Hudson

There once was room enough for more than five domestics (1970s had Chevy, GMC, Ford, Dodge, Jeep, and International, for example), so why can't five full-sized pickups (Japanese-brand or not) survive in this (larger) market?

I think Car Life merged into Motor Trend. I have a dedicated library with 2,400+ magazines and 500+ books, mostly automotive. It kinda comes with the territory.

What bonus tracks?

Automobile, Car and Driver, Motor Trend, and Road & Track...the "Big4" monthlies. These are the biggest general interest car magazines. While Hot Rod is actually larger (by circulation and ad dollars) than two or three of these, it's a specific interest car magazine...the leader of that "niche." My collection numbers somewhere above 2,400 issues covering over half a century and more than 200 titles (many of which are single issues in the collections).

Saigon Kick was just a harder hairband. You got "Queensryche," "Warning," and "Rage for Order" on a record club?

How's this different from the current situation? Chevrolet should offer cars...mainstream, low-end, entry-level, with sporty and classy options covering the lost Pontiac and Buick brands. Cadillac should offer cars...high-end, prestigious, exclusive. Perhaps Saturn could offer entry-level, youth-oriented to compete with Scion, Mini, etc. Then, perhaps, two truck groups: GMC for usable work trucks and Hummer for up-level luxury trucks. With these five franchises, you can cover all of the territory currently covered by the domestic seven with little or no overlap. A Chevrolet dealer could carry a GMC franchise in an area where trucks sell very well and/or pick up a Saturn franchise if the market calls for it. But by splitting this up, models don't compete with other brands' models. Fans of Buick or Pontiac won't like this plan. Fans of Chevrolet trucks or Cadillac trucks won't like it either. Heck, "GMC Truck" could just as easily be "Chevrolet Truck" and be a floating franchise (not necessarily tied to the Chevrolet car franchise), but calling it GMC was just easier to explain. All of the names were just to explain a principle.

This is a great theory for 1930, but for 2006, it's not quite the same thing.In 1930, each "brand" sold basically one car. It may have been offered with several body styles but they were all basically the same car of about the same size and price range (excluding custom bodied models). Starting in the 1950s, these brands added additional models. Chevrolet added the Corvette...then the "compacts"....and "intermediates"....and "subcompacts"..... By the 1970s, each brand had a range of models that were only connected by the dealership that sold them. This range became the heirarchy that a buyer would progress through. Instead of jumping from Chevrolet to Pontiac to Oldsmobile, a buyer would move from a Chevette to a Citation to a Celebrity. This has become part of the problem with GM. They still run on the antiquated ideal that the company needs five or six or seven brands for a buyer to progress through in their life, when they probably only need two or three. And one (or two) of them will NEED to have an older demographic. Cadillac should be aspirational. Make it more rare and more expensive. Something desired by the young and a symbol of financial independence for the owner. Chevrolet should be the entry-level. Your first car. A brand in between could be the stepping stone, but I don't really think it's necessary. While Scion is a niche brand (probably something that Saturn should go after, youthful and ever changing...sounds like what they were supposed to be in 1990), Toyota, the entry-level brand, steps up into Lexus, the aspirational brand. Everything else just seems to detract from the core direction of the company. There are hundreds of reasons why GM cannot do this. But THIS is the direction the company SHOULD go.

You make some great points...and recalling Tom McCahill may get some kids to read his old reviews. But you have TWO problems with car magazines..and they're quite different.Unabbridged commentary on products is non-existant, but reading between the lines will get some answers. It's nothing like a McCahill review and no manufacturer outside of minor import brands will get completely beat up in a review (Consumer Reports beat up Suzuki and Isuzu but how about Ford Bronco IIs?). Today, car companies lend magazines products and provide them with support (financial and otherwise). The media and the car companies are closely tied...for the good (and bad) of both. Your other problem seems to be in the "hot roddding" magazine subsector. Swapping parts is found in these magazines still, but the Big4 magazines (which should but doesn't include Hot Rod) never really covered this territory as a first priority. Magazines like Hot Rod and High Tech Performance (I wrote for them before they added the "GM" prefix) fit your desires a bit more closely.

