While that may be true, I thought the Japanese did other things like mandatory inspections of the imports, then drag their feet inspecting them, to discourage their importation.
I think the areas where the Japanese will get you in taxes is engine displacement and width. They put a huge tax on bigger engines, regardless of how fuel efficient it really is. So theoretically, you could have a 1.6 4-cyl and a 5.0 V-8 get the same fuel economy, but you'll still pay a hefty tax premium on the V-8.
They'll also slap a big tax on wider cars there, and I think they measure it at the mirror, which is why they mount the mirrors so far forward on Japanese-market cars. The problem is that most of the cars sold here in the United States, even something like a Cobalt or Focus, is probably wide enough to face a huge tax over there. As a result, most cars that are Cobalt/Focus width in Japan are probably luxury cars, which sell for a premium anyway and can somewhat hide that tax.
I think you got it wrong on the car size. civics and corollas which are similar in size with cobalt and focus are your avg family car and they are not taxed extra due to their size. Engine size, yes. That is why they have smaller displacement engines for the rest of the world. It's pretty much the same deal over in europe.
You would not want to pilot anything bigger than a accord/malibu/camry in the rest of the world.
" ...thought the Japanese did other things like mandatory inspections of the imports, then drag their feet inspecting them, to discourage their importation."
That was true in the 1980's - I had personal experience with it. However, that was more than 25 years ago. Things have changed.
I spend at least two or three weeks a year in Japan and have for years. The increase in "foreign" (non-Japanese) cars is significant, and you'll commonly see them on the streets of Tokyo and other major cities. However, the cars you see are the type that are practical for a big city with very narrow roads, limited parking, a tax on displacement, and right-side-of-the-road driving. Additionally, since the Japanese have dozens of cheap domestic (Japanese) cars available to them, the only reasonable market for foreign cars (American or European) is in the upscale market. Once you start to define the available choices within those parameters, you can see there's not much demand for American Cars, no matter how good they might be.
I think you got it wrong on the car size. civics and corollas which are similar in size with cobalt and focus are your avg family car and they are not taxed extra due to their size.
Actually, the Japanese do get you on width as well. The magic number seems to be 1700 mm, or about 67 inches. Interestingly though, the Civic and Corolla are actually wider than the Cobalt and Focus! Civic: 69" Corolla: 69.3" Cobalt: 67.9" Focus: 67.8"
I'm not sure how the size scale is graduated, but in this case it looks like the Civic/Corolla would incur as much of a tax, if not more, than a Cobalt/Focus.
Is the Japanese Corolla and Civic pretty much the same as the ones we have here, just with the choice of smaller engines?
There is a car class that is not subject to taxes (or at least have minimal taxes) called the Kei class. They're the tiny cars that you read about....
All Kei-cars are no more than 1.4m wide, are no longer than 3.4m, have a maximum height of 2.0 m, have maximum engine displacements of 660 cc's and a maximum of 64 HP.
Anything above that size is subject to road tax and bi-annual inspection which include a weight tax (typically $800 to $5,000) and a mandatory insurance (about $3,000. You'll also need personal insurance just as in the States, although it's generally cheaper than in the states for the same coverage.
I can't find anything on the net about additional displacement taxes or width restrictions for larger cars... above those limits, it's just weight. However, as a design feature, you'll notice that most Japanese cars (or at least the designs intended for the Japanese Domestic market) have flat sides to maximize interior space while still making it easier to get down the crowded streets.
As for Japanese Civics, et al, yes, they're the same, and no they're not. The Japanese have a variety of internal brands and tons of options that we don't see here. Additionally they have stripper models that we don't see here. Model names are different there too. I'm not up on most of them currently, but I used to own a Violet, and then later a Cherry (Yes I bought it new ).
Examples of options that come to mind are beautiful tapestry brocade materials for the interiors instead of leather, refrigerators for the trunks, self-drying outside mirrors(they vibrate the water off), televisions in the dash that the driver can watch, and on and on.
By the way, before you can buy a car in most Japanese cities, you have to be able to prove that you have a parking space big enough for the car - before you can buy it. Car dealers actually come out to your house and measure it!
Is the Japanese Corolla and Civic pretty much the same as the ones we have here, just with the choice of smaller engines?
Pretty much but there are usually some fairly minor detail and option differences, plus in the Japanese market those cars occupy about the same market segment as an Impala does here so you get the occasional Blade Master G (Matrix with the Camry V6). Something like 40% of the Japanese market (which fell below 5 million this year) is kei cars.
The rumor mill this morning is that Bush is stalling on the bailout in an attempt to shut down Chrysler, since no one wants to help out a privately owned hedge fund like their parent. Bailing out publicly owned GM and Ford is more palatable. If so, the Chrysler UAW workers are going to take it in the shorts.
Don't think "rumors" should even be discussed. Besides Bush has nothing to do with it. It is Congress who decides. Bush could veto the bill, but his power is nil.
The amusing thing is that those who are up in arms over Bush's alleged actions in this case are the same ones who have accused him of favoring private interests and wailed about corporate influence on the federal government over the past eight years.
I guess it's just WHICH corporate interests are seeking government favors that really matter, but the critics have failed to make that distinction over the past eight years.
And if the UAW members do take it into the shorts, I suggest that they aim their ire at both Daimler and Cerberus, not the Bush administration. He is just rightly refusing to clean up the mess that they have made.
Don't think "rumors" should even be discussed. Besides Bush has nothing to do with it. It is Congress who decides. Bush could veto the bill, but his power is nil.
I think you are a week behind. The Senate turned down the loan bill. The president is using his TARP funds, which his people are in charge of, to fund a loan.
"one of the factors delaying an announcement on an auto rescue plan is the continuing discussion between the administration and the various sides that would have to sign on to a managed bankruptcy -- entities such as labor unions and equity holders in addition to the companies themselves.
If you thought that our economy today could handle the collapse of the American auto industry, then you might come to the conclusion that doing nothing was an option," Perino said. "We're going to do something."
a substantial share of American consumers would welcome smaller cars that cost less and burned fuel more efficiently.
They did? Then why did cars like Crosley, Henry J, and the Hudson Jet fail? About the only success was the Rambler. Americans didn't really embrace the idea of a compact car until the 1958 recession giving AMC one of its rare successful years and giving Studebaker a temporary reprieve due to the Lark.
Well that's just it...some study said that Americans would welcome smaller cars that cost less and were more efficient, but reality said something else!
Part of the problem, however, is that the domestics just couldn't figure out how to build a small car and have it end up being much cheaper than the bigger ones. And often the only way to make these small cars come in cheaper was to substitute more outdated engines, delete such luxury items as carpeting, armrests, etc...in general just making the cars a miserable experience.
I saw somewhere that the Hudson Jet in 1954 had a base price $1954. That was a lot of money for a small car, considering that even in 1957-58, you could get a stripper standard-sized Chevy, Ford, or Plymouth for around $2,000.
Many of those early compacts also weren't very fuel efficient, simply because of the crude technology used. Tractor-like 4-cyl engines, crude transmissions, etc.
Even in later years, it wasn't an automatic given that a smaller car would return better fuel economy. My '68 Dodge Dart, with its 318 V-8, would get around 13-14 mpg around town, maybe 17 on the highway. Yet my '67 Catalina, with its 400 V-8, could get about the same highway mileage. Unfortunately, around town figure more like 9-10.
I had a 1979 Chrysler Newport with a 318 V-8, and it would get around 22 mpg on the highway, and maybe 12-13 around town. Not bad I guess, considering it was smogged down, and probably had 700-800 lb on the Dart.
Even in recent years, you'd run into instances where a bigger car isn't necessarily more of a guzzler. I remember when I got my Intrepid, it had a higher EPA rating than the midsized Stratus. The Intrepid with the 2.7 V-6 was 20/29. The Stratus was 19/27 with the 2.5 V-6. And even with the 2.4 4-cyl, it was only 20/28. They had a stripper model with a 2.0 4-cyl that would eke out 21/29, but that would've probably been torture to drive.
Back then, the Impala, Malibu, and Cavalier all got similar highway fuel economy...around 32 mpg EPA est.
Big cars were cheap back then. After my mom had enough of dad's $150 cars and she had inherited a little money she splurged and bought a 66 Biscayne with an AM radio and a heater(these were still options in 1966). The 67s were already on the lot so they gave her a deal on this one. I used to know just how much it was but it was definitely under $2K.
That was one of two cars I learned to drive on. Tough clutch. Mom didn't believe in automatics.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
My Mom bought a '66 Catalina convertible, brand-new, and she said she only paid $3200. Seems cheap to me. I think the base MSRP was $3256, but by the time you added the automatic transmission and a few other odds and ends, I'd think it would get up there. It didn't have a/c though, and that was a pretty big extra in those days.
I guess though, maybe Granddad helped her to negotiate a bit on it. Plus she had a 1959 Rambler wagon that she traded, so maybe that got the balance down to $3200?
Health spending accounts/flexible spending accounts are a very nice benefit.
I've used the flexible spending too. However, money not used within the year is given to charity at years end. The health spending is relatively new and will allow someone to carry a balance year after year. The idea being that someone would think twice/be hesitant if they are spending their own money as oppose to insurance money, something the co pay has not deterred. Employers would offer major medical and add to the health spending account yearly. This money would grow and once under Medicare you could opt to cash out.
It's real tought tryig to compare the price or price increases from cars of the 50's & 60's. I used to hae NADA price books from the 60's through the 90's. From '61 to the late 60's the price of a Caddy Deville only increased about $500.
So your comparison of a '54 Hudson to a 57-58 Chev, Ford or Plymouth can be hard to comprehend, especially for those under 50 years old.
My parents bought a new '70 Caddy Sedan Deville for about $6500. A year later I got a new '71 Volvo 1800E for about $4300. About 4 years later the Volvo 1800 was worth more as a used car than the Caddy was.
The Caddy never got better than 17MPG on the highway. The 1800 got 31 MPG over 3 fill ups at a steady 80 MPH on a trip from CT to FL.
The average great credit muni yields + 5% for intermediate term
Would hardly cover the inflation rate and factor in the risk, one could argue that its only a parking space at best, which is risky as tax revenues dry up. Sales dropping equate into less sales taxes and property values dropping equate into less taxes also. I would suggest that one should save their bait for some bottom fishing in a less risky place.
Just out of curiosity, I looked up some stats in my auto encyclopedia.
As it turns out, the Hudson Jet was actually a fairly large lineup. And the cheapest of them was something called a Family Club sedan, a 2-door model priced at 1621. The $1954 model I mentioned earlier was actually a 4-door model called the Super Jet, which was an upper trim level. And the most expensive Jet was called the Jet Liner, at $2,057 for a 4-door sedan.
In comparison, the cheapest 1954 Chevy was the Special Utility Sedan, at $1,539. It didn't even have a back seat! It must have been some sort of business coupe. But for comparison, the most expensive 4-door Chevy that year was the Bel Air, at $1,884. Or $173. Not a small chunk of change for the time.
The most expensive 4-door Ford was the Crestline, at $1,898. And with Plymouth it was the Belvedere at $1,953.
About the closest GM car I could find in the top line Hudson Jet's price range was the Pontiac Chieftain six, at $2,027 for the 4-door. The eight-cyl model was $2,102.
Now to be fair, Hudson was a more upscale brand in those days, much more prestigious than a Ford/Chevy/Plymouth. They were priced more on par with Oldsmobiles, Buicks, and DeSotos, and well above Mercury. So the Jet, while a compact, was probably marketed as a premium compact.
FWIW, Ramblers weren't exactly cheap in those days, either. The top line 1954 Rambler 4-door sedan came in at $1,965. But somehow, the brand was popular enough to keep going. Maybe it was the wider range of models they offered. The Jet only came as a 2- or 4-door sedan, while the Rambler offered those plus hardtops, wagons, and a convertible. The Rambler was also better thought-out. They were, in a sense, the first midsized car, even if they were billed as compacts at the time. They were about a foot shorter than your typical Ford/Chevy/Plymouth, and that difference only got wider as the 50's wore on. Yet they were still pretty roomy inside, whereas a Jet, I believe, was pretty cramped. Jets were also sort of dumpy looking, and behind the times, style-wise.
Japan is officially in a recession and most all Japanese carmakers have slowed production of most models. In the U.S., Japanese and Korean "captive imports" have also cut back on production. Japan has an interesting way to "prime the pump" for their home market carmakers, though. Every year, Japanese car-owners must bring their prides-and-joys to an approved testing facility for an expensive and nit-picking inspection. Since chipped paint or a dented bumper is enough to keep a car or truck off the road, many people get tired of paying big bucks for these inspections, and wind up buying a new car. The non-passing cars are sent to Southeast Asia and sold as used cars. This also explains, for those of you who have visited Japan, why almost every car on the road appears to be in showroom condition.
but it doesn't prove that the GM supervisors I talked to were wrong.
What do these stupervisors have in their closets? The word in the plants is that they are the illegitimate offspring of the executives. During fornication at office Xmas parties/New Years parties and or with the domestics, children are procreated. Much like on the plantations in the south. Half and half, so they are not pure enough to be high level management. So they are caste into the stupervisor role.
"Under normal circumstances, no question bankruptcy court is the best way to work through credit and debt and restructuring," he said during a speech and question-and-answer session at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative Washington think tank.
dd wrote in response to my post : " The average great credit muni yields + 5% for intermediate term
Would hardly cover the inflation rate and factor in the risk, one could argue that its only a parking space at best, which is risky as tax revenues dry up. Sales dropping equate into less sales taxes and property values dropping equate into less taxes also. I would suggest that one should save their bait for some bottom fishing in a less risky place . "
Hmmm, inflation and recessions at the same time ? I understand stagflation but as they say on the forms, NA . Go's would of course be backed by the full faith and credit of the issuing entity so lesser revenue taxes or property values would be applicable to only other specific bonds. Some might see the taxable equivalent of near 7% as not too shabby in a lackluster environment. Risky ? Hmm again, government bonds just not Federal, risky. Ok.
Our new Commander and Chief, president Obama, is off to a good start. It feels like the start of a new era in the history books. Perhaps it will be the Age of Sanity.
You could be right as Obama distances himself from the automakers dilemma with the thug mentality so common in the UAW. I have not seen him give any real indication that he wants to throw good money at that bunch of losers in Detroit. He has bigger fish to fry. Like getting our infrastructure back to some semblance of a first World order. That does not mean there will not be jobs for the out of work UAW members. They will need to lose some of that jelly donut fat, so they can swing a pick and use a shovel, for coolie wages. It will be a let down after getting $30+ per hour for putting on lug nuts.
Japan is officially in a recession and most all Japanese carmakers have slowed production of most models. In the U.S., Japanese and Korean "captive imports" have also cut back on production. Japan has an interesting way to "prime the pump" for their home market carmakers, though. Every year, Japanese car-owners must bring their prides-and-joys to an approved testing facility for an expensive and nit-picking inspection. Since chipped paint or a dented bumper is enough to keep a car or truck off the road, many people get tired of paying big bucks for these inspections, and wind up buying a new car. The non-passing cars are sent to Southeast Asia and sold as used cars. This also explains, for those of you who have visited Japan, why almost every car on the road appears to be in showroom condition.
The Huffington Post? As an accurate source.... Okayyyyyyyy. Interestingly enough they're almost right.... but not quite. Yes, there is a Shaken system of inspections and they are ridiculously expensive... however, it's NOT every year. That's not such a bad error, in that it's a frequency error rather than substantive.
Where they go wrong is in the assumptions they've made about the underlying reasons.
1. Japanese cars are well maintained (no scratches or dents) because the government forces people to maintain them.
Answer - Until 20 years ago or so, cars were a real luxury for the Japanese. They're still a luxury rather than a necessity for most of the country as excellent train service is available (Also see #2 below). So, people take pride in their cars and maintain them beautifully. Further, neatness is a cultural attribute.
2. The Shaken tax system has nothing to do with priming the economy to force people to buy new cars.... It has everything to do with trying to prevent people from buying cars at all. Japan is a very small country (the size of California) with 1/3 the population of the entire United States. Cars are not good for the country or the environment. The government doesn't want people to buy cars, but -if they must buy one- the government wants them to buy the smallest possible car. That's why there are tax incentives to buy Kei class cars. Another point along the same lines is that you can't buy a car in Tokyo and other large cities unless you can prove that you have a parking space big enough for it... and Yes, they DO come and measure it.
3. The Shaken system is not new and has nothing to do with the recession - it's been around since at least the '60's. Cars aren't sold to foreign countries because they failed an impossible inspection... 99 percent of them would pass. However, the economics make it hard to sell a car that needs a new shaken, and cheaper to trade it in on a new one....
4. Recently, and in direct contrast to Huffington's 'expert', , the Japanese are actually starting to keep their cars longer and pay the shaken rather than replace them.
It will be a let down after getting $30+ per hour for putting on lug nuts.
Cutting UAW Wages to Zero Wouldn’t Save Big Three
Ultimately, it’s the trade deficit that is destroying the domestic auto industry, just as it’s destroyed every other manufacturing industry in the U.S., from textiles to outboard motors. And it’s impossible to “compete” our way out of a trade deficit with nations like Japan, Korea, China and Germany because the deficit has nothing to do with labor costs or currency valuation. It has everything to do with their badly bloated labor forces and low per capita consumption, the inevitable consequences of being grossly overpopulated. The only remedy in such trade situations is tariffs, designed to compensate the U.S. for their inability to provide us access to equivalent markets.
Americans often complain that our government should be run more like a business. OK, let’s run our trade policy like a business, exiting relationships that don’t yield positive results and putting our trade balance sheet back in the black. Let’s stop being the world’s global trade chumps.
"...And yet the main problem facing Detroit, overwhelmingly, is not the pay gap. That’s unfortunate because fixing the pay gap would be fairly straightforward.
The real problem is that many people don’t want to buy the cars that Detroit makes. Fixing this problem won’t be nearly so easy. ...
Imagine, also, that the U.A.W. agrees to reduce pay and benefits for current workers to $45 an hour — the same as at Honda and Toyota. ...
Do you know how much that would reduce the cost of producing a Big Three vehicle? Only about $800. ...
That’s because labor costs, for all the attention they have been receiving, make up only about 10 percent of the cost of making a vehicle. An extra $800 per vehicle would certainly help Detroit, but the Big Three already often sell their cars for about $2,500 less than equivalent cars from Japanese companies, analysts at the International Motor Vehicle Program say. ...
Even so, many Americans no longer want to own the cars being made by General Motors, Ford and Chrysler. ...
But Congress and the Obama administration shouldn’t fool themselves into thinking that they can preserve the Big Three in anything like their current form. Very soon, they need to shrink to a size that reflects the American public’s collective judgment about the quality of their products. ...
It’s a sad story, in many ways. But it can’t really be undone at this point. If we had wanted to preserve the Big Three, we would have bought more of their cars.
I think that this has already been shown back in the 80's when the Japanese 'voluntarily' agreed to limit imports, and didn't yet have American-based production plants. The prices of Japanese cars went up, but people still preferred them to their Detroit counterparts.
This time the Japanese car companies already have factories in the United States.
What kind of tarriffs are going to do something about that? What are you going to do - prohibit the name "Honda" or "Toyota" from appearing on fenders?
Let’s stop being the world’s global trade chumps
That is going to be a hard sell for all those not making the big bucks like UAW workers. Americans are used to the cheapest Cars, food, gas, Electronics, toilet paper, you name it. Your idea of high tariffs will not work. Higher taxes on everything is the norm in much of the EU and the rest of the World. You put tariffs on cars from Germany and they put tariffs on food from the USA. We still have the highest tariff on PU trucks of any civilized country. We also have gigantic tariffs on ethanol from Brazil. That has only benefited the Midwest, and cost the rest of the country more money. It is time the Midwest was brought into the global economy. Of course they have already proven they cannot compete building trucks or producing ethanol.
You have to have it three years after you buy a new car, and successive ones every two years after that. This is a very good way to sell new cars, as after three years it is very tempting to upgrade rather than pay for the privilege to keep your outdated wheels.
I'm much more kind than many others as these links prove.
Your just not getting it. I'm for lifting tariffs/barriers/hurdles which keep American goods from other consumers overseas. They see open markets here and protect their industries.
That is going to be a hard sell for all those not making the big bucks like UAW workers
Its lame to keep assuming that the buy outs have not reduced the high paid auto worker to one who starts at $14 on average. Attrition will make the few hold outs a thing of the past.
It is time the Midwest was brought into the global economy.
If you were to drive Iowa you would see that they have been using ethanol and that high grade gas is cheaper than regular. But at best this would be a trade off at the food store in prices.
lokki - right on point. The labor angle is somewhat of a red herring. The real problem is the desirability factor. Say you have an equally equipped Malibu and Accord. $800 worth of labor isn't going to make a difference to me. I'll try them out and buy what feels better to me; what appeals to me. If it's very, very close then maybe $800 would sway me.
I like whenever an American company is bringing out a product that makes me want to go in and at least look. I think the next Fusion will be in category - particularly the hybrid which looks like they sweated a ton of detail on. It's been a long time though.
There's nothing wrong that can't be cured with product. I just hope they have it far enough along in the pipeline before even the government gives up on them.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
So if you were to compare the average wages from the periods. Some kind of rational could be established. At todays wages we could buy a car a month if prices were stagnant.
Ford is the example. Ford brought in outside blood and has started to right the ship. They're making new and desirable products. Interestingly enough, they're going to survive without the bailout too.
Yes, they're also saddled with the UAW(but I believe better work rules) however their better product is making the difference between life and bankruptcy.
Dallasdude...
Explain that tariff thing to me again.
You REALLY believe that the only thing keeping Germans, Italians, French, Japanese, Koreans, and Chinese from buying American cars are import tariffs?
Which major industrial countries have the highest tariffs on cars and trucks anyhow?
Your just not getting it. I'm for lifting tariffs/barriers/hurdles which keep American goods from other consumers overseas. They see open markets here and protect their industries.
You keep making those allegations. Yet when asked to give a country that puts a tariff on US goods you get shot down with facts. We have more tariffs protecting the Big 3 than most other countries have. Japan does not have any tariffs. You want to sell Buicks in Tokyo, go for it. The truth is most countries don't want the crappy cars we sell. GM and Ford can only build PU trucks and large SUVs and they are very limited in their appeal in countries that pay 3 times more for fuel than we do.
The $14 workers are still strapped with the legacy costs associated with UAW contracts that have always screwed the guy in the future. Sound familiar? It should it is exactly what the US government is doing to the Youth of this country. Adding debt to be paid at some future date. This Democrat Congress has added more to the debt than any Congress in the History of the USA. Your kids will pay for the sins of the 110th Congress just as the new autoworkers are paying for the sins of those that signed past UAW contracts.
What kind of tariffs are going to do something about that? What are you going to do - prohibit the name "Honda" or "Toyota" from appearing on fenders?
Tariffs don't work, period. Free market shows the way. If you think we can live in isolation with products from the B3, it's laughable. Grandma would need to buy a truck.
Here's why the bial-out will snow ball into the $100B range....there are no products that consumers prefer over the Asian brands. Too late to slowly change. It's time to lay money on the table...BIG MONEY.
There's nothing wrong that can't be cured with product.
Absolutely true. It's about what people want, DESIRABILITY. Even if I wanted to buy a D3 vehicle, let's look at my last few auto choices:
1998 Audi A4 - what D3 premium small car would have been equivalent? None. 2004 Honda Odyssey - what D3 vehicle was comparable? Perhaps Caravan, but reliability was in the dumper. No GM products. Windstar was a disaster. 2005 Acura TL - what D3 premium midsize sedan? Buick? Mercury? You must be joking. 2007 Mazda 5 - what small wagon/minivan? Anything from the D3? Nope.
Here's why the bial-out will snow ball into the $100B range....there are no products that consumers prefer over the Asian brands. Too late to slowly change. It's time to lay money on the table...BIG MONEY.
And even after $100B the chances that GM or Chrysler will get desirable products out there, given the recent track record? We have the Malibu and CTS, those took 5 years. How many years and billions would it take to broaden GM's entire range to high quality desirable vehicles? Way too many. More likely we pour $100B and then decide it's a lost cause. Then it's BK baby with $100B more on the national debt.
Which major industrial countries have the highest tariffs on cars and trucks anyhow?
Japan has none. I do not believe that the problem of B3 is tarriffs in Japan or Europe (and there is a lot of data to back this up, by the way). For example, since 1985 till date, Japan's currency has appreciated threefold against the US Dollar, and the tariffs have been reduced to zero. Yet what has happened is that the import market here is now dominated by European (German) brands, who have taken the share of B3.
The same is happening all over Asia. Even in China (Where some posters believe GM is the king. Not any more....).
It is our tariffs that are the problem. We should eliminate the Chicken tax, 25% tariff on PU trucks and the 53 cent per gallon tariff on Brazilian Ethanol. If any country is protectionist is the United States. The whiners do not want a level playing field they want the deck stacked against any competition to the Domestic automakers and their featherbedding UAW.
This Democrat Congress has added more to the debt than any Congress in the History of the USA.
Oh, and speaking of Michigan and the Republicans, Mitt Romney was in full campaign mode again, meaning Plastic Man was flip-flopping. After winning the Michigan primary by promsing $20 billion in subsidies to the auto companies, now he says against any kind of bailout whatsoever. I guess he’s trying to impress Republicans in Wyoming.
Anyone who thinks Romney is a serious candidate for 2012 ought to have their heads examined.
Your kids will pay for the sins of the 110th Congress just as the new autoworkers are paying for the sins of those that signed past UAW contracts.
Yeah, but they will get to drive the Cadillac CTS, have HDTV and hundreds of channels, video games, and will all be card carring UAW members.
Comments
I think the areas where the Japanese will get you in taxes is engine displacement and width. They put a huge tax on bigger engines, regardless of how fuel efficient it really is. So theoretically, you could have a 1.6 4-cyl and a 5.0 V-8 get the same fuel economy, but you'll still pay a hefty tax premium on the V-8.
They'll also slap a big tax on wider cars there, and I think they measure it at the mirror, which is why they mount the mirrors so far forward on Japanese-market cars. The problem is that most of the cars sold here in the United States, even something like a Cobalt or Focus, is probably wide enough to face a huge tax over there. As a result, most cars that are Cobalt/Focus width in Japan are probably luxury cars, which sell for a premium anyway and can somewhat hide that tax.
You would not want to pilot anything bigger than a accord/malibu/camry in the rest of the world.
That was true in the 1980's - I had personal experience with it. However, that was more than 25 years ago. Things have changed.
I spend at least two or three weeks a year in Japan and have for years. The increase in "foreign" (non-Japanese) cars is significant, and you'll commonly see them on the streets of Tokyo and other major cities. However, the cars you see are the type that are practical for a big city with very narrow roads, limited parking, a tax on displacement, and right-side-of-the-road driving. Additionally, since the Japanese have dozens of cheap domestic (Japanese) cars available to them, the only reasonable market for foreign cars (American or European) is in the upscale market. Once you start to define the available choices within those parameters, you can see there's not much demand for American Cars, no matter how good they might be.
Actually, the Japanese do get you on width as well. The magic number seems to be 1700 mm, or about 67 inches. Interestingly though, the Civic and Corolla are actually wider than the Cobalt and Focus!
Civic: 69"
Corolla: 69.3"
Cobalt: 67.9"
Focus: 67.8"
I'm not sure how the size scale is graduated, but in this case it looks like the Civic/Corolla would incur as much of a tax, if not more, than a Cobalt/Focus.
Is the Japanese Corolla and Civic pretty much the same as the ones we have here, just with the choice of smaller engines?
There is a car class that is not subject to taxes (or at least have minimal taxes) called the Kei class. They're the tiny cars that you read about....
All Kei-cars are no more than 1.4m wide, are no longer than 3.4m, have a maximum height of 2.0 m, have maximum engine displacements of 660 cc's and a maximum of 64 HP.
Anything above that size is subject to road tax and bi-annual inspection which include a weight tax (typically $800 to $5,000) and a mandatory insurance (about $3,000. You'll also need personal insurance just as in the States, although it's generally cheaper than in the states for the same coverage.
I can't find anything on the net about additional displacement taxes or width restrictions for larger cars... above those limits, it's just weight. However, as a design feature, you'll notice that most Japanese cars (or at least the designs intended for the Japanese Domestic market) have flat sides to maximize interior space while still making it easier to get down the crowded streets.
As for Japanese Civics, et al, yes, they're the same, and no they're not. The Japanese have a variety of internal brands and tons of options that we don't see here. Additionally they have stripper models that we don't see here. Model names are different there too. I'm not up on most of them currently, but I used to own a Violet, and then later a Cherry (Yes I bought it new
Examples of options that come to mind are beautiful tapestry brocade materials for the interiors instead of leather, refrigerators for the trunks, self-drying outside mirrors(they vibrate the water off), televisions in the dash that the driver can watch, and on and on.
By the way, before you can buy a car in most Japanese cities, you have to be able to prove that you have a parking space big enough for the car - before you can buy it. Car dealers actually come out to your house and measure it!
Pretty much but there are usually some fairly minor detail and option differences, plus in the Japanese market those cars occupy about the same market segment as an Impala does here so you get the occasional Blade Master G (Matrix with the Camry V6). Something like 40% of the Japanese market (which fell below 5 million this year) is kei cars.
I guess it's just WHICH corporate interests are seeking government favors that really matter, but the critics have failed to make that distinction over the past eight years.
And if the UAW members do take it into the shorts, I suggest that they aim their ire at both Daimler and Cerberus, not the Bush administration. He is just rightly refusing to clean up the mess that they have made.
Reference Dallasdude's article on GM supervisors taking bribes from suppliers -
As usual, Dallasdude is living in the past.... the date on the article is:
08-31-1999 :confuse:
That's back when there was enough profit in providing autoparts to GM to make it worth bribing somebody!
I think you are a week behind. The Senate turned down the loan bill. The president is using his TARP funds, which his people are in charge of, to fund a loan.
Bush considering "orderly" auto bankruptcy (Yahoo)
"one of the factors delaying an announcement on an auto rescue plan is the continuing discussion between the administration and the various sides that would have to sign on to a managed bankruptcy -- entities such as labor unions and equity holders in addition to the companies themselves.
If you thought that our economy today could handle the collapse of the American auto industry, then you might come to the conclusion that doing nothing was an option," Perino said. "We're going to do something."
They did? Then why did cars like Crosley, Henry J, and the Hudson Jet fail? About the only success was the Rambler. Americans didn't really embrace the idea of a compact car until the 1958 recession giving AMC one of its rare successful years and giving Studebaker a temporary reprieve due to the Lark.
Part of the problem, however, is that the domestics just couldn't figure out how to build a small car and have it end up being much cheaper than the bigger ones. And often the only way to make these small cars come in cheaper was to substitute more outdated engines, delete such luxury items as carpeting, armrests, etc...in general just making the cars a miserable experience.
I saw somewhere that the Hudson Jet in 1954 had a base price $1954. That was a lot of money for a small car, considering that even in 1957-58, you could get a stripper standard-sized Chevy, Ford, or Plymouth for around $2,000.
Many of those early compacts also weren't very fuel efficient, simply because of the crude technology used. Tractor-like 4-cyl engines, crude transmissions, etc.
Even in later years, it wasn't an automatic given that a smaller car would return better fuel economy. My '68 Dodge Dart, with its 318 V-8, would get around 13-14 mpg around town, maybe 17 on the highway. Yet my '67 Catalina, with its 400 V-8, could get about the same highway mileage. Unfortunately, around town figure more like 9-10.
I had a 1979 Chrysler Newport with a 318 V-8, and it would get around 22 mpg on the highway, and maybe 12-13 around town. Not bad I guess, considering it was smogged down, and probably had 700-800 lb on the Dart.
Even in recent years, you'd run into instances where a bigger car isn't necessarily more of a guzzler. I remember when I got my Intrepid, it had a higher EPA rating than the midsized Stratus. The Intrepid with the 2.7 V-6 was 20/29. The Stratus was 19/27 with the 2.5 V-6. And even with the 2.4 4-cyl, it was only 20/28. They had a stripper model with a 2.0 4-cyl that would eke out 21/29, but that would've probably been torture to drive.
Back then, the Impala, Malibu, and Cavalier all got similar highway fuel economy...around 32 mpg EPA est.
That was one of two cars I learned to drive on. Tough clutch. Mom didn't believe in automatics.
I guess though, maybe Granddad helped her to negotiate a bit on it. Plus she had a 1959 Rambler wagon that she traded, so maybe that got the balance down to $3200?
That's fine, but what about GM and Ford's Austrailian offerings that are small and are built w/ rhd???
I've used the flexible spending too. However, money not used within the year is given to charity at years end. The health spending is relatively new and will allow someone to carry a balance year after year. The idea being that someone would think twice/be hesitant if they are spending their own money as oppose to insurance money, something the co pay has not deterred. Employers would offer major medical and add to the health spending account yearly. This money would grow and once under Medicare you could opt to cash out.
So your comparison of a '54 Hudson to a 57-58 Chev, Ford or Plymouth can be hard to comprehend, especially for those under 50 years old.
My parents bought a new '70 Caddy Sedan Deville for about $6500. A year later I got a new '71 Volvo 1800E for about $4300. About 4 years later the Volvo 1800 was worth more as a used car than the Caddy was.
The Caddy never got better than 17MPG on the highway. The 1800 got 31 MPG over 3 fill ups at a steady 80 MPH on a trip from CT to FL.
Would hardly cover the inflation rate and factor in the risk, one could argue that its only a parking space at best, which is risky as tax revenues dry up. Sales dropping equate into less sales taxes and property values dropping equate into less taxes also. I would suggest that one should save their bait for some bottom fishing in a less risky place.
As it turns out, the Hudson Jet was actually a fairly large lineup. And the cheapest of them was something called a Family Club sedan, a 2-door model priced at 1621. The $1954 model I mentioned earlier was actually a 4-door model called the Super Jet, which was an upper trim level. And the most expensive Jet was called the Jet Liner, at $2,057 for a 4-door sedan.
In comparison, the cheapest 1954 Chevy was the Special Utility Sedan, at $1,539. It didn't even have a back seat! It must have been some sort of business coupe. But for comparison, the most expensive 4-door Chevy that year was the Bel Air, at $1,884. Or $173. Not a small chunk of change for the time.
The most expensive 4-door Ford was the Crestline, at $1,898. And with Plymouth it was the Belvedere at $1,953.
About the closest GM car I could find in the top line Hudson Jet's price range was the Pontiac Chieftain six, at $2,027 for the 4-door. The eight-cyl model was $2,102.
Now to be fair, Hudson was a more upscale brand in those days, much more prestigious than a Ford/Chevy/Plymouth. They were priced more on par with Oldsmobiles, Buicks, and DeSotos, and well above Mercury. So the Jet, while a compact, was probably marketed as a premium compact.
FWIW, Ramblers weren't exactly cheap in those days, either. The top line 1954 Rambler 4-door sedan came in at $1,965. But somehow, the brand was popular enough to keep going. Maybe it was the wider range of models they offered. The Jet only came as a 2- or 4-door sedan, while the Rambler offered those plus hardtops, wagons, and a convertible. The Rambler was also better thought-out. They were, in a sense, the first midsized car, even if they were billed as compacts at the time. They were about a foot shorter than your typical Ford/Chevy/Plymouth, and that difference only got wider as the 50's wore on. Yet they were still pretty roomy inside, whereas a Jet, I believe, was pretty cramped. Jets were also sort of dumpy looking, and behind the times, style-wise.
Japan is officially in a recession and most all Japanese carmakers have slowed production of most models. In the U.S., Japanese and Korean "captive imports" have also cut back on production. Japan has an interesting way to "prime the pump" for their home market carmakers, though. Every year, Japanese car-owners must bring their prides-and-joys to an approved testing facility for an expensive and nit-picking inspection. Since chipped paint or a dented bumper is enough to keep a car or truck off the road, many people get tired of paying big bucks for these inspections, and wind up buying a new car. The non-passing cars are sent to Southeast Asia and sold as used cars. This also explains, for those of you who have visited Japan, why almost every car on the road appears to be in showroom condition.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-parker/eleven-other-countries-wi_b_146229.ht- ml
What do these stupervisors have in their closets? The word in the plants is that they are the illegitimate offspring of the executives. During fornication at office Xmas parties/New Years parties and or with the domestics, children are procreated. Much like on the plantations in the south. Half and half, so they are not pure enough to be high level management. So they are caste into the stupervisor role.
No shoe throwing at these events,
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2008/09/18/Conservatives_attack_Bush_on_AIG_bai- lout/UPI-85171221766384/
My fear is if they will open for business again on the 31st day.....
" The average great credit muni yields + 5% for intermediate term
Would hardly cover the inflation rate and factor in the risk, one could argue that its only a parking space at best, which is risky as tax revenues dry up. Sales dropping equate into less sales taxes and property values dropping equate into less taxes also. I would suggest that one should save their bait for some bottom fishing in a less risky place . "
Hmmm, inflation and recessions at the same time ? I understand stagflation but as they say on the forms, NA . Go's would of course be backed by the full faith and credit of the issuing entity so lesser revenue taxes or property values would be applicable to only other specific bonds. Some might see the taxable equivalent of near 7% as not too shabby in a lackluster environment. Risky ? Hmm again, government bonds just not Federal, risky. Ok.
Meanwhile, Organized labor 'thrilled' with Obama's pick for labor secretary (CNN).
There's that high class UAW-speak that helps the D3 be really efficient and team-oriented. What a way to get competitive. NOT
You could be right as Obama distances himself from the automakers dilemma with the thug mentality so common in the UAW. I have not seen him give any real indication that he wants to throw good money at that bunch of losers in Detroit. He has bigger fish to fry. Like getting our infrastructure back to some semblance of a first World order. That does not mean there will not be jobs for the out of work UAW members. They will need to lose some of that jelly donut fat, so they can swing a pick and use a shovel, for coolie wages. It will be a let down after getting $30+ per hour for putting on lug nuts.
The Huffington Post? As an accurate source.... Okayyyyyyyy. Interestingly enough they're almost right.... but not quite. Yes, there is a Shaken system of inspections and they are ridiculously expensive... however, it's NOT every year.
That's not such a bad error, in that it's a frequency error rather than substantive.
Where they go wrong is in the assumptions they've made about the underlying reasons.
1. Japanese cars are well maintained (no scratches or dents) because the government forces people to maintain them.
Answer - Until 20 years ago or so, cars were a real luxury for the Japanese. They're still a luxury rather than a necessity for most of the country as excellent train service is available (Also see #2 below). So, people take pride in their cars and maintain them beautifully. Further, neatness is a cultural attribute.
2. The Shaken tax system has nothing to do with priming the economy to force people to buy new cars.... It has everything to do with trying to prevent people from buying cars at all. Japan is a very small country (the size of California) with 1/3 the population of the entire United States. Cars are not good for the country or the environment. The government doesn't want people to buy cars, but -if they must buy one- the government wants them to buy the smallest possible car. That's why there are tax incentives to buy Kei class cars. Another point along the same lines is that you can't buy a car in Tokyo and other large cities unless you can prove that you have a parking space big enough for it... and Yes, they DO come and measure it.
3. The Shaken system is not new and has nothing to do with the recession - it's been around since at least the '60's. Cars aren't sold to foreign countries because they failed an impossible inspection... 99 percent of them would pass. However, the economics make it hard to sell a car that needs a new shaken, and cheaper to trade it in on a new one....
4. Recently, and in direct contrast to Huffington's 'expert', , the Japanese are actually starting to keep their cars longer and pay the shaken rather than replace them.
Here are some details on Shaken. Yeah, it's from Wikipedia, but that's still better than Huffington. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaken
Cutting UAW Wages to Zero Wouldn’t Save Big Three
Ultimately, it’s the trade deficit that is destroying the domestic auto industry, just as it’s destroyed every other manufacturing industry in the U.S., from textiles to outboard motors. And it’s impossible to “compete” our way out of a trade deficit with nations like Japan, Korea, China and Germany because the deficit has nothing to do with labor costs or currency valuation. It has everything to do with their badly bloated labor forces and low per capita consumption, the inevitable consequences of being grossly overpopulated. The only remedy in such trade situations is tariffs, designed to compensate the U.S. for their inability to provide us access to equivalent markets.
Americans often complain that our government should be run more like a business. OK, let’s run our trade policy like a business, exiting relationships that don’t yield positive results and putting our trade balance sheet back in the black. Let’s stop being the world’s global trade chumps.
http://petemurphy.wordpress.com/2008/12/03/cutting-uaw-wages-to-zero-wouldnt-sav- e-big-three/
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/business/economy/10leonhardt.html
"...And yet the main problem facing Detroit, overwhelmingly, is not the pay gap. That’s unfortunate because fixing the pay gap would be fairly straightforward.
The real problem is that many people don’t want to buy the cars that Detroit makes. Fixing this problem won’t be nearly so easy. ...
Imagine, also, that the U.A.W. agrees to reduce pay and benefits for current workers to $45 an hour — the same as at Honda and Toyota. ...
Do you know how much that would reduce the cost of producing a Big Three vehicle? Only about $800. ...
That’s because labor costs, for all the attention they have been receiving, make up only about 10 percent of the cost of making a vehicle. An extra $800 per vehicle would certainly help Detroit, but the Big Three already often sell their cars for about $2,500 less than equivalent cars from Japanese companies, analysts at the International Motor Vehicle Program say. ...
Even so, many Americans no longer want to own the cars being made by General Motors, Ford and Chrysler. ...
But Congress and the Obama administration shouldn’t fool themselves into thinking that they can preserve the Big Three in anything like their current form. Very soon, they need to shrink to a size that reflects the American public’s collective judgment about the quality of their products. ...
It’s a sad story, in many ways. But it can’t really be undone at this point. If we had wanted to preserve the Big Three, we would have bought more of their cars.
I think that this has already been shown back in the 80's when the Japanese 'voluntarily' agreed to limit imports, and didn't yet have American-based production plants. The prices of Japanese cars went up, but people still preferred them to their Detroit counterparts.
This time the Japanese car companies already have factories in the United States.
What kind of tarriffs are going to do something about that? What are you going to do - prohibit the name "Honda" or "Toyota" from appearing on fenders?
That is going to be a hard sell for all those not making the big bucks like UAW workers. Americans are used to the cheapest Cars, food, gas, Electronics, toilet paper, you name it. Your idea of high tariffs will not work. Higher taxes on everything is the norm in much of the EU and the rest of the World. You put tariffs on cars from Germany and they put tariffs on food from the USA. We still have the highest tariff on PU trucks of any civilized country. We also have gigantic tariffs on ethanol from Brazil. That has only benefited the Midwest, and cost the rest of the country more money. It is time the Midwest was brought into the global economy. Of course they have already proven they cannot compete building trucks or producing ethanol.
Can anyone online edit Wikipedia?
You have to have it three years after you buy a new car, and successive ones every two years after that. This is a very good way to sell new cars, as after three years it is very tempting to upgrade rather than pay for the privilege to keep your outdated wheels.
I'm much more kind than many others as these links prove.
http://www.bigdaikon.com/mystory-20030305.shtml
http://jobs.japantoday.com/bb/showthread.php?t=19046
http://www.japanupdate.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-1373.html
http://www.akihabaranews.com/en/news-11230-2nd+hand+electronics+sales+will+soon+- be+illegal+in+Japan.html
Your just not getting it. I'm for lifting tariffs/barriers/hurdles which keep American goods from other consumers overseas. They see open markets here and protect their industries.
That is going to be a hard sell for all those not making the big bucks like UAW workers
Its lame to keep assuming that the buy outs have not reduced the high paid auto worker to one who starts at $14 on average. Attrition will make the few hold outs a thing of the past.
It is time the Midwest was brought into the global economy.
If you were to drive Iowa you would see that they have been using ethanol and that high grade gas is cheaper than regular. But at best this would be a trade off at the food store in prices.
I like whenever an American company is bringing out a product that makes me want to go in and at least look. I think the next Fusion will be in category - particularly the hybrid which looks like they sweated a ton of detail on. It's been a long time though.
There's nothing wrong that can't be cured with product. I just hope they have it far enough along in the pipeline before even the government gives up on them.
Ford is the example. Ford brought in outside blood and has started to right the ship. They're making new and desirable products. Interestingly enough, they're going to survive without the bailout too.
Yes, they're also saddled with the UAW(but I believe better work rules) however their better product is making the difference between life and bankruptcy.
Dallasdude...
Explain that tariff thing to me again.
You REALLY believe that the only thing keeping Germans, Italians, French, Japanese, Koreans, and Chinese from buying American cars are import tariffs?
Which major industrial countries have the highest tariffs on cars and trucks anyhow?
You keep making those allegations. Yet when asked to give a country that puts a tariff on US goods you get shot down with facts. We have more tariffs protecting the Big 3 than most other countries have. Japan does not have any tariffs. You want to sell Buicks in Tokyo, go for it. The truth is most countries don't want the crappy cars we sell. GM and Ford can only build PU trucks and large SUVs and they are very limited in their appeal in countries that pay 3 times more for fuel than we do.
The $14 workers are still strapped with the legacy costs associated with UAW contracts that have always screwed the guy in the future. Sound familiar? It should it is exactly what the US government is doing to the Youth of this country. Adding debt to be paid at some future date. This Democrat Congress has added more to the debt than any Congress in the History of the USA. Your kids will pay for the sins of the 110th Congress just as the new autoworkers are paying for the sins of those that signed past UAW contracts.
Tariffs don't work, period. Free market shows the way. If you think we can live in isolation with products from the B3, it's laughable. Grandma would need to buy a truck.
Here's why the bial-out will snow ball into the $100B range....there are no products that consumers prefer over the Asian brands. Too late to slowly change. It's time to lay money on the table...BIG MONEY.
Regards,
OW
Absolutely true. It's about what people want, DESIRABILITY. Even if I wanted to buy a D3 vehicle, let's look at my last few auto choices:
1998 Audi A4 - what D3 premium small car would have been equivalent? None.
2004 Honda Odyssey - what D3 vehicle was comparable? Perhaps Caravan, but reliability was in the dumper. No GM products. Windstar was a disaster.
2005 Acura TL - what D3 premium midsize sedan? Buick? Mercury? You must be joking.
2007 Mazda 5 - what small wagon/minivan? Anything from the D3? Nope.
And even after $100B the chances that GM or Chrysler will get desirable products out there, given the recent track record? We have the Malibu and CTS, those took 5 years. How many years and billions would it take to broaden GM's entire range to high quality desirable vehicles? Way too many. More likely we pour $100B and then decide it's a lost cause. Then it's BK baby with $100B more on the national debt.
Japan has none.
I do not believe that the problem of B3 is tarriffs in Japan or Europe (and there is a lot of data to back this up, by the way). For example, since 1985 till date, Japan's currency has appreciated threefold against the US Dollar, and the tariffs have been reduced to zero. Yet what has happened is that the import market here is now dominated by European (German) brands, who have taken the share of B3.
The same is happening all over Asia. Even in China (Where some posters believe GM is the king. Not any more....).
Surely it is something other than tarriffs?
It is our tariffs that are the problem. We should eliminate the Chicken tax, 25% tariff on PU trucks and the 53 cent per gallon tariff on Brazilian Ethanol. If any country is protectionist is the United States. The whiners do not want a level playing field they want the deck stacked against any competition to the Domestic automakers and their featherbedding UAW.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3791/is_200004/ai_n8899192
Oh, and speaking of Michigan and the Republicans, Mitt Romney was in full campaign mode again, meaning Plastic Man was flip-flopping. After winning the Michigan primary by promsing $20 billion in subsidies to the auto companies, now he says against any kind of bailout whatsoever. I guess he’s trying to impress Republicans in Wyoming.
Anyone who thinks Romney is a serious candidate for 2012 ought to have their heads examined.
Your kids will pay for the sins of the 110th Congress just as the new autoworkers are paying for the sins of those that signed past UAW contracts.
Yeah, but they will get to drive the Cadillac CTS, have HDTV and hundreds of channels, video games, and will all be card carring UAW members.