By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
So I feel no pity as a consumer. Innovate or suffer/die.
In the end, everyone will win, because GM can easily make a better Prius if they try.
Sorry Rocky, that's the same old tired story. When GM's strategic blunders are highlighted it always ends up being the mythical but unsubstantiated "currency advantage" that is the reason they've had a tough time. I don't believe it and haven't seen any credible evidence other than from propaganda websites.
In addition to trucks and SUVs, Americans also prefer a lot of compact cars. I see a lot of Corollas, Civics, Mazda 3s, and Fits. It's just that GM hasn't made anything competitive in this segment for so long, they have a lousy reputation there.
In the 1980's GM's Asian competitors agreed to voluntary import quotas. Instead of making something small and competitive GM jacked up their prices to make more profit.
In the 1990's GM made big $$ on SUVs. They were the largest car manufacturer in the world -- THE LEADERS. They could have easily made the same decisions Toyota did to develop hybrids. Where was the GM board? Where is their accountability? Why couldn't the biggest car company in the world produce something better than the thrashy and trashy little Cavalier? Who decided to watch Honda and Toyota build smooth 4 cylinder engines and quality durable little cars? I think this country can do better than that and I'm appalled that it's always "currency manipulation". That's a big cop out.
Leaders don't whine, leaders do something about it. Leaders are smart, aggressive, and build superior products. It's so easy to make excuses but it is so hard to show some leadership. That's why I made a big deal about Lutz and his complaining about the CAFE targets. Everybody has the same targets, are you saying that you're not a LEADER GM?
I'm really glad GM is waking up but it is too bad that the patient had to practically go onto life support before they decided to do something about it. Luckily for GM they have two weaker competitors who will probably provide them more market share as they go bust.
Anyway, I can see why everyone is raving about the looks of the Acadia. This thing is a sweet-looking ride, inside and out, and easily the best-looking vehicle (truck or car) on the lot. A couple of them were open even though the place was closed, so I popped open a couple of doors just to get a hands-on sense of the interior. The trim is made of good materials, I couldn't find any hard spots worth noting. The thing is spacious inside; with this model, they don't need to also have a minivan in the line-up.
They had a couple of base (SLE) models stickering around $30K which had everything in them I would want, and nice alloy rims. They also had quite a number of SLT models with optional enormous 19" rims (not chrome, thank goodness) and stickers above $40K, yikes. But I know the meat and potatoes of that market will be in the $30-35K final sale price bracket, and I know that GM knows that too.
And wow, fuel economy! I was glad to note that even though on paper these vehicles are super porkers, they still make 18/26 in FWD, and 17/24 in AWD. The FWD almost matches the Sienna FWD (rated 19/26), while the AWD actually slightly surpasses the Sienna AWD (rated 17/23). Way to go, guys!
On a side note, going to that dealership is always like a trip to the automotive twilight zone on the car side of things. That dealer buys 90% of his stock in trucks, but I guess every once in a while GM forces him to take some cars too, which then sit for years, literally YEARS. Right now he is having a fire sale on a motley selection of brand new, never-titled cars such as the Buick Terraza, several Rendezvous, a couple of Bonneville GXPs, an '06 Torrent, and an assortment of Grand Prix and discontinued Buicks, all with bold yellow banners draped on them saying "$10,000 off MSRP!". Some of these were only $28-32K brand new! All are model year 2005, with some 2006s mixed in, all with their original Monroney stickers hanging forlornly by ragged corners from the windows. He hardly has any 2007 cars on the lot at all. There is a 2005 Vibe GT sitting there with a sign saying $6000 off, and the original sticker was only $24K, it is the fully loaded model. It's almost tempting.
So many of his cars and trucks have those price-reduction flyers from when GM lowered the prices January 2006, I lost count. I guess all those have been sitting on his lot at least 16 months now. He has a brand new never-titled 2005 Pontiac Montana SV6, fully loaded including rear DVD and all that jazz, advertised at $18,995, down from an original sticker of about $30K. I have a friend who is thinking about getting a minivan but doesn't know how he can afford a new one - maybe I will steer him towards that dealership. How does factory warranty work on vehicles like that? Do they still get 3/36 from when they are sold, even if it is years later that they finally get sold for the first time?
