GM

[Guest BJM]

I love all old cars and all makes. I have generally collected Buicks, Pontiacs and Chryslers though. I hate seeing GM brought to it's knees like this, wanting to sell 90% of itself to the union and government. Wouldn't you at least go out with a fight, and if you failed - take all the "owners" (i.e. UAW) with you?

[2doorcoupeman]

This wouldn't be happening if GM had done with their other cars like they did with the new camaro.If you have seen the pictures of people gathered around this camaro when parked in public(i've seen a few myself)it's like 1965 all over again.The same is true for the challenger.In a sea of blandness they just stand out.Even the chevy volt when the prototype was shown people wanted one.Then came the engineers and made it an egg..arrgh.

[JFranklin]

If the union goes for the deal they will be getting about 1/2 cent on the dollar of value they are giving! don't believe me? Do some research, you will see. It is top management that put GM in a position to fail. the workers only do as they are directed. What about Ford

[1937hd45]

I'm still asking how many Americans can afford a NEW car, vs a 3-5 year old used car? I just don't see to point of buying a new one.

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BJM</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I hate seeing GM brought to it's knees like this, wanting to sell 90% of itself to the union and government. Wouldn't you at least go out with a fight, and if you failed - take all the "owners" (i.e. UAW) with you?

</div></div>

One more time...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-weight: bold">For Sloan's sake, will this urban myth <span style="font-style: italic">never</span> die?!?!?!</span>

$73 an Hour: Adding It Up </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Finally $800 is $800. I suspect it adds more like $1500 to each car but I lack the hard proof your article points out. Remember some Japanese cars do come from Japan, increasing delivery costs. Plus, they have a better product - at least overall in the last 35 years. </div></div>

Yet "American" cars have enjoyed a price advantage over the "imported" competition for at least the last 15 years, with little apparent effect on their appeal to the general public. <span style="font-weight: bold">All the carping about productivity, inflexible contracts, job banks, supplier unionization, etc. pale when this simple fact is brought into the mix.</span>

If there's such a large and obvious American price advantage, and there is, what's all the whining about?

</div></div>

[old car fan]

Over the states trade and the union did it,every body, way to greedy.I wish we would sell a bushel of wheat for what they get for a barrel of oil.Let them eat the oil,we will take the grain

[Guest Skyking]

GM blew it with dismissing the EV-1, plain & simple!!

[John348]

Do you really think if the workers were paid less the vehicle would be cheaper? No but the profit would be much bigger, Please we are living in the world of on and off $3.00+ a gallon of gas and a $4.00 big mac, they really do not make that much money in the big picture.... stop picking on the people who get up and go to work for a living

Unions brought EVERYONE such benifits as a 40 hour work week, holidays, vacations, and medical insurance, and remember our foreign manufacturers are the children of those who brought us such lovely events like the Batan Death March and the Holocaust. I can still hear my Grandfather saying why would anyone buy anything from those SOB's after Pearl Harbor,

Here is a thought, maybe the doctors get paid too much, and health care is costing way too much. If medical was cheaper so would some of the hourly packages needed to offset medical insurance.

Poor GM, that had a great car with the Pontiac Solstice, they never even tried to sell it

[keiser31]

Biscayne John may just have something here.....any of you doctors out there willing to take a cut in pay?

[1937hd45]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Biscayne John</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Here is a thought, maybe the doctors get paid too much, and health care is costing way too much. If medical was cheaper so would some of the hourly packages needed to offset medical insurance. </div></div>

Medical cost are what they are because of lawyers, same is true of all products.

[Guest THEHKP7M13]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1937hd45</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm still asking how many Americans can afford a NEW car, vs a 3-5 year old used car? I just don't see to point of buying a new one. </div></div>

No kidding. AGREED!

[John348]

I just bought a NEW GMC 2500 Crew Cab gas pick-up. The dealer said to wait until after May 1 to see if they offer anything better before I take delivery. I ordered it and it took only three weeks to build. I never want to buy someones headache. I never saw the point of buying a used one.

