balthazar

Has no one looked at azera sales? I've seen 2- no one's buying them, why would anyone buy a yet more expensive car, esp from a company that stuck 'GT' emblems on the anti-GT: the elantra

Cadillac can do even better than the Sixteen. Logic would point to a sedan-configuration being the strongest business case, but my heart votes for a big coupe.

I love strippers.

I definately see both some tiburon in the side & some Riviera in the hood. But it's interesting that nissan is going 'backwards' in going with a more '90s rounded shape, when sharper edges are coming into fashion now. The one thing that needs an immediate fix is the super-elongated headlights stretching over the front wheels. Blorfy. The rest, overall, is nice, tho I think I'd pick the current one; less derivative.

Except this particular instance is not presented nor implied to be opinion, but a 'factual label'. Sure, disagreements are still possible, but one would think a singular 'factual' label could reach some sort of public consensus/definition. However, the only consistancy I have observed to date is useage in step with the journalistic agenda: toyota is 'japanese' when the virtues of it's efficiency or quality or worker relations are concerned, and 'American' where guilt seemingly needs consoling over sales volumes or profits going overseas.

The ridgeline is indeed BOF, what's unique is that it's a unibody BOF. As for size, it quite un-uniquely follows it's inspiration, the SportTrac in size.

>>"UAW, which has a stronghold among U.S. automakers and suppliers, has so far been unsuccessful in its efforts to organize workers at U.S. plants owned by Japanese automakers."<< Oh-ho: here toyota is a "japanese' company, not 'American' as usual via the media ??? The inconsistancy is dizzying.

'Windy-57'= >>"...Toyota... can be perceived as less foreign than other manufacturers such as Hyundai, Honda and the upcoming entrants from China. And, they can do so to a point that transcends them to not being completely foreign, but rather a hybrid ex. Asian-American."<< >>"They understand the American consumer better and have offered products that more closely resemble what the American consumer wants. Or to put it another way, Toyota has been selling cars that are "more American" over the past X number of years than any member of the Big 3 and the sales volumes are a reflection of that."<< You have been over-exposed to what the media has erroneously fabricated over recent years. A company's 'nationality' is based on one singular fact- where it is legally orgainized. toyota is a japanese company, and always will be until the day it is sold to an investor residing or organized in another country. It does not become 'less japanese' because it is somehow, magically becoming 'more American'. I suppose a debate could be initiated if and when a foreign company in a limited industry outsold it's domestic competition (hasn't happened), out-sourced it's domestic competition (not even remotely close), out-invested it's domestic competition (not even remotely close), out-employeed it's domestic competition (not even remotely close), and out-contributed to local, state & federal governments & economies vs. it's domestic competition (not even remotely close). Only then could even a legitimate discussion on said company being 'more American" could take place, tho such a discussion would quickly collapse under the burden of fact. This is a black & white issue, not a thousand-shades-of-grey issue.

>>"Honda has sucessfully developed and launched the Insight, Civic and Accord hybrids. The Insight had been on the market since 1999."<< I was told on these boards that the insight is no longer in production.

But it's falser than calling them 'asian', which..... is what they are."Asian-American" is a complete farse.

I don't know about that: when you have as much liquid cash on hand and as much success in a foreign market as toyota has, the 15 years of full-size truck sales performance toyota has scratched & clawed for is an outright embarassment.

In --say-- 1960, imports were a miniscule percentage of motor vehicle makes available, and there were more brands then than today, I believe. There was no protectionism then, just that the rest of the world's vehicles were for the most part, uncompetitive with the demands of the U.S. market. So whether by force or by choice, the market was in a way 'closed', yet the domestic industry flourished and continued a decades-long pattern of growth. Today that scenario is impossible without government intervention. I do not think any past attempts at 'protectionism' have ever been properly formatted, but that does not mean a system of checks & balances of a sort could not be instituted to better equalize the playing field. And as outlined above; even without mass international competition, the industry could indeed expand & flourish. I certainly don't support standing around moaning "Wowsie wowsie woo-woo."

Crate motor possibility is obviously going to be determined by the budget. 318, 360, 383 would be fine, so would a 340 tho those are harder to find. You could go with a 273, but performance parts (ie: a 4bbl intake & a decent cam) are going to be tougher to find than for the 340, 360, 383, I would have to believe.

'76 Coupe deVille '74 Chevy Impala 4-dr sedan '67 Buick Electra 225 4-dr hardtop- really sweet swoopy burgandy job, I was following it for a few miles- it's roof was lower than a passing civic's!

Sure he did, but of course; comprehension is all on the other end...

Am I misreemebering that honda's sales were down the last 2 months vs. last year, and '07 is shaping up to be a downward tic in the annual charts? The model volume charts are mixed, to say the least. And still no theories or reasons why, if honda is doing so well, that they are reducing U.S.-assembled hondas in favor of more imported hondas....

>>"You don't understand his rhetoric either. Here is what most protectionist banter boils down to: I do not want to see American jobs go to foreign people. This is saying that products made by people that share your nationality are better and worth your money, because the factory happens to have been built in this country. But if a factory making the same thing is made a few miles down the road on the "wrong" side of the fence, it is automatically detrimental to American jobs and therefore bad. Landsburg is saying that this is ugly, because you do not know the people in either factory, yet you are saying that one set of people are better because they share your nationality, which most people do not choose anyway. Now comes in Landsburg's somewhat inflammatory comparison: this is an ugly practice, much like racism is an ugly practice. In one sense you are saying that people who share your nationality are inherently better, and in another instance you are saying that people that share your race are inherently better. In both cases you are judging complete strangers. The logic and reasoning behind people who express either sentiment are very similar."<< Who is saying this, and in what forum ??? If indeed a groups or groups are advocating this reasoning specifically, then Landsburg has validity in his rebuttal. But outside of outright hate groups, I have not seen this motivator seriously put forth.Common sense would dictate that the primary reason to favor an American factory over one a few (thousand) miles away is one of economics, not ethnicity. Many people, again; those with common sense, understand that ties to the community, a sense of community and profit reinvestment/taxation help contribute to local, state & federal economies. History isn't a bad thing either. No one is calling for a ethnicity head count of factories to determine if a... toaster is made primarily by whites or non-whites or whathaveyou (well... maybe the Klan is). But based on what I quoted above, Landsburg is looking to make something from nothing. But yes, nationality can indeed spring from economic interests, and there is nothing shameful about that, regardless of what certain critics would like to make you feel guilty about. That said, in some instances you can make an unilateral judgement with impunity from racial charges. Do a looksee into the world of hand & power tools, esp American vs. chinese and you'll see what I'm talking about. This again is not about race, but product (and economics).

No morgage, no car loans, no credit card balances. Me likey.

>>"...Toyota, much like the Rams last changeover in '02, bests the segment leaders in engine and transmission offerings. It has the goods. Image is a whole other story that Toyota is working on..."<< If you stick to the 1/2-ton only category, on paper, the toyota seems to be for the most part; competitive. A 0.02% towing capacity advantage is meaningless in this segment (as opposed to the same margin of advantage in the sedan segment). If you look at full-size trucks by make in general, then obviously toyota is severly lacking in both models & powertrains. >>"On the 3/4-ton note. I'll agree there are an awful lot of C1500 Chevy's, Tahoes, and Suburbans from previous era's but... the 3/4-ton was a joke. A couple more leaf springs and a detroit desiel built from a 350 was a joke. Chevy knew this since they started offering it. The only other engine option was the 350 gas which was also available in the C1500. Most around these parts through the early 90's bought Ford Internation or Dodge Cummins products. In the heavy hauling (under 1 ton) segment GM lagged. That's why GM debuted the Silverado 2500 much like a half ton with same engines but, a bump in under pinnings THEN released the 2500HD in 2001 with 6.0L, 6.6L (D), and 8.0L offerings. THAT my friend is when GM got serious about that segment."<< In the '80s, there also was the 454 still available (it was at least up to '86). Pretty damned sure the 379 (6.2L) diesel had nothing to do with the 350 whatsoever, tho I have not verified that. But what really did Ford have engine-wise: the 302, the 351 & the 460- none of them major barn burners either. Ford's 6.9 diesel was regarded more highly than Chevy's, true, but the gas engines overall were very competitive between the 2. Dodge only had the Slant Six, 318 & the 360. But no arguments on the '01 & up 2500HD: I have an '04 6.6 and it's an over-engineered monster. >>"Chevy sells on a solid record and lineage more than a "tough truck" image."<< Gotcha: I interpreted your earlier post to mean actual truck toughness, not advertising image.

IIRC, the first car I fell hard for was a '58 Cadillac Series 75 limousine- parked, dusty and unloved, under a long carport with other flotsam & jetsam. My school bus passed it everyday. Lovely fluid flanks & graceful shark fins; it sparked a life-long appreciation for Cadillac, and accordingly, it was the very first Nat'l Geo ad I sliced free, starting what would become a circa 4500-piece print ad collection. The first car I was really in love with was the first car I ever owned, a '64 Pontiac GP Sport Coupe, triple Starlight Black, buckets/console, Trophy 389. I was not really influenced by the specific cars I grew up around- I invariably gravitate towards cars older than that & older than me.

>>"...redneck..."<< Careful- you're labeling & disparaging a group different than yourself.

>>"remember the poll asked who people "thought" manufactured better vehicles<<

>>"it is obvious that Toyota set out to out muscle and imitate the "tough truck" image of the Dodge Ram. Their target is real. "<< In this segment, toyota has a negative connotation; merely targeting the existing competition is not enough- toyota has to surpass the class leader by a wide margin if they hope to post a major gain. There; how often have we read that ultimatim regarding the mid-size sedan segment? Shoe's on the other foot here. >>"The point EVERYONE needs to hear is this, GM has NEVER been about tough truck image. GM's trucks have always been for the conservative truck user. For the longest time, most who needed a 3/4 ton turned to another manufacturer like Ford or Dodge for the lack of a beefy chasis and disiel engine."<< Interesting theory, but it doesn't hold much water. Dodge was barely alive until '94 when the then-new Ram debuted; kick-starting the segment. Before that Dodge truck sales were a spec in the rearview, and HD Dodge sales a miniscule percentage of that. No one was turning to Dodge over Chevy/GMC for a "tough" truck. And while Ford has sold more F-Series trucks (F-150 thru F-550 in current model heirarchy) than Chevrolet alone for many years, GM has sold millions of HD Chevy & GMC trucks, because they work and work well. Around here- there are precious few pre mid-80s Ford trucks on the road, but I still see a surprising quantity of Chevys. I haven't seen more than a single pre-'94 Ram in I don't know how long.

>>"I fear if there isn't a huge change in 2009, the peasant revolt isn't too far behind, as long as we can pry the minions from their iPods, Xboxes and HDTV long enough for them to see what's happening here..."<< In the past, revolts/ social revolutions were often wrought from unrest & a sense of injustice or powerlessness. The major, striking difference today is, there is NO sense of 'community' anymore, no common thread; American society is ever more unplugged from each other and instead plugged into "me" and "cheaper is better". There will be no more revolutions... it is already too late.

- reject the 'journalistic' status quo incumbant writers in favor of those who've made the leap into the 21st century.