1. We are practically paying double based on 1996 prices adjusted for inflation, however here in LA, a lot of people drive SUV's and pickups as if gas is still cheap. 2. We are not saving money, I can increase by 50%, my 401K monthly contribution with the fuel savings and cheaper car payments with a small economy car instead of a 4WD SUV. 3.As with the new Ford strategy, to sell distinctly American cars, like the Mustang? I just bought one, and it is expensive and when you hear the growl of the engine, you just want to drop the hammer some more.
does an aluminum engine block really save? This probably isn't the case anymore, but the Buick 3.8 V-6 used to be one of the lightest V-6es around. IIRC it weighs around 375 lb. Its peers of the time would have been the Chevy 229/3.8 V-6, which was around 425 lb, the Chevy 250-inline 6, which was around 450 lb, and the Mopar 225 slant six, which was around 475 lb. I think the Ford straight sixes of the time were around 425-450 lb.
Now back in those days, going from a smallblock V-8 to a 6-cyl often saved you 200 lb or more. For example, while the Chevy 229 was 425 lb, the 305 smallblock was 575. The Mopar 318 was only 525 lb, only 50 lb more than the slant six, but by the time you factored in the bigger brakes, suspension mods, and other changes, you were looking at a total weight gain of close to 200 lb.
But in going from, say, a pushrod 3800 V-6 to a DOHC aluminum block V-6, are you really saving much weight? Aluminum is lighter but also weaker, so they have to make it thicker and brace it up. And an OHC head, especially a DOHC head, is going to be bigger, bulkier, and heavier. Heck, some of those DOHC heads look bulkier than the old Hemi!
A lot of people focus on internal displacement, and talk about specific output (HP/liter). But what really matters is the overall size and weight of the powertrain, not the interior displacement.
Here's a photo comparing two Ford engines. The pushrod is a lot more compact.
The easiest comparison would be the aluminum Buick 215 (about 325 pounds) and the iron-block-and-head Buick 300 (450 or so). The Nissan SR20 is about 100 pounds lighter than the KA24, and 150+ pounds lighter than the RB20 (the RB is rather heavy for a small-displacement I6).
A pushrod has smaller heads than an OHC engine of the same displacement, but a pushrod of the same *power* will be as large as the OHC engine since it needs a significant displacement advantage to keep up.
it looks like the Toyota 3.0 V-6, when it had an iron block, was around 469 pounds. When it went to aluminum it was around 401. Now I'm guessing this is the same block that is still around in the Camry and Avalon, as the 3.0, 3.3, and 3.5. So unless something radical has been done to it, it's still probably in the 400 lb range.
So even though many of these more modern aluminum engines OHC have their advantages, weight isn't necessarily one of them.
Juice, I always thought the Ford 302 was a tiny looking thing anyway, but seeing it compared to the 4.6 is truly astounding! I've heard that the old 460 big-block actually takes up less physical space than the 4.6! At least the DOHC 4.6. It might still be a bit bigger than the SOHC 4.6.
the 5.4 won't even fit under the hood of the Crown Vic. I remember a few years back, before the Marauder came out, some enthusiast rag tried to make their own Panther musclecar by taking a 5.4 and stuffing it in the engine bay. There was no hood clearance though, so they had to cut it and put on a scoop, bulge, or something so it would close.
I never understood the term "Modular" in reference to the Ford 4.6/5.4. Is it really any different from, say, the Chevy smallblock and the myriad of displacements it came in? It ranged from a 265 all the way up to a 400, all with the same basic block.
the "modular" V-8 really isn't any different in concept from, say, the old Mopar smallblock, which was available in V-8 sizes of 273/318/340/360, and later the 3.9 (~238?) V-6, and the 8.0 (488?) V-10? I guess the only difference is that with these being pushrod engines, they were always just 2-valve heads.
Edmunds compiled the list. They followed three criteria: actual selling prices closest to full sticker price, lowest amounts in rebates and other incentives, and shortest times on dealer lots.
Of the 10, 6 are Toyotas, 1 is Honda Civic, 1 is Mini Cooper, 1 is Pontiac Solstice, and 1 is Ford Escape Hybrid. Three of the 10 are hybrids. Nine of the ten have average sticker prices from $14,261 - $28,274. The 10th one is Lexus RX400h at average sticker of $47,919. Four of the cars are under $20,000. Eight of them have "days to sell" of less than 20 days. Two of those 8 are below 10 days to sell. Highest "days to sell" is 36 days for Escape Hybrid.
As I interpret the article, the list is based on sales data, not on opinions.
The first FWD I drove was a '68 Olds Toronado,('66 was their first year) AND I fell in love with them almost immediately, but did not own one until my '73 Toronado. I too am from the north country where snow and ice cover roads are the norm much of the winter(northern Iowa / Minnesota country roads that is). My dad was utterly amazed at the capabilities of my '73 Toro -- going places in both the winter month and summer months that all my dad's traditional RWDs never ever thought of going. I'd crank up the rear air shocks n take off across the pasture to pick up a new calf, etc.
After marriage and kids, the 2-door Toro soon became obnoxious for getting kids in n out of the back . . . so I began asking why detroit was not building a FWD sedan! I was pooh poohed at every turn . . . that the Toronados and Eldorados were just a fad that would soon pass --- yeah, right!
I did get my wife a '78 Honda wagon, but though I could manage to squeeze myself inside of it, was simply not pratical for this 6'2" cowboy. Anyway, after going to fly for the USAF and moving to Mather AFB (Sacramento CA), I finally decided that if GM wouldn't build a bigger FWD, I would. I checked various GM engineering journals, walked junk yards to do some measuring, bought a '75 Olds Custom Cruiser wagon with a good body and went to work over my one week 1982 Christmas break.
Within the week I had taken the front of my '73 Toro and joined it to the rear of the '75 Custom Cruiser --- in a garage on Mather AFB, my '73 Toronado Cruiser was born! Yeah, I had people thinking I was crazy . . . but I've lost track of how many folks asked if I'd build them one; and others that have tried to buy it from me. I still have it.
It is ALL Toronado up front (frame from torsion bar cross member forward) including the doghouse (fenders, hood, and bumper) with the Toronado axle fitted to the wagon's leaf springs. The Toro's flat floorboard was cut out and put in to replace the wagon's obnoxious tranny hump,as well as the drive shaft tunnel and rear differental flattened in the back. The wheelbase increased 7" and the ride reflects it.
