Toyota and Tesla jointly announced a new joint venture to develop and build electric vehicles (EVs). As part of the deal, Toyota will invest $50 million in Tesla, and Tesla buys the New United Motor Manufacturing Incorporated (NUMMI) factory in California. The NUMMI plant was previously a joint venture of Toyota and General Motors. The NUMMI plant, in Freemont, California, began production in 1984 after being a “regular” GM plant from 1962-1982. As a NUMMI plant, it produced vehicles such as the Chevrolet Nova, Pontiac Vibe, Toyota Tacoma and Toyota Corolla. Tesla plans to produce the Model S, which Tesla expects to be the world’s first all-electric sedan, at the plant in 2012. They also said other future Tesla vehicles would be produced there.

The announcement was short on details, with the usual fluffery where Toyota said how great Tesla is and vice versa. The full text of the joint announcement is below.

Bloomberg is reporting today that Ford plans to kill the Mercury brand - again. At least twice in the last decade, Mercury was on the chopping block, only to be given a stay of execution. The Ford family, specifically Elena Ford, has vetoed efforts by management to kill off the brand in the past.

Mercury was created in 1939 by Edsel Ford as a bridge between the mainstream Ford brand and the luxury Lincoln brand. Mercury products have lately been nothing more than Fords with more features and (slightly) fancier styling. Mercury’s present lineup shows this: Milan (Fusion twin), Mariner (Escape), Mountaineer (Explorer) and Grand Marquis (Crown Victoria). The last time Mercury had a unique vehicle (not shared with a Ford) was in 2002, when Mercury last sold the Cougar and the Villager minivan (though the Villager was engineered by, and shared with, Nissan).

1967 Mercury Cougar

In 1999, Ford planned to kill the Mercury brand by phasing out the lineup and eventually “encouraging” Mazda dealers and Lincoln dealers to dual with the other brand. They saw Mercury sales dwindling and Mazda sales going in the opposite direction. The plan was set, and the future product (”cycle”) plan was modified to reflect Mercury’s demise. Then the company got cold feet. A powerful combination of the Ford family and Lincoln Mercury dealers killed the plan before it really got going. The Ford family opposed it due to sentimental reasons (the tragic story of Edsel and Mercury being his creation was a big part), while the dealers didn’t like the idea of selling Japanese cars.

1982 Mercury Capri RS

Many at Ford had already mentally written off the Mercury brand, and the reversal left Mercury without a plan for future products. Instead of taking the opportunity to “reboot” the brand into something other than fancy Fords, the company went back to the old ways and hastily threw some money at Fords with different lights and grilles. It was a self-fulfilling, defeatist attitude that went something like this, “Mercury sales suck, so let’s not spend too much money on Mercury products. That way, we won’t have to sell too many to get a return on the money.” Of course, spending very little on badge-engineering ensured the sales would suck, and the geniuses who made the decision patted themselves on the back for not spending the money (”See, I told you the sales would suck - aren’t you glad we didn’t spend the money?”).

Ford missed an opportunity to have its cake and eat it too. Ford had (and still does have) wonderful products in overseas markets around the world that it could have used to give Mercury unique products without the cost of developing a stand-alone product for Mercury. Ford could have assembled a collection of Ford’s European and Asian products, including some vehicles that Mazda sold in Japan, but not in North America. There would have been costs associated with homologation and importation, but nowhere near the costs of engineering a new product from scratch.

1955 Mercury Montclair

Again in 2005, Ford looked at eliminating Mercury. Detailed analyses of sales volume and profit & loss were presented to senior management, but again, the idea was crushed. There were fears of Lincoln Mercury dealer profits and the heavy hand of the Ford family was in the middle somewhere.

Since Alan Mulally showed up, Mercury has seen its lineup shrink to the present 4 vehicles mentioned above. And now Ford is apparently going through the same exercise again. So what’s different this time? Mulally and the cash situation are the major ones. Mulally isn’t so tied to the past and will make the decision that is best for the company, regardless of sentiment. Also, while Ford is doing better than just about anybody in the industry right now (though that isn’t saying much), they still have a tremendous amount of debt to consider, and cash is tight.

