Buying American Cars What Does It Mean?

travelinman · January 2006

Honestly, why does the car's origin (or place of assembly, or headquarter's location) matter in the least?

Frankly, I think it is "un-American" to buy a car based on any of the above. We live in a Capitalist society where if you make it faster, better, and/or cheaper, you win. Everyone buys their cars for different reasons (more powerful, roomier, more reliable, more luxurious, whatever).

But in my opinion, buying your car because they are "American" (whatever that means) just lets American manufacturers get away with building an inferior product. I'm going to buy the "best car" for my money, be it American, Japanese, German, Korean, or whatever.

May the best manufacturer win, and may the others improve their product so next time, maybe I'll buy their's! That's the American way!

travler · January 2006

These awards obviously don't guarantee a good quality product by comsumer report ratings, recalls, and warranty claims.

nwng · January 2006

well, the first story is about how bad the education system in the south is.

the second story is about how KY competes with other states to get yota to have a plant there. it also states tax breaks are not the deciding factor of where corps want to be hdqtr or build a plant cause the amount usually is minimal (remember to spread them out over the number of years of the plant's anticipated lifespan). I do want to know though, say if yota never had a plant in KY and where the plant is now still a piece of vacant land and no one ever worked for the yota plant, would the state of KY lose anything? (over the number of years of course). This would include $$$ to build the plant, income tax from the employees, the $$$ generated to the local economy....etc.

travler · January 2006

You can try www.ohio.honda.com but I'm not sure that would be public information.
Also, all manufacturers regardless of product are offered these incentives. Don't blame the foreign car companies alone. Blame the local government. Maybe they see a bigger picture. Future revenue for the city/county/state, higher employment, stronger economy.

nwng · January 2006

I think you misunderstood my post

socala4 · January 2006

When Ronald Reagan was President, the U.S. exported more then it ever did.

I'm sorry, but that's completely wrong. If you look at total US exports since 1978, the largest dollar amount of exports was during the most recent year. If you adjust this for inflation, the best year in recent memory was during 2000, when a certain Bill Clinton was president:

Year / Exports ($millions) / CPI (1982-84=100) / Adjusted for CPI
1978 / 142,075 / 65.2 / 217,906
1979 / 184,439 / 72.6 / 254,048
1980 / 224,250 / 82.4 / 272,148
1981 / 237,044 / 90.9 / 260,774
1982 / 211,157 / 96.5 / 218,816
1983 / 201,799 / 99.6 / 202,609
1984 / 219,926 / 103.9 / 211,671
1985 / 215,915 / 107.6 / 200,664
1986 / 223,344 / 109.6 / 203,781
1987 / 250,208 / 113.6 / 220,254
1988 / 320,230 / 118.3 / 270,693
1989 / 359,916 / 124 / 290,255
1990 / 387,401 / 130.7 / 296,405
1991 / 414,083 / 136.2 / 304,026
1992 / 439,631 / 140.3 / 313,351
1993 / 456,943 / 144.5 / 316,224
1994 / 502,859 / 148.2 / 339,311
1995 / 575,204 / 152.4 / 377,430
1996 / 612,113 / 156.9 / 390,129
1997 / 678,366 / 160.5 / 422,658
1998 / 670,416 / 163 / 411,298
1999 / 683,965 / 166.6 / 410,543
2000 / 771,994 / 172.2 / 448,312
2001 / 718,712 / 177.1 / 405,823
2002 / 682,422 / 179.9 / 379,334
2003 / 713,421 / 184 / 387,729
2004 / 807,536 / 188.9 / 427,494

If you had intended to say that there was a trade surplus under Reagan, that would also be wrong. The US hasn't had a trade surplus since 1978, and it grew rapidly under Reagan, even if adjusted for inflation:

Year / Trade surplus ($millions) / CPI (1982-84=100) / Adjusted for CPI
1978 / 33,927 / 65.2 / 52,035
1979 / -27,568 / 72.6 / -37,972
1980 / -25,500 / 82.4 / -30,947
1981 / -28,023 / 90.9 / -30,828
1982 / -36,485 / 96.5 / -37,808
1983 / -67,102 / 99.6 / -67,371
1984 / -112,492 / 103.9 / -108,269
1985 / -122,173 / 107.6 / -113,544
1986 / -145,081 / 109.6 / -132,373
1987 / -159,557 / 113.6 / -140,455
1988 / -126,959 / 118.3 / -107,320
1989 / -117,749 / 124 / -94,959

