Opinion: The American automobile industry has not, in recent memory, experienced the necessary challenge to sustain world-class efficiency, innovation, quality, and long term vision. I believe this lack of foresight correlates to our love for immediate gratification; "get it while the gettin's good..."

Further Opinion: followership, leadership. American manufacturers have tended to the majority so adherently, they've failed to effectively lead the market. Somewhere, the future was compromised for the present and as a result, manufacturers are now scrambling for a chair as the music stops. We're largely responsible for setting these conditions through establishing tariffs and then relying on them. Kick that can down the road! Ironically, those tariffs forced conditions for foreign manufacturers to learn all the things we didn't want to.

"Life is pain, Highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something."

Galpin Auto Sports made the Impala Duramax.
[www.galpinautosports.com]

I like the idea of a 300HP t-charged four banger. I'm just sayin'... big cars deserve big engines with big toque and if you can get back some mpg, why not?

Ever seen "Pimp My Ride's" 1965 Chevy Impala with the Duramax or the DieselPower Magazines' 1970 Chevy Chevelle, also with a Duramax?

I can easily visualize the stoplight confusion. Muscle car rolls up and the guy in the next lane starts looking around for a truck. Whazzup!

A strong, new turbodiesel could sit very well in one of these new revival muscle cars...

@mzs: Uh, maybe. But it's a stretch.

This analogy falls apart when you apply the concept of test drives. That's dangerous turf with real sisters, but with cars, it's encouraged. So, don't diss the younger sister until you know what's she's made of. When she comes around, try her out. You WILL be tempted if the performance matches the looks. Just be certain to look into the maintenance costs...

Just kidding.

If I had to pick a manufacturer to go, I'd say GM. Sure, we'd lose some good, relevant products. But in the aftermath of a deceased GM, demand would revive the relevant brands and styles, we'd lose a stagnant financial goliath, and resulting competition would offer long term benefits. If nothing else: if you're gonna make the call, take balls in hand and go big.

Lest I remind us, our views are biased towards interesting cars, not "bread and butter" cars. After all, we like dragons, Daryl Hannah, The El Camino, and have a strange, masochistic obsession with the Malaise era. If that ain't bias, I don't know what is...

@Lord Dearthair of Caledonia, First Earl of Awesome: Also, Hear Hear! Well done!

Perhaps realtors should receive a portion of their pay after their buyer proves their worth; say, after three years of ownership without default, the realtor gets the other half of their commission. That way, realtors are paid for selling homes to people who can afford to keep them (concessions allowed for reasonable external or unforeseen circumstances). Realtors succeed when the market is busy. People have to live somewhere, and if they can't afford it once, they'll have to try again someplace else...

All hail the God-almighty Dollar! Er, well, it was the God-Almighty Dollar... *Poof* there it goes.

Not like we need reminding, but having money doesn't mean you have class or taste. Class comes with stuff like character and integrity and respect for history and humility and interpersonal skills and the like.

Money no object? I'll supersize that order, thank you.
I'd like the multistory parking garage, the replica Nurnbergring, a Paul Russell Restoration Shop special, a few of those Bayonne oil/fuel storage tanks, and oh! -- a double order of anything covered in Jalopnik or Sports Car Market Magazine in the past 7 years. To go.

I loved my Super Car and would, even at my mature age, get back into the physically operating things like suspensions, transmissions, engines, steering, and other MECHANICAL functions.

Over time, Lego seems to have accentuated the fantasy, movie connection, and parallel markets at the expense of "real world," operating, items.

Why?

Used lawnmower: $10, 5hp. $2/hp.

Segway sure doesn't work: $5k/2hp. $2,500/hp. Ouch.

Ride the lawnmower.

Utterly reliable. Built in a time when cars were engineered for long term durability and sold when people maintained cars and rebuild components instead of replaced them.

[www.zcars.org.uk]

The answer to this question depends on how you define performance. If it's acceleration, that's one thing. If it's top speed, that's another.

If I can get great handling with my lower top speed, count me in. It's not like you can really speed in America anyways.

Shoot. Repower a MG Midget with a 'Busa engine. Economy and performance.

The harder this recession, the more force behind the change. Eventually we'll hit critical mass in opinion, industrial capacity, efficiency, etc., the pendulum will swing, and we'll accept new norms. And the reign of 10mpg SUV's and ovesized trucks will end.

Let's change guard now instead of drawing out the pain.

In 1987 alone -- one year -- Mercedes-Benz sold the 190D 2.5 Turbo. Approximately 1000-1200 were sold. At the time, they were the most sporting diesel MB had. I owned one and it was a blast. With a torque peak at 2,500rpm, you'd hit 35mph in 4th, watch the tach sit at 2,500 while the speedo swept to 55, then the rpm's went up and at 60mph, upshifted to 5th. Much fun. I could do this all day long and still walk away with 30mpg. It would chirp tires going into third if you pushed it. Definitely needed sandbags in the trunk in winter.

Phenomenal engine. Body was weak, though. Not MB's shining moment on interior quality. If you can find one in good condition, buy it. You won't regret the performance for the economy. FYI, this was the same engine in the 300D 2.5 Turbo up to 1990, I believe.

Why not adjust the Dodge Demon before it hits the market?
Or, revive the Razor with a turbodiesel engine?
Bring the Mini diesel over here (been available in UK for some time now).
Options exist, but who's willing to make a stab at it?

Although the California towing the Citi Golf is a nice image, too.

Citi Golf.

@Neener: I will gladly address personal responsibility here. What we wanted from litigation (money), which is now protected against by nannies in vehicles (which increases weight and space and fuel), sometimes comes from people who fail to exercise due care and adequate personal responsibility.

You bring up a good point about a bad cycle. Yet we're all responsible; how would cars be so complex if, ultimately, we didn't demand them to be so?

If juries didn't award large settlements, would business be compelled to make changes which protect us from ourselves?

If we didn't want all these cool do-dads, would cars cost as much as they do? Is it painful to reach over and *manually* roll down the passenger's side window or lock the door? I know, I know, as a Jalopnik you're probably here for just those cars.

We get many of these luxuries because we want them, but overall, we've failed to understand the long term cost in complexity, weight, fuel consumption, litigation, insurance, and other areas.

Truly, we've ignored the bill for too long. Now, it's coming due in a very practical sense. Good. Let's hope the response is simplicity.

Whatever the cost, Chrysler thinks it'll only sting a little...

-grumpy DSLPWR

Show me the woman who, instead of being proud of how poor a 1939 wife she'd be, is pursuing a known image of what she DOES want her relationships to look like. That's much, much more interesting, energizing, and affirming.

All that is not tied down or has a place already designed into the vehicle.

Electronic nannies of types.

Any seating beyond 4 people.

Cupholders. Oh right, see power stuff.

I'd ditch the gas engine for a turbodiesel.

I'd ditch an automatic transmission, even if it is comparably efficient.

Since I still have choice, I'd never have the Sat-Nav in the first place. If the time comes, I'd ditch that, too.

You know, a stripped turbodiesel Rabbit sounds good right about now. That's about the level of luxury I'd need to get from point A to point B. But, for any new car, that's a severe impossibility. What a freaking sad state of affairs we've put ourselves in.

Since you're making the point with a question like this, perhaps this recession should cut deep enough that we'll regain the choice to de-content vehicles and go back to true simplicity.

In fact, I posed the question just the other day: How much would a WWII Jeep cost - with no modifications, mind you - to build today? I mean, original parts, the whole deal. How much would it cost? Now, let's modify the thing simply with a new powertrain; engine, transmission, driveline. Give it an equivalent displacement turbodiesel engine. How economical would that be? And if it was good enough then, why isn't it good enough now?

I rant. I will stop.

Part of the skin's responsibility is to shape the path of air around the vehicle. Doesn't take much to realize that if this "skin" is so pliable, at 50mph it'll start flapping on the underlying rails and forms, or pulling away from backside lift areas, the car will look like a sprinter in a skirt and drag will offset weight loss.

Lovely static visual and perhaps tactile concept. On the road, though, yes -- materials will make or break the concept.