1971 Mercury Cyclone GT

What about the dealers? The Lincoln Mercury dealers have made the argument in the past that they wouldn’t have enough volume to survive if Ford pulled the plug on Mercury. Is that still true? Lincoln has, arguably, its best lineup ever right now, but is it enough to keep the dealer body healthy? They have 6 vehicles for sale (MKZ, MKX, MKS, MKT, Navigator and Town Car), but the Town Car goes away completely after the 2011 model year. That leaves 5 mostly alphabet soup names and a giant SUV. For the dealers’ sake, I hope that the pipeline is full of new Lincolns and freshenings of existing models.

Even assuming that Ford can keep the dealers happy and profitable with just Lincoln, does Mercury really need to go the way of Plymouth, Saturn, Pontiac, et al? I have the same argument against pulling the Mercury plug as I did with Pontiac. Why pull it? Mercury could remain as a niche product, with maybe 2-3 vehicles. If Ford really does have a plan for Lincoln, the dealers wouldn’t be reliant on the Mercury volume, so there would be no need to have a full lineup of Mercurys. Engineering/R&D are only approved for programs that can pay back the investment anyway, so that wouldn’t be an issue. There is already a distribution network, so that’s OK too. Assembly plant capacity could be an issue, but if Ford can utilize existing platforms for Mercury (without relying on badge engineering), it should be able to use existing plant capacity as well. The only other consideration is advertising. In the auto industry, most advertising is for vehicles, not brands. There would only need to be advertising for the vehicles that you are offering, and everybody knows what a Mercury is already, so no cost to “launch” the brand.

1963 Mercury Marauder

I know this isn’t a strong argument for why Ford should keep Mercury, but an argument for why they shouldn’t feel the need to kill it. The Mercury brand has survived 70+ years. It would be a shame to allow it to die now for the wrong reasons.

That’s what I think - how about you? Please leave your comments below!

As was expected, Tesla Motors, Inc. filed its registration statement of its intent to sell stock to the public. It intends to raise as much as $100 million in the offering. No expected date was given for the offering. Stay tuned. If you’ve never read a Form S-1, try it sometime. Because it constitutes a legal document which could form the basis of a shareholder lawsuit someday, companies are brutally honest in the document. This is so they can say in court, “We told you so” if needed to fend off a fraud or other claim down the road. So it can indeed be an interesting read.

Here’s a tidbit from Tesla’s S-1 that anybody who follows the auto industry would find interesting. It is in the “Risk Factors” section of the S-1:

We anticipate that we will experience a decrease in revenues and increase in losses prior to the launch of the Model S.

Prior to the launch of our Model S, we anticipate our automotive sales may decline, potentially significantly as we do not plan to sell our current generation Tesla Roadster after 2011 due to planned tooling changes at a supplier for the Tesla Roadster, and we do not currently plan to begin selling our next generation Tesla Roadster until at least one year after the launch of the Model S, which is not expected to be in production until 2012…As a result, we anticipate that we will generate limited, if any, revenue from selling electric vehicles after 2011 until the launch of our Model S. The launch of our Model S could be delayed for a number of reasons and any such delays may be significant and would extend the period in which we would generate limited, if any, revenues from sales of our electric vehicles. The expected decrease in revenues for the periods prior to the launch of the Model S may be significant and could materially and adversely affect our business, prospects, operating results and financial condition and our ability to fund operating losses could seriously constrain our growth.

So Tesla will be essentially out of business for some period beginning sometime next year for at least a few months, and that assumes the Model S arrives on time. Because the Model S is Tesla’s first vehicle that they are designing from the ground up, it is reasonable to assume that they will have some delays and/or other problems. In fact, it is unreasonable to assume that they will NOT have any delays. The major auto companies, with decades of experience, regularly encounter problems or delays that they can not foresee. In fact, given the nature of the S-1, Tesla has enumerated the potential risks of successfully launching the Model S:

Our production model for the non-powertrain portion of the Model S is unproven, still evolving and is very different from the non-powertrain portion of the production model for the Tesla Roadster.