It was the twilight zone, I tell ya'.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
To answer question on pre-longer warranty cars, as far as I know, unless it recently changed, you get the old warranty period on those cars dating back before the big change. Of course $10K off - who cares.
Loren
I believe the biggest hit to fuel economy numbers is still with the hybrids, specifically for their highway ratings.
1st Place
Mazda CX-9 Grand Touring AWD: The premium blend of performance, utility, and value.
2nd Place
Acura MDX: The driving enthusiast's CUV, stalled only by a stiff price tag and a snug third row.
3rd Place
GMC Acadia SLT AWD: The biggest and the roomiest...and the heaviest and the slowest.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/suvs/112_0706_audi_mdx_gmc_acadia_mazda_cx_9- - - /index.html
You think they're not biased? I'm kind of wondering what Twilight Zone episode they were filming when they came up with the "low-rent plastic" comment. And no, I'm not digging hard, just skimming the article. But comments like this really gouge into their credibility.
Speaking of gouging credibility- how can you have a problem with the +/- gear ratio selector on the gearshift. I understand a forward / back gate would be great and all, but they make it sound as if finding the lever then pushing down one end of the button or the other is rocket science. :confuse:
I had only scrolled down as far as that Coupe pic, didn't notice all the stuff further down until now.
Gee, they have all the info about your G8 there, don't they.
One thing I noticed is that your G8 has the top of the line SSV interior.
Looks like Lutz has picked out the best stuff for you guys.
At the price they are talking about(low to mid 30K), you guys are getting it cheaper than I can get it here!
As for a fancy stereo, I'd rather listen to the soundtrack coming out of the quad pipes.
http://www1.autotrader.com.au/mellor/mellor.nsf/story2/967FEB6209C18172CA2572960- 016B1EC
Nope.
GM April 2007 sales
121,009 car (38.8%)
85,000 truck (27.3%)
105,678 SUV (33.9%)
Toyota April 2007 sales (includes Lexus and Scion)
144,833 car (61.7%)
28,971 truck (12.3%)
60,930 SUV (26.0%)
Remember GM, sells more 30+ mpg cars than Toyota.
GM offers more 30+ mpg models, but Toyota sells more.
- SUVs are now included in the passenger car CAFE ratings. No longer are they in the commercial vehicle category.(large vans still are, though)
Are you making this stuff up? Where do you get this from?
The large, high volume SUV's have not changed their status in the CAFE. Yukons will not be included in "passenger car" CAFE ratings but will continue to be included in the "CAFE" for Corporate ratings. There are a few over large vehicles like the H1 (now gone) or the monster Ford that will now be included but the Suburbans have not changed their status. There are also new ratings for individual foot print sizes with trucks.
http://nhtsa.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/template.MAXIMIZE/menuitem.f2217bee37fb302f6d- 7c121046108a0c/?javax.portlet.tpst=1e51531b2220b0f8ea14201046108a0c_ws_MX&javax.- portlet.prp_1e51531b2220b0f8ea14201046108a0c_viewID=detail_view&javax.portlet.be- gCacheTok=token&javax.portlet.endCacheTok=token&itemID=59a1dc6e1924a010VgnVCM100- 0002c567798RCRD&overrideViewName=PressRelease
ITs the trucks that kill GM's CAFE. Pure and simple. They sell too many trucks.
I'm sure many of you know about the new midsize RWD alpha-platform to underpin the new G6 and possible-BTS. Apparently there is spectulation that it will also underpin a new Saturn sport sedan??? WHY?!?
