I know some pieces of how this is going down and why, but would not be surprised at all of how much more there is to it that I don't know. Working backwards, dealers being shut down are not being forced to keep their inventory of cars, and they don't even get forced to keep their sell-able parts inventory. Notice I said sell-able parts, many dealers when audited have a considerable investment in obsolete parts. My brother works for a company that goes into the Ford and GM dealers that get closed and they inventory the parts and box up and ship back what can be re-distributed. That helps the dealer re-cover a lot of the capitol that is invested in the business. Now about getting rid of the dealers. I can look it up if you want me to be exact, (you can too) but Toyota has about half of the number of dealers that GM does and had gained steady market share to the point of selling as many cars as GM, and in fact surpassed them last year for the first time ever. The overall business model requires profits from sales, parts, and service. Expenses against those profits include wages, benefits, training, equipment, taxes, and of course anything to do with the property the business is built on. The property expenses are relatively fixed, however the more people involved at more places the greater the overall profit that there has to be to support it all. The better the people are, the greater the profit required to retain them. Imagine three dealerships who's total sales are 2000 new cars a year. Say each dealership has 60 employees. For discussions sake allow that what you have at this point is three viable businesses, assuming there is a solid and repeatable service and parts business to go along with those sales. Now start truly building better cars, so that they don't break as often as they used to. When they do break, imagine most of the things that occur beyond the normal services of oil changes and brakes as potentially being the one and only time a tech will ever see that individual failure in his/her career, and allow no room for anything less than a perfect repair visit. That demands a tech that is a lot better than average in God given talent, as well as decades worth of real training on top of that natural talent. How may people like that are in the field today? Simply put, not enough and the current business model doesn't support what is needed to retain them when they are in the field. There are a lot of mechanics, and many of them are very good at what they (we) do. But the cars are changing faster than what training can keep pace with, and at the same time, breaking even less. That has left us with too few master technicians, and too many service bays. I've often talked about the impending collapse of the auto service industry, the glut of cars available has tipped the scales away from the dealer side of the equation for now. The fall out from that is the need to reduce the number of dealers to a level that can be sustained. That's why where there were once three dealers, employing 180, one dealer employing 100 simply makes more sense. The result from there is better pricing to the automobile owner from everything from the initial purchase, to parts and servicing. All you have to do is "count the mouths to feed" and its easier to only have one piece of property, and 100 people earning a living off of the same amount of business than it is to have three pieces of property, and 180 mouths to feed. At the same time don't forget the competition for the easiest service work from Quick Lubes, and Wal Marts, which create jobs for a few people, but not career positions for the future technicians. I've stated many times there is a difference between price and cost, and usually its in defense of what a shop needs to do to stay in business. What you are seeing is in effect just how under priced the trade really is and the end result of too much competition, and consumerism that wanted it that way.

Before deciding what to buy next, I'd want to figure out what Mitsubishi is going to do for you here. Do you have an attorney? If not, I'd suggest getting one, because it's possible that with an attorney's assistance you could negotiate this without going to court. You never know how sympathetic a judge is going to be. If you try to negotiate first, you can always try your luck in court if you can't reach an agreement. Now that you have a court date, you probably are in a stronger negotiating position since the company would probably like to avoid the expense of going to court. I don't know what the lemon law is in your state, but the manufacturer may not have to buy it back. You might be in a stronger bargaining position if you would be willing to take a different Mitsubishi vehicle instead of insisting that they give you cash for yours. I know when you have a bad experience with a vehicle, you tend not to want another one from the same company. However, it's unlikely that second Mitsubishi would be another lemon -- probably no more likely than some car from another company would happen to be a lemon.

