By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Ask yourself a question: Which company is more likely to increase its American payrolls, GM or Toyota?
The obvious answer -- Toyota. GM is shifting out of the US, away from US production, with an eye to reduce its US workforce and US tax obligations.
Toyota is doing the exact opposite. Who cares where the mail to the corporate offices goes?
The American economy gets nothing? Where do you think that net profit goes back to? America that's where. That's what I have been trying to get across. Where do you think those billions of dollars of net profit from Asian cars go ? Back to Asia, not America. Maybe you should read those posts again and see what I've been saying instead of trying to have a quick come back and not understaning what has been said.
Anybody can buy an internet URL (they cost about $10 per year), and post an opinion.
But the fact is that US-assembled "Japanese" cars tend to have 70-80% US content, just read the window stickers and you'll see this for yourself. Since the guy who posted that article blew the facts in his very first editorial comment, I'm not going to bother reading any more of his errors and misstatements.
If you learned about Toyota production methods, you'd know why that local content is so high for its US production -- you can't have a just-in-time inventory system if your suppliers are too far away, because it is based upon ordering needed quantities on short notice. So a manufacturer using a JIT system is going to need parts suppliers who are within close proximity of their plants.
Last I checked, GM isn't earning any net profit. No profit, no taxes.
In any case, most of an automakers' inflows go to pay expenses, not profit. And a US-built car using US parts will benefit the US economy most, because of all the money being poured into buying supplies and paying wages. Profit is but a fraction of every dollar taken in, meaning that a US-built Camry does far more to help the US than does a Chinese-made Buick.
"auto makers used to face nearly 100 percent tariffs on their auto exports to China. A domestically produced car with a price tag in Japan of US$10,000, for instance, would have to be sold for $20,000 in the Chinese market. They were no match for competitors such as Volkswagen of Germany and General Motors of the United States, which were already producing in China. Thus, Japanese auto makers had no choice but to begin local production if they wanted to sell cars in China."
That Chinese made Buick is not exported back to the U.S. It's sold in China.
I'm out of here for awhile.
http://www.cadillac.com.cn/cadi2005/home.asp
It seems they do.
Well that could be why American Car companies are loosing money. They support too many workers who make too few cars. I wonder if the UAW members who are in job banks are counted towards the 23 jobs provided for every 100 cars made. Since now Ford and GM will lay off 60,000 people and most of them will go to job banks the number of people per 100 cars will increase even more. That is what I call progress. We will have 25, maybe even 26 jobs in auto industry for every 100 cars made.....
Maybe its just that Japanese companies are more efficient, so they don't need as many people to build cars. Did you think about that. You know the only way to increase the standard of living in a country is to have more output with the same number of workers. You know in India they have 230 people in auto industry per 100 cars made. Does this make Indian car companies like Tata better then American car companies? NO it does not.
All you have shown with your statistics is just how inefficient American car manufacturers are and why they are loosing so much money.
Profit on a vehicle is tiny in comparison to the costs going intothe vehicle. Typically it's about 5% so on a $5000 Chinese vehicle the profit is about $250 to be split with other JV partners. Often by agreement the profits have to be reinvested in the company to make inprovements and increase capacity so infact nothing comes back to the parent except a 'paper' profit to show the JV is worthwhile. It is a way to shelter investments overseas because the losses here mean no US tax has to be paid on the overseas sales.
Could you show me where you read there is no profit coming back from Chinese sales? I am sure stock holders would put up with that.
Well that could be why American Car companies are loosing money. They support too many workers who make too few cars. I wonder if the UAW members who are in job banks are counted towards the 23 jobs provided for every 100 cars made. Since now Ford and GM will lay off 60,000 people and most of them will go to job banks the number of people per 100 cars will increase even more. That is what I call progress. We will have 25, maybe even 26 jobs in auto industry for every 100 cars made.....
That is 23 jobs created out of the the manufacturing of those cars. They are not talking of 23 auto manufacturing jobs.
http://www.cadillac.com.cn/cadi2005/home.asp
It seems they do.
And you think the average Chinese are going to buy Caddies right?
GM has lost billions of dollars and so has Ford. Their credit is now in lower junk bond status. Do you think they have the money to build new plants in this country?
Even if they could, I believe any layed off worker would have first chance of working in it. Ford and GM would still be stuck with high wages, pensions, medical and vacations.
Toyota and Honda can come in here get the land for nothing, or tax free for years, hire new, younger workers and not have to pay wages or the expenses that Ford and GM would.
There is no even field between them. There is no way that Toyota and Honda plants put back in the American economy that Ford and General Motors does.