Our future business depends in large part on our ability to execute on our plans to develop, manufacture, market and sell our planned Model S electric vehicle. To date our revenues have been principally derived from the sales of our Tesla Roadster. The Tesla Roadster has only been produced in low volume quantities and the body is assembled by Lotus Cars Limited in the United Kingdom, with the final assembly by us at our facility in Menlo Park, California for sales destined in the United States. We plan to manufacture the Model S in higher volumes than our present production capabilities in our planned manufacturing facility. As a result, the non-powertrain portion of the production model for the Model S will be substantially different and significantly more complex than the non-powertrain portion of the production model for the Tesla Roadster. In addition, we plan to introduce a number of new manufacturing technologies and techniques, such as a new painting process and aluminum spot welding systems, which have not been widely adopted in the automotive industry. Our Model S production model will require significant investments of cash and management resources and we may experience unexpected delays or difficulties that could postpone our ability to launch or achieve full manufacturing capacity for the Model S, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, operating results and financial condition.

Our production model for the Model S is based on many key assumptions, which may turn out to be incorrect, including:
• that we will be able to identify and secure an appropriate facility for the manufacturing of our Model S;
• that we will be able to secure the funding necessary to build out and equip the manufacturing facilities in a timely manner, including meeting milestones and other conditions necessary to draw down funds under our loan facility with the DOE;
• that we will able to develop and equip the manufacturing facilities for the Model S without exceeding our projected costs and on our projected timeline;
• that the equipment we select will be able to accurately manufacture the vehicle within specified design tolerances;
• that our computer aided design process can reduce the product development time by accurately predicting the performance of our vehicle for passing relevant safety standards, including standards that can only be met through expensive crash testing;
• that we will be able to obtain the necessary permits and approvals, including those under the California Environmental Quality Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, as well as building and air quality permits, to comply with local zoning, environmental and similar regulations to operate our manufacturing facilities and our business on our projected timeline;
• that we will be able to engage suppliers for the necessary components on terms and conditions acceptable to us and that we will be able to obtain components on a timely basis and in the necessary quantities;
• that we will be able to deliver final component designs to our suppliers in a timely manner;
• that we will be able to attract, recruit, hire and train skilled employees, including employees on the production line, to operate our Model S manufacturing facility;
• that we will be able to maintain high quality controls as we transition to an in-house manufacturing process; and
• that we will not experience any significant delays or disruptions in our supply chain.

If one or more of the foregoing assumptions turns out to be incorrect, our ability to successfully launch the Model S on time and on budget if at all, and our business prospects, operating results and financial condition may be materially and adversely impacted.

We have no experience to date in high volume manufacturing of our electric vehicles. We do not know whether we will be able to develop efficient, automated, low-cost manufacturing capability and processes, and reliable sources of component supply, that will enable us to meet the quality, price, engineering, design and production standards, as well as the production volumes required to successfully mass market the Model S. Even if we are successful in developing our high volume manufacturing capability and processes and reliable sources of component supply, we do not know whether we will be able to do so in a manner that avoids significant delays and cost overruns, including as a result of factors beyond our control such as problems with suppliers and vendors, or in time to meet our vehicle commercialization schedules or to satisfy the requirements of customers. Any failure to develop such manufacturing processes and capabilities within our projected costs and timelines could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, operating results and financial condition.

Given this, and because Tesla has not made any money yet, could a significant delay in the launch of the Model S spell the end of Tesla? Will Elon Musk be willing to continue to fund the operations from his petty cash account? Of course, Tesla was awarded a $465 million loan to develop the Model S by the US government. If they go out of business, will Musk be asked for the taxpayers’ money back? If so, will he use PayPal?