Glimpse of GM's RWD Plans
If this is true (and for the record, I doubt GM is dense enough to attempt it) I give up on GM. Period. Because they obviously haven't learned from their mistakes. When a company has soooooooo many brands, there needs to be a focus for each or you are just wasting R&D money giving them each a full line. :mad:
The 2008 rules will place most SUVs/Crossovers/etc into the car category and it's making several companies worried, to say the elast(and I bet it's part of Daimler's reason for wanting Chrysler sold - one less thing weighing them down.(Jeep is a major CAFE problem I don;t think anyone wants to deal with)
30 MPG FWD V6 Midsize cars
24 MPG RWD V8 Full-size cars
18 MPG RWD V8 Full-size SUV
I dunno, completely made that up, but I don't think its fair to fault GM for producing desirable SUVs that people want.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Honda hardly sells any SUVs by comparison and has the CNG Civic, the Hybrids, the Civic(40mpg!) and so on - so it's just needing a tiny bit of tweaking to comply. Toyota - well, they met this years ago. Their desire to eventually make all of their passenger cars hybrids is admirable.
GM - they still put a pushrod V8 in a truck and call it a day. Most people would rather have a supercharged V6 that got 20mpg average instead of 13-14mpg, for instance. The 3800, for instance, would be a perfect choice for most trucks. Reliable, good mileage, and who cares if it's not as quiet as a sewing machine when the tires make more noise than the engine as it is? V8s in SUVs are dead and people have to deal with it.(of course the GMC 1500/2500/etc would still be commercia vehicles - workers/contractors/etc can still get their V8 or diesel that way)
Ford - they are bringing in the smaller Volvo and so on, plus have several good small SUVs and economy cars(Mazda helps here as well - lots of shared technology) Now, Ford has a lot of work to do as well, but nothing like GM. But GM can manage to squeek by if they really push themselves. I just don't see it yet. They better start moving. My recommendation would be to look into CDI engines - bring the ones you have in the rest of the world over here. As unpopular as Diesels are in the U.S., they do get good mileage. Risky, to be sure, but GMs small cars are so poor as it is, it's not like they would really risk that much.
Chrysler - they haven't hope in the world. No R&D, no assets, no liquid cash, and severely under-performing as it is.
If the aveo and cobalt were the coolest thing since sliced bread relative to the GM SUVs/Pickups, than their CAFE rating would be higher. But they're not so cool, so its not so high.
IMO, CAFE should penalize GM if they tried to put out a cobalt sized vehicle capable of only 12MPG; that would be the disgrace.
yes I do know.
The standards that changed were voted on and put into law in 2006 and are being implemented for the 2008 model year and beyond.
I agree that the heaviest SUV's (not pick up trucks) will enter the total corporate CAFE, not some "passenger car" CAFE I have never heard of. Only those that are hugely heavy enter the new standards for 2011 (8500-10,000#). You have to get into the monster 3/4 ton suburbans to reach 8500#.
In addition, the light truck fuel economy standards will save more than 250 million gallons a year just by including the largest sport utility vehicles on the market today, those that weigh between 8,500 and 10,000 pounds. Mineta said these large SUVs will be included in the CAFE program starting in 2011, adding that "we worked hard to make sure that no single SUV gets a free pass under these new standards".
There are also new standards for Trucks but they are based on "footprint".
The new fuel economy standards also strengthen the miles-per-gallon target for light trucks, Secretary Mineta said. The light truck targets will increase from 21.6 to 24 miles per gallon, the highest level ever for the program. Mineta added that more was being asked of automakers because they now have to factor in 240,000 of the least efficient SUVs for the first time.
That 240,000 is what they used to sell in heavy trucks but it is now down to a heck of a lot fewer since the gas prices have reduced their sales. BUT, they are still selling because even with high gas prices people need/want them.
Crossovers/most of the SUV's/etc. are not effecting the CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) per your definition. But light trucks will have their own standards based on footprint.
GM - they still put a pushrod V8 in a truck and call it a day. Most people would rather have a supercharged V6 that got 20mpg average instead of 13-14mpg, for instance
And they get better gas mileage with those pushrod V8's in their trucks than Toyota with their engines.
And no, most would not want to pay the extra $1000 to have super charged V6's. sorry, if they did then everyone would sell them.
last I checked GM is still selling a heck of alot of large SUV's with V8's to everyone. And even Toyota sees a market there. The only way they will die is if the government forces them to go.
Rush was responding to a presidential candidates comments in a speech apparently. Maybe the presidential candidates need to get a reality check for those living and working for a living and for those running companies who have to make money and pay workers and retirees... This is not to start an offtopic discussion but was to give the etymology of the statement.
