"...It's possible to make a car that does not break. Period..." Really? Even LEXUS owners have problems with their cars! And my old boss bought a new S class Mercedes. (S500) And it was eventually declared a "LEMON" and was replaced. Automobiles are still assembled by humans. And those huumans can have bad days and miss something on the line. It happens. And yes, not too long ago all American automakers built crap. But the quality has improved a great deal. So a Buick that's over 10 years old is not even in the same league as a Buick that's 2 years old as far as engineering goes. As a matter of fact, in 1999 we rented a brand new Park Avenue while on vacation. My wife called it a piece of garbage compared to our '88 Volvo. The power seat controls came off in her hand! Yeah, garbage! But I'll guarantee that the Lucerne is light years ahead of that Park Ave! In both quality and engineering.

Are you saying that GM should bust the union ? I can hear the caterwalling and cry for a boycott already, Boxer and Kennedy screaming in outrage. You are under estimating the pension problem. Unions were necessary, but now the pendulum has swung too far their way. You don't see any brick chimney's around here anymore as their unions have priced them right out of a career, chimney's are framed in wood now. I'll bet the packages for foreign car makers in the U.S. are nothing like UAW gives. I probably should state that I have never belonged to a union -- in fact, for 'most any job I ever held, union membership wasn't even an option. Similarly, the only person who ever fights for my job and compels companies to pay what they pay me is -- me. With that out of the way.... Bust the union? No. But GM could have stood a lengthy strike to make the point that benefits were getting "out of hand." The time to do that was years ago, when GM was strong and the UAW was just starting to build on their great benefits. Now all GM needs is one more solid punch and they're down. I still don't understand the "liberal" characterization unless you're using the sloppy meaning in which "liberal" is used to mean "not-pro-business-at-the-expense-of-workers". Didja ever notice that Southwest Airlines is about the only airline out there making money now? While American/Delta/Northwest/United/USAir/etc. are trying to force their employees to work for cheap, SWA keeps right on going. Funny thing is, they're as unionized as the bankrupt carriers. But they've figured out that working with the necessary unions is a better way to go than constantly being at each other's throats. Detroit never learned that lesson, so in addition to some stupid short-term thinking, they have an enemy in the UAW. Brilliant. Motor vehicles is not the only business facing huge pension liabilities. So are airlines. So are city, county, and state governments, because accounting practices let them defer the real cost of paying pensions and now those pensions are coming due. Speaking as someone who has never had anyone guarantee my pension, I think current and future retirees are in for some nasty surprises. What was promised (either by the business or their union) is just not sustainable. Especially if SSI will be handed out indiscriminately and especially for a generation or two that has seen the biggest increase in personal wealth in the history of the U.S. There will be a lot of caterwauling as people realize either they get stiffed a little bit now or they get stiffed a lot later when whoever is providing the pension and health care goes bust. FWIW, my next-door neighbor retired from one of the Big Three about four years ago. He was a line worker and was making in the mid-50s when he left after his 30 years. Including full health coverage for his family. Minus UAW dues. Not too bad for a guy who has no degrees and no certifications. He's d@mn good at what he does, but people in fields requiring far more education and certification are making far less than that even today. Not a bad deal at all.

The Honda CR-V has been top choice for several years. This year (2013) Toyota is trying to unseat Honda's grip on the market and reviews so far indicate that Toyota has finally hit the mark. Toyota's 2013 model includes a base engine, 2.5 L, 4-cylinder matching Honda's 2.4 L 4-cyl offering. Last year, I went shopping for a used Honda, Toyota, or Subaru and came away with the Honda. I was hesitant about the smallish engine for that size vehicle, but that concern went away when I test drove the vehicle. Honda;s engine has variable valve timing and it works flawlessly. Honda wrings about 170 hp out of that mill and it is surprisingly smooth; The 5 speed transmission shifts are smooth and the conntrol suytem logically seeks the correct gear. I rate Honda's engine-transmission as the best 4 cyl engine I have ever driven. For 2013, Honda has tweaked 4-cyl engine tuning and bumped output to 175 hp. I bought the Honda CR-V last summer and used it for a 3000 mile trip - loved it. One caveat: The CR-V, and others of similar design have a big blind spot to the rear when backing up. Objects near the vehicle are unseen. I recommend a backup camera. It is available, but I don't know in which year that began. Mileage around town is 23 to 25 miles/gal; highway at expressway speeds is 27 to 31 mpg. Among my associates, two have tried the Toyota RAV-4, was dissatisfied and changed to the Honda CR-V. However, that could change for the 2013 models. But for a used vehicle, you'd be shopping for models older than 2012, and for these, I recommend the Honda. Toyota did offer both 4-cyl and 6-cyl engines in the RAV-4. I recommend the 6-cyl. The gas mileage is about the same as the 4 and it is a much better engine for the application. The Honda CR-V is available in front wheel drive and AWD (all wheel drive). The AWD is engaged at all times. When the system detects that the front wheels are slipping, up to 50% torque can be supplied to the rear wheels. This comes in handy for getting through a slick spot, but in my opinion, is not as good as a true 4-wheel drive ala Jeep. Because the sysem is enaged all the time, there are restrictions. The vehicle should not be towed (front wheels on a dolly and rear wheels on the road); Instead, it should be put on the bed of the tow truck or trailer. All tires must be the same size. Mixing a new tire with nearly worn out ones can cause the torque transfer clutch to drag. AWD also adds weight. Additional components are the rear drive shaft, rear differential and drive axles, and transfer gears. These parts add maintence items. In the used Honda market in my area, the AWD option holds value. For same models of used CR-Vs, the ones with AWD commands a price addition equal to the cost of the AWD option when new.

Back to the original question of this post: It is my opinion that large SUVs will decline in sales, but will not dissapear for the reasons given in the posts above. Today, GM annoucned that 750 of their employees (at the Janesville, WI, plant) will be loosing their jobs at the end of June. The 2 shifts of the SUV and truck line will be reduced to one shift. Currently, production has been slowed on the 2-shift arrangement, but GM says they have excess capacity and must trim back to match demand. Currently, GM has a glut of SUVs and pickups on dealer's lots. In recent ads, GM dealers have been placing emphasis on selected Chevrolet models, the ones that produces the best fuel mileage in their product line-up. Around here, people are beginning to moan about filling up their not-so-efficient vehicles, and these are not the middle class, but doctors and lawyers. The average guy is already coughing blood. I am seeing an increase in beat-up older Saturns sedans being pressed into commuting service. How will this play end? Who knows? My take is the big SUVs will decline with smaller, more fuel efficient SUVs taking over some of the sales. Five years from now, it is only a guess who will be yet making big SUVs. It may not be GM. So, who will drop out, or be forced to drop out? iIs a crap shoot. Even Toyota is seeing reduced sales of their largest vehicles. Projections have been advanced that 5 years down the road, we will see a shift in Suburbia and commuting - it will loose popularity. The time is comming when the average working joe can not afford to spend so much of his time working for his car. Small town downtowns may come back with the demise of "big box" mall stores. If crime can be contained in the inner cities and the bullies and gangs chased out, the cities will revive as a living centers. This same crew making these projections also think that the 'real' crunch will begin about year 2012, and that is not far away. My opinion: This change will come as shock to the US citizen. It will not be taken lightly.