That’s what I think - how about you? Please leave your comments below.

Out to make all the other cars green with envy, Chevrolet introduced a new special version of the hot-selling Camaro this week. Dubbed the Camaro Synergy Special Edition, the new Camaro is a 1LT (V6) with a fancy paint job. Along with the fancy green paint job come racing stripes and a special interior, with Synergy Green instrument panel and door inserts. Synergy Green stitching also accents the Jet Black cloth seats, steering wheel, shift knob and center console.

The Special Edition also includes the Camaro Convenience and Connectivity Package, with Bluetooth phone connectivity, USB port for MP3 players, and remote vehicle start for models equipped with an automatic transmission.

“The Synergy Special Edition package is designed for customers who want a unique performance car at an attainable price,” says Camaro marketing manager John Fitzpatrick. “For under $27,000, Camaro Synergy Special Edition offers standout styling, modern technologies like Bluetooth, and 304 horsepower under the hood.”

This class of car has always been about more than muscle (although muscle is a vital part); it’s been about fashion as well. That’s why Camaros, Mustangs, Challengers and others are among the most customized vehicles. Everybody wants one that is different from everybody else’s. Manufacturers have gotten in on the act, catering to those who have no interest in doing the customizing themselves, but still want the unique look. This is just the latest example. Ford tried to institutionalize this with their Vehicle Personalization division, which met with mixed success.

Back to this car, which is a great looking addition to the already hot Camaro lineup. Synergy will be produced in limited quantities from February to May only, so get yours today!

That’s what I think - how about you? Please leave your comments below. Just click on “Comments.” It’s so easy, even you can do it. But not a caveman.

For the 3rd year in a row, Ford took advanatge of the platform given by the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las vegas to announce a major new product.  Ford is announcing major enhancements to its in-car electronics.  SYNC was the first major electronic feature, and now Ford is taking it another giant leap further.  Called MyTouch, or MyFord Touch in Ford vehicles and MyLincoln Touch in the Lincolns. What this amounts to is a major redesign of the vehicle interior, and a complete redesign of the way information is presented to the driver and how he/she interacts with the vehicle.

MyFord includes an 8″ display in the center stack area that can be customized in three ways, reflecting that some customers are less techno-savvy than others and would be confused by all of the choices. “Quiet” is the setting that has the least information, which is nested in the 4 corners of the display. The majority of the display is devoted to a driver-selected “wallpaper” image. “Smart Corners” has a set of predetermined buttons with the most popular top-level functions. The “Shortcuts” display is fully customized by the customer.

The interface also includes dual 4″ LCD displays on either side of the speedometer which show various vehicle personalization options. The displays are controlled by a 5-way button located on either side of the steering wheel.

Left Side MyFord display

The left side display shows driver assist settings (on/off choices for traction control, front or rear park assist, etc.), vehicle settings (autolamp delay in seconds, door lock settings, remote start climate control settings, fuel economy, distance to empty, etc.), English/metric settings, and gauge settings (tachometer, tach/fuel, or tach/fuel/water temp).

The right side display contains infotainment information, including audio settings, climate control, phone communications and navigation menus.

MyFord Touch and MyLincoln Touch also include an array of touch-sensitive switches for those that might get freaked out by the touch screens. They are not true switches, but touch-sensitive “areas” that confirm that you’ve activated it by a beep or a light. One of these is the “MyTemp” function, which automatically sets the temperature to your pre-programmed favorite temperature. This is a bit of a gimmick, but would be useful if somebody else has borrowed your car and changed it.

You might be wondering if you can use all of this cool electronics with a glove on your hand. I asked the

MyLincoln Touch

Ford engineer and yes, you can use a glove, just not a real thick one. More on this after I get a chance for a full review.

Along with the personalization, MyFord and My Lincoln also afford portability to all of your settings. Selected user settings can be programmed to individual vehicle keys - this part isn’t new or unique. However, the settings can also be downloaded to a USB drive and exported to another MyFord-equipped vehicle, instantly transferring the driver’s preferences. This also might be a bit of a gimmick, but think if you were to rent a car and can instantly tell the car what temperature you like, and all of the other settings discussed above.