Apparently there's a proposal to help pay part of the healthcare fiasco costs for US companies who have suffered the fate of taking on big burdens and the requirement be that they work on designing fuel efficient cars with at least half the savings. Well, duhhh. Isn't that what the companies are already doing?
Hopefully GM is going to have more and more successes.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
-Rocky
People buy them because they fit their needs or wants. Just like everyone who buys bottled water when it comes out of the tap for almost free. The bottled water companies do not force the public to buy water. They just do.
GM also has plenty of fuel efficient vehicles but many of the buyers do not buy them. The domestics still have a huge percentage of the car market so the issue is that the big trucks really overshadow the car side in public opinion. So perhaps they should do what the government and some in the media/public want and just stop selling them.
I mean it is real tough to change peoples opinions/bias's. Even show them the data, give them the link, show them the proof, explain it to them and they still argue they are right.
Loren
If you want a sporty crossover, buy the Mazda. The GMC Acadia is the better people-and-cargo carrier.
Well, fortunately, actually, as it's not like I'd trade anybody in.
Most of the time the Acadia would be fine. Vacation time calls for more cargo capacity than it has which is where big minivans are great.
I don't blame GM for going the way they did on these because they'd have to do a clean sheet minivan at this point and they are likely right that it wouldn't pay for itself.
http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/WebX/.efcecf4/2350
***
As opposed to a nearly identical V6? The V6 will win hands-down, especially if it has VVT. Simpler than shutting of cylinders as well. Lighter engine by a couple of hundred pounds, too. Just a win-win situation. Doubly so if GM can manage to make a nice I-6 VVT engine. Or they can cop-out and put a light boost supercharger on a V6 like they did with the Park Ave Ultra/etc and get 250 or so HP.
And, no, they shouldn't have to pay a dime extra for it. GM just stops selling the V8s for the non-truck class SUVs and Crossovers. (Surburban/Escallade/etc, plus 1/2 ton+ work trucks would be unchanged of course)
There's no reason you need a V8 in something like a Buick SUV. Even Toyota finally figured this out in their 4-Runners. The V8 sells not nearly as well because the V6 is 90% as good and gets much better mileage. Add in a hybrid option in a few years... nobody will miss the V8s.
As for their having different standards, tough. Toyota sells a boatload of trucks as well but it complies. And without getting credit for E85 fuel or similar nonsense.
tlong,
Your giving me the same old tired story of believing closed markets by our trading partners, currency manipulation, are just mythical. I and others take what you are saying as a insult as we've used several different sources to back our claims. It is bull crap to not think a $4,000-13,000 dollar currency advantage has not played a role in Toyota becoming #1. I've discussed in great detail on various forums over the last couple of years showing just how much money or how this "advantage" works in the small car market. Toyota, still import's 51 % of their cars mainly small cars where the currency manipulation will have the biggest impact on making money in this segment and of course using that extra money to improve upon the interior, R&D, etc. If you think my and other claims using valid sources is just mythical then you are saying hundreds if not thousands of economist's who've studied the impact since the 60's are a bunch of liars. I think I'll take the credibility of economist's facts over a edmunds.com member. :confuse:
In addition to trucks and SUVs, Americans also prefer a lot of compact cars. I see a lot of Corollas, Civics, Mazda 3s, and Fits. It's just that GM hasn't made anything competitive in this segment for so long, they have a lousy reputation there.
They have made great strides in this segment over the years. They are finding ways to make a competitive product and GM, just dumped $4.5 billion in R&D on the next Astra project which should lead to more competitive small cars. They however will not be U.S.A. made because of the currency problem congress has not fixed.
In the 1980's GM's Asian competitors agreed to voluntary import quotas. Instead of making something small and competitive GM jacked up their prices to make more profit.
We shouldn't of gave them the oppertunity to volunteer as we dropped the ball on them not opening up their market to our exports. :mad:
In the 1990's GM made big $$ on SUVs. They were the largest car manufacturer in the world -- THE LEADERS. They could have easily made the same decisions Toyota did to develop hybrids.