"...I can understand buying a truck if you have a large trailer to pull..." Thank you for allowing me to keep my truck. I am forever in your debt. Well, if you think being childish will help... "...But where I live, most of the pickups and SUVs don't tow large trailers (they don't even have hitches) and they have never been off-road (unless you count sliding into the ditch because whoever was driving it "lost control" of it)..." Did these vehicles do things on purpose to make the drivers "lose control"? It is well-known (except in the he-man hinterlands, I guess) that SUVs have a much higher center of gravity than cars. They are far more likely to tip in an extreme maneuver than a passenger car. They also are heavier than many cars, which means they take longer to stop. This is all basic physics, but maybe not everyone took that class. In addition, many SUVs come with "all-season" tires which really aren't good on packed snow and ice. Couple trucks with less of a dynamic with drivers who don't compensate for the fact that this vehicle doesn't drive like their old Cavalier and people end up in the ditch. But I suppose they're all smarter where you live. "...Those trucks are sold on the basis of how tough the buyer thinks it makes them look; they certainly not being used to carry the people and stuff that even a mid-size Ford or Chevy could handle..." The largest purchasers of Hummers are women. Big and tough?Yeah! Right! If you don't think there's an appeal to women in appearing strong and invulnerable, you need to join the 21st century. "...You have no idea who you're talking with, do you? I am one of the "rich" people you talk about. I get taxed plenty, thank you..." And you feel you should pay more taxes? If you do and are serious about griping about the "tax breaks for the rich" silliness there is a form published by the IRS that allows you to pay more money to the government than your tax bill indicates. Normally I don't talk about my finances because it's no one else's d**n business. But I'll tell you that my entire Dubya-ordained tax cut went to charity as soon as it showed up in my paycheck. There are many people out there who need that money far more than I do. And, IIRC, you were the one who was griping about taxes ("And who may I ask is the one to cause this "disincentive" other than your pals in the Government by using taxes or the courts to regulate things? (TAX THE OTHER GUY! NOT ME!)") I never claim to be a friend of big government. I don't want to pay more taxes any more than anyone else does. I just realize that there are matters that the Almighty Market does not address. Who will address them but the government? You and the rest of the "compassionate conservatives" certainly won't. You may not think so, but we all have a stake in providing physical safety and security, a basic education, and economic opportunity to all citizens. No one is holier than anyone else. What I know is it doesn't come free. It also doesn't have a payback sometime within the next fiscal quarter, which is why the Almighty Market doesn't deal with it. Spend the money carefully, but spend it. Not doing so is penny-wise and pound-foolish. "...No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." First, 1,300 years ago (one of your "earth nanoseconds") is about 65 human generations. Put things in human terms and they sound quite different. Second, you're displaying the same kind of binary logic you did with your trailer example. We may not be able to stop the cycle of global warming or cooling or whatever is going on. But, in the face of much independent scientific research that confirms problems in the ozone layer and increased rates of melanoma and weather extremes, does it not seem like long-term thinking to do something that can delay our effect on that phenomenon? Do you let your toddlers play in the street, on the theory that -- statistically -- they'll be involved in a motor vehicle accident at some point in their lives anyway, so why worry about it now?..." You dodged the question. I'm still waiting for an answer. What caused the massive global warming and cooling in the past? Fish. That's at least as logical an answer as your question. I don't know what caused climate change in the past; none of us was around to observe it. 65 generations is a long time to suffer through anything. If your entire argument depends on the answer to this question, you're hanging by a thread. "...If there was a true free market in vehicles in the U.S., though, there would be a lot of used pickups and SUVs around. Several lots of them, in fact..." Free markets mean lack of government intervention. I think you want LESS of a free market so the vehicles you don't like are not sold. No. You went to Civics class, but you obviously failed Economics. In a truly free market, we would not be subsidizing cheap oil with a fraudulent war that all of us pay for (especially the tens of thousands who have died fighting it). We would not be paying by-the-head for the EPA or for crash standards or the fire departments and ambulance corps which have to respond to accidents caused by big trucks. Business owners who bought big trucks would not be getting tax breaks for buying them (as they have over the past years). People who buy big SUVs would be charged for the additional damage those vehicles do to roads and other common property -- as well as the costs of trucking additional fuel to stations because they're so thirsty. That is a free