Buying American Cars What Does It Mean?

fintail

If everyone in the industry is needing a bailout to survive, you either have to play the same game or lose your domestic industry.

We've been bailing out the rich for god knows how long, why not industry that actually helps the nation via means other than trickle down lies?

fezo

I thought it might be.

I'd have posted it more nicely but was in a hurry.... 1949 makes a lot of sense.

Carry on.

imidazol97

>1949 makes a lot of sense.

It was my typo, typing by memory from the other page in Wiki.

I think many car companies have had "help" from their governments if not in 2008 era then in earlier periods.

fintail

If not for massive bailouts, we wouldn't have Korean branded cars today.

But of course aid can only be held against some.

stever

"Which consumer purchase is more beneficial for the U.S. economy: a domestic brand vehicle that's made outside the U.S. or an import brand vehicle assembled in the U.S.?"

Imports are leading by almost 2 to 1 over on the current AutoObserver Quick Poll.

imidazol97

>"Which consumer purchase is more beneficial for the U.S. economy: a domestic brand vehicle that's made outside the U.S. or an import brand vehicle assembled in the U.S.?"

You really know how to stir the pot.

Now we're going to hear about how bad Grand Prixs are for another 20 posts!!! Grin.

dieselone

Now we're going to hear about how bad Grand Prixs are for another 20 posts!!! Grin.

Nope, I'm done, I'm back in my happy place where Grand Prixs don't exist;)

imidazol97

> I'm back in my happy place where Grand Prixs don't exist;)

Wheeeew. Thank you for that information! :shades:

fezo

Don't believe him. He says that all the time....

andre1969

There's a '97-03 style Grand Prix coupe out in the parking lot here at work. I know who owns it...maybe I should go ask him his opinion of it? :shades:

Actually, I thought the '97-03 Grand Prix was pretty sharp looking, as long as you stayed away from the base model, which had the grille mounted low in the bumper, rather than up between the headlights. But, that swoopy body made them cramped inside, and the interiors on them were bad enough to make the '04+ style look world-class!

dieselone

There's a '97-03 style Grand Prix coupe out in the parking lot here at work. I know who owns it...maybe I should go ask him his opinion of it? :shades:

Actually, I thought the '97-03 Grand Prix was pretty sharp looking, as long as you stayed away from the base model, which had the grille mounted low in the bumper, rather than up between the headlights. But, that swoopy body made them cramped inside, and the interiors on them were bad enough to make the '04+ style look world-class!

MUM!

lemko

...this was the nicest Grand Prix of all time!

berri

Those later model Grand Prix rental cars had the worse seats - so terribly uncomfortable that I'd actually prefer a Cobalt.

marsha7

"However, under your approach there really shouldn't be government subsidies of any kind. That includes peanut farmers in Georgia, corn farmers in Iowa, sugar farmers in Florida, etc"

Yep, you got it...now we are on the same page... :shades:

berri

"Which consumer purchase is more beneficial for the U.S. economy: a domestic brand vehicle that's made outside the U.S. or an import brand vehicle assembled in the U.S.?"

That would actually be a good test question for an economics or finance class because the answer is very complicated and unclear, if even feasible to definitively decide. You really have to dig into vendors and taxes to analyze it. The transplant pays US worker wages that are then spent and hires local service vendors. It pays taxes on its plant (except many have negotiated sweetheart deals with their state and municipalities). Its vendors may be both US domestic and foreign based. A domestic made in Canada or Mexico may still employ US vendors. While it isn't paying US workers wages or paying local plant taxes in the US, the domestic probably pays greater US income tax overall. Also, the offshore plant still produces volume which lowers the overall overhead and G&A for the domestic corporation helping their pricing. Shareholders of both may be US residents or foreign residents. If I had to pick without a lot of detailed quantitative data, I would go with whichever used more domestic US vendors because they will likely overall employ more Americans than the physical assembly plant and pay more US taxes.

berri

Marsh, philosophically we're probably closer than you think. However, I think I'm more willing to bend when necessary to our economy or US company interest vice overseas firms. You see, that's why I consider myself a moderate without being a commie!

anythngbutgm

My dad put over 220k on his GP before trading it in on his current one.