Later after PCSing to Altus AFB OK, and then back up to the family farm I ran it over the local feed elevator scales. Empty weight was an even 6000 lbs.! After a little research with GM, I realized I had used the heaviest of each models' production years --'73 the heaviest for the Toro and '75 the heaviest for the CC! What bugs me is that its 455ci engine gave 20+ mpg in the Toronado (5200+ lbs) and even in the wagon configuration at 6000 lbs. gives 17-18 mpg. Pray tell me why has "Detroit" not been able to give us better gas mileage over 30 years later!!! They're putting out lighter cars, smaller engines AND still have not significantly increased the mpg -- lbs to Hp ratio!
The wagon served our family extremely well -- going through snow on more than one trip right along with the 4 X 4s on the road. I always carried chains -- the norm for northern climates, but only had to put them on a couple of times (back country roads).
As to torque steer, perhaps due to vehicle weight, I was never bothered by it. I will say however, that anyone switching from RWD to FWD needs to realize some basic differnces when it comes to operational characteristics. For example, do NOT let up going into an icey (or wet) curve! Anticipate it and then maintian or accelerate slightly through it. I couldn't begin to recall all the times that FWD saved me/us while on the road --- from being able to "pull" me out of potentially dangerous situations -- with better directional control, to just plain being able to keep going on nasty roads when others were stuck spinning their tires!
I've pulled heavy loads cross country with no problems whatsoever. I will NEVER, NEVER buy another RWD vehicle! Although, that said, I do have '70 Cadillac hightop ambulance (all original) that I've considered joining up with my '78 Eldorado, but not sure I want lto ose its "all original" resale value.
My current "every day" car is a '90 Olds Ninety Eight TS with 203+K miles and contemplating a '95 Cadillac Concours with 72K miles. No, I will NEVER buy another RWD -- they're simply too limiting! FYI, my parents still have a '90 Lincoln Cartier which I've driven cross county - I was not impressed --- give me back my big ol' GM FWD!
Bottomline, to each their own . . . though perhaps I do need to really put the Concours through the paces before I get serious about it. Anyone have any comments specific to the Concours handling -- could the suspension stand to be tightened up?
What bugs me is that its 455ci engine gave 20+ mpg in the Toronado (5200+ lbs) and even in the wagon configuration at 6000 lbs. gives 17-18 mpg. Pray tell me why has "Detroit" not been able to give us better gas mileage over 30 years later!!! They're putting out lighter cars, smaller engines AND still have not significantly increased the mpg -- lbs to Hp ratio!
Hmm, my grandpa had a (I believe) 70 Bonneville with a 455 that never got over 12 mpg. I'm in my 30's, so I don't have a ton of experience with 60's & 70's cars, but I did have a '71 Mustang with a 351 Cleveland 2barrel and a 75 Buick Regal with a 350 2 barrel. Both were lighter and had less power than my 5.3 power Suburban and got worse fuel economy around town and highway.
I had an '85 Ford Tempo 4cyl that got worse fuel economy than my wifes 06 Ford 500. So progress has been made.
Show me what 400 net hp muscle car from the 60's could touch the fuel economy of the current Corvette.
As for FWD/RWD, they both have their place. I don't think any of us want to see a FWD Corvette or Suburban. Sure, you can tow loads on the HWY with FWD. But try towing that same load (a boat) up a steep slick (wet) launch ramp with FWD. It won't work, trust me, I used to have a FWD minivan that I towed a 3000lb boat with. If the ramp was wet, I couldn't pull the boat out of the lake due to loss of traction as the weight of the boat lightened up the front wheels.
My current boat weighs almost as much as my Suburban and I've never had to use 4wd to pull the boat up a wet ramp.
1) I do think CRs reporting of problems over time of vehicles is useful for those buying used cars...generally speaking when I've looked up my past cars, their problems have been the same as others there (like the exhaust system on my '89 Celica). One thing I remember from their survey (as a former subscriber) is their question used to read something like "have you had any problem that caused you major inconvenience"...not a direct quote, but I do remember thinking there was a term like "major" which could vary depending upon who you were asking...I've had a few problems with my 2000 Impala that required me to take it in for a day, but nothing I would consider to be a major inconvenience.
2) What if GM were to include a comp one-year subscription to CR with the purchase of each new vehicle? (Probably can't be done since CU doesn't accept any advertising, and would view this as a marketing/promotional effort.) Does anyone feel GM's cars would improve (or drop) in CU's standings if GM's representation in their survey suddenly increased?
That's a fascinating project. Have you considered submitting pics and information to Popular Mechanics or someone? I've never heard of anyone doing anything like this...
(Except for Jay Leno's Toronado, which got converted the other way to RWD)
Lets take a long term look at this question. When you buy and American made product, or use an American service you are investing your money back into the economic stability of our country. We are all connected in this economy, noone is untouchable. If people don't work, there are no medical benefits to be given, doctors don't get paid, nurses don't get paid. Most of all, taxes don't get paid, schools don't get funded, essential services suffer. Sound familiar? This is happening right now across the U.S. Demand American made products and services. this "New Global economy" is a joke and only benefits about the richest %2 percent of our population.
I agree with you about the importance of buying American and I would prefer to do so, as long as the American-made product is high-quality and meets my requirements and doesn't sell at a HUGE premium compared to the offerings of other companies.
With regard to my decision about the car I bought last year, my requirements were great fuel economy (and by default lower emissions of greenhouse gases), good quality, good cargo capacity, good convenience features (not some low-end, stripped down car), and smaller in size but not teeny-tiny.
Now, before I continue, I want to comment about the EPA mileage numbers because someone no doubt is going to point out that GM has "nine models that get better than 30 mpg." The EPA numbers are a joke. No one gets those numbers in real driving. The numbers are based on lab conditions and do not reflect how people really drive and do not reflect actual streets and highways. The EPA knows the numbers are misrepresentative, Congress knows it, the auto manufacturers know it, and a lot of consumers know it. However, when some members of Congress brought up the topic of requiring the EPA to change its testing procedures, the lobbyists for the auto industry fought it bitterly and prevented Congress from taking action.
Before I buy a car, I want to have a reasonable idea of how many mpg I am going to get. Since the EPA numbers are useless, I go by the Consumer Reports numbers. If the CR numbers are not available, then I reduce the EPA numbers by 20%. In other words, if the EPA number is 30 mpg, I figure that the car will actually get around 24 mpg (20% of 30 is 6, 30 minus 6 is 24.)
