There really isn't an exact right or wrong here. This discussion isn't going to change the direction we're going in anyway. Auto manufacturing has become such a tangled web that it'll be years before we see profond effects. Also, it would be up to us, the US, to correct these imbalances along the way. It's not going away. It has indeed become a small world, and we're all in it together. We may as well find ways for fair and amiable international trade.
US manufacturers have created their own problem. QUALITY is the main reason people switch. Do you think imports would be so successful if they made a poor quality automobile. No one wants to spend thousands of dollars on an inferior product.
Also, why is it that the American car manufacturers in Europe had a 27% increase in American cars sales last year? Could it be that these newer plants with non-American workers are doing something better? Like, maybe they have a better work ethic, state-of-the-art mechinery, more reasonable or no unions, and don't demand that the company foot all of their retirement and medical bills?
xl7 will be replaced, fall 2006 as an o7 model(yet to be named). The suzuki aerio is japanese made and designed, named best compact value by car and driver and motor trend, i beleive the swift is what your refering to though (aveo/wave). Suzuki had to fight very hard to get where they are after the rollover fiasco in the late 80's with the samuri, most company's their size would have crumbled, and even with the new Grand Vitara today, 3 generations later, it is still a common concern among suzuki buyers in north america. As far as suzuki motorcycles helping?? , a company study shows 94% of suzuki car buyers have never drove a motorcycle, let alone a suzuki, so i can't beleive their bike rep has anything to do with their car sale increase. Yes, in actual numbers, suzuki's increase is small, but at the time, so was toyotas, hyundai's and kia's, small now, but if you can acheive 18% year over year in increases, and with 7 new products coming from suzuki in 4 years, it can happen, as i noted, none of their vehicles are "award worthy", but those numbers will be pulled from the big dogs, even though there is not a "real and quantifiable" quality difference, people will buy a japanese vehilcle based on it being japanese. GM has to loose here, the numbers have to come from somewhere, don't they??
You never answered my previous question, so I will pose it again -- if you were in GM management and you saw the relatively low JD Power results for the Cobalt, what would you do about it?
Of coarse they are trying to do something and are worried, once again , you are pointing at that 1 vehicle, I can garrantee you, heads will roll without significant improvement. What are the reasons people would want to buy GM? how about more segment leading vehicles in regards to fuel economy than any other automaker. Nobody can deny, in general, the gap is narrowing in regards to quality, plus, now prices of gm vehicles are going down, it's even cheaper to buy them!! Leaving their bad rep behind will not be easy, if it happens over the next 6 or 7 years they will be very lucky, but it will happen, mark my words......... every empire falls, the ones that come back are the ones that are the strongest, time will tell. \ next year, if the cobalt shows no significant improvement, you know something is really, really wrong..............lets wait and see.
Nobody can deny, in general, the gap is narrowing in regards to quality
Agreed, things are improving. But the average buyer couldn't care less (and has no reason to care) that the cars are improving. What they usually care about is about how this particular car is today when compared to the competition's cars.
It really doesn't matter to the car buyer if a Cobalt is better than a '95 Cavalier. To win the game, it has to be better than a 2006 Civic, Corolla, etc.
(If GM hadn't squandered its reputation, then perhaps being just as good would be enough. But since GM has worn out so many welcomes with so many customers, it needs to be exceptional in order to earn back its reputation. It is reasonable for us to expect more results from those who have let us down in the past than we would from those who have already earned our trust.)
By the way, I am harping on about this particular car because the compact car category is very important to manufacturers, for it is often represents a consumer's first new car purchase, and will therefore help to establish a future relationship with that customer.
If a twentysomething decides to buy a Civic as his first car, it will be much harder for GM to upsell him a G6 when that driver ages and is ready to make a move up -- a satisfied Civic owner is more inclined to stay with Honda or other cars that he believes to be similar to Honda. If GM and Ford want to get 'em while they're young, they will have to do well in this segment in order to build that reputation over the long haul. The profit margins on compact cars are certainly lower than those of other vehicle classes, so it may not seem that glamourous or interesting. But the overall lifetime value of the customer can be high if the relationship can be started and continued for many years thereafter.
As far as suzuki motorcycles helping?? , a company study shows 94% of suzuki car buyers have never drove a motorcycle, let alone a suzuki, so i can't beleive their bike rep has anything to do with their car sale increase.
Whether or not they've ridden motorcycles is not the point. The motorcycles are part of the company's heritage and, accordingly, its brand. The reputation of the bikes can help to sway a customer to believe that this relatively unknown car is worth the purchase risk.
Case in point: VW's recent revival in the US market was largely due to the Beetle, but this wasn't entirely due to just selling Beetles. Rather, one of VW's objectives was to use the Beetle to revive consumer interest in the entire line of cars so that they would also be interested Jettas and Golfs, because the Beetle had generated so many positive sentiments among US consumers for the VW brand. I don't have the figures in front of me, but if memory serves, VW claimed that a majority of the buyers who had gone to showrooms because they had taken notice of the then-new Beetle ended up buying a Jetta, Golf or Passat. The interest in one specific car helped to sell the others.
This is also a key reason that Nissan brought back the Z to the US market, despite the slowdown in the US sports coupe market -- to attract interest in Maximas, Altimas, etc. Whether or not the car actually sold, Nissan needed to restore its heritage sports car to rebuild positive feelings toward the rest of the cars in its lineup.
Brand and reputation matter, so yes, any positive heritage with the Suzuki name would help it to sell cars. Whether those customers have ever set foot on a motorcycle won't really matter, as long as the feelings are positive.
