Buying American Cars What Does It Mean?

corvettefan427 · January 2006

I don't expect people to defect to domestic brands only. What I'm asking is for everyone to give the domestics a chance. Too many people these days discredit the big3 without even bothering to look at the product, or do research on the product, I think if people did, they'd be suprised at what they'd find.

harrychezt · January 2006

hey. I like the HHR: but something about lack of rear seat leg room, shoulder room and head room(when equipped with the sunroof)... GM fixes this say by 09-2010.... when my car is paid off... I'll reconsider.

The G6 is a decent car. Just wish the 3.5 Liter V6 201(?) HP coupe were not 23-24K.
Sedan is nice, but Coupe looks better.

3 door coupe would be cool, with all of that 112+ inches of wheelbase.

I like 'em, just do not know. If I live until 2010...and all things are about like now.... I might consider the G6 sedan.

Or, if I could save 2 grand, maybe the Mitsubishi Eclipse I-4, for a sports tourer vehicle, for 17-19 K?

Can't say.
Drove a Fusion. Not bad. Do not know if I would buy one.

PT Cruiser is nice, but as spouse said" 10,000 of them in a town of 13,000 people" here.
Kinds of loses it "uniqueness" (it actually is a nice vehicle).

If I were buying now, and had say tops 20K(after bargaining, etc)... I'd maybe get a G6 Sedan,(V6, 200HP) or the Eclipse I-4. Just depends on what i felt like. A 3 door hatch(which is cool to haul odd shaped items, large boxed items, ladders, 26" bike, etc) or a Sedan.

Probably come down to who would give me the most cash for my trade in.

rockylee · January 2006

I don't work at a Military base. But yeah it would be cool to run into some of ya'll someday. perhaps at a autoshow someday

Rocky

rockylee · January 2006

If you like the G6 sedan, My mother is in love with her GTP coupe. I'd however wait for the 07' GXP which is rumored to get 270 hp.

Rocky

rockylee · January 2006

What you said has alot of truth to it pal. I'm just afraid that the Asians will own us someday soon. They are smartly buying up land, our debt, and our buisness's. Good for Americans, I dunno ???? They are economically winning the war against the U.S.

The fact is we invent it with our money, and they copy it and sometimes engineer it better. China has been on the war path with copying patented products and U.S. company's are very upset.

Perhaps someday The Big 3 won't build cars here in the United States. If and when that day comes, I will feel sorry for American Manufactoring because that might spell the end to this once great country as we know it still today.

Rocky

trispec · January 2006

I worked with a guy who did NASCAR pit crew work when he could get it.

NASCAR, by his estimation once controlled the heart of US car manufacturing industry because stock car racing's, massive marketing muscle in the conservative south, was the only thing holding off the imports from completely taking over the US markets back in the 70's, 80's and 90's.

US manufacturers essentially gave up their leadership positions as world class engineering and design institutions, because they became hopelessly addicted to what the NASCAR race formula dictates as the engineering and design standard. Namely a car with a cheap to make, torque heavy engine, that can go fast as hell on flat straight runs or banked curves. US manufacturers were seemingly trying to change by introducing European stylings, but the intelligent modern manufacturing and design standards were being created in Europe and Asia.

In today's US car market, it's much to late for the US companies to regain their position and credibility. In addition now, the US manufacturers are addicted to ease to build and engineer SUV platform. SUVs have become the boat anchor that's going to really sink the so called Big Three, as profit margins on SUVs are all but gone.

Chrysler is already being managed from Germany. GM and Ford are on crash diets to loose as much fat as they can, as fast as they can, so when the final dance comes along, a big healthy Euro/Asia partner will extend a hand for that dance rather than turning them down as just another wall flower.

dhamilton · January 2006

The American design mentality is slowly getting away from that Nascar ideal, hopefully. Nascar technology is simple, and outdated. Interesting racing is coming from Europe and Asia. Racing is very important to a manufacturer's street technology. You can see this in the design, and overall philosophy in European makes.
However, Nascar seems to grow in popularity. {I have no idea why, to each they're own i guess} The funny thing is, I live in Houston and investors have tried to get a Nascar track here for years and people just don't want it. There is champ racing here every year, as well as F1 for a couple of years back.
That's not to say that the muscle/heritage car thing is bad. But the whole lineup based on as many good ideas as teeth at a Nascar event isn't going to save anyone from bankruptcy.

bumpy · January 2006

Perhaps someday The Big 3 won't build cars here in the United States.

