://www.autotrader.com/ And if you like cars, you'll start to drool. Audi S5, Mercedes CLKs, Corvette Z-06, Vipers! Gorgeous cars, established coupes. Hey, I heard about a guy who cancelled his order for a Ferrari Scuderia, possibly the best sports car in the world due to the economy and concern about possible depreciation. It has hit everyone. GM, stop it. Just stop it now. Wrong car, wrong economy, bad timing.

Photo courtesy of Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadillac_CTS

Air Conditioned race cars - where is the coverage and carry over?

Yes it's true. The American LeMans Series, the premier racing league in the United States with a similar series in Europe has mandated air conditioning in the cockpit of the race car during the 2009 season. Where in the world is the reporting about this and the production car usage?

What is the big deal? Did you know virtually all passenger car A/C systems shut off during full throttle acceleration? These race cars spend most of their time at full throttle! This is to address dangerous cockpit temperatures well over 100 degrees which can lead to serious driver errors and fatigue at well over 100 mph running hard for hours on end. These cars, with no insulation and finely tuned engines making in excess of 450hp minimum running high octane race fuel, run hot, really hot. Cool suits are utilized in many race series, but in this series where races run for hours, air conditioning was deemed necessary. A cool suit is a shirt with cooling passages that circulates water to cool the driver during the race. http://www.saferacer.com/auto-racing-underwear/cool-suit/?cat=56&tagarray=29

Most likely these are very efficient air conditioning systems that are powered by an electric motor, rather than a belt spinning the compressor in virtually all passenger cars. There are two exceptions I know of though. The new 2010 Toyota Prius and the Tesla. How is that for irony? Two milestone cars designed for efficiency using the same system extreme race cars use.

So what's the problem? First off, why in the world hasn't this been covered in the media yet? And secondly, why hasn't this been incorporated into production cars that really need it?

This system that has to be designed for efficiency. Ideally, develop the most efficient and reliable system you can in racing and it can filter down to the street car. Here is a system that is functional at full throttle, in an environment that could normally be at well over 100 degrees in an uninsulated environment (no rubber seals, no UV treated or tinted glass, etc), and when is going to show up in the larger engined, lower fuel-economy vehicles?

Obviously the Prius doesn't have this racing pedigree and development, but how ironic that the car that needs it the least has it first. It's time for the media to get on the ball, and the manufacturers to start making some announcements.

Photo: No air conditioning in Wayland Joe's IMSA Porsche 911 GT3 Cup Car

In NASCAR the oil is faster than the driver

All the hype surrounding the drivers in NASCAR should perhaps be re-directed at the R&D department and the oil chemists before the rules change. "Witches brew" oil formulations are giving unfair advantages to the big budget teams and further lowers the drivers' influence on the outcome of the race.

Two recent articles got me thinking about this recently. Robbie Gordon was interviewed by Pit Lane, the promotional magazine for Infineon Raceway at Sears Point. Or just Sears Point to all of us enthusiasts. He stated the driver makes up 10-15% of the racing in NASCAR. Pretty disappointing isn't it? Makes it sound like anyone can floor it and turn left. Never mind turn right, threshold braking, hitting the apex and, well you know, actually racing....

Then a recent article in the Wall Street Journal states that the motor oil is the most sophisticated part of the race car and $1million per year can be spent on R&D and experimentation by a team. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123932274269507173.html This is estimated to give a 10hp gain. Even if this number isn't low, during a three hour race, this really adds up, lap after lap.

Disclaimer: Yes, I would love to be a race car driver, even in NASCAR but ONLY at Sears Point and Watkins Glen where they truly race in the purest sense. Otherwise, keeping the busy schedule they have for the "type" of racing they do is admirable, I admit. It must be both exciting and a serious grind.

NASCAR is essentially a spec-racer series. The cars must all be essentially identical with variation strictly regulated. The engines make the main difference, as we know. So if costs are controlled, is it really fair for the big-budget teams to have such an advantage that further takes the driver out of the equation? NASCAR should mandate 3 oil formulations for the season per team, controlled by the oil companies. Lesser budget teams should be able to purchase these formulas for a nominal fee. To use it as an equalizer, teams down on points can acquire a new formulation using a rewards structure throughout the season. If this is too complex, then mandate no changing of oil chemistries for the season or only three times a season. Let's raise the driver equation.

There are teams that are subsidized, only running a few laps of a race for a nice monetary payout. While this isn't ideal, wouldn't it be better if they at least ran more competitively during the few laps they participate in? Wouldn't it be nice if they could actually afford to run the bulk of a race? Efforts should be made for team development. Oil regulation would be one small step.