Trade data: http://www.bea.gov/bea/international/bp_web/simple.cfm?anon=202&table_id=2&area_- id=3

CPI factor: ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt

fred222 · January 2006

Everyone has a different definition of the type of engine that is needed for their perception of an ideal car.
I want it all.
But seriously, I think that all engines should be aluminium block for weight savings. I don't know about the GM 3800, but the Chrysler 3.3 and 3.8 are still iron.
Automatics should be at least 5 speed and where are the manual transmissions which are more fuel effecient and "peppy"? It seems to me that Chrysler is, at least in some areas, leading the Imports, while GM and Ford are playing a poor game of catch-up. This may be because Chrysler is not really competing against the Accord and Camry but has its own niche with the 300's and Magnums.
At some point, if the Domestic Automakers really want to compete with Honda and Toyota, they must do something about the resale value. I don't know what or how, but cars which depreciate 50% or more the first year really stink!

kdhspyder · January 2006

You keep dodging around my main point. You sure you went to a business school and not a law school for political science? Whether people have the right or not DOES NOT MATTER WHEN YOU ARE TALKING SUPPLY AND DEMAND. Supply and deman have nothing to do with people's rights in trade negotiation. Where in your economics books did you find that?

This statement is silly. Supply and demand are the heart of a negotiation. Negotiation is the means whereby supply and demand come into balance.

There's supply (labor) and there's demand (factory mgt) and some price 'p' which will bring the two into balance or agreement or contract or vehicle price - whatever you want to call it.

Negotiation is the means to find 'p'.

I think your problem is 'what are the components of 'p' in the labor negotiation?' It consists of..
A price per hour,
fringe benefits,
guaranteed hours,
minimum staffing levels,
vacations,
etc.

Who said Management had to agree to all of these. Back in the 90's when GM averted a big strike all the analysts stated that they negotiated a bad deal and were only delaying the inevitable.

When you go to buy a truck the dealer might ask for $33K plus $2000 over sticker. You dont have to pay it. The team at GM at that time was weak and afraid. Ford and Chrysler were PO'd because GM was the target company at that time and the other two had to follow along.

OK now times have changed and the UAW has gotten a great deal. Now it's time to buy a new vehicle and it may be that GM that gets the better deal this time. It's the normal course in business. Supply and Demand meet based on a price.

grbeck · January 2006

Those who complain about the incentives and concessions awarded to transplants by (over)eager state and local governments forget the circus that surrounded GM's announcement of what ultimately became Saturn.

GM announced it was building a plant from scratch, and states promptly engaged in a "bidding" war to be chosen as the home for the new facility.

GM, Ford and Chrysler have been just as adept at wringing concessions and handouts from state and local governments when they revamp old plants. Since they haven't been building as many new plants - they've largely been closing old ones and consolidating production - the focus has been on extracting tax concessions and infrastructure improvements from state and local governments eager to prevent the closure of a facility.

Ford has announced that it will close several plants as part of its "Way Forward" plan (the details of which will be announced on January 23). There has been considerable speculation as to whether Ford will close its Atlanta, Georgia, plant or the one in Wixom, Michigan. Until recently, the governors of those respective states were offering Ford incentives to keep those plants open. It now looks as though Atlanta will be closed but Wixom will remain open, so Georgia dropped out of the "bidding" over the last few days.

I have no problem with anyone arguing that government shouldn't be offering these incentives to corporations. It is inaccurate, however, to suggest that only the foreign manufacturers are good at extracting these concessions from state and local governments.

tjdepere2004 · January 2006

Lots of verbiage here. What buy American means is the money used for the purchase goes into an American based bank. What that means to you is that the bank can lend that money back to you or your company. What that means to you personally is that you can be employed that day or your company may be able to get a loan so they can stay open this week. Its very simple as it was explained in a popular recent movie--follow the money. When money leaves the country in large amounts your job will not be far behind. Have you started with your Chinese language lessons ?

socala4 · January 2006

What buy American means is the money used for the purchase goes into an American based bank.

As noted by Yahoo Finance, two of the largest Ford and GM stockholders are Barclays Bank (English) and Deutsche Bank (German).