While the Toyota T100 was smaller than the Big3 full-sized trucks, it was still a full-sized pickup in its own right. Because it's the smallest of the bunch doesn't mean it's in another class. And the extended cab T100 came later, which was missed.One of the buff books discussed the T100 as a market that GM and Ford were missing. Dodge introduced the mid-sized pickup back in the 1980s and Toyota followed it with the larger T100. Ford discussed a smaller pickup in between the Ranger and the F150 in the 1990s, but it was ultimately dropped. Toyota (and Dodge) had this market to themselves. Not a bad place to be. As for the Tundra, it's far from a failure or even "strike 2" (and I see the T100 as a "foul tip" anyway). The Tundra is full-sized, even before the addition of the Double Cab. Toyota was "the first true" Japanese branded full-sized pickup in the US. Toyota's made a few missteps along the way (adding the four-cylinder to the T100 when it obviously needed MORE power), but each step worked well to prepare the American market for a Toyota full-sized pickup. Where the first generation Tundra was a solid single (using your baseball metaphor), the new Tundra is a solid extra base hit.

"What would Jesus drive?" Wasn't he a carpenter? Would he, most likely, drive an F150 or Silverado? Maybe a Ram Truck.

Someone else who reads Collectible Automobile (and Car)!! How long have you been reading CA?

There's another connection. BMW had a joint-venture in Brazil making engines for Neons and Minis. Alfa had nothing to do with Chrysler's TC by Maserati since Alfa Romeo was in no way connected to Maserati at the time, but Chrysler did import Alfa Romeos for a year.But there's another connection between the four brands.

Ummm...Wilmington won't be anywhere near capacity in the foreseeable future. Same with Hamtramck. Could be why they were left out of the story. GM has and will have (for the current planning window) excess capacity. Toyota, on the other hand, is moving into SIA, expanding production in California, Mexico, and Ontario (beyond what you've already read).

The biggest problem I see with "retro" designs is how do you follow them up? Is the next generation Ford Mustang supposed to be a "modern Mustang II?" Will the Camaro be followed by a modern interpretation of the 1970-1981 Camaro? Will Chrysler reinvent the late 1970s Dodge Charger/Magnum boulevard cruiser to replace the Challenger? How do you replace the Volkswagen New Beetle, PT Cruiser, Ford Thunderbird (not that you have to now), or Chevy HHR? If you replace any of these with a truly modern design (no retro styling at all), then you're not keeping the lineage. If you replace them with an evolution, you're replacing retro with retro. What's the answer? If you use them as a starting point and take, for example, the Mustang into the direction it should have gone if the gas crisis hadn't happened, then, perhaps, I can be persuaded to like this direction.

68: I expected more from you! For the slogans, see above. Yes, GM bought the "Buick 90-degree V6" engine. Not Peterbilt. Not Chrysler. Not Packard. The KdF wasn't Porsche's first car. Merkur never offered an AWD car. PRV V6 and Malcolm Bricklin are right, though.

And I'd bet that Toyota owns part of Aisin. GM buys transmissions from Getrag, Honda, ZF, etc...wholly independent companies from GM.The Tundra just about tripled the sales of the T100. And Toyota will most likely double (if not triple) sales again with the new model.

I don't believe that. "Design progress" isn't a destination...it's a journey. There's alway somewhere to go. It's an evolutionary process...constantly evolving. But I do agree that progress itself has slowed to a crawl. It needs a new leader to break moulds and come up with something new. J Mays isn't it. Ed Welborne isn't it. Trevor Creed isn't it. But hopefully the new leader is graduating from college right now or starting his/her new job with a car company...and hopefully not getting fed up with the system.

I always knew there was a problem with Just-Auto. They don't know the facts!The Entourage is being imported from Korea. The Santa Fe will begin production this year.

New Cadillac designs didn't bring "the jellybean era to a screeching halt," but they have provided something different...and that's a step in the right direction.