So, back to my choice, I definitely did not want a big boat car or a gas-guzzling SUV. Pretty much everything else in the GM/F/DCX line-up is going to give mid-20s or less (CR numbers or EPA reduced by 20%), and I wasn't interested in the Aveo or other cars its size. The one domestic I would definitely have looked at if it was available in the US with the engine I was interested in was the PT Cruiser with the diesel engine. DCX sells PT Cruisers overseas with a Mercedes 2.2L (I think that's the size) diesel, but they don't sell it here. I contacted DCX to see if they would be offering the car in the US; the answer I got from them was, "We have no current plans...." Based on all this, I narrowed my list down to Prius, Civic Hybrid, and Jetta Diesel. I had my concerns about VW, so I never test-drove the Jetta. The Civic Hybrid and Prius were both great cars when I test-drove them. I bought the Prius.
Maybe I am in the minority of American buyers, maybe I am in the sub-minority, but those are the criteria that were important to me. Cars cost a lot of money. I sure wasn't going to settle for way less than what I wanted just to "support" Detroit.
What bugs me is that its 455ci engine gave 20+ mpg in the Toronado (5200+ lbs) and even in the wagon configuration at 6000 lbs. gives 17-18 mpg. Pray tell me why has "Detroit" not been able to give us better gas mileage over 30 years later!!! They're putting out lighter cars, smaller engines AND still have not significantly increased the mpg -- lbs to Hp ratio!
Did you do anything with the smog controls on that engine to get that kind of fuel economy? Or any other major mods? Back in the day, I think most people were happy if they could get 9-10 mpg around town and maybe 14-15 on the highway out of something like a '73 455.
I've had a lot of old cars, but ended up avoiding the 70's for the most part, until fairly recently when I bought a '76 LeMans. 350-2bbl, mildly hopped up, and it gets around 10-11 around town, maybe 15-16 on the highway. I also have a '67 Catalina convertible with a 400-4bbl that has actually done 17-18 mpg in mostly highway driving, but in local driving is more like 10.
One of the most economical big cars I had was a 1979 Newport with a 318. It would get maybe 20-22 on the highway, but usually only around 13 around town.
Now, these were all old cars when I got them. I bought the catalina in 1994, had the Newport from 1996-1998, and just got the LeMans last year. So maybe they did get better economy when they were new?
The EPA ratings for my leSabres has been 30/21 and 29/21 IIRC. My leSabres routinely will give you 31-32 with 3 adults and full of luggage to travel on interstates-not at 55 for the rating speed but at 70-75. In local start stop and to the grocery my wife routinely shows 22 on her driving when I set the DIC and see what it reads. My local is 24.
If I start on level rural highway and travel at 55 I get in the 36-38 range. I've tried it on the way to the dealer and back. The DIC in the car seems to be within 1 mpg when I've matched with gas pump mileage when on trips--before someone says it's just a quirk of the DIC (driver information center) in the car. I did get 45 mpg but there was a 40-50 mph tailwind at about 30 degrees, but it was nice to pretend for that one trip, grin...
Maybe the other cars have fudged the numbers with the quirky things.
The EPA has been the big problem with the cars and their mileage through the last couple of decades. EPA is always adding to the expected mileage and adding safety equipment required in the cars. EPA is always wanting them to be cleaner; same effect.
I don't worry about green. If the EPA really wanted to clean up they would do the trucks and factories. All they've done is bandaid on the automobiles-not trucks and on the power plants-not factories.
If I want to have economy I'd buy the littler cars that get great mileage-TDI at 40-50? nice start. Nephew bought one or the little Civics with a manual for high mileage. But I like to be comfortable.
My 2000 Impala was rated at 20 city/30 highway with the 3.8l engine, and I consistently hit those numbers (or slightly better). At 70mph with the AC and the family on board I can hit 30 MPG. The worst I've ever gotten has been just under 19 in town (September, heavy AC here + back-to-school stop & go), and the best I've ever gotten on the highway was 34 (flat Delta trip, cool enough to not run the AC, and top speed of no more than 60 MPH). My overall average (figured on a spreadsheet, NOT the DIC) for 91k miles is right at 23 mpg, which is about right considering the bulk of my driving is in town. Getting less than 20 MPG has been a rare occurance for me. And if anything I'd say my driving style leans more towards the agressive than the sedate, so it's not like I'm babying the car at all.
Still interesting information and feelings expressed here. Yesterday Associated Press release concerned the foreign holdings of United States assets. Per the article, as of January 06 $2.20 trillian of Treasury securities were in the hands of central banks including China and Japan, and private investors abroad. We now borrow $2 billion per day from foreign investors to finance our trade deficit.Last week the U.S. Congress raised the debt ceiling by $781 billion to almost $9 trillion. The article did not mention the daily cost for the war. I suspect it is most important what percentage of the money from our purchase finally resides in a U.S. controlled financial institution. World trade is good but not if your the largest debtor nation.
Realize I lived in the country so nearly all miles were country miles, albeit it hilly . . . and the last true cross-country mileage check I did was from Strawberry Point (NE)IA (52076)to Drexel Hill (Phili) PA (19026)-- as I recall we usually made the trip via I-80, I-74, I-70, I-76 (PA turnpike) -- almost exactly 1000 miles. AND we usually made the trip in 14 hours or less . . . Yes, that was BEFORE the 55 speed limit!
If you look at the engineering journals, you'll find that the ol' Toro was at its "peak" -- everything, engine and tranny, optimized at somehting like 92 mph! I installed one of the early mpg units (within 2% accuracy) and realized while on a cross-country that it'd actually max out (mpg) when the ol' speedo meter was right around 90mph. I thought it was an error in the mpg meter until, but while doing some research, discovered the "92 mph" number.
Anyway, back to the road trip, we consistantly used just under 50 gallons for the trip -- 100 gallons round trip -- we'd stop once each way to fillup. . . . and then the cotton-pick'n 55 speed limit was implemented, the greenstamp bears (PA turnpike patrol) used jeeps and all sorts of plain wrappers . . . and ultimately ended up taking us 2 to even 3 hours more!!! to make the same trip that we'd been making in 14 to maybe 15 hours. No, never got a ticket -- always ran a CB, still do (and still carry my CDL)
As to modifications, I "played" with the carb from time to time -- rebuilt the Quadrajet with different primary jets and rods as well as different secondary rods, also adjusted the primary pullin piston, ran the timing up to max and have always run a parasynthetic/synthetic oil, kept a clean air filter on it (Toronado 455s had one of the largest stock air filters, and a small front scoop) also drilled all wheel bearings (F & R) for greas fittings, cleaned and then regreased with synthetic; kept Michelin (high end)tires inflated to 35psi. Also had the 2.73 (vs. 3.07) ring gear in the differential, and filled with synthetic gear lube. Ran dual exhaust with flow through mufflers -- and no resonators. Also switched over to the GM HEI distibutor & coil from the 455 that was in the 1975 Custom Cruiser. (No smog equipment/ no EGR on this 455) Used a customized bug deflector setup that covered the headlights as well -- though never did anlysis as to effect on wind resistance.