Don't worry, they'll still build full-size trucks here since North America is the only market of any consequence for them. Big FWD cars (Impala and up) and specialty stuff like the Corvette and Solstice will remain here, but everything else will come off a boat.

rorr · January 2006

"However, Nascar seems to grow in popularity. {I have no idea why, to each they're own i guess}"

Off topic but.....Nascar is popular because the races are close with several drivers in contention throughout the race and the drivers/cars can 'lean' on each other a bit.

F1 (and to an extent the champ cars) are more centered around pure speed rather than close racing. Rally is even 'worse' in this respect. Many folks don't give a damn about racing a clock; they're interested in watching drivers battle back and forth.

Is the technology in Nascar outdated? Sure; however I'm not sure why this automatically means the manufacturer uses outdated technology in their production cars. Does anyone expect that Toyota will start to slide in their technology just because they compete in Nascar?

asafonov · January 2006

Harry, your profile does not list an email, so I am polluting this forum - you could look into classes/certifications that permit you to work as a plumber/electrician/HVAC specialist, if you are so inclined. Possibly better money than welding, and not outsourcable at today's level of technology.

scape2 · January 2006

Yes, Honda/Toyota/Hyundai/Nissan and others have plants here in the U.S. Now, ask yourself. How much of the tooling is U.S? How much of the engineering is U.S.? How much of the vendor support/technical support is U.S.? Tax breaks? I know, I have worked for a Japanese company and have visited other Japanese "transplants". You would be surprised.
Fact is it has been bashed and bashed into our heads that Ford or GM just can't build quality/reliable vehicles. The auto reviewers/writers constantly bash Ford and GM. When there is a comparison shoot out, never will a Ford or GM product win. I have owned Ford products over the last 15 years and never, ever have I had any problems.
Take a moment and think. We as Americans have sent Billions overseas over the last 10-15 years. Much of our wealth we have sent overseas will never come back. We are now a debtor nation to China, Japan, Korea and who else? Our government is also in debt.. We must start to think longterm about our economic stability and future. We are all tied together in this economy. It doesn't matter what profession you are in. Americans don't work, you don't get paid.

edwardsf · January 2006

I am not sure that I understand this thread, especially the posts by RockyLee and Lemko. There seems to be no recognition of the corporate structure of the auto manufacturing companies or any multinational company for that matter. Profits are made for shareholders, no matter what their nationality and millions of Americans hold shares in Japanese based companies and many Japanese hold shares in American companies. For instance, almost all of us in the U.S. hold shares in Toyota through mutual funds in our 401ks. Therefore, Americans DO profit when Toyota profits.

But this setup is complicated by two factors: one foreign governments and banks hold large amounts of both U.S. government and U.S. corporate debt. Our economy is one of the most indebted in the world and all the SUVs and boats in our 3 car garages are based on this system. That is, huge U.S. buying power is subsidized by healthy foreign economies. Second, boards often run these corporations to serve the corporate officers and not the shareholders. The Board members and officers make HUGE compensation through salaries, bonuses and options and the shareholder and profits suffer. This is especially true in American corporations (CEOs make around 100 times what workers do; in Germany it is about 5 times) and even more true in GM and Ford. Also, U.S. companies are MUCH more sensitive to quarterly profits demands of our own fund managers (due to their salaries and options depending on share price - see Enron) and therefore, are much more short sighted than foreign competitors. An example is GM and Ford's insane employee pricing which helped stave off lower bond ratings. Instead of improving cars, they keep trying to cut costs and increase gross revenue. STUPID business model - unless your options vest in a few months...

These two companies are financial disasters (except as money conduits for the greedy corporate officers - again, see Enron) and their demise can only mean more efficiency, jobs, and profits for all, including American workers and shareholders. And I have not even mentioned the massive expenditures Ford and GM (and Chrysler) pay lobbying Congress to both ward off fuel efficiency -subjecting us to the Saudis - and and to stave off lower emissions - thereby causing lung disease to our children and grandparents. And I have also not even mentioned the safetey scams (Firestone/Ford) and the buying up of the L.A. trolley system.