Another advantage of this system is it allows navigation to be an inexpensive upgrade, because the large touchscreen is already in the car. The upgrade is in the form of an SD card with the maps and software on it. Just plug it in and go!

The MyTouch innovation has the potential to really elevate Ford’s reputation - and sales. This is true innovation. Time will tell if the customers agree and appreciate it. I think it is a game-changer, and will likely be copied by other manufacturers as soon as they can.

That’s what I think - how about you? Please leave your comments below.

Chevy and OnStar announced today the availability of an app for the upcoming Chevy Volt extended-range electric vehicle (EREV).  Called OnStar Experience, the app will allow consumers to view and control certain aspects of the Volt’s unique functions.

OnStar’s Mobile Application allows drivers to communicate with their Volt from Droid by Motorola, Apple iPhone and Blackberry Storm smartphones. It uses a real-time data connection to perform tasks from setting the charge time to unlocking the doors.  The application:

The mobile application will be available for the Apple iPhone, Blackberry Storm and Motorola Droid smartphones.  Volt’s OnStar mobile application will also be available on a mobile browser for other internet-capable phones. Volt drivers will also be able to view and manage vehicle systems and commands from the vehicle, the internet or through a monthly OnStar Vehicle Diagnostics e-mail.

Early Volt buyers will be those known to marketers as “early adopters,” so providing this surprise cool feature will certainly appeal to those buyers.  Volt buyers will want to show off their smart purchase and being able to show friends their charge status, etc. will only make them feel even more special for having forked over the expected 40 large for the Volt.  Announcing this new feature also keeps the Volt in the consumers’ minds, which Chevrolet will have to keep up until late this year, when deliveries are expected to begin.  By then, it will have been almost 4 years since Chevrolet introduced the Volt to the public.

What Chevy/GM/OnStar need to do now is develop an app that will work with all of their other cars & trucks.  Let me start the car (if equipped with remorte start), check my tire pressure, schedule service with my local dealer, and all of the other vehicle diagnostics that OnStar provides on a monthly basis with a subscription.  The cat’s out of the bag, GM!  Now I want all of this when I want it - immediately.  I don’t want to wait a month for OnStar to send me an e-mail!

That’s what I think - how about you?  Please leave your comments below.

GMC gets its 3rd General Manager in a month…GM announces the “small car” it will build at its Orion Township plant…Obama signs dealer arbitration bill…GM speeds development now that it actually has cash to spend.  All this and more on today’s episode of As the Crankshaft Turns.

As The Slandy Report told you, Mike Richards, hired to lead Buick-GMC, left after only 8 days on the job.  Well, now Buick-GMC has a new leader.  Brian Sweeney, formerly Buick-GMC sales manager, takes over the division after months of turmoil.  The division is desperate for sales, and chairman Ed Whitacre has said that executives will not have long to show results.  Sweeney has been replaced by Jennifer Costabile, 47, a 25-year GM veteran.

In May, GM announced after a competition between 3 plants, that it would build an unnamed new small car at its Orion plant in suburban Detroit.  The unnamed has now been named.  The next generation 2011 Chevy Aveo will be built at the plant next year.  The present Aveo is made in South Korea, and the next version was supposed to be made in Mexico or China.  A big win and a new small car for the US!!

President Barack Obama on Wednesday signed legislation that would give rejected GM and Chrysler dealers access to neutral arbitration if they want to be reinstated, kicking off a a 6½ months arbitration process.

GM and Chrysler now have 30 days to send letters to the owners of about 2,150 rejected dealerships informing them of their rights under the new law and spelling out the reasons that their franchise agreements were terminated.

With Obama’s signature, the eliminated dealerships have 40 days to give notice that they intend to seek arbitration.