Soooo when it comes to "average" mileage, we actually checked -- gas used, miles driven -- on long trips as well as shorter ones around home . . . and I always figured that at the least -- short trips and cold weather -- I never averaged less then 15 mpg. That said, I'll admit, in-town STOP n go driving might well drop me below those numbers. AND bottom-line I'm still partial to the good ol' cars that had some substance to them -- with decent BUMPERS that stand up to the occasional "Bump" without someone being pissed b/c their "bumper" paint got scuffed or worse yet, several hundereds dollars to repair! Just does NOT make any sense that they can't at least offer a real bumper for those of us who want them.
FYI, as I think I mention in the first post, once I rebuilt the Toronado into a station wagon, mileage dropped about 15% -- now about 17mpg -- and still better than many of today's big SUVs! . . . and I can work on it without a ton of high-dollar scanners, etc.! (Though I still have an ol' SnapOn diagnostic scope)
set up the Toronado FWD anyway? Something like the Corvair with the transmission ahead of the differential ahead of the engine? I'm guessing there were no manual Toronados.
about the Toronado setup is that the transmission is actually beside the engine, and turned around backwards so it aims back up to the front wheels. There's a chain drive involved somewhere in the equation...I think it connects the engine to the tranny. I believe the tranny was a modified THM400. I think for the Toro/Eldo it was called the 425?
While most FWD setups are fragile compared to their RWD counterparts, the Toro supposedly gave up very little in durability.
The 1979-85 Toronado, although downsized, was the same basic setup, although I think in '78-80 they used a modified THM350, and from '81-85 went to a modified THM200R4 (the 4-speed automatic overdrive). In 1986 though, when they downsized yet again, they went to the more "normal" transverse engine/transaxle setup.
Now consider the heaviest one this list was a station wagon with a 7.4 liter V-8 and seating for 8. A 65 Maulibu SS 396 wagon weighed less than a new V-6 Malibu Maxx.
So dude, when can I get you to come over to tinker with my '76 LeMans? I figure if you got that kind of economy out of your Toro and Toro Custom Cruiser hybrid, you should be able to get my LeMans into the lower 30's!
The chain drive mounts on the back of the bell housing over to the slushbox, and the ring gear is that hump beneath the head. Pretty much a regular FWD setup turned sideways. The axle shaft running through the oilpan to the right wheel must be fun to work on.
The TH-425 was basically a TH-400 severed aft of the torque converter. An extremely hefty chain drive (similar to timing chain) was mounted to the truncated transmission and the remainder of the transmission and differential mounted below for FWD applications. Because it is basically a TH-400, it is one of the best transmissions ever made, BUT was over-engineered for introduction in the Toronado . . . and then it was used in the FWD GMC motorhomes (73-78). There's currently a picture of one at: http://www.kitcarmagazine.com/Classifieds/Item-Details.asp?id=99
The outer axles were then bolted up to the differential
Later GM FWD transmissions are similar in design -- putting the torque converter on the back (side in transverse mounts) of the engine and then connect it to the rest via a heavy time-chain style chain, with the differential an integral part of the bottom part of the housing (hence "transaxle"), or bolted directly to the end as the older Toronados, Eldorados, and GMC motorhomes were. In this original setup, the bottom part of the tranny was nestled along the bottom left side of the engine -- see picture in above link, and you'll see the traditional bell housing that bolted to the back of the engine.
The Toro and Eldo setups are excellent for building your own "anything" b/c you have "everything in one compact package -- just cut the frame behind the torsion bar cross memeber . . . and you're ready to "graft" it to what ever you want! I've thought about one day taking one and fitting it to the front of an Airsteam trailer to make up my own custom FWD motor home . . . I currently have an "extra" 78 Eldo, tho I'd rather have the 455 engine in the package . . . Oh well, I dream on . . .
Well, if you buy a GM car made in Canada, and GM is losing money on every sale, you're not really helping the US economy very much. It's like GM is subsidizing the Canadian economy and you're buying a car at their loss.
Looks like GM sees the writing on the wall: Employee welfare doesn't work in a world economy. They simply can't compete with prices and quality coming from leaner manufacturers any more. They are buying out a lot of employee retirement packages and trying to salvage the company. I heard a stunning statistic today: Average absenteeism among UAW shops, 12%. Absenteeism among the new Southern assembly plants, 2%. Unbelievable. :sick:
Yeah, because if you do get sick and you work for an asian implant you get fired. If you get hurt on the job, they will look for a way to fire you. You can be replaced like a piece of meat.
I do question that 12% figure. I'm just curious where you coughed that one up from ? :confuse: I'm sure the [non-permissible content removed] source also threw in vacations in that statistic to blow up that number. BTW- when your average plant age is 55 years old and you've had nearly 30 years or so on the assembly line, your going to have a bit more absentism. Toyota's workforce is in there 20's and 30's. Once you reach your 40's they start sizing your neck up for the guillotine. :P
I got the absenteeism figure from one of the nightly business programs on TV, FWIW. I suspect that most absenteeism is among the 20-something's, not the graybeards.
There's nothing wrong with benefits, but under the current system, there is way too much waste and abuse. The inmates are currently running the asylyum, and that is bound to fail sooner or later. It's amazing it lasted this long. It's a testament to American ingenuity to compete successfully for so long with so many anchors around our necks. The business climate in America is among the world's worst, and it is inevitably reflected in the products we produce.
I just bought a new car, and I REALLY wanted it to be an American brand. Unfortunately, the Ford I was eyeing is now made in Mexico. Inestead, I chose a "Korean" car that's made in Alabama. More of my money stayed in the USA than if I had chosen the Ford.
I bet some of the difference has to do with more modern procedures being in place in the newer plants, things to prevent CTS and other repetitive motion injuries.
I bet some of the difference has to do with more modern procedures being in place in the newer plants, things to prevent CTS and other repetitive motion injuries.
That is part of it and most of the transplants give an attendance bonus for not missing work.
I bet some of the difference has to do with more modern procedures being in place in the newer plants, things to prevent CTS and other repetitive motion injuries.
Subaru will put your name in a raffle if you have 6 months perfect attendance. The reward? The use of a Subaru FREE for a year. A very nice incentive to show up every day.