So perhaps there are no American carmakers left?

grbeck · January 2006

So I guess Europeans should never buy a European Ford, or Opel, or Vauxhall, as the "money" ends up in Detroit. And Australians had better swear off Australian Fords and Holdens.

Good thing the Europeans didn't take that view in the early 1980s, when Ford's European operations were keeping the company afloat.

kdhspyder · January 2006

This is so far out of touch with reality in the year 2006 it's scary. Did you do a Rip van Winkle and fall asleep in the late 40's.

It's amazing that people still think the world ends at the last light in their town.

socala4 · January 2006

I have no problem with anyone arguing that government shouldn't be offering these incentives to corporations. It is inaccurate, however, to suggest that only the foreign manufacturers are good at extracting these concessions from state and local governments.

Excellent post and insights. Very fair point -- while it is completely reasonable to debate this use of incentives, the urge on this thread to demonize the "foreign" companies while ignoring the same tactics when used by "American" ones is flawed and unfair.

If anything, this illustrates that governments don't really care who provides the employment and wage base, or who pays the property and income taxes. A "foreign"-operated plant is often considered to be better than no plant at all. Given that these companies are multinationals, does it really matter where they are from, just so long as they are delivering the goods?

nwng · January 2006

Wow, boeing, ibm, microsoft, intel, dell.... would be all out of business tm if everybody wants their "money" to stay in their own backyard.

reddogs · January 2006

If you dont have "money" in your "backyard", you loose.

Bank loans to small business, mortgages to first time home buyers, seed money for startups, loans for retooling at GM, Ford....... Were do you think that money comes from..

Japan along with other countries, with all of Honda's, Toyota's sales in America is now getting the money flow, and money follows money. U.S. investors have been putting much more money abroad  and into Japan especially. Investors poured an estimated $135 billion into world stock funds last year, vs. $52 billion in funds that invest only in U.S. stocks. It was the first year that more new money had gone into world funds than into U.S. funds, and those funds have been steadily putting more money into Japan.

U.S. funds that invest abroad have been lured by the Japanese market's performance as its companies report improve worldwide sales, I would imagine car sales in the US leading the way. All this money has to come out of somewhere and you can see it as it pours out of US Stocks, business investments, and ultimately jobs that were not created or lost....... :confuse:

kdhspyder · January 2006

If you dont have "money" in your "backyard", you loose.

This concept went out in the 30's after the Depression. If you are a small business and you qualify for a loan your 'local' bank purchases its funds from the world market. If you need $10Million your local branch on Main St. doesnt go see if it's in the vault. They put in a requisition to the main office which goes to the currency markets in NY, London and Zurich to 'buy' the funds at a lower price than you are paying on your loan.

C'mon. Get current.

Investors poured an estimated $135 billion into world stock funds last year, vs. $52 billion in funds that invest only in U.S. stocks. It was the first year that more new money had gone into world funds than into U.S. funds, and those funds have been steadily putting more money into Japan.

Why put money offshore, as you say into Japan? To make a profit off them and send that profit back here. This is precisely the point other posters have been making that transplant-company profits do not end up only in the foreign country. They are often, very often as you point out, repatriated back here to your 401k, my 401k, my individual holdings, etc.

It is a very small world now. Railing against 'foreign' ownership is like railing against Dell having a plant in NC. Them damn Texans should stay in Texas.

nwng · January 2006

how much do you think japan, china and s korea hand over their hard earn cash to purchase us securities?

kdhspyder · January 2006

Their financial institutions and funds probably own gazillions of dollars worth of Dell, Intel, Microsoft and GE. And some of the profits these 'US' companies end up back in Beijing, Seoul and Tokyo.

Probably the laptop you bought online from Dell and the new washer from GE that you bought are now paying for braces in Kyoto. And a savvy investor in Seoul sold some of his GM stock at a loss to shelter income and gains he made on a German startup that took off.

And.....

jlawrence01 · January 2006

They hold a substantial amount of the US public debt which is well documented in sources such as the Wall Street Journal.

reddogs · January 2006

Spyder, obviously you dont know your 'money', if it flows to Beijing, Seoul and Tokyo and helps their industries grow most of the 'profit' stays there and generates more growth. How do you think all those projects in Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Middle East were created after the oil shocks of the 1970's, out of oil 'money' profit which came right of Americans back pockets. Then they take money generated from those projects and put it into financial institutions and funds that ended back in Saudi Arabia (money flows to money), just like all the money is now ending up back in Beijing, Seoul and Tokyo from the imported cars and cheap trinkets you bought at Walmart.