To be honest, I'm not a fan of NASCAR as you can tell, but I give credit again to the drivers, the hardworking teams and the fact that it is the most popular motorsport in the US. I urge NASCAR to do the right thing and raise the influence the driver has on the outcome of the race.

A clever move for Volvo?

What is every car manufacturer doing these days? Promoting fuel economy, alternative fuel or energy source in current or upcoming models. How many are looking into expanding into a performance oriented market? Very few are doing so. However, Volvo seems to be doing just that.

A small manufacturer like Volvo, while innovative in certain areas such as safety, and under the cloud of sale by parent company Ford, http://www.businessinsider.com/ford-taking-steep-loss-as-it-trys-to-sell-volvo-2009-3 hasn't gotten the press of Honda, Toyota, Tesla and Chevrolet with the Volt. But what about a NEW market segment for them while they continue along with alternative fuels and powertrains like everyone else? Performance!

Despite a miserable showing by Volvo race cars in Speed GT a few years ago, why not partner with last year's championship winning K-Pax race team with no financial investment (technical data can be free), and see what they can do for the brand. If it fails again, no big deal right? It's a segment Volvo never had foothold in anyway. If it succeeds, great! No investment, it got the attention of the enthusiasts and opens the door for future programs and more sales.

There is no question the guys and girls with high powered sports cars in their garages, or sporty sedans and coupes in the driveway also own a Volvo, and granted an S60-R may be included in that. Of course, we think of them as a conservative product line with safe but boring cars and SUVs. But now, if Volvo succeeds, they capture some more sales that BMW, Audi, Acura and Mercedes may have had. And, the door is open for more performance oriented models.

So while I'm sticking to my prediction of a poor showing during the racing season, the risk to Volvo is minimal. Clever, very clever. But I still say the Speed Touring class would be an ideal choice vs. the faster GT class. Photo of a racing Volvo station wagon of the past courtesy of http://www.psfk.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/volvo_850_btcc.jpg

Edit: The Volvos did quite well but Volvo still has virtually no performance credentials compared to the competition (Alfa, Audi, BMW, Jaguar, Mercedes).

Does Nissan know something Porsche doesn't?

Nissan announced it will not move forward with the GT-R powered 4-door flagship model.

http://blogs.edmunds.com/straightline/2009/04/2009-new-york-auto-show-infiniti-news----gt-r-powered-flagship-is-dead.html while Porsche, Lamborghini and Aston Martin moved forward with theirs.

I find this interesting for several reasons. First, doesn't this reinforce the notion that the GT-R should have been marketed and sold as an Infiniti? After all, how many other $82,000 cars are there in Nissan dealerships? That was a mistake in my opinion. The level of service and atmosphere, in my experience of calling on over 200 dealerships of all makes, is incomparable.

Also, Porsche has moved forward with the Panamera sedan and it arrives shortly. Granted the timing doesn't seem great, but Porsche is the most profitable car company per model at a whopping $28,000 per car sold. http://www.mobilemag.com/content/100/354/C11441/ No wonder they have a controlling interest in Volkswagen, the 3rd largest car company in the world. So I think they know what they are doing, and it shows low volume sales can be profitable with a high price.

Nissan would have much of the R&D worked out already, having the GT-R platform to expand on, especially the powertrain. The GT-R couple is already a large platform, my guess is it could be shared. Very similar to the Challenger (also an overweight 2-door) and the Charger. It would obviously carry a $100,000 price tag, especially badged as an Infiniti. I think this is a missed opportunity. They benchmarked Porsche once, can't they do it again?

Notice how closely the Infiniti looks like the Panamera? Is Nissan conceding defeat to Porsche this time?

Lower those lifted trucks!

If your decapitator truck is all show and no-go off road, lower it back to legal levels. There should be a federal mandate of bumper height requirements for all trucks and SUVs. The safety hazard is absolutely unacceptable. They are dangerous, unnecessary and there needs to be a change.

Here is what I propose: Full-size pick-up trucks that are lifted must have limited-use only licenses. In other words, only to be driven to shows or recreational areas for off-road use only. Otherwise it is a ticketable offense with a verified correction and points on the license. Lifts can only be installed on trucks licensed as such. Small, light trucks may be lifted to a federally mandated level and have standard registrations. These small trucks include the Ford Ranger, Toyota Tacoma, etc. Remember, driving is a privilege, not a right.