So what do you get when you cross an expensive sports car with a quirky economy car?  No, this isn’t the losing joke at a 3rd grade joke contest.  It’s a real car!  Well, sort of.  It will be a real car - if you could call it that.  This past summer, Aston Martin, the maker of uber-expensive sports cars announced it would jointly develop a small car with Toyota.  The car would be based on the Toyota iQ, which is a small city car (think Smart ForTwo) that will be sold in the US in about a year as a Scion iQ.  The Slandy Report didn’t tell you about this, because we thought it was a badly-timed April Fool’s joke.

Aston Martin DBS

So let’s get into the details, shall we?  Aston Martin makes drop-dead gorgeous, very expensive sports cars in very small numbers.  The cheapest model for sale in the US is the V8 Vantage, which starts at $120K.  The most expensive, the DBS, starts at $270K.  The Toyota iQ is a very small, no frills economy car.  While not for sale in the US yet, It starts at £9763 (about $16,000) in the UK.  It has 2 engines available; the faster of the 2 will get you to 60 MPH in over 13 seconds!

So along comes the Aston Martin Cygnet, of which Aston has released official photos.  This car is so wrong on so many levels it just astounds me.  Boggles the mind.  First, this is perhaps the worst example of “badge engineering” ever.  For the uninitiated, badge engineering is when an automaker “creates” a new vehicle simply by “engineering” a new badge for it.  The Detroit 3 have been (correctly) accused of this for

Aston Martin Cygnet

years.  That Aston Martin, one of the most exclusive brands in all of automotive-dom, would succumb to this with a lowly Toyota city car gives me a headache.  Second, this is also perhaps the worst example of brand extension ever.  Even with Aston Martin’s snout grafted on its nose and a fancy interior, this car might cost $40,000 if/when it comes to the US.  That would still be 67% lower than its cheapest car now.  To say that this car will hurt Aston’s reputation and alienate its present customers is an understatement.  Third, this car, like its Toyota half-brother, is just plain ugly.  Aston Martin cars, as I mentioned above, are known to be works of art on wheels.  So much so that they should come standard with a bib.  I would be embarrassed to sell this.  Or to be seen in it.

That’s what I think - how about you?  Please leave your comments below.

It has been nearly 2 years since we first saw the Chevy Volt at the Detroit auto show, and we have been subjected to a nearly non-stop media and marketing assault since.  Chevrolet and GM have taken every opportunity to tell us how wonderful the Volt is (or rather, “will be”).  They have used it in corporate advertising, it has appeared on The Late Show with David Letterman and at every auto show on the planet in the last 2 years.  What you might not know is that it is also AT LEAST another year or more until anybody will have the opportunity to buy one, and then in only small numbers and in select areas of the country at the beginning.

In the latest example of this sensory overload, Chevy commissioned a Volt jingle.  No kidding - you read that right.  Chevy released this jingle last week at the LA Auto Show.  I’ll admit, it is a bit catchy.  It has a pleasant melody and attempts to educate and get you excited about the Volt.  But seriously, do we really need a Volt jingle more than a year before we might have a chance to buy this thing?  GM should be more focused on delivering the Volt on time and on budget and less on selling it before they have a single one to sell!  That said, click on the image below to hear the jingle.  Note that the images in the video are not provided by GM.  The video portion is the work of Lyle Dennis, who created, launched, maintains and writes the website gm-volt.com.  He’s a bit of a Volt-nut, but his work has gotten him recognition from the media and from GM.  GM has even given him the opportunity to drive a Volt prototype recently.

That’s what I think - how about you?  Please leave your comments below.

2011 Buick Regal

Buick announced details of its upcoming Regal sedan, which will go on sale in the second quarter of next year. Regal, a name that carries a performance heritage of the Grand National from the 1980s, has not been used since 2004. This latest iteration is based on the new Opel Insignia, which has won many awards, including European Car of the Year. Before Saturn was cancelled, rumors were that the Insignia would be the new Saturn Aura in North America. Now Buick gets it.  And what it gets looks pretty good.  The Regal is not just “based on” the Insignia, it is the Insignia, with minor styling changes to make it a Buick.