They went a step further and developed the first EV. Sure they should of kept developing it but at the time gas prices were $0.70 a gallon thus why not concentrate on building what consumer's want. You can't blame Wagoner, for this he wasn't CEO of GM.
Where was the GM board? Where is their accountability? Why couldn't the biggest car company in the world produce something better than the thrashy and trashy little Cavalier? Who decided to watch Honda and Toyota build smooth 4 cylinder engines and quality durable little cars? I think this country can do better than that and I'm appalled that it's always "currency manipulation". That's a big cop out.
You are correct GM, should of done more and yes they made some big mistakes. However when Clinton, was going to impose a 100% tariff on Japanese cars the right-wingers got upset and called him a protectionist. The big 3 were very upset at the obstacles and barriers they were facing by the japanese government. They like they did in the 70's, 80's with TV's, VCR's, Stereo's, as imidazol97, says dumped these good on our market while they would fight us tooth and nail over accepting our american made exports unless it was food. It's B.S. :mad: Clinton, then looked at the evidence and was going to force the Japanese, to open up their markets as they need us a lot more than we need them.
Now the Japanese own a good piece of this country all over the whining of pseudo-capitalist. You can think them. :mad:
Leaders don't whine, leaders do something about it.
Well if my memory serves me correctly your leaders Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Mitsubishi, etc, etc, did lots of whining when Clinton, was going to tariff their [non-permissible content removed]. I thought leaders like them would just over come the odds. They could of made all their stuff here to sell. Do you have a problem with that ?
Leaders are smart, aggressive, and build superior products. It's so easy to make excuses but it is so hard to show some leadership. That's why I made a big deal about Lutz and his complaining about the CAFE targets. Everybody has the same targets, are you saying that you're not a LEADER GM?
It all boils back to un free trade, currency manipulation, as GM, took the risk and was successful at finding a segment where they could dominate at and that was in SUV's and trucks. They sure in the hell didn't have a chance at the small car market back then because of currency manipulation and american buyers are going to choose the better looking product (interior) which the Japanese had and since most of the buyers of small cars are looking for value they weren't going to pay a grand or two more for an american automobile. GM, decided to almost abandon this market and concentrate on mid-size and large cars, Pick-up's and SUV's where a grand or two wouldn't make or break a sale.
I'm really glad GM is waking up but it is too bad that the patient had to practically go onto life support before they decided to do something about it. Luckily for GM they have two weaker competitors who will probably provide them more market share as they go bust.
Well the other's are worse off. They both could go belly up in a few years. I like you don't see a lot of hope for either one of them. It's to bad. The big 3 has had some very bad executives over the years which is hard to repair the damages that has been done. However a reasonable person would think that their own government wouldn't draw up knee jerk bills which could close the doors on all of them over a damn theory. :mad:
-Rocky
we disagree once in a while but I sure do respect your opinion because you do show a lot of proof to back most of your claims. I guess my advice to you is we like GM, can't please every one.
-Rocky
Rocky things could be worse, as in a depression with inflation. Think of this, massive amounts of dollars needed to buy one loaf of bread, just like pre-war Germany.
As for pricing being the reason for Japan brands selling over the American brands, I am no so sure. A couple years ago GM was giving away cars price wise, but a Camry still sold better than the Malibu. It was the better car. There are so many reasons to buy one brand over another, one could observe say a value play like a Sonata still not selling in volumes as high as an Accord, due to the cars being of differing quality. Now the New Malibu is going to be pretty good competition to Japan makes. Now it would be a good thing if the cars could be offered for less money, but is it not due to fixed costs of billions borrowed, labor health care, and retirement / other packages? Or is it? Don't Japan manufacturers offer retirement, health plans, and such? They do not seem to have an excessive amount of debt however. Debt is a nasty thing. It bites in the best of times, and when the interest rates rise, it bites even harder.
Loren
1. There was a strong Americanism that made it hard to sell their cars here in great numbers.
2. In the early days Americans liked big cars and the Asian makes only made small cars.
3. Import quotas and threats of retaliation in the '80's made it harder to be competitive. They couldn't sell all the cars they could make because of those quotas.