What about trucks used for work? Don't they need to sit up high? No, the height of trucks sold by the manufacturers is plenty sufficient. I challenge you to find any corporate fleet owned trucks on construction or off-road sites across the country that have been lifted higher than stock out of the job requirement. Even then that can be a special application with associated insurance ramifications.

Besides the fact they are wasting even more gas sitting up in the air so high, the bumpers and mass sit so high that they are major safety hazards to every other passenger vehicle on the road. Whether front, rear or the sides, the fatality rates skyrocket. The roll-over risk increases significantly as well.

I don't trust the safe driving factor of lifted trucks, or the driving public in general like many of us, so that was one reason I purposely waited on the model car I ordered to have side-impact air bags. vs. one that was available sooner without. A small step, but I felt a smart one.

What sets the trucks apart that are actually used off road for 4-wheeling vs. these street-queen compensators? They tend to be lighter, more compact models that are suitable for climbing over obstacles and fitting between tight spaces. The attached photo is a perfect example and it even has rear mudflaps. My nephews Mike and Jesse often go off road in their trucks, that is one of them. Is this one too high? To be honest I don't know, but you get the idea.

You don't like what I'm saying because you're a safe driver and you sit 5 feet above the rest of us and have no problem with that. Tell you what, when you have to take emergency maneuvers in your 5,000lb behemoth, I sure don't want to be near you where you might roll onto me, nor get rear ended because your braking distance increased 20ft-30ft or more from 70mph.

Suppose someone pulls out in front of your or runs a red light? Although they made a stupid decision, they don't deserve to die for it.

What about those huge, massively heavy semi tractor-trailers? Let me share a story with you. I witnessed a large dump-truck go through an intersection on a yellow light. Unfortunately a 70's era Oldsmobile Cutlass decided to turn in front of it. The dump truck broadsided it so hard it completely stopped the direction of travel of the Cutlass and proceeded to push it down the street, blowing out tires and breaking axles. When it finally stopped, the entire side of the car between the wheels was crushed inward. But five teenagers climbed out of that car with no or few minor injuries (bruises). If that dump truck was a lifted full-size pickup or SUV, there would have been multiple fatalities because it would have cleared the frame and door structures and entered into the passenger compartment easily. The dump-truck hit the body mass of the Cutlass, rather than the weaker support structures of the roof.

Quite frankly, you are a hazard and I urge police to keep their measuring sticks handy and the federal government to mandate a standard for all states. This won't ruin your fun, but it will stop your posing which puts you, and the rest of us, at risk.

Corvettes and gold chains are no more!

Remember the stereotype of the Corvette owner? Mid-life crisis, hairy chest, gold chains; a Disco-Danny or a "wild 'n' crazy guy"! People STILL believe this is the stereotype. The Corvette broke this mold over a decade ago. It is now one of the world's premier sports cars, the best performance value for the money. Many people don't know this . You know who - the guy or girl who has never opened the hood of his car(s). Even for the last 30 years. My dear brother is one of "them". He doesn't have the "gene". A recent discussion made me realize this.

This started undoubtedly in the mid-70's when virtually every car was unremarkable. And quite honestly, so was the Corvette. An generally unreliable car from a company not known for reliability anyway. It's performance was pitiful compared to the heyday during the late 60s.

Anemic performance was a staple then with virtually all cars. But the 'Vette which has always looked fast now wasn't. Fiberglass body panels were clever for weight reduction and resistant to door dings, but difficult for paint to wear well due to flex and surface prep at the time, so I'm told.

The 50s and 60s were good years for the Corvette, but like most cars, the 70's ruined its image. In 1984, the start of the 4th generation Corvette (C4), saw a new styling edge. Before '91, it made at most a dismal 250hp. How much does your 6 cylinder family sedan make today? Exactly. The Disco-Danny's didn't care, and probably didn't know better. Believe me, I still see middle-age men driving new models in the right lane at or under the speed limit. I'm sure many have never seen full-throttle acceleration. But they made a great buying decision.

Some exceptions worth mentioning are the 1990-1995 ZR-1 Corvette. A 400hp model that was quite expensive vs. the standard model and wasn't sold in large numbers. But the interior was still rather lousy. The 1991 model year saw a nice jump to 300hp with a motor called the "LT1". While better, it really needed more.

