Aura is a Saturn, and thus set prices. Now the trade-in price is negotiable. Two engines 3.5 and 3.6 - now i4. 80% sold will be in the base model, which is sort of interesting. I thought it would be more 50/50. I know people buy lots of i4 Hondas and Toys, but that is more of a gas mileage difference and Honda V6 is expensive. The New Malibu will have the 3.6 standard -- good deal! -Loren
>They are holding off on the new Corolla for USA due to great sales
I thought they held off after the Civic with radical changes came out and they were redesigning the Corolla update? But my point was the Corolla does fine with a 4-speed and many people are happy with them.
I believe in the appliance segment that is the most true thing you said. What I mean is people shopping in the appliance section love the option of configuring the car the way they want. The 08' Malibu is going to give consumers that option. I wish more car company's would allow customers the option of ordering a car the way you want. I like to get leather, navigation, etc and buy a 4 cylinder engine. I think in the high volume segments it's worth the company's time.
For the first time, Ford Motor Co. has fallen to fourth place in domestic monthly auto sales.
Ford in January sold fewer vehicles than General Motors Corp., Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. and DaimlerChrysler AG's Chrysler Group.
In part, the milestone slump at Ford can be credited to the automaker's deliberate decision to slash unprofitable sales to daily-rental fleets. But Ford's lackluster product offerings also are to blame, analysts say.
Chrysler edged past Ford by 2,104 units, selling 156,308 cars and trucks in January. Ford sold 154,204 Lincoln, Mercury and Ford vehicles in the same month.
GM eclipsed both with its 244,435 units, but Toyota maintained second place with sales of 175,850 cars and trucks -- up 5 percent from last year.
Wooing buyers with special deals helped Chrysler last month, said David Healy, an industry analyst for Burnham Financial Group.
"Chrysler's success was due as much to heavy incentivizing as anything," said Healy. "They were extremely aggressive, particularly on older models like the Durango SUV and the Ram pickup truck."
By contrast, he said, Ford's product offerings just aren't driving demand. "Ford has been bombarding us with high-quality, well-designed, exceedingly dull automobiles for the last few years," he said. "Their market is marching away. And they are in a lull in new product introductions."
Ford also was fourth in overall sales, posting a 19 percent decline.
GM said its January U.S. auto sales dropped 16.6 percent.
But Toyota Motor Corp.'s sales rose 9.5 percent to again surpass Ford's monthly sales, while DaimlerChrysler AG's sales rose 3.2 percent compared with January 2006,
This year, Toyota is expected to take Ford's No. 2 spot in U.S. sales after its sales surpassed Ford's in two months last year. The Japanese automaker sold 175,850 vehicles last month, including 100,256 cars and 75,594 trucks.
On Wednesday, Ford warned that it expected to post a 20 percent drop compared with January 2006. And GM had said last week that it expected its January sales to be down, also because of lower rental fleet sales.
"We are aggressively reducing our daily rental fleet sales as a continuing element of our strategy to offer industry-leading value and improve residuals," Mark LaNeve, GM's vice president for sales, service and marketing, said in a statement.
GM's car sales dropped 22.5 percent for the month to 104,156, while light truck sales were down 11.5 percent to 140,458. In all, it sold 244,614 light vehicles for the month, remaining No. 1 in sales.
GM also lowered its first-quarter North American production forecast from guidance given last month by 40,000 vehicles, or 3.6 percent, to 1.1 million vehicles. GM said it was part of the effort to reduce rental fleet sales. In the first quarter of 2006, GM produced 1.3 million vehicles in the region.
Toyota's car sales were up 13.1 percent in January, while truck sales rose 5 percent. Toyota said sales, which include the Toyota and Lexus brands, were the best ever for January. Sales of its Camry mid-sized car rose 14.7 percent to 31,461, while its hybrid Prius and RAV4 compact sport utility vehicle also made gains.
Including imports, Ford sold 165,877 light vehicles in January. It sold 55,842 cars, down 32.5 percent from a year ago, and 110,035 light trucks, down 9.8 percent. It said sales to daily rental companies dropped 65 percent. Ford said it remains focused on its North American turnaround and returning to profitability.
"Where we are in sales races and sales rankings ... is a distraction that we're not going to be bothered with," George Pipas, Ford's top sales analyst, said during a conference call with industry analysts and reporters. "We've got a job to do in North America, and that is all we're focused on."
While the decline in fleet sales hurts overall sales numbers, GM and Ford have said the focus instead on sales to more-profitable retail customers is part of their North American turnaround efforts.
Ford's sales to retail customers were down 5 percent for the month.
In the first full month of sales for its new crossovers, Ford reported it sold 5,586 Ford Edges and 1,699 Lincoln MKXs. But sales of Ford's F-series pickup truck were down about 15 percent from a year ago.
Ford said it expects weakness in new home construction to hurt full-size pickup sales through the first half of the year. Its sales include Ford, Lincoln and Mercury brands, as well as Jaguar, Land Rover and Volvo. Jaguar sales fell 13 percent, Land Rover sales fell 11.7 percent and Volvo sales fell 7 percent.
Ford's fleet sales were expected to be lower because it no longer is selling the Taurus -- once the nation's top-selling car. But Pipas said fleet reductions also came in many current products.
DaimlerChrysler sold 173,377 vehicles in January. Mercedes-Benz sales rose 36.9 percent to 17,069 in January compared with the same month of 2006.
The gains came as Chrysler saw its best January in six years and Mercedes reported its best January sales ever, DaimlerChrysler said. Chrysler said its January sales were driven by solid retail sales, while fleet sales were down, but a statement on the results didn't provide specific fleet numbers.
"With a fresh product lineup in dealer showrooms and eight new vehicle launches to come in 2007, Chrysler Group is well positioned to remain competitive in the marketplace," Michael Manley, vice president for sales and dealer operations, said in a statement. "We will focus on providing innovation, quality and value to our customers -- and we will also provide our dealers with competitive tools to sell these vehicles."
Other automakers reporting January sales include:
American Honda Motor Co; 100,790 units Kia Motors America; 22,524 Hyundai Motor America; 27,721 Subaru of America; 12,074 units Mitsubishi Motors North America; 9383 Audi of America; 6,399 units
And may I add, the term appliance may imply boring looking and dull handling. As the years roll on, I do believe we can start using the term less often. The appliance once again is showing signs of having style, both inside and out, and they are fun to drive. The days of no steering feel, god-awful steering and such are pretty much over. It looks like cars such as Aura and Malibu have risen above the boring and stale. Of course there are a lot of cars within the class, and a lot of those car. You do see yourself coming, as in cars which look exactly as yours. But how many can afford to own luxury cars. I would say I am gonna rid myself of the term now. Perhaps only assigning it to those owning cars which really hate to drive. Until I was older, I did not realize how many people really hate to drive. If a person loves to drive, can only afford a set of new hub caps on old Nellie, I'll say good for him or her - nice car. :shades:
Rocky, you're too young to recall the days of buying a car with just the options you want from GM. You could get just the big V8 and not a radio, save the weight and go fast. :surprise: Well ya know what I mean. Yeah, you are right, it is fun to customize. The downside was the list made the $4,000 car $5,000 to $6,000 in a hurry. It was something trying to figure out car worth used back when. The Japan and Euro makes had package deals, or models with all the stuff on them, and soon American cars dropped most of the silly stuff, like an extra outside mirror $7, and such. Yeah, you use to get one mirror. Had to be rich to get a fully loaded Riviera. Ahhhhh, the Riv! -Loren
..... and Chrysler still stumbling along, may be Chery Chrylser some day. I bet they would love to have some trucks to sell along side their Cheries. A communist car company? Ya know it conjures up images of Russian cars for some reason, and in the US those Yugos. Hope Chery realizes that like Hyundai after its first effort, the come back and in this case entry, is gonna take a mega warranty and lots of advertising / convincing. And, without getting into the politics, China will have to appear friendly and non-agressive. If they pull this off and sell their cars, and possibly buy into Chrysler, I will be amazed. I am not talking about technological abilities, as I am sure they can build just about anything. They make most everything these days sold in big box stores, come to think of it. -Loren
You said it. That headline is splashing everywhere, usually with mention of the $12.7B loss. But then again it is Ford's "turn" as GM was to be BK or dead by now, looking back over the last 1.5 years.
Is Chrysler next? -Can stow-n-go 3.0 save them?! -Can Challenger bring them from the brink of collapse?! -Will Hemi Aspen save them from the abyss despite being a decade late to the party?!
