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
Comments
How does it work in other countries as far as healthcare? So are the healthcare costs for those building the Honda and Toyota models covered by Japan in their tax structure? Here GM is covering the costs. Who pays for the retiree costs in Japan? The individual company or the public through socialist tax structures funding people's retirement? I'm really slow on these things and I need someone who has the answers to give them to us.
Have the US automakers had to bear the costs which their competition haven't born because their products through the years have had the costs paid at home? How does this compare for the companies with the plants they built here often at fire sale costs because of bidding by communities to site plants in their areas for a hoped for future tax benefit? Do these comanies have an advantage over the older, US builders?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Toyota claims 56% of their cars were built here in the USA. I am sure Ohio has benefited at least a little, I know Indiana has.
Who pays for the retiree costs in Japan?
With the Japanese system of cradle to grave I would imagine much is covered by the tax payers. Plus Japan has 2nd worst national debt of any country in the World. We are still like number 28th in the World.
The difference here is Toyota and Honda have gone to the 401K retirement which is paid for as you go. Most companies match the employees contribution. The demise of the company pension plans has to lie directly on the shoulders of Congress with the 1990 ERISA act. I believe that was the amendment that required a level be maintained in the pension plan to be paid by the employer. So if the market tanks as we have just witnessed the company is liable for big bucks to get it back up to sustainable levels. Well most companies were smarter than GM and the Detroit bunch. They paid people off and went to the 401K. Problem solved. It was back where it should be and the individual is responsible for the investment. GM evidently thought they could keep paying and paying so they did not insist on cutting the plan off.
I'm sure that means 56% of cars sold HERE are built here; they don't build here and sell around the world to the tune of 56%.
>Ohio has benefited
I can't think of a Toyota facility within the state. Even Toyota headquarters is in KY on south edge of metro Cincy.
Honda's manufacturing here probably is getting older workers now. They'll have to keep purging to keep young fresh ones and be sure the older ones can't become a financial liability. I see articles about early retirement from East Liberty and then the next yeqr they'll employing more (2004-2005). link title
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
You cannot physically do at 50 what you did at 30. So why should you get paid big bucks if you cannot perform the work?
The people at Honda have probably looked at what the UAW has done to GM and say no way Jose.The bright side is the sooner GM goes C11 and dumps the UAW the better the chances of new jobs coming to those that are willing to work.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I believe it must be a news article from 2001. They say in Honda's 22 years in Ohio. They opened the Marysville plant in 1979. So 8 years later they have not come up with a third of the employees willing to sign cards. I think the workers can see the end result of being UAW.
Didn't folks in Japan have jobs for life in the 80s and 90s?
It looks like the Japanese are in the same situation as we are. Baby boomers are the last to get decent retirements.
Born between 1947 and 1949, they make up nearly 6 percent of the nation's population of 127 million.
They floated on the nation's bubble economy before it burst in the mid-1990s, and their careers wound down just as Japan's financial system crumbled under the weight of bad loans in 1998.
They are also the last generation benefiting from corporate Japan's generous retirement allowances and government pensions, which they will begin receiving when they reach 65. Their retirement packages are estimated to total around 50 trillion yen ($430 billion), with a portion seeking investments.
For many of them, daily living expenses are covered by average monthly pension income of around 120,000 yen ($1,000) per person per month, on top of savings and a hefty lump-sum retirement payment from employers.
http://www.reuters.com/article/inDepthNews/idUST28598420070918
Absolutely. No Toyota retiree can compare with the lifestyle of GM retirees (so far).
Also, the fact that Japan provides national health insurance (seen as a "subsidy" by some on this board) does not give any competitive advantage to the Auto companies - The money is then taken back in the form of mandatory contribution to the insurance scheme, and the overall Government mismanagement (inevitable in such schemes) is then funded by higher taxes.
If foreign auto companies felt that there was any advantage to building manufacturing centers in Japan, they would do so right away (since they would also be eligible to the same health care coverage). Yet Japan has very little foreign investment coming in, partly because of the extremely low returns available in a market which is flat at best (and entering a long term decline in many areas).
That's not the point. The part about it being a "subsidy" is the fact that it comes OFF of the automaker's books as a liability. GM would LOVE to have that bill on someone else's books. Anyone else's books. They don't care how it gets mismanaged, so long as someone besides them takes over footing the bill.
And I bet Japan doesn't have any foreign investment coming in primarily because they don't want "gaijin" buying their country out from under them. Not that that's a real swift idea in the long term, but you can't discount cultural factors.
I would differ with your reason for that. Instead the foreign (to Japan) companies are discouraged by rather hateful requirements that are exactly intended to discourage competition from selling in Japan. That would include everything from automobiles to beef.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The V8 Camaro gets 16/25 mpg. These numbers are for the automatic Camaro. The manual models get slightly less.
It is interesting that the Cadillac CTS equipped with the exact same engine gets 17/26 mpg. This shows what a low roof aerodynamic shape can do.
In contrast, the Challenger's V-6 is a 3.5 SOHC with around 250 hp. Not really all that impressive, I guess, considering that they were getting 250 hp out of it way back in 1999, when it debuted for the 300M.
The Mustang V6 is the weakling of the bunch, a 4.0 V-6 with only 210 hp.
The V-6 Camaro sounds pretty impressive...I read somewhere that 0-60 comes up in around 6.1 seconds, and the 1/4 mile around 14.2. Definitely more than adequate. But, you're right Lemko, with a car like this, you might as well go all the way, and just get the V-8!
I'm in sort of the same dilemma with the Pontiac G8. I like the car, and the V-6 is actually more than adequate. But the thing just screams out for the V-8! Unfortunately, my wallet would scream if I bought either, right now!
That v6 is dates all the way back to the late 90's Explorer. I don't believe HP has changed either. It's a horrid engine for a car, granted, it's got decent a decent amount of torque at low rpm, but revving that beast is not fun.
Everybody talks about $4 a gallon because, until gas prices hit $4, nobody saw any shift in consumer behavior,” Greg Martin, GM’s Washington, D.C., spokesman, told the Washington Times. “Only then did people put fuel efficiency front and center.
Riiiiiiiiiiight.......... :confuse:
Although GM was caught flatfooted when gas prices spiked last summer, GM’s future lineup of fuel-efficient vehicles banks on higher prices at the pump. If gas prices continue to hover around $2 per gallon, consumers will have little incentive to switch to more fuel-efficient models, such as GM’s upcoming Chevrolet Volt.
This guy continues to prove that he and the rest of this company are a bunch of arrogant morons who are so far out of touch with realty. Yup, raise taxes so people will buy your 40 thousand dollar Volt. :sick:
Sorry pal, gas prices go up, there is a 20 thousand dollar Honda Insight and mid 20's Prius. For a little more, you could buy a Ford Fusion or a Camry hybrid and 40 grand will also get you a luxed out Lexus Hybrid that'll sell WAY before your overpriced econobox with absolutely no reputation or proven history.
With his millions he does not comprehend that the high price of gas helped send our economy into a free fall. That may take years to recover. Mean while his joke of a car the VOLT, will be selling only to the few wealthy that want to look green.
Make it a BUICK Volt and I might want to be one of those "wealthy" greenies!
Did Obama get to drive one yet? I cannot imagine it having anything going for it besides decent MPG. It will be like driving a Prius with 3 fat chicks in the back seat.
Fits the Buick image perfectly.
The pictures I've seen of the Volt look like it's a pretty decent-sized car. It doesn't look like an econobox.
So just slapping a Buick badge on a Chevy is what it makes it the best car in the universe? You don't buy it as a Chevy Volt, but you like it if it's CALLED Buick Volt? :confuse:
Buick climbed from sixth place last year in market research firm J.D. Power and Associates’ Vehicle Dependability Study, and Jaguar soared from 10th. They were followed by Lexus, Toyota and Mercury in the survey of owners of 3-year-old vehicles.
Buick’s No. 1 ranking reflects General Motors’ efforts to shake a reputation of poor dependability, said David Sargent, J.D. Power’s vice president of automotive research.
“Part of GM’s historical challenge has been that the customer’s perception of GM’s vehicles has been not in line with reliability. GM, as well as Ford, has made a lot of strides recently,” he said. “Maybe 10 or 15 years ago their vehicles weren’t as reliable as some of the imports, but I think today they’ve virtually caught up.”
Jaguar, sold by Ford to India’s Tata Motors last year, has fought similar stereotypes, Sargent said. In the United States, the brand has had a reputation “of being somewhat unreliable.”
http://www.autoweek.com/article/20090319/CARNEWS/903199997
Lemko, no offense intended, but how can you be so in love with a nameplate that you would want the same CAR if just the nameplate changed? Doesn't the vehicle itself matter, or is it only the badge put on it? :confuse:
The more I hear this guy and some others at GM talk, the more it is clear they don't have a "let's try to do what is needed to save the company" mantra but rather a "I don't want to be known as the guy who "let" GM go BK".
Though we are a supplier on the Volt program I won't be getting one, even with supplier / owner loyalty / whatever discounts.
Though we are a supplier on the Volt program I won't be getting one, even with supplier / owner loyalty / whatever discounts.
You are too?
Let's be brutally honest - nobody's going to pay $40K for a Chevy unless it's a Corvette or at least a very well appointed truck or SUV.
Six GM brands finished below the industry average of 170 problems per 100 vehicles.
I am trying to remember, how many are there altogether? If Buick was #1, does that mean ALL the other GM brands were below the industry average?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Yes, just Cadillac and Buick were above the mean average of 170 problems.
GMC and Chevy were right below the average, Saturn a few rungs down and Hummer and Pontiac even further down. Saab scored the lowest of GM brands.
>A Buick Cobalt would be as much an insult to the marque as that awful Buick Skyhawk they had back in the day
I had a Buick Skyhawk and it was a great car. It was upscale in interior and had different motor available than the others.