When the 5th generation model appeared in 1997, everything changed. A lighter, stiffer hydroformed frame, a rear-mounted transaxle (transmission) for optimal weight distribution, a better interior and an excellent "LSX" family motor that in '02 was available in the Z-06 model making 405hp. The Corvette was now a world-class sports car and the best bang-for-the-buck.

Today the Corvette and especially the Z-06 remains the best value in the world among sports cars by tens of thousands of dollars with phenomenal performance. Even the 2009 base Coupe with an MSRP of $49,415 is near the top in performance.

So what about those gold chains? They are now gold medals.

10 years of GM's mistakes means 5 years of loss

General Motors should have consolidated brands a decade ago to avoid the position they are in. With Rick Wagoner's resignation of GM, or firing by President Obama, depending how you look at it, the reports state that GM hasn't posted a profit in 5 years. FIVE years! That is a lifetime for a company.

I pride myself on automotive product knowledge, but somehow I completely missed that GM has been hemorrhaging money for that long. No matter, it made me consolidate my thoughts about something in the back of my mind. GM missed a key business decision of eliminating brands. Hybrid SUVs were not any better.

My heart goes out to the employees who have lost their jobs at the plants, the suppliers and the dealerships. But competition, the costs of the union labor agreements and legacy costs of the pensions made GM a big medical care and pension company that is in the red. A familiar theme these days. GM should have done something unrelated to that aspect, but perhaps equally significant a long time ago.

Eliminating Oldsmobile was too little, too late. It was the tip of the iceberg. Ten years ago, not only should Oldsmobile have been eliminated, but Chevrolet trucks and the Buick nameplate too. Pontiac should have merged with Chevrolet and Cadillac. Hummer and Saab should never had entered the equation. Consolidate the small cars and sedans into Chevrolet from Pontiac and Buick by simply offering various trim levels. Have the maybe two profitable (and I'm guessing here) nameplates from Cadillac, the CTS and Escalade, sold at the Chevrolet showrooms. Put the SUVs and trucks in the GMC nameplate. Saturn would also be absorbed by Chevrolet.

I doubt GM will ever release how much they lost per brand, but lets look at what was involved. Separate bumpers front and rear, hoods, trunks, emblems interior options and materials, tail lights etc. all essentially the same platforms across the company. Development, marketing and advertising, logistics, inventory, shipping are major cost centers that could have been reduced sharply.

This massive consolidation would have eliminated billions in repetitive costs. It would also allow engineers to concentrate on modern development rather than brand differentiation. How many brands does Toyota have? Three: Toyota, Scion and Lexus with distinctly different models in each one. But they are probably pushing the envelope, having recently posted a loss as well. Nissan has kept it rather simple with two brands but have had their missteps too. I could go on addressing each manufacturer but you get the point.

Finally what about SUV and truck hybrids? A ridiculous notion only because they came BEFORE a small-car hybrid. Toyota scored a home run with the Prius, and its probably profitable for them. I will not get into debate about the carbon footprint of mining and manufacturing the battery but the 2008 Chevrolet Malibu PARTIAL hybrid was way too little, way too late.

I really want GM, Chrysler and Ford to succeed, but unfortunately we are paying for their mistakes. GM still needs to consolidate brands, immediately.

Volvo racing equals mistake repeated

What are they thinking? A championship winning race team built a car based on a product from a conservative company known for safety to compete against the "big boys" in the Speed GT series. They are competing against track stars such as Porsche, Viper, Mustang, Cadillac CTS-V, Pontiac GTO and Aston Martin.

Put it this way: Take the stock, dealership showroom versions of those sports cars and put them on a track racing each other. It would be fun, entertaining and basically 2 groups of close racing action. Adding a 257 horsepower Volvo S60 T5 is like adding a pace car. Disastrous. http://www.volvocars.com/us/models/s60/Pages/BuildYourS60.aspx

K-PAX racing won the driver's championship in the proven, reliable and excellent Porsche 911 GT3s' in 2007 and 2008. In 2008, they also won the manufacturer championship for Porsche. Now they built a race car with a Volvo chassis this year in the same series. Talk about kicking the gift horse in the mouth! http://www.kpaxracing.com/

What is this going to do for Volvo? It isn't going to establish a new market segment. They have virtually no racing presence at all in the states, nor are they trying. This was attempted before as well. In 2006 a Volvo managed one rain-soaked win during an otherwise miserable season. This is another doomed effort this year. http://www.swedespeed.com/news/publish/Motorsport_News/article_915.html

Volvo makes fine cars, but here is an attempt from K-Pax, 3 years after a Volvo race car was uncompetitive against the "big boys" like Viper, Corvette, Porsche and purpose-built domestic monsters like the CTS-V and Mustang Cobra trying to make the 2.5L turbocharged engine competitive. Volvo states they are not involved with this vehicle (comment below). K-Pax states they have support from Volvo. http://www.kpaxracing.com/history.html If I had to guess, this means data and technical support.

