Yes, the Big 3's costs are too high. Yes, management and labor share the blame for this. Yes, for most of 2008, the fuel efficiency of US-built vehicles was out of step with market demands. But you can address all of these issues and not fix the problem.

The problem is that, for decades, the Big 2* have been intentionally engineering their products to fail prematurely. The idea was to get you back in the showroom sooner. It started with small cars: in order to recoup the cash lost by selling a cheaper vehicle, the bigs figured they could simply sell you a new small car more often. Then they realized that, since big car buyers were older and more brand-loyal, the same strategy would work for larger vehicles. So, since the 1970's at least, we've either put up with unreliable hunks of junk, or - like most Americans at this point - switched to other manufacturers.

This is an almost intractable situation. For the Big 3 to remain viable, they have to (1) immediately begin designing cars to last at least 2x the current target; (2) get these vehicles into showrooms, a 3-to-5-year process; (3) reestablish credibility with the consumer that their vehicles are no longer disposable, which requires actual operating experience and long term results. There is simply no way this all can happen in under ten years. Ask Hyundai.

My conclusion is that these companies, as we know them, must be allowed to fail - with a minimum of taxpayer money wasted in the process. They have dug themselves a hole that no reasonable amount of government largesse can fill. Subsidizing them only penalizes the companies that have done the best job of not screwing the American consumer. Send them to Chapter 11 like any other screwed-up company. Sell off the viable brands - Jeep, Ford trucks, anything else? Let the former workers get jobs at the Toyota and Volkswagen plants that will spring up. And let the management rot in hell.

*Chrysler really falls into a different category. At least their lack of reliability is not intentional.

Yes. I remember this 30+ years ago, from an economics teacher who called it "planned obsolecense", attributed anywhere to making improvements the next model year to watching your 1972 AMC Gremlin rust away in the driveway.

I have to disagree. Cars built since 1990 last far longer and are far less prone to rust than than their earlier counterparts. It used to be a rarity to achieve 100,000 on a car (at least without a complete engine overhaul). Now the bar is more like 200,000.

Small domestic cars, may be a different story, but I think it's as much to do with overhead dictating the use of crap components as the only way to price competitively with superior Japanese small cars.

This is not about corrosion. It's about components and drivetrains. And, yes, it's about small domestic cars too. Tell you what, if the 1990's represented a new dawn for Detroit, then how come you and I can watch the nearest highway and see a dozen '92-96 Camrys on the road for every Lumina or similar domestic POS from the same era? And I'm in the Midwest! I totally agree that Detroit could build 200,000 mile cars. My point is that they are not. By design. And I am fed up. You should be too.

You're looking at this bass ackwards. You have to engineer to a life-expectancy otherwise you'll have no guidance on what sort of quality and tolerance needs to go into the parts. Jet engines are engineered for 30 years between MOH, so they are engineered beautifully, but cost millions of dollars.

I see this as a branding issue more than reality. Like your BMW mini? Until recently the engine was made in a GM plant. Like your Toyota? GM makes cars alongside Toyota in the same factory in California?

And as far as rusting out from under you, Toyota has had one of the WORST recall rates over the past several years and had to recall several model years' worth of Tacomas because the bodies were junk and were literally falling apart.

So like I said, this is really a branding issue.

It's also an issue at the dealership level. A few years back, I needed to buy a new car, and I wanted a small car that fit my needs. I was considering several cars, but I was leaning toward the Ford Focus, because it had several features that the Japanese cars didn't have at the time. But when I went to the Ford dealership, no one would sell me one! I kept saying, over and over, that I wanted a small car. The salesmen (at three different dealerships) kept insisting that I "really wanted" an SUV. They claimed that they were unable to find a Focus for me to test drive, even though there were several on the lot. I finally gave up in frustration.

I went across the street to Toyota. I told the salesman that I wanted a small car. He said "great!" and sold me a Corolla. None of this "hey little lady, you don't know what you really want, so let me tell you what to buy". I think I made the better choice, but still, I might have bought a Focus if I could have found a salesman willing to sell me one. And I've talked to several other people (all women in their 20's or 30's) who have had the same experience - American car dealers refused to sell them small cars, and insisted that the only thing they were willing to sell were SUV's.

After that experience, I'm reluctant to ever set foot on an American car lot again. Car dealers are the face of the car companies, and the American companies have done a terrible job in training those dealers to sell the cars that many people want to buy.