Toyota's Green Bubble Bursting?
Toyota has gotten a lot of mileage out of portraying itself as the greenest, most fuel-efficient car company on the planet, and has reaped the benefits both financially and public relations wise. Yet they are careening toward becoming the most hypocritical car company on the planet by aggressively opposing desperately needed higher U.S. fuel economy standards. Toyota should be worried that their green bubble will burst.
Let's take a little stock here. The company has sold over 1 million hybrids to consumers who'd rather sip gas than guzzle it, and who want to do their part in the battle against global warming.
But now Toyota is teaming up with Detroit's Big Three to scuttle legislation that would raise fuel economy standards to 35 miles per gallon by 2020 -- a technologically feasible, and urgently needed step for a country President Bush has admitted is "addicted to oil." When our nation is contributing more C02 pollution than any other -- and fueling the global climate crisis -- isn't it the reasonable thing to do to perhaps, I don't know, become more efficient?
For those customers who bought the Prius long before it was "cool" and thought they were investing in Toyota's vision of a gas-sipping fleet, this latest move is insulting. It's a slap in the face to every driver who has helped make Toyota the first foreign company to surpass all the American car companies in sales. We believed the company when it said it was a leader, that it had a vision to sell a million hybrids a year and make its fleet 100 percent hybrid, that it wanted to help move America beyond our addiction to oil. And now this?
Toyota should know better than to follow the dinosaur logic of Detroit, which claims that the 35 m.p.g. fleet-wide goal is "unattainable." Come on Toyota, why don't you use your new position as the largest American car manufacturer to lead this failing industry forward, not follow its relic Detroit rivals down the road to "assisted suicide" as Tom Friedman labeled it last week in the New York Times.
Whether you own a Toyota hybrid or are in the market for a new car, click on NRDC's call to action here and tell Toyota to get a grip. We must move forward, not backward on fuel economy.
www.StopGlobalWarming.org
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
One: its difficult to say why Toyota would take the stance it has over CAFE standards. The BIG THREE hide behind them, as Toyota and others move the technology forward.
Two: CAFE standards don't work particularly well at moving us forward to where we want to be. They are gamed by those who hide behind them and they would, given current automotive technology seriously effect customer choice when it comes to models, size, etc. Even many consumers who recognize the need to kick the oil habit want choice.
Three: Choice of the sort mentioned above is possible, and well within our technological reach. I invite many of you to visit www.rmi.org and read (if you can stomach an engineering treatise)"Winning the Oil Endgame", by Amory Lovins. Amory founded the Rocky Mountain Institute to promote wise use of energy in all forms, while relying on market forces to bring about change.
Often we criticize conservatives for framing an argument in such a way that we are limited to a choice between two starkly divided alternatives. In this argument we are taking the same approach if we insist that the choices are between the Toyota Tundra and the Volt. That is a BUA (butt ugly argument).
we need to take the taxes off imports if american companys can't compete move out of the country. oh wait they already are ....remember the giant sucking sound?
All Toyota is doing is helping its competition put itself out of business while Toyota picks up a larger share of the auto market.
Under Clinton America had the lead in building hybrid cars.
Bush's first act as president was to kill Clinton/Gore programs promoting hybrid cars. That is in exchange for large tax breaks and other legislation that benefited corporate CEOs, Bush got American car companies (really just the CEOs who control them) too abandoned their lead in building more fuel efficient cars.
As a result Toyota and other foreign manufactures took over and have been successful in the fuel efficient car market. Fuel efficient cars are one of the two reasons Toyota has gained market share in the last 6 years.
So what I think Toyota is doing in helping to oppose higher fuel standards is encouraging the American Auto industry to keep building low mileage cars while Toyota continues to expand market share by building higher fuel efficient cars.