I have had 2 AMC eagle wagons, 2 Dodges, 3 Fords, 3 Subarus, 1 Honda, 2 Kias, 1 Chevy The AMC cars where good but the Eagle was ended with the eagle wagon/sedan. The Dodges where garbage and the dealers whouldn't honor warranty and way over charged for parts. The Fords where worse, replacing tie rods and lower control arms every other year, gas mileage way below EPA and also dealers wouldn't warranty the vehicle (made in Kansas). The Subarus, first one I sold at 300k miles, the last 2 I sold at around 200k miles, only maintance done was brakes and clutches when they wore out and basic lube/oil change. the honda blew a engine and tranny at 2.5k miles. The chevy wouldn't keep paint on and kept having engine/computer problems. Now on my second Kia only had one problem a dent in the rear passenger door when I bought it, dealer fixed for free bought me lunch and paid for fuel, car has a 5year bumper to bumper and 10 year 100k mile drive train warranty, the other dealers only offered a 3 year 36 month. Many people I know have had bad experance with American name vehicles and the warranty shows how much they trust thier own quality.
U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman said the administration was accusing China of violating global trade rules by imposing high taxes on auto parts from the United States and other countries.
"As a mature trading partner, China should be held accountable for its actions and be required to live up to its responsibilities," Portman said.
The filing comes at a time of rising trade tensions with the Asian giant and underscores the United States' resolve to get tough with Beijing in seeking a better trade climate."
For all those who said Japan and China don't do anything to block US goods from coming into their countries....??? What do you say now? Sure, they always play fair, over there......
"For all those who said Japan and China don't do anything to block US goods from coming into their countries....???"
Huh? I don't recall THAT line of argument. I think it has been acknowledged that there ARE some trade barriers (most of the discussion on this front was regarding Japan if memory serves).
Of course, import quotos were a fixture for a few decades in this country as well.
I also remember it being asked that IF there were absolutely ZERO restrictions in Japan on American automobiles, what would American automakers offer the Japanese market? Big pickups and SUV's? How much market share do you think GM would garner in Japan with Tahoes?
I think we need trade barriers set up to protect our industry. I am looking at our manufacturing base shrivel in this country while every little nic-nac I buy lately says "Made in China". I may have never said this a few years ago, but now that I've matured and can think of people other than myself, I see where this "global economy" is killing the U.S.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I think we need trade barriers set up to protect our industry. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I generally agree, but not on setting up "barriers".
All we need to do is agree on no tarriff's, or equal tarriff's. All the USA needs is a level playing field, and our workers will take care of the rest.
I am very unhappy that the best car I could buy for $18K was not an "American" name plate. The only thing I'm happy about is that more of my dollars stayed in the USA than a Ford in the same class.
As a nation, we need to quit whining about the "world economy" and do something about it. We'll have to get leaner and meaner, but we can compete.
But I'm talking beyond just cars. Labor is a small piece of the entire car price. It's everything else. All the way down to my son's "Nemo" tent. That could have been made in the U.S. But there is no way anyone in the U.S. can work for the $100 a week (just a guess) that they probably paid that worker in China. They just closed the Fruit of the Loom and Springs plant on my state. There went onother 2000 jobs. It's getting desperate.
Everyone wants American jobs, but nobody wants to pay the higher prices for American goods.
I tried to boycott foreign goods in favor of American goods for years. I felt like an idiot doing a 1-man boycott. What we need are strong leaders that will inspire the American people to buy American. We need the CEO's of large store chains to make deals with US maufacturers to feature their products if they will keep all their goods and components pure American.
I bet 95% of all Americans would rather buy Ford and GM than foreign brands, but they refuse to compete with the Japanese and European car makers head to head. Instead, they rely on their "base" they have had since the 1960's. Ford and GM are hurting themselves in more than 1 way. They have mixed up foreign and American parts until you don't even know which cars are American any more.
big portion of the price of goods is for legal teams to handle law suits and the ungodly high wages some CEO's make they said one made over $777 MILLION per year no person is worth that much ,and auto workers could use some pay cuts. I would say that many union jobs could use some cuts, a friend is a longshoreman and makes more in 2 days working from 15 minuets to 12hours per day than I made in 2 weeks on oil spill cleanup making between $5k to $8k per week I worked working 90 to 115 hours per week. some pay scales in the US are way out of line.
Friend bought a 85 subaru and had many problems with the belts that drove the overhead cams. the subarus I had where a 1977 gl sedan, a 1980 hatchback and a 1980 wagon, the wagon was the only one with an automatic and when it went out the shop wanted $3,200 to rebuild it, the car with 193k miles was not worth that much.
Comments
1. We are practically paying double based on 1996 prices adjusted for inflation, however here in LA, a lot of people drive SUV's and pickups as if gas is still cheap.
2. We are not saving money, I can increase by 50%, my 401K monthly contribution with the fuel savings and cheaper car payments with a small economy car instead of a 4WD SUV.
3.As with the new Ford strategy, to sell distinctly American cars, like the Mustang? I just bought one, and it is expensive and when you hear the growl of the engine, you just want to drop the hammer some more.
Now back in those days, going from a smallblock V-8 to a 6-cyl often saved you 200 lb or more. For example, while the Chevy 229 was 425 lb, the 305 smallblock was 575. The Mopar 318 was only 525 lb, only 50 lb more than the slant six, but by the time you factored in the bigger brakes, suspension mods, and other changes, you were looking at a total weight gain of close to 200 lb.
But in going from, say, a pushrod 3800 V-6 to a DOHC aluminum block V-6, are you really saving much weight? Aluminum is lighter but also weaker, so they have to make it thicker and brace it up. And an OHC head, especially a DOHC head, is going to be bigger, bulkier, and heavier. Heck, some of those DOHC heads look bulkier than the old Hemi!
A lot of people focus on internal displacement, and talk about specific output (HP/liter). But what really matters is the overall size and weight of the powertrain, not the interior displacement.
Here's a photo comparing two Ford engines. The pushrod is a lot more compact.
-juice
A pushrod has smaller heads than an OHC engine of the same displacement, but a pushrod of the same *power* will be as large as the OHC engine since it needs a significant displacement advantage to keep up.
So even though many of these more modern aluminum engines OHC have their advantages, weight isn't necessarily one of them.
Juice, I always thought the Ford 302 was a tiny looking thing anyway, but seeing it compared to the 4.6 is truly astounding! I've heard that the old 460 big-block actually takes up less physical space than the 4.6! At least the DOHC 4.6. It might still be a bit bigger than the SOHC 4.6.
-juice
I never understood the term "Modular" in reference to the Ford 4.6/5.4. Is it really any different from, say, the Chevy smallblock and the myriad of displacements it came in? It ranged from a 265 all the way up to a 400, all with the same basic block.
