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
My point was Indiana unlike some other states is trying to get industry moving in the USA. I applaud their new Governor and legislature.
The auto industry is certainly moving up here in Michigan. I see something on the news most weeks about federal dollars for research, or state funded jump-start programs. :P
Have to admit that the trough up there has slimmed down a bit since Ted Stevens left office. (NY Times)
Rinse and repeat for your state. :shades:
These beauties are stars themselves, bringing an authenticity and aesthetic charm to the screen that computer graphics can’t match."
The cars are the stars in 1940s drama 'Gangster Squad' (poughkeepsiejournal.com)
Funny, one would think Alaska would use some of that oil money rebate it gives to each Alaskan to improve tourist-attracting features. Seems they don't see it that way.
Getting back to the topic...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2013/01/21/made-in-usa-trend- - /1785539/
A red herring argument. "States" do not pay taxes to the federal government - businesses and individuals within those states do.
"Blue" states have many more high-income people and large corporations who pay more in federal taxes than "red" states do. I'm pretty certain that there are more millionaires and billionaires in Los Angeles or New York City alone, for example, than in all of Alabama or Mississippi.
"Blue states" regularly give their electoral college votes to presidential candidates who have campaigned on raising taxes on the rich and more federal spending.
Guess what - a higher percentage of those awful rich people live in blue states.
If this were really an issue, voters in those states would support candidates who campaign to curb federal spending, lower taxes on the rich and expand the tax base to capture more people who don't pay any federal income taxes.
(Of course, the dirty little secret of those "blue" states is that they have plenty of people dependent on government programs, too. They just have more of those hideous, blood-sucking vampires, I mean, rich people, to actually pay the bill. In "blue" Pennsylvania, for example, 40 percent of the population of reliably Democratic Philadelphia has an income below the federal poverty level. Do you really believe that they are voting for Libertarians or conservative Republicans?)
Otherwise, they need to stop whining - they are getting what they want.
This argument makes it sound as though each state writes out a check to the federal government, and the federal government then cuts a check for each state, and purposely shorts the "blue" states.
I work in the legislative branch of Pennsylvania government, and I can assure you that it simply doesn't happen this way.
(You also have to account for the number of military bases in "red" states, not to mention the high amount of federally owned land in those states. I'm guessing that the federal government controls a higher percentage of the total land area in Alaska or Wyoming than it does in New York or New Jersey. The federal money that supports those military bases or administers that land is spent in those states, and is part of that calculation.)
They would go so far as to walk around our lot looking for "J" cars.
Nonne of us were ever able to detect even the slightest difference in build quality or anything else between Japan cars and the ones assembled elsewhere.
I don't think it includes the tax revenue from oil. And I am sure it does not include the $billions in gold confiscated while AK was a territory. The Feds have made a killing on the $7 million Seward's Folly.
Here come more "American" auto jobs:
Canada to invest $16.9M to produce Toyota hybrid vehicle (Detroit News)
Huge sales potential, not that I'll be shopping for one.
Funny that someone as rich as Toyota gets to feed at the trough. Almost as funny as calling Canada "American" - lots of people there would beg to differ.
But not as funny as the previous discussion about those priding themselves on independence and hating government being somewhat dependent on governmental spending, in one way or another.
Plus, 400 jobs and you saw how well paid CAW are. $60k minimum, times 400, imagine the taxes collected on that $24M in annual salaries alone.
Sounds incredibly profitable to me. A no-brainer, really.
Some states offer bigger incentives to new businesses, and I mean permanent ones, such as tax holidays.
That's why you have some WalMart stores moving 3 blocks over, in to a different county/state, to seek a tax break.
I think that's perfectly understandable as a previous owner of an American made/built car, I would want all my future cars to be made as far different and as far away as possible from America.
Also, my Japanese built Civics have been more reliable and dependable than the Ohio built Accord.
But generally, when it comes to big volume, it's hard to tell any difference.
AFAIK - no such thing. Toyota isn't willing to pay the 25% chicken tax on an imported truck.
I just can't agree. My American built Accord had a few rattles that were easily fixed with a service warranty visit under warranty, but the J-built Civics have never had any such issues.
Granted, I'll give you that one interior trim piece on the latest Civic was ill-fitting and had to be redone, but that was shocking.
Those autoworkers in Japan have been making near flawless vehicles their whole careers, and have a lot of experience making good cars.
The workers in America have little to no experience making good cars, especially if you take away Ohio's Honda plant.
They're certainly capable.
I wasn't thinking of those. I assumed you were talking J vin Tacoma. But no issues with Tundra frames have cropped up AFAIK.
There are many who would agree nothing can compete with the reliability of an early 90's Toyota or Honda built in Japan.
NASA found some "tin whiskers" on those but said they would not cause the wide open throttles, only minor fluctuations in RPM.
Inspections at Toyota would not have caught that since the pedal assembly was sealed up.
That's what I originally meant - there are no J VIN Tacomas as they would be subject to the chicken tax. So one cannot look for one and as such, no way to avoid the Dana frame on those models.
I'll consider the ATS if and only if, it passes my test drive requirements, AND:
1) One you you here signs a contract that:
A) Pays me for any costs out of warranty and out of normal maintenance up to 10 years or 125,000 miles.
C) Pays me for 100% refund buyback if the vehicle ends up being a lemon as defined under CA lemon laws (If GM doesn't).
D) Set up an escrow fund with $10,000 so that I know the potential costs will be funded and paid.
In exchange for these considerations, I'll pay you the same amount it took my Accord to get to 65K miles ($0.00), or I'm sure you'll prefer, the same amount it took my Audi A3 to get to 96K miles ($700) outside of regular maintenance costs.
Outside of normal maintenance, the costs to bring my 1989 Cadillac Brougham 24 years and 158K+ miles has been negligible.
My BIL has an '88 Corvette with 45k miles on that he's owned since it was one year old and he has a 3 ring binder full of repair receipts. I think he's replaced it one part at a time. Hey that sounds like a Johnny Cash song;)
Oh, no. They made fun of binders during the election, as I recall. LOL
On the serious side, how many were maintenance and how many were repairs? That's a lot of years and a lot of regular oil changes and lube jobs.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The quality of the Corvette and F-bodies, in particular, was awful during that decade. Around 1989-90, GM did try to address the problems with those cars.
At the 1990 Corvettes at Carlisle show, I remember that GM displayed a 1991 Corvette covered with little cardboard "sticky" notes pointing out all of the improvements that were being made to the car.
Lemko's 1989 Cadillac was, by that point, a very proven design (the basic body and chassis debuted in the fall of 1976) that used one of GM's most reliable engines.
You've asked others not to cherry pick data. These are two high ranking GM's in owner satisfaction, but there are many, many more that rank quite low.
You are correct, sorry about that. I was confusing different threads when I answered.
LOL, that can be said of many domestics.
Those came out in 1982 and they were pure junk. They didn't get them right until 1988. They also had the one year only 4-6-8 engines in 1981 that were primitive in nature. They fooled around with diesels, and stuck underpowered V-6's in full sized Cadillacs.
During those dark years, they lost a lot of very loyal customers and for good reason!
The new one looks promising, especially the improvements inside.
That's right...in 1986, Cadillac wised up and started putting Olds 307-4bbls in the RWD Caddies. It wasn't overly powerful, with only 140 hp, but torque wasn't bad, at 255 ft-lb, and peak torque came on pretty early.
The transmission was the THM200R4, which was based on the lightweight, infamous THM200, but for the most part, GM worked the bugs out of that transmission after a few years. And, some versions of it were beefy enough to be used in full-sized station wagons, as well as Buick Regal T-types, Grand Nationals, and even the mythical 1987 GNX.
They fooled around with diesels, and stuck underpowered V-6's in full sized Cadillacs.
That V-6 was the Buick 4.1/252 4-bbl V-6. I believe it was a credit option. It had the same hp as the Caddy 4.1/249 V-8, 125. However, one dirty little secret was that the V-6 put out a bit more torque: 205 ft-lb, versus 195.
I wonder, if the V-6 might have been lighter, as well? The V-8 was aluminum, but Buick's V-6 was very lightweight for an iron block.
As a result, I've heard you were better off getting the V-6, than you were the 249 V-8!
They put Buick V6 engines into Jeeps back in the late 1960s. And that was a great match-up. I would not mind having one of those old CJ-5s now.
Buick sold the tooling to Jeep around 1968, and what little demand was left for 6-cyl Buicks was filled with the Chevy 250-6.
But then, in the 70's, with fuel economy being a concern, GM decided to buy that tooling back. To save money, they bored it out so that it could use the same pistons as a Buick 350 V-8, and that took its displacement up slightly, from 225 CID to 231.
I credit that to one simple fact...that every time the UAW tried to unionize the plant, at least 2 or 3 occasions, the election was called off a day or 2 prior to the election, because the UAW realized they would lose by a landslide...
No union, no employee problems, and quality built cars...dipso-facto...that is why Honda can make the same volume of cars as GM in a given plant, but Honda needs 2000 workers and GM needs 6000 workers...and they wonder why GM was bankrupt...
I miss my 88 Prelude with 4 wheel steering...the BEST car I ever owned...lasted 13 years and 185,000 miles...gave it to my brother-in-law, he wrecked it 2 months later...
This idea isn't new. I remember seeing an experimental 1967 Buick Special with 4-wheel steering. Chevrolet and GMC briefly offered it on trucks in the 2000s. I haven't seen 4-wheel steering offered on a vehicle since.
Oh man, those were the best ones! Almost bought one (exact one as above)myself in 93' with 40 thousand miles on it but being 19 yrs old the dealer actually told me "sorry kid, you can't afford this car" before I could even discuss price
Instead about a month later, I bought a 93' Probe GT which to this day is one of my favorite cars I have ever owned, second only to my P&J S2000. :shades:
I think Acura is going to have 4WS on its upcoming larger model.
I don't think the 4WS caused to much trouble as IIRC it was purely mechanical. So you only have to worry about mechanical parts wearing out versus both mechanical and electrical or possibly even hydraulic.
I think it was neat but not really needed. It was weird changing lanes at highway speed as both the front and rear wheels turned together. But when during sharper steering angles, the rear wheels would turn opposite which made parking u-turns and sharp corners a breeze.