I understand, and agree with you on your point with the cobalt now, a first tikme buyer will also not remember GM's past like an older person, and will use current data a little more as opposed to past history. On the suzuki point though, name recognition does go a long way, and Bikes do bring that to suzuki, no doubt, but i think in regards to a car purchaser, i really can't beleive they conciously use the bikes rep to help them justify a purchase, a bit of name recognition maybe, but that it............
Brand recognition is important, but I think there are larger issues with Suzuki - such as selling a full line of decent-quality (Daewoo) cars (rather than one crappy subcompact and one crappy off-roader) AND the fact that they offer "America's Best Warranty" (essentially the same as Hyundai/Kia).
GM could learn some valuable lessons from the upstart Korean and Japanese companies that are stealing their market share: build a decent car, make it better every year, and offer the best warranty in the business to tell customers that they're serious about quality and a long-term relationship.
Warranty costs will be initially higher for GM, but Hyundai, Kia, and Suzuki survived that initial cost and GM would to. Besides, what better motivation could there be to improve quality than to offer that kind of warranty and have to back it up?
Another point - "Buying American" isn't really buying American at all - it's buying American/Canadian/Mexican/Chinese/Korean, etc. We're getting to the point where "foreign" cars are more "American" than the Big 3 are! What a sad, sad state of affairs, and we have no one to blame but ourselves.
Tell me that you still wouldn't even consider a Chevy Cobalt if it was backed by a 10 year/100,000 mile powertrain, 5 year/60,000 mile bumper-to-bumper with roadside assistance, 5 year/unlimited mile rust warranty, and 1 year roadhazard on tires (same warranty that Hyundai/Kia offers). With a competative price on competative cars, this is a winning combination - just look at the Koreans!
if you were in GM management and you saw the relatively low JD Power results for the Cobalt, what would you do about it?
It's not uncommon at all for the first year of a completely new design to have more frequent problems than the competition. For all we know, GM may have identified and fixed many of the problems that 1st year cobalts had, just like Ford did with the focus. The first year focuses were some of the most unreliable, poorest built cars ever. Ford fixed most the problems over the next couple of years, and today even consumer reports recommends the focus.
It's not uncommon at all for the first year of a completely new design to have more frequent problems than the competition.
It may not be uncommon with the "American" automakers, but it is not at all common with Honda and Toyota. Review JD Power surveys over time for a number of models, and you'll find little differences in quality between the introductory year of a Toyota or Honda than you will in its later years. This is one reason why magazines such as CR are more willing to give their blessing to new models of these cars, while withholding judgment ("too new to rate") for the domestics.
>It's not uncommon at all for the first year of a completely new design to have more frequent problems than the competition.
The Accord discussions had problems from the 03's when they first came out. Some of the defenders would ridicule those who posted their concerns, but the number and tone of the postings showed that there were more problems than the earlier Accords. The next years have continued with more problems than seemed to post in earlier years but there still are a number of problems--probably right on par with other cars. I'm sure someone will post JD Powers info.
The Odyssey and Pilot first years I dont' recall. I wasn't paying much attention. The Avalon has had an unseemly number of problems for the "reputation" of Toyota. So much for reputation having a halo effect; but people seem very forgiving. The drive by wire system seems to have caused some lag problems in the posts on the Toyota area.
Can you provide me with the link to the information regarding the Cobalt vs. Civic vs. Corolla again?
Have a look at post #412. You'll find a link to the JD Power's site that will allow to compare every car covered in its recent surveys, and the results of a Cobalt/ Civic/ Corolla comparison.
Have a look at post #412. You'll find a link to the JD Power's site that will allow to compare every car covered in its recent surveys, and the results of a Cobalt/ Civic/ Corolla comparison.
Excellent post travler, now we are having the discussion on the TRUE issue here, what constitutes an "AMERICAN" car and what we can do to change the direction we're going in and save the American jobs that GM, FORD and CHRYSLER represent. If Honda and Toyota and other imports have American jobs that they are creating then that comes into play. Then the second part of this issue is where does the bulk of the money go, does it stay in America to create business, jobs and oppurtunity or does it go elsewhere. This is what "Buying American Cars" means, that which keeps the MOST money and jobs here.
We have to look and sift through the various cars and brands and see what is made PREDOMINANTELY by American workers and using a majority of American made parts. Then take a fair and honest look to see if they fit our needs, it they don't and we find something significantly closer to our needs than those cars then yes go ahead and buy it.
My point is to give those cars and brands that keep and create jobs in America first preference on that basis, just like we went and shopped at Walmart when they promoted that they had the majority of their products American Made.
Whether its a Ford Mustang or Fusion, give it a posative or negative ranking dependant as to how much is made by American workers and the level American made parts. So those who do want to support the American way of life and workers can see what they can buy that will have the most affect. We have so many unfair and outright illegal advantages being given to some of the overseas manufactures, how about doing something fair and uprightly honest by giving preference when it comes to our buying, to correct these imbalances created by other countries to give their indutries a unfair advantage or allow outright dumping to hurt American business and destroy American jobs.
You never know, the job you may be saving, may be your own...........
>that the company foot all of their retirement and medical bills?
Aren't those governments using OPM to pay for socialized medicine and retirements? So the companies don't pay for that unless their taxes reflect the real cost of covering those costs for the government (which is the people anyhow).
Whether its a Ford Mustang or Fusion, give it a posative or negative ranking dependant as to how much is made by American workers and the level American made parts.
As we already covered, Fusions are built in Mexico. So, in your view, is that an "American" car or not?
All these posts, and we still don't know what cars you'd like us to buy. So I'll ask you again -- what do you consider to be cars that are acceptable for achieving your goals:
-A Ford Fusion built in Mexico by a company that is shutting down plants in the US. (The big announcement being made today should be illuminating.)
