Buying American Cars What Does It Mean?

wvgasguy

It's better to have a US company building in Mexico and Canada, our friends, that by a company of a foreign nation who has no allegiance to us and can close that factory and move production elsewhere on a whim or a retaliation move.

I have not heard of any "foreign" companies doing that, but there are many American companies demanding tax cuts and other concessions from states and local governments with the threat of moving if they don't get what they want. Even Pro Sports Teams are guilty of that, It's the American way. I'm sure the foreign's will learn that from us

Remember too that the money that goes back to the corporation actually goes back to the stockholder. In 2003 when the new 350Z came out I bought Nissan stock along with the Z. The stock performed a lot better than the car on the short term. I cashed in on both and lost on the car and made a good profit on the stock.

When American companies make cars in foreign countries, the only thing we'll get here are dividends if we own their stock. And if you own their stock right now you're probably wishing you had bought Toyota or Nissan instead.

fezo

Building and closing plants is always an interesting bit of "what will you do for me" and "what have you done for me lately?"

We had a huge Ford plant in Mahwah, NJ. It opened in 1955 with a 25 year sweetheart deal on the property taxes. Exactly 25 years later Ford chained the gate and left. 29 years after that they are still dealing with all of the junk Ford dumped nearby.

While it was going it was a massive money machine for the locals.

gagrice

Canada is not 100% foreign, just face it. We are them and they are us, to some degree

Not exactly. We have a big trade deficit with Canada. They are our number one Oil supplier, Mexico may still be number 2. Canada probably builds better cars than their counterparts in Detroit. However I have not forgiven them for destroying the US lumber business when BC subsidized their logging industry and put a lot of our people out of work. Canada is a very rich nation in resources. Just not run very well.

dave8697

Plain and simple...GM improved their warranty because they knew the products were reliable and therefore it would also be affordable.

62vetteefp

When American companies make cars in foreign countries, the only thing we'll get here are dividends if we own their stock. And if you own their stock right now you're probably wishing you had bought Toyota or Nissan instead.

What about all the engineers and everything else at the home country? A plant only has a couple thousand employees, most at non professional wages, while the engineering/corporate facility has 10's of thousands at professional wages.

mikefm58

It's better to have a US company building in Mexico and Canada, our friends, that by a company of a foreign nation who has no allegiance to us and can close that factory and move production elsewhere on a whim or a retaliation move.

Our friends? Get real, will you. There are no "friends" in business.

Close that factory and move elsewhere on a whim? What planet do you live on? American companies have been doing that for decades. Last time I called Delta customer service, someone with an Indian accent named "Frank" answered and I couldn't understand his English. My own company just moved part of their help desk to Puerto Rico. But that's OK right? Isn't Puerto Rico one of our "friends" too?

lemko

Puerto Rico is a U.S. possession.

mikefm58

Puerto Rico is a U.S. possession

Yes it is, I knew that already, just making a point. All companies will move business around, even to a neighboring state if it makes good business sense.

fezo

Of course they will.

Where I grew up there was a company that made bowling balls, battery casings and, the thing you are most likely to run into -- Ace combs. They moved from their New Jersey factory to Tennessee where they could do it cheaper. Then they moved to< I believe, Taiwan. The folks in Tennessee have nothing to show for luring the company down and now the company is pretty much an Asian outfit.

imidazol97

>Last time I called Delta customer service, someone with an Indian accent named "Frank" answered and I couldn't understand his English.

Delta headquarters didn't move to another country.

>What planet do you live on?

I don't think the forum is about where I live.

>Close that factory and move elsewhere on a whim?

Pressure from the US to quit misvaluing the currency which encourages imports into this country might instigate closing production here to move to a friendlier, more profitable location, say..., Venezuela.

Pressure to pay employees more. Pressure to retain older employees who aren't as production or have suffered injuries from their work and aren't as efficient.

Pressure to employ full time rather than part time people.

The currency valuation trick came up in hearings with the new treasury secretary. When he said that it seemed that he caught himself and realized he shouldn't have mentioned the valuation problem.

