If I recall correctly, Toyota can build a care with less man hours per car
than GM, and the hourly cost is lower, so they naturally can offer more car
per dollar than GM. The GM bureaucracy means it taks years to get a car
from concept to production. I remember in the mid 80's when I was doing
work at the BOC engineering facility in Flint, they were mocking up 96-98
cars. The problem is obvious.

Not to mention the onerous union problems



"Sir Rodney Smithers" Ask me about my knighthood. wrote in message
...
Thunder,
Most manufacture industries are a tough business, which requires a crystal
ball to be able to look into the future. That is why we don't want to
put
the government in charge of making decisions. It can result in US
companies
being non competitive in a global marketplace. Over the years, the
marketplace has proven to be the best method of allocating limited
resources.

In reality, US automakers should be able to predict rising oil prices and
offer cars and trucks offering high fuel efficiency and those offering
high
power and torque.



"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 08:30:14 -0500, Sir Rodney Smithers wrote:

Thunder,
That wasn't the question, the question is should car manufacturers ONLY
build cars to a government mandate, or should they use initiative to do
better than the mandate, if they think it is something the consumer
will
buy?

Well, as Toyota is eating GM's lunch, I would say they should use
initiative to do better, as Toyota did. However, I will also say car
manufacturing has to be a tough business. Predicting the market 5-10
years out, borders on needing a crystal ball.