-A Toyota Camry designed in a California design studio and built in Kentucky by a company that has been increasing its US payroll
-A Honda Accord designed in a US design studio for the US market which is built in Ohio by a company that has also been increasing its US payroll
Take this from an MBA who knows something about the concept of "marginal benefit" -- if you buy a Ford, you are sending the message to FoMoCo that outsourcing jobs to Mexico is a positive, i.e. it can gain market share while still exporting jobs to a low-wage producer. Its profits will likely be reinvested into more outsourcing, i.e. if demand for Fusions proves strong, Ford's response will be to hire more Mexican workers and look for other cars that it can build in its Mexican plants.
Compare this to buying the Toyota or Honda from companies that are reinvesting their profits in the US market, because they have strong prospects in the US, unlike Ford which is struggling to maintain market share here. Because Toyota and Honda are strongly quality-oriented, they take plant expansion seriously and are not as inclined to build plants in Mexico simply to save money, as they know from experience that getting a new factory to produce consistent quality can take years of investment and effort, and that losing their reputation for quality can hurt them badly.
In this situation, Honda and Toyota will actually do more for the US economy than Ford. Your rants are lovely, but they lack specifics or any analysis of what actually happens if we follow your advice...well, that is if we knew what it was that you'd actually advise us to do....
All these post and you still cant read, find your first grade teacher and sue her...
"Whether its a Ford Mustang or Fusion, GIVE IT A POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE RANKING!!!! DEPENDANT as to how much is made by American workers and the level American made parts."
Agreed. I gave you the JD Power data comparing the Cobalt to the Civic and Corolla, as you requested, but now you refuse to comment on it. Is that because it doesn't tell you the story that you wanted to hear?
"Whether its a Ford Mustang or Fusion, GIVE IT A POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE RANKING!!!! DEPENDANT as to how much is made by American workers and the level American made parts."
I gave it MY ranking. Now I want YOUR ranking.
So, again: Fusion, Camry, Accord. Tell us which ones are OK to you, which ones aren't, and why or why not.
Vague rants aren't very useful when car shopping, so step up and provide us with some details. Based upon your desire to provide jobs for American workers, I'm inclined to choose the Honda or Toyota, wouldn't you agree?
Thanks for that stellar advice. Based upon your wisdom, I'd advise that consumers wanting to buy an "American" mid-sized sedan choose the Camry or Accord over the Fusion, because the former are built in the US, while the latter is not. Surely you have to agree!
I was a little taken aback at the content sticker on the Fusion I looked at. Only 30% US/Canadian content! Although I forget how much of it was Mexican. I remember the Chevy Equinox my buddy looked at was 50% US/Canadian. I also remember looking at a couple Altimas, and both the 4 and V-6 were 65% domestic. Both engines were domestic according to the sticker, although the trannies were Japanese.
My buddy who looked at the Equinox also likes the Xterra. I forget what its domestic content was, though...forgot to look at the sticker.
So, again: Fusion, Camry, Accord. Tell us which ones are OK to you, which ones aren't, and why or why not.
Vague rants aren't very useful when car shopping, so step up and provide us with some details. Based upon your desire to provide jobs for American workers, I'm inclined to choose the Honda or Toyota, wouldn't you agree?
I would love to see a true top to bottom cost and expense analysis of a Japanese Transplant Assembly plant in the US vs the FOMOCO factory in Mexico. Can you provide TRUE, objective numbers (not the ridiculous PR numbers from HonToy) about the transplants contribution to the US economy? I wonder if the Mexican Ford plant actually contributes MORE to the US economy since the profits come back to the US and many parts are US sourced. With the Japanese Transplants, many components labeled as made in the US are actually just finished here so that a 90% Japanese component is counted as 100% American. And as we all know, the profits from the Accord or Camry "assembled" in the US go back to Japan to buy Whale Meat and further fish the worlds oceans clean.
I wonder if the Mexican Ford plant actually contributes MORE to the US economy since the profits come back to the US and many parts are US sourced.
How exactly do the profits from Ford that go into the coffers of Barclays and Deutsche Bank end up in the United States? If DB takes its dividends and profits from future stock sales and rolls those into European investments, does that help the US any more than a Toyota plant?
And as we all know, the profits from the Accord or Camry "assembled" in the US go back to Japan to buy Whale Meat and further fish the worlds oceans clean.
Actually, we don't know that. Above, I provided a link to the American shareholders who benefit from the profits generated by Toyota and Honda. There are American mutual fund shareholders who benefit from their success.
Again, here is your free MBA tidbit -- a key concept in business is about marginal change, i.e. what happens when one more dollar/ unit of output/ etc. is added to the equation.
And we can guess that if Ford makes more profit from selling Mexican built cars, it will use those profits to expand in Mexico and elsewhere outside of the US. Here's your headline news -- Ford announced today that it is going to close fourteen plants and cut 25,000 jobs by 2012. That's how your loyalty is being repaid -- how do you like it?
I guess we can presume that none of these will be in Mexico, because Ford is expanding there. From Associated Press: _______________________
Ford to Cut 25,000 to 30,000 Jobs by 2012
DEARBORN, Mich. - Ford Motor Co., the nation's second-largest automaker, said Monday that it will cut 25,000 to 30,000 jobs and idle 14 facilities by 2012 as part of a restructuring designed to reverse a $1.6 billion loss last year in its North American operations.
The cuts represent 20 percent to 25 percent of Ford's North American work force of 122,000 people. Ford has approximately 87,000 hourly workers and 35,000 salaried workers in the region...
...Plants to be idled through 2008 include the St. Louis, Atlanta and Michigan's Wixom assembly plants and Batavia Transmission in Ohio. Windsor Casting in Ontario also will be idled, as was previously announced following contract negotiations with the Canadian Auto Workers. Another two assembly plants to be idled will be determined later this year, the company said.
