Maybe the reporter should've been more specific about the workers' rides:
...filling up his 1982 Firebird... ...filling her tank of her 1993 Jeep Cherokee...
These people probable bought old cars they could afford rather than seeking out expensive gas sippers like Priuses and Civic Hybrids.
...I'm sure they have DVD players
Cheap! Can be purchased for less than $40 almost anywhere.
...buy plenty of beer and cigarettes
Well, I'm sure they don't have the money for Dom Perignon and Cohibas. Geeze, these are po' folks. You gonna begrudge them a drink or a smoke once in a while? Of course I have no pity for a guy who's a drunk or spends $40+ on a carton of cigarettes every week. Another tragic waste is lottery tickets.
When I graduated from college, I couldn't find any work in my field. Until I landed that sweet position, I was working alongside a lot of the type of people mentioned in the article. These are real people with real concerns. They're usually dealing with some kind of sickness or injury they can ill afford with little or no insurance, have children, or an elderly relative for which to care. True, there were are a few who fit that "trailer trash" or 'hood rat stereotype, but most were hard working folks who were trying their best with the lousy hand they've been dealt.
While I applaud your conviction, there is just no substance to back up your position. So it is no more than an unfounded opinion. Just for fun, I'll throw out a random number, too. I say 65% of net factory profits go back to Japan. Although I've got as much of a chance at proving it as you do your number, so neither are worth more than the cyberspace they occupy.
Keep in mind, however, "net factory profits" in my statement is a far far far cry from the profits dictated by a car's selling price.
By the way, of the 3 Honda dealers I have been known to frequent, I have yet to see one person of Japanese descent working there.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
481,000 vehicles per quarter sold by Honda to the North American market. $3600 profit back to Honda per vehicle. Greensburg - A $550 million Honda Motor Co. assembly plant will help the Japanese automaker meet a growing North American hunger for its cars and help invigorate a state hit hard by manufacturing job losses, officials and analysts said.
The southeastern Indiana plant - part of a $1.18 billion global expansion - eventually will produce 200,000 vehicles annually, increasing Honda's North American production to 1.6 million a year.
Though Honda expects to hire 2,000 workers, the number could end up being far more, said John Sullivan, director of Purdue University's Center for Advanced Manufacturing. That comes out to 100 vehicles per year per worker who will make just over $30k per year. That comes out to an American salary earned of $300 per $22k Civic. So we get $300 for work and Honda gets $3600 profit per car. Now, about the other $104 Billion out of the $112 Billion in Revenue Honda takes in. This is their cost of doing business. How much of that is expensed out through Japanese ownership entities? A huge portion. Half that revenue is derived from the N.A. market. Do they throw us a few crumbs? Probably, but that's about it. So many of the subsupplier parts are from Japanese owned business partners of Honda, brought over here and given exclusive rights by Honda, Toyo, etc. At least 98% of the technical and development and engineering is done in Japan. Show me where a more than a couple billion are being spent at a N. A. tech center to dispute this. The $300 we get to assemble per car is not even 10% of the $3600 profit Honda takes away per car. All 2 million cars are assembled here for less than $0.6 Billion in wages out of $112 Billion in Honda's revenue. Wake up and realize that 85% of the value of a N.A. produced Honda ends up spent or earned in Japan. And guess what the ship that brought all the radios and instrument clusters over to be put into the civics goes back to Japan full of? Soybeans grown on Honda owned farmland in Ohio. We can do their cheap assembly, supply raw steel for fenders, and sell them our farmland. We are being colonized. How's the real estate market up around Cleveland, where Ford and GM used to have big plants?
These people probable bought old cars they could afford rather than seeking out expensive gas sippers like Priuses and Civic Hybrids.
They could have bought old Civics, even Escorts or Cavaliers. They didn't have to buy old gas guzzlers.
Geeze, these are po' folks. You gonna begrudge them a drink or a smoke once in a while?
Perhaps they're poor because they're not very bright? I'm all for helping those who haven't had a fair deal, but I suspect most of these people have it rough because of their own decisions rather than bad luck. I also knew in the 1960's that smoking caused cancer; I never partook in that habit. Geeze, it's written on the pack!
Another tragic waste is lottery tickets.
Agreed.
...most were hard working folks who were trying their best with the lousy hand they've been dealt.
I suspect that most of them made poor decisions. Some of their hands might have been bad (most likely being born of one parent or undereducated parents). I was raised by a mom who was a secretary and dad left her with no child support. I knew I had to study and we never went on welfare. I busted my butt with 28 hrs/week during college and I earned my education and degree. Was I dealt a poor hand, or did I just make good decisions? I bought a 1966 VW Beetle in 1974 with 65K miles on it and sold it in 1992 with 235K miles on it. I sacrificed big time by NOT buying the new car/guzzler. I focused on the education and staying frugal. I also didn't have any illegitimate children.
I'm sorry about those who don't do well, but even the poor in this country have a lifestyle that most in the world would envy.
"Foreign direct investment (FDI) has long been a source of strength for the American economy. In 2005, insourcing companies employed nearly 5.1 million Americans, 4.4% of the private-sector labor force. Beyond their employment, insourcing companies perform large amounts of the crucial activities that make their workers and the overall economy more productive. They invest in physical capital and in research and development, and they help connect the U.S. to the global economy through international trade. The bottom line is larger paychecks. In 2005, compensation per worker at insourcing companies was $66,042 -- 31.8% above the average for the rest of the private sector of $50,124."
That comes out to 100 vehicles per year per worker who will make just over $30k per year. That comes out to an American salary earned of $300 per $22k Civic.
So you think that line workers' salary is only $30,000 a year? Alrighty then.
In any case, your point 85% of the TOTAL VALUE of the vehicle going back to Japan isn't possible. If there's $3,600 profit on American market cars and they average about $25,000 each retail (the number is an educated guess)...and 70+% of the parts of the vast majority of Honda vehicles come from the US (workers outside of the primary Honda assembly plant in most cases), how can $17,650 more go back to Japan? Who's paying for the power in those plants? And all of the North American-sourced parts? Are you telling me that it cost $3,750 to build, source, distribute, and sell the average Honda?
