Hudson

There are a few very good books that do this. First and foremost is "All Corvettes are Red" which follows the development of the 1997 Corvette. Car: A Drama of the American Workplace - 1996 Ford Taurus The Critical Path: Inventing an Automobile and Reinventing a Corporation - 1996 Chrysler minivans The Car that Could: The Inside Story of GM's Revolutionary Electric Vehicle - GM EV1 While these books may not necessarily give you an actual day-by-day timeline, they do outline the progression of designing and building a car.

Like I said, sorry if I missed it. And I wonder if they're averaging the content of all four plants? I'm still sure that the 50% figure is averaged between the four plants. The US plant is much greater than 50% US/Canadian content. And it's the "one car in this group that could be said to have dual citizenship?" How about the Accord? Civic? Camry?

No, many times they copy. They may share the same parts, but they're not licensed from the original manufacturer. The Mitsubishi engine is probably the only thing that's actually licensed.

My typo....would NOT

That's an entirely different problem of foreign companies buying American brand names.

What car did Greg and Marcia Brady do their famous driving competition in?

Sorry if I missed it, but they didn't say that the Corolla has "only 50-percent" domestic content. It did say that to be called "American," it would have to have no less than 50% domestic content. The US-built Corolla has more. Also, the Corolla is one of the few Japanese-badged cars and light trucks built by UAW labor (along with the Tacoma; Mitsubishi Eclipse, Galant, and Endeavor; Mazda6 and Tribute; and Isuzu I-series and Ascender).

David Shelburg has been trying to import Chinese vehicles for about 15 years. As with any of these ventures proposing to import Chinese vehicles in the near term, I would trust them.

I have other problems with the article. I don't care which EXECUTIVES get paid but I'd rather see working-class Americans build the vehicles and supply the parts to the vehicles, which all goes back to that domestic content. The main problem that I have is that I have driven an American-built car (BMW M Coupe) that had a "W" VIN code. I'm sure that there are others.

Just because Toyota and others have their corporate headquarters in another country, don't assume that most of the work is done "back home." It's not the case with every vehicle, but there are a number of models that are primarily design and primarily sourced (parts AND labor) in North America. Yes, most of the executives are Japanese. Many of their American workers receive a larger fraction of those executives' pay than their Big3 counterparts.

You and the dead horse aside...this argument always misses the fact that many import-brand vehicles built for the American market actually have design and engineering (as well as some bean counters) in the US. Honda and Toyota in particular develop large portions of their American lineup in the US with Americans doing much of the work.

Your logic is backwards. The "ten most American vehicles" are the most popular vehicles in the US with high US-Canadian content....OF COURSE they're mostly "American." They're designed exclusively for the US market, they're going to popular. But the other popular vehicles built in the US are building American suppliers while the vehicles built exclusively for the US market START with local suppliers and then move toward lower-cost suppliers (read: not from the US). And your example of the CR-V is of the former. It's an import moving to a domestic plant. Sure, it's going to have a number of international suppliers first...and then more and more suppliers will be locally sourced.

The standard Georgetown-built Camry has higher domestic content than 50%.

I agree. And the precipitous fall of the Escape and Camry could be connected to the rise is hybrid versions, which have large numbers of Japanese-sourced parts, which they overlook. A near useless measure of vehicles.

This is one idea that it seems most on this thread are missing. If the price of gas REMAINS in the $4 range, then we might need some enticing to build high-mileage vehicles in four or five years. But if gas prices continue to rise (and $5 a gallon doesn't seem out of the question in the next year or so), reaching the current legislation should be the MINIMUM required just to stay competitive. The market will demand more than the government.

The only question should be "how can I write this story to make it interesting?" Everyone's life is something that would be interesting for others to read, but it depends on how it's written. And while it might not be "worth it" monetarily, there's definitely something in your life's story (and/or Jay's) that you feel needs to be told...and that's the value. Don't worry about what to call it until it's in progress or even completed. Titles are more about marketing than what the books about, so just don't worry about it. Analyze the whole story...what have you learned? What's the outcome of the story to be told? Who would gain the most from reading the story? THEN write it in that direction. I worked on a book (as editor, not writer) that seemed like a good topic. But the way it was written, I barely wanted to read it and I had to. I have a few books floating around in my head (and even partially on my computer), but I haven't properly answered the questions I've posed to you. If you can answer them, you're ahead of me and I wish you the best of luck. Perhaps the best thing you can get out of writing this story is what makes your life's experience good instead of looking at it from the point of view of "Depressed middle aged people"...we've got enough of that and most of us want an alternative. Sure, the tourtured artist is always highlighted but what about those who have overcome the adversity in their lives and realized what they've actually done? There's good in every life and seeing that life as half full instead of half empty is the difference between concentrating on living a great life and one that is spent pining for the "Should of, Would Of."

The "Hippie Dippy Weatherman" was one of his classic characters. His contributions to Thomas the Tank Engine and Cars are great...as was Rufus in the "Bill and Ted" movies. He also had a great but short-lived sitcom on Fox. And of course his numerous HBO specials. If you get a chance, check out "Carlin on Campus"...one of my all-time favorites.