The Regal will have a 182 horsepower 2.4L I4 engine as its base powerplant.  This engine is also the base engine in the Chevy Equinox and GMC Terrain.  It is expected to get 20 mpg in the city and 30 mpg on the highway.  Arriving later in the year will be the 2.0L turbo making 220 hp and getting 18/29 mpg.  No V6 or V8?  This is Buick, right?  Home of the land barges that come with their own ZIP code?  This ain’t your father’s Buick, kids (apologies to Oldsmobile).  In the land of the 35 MPG CAFE standards, the turbo 4 will have to do.  The standard, and only, tranny will be a 6-speed auto.

Buick’s intended targets are the Acura TSX, Volvo S60, Mazda6 and Volkswagen Passat and says that it has a longer wheelbase and greater trunk volume than those vehicles, along with standard features – including the six-speed automatic transmission, 18-inch wheels and OnStar – that aren’t offered standard on either competitor.  If Buick really intends to compete with these great vehicles (and you can probably add the Audi A4), it should realize that a true sports sedan at least offers a manual transmission (the 6-speed auto isn’t standard on these vehicles because a manual is standard).  True, the take rate of a manual will be low, likely less than 10%, but a car that hopes to have street cred among the intended buyers in this segment needs to offer the stick.  That’s why Caddy offers it in the CTS.  And because the Regal is an Insignia, the engineering to offer a manual is already done (at least paired with the 2.0L turbo).  So except for stocking service parts and other indirect costs, offering the manual is FREE.

The Regal will only be offered in top-of-the-line CXL trim at first, with a CX model to follow.  Buick gave the following list of some of the equipment to be offered:

• All-new Interactive Drive Control System (IDCS) available with the 2.0L turbo, offering driver-selectable suspension settings and automatic driver suspension setting adaptability
• Four-wheel disc brakes with four-channel anti-lock braking system, brake assist and electronic parking brake
• Standard StabiliTrak stability control system and full-function traction control
• Standard dual-stage frontal air bags, side-curtain air bags and pedal-release system; rear-seat thorax air bags available
• Available navigation system, Harmon Kardon sound system, internal flash drive (1GB), hard drive with 10GB for music and USB port
• Standard 18-inch wheels (19-inch wheels standard with IDCS)
• Standard 12-way power, leather and heated driver seat; leather and heated passenger front seat; Bluetooth capability; XM Satellite Radio and OnStar.

In an effort to get the Regal to market quickly, it will be made in Russelsheim, Germany alongside the Insignia for the first 15 months.  After that, production will shift to a yet to be named North American plant.  A good bet would be the Fairfax, Kansas plant that makes the Chevy Malibu, as both products are based on the global Epsilon platform.

At the end of the day, the Regal will be a success if customers don’t mind that it is a Buick.  It is an attractive, well-equipped European sedan that will likely be priced very competitively.  The only thing getting in the way is the Buick’s image.  Personally, I don’t care about a brand’s so-called “baggage”.  A good-looking vehicle, with the right equipment at the right price is what I want.  I’ll leave the interpretation of what that means to my image to others.

That’s what I think - how about you?  Please leave your comments below.

Thanksgiving Eve Update:
Autoweek magazine has reported that the 2.0L Turbo will also include a 6-speed manual transmission when it is introduced, making the Regal a legitimate competitor to the vehicles listed above.  Buick’s announcement 2 weeks ago said nothing about a manual.  Maybe they read The Slandy Report?  Also, GM announced this week that the Regal will be built in their Oshawa, Ontario plant in the first quarter of 2011.  Why Oshawa, which presently makes the Chevy Camaro and Impala, and not Fairfax, which already makes the Malibu and LaCrosse (made on the same Epsilon platform as the Regal)?  No idea - Oshawa will then have 3 vehicles all made on distinct platforms, pushing the envelope on complexity of the Oshawa plant.