That $3,750 requires $700 per employee (your calculation based on a more reasonable benefits package of $40,000 plus benefits annually) and about $600 (a low estimate) for each salesman and another $600 for each dealership and $300 (a low guess) to maintain the distrubution system and $200 for the plant (utilities, etc) and $1,250 in locally-sourced (70% of the vehicle) parts! Yup...that's the 15% that doesn't go back to Japan, in your estimation. Makes sense to me.
So you think that line workers' salary is only $30,000 a year?
And even if cash salary is $30K, the total cost to the employer is a lot more ($50K???) with the employees health and other insurance, pension contributions, employer portion of SS taxes, unemployment insurance tax, workers compensation, etc.
OK, we are making my head hurt.... We say that American companies that ship work out to other countries are bad for the American economy... and therefore good for the receiving country. Jobs are lost, local economies destroyed etc etc. So then, why is it not good for the American economy for foreign companies to export work to the US.? I assume that the same rules should apply.
Also, to the person getting the paycheck, and saving or spending it, the "net effect" is way more than $300 per car. Frankly, if I'm the one getting the $30K + bennies, the value to me is.... $30K plus bennies. The value to my landlord is my rent, my supermarket, my grocery bill etc etc.
We say that American companies that ship work out to other countries are bad for the American economy... and therefore good for the receiving country. Jobs are lost, local economies destroyed etc etc. So then, why is it not good for the American economy for foreign companies to export work to the US.?
Because people want to have their cake and eat it too. Problem is, that cake would be liberally flavored with low MPGs.
Given the choice, I'd buy a car that was assembled here....preferably with as many US sourced parts as possible. If it's built here, that means jobs are being created, and families are being fed, and towns are being rescued from Rust-Belt-ness. I don't care if it's an American company, and I'm not sure it counts as one of the company is busy creating jobs for Mexicans (of whom most of the harder working, more conscientious of them have already snuck into THIS country anyway). I want to know that American jobs were created, and I could care less where the corporate headquarters is located.
Besides, let's not kid ourselves. GM and Ford are trying to figure out how to move their Corporate HQ to the Caymans anyway, so they can take advantage of more tax loopholes. So sooner or later they won't be American anyway. :shades:
hudson beat me to it. The artificially low number you are using for the assemblers salary is but a very small portion of where the money goes. Probably one of the smallest portions, as a matter of fact. I don't believe economics to be your strong suit. Not that I'm saying its mine ... cause it ain't. But I definitely understand that manufacturing one single car contributes to the salaries of dozens of people ... all of which are right here in the US.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
We say that American companies that ship work out to other countries are bad for the American economy
I don't say that. Instead I would say any artificial meddling with these sort of decisions is generally bad. This includes incentives (bribes) from state and local governments to influence where plants are located as well as barriers to foreign products, such as high tariffs.
I don't resent assembly plants for American makes being located in Mexico any more than I cheer Japanese plants being located in wherever in the US the biggest give-aways are provided.
Not sure why I should want people in Mexico to be unemployed in exchange for someone in Alabama (or anywhere else in the US) getting a job. Makes no real difference to me personally. I would have as much (or as little) sympathy for a poor unskilled Mexican without a job as I would for a similar American. They are both human beings with the same sort of hopes, dreams, and problems.
What I would like to see is governements on both sides of the border stay out of it and let the workers and societies compete for the plants and jobs on their own merits...that, of course, will never happen.
According to Bob Carter, general manager of Toyota USA, Oldsmobile will fill the gap between Toyota and the company's luxury flagship brand, Lexus. "Oldsmobile is an established and respected luxury nameplate." Carter says, "We fully realize this acquisition is unconventional, but the opportunity to immediately acquire over 100 years' worth of brand recognition couldn't be missed.
The Sequoia, on the other hand, currently has no luxury counterpart. That will change when Oldsmobile launches its Super 88, the company's most blatant indulgence in the past.
Super 88, according to Carter, will now refer to eight cylinders in the engine and eight gears in the transmission, as the eight-speed automatic from the Lexus LS-series luxury sedan will be adapted for use in this truck. The massively powerful Sequoia is already fast enough to humiliate its new Oldsmobile namesake -- we recorded 0–60 mph in just 6.6 seconds and a quarter-mile of 15.2 seconds and 92 mph with the six-speed automatic -- so Carter says the flexibility of the eight-speed will be exploited to endow the range-topper with the fuel economy of a much smaller vehicle.
Who knows, I may like the Super 88 looks better than the 2008 Sequoia. It will probably be built in Indiana. You cannot get more American than that.
I think the name Oldsmobile is very anachronistic and not of much value. It's like "Auto-Go" and "Jackrabbit" and all other delightful but very old-fashioned names we used to call cars in America.
I mean, would you pay $5,000 for the name "Edsel"? Well, maybe I would for laughs but I wouldn't dare produce a car named that. Or Delorean or Studebaker or Frazier.
Most young people would associate the name "Frazier" with the pompous psychologist on a TV sitcom. When you corrected them and told them the car was named for Joe Frazier, Henry Kaiser's business partner, they'd reply, "Oh, the boxer!"
Oldsmobile is a respectable name if I associate it with cars like my Dad's 1955 Oldsmobile Ninety-Eight Starfire convertible and not that crummy 1999 Cutlass sedan that once belonged to my girlfriend.
Exactly. The name is associated with disaster. You might want the rights to the name "Titanic" but would you name a new cruise ship like that?
Oldsmobile is a bit of American history, though----one of the few cars to be produced for 100 years, one of the first "mass produced" cars in the world (probably the first actually).
I read in the Economist that Ford is showing early signs of great financial distress, as measured by the arcane methods of economists. This is a code word for "bankruptcy". The quote is: "exhibiting classically distressed behavior of downsizing amid recurring losses". P 81, The Economist, 4 April 2008.
Jaguar cost Ford $10 billion in losses in the 18 years they owned it. Land Rover was just starting to turn a profit, however. Tata has big plans for Jaguar, to drive it upscale again and abandon entry level products like the X type. The new Land Rover is low slung and light.
Ford sold them both off for 2.3 billion.