Let these corrupt, bloated, polluting elephants die. Skilled auto workers will be employed by better companies albeit at reasonable wages or may have to move. But so did the horse and buggy company employees.

anythngbutgm · January 2006

I don't get much into the politics of the Auto Industry, but it is intriguing to hear it from that point of view.

rorr · January 2006

"Now, ask yourself. How much of the tooling is U.S?"

Probably as much of the tooling as in domestic plants. What makes you think that FMC/GM/et al automatically source their tooling from U.S. manufacturers? What makes you think the Toyota/Honda/et al automatically source their tooling from overseas?

"How much of the engineering is U.S.?"

A fair amount actually, since many of the imports maintain engineering and R&D studios in the U.S. Also, many of the cars sold under the domestic nameplates are designed overseas (Focus comes immediately to mind).

"How much of the vendor support/technical support is U.S.?"

Who knows. How much of the 'domestic content' on a GM or Ford vehicle is actually sourced out of Canada? Why shouldn't 'domestic content' actually MEAN DOMESTIC CONTENT.

I'm still trying to figure out why supporting a Canadian UAW worker is somehow better for the U.S. than supporting a non-UAW worker in Tennessee or Alabama or Ohio.

"When there is a comparison shoot out, never will a Ford or GM product win."

False. The Mustang was picked ahead of the RX-8 and Nissan 350z in a 3-way comparison. And I've seen several reviews picking the new Pontiac Solstice over the Miata.

"Much of our wealth we have sent overseas will never come back."

First of all, there is not some mythical 'fixed' amount of wealth in the world. We (the U.S.) can AFFORD to have wealth sent overseas because we actually GENERATE wealth. How else do you suppose we can send so much 'wealth' overseas and, at the same time, be accused of having more than our 'fair share'. Despite all the wealth we have 'sent overseas' we remain one of the most (if not THE most) economically powerful nations on this planet. Why? Capitalism. And some of the tenents of capitalism include 'competition' and an 'open market'.

Now, one can easily debate whether or not the competition that the domestics face is 'fair' or not or if the markets are really open (and in many ways, the auto trading is very much a one-way street). But you aren't going to help the American auto industry by turning a blind eye to their faults. And it would also be helpful to honestly assess how much the UAW effects the domestic manufacturers ability to be competitive.

mirth · January 2006

I got to admit that up until that third paragraph you had me nodding, but then...

These two companies are financial disasters (except as money conduits for the greedy corporate officers - again, see Enron) and their demise can only mean more efficiency, jobs, and profits for all, including American workers and shareholders.

Umm, more like their demise would be several U.S.-based suppliers going under (with subsequent job losses in the U.S.), and many of the rest forced to move their factories overseas (with subsequent job losses in the U.S.). Kind of hard to own stocks when you can't buy groceries - guess a lot of those 401K's would get cashed in.

And I have not even mentioned the massive expenditures Ford and GM (and Chrysler) pay lobbying Congress to both ward off fuel efficiency -subjecting us to the Saudis - and and to stave off lower emissions - thereby causing lung disease to our children and grandparents.

Given how few emissions the average car gives off these days, I wouldn't worry to much about lung disease (at least not from cars). And carbon dioxide doesn't cause lung disease - just (supposedly) global warming. Fuel efficiency laws come down to one thing - a tax on companies that are successful selling trucks. Sorry so many people buy them (900K F-150's alone last year), but too bad. Toyota is even trying to get more into that game by building a new truck plant in Texas, and they were among the companies that took California to court over their new emissions laws.

And I have also not even mentioned the safetey scams (Firestone/Ford)

Fireston makes a bad tire, and that's Ford's fault. Okay.

and the buying up of the L.A. trolley system

Haven't got a clue what this is, but I'm sure if whoever hadn't bought it it would have solved all of L.A.'s traffic problems.

All IMHO, of course.

andre1969 · January 2006

went the Trolley, as it passed on into oblivion. However, it wasn't GM that killed the Trolley, it was PROGRESS killed the Trolley!

