Lets remember when your talking Chevy, your talking of a lot of different models. I wouldn't doubt that some have more than their share of problems. I also wouldn't doubt that some models are very good.
Unfortunately, reliability is only part of the equation. Take me, a car buyer that has only owned 1 American car out of 6 purchased, and that is because that car had a Japanese engine and transmission in it:
1. I want reliability. Usually (not always), the American makes are substandard. 2. I want assembly quality and high quality materials. This is different than reliability. Take a look at VW/Audi vs. GM interiors. 3. I want refinement. Listen to many/most of the American engines under acceleration. Then listen to an Accord, a Camry, Audi, etc. 4. I want handling. Drive a Cobalt, then drive a Civic or a Mazda 3. Drive a G6 and then drive a Honda Accord. 5. I want a good looking car. Look at a Lucerne, then look at an Acura TL.
Now I can compromise some of the above items for other of the above items. But in most cases, the GM vehicles are substandard in all/nearly all of the above categories. It does no good to cite "improved reliability" of a car such as the Monte Carlo. That's only one of the above. I measure overall quality of the vehicle by the items above. I spend very hard earned dollars and would like the best of the above. GM and Ford don't do it. If they have a car that excels in one area, it usually falls short in most of the others.
I drove a rental 2005 Jeep Grand Cherokee (the brand new model). The engine sounded like a broken washing machine under acceleration. It had poor interior room. It had a cheap interior. It guzzled gas for very little space inside, and no third row. Compare this vehicle to the similar Honda Pilot. No comparison.
The 2005 Honda Accord has 61 complaints and 93 service bulletins on it.
A compairable 2005 Buick Century has 3 complaints and 8 service bulletins on it.
Well, I have to tip my hat to you on that one, good job on researching that. (And yep, I confirmed it, and you're right.)
Other data such as JD Power and Consumer Reports supports the Accord as being a highly reliable car, but even so, I have to admit that the number of TSB's is quite disappointing. Makes me glad that I didn't buy one...
If the playing field were even, you might get all those things you want on an American car. It's hard to come out with new engines, transmissions and higher class material when one side is make thousands more per vehicle than the other side.
1. I want reliability. Usually (not always), the American makes are substandard. 2. I want assembly quality and high quality materials. This is different than reliability. Take a look at VW/Audi vs. GM interiors. 3. I want refinement. Listen to many/most of the American engines under acceleration. Then listen to an Accord, a Camry, Audi, etc. 4. I want handling. Drive a Cobalt, then drive a Civic or a Mazda 3. Drive a G6 and then drive a Honda Accord. 5. I want a good looking car. Look at a Lucerne, then look at an Acura TL.
Now I can compromise some of the above items for other of the above items. But in most cases, the GM vehicles are substandard in all/nearly all of the above categories.
I think that captures the essence of the issue. The reliabilty winners among the Big 2.5, such as some of the Buicks, are not simply cars that I'd want.
Soft suspensions, second-rate interiors mated to dull "old man" styling with handling to match, odd ergonomics, primitive engines and rental car chic don't add up to cars that many of us want to own.
Quality is still too inconsistent and spotty to simply "buy American" without regard for specific reliability performance. And those cars that are reasonably good in terms of reliability are often not desirable in other ways.
If you're going to ask Joe Sixpack to spend $20-30,000 of his hard-earned cash, he needs a reason to choose you, and that reason is generally going to be based on whether he likes the car. Make a car he wants, or go the way of Citroen, Yugo, Isuzu and the others whose US operations either didn't make it or are on life support.
If the playing field were even, you might get all those things you want on an American car. It's hard to come out with new engines, transmissions and higher class material when one side is make thousands more per vehicle than the other side.
It makes it even harder when your bonds are now considered lowest of the junk bonds. It cost GM and Ford millions to borrow now to come out with new models and engines.
If you're going to ask Joe Sixpack to spend $20-30,000 of his hard-earned cash, he needs a reason to choose you, and that reason is generally going to be based on whether he likes the car. Make a car he wants, or go the way of Citroen, Yugo, Isuzu and the others whose US operations either didn't make it or are on life support.
I don't think GM Ford or Chrysler are putting out any Citroen, Yugo, Isuzu's anymore.
As long as Americans refuse to buy American cars, even when they come out with better more reliable cars, you'll see the American auto industry go the way of the American television industry. With it millions of jobs even out of the auto industry. When foreign makers make all our vehicles, even if they do it over here, the trade deficit will only go sky high and make our dollar all but worthless on the world market.
When foreign makers make all our vehicles, even if they do it over here, the trade deficit will only go sky high...
That's simply a false statement. The trade deficit is increased when goods are imported, and decreased when goods are exported. It has nothing to do with the company that produces the good, just as long as the good is produced here. So:
-When Ford imports a Ford Fusion from Mexico, it increases the trade deficit.
-When Honda exports a Civic made in (the non-Southern state of) Ohio, it reduces the trade deficit.
-When Toyota builds a Camry in Kentucky and sells it in the US, it has no impact on the trade deficit (except for the 20% of parts that are imported)
-When Chevy builds a Tahoe in the US and sells it in the US, it has no impact on the trade deficit (although it has more of an impact than does the Camry, because 35% of its parts are imported, versus 20% of the Camry's)
-When GM builds a Regal in China, and sells it in China, it has no impact on the trade deficit
Maybe not a trade deficit. But the end will be just the same. When those billions of dollars in profit goes back to the Far East and Europe, it puts more dollars in their hands and makes our dollar worth less. It takes more money out of the American economy and creates less jobs. With our large trade imbalance, we can already see how the value of the dollars has plummeted
When those billions of dollars in profit goes back to the Far East and Europe, it puts more dollars in their hands and makes our dollar worth less. It takes more money out of the American economy and creates less jobs.
Honestly, I don't know where you folks get your ideas about economics, but it is all way off the mark.
-An employer who creates US jobs is obviously increasing US employment. When Toyota hires Americans in Kentucky, then more Americans are employed. When GM and Ford lay off American throughout the US, then they become unemployed (at least until they find other jobs, if they ever do.)
-Dollars already circulate throughout the planet. The dollar is a reserve currency, which is a reflection of its importance to the world economy, and certainly doesn't harm its value.
-Most revenues are paid out in the form of expenses; little becomes profit. Most of those revenues are spent where the products are produced, meaning that a Camry does far more for the US economy that does a Fusion built in Mexico or an Aveo built in Korea.
-The profits end up in a few categories: cash within the company, bonuses paid to employees and management, loan repayments to creditors, dividend payments to shareholders, and plant/ equipment. As we know, companies such as Toyota pay far more generous bonuses to their employees than do the Big 2.5, while the investment in plant and equipment is being made right here by the transplants. Meanwhile, GM is building plants in China and otherwise investing abroad -- we know that their profits are being sent abroad to expand production that is being reduced in the US.
-Exchange rates are based upon the supply and demand for dollars, which is based primarily on investor expectations for the US economy (explaining why the dollar dropped in value between 2002-2005.) The "strength" of the dollar is affected in part by US economic growth, the US federal budget deficit and the trade deficit.
With the transplants building cars in the US, jobs are being created and GDP is being increased, which both help the dollar over the long run. Meanwhile, the continued outsourcing by GM, etc. as they slow their US production will ultimately contribute to the trade deficit and lower employment, which harm the dollar. So again, we are better off with some company -- any company -- creating more growth within the US, than we are with GM shipping jobs abroad and eliminating US production.
An employer who creates US jobs is obviously increasing US employment. When Toyota hires Americans in Kentucky, then more Americans are employed. When GM and Ford lay off American throughout the US, then they become unemployed (at least until they find other jobs, if they ever do.)
The Japanese will not buy as many parts from American company as an American manufacture will. They still have a responsibility to help their home country. Just like Toyota imported all their steel from Japan to build that factory in Japan and used a Japanese bank to borrow the money to build it. There is no way they will use anywhere near the American help as an American manufacture.
