Hudson

Until reading the comments on this thread, I would have said that most of the members of this forum knew more about the automotive industry that Delorenzo. But so many of the posts on this particular thread are trying their best to change my mind on that one. I love the fact that so many people are saying that they're going to cancel their Motor Trend subscriptions because the RIGHT car was chosen for COTY. Nobody's offered a compelling story as to why the Solstice would be a better choice than the MX5, let alone the Civic, for COTY. Same goes for the Fusion, Sonata, Impala...

Toyota and Honda couldn't possibly have anticipated the surge in demand for hybrids. But they are in the market...outside of Ford, nobody else is. And GM's truck is NOT a hybrid. It's a ICE truck with a start-stop feature. Volkswagen offered this on diesels a quarter century ago...and nobody called it a hybrid then or now. Only GM has the nerve to say this is a hybrid. A hybrid uses electric motors to POWER the vehicle and GM's trucks do not do this. They are NOT hybrids.

No....a power chord comes from Richie Blackmore's guitar!! YEAH!

I'm all for the American automotive industry...especially since I work in it. But blowing smoke up GM's rear isn't going to help them compete. Pointing out what they can make better (and pointing out what works, hoping that they won't change that) can help. With any luck, GM and Ford will learn how to make cars people want to buy (and buy again...and recommend) before they become a branch of another automaker or close up shop altogether. THIS should be the goal.

Oh...where to start. Toyota is the largest (by corporate value) vehicle producer on the planet. GM is the largest seller of FLEET vehicles on earth. Why can't you compare the size of two companies by their value? They do in EVERY industry...including automotive. Recalls do seem to get more press when they come from the Big3, but the Big3 have more and more fantastic recalls. Back in the 1990s, I remember Japanese recalls getting HUGE press. Now that GM and Ford are trying to restore their name in the public's eye, they need nearly flawless products...and it's not happening. Have you driven the Windstar or Freestar? They were awful when the second-generation Windstar was introduced...and the Freestar is a bandaid on that. When you compare Ford and GM minivans to Chrysler and Toyota and Honda...they deserve all the bad press they get. Just because YOU prefer the Cobalt to the Corolla...don't put down Corolla buyers by calling them idiots. ANY idiot can see that a Corolla will hold its value better than a Cobalt. Any idiot can see that a Corolla has a better reliability reputation than the Cobalt (or its predecessors). THESE are the reasons why people by Corollas. I do not call these owners idiots. Movie critics cannot be compared to car buff book writers. Movie critics (I do know a few) are movie snobs. Car writers (I know even more of them) love to drive cars. Sure, they don't write articles about how well you can pack the kids in the rear and they prefer a good handling car over an average handling car, but how many people (car fanatics excepted) follow the opinion of car writers? And let's talk about misinformation. Reading this site, these car fanatics (people I would assume would know truth from fiction) don't have a clue. And they like to spread their own misinformation. I understand, most of the time, you're preaching to the choir here. But some of us actually have an open mind when it comes to cars and don't need smoke blown up us about the latest and greatest GM product. Some of us can make an accurate decision on our own. Odd...but VW's aren't all that tempramental...don't "break down" any more than the average car brand, and the media loves them because their interiors (the place where most owners spend most of their time) are among the highest quality on the market...and the cars are fun to drive. I work in the industry myself and it amazes me how little other people in the industry know about cars. And it amazes me how poorly GM treats the media...like they're the enemy, when in fact they could be GM's biggest ally. Nobody's told GM this.

Not competitive. When you look at the MX5, which is also all-new (the main criteria for entering the COTY competition) and is BETTER than the Solstice, the Solstice moves to no greater than SECOND in its segment. It's posted elsewhere. And if you're using a media-whore like Delorenzo as your source, you should be more careful. I guess this would have made sense in the day when imports didn't compete for the COTY title with the domestics. Being an "affordable RWD AMERICAN roadster" doesnt' matter when it competes against the likes of the MX5, which is a better roadster. The Civic is at the top of its segment...the Solstice is not. And the Capri was never offered as a RWD roadster...and the FWD convertible wasn't American.

The Cobalt is the main connection to the comments you didn't like. The Cobalt is not all that stylish...not like the Scions or the Mazda3 or the new Civic. Toyota plans on selling over 100,000 hybrids in the US this year. Honda will add another 50,000 or so. That's not all that limited. GM's truly limited number of "hybrid" pickups don't really count due to their tiny numbers and un-hybrid-like design.

Do you know anything about this famous quote? It's one of the most mis-quoted quotes of all time...and you're trying to prove it. In a confirmation hearing for a GM exec to help in the war effort, the exec was asked if he could make a decision for America that might have a negative effect on GM. His reply was "what's good for America is good for GM and vice-versa." It wasn't about GM helping America. History won't prove you right. Your numbers are a bit conservative, but that's beside the point. If HALF of the money spend on vehicles left "the US if the form of profits and parts bought from Japan," that would be a HUGE increase over what it is today. Currently, fewer than half of the vehicles sold in the US are not built in North America. Among the 14.3 million vehicles sold in the US in the first 10 months of 2005, 1.5 million were built in Japan...and 11.5 million were built in North America. So this means that of the 4.6 million Japanese-brand vehicles sold in the US, 1/3 weren't built in North America. Of the 3 million that were built in North America, they average around 50% (or more) North American content. Using your estimate of $20,000 per vehicle, you need to take 10% off the top ($2,000) to get to invoice price, another conservatively estimated $1,000 for distribution and miscellaneous other costs, and we're down to about $17,000 that would "leave" the country. So your estimate of $340 billion dollars heading back to Japan has been reduced by 92.5%. And if you were to add in the amount of North American-built vehicle parts that are sourced from Japan (assuming 50%), you're still off by 85%. And stop blaming the media. They're not at fault here. They are car enthusiasts and they call them like they see them. The Camry isn't the best-selling car in the US because Car & Driver likes them because....wait, didn't C&D rank the Camry FOURTH out of four recently?

Especially that Elise.

I was waiting to see if anyone knew...and bobo found it.

...in France.

I agree with the above post..on both counts. By the way, nice wiring job.

There's a difference between lineage and retro. The Mustang has always had three-piece taillights (aside from the backup lights) and the "C" curve in the side and a pony. That's not retro...that lineage. The 2005 Mustang, however, is retro. When you jump back to an old design in order to evoke the old styling, that's retro. Don't confuse the two. The Mustang III and IV, not retro...Mustang V, most definitely retro.

And GM is employing Americans out of the goodness of its heart? GM doesn't send all production to Mexico, Brazil, India, Thailand, China, and Korea because building vehicles in North America makes BUSINESS SENSE, the same reason why Toyota's doing it. There's no difference between why GM does it and why Toyota does it. Much of the money Toyota makes in North America STAYS in North America. Toyota understands that you need to build where you sell. It's good for the economy which, in turn, sells more cars and trucks. Henry Ford knew this 90 years ago...Toyota still knows it today. Name one company who sells vehicles in significant volume in North America who doesn't build vehicles in North America. Again, you're assuming that GM's doing charity work. If they could build all of their vehicles in non-UAW plants and in lower-cost countries, they would. GM is a business first...charity work is way down on the list. So...GM shouldn't invest in the US market because the buyers don't like their products? This investment would be suicide but NOT investing is the best move? I don't believe that investing in North American products is "suicide" for GM. I'm an out-spoken opponent of buying American simply because it's an American brand. But GM can (and needs to) design and build vehicles that Americans want. Aside from the full-sized trucks, GM doesn't have much that appeals to a mainstream audience. Investment is NEEDED, not suicide. They don't need more plants...just better products. Wait! Didn't you just say "If GM were to invest in america which increasingly won't buy it's cars in the first place that'd be suicide" and a paragraph later you're stating that "It's very unfair to point the finger at GM and say that they are reluctant to invest in america (Which is what some will do-trust me)?" In order for Americans to invest in American car companies, the car companies need to prove they know what they're doing. Why would you invest in a company that has done little to show their ability to cater to a market? The fate of the company is in the hands of the leadership of GM...Toyota is not to be blamed...the media is not to be blamed.

They all fall into the FAMILY SEDAN category....a few cubic feet here or there doesn't make two vehicles uncompetitive. Just because the Sonata inches across the full-sized line (according to the EPA), doesn't mean it doesn't compete with the mid-sized Camry or Accord....of the larger Five Hundred and Avalon for that matter.

From that description, all that's left are rural conservative blue collar workers with no direction and no chance for promotion.

Don't count on that one.

When did being a fan of a certain company make you blind to the rest of the industry? Just because they didn't pick a GM product, Motor Trend hates GM? Perhaps GM didn't field anything competitive (which is the case). Perhaps the Civic was the best choice in the field (which is the case). Drive the car before you start taking offense to GM's choice. Learn about the criteria for COTY before you get upset and cancel subscriptions. This is sad.

Not "kidding"...bluffing. If you close nothing but UAW plants, it looks like you're "moving away from the US in favor of foreign (Canadian, Mexican and overseas) plants. If you "close" a token CAW plant (one of three), suddenly, everyone's carrying some of the burden. In this case, the UAW helps (in theory) GM regain its footing in the 2007 contract negotiations. After contracts are signed in the fall of 2007, GM's outlook gets better and Oshawa #2 suddenly gets some new products for late 2008. Note how the date of Oshawa #2's closure is a year AFTER the UAW contract expires. And, as is pointed out, Oshawa #2 makes some high quality products.

As an investor, what prevents you from buying Toyota stock and keeping that money in the US?

First, why does each Ford (or GM) product have to match up directly to a Toyota product? Second, Americans have usually compared their products to smaller (and similarly priced) Japanese products because of the "value" offered in the domestics. That would put the Dodge Intrepid/Charger, Chevrolet Impala, and Ford Taurus/Five Hundred against the Toyota Camry and the Honda Accord. The Dodge Stratus, Chevrolet Malibu, and the Ford Fusion would tackle the entry-level versions of the Accord and Camry. These are fair comparisons.

I agree with Oshawa...not so much with Spring Hill. Spring Hill has products coming, but not enough to fill BOTH plants (Spring Hill #1 and Spring Hill #2). If Oshawa remains, then I think Spring Hill #2 should close as well as Spring Hill #1.

As much as that might seem like a good answer (and I'm not saying it's not a contributing factor), Ford's decision on Atlanta and GM's decision on Oklahoma City and Doraville fall into other categories. For GM, they're too far away from their supplier base. For Ford, there's no room to expand....they're physically locked into the site they have.

Odd...when more than half the vehicles sold in the US last year were built by GM, Ford or Chrysler....but 2/3 of potential buyers aren't even looking at domestics? Does that mean that more than half of the potential buyers who don't look at domestics just won't buy a car instead of looking at a domestic? And how do you define yourself if you don't fall into "wealthy corporate types, 'movers and shakers', execs, 'professionals', urbanites, liberals, soccer moms...."?

Much of Toyota's money (from US market vehicles) goes into investing in the US, Canada, and Mexico. Just because the company is based in Japan doesn't mean all the money leaves the country. How many Toyota plants and R&D facilities and design facilities have been built in the past 15 years? How many new GM plants have opened in the same time frame? How many Toyota plants have CLOSED? How many GM plants have closed? Where's GM's investment been in the past 10 years? Half of Saab....half of Daewoo...a few billion to Fiat...a few hundred million to Fuji....expansions in China...