It's all very much a futurism discussion(a distant future). The GM/Ford/VW/Toyota way is concentrated in centralized, specialized, high volume production facilities at a high investment cost. Being at a high volume, each vehicle is kept down. And the product is serviced with parts in the same manufacturing model, requiring storage or high sustained sales to keep it up. The expectation is a product that is obsolete in 5 to 10 years. In this system nothing is totally custom or flexible. Everyone, customer or supplier, 100% re-invests in everything in that time cycle.
Possibly 3d printing is a flexible and generalized facility, maybe even distributed and locally processed where a GM or Toyota design can be printed on the fly. Choosing major options? not a big deal. Getting custom variation, OK if skills are in touch. Getting a replacement part 50 years from now? Not a big deal. (in theory)
The car may cost more as well as the factory cost. But both only require the one investment for the next XXyears. So conceptually both get financed much longer, for a lower overall monthly cost. The repair parts may also cost more, but they are available forever from any local 3d shop in the world. Prices probably would be pushed down though distant competition. You replace the actual car almost never, but replace parts of it almost anytime you feel a you need to.
Anything lending itself to modular assembly, like the VW beetle or Lotus 7 is perfect for this. Upgrading assemblies or parts as new tech comes available for it. In this world local shops and customers benefit as well as 3d printer factories who keep their costs down. Centralized manufacturing would be wiped out except where 3d printing can't suffice.
But back to America, if you do this right we win back much of what we lost overseas. Do this wrong and we lose more of the game in the world of economics.
].