Trolleys, streetcars, etc work great in congested, tight city areas, but with the advent of suburbs, urban sprawl, the increasing popularity of private automobiles, etc, the trolley just became obsolete. Buses are cheaper than trolleys or streetcars, the routes are easier to change as demand sees fit, and with buses there are no tracks to have to maintain.

uga91 · January 2006

But I try to buy American cars made in the US. My F-150 was built in the US as was my VUE. The last 4 cars I bought before these (2 Chrysler minivans and 2 Saturn sedans) were as well. I understand both sides of the argument. I just feel better buying American made American cars. Doesn't mean American made Hondas are bad and Mexican made Fords are good--or anything else. To each his own and this is mine. Thanks.

qbrozen · January 2006

hmmmm... is that the VUE with the Honda engine? or the one with the Italian transmission? Or maybe the Hungarian transmission? OR the british engine/japanese tranny combo?

its funny that the VUE actually raised their US parts content by switching to the Honda engine.

hickey86 · January 2006

True story. We had a '02 Subaru Forester, and it was a great car. On the other hand, we way overpaid and the dealership service department was crappy. We switched to an '06 Escape recently and it's better. It's more powerful, better in the snow, the dealership's great,we got an awesome deal, and we didn't even take a huge hit in fuel-economy. I think a lot of justification for imports are bragging rights. And really I don't think there are there's that much to brag about anymore when the cars (SUV's anyway) are compared.

brown3 · January 2006

Regardless of origin, people buy what they want. The very first posting in this thread compared an Impala and a Camry - having recently driven both for more than a week at a time as rentals, I know I'd choose the latter, for a variety of reasons . . . my own first hand experience trumps any number of "test reports" and "surveys." (Among other things, The Impala seats were very rough on my back.)

Toyota's Avalon was designed in California, engineered in Michigan, and is built in Kentucky of mostly US-sourced components. Is it really a foreign car?

GM's Pontiac GTO, carrying the traditonal U.S. muscle car badge, was designed in and is built and imported from Australia. It it really an American car?

According to the sticker, the figurative heart and lungs of Ford's "best Explorer ever" - the engine and transmission - are imported from Germany and France(!) respectively. How "domestic" is that vehicle? (And Ford Crown Vics have been made in Canada for decades.)

If US companies want consumers to show loyalty to domestic brands, why do those brands outsource internationally?

Thanks to outsourcing, there's no such thing as a US car any more. When flacks for the "US" car companies imply we should buy their products for some implied patriotic reasons, it's a case of "Do as we say, not as we do." Which leads me to conclude that "US" makers don't really have an objection to folks buying foreign . . . they just object to car buyers not using them as the middleman when they do buy foreign.

Who needs a middleman? :confuse:

navigator89 · January 2006

You make some good points. In today's globally connected world its hard to find products that are purely American, Japanese, German. They all borrow parts, manufacture in other countries, sometime borrow an entire car.

I also believe people should buy whatever they find suits them best. What you drive has no reflection on your pride or love for your country. If an American car doesn't fit your needs then dont buy it.

It's hard to tell which nation a car belongs to since a lot are either based on a foreign car or built in a foreign country. Example - Fusion is built in Mexico, Odysseys are built in Canada, BMWs are built in India.

fred222 · January 2006

The biggest difference between the Domestic Big 2.5 and the Foreign Big 2 (Honda and Toyota) is the management philosophies and the UAW.
I am sure that if you look at it statistically, the percentage of American labor man hours for vehicles that all these companies sell in the US is very similar and some of the "Imports" may be higher.
If you feel patriotic you should care about employing American workers, more that where the company head office is located. These days , if you buy a Honda or a Toyota, or one of many other other "Imports" you may be helping American workers more than if you buy a "Domestic" vehicle.

irnmdn · January 2006

Buy Big 2.5 products made in Mexico/China: Supports American CEOs
Buy asians brands made in USA: Supports American workers

tmp888 · January 2006

Buy Big 2.5 products made in Mexico/China: Supports American CEOs
Buy asians brands made in USA: Supports American workers

Few of the reasons for foreign automaker build vehicles here are:
1) They don't want to exceed import quota.
2) Avoid currency flutuation when they convert back to their currency.
3) Make buyer not feel guilty when buying and etc.
Bottom line is they care scrap about you and me.

