"they did it too" [Big Auto Detroit]

but why does japan for example have brands that BALANCE out the line by having a good distribution of vehicle sizes/efficiencies... (if anything skewed towards efficient cars in favor of SUVS) whereas  detroit does not (opposite scenario)?
 

the consumer gets to make a 'call' (for suvs) at least in part, if they have any "allegiance" to "us brands" regardless of whether they necessarily want one
 

while GM posts a $40B loss in 2007 on $180B of revenue,

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Wagoner
(toyota posts $14B profit on $200B of revenue)



*feces*, i'd "stay the course" too.
 

http://www.cars.com/go/ad...cafe&subject=fuelList

This article is 7 months old it is still a good measure. GM is not that far behind. The difference is the Detroit big 3 are more known for the big trucks and the big Japanese 3 are more known for the fuel efficient cars.

I think if they change their image it would make a difference. And yes maybe a bit of giving the consumer what they need instead of what they want could help but I don't see a for profit organization doing that.

But then again being an owner of a said gas guzzling SUV I don't have room to talk.

my point was there's a lot of folks of my parents generation (such as my parents    )  who will "only buy usa!"  ...when the choice is therefore given to them to pick either a low fuel economy car or a low fuel economy suv/truck from ford/gm,  duh, many times they pick the low fuel economy suv/truck  because gas was effectively cheap until last year.  now these people don't want the low fuel economy SUV, they want a high fuel economy car.  however, the choice is to abandon this "usa only"  or stick with the low fuel economy... since unfortunately japan has far more offerings in this segment of the market ALREADY in production, including by far the best hybrid vehicle.----  the ENTIRE point of the article posted----

the bottom line is that while i feel sorry for the ford/gm employees (except that *feces*head CEO, etc),  they didn't learn the lessons from the 70's oil shock.... no sympathy for the 'korprashun' ... short term gains.... *fudge* the future!


i know, i'm biased to hate 'merka.... wishing we had taken a smarter approach for long term sustainability and all that.
i'll quit serving no purpose here and move along. 

Naw, don't sell yourself short. It's not the message its the delivery.

Your point is not really lost.

Now, that isn't to say that GM in particular and Ford and Daimler Chrysler to a somewhat lesser extent don't bear some responsibilty for not getting out in front of the problem like Toyota and Honda did.

I'll wager that Toyota sells more Tacoma's and RAV4's than they do Tundra's and Landcruiser, and all you have to do is look around and see that Nissan sells more Frontiers, Xterra's and Pathfinders than they do Titans.

What really happened is that GM in particular abandoned the subcompact and small truck segment of the market when they found out that people would buy really fancy large trucks if they put  cupholders and leather seats in them. It made fantastic short term economic sense, because the margins were enormous in these types of vehicles. The fact that they spent the next decade and a half working on not much more than cupholders and nicer leather interiors wasn't really any concern of anybody's.

It's a prime example one of the problems with postmodern American style capitalism, which puts way, way too much emphasis on annual and even quarterly gains, especially in top-tier executive pay.