Two part question: What company used the slogan "Ask the Man Who Owns One?" What company used the slogan "Ask Anyone Who Owns One?" Wildmanjoe...I'm impressed. So few get the second one. From whom did General Motors buy the "Buick 231cid V6?" GM sold the engine to Kaiser-Jeep but bought it back from AMC after American Motors purchased Kaiser-Jeep. What did the Eagle Premier, Renault 25, Volvo 260, Delorean, and Peugeot 604 have in common? Right thegriffon, the PRV V6. What (and when) was Ferdinand Porsche's first automotive design? Right, Wildmanjoe. What company formed Freightliner? Right thegriffon. What do Subaru of America, Yugo, and the Bertone X1/9 have in common? Right, Wildmanjoe. In the 1980s, everyone experimented with four-wheel drive or all-wheel drive cars. AMC had the Eagle. Ford and GM each had one entrant in the United States. What were they? One and one. The Ford Tempo Four Wheel Drive/All Wheel Drive (depending on the year) and the Pontiac 6000STE AWD/SE AWD (again, depending on the year). In the same vein, what do Volkswagen, Mercedes-Benz, BMW, and Alfa Romeo have in common? C'mon! Nobody knows this one?

If you like this style, great. I have no problem with that.My problem is that designers are now updating 30- and 40-year old designs instead of coming up with something new. Remember when concept cars showed something radical? Something you thought couldn't be built for another 10 or 20 years? Now concept cars look like a car that was built 10 or 20 years prior but updated by Boyd Coddington or Chip Foose. And that's fine for a few cars. But why can most cars look FORWARD not backards? I've stated it before...I'm all for paying homage to history. But I also want to look ahead. Give me something new. Give me the car of tomorrow. Currently we've got three choices: retro, jelly bean, and sad attempts at being radical. Why can't someone shake up the motoring world by coming up with the modern equivalent of the Cord 810 or the 1949 Cadillac or the 1956 Continental Mark II or the 1963 Studebaker Avanti? Is this not possible anymore?

These questions are easier than the last lot, for this crowd atleast. Two part question: What company used the slogan "Ask the Man Who Owns One?" What company used the slogan "Ask Anyone Who Owns One?" From whom did General Motors buy the "Buick 231cid V6?" What did the Eagle Premier, Renault 25, Volvo 260, Delorean, and Peugeot 604 have in common? What (and when) was Ferdinand Porsche's first automotive design? What company formed Freightliner? What do Subaru of America, Yugo, and the Bertone X1/9 have in common? In the same vein, what do Volkswagen, Mercedes-Benz, BMW, and Alfa Romeo have in common? In the 1980s, everyone experimented with four-wheel drive or all-wheel drive cars. AMC had the Eagle. Ford and GM each had one entrant in the United States. What were they?

What? No WiFi setup with a wireless laptop? C'mon...move up into the 21st century!

balth: As much as I want to agree with you, I can't. I do like some aspects of the designs of the Mustang/Challenger/Camaro trio, but they started with an old car (1969-70 Mustang, 1970 Challenger, 1967-69 Camaro) and updated it. It's not new...it's modernized. It's retro. Now...had they taken those designs as a starting point, and designed each progressive generation to follow...and arrived at the 2005-2008-2009 car and I wouldn't have complained. But what they did was take the old car and find a way to give it modern proportions. razor: I beg to differ. Each of these cars provides the mental image to make the connection between the modern car and the historic car on which it's based. The Chrysler people pointed out the differences between the Challenger concept and the original, but it's not enough to reduce the overhangs and say it's an original design...it's not. Neither is the Camaro nor is the Mustang. mute: The Dodge Charger is retro. The thing Chrysler did was go TOO far with the Super 8 Hemi concept a few years ago and they backed off...thankfully. Chevy: You have every right to like what you want. I'll defend your right to like whatever you want...even if I don't like what you like.

Planning for 35,000 units (which is about right) makes sense. Why plan for 50,000 units and only hit 40,000 or 45,000 units? Why not plan a more reasonable number (which will be capacity constrained in Bramalea) and possibly have a HIT when demand outstrips supply...driving up dealer transaction prices and boosting resale value? Or should they flood the market, forcing dealers to fight for customers, and making residual values fall through the floor? Yes, 35,000 units sounds good to me.