US automakers for the last few years have closed tens of factories in US and layoff tens of thousands US workers. Bottom line is the total number of auto workers in US pretty much stay about the same (it's just shifted from the 2.5 US big three to 3 Japanese big three). I point is regardless what you buy that you think help one or others. You don't.

Would you prefer Bill Gate is American and lives in US or not American and lives in other country?

irnmdn · January 2006

Bottom line is they care scrap about you and me.
What makes you think management of American corporations think any differently?

US automakers for the last few years have closed tens of factories in US and layoff tens of thousands US workers
Has any US CEOs taken pay cuts (stock and salary combined) lately?

edwardsf · January 2006

Your first point was a good one but after that you lost me...

Regarding your first point, if (no when) GM goes bellyup, I think the suppliers and their employees would switch to Toyota or whatever. Most already are looking to change their businesses and the employees are pretty marketable. If Michigan's Governor Granholm has already figured out that she needs to court Toyota, don't you think our nimble, free market capitalists will too?

You are very far off on the emissions and disease issues. Cars are the biggest sources of the two of the biggest public health problems in the U.S. (and the world) - summertime and winter smog. Summer smog is caused by the mix of volatile organic compounds and hydrocarbons. Winter smog is caused by Particulate matter. These two pollutants cause billions in public health costs and create huge suffering from lung diseases like asthma, bronchitis and even lung cancer. By buying off Congress to ensure that SUVs are exempt from many emissions requirements, these vehicles pollute more PER MILE and thus cause more costs to the taxpayer and more lung problems per mile.

In short, car manufacturers and SUV and high mileage car drivers do NOT pay for the external costs of their actions. No tax here; in fact those who make and drive trucks and SUVs are receiving huge subsidies do to the costs of their pollution.

I did not mention CO2 but I will say that due to the SUV craze and our subsidies to the coal and oil businesses, the U.S. has 2.5% of the world population and produces 25% of the CO2 emissions. Thousands of scientists are in consensus on the contribution of CO2 to climate change and agree on the relation between CO2 and increased number and intensity of storm events. If you don't want to believe it, fine, but I will go with the meteoroligists.

Ford was involved in the Firestone coverup.

GM purchased the L.A. trolley system in the 30s and warehoused it. L.A. was not so suburban at that time. See the film Roger Rabbit for a funny take on a historical event.

harrychezt · January 2006

270HP. Sounds like fun!

That was why I was going between the possibility of a Eclipse( also , it is made in Illinois, at UAW plan

)
with 263HP, vs a 240HP G6 Coupe( which cost more than the Mitsu).

Hmmm. 270HP is awfully interesting, indeed.

If I am gonna get "low" mpg( think Mitsu is 23-25?), and i am gonna pay out the nose anyways( unless we save some cash for say 16-18 months beforehand, to lower monthly payments,etc) may as well get the most for the cash.

Since I am 3-4 years away anyways froma purchase.... that sounds cool. GPX(?) will be out about 2 years or 3 by then, and eclipse may be near end of 5 year cycle run..... may end up being which one is th eleast expensive, or if price is thisclose, which one has the most of everything in it.

C-Ya.
DAV
83-94

imidazol97 · January 2006

IIRC the auto contribution to total pollution is easier to control than some of the others--like stopping manufacturing plants from operating. I'd like for someone to come up with total pollution data about the sources. But the ease of control with autos is the factor.

I agree about having consumed much more fuel and contributed much more CO2 than necessary during past decades because of the popularity of trucks. I'm not talking about those who use trucks in their work or need one to get to their work site; I'm talking the truck to be 'cool.' I include my niece in that. She feels her Explorer is real safe for her and her little one. I haven't asked if she saw the report about the SUVs not being as safe because of rollover likelihood. I'd figured out long ago they roll over easier... grin.

