: Decision ?



john d
07-16-06, 11:46 AM
What would you rather buy:
a. Chrysler built by MB?
b Cadillac built by Nissan?
c Lincoln built by Honda?
d None of the above?

I~LUV~Caddys8792
07-16-06, 11:56 AM
I choose A. Because an american luxury car should not be made by people who make econo cars.

Lord Cadillac
07-16-06, 12:09 PM
I think Nissan will have more to benefit from Cadillac than vise verse. Just like Chrysler had more to benefit in the deal than Mercedes... Chevrolet may benefit from the deal.. I don't think it's anything even worth thinking about if you're a Cadillac owner...

I~LUV~Caddys8792
07-16-06, 01:03 PM
Yeah, now that I think about it, I don't think Nissan would change Cadillac. Cadillac is a distinctly american brand, and it's very recognizeable around the world. Nissan already has Infiniti so they have no reason to morph Cadillac at all to fit their tastes.

RedGalant2k1
07-16-06, 01:26 PM
I choose A. Because an american luxury car should not be made by people who make econo cars.

Acura and Infiniti are fantastic brands offered from Honda and Nissan.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
07-16-06, 01:45 PM
Acura and Infiniti are fantastic brands offered from Honda and Nissan.

Yeah but that's different. They're asian luxury car brands...totally different from the American luxury car philosophy of bigger is better. That's something that Nissan or Honda will never understand. If I want a 4500 lb luxury sedan stretching 225" long, with a pushrod V8 engine under it's hood powering the rear wheels, I'll look to GM (or Ford). If I want an all wheel drive midsize luxury sedan with a DOHC V6 or V8 with loads of technology, I'll look to the M45 or GS430.

SpeedyArizona
07-16-06, 02:41 PM
a. Chrysler built by MB?

Well isn't it already? Daimler-Chrysler?

I honestly don't think Nissan would change Cadillac. People who buy them aren't looking for an oval-shaped vehicle with a V6...


Acura and Infiniti are fantastic brands offered from Honda and Nissan.

Acura isn't exactly what I would call a luxury brand, it caters to more of the midsize segment than a luxury one. Infiniti is a great brand but I view it as a more near-luxury brand. They do make great vehicles, can't argue with that:D.

My definition of a luxury brand: One that caters to the specific luxury segment. The only cars they make are either near-luxury or luxury vehicles, with one entry-level vehicle.

My politically-incorrect list of luxury brands:

Audi
BMW
Bentley
Buick- On the fence
Cadillac
Infiniti- On the fence
Jaguar
Lexus
Lincoln
Maserati
Maybach
Mercedes-Benz
Porsche
Rolls Royce
Saab- On the fence

I~LUV~Caddys8792
07-16-06, 03:46 PM
Speedy, I agree with many of your points there, but I think Acura is a luxury brand. They are Honda's flagship line, just like Infiniti or Lexus, but their price range is far wider than Lexus or Infiniti's. Lexuses base model is the IS250, which retails for around $31,000 and Infiniti's base is the G35, which goes for around $35,000, but Acura's base model is the RSX which goes for around $23,000 if I'm not mistaken, so it's a lot easier to get into an Acura. But Lexus and Infiniti both have cars that retail for over $65,000 new if I'm not mistaken, and ever since Acura got rid of the NSX, none of their cars cost more than $65,000. I believe their RL tops out around $54,000.

Audi, I definetly think is a luxury brand. They are 3nd on the VW totem pole, right below Bentley and Lamborghini for price. Their base A4 goes for around $29,000 new and their top A8 W12 is around $125,000 new. Same sort of price range as Mercedes Benz, but M-B has a bigger model range.

SpeedyArizona
07-16-06, 05:13 PM
Audi, I definetly think is a luxury brand. They are 3nd on the VW totem pole, right below Bentley and Lamborghini for price. Their base A4 goes for around $29,000 new and their top A8 W12 is around $125,000 new. Same sort of price range as Mercedes Benz, but M-B has a bigger model range.

I do see your point, Audi has never seemed to me, a luxury brand. I guess I never have taken a serious look at their product lineup (mainly because I don't want one;)). I classified Audi as a luxury brand now that I've seen their lineup.


Infiniti both have cars that retail for over $65,000 new if I'm not mistaken

I believe the Q45 retails for around $55,000. Acura's flagship RL retails for $54,000 like you mentioned. I still don't see Acura as a luxury brand, they may be the flagship brand but it doesn't automatically make them a luxury brand.

