At the risk of sounding like I am back-peddling, I think I need to clear something up so nobody infers that I mean buying a non-domestic car is akin to treason...
I really have no problems with imported cars - or other goods - being sold and purchased here. Part of a healthy economic system is having open trade that allows consumers choice of how they spend their dollars. If you prefer to buy a Honda, Hyundai, Nissan, or whatever for some reason - style, value, etc - you should do what you feel is best. But make the decisions based on sound facts, not decades-old opinions or legends of inferior quality, poor reliability, shoddy workmanship, etc. Educate yourself and THEN decide.
Conversely, I think it should only be fair that we diehard Big-3 supporters actually shop and compare what is out there from the competition. Knowing what "the other side" has to offer will help keep you from becoming complacent with mediocre products. Relay your concerns on to the customer service channels so the producers get the point that they need to be competative.
I remember sitting in the driver's seat of a new Ford Fusion at the St. Louis autoshow a couple years ago when the car was introduced. An unknown gentlemen slipped into the passenger seat next to me and remarked that he was "checking to see if the quality was there...". And he concluded that it wasn't. Being an engineer, and a bit of a passive aggressive SOB I asked him if he could quantify/explain what he meant. He couldn't, but said "it" was just something you could "tell". THOSE are the kinds of opinions that detroit is facing...
I view blindly voting a straight party ticket in the same light...educate yourself THEN decide...
Now, on to diesels...
The diesel car thing has come up here before. There are two big reasons diesel is more accepted in Europe than in north america. First, diesel fuel is much cheaper than gasoline due to the very high taxes European governments imose on the fuel in effort to curb pollution and encourage conservation. I recall recently Fretscha remarked that gasoline was the equivalent of about $9/gallon in Germany with diesel being much less expensive. Second, environmental regs in the EU are structured to limit CO2 production and, therefore, fuel consumption. Since diesels offer on average about 30% greater efficiencies they produce less CO2 per kilometer, are therefore taxed less (there are "carbon taxes" in Europe) and are thus more popular. If I recall correctly, diesel engines power upwards of 60% of European autos.
In the US, our EPA is more concerned with low level Ozone pollution (Smog) and therefore regulates the production of Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) more strictly than the Europeans do. The geographical layout and climate of our landscape compared to theirs and our greater automotive congestion make smog a bigger deal here than on the Eurpean continent. Diesels generate more NOx because they have no throttling plate that would restrict the ingestion of air into the combustion chamber even at idle. In other words, at all engine speeds and operating conditions a diesel takes a full gulp of air on every intake stroke. Since air is about 78% Nitrogen there is an ample supply of N2 in the engine waiting to be oxidized into NOx during the compression heating cycle. gas engines run comparatively air-lean so don't encounter the same problems and have a "cleaner" (less soot) exhaust stream which is easier for a three way catalyst to reduce the NOx back to N2.
Exhaust gas recirculation in a diesel engine(and a gasoline engine for that matter) serves as a way of displacing some of that N2 that would be converted to NOx products. and since the exhaust gas consists of already burned materials, it cools the overall combustion process since there is less excess O2 available which further limits NOx production.
OK, brush off your high school chemistry skills for a second and recall that oxidation reactions must ALWAYS be accompanied by a reduction reaction...got it? here goes...
Tuning an engine to run cleanly w/o blowing many unburned fuel molecules into the exhaust is easy. So until recently, the three-way catalysts used in gasoline engines (dubbed "three-way" because they oxidize CO (carbon monoxide), oxidize unburned hydrocarbons (HC's), and reduce NOx) could not be used in diesel engines since there was too much NOx present that needed to be reduced compared to CO and HC's to oxidize. AND the sulfur in the fuel would posion the catalyst rendering it useless. Unburned soot also would plug up the catalyst reducing its effectiveness.
With the introduction of the "ULSD" Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel fuels the door has been opened to actually sticking a catalytic converter in the exhaust system. The chemistry is different from a gasoline cat-con, but the ideas are the same. In the newest "clean diesel" engines the soot is actually trapped in an exhaust filter and is later burned off (oxidized) when the exhaust system warms up (extra fuel is temporarilly injected into the engine to heat the exhaust up to the ignition temp of the soot. You truckers with exhaust gas temp guages will see this on your instruments as your trucks get equipped with soot traps). And in some cases, such as that adopted by Mercedes Benz, urea is injected into the exhaust upstream of the catalyst. the NOx is reduced to N2, the urea is oxidized to N2 and everybody is happy. These cars are 50 state legal, but their fuel economy suffers a little as a consequence of hauling around all the extra emission stuff. I'm not sure how VW tackles NOx in their new "clean" TDI since they use no Urea. I think the upcoming Honda diesels have an on-board magic chemistry set that MAKES urea from the fuel and air to serve as exhaust treatment reactants.
Chemistry class dismissed...
With all this said, the big reason diesels haven't taken off in the US was the fact that gas just was too cheap. And here we have taxes that keep diesel prices higher than they are (relative to gasoline) than in Europe. We can get into the discussion that diesel "ought to be cheaper than gas since it is the first thing out of the barrel" but that arguement doesn't consider that diesel and gasoline are competing products and are therefore tied together in pricing (you can only get so much stuff from a barrel of oil, if you make more diesel you make a lot less gas).
European governments steer public behavior rather aggressivly through taxation if you haven't noticed...
I can't say much in regard to styling except to say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The current retro push may remind us of better days, but to my generation (I'm 33) the cars from the 60's and 70's all looked pretty similar whereas I really pick up on the subtle variations between today's Toyotas, Nissans, Fords, Volvos, etc. I think there is some romance to reviving classics like the Mustang, but the appeal to the generations that did not grow up with those cars is probably a lot less than it is to more mature folks. Retro works in some cases, but I don't want to see any Grand Torino's or Diplomats in my garage.
That said, my last car purchase was a Mercury Monterey minivan. By CHOICE

. So you can see what "style" means to me...
Hybrids have become the current fad in the auto world. They are wonderful contraptions, but they are a very complex, expensive, and complicated design that acheives economy that could easily be met with smaller vehicles. i had a 1997 Ford Escort that was reasonably roomy for two of us to travel in and would get 40 mpg on the highway. Cars grew, engines were souped up, and we added more luxuries. It is remarkable to me that cars are as inexpensive as they are considering what goes into them.
I'd hate to see a resurgence of Geo Metros and Chevettes on the road. We can get the same efficiencies today and keep the safety that we have. But weight/size/power are what kill fuel economy and those are the things that people are going to have to sacrifice to get there. Hybrids are nice, but are a costly alternative to responsible restraint. Improvements in engine control and fuel induction (think turbocharged direct fuel injection gasoline engines) are the near future.
My line of work deals with reducing the weight of structures through the use of composite materials. I think since weight reduction is the cheif bogey to increasing fuel economy we are due to see a huge increase in the employment of lighter, stronger materials in autos. El cheapo steel will be replaced with thinner high strength alloys. Aluminum will be more widely used and plastics will start to serve structural applications. Weight reduction is the most obvious way to innovate in modern designs. I think this will be a growth sector along with "clean" energy, recyclling, and other "green" topics. If our auto industry collapses the potential for the US to remain competative in these areas is reduced further.
Wow, this is way off topic from "the economy". Sorry to lead you all astray...
Steve