I heard today that a model on global warming found that having green forests over North America increases the absorption of heat from sunlight due to the dark green color; they hurt more than they help.

gtee · January 2006

The Buy American is nothing but a Marketing Campaign introduced in the late 70's by Ford GM and Chrysler. Ford and GM are forcing their suppliers to lower costs by shifting manufacturing to China. Chrysler, Ford and GM have for years build cars in Canada and Mexico and managed to call them "Domestics." It seems that Free Trade agreement makes it ok to call imported cars 'Domestic.'

Recently I saw a Dodge Ram Pickup with a "Buy American" sticker on the truck. What a joke. A Mexican built truck with a Mexican built 'Hemi' motor, from a German car company. And this man puts a "Buy American" sticker on it. IF THIS IS NOT A JOKE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS.

As far as I know, Chevy is the only car company in US that sells a car with a Chinese built motor (Chevy Equinox). At least my Honda Odyssey is built in America by American workers and comes with an American Built Engine.

AG11 · January 2006

How much of the tooling is U.S? How much of the engineering is U.S.? How much of the vendor support/technical support is U.S.?

A lot of cars that Japanese build here are designed, manufactured, and sold solely for the NAmerican market. Offhand I recall the following are only available here: Toyota Sequoia, Sienna, Tundra, Avalon, Honda Odyssey, Acura TL.

Take a moment and think. We as Americans have sent Billions overseas over the last 10-15 years. Much of our wealth we have sent overseas will never come back. We are now a debtor nation to China, Japan, Korea and who else?

But on the flip side, does this not simply make them more dependant on us too? Since they hold so much of our debt, they would not want us to go belly up and default. They'd rather have us prosper and make sure all the bonds are still worth something.

rockylee · January 2006

Currently a Silverado, Sierra are 87-90% North American content.

The Buick Lucerne I looked at a couple days ago was 87% North American Content.

General Motors still has the most North American content.

Your Honda, or Toyota might be assemebled in the U.S. which is yes good for americans, but what percentage are those parts made in North America. I know the Acura TL, Accord are 65% North American content which I believe is the highest for a foreign brand.

I'd rather buy a Canadian Made,(CAW) automobile over a asian. #1 The money goes to our sister Canada instead of Japan. #2 The Canadian automobile worker isn't going to get fired for being too old. He will get a good retirement, instead of bread crumbs that the American Asian autoworker will recieve over his/hers lifetime of being manipulated.

I know I will hear it from some of ya'll. But if you put some thought into what I just said, perhaps you might understand my personal view.

Rocky

irnmdn · January 2006

I'd rather buy a Canadian Made,(CAW) automobile over a asian. #1 The money goes to our sister Canada instead of Japan. #2 The Canadian automobile worker isn't going to get fired for being too old.

#1 Canada is as much sister to US and Japan is. In fact, as far as matters of foreign policy are concerned, Japan supports US way more than Canada does. So if you are patriotic American, support Japan before Canada.
#2 Japanese auto workers probably workers enjoys same if not better health-care and pensions that Canadian workers do.

Substitute Korea with Japan in #1,#2 - you won't still be far off.
Is suspect your flawed argument is based on brotherly love towards CAW comrades rather than on facts. BTW, have you checked if JAW doesn't exist?

kdhspyder · January 2006

Fireston makes a bad tire, and that's Ford's fault. Okay.

As bad as Firestone was in making the tires Ford was likely right behind them in the design of the vehile and the restriction put on Firestone... ergo the 'apologies' Ford made in TX, et al.

sabastian · January 2006

Some might call me unpatriotic, but I see no reason for buying a car from the Big 3 just to help out America. We have already established that many so-called Japanese cars are made in America, and many so-called American cars are made in Canada or Mexico. Never the less, I think we would still consider cars made by American companies to be the producers of American cars. For instance, I would still refer to a Jaguar as a British car, even though Jag is owned by Ford.
So back to my initial statement. When purchasing or leasing a car, I would tend to go for what I actually want rather than what I think would be good for the economy. Why? Well, If I buy a car, I will have to live with it everyday. Why compromise with my money? Why not get the best? If I want the best roadster money can buy, that's easy: MX-5. The best sports sedan? The 3-series. The fact is, most American cars just don't stack up to the best in their segments. For example, the Grand Prix GXP is laughable when compared to the 3-series, A4, and IS350. It's the same story with the G6, which was soundly beaten by all other contenders in Car and Driver's recent comparison. Fusion or Accord? Well that one is a bit tough, but I think I would still go for the Honda. If the Big 3 actually stepped up their quality (I'm talking fit and finish, refinement, etc.) and became a real contender, then I would consider buying. Until then, however, I doubt I'll be visiting any domestic showrooms anytime soon.