Morgan Stanley called the Tata deal "value-destructive" due to the high operating costs of both companies.
"The quote is: "exhibiting classically distressed behavior of downsizing amid recurring losses". P 81, The Economist, 4 April 2008."
But hasn't that been the case for Ford for years now? What is the new thing now causing them to anticipate bankruptcy? Not that I would be surprised, Ford is clearly hanging on with a shoestring and a prayer.
Even now, they are STILL talking about "protecting the F-150 franchise" even as their sales are overtaken by GM and both models are in sales freefall with no end in sight given the gas prices and the recession.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Yes, it is, but Ford's overall picture is really bad. I hope they are buying themselves enough time to turn it around but I don't have the optimism I once did for them.
Back on the Oldsmobile kick - I think that's what made for the funny article - who would pay anything to bring back the name? Now, Edsel, there's another story....
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
Actually, I'm more optimistic about Ford than I am about GM and Chrysler. It has done more to cut fleet sales to rental car companies than the other two, it is getting its financial house in order, and it is unloading the companies that were a drain (Jaguar and Land Rover) while keeping the ones that have actually helped it design and build better products (Mazda and Volvo).
Mulally is working to change the corporate culture (which, in my opinion, is the root of Detroit's problems). Also, Ford is really an international company now, and is doing well in South America and Europe. I see Ford emerging as a smaller company in North America (it will probably settle for third place behind Toyota and GM), and the North American arm will not be as powerful within the company as it once was.
My bet is on Chrysler as the American company that goes first...pretty big sales declines in sales for the past few months, and that is even with some of the new vehicles (Avenger) selling over 70 percent of total production to rental car companies!
And if you add in GMC sales of the (Sierra, is it?)....what then? Does GM come out on top? I thought last I checked GM was #1 between the two models.
No matter how great they make the F-series trucks, they will never out-GM GM, nor will they regain the personal transport buyers with gas prices this high, so my original comment was merely meant to point out that placing so much emphasis on propping up F sales is a bad idea.
They also have the Flex coming out - bad name, heavy vehicle, might steal some sales from the Lambda triplets. And?....
In 2010, we might see a rebadged Mazda2.
The Focus and Escape are going to run on and on and on and...
Other stuff? The Mustang is going to get some heat from the rest of Detroit, but is already down in sales ahead of the competition even showing up. Fusion and Taurus are OK, but no great shakes sales-wise and also due to run for a long time yet.
I don't see a whole lot of reasons to have optimism for Ford. GM is the only one in a strong position.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I was just talking to a friend who has had his Suburban for over a year now. His calculated fuel mileage long term is about 14 mpg. That might have been okay at the end of 2006, but Americans are not going to tolerate that in a new car, or an F-150, or anything CLOSE to mileage that bad.
If gas doesn't go down, or if it breaks $4/gal for regular all over the country and STAYS there, people will simply stop buying F-150s and Silverados, period. They will rot on showroom floors IMO at 14 mpg city driving.
Do the math -- 14 miles for $4. That's brutal. $20 a day to commute to work? Or a contractor who might drive 100 miles a day? That's $150 bucks a week in gas.
And if you add in GMC sales of the (Sierra, is it?)....what then? Does GM come out on top? I thought last I checked GM was #1 between the two models.
Whatever. Talk to Lemko about that.
My only point was the F-150 is still Fords top selling vehicle by far. This was in respoonse to a complaint that Ford is still talking about "protecting the F-150 franchise" or something like that.
As much as I hate all the unecessary and foolish purchasing of gas-sucking trucks and SUVs that goes on in this country, were I running Ford I sure would not be saying "lets forget about the F-150 and concentrate on the Focus". I am not saying that they should ignore the Focus, either. I just think it is silly to criticize the company for trying to find a way to keep profiting from selling 700K+ F-150s per year.
Do the math -- 14 miles for $4. That's brutal. $20 a day to commute to work?
I guess, if you commute 35 miles each way, which is more than double the average commute, I believe. If you drive 35 miles to work and are dumb enough to buy a 14 mpg truck or SUV when gas is (or recently was) $3 per gallon, why would $4 per gallon gas suddenly stop you? Why wouldn't $3 per gallon gas and $15 per day (that is nearly $4000 per year just for gas to commute to work) be enough to convice you to do something different?
At $3.50 per gallon, I'm spending less than $3 per day on my commute . I once thought about what gas prices would need to be for me consider a change to my driving habits or to give much thought to my commuting costs...I think I figured it would have to go over $5 per gallon to start having impact on other driving decisions and maybe at about $10 per gallon I'd give some thought to commuting cost. For me to get to $15 per day would require about $18 per gallon.
I just think it is silly to criticize the company for trying to find a way to keep profiting from selling 700K+ F-150s per year.
Not silly at all, because with the gas prices the way they are, they're not going to sell as many of them, which means they're not going to profit from them. Unless they make like GM and start working on a hybrid version.
Why do you assume they are not looking for reasonable way to improve efficiency, as one thing that will help maintain sales? In fact, it seems they are working on this for the F-150:
...by the 2010 model year you will be able to get an optional diesel power plant, or, more importantly, Ford’s new Ecoboost engine, which uses computer-controlled direct injection and a twin turbocharger system to generate 100 horsepower per liter of displacement. As a result, an Edge-sized power plant can generate enough yank for hauling a trailer.
nippononly: In 2010, we might see a rebadged Mazda2.
The Ford Fiesta will debut for the 2010 model year. It will share a platform with the Mazda2 and the European Fiesta. It will look much like the European Fiesta, which recently debuted and is very sharp. Production will be based in Mexico, so it should be profitable.
nippononly: The Focus and Escape are going to run on and on and on and...
The next Focus will once again share a platform with its European brother. (Also note that the current one is actually selling pretty well to retail customers - probably because of high fuel prices and Synch). If I recall correctly, we are looking at the 2010-2011 time frame for the new one.
The Escape gets a new transmission and four-cylinder engine, and a revamped six, for the 2009 model year. The new drivetrains will boost mileage and performance.
nippononly: Other stuff? The Mustang is going to get some heat from the rest of Detroit, but is already down in sales ahead of the competition even showing up.
The car will get a facelift for the 2009 model year, along with revamped engines.
nippononly: Fusion and Taurus are OK, but no great shakes sales-wise and also due to run for a long time yet.
Fusions gets a facelift, upgraded interior, new four-cylinder and revamped six-cylinder for the 2009 model year. The Taurus will be completely restyled (with, one presumes, an all-new interior) for 2010 or 2011. The Taurus rides on a solid platform with a good drivetrain; the problem is the dull styling both inside and out. This should fix that complaint.
Well, bottom line: they need to keep a very diversified view of their product offerings right now, both current and future. It is crucial to their survival. They shouldn't be talking about prioritizing ANY one model for "protection".
Their best seller is only such because of a happy and accidental coincidence of a building boom, easy credit, and cheap gas. Not one, not two, but ALL THREE are now gone.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Unless they make like GM and start working on a hybrid version.
As the past owner of a GMC hybrid PU truck I can attest to the fact it was a waste of money. Ford would be better to try and improve their existing mileage. A small diesel PU would be the best thing they could come up with. The hybrid has not proven itself at all in larger vehicles. Toyota had great plans for a hybrid PU truck. Have you heard anymore about that?
The first automaker to market a 1/2 ton PU with a 4-6 cylinder diesel that can get 30+ MPG on the hwy will have a real winner on their hands. Hopefully one of the Big 3 American automakers win the prize.
Last I saw Escape and Focus revamps were pushed back to 2012. The only substantially new product in the next two years will be the Fiesta, and that will come along right at the moment they finally let the Ranger die. +1, -1, 0 net.
GM is pretty serious about the Camaro, even about fuel efficiency. The only edge Ford will have is price on the low-end Mustangs, even with updated engines.
I could go on to disagree with you point by point - when Ford announces "major upgrades" lately, they seem to end up being pretty minor, Escape is a good example. I won't do it, but I will continue to be more pessimistic about Ford's future than you. We will see what happens.
One thing I think WILL happen regardless of what updates the '09 has, is that F-150 sales will continue to decline, and the pressure that will put on Ford may be more than it can it bear in its now weakened condition.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Horsepower has nothing to do with "yank." TORQUE is "yank." And tell me one engine that gets more torque at 0-1000 RPM than an electric motor....the Prius has 290+ at 0 RPM!
Of course, diesels are great for torque too. So make a diesel hybrid. :shades:
Why do you suppose the hybrid versions from Ford and Toyota are rated lower in towing capacity than the non hybrid versions. It is because those torque ratings are for very short periods of time. If you try to get 290 ft lbs out of a Prius for 5 minutes you will burn it up.
Their best seller is only such because of a happy and accidental coincidence of a building boom, easy credit, and cheap gas. Not one, not two, but ALL THREE are now gone.
Let's see the best-selling truck for 26 years and best-selling vehicle for 21 years...yep gotta be just some recent confluence of favorable factors. I'm sure F-150 sales will shortly be below those of the Focus and the coming Festiva.
Fusion and Taurus are OK, but no great shakes sales-wise
If you add what is essentially the wagon variant of the Fusion (Edge) to the sedan, it is selling at a 300,000 per year rate, based 1st quarter sales figures. Add in the Milan and MKZ sales and they are selling at what would be an annual rate of over 375,000.
Even if the F-150 goes to more efficient diesel power all across the line, there is still the threat of diesel fuel prices.
Right now I'm looking at a posted price of $4.18/gallon for diesel and $3.57 for regular gas.
If you bump up your 14 mpg gas truck to an 18 mpg diesel truck, you're still in the hole.
My point? It seems that the Big Three are always slow to respond to the "handwriting on the wall". They missed downsizing by 5 years, they missed fuel injection by nearly 20 years, they missed AWD passenger cars, they missed hybrids.
It's very annoying. The Big Three is always second quickest on the draw.
Why is that?
Seems the last BIG coup (I'm not talking about gadgets here and there) we had on the imports was the Mini-Van.
Seems the last BIG coup (I'm not talking about gadgets here and there) we had on the imports was the Mini-Van.
What about the SUV as a passenger car? They made piles of money selling converted trucks as station wagons. (I hate SUVs and think most who bought them were fools who were easily separated from their money because they saw the minivan or wagon as a threat to their manhood, but it was a money maker and the US manufacturers were the leaders, weren;t they?)
We DID have cheap gas the entire 21 years, if you think back.
Since the minor recession in '90/'91, we have also had the cheap credit.
The building boom is the shortest-lived of the three, but even that was going on 12, maybe 15, years when it busted in late '06.
I never said F-150 sales would fall below Focus sales, but here's a prediction: both GM and Ford full-size (light duty) truck sales will fall below whatever the top-selling car is within the next ten years. I am not 100% convinced of this prediction, but I think odds are very good. And Ford/GM should be planning for that day just like they should have been planning for downsizing well before 9/11.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Since the minor recession in '90/'91, we have also had the cheap credit.
I guess it depends on what you consider cheap. Treasuries were above 7.5% as late as the mid 90s. Money market rates were above 6% in 2000. Not sure why cheap credit would have anything to do with selling trucks over other vehicles, anyway.
The building boom is the shortest-lived of the three, but even that was going on 12, maybe 15, years when it busted in late '06.
I don't know what data there is to confirm or deny that claim. In any case, I don't know how much it would have to do with the growth of truck sales over the last 20-30 years.
Cheap credit encourages people to buy more vehicle than they could otherwise afford. Trucks cost more than cars generally speaking (obviously with some overlap).
The building boom encouraged contractors to buy large numbers of work trucks. Those sales have all died on the vine in the last 18 months, which is half the reason that in a 2-year period Ford is going to show a 40% decrease in F-truck sales. The other half of the decrease is attributable to personal transport buyers buying more vehicle than they needed, because credit and gas were cheap. Now that they're not, all those buyers have gone away.
Cheap gas is probably gone forever. Cheap credit and housing construction will be back in 18 months or less, but maybe not to the same extent that they were here the last 15 years. We will see.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Yes, cheap credit encourages people to buy more vehicle than they could otherwise afford.
In thnking more about it, I think this does probably translate to sales of trucks and SUVs in the US. Rather than being a result of the relative prices, this is mostly because many Americans seem to think vehicles should be priced by the pound (or by the cubic foot). So we are (or at least were) more willing to buy an over-priced gargantuan Ford SUV than we are an over-priced Lincoln.
In effect the desirablity of large trucks and SUVs caused the high prices, rather than the high prices being an inherent property of the vehicles. This is why these vehicles were so profitable. From a 2003 article:
Manufacturers generally make 15% to 20% in profit on an SUV, compared with only 3% or less on a car, according to Michael Flynn, director of the University of Michigan Office for the Study of Automotive Transportation.
Yeah, but the fuel injection didn't work and the 4WD rode like an Army truck. You put in it by grinding it in with a LEVER for gawd's sake. And it handled like Mom's sofa. It would be like welding a passenger car body onto a Dodge Power Wagon.
Americans were using carbs into the late 80s. They had a kind of "throttle body" injection, which was really a carburator with a fuel injector in it. That pretty much sucked, too. The first American cars using fuel injection licensed it from Bosch.
I'm not sure about the first AWD American car, but it wasn't that long ago. Subaru and Audi were the AWD pioneers and Mercedes offered a very reliable fuel injection in 1955 (mechanical), VW in 1968 (electronic). Also the 6 and 7 speed automatics came from furriners.
American cars have been technically backward since the 1950s and are only now pretty much caught up to within a few years of the Euros and Japanese IMO.
Probably the showcase car for technical achievement would be the Cadillac and Corvette, which , INTERESTINGLY, are doing well.
To be fair, American cars were among the first with air bags, so that's something to brag about.
Comments
...filling up his 1982 Firebird...
...filling her tank of her 1993 Jeep Cherokee...
These people probable bought old cars they could afford rather than seeking out expensive gas sippers like Priuses and Civic Hybrids.
...I'm sure they have DVD players
Cheap! Can be purchased for less than $40 almost anywhere.
...buy plenty of beer and cigarettes
Well, I'm sure they don't have the money for Dom Perignon and Cohibas. Geeze, these are po' folks. You gonna begrudge them a drink or a smoke once in a while? Of course I have no pity for a guy who's a drunk or spends $40+ on a carton of cigarettes every week. Another tragic waste is lottery tickets.
When I graduated from college, I couldn't find any work in my field. Until I landed that sweet position, I was working alongside a lot of the type of people mentioned in the article. These are real people with real concerns. They're usually dealing with some kind of sickness or injury they can ill afford with little or no insurance, have children, or an elderly relative for which to care. True, there were are a few who fit that "trailer trash" or 'hood rat stereotype, but most were hard working folks who were trying their best with the lousy hand they've been dealt.
While I applaud your conviction, there is just no substance to back up your position. So it is no more than an unfounded opinion. Just for fun, I'll throw out a random number, too. I say 65% of net factory profits go back to Japan. Although I've got as much of a chance at proving it as you do your number, so neither are worth more than the cyberspace they occupy.
Keep in mind, however, "net factory profits" in my statement is a far far far cry from the profits dictated by a car's selling price.
By the way, of the 3 Honda dealers I have been known to frequent, I have yet to see one person of Japanese descent working there.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Greensburg - A $550 million Honda Motor Co. assembly plant will help the Japanese automaker meet a growing North American hunger for its cars and help invigorate a state hit hard by manufacturing job losses, officials and analysts said.
The southeastern Indiana plant - part of a $1.18 billion global expansion - eventually will produce 200,000 vehicles annually, increasing Honda's North American production to 1.6 million a year.
Though Honda expects to hire 2,000 workers, the number could end up being far more, said John Sullivan, director of Purdue University's Center for Advanced Manufacturing.
That comes out to 100 vehicles per year per worker who will make just over $30k per year. That comes out to an American salary earned of $300 per $22k Civic.
So we get $300 for work and Honda gets $3600 profit per car. Now, about the other $104 Billion out of the $112 Billion in Revenue Honda takes in. This is their cost of doing business. How much of that is expensed out through Japanese ownership entities? A huge portion. Half that revenue is derived from the N.A. market. Do they throw us a few crumbs? Probably, but that's about it. So many of the subsupplier parts are from Japanese owned business partners of Honda, brought over here and given exclusive rights by Honda, Toyo, etc. At least 98% of the technical and development and engineering is done in Japan. Show me where a more than a couple billion are being spent at a N. A. tech center to dispute this. The $300 we get to assemble per car is not even 10% of the $3600 profit Honda takes away per car. All 2 million cars are assembled here for less than $0.6 Billion in wages out of $112 Billion in Honda's revenue. Wake up and realize that 85% of the value of a N.A. produced Honda ends up spent or earned in Japan. And guess what the ship that brought all the radios and instrument clusters over to be put into the civics goes back to Japan full of? Soybeans grown on Honda owned farmland in Ohio. We can do their cheap assembly, supply raw steel for fenders, and sell them our farmland. We are being colonized. How's the real estate market up around Cleveland, where Ford and GM used to have big plants?
They could have bought old Civics, even Escorts or Cavaliers. They didn't have to buy old gas guzzlers.
Geeze, these are po' folks. You gonna begrudge them a drink or a smoke once in a while?
Perhaps they're poor because they're not very bright? I'm all for helping those who haven't had a fair deal, but I suspect most of these people have it rough because of their own decisions rather than bad luck. I also knew in the 1960's that smoking caused cancer; I never partook in that habit. Geeze, it's written on the pack!
Another tragic waste is lottery tickets.
Agreed.
...most were hard working folks who were trying their best with the lousy hand they've been dealt.
I suspect that most of them made poor decisions. Some of their hands might have been bad (most likely being born of one parent or undereducated parents). I was raised by a mom who was a secretary and dad left her with no child support. I knew I had to study and we never went on welfare. I busted my butt with 28 hrs/week during college and I earned my education and degree. Was I dealt a poor hand, or did I just make good decisions? I bought a 1966 VW Beetle in 1974 with 65K miles on it and sold it in 1992 with 235K miles on it. I sacrificed big time by NOT buying the new car/guzzler. I focused on the education and staying frugal. I also didn't have any illegitimate children.
I'm sorry about those who don't do well, but even the poor in this country have a lifestyle that most in the world would envy.
steve_, "Buying American Cars What Does It Mean?" #5164, 27 Mar 2008 7:56 pm
Here's a blurb:
"Foreign direct investment (FDI) has long been a source of strength for the American economy. In 2005, insourcing companies employed nearly 5.1 million Americans, 4.4% of the private-sector labor force. Beyond their employment, insourcing companies perform large amounts of the crucial activities that make their workers and the overall economy more productive. They invest in physical capital and in research and development, and they help connect the U.S. to the global economy through international trade. The bottom line is larger paychecks. In 2005, compensation per worker at insourcing companies was $66,042 -- 31.8% above the average for the rest of the private sector of $50,124."
So you think that line workers' salary is only $30,000 a year? Alrighty then.
In any case, your point 85% of the TOTAL VALUE of the vehicle going back to Japan isn't possible. If there's $3,600 profit on American market cars and they average about $25,000 each retail (the number is an educated guess)...and 70+% of the parts of the vast majority of Honda vehicles come from the US (workers outside of the primary Honda assembly plant in most cases), how can $17,650 more go back to Japan? Who's paying for the power in those plants? And all of the North American-sourced parts? Are you telling me that it cost $3,750 to build, source, distribute, and sell the average Honda?
That $3,750 requires $700 per employee (your calculation based on a more reasonable benefits package of $40,000 plus benefits annually) and about $600 (a low estimate) for each salesman and another $600 for each dealership and $300 (a low guess) to maintain the distrubution system and $200 for the plant (utilities, etc) and $1,250 in locally-sourced (70% of the vehicle) parts! Yup...that's the 15% that doesn't go back to Japan, in your estimation. Makes sense to me.
And even if cash salary is $30K, the total cost to the employer is a lot more ($50K???) with the employees health and other insurance, pension contributions, employer portion of SS taxes, unemployment insurance tax, workers compensation, etc.
Also, to the person getting the paycheck, and saving or spending it, the "net effect" is way more than $300 per car. Frankly, if I'm the one getting the $30K + bennies, the value to me is.... $30K plus bennies. The value to my landlord is my rent, my supermarket, my grocery bill etc etc.
Because people want to have their cake and eat it too. Problem is, that cake would be liberally flavored with low MPGs.
Given the choice, I'd buy a car that was assembled here....preferably with as many US sourced parts as possible. If it's built here, that means jobs are being created, and families are being fed, and towns are being rescued from Rust-Belt-ness. I don't care if it's an American company, and I'm not sure it counts as one of the company is busy creating jobs for Mexicans (of whom most of the harder working, more conscientious of them have already snuck into THIS country anyway). I want to know that American jobs were created, and I could care less where the corporate headquarters is located.
Besides, let's not kid ourselves. GM and Ford are trying to figure out how to move their Corporate HQ to the Caymans anyway, so they can take advantage of more tax loopholes. So sooner or later they won't be American anyway. :shades:
The artificially low number you are using for the assemblers salary is but a very small portion of where the money goes. Probably one of the smallest portions, as a matter of fact. I don't believe economics to be your strong suit. Not that I'm saying its mine ... cause it ain't. But I definitely understand that manufacturing one single car contributes to the salaries of dozens of people ... all of which are right here in the US.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
I don't say that. Instead I would say any artificial meddling with these sort of decisions is generally bad. This includes incentives (bribes) from state and local governments to influence where plants are located as well as barriers to foreign products, such as high tariffs.
I don't resent assembly plants for American makes being located in Mexico any more than I cheer Japanese plants being located in wherever in the US the biggest give-aways are provided.
Not sure why I should want people in Mexico to be unemployed in exchange for someone in Alabama (or anywhere else in the US) getting a job. Makes no real difference to me personally. I would have as much (or as little) sympathy for a poor unskilled Mexican without a job as I would for a similar American. They are both human beings with the same sort of hopes, dreams, and problems.
What I would like to see is governements on both sides of the border stay out of it and let the workers and societies compete for the plants and jobs on their own merits...that, of course, will never happen.
Go 'way so we can do a few days worth of "Ford sucks!" No, "Chevy sucks"
LOLOL
Seriously, thanks for a cogent point of view.
http://auto-future.blogspot.com/2008/04/breaking-news-ford-of-europe-declares.ht- ml
APRIL FOOL!!!!
According to Bob Carter, general manager of Toyota USA, Oldsmobile will fill the gap between Toyota and the company's luxury flagship brand, Lexus. "Oldsmobile is an established and respected luxury nameplate." Carter says, "We fully realize this acquisition is unconventional, but the opportunity to immediately acquire over 100 years' worth of brand recognition couldn't be missed.
The Sequoia, on the other hand, currently has no luxury counterpart. That will change when Oldsmobile launches its Super 88, the company's most blatant indulgence in the past.
Super 88, according to Carter, will now refer to eight cylinders in the engine and eight gears in the transmission, as the eight-speed automatic from the Lexus LS-series luxury sedan will be adapted for use in this truck. The massively powerful Sequoia is already fast enough to humiliate its new Oldsmobile namesake -- we recorded 0–60 mph in just 6.6 seconds and a quarter-mile of 15.2 seconds and 92 mph with the six-speed automatic -- so Carter says the flexibility of the eight-speed will be exploited to endow the range-topper with the fuel economy of a much smaller vehicle.
Who knows, I may like the Super 88 looks better than the 2008 Sequoia. It will probably be built in Indiana. You cannot get more American than that.
I mean, would you pay $5,000 for the name "Edsel"? Well, maybe I would for laughs but I wouldn't dare produce a car named that. Or Delorean or Studebaker or Frazier.
Oldsmobile is a respectable name if I associate it with cars like my Dad's 1955 Oldsmobile Ninety-Eight Starfire convertible and not that crummy 1999 Cutlass sedan that once belonged to my girlfriend.
Oldsmobile is a bit of American history, though----one of the few cars to be produced for 100 years, one of the first "mass produced" cars in the world (probably the first actually).
I read in the Economist that Ford is showing early signs of great financial distress, as measured by the arcane methods of economists. This is a code word for "bankruptcy". The quote is: "exhibiting classically distressed behavior of downsizing amid recurring losses". P 81, The Economist, 4 April 2008.
Jaguar cost Ford $10 billion in losses in the 18 years they owned it. Land Rover was just starting to turn a profit, however. Tata has big plans for Jaguar, to drive it upscale again and abandon entry level products like the X type. The new Land Rover is low slung and light.
Ford sold them both off for 2.3 billion.
Morgan Stanley called the Tata deal "value-destructive" due to the high operating costs of both companies.
We'll see how these fit into a 2009 world.
But hasn't that been the case for Ford for years now? What is the new thing now causing them to anticipate bankruptcy? Not that I would be surprised, Ford is clearly hanging on with a shoestring and a prayer.
Even now, they are STILL talking about "protecting the F-150 franchise" even as their sales are overtaken by GM and both models are in sales freefall with no end in sight given the gas prices and the recession.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Well, it is still, by far, their top selling vehicle, isn't it?
Back on the Oldsmobile kick - I think that's what made for the funny article - who would pay anything to bring back the name? Now, Edsel, there's another story....
Mulally is working to change the corporate culture (which, in my opinion, is the root of Detroit's problems). Also, Ford is really an international company now, and is doing well in South America and Europe. I see Ford emerging as a smaller company in North America (it will probably settle for third place behind Toyota and GM), and the North American arm will not be as powerful within the company as it once was.
My bet is on Chrysler as the American company that goes first...pretty big sales declines in sales for the past few months, and that is even with some of the new vehicles (Avenger) selling over 70 percent of total production to rental car companies!
Three words:
FOUR
FOUR
TWO
:shades:
Yes, but not "by far", imo.
1. Ford F-Series
January to October '07 Sales: 588,952
Vs. January to October '06: Down 12.5%
2. Chevrolet Silverado
January to October '07 Sales: 526,575
Vs. January to October '06: Down 2.4%
http://www.forbes.com/2007/11/30/cars-sales-year-forbeslife-cx_bh_1130cars.html
No matter how great they make the F-series trucks, they will never out-GM GM, nor will they regain the personal transport buyers with gas prices this high, so my original comment was merely meant to point out that placing so much emphasis on propping up F sales is a bad idea.
They also have the Flex coming out - bad name, heavy vehicle, might steal some sales from the Lambda triplets. And?....
In 2010, we might see a rebadged Mazda2.
The Focus and Escape are going to run on and on and on and...
Other stuff? The Mustang is going to get some heat from the rest of Detroit, but is already down in sales ahead of the competition even showing up. Fusion and Taurus are OK, but no great shakes sales-wise and also due to run for a long time yet.
I don't see a whole lot of reasons to have optimism for Ford. GM is the only one in a strong position.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
If gas doesn't go down, or if it breaks $4/gal for regular all over the country and STAYS there, people will simply stop buying F-150s and Silverados, period. They will rot on showroom floors IMO at 14 mpg city driving.
Do the math -- 14 miles for $4. That's brutal. $20 a day to commute to work? Or a contractor who might drive 100 miles a day? That's $150 bucks a week in gas.
Nosebleed
Whatever. Talk to Lemko about that.
My only point was the F-150 is still Fords top selling vehicle by far. This was in respoonse to a complaint that Ford is still talking about "protecting the F-150 franchise" or something like that.
As much as I hate all the unecessary and foolish purchasing of gas-sucking trucks and SUVs that goes on in this country, were I running Ford I sure would not be saying "lets forget about the F-150 and concentrate on the Focus". I am not saying that they should ignore the Focus, either. I just think it is silly to criticize the company for trying to find a way to keep profiting from selling 700K+ F-150s per year.
I guess, if you commute 35 miles each way, which is more than double the average commute, I believe. If you drive 35 miles to work and are dumb enough to buy a 14 mpg truck or SUV when gas is (or recently was) $3 per gallon, why would $4 per gallon gas suddenly stop you? Why wouldn't $3 per gallon gas and $15 per day (that is nearly $4000 per year just for gas to commute to work) be enough to convice you to do something different?
At $3.50 per gallon, I'm spending less than $3 per day on my commute
Not silly at all, because with the gas prices the way they are, they're not going to sell as many of them, which means they're not going to profit from them. Unless they make like GM and start working on a hybrid version.
...by the 2010 model year you will be able to get an optional diesel power plant, or, more importantly, Ford’s new Ecoboost engine, which uses computer-controlled direct injection and a twin turbocharger system to generate 100 horsepower per liter of displacement. As a result, an Edge-sized power plant can generate enough yank for hauling a trailer.
http://www.vailtrail.com/article/20080402/VALLEYLIFE/635098102
The Ford Fiesta will debut for the 2010 model year. It will share a platform with the Mazda2 and the European Fiesta. It will look much like the European Fiesta, which recently debuted and is very sharp. Production will be based in Mexico, so it should be profitable.
nippononly: The Focus and Escape are going to run on and on and on and...
The next Focus will once again share a platform with its European brother. (Also note that the current one is actually selling pretty well to retail customers - probably because of high fuel prices and Synch). If I recall correctly, we are looking at the 2010-2011 time frame for the new one.
The Escape gets a new transmission and four-cylinder engine, and a revamped six, for the 2009 model year. The new drivetrains will boost mileage and performance.
nippononly: Other stuff? The Mustang is going to get some heat from the rest of Detroit, but is already down in sales ahead of the competition even showing up.
The car will get a facelift for the 2009 model year, along with revamped engines.
nippononly: Fusion and Taurus are OK, but no great shakes sales-wise and also due to run for a long time yet.
Fusions gets a facelift, upgraded interior, new four-cylinder and revamped six-cylinder for the 2009 model year. The Taurus will be completely restyled (with, one presumes, an all-new interior) for 2010 or 2011. The Taurus rides on a solid platform with a good drivetrain; the problem is the dull styling both inside and out. This should fix that complaint.