While it was nowhere near the build or engine quality of my Hondas, it did ride pretty nice, dare I say "taught and agile" for it's size and girth.

Reliability-wise it was a victim of the whole intake manifold fiasco about a month after he got it, it needed to be replaced due to cracks found and the electronics (Xmas tree lights in the dashboard that wouldn't turn off) went glitchy somewhere around the 165k mark and the tranny began very harsh shifting around the same time (but never failed) but otherwise it was pretty reliable. I do remember both of the headlights actually fell off the car and the doors took a bit of force to close because they sagged so badly. Oh,and the back seat was so badly shaped, riding in the back was torture.

But, like I said, 220k or so and he liked it enough to buy another one.

obyone

If you recognize or have driven any of these cars you are probably ready for retirement. LOL!!

1971

andre1969

cool video, although I've gotta confess I've driven a '72 Impala convertible, and have a Park Ave...2000 model, though. And I hate to say it, but watching that video has me kinda wanting a '72 Impala! Some days I feel like I'm ready for retirement, but social security and my bank account say otherwise. :sick:

Looking at the 70's tests, while that Pinto was obliterated, I'm surprised at how much it tore into the full-sized Galaxie. I guess Fords really were junk back then! :P The Impala actually looked like it did fairly well in comparison. And, while you'd probably still be dead if you were in it, it looks like the Vega didn't get smeared as badly as the Pinto.

The AMC Matador seemed like it held up better than the Ford as well, and of the small cars, I'd say the Gremlin held up the best. I guess that would make sense though, as the Gremlin was basically a compact design with a chopped-off rear and shrunken back seat. So, it would stand to reason that a modified compact would hold up better than a subcompact.

And, that '91 Park Ave test makes me feel confident that if I ever play chicken with a Geo storm, I'll win! Actually, I think at the time, the platform that comprised my 2000 Park Ave and its siblings was the safest car that GM had ever made, up to that point.

dieselone

Yeah, that was eye opening. Definitely looked like the Gremlin held up the best.

circlew

All's I can say is " Wouldn't you really rather have been in the Buick PA"?

Regards,
OW

fezo

I was amazed at the Gremlin. Whoda thunk it?

lemko

Well, the Gremlin was actually the larger Hornet with the back lopped off. Maybe that's why it did so well. The Park Ave definitely came out ahead of the Geo Storm.

lemko

I wonder how a Park Ave would do against a Grand Marquis, not that I'd try it with either of our cars!

dieselone

I wonder how a Park Ave would do against a Grand Marquis, not that I'd try it with either of our cars!

That would be a mess. The GM with it's extra mass and full-frame would certainly exert some damage. I certainly wouldn't want to be in either. I wouldn't be surprised if the P/A has better passenger protection.

According to the NHTSA, a 2005 GM is rated better than a P/A for full frontal crash and the PA is rated a bit better for offset. So I guess it depends on how you crash;)

andre1969

Something else that may have worked in the Gremlin's favor is that the Ambassador was a bit small and light for a full-sized car. Just as AMC didn't have the funding to make a truly all-new subcompact, neither did they have the resources to make a true full-size car. The Ambassador was just a tarted up Matador. It might have had a slightly longer front end clip to make it look a bit more impressive, but it was still a bit lighter than a "true" full-sized car of that era.

It would have been interesting to see how a Plymouth Fury would have pitted against something smaller, although the smallest home-grown Mopar at that time would've been the Valiant Duster, and it was a much bigger car than any subcompact out there. I can't remember...were the Colt or Cricket offered in the US by that time, or was that a few years later?

lemko

Geeze, a full-size 1971 Plymouth Fury would've obliterated a Cricket or Colt.

fezo

I was thinking the same thing. There wouldn't be anything identifiable left from the Cricket.

