>Agreed with everything you said, but GM/Ford made ALL those choices over time, Toyota (and other growing manufacturers) are more nimble, revamp their lineup more often, make higher quality cars, and make cars people want to drive!

"Choices" was exactly the correct word, especially when it comes to union agreements and particularly the LONG-TERM benefits offered in them.
I heard a former CEO of American Motors say that when it came to union contracts the longer term stuff was disregarded because it was not to be their problem, but rather the problem of one of their successors. And these guys get paid big bucks!!!

By the way, the Toyota plants here are unionized from what I can tell.

>
>>Toyota has a number of advantages over the so-called Big Three at the moment. As you say, they are expected to overtake GM as the world's #1 automaker in a year or so. Even if GM buys Chrysler and picks up their market share it would only stave off the inevitable for a year or so. Toyota has a cost advantage of around $1800 per car over GM. They can make cars for a lower cost (no crippling pension funds or union contracts) and sell them at a premium due to higher resale value and perceived higher value overall. When your competitor has a significant cost and profit advantage over you, you're in a world of hurt.
>>
>>I agree with you the American carmakers are more focused on quarterly profits. (The term "American carmakers" has gotten a little blurry. Toyota has a dozen or so U.S. plants now and sells more cars in the U.S. than it does in Japan). But what choice does Detroit have? It's easy to stay focused on a 5 or 10 year planning horizon when you're sitting on cash reserves of $25 billion as Toyota is. Quite different when you are losing money and have bills to pay.
>>
>>That's not taking anything away from Toyota. They are about as well run a company as there is in the world today. They DO look down the road and focus relentlessly on quality. That's one of those things that's easy to say and hard to do. Last year when Toyota had a rare recall the chairman made a public statement of apology, including a bow. That's commitment.
>>
>>You make a terrific point about how nice it would be if gasoline prices reflected the true cost. I think it will happen about the same time pigs fly -- the oil companies are too powerful and taxpayers wind up subsidizing the whole game -- but it's a great concept.
>>
>>
>>>It made some difference, sales of large vehicles dropped and smaller ones rose. Some people who were driving lots of miles in these beasts were having trouble making the large payment and paying the high dollars for gas on top of it. A lot of these people tried to get out of their upsidedown loans only to find the used market for these things dried up.
>>>
>>>But it's about the dollars, we need gas to reflect the true cost to society including military to protect it, health cost associated with the pollution, etc. If people had to bear the real cost, cars would getter more efficient, because people would demand it.
>>>
>>>The problem wit the Big three (er two, for now) is they are not nimble enough to build the type of efficient cars that is making Toyota shoot up to the number one spot, its sad really. Likely Ford and GM will die a slow death or be bought by a foreign company unless they start thinking beyond the next quarter.
>>>
>>>
>>>>I wonder if SUV mania may be abating. One of the reasons given for Chrysler's troubles (and to a lesser extent GM and Ford's) is that SUV sales have slumped with gas prices so high.
>>>>
>>>>