kdhspyder · January 2006

I know the Acura TL, Accord are 65% North American content which I believe is the highest for a foreign brand

Camry 80% N American content
Corolla/Matrix/Vibe (!) 75%
Avalon 75%
Solara 75%
Tacoma 70%

jlawrence01 · January 2006

When I visited the Toyota display of 20 vehicles at the WI State Fair, all the Toyota vehicles - cars, trucks, SUVs were 70%+ Domestic content.

And the Equinox is what - 52% ???

cracovian · January 2006

A nice 2004 GTO... Holden built it and GM picked up the tab (it costs me $120/month for 24 months). A ten-year Civic would cost me more. I just love domestic cars ;-)

scape2 · January 2006

on is the CEO pay structure of U.S. corporations. When I worked for the Japanese company the president drove a Toyota Camry. It was a fully loaded Camry, but still a president of a U.S. corporation would not be caught driving a Camry. I believe it is all in the philosphy of management. A leader should not portray total and upmost god like status. This breeds the wrong work ethic and environment for a company to succeed. Granted, a CEO deserves good pay, but not 10x more than the average worker in the company. This is where Ford/GM need to make huge changes. Stock holders should be forcing these changes. The monies used in these huge pay packages to CEO's can and should be spent on new products, company infrustracture, quality improvements.

scape2 · January 2006

You quote Euro brands.. Do you know where some of these rate for reliability and quality when compared to even U.S. brands?

scape2 · January 2006

"A lot of cars that Japanese build here are designed, manufactured, and sold solely for the NAmerican market. Offhand I recall the following are only available here: Toyota Sequoia, Sienna, Tundra, Avalon, Honda Odyssey, Acura TL."

Have you ever been into one of these Japanese manufacturing plants?

rockylee · January 2006

The Japanese workers do enjoy those benefits that you described. I guess our horrible capatalism is rubbing off on the Japanese. They are exporting their citizens jobs to America. I was even :surprise: they were doing buisness in China too. (past history). Your arguement is a good one but Canada, has a similar culture to ours.
I guess if all the plants U.S. asain plants were unionized, "I personally would offer a bit more support" for them. I have always said the asians design very fine cars. I would in fact buy one over a Bimmer, Mercedes, since they do build the majority of their cars over here and are of much higher quality.

I will always be biased since I grew up in a GM family as most of you know. I will however ridicule GM for investing in China, instead of building the cars here for export. I guess this is why I'm so anti-globalization, and feel the U.S. government is gambling our future away and big U.S. buisness is selling us out. At this point, I don't see any patriotism from corporate america and it's very sad. :sick: -This is how I see it.

Rocky

sabastian · January 2006

I cited two european cars: the BMW 3-series and the Audi A4. Both of these cars, over the past couple years have been among Consumer Reports recommended models. I simply used Jaguar as an example, but yes, I realize that reliability has been spotty among this particular brand.

It's hard to make general statements about the reliability of cars from a certain country because all manufacturers/models are different. You cannot say, "Euros always break down" because they don't. I also cannot say that domestics always break down, because that is also not true. I will say, however, that my experience has been that many (not all!) domestic cars seem to lack refinement of their European (and Japanese, in some cases) counterparts. Interiors, for example, still seem to be a huge problem for the Big 3. Pontiacs, Chevys, and Saturns seem to be particularly atrocious.

Anyway, I don't really wish to start an imports vs domestics debate. I just simply wanted to say that I will buy the car that I like the best, not the car that will do the best for America.

imidazol97 · January 2006

>Anyway, I don't really wish to start an imports vs domestics debate.

I think the cat's out of the bag already :shades:

AG11 · January 2006

Have you ever been into one of these Japanese manufacturing plants?

No, I do not work in the automotive industry.