>Indian accent named "Frank" answered

Frank may be a US citizen; I don't want to get into zenophobia here.

captain2

Plain and simple...GM improved their warranty because they knew the products were reliable and therefore it would also be affordable
boy do I have some swampland to sell you And therefore Chrysler knows that their products are even better I guess,. or that somebody like Hyundai (and GM FTM) didn't have to 'invent' the 100k warranty simply because they are still living down some really crappy cars they sold us about 20 years ago. OR that the Toyotas and Hondas of the world must by your logic not warranty their cars for as long as GM does simply because they know that their products are not reliable. :surprise:
Plain and simple, believe what you want, but there is no evidence statistical or otherwise that GM specifically has really made a whole lot of progress from reliability or quality perspectives.
The fact is that a manufacturer, any manufacturer, will do only as much as is required to sell their products. Longer warranties for whatever real value they might have, do end up costing some money - GM, in particular, is in no position to be spending money they don't have right now, and wouldn't be unless they had to - it's only common sense and 'sound' business practice.

stever

Close that factory and move elsewhere on a whim?

Or maybe one or more of the D3 will just move the company offshore and try to break into this top ten list:

10 Big Businesses That Have Moved Their Headquarters Abroad to Pay Less U.S. Taxes (HR World)

Bailed-Out Firms Have Tax Havens, GAO Finds (Washington Post)

GAO: 83% of big U.S companies, contractors use offshore tax havens (USA Today)

grbeck

captain2: Plain and simple, believe what you want, but there is no evidence statistical or otherwise that GM specifically has really made a whole lot of progress from reliability or quality perspectives.

I would disagree...I'm no GM apologist, but GM's quality has been getting better. It's just that everyone else improved, too, so its ranking among manufacturers hasn't changed much. Newer GM cars are better than what the company was making 10 years ago. And some of the new models - the 2008 Malibu, for example - have been scoring well in reliability surveys. I believe that Consumer Reports has given the car good reliability ratings. GM's problem is that the quality gains have been uneven across its lineup...there are still too many dogs pulling down the good performers.

captain2

The most "American" car according to a list I saw in my Autoweek is Fords Crown Victoria/Mercury Grand Marquis. 90% US content
That may be for the "American' brands, and apparently you are talking about parts content only not parts and labor, or overall content. I drive a Toyota Avalon, 92% OVERALL CONTENT (not just parts) some of the Nippondenso electronics, I think, actually made in Japan and obvoiusly 100% assembled in Kentucky, the engine/tranny in Missouri/Indiana, respectively. Think the content stats are similar for the not so inconsequential Camry BTW. Don't minimize the positive influences that something truly 'made in USA' has, however.
The 'profits' issue is rather amusing, the D3 are accruing massive tax credits right now for all the losses they are taking and won't be paying a dime of corporate taxes for many years to come - if they make it that long. Toyota does however pay US taxes and further has spent literally billions in this country building and expanding plants- as has Nissan, Honda and Hyundai -also quite the reverse of the D3 which continue to move operations primarily to Mexico and Canada - as fast as their UAW contracts will let them.
Lastly, think about that real live American assembly line worker that makes let's say $40k/year working at that Toyota plant in Ky, a Niisan plant in Tn, or a Honda pplant in Ohio. He then takes that money he makes to pay the taxes that pay the local teachers , police officers etc. and then they take their salaries pay more taxes and then further support a whole lot of other folks working in the local economy like the retails stores etc.etc. The Walmart employee who then takes his wages and pays more taxes etc etc.etc. Just think of how many times that original $40k can be spent - by multiple real live Americans.
The 'trickle' down effect of an employed American is a whole lot more economically valuable than some "American" based Co. not paying taxes on income they don't make. This is the reason why that this positive influence (especially to local economies) can't be underestimated and why many cities and towns float those tax and real estate breaks to entice any Company, American or otherwise to favorably locate plants and other facilities.
'Buying American' unfortunately is becoming a race to see how well we can support the Canadian and Mexican economies and you are probably doing less to help our own economy by buying that "American' product. Hell, it won't be long before we see the first Chinese Buick, made other there, imported and sold over here. Much in the same way as the imported Fusion, Grand Marquis you mention etc.
Granted that the Japanese, Korean and German mfgrs are only building plants here because they can make more money that way, and that the 'American' mfgrs. are closing plant after plant after plant because they can build something cheaper (and better) in Canada and Mexico, but the net effect of all of this is that you are likely helping more Americans keep food on their table by spending your money on that Toyota, Honda, or Nissan than you would by spending it on the Chevy, Chrysler or Ford.

captain2

OK I will grant you that the relative quality of GM's products has improved for what they once were and for that matter, that the 'American' car quality/reliability is inching closer to those Japanese 'standards'. Such are some of the benefits of some of these newer technolgies - in ALL cars. I remember back 30 or 40 years ago, when a car was deemed 'worn out' at 50 or 60k miles and that 100k miles was kind of remarkable - these days 100k is not so unusual and most cars are just broke in. I guess given a tenfold price increase - that we should be getting something for our money

62vetteefp

Plain and simple, believe what you want, but there is no evidence statistical or otherwise that GM specifically has really made a whole lot of progress from reliability or quality perspectives.

