<VV> ulterior motives, reasonable design goals

[djtcz at comcast.net]

I find none of those design goals objectionable or devious.
I think if we replaced "emissions" with good gas mileage they apply exactly to the 1960 Corvair. 
When stylish and fun-to-drive enters the mix a manufacturer SHOULD sell a ton of them.

I am just saddened that excess in the form of 4WD and pounds is SO popular recently, apparently only made un-attractive by higher fuel prices.  We Americans are clearly a fickle bunch, and strongly prone to crowd behaviour. I don't see how I can blame the manufacturers for that.
GM/FORD/ Daimler Chrysler can't really force us into buying anything.  Otherwise Toyota wouldn't sell a single CAMRY .

Toyota has earned a pretty darned good rep for reliability.  Whether US mfrs are really behind may be open to debate, but the ability to routinely go 150 kmiles with the barest of maintenance is pretty well documented.  It was not always thus.  I can remember when those cute little Corollas were the subject of a factory upgrade around 1972/3.  New valves, rocker arms, etc, etcs at less than 20,000 miles.

Dan Timberlake

-------------- Original message -------------- 
I was teaching dealer mechanics for GM when the 80-X was introduced. They told us the reason for transverse mount engine front drive had nothing to do with performance, etc....it was simply to allow the car to be smaller and lighter, so the emission std could be met, but have an interior big enough for Americans to get into. .