Why do you think that the people of Kentucky would want new manufacuturing in their state? What would they have done with that land and those unemployed people had Toyota not come along to help them? One thing we know for sure -- GM and Ford sure aren't going to lift a finger to help.
Your crazy if you think Toyota built that plant in Kentuckey to help the people. They built it there to help themselves. Cheap wages, free land and years of no taxes. That's why they built it there.
If more people would start buying American again, they wouldn't be closing American plants and laying off American workers
Ford had no problem with building a plant in Mexico. GM has no issues taking its European-market Opel/Vauxhall Corsa, and outsourcing it to South Korea.
In any case, have you considered why they don't make money? Perhaps it's because they sell cars that people don't want, while others such as Toyota do make cars that people want. Companies that make products that customers want will prosper; those that don't, don't.
Your crazy if you think Toyota built that plant in Kentuckey to help the people. They built it there to help themselves.
Of course I don't -- every company's goal is to serve itself. It just so happens that Toyota's self-interest is far more compatible with the needs of Americans than is the multinational, everything-but-American GM.
Those aren't low wage jobs, by the way. Toyota is paying wages similar to those of the Big 2.5, with large bonuses and a stock value that is actually good for an employee's 401K.
This is why the argument about Toyota's $5Billion profits all going back to shareholders in Germany, US, S. Africa and Japan doest hold together well. A good part of these profits are returned to plants and improvements in the US, it's why Toyota is on a building rampage all over NA.
Basic example:
You have one item to sell at $10. It cost you $8 to make it but it takes up your entire store. You sell it and suddenly someone else comes in and says 'I want one too'. Good, you begin to make another but while you are making the second one two others come in and say 'We want one too.' But you can only make one at a time. So you sell the 2nd one ( now $4 profit ) and go to the bank, borrow $4, expand your store and now you can make two - for customers #3 & 4. And you sell both of these also. You've sold 4 units at a profit of $2 each ( $8 Total Profit ) but in your pocket you only have $4 to spend. Did you make $4 or $8? By accounting stantdard you made $8 profit. But... you have a $4 loan to your bank. They want their money now. So now you have Zero money in your pocket. And your wife comes asking for grocery money.
But your product is so well received that you have a line of 20 people out the door with cash in their hands. but you can only make two at a time... so you go to the bank again... ( repeat process )...
You seem to suggest Toyota isn't a multinational automaker like GM, when that isn't true. Toyota has plants in Europe and Asia. They are even building a plant in Russia.
GM is the largest health insurance buyer in the world. It spends more on health care than on steel -- $1500 per car -- three times, for example, what Toyota spends.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/journaleditorialreport/102105/transcript_leadstory.html
-GM sold approximately 777,000 for the first three quarters of 2005 in the Asia Pacific region
-GM assembled 1.142 million cars in the same region
Result: GM is a net exporter from Asia. During the first nine fiscal months of 2005, it exported approximately 365,000 cars out of this region to other areas.
Where do you think most of those cars ended up?
This startement only means that they made a bad decision back in the late 80's. GE is larger than GM. why arent they the largest buyer of health insurance? Because they made good decisions back in the time of 'Neutron Jack'.
Everyone of my family, has worked for GE at some time and my father was a VP of his union before he retired. Noone complains about the benefits of GE, which are less than GM's btw.
But GE put 4 of us through college on scholarships and still keeps my youngest brother working there paying for two Masters and a Doctorate for him alone. Their cost, not a dime from him. Rather than pay health insurance for people sitting in FL and OH doesnt it seem better to use that money to further educate current employees. It's just a difference in management back in the late 80's.
GM at that time continued the spirit of 'entitlement' with it's workers and Managers while Jack Welsh said 'You will be #1 or #2 in your market or we will cut out your heart and all your funding and put you all on the street, management and workers.' Ergo the name 'Neutron Jack'. But it worked.
Where do you think most of those cars ended up?
You are talking of mostly sub compact cars made in conjunction with their partly Asian owned companies, like Isuzu, Suzuki and Subaru which ship their cars back here. These are cars so small and cheap, GM can not afford to make here. You don't see any full size Buicks, Caddys, LTDs or Mustangs being made over there and shipped her for sale.
It's a publically traded company in a small international market just the way GE is. Both make me a lot of money in the valuation of the stocks.
Yes they did. Back then unionism was big and strong. They could bring companies to their knees. How many times did GE employees strike to get what they wanted and how many times were the auto companies struck?
I'll guarantee you that many more Americans own stock in Ford and GM than they do in Toyota and Honda. Including 401-Ks
I'll keep that in mind as I review GM's car, SUV and truck imports from Mexico and Australia.