You are not really serious are you? GM warranty is way down from where it was 5 years ago. And here is data with statistical methodology that shows how much they have improved. Of course you do not have to believe it.

2005 JD Power: http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pressrelease.aspx?ID=2005089 (check out the winners in both midsize categories)

2006 JD Power: http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pdf/2006133.pdf

2007 JD Power: http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pdf/2007130.pdf

2008 JD Power: http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pressrelease.aspx?ID=2008115

And if you look closely you will see there just is not a heck of a lot of difference anymore in problems per vehicle.

gagrice

I have said this before. Any country that keeps secret bank records for US citizens should be attacked and demand all records turned over. They are aiding and abetting the enemies of the United States of America. If Obama wants openness in his administration. All offshore accounts should become targets of the Justice department. If Switzerland wants to remain a sovereign Nation they better hand over all the records. Many of our beloved leaders are just as corrupt and have used these accounts to avoid paying taxes. It is a big joke to them, when Obama and Hillary say they are going to tax the rich. It is all bunk and they know it.

I do understand corporations moving to less restrictive countries. We have one of the highest rates of Corporate taxation in the modern world.

captain2

Agreed, there is only more doom and gloom on the horizon if any of the D3 go bust. IMO nobody in their right mind wants any more folks on unemployment, its not good for them, it's not good for us. IMO Detroit does need to restructure just like you say, they haven;t been really competitive inthe car business for many years now - get out of it, and concentrate on those high profit trucks and SUVs - something they are better at. Selling those corporate jets might help too.

gagrice

I read a bit of the 2005 reliability awards. My 2005 GMC Hybrid PU was reliable for the 13k miles I kept it. It just was not put together properly. The doors did not seal. The engine ran fine and never left me stranded. That is reliable. Just crappy built. Do any of the magazines really address issues like poor assembly, noisy, rattles etc? There is a lot more to a car than reliability. The Prius gets high marks. Yet it is a rough riding noisy little beast. Not my idea of driving pleasure. Except for less gas stops. The only thing that appeals to me about the car.

captain2

If you want to convince me that GM (or anybody else) has improved anything don't cite an organization that is paid to give out awards. Or invents awards just so they can give them. Instead try somebody like CR, who gets no money from anybody.. CRs recent article (2009 car issue) notes improvements at Ford ( the Mexican Fusion/Milan/MKZ), status quo at GM, and continued problems at Chrysler.
Its amazing that over the years that the recipients of JDP awards are usually those mfgrs. that need it the most. Coincidence? :confuse:

62vetteefp

Its amazing that over the years that the recipients of JDP awards are usually those mfgrs. that need it the most. Coincidence?

So you are saying that Lexus and Toyota are most in need of awards? They do get the most year after year.

And like I said you can believe want to. Nobody here can make anybody believe the data in front of them.

62vetteefp

Do any of the magazines really address issues like poor assembly, noisy, rattles etc? There is a lot more to a car than reliability.

The Initial quality data would be more along that line. Of course some of the issues like rattles can come later but the data does get the poor build issues.

2008 IQS: http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pressrelease.aspx?ID=2008063

The APEAL data also brings some of that into it.

http://www.jdpower.co.jp/press/pdf2007/2007USAPEAL_E.pdf

captain2

any study, the data upon which the study is based, and/or any award that might come form any of that is SUSPECT once money is involved. CR, for whatever warped priorities they might arguably have, at least they are up front about what those prioirites are and will be more than happy to show you where their money comes from. It even gets more ludrcrous when you see, as in JDP's case, things like:
http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/automotive/
what in the world do you suppose a satisfaction award in 'mulitmedia' is all about?
You don't think this has anything to do with something like - the more awards we can 'invent' the more money we can make - do you? It's kinda like kids on a baseball team these days - what do those trophies really mean if ALL the kids got one?

circlew

There is only one reason why they are loosing market share: customers decide what's best. There are many factors that lend to the competition taking MS away from the D3.