A Buick Cobalt with the quality support of my Buick dealership would be an attraction to me over the regular Chev.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
They are making fun of autoblog as being kids bashing their Toyotas.
"AutoBlog is run by a kid named Josh who is an active member of both Cheersandgears.com and GMInsidenews. Most of their posters are from the same sites as well."
I'll just take the same importance as the toyota lovers placed on the problem numbers when Lexus had the fewest. Those 3-10 problems per 100 vehicles were meaningful was the mantra then. So now they must be meaningful.
And they're trying to take solace in the high residuals for Toyotas but another poster pointed out that Honda is higher:
"So the worst brand anywhere for residuals is in the lower 30s, Toyota is at 46, and Honda is at what? 57 or so?"
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
No, actually, that is a fact. I am a frequent vistor of both of those sites and I know the ins and outs of that world. Been visiting those sights for probably 8 years now. I don't see how you conclude I am "making fun of Autoblog". I am a frequent reader and poster there as well.
The path that GM has taken in the last quarter century holds a LOT of relevance to Toyota right now, as the path to be avoided. Alas, in many ways Toyota has already started down that path. Is it too late for them to turn around and try a different course? Not quite yet, but they need to do so very soon.
On a sidenote, I would say that ultimately Toyota reliability is more important to its sales than its resale values are, but both are very important sale points.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
That's what Edmund's says about the non-turbo version of the Solstice Coupe. It seems the more things change at GM, indeed the more things stay the same.
Also, there are plenty of other websites with auto data than Edmunds which is currentlycontrolled by a CEO with his head on another planet.
Regards,
OW
Regards,
OW
Regards,
OW
I've been around many Buicks over the years. You own a Park Ave. I've logged thousands of miles behind the wheel of my late grandfather's '97 & '00 Park Ave's. All I will say is those cars were an absolute disgrace. JUNK in every imaginable way. Neither made it close to 100k w/o thousands of dollars worth or repairs.
I've rented several LeSabre's and I couldn't stand them either. Basically I've never driven anything with the 3800v6 and the W platform that I couldn't wait to get out of or get rid of. We can drive my wife's 07 Grand Prix for free (it's a company car) and I refuse to drive it. It's horrible. The 3800 series II sounds like a garbage as soon as you turn the key. The seats suck, it rides horrible, yet the front suspension still manages to float on rough roads, it creaks and groans over bumps. Only GM could pull that off. Thankfully GM finally pulled the plug on those POS.
We went through multiple ISS and engine cradle issues on an '01 Impala along with the gutless 3.4 v6. I've owned several GM products and been around many more and I can't recall any of them being good cars IMO. My wife gets a new car every two years so I see clearly why no one wants their cheap crap.
Anyway back to Buick. I haven't driven a LaCrosse or Lucerne so I can't say to much against them other than I know the LaCrosse is on the W platform, so I probably could say with confidence that I would not like how it drives. That's not to say that it's not reliable or fuel efficient. But if I can't stand how it drives then I don't care if it never breaks or goes 100 miles on a gallon of gas, it's still useless to me.
For those who missed the story:
Higher Gas Tax Could Drive Buyers to Fuel-Efficiency, Edmunds.com Says
Wasn't that easy? No need for egregious disincentives. Just produce optimum products. Not gas guzzlers.
Any questions???
Regards,
OW
what was SOOOO bad w/ the Skyhawk that couldn't be cured w/ a Stage 1 and a 4 speed??
Smarting? Hardly. I never liked JD Powers in the first place. After all, they're paid by the manufacturers themselves. We only get the data "crumbs." (Talk about Consumer Reports being opaque!)
More on old JD here.
Then, there's this, from a commentator on the linked article:
There is a contradiction between the high rankings of the Cadillac and Buick brands on the survey and the rankings of the individual nameplates on the same survey.
For example, here are the all of the cars that received a five-star rating for “overall dependability” in the same survey:
Acura MDX
Acura RL
Buick LaCrosse
Buick Lucerne
Dodge Caravan/Grand Caravan
Ford Freestar
Ford Ranger
Honda Accord
Honda CR-V
Honda Element
Lexus ES 330
Lexus GX 470
Lexus LS 430
Lexus RX 330/RX 400h
Lexus SC 430
Lincoln Mark LT
Lincoln Zephyr
Mazda MX-5 Miata
Mercedes-Benz SLK-Class
Mercury Grand Marquis
Mercury Milan
Mercury Montego
Mitsubishi Outlander
Nissan 350Z
Pontiac Vibe
Scion xA
Toyota 4Runner
Toyota Camry
Toyota Highlander
Toyota Matrix
Toyota Prius
Toyota Sequoia
Toyota Solara
Toyota Tundra
Compare that list of vehicles to the brand ranking above, and the correlation appears to be a bit lacking. Toyota products dominate that list, followed by Ford and Honda, while the other manufacturers barely get a mention.
(I suspect that the Buicks may benefit from having some of the oldest owners on the road. They don’t drive as much, so they are not going to have as many of the problems that tend to crop up as miles accumulate. I’d be interested to see average mileage per vehicle surveyed to see how they compare.)