In any case, why is it OK for GM to import cars, but not great for Toyota to give good jobs to Americans, support American suppliers, pay American taxes and satisfy American customers? If one multinational can do it better than the other, then more power to them.
It was a good business decision. Ford is doing the same thing. If you look at it very coldly, and business is cold, they are letting the UAW wither on the vine. The UAW threatened them with a msssive strike in the late 80's and forced the massive benefits package and Jobs Bank down the automakers throats. Instead of gagging and dying the 3 of them got up and are in the process of walking away.
It's not a surprising result.
I agree with that
It's a good analysis, but I have to differ with it somewhat. While I'm sure that there is no love for the UAW from GM management, and that the lack of affection is somewhat justified, I'm reasonably sure that GM would be outsourcing just as rapidly without the UAW as it would with it.
It comes down to a different management philosophy -- Toyota sees a trained, educated blue-collar workforce and proximity to suppliers as keys to maintaining quality standards, and builds plants in locations where both are available. Toyota believes that it can pass on any additional costs to the customer who wants a quality product (and its production methods reduce costs through efficiency, which eliminates most, if any, resulting overhead.)
In contrast, GM emphasizes cost reductions, with labor costs being an expense to be reduced whenever and whereever possible. Outsourcing is attractive because wages abroad are lower than in the US. I have little doubt that GM will try to access lower labor costs in every which way that it can, with quality goals only secondary.
This multinational has benifits coming over here that American manufactures don't get over there. Or for that matter over here. I have shown you in post after post the advantages they have that American companies don't. Still you see nothing wrong in it or expect American companies to do the same thing when it is impossible. I think you and a lot of others wouldn't mind seeing all these American manufactures go out of business. Many of you wouldn't think of buying an American car again.
Well like I said, these Asian countries are not putting back the billions into the American economy that American companies do. If they do go out of business, it will be the American people who will suffer for it. That is a fact.
If that were the reason, Toyota could take over many of the big 3's plants and put in all their modern equipment and operate close to many of the part plants that are in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana and I'll. They chose not to because of the wages they knew they would have to pay and the unions they would have to fight. Plus the taxes they would have to pay. Build them in the South where they can steal the land, get cheap labor and pay little taxes.
No, you have not. From various posters, I've seen a lot of false statements about exchange rates (complete hysteria not rooted in economic reality), misleading statements about Japanese access to American subsidies (which American companies that build US plants can and do get) and a lot of rationalization for low product quality and an inability to satisfy customers. But that's it.
If you are complaining about Japanese trade barriers against foreign products, then I would agree 150%. The Japanese clearly protect their market, and it is certainly unfair. But, let's remember:
-No Japanese automaker except for Toyota makes money on its Japanese business. It is one of the toughest markets in the world.
-The only non-Japanese automakers that make any headway in the Japanese market are luxury makers such as BMW. American cars simply lack cachet in the Japanese market; in fact, Saturn already withdrew from Japan.
-We drive on the other side of the road, so we build cars with the steering wheel on the wrong side of the car for their market. So why would they want our cars?
-Japanese domestic cars are highly reliable; Big 2.5 cars tend to be less so. So why would they want our cars?
-The Big 2.5 build relatively large cars that consume a fair bit of fuel. Japan has narrow roads, cities with virtually no parking and some of the highest fuel prices in the world. So why would they want our cars?
-The Big 2.5 use standard tooling for assembly; Japan is metric, and Japanese mechanics don't typically have standard-sized tools. So why would they want our cars?
Even if Japan had no barriers, it would be a brutal market in which the Big 2.5 would lose money. Unless you are simply offended on principle, fighting for a lowering of protection will accomplish nothing, at least for the automakers.
??? I didn't realize that companies had the right to seize the plant and equipment of other companies. Where did you learn that they were permitted to do this?
??? I didn't realize that companies had the right to seize the plant and equipment of other companies. Where did you learn that they were permitted to do this?
I thought people would be able to understand I was talking about all the plants Ford Chrysler and GM has closed over the years. I see I was wrong.
"Better and better" simply isn't good enough. The cars need to be outstanding, not just in terms of quality, but also based upon style, features, and anything else that the consumer wants. If the cars do not meet and exceed expectations, then the marketplace will give them the failure that they deserve.
Somewhere on this forum, I posted the number of technical service bulletins (TSB's) for the 2005 Chevy Cobalt, and 2006 Civic and Corolla. Result:
Chevy: 74
Honda: 7
Civic: 3
Compare Consumer Report's reliability report; "well below average" for the Chevy, "well above average" for the other two.
