Personally I think this is a really interesting discussion. I am an engineer at Honda R&D near Columbus, OH. At my location, there are over a thousand white collar workers, mostly technical. Within a hundred mile radius of me, there are a 4 Honda assembly plants, employing around 10,000 people. At other sites in the US and Canada, there are probably another 15,000 workers. Each of these plants is turning out thousands of new Hondas per day. Nearly every Honda/Acura sold in the US (by volume) is made in the US. The engines, transmissions, every major component. Furthermore, Honda actually *exports* cars from the US, something that the Big 3 can barely talk about. Sure, there are niche cars like the S2000 roadster that are 100% Japanese, but that is a tiny part of our market. I think these are pretty impressive numbers, especially if you consider that Honda is only something like the 7th largest market share in the US. Its been here since 1979, I'd wager that in those 27 years Honda has contributed significantly to Americans and their way of life. There are a lot of secure $25/hr plus full benefits jobs available in Ohio because of Honda. The US auto industry lost their way in the oil crises. They haven't been able to turn it around since then. They concentrate too much on short-sighted markets like giant fuel-guzzling SUVs. Its not that the Big 3 makes bad cars, its that they make cars that aren't in demand. Compare a Focus to a Civic. A Taurus to an Accord. Sure, those Fords might last 200k miles, but I'd much rather spend that time in a nice Accord than a hard plastic Taurus. I would rather support the thousands of American workers who build Hondas than support a few suits in Detroit and drive a Mexican Dodge. That said, my garage: 1980 Lawn Boy 7229 1996 Stihl trimmer 1997 Honda Accord (shocking, right?) 2002 Triumph Speed Triple (mc) 1976 Honda CB400F (mc) 1976 Suzuki GT550 2-stroke (mc) 1948 Johnson Sea Horse (outboard) 1949 Evinrude Zephyr (outboard)

RE: Ford vs Dodge full size pickups Posted by: earthworm (My Page) on Mon, May 30, 05 at 12:29 """ But the true reason for the Diesel is economy - 20 to 30 % greater MPG""" $5,000 extra is also for a true heavy duty truck engine. But this high price should become more reasonable down the road...Volkswagen charges about $1,000 more - this pays off in 3 to 5 years - and is good for those who drive over 20,000 miles per year.. Gary, as far as the extra oil goes - 2 or 3 times is, IMO, an exaggeration.. 20 to 40% more is closer.. 2005 and still no "light duty" Diesel made in America - a disgrace !! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Another EARTHWORM-ISM ! The main reason for buying a Diesel is "FUEL ECONOMY" ?? Most people I know,myself included, Bought thier trucks with the Diesel option for PULLING POWER,ie TOWING. Fuel economy was even a consideration. And as far as the amount of oil, Gary is pretty close to right on. He IS NOT referring to a V.W. , as you always do, or a Slaab, oops I mean Saab.

Yes, I am tempted. I will probably hold off for now though. I do like a new car, and although there is the issue of depreciation, whenever I have bought used cars, I always ended up with lemons that needed a lot of expensive work. I just don't seem to have the knowledge/experience to buy a decent used vehicle. It just works out much better when I buy a new one. But I have to admit, I take some joy in having a new vehicle. We bought my Rendezvous new in 2004, we did not finance it. I weigh the pros and cons of financing, and keeping my investments in place or buying one out right and not dealing with a monthly payment. I'm a pretty conservative spender in most ways, and feel if I want a new vehicle and can swing it, that I should just do it. But I haven't made a final decision yet. Strangely, this economy gives me some job security. I am a social assistance administrator. Unfortunately, we are preparing for our caseloads to quadruple. In one year it is expected that our area will be in deep economic trouble. It's very sad.

I only mentioned the "nuclear bomb" as a wild, obvious example of something the government doesn't want in the hands of private citizens, followed by several more down-to-earth examples that were more relevant. (Actually, I'm not even sure whether it's illegal to possess or use a nuclear weapon, although I assume it is). I wouldn't support any restrictions on SUV ownership; indeed if such a thing existed it would be difficult to define exactly what constitutes an SUV as opposed to a tall station wagon or a van. But I do support mandates that require reasonable fuel economy, adequate safety for both its occupants (meaning crashworthiness and vehicle stability) and other motorists (limited weight, standard bumper height etc.). The problem with 4WD off-road vehicles is that they are inherently poorly suited for routine on-road driving. In order to provide the needed ground clearance and wheel travel for off-road use, an SUV must have its body raised well into the air, creating a high center of gravity, and in turn a high susceptibility to rollovers. The most capable off-road vehicle available, the Hummer, counteracts this tendency by being very wide, but its width makes it an impractical vehicle for normal roads (and parking spaces). Another approach is to use a hydraulic suspension that can lower the vehicle by several inches at highway speeds, and raise it for off-road or inclement weather use. That is what the Range Rover uses, but it adds about $2000 to the cost and thus isn't widely available. But another serious problem has no easy workarounds. In order to climb or descend steep grades, vehicles like the Jeep or Land Rover must have high bumpers to prevent them from scraping the ground when you begin the ascent or reach the bottom of a steep grade. These high bumpers don't line up with normal car or van bumpers, causing considerable damage to any car they hit. And since heavy SUVs have lots of momentum, that damage is compounded. It doesn't help that SUV brakes and cornering ability are generally subpar compared to cars, again because of the combined effects of weight, high center of gravity, and tires optimised for digging into muck. All of which are good reasons to avoid this type of vehicle unless you really need the off-road capability. No, I don't want the government telling me I don't drive on dirt trails enough to warrant buying an SUV, but I'm also responsible enough to buy a vehicle better suited to my needs if I only drive on public roads. And that goes double if I use my car to transport children. Most buyers of SUVs never take them off-road. Asked why they bought them, they cite roominess, 3 rows of seats, luggage space, bad-weather traction, and the good view of the road ahead from the high seating position. All of these things are available from a 4WD station wagon (except the high seating position) without the negatives associated with off-road trucks. Or you can get a mini van, which is considerably roomier than a like-sized SUV and offers the same high seating position, but with better gas mileage and stability. Some even offer 4WD. Responding to the marketplace, many auto manufacturers are introducing vehicles that look like SUVs but are actually built on car platforms with lighter overall weight and lower center of gravity, rather than the old-school SUVs that are essentially modified pickup trucks. In addition to their safety and environmental advantages, these quasi-SUVs offer a smoother, quieter ride and a more car-like driving experience. As for those reported 100mpg cars, they don't exist, nor is there any conspiracy amongst the auto or oil industries to suppress them if they did. There have been numerous people over the last few decades who've claimed the technology exists to build a 100 mpg car. Of these, exactly zero have produced a viable blueprint for such a car, much less built a working prototype that achieved 100 mpg. The auto industry has spent billions of dollars trying to develop more fuel efficient cars, and they would jump at any technology that could produce such high mileage (especially Ford, which just reported a $5.1 billion loss for the past year and would welcome anything that could boost sales). The best gas mileage currently available is from the Honda and Toyota hybrid electric/gasoline engines, which are good for about 60 mpg in the Honda Insight. But nearly every aspect of that car was compromised in order to deliver high gas mileage. The car seats only 2 people, has no real trunk, lacks air conditioning, and has a maximum capacity of 385 lbs., including luggage. The Toyota (and an upcoming hybrid-powered Honda Civic) are more practical, but their mileage is about 10mpg less. The hybrid engine adds thousands of dollars to the car's price, yet Honda and Toyota lose money on every car they sell. So why do they make them? Because selling a few thousand 50mpg cars allows them to sell additional big, gas-guzzling Lexuses (which have high profit margins) whilst keeping their corporate-average fuel economy above the Government standards. Surely they would build 100mpg cars if they knew how, even if they lost money on every one. Or they would apply that technology to their SUVs so they would get better mileage and thus not face sales restrictions. I don't know how the oil industry would react to ultra-efficient cars, but there's little they could do to stop manufacturers from building them.