Good point about AMC. They were doing an amazing job of staying in business with almost nothing to work with. I think the only things I rode in of those late ones were Gremlins and a Sportabout.

dieselone

I kind of know what it's like. When I was in HS I had an '85 1/2 Mercury Lynx (basically an '86 Escort). I was driving through a 5 way intersection at approximately 20mph (I was accelerating through the intersection after my light turned green). A guy driving a Ford Econoline conversion fan passed out coming from the other direction and hit me head on going an estimated 25 mph or so. If either of us were going much faster, I probably wouldn't be here now.

I didn't have a seat belt on and I was fortunate to escape with only a sore neck, a bump and cut on my head and bruised knees. My Mercury Lynx that I had only had for two weeks was completely wiped out and totaled. The radiator was pushed into the engine block, which was pushed back and into the firewall. The whole front end shifted over a few inches. I certainly was dazed and confused for a while and was extricated from my car. I barely remember the ride to the ER. Though I"ll never forget seeing my dad when they pulled me out of the ambulance. I thought I was in big trouble;)

Anyway, that was before seat belts were the law. IIRC, the day I got in the accident was the day before seat belt laws went into affect in Indiana. That was also the last day I've ever driven w/o wearing a seat belt.

andres3

I don't mind bail outs if they aren't with my tax money. NO taxation, no representation right. So Germany and Korea can do whatever they want.

at least they have companies WORTH bailing out. I think in the US, you only had companies DESERVING of failure.

andres3

However, you do realize that the government made a rather tidy profit off of the original Chrysler bailout?

When you count in the 2nd bailout losses to the tidy profit you speak of from the 1st bailout, how is your supposed "profit" looking now? I have a feeling it's gonna look awfully red and in the negative.

That's the problem with these companies, they mistake one quarter's gains and profits for long term success. Let's look at the big picture and do this equation:

1st bailout profits - 1st bailout costs -2nd bailout costs = tidy profits??? I think not.

berri

Comparing the original bailout of Chrysler under Jimmy Carter to the recent ones is like apples and oranges. The original was only loan guarantees for which the government collected fees and interest, and made out well - research it. The more recent bailouts involved primarily equity positions in addition to some loans. You usually need time to successfully unwind distressed equity positions, but politics tend to preclude that. Voters are too often ignorant on many things, particularly finance and economics (maybe there should be more emphasis on this stuff in school). They blame the party in office even though the recent bailouts began under George W, just as the financial distress originated (he came in with a huge budget surplus and blew it, and if you research it you'll see that the tax cuts and artificially low interest rates, more than the war costs lead to this humongous deficit and recession). Personally I think both of our recent presidents have been disappointments, but the public has a short memory that often distorts reality. I also think you have to look at the potential BK ramifications in analyzing these things since the impacts go far beyond the individual company. Personally, I think the GM action was probably necessary at that point in the recession, but the second Chrysler action was probably not. I'm sure we disagree, but I think it took guts for Bush and Obama to do what was necessary, but unpopular at that point in time.

berri

1st bailout profits - 1st bailout costs -2nd bailout costs = tidy profits??? I think not.

Your equation is wrong. There weren't any significant 1st bailout costs because it was basically loan guarantees (see above), If you want to compare apples and oranges then:

1st bailout profits - 2nd bailout loss

But there is no correlation and if not for politics, GM had a chance of at least greatly reducing the current taxpayer loss (if not profiting) over a longer period of 5 - 7 years given its strength in emerging markets and improvement in the Americas. ( e.g. GM is still growing in China, expanding in Latin America, Russia and India). I don't think its future is as dire as you may think on an intermediate to longer time basis.

andres3

But there is no correlation and if not for politics, GM had a chance of at least greatly reducing the current taxpayer loss (if not profiting) over a longer period of 5 - 7 years given its strength in emerging markets and improvement in the Americas.