Most revenues are paid out in the form of expenses; little becomes profit. Most of those revenues are spent where the products are produced, meaning that a Camry does far more for the US economy that does a Fusion built in Mexico or an Aveo built in Korea.
That might be true in the beginning, but not after the expansion. Notice it said net profit.That net profit goes back to Japan, not here.
"Toyota, the world's second-biggest automaker, marked a record group net profit of 397.6 billion yen ($3.3 billion) during the three months, up from 296.5 billion yen a year earlier."
The profits end up in a few categories: cash within the company, bonuses paid to employees and management, loan repayments to creditors, dividend payments to shareholders, and plant/ equipment. As we know, companies such as Toyota pay far more generous bonuses to their employees than do the Big 2.5, while the investment in plant and equipment
They are now, but not when GM was making those big profits.
Meanwhile, GM is building plants in China and otherwise investing abroad -- we know that their profits are being sent abroad to expand production that is being reduced in the US.
I would imagine that building abroad is slowed way down since GM has lost "Red ink dripped from General Motors' ledger Thursday as the troubled automaker posted a larger-than-expected $8.6 billion loss for 2005, the biggest since ... www.chicagotribune.com/business/ chi-0601270125jan27,1,133052.story?coll=chi-business-hed - Similar pages"
-Exchange rates are based upon the supply and demand for dollars,
Exactly. The more you flood the world with dollars, the less it's worth.
With the transplants building cars in the US, jobs are being created and GDP is being increased, which both help the dollar over the long run.
Not when your losing more jobs than you create and that is what you are doing.
Meanwhile, the continued outsourcing by GM, etc. as they slow their US production will ultimately contribute to the trade deficit and lower employment, which harm the dollar. So again, we are better off with some company -- any company -- creating more growth within the US, than we are with GM shipping jobs abroad and eliminating US production.
If GM had a level playing field, no jobs would be outsourced. I can't seem to get you to understand, the playing field is not level. If they hadn't built some of those plants in Mexico, they would already be out of business.
> 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. *********** *********** Compare these pieces of data with another poster's Chevy: 74 Honda: 7 CivicToyota: 3
Different years BUT someone's not realizing that a company can just NOT issue a TSB for a problem to avoid the numbers too. If you read the Odyssey discussion and Pilot discussion and various Accord discussions, it's obvious to most thinking people that there are a lot of problems since the 03 Accord especially.
If the playing field were even, you might get all those things you want on an American car. It's hard to come out with new engines, transmissions and higher class material when one side is make thousands more per vehicle than the other side.
This sounds like the chicken-and-the-egg issue. Which comes first? You suggest that until the profits are there, the Americans are not going to do the new engines, transmissions, and higher class materials. In my opinion, it will be the opposite - the Americans are going to have to do the new engines, transmissions, and higher class materials in order to get the sales. More sales = greater chance of making profits (it all depends on the cost structure.)
It all comes down to consumer preference. If the consumer does not like the vehicle, the consumer is not going to buy it no matter how good the reliability and quality. A company cannot control consumer demand. If you have what the consumer wants when the consumer wants it, you have a shot at making the sale. If you don't have what the consumer wants when the consumer wants it, the consumer will buy from the company that does. And "Buy American" is not going to make the consumer settle for less than "what the consumer wants when the consumer wants it."
The Japanese will not buy as many parts from American company as an American manufacture will. They still have a responsibility to help their home country.
That's simply nonsense. A Chevy Suburban has a higher percentage of imported parts than does a Honda Accord or a Toyota Camry.
Anyone can look at a window sticker and see where the parts content comes from, the point of assembly for the car, and where the engine was built. The transplants are typically using domestic content levels of 70-80% or more.
I would imagine that building abroad is slowed way down since GM has lost
Wrong. GM is expanding its Asian presence. The JV deal in Shanghai is just a couple of years old, and production is increasing. GM also intends to use Daewoo as its builder of small cars.
"Exchange rates are based upon the supply and demand for dollars"...Exactly. The more you flood the world with dollars, the less it's worth.
The supply of dollars is determined by the Fed, which prints the money. The supply is the same, regardless of where it is located. Toledo or Tokyo, it makes no difference.
Incidentally, there is some real confusion here about the benefits of the "strong dollar" that you seem to support. A "strong dollar" makes imports cheaper -- trade lobbyists for American manufacturers want a weak dollar, not a strong one. If GM had a level playing field, no jobs would be outsourced.
Toyota has no advantages over GM that it didn't earn for itself. If GM was foolish enough to negotiate a costly benefits plan that it claims that it can't afford, to blow money on FIAT, to maintain an excessive number of nameplates, to badge engineer to the point that its brands are practically worthless, and to build cars that people don't want, that's GM's fault, not anyone else's.
GM has been building cars outside of the US for decades, and the outsourcing trend began long before the latest somewhat trumped-up complaints about health care costs. You honestly can't claim that GM is only outsourcing out of a sense of desperation when it has been doing it in some form or another since before most of us were born.
If the playing field were even, you might get all those things you want on an American car. It's hard to come out with new engines, transmissions and higher class material when one side is make thousands more per vehicle than the other side.
Whose fault is it that GM is not competitive in costs with Toyota?
- Did Toyota agree to pay for workers not working? - Did Toyota agree to pay retirees health care? - Did Toyota agree to having hundreds of distinct jobs per plant, and not allowing workers to be flexible? - Did Toyota decide not to make refined or quality cars?
The playing field is not level because GM has not made competitive decisions over the past 30 years. Are you saying that the American capitalist system should not reward companies for making good decisions, and punish them for poor ones?
As long as Americans refuse to buy American cars, even when they come out with better more reliable cars, you'll see the American auto industry go the way of the American television industry. With it millions of jobs even out of the auto industry.
Well, I don't see too many cheap plastic toys being made here. I could lament the loss of those jobs, too. Americans are making higher tech products than that. As the rest of the world industrializes, our jobs mix shifts. Perhaps the demographic future of jobs in this country is the information and service worker. As long as we're out in front on the newest thing, we can let the previous thing be taken over by other, less advanced countries. I don't think that's a bad thing.
Of course, that may not even be true. Honda, Toyota, etc., are adding jobs here. Maybe this is just a case of companies executing poorly needing to fail, and companies executing well being successful.
Other countries have tried the economic model where competition was severely restricted. Most of those economies failed over the long haul.
GM's history of decision making has been a series of contradictions from day one. Durant created the company by buying the top selling brands with loans and stock options (Ford agreed to sell for $50,000, but he wanted cash) running the company into debt and getting himself voted off the board. This was just the first 5 years of GM, it has been run by comitee and conflict every since. The closer you look at their history form a management stand point, the more amazing thier success seems.
The closer you look at their history form a management stand point, the more amazing thier success seems.
Let's face it, with only a bit of exaggeration, you can thank two people for GM's success: Sloan and Hitler.
Sloan was wise enough to create a ladder of nameplates with qualities distinct enough in the minds of the consumer to make them loyal to a family of products. Start with a Chevy, and aspire to climb up the rungs to eventually end up with a Cadillac. Brilliant way to maximize what is called the LTV (lifetime value of a customer.)
The other guy with the bad haircut and little moustache helped to almost singlehandedly destroy the manufacturing base and economic power of Europe, while simultaneously stimulating the creation of an American war machine, the likes of which the world had never before seen, which would eventually create massive industrial capacity that could be dedicated after the war to flooding the marketplace with consumer products for Americans, the only people with any money left.
In other words, a lot of GM's success came from a combination of good marketing and a lack of competition with a Michigan address smack in the middle of the world's largest, most vibrant economy.
By the seventies, the US' competitors had had a chance to rebuild, which meant that GM suddenly had to worry about more than just a couple of rivals. With only Ford, Chrysler and a couple of minor competitors both domestic and foreign to worry about, all was good. But toss in some growing heavyweights from abroad that worked hard to earn their market share, and the situation changed. The bigger they are, the harder they fall.
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.