>The Japan and Euro makes had package deals, or models with all the stuff on them,
The foreign brands didn't like the ordering to sheet concept because it took them a long time to boat those cars over. So they benefited from pushing cars that were built in one mold and making the people take extras they didn't want or just do without options which they really wanted. Same for color choices based on what coworkers told me in the past.
Then somebody at GM and others figured out packages were the way to gain higher accuracy rates in the assembly process by doing lots of cars with the same options and in theory save costs. The wiring bundles are all the same, e.g. So leSabre got the SA, SB, SC packaging. There were a few option bundles but you started with one package level...
In the 70s I recall seeing lots of Gran Prixs at a Pontiac dealer in Milford all the same color and all the same package. Apparently there was a dealer benefit to ordering consistently equipped cars.
Many people don't want a car that is the step beyond appliance in attachment to it. They want a car that goes, that's dependable, and reasonable good at those things.
I real dollar terms, yes. Cars are packed with so many things not even dreamt of many days ago. Safety items galore. And they do not require constant tune-ups and overhauls. Yes, things are better in many ways. That said, to insure a car costs more, especially for those teens. And the repair cost per hour looks a bit accelerated, though it who knows. I have not run the numbers. The cars last so long, and run sooooo much more efficiently these days. The domestic cars always seemed to overheat. And then there was driving at different altitudes the settings on your carburetor did not like. Ah, the good ol' days were not always that good. Looks wise, I must say I would like a Pony car from the late 60's or early 70's. Heck an AMX - Z a lot of cool lookers.
The ultimate appliance car look your ask? Try the 1960 Falcon, looks as well rounded a bar of soap today, as it did back when. And I may add, not ugly. It is, well I should say, just is. Ultimate simplicity of form. -Loren
Are you saying you'd like to have a 67 Mustang or 68/69 Camaro?
I had a 67 Mustang and changed points in it every 12-15000 miles. They didn't last. Plugs were almost as bad.
Cars were cheaper overall to own then because they cost a lot less without all the government-mandated equipment. The replacement parts and maintenance were cheap relative to now but I did both myself and the cost was cheap.
A difference was there was not expectation of a car going 150-200 K mi as there is now. At 90-100 K one expected to replace the thing.
Another change is in the complexity of the car. People did a lot more repairs themselves back then as opposed to now when about the most adventurous thing the average person might do to their cars is change their own oil and maybe their spark plugs. I will bet that really saved on labor costs. However credit was harder to get back then so that also might have made cars seem less affordable.
By the 80ies cars reached a point where it took a trained technician to fix them. No more taking your car down to that handy neighbor of yours.
"I like Ghosn, but I'm not a groupie of Renault/Nissan. IMHO, there's only that much an individual in an organization that size can do. If I were Ghosn, I'd be thinking of exit strategy before the next down turn, which is perhaps NOW!"
Emphasis on "NOW" was in the original post half a year ago. Looks like Carlos would have done well taking my advice.
That's on top of pointing out both Ford and Chrysler were in even worse shape in GM when much of the talking class were berating GM management and praising how great Ford and Chrysler were based on the first few months' sales of Mustang and and 300M.
Things go in cycles; the more things change, the more they stay the same; it's not magic :-)
So what do you think happens if Ford is not profitable by 2009?
God, can only predict. If they aren't profitable Loren, I think we could see a massive sell-off on Wallstreet pal.
Any Ford presence in China? Seems like one advantage for the General (GM).
To be honest I'm not sure exactly what Ford builds in China. I believe other forum posters have posted links in the past pointing to products. I think bumpy was the one ?
GM, of course has a leg up on everyone in China, and should continue to dominate that market which is good because it is growing fast. GM, will make multi-billion dollar profits in China. I also expect in the near future GM, will hit the India, market very hard and will be a top seller there also. The future does look very bright for GM, from a global standpoint.
Ford, is struggling here but I assume whatever products they are making in China, are doing okay. Ford, is very successful in Australia, and has some very nice products. They also seem to be doing very good Europe. I think one of their biggest challenges is going to be getting Land Rover, Jaguar, Aston Martin, on track. Land Rover, looks like it has a success on it's hands with the LR-2 which should be a high volume vehicle for Land Rover. I think if they can do a smart refresh with the LR-3, and sprinkle so Range Rover technology down to the LR-3 it would help it stand out in the crowd.
Jaguar, IMHO has always been sexy. I'm not sure if Ford, has enough resources to keep this brand relavent ? I think they need to share more global platforms to keep costs down and take the risk of losing that Jaguar feel. If they don't do something soon this brand will certainly go belly up. I think the major problem with Jaguar, is they used some bad platforms on their less expensive models. The engine choices and power were horrible and thus sales numbers weren't great. I heard some say it drives like a Lincoln. :surprise: I think if ford wants to save Aston Martin, they are going to have to share platforms with Jaguar. They can make Aston the corpoarate halo car brand with Jaguar being priced below them. Jaguar needs to get back to it's roots and be a leader in straightline performance and handling. Aston, can be like Mercedes and be more like a prestige boulevard cruiser with a sexy body.
DCX- Well they refuse to make Chrysler cars with good interiors. It seems like their midsize cars all have weak engines. They only have 3 decent engines which I wouldn't classify as great and those are the V10, 5.7 Hemi, 6.1 Hemi. What other engine is good from chrysler ???? The last good engines were the 318, and inline-6 both were bullet proof but both of them are like GM, giving us the 3800 again. The 5.7/6.1 Hemi's, are gas guzzlers, aren't smooth or refined, and live off the past success's via the Hemi name. They both are adequate for power but you have to spend a arm and a leg to get the 6.1 Hemi.
I hate to say this but I think a Hyundai, interior is quite a bit better than the chrysler interiors. The Jeep Commander is a flop and their trucks have let the ship pass them bye. I am not impressed with Chrysler's line-up and giving us gimmick car show concept cars isn't going to solve the near future. The Sebring was outdated before it came out and it's interior might looks great in design but I can see cost cutting in photo's and that's pretty bad.
It will be most interesting to see where Mercedes, takes Chrysler. I know you believe the Chinese will buy them. It appears DCX, is going to import Chinese cars under dodge brands and that should get the UAW worked up by next contract. I figured the Germans, would of ran Chrysler successfully but quite the opposite has happened. I guess Mercedes, is use to building cars to a standard with money being no object and slapping some ridiculous price tag on it and they know it will sell. Chrysler Corp. is a volume brand and the standards have been raised by the players in it. I believe they thought they could get away with "good enough" and the american people would buy it. Well they are now and will continue to be wrong. The question is can they adopt ? I guess by the looks of it DCX, has taken the easy route of Chinese cars. They are going to feed the enemy that steals their designs and reward them with jobs and money. I will be looking forward to see how this all plays out. :surprise:
We are not here to discuss cabdidates for President or national healthcare, or any of the other intersting but off topic subjects that keep coming up.
I understand that the title of this discussion opens it up a lot of related issues, but we seem to keep abandoning the automotive aspect of the side issues and spinning off into threads that have nothing to do with the auto makers.
I'm going to go back a few pages and remove the posts that have nothing automotive about them at all in an attempt to nudge this one back on track.
Please remember that we are here to discuss the automotive issues of the day. How the cost of healthcare affects a car maker is fair game. When we spin off into politics and national healthcare, we've lost it in turn two!
I'm hoping they keep the title. I don't feel there's any great salvation coming for their expenses without union concessions for healthcare and retirees in the way of government help. The unions are going to need to make concessions.
I am excited that some of the Toyota products aren't being received with the unblinking acceptance they used to be. The Prius story on ABC news tonight was about their backlog. It was tactfully done. But essentially, they ain't selling. The company that doesn't need incentives (along with Honda, yeah sure) has rebates, interest help, etc., all listed in the article. Of course the representative from Toyota explained their increased production was meant to establish a niche. You don't eestablish a niche when the government is giving rebates for people to buy your car! and that expires soon, finally. But the Toyota guy polished it off like an apple from and A student to a teacher in a class they're getting a C in. Slick talk.
Maybe others see through the slick talk and give the cars the same honest evaluation they give GM cars.
My opinion of GM's position is up after my plant tour. I was really impressed with the no waste. I loved the idea that many parts were manufactured that morning in area plants and delivered just in time in the corredt order for assembly. WOW. Efficiency in the plant since they don't have to have stock areas and manufacturing areas for parts such as roof pads and seats.