-juice
Wikipedia to the rescue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Modular_engine
"The engine is modular in that it can be adapted to V8 or V10 with a variety of 2-valve and multivalve heads."
Edmunds compiled the list. They followed three criteria: actual selling prices closest to full sticker price, lowest amounts in rebates and other incentives, and shortest times on dealer lots.
Of the 10, 6 are Toyotas, 1 is Honda Civic, 1 is Mini Cooper, 1 is Pontiac Solstice, and 1 is Ford Escape Hybrid. Three of the 10 are hybrids. Nine of the ten have average sticker prices from $14,261 - $28,274. The 10th one is Lexus RX400h at average sticker of $47,919. Four of the cars are under $20,000. Eight of them have "days to sell" of less than 20 days. Two of those 8 are below 10 days to sell. Highest "days to sell" is 36 days for Escape Hybrid.
As I interpret the article, the list is based on sales data, not on opinions.
After marriage and kids, the 2-door Toro soon became obnoxious for getting kids in n out of the back . . . so I began asking why detroit was not building a FWD sedan! I was pooh poohed at every turn . . . that the Toronados and Eldorados were just a fad that would soon pass --- yeah, right!
I did get my wife a '78 Honda wagon, but though I could manage to squeeze myself inside of it, was simply not pratical for this 6'2" cowboy. Anyway, after going to fly for the USAF and moving to Mather AFB (Sacramento CA), I finally decided that if GM wouldn't build a bigger FWD, I would. I checked various GM engineering journals, walked junk yards to do some measuring, bought a '75 Olds Custom Cruiser wagon with a good body and went to work over my one week 1982 Christmas break.
Within the week I had taken the front of my '73 Toro and joined it to the rear of the '75 Custom Cruiser --- in a garage on Mather AFB, my '73 Toronado Cruiser was born! Yeah, I had people thinking I was crazy . . . but I've lost track of how many folks asked if I'd build them one; and others that have tried to buy it from me. I still have it.
It is ALL Toronado up front (frame from torsion bar cross member forward) including the doghouse (fenders, hood, and bumper) with the Toronado axle fitted to the wagon's leaf springs. The Toro's flat floorboard was cut out and put in to replace the wagon's obnoxious tranny hump,as well as the drive shaft tunnel and rear differental flattened in the back. The wheelbase increased 7" and the ride reflects it.
Later after PCSing to Altus AFB OK, and then back up to the family farm I ran it over the local feed elevator scales. Empty weight was an even 6000 lbs.! After a little research with GM, I realized I had used the heaviest of each models' production years --'73 the heaviest for the Toro and '75 the heaviest for the CC! What bugs me is that its 455ci engine gave 20+ mpg in the Toronado (5200+ lbs) and even in the wagon configuration at 6000 lbs. gives 17-18 mpg. Pray tell me why has "Detroit" not been able to give us better gas mileage over 30 years later!!! They're putting out lighter cars, smaller engines AND still have not significantly increased the mpg -- lbs to Hp ratio!
The wagon served our family extremely well -- going through snow on more than one trip right along with the 4 X 4s on the road. I always carried chains -- the norm for northern climates, but only had to put them on a couple of times (back country roads).
As to torque steer, perhaps due to vehicle weight, I was never bothered by it. I will say however, that anyone switching from RWD to FWD needs to realize some basic differnces when it comes to operational characteristics. For example, do NOT let up going into an icey (or wet) curve! Anticipate it and then maintian or accelerate slightly through it. I couldn't begin to recall all the times that FWD saved me/us while on the road --- from being able to "pull" me out of potentially dangerous situations -- with better directional control, to just plain being able to keep going on nasty roads when others were stuck spinning their tires!
I've pulled heavy loads cross country with no problems whatsoever. I will NEVER, NEVER buy another RWD vehicle! Although, that said, I do have '70 Cadillac hightop ambulance (all original) that I've considered joining up with my '78 Eldorado, but not sure I want lto ose its "all original" resale value.
My current "every day" car is a '90 Olds Ninety Eight TS with 203+K miles and contemplating a '95 Cadillac Concours with 72K miles. No, I will NEVER buy another RWD -- they're simply too limiting! FYI, my parents still have a '90 Lincoln Cartier which I've driven cross county - I was not impressed --- give me back my big ol' GM FWD!
Bottomline, to each their own . . . though perhaps I do need to really put the Concours through the paces before I get serious about it. Anyone have any comments specific to the Concours handling -- could the suspension stand to be tightened up?
FWDBuilder - Bruce
Hmm, my grandpa had a (I believe) 70 Bonneville with a 455 that never got over 12 mpg. I'm in my 30's, so I don't have a ton of experience with 60's & 70's cars, but I did have a '71 Mustang with a 351 Cleveland 2barrel and a 75 Buick Regal with a 350 2 barrel. Both were lighter and had less power than my 5.3 power Suburban and got worse fuel economy around town and highway.
I had an '85 Ford Tempo 4cyl that got worse fuel economy than my wifes 06 Ford 500. So progress has been made.
Show me what 400 net hp muscle car from the 60's could touch the fuel economy of the current Corvette.
As for FWD/RWD, they both have their place. I don't think any of us want to see a FWD Corvette or Suburban. Sure, you can tow loads on the HWY with FWD. But try towing that same load (a boat) up a steep slick (wet) launch ramp with FWD. It won't work, trust me, I used to have a FWD minivan that I towed a 3000lb boat with. If the ramp was wet, I couldn't pull the boat out of the lake due to loss of traction as the weight of the boat lightened up the front wheels.
My current boat weighs almost as much as my Suburban and I've never had to use 4wd to pull the boat up a wet ramp.
2) What if GM were to include a comp one-year subscription to CR with the purchase of each new vehicle? (Probably can't be done since CU doesn't accept any advertising, and would view this as a marketing/promotional effort.) Does anyone feel GM's cars would improve (or drop) in CU's standings if GM's representation in their survey suddenly increased?
(Except for Jay Leno's Toronado, which got converted the other way to RWD)
With regard to my decision about the car I bought last year, my requirements were great fuel economy (and by default lower emissions of greenhouse gases), good quality, good cargo capacity, good convenience features (not some low-end, stripped down car), and smaller in size but not teeny-tiny.
Now, before I continue, I want to comment about the EPA mileage numbers because someone no doubt is going to point out that GM has "nine models that get better than 30 mpg." The EPA numbers are a joke. No one gets those numbers in real driving. The numbers are based on lab conditions and do not reflect how people really drive and do not reflect actual streets and highways. The EPA knows the numbers are misrepresentative, Congress knows it, the auto manufacturers know it, and a lot of consumers know it. However, when some members of Congress brought up the topic of requiring the EPA to change its testing procedures, the lobbyists for the auto industry fought it bitterly and prevented Congress from taking action.