There's a lot of truth to what you've stated above. However, in my own particular case, I based my last three automobile purchasing decisions on my own vehicle experiences(past history) and not what Consumer Reports or J.D. Power and Associates had to say about the cars and SUVs that I was interested in. After having owned both domestic and Asian vehicles, I have to say that overall, I have had much better luck with the majority of my Asian vehicles. But, you are correct in saying that they certainly aren't always perfect. In fact, I had one Nissan that nickel and dimed me to death before I finally got rid of it. One Pontiac that I had turned out to be a very, very good car. Two Chevy SUVs back-to-back were problematic. Both had transmission issues. All of our Honda and Toyota/Lexus products have been outstanding from an initial build quality and downstream reliability standpoint.
So, again, I would have to agree with you that the Asian vehicles aren't always letter perfect. That is indeed a factual statement. Like I stated above, I've just had better luck with the Asian makes over the years. But that doesn't mean I am 100% opposed to ever giving another American vehicle a chance. It's just that right now I am pretty down on Ford and GM both due to my most recent experiences with a couple of their products. Maybe my feelings will change someday and I'll own another one of their products. We'll see how it goes...
That's simply nonsense. A Chevy Suburban has a higher percentage of imported parts than does a Honda Accord or a Toyota Camry.
Overall U.S./Canadian parts content in new cars and light trucks dropped from 70 percent in model year 1995 to 67.6 percent in 1998; however, it increased from 47 to 59 percent in transplants while dropping from 89 to 84 percent in Big 3 vehicles. The trends in parts content are undoubtedly influenced by the 1995 U.S.-Japan Agreement on Autos and Auto Parts and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
Let's see the foreign cars are buying 59% American content compared to 84% for the Big 3. The opposite of what you say.
"Exchange rates are based upon the supply and demand for dollars"...Exactly. The more you flood the world with dollars, the less it's worth.
The supply of dollars is determined by the Fed, which prints the money. The supply is the same, regardless of where it is located. Toledo or Tokyo, it makes no difference.
Only half true. While the Feds. control the printing of dollars, they don't control where those dollars go. You wash the world with dollars, the value of the dollar goes down because the demand is down.
Toyota has no advantages over GM that it didn't earn for itself. If GM was foolish enough to negotiate a costly benefits plan that it claims that it can't afford, to blow money on FIAT, to maintain an excessive number of nameplates, to badge engineer to the point that its brands are practically worthless, and to build cars that people don't want, that's GM's fault, not anyone else's Executive Summary.
The unions were all powerful back in the days those contracts were written. The unions could bring the Big three down to their knees with strikes. Japan got in to this country when unionism was on the way down and blocked them out of most of their factories when they built them manly in the South. If they had gotten into the US sooner, they would have faced the same problems the big 3 face now.
GM has been building cars outside of the US for decades, and the out sourcing trend began long before the latest somewhat trumped-up complaints about health care costs. You honestly can't claim that GM is only out sourcing out of a sense of desperation when it has been doing it in some form or another since before most of us were born.
GM sells few cars out of the US with their nameplate on it. Most of what they sell and have been for generations, is cars from companies they have bought into with other major manufactures. That is just now slowly changing.
Toyota and Honda builds their own plants in foreign countries and sells those cars under their name plate.
Trumpet up complaints for health care? There is nothing trumped up about it. It's a fact, just another fact you refuse to acknowledge. You know there isn't a level playing field here, but you want to pass it off.
You want to believe that billions of dollars in net profit is staying here in this country and not going back to the mother land and that is false too.
You want to believe that Toyota and Honda builds trouble free cars and the U.S. is putting out junk. When I show you that's far and away from the truth, then you find another excuse of why you won't buy American.
You want to believe that this country will be as good or better off if the American automobile industry dies and is replaced by foreign owners and that is false. You can't take billions of dollars more out of this economy every year, have less people working and have the same kind of economy you had before. You don't need to be a college major to figure that out. It's attitudes like that, that will really harm this country.
So, again, I would have to agree with you that the Asian vehicles aren't always letter perfect. That is indeed a factual statement. Like I stated above, I've just had better luck with the Asian makes over the years. But that doesn't mean I am 100% opposed to ever giving another American vehicle a chance. It's just that right now I am pretty down on Ford and GM both due to my most recent experiences with a couple of their products. Maybe my feelings will change someday and I'll own another one of their products. We'll see how it goes...
Ron, I don't doubt for a minute what you say. I even agree with you. But I think people will also see if they give it a chance, that American cars have come a long way, just in the last few years. Take the Ford Focus. In 2000-2001 they were much worse than average. In 2002 they were average. In 2003 and 2004 they are now much better than average.
Let's see the foreign cars are buying 59% American content compared to 84% for the Big 3. The opposite of what you say.
I'm familiar with that NHTSA study -- in fact, I've cited it on this website to show that consumers demand reliability cars. But the parts content data is seven years old, which makes it fairly obselete given the changes that have occurred since then.
The trends in place during the nineties have continued. US/Canadian content is declining with the Big 2.5, while it is increasing with the transplants. Look at the most popular US-assembled transplants -- Corolla, Civic, Camry, Accord -- and you will find that each of them has US/Canadian content of at least 70-80%, and that the vast majority of those cars are built in the US. Compare that to Ford, which is placing its bets on the Mexican-built Fusion, a car with 30% US/Canadian content.
While the Feds. control the printing of dollars, they don't control where those dollars go. You wash the world with dollars, the value of the dollar goes down because the demand is down.
Where are these dollars "washing"? You don't seem to understand:
-A product produced in the US and export reduces the trade deficit. It doesn't matter which company builds it, the effect is the same.
-A product produced outside the US and imported increases the trade deficit. Again, it doesn't matter which company builds it, the effect is the same.
-A product built domestically and sold domestically has no impact on the trade deficit (although it may indirectly reduce it if consumers elect to not buy an imported product, instead.) It doesn't matter which company builds it, the effect is the same.
The component of the trade deficit that impacts exchange rates will not be influenced by which company does the exporting or importing, be it Ford, GM, Toyota, etc.
If you are complaining that profits go back to the other country, you are fixating on a very small part of the pie. If over 90% of that money is staying in the US thanks to expenses, taxes, wages, and plant and equipment investments, then you seem to be willing to cut off your nose to spite your face. (Your goal doesn't seem to be to help the US economy, but to make sure that a "foreigner" can't make even a fraction of a dollar here.)
You can't take billions of dollars more out of this economy every year, have less people working and have the same kind of economy you had before.
Elsewhere on this site, it has been shown that the US auto industry has been growing, not the opposite. In any case, the US still maintains the highest per capita GDP of any nation in the world (bar a couple of small nations such as Luxembourg) and one of the lowest unemployment rates in the western world.
Given the present situation, the American economy is far better off with an American being hired by Toyota than it is with GM hiring one person in China. Why the insistence on referring to GM as an "American" company when it builds more than half of its cars outside the US and is increasing that number each year?
I just went down to the Honda and Toyota dealers which are only a couple of miles away. The Civic and Accord have 70% N.American content. The Insight has 0% American content.
The Toyota Camery has 60% N. American content.
Looking at the sticker on my 2005 Dodge minivan, it has 83% compared to 70% for the Honda Odysey.
Given the present situation, the American economy is far better off with an American being hired by Toyota than it is with GM hiring one person in China. Why the insistence on referring to GM as an "American" company when it builds more than half of its cars outside the US and is increasing that number each year?
You seem to keep passing off what I have been pressing. The fact that GM is an international company like Toyota isn't the point. The point is which country has the most money coming back to it and which country is putting more people to work? That happens to be GM and Ford over Toyota and Honda. They employ more workers, they buy more American parts, they use American finance companies, they pay more benifits, they pay more state, local and federal taxes and they pay higher wages. Their net profit stays here and builds our economy and not Japans or Korea's
If you worked for the city or state government and they had more people paying higher taxes, your chance of getting a higher raise is good. It works that way all through our economy. More people working and more spending, the more jobs you create and better raises you get.
According to CBS this morning doing a softball love story about Toyota said "most" of the Toyota's vehicles are imported. So much for the doing America a favor by building the cars here.
Sort of like putting an earthworm on a hook; she keeps twisting.
>That happens to be GM and Ford over Toyota and Honda. They employ more workers, they buy more American parts, they use American finance companies, they pay more benifits, they pay more state, local and federal taxes and they pay higher wages
Same for Chrysler which recently merged with MB and still manufactures here as though it's an American company.
Same for Chrysler which recently merged with MB and still manufactures here as though it's an American company.
Yes, Chrysler puts a heck of a lot more in the American economy than Honda or Toyota. As I stated before, my Dodge Caravan has 83% American content in it and they have most of their factories in America. As a matter of fact, they are moving their minivan operations from Canada to St. Louis. The only problem is their profit now goes to Germany instead of here.
My point is, I don't expect people not to buy foreign owned vehicles. But I get upset when I hear Americans say they will never buy American again and don't seem to care if we lose the automotive business in this country, thinking we'll be just as well off if not better.
>never buy American again and don't seem to care if we lose the automotive business in this country,
Have to ask them who donated how much help in the South during Katrina cleanup? Honda? Toyota? GM? Ford? US? Japan? Were there Japanese helicopters or Honda's boats, trucks, and helicopters helping move people in and out?
Looking at the sticker on my 2005 Dodge minivan, it has 83% compared to 70% for the Honda Odysey.
So what? Dodge is built in Canada. Honda Odyssey is built in America. The content is "North American" this includes Canada. In most likelihood the USA content of Honda is higher then Dodge because its built right here in USA, not Canada.
Besides what do you care about Dodge, the profits just go to Stuttgart, German anyway from your Dodge purchase. How does this help American Economy. You buy a van made by a German company in Canada, and you think that you help American economy? Don't tell me you want to support German economy now?
I thought that we were talking about buying American cars here, not German cars made in Canada :P
marine2: Take the Ford Focus. In 2000-2001 they were much worse than average. In 2002 they were average. In 2003 and 2004 they are now much better than average.
Actually, the Ford Focus does prove a point...but not quite the one you are trying to make.
Reliability HAS been dramatically improved since the early, problem-plagued models. Unfortunately, Ford has not improved the car fast enough. The competition has moved ahead in such critical areas as refinement and build quality.
Even worse, while Europe enjoys the second-generation Focus - which would probably put the Corolla and the new Civic on the trailer - we get the same basic Focus the debuted in 2000. If Ford won't give Americans its best, why should they shop Ford?
My wife has a 2005 Focus SE sedan that she bought before we were married. So far (21,000+ miles) it has been a reliable car. The drivetrain and the ride/handling combination are great. But there is too much road noise, the interior looks cheap and the build quality just isn't competitive anymore with the newest entries.
It isn't the fault of Toyota or Honda - or the people who buy their products - that Ford isn't doing enough to keep an important car competitive.
Maybe not a trade deficit. But the end will be just the same. When those billions of dollars in profit goes back to the Far East and Europe, it puts more dollars in their hands and makes our dollar worth less. It takes more money out of the American economy and creates less jobs. With our large trade imbalance, we can already see how the value of the dollars has plummeted
There must be a publication y'all are reading from which says the same things over and over and over. None of what you said has a shred of truth in it. But you aren't willing to do the homework to gather facts ( not opinions ) to try to understand what the real situation is.
I will accept that you have the opinion stated above. Nevertheless the facts do not support your opinion. In the 1480's the very same situation occurred.
Everyone was sure that the world was flat because the Church said it was but no one bothered to get any facts until Columbus. This is the same situation. Do a little work first.
You must have misread it. Al the ones in KY have 80% domestic parts content. I see them and the Chevy stats every single day. They are next to each other on the same lot.
According to CBS this morning doing a softball love story about Toyota said "most" of the Toyota's vehicles are imported. So much for the doing America a favor by building the cars here.
Do you believe everything you hear on TV?? C'mon. They aren't experts. They are damn reporters. do you own homework it's all right here on the web. Wards, AutoWeek, each Manufacturers website will tell you how many of their vehicles are made here and how many are imported. GM / F / DCX / T / H / BMW... check for yourself.. I have.
2. I want assembly quality and high quality materials. This is different than reliability. Take a look at VW/Audi vs. GM interiors.
I'll take a Lucerne's interior over the VW Passatt. The biuased Motor Trend even highlighted that interior quality in VW went down from the last generation Passatt. Not to mention engine technology. BTW- isn't it hard to compare a Audi to most GM cars because of the big gap in price difference ???? Not to metion the new Audi interior is as ugly if not more so than a BMW's.
Yeah lets look at quality and styling between the Lucerne and TL. The TL is a nice vehicle, but it's interior quality (materials) are sub-par in some area's. The execuion was however good. The Lucerne also isn't a sports sedan, but the TL will be faced with the G8. :surprise:
I'm not going to knock your car. However I feel the same about the Maxima and pretty much everything else from Nissan. Nissan definitly doesn't have the engineering or build quality of the other Japanese nameplates such as Toyota or Honda products.
Whose fault is it that GM is not competitive in costs with Toyota?
- Did Toyota agree to pay for workers not working? - Did Toyota agree to pay retirees health care? - Did Toyota agree to having hundreds of distinct jobs per plant, and not allowing workers to be flexible? - Did Toyota decide not to make refined or quality cars?
The playing field is not level because GM has not made competitive decisions over the past 30 years. Are you saying that the American capitalist system should not reward companies for making good decisions, and punish them for poor ones?
So just because Toyota doesn't doretirements which includes health insurance, they are a superior ran company. If toyota wants "free" incentives from the U.S. Government, then they should give the U.S. taxpayer and it's consumers a break on not having to foot the bill for those retirees in the form of social programs like medicare and medicaid. Capatalism, can work if "greed" wouldn't get in the way and everyone contributes a little. However we know this isn't the way capatalism works, and perhaps we need some much needed change.
But toss in some growing heavyweights from abroad that worked hard to earn their market share, and the situation changed. The bigger they are, the harder they fall.
It's not hard to run a buisness when a foreign government is willing to give you every advantage including exploiting it's populus. Why isn't the Japanese subsidizing plants for GM, Ford, Chrysler ????? Hell if enough stuff is free, I'm sure GM could make a nice luxurious car for the Japanese populus and wouldn't have legacy costs in Japan. :P
It's not hard to run a buisness when a foreign government is willing to give you every advantage including exploiting it's populus. Why isn't the Japanese subsidizing plants for GM, Ford, Chrysler ????? Hell if enough stuff is free, I'm sure GM could make a nice luxurious car for the Japanese populus and wouldn't have legacy costs in Japan.
Rocky, I honestly haven't got a clue what this is supposed to mean.
(Welcome back, by the way.) Thanks. I got grandma with me for the week from Florida, and had to work. So my free time has been limited.
It's not hard to run a buisness when a foreign government is willing to give you every advantage including exploiting it's populus. Why isn't the Japanese subsidizing plants for GM, Ford, Chrysler ????? Hell if enough stuff is free, I'm sure GM could make a nice luxurious car for the Japanese populus and wouldn't have legacy costs in Japan.
What I mean by this why isn't Japan giving us the same deal.(free taxes, land, etc.) I thought we were suppose to be free trading partners ?????
Rocky
P.S. BTW have you set up your own page on car Space ???? I didn't see ya yet on there. :surprise:
What I mean by this why isn't Japan giving us the same deal.(free taxes, land, etc.)
For one, those deals are coming from state governments, not the US federal government.
For another, these sorts of deals are offered to lots of major corporations that might open new plants or facilities in a location.
As I've pointed out, GM got very similar offers to build the Saturn plant -- free land, tax credits, the whole nine yards. Like Nissan with its Smyrna plant, GM didn't get these benefits only because Tennessee's constitution doesn't permit the state to dole these things out -- GM was attracted by its low wages and low taxes, instead. But had it gone to another location, it could have gotten lots of free stuff, too.
Again, you can't expect GM to get free stuff if won't build new plants here. GM obviously prefers increasing production in China, Korea and Mexico, rather than taking deals from state governments. Obviously, GM likes low wages above all else.
American companies frequently get tax credits, incentives, etc. for all types of facilities investments. Go through northern Mississippi and look at the casino construction, and you'll see plenty of deals that got some sort of tax credit and subsidy to get done. Like it or not, the Big 2.5 are reducing their US production, so understandably, no one in the US will be offering them subsidies for that.
(Haven't done the Carspace thing, I'll have to take a look.)
Well the Japanese government should with "open arms" open up it's country to competition. My point I was trying to make was that Japan is a protectionist. I however don't blame them and wished we were more like that. marine2, braught up some good points and we obviously agree alot. I guess I'm more of a libertarian. Some of the socialist country's are becoming to capatalistic and allowing their borders to be over run by illegal aliens, because it might offend the group that's doing the law breaking.
You must have misread it. Al the ones in KY have 80% domestic parts content. I see them and the Chevy stats every single day. They are next to each other on the same lot.
I didn't misread it because Toyota doesn't put it on their window sticker like Honda and Chrysler does. I had to go into the showroom and have the salesman look it up. This is what he told me,60%.
Looking at the sticker on my 2005 Dodge minivan, it has 83% compared to 70% for the Honda Odysey.
So what? Dodge is built in Canada. Honda Odyssey is built in America. The content is "North American" this includes Canada. In most likelihood the USA content of Honda is higher then Dodge because its built right here in USA, not Canada.
Besides what do you care about Dodge, the profits just go to Stuttgart, German anyway from your Dodge purchase. How does this help American Economy. You buy a van made by a German company in Canada, and you think that you help American economy? Don't tell me you want to support German economy now?
I thought that we were talking about buying American cars here, not German cars made in Canada.
You need to reread what I said about Dodge and their moving their minivan to Missouri, from Canada and I did point out that their profits go back to Germany. Although about 23% of Chrysler is still owned by Americans. So Germany doesn't get it all
Again, you can't expect GM to get free stuff if won't build new plants here. GM obviously prefers increasing production in China, Korea and Mexico, rather than taking deals from state governments. Obviously, GM likes low wages above all else
GM does not import cars with their name plate from China. Those cars are built for the Chinese market.
The cars they import from Korea or Japan are from plants GM has part ownership in and are sub compacts. Cars they can not build here because of the high cost and low profit.
As I pointed out before, if they built a new plant here, they probably would be required to rehire laid off workers which would still put them at a big disadvantage because of wages, medical, pensions and vacations they would still be stuck with. It's much easier and cheaper for a foreigner to build a plant here, hire new employees and not have those expenses for years to come. Expenses that can add thousands to the price of building a car. When you have to price it to match your competition, your at a big disadvantage. Especially when you have to mark thousands off to sell it, because so many people still think America puts out junk and Japanese cars are so much better and reliable.
Comments
A compairable 2005 Buick Century has 3 complaints and 8 service bulletins on it.
Unfortunately, reliability is only part of the equation. Take me, a car buyer that has only owned 1 American car out of 6 purchased, and that is because that car had a Japanese engine and transmission in it:
1. I want reliability. Usually (not always), the American makes are substandard.
2. I want assembly quality and high quality materials. This is different than reliability. Take a look at VW/Audi vs. GM interiors.
3. I want refinement. Listen to many/most of the American engines under acceleration. Then listen to an Accord, a Camry, Audi, etc.
4. I want handling. Drive a Cobalt, then drive a Civic or a Mazda 3. Drive a G6 and then drive a Honda Accord.
5. I want a good looking car. Look at a Lucerne, then look at an Acura TL.
Now I can compromise some of the above items for other of the above items. But in most cases, the GM vehicles are substandard in all/nearly all of the above categories. It does no good to cite "improved reliability" of a car such as the Monte Carlo. That's only one of the above. I measure overall quality of the vehicle by the items above. I spend very hard earned dollars and would like the best of the above. GM and Ford don't do it. If they have a car that excels in one area, it usually falls short in most of the others.
I drove a rental 2005 Jeep Grand Cherokee (the brand new model). The engine sounded like a broken washing machine under acceleration. It had poor interior room. It had a cheap interior. It guzzled gas for very little space inside, and no third row. Compare this vehicle to the similar Honda Pilot. No comparison.
A compairable 2005 Buick Century has 3 complaints and 8 service bulletins on it.
Well, I have to tip my hat to you on that one, good job on researching that. (And yep, I confirmed it, and you're right.)
Other data such as JD Power and Consumer Reports supports the Accord as being a highly reliable car, but even so, I have to admit that the number of TSB's is quite disappointing. Makes me glad that I didn't buy one...
2. I want assembly quality and high quality materials. This is different than reliability. Take a look at VW/Audi vs. GM interiors.
3. I want refinement. Listen to many/most of the American engines under acceleration. Then listen to an Accord, a Camry, Audi, etc.
4. I want handling. Drive a Cobalt, then drive a Civic or a Mazda 3. Drive a G6 and then drive a Honda Accord.
5. I want a good looking car. Look at a Lucerne, then look at an Acura TL.
Now I can compromise some of the above items for other of the above items. But in most cases, the GM vehicles are substandard in all/nearly all of the above categories.
I think that captures the essence of the issue. The reliabilty winners among the Big 2.5, such as some of the Buicks, are not simply cars that I'd want.
Soft suspensions, second-rate interiors mated to dull "old man" styling with handling to match, odd ergonomics, primitive engines and rental car chic don't add up to cars that many of us want to own.
Quality is still too inconsistent and spotty to simply "buy American" without regard for specific reliability performance. And those cars that are reasonably good in terms of reliability are often not desirable in other ways.
If you're going to ask Joe Sixpack to spend $20-30,000 of his hard-earned cash, he needs a reason to choose you, and that reason is generally going to be based on whether he likes the car. Make a car he wants, or go the way of Citroen, Yugo, Isuzu and the others whose US operations either didn't make it or are on life support.
It makes it even harder when your bonds are now considered lowest of the junk bonds. It cost GM and Ford millions to borrow now to come out with new models and engines.
I don't think GM Ford or Chrysler are putting out any Citroen, Yugo, Isuzu's anymore.
As long as Americans refuse to buy American cars, even when they come out with better more reliable cars, you'll see the American auto industry go the way of the American television industry. With it millions of jobs even out of the auto industry. When foreign makers make all our vehicles, even if they do it over here, the trade deficit will only go sky high and make our dollar all but worthless on the world market.
That's simply a false statement. The trade deficit is increased when goods are imported, and decreased when goods are exported. It has nothing to do with the company that produces the good, just as long as the good is produced here. So:
-When Ford imports a Ford Fusion from Mexico, it increases the trade deficit.
-When Honda exports a Civic made in (the non-Southern state of) Ohio, it reduces the trade deficit.
-When Toyota builds a Camry in Kentucky and sells it in the US, it has no impact on the trade deficit (except for the 20% of parts that are imported)
-When Chevy builds a Tahoe in the US and sells it in the US, it has no impact on the trade deficit (although it has more of an impact than does the Camry, because 35% of its parts are imported, versus 20% of the Camry's)
-When GM builds a Regal in China, and sells it in China, it has no impact on the trade deficit
Honestly, I don't know where you folks get your ideas about economics, but it is all way off the mark.
-An employer who creates US jobs is obviously increasing US employment. When Toyota hires Americans in Kentucky, then more Americans are employed. When GM and Ford lay off American throughout the US, then they become unemployed (at least until they find other jobs, if they ever do.)
-Dollars already circulate throughout the planet. The dollar is a reserve currency, which is a reflection of its importance to the world economy, and certainly doesn't harm its value.
-Most revenues are paid out in the form of expenses; little becomes profit. Most of those revenues are spent where the products are produced, meaning that a Camry does far more for the US economy that does a Fusion built in Mexico or an Aveo built in Korea.
-The profits end up in a few categories: cash within the company, bonuses paid to employees and management, loan repayments to creditors, dividend payments to shareholders, and plant/ equipment. As we know, companies such as Toyota pay far more generous bonuses to their employees than do the Big 2.5, while the investment in plant and equipment is being made right here by the transplants. Meanwhile, GM is building plants in China and otherwise investing abroad -- we know that their profits are being sent abroad to expand production that is being reduced in the US.
-Exchange rates are based upon the supply and demand for dollars, which is based primarily on investor expectations for the US economy (explaining why the dollar dropped in value between 2002-2005.) The "strength" of the dollar is affected in part by US economic growth, the US federal budget deficit and the trade deficit.
With the transplants building cars in the US, jobs are being created and GDP is being increased, which both help the dollar over the long run. Meanwhile, the continued outsourcing by GM, etc. as they slow their US production will ultimately contribute to the trade deficit and lower employment, which harm the dollar. So again, we are better off with some company -- any company -- creating more growth within the US, than we are with GM shipping jobs abroad and eliminating US production.
The Japanese will not buy as many parts from American company as an American manufacture will. They still have a responsibility to help their home country. Just like Toyota imported all their steel from Japan to build that factory in Japan and used a Japanese bank to borrow the money to build it. There is no way they will use anywhere near the American help as an American manufacture.
Most revenues are paid out in the form of expenses; little becomes profit. Most of those revenues are spent where the products are produced, meaning that a Camry does far more for the US economy that does a Fusion built in Mexico or an Aveo built in Korea.
That might be true in the beginning, but not after the expansion. Notice it said net profit.That net profit goes back to Japan, not here.
"Toyota, the world's second-biggest automaker, marked a record group net profit of 397.6 billion yen ($3.3 billion) during the three months, up from 296.5 billion yen a year earlier."
The profits end up in a few categories: cash within the company, bonuses paid to employees and management, loan repayments to creditors, dividend payments to shareholders, and plant/ equipment. As we know, companies such as Toyota pay far more generous bonuses to their employees than do the Big 2.5, while the investment in plant and equipment
They are now, but not when GM was making those big profits.
Meanwhile, GM is building plants in China and otherwise investing abroad -- we know that their profits are being sent abroad to expand production that is being reduced in the US.
I would imagine that building abroad is slowed way down since GM has lost "Red ink dripped from General Motors' ledger Thursday as the troubled automaker posted a larger-than-expected $8.6 billion loss for 2005, the biggest since ...
www.chicagotribune.com/business/ chi-0601270125jan27,1,133052.story?coll=chi-business-hed - Similar pages"
-Exchange rates are based upon the supply and demand for dollars,
Exactly. The more you flood the world with dollars, the less it's worth.
With the transplants building cars in the US, jobs are being created and GDP is being increased, which both help the dollar over the long run.
Not when your losing more jobs than you create and that is what you are doing.
Meanwhile, the continued outsourcing by GM, etc. as they slow their US production will ultimately contribute to the trade deficit and lower employment, which harm the dollar. So again, we are better off with some company -- any company -- creating more growth within the US, than we are with GM shipping jobs abroad and eliminating US production.
If GM had a level playing field, no jobs would be outsourced. I can't seem to get you to understand, the playing field is not level. If they hadn't built some of those plants in Mexico, they would already be out of business.
This site keeps not wanting to put up my posts.
>
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.
***********
***********
Compare these pieces of data with another poster's
Chevy: 74
Honda: 7
CivicToyota: 3Different years BUT someone's not realizing that a company can just NOT issue a TSB for a problem to avoid the numbers too. If you read the Odyssey discussion and Pilot discussion and various Accord discussions, it's obvious to most thinking people that there are a lot of problems since the 03 Accord especially.
It's not Wunderkar.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
This sounds like the chicken-and-the-egg issue. Which comes first? You suggest that until the profits are there, the Americans are not going to do the new engines, transmissions, and higher class materials. In my opinion, it will be the opposite - the Americans are going to have to do the new engines, transmissions, and higher class materials in order to get the sales. More sales = greater chance of making profits (it all depends on the cost structure.)
It all comes down to consumer preference. If the consumer does not like the vehicle, the consumer is not going to buy it no matter how good the reliability and quality. A company cannot control consumer demand. If you have what the consumer wants when the consumer wants it, you have a shot at making the sale. If you don't have what the consumer wants when the consumer wants it, the consumer will buy from the company that does. And "Buy American" is not going to make the consumer settle for less than "what the consumer wants when the consumer wants it."
You have absolutely nothing to back this statement up. My '03 has been completely problem-free.
That's simply nonsense. A Chevy Suburban has a higher percentage of imported parts than does a Honda Accord or a Toyota Camry.
Anyone can look at a window sticker and see where the parts content comes from, the point of assembly for the car, and where the engine was built. The transplants are typically using domestic content levels of 70-80% or more.
I would imagine that building abroad is slowed way down since GM has lost
Wrong. GM is expanding its Asian presence. The JV deal in Shanghai is just a couple of years old, and production is increasing. GM also intends to use Daewoo as its builder of small cars.
"Exchange rates are based upon the supply and demand for dollars"...Exactly. The more you flood the world with dollars, the less it's worth.
The supply of dollars is determined by the Fed, which prints the money. The supply is the same, regardless of where it is located. Toledo or Tokyo, it makes no difference.
Incidentally, there is some real confusion here about the benefits of the "strong dollar" that you seem to support. A "strong dollar" makes imports cheaper -- trade lobbyists for American manufacturers want a weak dollar, not a strong one.
If GM had a level playing field, no jobs would be outsourced.
Toyota has no advantages over GM that it didn't earn for itself. If GM was foolish enough to negotiate a costly benefits plan that it claims that it can't afford, to blow money on FIAT, to maintain an excessive number of nameplates, to badge engineer to the point that its brands are practically worthless, and to build cars that people don't want, that's GM's fault, not anyone else's.
GM has been building cars outside of the US for decades, and the outsourcing trend began long before the latest somewhat trumped-up complaints about health care costs. You honestly can't claim that GM is only outsourcing out of a sense of desperation when it has been doing it in some form or another since before most of us were born.
Whose fault is it that GM is not competitive in costs with Toyota?
- Did Toyota agree to pay for workers not working?
- Did Toyota agree to pay retirees health care?
- Did Toyota agree to having hundreds of distinct jobs per plant, and not allowing workers to be flexible?
- Did Toyota decide not to make refined or quality cars?
The playing field is not level because GM has not made competitive decisions over the past 30 years. Are you saying that the American capitalist system should not reward companies for making good decisions, and punish them for poor ones?
Well, I don't see too many cheap plastic toys being made here. I could lament the loss of those jobs, too. Americans are making higher tech products than that. As the rest of the world industrializes, our jobs mix shifts. Perhaps the demographic future of jobs in this country is the information and service worker. As long as we're out in front on the newest thing, we can let the previous thing be taken over by other, less advanced countries. I don't think that's a bad thing.
Of course, that may not even be true. Honda, Toyota, etc., are adding jobs here. Maybe this is just a case of companies executing poorly needing to fail, and companies executing well being successful.
Other countries have tried the economic model where competition was severely restricted. Most of those economies failed over the long haul.
Let's face it, with only a bit of exaggeration, you can thank two people for GM's success: Sloan and Hitler.
Sloan was wise enough to create a ladder of nameplates with qualities distinct enough in the minds of the consumer to make them loyal to a family of products. Start with a Chevy, and aspire to climb up the rungs to eventually end up with a Cadillac. Brilliant way to maximize what is called the LTV (lifetime value of a customer.)
The other guy with the bad haircut and little moustache helped to almost singlehandedly destroy the manufacturing base and economic power of Europe, while simultaneously stimulating the creation of an American war machine, the likes of which the world had never before seen, which would eventually create massive industrial capacity that could be dedicated after the war to flooding the marketplace with consumer products for Americans, the only people with any money left.
In other words, a lot of GM's success came from a combination of good marketing and a lack of competition with a Michigan address smack in the middle of the world's largest, most vibrant economy.
By the seventies, the US' competitors had had a chance to rebuild, which meant that GM suddenly had to worry about more than just a couple of rivals. With only Ford, Chrysler and a couple of minor competitors both domestic and foreign to worry about, all was good. But toss in some growing heavyweights from abroad that worked hard to earn their market share, and the situation changed. The bigger they are, the harder they fall.
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.
There's a lot of truth to what you've stated above. However, in my own particular case, I based my last three automobile purchasing decisions on my own vehicle experiences(past history) and not what Consumer Reports or J.D. Power and Associates had to say about the cars and SUVs that I was interested in. After having owned both domestic and Asian vehicles, I have to say that overall, I have had much better luck with the majority of my Asian vehicles. But, you are correct in saying that they certainly aren't always perfect. In fact, I had one Nissan that nickel and dimed me to death before I finally got rid of it. One Pontiac that I had turned out to be a very, very good car. Two Chevy SUVs back-to-back were problematic. Both had transmission issues. All of our Honda and Toyota/Lexus products have been outstanding from an initial build quality and downstream reliability standpoint.
So, again, I would have to agree with you that the Asian vehicles aren't always letter perfect. That is indeed a factual statement. Like I stated above, I've just had better luck with the Asian makes over the years. But that doesn't mean I am 100% opposed to ever giving another American vehicle a chance. It's just that right now I am pretty down on Ford and GM both due to my most recent experiences with a couple of their products. Maybe my feelings will change someday and I'll own another one of their products. We'll see how it goes...
Ron M.
Overall U.S./Canadian parts content in new cars and light trucks dropped from 70 percent in model year 1995 to 67.6 percent in 1998; however, it increased from 47 to 59 percent in transplants while dropping from 89 to 84 percent in Big 3 vehicles. The trends in parts content are undoubtedly influenced by the 1995 U.S.-Japan Agreement on Autos and Auto Parts and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
Let's see the foreign cars are buying 59% American content compared to 84% for the Big 3. The opposite of what you say.
"Exchange rates are based upon the supply and demand for dollars"...Exactly. The more you flood the world with dollars, the less it's worth.
The supply of dollars is determined by the Fed, which prints the money. The supply is the same, regardless of where it is located. Toledo or Tokyo, it makes no difference.
Only half true. While the Feds. control the printing of dollars, they don't control where those dollars go. You wash the world with dollars, the value of the dollar goes down because the demand is down.
Toyota has no advantages over GM that it didn't earn for itself. If GM was foolish enough to negotiate a costly benefits plan that it claims that it can't afford, to blow money on FIAT, to maintain an excessive number of nameplates, to badge engineer to the point that its brands are practically worthless, and to build cars that people don't want, that's GM's fault, not anyone else's
Executive Summary.
The unions were all powerful back in the days those contracts were written. The unions could bring the Big three down to their knees with strikes. Japan got in to this country when unionism was on the way down and blocked them out of most of their factories when they built them manly in the South. If they had gotten into the US sooner, they would have faced the same problems the big 3 face now.
GM has been building cars outside of the US for decades, and the out sourcing trend began long before the latest somewhat trumped-up complaints about health care costs. You honestly can't claim that GM is only out sourcing out of a sense of desperation when it has been doing it in some form or another since before most of us were born.
GM sells few cars out of the US with their nameplate on it. Most of what they sell and have been for generations, is cars from companies they have bought into with other major manufactures. That is just now slowly changing.
Toyota and Honda builds their own plants in foreign countries and sells those cars under their name plate.
Trumpet up complaints for health care? There is nothing trumped up about it. It's a fact, just another fact you refuse to acknowledge. You know there isn't a level playing field here, but you want to pass it off.
You want to believe that billions of dollars in net profit is staying here in this country and not going back to the mother land and that is false too.
You want to believe that Toyota and Honda builds trouble free cars and the U.S. is putting out junk. When I show you that's far and away from the truth, then you find another excuse of why you won't buy American.
You want to believe that this country will be as good or better off if the American automobile industry dies and is replaced by foreign owners and that is false. You can't take billions of dollars more out of this economy every year, have less people working and have the same kind of economy you had before. You don't need to be a college major to figure that out. It's attitudes like that, that will really harm this country.
Perhaps he's reading the Mazda discussions. A coworker warned me about Mazdas years ago.
>My '03 has been completely problem-free.
That's good. But it's not enough for a generalization about all Mazdas.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Ron, I don't doubt for a minute what you say. I even agree with you. But I think people will also see if they give it a chance, that American cars have come a long way, just in the last few years. Take the Ford Focus. In 2000-2001 they were much worse than average. In 2002 they were average. In 2003 and 2004 they are now much better than average.
I'm familiar with that NHTSA study -- in fact, I've cited it on this website to show that consumers demand reliability cars. But the parts content data is seven years old, which makes it fairly obselete given the changes that have occurred since then.
The trends in place during the nineties have continued. US/Canadian content is declining with the Big 2.5, while it is increasing with the transplants. Look at the most popular US-assembled transplants -- Corolla, Civic, Camry, Accord -- and you will find that each of them has US/Canadian content of at least 70-80%, and that the vast majority of those cars are built in the US. Compare that to Ford, which is placing its bets on the Mexican-built Fusion, a car with 30% US/Canadian content.
While the Feds. control the printing of dollars, they don't control where those dollars go. You wash the world with dollars, the value of the dollar goes down because the demand is down.
Where are these dollars "washing"? You don't seem to understand:
-A product produced in the US and export reduces the trade deficit. It doesn't matter which company builds it, the effect is the same.
-A product produced outside the US and imported increases the trade deficit. Again, it doesn't matter which company builds it, the effect is the same.
-A product built domestically and sold domestically has no impact on the trade deficit (although it may indirectly reduce it if consumers elect to not buy an imported product, instead.) It doesn't matter which company builds it, the effect is the same.
The component of the trade deficit that impacts exchange rates will not be influenced by which company does the exporting or importing, be it Ford, GM, Toyota, etc.
If you are complaining that profits go back to the other country, you are fixating on a very small part of the pie. If over 90% of that money is staying in the US thanks to expenses, taxes, wages, and plant and equipment investments, then you seem to be willing to cut off your nose to spite your face. (Your goal doesn't seem to be to help the US economy, but to make sure that a "foreigner" can't make even a fraction of a dollar here.)
You can't take billions of dollars more out of this economy every year, have less people working and have the same kind of economy you had before.
Elsewhere on this site, it has been shown that the US auto industry has been growing, not the opposite. In any case, the US still maintains the highest per capita GDP of any nation in the world (bar a couple of small nations such as Luxembourg) and one of the lowest unemployment rates in the western world.
Given the present situation, the American economy is far better off with an American being hired by Toyota than it is with GM hiring one person in China. Why the insistence on referring to GM as an "American" company when it builds more than half of its cars outside the US and is increasing that number each year?
The Toyota Camery has 60% N. American content.
Looking at the sticker on my 2005 Dodge minivan, it has 83% compared to 70% for the Honda Odysey.
You seem to keep passing off what I have been pressing. The fact that GM is an international company like Toyota isn't the point. The point is which country has the most money coming back to it and which country is putting more people to work? That happens to be GM and Ford over Toyota and Honda. They employ more workers, they buy more American parts, they use American finance companies, they pay more benifits, they pay more state, local and federal taxes and they pay higher wages. Their net profit stays here and builds our economy and not Japans or Korea's
If you worked for the city or state government and they had more people paying higher taxes, your chance of getting a higher raise is good. It works that way all through our economy. More people working and more spending, the more jobs you create and better raises you get.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
>That happens to be GM and Ford over Toyota and Honda. They employ more workers, they buy more American parts, they use American finance companies, they pay more benifits, they pay more state, local and federal taxes and they pay higher wages
Same for Chrysler which recently merged with MB and still manufactures here as though it's an American company.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Yes, Chrysler puts a heck of a lot more in the American economy than Honda or Toyota. As I stated before, my Dodge Caravan has 83% American content in it and they have most of their factories in America. As a matter of fact, they are moving their minivan operations from Canada to St. Louis. The only problem is their profit now goes to Germany instead of here.
My point is, I don't expect people not to buy foreign owned vehicles. But I get upset when I hear Americans say they will never buy American again and don't seem to care if we lose the automotive business in this country, thinking we'll be just as well off if not better.
Have to ask them who donated how much help in the South during Katrina cleanup? Honda? Toyota? GM? Ford? US? Japan? Were there Japanese helicopters or Honda's boats, trucks, and helicopters helping move people in and out?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
So what? Dodge is built in Canada. Honda Odyssey is built in America. The content is "North American" this includes Canada. In most likelihood the USA content of Honda is higher then Dodge because its built right here in USA, not Canada.
Besides what do you care about Dodge, the profits just go to Stuttgart, German anyway from your Dodge purchase. How does this help American Economy. You buy a van made by a German company in Canada, and you think that you help American economy? Don't tell me you want to support German economy now?
I thought that we were talking about buying American cars here, not German cars made in Canada :P
Actually, the Ford Focus does prove a point...but not quite the one you are trying to make.
Reliability HAS been dramatically improved since the early, problem-plagued models. Unfortunately, Ford has not improved the car fast enough. The competition has moved ahead in such critical areas as refinement and build quality.
Even worse, while Europe enjoys the second-generation Focus - which would probably put the Corolla and the new Civic on the trailer - we get the same basic Focus the debuted in 2000. If Ford won't give Americans its best, why should they shop Ford?
My wife has a 2005 Focus SE sedan that she bought before we were married. So far (21,000+ miles) it has been a reliable car. The drivetrain and the ride/handling combination are great. But there is too much road noise, the interior looks cheap and the build quality just isn't competitive anymore with the newest entries.
It isn't the fault of Toyota or Honda - or the people who buy their products - that Ford isn't doing enough to keep an important car competitive.
There must be a publication y'all are reading from which says the same things over and over and over. None of what you said has a shred of truth in it. But you aren't willing to do the homework to gather facts ( not opinions ) to try to understand what the real situation is.
I will accept that you have the opinion stated above. Nevertheless the facts do not support your opinion. In the 1480's the very same situation occurred.
Everyone was sure that the world was flat because the Church said it was but no one bothered to get any facts until Columbus. This is the same situation. Do a little work first.
Exactly. The more you flood the world with dollars, the less it's worth.
This is a correct statement of yours. Now what does it mean to you and to me?
You must have misread it. Al the ones in KY have 80% domestic parts content. I see them and the Chevy stats every single day. They are next to each other on the same lot.
Do you believe everything you hear on TV?? C'mon. They aren't experts. They are damn reporters. do you own homework it's all right here on the web. Wards, AutoWeek, each Manufacturers website will tell you how many of their vehicles are made here and how many are imported.
GM / F / DCX / T / H / BMW... check for yourself.. I have.
I'll take a Lucerne's interior over the VW Passatt. The biuased Motor Trend even highlighted that interior quality in VW went down from the last generation Passatt. Not to mention engine technology. BTW- isn't it hard to compare a Audi to most GM cars because of the big gap in price difference ???? Not to metion the new Audi interior is as ugly if not more so than a BMW's.
Rocky
Rocky
Rocky
- Did Toyota agree to pay for workers not working?
- Did Toyota agree to pay retirees health care?
- Did Toyota agree to having hundreds of distinct jobs per plant, and not allowing workers to be flexible?
- Did Toyota decide not to make refined or quality cars?
The playing field is not level because GM has not made competitive decisions over the past 30 years. Are you saying that the American capitalist system should not reward companies for making good decisions, and punish them for poor ones?
So just because Toyota doesn't doretirements which includes health insurance, they are a superior ran company. If toyota wants "free" incentives from the U.S. Government, then they should give the U.S. taxpayer and it's consumers a break on not having to foot the bill for those retirees in the form of social programs like medicare and medicaid. Capatalism, can work if "greed" wouldn't get in the way and everyone contributes a little.
However we know this isn't the way capatalism works, and perhaps we need some much needed change.
Rocky
It's not hard to run a buisness when a foreign government is willing to give you every advantage including exploiting it's populus. Why isn't the Japanese subsidizing plants for GM, Ford, Chrysler ????? Hell if enough stuff is free, I'm sure GM could make a nice luxurious car for the Japanese populus and wouldn't have legacy costs in Japan. :P
Rocky
Rocky, I honestly haven't got a clue what this is supposed to mean.
(Welcome back, by the way.)
It's not hard to run a buisness when a foreign government is willing to give you every advantage including exploiting it's populus. Why isn't the Japanese subsidizing plants for GM, Ford, Chrysler ????? Hell if enough stuff is free, I'm sure GM could make a nice luxurious car for the Japanese populus and wouldn't have legacy costs in Japan.
What I mean by this why isn't Japan giving us the same deal.(free taxes, land, etc.) I thought we were suppose to be free trading partners ?????
Rocky
P.S. BTW have you set up your own page on car Space ???? I didn't see ya yet on there. :surprise:
For one, those deals are coming from state governments, not the US federal government.
For another, these sorts of deals are offered to lots of major corporations that might open new plants or facilities in a location.
As I've pointed out, GM got very similar offers to build the Saturn plant -- free land, tax credits, the whole nine yards. Like Nissan with its Smyrna plant, GM didn't get these benefits only because Tennessee's constitution doesn't permit the state to dole these things out -- GM was attracted by its low wages and low taxes, instead. But had it gone to another location, it could have gotten lots of free stuff, too.
Again, you can't expect GM to get free stuff if won't build new plants here. GM obviously prefers increasing production in China, Korea and Mexico, rather than taking deals from state governments. Obviously, GM likes low wages above all else.
American companies frequently get tax credits, incentives, etc. for all types of facilities investments. Go through northern Mississippi and look at the casino construction, and you'll see plenty of deals that got some sort of tax credit and subsidy to get done. Like it or not, the Big 2.5 are reducing their US production, so understandably, no one in the US will be offering them subsidies for that.
(Haven't done the Carspace thing, I'll have to take a look.)
My point I was trying to make was that Japan is a protectionist.
Rocky
You must have misread it. Al the ones in KY have 80% domestic parts content. I see them and the Chevy stats every single day. They are next to each other on the same lot.
I didn't misread it because Toyota doesn't put it on their window sticker like Honda and Chrysler does. I had to go into the showroom and have the salesman look it up. This is what he told me,60%.
So what? Dodge is built in Canada. Honda Odyssey is built in America. The content is "North American" this includes Canada. In most likelihood the USA content of Honda is higher then Dodge because its built right here in USA, not Canada.
Besides what do you care about Dodge, the profits just go to Stuttgart, German anyway from your Dodge purchase. How does this help American Economy. You buy a van made by a German company in Canada, and you think that you help American economy? Don't tell me you want to support German economy now?
I thought that we were talking about buying American cars here, not German cars made in Canada.
You need to reread what I said about Dodge and their moving their minivan to Missouri, from Canada and I did point out that their profits go back to Germany. Although about 23% of Chrysler is still owned by Americans. So Germany doesn't get it all
GM does not import cars with their name plate from China. Those cars are built for the Chinese market.
The cars they import from Korea or Japan are from plants GM has part ownership in and are sub compacts. Cars they can not build here because of the high cost and low profit.
As I pointed out before, if they built a new plant here, they probably would be required to rehire laid off workers which would still put them at a big disadvantage because of wages, medical, pensions and vacations they would still be stuck with. It's much easier and cheaper for a foreigner to build a plant here, hire new employees and not have those expenses for years to come. Expenses that can add thousands to the price of building a car. When you have to price it to match your competition, your at a big disadvantage. Especially when you have to mark thousands off to sell it, because so many people still think America puts out junk and Japanese cars are so much better and reliable.