Destroyer
07-16-06, 05:42 PM
Well we all know Chrysler became a better car under MB ownership. They revived the V8 RWD platform and came up with some kller rides. Could Lincoln and Cadillac (i.e. Ford and GM) benefit from Nissan and Honda?. Yes, as long as the cars continue to be American styled but with more quality materials and assembly. :thumbsup:

john d
07-16-06, 08:14 PM
Just read where Toyota may make a bif for GM.
Would that be the better for the automobile buyer, GM and America than Nissan?
The saying I've heard is what's good for GM is good for American amd vice versa.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
07-16-06, 10:06 PM
Well we all know Chrysler became a better car under MB ownership. They revived the V8 RWD platform and came up with some kller rides. Could Lincoln and Cadillac (i.e. Ford and GM) benefit from Nissan and Honda?. Yes, as long as the cars continue to be American styled but with more quality materials and assembly. :thumbsup:

Don't get me wrong, the DCX thing is great, but I still think Chrysler's heyday was from about '57-'72 or so. Most of their cars back then had cutting edge technology, with high quality, powerful motors and transmissions, and they really had some neat features that nobody else had thought of. Then from about '73-79 or so, they still made some good products, but they had introduced a lot of crap and then by about '81, things really turned for the worse IMO with the introduction of the K-Car, and other shoddy small cars.

john d
07-17-06, 01:37 AM
I choose A. Because an american luxury car should not be made by people who make econo cars.
Go with the Town Car. My 94 TC had 200k when I gave it to my daughter after I rebuilt the steering linkages. At 225k still gets 24 mpg hiway and no need to add oil between 4k oil changes which has been the routines since new.
Like to get it back or one like it.

Elvis
07-17-06, 10:05 AM
From that list I'd go with the Honda/Lincoln.

I doubt that anything substantive will come out of these Nissan/Peugeot/GM talks. If GM had the money they would buy Nissan like a cheap whore. Not the other way around.

Really what I see happening in the future is a Honda/GM alliance.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
07-17-06, 11:05 AM
Go with the Town Car. My 94 TC had 200k when I gave it to my daughter after I rebuilt the steering linkages. At 225k still gets 24 mpg hiway and no need to add oil between 4k oil changes which has been the routines since new.
Like to get it back or one like it.

I really like the '91-97 Town Cars. They're about my 4th favorite american luxury sedan from the '90s. 5th if you include the '91-'93 deVilles.

OffThaHorseCEO
07-17-06, 12:01 PM
Don't get me wrong, the DCX thing is great, but I still think Chrysler's heyday was from about '57-'72 or so. Most of their cars back then had cutting edge technology, with high quality, powerful motors and transmissions, and they really had some neat features that nobody else had thought of. Then from about '73-79 or so, they still made some good products, but they had introduced a lot of crap and then by about '81, things really turned for the worse IMO with the introduction of the K-Car, and other shoddy small cars.

no offense but arent you like 19 or 20?

you speak so confidentally about these cars and all these generations of cars as if you drove them new or were around when they were introduced, sure alot of them are in mostly shitty condition by now but so are alot of cadillacs. most people will just assume the cadillacs werent taken good care of and the chryslers were just shitty. it may have been that way, it may have not been that way, i was too busy playin with toys to know or care, hell i wasnt even around when some of the cars you mentioned were built so that means neither were you. research is great, but real experience is better, like i said no offense but i think you should leave the ratings of older cars to older members who will go off of experience not just what they've been told or read online.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
07-17-06, 12:45 PM
no offense but arent you like 19 or 20?

you speak so confidentally about these cars and all these generations of cars as if you drove them new or were around when they were introduced, sure alot of them are in mostly shitty condition by now but so are alot of cadillacs. most people will just assume the cadillacs werent taken good care of and the chryslers were just shitty. it may have been that way, it may have not been that way, i was too busy playin with toys to know or care, hell i wasnt even around when some of the cars you mentioned were built so that means neither were you. research is great, but real experience is better, like i said no offense but i think you should leave the ratings of older cars to older members who will go off of experience not just what they've been told or read online.

19. I read alot.

Destroyer
07-17-06, 01:24 PM
19. I read alot.Until recently nobody gave a crap for the old Chryslers. They were rust prone and had a lot electrical problems. Even in the 60's there big body cars were unibody not full frame. Chrysler products were not as good as GM or even Ford back in the day. Still I loved the old Mopars. I myself have owned a '61 Dodge Polara, 66 Newport convertible, '68 Dodge Dart GT convertible and a '71 Satellite w/440. Even though they had their problems, there's just something so damn cool about 'em. Cant put a finger on it.

OffThaHorseCEO
07-17-06, 01:38 PM
see thats what i meant, he's owned these vehicles so he can compare instead of just regurgitating information he saw on a message board (assuming he really has owned these vehicles and isnt just frontin)

Elvis
07-17-06, 01:59 PM
I defer to Sandy on these issues.

I like the way they looked in the early 60's, and the muscle cars from the late-60's were hot and had a reputation for power. But there's still a Dodge/Plymouth stigma in my mind that may never leave.

I'm sure there was a good reason why the government had to bail them out ten years later.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
07-17-06, 02:45 PM
see thats what i meant, he's owned these vehicles so he can compare instead of just regurgitating information he saw on a message board (assuming he really has owned these vehicles and isnt just frontin)

Understandable. He (along with many others) have gotten their information firsthand. I get most of mine second hand, from reading other's information. I don't see what the big issue is here, as long as the information is truthful it's ok IMO.

OffThaHorseCEO
07-17-06, 02:57 PM
its a matter of opinion which i guess means it wont matter to most, its not a serious issue, just me mentioning i really dislike when someone rates or reviews somethin they werent really exposed to. that would be like me saying, the fifties was a wonderful decade for this and that

dont take it personally, like i said no offense to you or anything.

Lord Cadillac
07-17-06, 05:23 PM
Acura and Infiniti are fantastic brands offered from Honda and Nissan.

Don't forget Lexus by Toyota...

I~LUV~Caddys8792
07-17-06, 07:00 PM
that would be like me saying, the fifties was a wonderful decade for this and that

I wouldn't really mind that, it's just stuff we learned in high school history class. As long as the information is proven accurate and is widely known, then I see no big deal in repeating what you heard.

RedGalant2k1
07-17-06, 09:04 PM
Well isn't it already? Daimler-Chrysler?

I honestly don't think Nissan would change Cadillac. People who buy them aren't looking for an oval-shaped vehicle with a V6...



Acura isn't exactly what I would call a luxury brand, it caters to more of the midsize segment than a luxury one. Infiniti is a great brand but I view it as a more near-luxury brand. They do make great vehicles, can't argue with that:D.

My definition of a luxury brand: One that caters to the specific luxury segment. The only cars they make are either near-luxury or luxury vehicles, with one entry-level vehicle.

My politically-incorrect list of luxury brands:

Audi
BMW
Bentley
Buick- On the fence
Cadillac
Infiniti- On the fence
Jaguar
Lexus
Lincoln
Maserati
Maybach
Mercedes-Benz
Porsche
Rolls Royce
Saab- On the fence

No offense, but you should really go drive a Infiniti Q45. Coming in at $60,000 with all the options DVD Nav, 19" wheels, heated AND cooled leather seats, backup camera, etc etc... Its definitely a luxury car.

Same goes for the Acura RL, topping $60,000 fully loaded its most definitely a luxury car.

(Btw, thats the same price the top level new DTS/DHS Cadillacs sell for.

RedGalant2k1
07-17-06, 09:13 PM
Don't get me wrong, the DCX thing is great, but I still think Chrysler's heyday was from about '57-'72 or so. Most of their cars back then had cutting edge technology, with high quality, powerful motors and transmissions, and they really had some neat features that nobody else had thought of. Then from about '73-79 or so, they still made some good products, but they had introduced a lot of crap and then by about '81, things really turned for the worse IMO with the introduction of the K-Car, and other shoddy small cars.

Don't speak to soon about the Chrysler K-Cars. Those shoddy little boxes saved that company from bankruptcy in the 1980s. That and Chryslers invention of the MiniVan, also in the 1980s.

Be thankful we don't have to mess with cars from the 50s, 60s, 70s, even 80s, on a regular basis. Cars today are far and away light years ahead of those years.



Don't forget Lexus by Toyota...

Most assuredly not to be forgotten, many of my business partners, as well as my parents own Lexus cars or trucks. They are fantastically reliable, and the accoutrements are astounding.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
07-17-06, 09:25 PM
Don't speak to soon about the Chrysler K-Cars. Those shoddy little boxes saved that company from bankruptcy in the 1980s. That and Chryslers invention of the MiniVan, also in the 1980s.