So, I wouldn't say that Ford is sitting still.
Their best seller is only such because of a happy and accidental coincidence of a building boom, easy credit, and cheap gas. Not one, not two, but ALL THREE are now gone.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
As the past owner of a GMC hybrid PU truck I can attest to the fact it was a waste of money. Ford would be better to try and improve their existing mileage. A small diesel PU would be the best thing they could come up with. The hybrid has not proven itself at all in larger vehicles. Toyota had great plans for a hybrid PU truck. Have you heard anymore about that?
The first automaker to market a 1/2 ton PU with a 4-6 cylinder diesel that can get 30+ MPG on the hwy will have a real winner on their hands. Hopefully one of the Big 3 American automakers win the prize.
GM is pretty serious about the Camaro, even about fuel efficiency. The only edge Ford will have is price on the low-end Mustangs, even with updated engines.
I could go on to disagree with you point by point - when Ford announces "major upgrades" lately, they seem to end up being pretty minor, Escape is a good example. I won't do it, but I will continue to be more pessimistic about Ford's future than you. We will see what happens.
One thing I think WILL happen regardless of what updates the '09 has, is that F-150 sales will continue to decline, and the pressure that will put on Ford may be more than it can it bear in its now weakened condition.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Of course, diesels are great for torque too. So make a diesel hybrid. :shades:
Let's see the best-selling truck for 26 years and best-selling vehicle for 21 years...yep gotta be just some recent confluence of favorable factors. I'm sure F-150 sales will shortly be below those of the Focus and the coming Festiva.
If you add what is essentially the wagon variant of the Fusion (Edge) to the sedan, it is selling at a 300,000 per year rate, based 1st quarter sales figures. Add in the Milan and MKZ sales and they are selling at what would be an annual rate of over 375,000.
Right now I'm looking at a posted price of $4.18/gallon for diesel and $3.57 for regular gas.
If you bump up your 14 mpg gas truck to an 18 mpg diesel truck, you're still in the hole.
My point? It seems that the Big Three are always slow to respond to the "handwriting on the wall". They missed downsizing by 5 years, they missed fuel injection by nearly 20 years, they missed AWD passenger cars, they missed hybrids.
It's very annoying. The Big Three is always second quickest on the draw.
Why is that?
Seems the last BIG coup (I'm not talking about gadgets here and there) we had on the imports was the Mini-Van.
What about the SUV as a passenger car? They made piles of money selling converted trucks as station wagons. (I hate SUVs and think most who bought them were fools who were easily separated from their money because they saw the minivan or wagon as a threat to their manhood, but it was a money maker and the US manufacturers were the leaders, weren;t they?)
I'm one of those guys secure enough to drive a minivan...
We DID have cheap gas the entire 21 years, if you think back.
Since the minor recession in '90/'91, we have also had the cheap credit.
The building boom is the shortest-lived of the three, but even that was going on 12, maybe 15, years when it busted in late '06.
I never said F-150 sales would fall below Focus sales, but here's a prediction: both GM and Ford full-size (light duty) truck sales will fall below whatever the top-selling car is within the next ten years. I am not 100% convinced of this prediction, but I think odds are very good. And Ford/GM should be planning for that day just like they should have been planning for downsizing well before 9/11.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I guess it depends on what you consider cheap. Treasuries were above 7.5% as late as the mid 90s. Money market rates were above 6% in 2000. Not sure why cheap credit would have anything to do with selling trucks over other vehicles, anyway.
The building boom is the shortest-lived of the three, but even that was going on 12, maybe 15, years when it busted in late '06.
I don't know what data there is to confirm or deny that claim. In any case, I don't know how much it would have to do with the growth of truck sales over the last 20-30 years.
The building boom encouraged contractors to buy large numbers of work trucks. Those sales have all died on the vine in the last 18 months, which is half the reason that in a 2-year period Ford is going to show a 40% decrease in F-truck sales. The other half of the decrease is attributable to personal transport buyers buying more vehicle than they needed, because credit and gas were cheap. Now that they're not, all those buyers have gone away.
Cheap gas is probably gone forever. Cheap credit and housing construction will be back in 18 months or less, but maybe not to the same extent that they were here the last 15 years. We will see.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
In thnking more about it, I think this does probably translate to sales of trucks and SUVs in the US. Rather than being a result of the relative prices, this is mostly because many Americans seem to think vehicles should be priced by the pound (or by the cubic foot). So we are (or at least were) more willing to buy an over-priced gargantuan Ford SUV than we are an over-priced Lincoln.
In effect the desirablity of large trucks and SUVs caused the high prices, rather than the high prices being an inherent property of the vehicles. This is why these vehicles were so profitable. From a 2003 article:
Manufacturers generally make 15% to 20% in profit on an SUV, compared with only 3% or less on a car, according to Michael Flynn, director of the University of Michigan Office for the Study of Automotive Transportation.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1004283-6,00.html
Ok, maybe I missed something here.
First, what MAINSTREAM cars were fuel injected prior to 1984??
Second, what mainstream cars were AWD, other than Subaru?
As I recall, the Corvette and Bonneville were available with FI in 1957.
Ever hear of the Bendix ElectroJector??? EFI available on the 1957 Rambler Rebel, and Chrysler offered it on their 1958 models.
GM offered digital FI (TBI) on Caddies in the late '70's
AMC was offering 4WD cars in the late '70's and early '80's
Americans were using carbs into the late 80s. They had a kind of "throttle body" injection, which was really a carburator with a fuel injector in it. That pretty much sucked, too. The first American cars using fuel injection licensed it from Bosch.
I'm not sure about the first AWD American car, but it wasn't that long ago. Subaru and Audi were the AWD pioneers and Mercedes offered a very reliable fuel injection in 1955 (mechanical), VW in 1968 (electronic). Also the 6 and 7 speed automatics came from furriners.
American cars have been technically backward since the 1950s and are only now pretty much caught up to within a few years of the Euros and Japanese IMO.
Probably the showcase car for technical achievement would be the Cadillac and Corvette, which , INTERESTINGLY, are doing well.
To be fair, American cars were among the first with air bags, so that's something to brag about.