So a market that ignores the fact that a large portion of out gas money goes to areas of the world where they don't like Americans? If there were no outside influence on the American market, there'd be precious little investment on non-petroleum fed vehicles...oh wait, that's how it is. So when gas prices rise over 200% in just a few years, manufacturers of gas guzzling vehicles will be left holding the bag and losing market share...oh wait, that's how it is. And perhaps...just maybe...those politicians and green lobby groups are calling your attention to something more than your personal immediate selfish desires? Maybe...just once they could be right? I'd love to drive an affordable electric vehicle on my daily commute, but nobody's built one. There's no incentive to think outside of the box when your whole business model is based around fossil fuel vehicles...and large ones at that. When economies of scale make it a better business case to make all petroleum vehicles instead of using other fuels, why not hide behind the "market desires" option? Even if there's a market for these other types. The law of supply and demand states that when there's a demand someone will market a supply to fill it. The problem with that is there are barriers to market these vehicles. Some governmental and some business-oriented. If the market were allowed to drive innovation, automakers would be making cars with OPTIONAL items such as emissions controls, bumpers, airbags, and seatbelts instead of mandating them. How many people would opt for catalytic converters? CAFE is a bad idea...it's the wrong way to get better gas mileage vehicles on the road. But atleast it's an idea. The better method would be the European method where gas is heavily taxed...of the Japanese method where the size of the engine is taxed. Whether gas is $1.50 a gallon or $5.00, there's no reason why we shouldn't be driving more efficient vehicles. Simply wasting gas because you can afford the gas doesn't mean you SHOULD do it.

Manufacturers of all products publicly overstate costs. Safety regulations first "mandated" in the 1960s and 1970s were to be price-prohibitive as well...and yet cars are just as (if not more) affordable than ever...and safer to boot. Add to it the fact that (as stated above) the buying public is moving toward more efficient vehicles, investing that money will be necessary just to survive the marketplace, not only the CAFE regulations.

I missed it. What was it?

I've never been a "GM fanatic" but there's always been something about the Cimarron that I've liked. Especially the V6/manual versions...and the later flush-headlight models like the D'Oro. I remember an early V6/4-speed model that was on a used car lot in 1990 that I was very interested in owning. Even today, if a V6/5-speed was offered I might just think about it.

It would just come off as whining. Besides, the new CAFE standards, as far as I know, are EASIER on manufacturers of larger vehicles than smaller vehicles. The whole new CAFE standard setup is stupid and only half-baked...but what do you expect from a government mandate. I don't have a problem with encouraging manufacturers from making more fuel efficient vehicles (and CAFE has NEVER been the way to do it), but the new CAFE standard is just dumb. Bob Lutz was quoted saying something to the effect that getting better fuel economy by using a method like CAFE was akin to getting the country to lose weight by requiring clothing manufacturers to make only smaller sizes. The true way to get more fuel efficient vehicles is to get the DEMAND up, not the supply. Oil companies have done just this for us with gas prices tripling in just the past 7 years...and continuing to rise at or near record rates. Driving is down, sales of big vehicles is down, and sales of small vehicles is up. Who would have believed just a couple of years ago that the Aveo and Metro would be among the hot topics on C&G?

You're probably right...it doesn't seem that $297 would make much of a difference. But in the hypercompetitive car market, it could mean the difference between one vehicle and another. If the net gain in sales outweighs the losses of the more expensive higher MPG vehicles, that $297 will grow...substantially. Yes, but EVERYBODY needs to invest this money. But this isn't the same as the net cost of a ticket over a parking garage. And if the car companies would rather pay the fine than meet the regulation, what's stopping the government from RAISING the fine? Yes, which is the whole (or most of the) reason for the rise of trucks over the past 20 years. They were held to a lower CAFE standard and buyers migrated to them.

I still pull my Legos out once in a while. I've got gears and pistons...one of my Lego kits made a four-cylinder RWD car with a working transmission (forward gear, neutral, and reverse) and rack-and-pinion steering. I'm saving up to buy another kit that produces a V8 (working) with a four-speed (working) transmission and (working) four wheel drive/steering. I've always built geared and wheeled creations. I've made many four-wheel steering and/or four-wheel drive vehicles of all types. Ideas still come to me today.

Nice thought...here's why it won't work. The market is so competitive, that any "$297" charge will make your car far less marketable. So much so, that GM will EAT that $297 just to stay competitive. Additionally, that "$297" charge equates to $1,135,315,467 based on 2007 sales. Yes, that's over ONE BILLION DOLLARS! Making a separate company to handle GM's lower MPG vehcles won't work either. As a company, all GM vehicles are averaged together. If you spin off the other vehicles, you've got to get the SEC involved and it's going to cost hundreds of millions if not BILLIONS to do this. And what would be the point when GM would lose lots of money selling fuel efficient vehicles and the "other" GM would make some money only to lose it all paying huge fines. It's not like there's a reverse tax on GM if they beat the CAFE limit. And the federal government is the LAW. Why doesn't GM just make cars with no airbags or without bumpers or without emissions controls to make more money and be more competitive? BECAUSE IT IS THE LAW. CAFE is a minor annoyance. It will be easy to beat the standards in the time allotted. If your number is right (I haven't seen an official 2007 CAFE number for GM) and the company is already beating today's standard by nearly two MPG (which I have a hard time believing), then improving the lineup the 20% in the next decade will be possible. And I think you'll barely notice the difference. Today's cars are the best ever built. They're more powerful than ever. They're more efficent than ever. They're cleaner than ever. They're safer than ever. And they're still amazingly affordable for what you get. A higher CAFE standard is no problem. I believe in the engineers...they can do it. It's not going to be miraculous...it's simply more of the same from them.