My collector cars are the only used ones I want.

[Guest BJM]

My comment was heritage driven, and includes Chrysler. I agree the modern corporations have somewhat lost their way.

As car collectors we look through the haze with rose colored glasses I hope. I never wanted this day to come for GM or Chrysler. I wanted America to rule forever.

Walter P Chrysler, Alred Sloan. Durant, Henry Ford, Henry The Duece, Harley Earl, Pete Estes, DeLorean, Bill Mitchell god rest his soul - all the great names. GM is a corporation of Shadowlands, or souls that inhabit halls and corridors now occupied by bean counters and misfits.

These great men's sweat and imagination are on the line and cowards in high places treat this defining industry like so much chattel on the governments and unions backs.

Folks , you are seeing the dismantlement of 100 plus years of Americana, of great men who may have done so much good for nothing. Walter P Chrysler who got out from GM at a time when creating a new car company was risky and he was a millionaire anyway and set for life - risked it all. Because of him we have the Airflow (a market failure that was a Why Not? decision) the Thunderbolt recently seen at Amelia Island, the Forward Look, playgrounds for Exner and the creation of the Hemi.

Billy Durant who created GM from Buick, added makes then lost it all. Storied manufacturers like Oldsmobile, Cadillac with Henry Leland, Chevrolet, and Pontiac. The silver streaks, the Bunkie Knudsen era, Estes, Wanger, the bold moves of the front wheel drive Toronados, the Eldorados - the Vega even. How about Cole dragging the Corvair into reality.

Sure Buick, cadillac and Chevrolet survive maybe. Chrysler is on the verge of collapse. Ford is barely hanging in there. Ford almost lost it all after WWII yet Henry the Deuce and the "Whiz Kids" dragged it back into existence and glory.

Why can't GM do that now? Why go begging to the government and the socialist union and say "Here you go, we give up!" The GM CEO clearly does not have Harley Earl, Sloan, Durant, Mitchell, Curtice and all the other great GREAT GM leaders blood running in his veins. He is not worthy of the esteemed title.

GM rest in peace. You will never be the same.

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm still asking how many Americans can afford a NEW car... </div></div>

Well, since you asked...

The main rule of thumb usually given for loan approval is that a car payment should be no more than 20% of your net income,which <span style="text-decoration: underline">should</span> (on average) provide enough remaining income for <span style="text-decoration: underline">all</span> other expenses. The median household income in the U.S. is currently $50,233.00 (according to the U.S. Census Bureau), with a marginal tax rate of 25% (currently, assuming no deductions whatsoever, according to the IRS). This leaves the average houshold in the U.S. capable of a monthly car payment of $627.91, leaving $3,348.87 for other expenses (both figures after Federal taxes). That $627.91 would be an upper limit.

Lets assume conservatively that this average household holds back 20% from that figure. This gives them a monthly car payment of $500.00 almost exactly. (The National average car loan payment is $479.00 according to Kipplinger.com.) The most popular new car loan term today is 6 years, and as I type this the national average interest rate for such a loan is 7.17%, which is quite high compared to recent years. Assuming no trade in and no money down (100% financing), this average American family (with good credit) can finance a total car purchase price of $27.240 (<span style="text-decoration: underline">not</span> including 7% sales tax and typical title costs) according to this loan payment calculator.

In other words, the median American household (with average income and average expenses) should be able to afford a well-optioned Prius with no money down or trade in. The average American household size is 2.79 people, The U.S. population at the time I type this is 306,313,519 (again all according to the U.S. Census).

<span style="font-weight: bold">Therefore exactly 54,894,986 Americans "can afford a NEW car",</span> if it costs as much as a well-optioned Prius.

And when they're done, somebody else buys the leftovers hoping that they were well cared for, giving this "average" American more money (either directly or through a paid intermediary) to buy a better car the next time.

[Guest Skyking]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dave@Moon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

In other words, the median American household (with average income and average expenses) should be able to afford a well-optioned Prius with no money down or trade in. </div></div>

So, how is this going to help GM, the subject we're on?????