All I know is that their car has decent domestic content (i.e. it's not like they assemble parts they import from their home country), the domestic content seems to increase each time models gets upgraded, and that they, along with other foreign companies, are only ones creating new jobs here.

Is there anything alarming about their facilities?

AG11 · January 2006

I just simply wanted to say that I will buy the car that I like the best, not the car that will do the best for America.

Same here.

And as discussed by many ppl thruout this topic, even the concept, "what's best for America" is vague, considering outsourcing by the domestics and ever expanding foreign presence here.

sabastian · January 2006

Same here.

Maybe the thing that would be best for America would be for everyone to have the car they want. It could bring down road rage! Who knows! :shades:

socala4 · January 2006

Granted, a CEO deserves good pay, but not 10x more than the average worker in the company.

Like it or not, but any company -- not just automotive makers but any firm -- will have to pay market compensation if it expects to attract top talent.

You can't expect Ford, GM or any other blue chip firm to find a top-flight CEO for a few hundred thousand per year, anymore than you could expect to find a decent mechanic charging $5/hour labor for his services. That might be accepted in Japan, but that simply won't work in the US.

fintail · January 2006

That's a nice theory, but when you pay through the nose for "top talent", you better damn well get it. I can't argue that GM has had much of it over the past 30 years, yet they've added some nice funds to the accounts of millionaires.

There should be a compensation scheme for these oh so responsible and intelligent suits...after a period of time, if the company is not improving in some way, you get to (are forced to, at gunpoint if need be) return your pay. Compensation for these people should be entirely based on performance. Fail to perform, fail to make millions that you simply do not deserve.

socala4 · January 2006

That's a nice theory, but when you pay through the nose for "top talent", you better damn well get it...

I agree with that, of course...

...There should be a compensation scheme for these oh so responsible and intelligent suits...after a period of time, if the company is not improving in some way, you get to (are forced to, at gunpoint if need be) return your pay.

...But now you've taken things a bit far, and your outlook is precisely one reason why there has been a problem.

There need to be incentives to encourage reasonable risk taking. Innovation carries risk, and if you are going to pummel people who take reasonable risks whenever they fail, which is more likely in the short run when one take chances, then you will never get innovators to work for you.

Which has been a core problem for GM. The company has been so large and bureaucratic that it spent more effort on consolidating platforms, achieving cost reductions and developing its finance business than it has creating innovative, semi-interesting cars that the masses of people will want to buy and for which the masses will develop brand loyalty.

Perhaps one problem in the US is the same problem that effectively killed off much of the UK's domestic car industry -- the rental car industry. When the large automakers can depend on large fleet sales to maintain high sales volumes, the end result is that there is little incentive to make interesting bread-and-butter cars that Joe Sixpack will want to buy trade-in after trade-in.

The SUV boom made it so easy to produce profit that it was easier to follow the straight-and-narrow and to avoid innovating, because there was no need to subject oneself to the scrutiny of the headchoppers who will immediately seek revenge for a down quarter of earnings. But now that Toyota has led the way of a new wave of quirky small cars and hybrid technology, GM will need years to even attempt to play catch up.

So my concern isn't with the compensation of executives -- pay the best whatever you need to pay them -- but with a changing in attitudes. But my suspicion is that the most innovative moves you can expect from GM in the future will be to move more manufacturing to the lower-cost PRC. After all, the sudden rush of attention that GM is drawing to its pension costs is a warning shot that the next move will be to weaken the UAW and start operating non-union plants outside of the US.

GM isn't ultimately an American company, it's a global multinational that flies the flag of the stockholder first and foremost. Its loyalty isn't to you, so there should be no reason why anyone should be loyal to it.

fintail · January 2006

I agree with big payouts for big bouts of success. Risk should be rewarded. GM is paying very good money, where are these "innovators"? But I think if you bravely lead a company to failure, you have no right to a golden parachute/big pension/other perks, not to mention the 7 and 8 figure compensation. It simply cannot be justified. Rewards for people who screw up...no logic. If you don't think your risks have a good chance of paying off, or you are too lazy to innovate, or are just there to cash in after a few years, maybe one should work elsewhere. GM can find better blood than people like Wagoner. I simply would like performance based pay.

Buying American Cars What Does It Mean?

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles