I didn't read all the way through this thread. But I love Ford and Chevy trucks. Will never buy a Dodge product again. I currently have a Toyota Sequoia (essentially the same thing as a Tundra) and I adore it. My DH has a 96 Tacoma that he's had since brand-new, and it is an amazing little truck. That said, it's little. I'd personally never want a little truck. I know that's funny, being a female, but I *love* trucks. Lol. I would buy a F350 in a heartbeat if I could justify it, having to haul four kids around. My uncles, all farmers, always had Ford or Chevy trucks. I had a Chrysler T&C Van (Dodge product) and as a result, will never buy a Dodge product again. Worse purchase of my life. I know I said that already, but I can't say it enough. Get what you love. Perhaps look at used vehicles, cause I think that's where the real deals are. My DH knew I wanted a Sequoia with all my heart, and when I found one used at Carmax, he gave his blessing. I've had it now for over 2 years, it's a 2003, and no problems except for one, which the extra warranty I bought covered.

I am totally and irrationally attached to my old car. We just got a "new" one - a 2008 hyundai santa fe, but I am already thinking about what to get next when we sell this one. We got a killer deal on a low mileage used one and could probably even make money if we sold it today (and would make money if we totaled it). I love having a bigger car with a toddler and I love AWD in bad weather but I do not really love the crappy gas mileage so hoping in a couple of years our options are better for a CUV with better fuel economy (some of the models coming out this year look good so we'll see how good they really are and then look for a good deal in a couple of years). But we just put a lot of money (where a "lot" is relative to the value of the car) our 2001 Honda Accord. NOTHING special about it at all but I just love that car. It needed a new CV joint, 4 new tires, an expensive 100k mile service and new brakes. Somewhat recently it had the timing belt done and a new clutch. It runs like new now and even though it's nothing luxurious or sporty and never was, if I am going somewhere by myself and the weather is OK I will always take the old car. To me it's like that perfectly faded, broken in pair of jeans that are just starting to get good after 10 years. yeah there are a couple of frayed edges but oooh so comfortable. DH wanted to sell it when we got the "new" car and go back down to one car again (we have shared a car for the last 10 years or so that he has been working from home) but it's really much harder to do that with a child... and I just could not bear to give up the old car.

As far as buying American-Toyota has a mfg plant in Georgetown Ky, and it my po dunk town there is a factory that makes the interiors for Toyota-this plant employs over 4oo people, and no telling how many the plant in Georgetown employs. You can't get much more American than something that comes from Kentucky.

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.