I would say national health care has a lot to do with the auto industry. Actually, all industry in US of A. They are building cars in Canada, and saving on health care cost. Same goes for Mexico plants. If they go with national health care in USA, I would say it could save a bundle of money for GM and Ford. Chrysler saves too, but then again, they are German owned and thus not domestic.
Side note: My PT Cruiser seems to be screwed together quite well by the assembly people in Mexico. The Ford Fusion / Milan seem to have good initial quality reports. I am thinking more assembly may head south of the border. Union concessions, and national health care may help keep more jobs in USA borders -- just a thought. -Loren
The auto industry's problems with the cost of healthcare for their employees is certainly fair game here. National healthcare, and which countries do or don't have it really isn't an automotive issue.
I know it's easy for issue that relate to the topic here to spin off into non-automotive discussions of this own. All I'm pointing out is thatwe need to keep things centered on the automotive aspects of things.
The union concessions will save money in the short-term but in the long-term it doesn't solve the issues. As we've now seen Toyota, is the most profitable car company in the world and they pay their workers $3.00 an hour more than the big 3. So is the problem really with labor costs ? I know GM, has a lot of retirees but GM, says it's pension fund right now is over-funded so that shouldn't be an issue. GM, yes has the burden of retiree healthcare and yes could use a break in cost reduction. The Toyota, workers also have retiree healthcare in this country and as more and more workers retire those costs will add up for them.
I still think the biggest problem next to healthcare that needs to be addressed not only for the big 3, but for other manufactoring sectors like U.S. automotive parts plants is "currency manipulation". As we've seen in recent news articles the 110th congress is looking at this subject seriously. The cost of these two major issues are costing the big 3 tens of billions in revenue.
Rocky
P.S. Wished I could of caught the Prius Story. :sick:
Thanks for the story. I think if Toyota, can get the gas mileage above 80 mpg and if the congress and president give nice tax breaks you will see sales spike once again. I think many are waiting for the 2009' prius that promises even greater mileage. I'd still would like for GM, to try their hand at making a super fuel efficient hybrid like the Prius. I think Saturn, would be the right brand for GM, to do this with since it already has a green image wouldn't you agree ?????
Well stay in contact here. I'm going to miss the GM faithful I and you regularly talked to. :sick:
But the Prius will be severely reduced in mileage with the new EPA standard for next year. Instead of 60 city it will 40 something.
The thing has been optimized for the EPA testing. I'd like to know real world mileage for someone who drives it normally commuting and how it compares to a Corolla without the glitzy taillights and with a Civic 4-cyl.
What's even better for GM and Ford and others is that the local clearchannel radio station talk show was about the Prius. I only heard parts because of our big snow/sleet storm raging now. But the station, WLW700 covers the many state region including Georgetown and including the headquarters of Toyota North America (where the 42-page report was left unsecured) which is in Erlanger, KY, about 6 miles from downtown Cincy. All this reality publicity is going to help Ford, Chrysler, and GM.
Someone made a point that they love seeing all the large SUVs lined up on GM dealers' lots. I love seeing all the Camrys and Priuses in the local lots of the Toyota dealers. They are much better set up to control their production for the sake of keeping workers busy so they shouldn't have problems with dealer stock and days supply sitting on the lots. GM needs to keep plants working because it costs as much to idle the plant as it does to make vehicles.
But the Prius will be severely reduced in mileage with the new EPA standard for next year. Instead of 60 city it will 40 something.
That is true and is why I said 80 mpg because the new one coming in 09' is suppose to exceed 100 mpg but with the new EPA figures it will do around 80 mpg I hear.
The thing has been optimized for the EPA testing. I'd like to know real world mileage for someone who drives it normally commuting and how it compares to a Corolla without the glitzy taillights and with a Civic 4-cyl.
I agree
What's even better for GM and Ford and others is that the local clearchannel radio station talk show was about the Prius. I only heard parts because of our big snow/sleet storm raging now. But the station, WLW700 covers the many state region including Georgetown and including the headquarters of Toyota North America (where the 42-page report was left unsecured) which is in Erlanger, KY, about 6 miles from downtown Cincy. All this reality publicity is going to help Ford, Chrysler, and GM.
Can you elaborate on what you mean ? How is this going to convince the public to leave their imports for GM ? The hiding of recalls for 8 years didn't make a dent as Toyota, sales went up I think 6%. :surprise:
Someone made a point that they love seeing all the large SUVs lined up on GM dealers' lots. I love seeing all the Camrys and Priuses in the local lots of the Toyota dealers. They are much better set up to control their production for the sake of keeping workers busy so they shouldn't have problems with dealer stock and days supply sitting on the lots. GM needs to keep plants working because it costs as much to idle the plant as it does to make vehicles.
Yeah, it's pretty sad when people wish the worst things to happen to GM. :sick:
The state of our domestic automakers is sad indeed. A ton of good paying jobs have already been lost and this continues--see today's report on further cuts by Daimler Chrysler. Unfortunately, all the offshore automaker "bashing" in boards like this one isn't going to change anything very much. The problem is a lot more complex--in fact there's no "million dollar" answer, the reality is a million "one dollar" answers are needed to fix this dilemma. It's going to take years--if it ever happens at all. Domestic automakers are still biased towards large vehicles/gas guzzlers, and these have very limited market anywhere but in the US--and the US market has already shifted away from them. Offshore carmakers are way ahead of the worldwide demand for smaller less gas hungry vehicles--and don't discount the Toyota Prius sales sag for long--wait until oil prices spike again as they're bound to. Unions are involved too, but reluctant to admit it, yes, because of wages/benefits but also because of a myriad of inflexible work policies agreed to over the years which aren't changing quickly enough. And these kinds of work practices aren't limited to automakers but long ago morphed into many of the supplier companies building components for automakers. Similarly, wage rates in many other countries are considerably lower than in North America--that's something we as a nation aren't willing to deal with because of fears about lowering our standard of living, so we must learn to become much more efficient in order to compete on an equal wage/value basis. Trade practices are also a problem--many countries don't allow North American manufacurers to sell their products in those countries, yet we buy their products in great numbers. Currency values are another concern where some countries (China for example) keep their currency artificially low in order to make their goods available at a lower cost. Lots and lots of issues folks--I've only touched on a few-- and it's going to take a nationwide effort by all parties to ever change things--otherwise we're seeing the beginning of the end of the industrial base we've led the world with for such a long time. Bashing Toyota, Honda, Nissan, et al isn't the answer--after all, we really have only ourselves to blame, and we must look to in order to make things better!
Truth be told, you should agree with ALL of it and lots more, instead of just hoping government can bail out the domestic auto industry--or blaming Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Hyundai, etc. "Someone Else" isn't going to do what's necessary!! Not this time Rocklee!! WE allowed this mess to happen, (WE, after all, are what WE call the "government") and WE are going to have to do the heavy lifting that's needed to fix it. If, and only if, you, and a great many other citizens in this land are willing make the sacrifices and put forth the huge effort required to fix this mess, will the changes you would like to see happen Rocklee. It's going to take the kind of effort by this country that we last saw in WW Two,and no less my friend! Unfortunately, I have serious doubts about our collective ability to make that kind of effort any more. As a nation, we've grown too soft, and are too biased toward the philosophy of "entitlement". Your comment about "it's up to the government" is, sadly, an example we see far too often these days.
The state of our domestic automakers is sad indeed. A ton of good paying jobs have already been lost and this continues--see today's report on further cuts by Daimler Chrysler.
I was the first to post it on this site.....
Unfortunately, all the offshore automaker "bashing" in boards like this one isn't going to change anything very much.
-agree
The problem is a lot more complex--in fact there's no "million dollar" answer, the reality is a million "one dollar" answers are needed to fix this dilemma. It's going to take years--if it ever happens at all.
-I diagree because I think if the government got rid of trade treaty's like NAFTA, fixed the currency manipulation issue, and we had national healthcare you would almost see over night success.
Domestic automakers are still biased towards large vehicles/gas guzzlers, and these have very limited market anywhere but in the US--and the US market has already shifted away from them.
I disagree with you to some degree here. SUV/Trucks still are the #1 sellers in this country by quite a margin. I think as long as gas stay under $2.50 a gallon Trucks/SUV's will sell well. SUV's offer customer a strong people per mile (PPM) # of people x mpg = your efficiency. General Motor's 2-mode hybrid system will be on board beginning in 2008' on more and more vehicals. The test mules I've read about give Trucks a city/hwy avg of almost 26 mpg. The Cadillac Escalade SUV test mules with the 2-mode system was pulling almost 31 mpg hwy.
