Hudson

But what percentage of that "14%" do you think are ex-auto workers?Since I can't speak for the quality of the workers in Flint, I'll let others do that. With unemployment that high, I've got to assume that many of these people can't find work anywhere, let alone a relatively high-pressure job as an assembler for Toyota. Why would Toyota want to draw from this pool as opposed to many of the other areas of the country that have high unemployment and do not carry the baggage of having been let go by GM and its suppliers?

I think it's funny that the Kia Sorrento and the Range Rover Sport are mis-classified here as "crossovers." How do THEY define "crossover?"

If they were to buy an existing plant, I'm sure the UAW would come along with it as part of the sale. THAT is why they won't buy a Big3 factory. Not why they won't potentially move to Michigan. But getting into Michigan without disturbing the bees nest that is the UAW would be difficult, even for Toyota.

That's odd...but in December (the last month I have complete numbers for), the Baja sold 441 units compared to 574 SSRs and 1,779 Lincoln Mark LTs.

The point is not moot. Toyota will avoid the UAW at all costs. They're most likely going to open a plant in Michigan (or the mid-west), but it won't be a UAW plant. Once the UAW gets a foothold of Toyota, it will attempt to spread across all Toyota plants. I've got to hope that Toyota's too smart to let that happen.The NUMMI plant is NOT a Toyota plant. It is a joint-venture plant with GM, which is how the UAW got in there. All of the joint-venture plants (and former joint-venture plants) are UAW controlled....Mitsubishi, AutoAlliance, NUMMI, and CAMI. But all of the strictly transplanted faciliities are non-union in the US. Flint is a possibility for Toyota. The UAW is not.

And I wish Chrysler had put the Chrysler 300 concept of 1993 into production. I loved that car.

Anything longer than a Bazoka Joe comic becomes too taxing for me.

What about the Mercedes-Benz 190-class that was introduced back in the 1980s (replacing the 240D)? And Audi was on life-support...in the US (thanks to "60 Minutes"). But Audi was successful before the "pedal misapplication" problem, back when Audi had the 4000 and the 5000 models. By the way, the A4 in 1994 was the start of their turnaround.

As was stated above, the Escalade IS built in Arlington with the other two. The Escalade EXT and ESV are both built in Mexico, but the SWB Escalade is built in Texas.

Two? What about the third (Cadillac Escalade)?

GM sells vehicles in other countries as well...countries where diesel engines are very important.

It would make for a better story, wouldn't it?

The problem with Saab is that it's not BMW or Audi or Mercedes-Benz or even Volvo. Saab has always been a niche player with a model or two. When they doubled their lineup to include the 9000, they filled out their range...a junior and senior model. Whereas BMW and Mercedes-Benz have had small, medium, and large models for quite some time and Audi moved into the "full-range" lineup with the V8, Saab was just a niche player with the 900 and 9000. Being "starved" for products is only in the eyes of people who want to compare Saab to other premium brands. Was Porsche starved for products when it only had the 911 and Boxster? Is Bentley starved with only the Continental GT/Flying Spur and Arnage/Azure? Was Land Rover starved when it only had the Range Rover and the Land Rover (before it was called the Defender)? It's all in the point of view. GM is trying to make Saab into its international premium brand. So NOW Saab needs (according to GM) everything from a 9-1 to a 9-7x? Why can't some brands remain niche players? Why does Lincoln need to sell 200,000 units a year? Why does Bentley or Maserati have to sell 10,000 annually? Why can't Saab sell 100,000 units a year and be happy?

I think you guys are a bit confused by the article. Toyota's looking for additional production capacity for the Camry, that's all. Subaru has half a plant that's not being used and, since Toyota owns part of Subaru, they're going to build Camrys for Toyota. These aren't going to be Subaru-badged products but a third US plant for Toyota Camrys.I don't see the problem.

Mine took care of me, no matter what I did to it.

Thanks for posting the link. This is a list that was compiled before the recent plant closure announcement and possibly before the Subaru deal(?). The 9-2X should be out of production already and the SSR will be out of production in less than two months.

I believe this generation will be a Dodge exclusive in the US.

6-passenger Dodge Aries (base) 2-door sedan, 2.2L and 4-speed manual

Hit a deer...put it into a ditch...tried to teach a young woman how to drive stick (don't do this in a car with no tach)...punched the windshield (cracked it)...got it airborne (not bad for an Aries)...put nearly 100,000 miles on it...and I'd buy the car back in a second!

Three of my favorites: Interesting lyrics for a top-10 hit from a quarter century ago. Complete song lyrics! You really need to hear it.

An associate of mine wrote the history of the Fleetwood Body Company. After reading about this in the newspaper a month ago, I called him. He said that he didn't think it was the main Fleetwood building. The main building, according to him, is concrete and the building that was destroyed was wood.

I think you may have stumbled onto something. I don't believe that there are any "D-grade" cars in the US market...and if there are, GM's not building them. GM's building very few "A-grade" products, but even the worst product on the market would have to stretch to reach down into the "D-grade." You have to nit-pick to find differences between the best and worst in a segment. A 4-speed automatic usually doesn't get the same kind of highway (or sometimes even city) fuel economy as a 6-speed automatic...so if a 1 mpg real world difference in a GM 4-speed car vs a competitive 5- or 6-speed is the differentiator between two products, that gap becomes huge...1st place vs 2nd place. For me, the interiors of GM products are good in places and bad in others. As a package, they're (on the whole) not class leading. Like I said, let's get together and I'll show you, but it takes being nit-picky to see the gap between best and worst. This isn't 1980....or 1970....or 1930!

Don't blame Chrysler. Mercedes-Benz was "cheapening themselves up" (shouldn't that be DOWN?) for years before the "merger." The 1990 S-Class was the last "old school" Mercedes-Benz, back when they designed a car and then priced it. Which means that the first generation C-Class was among the first of these new cars and that was nearly half a decade BEFORE the merger. Anyone remember the problems with the first generation M-Class...which was a pre-merger vehicle as well.

Two things:First...you "have no respect for a company that freeloads off of another?" Like the Geo/Chevrolet Prizm? Like the Pontiac GTO? Like the Chevrolet Aveo? Like the Saturn Aura? Like the Geo/Chevrolet Tracker? Shall I go on? Second...if you believe DaimlerChrysler to be a merger, then they're the SAME company. It would be like Chevrolet rebadging an Opel Astra (Brazil) or Saturn rebadging the Opel Antara.

Oldsmobile was founded in 1897 and disbanded in 2004, but Studebaker is still in business, just not making cars...and there's another current company that's just about (not sure on the specific launch dates) as old as Studebaker. I'm going to forgive you this time...I expected more of you.