Seriously, it seem to me a couple to three V6 engines would do.
GM only *needs* two six-cylinder engines: the 2.8 and 3.6HF V6s. Everything else is fluff: the five(!) pushrod V6s are unnecessary and you can even kill off the Atlas I6 and its kin.
Subarus, by most accounts, reliable. Remember that things like turbocharging are generally European in origin - they tax engine displacement over there.
Believing that Turbos are FINE (reliability wise) because companies X, Y, & Z (known for the worst reliability in the industry) use them, is a bad argument. End of story!
You are taking the irrationality right off the deep end.
You are arguing that Company A uses turbos. Company A has reliability issues. Ergo, turbos are not reliable.
That is a senseless argument to make, as any Freshman from a High School worth its salt can explain.
The only way one can argue turbos are not reliable is to show turbo's reliability history.
The CTS in its current form is a good Pontiac Grand Prix. Make the 3.6HF the base engine, sell it for $26k, then offer a 325hp Northstar V8 for $31k. The CTS is nowhere fancy or high-tech enough to deserve the Cadillac badge.
Have you ever driven a CTS?
Ride and handling of that car is head and shoulders above the group of FWD appliances that are priced in the mid-20s.
Not sure at all what you mean by not high-tech enough. Yes, the current CTS does not follow the Audi model for interior design (boring to me, but I accept that for the masses it is considered the only way to go).
The CTS otherwise matches its competition pretty well, in and out considering that it is in the last year of its build cycle and most of the competitors their first.
Yes, the interior on the Mazda3 looks better, and is more comfortable. And you can adjust the steering column. I do believe they should drop the 2.8 and make the 3.6 standard, as you stated. And the prices seem about right, maybe give them a little more credit though, if they improve the car - say $29,500 base and $34,000 for V8 with more equip. -Loren
Two amendments: the current CTS is what a Pontiac Grand Prix should be. Also, I believe that Cadillac has no business selling any car that transacts for less than $50,000.
Well, I would just as soon have GM get rid of Pontiac altogether, move the Solstice to Chevrolet, and have Caddy's compete with each line of the Germans.
I now understand where you are coming from though and think you have a good point.
did look at the CTS, and thought the interior was cheap looking and power down relative to the Avalon Touring I bought. And, agreed the CTS more neutral (less understeer) at the limits. The Avalon a far bigger more comfortable ride, mpg not even close, despite the Avalon being substantially quicker. The other porblem price - by the time I added the option packages to get it where my Avalon was pretty much as standard, the CTS 3.5 was right at $40k. The CTS was, of course, being discounted (this must be standard 'Detroit' practice - ask too much for your cars and then you can discount them so the buyer thinks they got a good deal. My Avalon was still several thousand cheaper at $30k, selling close to sticker at that time. And it is, incidentally, one helluva an 'appliance' as you seem to view all FWD cars.
And it is, incidentally, one helluva an 'appliance' as you seem to view all FWD cars.
You do well to point out that I can be somewhat dismissive of cars that do not meet my particular needs.
I happen to like front engine rear wheel drive sport and luxury sport cars. It is fair to say not every one shares my passion or has needs that can be satisfied with my favorite cars. I will try to be a little less subjective in the future.
That said, doing rear wheel drive right will always be more expensive than FWD. Cadillacs, BMWs and Benz's will cost more than similarly equipped FWD vehicles. In the past, people paying in this category inevitably wanted RWD, so you did not have vehicles such as the Avalon, Acuras, ES series and now Buick Lucerne costing in the high 20s, etc.
I do agree that the Avalon is feature rich. If the ride and handling otherwise meet your needs, it is a good choice.
and see we agree on something - RWD certainly provides the weight distribution and vehicle dynamics most desirable if what you really want is a 'sports sedan'. One of the other cars I shopped was the TL, a fine car that trys hard to meet the definition, but just can't with 65% of the weight up front and enough power to create some torque steer. Had actually decided on a $35k G35 (IMO the best value in that category) but, eventually backed off the ride/handling tradeoff - to something bigger, softer and a little less capable in the twisties. Getting old I guess.
You are arguing that Company A uses turbos. Company A has reliability issues. Ergo, turbos are not reliable.
That is a senseless argument to make, as any Freshman from a High School worth its salt can explain.
The only way one can argue turbos are not reliable is to show turbo's reliability history.
If my argument is flawed (which I don't think it is because its reasonable to assume that a company and car that has terrible reliability will have poorly constructed parts, turbos being one of them) Even though it is POSSIBLE parts A and B could be miserable, while parts C & D are fantastic, it is more reasonable that a company with poor reliability will have a correlation with poor parts (turbos being one of many parts).
But your argument is much worse, you are arguing that turbos ARE reliable, by pointing out companies that are most definitely not known for stellar reliability. The only way to argue turbos ARE reliable is to show specific data to the contrary, merely pointing out companies with miserable reliablity won't do it.