Before I buy a car, I want to have a reasonable idea of how many mpg I am going to get. Since the EPA numbers are useless, I go by the Consumer Reports numbers. If the CR numbers are not available, then I reduce the EPA numbers by 20%. In other words, if the EPA number is 30 mpg, I figure that the car will actually get around 24 mpg (20% of 30 is 6, 30 minus 6 is 24.)
So, back to my choice, I definitely did not want a big boat car or a gas-guzzling SUV. Pretty much everything else in the GM/F/DCX line-up is going to give mid-20s or less (CR numbers or EPA reduced by 20%), and I wasn't interested in the Aveo or other cars its size. The one domestic I would definitely have looked at if it was available in the US with the engine I was interested in was the PT Cruiser with the diesel engine. DCX sells PT Cruisers overseas with a Mercedes 2.2L (I think that's the size) diesel, but they don't sell it here. I contacted DCX to see if they would be offering the car in the US; the answer I got from them was, "We have no current plans...." Based on all this, I narrowed my list down to Prius, Civic Hybrid, and Jetta Diesel. I had my concerns about VW, so I never test-drove the Jetta. The Civic Hybrid and Prius were both great cars when I test-drove them. I bought the Prius.
Maybe I am in the minority of American buyers, maybe I am in the sub-minority, but those are the criteria that were important to me. Cars cost a lot of money. I sure wasn't going to settle for way less than what I wanted just to "support" Detroit.
Did you do anything with the smog controls on that engine to get that kind of fuel economy? Or any other major mods? Back in the day, I think most people were happy if they could get 9-10 mpg around town and maybe 14-15 on the highway out of something like a '73 455.
I've had a lot of old cars, but ended up avoiding the 70's for the most part, until fairly recently when I bought a '76 LeMans. 350-2bbl, mildly hopped up, and it gets around 10-11 around town, maybe 15-16 on the highway. I also have a '67 Catalina convertible with a 400-4bbl that has actually done 17-18 mpg in mostly highway driving, but in local driving is more like 10.
One of the most economical big cars I had was a 1979 Newport with a 318. It would get maybe 20-22 on the highway, but usually only around 13 around town.
Now, these were all old cars when I got them. I bought the catalina in 1994, had the Newport from 1996-1998, and just got the LeMans last year. So maybe they did get better economy when they were new?
If I start on level rural highway and travel at 55 I get in the 36-38 range. I've tried it on the way to the dealer and back. The DIC in the car seems to be within 1 mpg when I've matched with gas pump mileage when on trips--before someone says it's just a quirk of the DIC (driver information center) in the car. I did get 45 mpg but there was a 40-50 mph tailwind at about 30 degrees, but it was nice to pretend for that one trip, grin...
Maybe the other cars have fudged the numbers with the quirky things.
The EPA has been the big problem with the cars and their mileage through the last couple of decades. EPA is always adding to the expected mileage and adding safety equipment required in the cars. EPA is always wanting them to be cleaner; same effect.
I don't worry about green. If the EPA really wanted to clean up they would do the trucks and factories. All they've done is bandaid on the automobiles-not trucks and on the power plants-not factories.
If I want to have economy I'd buy the littler cars that get great mileage-TDI at 40-50? nice start. Nephew bought one or the little Civics with a manual for high mileage. But I like to be comfortable.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
CamCords from Ohio/Ky
F150's from VA
Sonata's from AL
Vibes from CA
all should be considered first as these benefit us the most.
World trade is good but not if your the largest debtor nation.
If you look at the engineering journals, you'll find that the ol' Toro was at its "peak" -- everything, engine and tranny, optimized at somehting like 92 mph! I installed one of the early mpg units (within 2% accuracy) and realized while on a cross-country that it'd actually max out (mpg) when the ol' speedo meter was right around 90mph. I thought it was an error in the mpg meter until, but while doing some research, discovered the "92 mph" number.
Anyway, back to the road trip, we consistantly used just under 50 gallons for the trip -- 100 gallons round trip -- we'd stop once each way to fillup. . . . and then the cotton-pick'n 55 speed limit was implemented, the greenstamp bears (PA turnpike patrol) used jeeps and all sorts of plain wrappers . . . and ultimately ended up taking us 2 to even 3 hours more!!! to make the same trip that we'd been making in 14 to maybe 15 hours. No, never got a ticket -- always ran a CB, still do (and still carry my CDL)
As to modifications, I "played" with the carb from time to time -- rebuilt the Quadrajet with different primary jets and rods as well as different secondary rods, also adjusted the primary pullin piston, ran the timing up to max and have always run a parasynthetic/synthetic oil, kept a clean air filter on it (Toronado 455s had one of the largest stock air filters, and a small front scoop) also drilled all wheel bearings (F & R) for greas fittings, cleaned and then regreased with synthetic; kept Michelin (high end)tires inflated to 35psi. Also had the 2.73 (vs. 3.07) ring gear in the differential, and filled with synthetic gear lube. Ran dual exhaust with flow through mufflers -- and no resonators. Also switched over to the GM HEI distibutor & coil from the 455 that was in the 1975 Custom Cruiser. (No smog equipment/ no EGR on this 455) Used a customized bug deflector setup that covered the headlights as well -- though never did anlysis as to effect on wind resistance.
Soooo when it comes to "average" mileage, we actually checked -- gas used, miles driven -- on long trips as well as shorter ones around home . . . and I always figured that at the least -- short trips and cold weather -- I never averaged less then 15 mpg. That said, I'll admit, in-town STOP n go driving might well drop me below those numbers. AND bottom-line I'm still partial to the good ol' cars that had some substance to them -- with decent BUMPERS that stand up to the occasional "Bump" without someone being pissed b/c their "bumper" paint got scuffed or worse yet, several hundereds dollars to repair! Just does NOT make any sense that they can't at least offer a real bumper for those of us who want them.
FYI, as I think I mention in the first post, once I rebuilt the Toronado into a station wagon, mileage dropped about 15% -- now about 17mpg -- and still better than many of today's big SUVs! . . . and I can work on it without a ton of high-dollar scanners, etc.! (Though I still have an ol' SnapOn diagnostic scope)
While most FWD setups are fragile compared to their RWD counterparts, the Toro supposedly gave up very little in durability.
The 1979-85 Toronado, although downsized, was the same basic setup, although I think in '78-80 they used a modified THM350, and from '81-85 went to a modified THM200R4 (the 4-speed automatic overdrive). In 1986 though, when they downsized yet again, they went to the more "normal" transverse engine/transaxle setup.