Definetly. They did make the company a lot of money back in the early '80s, when they were facing bankruptcy, but from a styling standpoint...blah! Plus, they had a lot of reliability problems from what I've heard.

SpeedyArizona
07-17-06, 09:51 PM
No offense, but you should really go drive a Infiniti Q45. Coming in at $60,000 with all the options DVD Nav, 19" wheels, heated AND cooled leather seats, backup camera, etc etc... Its definitely a luxury car.

Same goes for the Acura RL, topping $60,000 fully loaded its most definitely a luxury car.


I was referring to the entire brand, not a single car. Acura and Infiniti may make a luxury vehicle but that doesn't make them a luxury brand. It's like saying "since Volkswagen makes the $65,000-$100,000 Phaeton, it makes them a luxury brand".

RedGalant2k1
07-17-06, 09:53 PM
Definetly. They did make the company a lot of money back in the early '80s, when they were facing bankruptcy, but from a styling standpoint...blah! Plus, they had a lot of reliability problems from what I've heard.

Every domestic company made complete junk in the late 70s early 80s. There is a big reason why they are so rarely seen on roads now. They are mostly sitting in a scrap heap from either rusting, mechanical failures, or both.

Cars of the late 70s/early 80s made next to no horsepower, weighed way too much, and had poor gas mileage to boot. All that contributed to the lack of any kind of decent performing vehicle, save only a few domestic monikers.

RedGalant2k1
07-17-06, 09:59 PM
I was referring to the entire brand, not a single car. Acura and Infiniti may make a luxury vehicle but that doesn't make them a luxury brand. It's like saying "since Volkswagen makes the $65,000-$100,000 Phaeton, it makes them a luxury brand".

Granted. But saying Cadillac or Lincoln are completely luxury brands is in the wrong as well. Cadillacs and Lincolns start around what? $30,000? Acura, Lexus, and Infiniti start at what? $30,000?

Just because Lincoln makes the TownCar, or Cadillac makes the DHS/DTS doesn't mean they are a luxury brand either.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
07-17-06, 10:09 PM
Just because Lincoln makes the TownCar, or Cadillac makes the DHS/DTS doesn't mean they are a luxury brand either.

I don't think I've heard much more bullshit on this site...ever. I'm surprised anyone could think this. Cadillac and Lincoln ARE luxury brands, and no one can argue this. How could you think it's not?! They're the flagship brands of Ford and GM, and are the most expensive cars america builds. How are they NOT luxury cars?! It's an insult to this board to say they're not.

SpeedyArizona
07-17-06, 10:37 PM
Granted. But saying Cadillac or Lincoln are completely luxury brands is in the wrong as well. Cadillacs and Lincolns start around what? $30,000? Acura, Lexus, and Infiniti start at what? $30,000?

Just because Lincoln makes the TownCar, or Cadillac makes the DHS/DTS doesn't mean they are a luxury brand either.

I think you said that just to argue. It has no substance to it what-so-ever:alchi: ! Cadillac is definetly a luxury brand; take a look at the CTS, STS, XLR, DTS, and Escalade not to mention the V lineup! Everything Cadillac makes in categorized at a luxury or near luxury vehicle. I don't think I've ever heard anything to ridiculous!

Lincoln is definetly a luxury brand also, it's what they cater to! Another ridiculous comment...

And I never said Lexus wasn't a luxury brand:tisk: .

SpeedyArizona
07-17-06, 10:39 PM
I don't think I've heard much more bullshit on this site...ever. I'm surprised anyone could think this. Cadillac and Lincoln ARE luxury brands, and no one can argue this. How could you think it's not?! They're the flagship brands of Ford and GM, and are the most expensive cars america builds. How are they NOT luxury cars?! It's an insult to this board to say they're not.

I agree 110%! I think he made those just to stir up some emotion.

Elvis
07-17-06, 10:40 PM
Until the Cimarron, Cadillac was 100% luxury.

I'm not sure you can consider every CTS a luxury car. It's a high-end sport sedan, better than just about anything else GM has to offer, and competitive with several higher-priced Euro sedans.

But it's not pure luxury like we expected from Cadillac in 1980. It's a different world now. No one brand can exclusively claim one genre of vehicle. They have to be diverse. You have to look at the individual cars rather than labeling a brand as "luxury" or "sporty" or "economy."

SpeedyArizona
07-17-06, 10:45 PM
I'm not sure you can consider every CTS a luxury car.

I consider the CTS a near-luxury sedan.

RedGalant2k1
07-17-06, 11:15 PM
I don't think I've heard much more bullshit on this site...ever. I'm surprised anyone could think this. Cadillac and Lincoln ARE luxury brands, and no one can argue this. How could you think it's not?! They're the flagship brands of Ford and GM, and are the most expensive cars america builds. How are they NOT luxury cars?! It's an insult to this board to say they're not.

If Acura, Lexus, and Infiniti aren't completely luxury brands neither is Cadillac or Lincoln.

Its not meant as an insult to GM, Ford, or anyone on these boards.


I think you said that just to argue. It has no substance to it what-so-ever:alchi: ! Cadillac is definetly a luxury brand; take a look at the CTS, STS, XLR, DTS, and Escalade not to mention the V lineup! Everything Cadillac makes in categorized at a luxury or near luxury vehicle. I don't think I've ever heard anything to ridiculous!

Lincoln is definetly a luxury brand also, it's what they cater to! Another ridiculous comment...

And I never said Lexus wasn't a luxury brand:tisk: .

The Lincoln LS (now the Zephyr) and Cadillac CTS are entry level luxury sedans akin to Mercedes C-Class, Lexus IS, Acura TL, BMW 3-series, etc etc...

Now don't get me wrong I love ALL the new Cadillacs. I think the CTS is a fantastic offering for a mix of sport and luxury. The STS is a fabulous vehicle to drive from the push button start to the impecable factory stereo system. The DHS is a standalone for beauty and nothing IMHO says style like a nicely packaged DHS with Vogue Tyres, and a Clean Vinyl top.

Then from the Escalade, the XLR, and the entire V lineup there is no American equivalent to Cadillac, not even Lincoln.


I agree 110%! I think he made those just to stir up some emotion.

Made not to stir emotion. Made as a point that if not all Acura's (or Infiniti's) are luxury neither is there competive brands Cadillac or Lincoln.

SpeedyArizona
07-17-06, 11:57 PM
The Lincoln LS (now the Zephyr)

The LS and the Zephyr are two completely different vehicles, they have a $10,000 price differential.

Acura has one vehicle categorized as a luxury car, which is the RL. Infiniti also has one car classified as a luxury vehicle, the Q45.

On the other hand Cadillac has 3 cars classified as "luxury"; STS, DTS, and XLR. Lincoln only has the Town Car but it is a luxury brand whether you like it or not.

RedGalant2k1
07-18-06, 01:04 AM
The LS and the Zephyr are two completely different vehicles, they have a $10,000 price differential.

Acura has one vehicle categorized as a luxury car, which is the RL. Infiniti also has one car classified as a luxury vehicle, the Q45.

On the other hand Cadillac has 3 cars classified as "luxury"; STS, DTS, and XLR. Lincoln only has the Town Car but it is a luxury brand whether you like it or not.

That doesn't make any sense.

The following are all comparable price point cars, always listed or compared in the same category as near or more accurately "entry level" luxury cars.

Lincoln Zephyr (starting at $29,660)
Cadillac CTS (starting at $29,990)
Acura TSX (starting at $27,890)
Lexus IS (starting at $30,580)
Infiniti G35 (Sedan) (starting at $31,200)

Stepping up we have competitive models including:

Lincoln LS (starting at $39,945)
Cadillac STS (starting at $41,740)
Acura TL (starting at $33,325)
Lexus GS/ES (starting at $43,845 & $33,865 respectively)
Infiniti M-series (starting at $41,450)

Then in the top class of each brand we have:

Lincoln TownCar (starting at $42,875)
Cadillac DHS/DTS (starting at $41,990)
Lexus LS (starting at $57,220)
Acura RL (starting at $49,300)
Infiniti Q-series (starting at $58,100)

I'm sorry if you never driven or compared the Lexus, Infiniti Q45, or new Acura RL with the Cadillac or Lincoln you really need to see those cars, they have fantastic craftsmanship, and fantastic well thought out little extras that aren't availible in the Cadillac or Lincoln.

Please don't take that as bashing American made cars, I'd still love a Cadillac DHS for what I mentioned before, I think the Cadillac is by far the best looking of the bunch.

Giving a non-biased look at each car it its competitive market, the Lexus, Infiniti, and Acura are fantastic alternatives to the American offerings. Now please don't think I'm promoting not supporting American companies, there is a point being made here that I hope you all understand.

That is Cadillac and Lincoln are indeed flagship brands from Ford and GM just as Acura, Lexus, and Infiniti are luxury offerings from Honda, Toyota, and Nissan respectively.

With that said I think I would still rather have a CTS, STS, or DHS than the competitive models.

Destroyer
07-18-06, 01:37 AM
see thats what i meant, he's owned these vehicles so he can compare instead of just regurgitating information he saw on a message board (assuming he really has owned these vehicles and isnt just frontin)
Frontin?

Polara; white with white interior, not the most attractive car on earth. Had a push button trans and a 383, still it didn't feel fast.

Dart GT convertable; red with red interior; had a slant six with automatic and a 1 barrel carb!. Not fast but reliable and a whole lot of fun with the top down.

Newport convertible; loved it; dash caught on fire once so I turned the car off, turned it back on and it never did it again..........weird. Was a copper color with black interior and a 383 column shift. Body was straight, undercarriage was rusted beyond belief which is why I sold it. No mechanic would even put it on a lift cause it was so bad underneath. Most fun I think I ever had in a ragtop, smooooth.

Satellite; green on green. Bought the car for $500 with a 318. Found a 440 motor out of a P/U for $400. Motor was complete and rebuilt with HP parts but had no pullies or accessories; took me 8 months to finally get the pullies I need from the junkyard off a car with a 413(I think). Trans got a full rebuild with shift kit. 440 motor was a low compression version from 74-76 but still moved out with a cam/intake/carb/headers and dual exhaust!

I dont front; if I did they all would have had Hemi's in them:thumbsup:

SpeedyArizona
07-18-06, 01:55 AM
Stop with the Lexus, I already mentioned it was a luxury brand. I love the Lexus, they make great cars and have a well-earned reputation for being a leader both in technology and craftsmanship.

I wasn't comparing different brands either. Here's my comparison (rather similiar except for a few items):

Entry-level
Cadillac CTS
Lincoln Zephyr
Lexus IS or ES
Acura TL
Infiniti G35 Sedan or M

Step-up
Cadillac DTS or STS
Lincoln LS
Lexus GS
Acura RL
Infiniti M

Luxury
Cadillac DTS or STS
Lincoln Town Car
Lexus LS
Infiniti Q45

I never said Infiniti and Acura didn't make a good product, but I would never think of them as a luxury brand.

Elvis
07-18-06, 09:55 AM
I remember a time when there was no "entry level" Cadillac. To me that's what made them a more exclusive luxury brand.

Acura doesn't exist outside North America. I'm not as impressed with them as I once was. (I owned 3)

RedGalant2k1
07-18-06, 07:40 PM
I remember a time when there was no "entry level" Cadillac. To me that's what made them a more exclusive luxury brand.

Acura doesn't exist outside North America. I'm not as impressed with them as I once was. (I owned 3)

Acura and Honda are generally bland cars to look at and drive, but they are ten times more reliable than Ford or GM.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
07-18-06, 08:08 PM
Acura and Honda are generally bland cars to look at and drive, but they are ten times more reliable than Ford or GM.

Ehhhh not so much. It depends on the model.

Elvis
07-18-06, 10:06 PM
The RL I had wasn't any better than a Buick. I'm sure it would last twice as long, but it cost almost twice as much.

Since I dumped the RL after three years, I might as well have bought a Buick and saved the money.

john d
07-19-06, 02:52 PM
Just read where Toyota may make a bif for GM.
Would that be the better for the automobile buyer, GM and America than Nissan?
The saying I've heard is what's good for GM is good for American amd vice versa.

Perfect pardner for GM?

Wednesday, July 19, 2006 Hiroko Tabuchi
Associated Press
Tokyo- Toyota Motor Corp. said Tuesday that it was recalling about 420,000 vehicles globally, including some Echo and Prius models sold in the United States, over a faulty engine part.
The faulty part is the latest in a string of problems requiring recalls by Toyota, raising doubts over whether the automaker can maintain quality standards amid booming sales.
The recalls come after police investigated three Toyota officials on suspicion of professional negligence in allegedly shirking recalls for eight years and not fixing a defect that may have caused an accident.