4. They didn't have established dealer networks with long histories of loyalty. That was a really tough hill to climb.
5. The US government required CAFE standards, but then exempted Toyota's competitors in the US on their most profitable vehicles - trucks and SUVs. These were vehicles that Toyota and Honda did not have, especially in the early days. That enabled extra profits for Ford and GM, which *potentially* could have enabled the US makes to invest heavier in R&D to build even better and more competitive vehicles.
In spite of all these things, they were tough competitors and focused on superior products.
I guess we'll agree to disagree :P .
I *would* like some citations about the currency manipulation thing. I've seen it mentioned for well over a year and I don't remember seeing links to credible sources. Throw me some of those and I'd be happy to admit if I'm wrong :shades: .
As far as the Europeans, they don't make inexpensive cars and the ones they do don't sell. Most of them aren't manufactored in Germany. Jetta's I know are manufactored in Mexico, thus that excuse can't be used. Really the Germans, are building their stuff in poorer European country's like Poland, which is essentially their Mexico.
I believe the BMW 7 series is being made in Poland.
The Japanese manufactors have national health care. Yes, they pay retirement benefits, have special stores for employees to shop at a discount, fund employees schools, child care, entertinment. Your best friend is likely a co-worker and you hang out after work at the toyota owned club. This is what my great aunt said it was like in toyota city japan. She owning a fork lift company for several years said toyota, plays a big role in it's employees lives and life revolves around the company. The unions go a long with it as their are benefits allowing this and toyota, I assume feels it has control.
-Rocky
Holy Smokes, where have you been. Seriously. This will take some time. Their have been several links, story's that both I, 62vettefp, imidazol, lemko, have posted over the last few years. So you want me to go dig up those up. I do not think all of them are still available as most newspaper's end up discontinuing old story's but damn it I'll try my best. YOU OWE BIG TIME !!!! :sick:
-Rocky
http://thehill.com/business--lobby/big-three-automakers-press-for-action-on-japa- - nese-currency-2007-04-04.html
http://www.automotive.com/features/90/auto-news/27417/index.html
http://www.house.gov/list/press/mi05_kildee/pr_100505JPNCurrency.html -2005
http://www.forexblog.org/2006/08/us_automakers_a.html
http://www.senate.gov/~levin/newsroom/release.cfm?id=221831
http://www.transpacificradio.com/2007/02/11/currency-manipulation-protectionism-- - henry-paulson-and-the-bank-of-japan/ - A good one to read !!!!!
http://banking.senate.gov/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Hearings.Testimony&TestimonyID=13- - 96&HearingID=247
Is that enough proof or do I need more sources..... :P
My god I could give you source after source. Do you want be to give you links to the South Koreans, and Chinese Manipulation issues as well ???? I ain't scared ! :P
Most of my links are from recent story's but if you want me to continue I'm sure I can find links to much older story's going back to the 90's and 80's if that will satisfy you ????? :confuse:
I, as I said have read several articles posted on these forums from 62vetteefp. I guess you either missed them or didn't pay attention. I don't know what kind of a source you are looking for as economist have been on both FOX NEWS and CNN, and talked about this issue. FOX, talked about this story the day my wife was in the hospital a about a month ago. I don't know how much validation I need pal. I'm not mad at you but I've done this in the past for three other posters and it's frusterating proving common knowledge as it's been printed in the media as well as economist have done TV shows on it. Lou Dobbs, has done several story's on this subject showing the scandels the Japanese and Chinese govermnet has done to gain a advantage on us while out politcians twirl their thumbs.
Thanks,
Rocky
Here's another link for you where the editor lambasts Stabenow.
I'm a bit new to the details of these allegations and it's still clear as mud to me. :P
Obviously a lot of the media and economist agree with me on this arguement or should I say that I agree with them. Regardless even if it's $5.00 advantage because they lie it's a problem. It has been well noted that the Japanese have made every attempt to keep amercan made products out of their country.
What we do the Europeans, is un fair but since I'm not a European, I don't care. I'll take the advantage.
