What Buttermore said. x2 Just a couple of additions..... this is an op-ed so may be disregarded accordingly.

There is plenty of blame to go around. A good part to be found is many of us. I'm not talking about people who buy GM cars, I'm talking about Americans who own GM stock. GM had to tool for ie SUVs because they had to make profits for EACH QUARTER. 5 and 10 year plans had insufficient capital because a company dare not have a bad quarter or year.. Current offerings are "me too" cars, instead of global new innovation and design.

In contrast, (I don't know about Toyoto) Honda had a 20 year plan to take market share in the US and Euro markets. In the 70s and 80s, they had 100s of billions of dollars of losses. But most of their loans were guaranteed by the Japan govt. I'm not suggesting we go to some quasi-socialism-government business system. But it goes to show how longterm thinking with all your capital onboard can be a compelling economic force.

I still contend that the Japan'* big leg up was because they engineered "small" first and then built up from that. US car makers had to engineer down their big engines. Remember their first 4-cyl cars? Anybody still driving a Vega or Pinto... at least one that hasn't exploded?

We had a discussion 30 years ago when oil was sticking us in the a**. We agreed on what we should do. If we had stuck to that, we'd probably have $20,000 Tesla-like cars available. Except better in every way. I'm no dirtworshipping treehugger, sometimes you have to take your medicine.


From the article...
"GM dictated to the market in terms of design, engineering, vehicle content, pricing, segments -- even down to the paint colors offered."

This is the exact arrogance that almost put IBM out of business. it definitely let Microsoft and Intel blow right past them. Whenever you start telling your customers what they want and stop paying attention to what'* going on around you....

you're screwed. It is just a matter of time.

BTW, Haro, your two pics are a little misleading. The top one is rather obviously a cleaned up photo, or CGI. The second one is real, but it also points up exactly what I'm talking about. Silver-painted cheap plastic.

Toyota Builds Better Cars, at least they did. They have their issues but are probably more reliable than the competing gm cars. I would never touch a 4 cylinder gm car, ever. Just from the reputation that I hear about and see my friends go thru. However this is what they are good for, cheap reliable transportation,what 90% of americans need. I however want a little more excitement when I push the loud pedal down.

both of those pics are off the website...

I agree with you in a few ways - I definately won't touch a newer Toyota, basically anything after 1992 after Cressida was discontinued. Soul-less, but reliable transportation that I wouldn't drive unless I got a REALLY good deal on it or if you gave it to me.

I found I got the Tonka truck plastic feel in the 1991 SSE too, something that wasn't there in the 1985 Cressida

I'll disagree with you on the Honda aspect - relative to Toyota, they've always been the sportier one. The Accord has always had some starch in the steering, more feedback in the brakes, and a little firmer suspension - I'd definately choose one over a Camry as a daily driver. My mom'* Altima (1998, 2.4L) is decently sporty and makes good torque from the long-stroke truck motor, makes for an entertaining daily driver.

That said, my little Civic is a go-kart that weaves in and out of traffic effortlessly, but at the end of the day, with the highway commuting that I do, I still prefer my large sedans, ie Bonneville - don't get me wrong

just to add to the debate...I think we all can agree all the car companies use plastics, in their interiors, it'* just a way of life. Even the luxury makers (Benz, BMW, Lexus etc...) have plastics (maybe thicker more expensive plastics). Personally I like the interiors on the new Fords (the best out the Big 3 in quality).