[Guest windjamer]

HATS OFF TO old car fan. I love it. Now if we can just figure out how to collect some of the money and freebys we give the rest of the world we could pave the streets with gold and feed our own.

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Skyking</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

So, how is this going to help GM, the subject we're on????? </div></div>

I hear they make cars too.

[rocketraider]

Question of affordability is a moot point for most of us on here. The more defining question for me is of shelling out the money for a car I can live with and stand the sight of for several years. <span style="font-weight: bold">No</span> carmaker is building that car for me right now. I am not going to spend long term money on a vehicle that I can't stand its styling or appointments, and I see no point or benefit in taking a 20-30% depreciation hit as soon as I drive it off the lot. Then there's new car insurance and property taxes to consider.

Build a reliable, reasonably priced car with decent and distinctive styling (and yes, they did it before so no good reason they can't do it again) and I might be back in the new car market.

[poci1957]

With this thread posing the question of the affordability of a new car and the desire to buy one, I would contend that adjusted for inflation a new car is as affordable as ever. A 1-2 year old program car is even more so, right now a 2008 Big 3 program car with 15,000 miles may be the best car value in history.

HOWEVER, the question of WHY to buy is the big one. Over the last 20 years the automakers paid so much attention to production economics and cutting content costs that they forgot how to stimulate demand. If they were doing their job properly no one would ask the logic of buying a new car, the new car would be impressive enough to prospects to make them want it, as in the old GM model I keep referring to.

But, for example, if a new car looks like last years model, is only available in only a few colors with little extra trim and does not really excite any emotions in the buyer then he does not get in a hurry to buy. And if that car is available as a year old program car for 40% off the new car price, then why buy the new one at all? You have no emotions or excitement in the transaction, you still get warranty, your friends and neighbors won't notice the difference, so you save the money and make a rational but passion-less purchase. No sizzle, that is the problem IMO.

[Restorer32]

My Son-in-law is more or less consistently the "Salesman of the Month" at the largest local Ford Dealership. In 2007 and early 2008 he was winning that title (and free gas for the month) by selling 8-10 cars per month. The last few months he had been winning with 4-6 cars/month. So far in April he has sold 14 Fords.

[trimacar]

I agree with "no sizzle." Look around you on the streets and parking lots, nothing but boring cars, silver and white are the most popular (and most boring) colors. But, it is the market focus groups that say that is what the American buying public wants. There seems to be a small group of us who like the unusual, but for Joe Sixpack, it doesn't really matter.

New cars hold no interest for me. I need a new Suburban (mine is a '96 with 150K miles), but only for towing a car trailer, and I refuse to part with 10's of thousands of dollars for one. Even it if is only $600 a month, it's still money I can't spend on family or old cars, my pleasures.

Off my soapbox now. David Coco Winchester Va.

[poci1957]

Indeed it is a Catch 22, in that people say they want something different but then tend to buy conservative colors. Further, the bean counters look at what items are not widely popular and discontinue them to save money in production, especially in paint treatments which are very expensive. Lots of colors and especially two tones are expensive in production, taking extra time and steps. But the result still becomes that the cars become a commodity and no one is excited about the purchase anymore. And don't even get me started about gray plastic interiors.........

[Guest BJM]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: poci1957</div><div class="ubbcode-body">With this thread posing the question of the affordability of a new car and the desire to buy one, I would contend that adjusted for inflation a new car is as affordable as ever. A 1-2 year old program car is even more so, right now a 2008 Big 3 program car with 15,000 miles may be the best car value in history.

HOWEVER, the question of WHY to buy is the big one. Over the last 20 years the automakers paid so much attention to production economics and cutting content costs that they forgot how to stimulate demand. If they were doing their job properly no one would ask the logic of buying a new car, the new car would be impressive enough to prospects to make them want it, as in the old GM model I keep referring to. </div></div>

I agree to a point. Chrysler has/had some nice looking vehicles and some dogs. The 300C is a good example of nice styling that does not look like a jellybean BUT it's getting long in the tooth now. And then they have nothing fresh for the Neon or the PT Cruiser, which has looked basically the same since inception.

GM is the same way. The Camaro is nice and distinctive and would make a nice commuter car. I don't need 19 inch tires and 420 horsepower.

The Cobalt - their "small" Chevy car - is a throwaway car and always has been. Going back to the Cavalier. All hard plastic interiors, previously for years was a pushrod motor. You get in some Honda Civics and it's a nice environment. or Hyundai - they are coming out with a 2 door sports coupe with 300 hp and nice modern styling. I am married with one kid and 95% of the time I am by myself in a vehicle - yet I daily drive a 2004 Pontiac Bonneville.

I think my next daily driver will be a Buick Reatta (2 seater)

[poci1957]

Bryan, your Chrysler example is a good one. When the 300 came out it was very appealing and sold very well, the design of the car stimulated demand! But as is their habit at Chrysler they put all their effort into the first appearance and did not plan to freshen the design sufficiently, like with the PT Cruiser you also mention.

Thus an upscale customer buys a 2004 300C and really likes it and in 2007 they are ready to trade, but the new one offers them nothing new. So they go somewhere else. They have done this for several design cycles and it is frustrating. BUT at least Chrysler did interesting, appealing designs with a little "sizzle", they just need to update a bit more often. I only hope they will be around to do so. The Challenger and Camaro are both strong efforts to add some excitement, by the way.

[Guest BJM]

Essential reading in the discussion

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124096698307566437.html

[Richard Lichtfel]

Do you remember the book written several years ago by John Delorian?? "On a clear day you can see General Motors".

I think the problem with these companies is that they got too big and out of control, like our government.

We are all car collectors and like style and cars that are different, but the young people today want a car that looks like everyone else's, most don't want something that sets them out from everyone else. That's why they are so generic. My wife has a white 300M, great car, but she doesn't like it because she can never find it in a parking lot, all the cars look alike. She wants our son-in-law to paint it plum-crazy so she can find it.

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thus an upscale customer buys a 2004 300C and really likes it and in 2007 they are ready to trade, but the new one offers them nothing new. </div></div>

This would be a very unusual situation today. Cars now last an <span style="text-decoration: underline">average</span> of <span style="font-weight: bold">17 years</span> from manufacture to junkyard, and the average length of individual ownership (new <span style="text-decoration: underline">and</span> used car purchases) is nearly 5 years (56.3 months). New car ownership is safely assumed by the NHTSA to be at least 6 years on average.

Personally I dumped a 2 year old Nissan Frontier (at great cost, made up with Prius gas mileage ), but the 3 cars I currently own I've had 13 years (new purchase), 8 years (1 year old when purchased), and 4 years so far (new purchase).

<span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="text-decoration: underline">If styling and pizazz sold cars like it used to, would Subaru and Toyota be the companies sitting pretty these days?</span></span> All that grey plastic serves a real purpose, it won't be out of style before it gets old. Trendy cars, like the new VW Bug and PT Cruiser, become anachronisms in quick terms these days. Could you imagine what it would've been like owning an Edsel or '58 Buick in 1975 when they were 17 years old, and for the last 4 or 5 years before 1975? There's a reason why Steve Carrell's character in <span style="font-style: italic">The Office</span> television series drives a PT Cruiser.

They still make some cars and trucks in bright colors (if not interiors), but the second or third owners usually dump them. They made bright purple 1996 Ford Rangers, bright orange 1996 Nissan trucks, bright yellow 2003 Mitsubishi Lancers, and bright lime green and bright cantelope-colored 1997 Saturns (to mention a few cars I cross-shopped at the time). When was the last time you saw one? You can bet 90-95% of all of them are still on the road, probably having visited Maaco recently.

Like it or not, Honda/Toyota/Subaru/BMW/etc. are making the designs people want. So are Buick/Mercury/Dodge/etc. (although in fewer numbers due to the mis-placed, relatively larger faith they had in SUVs which people truly don't want these days). One has a reputation (deserving or not)that makes the prospect of owning the same car for 6-8 years a less daunting prospect.