The bottom line is IMHO, thir has to be some truth to this as why would some members of congress want to introduce a bill without having the facts to support it. I know the japanese have baught and paid for the Boxer's and Feinsteins to squash this bill thus it will probably never get passed but it a morale question. Do you think this type of un fair advantage would be allowed to happen in Japan ? They would tariff the stuff and create even more barriers. :sick:
-Rocky
• Trade Distortion: While the issue of China’s exchange rate practices has received much attention, Japan’s active intervention in currency markets has been largely ignored. Yet, Japan’s practices, with no fixed peg as a justification, are a much more clear case of exchange rate manipulation. In 2003, the Government of Japan spent over $190 billion intervening in currency markets to prevent the dollar from falling against the yen. In just the first two months of 2004, Japan has already spent almost $135 billion to manipulate the dollar-yen exchange rate. These actions have become so egregious that on March 2, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan issued a warning about them. By maintaining its artificially low exchange rate, Japan is giving its exporters an unfair advantage in the United States and hurting the competitiveness of U.S. products there - some estimate that Japan’s practices lead to a 15 to 20 percent price advantage for Japanese products.
• Action: There are two steps the administration should take to address Japan’s exchange rate manipulation. First, Congress has directed the Department of Treasury to identify on a semi-annual basis countries that are seeking a trade advantage through exchange rate manipulation. Treasury has consistently failed to call Japan to account for its actions. The next report is due out in mid-April; Treasury should finally cite Japan for its currency manipulation practices. Per statute, Treasury should then initiate intensive consultations to end Japan’s exchange rate manipulation "on an expedited basis." Given the clear and egregious nature of Japan’s manipulation and its impact on U.S. firms and workers, the problem should be addressed within 180 days. If the problem is not resolved by that time, USTR should then immediately initiate consultations under the WTO dispute resolution system, based on Article XV of the GATT, which prohibits WTO Members from "frustrat[ing] the intent" of the WTO through "exchange action."
• Japan - Non-tariff Barriers to U.S. Autos and Auto Parts
• Trade Distortion: In 2003, the U.S. had a $38 billion auto and auto parts trade deficit with Japan, over half of the total trade deficit with Japan and over 7 percent of the total U.S. trade deficit. In 2003, the U.S. sold 10 percent fewer auto parts in Japan than it had in 1997, and 75 percent fewer automobiles. Japan blocks imports of U.S. auto parts using a combination of non-tariff barriers. For example, Japan sharply restricts the number of garages that can perform service repairs through its "certified garage" and "designated garage" system. The Japanese government then restricts the imported products that can be used by these "designated" and "certified" garages through the use of a "critical safety list" of approved products, from which U.S. products are excluded. Minor reforms to this system in the late 1990s have not produced any significant change; in fact, U.S. exports of auto parts have fallen in recent years. These barriers help not just Japanese auto parts companies, but also affiliated automotive companies that benefit from the excessive prices and diminished competition that result from largely excluding U.S. auto parts from the Japanese market. These barriers have been identified by the Bush Administration for three years running, yet no action has been taken: NTE 2001 (255-256), 2002 (242), NTE 2003 (225).
• Action: Several of Japan’s non-tariff barriers in this sector are inconsistent with WTO requirements. Others are actionable under section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. Since the expiration of the U.S.-Japan Auto Agreement on December 31, 2000, auto and auto parts discussions with Japan have taken place through an Automotive Consultative Group (ACG). The ACG has not been an effective forum to date in persuading Japan to open its market. USTR should initiate an investigation under section 301 into Japan’s auto and auto parts barriers, use the investigation to catalogue Japan’s barriers, pursue further under the WTO dispute settlement system against each barrier that is a WTO violation, and seek a comprehensive market-opening agreement to address the other barriers.
-Rocky -> off to bed good night from the Tejas Panhandle
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FirstDrives/articleId=120686?tid=edm- unds.il.home.photopanel..1.*
My god, edmunds might as well where the Japanese flag as they slammed the Enclave, using words to make it sound like the Enclave is a POS. :sick:
-Rocky
Again, I don't think that senators from Michigan are exactly good examples of objectivity, which is why perhaps you think you've provided many citations, but I requested credible links. Heck, my senators from California introduce nut-case bills all the time. I don't consider senators trying to protect local industries in the credible class. How about Wall Street Journal, NY Times, Newsweek, Business Week, Time, The Economist, Harvard Business Review? Perhaps a study from a reputable business school on trade practices - Harvard, UCLA, etc. Those I would consider credible sources.
You indicate the yen is undervalued by 36%. I thought currencies floated and the markets determined the exchange rate? Today the yen is about 120 per dollar. In the 1980's it was more like 300 per dollar. Seems that the yen is worth about 2.5x more than then, making everything Japanese about that much more expensive.
Let me see here.... To raise the Yen worth, you would increase the interest rates, if I got it right. Late night, so who knows how the mind is working. Since Japan has deflation, it would lower growth more by raising the rates, which is deflationary and not what I assume they would want to do. The Euro was once 80 cents to our dollar and now is what, way now 1.20? So we should be selling like crazy to Europe and making loads of money. How are we doing on exporting cars to Europe? I assume, not so well. You do realize we are building cars in Mexico to save money. The Fusion is made in Mexico, but even with the cost savings is not quite ready to displace the Camry for sales and ratings.
Wouldn't the Yugo have been at an advantage, if cost to produce was the only criteria for success? Isn't the Aveo built in Korea, by Daweo/GM for what should be the same costs as the Hyundai? Here we have a car which is not getting the gas mileage of a larger and better Corolla -- what's up with that? I take it they sell them dirt cheap to third world countries, made to different standards for a low price. For the bottom line, this makes the bucks for GM. Why they would sell in USA is anyone's guess. Why not get a Hyundai with the 10 year warranty, if shopping Korean cars. And the ratings seem pretty high for reliability now. GM in small car line up has yet to impress. The Opel Astra looks interesting. Have not a clue as to how good reliability wise and performance wise it is compared to the competition. Looks wise, it is more interesting than anything GM small car is at the present here in the States. Some promise, or hope.
Loren
OK that your opinion is that V6's are OK. Very few folks are actually buying them. In a large truck almost all buyers want the V8.
No, Toyota is not selling a boatload of trucks. They build most all the big ones here. And so far they are not selling anywhere near the penetration that GM is. Anyone that can actually say that the penetration of low MPG trucks does not effect the CAFE compliance rate is a bit off base in how the CAFE is calculated.
1. Yes, Bank of Japan did sell Yen in 2003/4 and bought USD. However it has not done that since then, so whatever gains Toyota has had in the last three years are not because of "currency manipulation" (the Yen is still being sold, but by hedge funds, for an entirely different reason - see my last comment below)
2. Why did BOJ "manipulate the yen"? And why did the US Govt let it happen? You have to keep in mind that the good times in the US today are being funded to the tune of more than 2Bn USD PER DAY by countries like China and Japan. So if there is a knee jerk reaction to "eliminate the manipulation", US interest rates will shoot up, the housing market will nose dive, and there will have to be a big adjustment in the US lifestyle. The current US govt does not want this, so if there is any manipulation, it too is party to that.
3. US companies like Intel, Coca Cola, Starbucks etc are extremely successful in Japan, despite the currency. So if the product is competitive, simple currency manipulation cannot keep it off the market (by the way, these three companies have do have domestic Japanese competitors).
4. As someone has already pointed out a) The yen has gone from 360 Yen/USD in 60s to 120 Yen/USD today, and yet Japanese cars have remained competitive (actually gained market share....); b) Euro has appreciated significantly against the Yen, yet European (read German) cars continue to dominate the import car market in Japan.
So it is not true that Japanes government has manipulated the currency to help the car companies (look at the obscene profits that Toyota has declared today - hardly requires help from anyone) - and if they have, then that has been because of some bigger reasons (deflation in Japan, funding the widening deficits in the US).
Finally, even if Japan has let its auto companies make money by keeping the yen cheap and interest rates low, the US hedge funds have made a much larger amount by arbitraging this (borrow yen at low interest rates, convert it to USD or other higher yielding currencies, and pocket the interest rate spread). Now it is just possible that these gains have gone to a few....
So to sum it up - It is not as simple as you make it out to be.