How long has Subaru been using turbos, they would be one manufacturer known for solid reliability.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
But the Neon 3-speed automatic wasn't too bad. After all, it dated back to the 1978 Omni/Horizon, so Chrysler did have a bit of time to work the bugs out.
The 3 speed auto was terrible! It didn't last. It sucked out BOTH the performance and the economy of the peppy Neon engine. The 5 speed manual did much better on fuel and acceleration. It may have worked correctly, but it only works correctly for its own short lifespan (about 65,000 miles). I don't find that acceptable.
The fact that Chrysler was using 70's transmissions on the "NEW DODGE" in the mid 90's is atrocious. Its also appalling they had all that time to work the bugs out, and didn't do so!
By 2001..... weren't they putting the 4 speed in the Neon anyway??? Either way, the 3 speed auto was the worst transmission I've ever driven (because the engine was actually not half bad).
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
which I don't think it is because its reasonable to assume that a company and car that has terrible reliability will have poorly constructed parts, turbos being one of them)
Wherein lies the primary flaw of your argument: Almost all turbos on the market today are made by one company: Mitsubishi (and not the car maker but a company with the same name that was once owned under the same umbrella). [n.b.: A European company, whose name I forget at the moment also makes some upper end turbos.]
Even though it is POSSIBLE parts A and B could be miserable, while parts C & D are fantastic, it is more reasonable that a company with poor reliability will have a correlation with poor parts (turbos being one of many parts).
No. Not really. Mitsubishi makes turbos for companies with excellent reliability and for race and commercial applications as well as for companies that otherwise have had issues with reliablity.
But your argument is much worse, you are arguing that turbos ARE reliable, by pointing out companies that are most definitely not known for stellar reliability.
That is not my argument, has never been my argument, and I really have no idea why you think it is my argument. My argument is, and I believe there is no reliable data to contradict me, that while turbos were known for a host of mechanical issues in the 1970s and early 1980s when they were first widely used (and were made by many different companies) since then, the design issues have been ironed out. And, as often happens with niche tech products, a lot of the start ups that were supplying the parts have gone out of business. The better companies have survived.
How long has Subaru been using turbos, they would be one manufacturer known for solid reliability.
Subaru has been using turbos for years. Subaru turbos are made by Mitsubishi, the same company that makes turbos for Saab and Volvo.
"Wherein lies the primary flaw of your argument: Almost all turbos on the market today are made by one company: Mitsubishi (and not the car maker but a company with the same name that was once owned under the same umbrella). [n.b.: A European company, whose name I forget at the moment also makes some upper end turbos.]"
Excellent point regarding the manufacturer of virtually all turbos on the market. Of course, the manner in which these turbos are implemented can vary substantially from make to make. So, while the basic turbo unit itself may have consistent reliability, this doesn't mean that all cars with Mitsu turbos will have the same degree of reliabity on the turbo system.
And the European maker of turbos is KKK (they supply turbos for Porsche).
Of course, the manner in which these turbos are implemented can vary substantially from make to make. So, while the basic turbo unit itself may have consistent reliability, this doesn't mean that all cars with Mitsu turbos will have the same degree of reliabity on the turbo system.
Absolutely. In this day, the turbo itself is not the problem. The engineer has to know how to use the turbo.
This string started with talk about the new GM 2.8 twin turbo engine. Everything I've read about this powerplant suggests GM Europe got this engine exactly right. Now the Saab that accomodates the engine may have other flaws (though the Combi Aero is well received at present). But that does not mean the engine is flawed. It certainly does not mean the Mitsubishi turbo is flawed.
And the European maker of turbos is KKK (they supply turbos for Porsche).
the Subaru turbos actually didn't appear in this copuntry until the 2002 model year, the Impreza WRX which I believe was about 225hp at the time. Now it has been juiced up to 300 hp in the WRX (the prototypical 'rice rocket')and is widely available at lesser hp throughout the Subaru line. But, the turbocharged Subie had been around several years prior to that in Japan and as part of a running feud they have had with the Mitsui Evolution in rally competitions. Subaru does have great reliability ratings, don't know if the stats are any different for those that happen to be turbocharged. Logic would dictate, however, that squeezing 300 hp out of a 150 CI engine would have to hurt something?
and probably don't care if it needs to be rebuilt every 30 or 40 thousand miles. And an extreme example of what some of this technology is doing for engine efficiencies. It wasn't all that long ago that outputs of a hp/ci were unheard of and now any normally aspirated engine worth a salt easily does that without penalties in durability and often with improvements in economy. The downside - diagnosing and fixing the things can become a real problem even for those that have the right equipment.
What is American?!...Man, the Japanes must be laughing their behinds off at the way they are able to confuse and fool fat, dumb Americans...FOLLOW THE MONEY, MONEY IS POWER...I do not care if a Chevy is built on the emporer's throne, it is American because GM is AMERICAN. Toyota is JAPANESE. When push comes to shove, the Japanese will protect their own interests, I wish I could say the same for the idiot sons and daughters of this country. Toyota won't even make their loyal tarined monkey Press both Chairman and CEO of their puppet holding company Toyota Motor Sales. HOW MANY AMERICAN CITIZENS HOLD LEADERSHIP POSITIONS IN ANY OF THE JAPANESE AUTOMAKERS? A few as tokens but not many, because they are Japanese. I could go on but I fear I'm wasting my time. Wake Up AMERICANS!
I agree with you 100% As much as I hope and pray the Big 3 come back, we as Americans have to be kept honest. However, the Japanese have to open up their market! :mad: The vile Toyota has been playing this foolish country like a fiddle. The sheep Toyota, Lexus and (demon seed) Scion buyers are disgraces to their country. Also, remember the Japanese only embraced human rights at the point of an American gun. If they are given power again they will revert to the rampant tyrants they were in the 1930's! The only true insurance is that EVERY AMERICAN DO THEIR PART TO ENSURE AMERICAN HEGEMONY. Yes, this starts in ensuring through your car purchase that our American Auto Industry stays vital.
So we are back to WWII? So they should not buy American cars? The Japanese and Germans should not buy our cars? Sort of a fight to eternity? Everyone around the World would hate someone for something, considering every country at one time or another seems to have been at war. Perhaps we only buy Swiss cars? It is a free country, so if you still hate the Japanese you are free to do so. I think most people know the history and the damage done. We also realize that these are generations beyond, as in time not to hold a grudge for sins done by fathers and fathers-father. The war is over - give peace a chance. We all know what happens in parts of the World at war for thousands of years.
As for a come back of the Big 2 ( not three, Chrysler is owned by DaimlerChrysler), that would be a good thing. Compete and win, is a good thing. Build a car which eight years later has the same number of problems areas, or less, than a Japan or Korean make, and people will take notice. Word of mouth alone, will help sales. Give the people a warranty as an in-between assurance of them making a good buy. If we only have US, as in Fords and GM cars, I doubt the cars will improve. -Loren
First you state we are foolish, fat and dumb, then as a final note ask us to wake up. But what do we do at that point, as we are too foolish and dumb once we are awakened. Where to from here. :surprise: We're awake!
I am so sick of having people tell me that it is okay to buy foreign cars, just because they are made here in america. Let me clarify something, they may be made in america but the majority of the money goes back to the country that the company is based. Pleases buy American cars. give jobs to americans and keep the money here.
Can you give us the break down of money which ends up in various pocket books? Seems like X dollars would go to all suppliers, advertisers, paychecks, utilities,car dealerships, state taxes and such, with less going to the end profit per each car built. I say, it would seem that way. You seem to know that more goes to the foreign company. Just wondering how it all breaks down, and who knows the details.
Wonder how it compares to say a GM car made in Canada or Mexico? Not arguing as to what is right or wrong. Just what is the dollar break down. Control is another issue. There is much risk in losing industry in a country. I wholly agree. Is it the fault of the consumer? Seems to me they are buying what they feel is the best value. I am afraid the debt that GM and Ford have may hinder development however. The CTS and Solestic cars are pretty good examples of car which may spark a little bit more interest in domestics as style leaders. Chrysler's PT, 300 and Magnum is a great effort at development of NEW cars.
Will people return to GM? Did the consumer leave GM, or did GM leave the consumer? Maybe convincing the US consumer that they, GM, is on their side and that they appreciate the buyers will be what is needed ever so much. -Loren
It should be pretty easy to figure out where money goes; just look at where a company's expenses are.
If 25% of a company's infrastructure, workforce, and supplier base is in the US, then 25% of its revenues (after taxes; I don't know how those work) have to be allocated towards those. The rest get split up among all the countries where a company's execs, designers, engineers, marketers, manufacturers, suppliers, factories, etc. are located. Then there's a bit of profit, usually a small percentage. That goes into whatever countries the company is investing in.
If a Toyota Sienna is 90% American by cost, then YES, roughly that amount of money stays in the US to pay everyone who contributed to that vehicle.
We've covered this silly statement many times in the past.
Just for curiosity sakes, what part of the money paid for steel supplied by USSteel, or aluminum from Alcoa or tires from Michelin in South Carolina, or parts from Delphi!!! goes back to Japan.
What part of the labor and taxes and utilities and services paid to local provders in Indiana end up back in Japan?
You need to open your eyes and not listen to the rantings of people who have no clue. Do your own research, here for example there are nearly 3000 posts many of which have covered this topic in detail.
It costs about $23000 to build, ship and process a typical Sienna for example here in Indiana. All this money stays in the US. Maybe $1000 or $2000 goes offshore as profits.
So $23000 stays here and $2000 goes to Japan. Now you were say what exactly?
about where the money goes for the foreign manufacturing has no data showing that $2000 goes to Japan, e.g. In earlier posts someone linked an article about companies setting up their foreign suppliers as US companies which then supply to the car manufacturer. The money trail isn't as simple as some want it to be.
People have posted in "Will Styling Save GM" and "Which Midsized Car" and here about how foreign companies don't setup retirement accounts for their workers. The involvement here isn't what it should be for companies that care.
Toyo is running commercials in Greater Cinci about how much they contribute as US companies (their idea) and then tack on a part at the end about how they love Cinci and Cinci loves them. Apparently they add different endings depending on where the commericals are run.
Best retirement fund is to save money over the years, and take things into your hands. Don't ever bet on a company stock or retirement fund to ensure your life at retirement. When you make two to three times what other do and still can not save a penny, something is wrong with your life long plans; if any. It is possible that GM and Ford could both go belly up.
Lee Iacocca said, " If you can find a better car, buy it! " If GM has a better car buy it.
Did customers leave GM, or did GM leave their customers, is an important question to ask. Maybe that holds the key to the return of buyers. -Loren
By law it's on the sticker of every vehicle in the US. Go to any Toyota store and look at the domestic parts content of a Sienna, it's 90% Domestic. Now go across the street and look at a Ford Fusion - it's mostly Mexican.
That's the law. BTW this law was originally set up by the UAW, IBEW, etc with 'their' Congressmen - only now it's come around to bite them in the ***.
Now that GM and Ford are moving their auto operations to Mexico, China, Europe and Australia most of their auto's are imported and use little or no American labor and parts. OTOH most 'foreign' nameplate autos are made here as are 100% of Sienna's, Odyssey's, Quests, Tacoma's, Tundras, Titans, Sequoia's.
OK in the case of the Sienna the label, by law, states that 90% of the parts are domestic, plus then there is labor, plant, equipment, supplies, local utilities, transportation. All of this is paid to Americans.
In the end the cost of a Sienna made here is about $20000.
There there is the American dealer here who gets about $1500 and the workers at the dealers store who get paid about $200 per vehicle. So when you add it up the total paid to Americans is about $22000-23000 out of a sticker price of ~$27000..
The balance? It's reinvested back into the plant and equipment at the Sienna Plant in Indiana.
to buy a Chevy Equinox with a Chinese engine and a Japanese transmission? Or a Crown Vic or Grand Marquis which has just enough non-US/Canadian content that it doesn't get factored in with Ford's domestic cars for CAFE purposes? Or a Fusion that's only something like 30% US/Canadian content?
Or better yet buy a Chrysler and score a REAL blitzkrieg for the good old Red White and Blue! :P
this is ludricruous and provincial - by this line of reasoning, we don't buy Chrysler products simply because a German Co. owns it, and a German surnamed gentlemen runs it? Or when GM becomes part of Toyota as part of a governmentally insured bailout (don't laugh, it is being talked about), then, I guess we don't buy those anymore either. And Ford, since it can't seem to make any money in this country, does what it needs to do (kick out that guy named Ford running the outfit) and is administrated by some guy out of Ford-Europe with a German or Swedish surname? Or Nissan, I guess, that is actually a French Co. with several billion $ of French money and Carlo Ghosn running it? If you want to support 'American' products and the American economy that's great, shop those cars that are actually built here and with parts also supplied from this country - don't worry about silly brand names. That purchase of a Camry, for example, may certainly do more to 'support' our economy than that blue ovaled Fusion. Or when GM discovers that they are so inefficient that it is cheaper for them to make their cars in China and ship them all the back here? But, you are right, Wake Up Americans, the auto industry (as are many other industries) is multitnational - and isolationist thinking like this belongs back in 1940! And there is no reason why we can't be competitive - it will hurt, however.
I think if someone wants to buy an american car with domestic content, the information is printed on the window stickers of every car. I believe it's a law. The average american content of a Big 3 vehicle according to the detnews is 76%. The Big 3 support 8 out of 10 U.S. auto jobs. The facts aren't hard to find is all I'm saying.
"I think if someone wants to buy an american car with domestic content, the information is printed on the window stickers of every car. I believe it's a law. The average american content of a Big 3 vehicle according to the detnews is 76%."
When one buys a car though and tries to buy with a high domestic content, should they buy based on the coporate average or buy based on the content of the actual cars being considered?
In other words, Ford (as a company), has higher domestic content than Toyota (as a company). However, in the midsize sedan category, the Camry has higher domestic content than the Fusion.
I think that if one is considering % of domestic content when purchasing, usually they'll just look at the window stickers of the vehicles under consideration.
"...they may be made in america but the majority of the money goes back to the country that the company is based. Pleases buy American cars. give jobs to americans and keep the money here."
The whole 'where the profits go' argument....again.
What money do you think a company uses to expand plants? Profits.
What money do you think a company uses to build new factories? Profits.
What money do you think a company uses to expand into new markets? Profits.
What money do you think a company uses for R&D? Profits.
Now, which companies are expanding plants and building new factories in the U.S.? Which companies are spending large sums on R&D and new vehicle design....in the U.S.? Which companies are hiring more and more Americans every year?
The 'foreign' companies.
Now which companies are expanding plants and building new factories in Mexico? Canada? China? Which companies are laying off more and more American workers and replacing them with foreign workers every year? Ford and GM.
So, tell us all again how the profits for Ford and GM are staying in this country and the profits for Toyota/Honda/etc. are flowing back home?
When one buys a car though and tries to buy with a high domestic content, should they buy based on the coporate average or buy based on the content of the actual cars being considered?
One should buy based on individual car. I agree the Camry is more american than the Fusion. OTOH one can argue that the fusion does more for "america" because the money goes back to Ford which is an american buisness. It's really a hard subject and I personally don't think anyone is really wrong.
At this stage, the consumer should do what is economically best for themself and not worry about "domestic content". The US corporations and governing structure sold out the US worker many years ago. Where were the patriots asking about the "domestic content" of sweaters, electronics, pants, steel, metals, plastic, commodity chemicals and pretty much every other industry that moved to either Mexico or China in the 1980's and 1990's? Why make a grandstand over automobiles? It would seem to be an ego issue now rather than an actual economic issue. The US citizen should really be more concerned about what happens when China tries to cash in on all the treasury bonds that they own and what happens when the US can't pay them due to the horrendous deficit.
"...OTOH one can argue that the fusion does more for "america" because the money goes back to Ford which is an american buisness."
Well yeah, Ford is an american business while Toyota is a foreign business. But I think it's a big assumption that the address of the home office dictates which 'does more' for america.
Rather than dwell on the whole american vs. foreign issue, maybe we should all realize that each of these companies are GLOBAL companies. As such, these companies will invest money as they consider it in their best interest to do so.
GM may feel that they'll get a larger return on their investment by spending profits on expanding operations in China. Ford may feel that they'll do better on the bottom line by closing U.S. plants and opening plants in Mexico. They may well be correct. But the point is that buying a truck from GM or a car from Ford DOESN'T necessarily mean that any profit they make stays in the U.S. GM is getting money from SOMEWHERE to expand operations overseas; it didn't just fall out of the sky.
Where were the patriots asking about the "domestic content" of sweaters, electronics, pants, steel, metals, plastic, commodity chemicals and pretty much every other industry that moved to either Mexico or China in the 1980's and 1990's?
Shoot, I think about it just about every time I go into a store. It's getting harder and harder to find U.S. made goods anywhere. Pretty soon I'm going to have to go to antique markets to find anything made here.
The US corporations and governing structure sold out the US worker many years ago The corporations certainly do what they think they need to do to survive, in a global economy. But, are not the demands and the work ethics of the American worker equally as responsible? Had the opportunity, in the 80s, to spend a lot of time in Korea. What I observed, at that time, was a country that technologically was maybe in the 50's and a populace that somehow felt it was their patriotic duty to work 80 hours a week and do their part to make sure that their country could compete worldwide. Been maybe 100 years that the same thing could be said about the American worker?
Really? I see MANY Americans working 80+ hours a week. The only difference is it's not out of some passive sense of patriotism, but because the need to do so to survive.
However Captain, isn't there more to life than spending it in a factory or at the office. A couple strokes of the pen by the president, and congress, could change the current way we live. Most americans I know do a very good job and work hard to be competitive with the rest of the world. I know that is one reason why the Asians started to invest in the american worker. Maybe someday the tides will turn and somehow the majority of buisness will be done in our country again :sick:
Actually it was Americans that put other Americans out of work in the steel industry. Entreprenurial American's created the whole concept of direct casting and the mini-mill which the rest of the world rushed to copy. The ultra efficient non-union mini-mills created by Ken Iverson and others killed LTV, Bethlehem and other aging integrated dinosaurs all over the world with newer more flexible/efficient factories. Here the new plants in the South put less efficient plants in the Midwest out of business.
Wait isn't that what's happening in the auto business now?
Comments
GM only *needs* two six-cylinder engines: the 2.8 and 3.6HF V6s. Everything else is fluff: the five(!) pushrod V6s are unnecessary and you can even kill off the Atlas I6 and its kin.
Remember that things like turbocharging are generally European in origin - they tax engine displacement over there.
You are taking the irrationality right off the deep end.
You are arguing that Company A uses turbos. Company A has reliability issues. Ergo, turbos are not reliable.
That is a senseless argument to make, as any Freshman from a High School worth its salt can explain.
The only way one can argue turbos are not reliable is to show turbo's reliability history.
Have you ever driven a CTS?
Ride and handling of that car is head and shoulders above the group of FWD appliances that are priced in the mid-20s.
Not sure at all what you mean by not high-tech enough. Yes, the current CTS does not follow the Audi model for interior design (boring to me, but I accept that for the masses it is considered the only way to go).
The CTS otherwise matches its competition pretty well, in and out considering that it is in the last year of its build cycle and most of the competitors their first.
I now understand where you are coming from though and think you have a good point.
You do well to point out that I can be somewhat dismissive of cars that do not meet my particular needs.
I happen to like front engine rear wheel drive sport and luxury sport cars. It is fair to say not every one shares my passion or has needs that can be satisfied with my favorite cars. I will try to be a little less subjective in the future.
That said, doing rear wheel drive right will always be more expensive than FWD. Cadillacs, BMWs and Benz's will cost more than similarly equipped FWD vehicles. In the past, people paying in this category inevitably wanted RWD, so you did not have vehicles such as the Avalon, Acuras, ES series and now Buick Lucerne costing in the high 20s, etc.
I do agree that the Avalon is feature rich. If the ride and handling otherwise meet your needs, it is a good choice.
That is a senseless argument to make, as any Freshman from a High School worth its salt can explain.
The only way one can argue turbos are not reliable is to show turbo's reliability history.
If my argument is flawed (which I don't think it is because its reasonable to assume that a company and car that has terrible reliability will have poorly constructed parts, turbos being one of them) Even though it is POSSIBLE parts A and B could be miserable, while parts C & D are fantastic, it is more reasonable that a company with poor reliability will have a correlation with poor parts (turbos being one of many parts).
But your argument is much worse, you are arguing that turbos ARE reliable, by pointing out companies that are most definitely not known for stellar reliability. The only way to argue turbos ARE reliable is to show specific data to the contrary, merely pointing out companies with miserable reliablity won't do it.
How long has Subaru been using turbos, they would be one manufacturer known for solid reliability.
The 3 speed auto was terrible! It didn't last. It sucked out BOTH the performance and the economy of the peppy Neon engine. The 5 speed manual did much better on fuel and acceleration. It may have worked correctly, but it only works correctly for its own short lifespan (about 65,000 miles). I don't find that acceptable.
The fact that Chrysler was using 70's transmissions on the "NEW DODGE" in the mid 90's is atrocious. Its also appalling they had all that time to work the bugs out, and didn't do so!
By 2001..... weren't they putting the 4 speed in the Neon anyway??? Either way, the 3 speed auto was the worst transmission I've ever driven (because the engine was actually not half bad).
Wherein lies the primary flaw of your argument: Almost all turbos on the market today are made by one company: Mitsubishi (and not the car maker but a company with the same name that was once owned under the same umbrella). [n.b.: A European company, whose name I forget at the moment also makes some upper end turbos.]
Even though it is POSSIBLE parts A and B could be miserable, while parts C & D are fantastic, it is more reasonable that a company with poor reliability will have a correlation with poor parts (turbos being one of many parts).
No. Not really. Mitsubishi makes turbos for companies with excellent reliability and for race and commercial applications as well as for companies that otherwise have had issues with reliablity.
But your argument is much worse, you are arguing that turbos ARE reliable, by pointing out companies that are most definitely not known for stellar reliability.
That is not my argument, has never been my argument, and I really have no idea why you think it is my argument. My argument is, and I believe there is no reliable data to contradict me, that while turbos were known for a host of mechanical issues in the 1970s and early 1980s when they were first widely used (and were made by many different companies) since then, the design issues have been ironed out. And, as often happens with niche tech products, a lot of the start ups that were supplying the parts have gone out of business. The better companies have survived.
How long has Subaru been using turbos, they would be one manufacturer known for solid reliability.
Subaru has been using turbos for years. Subaru turbos are made by Mitsubishi, the same company that makes turbos for Saab and Volvo.
Excellent point regarding the manufacturer of virtually all turbos on the market. Of course, the manner in which these turbos are implemented can vary substantially from make to make. So, while the basic turbo unit itself may have consistent reliability, this doesn't mean that all cars with Mitsu turbos will have the same degree of reliabity on the turbo system.
And the European maker of turbos is KKK (they supply turbos for Porsche).
Absolutely. In this day, the turbo itself is not the problem. The engineer has to know how to use the turbo.
This string started with talk about the new GM 2.8 twin turbo engine. Everything I've read about this powerplant suggests GM Europe got this engine exactly right. Now the Saab that accomodates the engine may have other flaws (though the Combi Aero is well received at present). But that does not mean the engine is flawed. It certainly does not mean the Mitsubishi turbo is flawed.
And the European maker of turbos is KKK (they supply turbos for Porsche).
Thanks. I am losing my memory in my old age.
It does seem almost too good to be true, doesn't it.
I expect people who buy cars this extreme expect, and probably even want, to spend a lot of time maintaining and adjusting the engine.
And an extreme example of what some of this technology is doing for engine efficiencies. It wasn't all that long ago that outputs of a hp/ci were unheard of and now any normally aspirated engine worth a salt easily does that without penalties in durability and often with improvements in economy. The downside - diagnosing and fixing the things can become a real problem even for those that have the right equipment.
The vile Toyota has been playing this foolish country like a fiddle. The sheep Toyota, Lexus and (demon seed) Scion buyers are disgraces to their country.
Also, remember the Japanese only embraced human rights at the point of an American gun. If they are given power again they will revert to the rampant tyrants they were in the 1930's! The only true insurance is that EVERY AMERICAN DO THEIR PART TO ENSURE AMERICAN HEGEMONY. Yes, this starts in ensuring through your car purchase that our American Auto Industry stays vital.
Sort of a fight to eternity? Everyone around the World would hate someone for something, considering every country at one time or another seems to have been at war. Perhaps we only buy Swiss cars? It is a free country, so if you still hate the Japanese you are free to do so. I think most people know the history and the damage done. We also realize that these are generations beyond, as in time not to hold a grudge for sins done by fathers and fathers-father. The war is over - give peace a chance. We all know what happens in parts of the World at war for thousands of years.
As for a come back of the Big 2 ( not three, Chrysler is owned by DaimlerChrysler), that would be a good thing. Compete and win, is a good thing. Build a car which eight years later has the same number of problems areas, or less, than a Japan or Korean make, and people will take notice. Word of mouth alone, will help sales. Give the people a warranty as an in-between assurance of them making a good buy. If we only have US, as in Fords and GM cars, I doubt the cars will improve.
-Loren
Calling the American consumer an "Idiot" isn't going to garner support for Detroit Automakers... This is a free country.
Welcome to America, enjoy your stay...
That makes the drivetrain warranty 1 yr/10K less than the Yaris and Scion xA's. That's not something for Cadillac and Lincoln to promote.
Wonder how it compares to say a GM car made in Canada or Mexico? Not arguing as to what is right or wrong. Just what is the dollar break down. Control is another issue. There is much risk in losing industry in a country. I wholly agree. Is it the fault of the consumer? Seems to me they are buying what they feel is the best value. I am afraid the debt that GM and Ford have may hinder development however. The CTS and Solestic cars are pretty good examples of car which may spark a little bit more interest in domestics as style leaders. Chrysler's PT, 300 and Magnum is a great effort at development of NEW cars.
Will people return to GM? Did the consumer leave GM, or did GM leave the consumer? Maybe convincing the US consumer that they, GM, is on their side and that they appreciate the buyers will be what is needed ever so much.
-Loren
If 25% of a company's infrastructure, workforce, and supplier base is in the US, then 25% of its revenues (after taxes; I don't know how those work) have to be allocated towards those. The rest get split up among all the countries where a company's execs, designers, engineers, marketers, manufacturers, suppliers, factories, etc. are located. Then there's a bit of profit, usually a small percentage. That goes into whatever countries the company is investing in.
If a Toyota Sienna is 90% American by cost, then YES, roughly that amount of money stays in the US to pay everyone who contributed to that vehicle.
Just for curiosity sakes, what part of the money paid for steel supplied by USSteel, or aluminum from Alcoa or tires from Michelin in South Carolina, or parts from Delphi!!! goes back to Japan.
What part of the labor and taxes and utilities and services paid to local provders in Indiana end up back in Japan?
You need to open your eyes and not listen to the rantings of people who have no clue. Do your own research, here for example there are nearly 3000 posts many of which have covered this topic in detail.
It costs about $23000 to build, ship and process a typical Sienna for example here in Indiana. All this money stays in the US. Maybe $1000 or $2000 goes offshore as profits.
So $23000 stays here and $2000 goes to Japan. Now you were say what exactly?
People have posted in "Will Styling Save GM" and "Which Midsized Car" and here about how foreign companies don't setup retirement accounts for their workers. The involvement here isn't what it should be for companies that care.
Toyo is running commercials in Greater Cinci about how much they contribute as US companies (their idea) and then tack on a part at the end about how they love Cinci and Cinci loves them. Apparently they add different endings depending on where the commericals are run.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Lee Iacocca said, " If you can find a better car, buy it! " If GM has a better car buy it.
Did customers leave GM, or did GM leave their customers, is an important question to ask. Maybe that holds the key to the return of buyers.
-Loren
That's the law. BTW this law was originally set up by the UAW, IBEW, etc with 'their' Congressmen - only now it's come around to bite them in the ***.
Now that GM and Ford are moving their auto operations to Mexico, China, Europe and Australia most of their auto's are imported and use little or no American labor and parts. OTOH most 'foreign' nameplate autos are made here as are 100% of Sienna's, Odyssey's, Quests, Tacoma's, Tundras, Titans, Sequoia's.
OK in the case of the Sienna the label, by law, states that 90% of the parts are domestic, plus then there is labor, plant, equipment, supplies, local utilities, transportation. All of this is paid to Americans.
In the end the cost of a Sienna made here is about $20000.
There there is the American dealer here who gets about $1500 and the workers at the dealers store who get paid about $200 per vehicle. So when you add it up the total paid to Americans is about $22000-23000 out of a sticker price of ~$27000..
The balance? It's reinvested back into the plant and equipment at the Sienna Plant in Indiana.
Or better yet buy a Chrysler and score a REAL blitzkrieg for the good old Red White and Blue! :P
:confuse:
If you want to support 'American' products and the American economy that's great, shop those cars that are actually built here and with parts also supplied from this country - don't worry about silly brand names. That purchase of a Camry, for example, may certainly do more to 'support' our economy than that blue ovaled Fusion. Or when GM discovers that they are so inefficient that it is cheaper for them to make their cars in China and ship them all the back here?
But, you are right, Wake Up Americans, the auto industry (as are many other industries) is multitnational - and isolationist thinking like this belongs back in 1940! And there is no reason why we can't be competitive - it will hurt, however.
Rocky
When one buys a car though and tries to buy with a high domestic content, should they buy based on the coporate average or buy based on the content of the actual cars being considered?
In other words, Ford (as a company), has higher domestic content than Toyota (as a company). However, in the midsize sedan category, the Camry has higher domestic content than the Fusion.
I think that if one is considering % of domestic content when purchasing, usually they'll just look at the window stickers of the vehicles under consideration.
The whole 'where the profits go' argument....again.
What money do you think a company uses to expand plants? Profits.
What money do you think a company uses to build new factories? Profits.
What money do you think a company uses to expand into new markets? Profits.
What money do you think a company uses for R&D? Profits.
Now, which companies are expanding plants and building new factories in the U.S.? Which companies are spending large sums on R&D and new vehicle design....in the U.S.? Which companies are hiring more and more Americans every year?
The 'foreign' companies.
Now which companies are expanding plants and building new factories in Mexico? Canada? China? Which companies are laying off more and more American workers and replacing them with foreign workers every year? Ford and GM.
So, tell us all again how the profits for Ford and GM are staying in this country and the profits for Toyota/Honda/etc. are flowing back home?
One should buy based on individual car. I agree the Camry is more american than the Fusion. OTOH one can argue that the fusion does more for "america" because the money goes back to Ford which is an american buisness. It's really a hard subject and I personally don't think anyone is really wrong.
Rocky
Well yeah, Ford is an american business while Toyota is a foreign business. But I think it's a big assumption that the address of the home office dictates which 'does more' for america.
Rather than dwell on the whole american vs. foreign issue, maybe we should all realize that each of these companies are GLOBAL companies. As such, these companies will invest money as they consider it in their best interest to do so.
GM may feel that they'll get a larger return on their investment by spending profits on expanding operations in China. Ford may feel that they'll do better on the bottom line by closing U.S. plants and opening plants in Mexico. They may well be correct. But the point is that buying a truck from GM or a car from Ford DOESN'T necessarily mean that any profit they make stays in the U.S. GM is getting money from SOMEWHERE to expand operations overseas; it didn't just fall out of the sky.
Shoot, I think about it just about every time I go into a store. It's getting harder and harder to find U.S. made goods anywhere. Pretty soon I'm going to have to go to antique markets to find anything made here.
The corporations certainly do what they think they need to do to survive, in a global economy. But, are not the demands and the work ethics of the American worker equally as responsible?
Had the opportunity, in the 80s, to spend a lot of time in Korea. What I observed, at that time, was a country that technologically was maybe in the 50's and a populace that somehow felt it was their patriotic duty to work 80 hours a week and do their part to make sure that their country could compete worldwide. Been maybe 100 years that the same thing could be said about the American worker?
Rocky
Actually it was Americans that put other Americans out of work in the steel industry. Entreprenurial American's created the whole concept of direct casting and the mini-mill which the rest of the world rushed to copy. The ultra efficient non-union mini-mills created by Ken Iverson and others killed LTV, Bethlehem and other aging integrated dinosaurs all over the world with newer more flexible/efficient factories. Here the new plants in the South put less efficient plants in the Midwest out of business.
Wait isn't that what's happening in the auto business now?