It's a high hill that the Big 3 have to climb.

[Guest Bob Call]

The problem with GM, Chrysler and Ford is that Lee Iacocca was the last car guy in charge of a car company. All are now run by lawyers and accountants that don't know excretment about cars and don't care what the buying public wants.

Well, now we will have government owned and managed car companies and you're gonna love the "green" Yugo and Fiat 400 electrics they will soon be making. You'll be pineing for a Chevy Chevette. They will put exhorbiant taxes on gasoline and diesel cars so the average person will have to drive their old car forever (can you say Cuba?)if you don't want a Fedmobile. Look for the "green" freaks at the California Air Resources Board to outlaw gasoline and gasoline fueled cars in the next 10 years with no exceptions for antique, historic, collector or museum cars.

"We'll all be drinkin' that free Bubble Up and eatin' rainbow stew..." Merle Haggard

[Guest BJM]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bob Call</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The problem with GM, Chrysler and Ford is that Lee Iacocca was the last car guy in charge of a car company. All are now run by lawyers and accountants that don't know excretment about cars and don't care what the buying public wants.

</div></div>

Exactly true. Waggonner was - can I say it - a whimp - and this new guy that took over for him is even worse. he is willing to throw up the white flag and give the company to the soclialists.

[Reatta Man]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dave@Moon</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm still asking how many Americans can afford a NEW car... </div></div>

This leaves the average houshold in the U.S. capable of a monthly car payment of $627.91. That $627.91 would be an upper limit.

The most popular new car loan term today is 6 years, and the national average interest rate for such a loan is 7.17%, which is quite high compared to recent years.

...the median American household should be able to afford a well-optioned Prius with no money down or trade in. </div></div>

Geez......

1. I wouldn't sign up for a 5, 6 or 7 year loan or a $627 payment if someone held a gun to my head. And yes, I CAN afford to pay $627 per month; I can also afford to buy a new car with cash (thanks, Dave Ramsey) but choose to NOT put my money into an 'asset' that goes down 40% in value in 12-15 months.

2. I wouldn't buy a Prius (Pius) if someone held TWO guns to my head. Last time I looked, Prius isn't made by GM (the subject of this column).

[Guest Skyking]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Reatta Man</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

2. I wouldn't buy a Prius (Pius) if someone held TWO guns to my head. </div></div>

Speaking of Prius, that style hasn't changed since they were introduced, but I guess because it's Japanese, that's OK!

[Guest BJM]

Dave,

Your analysis is fair about the cost / affordability of a brand new car. Of course, I have some issues.

1. Your analysis is for ONE car. Last time I checked most families required 2 cars. There are a LOT of two wage earner households. Now, I know - for years I drove "beaters" while the wife got the new ride. This is how my parents did it. Dad got the $300 Chevy truck and mom had the new stationwagon.

But most of suburbia is full of two new or newer SUV's, minivans and sedans. It's called keeping up with the Jones'.

Me? I got tired of my nasty rides breaking down and bought an off-new 2004 Pontiac Bonneville in 2007 for $13,400 against a list price of $27,500 new.

I am seriously thinking about a new Camaro or Buick LaCrosse when the Bonneville starts getting long in the tooth but buying a "new" car just because it's "new" has kind of lost it's appeal to me.

[Rawja]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Speaking of Prius, that style hasn't changed since they were introduced, but I guess because it's Japanese, that's OK!</div></div>

More sound and fury...

1st gen 2001-2003

2nd gen 2004-2009

3rd gen 2010-

[Guest Skyking]

?

[R W Burgess]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> ? </div></div>

Ummmmmm!!!!

Wayne

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Speaking of Prius, that style hasn't changed since they were introduced, but I guess because it's Japanese, that's OK! </div></div>

From member, bonnyman

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

This wouldn't be happening if GM had done with their other cars like they did with the new camaro.If you have seen the pictures of people gathered around this camaro when parked in public(i've seen a few myself)it's like 1965 all over again.The same is true for the challenger.In a sea of blandness they just stand out.Even the chevy volt when the prototype was shown people wanted one.Then came the engineers and made it an egg..arrgh.

</div></div>

[keiser31]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bonnyman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This wouldn't be happening if GM had done with their other cars like they did with the new camaro.If you have seen the pictures of people gathered around this camaro when parked in public(i've seen a few myself)it's like 1965 all over again.The same is true for the challenger.In a sea of blandness they just stand out.Even the chevy volt when the prototype was shown people wanted one.Then came the engineers and made it an egg..arrgh.</div></div>

I hate to be picky, but the Camaro came out in 1966 as a 1967 model....not '65.

[Guest Skyking]

Wayne, it's still butt ugly!

I own shoes that look better...........

[R W Burgess]

Sky, I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as they say.

I find it interesting what Jake said below. Seems like the greenies and the government have demanded, no caused, a lot of the styling in our automobiles, because of safety and weight savings. Still, some have done well in the looks department, Chrysler in particular. Either way though, I'd never give up like GM and Chrysler has done. I'd fight and claw my way to the last standing politician. I guess it's the early American reactionary in me!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

member- BJM

I love all old cars and all makes. I have generally collected Buicks, Pontiacs and Chryslers though. I hate seeing GM brought to it's knees like this, wanting to sell 90% of itself to the union and government. Wouldn't you at least go out with a fight, and if you failed - take all the "owners" (i.e. UAW) with you?

_________________________

Bryan "Jake" Moran</div></div>

Wayne

*

*

*

[Guest THEHKP7M13]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dave@Moon</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm still asking how many Americans can afford a NEW car... </div></div>

Well, since you asked...

The main rule of thumb usually given for loan approval is that a car payment should be no more than 20% of your net income,which <span style="text-decoration: underline">should</span> (on average) provide enough remaining income for <span style="text-decoration: underline">all</span> other expenses. The median household income in the U.S. is currently $50,233.00 (according to the U.S. Census Bureau), with a marginal tax rate of 25% (currently, assuming no deductions whatsoever, according to the IRS). This leaves the average houshold in the U.S. capable of a monthly car payment of $627.91, leaving $3,348.87 for other expenses (both figures after Federal taxes). That $627.91 would be an upper limit.

Lets assume conservatively that this average household holds back 20% from that figure. This gives them a monthly car payment of $500.00 almost exactly. (The National average car loan payment is $479.00 according to Kipplinger.com.) The most popular new car loan term today is 6 years, and as I type this the national average interest rate for such a loan is 7.17%, which is quite high compared to recent years. Assuming no trade in and no money down (100% financing), this average American family (with good credit) can finance a total car purchase price of $27.240 (<span style="text-decoration: underline">not</span> including 7% sales tax and typical title costs) according to this loan payment calculator.

In other words, the median American household (with average income and average expenses) should be able to afford a well-optioned Prius with no money down or trade in. The average American household size is 2.79 people, The U.S. population at the time I type this is 306,313,519 (again all according to the U.S. Census).

<span style="font-weight: bold">Therefore exactly 54,894,986 Americans "can afford a NEW car",</span> if it costs as much as a well-optioned Prius.

And when they're done, somebody else buys the leftovers hoping that they were well cared for, giving this "average" American more money (either directly or through a paid intermediary) to buy a better car the next time. </div></div>

All this is assuming the following about the above mentioned people:

1.) All their curreent cars are paid off

2.) They aren't underwater on their houses

3.) They aren't swimming in credit card debt.

4.) They aren't funding a childs college education or still paying off their own

Remember in addition to these banks, the general public using their home equity as a piggy bank got us into this mess too.

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> All this is assuming the following about the above mentioned people:

1.) All their curreent cars are paid off

2.) They aren't underwater on their houses

3.) They aren't swimming in credit card debt.

4.) They aren't funding a childs college education or still paying off their own

</div></div>

No, "all this" is just assuming similar "average" expenses in all other categories, including these.