Lots of work to do.

Regards,
OW

circlew

I can only go by the past GM vehicles I've owned. That's what I believe.

I am trying Honda presently.

Regards,
OW

62vetteefp

JD Power does not make their money off the income from allowing manufacturers to advertise their placing. They make the money by supplying the data to the OEM's. They all buy the data. I spent lots of time going over actual customer complaints to see what the issues were. If JD were "lying" the other companies would be all over them. Do you not think that Toyota went ballistic when the Century beat out the Camry?

Anyway this is all fluffed out in another forum..
http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/WebX/.f106481/565

cooterbfd

"-- Ace combs"

OMG Ace combs. My father always sold them in his barber shop. UNBREAKABLE!!!!

xrunner2

Century beats out Camry???? What were the demos? 80+ year old Century owners?

dave8697

they are all just good. Great has been moved to the next plateau. Honda is automatically placed on that next plateau because they offer nav. as an option. Last year it was stability control matters, but malibu added that, so now it's nav. matters. The argument is wearing thin though, because SC was std on honda and not avail on malibu back then. Now honda is graced for having nav as an option that only a couple percent end up getting.

62vetteefp

Camry/Accord have not been in the top 3 (midsize) in both initial and dependability for years(~5).

fezo

Yes. When I was in high school I'd walk right by where they did all that stuff. There was one section where you just look in the windows and see that you knew you didn't want to work in a hard rubber plant. That section of the old plant is now a brewery! The rest is various light industrial space.

ronvpr

Good luck. My wifes 09 Honda Odyssey has had two transmission rebuilds, as well as serveral trips to the dealer (on the back of a tow truck) for a no start issue that the idiots at Honda cant seem to fix for more than a day. This is my first and last Honda. I don't recommend Honda to anyone.

62vetteefp

You should not make a final decision based on your small sample size. Cars average now about 2 problems at 3 years of life (honda is 1.77). So some will have 0 problems while some will have 4.

Quality is basically a non issue today unless you want something like Land Rover at 3.44 pph or if the high end which is Lexus (1.2). Both Land Rover and Lexus last year are the tails of the curve and do seem to stick out.

http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pressrelease.aspx?ID=2008115

lilengineerboy

Wow, for an '09 with that many issues, its time to start looking at lemon law stuff and write the thing off. That one got dropped on its head in transit or something!!

cooterbfd

I swear that the dealerships today are more concerned with getting the cars in and out, and dealing w/ any possible repercussions after, then actually fixing it right the first time.

lemko

Same here! I can only go by the past GM vehicles I've owned as well! That's what I believe!

I am staying with Cadillac and Buick!

tlong

they are all just good. Great has been moved to the next plateau. Honda is automatically placed on that next plateau because they offer nav. as an option. Last year it was stability control matters, but malibu added that, so now it's nav. matters. The argument is wearing thin though, because SC was std on honda and not avail on malibu back then. Now honda is graced for having nav as an option that only a couple percent end up getting.

So when is GM going to be class-leading on their cars rather than class-following?
Then there will be nothing to complain about. They are not setting the bar high enough, with the possible exception of CTS.

Frankly, if Malibu came out from Honda or Toyota people would have thought it was pretty good. From GM it's all anybody talks about, which is indicative of the how many dogs there have been and how surprising a car is from GM that actually becomes somewhat competitive.

Not bashing GM, kudos on the Malibu. Now they need to set the bar even higher. Mid-cycle refresh could improve it a lot.

bpizzuti

Mid-cycle refresh could improve it a lot.

Basically GM needs to do with the Malibu what Ford did with the Fusion for 2010. The previous (currently current) Fusion was pretty good, but fell a bit short in some areas. Ford listened, improved those areas, improved a few other things, and aimed to BEAT the competition. These days people can't wait to get their hands on the 2010 Fusion, car mags are already looking at it and rating it higher than any of the competition...oh, and it might just keep Ford from needing our bailout money, heh.

Basically, Ford listened to their potential customers, found out what they wanted, and offered it. GM would be wise to do the same. So what have people complained about on the Malibu?