The other seven facilities that will be idled were not immediately identified.
A total of 14 facilities, including seven assembly plants, will cease production by 2012, Ford said...
...The restructuring is Ford's second in four years. Under the first plan, Ford closed five plants and cut 35,000 jobs, but its North American operations failed to turn around.
I was just going to see if Reddog could get someone to dig that kind of real information up. The apparent and the true are two different things--unless someone with a real money-moving knowledge can find they're not doing the pea in the pod shuffle.
The apparent and the true are two different things-
Exactly. Who would have thought that buying an "import" would provide more employment and tax revenues for Americans than would buying from the "Big Three"...or I guess we should refer to them as the "Big Two", given that one of them is now owned by a German company...
Well, one way Ford could generate revenue is to demolish those 14 facilities so they could sell the land to Wal-Mart to build 14 more SuperCenters and Sam's Clubs. After all, those 25K to 30K ex-Ford employees are going to need someplace to work.
AcActually, we don't know that. Above, I provided a link to the American shareholders who benefit from the profits generated by Toyota and Honda. There are American mutual fund shareholders who benefit from their success.
Again, here is your free MBA tidbit -- a key concept in business is about marginal change, i.e. what happens when one more dollar/ unit of output/ etc. is added to the equation.
And we can guess that if Ford makes more profit from selling Mexican built cars, it will use those profits to expand in Mexico and elsewhere outside of the US. Here's your headline news -- Ford announced today that it is going to close fourteen plants and cut 25,000 jobs by 2012. That's how your loyalty is being repaid -- how do you like it?
Talk about "Vague Rants", where's the beef? (objective data)?? I guess they don't believe in data at those fancy MBA schools.
As you know, if Ford makes say, 1K total net profit per car at the Mexican Fusion plant, that 1K goes back to them. After they pay their taxes, dividends, etc. they do whatever they please with rest of the money, the only profit money that goes directly back to investors is the dividends and debt interest. The same 1k per Camry out of KY goes back to Japan, after Toyota pays their paltry dividend, they do whatever they please with the remaining money. How does a US assembled Toyota contribute more than a Mexican built Ford, when the Ford profit comes here while the Toyota profit goes to Japan? Other than dividends and debt interest, no money goes back to stockholders. Stock appreciation from profits only benefits Toyota (or Ford) directly if they plan to sell more shares or if their employees hold lots of stock. Even if you are making the Stock appreciation argument, I'm betting F has a much higher percentage of US ownership than TM.
the point is what they DO with the "profit." As we are seeing in recent years and in the near future, Toyota and Honda have chosen to use their profits to build plants and produce jobs here in the states, after which they pay american workers, who, in turn, spend their money here in the states .... meanwhile, Ford and Chevy use their profits to build plants and produce jobs in Mexico ... while closing plants and cutting jobs in the states.
this same things has been posted again and again, ad naseum ... but keeps getting ignored by the ford/chevy diehards ...
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
After they pay their taxes, dividends, etc. they do whatever they please with rest of the money, the only profit money that goes directly back to investors is the dividends and debt interest. The same 1k per Camry out of KY goes back to Japan, after Toyota pays their paltry dividend, they do whatever they please with the remaining money.
False. Assuming a successful investment, the bulk of the value to the shareholder will come from appreciation in the stock price, which will be realized at sale. Higher earnings and improved future prospects of the company should lead to a higher stock price.
In any case, if a "Japanese" car maker hires an American worker at an American facility, the company and its employees will pay taxes and consume in the local marketplace. Buy a Ford Fusion, and you're helping to pay taxes to Mexico, increase demand for goods in Mexico, and enrich the workers who earn the money in Mexico. Buy a Camry made in Kentucky, and you can substitute Kentucky for Mexico in that equation.
So folow the money: -If you spend another dollar with Ford, Ford will take that dollar and invest it in overseas facilities. It is cutting US jobs, not creating them. -In contrast, if you buy more Camrys, they'll hire more people in Kentucky to build them.
Again, Toyota is more interested in consistently building quality cars, which requires them to build plants carefully and with less regard for bottom-dollar labor costs than is the per-unit-margin-oriented Ford, which incentivizes Toyota to maintain US production. Compare that to Ford, which is going to cut tens of thousands of Americans from their jobs, as it prioritizes shifting to the low-cost producer, with quality goals assuming lesser importance.
If your goal is US job preservation, I know that I'd spend my money on the Toyota. As for the shareholders, these are multinational investment banks that distribute the cash throughout the world. Companies know no loyalty, and capital knows no borders.
>Toyota and Honda have chosen to use their profits to build plants and produce jobs
They're not likely to build more plants there to invade.
How many plants are they placing in China? Will there be a resistance to their cars in China because of past transgressions during the war that someone mentioned earlier?
*********** *********** ***********
What technology and parts are exported and used at those other plants in foreign countries. What design work is done here? Are those jobs exported to the alleged other country? Or are they really keeping jobs here and designing, engineering, and producing product there?
The Camry or Accord are not BUILT in the US, they are ASSEMBLED. The main parts are Japanese, shipped over and put together. But anyway, since you are so intent on identifying "American made" cars, creating a ranking is your best answer. I really would like to see how you come up with rankings for American cars based on the amount of US content, percent of US profit, US man-hours/labor required to build or assemble. Then we could see the top American cars and go over the criteria you used to come up with it and have something to discuss on what makes a "American" car.
I really would like to see how you come up with rankings for American cars based on the amount of US content, percent of US profit, US man-hours/labor required to build or assemble.
Talk about outsourcing -- you're trying to outsource your research to me. This is your position, so it is up to you to defend it. This is a car forum, so why aren't you prepared to talk about cars?