I disagree that there is no correlation except for politics. Chrysler is the same company it was 25 to 30 years ago. They were headed for disaster well before the 2008 collapse.

If not for the first bailout, I would have never had the disfortune of having been offerred the option of buying such a dispicable so-called car such as the Neon in the mid-nineties. If I hadn't bought that lemon, I probably wouldn't have written off not only Chrysler for the rest of my life, but certainly GM and probably Ford as well. So that 1st bailout cost not only Chrysler my business for the rest of my life (after experiencing just one of their cars) but also cost Ford and GM my business for my lifetime. I'm sure there are thousands of others in my exact same situation, worldview, and in my same boat, if you will. There's a reason they all lost market share, and this is certainly one of them (bad customer experience, A BIG REASON for long term failure).

Also, the gov't happened to get lucky and not lose money on those loan guarantees, but they very well likely could have lost money. They took on risk in exchange for profits. That time the risk was small and the profits happened to be raked in. Fast forward to a few years ago and they took on a huge risk with little profit potential. I agree GM was worth saving moreso than Chrysler, but I think that money that saved GM could have been better used to bailout other more deserving industries, such as construction.

berri

Personally, I wasn't a big fan of either Chrysler bailout, but there were some big differences. The first one evolved because of the typical trait of Chrysler pumping output (plant operating efficiency) in disregard of true demand figuring it would all catch up. Although Chrysler had a bigger share of the market back then, they still weren't really essential to the economy IMO. The government and Wall Street actually did a pretty thorough risk review and analysis before guaranteeing those loans. Everyone credits Iaccoca for the success, but I always felt their treasurer at the time, Miller was more the driving force. I think Washington backed it because it was a marketing tool to show the public they were doing something about Japanese imports "danger" back then. Ironically, that all backfired when J3 started building plants in the US.

The latest bailouts were far bigger, with much less lead time. They also involved equity stakes. I don't think it was GM they were trying to save per se , but all the vendor and dealer jobs, as well as exposed banks. Personally, I don't like the idea of government equity stakes, but I suppose the issues were too large for just loan guarantees and many large banks were teetering at the time. The democrats had the additional driver of union support. However, I think that if Bush was in office the whole time the republicans would have supported it because of the economy and business interests that went far beyond the auto industry. There was lots of political theater going on of course and many democrats claimed the bank bailouts were just protecting the wealthy, when a bunch of big failures would have endangered the financial status of Americans in all income brackets. If Congress would spend their time worrying about the interest of our citizens, instead of political posturing, maybe we could turn the country around better and faster. But we all know that the wealthy and bigness make most of the political contributions, so the middle class is essentially ignored except during the elections.

motorcity6

Read somewhere that the Govt. is ready to bailout of GM soon and take a $10,000,000,000 loss just to get it off the table before the next election..

One just has to love our Govt and the way they diddle our money away..

Freddie Mac and Fannie May will disappear next for they are totally corrupt..

I want all your forum posters to keep on working and paying your taxes for I need your contribution to Soc. Security to help maintain my Floridian lifestyle..After all the 30+ fun years in supplying parts to the Big3 and track shoes for our military tanks, I need a restful retirement..After the 53 cars in my long life, all but 2 from Detroit, couple million miles of road pounding, I am tired of the open road, however, my Detroit built cars were for the most part very good and some were exceptional..

The American auto companies have become a "political game" and with the current govt mandates on the environment, energy, and rising gas prices, I can see where the Govt wants to Wash their hands of the GM deal..Since about 50% of Detroit's volume is wrapped in the suv, truck, and the heavy gas hogs, they don't have the little crappo cars on line to fight the foreign nameplates.. My two cars average about 21 mpgs,and the other one in the garage gets about 2 mpgs more..none are trucks, suvs or vans..

motorcity6

Supplied parts for all models involved, and yep, I is retired..Those 3 martini lunches did take its toll!!!!

andres3

They make me chuckle. Wasn't it the Detroit news' car review writer that had to resign because they wanted to make his article on the Chrysler 200 less scathing and negative towards a vehicle, that frankly, deserves all of the negative reviews. Chrysler threatened to pull advertising, and the newspaper caved in. Shame on them.

So if the car is getting miserable reviews, why do they have commercials that you don't have to LOWER your standards in order to buy American?

marsha7

"So if the car is getting miserable reviews, why do they have commercials that you don't have to LOWER your standards in order to buy American?"

Simple answer.................UAW

dieselone

The Ford dealer where my wife picked up her Taurus is also a Chrysler dealer and they had a 200 on the showroom. It's horrible IMO. Looks like with the v6 it will have a good powertrain, but I didn't like the way it looks inside or out.

The 300 would fit the image much better for the "Imported from Detroit" slogan, to bad it's made in Ontario. I think the commercial is great, but the 200 is not.

andres3

I don't think a commercial can be great unless it makes sense and is truthful. Since the 200 is not great, why talk of NOT lowering standards in order to buy it?

For sure you are lowering your standards if you do buy it.

lemko

...if buying cars based on how good their commercials are, I'd go right out and buy a 200 right now! The only way the 200 would seem even better is if they showed images of my city and the tagline was "Imported from Philadelphia!" :shades:

dieselone

...if buying cars based on how good their commercials are, I'd go right out and buy a 200 right now! The only way the 200 would seem even better is if they showed images of my city and the tagline was "Imported from Philadelphia!" :shades:

I agree, that is a great commercial.

andre1969

I agree, that is a great commercial.

One of my friends, who's originally from Detroit, fell in love with the Chrysler 200, based on that commercial alone. So, I guess slick advertising does work on some people! He knows I have a preference for Chrysler products, so he told me I should buy one. Sorry, but my loyalty to them isn't THAT blind! :P

I've seen a few new Chargers out on the street though, and gotta admit I like 'em.

lemko

Too bad the 300-C wasn't made in Detroit, then the commercial and the car might make my next motorcar Mopar!

andre1969

Too bad the 300-C wasn't made in Detroit, then the commercial and the car might make my next motorcar Mopar!

Yeah, "Imported from Canada" doesn't quite have the same impact, 'eh? :P

dieselone

Too bad the 300-C wasn't made in Detroit, then the commercial and the car might make my next motorcar Mopar!

Absolutely. I guess the tagline "Imported from Detroit via Canada" doesn't quite have the same effect;)

If I was looking for a nice sedan, the new 300C would certainly be on my shopping list.

circlew

Hey, "Chevy Runs Deep" so you better wear boots! I knew something smelled when I pass the Chevy Dealer! Their supposed to use a pooper scooper after they unload the car carriers!

Regards,
OW

andres3

Actually, that carries a lot of weight with me. Although I have a negative view of things made in Mexico (I think large parts of the NEON were made there). I have a very positive view of things made in Canada.

A lot of good stuff comes from Canada, such as good quality Energy (brand) speakers (at least they used to be made up there, don't know anymore). Good sounding and looking speakers for a reasonable price.

anythngbutgm

Those energy speakers turned the world on their ear (NPI :P ) when they came out. I remember CNET reviewing them and saying they blew away systems costing 3 - 4 times the price! I almost bought a set last spring but went with a set of Klipsch instead becasue the Energy's were a new model and not as well built as the originals. But pricewise, 500 bucks for their 5.1 system was a steal.

To get back to cars, the only Canada prduct I've ever owned was my 2003 Acura MDX. My dad had one of the very first and put 150k on it IIRC without ever having a single major problem. Drove mine for over 3 years and 85k without ever having a problem as well and I'd probably still be driving it today if I hadn't traded it due to it's mediocre fuel economy and thirst for premium gas. :sick: