Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Does America Even Need Its Own Automakers?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Last I checked, Michigan is not exactly in the airplane, satellite, missile and ship building business...
Which country still have the strongest defense industry? I think we all know the answer of that question.
A good defense industry is curial.
If you have been watching the news as of late you will know the Air Force just awarded Airbus a $35 billion contract for air tankers with a possible $100 billion more at a later date. Will this kill Boeing, no way, but now we are relying on a foreign country to supply us with very specialized military components.
Now, consider we (the US) are in an economic down turn, people are losing their homes, people are maxed with credit dept and we have a federal deficit of potentially catastrophic proportions and we are giving a potential $135 billion to Europe. Another bad idea.
However, I am still having trouble to imagine the US Air Force flying a French jet, a ^&#%^&% French jet...
By the way, the prime contractor in this tanker deal is NOT Airbus, it is actually Northrop Grumman. No doubt that some of the profit will be going oversea but the majority will stay within this country. Not to mention that all the logistic and sustaining post delivery will be done by NG. The airplane will be assembled in Mobile, AL which will generate almost 2000 new jobs, also few thousands more for the rest Northrop Grumman sites in places like Melbourne, FL, El Segundo, CA and Rancho Bernado, CA.
Well, back to the original question; Yes, we need our own auto makers.
I am pretty sure if Taiwan has the capability to build nuclear subs and carriers they wouldn't be begging us to sell them diesel-electric subs...
It's just kind of funny that this tanker deal is a lot like the on-going domestics vs imports debate: Why should one buy an inferior product when there are better ones out there. Seems to me that even the Pentagon has got that figured out by now...
Back on topic, yeah this country needs our own auto industry but at the same time auto industry does not equal to auto "production" industry. US should become the innovation, design and engineering center of the world, not the world's factory.
and then, after that, what does "someone" do...make us build cars for them?
A) Do what you’re told, adapt to their culture and form of Government. Use their religion, if they have one.
Grab a history book and read up.
I don't see the fate of American automakers changing. They continue to bleed money and lose market share, year after year after year after year. Despite occasional marketplace successes, overall they aren't doing very well and this seems pretty obvious. One or two good years doesn't seem to stop the inevitable slide downhill.
I'm not sure so automaking and national security have much to do with each other. Great Britain lost its auto industry in the 1950s & 60s, and they seem better off today than back then. Life in Switzerland, Denmark and Norway is pretty good right now, too.
Maybe auto industries create more problems for a country than it solves?
Aside from farming, construction, defense, etc., why not let some other country make our personal transport and young people can use their talents elsewhere in the job market.
How is rebuilding New Orleans any different than rebuilding our auto industry? The scientist say that NO will be under water in 80 more years without GW. The Gulf coast is sinking. Detroit is sinking faster than that. Which will bring the most tax return? Generating jobs for auto workers or building a place for welfare recipients to live?
I don't think we should waste tax dollars on either bailout. I think the auto industry is more important to everyone in the USA than NO.
PS
We are currently subsidizing the ethanol industry with $Billions. We have made sure the mega-ag farm conglomerates were always in the black. I just do not see the difference. Money wasted is money wasted.
Boeing is hanging in there because it has so little real competition in the world beyond Airbus. The auto industry does not have the same advantage.
So why would we think that somehow the auto industry would be able to buck this trend, when so much of their overhead is tied up in labor costs? It seems like the only way the domestics will be able to survive is to get their labor costs down comparable to those of the Japanese transplants in the South, or else to move all their production offshore, especially to Mexico in Ford's case and China in GM's case. Indeed, it seems like they have made the beginnings of that latter plan.
If/when that plan comes to fruition, it will be kind of interesting to see the "Buy American" battle waged in TV ads between Japanese companies whose profit goes offshore but whose production is entirely in the U.S., and Ameican companies whose profit comes into the country but all of whose production is located outside the U.S. Who will be "more right"?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Look around. Keep your bases covered.
All the countries you listed are our allies and none have an auto industry?
Last I checked, just about 99% out of all imports are from these three countries.
The future of the American auto industry will probably look like what Ford and GM are doing now - continuing to build and engineer big trucks and SUVs (and more expensive specialty models, such as the Corvette) here, on platforms engineered in North America, while working with foreign partners to design and engineer passenger cars and small SUVs from common platforms. This has already worked with the Fusion/Milan/MKZ, Edge/MKS and Mazda6.
Provided, of course, that both GM and Ford survive long enough to fully implement that strategy...
Ford has projected, however, that when they begin selling the new Fiesta here in 2010 (the car based on the Verve concept), they will build it in Mexico. Clearly GM will source its small cars from Asia from now on.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
LOL! America's automakers thank you chesty! But of course, there were also the
Pontiac GTO
Chevy SSR
Ford Windstar
Pontiac Montana SV6 (!!)
Chrysler Crossfire
Ford Five Hundred
Chevy Monte Carlo
Pontiac Aztek
Saturn SL, SC, and L, now Aura
Lincoln and Mercury (anything)
Pontiac G5 and Sunfire (anywhere except rental fleets)
Ford Excursion
Buick Skylark and Century?
I am getting tired of thinking of models. No wait, the Ford Festiva. And the Geo/Chevy Spectrum? Any Navigator in the last eight years or so? The Lincoln Mark VIII? Oh wait, I already mentioned Lincoln.
The domestics have produced some very successful models over the years, but it is certainly no guarantee that any domestic model will "boom".
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Yes, and the top two vehicles sold are still domestics...Ford F-150 and Chevy Silverado.
Ford Mustang not successful? Geeze, I see them all over! Shoot, I think it's the nicest looking Mustang since 1969! How about the Chrysler 300? Seems everybody and his brother has one here.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I think the Challenger SRT will probably sell great for a few months like the 300C did with its Hemi years ago, then it will fall out of favor and limp along for a few years before they cancel it entirely.
All of that, of course, subject to revision as a result of any changes in Chrysler ownership and management....
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The secret of the Mustang's popularity (and survival) is that it has appealed to a wider audience than the GM and Chrysler ponycars. Remember that Mary Tyler Moore drove a 1970 Mustang coupe (which probably had either the six or a stock 302 V-8) during the opening credits for her television show, and somehow looked just as comfortable as Steve McQueen in his 1968 fastback in Bullitt.
A big-block 1971 Challenger was the real start of the chase movie Vanishing Point, but I doubt that Mary would have looked quite as comfortable in a Challenger, even if it only had the 318 V-8.
Looking at the new Camaro and Challenger, I get the feeling that history is about to repeat itself, as those two models look to be much more performance-oriented (and more overtly "masculine," if there is such a thing) than the Mustang.
Subsidizing automakers? Isn't that SOCIALISM? :P
Yes Japan and Germany are VERY good at building cars and they ARE our allies---all the more reason to let them build our cars for us perhaps? At the current market share trends, they will be building all our cars soon enough but with them calling the terms, not us.
So I think we should work out a deal before we don't have any cards to play.
What does that mean? The location of a company headquaters somehow results in "good cars" being built? Or is it just that a couple companies, that happen to have headquarters there, happen to build good cars? Does Mitsubishi build "good cars"? If GM moved its headquarters would its cars suddenly be "good"?
Why should I care if the company that builds my car is headquartered in the US or some other country? Why should I care if my neighbor works for an auto manufacturer or some other type of company? Why should I resent jobs being located in Japan, Germany, or Mexico? Should I wish for all the world, except Americans, to be unemployed?
Who is the "we" that is supposed to "work out a deal"?
As to "who" works out a deal, I would say the economists are the best equipped since they think in terms primarily of cost, not subjective judgements. Judging in terms of prevailing social attitudes ( by that I mean what we think is "fair" or "just" or who is "bad" or "good") might turn out to be a bad economic decision and cost 10X the money we were trying to save.
This is not to suggest immoral behavior, only rational economic thinking as opposed to whom we are going to "punish" or "get even with", etc.
The manufacture of horse carriages probably did employ a lot of people, too, but that was no reason to resist building cars in 1900.
America also gave up building VCRs and DVD players and cameras and seems content to let Japan do that for us. They and the Germans could just buy out Ford Chrysler and GM and build them here for us.
Saying that this is humiliating and makes us look like a colony is, again, a value judgment, and is not facing the economic reality IMHO.
I know it's an ancient post, but I wanted to clear this one up.
General Motors produces the Hummer H3 and owns the Hummer brand name. The Hummer H2 is based on a GM platform but is produced in an AM General plant in Indiana.
According to Wikipedia (sigh), AM General is currently owned jointly by MacAndres and Forbes Holdings and the Renco companies. General Dynamics is an independent company.
Additionally, the Spectrum sold well as did the Festiva. Skylarks and Centurys were very popular and the Saturn S-Series was a VERY successful car. Even the initial Ford Windstar was a successful vehicle.
But please don't think I am picking on the Americans specifically. I was just having a little fun at the tone of the original statement.
If anyone were to say that anything Japanese-made or anything German-made would automatically "boom", I would have exactly the same response.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Well, let's say it was an initial sales success. It was certainly not a good vehicle. They did very well at first because they were the first real head to head competition with Chrysler. We got suckered into one against my better judgment. What a dog! "Just like a Chrysler but without the reliability." Ugh.
Do you REALLY think that GM and Ford"s market share will dwindle to the point where Honda and Toyota were at 40 yaers ago??? Never happen.
I feel that what we are seeing is the equvalent to what has happened to ABC,NBC, and CBS since cable tv has become mainstream. We now have more choices in the auto market, just like there are more choices on tv (you'd never know it, though :P ). Think about it; the most watched show ever was the last episode of MASH. It aired in 1983. One could argue that Seinfeld, Friends, and ...Raymond were more popular, but their audience share for their respective last shows were nothing like MASH's was. Why??? CNN, Discovery, ESPN, HSN, etc. all have market penetration close to that of the " Big 3" networks.
GM will NEVER again see 50%. But 22, 24, 25%??? Plausible. Ford could get back to 18%. Toyota will see 20% steady. Hyundai is a threat to all of them.
Don't get me started on Chrysler......That's a whole different ball of wax, thanks to Daimler.
Here's an interesting graph that shows not only market share losses but the startling fact that the Big Three lose money on each car sold. That can't be good. This is from the WSJ. The chart's a bit confusing. Pay attention to the colors. For the Big Three, the plot lines look like something you could ski on. How long can this go on? Worse yet, their product mix is not good--the Big Three are heavy in the types of vehicles that are being bought less and less and too light on the types that consumers now want. This demands massive re-tooling and restructure. And where does that capital come from?
Consumer Reports Top Picks for 2008
Green car: Toyota Prius
Small sedan: Hyundai Elantra SE
Family sedan: Honda Accord
Upscale sedan: Infiniti G35
Luxury sedan: Lexus LS 460L
Fun to drive: Mazda MX-5 Miata
Small SUV: Toyota RAV4
Midsized SUV: Hyundai Santa Fe
Minivan: Toyota Sienna
Pickup truck: Chevrolet Silverado 1500 Crew Cab
Scott
C&D 2008 10 best:
BMW 3
Cadillac CTS
Chevrolet Corvette
Chevrolet Malibu
Honda Accord
Honda Fit
Mazda Miata
Mazdaspeed 3
Porsche Boxter and Cayman
VW GTI
Motor Trend COTY: Cadillac CTS
NACOTY: 2007 Saturn Aura, 2008 Chevrolet Malibu
So, I guess the product mix is changing
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/112_0803_2008_chevrolet_cobalt_ss_fir- st_drive
The CR list is a rating of what actually works out there. You think VWs gawd-awful reliability ratings are an accident, or will suddenly go away because Car and Driver likes the GTI? Don't think so.
Aside from the Malibu, there's not a GM money-maker on the CD list. The CTS and Corvette are minor players. GM is not going to keep the doors open selling CTSs and Corvettes---only Malibus--and only if they can sell them in numbers that match Accord (which I don't think they do at the moment).
Let's face it, showrooms sell cars, and auto magazines only write about cars that might or might not sell.
So, CR is the ONLY rag that counts, eh??? edmunds means nothing, MT- nada, C&D puhleeze.
We've got people on other blogs that think BMW S&$Ts ice cream, even though their reliability is subpar. Why??? C&D, MT, R&T, etc.
Why is it there seems to be a double standard for American cars???? Not reliable like the [non-permissible content removed]. The ones that come close aren't sporty& refined like the Germans. Corvette?? Not as cheap as the Koreans. What gives?????
If all one cares about is how the cars drive then MT, C&D, Edmunds and R&T are probably the way to go. However, CR generally gives a more complete picture for the overall ownership experience like FE, functionality, total ownership cost, as well as how does the cars drive 85% of the time (from home to work).
Let's not forget car enthusiasts only made up a small percentage out of the whole population.
I don't know about that, I think (for example) things like: "2008 Comparison Test: Crossover vs. Minivan vs. SUV" and "Comparison Test: 2008 Four-Cylinder Family Sedans", here on edmunds include consideration of other factors.
Toyota may have the Sienna on his (CR) list, but they also lost the free pass that CR gave them because of reliability issues that have cropped up recently. Is it mentioned here? Yes, but they don't get hammered, and people make excuses. When a car like the CTS or Malibu comes along and people rave about it it gets talked about, yet everyone seems to want to drag up things that happened 30-35 years ago and then say well, wait till they fall flat on their face, cause it's only a matter of time.....evne though GM's reliability trends are (and have been for 5 or 6 years) on the upswing.
http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/bestbet/articles/index.html
I think you are missing the point or rather I made it badly----that the Big Three scores well in certain segments, but those segments are problematic in 2008. Either they are about very large cars and trucks and SUVs, or they are about low volume (Corvette) or low profit (Cobalt) cars. The Big Three is not doing well in the "bread and butter" department or in the "feel good marketing department" or in the entry-level sports sedan segment or in the Crossover segment.
The Big Three is taking a beating because they don't seem to have the right product mix right now.
A criticism about wrong product mix is not a bias, it can't be. It just.....IS......
Global solutions for product planning and design makes for good business sense in this day and age. However, we need to produce more of our own goods and services if we are not only to survive, but thrive into the next century.
If I may jump in here and leave. The Century really only became a fleet special in it's 5th, 6th, 7th years of production. It got real old. Even so it sold huge numbers of vehicles.