Sorry, your the one who wanted to see what the car was and if was a "true American made" car, I said we have to look and sift through the various cars and brands and see what is made PREDOMINANTELY by American workers and using a majority of American made parts. Then create a ranking so we can see what level of American made that they are. Well put up some stats to back up what you say on the origin of the labor and actual building of the at least some of cars from GM and FORD so we can start building a ranking and we'll go from there.
I said we have to look and sift through the various cars and brands and see what is made PREDOMINANTELY by American workers and using a majority of American made parts. Then create a ranking so we can see what level of American made that they are.
That's really vague and of no use to anyone. This is a car forum, and people who are shopping for cars won't have a clue what to do based upon your posts.
Until you create a list, I'm going to advise that anyone who prioritizes American jobs as part of their car hunt to buy a Camry or Accord instead of a Fusion. That's probably not what you would have done, but since you tend to speak in terms of generalities and sweeping statements, I guess we'll have to run with the Honda and Toyota until you deliver on the goods.
As for the rest of us, I'd recommend that you buy the best car that suits your needs, regardless of who builds it. Ford and GM aren't charities -- if they want to sell cars, then let them build a better car, and earn the money.
Yes, this is a car forum, and some people are shopping for what they consider to be American cars, if you have a different measuring stick then come out with it. Stop hiding behind "I'm so confused" excuse, be a man!
Remember that TV commercial with the song about the union label? After reading these posts, it seems that those advocating "buying American", actually mean "buy UAW".
Yes, this is a car forum, and some people are shopping for what they consider to be American cars, if you have a different measuring stick then come out with it.
We haven't even established what this measuring stick is. That's the point of the thread -- to show how people such as yourself have absolutely no clue how to turn your ideas into something that people who want an "American" car can use. (Since you don't know yourself and are too unmotivated to do any research, it's a bit hard for anyone to use your excellent advice...)
But it's a car forum, so let's talk about cars. I'll ask you three questions, and I'd like you to answer them. (I'll even number them for you, for easy identification):
#1 -- Is it possible that some Hondas are "American" cars, or is it impossible for any Honda to ever be an "American" car?
#2 -- Is it possible that some Toyotas are "American" cars, or is it impossible for any Toyota to ever be an "American" car?
#3 -- Are all Fords sold in the US "American" cars, or are some of them imports that should be avoided?
Which Hondas, the American assembled or the Japanese made ones, ditto on the Toyota. Ford has many plants in America and some outside, which ones do you want to go over. Plant by plant, car by car, we could go on forever so I'm going to give you the ground rules. We shall start with the cars made by the BIG 3 which are considered traditionally as "American" car makers and you rate them acording to your criteria and I'll make a list of what I recommend then we can compare, instead of me raising by blood pressure.
We shall start with the cars made by the BIG 3 which are considered traditionally as "American" car makers and you rate them acording to your criteria and I'll make a list of what I recommend then we can compare, instead of me raising by blood presure.
My questions were very basic, with two choices each. After all those great speeches of yours, I'm surprised that you can't answer them.
Since you brought up the "Big Three", I'll add a fourth question:
#4 -- Are Chrysler and Dodge "American" cars, or are they "German" cars?
Comments
US manufacturers have created their own problem. QUALITY is the main reason people switch. Do you think imports would be so successful if they made a poor quality automobile. No one wants to spend thousands of dollars on an inferior product.
Also, why is it that the American car manufacturers in Europe had a 27% increase in American cars sales last year? Could it be that these newer plants with non-American workers are doing something better? Like, maybe they have a better work ethic, state-of-the-art mechinery, more reasonable or no unions, and don't demand that the company foot all of their retirement and medical bills?
The suzuki aerio is japanese made and designed, named best compact value by car and driver and motor trend, i beleive the swift is what your refering to though (aveo/wave).
Suzuki had to fight very hard to get where they are after the rollover fiasco in the late 80's with the samuri, most company's their size would have crumbled, and even with the new Grand Vitara today, 3 generations later, it is still a common concern among suzuki buyers in north america.
As far as suzuki motorcycles helping?? , a company study shows 94% of suzuki car buyers have never drove a motorcycle, let alone a suzuki, so i can't beleive their bike rep has anything to do with their car sale increase.
Yes, in actual numbers, suzuki's increase is small, but at the time, so was toyotas, hyundai's and kia's, small now, but if you can acheive 18% year over year in increases, and with 7 new products coming from suzuki in 4 years, it can happen, as i noted, none of their vehicles are "award worthy", but those numbers will be pulled from the big dogs, even though there is not a "real and quantifiable" quality difference, people will buy a japanese vehilcle based on it being japanese.
GM has to loose here, the numbers have to come from somewhere, don't they??
Of coarse they are trying to do something and are worried, once again , you are pointing at that 1 vehicle, I can garrantee you, heads will roll without significant improvement.
What are the reasons people would want to buy GM?
how about more segment leading vehicles in regards to fuel economy than any other automaker.
Nobody can deny, in general, the gap is narrowing in regards to quality, plus, now prices of gm vehicles are going down, it's even cheaper to buy them!!
Leaving their bad rep behind will not be easy, if it happens over the next 6 or 7 years they will be very lucky, but it will happen, mark my words.........
every empire falls, the ones that come back are the ones that are the strongest, time will tell.
\ next year, if the cobalt shows no significant improvement, you know something is really, really wrong..............lets wait and see.
Agreed, things are improving. But the average buyer couldn't care less (and has no reason to care) that the cars are improving. What they usually care about is about how this particular car is today when compared to the competition's cars.
It really doesn't matter to the car buyer if a Cobalt is better than a '95 Cavalier. To win the game, it has to be better than a 2006 Civic, Corolla, etc.
(If GM hadn't squandered its reputation, then perhaps being just as good would be enough. But since GM has worn out so many welcomes with so many customers, it needs to be exceptional in order to earn back its reputation. It is reasonable for us to expect more results from those who have let us down in the past than we would from those who have already earned our trust.)
By the way, I am harping on about this particular car because the compact car category is very important to manufacturers, for it is often represents a consumer's first new car purchase, and will therefore help to establish a future relationship with that customer.
If a twentysomething decides to buy a Civic as his first car, it will be much harder for GM to upsell him a G6 when that driver ages and is ready to make a move up -- a satisfied Civic owner is more inclined to stay with Honda or other cars that he believes to be similar to Honda. If GM and Ford want to get 'em while they're young, they will have to do well in this segment in order to build that reputation over the long haul. The profit margins on compact cars are certainly lower than those of other vehicle classes, so it may not seem that glamourous or interesting. But the overall lifetime value of the customer can be high if the relationship can be started and continued for many years thereafter.
Whether or not they've ridden motorcycles is not the point. The motorcycles are part of the company's heritage and, accordingly, its brand. The reputation of the bikes can help to sway a customer to believe that this relatively unknown car is worth the purchase risk.
Case in point: VW's recent revival in the US market was largely due to the Beetle, but this wasn't entirely due to just selling Beetles. Rather, one of VW's objectives was to use the Beetle to revive consumer interest in the entire line of cars so that they would also be interested Jettas and Golfs, because the Beetle had generated so many positive sentiments among US consumers for the VW brand. I don't have the figures in front of me, but if memory serves, VW claimed that a majority of the buyers who had gone to showrooms because they had taken notice of the then-new Beetle ended up buying a Jetta, Golf or Passat. The interest in one specific car helped to sell the others.
This is also a key reason that Nissan brought back the Z to the US market, despite the slowdown in the US sports coupe market -- to attract interest in Maximas, Altimas, etc. Whether or not the car actually sold, Nissan needed to restore its heritage sports car to rebuild positive feelings toward the rest of the cars in its lineup.
Brand and reputation matter, so yes, any positive heritage with the Suzuki name would help it to sell cars. Whether those customers have ever set foot on a motorcycle won't really matter, as long as the feelings are positive.
On the suzuki point though, name recognition does go a long way, and Bikes do bring that to suzuki, no doubt, but i think in regards to a car purchaser, i really can't beleive they conciously use the bikes rep to help them justify a purchase, a bit of name recognition maybe, but that it............
GM could learn some valuable lessons from the upstart Korean and Japanese companies that are stealing their market share: build a decent car, make it better every year, and offer the best warranty in the business to tell customers that they're serious about quality and a long-term relationship.
Warranty costs will be initially higher for GM, but Hyundai, Kia, and Suzuki survived that initial cost and GM would to. Besides, what better motivation could there be to improve quality than to offer that kind of warranty and have to back it up?
Another point - "Buying American" isn't really buying American at all - it's buying American/Canadian/Mexican/Chinese/Korean, etc. We're getting to the point where "foreign" cars are more "American" than the Big 3 are! What a sad, sad state of affairs, and we have no one to blame but ourselves.
It's not uncommon at all for the first year of a completely new design to have more frequent problems than the competition. For all we know, GM may have identified and fixed many of the problems that 1st year cobalts had, just like Ford did with the focus. The first year focuses were some of the most unreliable, poorest built cars ever. Ford fixed most the problems over the next couple of years, and today even consumer reports recommends the focus.
It may not be uncommon with the "American" automakers, but it is not at all common with Honda and Toyota. Review JD Power surveys over time for a number of models, and you'll find little differences in quality between the introductory year of a Toyota or Honda than you will in its later years. This is one reason why magazines such as CR are more willing to give their blessing to new models of these cars, while withholding judgment ("too new to rate") for the domestics.
The Accord discussions had problems from the 03's when they first came out. Some of the defenders would ridicule those who posted their concerns, but the number and tone of the postings showed that there were more problems than the earlier Accords. The next years have continued with more problems than seemed to post in earlier years but there still are a number of problems--probably right on par with other cars. I'm sure someone will post JD Powers info.
The Odyssey and Pilot first years I dont' recall. I wasn't paying much attention. The Avalon has had an unseemly number of problems for the "reputation" of Toyota. So much for reputation having a halo effect; but people seem very forgiving. The drive by wire system seems to have caused some lag problems in the posts on the Toyota area.
Everyone has problems.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
But some have more problems than do others.
Still no comment about the Cobalt vs. Civic vs. Corolla data from JD Powers?
Thanks in advance if you can!
Ron M.
Have a look at post #412. You'll find a link to the JD Power's site that will allow to compare every car covered in its recent surveys, and the results of a Cobalt/ Civic/ Corolla comparison.
Thanks socala4!
Ron M.
We have to look and sift through the various cars and brands and see what is made PREDOMINANTELY by American workers and using a majority of American made parts. Then take a fair and honest look to see if they fit our needs, it they don't and we find something significantly closer to our needs than those cars then yes go ahead and buy it.
My point is to give those cars and brands that keep and create jobs in America first preference on that basis, just like we went and shopped at Walmart when they promoted that they had the majority of their products American Made.
Whether its a Ford Mustang or Fusion, give it a posative or negative ranking dependant as to how much is made by American workers and the level American made parts. So those who do want to support the American way of life and workers can see what they can buy that will have the most affect. We have so many unfair and outright illegal advantages being given to some of the overseas manufactures, how about doing something fair and uprightly honest by giving preference when it comes to our buying, to correct these imbalances created by other countries to give their indutries a unfair advantage or allow outright dumping to hurt American business and destroy American jobs.
You never know, the job you may be saving, may be your own...........