OK, the Neos have proven in spades that they are if nothing else just too creepy to run the country. What's even more distressing is that Democrats continually prove they're too god damn stupid to be in charge of anything. I'm speaking of the widespread Clinton/Gore worship. That Lieberman Democrat bunch also was the first administration in 25 years not to up the mileage requirements of auto companies. And if you will just read Al Gore A Users Manual (his record compiled for you by two tree hugging liberals, so don't use the smear argument) you'll have to admit to your stupidity thinking he gives a flying rats ass about the environment. I myself think it's all a calculated campaign to "save" the Democrats come nomination time. The man is a fraud. Clinton is a Republican. You don't have to be a genius to read the damn record, so why the worship? Too damn lazy, or too deep in denial to face facts? The Clintons, Gore and Lieberman as a team destroyed the Democratic party and it exists today as just a place for non neo Republicans to hang their hats. READ THEIR GODDAMN RECORD!! They are not interested in you or whats best for the United States. They are sold out corporate whores. Ever hear of NAFTA of GATT? What the hell do you think they are? Social programs? Unfortunately due to a 350 word limit I can't go on for the hundreds of pages of records, their own words etc. that people are just too stupid or afraid to read. You want a guarantee that we'll occupy Iraq forever? Elect Hillary or any of the Democratic slate and you'll get a guarantee. Sheesh, and this is supposed to be a option to the criminals we have now? Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the U.S. public, that's for sure.
I'll take exception to your lumping of Gore into the DLC/neo-con mix, but in essence, you're correct, IMO.
Gore's work in the environmental field earned him the Nobel. He didn't have to do any of it. He could have sat around the kitchen, eating donuts for the rest of his life. He also doesn't seem particularly eager to join H. Clinton and others in the political shark-feed.
As for the rest of your comments, I'm there with you. H. Clinton is barely the feminine version of corporatism gone "friendly", as described in Bertram Gross' "Friendly Fascism", written just as Ronald Reagan was rising to prominence.
She might find a way to promote universal health care, but she'll see to it that it's as inefficient as possible so that the insurance industry cleans up and impoverishes most of us.
When we noticed that Hillary snuggled up to Murdoch, we should have immediately abandoned her, as a nation. But as you noted, the US public is a spectacularly stupid lot. If Hillary said that we could receive our daily dose of vitamins by dropping electric radios into our bath water, we'd have a 30% decrease in our adult population in a matter of days, as long as we had Limbaugh on the station when we dropped the box.
I am so weary of all these people who demand the government mandate increased CAFE standards. I want to bite the heads off those yapping voices demanding 'government legislation'.
The only government legislation we need is an increased gas tax. If people had to pay $4 or $5 for a gallon of gas, that would be a much stronger incentive and much more effective than any legislation setting fuel economy standards.
If people still want to drive a two-ton SUV when a fill-up costs $150, I say let them do it. Why should the government tell people they can't drive whatever car they wish? (For the record, I drive a 2002 Prius.)
Do I dare point out that the billions of dollars generated from the gas tax could be put to use repairing our bridges and infrastructure, our mass transit facilities, airports and AMTRAK?
We are already being told what to drive. You CAN'T BUY HIGH MILEAGE CARS that are sold in other countries here in the US. I resent that!
There are lots of vehicles sold in other countries that OUR OWN AUTO COMPANIES PRODUCE that you can't buy here. They just won't let them in.
A couple of questions come to mind.
What is the cost to replace these batteries?
Where will the millions of batteries be disposed?
Toyota told us when we bought our Prius that if and when our battery dies we were to bring it back to them. Since none have yet reached that stage, there was no past data to demonstrate when we could expect that to happen, or what Toyota would do with the battery. One can assume, possibly, that these batteries will be shipped to China for recycling, along with all the rest of the toxic waste this country produces. It will eventually return to us then, in some form of dog food, or perhaps childs toy.
I'd expect that the impotent battery juice would be converted to the next generation of ecstacy-producing K-Y jelly.
Let's never underestimate the ingenuity of the unfettered "free market."
Today lead acid batteries mostly get shipped over the border to Mexico, where the lead is re-smelted and re-used and the plastic cases end up in huge landfills. Hopefully they will start to become recyclable too, no reason why not.
Dunno about the "used" sulfuric acid, probably poured down the Rio Grande.
Unfortunately, due to the lax environmental regulations, lots of nasty smoke from Mexico's copper and lead smelters, lining our border, waft right across.
I'm sure Nickel-metal hydrid batteries, and in the future, lithium batteries will similarly be recycled.
The solution is Tax credits to build CLEAN battery recycling facilities here in the United States instead of exporting jobs and creating pollution which knows no borders.
As fuel prices continue to rise, the market will swing toward better fuel economy. By balking at fuel standards the American auto makers will find themselves flat footed losers in the world market---again.
Toyota may be fighting the govt standards knowing full well that they will be working to improve fuel economy while the "Big 3" plod along, happy that the feds haven't made them do better.
Once again, Toyota will be dominating the market producing fuel efficient vehicles while Detroit languishes.
Toyota's actions are a "Trojan Horse."
While Detroit wastes its time fighting what is inevitable, and Toyota prodding them along, (before they move completely to China) Toyota will capture more and more of the market.
Detroit is finished.
Too much bad design; too stubborn; too married to quarterly reports; too corrupt along with out "regulating" politicians, and anxious to leave the "Good 'Ole USA!"
Let 'em go.....they've been crying since the '70's and haven't had much innovation at all.
For decades, Detroit built cars to fill needs of purchasers. Then they began to plant the need-seeds themselves, leading to wretched excess in design and consumption, all in the name of corporate profits. Virtually the minute government stepped in, with the advent of the first, rudimentary safety and emissions legislation, the utility and reliability of the Detroit-built car became compromised, and the design got worse and worse, opening the door to foreign companies, many of which made superior products. The 1970s saw Detroit lose it completely; there have been precious few flashes of brilliance since.
Now we have Toyota assuming the ermine-edged mantle of arrogance that Detroit once owned; lock, stock, and four-barreled carburetor.
Case in point: The "New" Toyota FJ Land Cruiser, an ugly Tinkertoy of a monstrosity that proudly gets 16 mpg city/19 highway. How many hybrids must Toyota build and sell to make up for the ridiculous excess of just one of these?
I won't go into the visual pollution aspect of the FJ at this time...
The thing is, from what I have read from people in other countries, the big 3 have already produced high mileage vehicles, IN OTHER COUNTRIES.
They just don't want to do it HERE. Must be some kind of collusion with the oil companies or something. That's the only thing that makes any sense, unless someone else can come up with an explanation.
Economically, I can't buy a new car for another 4 years, but at that time, I'm going to be looking for a plugin-diesel hybrid -- unless things change dramatically. Plugin to take recharging the batteries off the fuel consumption and diesel because I think that the best and most sustainable way to go in renewable fuels is biodiesel, not ethanol. But again, a lot can change in 4 years.
2pennygal-
Me too, me too!!!!!! I do not for the life of me understand why we can't have cars like others countries with higher MPG. Why are we being governed by oil barons? This is just nuts! I want an electric car/battery hybrid. I don't want to have to use fuel any longer!!!!!!
The reason we don't get those hogher milage small cars are our pollution control standards and safet/crash requirements.
I'm with you!
Well, as a production control manager at GM who is responsible for a department that publishes fuel economy data to the government each month, I thought I throw my two cents in. When we're not publishing fuel economy figures, we publishing weekly/daily production schedules, tooling and forecasts. We end every model year ripping up our production schedules in order to maximize small cars and trucks to satisfy fuel economy requirements and build vehicles not in demand that sit on dealer lots for months.
Fuel economy should be dependent on supply and demand market forces. If gas goes up in price and you want to save money, buy a fuel efficient vehicle. We already have pollution requirements which I support entirely. Regulate c02 as a pollutant and set limits for pollutants at the per mile level. That'll give our engineers more flexibility to deal with the pollutants without also having to control for fuel economy. Trap the vapors and re-use them to reduce c02 emissions even if fuel economy has to suffer.
The ultimate answer is a NASA style development program to bring hydrogen to market. The auto companies are hesitant to move without the infrastructure and the oil companies have no incentive to move from oil until it runs out.
As for Toyota, they are now building big trucks and sedans and are now in the same situation that GM has been in for over 10 years. It's not surprising they are fighting fuel economy increases.
As a manager, I was advocating a plug-in hybrid while the Prius was in development. The concern is the cost of batteries, the weight they add and the need to replace them all after 40,000-50,000 miles. Toyota disingenuously said they didn't come out with a plug-in because they didn't want to confuse the market. The Volt is a great concept, but I can tell you it's not in our 3 year tooling plan.
Plug-ins switch the pollution to coal-fired electrical plants, so we have to look for clean alternatives there as well.
Yeah, I was really disappointed when Toyota started selling those big trucks and sedans. The 1st thought that came to mind was "sellout".
"Fuel economy should be dependent on supply and demand market forces."
In theory, you're right. But Americans don't pay the real price of gasoline, so supply and demand doesn't work. Furthermore, supply and demand doesn't account for the initial investment that needs to happen to make PHEVs and BEVs cost-effective. The marginal cost of supplying the millionth BEV is likely to be comparable to (or even lower than) the marginal cost of a gasoline vehicle today. But until we make the investment, we'll never sell a million BEVs.
"reduce c02 emissions even if fuel economy has to suffer."
Look, the chemistry is really simple. Every unit of fuel contains a certain amount of carbon, and the combustion of the fuel neither creates nor destroys the carbon. The ideal hydrocarbon combustion process produces CO2 and H20. You can't reduce CO2 emissions without reducing the amount of fuel consumption or implementing carbon sequestration.
"The ultimate answer is a NASA style development program to bring hydrogen to market."
I'm sorry, but hydrogen is a cruel joke. The well-to-wheel efficiency of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles with hydrogen produced from natural gas is approximately the same as that of vehicles that use the natural gas directly. Although both natural gas and hydrogen vehicles are significantly less efficient than conventional gasoline and diesel vehicles, at least natural gas vehicles are feasible. Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles typically cost upwards of a million dollars apiece and the fuel supply infrastructure is daunting.
What we need is a NASA style development program to bring advanced lithium-based batteries to market.
"the need to replace them all after 40,000-50,000 miles."
A battery with a range of 200 miles per cycle and assembled from ordinary laptop lithium ion cells is good for 100,000 miles. Improving range improves lifetime proportionally, as does improving the cycle life of each cell.
"Plug-ins switch the pollution to coal-fired electrical plants"
They shift pollution to the grid, which is only 55% coal-fired in the U.S. btw, but they don't shift an equal amount of pollution. It takes less than 1/3 the carbon to power electric vehicles than it takes to power gasoline vehicles. This math assumes that the grid is entirely supplied by coal and natural gas, so in reality it's even less carbon.
We don't need solar panels everywhere to make electric vehicles more environmentally friendly than gasoline vehicles. Although that would certainly help, powering BEVs off the existing grid would be a dramatic reduction in carbon emissions.
Of course, vehicle cost is the limiting factor. But with today's BEVs getting the equivalent of 135 mpg by carbon content and upwards of 200 mpg by energy cost, one can justify spending quite a bit more on a BEV or PHEV than on a HEV or conventional gasoline vehicle. A 2x cost reduction from current lithium ion battery packs would result in a $35-45K BEV that gets 250-300 miles per cycle and gets 5-10x more miles per dollar than conventional and hybrid vehicles.
The thing about technology is that something that's 3 years out will forever remain 3 years out if being 3 years out means it's not a good investment. If every American contributes $1 per year for three years, the technology will be more than ready. What the hell are we waiting for? Why aren't we investing in our future?
By 2020 the high price of oil (thank you Peak Oil) will prevent the majority of us from using cars. I guess it wasn't such a great idea basing our entire civilization around a finite resource.
Let's talk in 2020 when you are proven wrong, again.
The emphasis here is heading in the wrong direction. Only a very small number of consumers will make an automobile purchase based on "doing the right thing" for the environment. Laurie, you've got it wrong when you state that people who buy Hybrids now are just jumping on the bandwagon because it's cool. Actually, this group is sacrificing the most financially.
Prius, and other hybrids, gained popularity in California and elsewhere, because they qualified for:
1) a tax rebate and
2) a sticker that allowed the driver to use the carpool lane regardless of the number of passengers.
Now that both of those programs have reached their limits, car companies are improvising to boost their sales to a sceptical marketplace that is still very much driven by PRICE. No longer are there lines of people waiting to buy a Hybrid, and carmakers have excesses on their lots. But Newspaper ads for ANY car maker of late are enticing the consuming public with promises of 0% financing, not on their fuel efficient models, but on their biggest gas guzzlers. Looking at the new cars on the road, at least where I live, this seems to be a successful campaign. Bottomline, the public will always be driven by PRICE, and affordable financing will dictate how much CO2 is produced by the driving public. Better to focus your energy on closing coalplants, or supporting solar and windfarms. The public will continue to buy whatever is cheap. Just ask Walmart...
So, will you advocate a boycott on Prius (and all other Toyotas) if they stick to their guns (which they obviously will)? If so, is that counterproductive?
I don't mean to offend, but this argument comes across as shrill. People can still choose to waste gas even with higher limits. I think a bigger problem in this country is (1) white flight, such that every highway in and out of every city is crammed with every white xenophobe who lives far from the city, where the minorities walk, bike or bus to the nearby buildings that they scrub so the white folk can comfortably siphon cash out of the city; and (2) our fat ass dependency on cars, whether high MPG or not.
Who's doing more to help the environment -- the guy with a Hummer who drives 20 miles a week and bikes to work, or the fat ass in the Prius who drives 150 miles a week?
Toyota should be commended for the choices they offer.
It was US government protection ( crony capitalism) that has caused the decline of Ford, Chrysler and GM.
Who knew that those crappy little Japanese cars would eventually dominate the world market?
Certainly not Condoleezza Rice.
Hurray for Toyota !
Todays current Prius's and Hyrbrids are wonderful. They work, and people are buying them.
These people / consumers are able to make use of these smaller vehicles for their daily lives, and to that, I salute them for doing what they can do to ensure that less pollution in going into the air, less oil is being used, and less gasoline is being used as they tout around town in their efficient vehicles.
But what about families who cannot fit in these vehicles?
What if, you say, you have 2 kids and a spouse, and a dog, and you want to take a trip? What do you do with the Baby Seats, the Strollers, the Playpen, the baggage, and the cooler? Surely you can't possibly think that all of this stuff can fit in a little fuel efficient vehicle, can you?
This is why Toyota, along with GM, Ford and Chyrsler are absolutely right to object to this standard.
Christopher Dodd, Presidential candidate, I'd like to see that guy, along with his wife, and 2 kids take a long trip somewhere, say up to Maine, or Ohio.... loaded up with the Baby Seats, the Strollers, the Cooler and the Family Dog, along with all of the other stuff a FAMILY needs when away for a week or so, and pack that all into a TOYOTA PRIUS.
It isn't going to happen.... the trip would be a disaster.... and most likely a divorce would follow.
In 2 yrs General Motors is going to be unveiling the 'Volt'.. a car that runs on electric.
More and more cars that get 30 - 40 MPG will be introduced... and people will buy them for daily commuters.
But what about the Family Vehicle? You are not going to get a big 4500 - 5000 pound vehicle that is going to haul a family and get great gas mileage, sorry it is not going to happen!
Hurray for Toyota... they see reality... those who criticize Toyota only see the walls of the Bubble they live in.
Millions of Europeans travel this way, and think nothing of it. They have learned the "less is more" packing lesson. Our family of 4 (less the dog, who gets carsick) vacationed in our Prius for over 2000 miles very comfortably, and affordably too. If you have to travel with your house on your back, better to stay home in the first place.
Hey, here's a novel idea. Instead of owning a car that is too big for your daily routine so you can vacation a couple times a year, you buy a smaller car for day-to-day and rent a bigger car for the vacations?
Cheaper for you, better for the rest of us.
This is exactly what we do. We have a fuel efficient small used car for every day and we rent a mini van twice a year for long trips. It's 600 to rent for a week but cheaper than owning a big car and better for everyone else.
"In 2 yrs General Motors is going to be unveiling the 'Volt'.. a car that runs on electric." ??
Where will it be manufactured?
In three to five years, GM will not be producing anything in the US. The majority of GM auto's sold in the US are made in Canada, Mexico, China. GM wants out of the US, and wants to pay their workers the same as Chinese autoworkers, slave wages.
What happened to the GM electric car in California? According to the movie about who killed it, they were all recalled, ( they were leased, not sold) and scrapped. The people that ran them swore by them as being great, but, less oil, so, scrap them and promise pie in the sky hydogen, years away, at the expense of NOW technlogy that worked. The oil companies are smirking, status quo for another 20 years.
Please tell me, then, how my parents, in the 1970s took us three kids on week-long trips in our Ford Taurus? How come families these days suddenly need huge cars to "fit"? I understand that three car-seats won't fit in the back of a small car, but two certainly will. My aptly named Honda Fit easily accommodates two car-seats and a dog in the back, plus a picnic box. All this without guzzling gas or endangering others.
35 MPG by 2020 unattainable?
This is as clear a message that the status quo refuses to change as any you've ever seen. The target should be 80-100 by 2020. A lack of imagination only eclipsed by the lack of committment. There are three resources that are escalating all world economic, ecological, social, and political chaos: energy; fresh water; and leadership. Maybe if Wall Street dissapears under a high tide, they'll get it. No, they will have moved to higher ground! Japan was provoked into Pearl Harbor by the US oil embargo in August, 1941. We were providing 80% of thir oil imports at the time. So what is the automobile Pearl Harbor? Do we really think the world can continue with this state of denial? 35 MPG by 2020 isn't unattaintable, it's an international disgrace.
1) Humans only contribute about .3% to 5% of all greenhouse gas emissions (the rest occur naturally).
So highly unlikely humans are causing it.
2) The current warming trend started in the mid-to-late 1800's, well before large scale industrialization and autos.
3) The earth has warmed and cooled about every 1500 years over the past millions of years (before autos and factories).
All the data is available on the internet (I know liberals and environmentalists hate facts and science, but give it a try)
Let's not forget that temps fell from the 40's to the 70's while CO2 emissions rose. Sounds like conclusive proof to me.
Proof of what? I thought the temps were supposed to rise and fall on a 1,500 year cycle? Here your talking all within a few decades. So in actuality the overall temp direction is what should be considered not from "the 40's to the 70's" The icecaps are melting are they not? What more do you want? Therefore the climate must be warming on average. What makes you think Co2 emissions is the only factor here? Very simplistic of you.
So is the report from the last world summit on climate change. Astoundingly, a very large majority of scientists, who deal in facts on this topic, disagree. The rate of change is NOT explained by natural cycles. Mid 1800's- does industrial revolution ring a bell? Coal (a really henious contributer)?
And that first one, what a red herring! Just 0.3% change in a medicine can be the difference between healing or killing. A 0.3% difference can be the difference in a chemical concoction that is safe and one that goes boom. (Disclaimer- I'm a chemist. I'm paid to know this.)
So, a small human contribution can certainly be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
Good post wiseferret. You can tell these people don't even read National Geographic. Then they start citing Rush Limbaugh's top ten reasons to deny climate change is real.
Lazy and indolent minds. The economy is great. The war in Iraq is going swimmingly. Global warming is a hoax. There's no such thing as racism. It's the borrowers fault the lender ate him. The list goes on forever.
It's called Denial. See a problem? That's easy. Deny it. Run away from it. These are the people who run our country by the way. Is it any wonder what a disasterous 7 years it's been? Lying criminals tend to have that effect.
If your fat and happy screw everyone else. The Republican philosophy.
That may be true, but there's still the problem of running out of oil.
Yawn, you denialists are such simplistic tools. Wait until the next IPCC report (the result of nearly 3,000 climatologists world-wide, and continually reviewable by academics and policymakers) comes out in November. It's rapidly becoming clear that previous change rate estimates were too conservative. Big surprise, we're grossly exacerbating what was previously a slow interglacial period. And the changes now are occuring in decades, not millenia, giving nature no chance to keep pace. But I guess that's just too complex a concept for some people.
It's still warming either way.
Your assumptions have no merit. If man contributes .3% and that's enough to cause catastrophic warming than it wouldn't be "highly unlikely". It's not like .3 to .5% is so small as to be unable to cause a difference. Are you saying a half a part in a hundred is statistically insignificant? Doubtful.
The earth has cooled and warmed before we were using cars and building factories but I don't understand what that proves. Really I do understand. It proves nothing. It's the warming WITH the auto's and the factories added in we are concerned with here not the warming from 1500 years ago. Isn't it?
What was your point anyway? Could it have been that your not a scientist and therefore unable to interpret the data but you can make illogical assumptions with the best of us?
The point is:
THE DEBATE IS NOT OVER !!
As I proved. By definition.
Probably a business ploy - give Detroit enough rope to hang themselves, and Toyota will still make models far exceeding Detroit's.
Weekend trip of 1,100 miles in Corolla with 40,000 miles yielded 39 mpg at 70 mph and 42 mpg at 55 mpg. I'm happy.
Yeah, right. Keep buying foreign cars. The reason you buy them is because they are CHEAP. And the reason they are CHEAP is because of the payscale of the Japanese worker. You all want the GM worker to work for 2.50 an hour so you can drive a CHEAP auto. Stop patting yourself on the back because you drive a fuel efficient auto. You are a hypocite.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but go to the dealers lot and read the sticker. A MUCH higher percentage of a Toyota is made in the USA than any Ford, GM or Chrysler in existence. Toyota's have manufacturing plants in the US. They are really not imported anymore. I drive a Camry that was 91% made in the USA. Can any of Detroit's big three claim that percentage?
WOW! I had no idea the two Toyota plants in Huntsville, Alabama, only hired JAPANESE!!
Who'd a thunk it???
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