We are being drained of the 'money' honey, and pretty soon all you will have is your little job at Walmart and its great health care coverage as you live in your trailer paying your rent to the Bank of China (Canton Region Investment Group)....

socala4 · January 2006

That's a nice rant, but you still haven't really addressed how to put this into practice.

If your goal is to employ American manufacturing workers, that would mean that you should buy a car that is assembled in the US. That might mean buying a Honda Accord made in Ohio, rather than a Ford Fusion built in Mexico.

If your goal is to ensure that the money circulate in the US, then you should spend the money with companies that keep it in the US. But given that the "US" automakers are building plants outside of the US, you should ask yourself whether giving money to Ford so that it can build plants in Mexico while shutting them down in the US accomplishes that goal. If anyone has been more aggressive about building new plant capacity in the US, it has been the "foreign" makers, not the "American" ones.

All told, this thread has a lot of stuff about "buying American", but no one has provided us with a factual answer of how to exactly go about doing that, i.e. which specific cars should be purchased or not purchased, and why or why not. While it's fair to guess that buying a Ferrari exports money from the US, choosing between the US-built Accord and the Mexican-built Fusion is less obvious.

(And then, I'd like to know who is going to pay for my repairs if you steer me in the wrong direction. Should the "US" companies show a bit of faith in themselves by extending their warranties, or is there a reason why I should believe in their products more than they do?)

reddogs · January 2006

Where the money goes and the jobs it generates is the key, and we may need some input from investment and financial types on this, but just to give you an example. The money going into Florida from FEMA for just Hurricane Charley in 2004 had an effect five times of the initial amount, so 1 Billion dollars had an economic effect of 6 Billion as the heavy eguipment company paid the hotel, restaurant for its men who came to do the job and Cat dealer for new equipment and repairs, who in turn hired more people to handle the inflow, the new job hire in turn bought new products and services with the money they earned.

So all this 'American' money going to China or Japan is creating the tremendous upsurge in their economies while draining it out of ours.......It does have a effect especially when the trade/money is so lopsided that it creates a imbalance which causes the money drain.

socala4 · January 2006

With all due respect, that doesn't answer my question.

I want to know the following:

(1) What are the criteria for selecting the company, and why are these criteria most important? Is it:

-The quantity of jobs that it provides in the US?
-The proportion of its jobs are located in the US, versus abroad?
-The composition of the shareholders?
-The amount of its earnings that it invests in US-based plant and equipment?
-Other: _________ (specify)

(2) To accomplish the goal in Question 1, what cars should I buy and which cars should I not buy for each of the following, and why? (Remember that your reasons have to jibe with Question 1):

-Subcompact car (Civic/ Corolla class)
-Compact-midsized sedan (Camry/ Accord class)
-Larger sedan (Ford 500, Toyota Avalon class)
-Minivan

reddogs · January 2006

Right....................!!!!!!

Do you want my pets name and its pedigree and papers too.......... :confuse:

socala4 · January 2006

Right....................!!!!!!

Do you want my pets name and its pedigree and papers too.

No, I want to see how easy it is to turn your ideas into reality, i.e. something a consumer can do right now, and the reasons why they should listen to you.

If you can't or won't do it, why should anyone else bother trying?

reddogs · January 2006

Give you a Economics lesson in 30 seconds or less, ain't gonna happen.....

Some people can't be taught no matter how many times they get a lesson..... :lemon:

socala4 · January 2006

Give you a Economics lesson in 30 seconds or less, aint gonna happen..

I didn't ask for an economics lesson, I asked for a list of cars that are go or no-go, and a justification for the cars on your list. Show us how your "economics lesson" pans out when it involves going into a showroom.

reddogs · January 2006

You wouldn't listen if Greenspan himself preached it to you.... :surprise:

Your mind is shut tighter than a glued Pentium chip....

lemko · January 2006

FYI:

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/business/13668299.htm

socala4 · January 2006

You wouldn't listen if Greenspan himself preached it to you....

Your mind is shut tighter than a glued Pentium chip....

Take all the potshots you like, that still doesn't help the readers of this thread to buy a new car that matches your vision for American industry.

Think of it this way -- many people visit this website because they want to buy a new car. Here you have a golden opportunity to show people why they should buy Car X instead of Car Y, but instead, you're wasting your time trying to offend me. (And by the way, I'm not offended, so it isn't working.)

So why not take this unique opportunity to educate your fellow Americans, and tell them what to buy or not to buy? If you don't, it doesn't make you seem very committed to your beliefs. (And if that argument wasn't compelling enough, this also happens to be the topic of the thread.)

reddogs · January 2006

Good Sir, I am not trying to offend you, I am trying to educate you but I'm afraid your mind will not accept or be open to accept anything but your own preconceived prejudices and the lesson would be wasted.......

socala4 · January 2006

Good Sir, I am not trying to offend you, I am trying to educate you but I'm afraid your mind will not accept or be open to accept anything but your own preconceived prejudices and the lesson would be wasted......

The one thing that I really want to know from you, you refuse to tell me, so I'm not feeling very educated from this.

I am asking you to address the thread topic, and tell us (not just me, but all the readers) which cars to buy and which ones not to. That should be pretty simple -- this is a car forum, right?

reddogs · January 2006

Lets say I have a Pizza Gourmet resturant, and across the river is a Chinese restaurant, which one do you think I would tell you to eat at/buy from that would benefit me, my workers, and community the MOST??

socala4 · January 2006

Lets say I have a Pizza Gourmet resturant, and across the river is a Chinese restaurant, which one do you think I would tell you to eat at/buy from that would benefit me, my workers, and community the MOST??

I didn't know that either one of those made cars.

Analogies won't help the readers of this website select a car. But in any case, your inability to answer my question proves my point -- in a globalized economy in which multinational corporations fly no specific flag and do business with every nation that will have them, choosing the "American car" isn't all that easy, is it?

reddogs · January 2006

Like I said at the begining, Right........ :shades:

There are those who already have made up their mind that they all the answers and what the "right" answers should be, CASTRO does the same thing in Cuba, only 'He' has all the "right" answers and many have died trying to tell him the truth, but like you it falls on deaf ears..........

I think we are done here with this mornings lesson....

nwng · January 2006

everyone is awaiting

socala4 · January 2006

I think we are done here with this mornings lesson...

Not sure that we are. Is a Castro similar to a Chevy Cobalt, or is it more like a Ford Fusion? Whatever it is, I sure hope it gets good fuel economy...

nwng · January 2006

many countries love our roi, that's why they pour most of whatever they made off us back into the us in bonds and stocks, that in turn provide us companies cheap capital to grow and sell their products here and overseas.

That's why when China say they might reallocate their foreign reserves made us shiver

rorr · January 2006

"Lets say I have a Pizza Gourmet resturant, and across the river is a Chinese restaurant, which one do you think I would tell you to eat at/buy from that would benefit me, my workers, and community the MOST??"

Well, duh. If YOU have the Pizza joint, OBVIOUSLY you would want everybody to eat at YOUR Pizza joint. That would certainly benefit YOU and your workers the most.

But the community? That's a stretch; and makes some (perhaps not valid) assumptions. You are assuming that the workers in the pizza joint live on THIS side of the river; therefore their earnings (theoretically) stay over here through the purchase of goods/services on THIS side of the river. You are also assuming that the building owners that lease the space to the two restaurants live on their respective side of the river. Perhaps that the janitorial services, or food suppliers, or etc. etc. etc. ALL nicely and neatly maintain their business JUST on their side of the river.

Simplistic assumptions you are making. No wonder you aren't following socala4.

What if the workers in the Chinese restaurant across the river live in YOUR neighborhood? And your workers in your Pizza joint live across the water? What if the workers in the Chinese restaurant spend their hard-earned dollars on THIS side of the river (perhaps in your Pizza joint!). For all we know, the owner of that Chinese restaurant doesn't pay himself any more than the rest of the staff and dumps his profits into community service. Perhaps the owner of the Pizza joint just uses the place as a cover and is really running numbers out of the back....

