You doubt that I was told this by a reliable source?

Who will prosecute "Japanese or European" car companies guilty of legally
circumventing US laws for decades?

These are the same "Japanese or European" car companies guilty of marketing
their cars to "dumb and stupid" Americans.

Trying to sell something as new that is really used would be a
problem.  That's not what they are talking about here.  Here it is new
cars being sold as used.  And, in a technical aspect, if the cars
actually are getting the miles put on the odometer by running the car
and driving the wheels.... well then it really is used.

"Sounds like an urban legend.?"

"Do you have any documentation of this?"

Now what would you do if you had documentation of this?

There is very little either of us could do.

I repeated partially what I heard.

What company on this green earth would publish this about their products?

Very rare that i post to someone else bright ideas and from someone that
has worked at gm and been in gm and toyota plants.  gm has been as you
call dipping cars into paint for about 25 years or so its called ELPO
electro plate process that completey rustproofs the whole car body,
there wasnt much difference in the process from plant to plant most
processes are based on volume and line speed all things equal there isnt
much difference in assembly, the toyota plants have there  tools made
overseas at a much lower cost and they are thowaways in my opinion. they
can build a new set of tools and have them ready for production in a
very short time because the cost is so much less remember assembly is
the least of the car process. if i can buy all the components from japan
and other asian places my cost will be much lower than any american co.
it will force all the domestic plants to do the same, and then soon they
will be just like the foreign makes, and much of the profit will be off
shore and with it many american jobs

chrisvillar, take it from a corporate banker, if the ultimate parent of
of any wholly-owned subsidiary is financially unstable, so too is the
wholly-owned subsidiary. Any subsidiary can be made to look profitable
through inter-company pricing and interest-free intercompany
loans/debentures. But the bottom line is that all/any subsidiaries of
an insolvent company are, in essence, also insolvent. Once again, I
would refer you to the conglomerate - Daewoo Corporation. Their story
says it all. They were a very diverse company and the "Motors Division"
was only a small piece of the puzzle. Their bottom line was that the
parent and subsidiaries were all considered insolvent, after removing
the "smoke and mirrors".

P.S.
chrisvillar, I'm not sure what you're reading, but on Page 34 of the
Report, Total Sales for 2004 are reported at $ 50 Billion U.S., not $
27 Billion and on Page 35,  Net (after Tax) Income was reported at $
1.6 Billion U.S., not $ 1.7 Billion U.S.

Earnings per share are reported at $ 7.09 U.S. and $ 7.07 per fully
diluted share.

But the aforementioned results are altogether questionable, when you
read the closing remarks of the auditors, found on Page 32 of the
Financial Report. This is a direct copy:

"Accounting principles and auditing standards and their application in
practice vary among countries. The accompanying financial statements
are not intended to present the financial position, results of
operations and cash flows in accordance with accounting principles and
practices generally accepted in countries other than the Republic of
Korea. In addition, the procedures and practices utilized in the
Republic of Korea to audit such financial statements may differ from
those generally accepted and applied in other countries. Accordingly,
this report and the accompanying financial statements are for use by
those knowledgeable about Korean accounting procedures and auditing
standards and their application in practice."

If those comments don't cause you concern, they should, because Korea
is infamous for their, shall we say, "creative accounting". ;-)