Offshore carmakers are way ahead of the worldwide demand for smaller less gas hungry vehicles--and don't discount the Toyota Prius sales sag for long--wait until oil prices spike again as they're bound to
Disagree with you again. GM, has the new Saturn Astra, G6, Chevy Aveo, G5, 08' Malibu + hybrid, Aura + Greenline, Cobalt, to name a few. GM, is looking to use other popular small cars to bring over from over sea's to our market. Some of these cars will be built here in this country in the not to distant future. The democrats in congress won't allow prices to hit $3.00 a gallon without taking action against big oil meaing Prius sales will probably stay saged.
Unions are involved too, but reluctant to admit it, yes, because of wages/benefits but also because of a myriad of inflexible work policies agreed to over the years which aren't changing quickly enough.
That is absolutely false. The UAW & IUE-CWA have admitted they will have to loosen up work rules and at several plants they have. GM, has many plants that are as efficent as the Japanese and some that are more efficient. The most efficient plant in the U.S. is a GM, plant. If you checked out the latest news Toyota, workers are making $3.00 more an hour than GM, workers. UAW president said in the Detroit News he realizes their will have to be some sacrifices next contract.
And these kinds of work practices aren't limited to automakers but long ago morphed into many of the supplier companies building components for automakers.
That is true but a lot of the components are made over sea's now days not because they weren't profitable but because of greed. The parts suplliers are taking advantage of our current policy's of rewarding corporate america for off-shoring or going across the southern border. :mad:
Similarly, wage rates in many other countries are considerably lower than in North America--that's something we as a nation aren't willing to deal with because of fears about lowering our standard of living, so we must learn to become much more efficient in order to compete on an equal wage/value basis.
We out produce the world 3 to 1 but when someone is making $0.43 an hour in China, it's impossible to make up the difference through efficiency. That is common sense.
Trade practices are also a problem--many countries don't allow North American manufacurers to sell their products in those countries, yet we buy their products in great numbers.
That is why I'm a supporter of tariffs. The Chinese, Japanese, Europeans tariff our products but we don't return the favor. Watch Lou Dobbs on CNN regularly and you will puke. Wee agree here.
Currency values are another concern where some countries (China for example) keep their currency artificially low in order to make their goods available at a lower cost.
I agree with you again. The Chinese don't sell cars here YET so from a automotive perspective they don't harm us as much. They mainly make some components for parts suppliers. The Japanese are huge currency manipulators thus are having a huge impact on our big 3. They said a couple days ago they plan on bringing more small cars to our market from Japan. Currency Maniplation in the small car segment has a huge impact because they can sell them dirt cheap and make them nice at the same time and still pull a good profit.
Lots and lots of issues folks--I've only touched on a few-- and it's going to take a nationwide effort by all parties to ever change things--
Are you suggesting "buy america" ? Well that is an evil word on here you know.
otherwise we're seeing the beginning of the end of the industrial base we've led the world with for such a long time.
Yep !!!
Bashing Toyota, Honda, Nissan, et al isn't the answer--after all, we really have only ourselves to blame, and we must look to in order to make things better!
That is true but some people are tired of hearing how great they are in domestic forums. If they had to give up some of their advantages like currency manipulation, had to open their market to competition, and if the big 3 had a national healthcare policy it would relieve them of some multi-billion dollar burdens.
Truth be told, you should agree with ALL of it and lots more, instead of just hoping government can bail out the domestic auto industry--or blaming Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Hyundai, etc.
The government is the only one that can finacially bail the big 3 out with changes in domestic policy. They have the power to level the field and trust me you will see those changes employed by the 110th congress. If the 110th congress tariff the japanese imports to the country to level the playing field you will see some screaming. I hope this happens because that means any big 3 vehicle, Tacoma, Jetta, coming from mexico, etc, would be tariffed as well.
"Someone Else" isn't going to do what's necessary!! Not this time Rocklee!!
I respectfully disagree......
WE allowed this mess to happen, (WE, after all, are what WE call the "government") and WE are going to have to do the heavy lifting that's needed to fix it.
Well you can look at who was in power before the 110 congress and find your answer to that one. I do agree with your answer though
If, and only if, you, and a great many other citizens in this land are willing make the sacrifices and put forth the huge effort required to fix this mess, will the changes you would like to see happen Rocklee.
I buy american goods, support american business, and have been actively involved with unions my whole life. I write congressmen, vote, participate in surveys, and currently am a member to three people running for president. What else can I do beyond that ?
It's going to take the kind of effort by this country that we last saw in WW Two,and no less my friend!
I agree, but people have changed for the worse. People value material things over their neighbor. This is why we've collapsed. My generation isn't as good as my grandparent's generation and that's hard for me to admit. We've lost a lot of nationalism in this country. Good, or bad, those are facts.
Unfortunately, I have serious doubts about our collective ability to make that kind of effort any more.
We agree again. We saw it after 9/11 but after about a year that all began to fade. :sick:
As a nation, we've grown too soft, and are too biased toward the philosophy of "entitlement".
I agree with you if you mean people are to selfish. I think people today want the best product at the lowest price no matter what the consquences are. I think that's the biggest difference between my generation and my grandparents generation.
Your comment about "it's up to the government" is, sadly, an example we see far too often these days.
Well I'm sorry you disagree but I've gave examples in both of these posts of why it will take government to fix it. I alone can't change the U.S. I can only do my part and can't make others change. The only one that can do that is the government and since I'm a registered voter I do have some small say.
Rockylee, you get part of it, but unfortunately not enough of it! Your views are overly simplistic and very typical of what's seen by many to be wrong with our economy--and is a wrongheaded attitude toward what's needed to fix it. As long as the way you view this problem remains a big component of our national psyche, very little will ever change. Needless to say, there is little point in continuing this debate.
Okay, please explain what needs to happen. You were pretty "generalization/gray" on some issues you discussed without giving details. Talking about sacrifices in WW2 tells me nothing relevant. What did they do in WW2 beside be more patriotic and gave up some things to their neighbor ? I do not think like most of the country. trust me on that. I think a lot like Lou Dobbs.
Report: GM in talks to buy Chrysler DaimlerChrysler is reportedly talking with General Motors about the possibility of GM's buying the Chrysler group, according to the German magazine Manager Magazin. The magazine cited company sources as saying the talks were in full swing but still at an early stage. DaimlerChrysler CEO Dieter Zetsche and a GM spokeswoman would not comment on the report. story
With due respect to your admiration of Lou Dobbs, plus your pervasive efforts to change the situation Rockylee, when you're able to set aside the "solidarity forever" mindset, perhaps some meaningful dialog might happen. Until then, my friend, best get ready for a big upheaval in the North American economy, along with some rather unpleasant lifestyle changes. Probably in a couple of generations, maybe even sooner...............! In the meantime, save your money. Sayonara.
Good news for DamlierChrysler, and it could return to selling only those profitable Mercedes. As for GM, if the story is not a hoax, I am a bit concerned about. Will now weigh this news before buying a GM car. I think it must be a hoax of some sort. I am currently still considering the Aura as a car to purchase, though leaning toward the Accord. If GM really is going nuts, I must consider this element in the buying decision.
Ya know it would be a source for RWD cars to buy Chrysler, but GM has their own RWD cars in Australia to use for a platform. Now I am think too much - it is just a joke. -Loren
The Chairman of Daimler Chrysler, Deiter Zietch, was asked by media about the possibility Chrysler was "for sale". His response was (paraphrased)"all options are on the table". Similarly, GM has stated they are "looking at" the possibility of "merging" some parts of the Chrysler lineup. This has given rise to all sorts of rhetoric and speculation. So far, that's all there is.....rhetoric and speculation.
Sadly, the Chrysler situation is a huge "red flag" for the entire domestic auto manufacturing sector--not to mention manufacturing as we know it in this country!!
Personally, I believe (as do many far more astute than I) we "ain't seen nuthin' yet!!"
Earlier in this forum, I identified just a few of the issues the industry faces. These issues are real, and just a portion of the big picture.
Solutions needed to fix the situation aren't easy ones, regardless of how some feel about Lou Dobbs, government, or just trolling the net sniping at offshore manufacturers.
Fundamentally what it boils down to is something like this.... The US and its populace must recognize and accept that it's no longer the only industrial player of any influence in the game. The US has to recognize and accept that its current life style and standard of living comes with a huge price---and many other countries in the world which have been paying that price aren't willing to do so any longer.
These other countries want what we have, and they're prepared to do what's needed to get their piece of the action.
They have every right to do so, and we have no right to force our views of how the world should be upon them, as we have done (or often tried to do) in the past.
> regardless of how some feel about Lou Dobbs, government, or just trolling the net sniping at offshore manufacturers.
There are people who spend their time sniping at US auto manufacturers.
This sounds like a point-of-view political statement that's not necessary here. We're not discussing international politics. We'll get enough of that by November 2008 from people who have little more than their own advancement in mind--not the advancement of our country. We need a JFK again to advance the US manufacturers and bring the trade and monetary exchange imbalance back toward fair IN ORDER TO BENEFIT our US auto manufacturing and support companies.
I have tied my statements to US auto manufacturers. Let's stay on topic please.
I accept your criticism of my comments, and respect your opinion. Allow an observation if you will.
My remarks may have seemed "point-of-view political", but in reality, they go directly to the heart of the issue re why domestic auto manufacturers are in trouble.
I agree, what you advocate may help:..."advance the US manufacturers and bring the trade and monetary exchange imbalance back toward fair IN ORDER TO BENEFIT our US auto manufacturing and support companies"
However, there are downsides to what you advocate which are very real:.... (1) These kinds of measures are often temporary, knee jerk "fixes"; at best they are "band aid" policies which look good on the surface but often create more problems than they resolve. Simply put, they usually force the other players to do the same, and soon the imbalances return with a vengeance. (2) Our govenment's abilities to arbitrarily "impose our will" on competing economies in the world is no longer what it once was. We have failed miserably to "win the hearts and minds" of others through intimidation.
My Point?? Government intervention with band aid protectionism applied to this current dilemma would only be a short term fix, unfortunately. Not a cure by any means.
PS I too, harken back to JFK's famous comment: Ask not what your country can do for you............." Now more than ever, that statement resonates.
When Bush refused to do "anything" to help the US-based manufacturers a year or so ago when the heads went to Washington to see him, I found that strangely odd. It affected my votes this November election.
There are many things that could be done that wouldn't open up huge discussions in monetary values that affect car pricing on those which are imported if the government doesn't want to face up to the Eastern unfair exchange rates. That's not my topic. Just what it does to affect US manufacturers. As far as protectionism..., we don't have that. We'd be better off if that were true. We are giving everything away, including our borders.
Chrysler and Daimler really leaves me confused on what would be best. Are their plants and union contracts a major negative for competition.
Comments
Loren, if you shop around you might just be able to buy a 3.6 @ 3.5 price
Rocky
-Loren
Like a Pizza slogan you can order engine and trim any way you want it !!!
LTZ Leather Trim and Ecotec 4 combo can be made for example.
Rocky
I thought they held off after the Civic with radical changes came out and they were redesigning the Corolla update? But my point was the Corolla does fine with a 4-speed and many people are happy with them.
Different people want different things in a car.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Rocky
For the first time, Ford Motor Co. has fallen to fourth place in domestic monthly auto sales.
Ford in January sold fewer vehicles than General Motors Corp., Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. and DaimlerChrysler AG's Chrysler Group.
In part, the milestone slump at Ford can be credited to the automaker's deliberate decision to slash unprofitable sales to daily-rental fleets. But Ford's lackluster product offerings also are to blame, analysts say.
Chrysler edged past Ford by 2,104 units, selling 156,308 cars and trucks in January. Ford sold 154,204 Lincoln, Mercury and Ford vehicles in the same month.
GM eclipsed both with its 244,435 units, but Toyota maintained second place with sales of 175,850 cars and trucks -- up 5 percent from last year.
Wooing buyers with special deals helped Chrysler last month, said David Healy, an industry analyst for Burnham Financial Group.
"Chrysler's success was due as much to heavy incentivizing as anything," said Healy. "They were extremely aggressive, particularly on older models like the Durango SUV and the Ram pickup truck."
By contrast, he said, Ford's product offerings just aren't driving demand. "Ford has been bombarding us with high-quality, well-designed, exceedingly dull automobiles for the last few years," he said. "Their market is marching away. And they are in a lull in new product introductions."
Ford also was fourth in overall sales, posting a 19 percent decline.
GM said its January U.S. auto sales dropped 16.6 percent.
But Toyota Motor Corp.'s sales rose 9.5 percent to again surpass Ford's monthly sales, while DaimlerChrysler AG's sales rose 3.2 percent compared with January 2006,
This year, Toyota is expected to take Ford's No. 2 spot in U.S. sales after its sales surpassed Ford's in two months last year. The Japanese automaker sold 175,850 vehicles last month, including 100,256 cars and 75,594 trucks.
On Wednesday, Ford warned that it expected to post a 20 percent drop compared with January 2006. And GM had said last week that it expected its January sales to be down, also because of lower rental fleet sales.
"We are aggressively reducing our daily rental fleet sales as a continuing element of our strategy to offer industry-leading value and improve residuals," Mark LaNeve, GM's vice president for sales, service and marketing, said in a statement.
GM's car sales dropped 22.5 percent for the month to 104,156, while light truck sales were down 11.5 percent to 140,458. In all, it sold 244,614 light vehicles for the month, remaining No. 1 in sales.
GM also lowered its first-quarter North American production forecast from guidance given last month by 40,000 vehicles, or 3.6 percent, to 1.1 million vehicles. GM said it was part of the effort to reduce rental fleet sales. In the first quarter of 2006, GM produced 1.3 million vehicles in the region.
Toyota's car sales were up 13.1 percent in January, while truck sales rose 5 percent. Toyota said sales, which include the Toyota and Lexus brands, were the best ever for January. Sales of its Camry mid-sized car rose 14.7 percent to 31,461, while its hybrid Prius and RAV4 compact sport utility vehicle also made gains.
Including imports, Ford sold 165,877 light vehicles in January. It sold 55,842 cars, down 32.5 percent from a year ago, and 110,035 light trucks, down 9.8 percent. It said sales to daily rental companies dropped 65 percent. Ford said it remains focused on its North American turnaround and returning to profitability.
"Where we are in sales races and sales rankings ... is a distraction that we're not going to be bothered with," George Pipas, Ford's top sales analyst, said during a conference call with industry analysts and reporters. "We've got a job to do in North America, and that is all we're focused on."
While the decline in fleet sales hurts overall sales numbers, GM and Ford have said the focus instead on sales to more-profitable retail customers is part of their North American turnaround efforts.
Ford's sales to retail customers were down 5 percent for the month.
In the first full month of sales for its new crossovers, Ford reported it sold 5,586 Ford Edges and 1,699 Lincoln MKXs. But sales of Ford's F-series pickup truck were down about 15 percent from a year ago.
Ford said it expects weakness in new home construction to hurt full-size pickup sales through the first half of the year. Its sales include Ford, Lincoln and Mercury brands, as well as Jaguar, Land Rover and Volvo. Jaguar sales fell 13 percent, Land Rover sales fell 11.7 percent and Volvo sales fell 7 percent.
Ford's fleet sales were expected to be lower because it no longer is selling the Taurus -- once the nation's top-selling car. But Pipas said fleet reductions also came in many current products.
DaimlerChrysler sold 173,377 vehicles in January. Mercedes-Benz sales rose 36.9 percent to 17,069 in January compared with the same month of 2006.
The gains came as Chrysler saw its best January in six years and Mercedes reported its best January sales ever, DaimlerChrysler said. Chrysler said its January sales were driven by solid retail sales, while fleet sales were down, but a statement on the results didn't provide specific fleet numbers.
"With a fresh product lineup in dealer showrooms and eight new vehicle launches to come in 2007, Chrysler Group is well positioned to remain competitive in the marketplace," Michael Manley, vice president for sales and dealer operations, said in a statement. "We will focus on providing innovation, quality and value to our customers -- and we will also provide our dealers with competitive tools to sell these vehicles."
Other automakers reporting January sales include:
American Honda Motor Co; 100,790 units
Kia Motors America; 22,524
Hyundai Motor America; 27,721
Subaru of America; 12,074 units
Mitsubishi Motors North America; 9383
Audi of America; 6,399 units
http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070201/UPDATE/702010458
Rocky
Rocky
Rocky, you're too young to recall the days of buying a car with just the options you want from GM. You could get just the big V8 and not a radio, save the weight and go fast. :surprise: Well ya know what I mean. Yeah, you are right, it is fun to customize. The downside was the list made the $4,000 car $5,000 to $6,000 in a hurry. It was something trying to figure out car worth used back when. The Japan and Euro makes had package deals, or models with all the stuff on them, and soon American cars dropped most of the silly stuff, like an extra outside mirror $7, and such. Yeah, you use to get one mirror. Had to be rich to get a fully loaded Riviera. Ahhhhh, the Riv!
-Loren
-Loren
Isn't the cost to own a car cheaper today, then back in the old days ????
Rocky
Rocky
Is Chrysler next?
-Can stow-n-go 3.0 save them?!
-Can Challenger bring them from the brink of collapse?!
-Will Hemi Aspen save them from the abyss despite being a decade late to the party?!
Stay tuned, same car time, same car channel...
The foreign brands didn't like the ordering to sheet concept because it took them a long time to boat those cars over. So they benefited from pushing cars that were built in one mold and making the people take extras they didn't want or just do without options which they really wanted. Same for color choices based on what coworkers told me in the past.
Then somebody at GM and others figured out packages were the way to gain higher accuracy rates in the assembly process by doing lots of cars with the same options and in theory save costs. The wiring bundles are all the same, e.g. So leSabre got the SA, SB, SC packaging. There were a few option bundles but you started with one package level...
In the 70s I recall seeing lots of Gran Prixs at a Pontiac dealer in Milford all the same color and all the same package. Apparently there was a dealer benefit to ordering consistently equipped cars.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The ultimate appliance car look your ask? Try the 1960 Falcon, looks as well rounded a bar of soap today, as it did back when. And I may add, not ugly. It is, well I should say, just is. Ultimate simplicity of form.
-Loren
I had a 67 Mustang and changed points in it every 12-15000 miles. They didn't last. Plugs were almost as bad.
Cars were cheaper overall to own then because they cost a lot less without all the government-mandated equipment. The replacement parts and maintenance were cheap relative to now but I did both myself and the cost was cheap.
A difference was there was not expectation of a car going 150-200 K mi as there is now. At 90-100 K one expected to replace the thing.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
By the 80ies cars reached a point where it took a trained technician to fix them. No more taking your car down to that handy neighbor of yours.
http://www.thecarconnection.com/Auto_News/Daily_Auto_News/Nissan_Earnings_Take_a- _Fall.S173.A11858.html
Here is what I wrote back in July:
brightness04, "The UAW and Domestic Automakers" #3107, 8 Jul 2006 10:34 pm#3106
"I like Ghosn, but I'm not a groupie of Renault/Nissan. IMHO, there's only that much an individual in an organization that size can do. If I were Ghosn, I'd be thinking of exit strategy before the next down turn, which is perhaps NOW!"
Emphasis on "NOW" was in the original post half a year ago. Looks like Carlos would have done well taking my advice.
That's on top of pointing out both Ford and Chrysler were in even worse shape in GM when much of the talking class were berating GM management and praising how great Ford and Chrysler were based on the first few months' sales of Mustang and and 300M.
Things go in cycles; the more things change, the more they stay the same; it's not magic :-)
Rocky
Any Ford presence in China? Seems like one advantage for the General (GM).
Will we have some sort of a national health care program at least in the planning stages in 2009?
-Loren
God, can only predict. If they aren't profitable Loren, I think we could see a massive sell-off on Wallstreet pal.
Any Ford presence in China? Seems like one advantage for the General (GM).
To be honest I'm not sure exactly what Ford builds in China. I believe other forum posters have posted links in the past pointing to products. I think bumpy was the one ?
GM, of course has a leg up on everyone in China, and should continue to dominate that market which is good because it is growing fast. GM, will make multi-billion dollar profits in China. I also expect in the near future GM, will hit the India, market very hard and will be a top seller there also. The future does look very bright for GM, from a global standpoint.
Ford, is struggling here but I assume whatever products they are making in China, are doing okay. Ford, is very successful in Australia, and has some very nice products. They also seem to be doing very good Europe. I think one of their biggest challenges is going to be getting Land Rover, Jaguar, Aston Martin, on track. Land Rover, looks like it has a success on it's hands with the LR-2 which should be a high volume vehicle for Land Rover. I think if they can do a smart refresh with the LR-3, and sprinkle so Range Rover technology down to the LR-3 it would help it stand out in the crowd.
Jaguar, IMHO has always been sexy. I'm not sure if Ford, has enough resources to keep this brand relavent ? I think they need to share more global platforms to keep costs down and take the risk of losing that Jaguar feel. If they don't do something soon this brand will certainly go belly up. I think the major problem with Jaguar, is they used some bad platforms on their less expensive models. The engine choices and power were horrible and thus sales numbers weren't great. I heard some say it drives like a Lincoln. :surprise: I think if ford wants to save Aston Martin, they are going to have to share platforms with Jaguar. They can make Aston the corpoarate halo car brand with Jaguar being priced below them. Jaguar needs to get back to it's roots and be a leader in straightline performance and handling. Aston, can be like Mercedes and be more like a prestige boulevard cruiser with a sexy body.
DCX- Well they refuse to make Chrysler cars with good interiors. It seems like their midsize cars all have weak engines. They only have 3 decent engines which I wouldn't classify as great and those are the V10, 5.7 Hemi, 6.1 Hemi. What other engine is good from chrysler ???? The last good engines were the 318, and inline-6 both were bullet proof but both of them are like GM, giving us the 3800 again. The 5.7/6.1 Hemi's, are gas guzzlers, aren't smooth or refined, and live off the past success's via the Hemi name. They both are adequate for power but you have to spend a arm and a leg to get the 6.1 Hemi.
I hate to say this but I think a Hyundai, interior is quite a bit better than the chrysler interiors. The Jeep Commander is a flop and their trucks have let the ship pass them bye. I am not impressed with Chrysler's line-up and giving us gimmick car show concept cars isn't going to solve the near future. The Sebring was outdated before it came out and it's interior might looks great in design but I can see cost cutting in photo's and that's pretty bad.
It will be most interesting to see where Mercedes, takes Chrysler. I know you believe the Chinese will buy them. It appears DCX, is going to import Chinese cars under dodge brands and that should get the UAW worked up by next contract. I figured the Germans, would of ran Chrysler successfully but quite the opposite has happened. I guess Mercedes, is use to building cars to a standard with money being no object and slapping some ridiculous price tag on it and they know it will sell.
Rocky
I understand that the title of this discussion opens it up a lot of related issues, but we seem to keep abandoning the automotive aspect of the side issues and spinning off into threads that have nothing to do with the auto makers.
I'm going to go back a few pages and remove the posts that have nothing automotive about them at all in an attempt to nudge this one back on track.
Please remember that we are here to discuss the automotive issues of the day. How the cost of healthcare affects a car maker is fair game. When we spin off into politics and national healthcare, we've lost it in turn two!
Thanks for your cooperation and participation.
Rocky
I am excited that some of the Toyota products aren't being received with the unblinking acceptance they used to be. The Prius story on ABC news tonight was about their backlog. It was tactfully done. But essentially, they ain't selling. The company that doesn't need incentives (along with Honda, yeah sure) has rebates, interest help, etc., all listed in the article. Of course the representative from Toyota explained their increased production was meant to establish a niche. You don't eestablish a niche when the government is giving rebates for people to buy your car! and that expires soon, finally. But the Toyota guy polished it off like an apple from and A student to a teacher in a class they're getting a C in. Slick talk.
Maybe others see through the slick talk and give the cars the same honest evaluation they give GM cars.
My opinion of GM's position is up after my plant tour. I was really impressed with the no waste. I loved the idea that many parts were manufactured that morning in area plants and delivered just in time in the corredt order for assembly. WOW. Efficiency in the plant since they don't have to have stock areas and manufacturing areas for parts such as roof pads and seats.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Side note: My PT Cruiser seems to be screwed together quite well by the assembly people in Mexico. The Ford Fusion / Milan seem to have good initial quality reports. I am thinking more assembly may head south of the border.
Union concessions, and national health care may help keep more jobs in USA borders -- just a thought.
-Loren
I know it's easy for issue that relate to the topic here to spin off into non-automotive discussions of this own. All I'm pointing out is thatwe need to keep things centered on the automotive aspects of things.
I know GM, has a lot of retirees but GM, says it's pension fund right now is over-funded so that shouldn't be an issue. GM, yes has the burden of retiree healthcare and yes could use a break in cost reduction. The Toyota, workers also have retiree healthcare in this country and as more and more workers retire those costs will add up for them.