Why would an American quality-conscious consumer buy the Chevy? You need to give that customer a good reason to buy from you if you want to earn his business. If the competitors are better, then one shouldn't be surprised by the declining market share.
Why would you expect Toyota to buy old, outdated facilities? It's easier to build a new, modern plant than to retrofit one build to someone else's requirements (particularly when those traditional assembly lines lead to lower plant productivity and flexibility.)
In any case, those facilities were shut by the Big 2.5 who operated them. I would think that they have a greater obligation to retrofit them than someone who has never operated them before.
Look at the Impala,4 out of 5 years it's rated average or above average. The Monti Carlo 6 out of seven years average or above. Same with the Silverado 2WD,Surburban, 5 and six straight years. Most of the Buicks all across their lineup has done good for years. 2004 seems to be their only bad year.The Cavalier has only had one year below average. To say why buy a chevy isn't fair.
Well if more people bought American, I guess they would.But you still notice, almost all those foreign plants are built in the South, not the North where there are many parts plants. Why build them away from your suppliers?
Chevy: 74
Honda: 7
Civic: 3
socala4,
Did the Civic have 7 TSBs and the Corolla only have 3 TSBs--or vice versa? You have one category for "Honda" and another one for "Civic" as shown above. :confuse:
Ron M.
Oops, sorry for the typo. The Corolla had 3 TSB's.
That's true, but overall, their reliability tends to be mediocre or worse, with a few standout exceptions.
GM abused its reputation, and it will have to earn it back with great products with high quality and that otherwise meet and exceed customer needs. The solution to that is to build cars that meet those needs.
I don't see why they simply don't emulate Toyota, Honda, etc., rather than follow the lead of Peugeot, Daihatsu, FIAT and all of the other firms from throughout the world that have failed to succeed in the US car market. No company deserves its success,it will have to earn it.
I DO have a problem with buying manufactured goods from China and other communist contries. #1 people are NOT paid fairly at all #2 Quality is NOT very good #3 our country should NOT be doing business with a country that does not have an even playing field ie. pollution standards, minimum wage standards etc.
I will place blame on "corporate greed" and incompetence on managements part for the demise of our own automobile manufacturing sector. However, the unions (as much as they might deny) drove these companies into the ground. A man CANNOT be paid $30 HR with benefits for putting tires on cars. The unions wouldnt relent in years past and kept "pushing for more". I have had wives like that :O) and they do nothing but, break everything apart.
In closing nothing is going to change - "the customer is always right" and if the customer wants more reliability, more fuel economy, more performance, more technology they are going to the manufacturer that can meet their demands.
-Cam position phaser and actuator went bad at 1,500 miles of operation. Two visits to the dealer to get this one rectified.
-Started leaking fluid due to a bad rear pinion seal two times before it even had 5,000 miles on it.
-Front suspension problems at 6,000 miles of operation.
-Transmission failed at 9,000 miles of operation while on an out of state trip.
-Front bumper fascia was way too compliant and left it looking warped as if the vehicle had been crashed or only partially assembled. It didn't have enough support brackets behind it from the factory.
-The stereo head unit would get dangerously hot on extended drives.
-Water leaked into the driver's side floorboard during moderate to heavy rain storms.
-Wind noise at 65 m.p.h. or greater was unacceptable.
-Rain-sensor wipers would activate themselves when it was bone dry outdoors.
-Driver's side rear door weather stripping came off at 11,000 miles of operation.
-Rear suspension made unbelievably loud noises when crossing over small to medium-sized bumps in the road.
-Passenger side front window frame trim piece across the top had to be replaced because it was all crinkled up from the factory.
-Noisy relays that the dealership never could fix.
-Extremely noisy fan clutch that caused excessive noise and temporary loss of power--especially when the SUV was really hot. This same problem affects SEVERAL different GM pickup trucks and SUVs and hasn't been addressed for over a decade now.
-Gauge cluster produced a noise that sounded like plastic gears grinding against each; mainly when backing up. This is a well-documented complaint amongst GM triplet SUV owners.
-Humming noise from OnStar speaker system even when it wasn't in use.
-Oil canning noise from rear liftgate due to plastic license plate housing and metal liftgate components having different coefficents of thermal expansion and no rubber gasket in between them. On really warm/hot days, you could turn the stereo off while sitting at a stop light and hear it popping like a kid squeezing a soda can!
-Transmission slipped ocassionally after dealership rebuilt it.
-Various electrical problems.
-Engine stalling issues after reprogramming procedure was performed for fan clutch problem.
-Clicking noises from the sides of the vehicle at certain times. Dealership could reproduce the problem but never could eliminate it.
Now, is it any wonder why I haven't purchased my last three vehicles from a GM dealership???!!! And no, Ford wasn't an option considering the fact that I had an experience with one of their products that was almost as bad as my Chevy TrailBlazer experience. It's these types of experiences that force buyers into trying certain Asian brands' products. By the way, I replaced the Chevy with a "glorified Toyota"(Lexus) and it has been as near-perfect as a man could ever expect an automobile to be. And I paid less for it brand new than I did the Chevy. I don't want to say that never again will I purchase a GM or American vehicle. But I can assure you that at the moment I am extremely soured on Ford and GM both. They have a whole lot to prove to me before I'll plop down a single dollar for anything they make. They have some vehicles that appeal to me visually and all, but I can't help but be suspect of them after what all I have been through with both Ford and GM vehicles. My decisions are based upon the 'Stranded Factor'. Any make of vehicle that ever leaves me stranded away from home gets eliminated from or moved to the bottom of my wish list. Fusion and Impala both look really nice to me, but I just don't think that I could sign the papers for one.
Ron M.
"The 2006 Camry reminds me of a 1980s midrange General Motors sedan, but without Toyota's refinement. Virtually all trim levels of this Toyota have rather imprecise steering, a soft suspension that provides a smooth ride but mediocre handling and a mushy brake pedal."
And,
""With the (2006) Camry sedan, Toyota may have perfected the family car," Toyota says. Let's hope not. Cars such as the new, rival Ford Fusion sedan are as practical and more fun to drive."
So I'm thinking "Wow, bad press on a Toyota?, Whats the repair history look like now?"
Well the Fusion is to new to have a repair history, So instead I look at the poorly built (at least in my mind) Sebring sedan.
The Camry has "Significant Problems" with Air Fuel Ratio Sensors,3.0L engine only, the Evaporative Canister Closed Valve and the Mass Air Flow (MAF) Sensor.
The Sebring has "Moderate Problems" with failures of the Timing Chain and Guides (2.7L engines only).
Yes the Sebring has a worse issue, but its less often than the supposed most reliable car on the marker. Hmmm.
The '96 Camry I drove (new) was the exact same way. In fact, it may have been the slowest car I've ever driven. Unfortunately for me I chose the Jetta, and regardless of how not-fun-to-drive the Toyota was, I really wish I'd bought it instead. The VW's reliability was beyond horrific.
You should note that the more production toyota has to put out as sales increase the lower the quality of their car is getting. And being a safety rep I can tell you that the toyota plants could care less about employee safety.
GM could do one of two things to bring things around. Either lower the prices even more which they could do with out any pain if they stopped the corporate greed or leave the price where it is but put in higher quality materials.
I read an article from some new york new paper awhile ago that stated that (let me see if I can remember this right)in the 70's ceo's made one dollar off every 450 dollars of profit. Now ceo's get one dollar for every 150.00 dollars of profit. and we all wonder where the real loss of money is going for american car company's. Its not health insurance, employee wages, or the union. Its plain and simple american corporate greed. for this maybe we should all buy foreign until the american car company's quit paying so many executives so much for doing nothing right and bring the prices down to a real competitive level.
Checking the (NHTS) on complaints and service bulletins. On our 2004 Honda Civic,on (My car stats report) We find 41 registered complaints and 114 service bulletins.
NHTS
On the 2005 Toyota Camry, it had 101 complaints and 22 service bulletins
Compairing it to the 2005 Chevy Malibu, it had 33 complaints and 74 service bulletins
The 2005 Ford Taurus, had 18 complaints and 22 service bulletins.
The 2005 Honda Civic, has 39 complaints and 61 service bullitins on it.
http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/tsb/results.cfm
Don't believe everything you read, especially in the NY papers. Yes, top level management get much higher salaries than do Asian top management. That is true in most fields, not just in the automotive field. But that is not what is causing high prices. If that were true, Toyota and Honda's would be much cheaper than American cars and we know they are usually higher, not cheaper. I have shown on several posts, that American manufactures are paying higher wages, higher medical (even for retirees, that Asians are not paying for). Their paying out higher pensions and more weeks of vacation. Their expenses are much higher than the Asian automakers in this country.
It is just one more myth that is going around to make American manufactures look bad and some of you are eating it up. The same way you believe these Asian cars are trouble free and American vehicles are junk. The proof is in the pudding, all you have to do is read it.
Perhaps Toyota and Honda want to run away screaming from the suppliers for Ford and GM parts.