Hudson

But didn't the 4100 remain in production (notice how I avoided "ran") from 1982 through 1988?

I can't argue against the interior quality of the XL7, because I hate it. The last XL7 test vehicle I had was an abomination. And the interior quality of most under $20,000 vehicles sold in the US is poor (cheap, in my opinion) compared to my 1991 Swift GT. All I can say is that the sales numbers are up and that Suzuki has invested more money in advertising. I look forward to their upcoming introduction of the new Swift and I'm waiting to see how the market likes their upcoming mid-sized car. I think the Swift will do well (assuming Suzuki doesn't screw something up in the process, either in the vehicle or the marketing) and the mid-sized car will, at best, tread water. While I haven't worked at Suzuki, I have worked in the industry VM and Tier 1 industry as a consultant and analyst for a number of years.

Wow! Motor Trend thinks quite a bit of themselves. I know I'm not alone (especially on this site) when I say, "I thought of that." I also knew about the trade agreement. Perhaps Motor Trend needs some better reporters. I'm sure if they requested resumes from people here, they'd get more than a couple from people who was more foreward thinking than the above reporter.

You can't turn the ship around quickly whether it's the Queen Mary (GM) or a dingy (Suzuki). It takes time. Suzuki seems to be trying the Subaru approach. Suzuki's recent advertising has been tying their successful motorcycle image into their non-existent car and truck image. Sales of Suzuki products in 2007 was up over 2006...in a market that was down. Even sales of the well-positioned XL7 (good price, reasonable power for a 7-passenger SUV) are up and continuing to go up in 2008. Even SX4 sales are climbing helping pull the brand, year over year, up in February. One of the differences between Hyundai/Kia's success and Suzuki's failure to emerge in the full-range market is their range. Suzuki had to borrow Daewoo's compact and mid-sized cars (agreed, low-quality) to fill out their lineup. Hyundai and Kia had a range of vehicles already on the market in South Korea that they had engineered to American standards. Suzuki has been world-reknowned for its small cars and light trucks...and should have concentrated there. Suzuki's desire to sell 200,000 vehicles annually in the US has always been almost absurdly optimistic. With the current market conditions, their SX4 (least-expensive AWD vehicle on the US market) could lead the way as the LARGEST car in their lineup with several versions of the Swift below that. The (now defunct) Cappucino would have been another good addition to a fuel-sipping lineup well-poised for $4/gal gas.

I'm not going to defend Suzuki management or try to refute your claims, but I will give you possible alternatives to your theory on their mismanagement. Perhaps they have (had?) a myopic view of their future, like Subaru did. Back in the early 1990s, someone I know at Subaru proposed that the then-new Impreza be promoted as a great AWD compact. Instead, SoA management decided to take the opposite tack and promoted the car as an alterative to the Civic or Corolla. Management was wrong and took my associate's advice a couple of years later...when Subaru went all-AWD. Suzuki's decision to NOT bring the Swift over was (as I saw it...when that was my job) two-fold. First was the problem that the Swift needed to be re-engineered for the US market. Second, and probably a precursor to the first, was probably Suzuki's desire to be more than just an entry-level brand...and take on Toyota and Honda. The Swift would not have competed with the Mini because the Mini is an image more than it's a car. The Mini is great to drive, but it's sold on the image of the last 50 years of Mini. Suzuki doesn't have that legacy to fall back on. If Suzuki had brought the Swift over initially, they probably would not have sold many no matter how good it is. BMW sold 42,000 Minis in the US last year. With that success, my guess is that Suzuki would have sold about 20,000 to 25,000 Swifts. At less than $14,000 each, the Swift would not have been much of a money-maker, especially when their goal was to sell more than that in Veronas which were sourced from Korea (costing much less than the Japanese- or European-sourced Swift), and the Verona would have generated far more profit when retail price was thousands more than they would have received from the Swift. The sports car you mentioned would have sold in lower volumes and would have been a difficult sale when (as I see it) Suzuki's idols (Toyota and Honda) had pulled their sporty cars from the market to concentrate on more mundane vehicles. As much as I'd like to see the return of a sporty Suzuki, I can't imagine that MY Suzuki is in the pipeline. But my guy at Suzuki has been promising me such a car for about a decade...still waiting.

I've never felt unsafe in my little Swift, and I've put many miles on it. I prefer little cars since they are much more "tossable" than bigger sporty cars. And when you're driving a sub-$10,000 car (like my car was in 1992), people avoid you on the road because they think you don't care about your car as much as they do about theirs when they're driving their $30,000 cars. I'm not saying that Suzuki's future plans are secure. They need to do something different. Subaru learned the same thing about 15 years ago when they decided to aim their products directly at Toyota and Honda...and failed. Once Subaru decided to make their products different by concentrating on their strengths (all-wheel drive), they've bloomed. Suzuki could do the same thing by focusing on inexpensive, sporty products...things that made Suzuki great in the first place like the Samurai and the Swift GT/GTi. And with the current recession and record gas prices, the new Swift would be a great starting point (when it gets here about 3 years late). The SX4 has the potential of helping to establish a compact car for the brand (as the Esteem and Aerio failed to do). Then they can bring out the mid-sized sedan they want to sell. I liked the Verona and (in theory) the Forenza/Reno, but they were mainstream products focused at making Suzuki another mainstream brand. I want to see more quality sporty products at affordable prices.

Yes, all US-market Swifts had four-cylinder engines while all first-generation US-market Metros (and prior Sprints) had 3-cylinder engines. The Swift GT that I have has a DOHC 16-valve 1.3L (compared to the base models with their 8-valve SOHC 1.3L engines) which was rated at 100hp, nearly double that of the 3-cylinder Metro and almost 50% more than the base 1.3L or turbocharged 3-cylinder. In an 1800lb car (with 4-wheel disc brakes and a decent 5-speed), it's a great car.

Sounds kinda "for sure" to me. I've owned a 1991 Suzuki Swift GT since new and love the car. There simply has not been a more-fun-for-the-money car ever built. It's been my autocross car for over a year now and it's still running great. I've driven other Suzuki (actual Suzuki-built) cars and enjoyed them a great deal. And I'm looking forward to driving the new Swift.

Unless Suzuki's new larger sedan tanks (which is possible), I don't see Suzuki pulling their automotive division no matter what your "insiders" say. They've got a couple of really good products (and atleast one so-so product) coming in the next two years. Where did you work for Suzuki? And what kind of position did you have?

How about these guys?

I've got to figure that Toyota will do something with Scion, so that's out (unless they pull a "Geo" move and "merge" it back into the Toyota brand). GM has been merging Buick and Pontiac for years, so it wouldn't surprise me if they dropped one of the brands at some point...but not soon. Nobody, even inside of Ford, can give a reason why Mercury should remain on the market. It's just a matter of time before someone at Mitsubishi realizes that they're not going to come back in the US (please explain the comment about relying on Chrysler, which they haven't in years). Suzuki's doing well...I don't understand why so many on this thread think otherwise. Jaguar, Land Rover, and Mini aren't going anywhere anytime soon.

Lotus introduced this 3.5L (twin)turbocharged V8 about a decade ago...saying it was small enough to fit in the (then current) Ford Contour.

Are you kidding me? Japanese cars assembled in the US typically use over 75% US/Canadian parts...similar numbers to Big3 branded vehicles and higher than many built in Mexico (have you read the sticker on a Ford Fusion?). And how does a vehicle using 75% US/Canadian parts, employing assembly workers in Ohio or Kentucky or California or Illinois or Indiana or Michigan or Georgia or Mississippi or Tennessee or Texas, employing designers and engineers in California or Michigan and delivered and sold by Americans NOT benefit our economy? More than 80% of the transaction price of an American-assembled Japanese brand car or truck stays in the US....how is that not a benefit to the US economy? How is a 100% imported plastic model akin to buying a 75% American full-sized vehicle? And don't forget that those "lower paying" jobs are filled by people who would be paid FAR LESS if those jobs were not offered to them. If these jobs were so low paying, why would Toyota get 100,000 applicants for fewer than 3,000 assembly jobs in Texas? Because people just want to work for Toyota at any cost? No...because they're better paying than they would otherwise find in that area. Sure, those jobs may be relocating jobs from Virginia or Kentucky or Michigan, but did anyone think that those Big3 jobs may have been OVER paid? C'mon....$100,000 a year to assemble vehicles when college graduates with years of experience can't find jobs paying HALF that much?

Actually, they are. Chevrolets and Buicks built in China are domestic cars and are treated as such (one of the reasons why they're so popular). I think the point that's being missed here is that "American" doesn't simply mean the badge that's on the car. How many Americans (people from the United States) are assembling the Impala or Charger or Fusion? And which of these four cars (including the Camry) has the highest US parts content? My mindset is that the level of "Americanness" in a car comes from the number of parts and people employed to make the vehicle.

At Disney's Epcot, the Test Track ride (sponsored by GM) had the G8 and new Vibe on display.

I've got a bunch of shows I watch "when I run across them" like Mythbusters, No Reservations, World Poker Tour, and South Park. But the few shows I just must see are Psych, Monk, Robot Chicken, How I Met Your Mother, The Closer, and My Boys.

Such a disgrace. The Camry (built in Kentucky) versus the Impala (Canadian) and Charger (Canadian) and Fusion (Mexican). And Toyota's the "disgrace to an AMERICAN sport."

'Cept that the Harbour Report tells how many people are needed to make a vehicle...not the usage of a plant. And GM has too many plants for the number of vehicles they produce.

First thing first: "attempted to built and sell"...make sure the change is made to "attempted to BUILD and sell." I didn't get a chance to read the whole thing, yet, but read over it again for little grammatical mistakes/typoes like this. If you're a real car person, CAFE won't kill your interested in new cars. People thought the same thing in 1975 and today's cars are the best they've ever been. In 1975, nobody could have imagined a 400hp V8 getting over 20 mpg, but they can today. In 1975, nobody would have imagined four-cylinder engines producing more than 200hp, but they regularly do today. A new CAFE standard or not, cars will continue to improve and the best cars are yet to be designed.

From your descriptions (and that's all I have to go on), you're not comparing apples to apples. The EPA's test is not steady-state highway use, which would get BETTER gas mileage than their "highway" estimate. Your commute sounds more like how the EPA describes their "highway" estimate. And their "city" estimate is, I assume, full of MORE starts and stops than your commute. I, too, have always done better than EPA with most of my cars (my Merkur being the exception).

I don't buy it. The Corvette could very well be mid-engined only...and COULD be the only model on the platform. Here's why: The Corvette is a niche model and could handle having a base, mid, and high-level trim offering on a mid-engined platform. Toyota, Fiat, and Pontiac all showed that you can offer a mid-engined vehicle to mainstream buyers. Fiat offered the same basic car for a decade and a half (sounds rather Corvette-like) and Toyota upgraded theirs on regular intervals and did well with them. The shortcomings to the above examples are overcome with the Vette. Corvette has a ready-made following and they expect the car to be a sports car...front-engine/rear-drive isn't necessarily the core to that. Hidden headlights were part of the "traditional configuration" as well from 1963 until the C6...Convertibles were part of that configuration until 1975...and a unique platform was part of that "tradition" until the arrival of the XLR. The "configuration" of the Corvette evolves with the times. A mid-engined Corvette COULD share its platform with the likes of a next-generation XLR or "Cien" or some other prestige model, but I don't think it's necessary. How much of the current Corvette is shared with any other GM vehicle? Aside from the basic platform which is shared with the XLR, the manual transaxle, engine, and most of the rest of the car are unique to the Corvette...why couldn't it switch to a mid-engined layout? I don't see any hold up. And the idea that the Corvette would automatically cost more than $100k is insane. Look again at the current car's platform...what's shared with another GM product that keeps its costs so low now? Why couldn't a mid-engined model share just about the same number of parts as the current model does? And what would make the mid-engined model cost so much more? The car already has a unique (aside from the shared XLR) assembly plant...THREE dedicated engines...dedicated transmissions...and a dedicated platform. It's not like a mid-engined layout will add new parts or cost more to assemble or require exotic materials.

The "polarizing" styling coming out of Chrysler over the past 15 years has been THE differentiator in the marketplace. Why else would you buy a Chrysler product over anyone else? It's not just the 300/Charger...the Intrepid and Concorde and Ram Truck started this whole move. And I haven't seen many women turned off by the new 300 styling. The Intrepid outsold the Charger slightly. But today, they're selling Magnums and Chargers in place of one body style Intrepid. The Charger (and 300 and, to a lesser extent, Magnum) was the way to go in a market that was showing more and more me-too yet high quality family sedans. By making the LX cars different, you reduce the direct competition and allow dealers to ask more money. The Stratus/Sebring sold well and they obviously screwed up when the redesigned them. I'd rather buy a 6-year old Sebring than a brand new Avenger or Sebring. Styling and interior quality are the main reasons. LY cars, replacing the LX cars, are (and have been) due out in the 2010/2011 model year time frame. They're not late...yet.

I've been running into Ms Caldwell for quite a few years. She created a magazine that is aimed at women (originally named "American Woman Motorsport" or something like that); it's a great idea with what I can only imagine to be a very limited market (the magazine has been tweaked a few times and is now a bit more mainstream, but still female oriented). She strolls through car shows like she's a big deal, and always has. I have a problem with anyone who thinks more of themselves than others think of them. And I especially have a problem with people who don't deserve their own attitude. There are very well-respected people in the media who you can go right up to and have a full conversation, but there are a handful of people who just exude a "better-than-thou" attitude...like Ms Caldwell.

I was never really comfortable with this award. And now that I've learned that Ms Caldwell is behind it, I like it even less.

Tell him that any denseness or masochistic tendencies that your family may or may not have are NOT connected to your ownership of GM products.