I still think the biggest problem next to healthcare that needs to be addressed not only for the big 3, but for other manufactoring sectors like U.S. automotive parts plants is "currency manipulation". As we've seen in recent news articles the 110th congress is looking at this subject seriously. The cost of these two major issues are costing the big 3 tens of billions in revenue.
Rocky
P.S. Wished I could of caught the Prius Story. :sick:
I was hoping they would have a video of the news story. But the text of the actual story seems exactly what was spoken.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Thanks for the story. I think if Toyota, can get the gas mileage above 80 mpg and if the congress and president give nice tax breaks you will see sales spike once again. I think many are waiting for the 2009' prius that promises even greater mileage. I'd still would like for GM, to try their hand at making a super fuel efficient hybrid like the Prius. I think Saturn, would be the right brand for GM, to do this with since it already has a green image wouldn't you agree ?????
Well stay in contact here. I'm going to miss the GM faithful I and you regularly talked to. :sick:
Rocky
The thing has been optimized for the EPA testing. I'd like to know real world mileage for someone who drives it normally commuting and how it compares to a Corolla without the glitzy taillights and with a Civic 4-cyl.
What's even better for GM and Ford and others is that the local clearchannel radio station talk show was about the Prius. I only heard parts because of our big snow/sleet storm raging now. But the station, WLW700 covers the many state region including Georgetown and including the headquarters of Toyota North America (where the 42-page report was left unsecured) which is in Erlanger, KY, about 6 miles from downtown Cincy. All this reality publicity is going to help Ford, Chrysler, and GM.
Someone made a point that they love seeing all the large SUVs lined up on GM dealers' lots. I love seeing all the Camrys and Priuses in the local lots of the Toyota dealers. They are much better set up to control their production for the sake of keeping workers busy so they shouldn't have problems with dealer stock and days supply sitting on the lots. GM needs to keep plants working because it costs as much to idle the plant as it does to make vehicles.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
That is true and is why I said 80 mpg because the new one coming in 09' is suppose to exceed 100 mpg but with the new EPA figures it will do around 80 mpg I hear.
The thing has been optimized for the EPA testing. I'd like to know real world mileage for someone who drives it normally commuting and how it compares to a Corolla without the glitzy taillights and with a Civic 4-cyl.
I agree
What's even better for GM and Ford and others is that the local clearchannel radio station talk show was about the Prius. I only heard parts because of our big snow/sleet storm raging now. But the station, WLW700 covers the many state region including Georgetown and including the headquarters of Toyota North America (where the 42-page report was left unsecured) which is in Erlanger, KY, about 6 miles from downtown Cincy. All this reality publicity is going to help Ford, Chrysler, and GM.
Can you elaborate on what you mean ? How is this going to convince the public to leave their imports for GM ?
The hiding of recalls for 8 years didn't make a dent as Toyota, sales went up I think 6%. :surprise:
Someone made a point that they love seeing all the large SUVs lined up on GM dealers' lots. I love seeing all the Camrys and Priuses in the local lots of the Toyota dealers. They are much better set up to control their production for the sake of keeping workers busy so they shouldn't have problems with dealer stock and days supply sitting on the lots. GM needs to keep plants working because it costs as much to idle the plant as it does to make vehicles.
Yeah, it's pretty sad when people wish the worst things to happen to GM. :sick:
Rocky
http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070214/AUTO02/702140360
Rocky
Unfortunately, all the offshore automaker "bashing" in boards like this one isn't going to change anything very much.
The problem is a lot more complex--in fact there's no "million dollar" answer, the reality is a million "one dollar" answers are needed to fix this dilemma. It's going to take years--if it ever happens at all.
Domestic automakers are still biased towards large vehicles/gas guzzlers, and these have very limited market anywhere but in the US--and the US market has already shifted away from them.
Offshore carmakers are way ahead of the worldwide demand for smaller less gas hungry vehicles--and don't discount the Toyota Prius sales sag for long--wait until oil prices spike again as they're bound to.
Unions are involved too, but reluctant to admit it, yes, because of wages/benefits but also because of a myriad of inflexible work policies agreed to over the years which aren't changing quickly enough. And these kinds of work practices aren't limited to automakers but long ago morphed into many of the supplier companies building components for automakers.
Similarly, wage rates in many other countries are considerably lower than in North America--that's something we as a nation aren't willing to deal with because of fears about lowering our standard of living, so we must learn to become much more efficient in order to compete on an equal wage/value basis.
Trade practices are also a problem--many countries don't allow North American manufacurers to sell their products in those countries, yet we buy their products in great numbers.
Currency values are another concern where some countries (China for example) keep their currency artificially low in order to make their goods available at a lower cost.
Lots and lots of issues folks--I've only touched on a few-- and it's going to take a nationwide effort by all parties to ever change things--otherwise we're seeing the beginning of the end of the industrial base we've led the world with for such a long time.
Bashing Toyota, Honda, Nissan, et al isn't the answer--after all, we really have only ourselves to blame, and we must look to in order to make things better!
Rocky
"Someone Else" isn't going to do what's necessary!!
Not this time Rocklee!!
WE allowed this mess to happen, (WE, after all, are what WE call the "government") and WE are going to have to do the heavy lifting that's needed to fix it.
If, and only if, you, and a great many other citizens in this land are willing make the sacrifices and put forth the huge effort required to fix this mess, will the changes you would like to see happen Rocklee.
It's going to take the kind of effort by this country that we last saw in WW Two,and no less my friend!
Unfortunately, I have serious doubts about our collective ability to make that kind of effort any more.
As a nation, we've grown too soft, and are too biased toward the philosophy of "entitlement".
Your comment about "it's up to the government" is, sadly, an example we see far too often these days.
I was the first to post it on this site.....
Unfortunately, all the offshore automaker "bashing" in boards like this one isn't going to change anything very much.
-agree
The problem is a lot more complex--in fact there's no "million dollar" answer, the reality is a million "one dollar" answers are needed to fix this dilemma. It's going to take years--if it ever happens at all.
-I diagree because I think if the government got rid of trade treaty's like NAFTA, fixed the currency manipulation issue, and we had national healthcare you would almost see over night success.
Domestic automakers are still biased towards large vehicles/gas guzzlers, and these have very limited market anywhere but in the US--and the US market has already shifted away from them.
I disagree with you to some degree here. SUV/Trucks still are the #1 sellers in this country by quite a margin. I think as long as gas stay under $2.50 a gallon Trucks/SUV's will sell well.
SUV's offer customer a strong people per mile (PPM) # of people x mpg = your efficiency. General Motor's 2-mode hybrid system will be on board beginning in 2008' on more and more vehicals. The test mules I've read about give Trucks a city/hwy avg of almost 26 mpg. The Cadillac Escalade SUV test mules with the 2-mode system was pulling almost 31 mpg hwy.
Offshore carmakers are way ahead of the worldwide demand for smaller less gas hungry vehicles--and don't discount the Toyota Prius sales sag for long--wait until oil prices spike again as they're bound to
Disagree with you again. GM, has the new Saturn Astra, G6, Chevy Aveo, G5, 08' Malibu + hybrid, Aura + Greenline, Cobalt, to name a few. GM, is looking to use other popular small cars to bring over from over sea's to our market. Some of these cars will be built here in this country in the not to distant future. The democrats in congress won't allow prices to hit $3.00 a gallon without taking action against big oil meaing Prius sales will probably stay saged.
Unions are involved too, but reluctant to admit it, yes, because of wages/benefits but also because of a myriad of inflexible work policies agreed to over the years which aren't changing quickly enough.
That is absolutely false. The UAW & IUE-CWA have admitted they will have to loosen up work rules and at several plants they have. GM, has many plants that are as efficent as the Japanese and some that are more efficient. The most efficient plant in the U.S. is a GM, plant. If you checked out the latest news Toyota, workers are making $3.00 more an hour than GM, workers. UAW president said in the Detroit News he realizes their will have to be some sacrifices next contract.
And these kinds of work practices aren't limited to automakers but long ago morphed into many of the supplier companies building components for automakers.
That is true but a lot of the components are made over sea's now days not because they weren't profitable but because of greed. The parts suplliers are taking advantage of our current policy's of rewarding corporate america for off-shoring or going across the southern border. :mad:
Similarly, wage rates in many other countries are considerably lower than in North America--that's something we as a nation aren't willing to deal with because of fears about lowering our standard of living, so we must learn to become much more efficient in order to compete on an equal wage/value basis.
We out produce the world 3 to 1 but when someone is making $0.43 an hour in China, it's impossible to make up the difference through efficiency. That is common sense.
Trade practices are also a problem--many countries don't allow North American manufacurers to sell their products in those countries, yet we buy their products in great numbers.
That is why I'm a supporter of tariffs. The Chinese, Japanese, Europeans tariff our products but we don't return the favor. Watch Lou Dobbs on CNN regularly and you will puke. Wee agree here.
Currency values are another concern where some countries (China for example) keep their currency artificially low in order to make their goods available at a lower cost.
I agree with you again. The Chinese don't sell cars here YET so from a automotive perspective they don't harm us as much. They mainly make some components for parts suppliers. The Japanese are huge currency manipulators thus are having a huge impact on our big 3. They said a couple days ago they plan on bringing more small cars to our market from Japan. Currency Maniplation in the small car segment has a huge impact because they can sell them dirt cheap and make them nice at the same time and still pull a good profit.
Lots and lots of issues folks--I've only touched on a few-- and it's going to take a nationwide effort by all parties to ever change things--
Are you suggesting "buy america" ? Well that is an evil word on here you know.
otherwise we're seeing the beginning of the end of the industrial base we've led the world with for such a long time.
Yep !!!
Bashing Toyota, Honda, Nissan, et al isn't the answer--after all, we really have only ourselves to blame, and we must look to in order to make things better!
That is true but some people are tired of hearing how great they are in domestic forums. If they had to give up some of their advantages like currency manipulation, had to open their market to competition, and if the big 3 had a national healthcare policy it would relieve them of some multi-billion dollar burdens.
Rocky
The government is the only one that can finacially bail the big 3 out with changes in domestic policy. They have the power to level the field and trust me you will see those changes employed by the 110th congress. If the 110th congress tariff the japanese imports to the country to level the playing field you will see some screaming. I hope this happens because that means any big 3 vehicle, Tacoma, Jetta, coming from mexico, etc, would be tariffed as well.
"Someone Else" isn't going to do what's necessary!!
Not this time Rocklee!!
I respectfully disagree......
WE allowed this mess to happen, (WE, after all, are what WE call the "government") and WE are going to have to do the heavy lifting that's needed to fix it.
Well you can look at who was in power before the 110 congress and find your answer to that one. I do agree with your answer though
If, and only if, you, and a great many other citizens in this land are willing make the sacrifices and put forth the huge effort required to fix this mess, will the changes you would like to see happen Rocklee.
I buy american goods, support american business, and have been actively involved with unions my whole life. I write congressmen, vote, participate in surveys, and currently am a member to three people running for president.
It's going to take the kind of effort by this country that we last saw in WW Two,and no less my friend!
I agree, but people have changed for the worse. People value material things over their neighbor. This is why we've collapsed. My generation isn't as good as my grandparent's generation and that's hard for me to admit.
Unfortunately, I have serious doubts about our collective ability to make that kind of effort any more.
We agree again. We saw it after 9/11 but after about a year that all began to fade. :sick:
As a nation, we've grown too soft, and are too biased toward the philosophy of "entitlement".
I agree with you if you mean people are to selfish. I think people today want the best product at the lowest price no matter what the consquences are. I think that's the biggest difference between my generation and my grandparents generation.
Your comment about "it's up to the government" is, sadly, an example we see far too often these days.
Well I'm sorry you disagree but I've gave examples in both of these posts of why it will take government to fix it. I alone can't change the U.S.
I can only do my part and can't make others change. The only one that can do that is the government and since I'm a registered voter I do have some small say.
Take Care.....:)
Rocky
Your views are overly simplistic and very typical of what's seen by many to be wrong with our economy--and is a wrongheaded attitude toward what's needed to fix it.
As long as the way you view this problem remains a big component of our national psyche, very little will ever change.
Needless to say, there is little point in continuing this debate.
Rocky
Report: GM in talks to buy Chrysler
DaimlerChrysler is reportedly talking with General Motors about the possibility of GM's buying the Chrysler group, according to the German magazine Manager Magazin. The magazine cited company sources as saying the talks were in full swing but still at an early stage. DaimlerChrysler CEO Dieter Zetsche and a GM spokeswoman would not comment on the report. story
dodge/chevy, jeep/hummer(kinda), chrysler/buick
This must be a joke :confuse:
Until then, my friend, best get ready for a big upheaval in the North American economy, along with some rather unpleasant lifestyle changes.
Probably in a couple of generations, maybe even sooner...............!
In the meantime, save your money.
Sayonara.
Characterizing what Lou Dobbs does as "thinking" is extremely generous.
Especially considering that several posters on this board would clean his clock if given the chance to debate him directly.
Ya know it would be a source for RWD cars to buy Chrysler, but GM has their own RWD cars in Australia to use for a platform. Now I am think too much - it is just a joke.
-Loren
m1miata, you will buy the Accord. I have no question. I know your postings.
> If GM really is going nuts, I must consider this element in the buying decision.
They made many mistakes through the 80s and 90s design and quality period, I sure hope they don't make the one of buying a Chrysler spinoff.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
His response was (paraphrased)"all options are on the table".
Similarly, GM has stated they are "looking at" the possibility of "merging" some parts of the Chrysler lineup.
This has given rise to all sorts of rhetoric and speculation.
So far, that's all there is.....rhetoric and speculation.
Sadly, the Chrysler situation is a huge "red flag" for the entire domestic auto manufacturing sector--not to mention manufacturing as we know it in this country!!
Personally, I believe (as do many far more astute than I) we "ain't seen nuthin' yet!!"
Earlier in this forum, I identified just a few of the issues the industry faces.
These issues are real, and just a portion of the big picture.
Solutions needed to fix the situation aren't easy ones, regardless of how some feel about Lou Dobbs, government, or just trolling the net sniping at offshore manufacturers.
Fundamentally what it boils down to is something like this....
The US and its populace must recognize and accept that it's no longer the only industrial player of any influence in the game. The US has to recognize and accept that its current life style and standard of living comes with a huge price---and many other countries in the world which have been paying that price aren't willing to do so any longer.
These other countries want what we have, and they're prepared to do what's needed to get their piece of the action.
They have every right to do so, and we have no right to force our views of how the world should be upon them, as we have done (or often tried to do) in the past.
There are people who spend their time sniping at US auto manufacturers.
This sounds like a point-of-view political statement that's not necessary here. We're not discussing international politics. We'll get enough of that by November 2008 from people who have little more than their own advancement in mind--not the advancement of our country. We need a JFK again to advance the US manufacturers and bring the trade and monetary exchange imbalance back toward fair IN ORDER TO BENEFIT our US auto manufacturing and support companies.
I have tied my statements to US auto manufacturers. Let's stay on topic please.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Allow an observation if you will.
My remarks may have seemed "point-of-view political", but in reality, they go directly to the heart of the issue re why domestic auto manufacturers are in trouble.
I agree, what you advocate may help:..."advance the US manufacturers and bring the trade and monetary exchange imbalance back toward fair IN ORDER TO BENEFIT our US auto manufacturing and support companies"
However, there are downsides to what you advocate which are very real:....
(1) These kinds of measures are often temporary, knee jerk "fixes"; at best they are "band aid" policies which look good on the surface but often create more problems than they resolve. Simply put, they usually force the other players to do the same, and soon the imbalances return with a vengeance.
(2) Our govenment's abilities to arbitrarily "impose our will" on competing economies in the world is no longer what it once was.
We have failed miserably to "win the hearts and minds" of others through intimidation.
My Point?? Government intervention with band aid protectionism applied to this current dilemma would only be a short term fix, unfortunately. Not a cure by any means.
PS
I too, harken back to JFK's famous comment: Ask not what your country can do for you............."
Now more than ever, that statement resonates.
When Bush refused to do "anything" to help the US-based manufacturers a year or so ago when the heads went to Washington to see him, I found that strangely odd. It affected my votes this November election.
There are many things that could be done that wouldn't open up huge discussions in monetary values that affect car pricing on those which are imported if the government doesn't want to face up to the Eastern unfair exchange rates. That's not my topic. Just what it does to affect US manufacturers. As far as protectionism..., we don't have that. We'd be better off if that were true. We are giving everything away, including our borders.
Chrysler and Daimler really leaves me confused on what would be best. Are their plants and union contracts a major negative for competition.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,