It really boggles the mind. Not only must this car be purpose-built, making it totally unrelated to the street car, the engine must be modified way beyond what is even remotely possible on the street and that is without major turbo lag. Turbo lag means a delay in power delivery. Frustrating to say the least. The Viper, Corvette and Porsche race cars are closely related to the street car. And even the previously mentioned CTS-V, a factory-built racer, had a powertrain not too far removed from the street car. The Mustang as some pedigree from Ford racing at least, despite a heavily revised chassis like the 'V' and forgoing the supercharger in the GT500.

I always support more manufacturers in any given race series. It is more entertaining, improves the breed and makes for great conversation and debate. But really this effort should be in Speed Touring. They have bitten off more than they can chew.

Granted, a 12th place finish, up from starting 20th is respectable the first time out, even though the other car had a DNF due to mechanical problems (foreshadowing?). http://www.world-challenge.com/events/raceresults.php?ID=804 . They also have top drivers and K-PAX even states it's still early in development. So even if it works, despite the time and expense to be competitive, the big question remains for Volvo: What will this do for you? Volvo better expand on this effort for the buying public or it will be more egg in their face. Prediction: K-PAX returns with Porsche next year and an opportunity for new market appeal for Volvo fails. I'll explain why in an upcoming article that this may actually be a clever exploratory move on Volvo's part.

EDIT 4/19/2009: If this trend continues, I better get ready to eat a lot of crow: http://www.world-challenge.com/news/story.php?ID=1241 Congrats to all involved on a fine effort and results, although they both loss placings vs. their starting positions...

Million dollar supercars are a good idea

Most react to $1 million dollar supercars negatively. They say and write that these cars are a rip-off, meaningless, silly, gaudy, etc. Recent examples are the Lamborghini Reventon and Aston Martin One-77. They are a good idea for the companies that make them and the owners that buy them.

One big question is who buys these things? Industrialists, billionaires, and those with a net worth most likely well over $100 million dollars buy them. Yacht sales have increased, why not ultra-expensive cars too? And you know what? They are absolutely entitled to it. If you earn your money legally, spend it however you want, period.

Keep in mind there are many, many million-dollar cars shown many times a year at the Concours D'elegances around the country. There are four in Northern California alone. The advantage with these modern cars vs. "other" million dollar cars is they can be driven with enthusiasm and safety on modern roads with high speed limits in great comfort. I doubt many do that in the skinny-tired antiques from the 1920s.

And what about purpose-built race cars? Sure they provide entertainment but they cost millions of dollars plural! They are not street legal, require exquisite care and maintenance and if anything, are infinitely more silly and gaudy. So if they are exempt from scorn, so should the street-legal cars.

The Reventon and One-77 can be driven to the country club, the yacht club, exclusive dinners, parties and charity events and of course those car shows too! Not only can the owners enjoy them, but it's also an opportunity for exclusivity and a little bit of immortality. Which Lamborghini model will be invited to the lawn at Pebble Beach 40 years from now? Probably not the excellent but comparatively pedestrian Gallardo but we can count on the Reventon. I find it a little sad and disenchanting to see so many mass-produced supercars advertised for sale all the time in the DuPont Registry or AutoWeek. But we won't see much of these million dollar babies for sale very often!

The factory has an equal benefit as well. They have possibly new customers that will be loyal, very affluent and very influential among their peers. Skilled engineers and technicians are utilized to for the special project which builds enthusiasm and creativity. These factories don't have multi-million dollar racing efforts, so it is another tool to bring advanced technology to the public with out a phenomenally expensive racing development.

Finally, the profit margin makes a nice business case too. Lamborghini sold 20 Reventons. http://www.autoweek.com/article/20081205/FREE/812059982 I would be willing to guess that is a nice $10 million dollar asterisk in the internal annual profit report! Aston is making 77 units but only 6 for the US. The recurring "seven" theme is related to the James Bond series as well. http://www.autoweek.com/article/20090303/GENEVA/303039998.

I applaud these cars. Whether closely related to the "standard" Murcielago model like the Reventon, an excellent engineering exercise like the One-77, or a speed record setting Bugatti Veyron, I say keep it up!