Aren't those governments using OPM to pay for socialized medicine and retirements? So the companies don't pay for that unless their taxes reflect the real cost of covering those costs for the government (which is the people anyhow).
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I'm surprised Boeing can compete with Airbus. See above post and include the government helping Airbus.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
As we already covered, Fusions are built in Mexico. So, in your view, is that an "American" car or not?
All these posts, and we still don't know what cars you'd like us to buy. So I'll ask you again -- what do you consider to be cars that are acceptable for achieving your goals:
-A Ford Fusion built in Mexico by a company that is shutting down plants in the US. (The big announcement being made today should be illuminating.)
-A Toyota Camry designed in a California design studio and built in Kentucky by a company that has been increasing its US payroll
-A Honda Accord designed in a US design studio for the US market which is built in Ohio by a company that has also been increasing its US payroll
Take this from an MBA who knows something about the concept of "marginal benefit" -- if you buy a Ford, you are sending the message to FoMoCo that outsourcing jobs to Mexico is a positive, i.e. it can gain market share while still exporting jobs to a low-wage producer. Its profits will likely be reinvested into more outsourcing, i.e. if demand for Fusions proves strong, Ford's response will be to hire more Mexican workers and look for other cars that it can build in its Mexican plants.
Compare this to buying the Toyota or Honda from companies that are reinvesting their profits in the US market, because they have strong prospects in the US, unlike Ford which is struggling to maintain market share here. Because Toyota and Honda are strongly quality-oriented, they take plant expansion seriously and are not as inclined to build plants in Mexico simply to save money, as they know from experience that getting a new factory to produce consistent quality can take years of investment and effort, and that losing their reputation for quality can hurt them badly.
In this situation, Honda and Toyota will actually do more for the US economy than Ford. Your rants are lovely, but they lack specifics or any analysis of what actually happens if we follow your advice...well, that is if we knew what it was that you'd actually advise us to do....
"Whether its a Ford Mustang or Fusion, GIVE IT A POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE RANKING!!!! DEPENDANT as to how much is made by American workers and the level American made parts."
Agreed. I gave you the JD Power data comparing the Cobalt to the Civic and Corolla, as you requested, but now you refuse to comment on it. Is that because it doesn't tell you the story that you wanted to hear?
I gave it MY ranking. Now I want YOUR ranking.
So, again: Fusion, Camry, Accord. Tell us which ones are OK to you, which ones aren't, and why or why not.
Vague rants aren't very useful when car shopping, so step up and provide us with some details. Based upon your desire to provide jobs for American workers, I'm inclined to choose the Honda or Toyota, wouldn't you agree?
The mid-sized sedan is the most important car segment in the US. You don't have any sage advice to offer about these cars?
My buddy who looked at the Equinox also likes the Xterra. I forget what its domestic content was, though...forgot to look at the sticker.
Vague rants aren't very useful when car shopping, so step up and provide us with some details. Based upon your desire to provide jobs for American workers, I'm inclined to choose the Honda or Toyota, wouldn't you agree?
I would love to see a true top to bottom cost and expense analysis of a Japanese Transplant Assembly plant in the US vs the FOMOCO factory in Mexico. Can you provide TRUE, objective numbers (not the ridiculous PR numbers from HonToy) about the transplants contribution to the US economy? I wonder if the Mexican Ford plant actually contributes MORE to the US economy since the profits come back to the US and many parts are US sourced. With the Japanese Transplants, many components labeled as made in the US are actually just finished here so that a 90% Japanese component is counted as 100% American. And as we all know, the profits from the Accord or Camry "assembled" in the US go back to Japan to buy Whale Meat and further fish the worlds oceans clean.
How exactly do the profits from Ford that go into the coffers of Barclays and Deutsche Bank end up in the United States? If DB takes its dividends and profits from future stock sales and rolls those into European investments, does that help the US any more than a Toyota plant?
And as we all know, the profits from the Accord or Camry "assembled" in the US go back to Japan to buy Whale Meat and further fish the worlds oceans clean.
Actually, we don't know that. Above, I provided a link to the American shareholders who benefit from the profits generated by Toyota and Honda. There are American mutual fund shareholders who benefit from their success.
Again, here is your free MBA tidbit -- a key concept in business is about marginal change, i.e. what happens when one more dollar/ unit of output/ etc. is added to the equation.
And we can guess that if Ford makes more profit from selling Mexican built cars, it will use those profits to expand in Mexico and elsewhere outside of the US. Here's your headline news -- Ford announced today that it is going to close fourteen plants and cut 25,000 jobs by 2012. That's how your loyalty is being repaid -- how do you like it?
_______________________
Ford to Cut 25,000 to 30,000 Jobs by 2012
DEARBORN, Mich. - Ford Motor Co., the nation's second-largest automaker, said Monday that it will cut 25,000 to 30,000 jobs and idle 14 facilities by 2012 as part of a restructuring designed to reverse a $1.6 billion loss last year in its North American operations.
The cuts represent 20 percent to 25 percent of Ford's North American work force of 122,000 people. Ford has approximately 87,000 hourly workers and 35,000 salaried workers in the region...
...Plants to be idled through 2008 include the St. Louis, Atlanta and Michigan's Wixom assembly plants and Batavia Transmission in Ohio. Windsor Casting in Ontario also will be idled, as was previously announced following contract negotiations with the Canadian Auto Workers. Another two assembly plants to be idled will be determined later this year, the company said.
The other seven facilities that will be idled were not immediately identified.
A total of 14 facilities, including seven assembly plants, will cease production by 2012, Ford said...
...The restructuring is Ford's second in four years. Under the first plan, Ford closed five plants and cut 35,000 jobs, but its North American operations failed to turn around.
AP story link
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Exactly. Who would have thought that buying an "import" would provide more employment and tax revenues for Americans than would buying from the "Big Three"...or I guess we should refer to them as the "Big Two", given that one of them is now owned by a German company...
big lawsuits
who are building new plants?
not uaw runs
Again, here is your free MBA tidbit -- a key concept in business is about marginal change, i.e. what happens when one more dollar/ unit of output/ etc. is added to the equation.
And we can guess that if Ford makes more profit from selling Mexican built cars, it will use those profits to expand in Mexico and elsewhere outside of the US. Here's your headline news -- Ford announced today that it is going to close fourteen plants and cut 25,000 jobs by 2012. That's how your loyalty is being repaid -- how do you like it?
Talk about "Vague Rants", where's the beef? (objective data)?? I guess they don't believe in data at those fancy MBA schools.
As you know, if Ford makes say, 1K total net profit per car at the Mexican Fusion plant, that 1K goes back to them. After they pay their taxes, dividends, etc. they do whatever they please with rest of the money, the only profit money that goes directly back to investors is the dividends and debt interest. The same 1k per Camry out of KY goes back to Japan, after Toyota pays their paltry dividend, they do whatever they please with the remaining money. How does a US assembled Toyota contribute more than a Mexican built Ford, when the Ford profit comes here while the Toyota profit goes to Japan? Other than dividends and debt interest, no money goes back to stockholders. Stock appreciation from profits only benefits Toyota (or Ford) directly if they plan to sell more shares or if their employees hold lots of stock. Even if you are making the Stock appreciation argument, I'm betting F has a much higher percentage of US ownership than TM.
As we are seeing in recent years and in the near future, Toyota and Honda have chosen to use their profits to build plants and produce jobs here in the states, after which they pay american workers, who, in turn, spend their money here in the states .... meanwhile, Ford and Chevy use their profits to build plants and produce jobs in Mexico ... while closing plants and cutting jobs in the states.
this same things has been posted again and again, ad naseum ... but keeps getting ignored by the ford/chevy diehards ...
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
False. Assuming a successful investment, the bulk of the value to the shareholder will come from appreciation in the stock price, which will be realized at sale. Higher earnings and improved future prospects of the company should lead to a higher stock price.
In any case, if a "Japanese" car maker hires an American worker at an American facility, the company and its employees will pay taxes and consume in the local marketplace. Buy a Ford Fusion, and you're helping to pay taxes to Mexico, increase demand for goods in Mexico, and enrich the workers who earn the money in Mexico. Buy a Camry made in Kentucky, and you can substitute Kentucky for Mexico in that equation.
So folow the money:
-If you spend another dollar with Ford, Ford will take that dollar and invest it in overseas facilities. It is cutting US jobs, not creating them.
-In contrast, if you buy more Camrys, they'll hire more people in Kentucky to build them.
Again, Toyota is more interested in consistently building quality cars, which requires them to build plants carefully and with less regard for bottom-dollar labor costs than is the per-unit-margin-oriented Ford, which incentivizes Toyota to maintain US production. Compare that to Ford, which is going to cut tens of thousands of Americans from their jobs, as it prioritizes shifting to the low-cost producer, with quality goals assuming lesser importance.
If your goal is US job preservation, I know that I'd spend my money on the Toyota. As for the shareholders, these are multinational investment banks that distribute the cash throughout the world. Companies know no loyalty, and capital knows no borders.
>Toyota and Honda have chosen to use their profits to build plants and produce jobs
They're not likely to build more plants there to invade.
How many plants are they placing in China? Will there be a resistance to their cars in China because of past transgressions during the war that someone mentioned earlier?
***********
***********
***********
What technology and parts are exported and used at those other plants in foreign countries.
What design work is done here?
Are those jobs exported to the alleged other country? Or are they really keeping jobs here and designing, engineering, and producing product there?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Talk about outsourcing -- you're trying to outsource your research to me. This is your position, so it is up to you to defend it. This is a car forum, so why aren't you prepared to talk about cars?
Well put up some stats to back up what you say on the origin of the labor and actual building of the at least some of cars from GM and FORD so we can start building a ranking and we'll go from there.
That's really vague and of no use to anyone. This is a car forum, and people who are shopping for cars won't have a clue what to do based upon your posts.
Until you create a list, I'm going to advise that anyone who prioritizes American jobs as part of their car hunt to buy a Camry or Accord instead of a Fusion. That's probably not what you would have done, but since you tend to speak in terms of generalities and sweeping statements, I guess we'll have to run with the Honda and Toyota until you deliver on the goods.
As for the rest of us, I'd recommend that you buy the best car that suits your needs, regardless of who builds it. Ford and GM aren't charities -- if they want to sell cars, then let them build a better car, and earn the money.
We haven't even established what this measuring stick is. That's the point of the thread -- to show how people such as yourself have absolutely no clue how to turn your ideas into something that people who want an "American" car can use. (Since you don't know yourself and are too unmotivated to do any research, it's a bit hard for anyone to use your excellent advice...)
But it's a car forum, so let's talk about cars. I'll ask you three questions, and I'd like you to answer them. (I'll even number them for you, for easy identification):
#1 -- Is it possible that some Hondas are "American" cars, or is it impossible for any Honda to ever be an "American" car?
#2 -- Is it possible that some Toyotas are "American" cars, or is it impossible for any Toyota to ever be an "American" car?
#3 -- Are all Fords sold in the US "American" cars, or are some of them imports that should be avoided?
My questions were very basic, with two choices each. After all those great speeches of yours, I'm surprised that you can't answer them.
Since you brought up the "Big Three", I'll add a fourth question:
#4 -- Are Chrysler and Dodge "American" cars, or are they "German" cars?