Mid-sized Chevies for example;
1965 2,870-3,355 lbs
1970 3,142-3,880 lbs
1975 3,642-4,331 lbs
1985 2,689-2,983 lbs
1995 3,330-3,372 lbs
2006 3,200-3,400 lbs
Now consider the heaviest one this list was a station wagon with a 7.4 liter V-8 and seating for 8. A 65 Maulibu SS 396 wagon weighed less than a new V-6 Malibu Maxx.
3 reason, safety, emissions, electronic wizardry.
http://www.carnut.com/cgi-bin/image.pl?/photo/contrib/law/rpic015.jpg
The chain drive mounts on the back of the bell housing over to the slushbox, and the ring gear is that hump beneath the head. Pretty much a regular FWD setup turned sideways. The axle shaft running through the oilpan to the right wheel must be fun to work on.
The outer axles were then bolted up to the differential
If you'd like to read more about the Toronado design and introduction, one of many info sites is at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldsmobile_Toronado
Later GM FWD transmissions are similar in design -- putting the torque converter on the back (side in transverse mounts) of the engine and then connect it to the rest via a heavy time-chain style chain, with the differential an integral part of the bottom part of the housing (hence "transaxle"), or bolted directly to the end as the older Toronados, Eldorados, and GMC motorhomes were.
In this original setup, the bottom part of the tranny was nestled along the bottom left side of the engine -- see picture in above link, and you'll see the traditional bell housing that bolted to the back of the engine.
The Toro and Eldo setups are excellent for building your own "anything" b/c you have "everything in one compact package -- just cut the frame behind the torsion bar cross memeber . . . and you're ready to "graft" it to what ever you want! I've thought about one day taking one and fitting it to the front of an Airsteam trailer to make up my own custom FWD motor home . . . I currently have an "extra" 78 Eldo, tho I'd rather have the 455 engine in the package . . . Oh well, I dream on . . .
-juice
I do question that 12% figure. I'm just curious where you coughed that one up from ? :confuse: I'm sure the [non-permissible content removed] source also threw in vacations in that statistic to blow up that number. BTW- when your average plant age is 55 years old and you've had nearly 30 years or so on the assembly line, your going to have a bit more absentism. Toyota's workforce is in there 20's and 30's. Once you reach your 40's they start sizing your neck up for the guillotine. :P
Rocky
There's nothing wrong with benefits, but under the current system, there is way too much waste and abuse. The inmates are currently running the asylyum, and that is bound to fail sooner or later. It's amazing it lasted this long. It's a testament to American ingenuity to compete successfully for so long with so many anchors around our necks. The business climate in America is among the world's worst, and it is inevitably reflected in the products we produce.
I just bought a new car, and I REALLY wanted it to be an American brand. Unfortunately, the Ford I was eyeing is now made in Mexico. Inestead, I chose a "Korean" car that's made in Alabama. More of my money stayed in the USA than if I had chosen the Ford.
-juice
That is part of it and most of the transplants give an attendance bonus for not missing work.
Subaru will put your name in a raffle if you have 6 months perfect attendance. The reward? The use of a Subaru FREE for a year. A very nice incentive to show up every day.
Figure that's worth roughly the cost of 12 lease payments, or $2400-3600 depending upon the model.
-juice
The AMC cars where good but the Eagle was ended with the eagle wagon/sedan.
The Dodges where garbage and the dealers whouldn't honor warranty and way over charged for parts.
The Fords where worse, replacing tie rods and lower control arms every other year, gas mileage way below EPA and also dealers wouldn't warranty the vehicle (made in Kansas).
The Subarus, first one I sold at 300k miles, the last 2 I sold at around 200k miles, only maintance done was brakes and clutches when they wore out and basic lube/oil change.
the honda blew a engine and tranny at 2.5k miles.
The chevy wouldn't keep paint on and kept having engine/computer problems.
Now on my second Kia only had one problem a dent in the rear passenger door when I bought it, dealer fixed for free bought me lunch and paid for fuel, car has a 5year bumper to bumper and 10 year 100k mile drive train warranty, the other dealers only offered a 3 year 36 month.
Many people I know have had bad experance with American name vehicles and the warranty shows how much they trust thier own quality.
The Legacy, Outback, Baja, and Tribeca are made in Indiana, too.
-juice
U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman said the administration was accusing China of violating global trade rules by imposing high taxes on auto parts from the United States and other countries.
"As a mature trading partner, China should be held accountable for its actions and be required to live up to its responsibilities," Portman said.
The filing comes at a time of rising trade tensions with the Asian giant and underscores the United States' resolve to get tough with Beijing in seeking a better trade climate."
For all those who said Japan and China don't do anything to block US goods from coming into their countries....??? What do you say now? Sure, they always play fair, over there......
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Huh? I don't recall THAT line of argument. I think it has been acknowledged that there ARE some trade barriers (most of the discussion on this front was regarding Japan if memory serves).
Of course, import quotos were a fixture for a few decades in this country as well.
I also remember it being asked that IF there were absolutely ZERO restrictions in Japan on American automobiles, what would American automakers offer the Japanese market? Big pickups and SUV's? How much market share do you think GM would garner in Japan with Tahoes?
I think we need trade barriers set up to protect our industry.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I generally agree, but not on setting up "barriers".
All we need to do is agree on no tarriff's, or equal tarriff's. All the USA needs is a level playing field, and our workers will take care of the rest.
I am very unhappy that the best car I could buy for $18K was not an "American" name plate. The only thing I'm happy about is that more of my dollars stayed in the USA than a Ford in the same class.
As a nation, we need to quit whining about the "world economy" and do something about it. We'll have to get leaner and meaner, but we can compete.
I tried to boycott foreign goods in favor of American goods for years. I felt like an idiot doing a 1-man boycott. What we need are strong leaders that will inspire the American people to buy American. We need the CEO's of large store chains to make deals with US maufacturers to feature their products if they will keep all their goods and components pure American.
I bet 95% of all Americans would rather buy Ford and GM than foreign brands, but they refuse to compete with the Japanese and European car makers head to head. Instead, they rely on their "base" they have had since the 1960's. Ford and GM are hurting themselves in more than 1 way. They have mixed up foreign and American parts until you don't even know which cars are American any more.
the subarus I had where a 1977 gl sedan, a 1980 hatchback and a 1980 wagon, the wagon was the only one with an automatic and when it went out the shop wanted $3,200 to rebuild it, the car with 193k miles was not worth that much.