1 - Lack of nav option
2 - lack of 2-mode hybrid option (and miserable excuse for a hybrid badge currently)
3 - Some interior quality items
4 - 4 speed tranny (notice GM addressed this, they CAN listen).

What else? I know there's more, but I'm going off the top of a head that hasn't had its morning caffeine yet. :P I know there's people here who think saying anything bad about the Malibu is akin to a sin, but it's not...it's us saying what would have to happen to it for us to consider it, in many cases. If GM hears these concerns, and addresses them, they can gain additional business. That would be a good thing for GM. Which is why I will continue to state areas where Malibu needs improvement.

Oh, the best way to improve Cobalt is to throw it in the car crusher. Just HAD to say that. :shades:

62vetteefp

Not bashing GM, kudos on the Malibu. Now they need to set the bar even higher. Mid-cycle refresh could improve it a lot.

There will not be much of, if any mid cycle enhancement. The Malibu architecture is the old one. My advice to GM would be to take the new Opel Insignia, redo the front end and build it as the new Malibu for 2010. GM could convert Orion to build the new Malibu while Fairfax builds out the old Malibu and Aura. G6 would be dropped (currently Orion). I would revise the front door to take out the vertical strake to make it more chevy like.

circlew

Best of Luck! Hope Buick targets better desire going forward...too sleepy for me!

Regards,
OW

circlew

The fair thing to say is that GM bashed itself. Now everyone pays for it. Hope it doesn't cost more than already earmarked to un-bash!

Regards,
OW

bvdj84

Yep, their commercials basically bash and admit everything. Surprised? lol

What is so hot about the new 2010 Fusion? It looks like a Hot Wheels car. It would actually look high quality, if they could lose that plastic chrome grill. They cannot pull that off too well. The new lights and curves on the car are nice, but that grill just ruins it. Nothing too unique about it. This is my opinion, A lot might like it. Love it, but for me, it doesn't look believable.

fezo

62 - that's not a bad idea at all. I'd tell them not to do much at all to the design there. I know it's just me but I don't find the nose of the current Malibu attractive and the tail is just kind of odd. I should add here that there are few cars out there right now that I think are well designed. Maybe the closest ones in that class to do anything for me are the Mazda 6 and the Altima. Certainly not the Camry and pretty much not the Accord. The Camry still strikes me as weird looking. The Accord is just disappointing. I expected better.

62vetteefp

On the exterior I would just change the front door skins and change the grill. On the interior it is a bit too teutonic and needs the colors to be a bit more American.



Here is a picture of the new LaCrosse interior.

fezo

The LaCrosse interior does look nice. It's certainly a great deal more American looking.

I have this thing with the red lit instrumentation - I don't like it in most cars. Haven't seen one yet that I really like. Of course with all my vehicles being very late 90s or early 00 Hondas and Toyotas I have very functional nothing fancy instrumentation. Next time I buy new I'll probably think I've got a space shuttle there.

62vetteefp

Chevy would change the red to ice blue. Would take some development time but no tooling. Need to make sure all the lighting is even on all the switches.

wvgasguy

On the interior it is a bit too teutonic and needs the colors to be a bit more American.

Of all the new American cars the Malibu is one I thought was starting to look better. This goes back to what I have said earlier. GM needs a car to compete directly with the Europeans. Let the Malibu continue on this path. There are already enough models out there that look "American". They have already captured the market that wants an American car. Now they need to capture the market that likes the Asian and European cars.

tlong

There will not be much of, if any mid cycle enhancement. The Malibu architecture is the old one. My advice to GM would be to take the new Opel Insignia, redo the front end and build it as the new Malibu for 2010. GM could convert Orion to build the new Malibu while Fairfax builds out the old Malibu and Aura. G6 would be dropped (currently Orion). I would revise the front door to take out the vertical strake to make it more chevy like.

I'm sure you know more about refresh cycles than us! My point was that much of where Malibu is not even more excellent can be fixed with small changes like Nav, minor interior tweaks, etc. Basic car and platform are really good. Just do the details a little better.

I do like the look of the Opel you have there.

62vetteefp

Issue is that this is only the 3rd year of the Malibu. One issue I did not bring up is that the new Opel Malibu, if it happened, would require new tooling for capacity. That would take time and money.

fezo

Yeah, but the direct competition is on a 5 year replacement cycle with a refresh in the middle. They don't want to fall behind there. A three year refresh with a new design in another three can work if GM survvives the current market.