market -- not taxing everyone per capita regardless of their actual use of resources. If the people buying big SUVs and pickups had to pay what they actually cost, many fewer people would own them. You don't like certain body styles because they "use up resources". I hope you don't live in a home larger than say... 1500 square feet. And if you do I hope you aren't using up all the resources by heating it with gas or oil. After all you don't "need" a large home. You need a bedroom for you and your spouse and a bedroom for each of your kids. Add a living room, kitchen, maybe a dining room and a basement for storage and anything more than that is wasteful. I know you agree. These McMansions are the SUVs of the housing world. I was doing a craft show last fall and I was talking to the exhibitor next to me about the price of oil and she said she just built a 4300 square foot house in NJ and she was frightened as to how she was going to pay to heat it. I went back to my booth and just shook my head at the total waste of energy that is being used. Ha! I happen to live in an 1800-square-foot house (including basement, which is largely unused). It is heated with natural gas but all of the electricity is from wind power. No, I don't "need" a large home. And I don't have one. In fact, the only reason I have a house as large as I do is that it's difficult to find a smaller one that I could make handicapped-accessible. So let's use those "disincentives" you like to force the owners into more sensible houses. Right? See, we CAN agree. PS. I live in a 3 year old 1300 sq ft ranch style home that I had custom built on 2 acres here in Vermont. I use wood as my primary heat source and oil for hot water and backup heat. I'll use MAYBE 300 gallons of oil this year. And I stay nice and comfy even when it goes to minus 30 in January. You seem to like twisting what I have to say. I don't need to spend any more time undoing the pretzel you're creating. My contention remains that, if people had to pay the true costs of the vehicle they drove, the only people driving large SUVs and pickups would be the ones who need to drive them, not the poseurs who hope that such a vehicle will substitute for their personality. Considering the real cost of buying anything -- even what we "buy" with our taxes -- would be a valuable exercise and no doubt would transform a lot of purchasing in this country. It's the folks who believe that everything is free who really are deluding themselves. Merry Chrismahannakwanzakah to you.

Why I'm not impressed by numbers stats when viewed in perspective: GM offers 48 models in the US; Toyota offers 16. If GM doesn't outsell Toyota, they're even more pathetic than I thought. Ford outselling Honda is not a surprise. Honda is a very small mfg in Japan, hardly anyone drives one. The company long ago made the decision to concentrate on the US market: they were one of the first to introduce models that were US-designed and aimed solely for export, such as the Accord and the entire Acura line. JD Powers survey is INITIAL car quality (first 30 days only). It has nothing to do with reliability. The reliability of US cars has improved, but they still lag behind the Japanese. Depending upon where you live, you may indeed find a Toyota or Honda shop full - because their dealer/repair network is much smaller than the Big 3, so they tend to concentrate where the sales are. IOW, the coastal areas, especially in the West, you have no problem finding repair shops who will take you quickly. In our experience, we've had far more trouble with the 1996 Buick Regal than with any of the Fords we've owned over the last 30 yrs, including the original Escort, the original Contour, and a 1995 Taurus. Our 2003 Hyundai has been almost trouble-free, and the few minor things (door lock failed, seat cushion got stuck and wouldn't fold down) were quickly fixed by cheerful service reps or covered under the extended warranty we purchased. If I had more money to burn, I'd go back to Acura, because our old Integra was the most fun to drive with fabulous Recaro-like seats - but the Hyundai has been a great compact SUV and reliable performer. Plus, it came, as Hondas/Acuras do, with virtually everything on the mid-level model: tinted glass, intermittent wiper, air conditioning, luggage rack, an outrageously good stereo system, etc. etc. The only option I purchased was ABS with traction control, a necessity for a 3800-lb. vehicle - all of which came in well under $20K. Neither the Honda CRV, the Toyota RAV4, nor the Ford Escape/Mazda Tribute could be purchased for anywhere near that price. I'd judge the Hyundai and the Ford to be equal in quality, but Hyundai wins on features for equal price. We plan to replace the Regal next year - we always keep two cars. I'd love half a dozen different cars, ranging from a Mini-S to an Acura MDX to (should I suddenly win the lottery) a Bentley Continental GT. But in terms of return for the money, the best bet will be a used 2005/6 Ford Taurus, when reliability was fairly high and of course, resale-wise it's a steal because nobody wants one any longer. Plus, they don't sell well in San Francisco because the car's simply too big to park anywhere; garages are at a premium around here. I have test-driven the Focus and really like it, but let's face it, a V4 just does not have the pep and durability of the standard Detroit V6. Living in the hills and possessing a "lead foot" makes a V6 the minimum to keep me happy.