Point being (and why it's been said that your economic world-view seems to be out of the 40's): the automotive industry, and the players therein, are GLOBAL concerns. Unless you can demonstrate just exactly HOW the purchase of an 'American' product built beyond our border (ie. Canada or Mexico) is 'better' for America than a 'foreign' brand built HERE (ie. Toyotas in Kentucky/Indiana/Texas/California, Hondas in Ohio/Alabama, etc. etc.), this is all pointless.

And read the link posted above by lemko (deals with the 'trade deficit'). Basically, it is saying that the deficit is due to the fact that there is more foreign capital invested in American assets (stock/bonds) than American capital invested in foreign assets. And the REASON for this appears to be that the roi (as nwng pointed out) is much BETTER for American assets than foreign ones. The trade deficit is NOT due to all the profits Toyota makes vs. what GM makes. It is due to the fact that foreign capital (like Toyota's profits) are invested BACK INTO the purchase of American assets (like stocks/bonds).

Globilization is MORE than just a company in country 'x' builds products in country 'y' from parts from country 'z' so they can sell to country 'usa'. It is also an incredibly complicated financial and economic dance between countries and very large multinational corporations.

In other words, it is a lot more complicated than what name in on that 50 cent hunk of plastic glued to your trunk lid.

slinky1 · January 2006

What i'm saying is the gap is narrowing, but the perception is still there, my aunt bought a camry, i asked why and she says "because toyotas are better quality", can't argue, but when asked how she knows that she had no answer, it's perception.
GM has segment leaders in fuel economy, and the gap is narrowing in quality, there prices are better as well, the equinox/Torrent had a 2005 first 6 month JD Power rating of 87PPH, if the latter half of the year is similar, it could be a segment leader, yet, my friend who has a crv which has had a new rear end and is in the shop for repairs monthly says "i will always drive a Honda, they are just better quality". perception can sell alot of vehicles.

zonaboy · January 2006

I hate to be a pessimist but its too late to save America by buying American. All that foreign debt (what comes after trillions?) is predominently owned by Asians and they are going to use all those Yankee dollars to slowly but surely buy the USA....the stone is cast.....we are all just along for the ride now.

slinky1 · January 2006

25 years ago, GM , Ford and Chrysler had 90% of north america in their hands with foreign company's sharing 10%, these auto makers came on strong, offering good vehicles, quality aside , it was gonna happen that market share was to be lost from the big three, no matter if they built perfect cars , with more good cars to choose from they are gonna loose share.
in the early 80's if the american big three were Toyota Honda and Nissan and GM ford and chrysler were coming up from Japan the same thing would be happening, there is nothing they can do to stop it, it will level eventually, but not yet.
People keep looking for the magic reason the big 3 loose share, but it's simply more cars to choose from, same amount of people, it can only go in one direction.

slinky1 · January 2006

China owns 522 billion in US bonds and tresury...................they could crush us if they wanted to.

dglozman · January 2006

don't waste your time on him. He obviously does not know the answer. Instead of to just say "sorry I don't know" he is typing some nonsense.

The point of this whole tread is you can not identify the purest American car. You should buy what you want, based on your personal preferences. This IS an American way.

imidazol97 · January 2006

>"because toyotas are better quality

Did you ask about the sludging problem? She thinks Toys are better because of the media methods of covering cars historically and because of "someone said."

You're right on.

socala4 · January 2006

Did you ask about the sludging problem? She thinks Toys are better because of the media methods of covering cars historically and because of "someone said."

You asked about the JD Power survey, and I was nice enough to provide you with you a side-by-side comparison of the Civic, Corolla and Cobalt. The comparison made it obvious that the Cobalt did not lead in any category, and placed third in many of them.

Is there some reason that you chose to ignore this data? Is there any source of information available that would satisfy you that the general superiority of Toyota quality is real and quantifiable, and not just part of some media conspiracy?

slinky1 · January 2006

Thank you, i never say GM,Ford,Chrysler are better, but i truly beleive the Japanese are riding a bit of myth that their cars are far superior to others.

imidazol97 · January 2006

By reading the forums and other sources I agree. All cars have problems, but a few are above and have fewer. It's amazing what word-of-mouth does. Look at Kia and Hyundae and how hard it is for them to overcome some poor products.

slinky1 · January 2006

Yes , but i made a comment earlier about GM winning gold,silver , bronze, a clean sweap from JD power in initial plant quality, is this not also "real and quantifiable"?

Buying American Cars What Does It Mean?

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles