Honda Car Forum

On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 00:02:00 -0500, "80 Knight" <nospam> wrote:

>>>> As for Americans being stupid: The Bag-3 fought for years against
>>>> building the smaller cars Americans wanted and delivered absolute
>>>> crap.
>>>
>>>Bullshit. American's didn't want small shit boxes.
>>
>> Your pre-1970's American bias is showing. You're perfect for a GM
>> management job.
>
>The two top selling vehicles in the US are a Ford and a Chevy, both are
>trucks, and neither are small.

Incorrect. Here's a link. Please feel free to counter with other facts
if you have some available:

http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com...lling-Vehicle/

http://tinyurl.com/42xpz3

>Bullshit. American's drive what the want too. Who the hell are you to tell
>me or anyone else they don't need a truck, or SUV?

I'm not telling you what you should drive. Drive anything you want.
I'm just pointing out the stupidity of many Americans in selecting a
vehicle. Selecting a truck or SUV when you don't have any need for one
is a pretty dumb idea.

>You also can't seem to
>understand that the two best selling vehicles in the US are TRUCKS. A Ford
>and a Chevy. That seems to burn you very very badly. Get over it.

First, see the link above. Second, I don't really care what a bunch of
little boys who never grew up drive.

>And I
>wouldn't call the top two selling vehicles a "small market niche".

You still don't seem to be able to grasp the concept here: In business
you have finite resources. You decide where to invest them in terms of
development, products, marketing, etc. Choosing NOT to diversify your
product line and investing all your resources in a very small part of
the overall market (i.e. a niche) can result in short term profit at
the expense of long term survival. This ins't rocket science, it's
Business 101. You can't see to grasp that (but then again, neither did
GM, so you DO make good company).

>You are truly amusing. Toyota has been trying to get into the truck and SUV
>market for years. Unfortunately for them, the death trap they call Tundra
>isn't selling, and the FJ Cruiser is one of the worst selling vehicles in
>the US, not to mention being as ugly as sin.

Because Toyota is smart enough to know that you have to diversify.
Don't worry about them too much, they'll get it right as they mature
the product.

>You are an idiot. The Ford F-150 has been the best selling vehicle for 27
>years, and it is this year as well. The Chevy Silverado is also the number
>2 selling vehicle. Why can't you accept the facts?

See the link above. Please respond with actual facts. Regardless - Gm
still has a core problem. Having the "best selling vehicle" won't
insure the success of any auto company.

>The taxpayers didn't get a say in the 700 billion that was sent to the
>banks, but I see a hell of a lot more bitching about the 20 billion sent to
>GM.

Good. The more people that protest corporate welfare, the better.

>And you aren't in tune enough to realize that GM and Ford make good
>vehicles, are the number's 1 and 2 sellers, and there bankruptcy would ruin
>the country.

So you say. A lot of economists argue the other side. There's no
question that bankruptcy would give them a better chance to
restructure and rid themselves of some significant business burdens.

>And what does that say about the Japanese car buyers? Not only will they
>pay more for a Jap car, they will also still be happy while it is in for
>repairs. Basically, they ain't that bright.

Most people ain't that bright. But, the Jap's have built brand
loyalty. Gm didn't want to build quality and didn't care about
loyalty.

I have customers too. Sometimes I make mistakes, or the people I
contract with for them make mistakes. My customers stick with me,
because I've built loyalty with them. They know I'm sincere, and that
I am working diligently to give them the best possible service. See
how that works?

>Read a damned magazine. Toyota get's praised for recalling Tundra's for axl
>shafts, but get royally pissed at GM when they recall a cup holder.

That's not proof. It's "pull it out of your butt" statistics.

>> If most Americans were buying those vehicles, GM would be making money.
>
>Do you have a functioning brain? Americans who are purchasing vehicles are
>purchasing more Ford and GM trucks then any other vehicle. Apparently that
>is very difficult for you to comprehend.

What you seem to have difficulty grasping is that manufacturing two
vehicles that sell well will not ensure profitability for GM and Ford.
I could have 100% of the buggy whip market and I still won't be able
to pay the mortgage.

"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote in message
news:WaydnTv6xuMJ58PUnZ2dnUVZ_s3inZ2d@ptd.net...
> If you believe that then take you car Toyota to the Maytag repairman.
> LOL

Can you take a Maytag to a Toyota Dealer to get it repaired under warranty?
You are way out in left field on this one.

A manufacturer warranty offered to a consumer does not obligate the
manufacturer to allow anyone to fix it. But you can take a Toyota under
warranty to any Toyota dealer and get it repaired.

You are missing the point the auto manufacturers warrant the vehicle to the
DEALERSHIPS, not the purchaser.

READ your warranty policy manual!!!


"Mark A" <someone@someone.com> wrote in message
news:H9v7l.1754$3y5.569@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote in message
> news:WaydnTv6xuMJ58PUnZ2dnUVZ_s3inZ2d@ptd.net...
>> If you believe that then take you car Toyota to the Maytag repairman. LOL
>
> Can you take a Maytag to a Toyota Dealer to get it repaired under
> warranty? You are way out in left field on this one.
>
> A manufacturer warranty offered to a consumer does not obligate the
> manufacturer to allow anyone to fix it. But you can take a Toyota under
> warranty to any Toyota dealer and get it repaired.
>

Yes, I got hit in the face with that with my first Toyota.

I was in a job that kept moving me, and at each service interval I was in a
different community with a different dealer. Each one wanted me to take it
back to where I bought it to have it serviced, even the regular routine
maintenance. But 'tis true, all of them were also GM dealers. And driving
it back to where I bought it wasn't possible at that time with the job I had
then. But this was back in 1979-1981.

Sir Charles the Curmudgeon.


"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote in message
news:G9OdndOPhPfF1sPUnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@ptd.net...
> If you do a search you will discover all vehicle manufactures warrant
> their vehicles to their DEALERSHIPS, not the purchaser.
>
>
> "Gordon McGrew" <gRmEcMgOrVeEw@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:i4tql4d59ievg1dgsbjfu799mcngg350im@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 15:42:37 -0500, "Mike Hunter"
>> <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote:
>>
>>>If you do a search you will see Toyota dealerships are far from the top
>>>in
>>>dealer service
>>
>> Who said anything about dealerships or dealer service?
>>
>>
>>>"Gosi" <gosinn@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:367d615b-e118-45b0-b1e9-4f445589e490@x16g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>>>On 31 Dec, 05:02, "80 Knight" <nospam> wrote:
>>>> "me" <noem...@nothere.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>>> You are an idiot.
>>>
>>>Most people posting in the group tell stories about GM and how badly
>>>they treat their customers etc.
>>>
>>>All you do is try to attack other posters.
>>>
>
>

"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote in message
news:gNGdnYsrYoifGsPUnZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@ptd.net...
> You are missing the point the auto manufacturers warrant the vehicle to
> the DEALERSHIPS, not the purchaser.
>
> READ your warranty policy manual!!!

I am not missing the point because you are wrong. There may be a warranty to
the dealer (because the dealer purchases the car from the manufacturer), but
there is also a warranty to the end consumer (assuming the car is sold as a
new vehicle).

"CharlesTheCurmudgeon" <n5hsr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:gjm3e0$k9k$1@news.motzarella.org...
> Yes, I got hit in the face with that with my first Toyota.
>
> I was in a job that kept moving me, and at each service interval I was in
> a different community with a different dealer. Each one wanted me to take
> it back to where I bought it to have it serviced, even the regular routine
> maintenance. But 'tis true, all of them were also GM dealers. And
> driving it back to where I bought it wasn't possible at that time with the
> job I had then. But this was back in 1979-1981.
>
> Sir Charles the Curmudgeon.

That is not the case anymore, at least not for Toyota or Honda. You can take
it to any authorized dealer for warranty repairs. Of course, they can give
regular customers some priority in scheduling if it is not unreasonable. The
dealer has the right to refuse non-warranty work if they really want to, but
unless they are under-staffed, they normally will not refuse work. Usually,
if any business continuously has more customers than they can handle, they
just raise their prices until an equilibrium is achieved.

If a dealer gives you a hard time about warranty repairs, I would call the
Toyota Motor immediately and get them to bust the balls of the dealership.

On Jan 2, 3:49*pm, me <noem...@nothere.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 00:02:00 -0500, "80 Knight" <nospam> wrote:
> >>>> As for Americans being stupid: The Bag-3 fought for years against
> >>>> building the smaller cars Americans wanted and delivered absolute
> >>>> crap.
>
> >>>Bullshit. *American's didn't want small shit boxes.
>
> >> Your pre-1970's American bias is showing. You're perfect for a GM
> >> management job.
>
> >The two top selling vehicles in the US are a Ford and a Chevy, both are
> >trucks, and neither are small.
>
> Incorrect. Here's a link. Please feel free to counter with other facts
> if you have some available:
>
> http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com...news/080604-Ho...
>
> http://tinyurl.com/42xpz3
>
> >Bullshit. *American's drive what the want too. *Who the hell are youto tell
> >me or anyone else they don't need a truck, or SUV? *
>
> I'm not telling you what you should drive. Drive anything you want.
> I'm just pointing out the stupidity of many Americans in selecting a
> vehicle. Selecting a truck or SUV when you don't have any need for one
> is a pretty dumb idea.
>
> >You also can't seem to
> >understand that the two best selling vehicles in the US are TRUCKS. *AFord
> >and a Chevy. *That seems to burn you very very badly. *Get over it.
>
> First, see the link above. Second, I don't really care what a bunch of
> little boys who never grew up drive.
>
> >And I
> >wouldn't call the top two selling vehicles a "small market niche".
>
> You still don't seem to be able to grasp the concept here: In business
> you have finite resources. You decide where to invest them in terms of
> development, products, marketing, etc. Choosing NOT to diversify your
> product line and investing all your resources in a very small part of
> the overall market (i.e. a niche) can result in short term profit at
> the expense of long term survival. This ins't rocket science, it's
> Business 101. You can't see to grasp that (but then again, neither did
> GM, so you DO make good company).
>
> >You are truly amusing. *Toyota has been trying to get into the truck and SUV
> >market for years. *Unfortunately for them, the death trap they call Tundra
> >isn't selling, and the FJ Cruiser is one of the worst selling vehicles in
> >the US, not to mention being as ugly as sin.
>
> Because Toyota is smart enough to know that you have to diversify.
> Don't worry about them too much, they'll get it right as they mature
> the product.
>
> >You are an idiot. *The Ford F-150 has been the best selling vehicle for 27
> >years, and it is this year as well. *The Chevy Silverado is also the number
> >2 selling vehicle. *Why can't you accept the facts?
>
> See the link above. Please respond with actual facts. Regardless - Gm
> still has a core problem. Having the "best selling vehicle" won't
> insure the success of any auto company.
>
> >The taxpayers didn't get a say in the 700 billion that was sent to the
> >banks, but I see a hell of a lot more bitching about the 20 billion sentto
> >GM.
>
> Good. The more people that protest corporate welfare, the better.
>
> >And you aren't in tune enough to realize that GM and Ford make good
> >vehicles, are the number's 1 and 2 sellers, and there bankruptcy would ruin
> >the country.
>
> So you say. A lot of economists argue the other side. There's no
> question that bankruptcy would give them a better chance to
> restructure and rid themselves of some significant business burdens.
>
> >And what does that say about the Japanese car buyers? *Not only will they
> >pay more for a Jap car, they will also still be happy while it is in for
> >repairs. *Basically, they ain't that bright.
>
> Most people ain't that bright. But, the Jap's have built brand
> loyalty. Gm didn't want to build quality and didn't care about
> loyalty.
>
> I have customers too. Sometimes I make mistakes, or the people I
> contract with for them make mistakes. My customers stick with me,
> because I've built loyalty with them. They know I'm sincere, and that
> I am working diligently to give them the best possible service. See
> how that works?
>
> >Read a damned magazine. *Toyota get's praised for recalling Tundra's for axl
> >shafts, but get royally pissed at GM when they recall a cup holder.
>
> That's not proof. It's "pull it out of your butt" statistics.
>
> >> If most Americans were buying those vehicles, GM would be making money..
>
> >Do you have a functioning brain? *Americans who are purchasing vehicles are
> >purchasing more Ford and GM trucks then any other vehicle. *Apparentlythat
> >is very difficult for you to comprehend.
>
> What you seem to have difficulty grasping is that manufacturing two
> vehicles that sell well will not ensure profitability for GM and Ford.
> I could have 100% of the buggy whip market and I still won't be able
> to pay the mortgage.

stveyes

"me" <noemail@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:8busl4dhg0b61d511dposatu0cnl8h20c0@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 00:02:00 -0500, "80 Knight" <nospam> wrote:
>
>>>>> As for Americans being stupid: The Bag-3 fought for years against
>>>>> building the smaller cars Americans wanted and delivered absolute
>>>>> crap.
>>>>
>>>>Bullshit. American's didn't want small shit boxes.
>>>
>>> Your pre-1970's American bias is showing. You're perfect for a GM
>>> management job.
>>
>>The two top selling vehicles in the US are a Ford and a Chevy, both are
>>trucks, and neither are small.
>
> Incorrect. Here's a link. Please feel free to counter with other facts
> if you have some available:
>
> http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com...lling-Vehicle/
>
> http://tinyurl.com/42xpz3

That was in JUNE.
Here is the link that shows how short lived the Civic's accomplishment
lasted (a month):
http://trucktrend.automotive.com/851...008/index.html

And here is a link for 2008 in general:
http://ca.autos.yahoo.com/p/1000/bes...t-selling-cars
and:
http://www.forbes.com/vehicles/2008/...hisSpeed=15000

>>Bullshit. American's drive what the want too. Who the hell are you to
>>tell
>>me or anyone else they don't need a truck, or SUV?
>
> I'm not telling you what you should drive. Drive anything you want.
> I'm just pointing out the stupidity of many Americans in selecting a
> vehicle. Selecting a truck or SUV when you don't have any need for one
> is a pretty dumb idea.

Perhaps it is to you, but not to everyone. I have a Bonneville, and a
Tahoe, and I love both of them. I drive whichever one I feel like it at the
time. The Bonneville looks good, and goes fast (getting awesome MPG while
doing it), and the Tahoe is convenient for pulling other people out of snow
covered ditches.

>>You also can't seem to
>>understand that the two best selling vehicles in the US are TRUCKS. A
>>Ford
>>and a Chevy. That seems to burn you very very badly. Get over it.
>
> First, see the link above. Second, I don't really care what a bunch of
> little boys who never grew up drive.

First, your link above is severely outdated. Second, I can see your
jealously. Let me guess, you are stuck in a 1992 Civic, and can't stand it,
right? Just because you can't handle a truck, doesn't mean others can't.

>>And I
>>wouldn't call the top two selling vehicles a "small market niche".
>
> You still don't seem to be able to grasp the concept here: In business
> you have finite resources. You decide where to invest them in terms of
> development, products, marketing, etc. Choosing NOT to diversify your
> product line and investing all your resources in a very small part of
> the overall market (i.e. a niche) can result in short term profit at
> the expense of long term survival. This ins't rocket science, it's
> Business 101. You can't see to grasp that (but then again, neither did
> GM, so you DO make good company).

GM has a very vast array of vehicles, from small, to medium, to large.

>>You are truly amusing. Toyota has been trying to get into the truck and
>>SUV
>>market for years. Unfortunately for them, the death trap they call Tundra
>>isn't selling, and the FJ Cruiser is one of the worst selling vehicles in
>>the US, not to mention being as ugly as sin.
>
> Because Toyota is smart enough to know that you have to diversify.
> Don't worry about them too much, they'll get it right as they mature
> the product.

Mature the product? The Tundra is a death trap. It needs to be taken off
the roads, and totally redesigned. Perhaps Toyo can ask Ford or GM for some
help...

>>You are an idiot. The Ford F-150 has been the best selling vehicle for 27
>>years, and it is this year as well. The Chevy Silverado is also the
>>number
>>2 selling vehicle. Why can't you accept the facts?
>
> See the link above. Please respond with actual facts. Regardless - Gm
> still has a core problem. Having the "best selling vehicle" won't
> insure the success of any auto company.

I did respond with facts. Just because you were too lazy to look them up,
doesn't mean they aren't true.

>>The taxpayers didn't get a say in the 700 billion that was sent to the
>>banks, but I see a hell of a lot more bitching about the 20 billion sent
>>to
>>GM.
>
> Good. The more people that protest corporate welfare, the better.

So, you have no problem that the banks were *given* 700 billion, but a loan
to GM, and Chrysler for 20 billion makes your blood boil? You are truly an
idiot. Enjoy your Jap crap, while it lasts.

>>And you aren't in tune enough to realize that GM and Ford make good
>>vehicles, are the number's 1 and 2 sellers, and there bankruptcy would
>>ruin
>>the country.
>
> So you say. A lot of economists argue the other side. There's no
> question that bankruptcy would give them a better chance to
> restructure and rid themselves of some significant business burdens.

I speak in facts. You speak in bullshit.

>>And what does that say about the Japanese car buyers? Not only will they
>>pay more for a Jap car, they will also still be happy while it is in for
>>repairs. Basically, they ain't that bright.
>
> Most people ain't that bright. But, the Jap's have built brand
> loyalty. Gm didn't want to build quality and didn't care about
> loyalty.

The Japs can also make a very dangerous recall seem like a blessing. They
are liars.

> I have customers too. Sometimes I make mistakes, or the people I
> contract with for them make mistakes. My customers stick with me,
> because I've built loyalty with them. They know I'm sincere, and that
> I am working diligently to give them the best possible service. See
> how that works?

Good for you. The convenience store business, is quite difficult.

>>Read a damned magazine. Toyota get's praised for recalling Tundra's for
>>axl
>>shafts, but get royally pissed at GM when they recall a cup holder.
>
> That's not proof. It's "pull it out of your butt" statistics.

If you know half as much about the Auto world as you claim to, you would
know that Toyota does get praised for recalling a death trap, while GM get's
pissed on for recalling something simple.

>>> If most Americans were buying those vehicles, GM would be making money.
>>
>>Do you have a functioning brain? Americans who are purchasing vehicles
>>are
>>purchasing more Ford and GM trucks then any other vehicle. Apparently
>>that
>>is very difficult for you to comprehend.
>
> What you seem to have difficulty grasping is that manufacturing two
> vehicles that sell well will not ensure profitability for GM and Ford.
> I could have 100% of the buggy whip market and I still won't be able
> to pay the mortgage.

5 of the top 10 selling vehicles for 2008 are Domestic. They are here to
stay...Get over it.

On Jan 2, 3:49*pm, me <noem...@nothere.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 00:02:00 -0500, "80 Knight" <nospam> wrote:
> >>>> As for Americans being stupid: The Bag-3 fought for years against
> >>>> building the smaller cars Americans wanted and delivered absolute
> >>>> crap.
>
> >>>Bullshit. *American's didn't want small shit boxes.
>
> >> Your pre-1970's American bias is showing. You're perfect for a GM
> >> management job.
>
> >The two top selling vehicles in the US are a Ford and a Chevy, both are
> >trucks, and neither are small.
>
> Incorrect. Here's a link. Please feel free to counter with other facts
> if you have some available:
>
> http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com...news/080604-Ho...
>
> http://tinyurl.com/42xpz3


The rankings are outdated, and besides, lasted exactly one month.

The F-150 regained its long lasting top spot the next month, and I
believe, the Silverado moved back into the # two spot the following
month, where both stayed for the rest of 08, December sales pending.


That certainly does not represent a "trend" that "experts" are
protraying, a "movement into smaller, greener,more fuel-efficient
vehicles" that the public is being force-fed, ad naseum.



>
> >Bullshit. *American's drive what the want too. *Who the hell are youto tell
> >me or anyone else they don't need a truck, or SUV? *




>
> I'm not telling you what you should drive. Drive anything you want.
> I'm just pointing out the stupidity of many Americans in selecting a
> vehicle. Selecting a truck or SUV when you don't have any need for one
> is a pretty dumb idea.



Whole lot of Americans drive what they want, as oppossed to what they
"need". If they can afford to do so, it is a really good thing.
Americas' "wants" is usually the driving forces in economic boom
times.



>
> >You also can't seem to
> >understand that the two best selling vehicles in the US are TRUCKS. *AFord
> >and a Chevy. *That seems to burn you very very badly. *Get over it.
>
> First, see the link above. Second, I don't really care what a bunch of
> little boys who never grew up drive.
>
> >And I
> >wouldn't call the top two selling vehicles a "small market niche".
>
> You still don't seem to be able to grasp the concept here: In business
> you have finite resources. You decide where to invest them in terms of
> development, products, marketing, etc. Choosing NOT to diversify your
> product line and investing all your resources in a very small part of
> the overall market (i.e. a niche) can result in short term profit at
> the expense of long term survival. This ins't rocket science, it's
> Business 101. You can't see to grasp that (but then again, neither did
> GM, so you DO make good company).




I seem to have a very good grip on this. The way most "economic
experts" claim the road to recovery for the big three is to move AWAY
from making and selling profitable vechicles (which also happen to be
among the BEST sellers), and make more vechicles that a good number of
people dont want, and, BTW, lose money for the company.


Make no mistake, that is what a lot of people, including the ones who
will ultimatetly have the gun to the auto manufacturers; the
Government, is demanding.


Have yet to hear anyone say to the big three, "Boys, keep selling the
hell out of your trucks and large cars, and let's all get togethere to
figure out a way to help make your smaller cars profitable."



>
> >You are truly amusing. *Toyota has been trying to get into the truck and SUV
> >market for years. *Unfortunately for them, the death trap they call Tundra
> >isn't selling, and the FJ Cruiser is one of the worst selling vehicles in
> >the US, not to mention being as ugly as sin.


>
> Because Toyota is smart enough to know that you have to diversify.
> Don't worry about them too much, they'll get it right as they mature
> the product.
>


Yes. They along with Honda and Nissan, have diversified into making
more and more large vechicles, because they know that is what sells.
Exactly three of the top ten sellers in the US last year were
subcompacts. Three of the top ten sellers were full size pickups,
including numbers one and two. The remaining four cars in the top ten
were middle size vehicles. By NO means are the Japanese "getting
smaller"






> >You are an idiot. *The Ford F-150 has been the best selling vehicle for 27
> >years, and it is this year as well. *The Chevy Silverado is also the number
> >2 selling vehicle. *Why can't you accept the facts?
>
> See the link above. Please respond with actual facts. Regardless - Gm
> still has a core problem. Having the "best selling vehicle" won't
> insure the success of any auto company.
>
> >The taxpayers didn't get a say in the 700 billion that was sent to the
> >banks, but I see a hell of a lot more bitching about the 20 billion sentto
> >GM.
>
> Good. The more people that protest corporate welfare, the better.
>
> >And you aren't in tune enough to realize that GM and Ford make good
> >vehicles, are the number's 1 and 2 sellers, and there bankruptcy would ruin
> >the country.



>
> So you say. A lot of economists argue the other side. There's no
> question that bankruptcy would give them a better chance to
> restructure and rid themselves of some significant business burdens.



I agree that a structured bankruptcy would be far better than letting
our Government dictate the kinds of cars Americans drive, which will
ultimatly happen with these bailouts.





>
> >And what does that say about the Japanese car buyers? *Not only will they
> >pay more for a Jap car, they will also still be happy while it is in for
> >repairs. *Basically, they ain't that bright.
>
> Most people ain't that bright. But, the Jap's have built brand
> loyalty. Gm didn't want to build quality and didn't care about
> loyalty.
>
> I have customers too. Sometimes I make mistakes, or the people I
> contract with for them make mistakes. My customers stick with me,
> because I've built loyalty with them. They know I'm sincere, and that
> I am working diligently to give them the best possible service. See
> how that works?
>
> >Read a damned magazine. *Toyota get's praised for recalling Tundra's for axl
> >shafts, but get royally pissed at GM when they recall a cup holder.
>
> That's not proof. It's "pull it out of your butt" statistics.
>
> >> If most Americans were buying those vehicles, GM would be making money..
>
> >Do you have a functioning brain? *Americans who are purchasing vehicles are
> >purchasing more Ford and GM trucks then any other vehicle. *Apparentlythat
> >is very difficult for you to comprehend.
>
> What you seem to have difficulty grasping is that manufacturing two
> vehicles that sell well will not ensure profitability for GM and Ford.
> I could have 100% of the buggy whip market and I still won't be able
> to pay the mortgage.

On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 21:31:19 -0500, 80 Knight cast forth these pearls of
wisdom...:


> 5 of the top 10 selling vehicles for 2008 are Domestic. They are here to
> stay...Get over it.

Don't waste your breath 80knight - he's just another one of the crowd that
believes that if he and his crowd say it long enough and often enough, it
will become true - even when "it" is pure bullshit. They get all hyped up
over the fad and fashion of what the in-crowd is hyping on any given day,
and that becomes their mantra. If guys like this had any idea at all what
makes a good car, besides what the Consumer Reports oriented opinion crowd
crows about, they'd be a lot more quiet then they are. As it is, they
simply make asses of themselves.

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net