U.S. Auto Market News and Reviews

fintail · June 2017

Because people here are often a weird mix of aggressive and timid, and they chicken out. Remember, this is the place where merging onto a 60mph highway at 40mph is normal. The local Tesla dork will weave and drive aggressively up to that ~30 point, maybe even with a phone to their ear, like the Model X driver I saw yesterday evening who did so while going through a red light. Not like they'd get pulled over for it anyway.

Michaell said:

Because traffic won't allow speeds faster than that?

suydam · June 2017

There's only 1? Quite a few Teslas where I live. I doubt I could generalize their driving behaviors.

fintail · June 2017

Just from Seattle observations, I look at it as a cross between Prius and BMW drivers, and not in a good way.

Mr_Shiftright · June 2017

Since the USA operates on a "free" (ahem) market, then let's level the playing field for Tesla:

1. No government subsidies

2. No free charging station (after all, gasoline isn't free), and this perk is just another subsidy paid for with investor money (out one pocket into another).

3. Window sticker from each state showing the % of electricity generated for the Tesla that comes from coal, natural gas and renewables and grant, or do not grant, Access Lane stickers based on that.

tlong · June 2017

"1. No government subsidies

2. No free charging station (after all, gasoline isn't free), and this perk is just another subsidy paid for with investor money (out one pocket into another).

3. Window sticker from each state showing the % of electricity generated for the Tesla that comes from coal, natural gas and renewables and grant, or do not grant, Access Lane stickers based on that. "

1 - Of course you would need to compare that to the bailouts. How much did GM get in bailout versus Tesla subsidies? AFAIR GM also had (still has?) an income tax break ongoing gift from the US Government.

Do people here really want to complain about Tesla? I think having a young upstart to wake up the moribund D3 (2) is a great thing. Look at what Elon has done for the prices and innovation in the space launch market.

fintail · June 2017

I don't see how this upstart is waking up the D3. It might urge some to make EVs, but this isn't the cloned MBA's adored term of a paradigm shift. I believe the Bolt etc would exist without it.

I have more issue with tax breaks for people who buy 120K toys than for bailing out sputtering firms who could cause chaos in collapse, but then again I don't like regressive tax policy in general, and I don't drink the trickle down Kool-Aid.

Mr_Shiftright · June 2017

tlong said:
"1. No government subsidies

2. No free charging station (after all, gasoline isn't free), and this perk is just another subsidy paid for with investor money (out one pocket into another).

3. Window sticker from each state showing the % of electricity generated for the Tesla that comes from coal, natural gas and renewables and grant, or do not grant, Access Lane stickers based on that. "

1 - Of course you would need to compare that to the bailouts. How much did GM get in bailout versus Tesla subsidies? AFAIR GM also had (still has?) an income tax break ongoing gift from the US Government.

Do people here really want to complain about Tesla? I think having a young upstart to wake up the moribund D3 (2) is a great thing. Look at what Elon has done for the prices and innovation in the space launch market.

The bailout is a different animal. That was a trade-off to avoid bearing the cost of massive unemployment and possibly turning over dominance in world automotive production to Europe and Japan. Personally I don't think it can be lumped in with the loss of revenue to the government by subsidizing Tesla with no benefit to the general population.

Despite Musk's brilliance and the Tesla product, which is credible, I still see the Tesla company as a giant Ponzi scheme at this point in time.

berri · June 2017

I believe Tesla has a worker productivity deficit compared to many other automakers. Long term as competition increases it may become an Achilles heel for them. Personally, I think the key for them will be if they can keep ahead on battery technology and if I was investing in them, that is what I'd be following closely.

Mr_Shiftright · June 2017

A battery breakthrough has been promised for a decade but has yet to happen. We have evolution but not revolution e.g., we aren't seeing a great leap forward, such as vacuum tube to transistor, carburetor to fuel injection.

andres3 · June 2017

Mr_Shiftright said:

tlong said:
"1. No government subsidies

2. No free charging station (after all, gasoline isn't free), and this perk is just another subsidy paid for with investor money (out one pocket into another).

3. Window sticker from each state showing the % of electricity generated for the Tesla that comes from coal, natural gas and renewables and grant, or do not grant, Access Lane stickers based on that. "

1 - Of course you would need to compare that to the bailouts. How much did GM get in bailout versus Tesla subsidies? AFAIR GM also had (still has?) an income tax break ongoing gift from the US Government.

Do people here really want to complain about Tesla? I think having a young upstart to wake up the moribund D3 (2) is a great thing. Look at what Elon has done for the prices and innovation in the space launch market.
The bailout is a different animal. That was a trade-off to avoid bearing the cost of massive unemployment and possibly turning over dominance in world automotive production to Europe and Japan. Personally I don't think it can be lumped in with the loss of revenue to the government by subsidizing Tesla with no benefit to the general population.

Despite Musk's brilliance and the Tesla product, which is credible, I still see the Tesla company as a giant Ponzi scheme at this point in time.

My aversion to the bailouts had nothing to do with the results from doing so (although arguable the results have been horrendous). I know there are those that argue the alternative would have resulted in a world wide meltdown, complete with a nuclear winter

My aversion to providing bailouts to GM & Chrysler had more to do with the fact they had sold horrendous products to the people of the US, and then backed it up with terrible customer service, and then finally shady warranty avoidance coverage. All of those things deserve to be punished, and the bailouts were a reward to keep the private jets fueled for the suits at the top. Bonuses tend to be sky-high in the industry as well, not as sky-high as Wall Street, but when you have to be compared to Wall Street to look good, something is wrong.

Mr_Shiftright · June 2017

Letting GM and Chrysler fail was a political third rail. By that I mean, the repercussions would cross party lines.

One has to be realistic in politics.

berri · June 2017

The auto industry often gets singled out for the bailouts, but they were a sliver compared to the big banks and financials. Seldom hear people complaining about those bailouts that were going on at the same time. Big banks aren't exactly customer focused organizations.

andres3 · June 2017

Mr_Shiftright said:
Letting GM and Chrysler fail was a political third rail. By that I mean, the repercussions would cross party lines.

One has to be realistic in politics.

Yes, but I wonder if the repercussions would have been better ignored if GM & Chrysler didn't have the clout in so-called "battle-ground States."

Big banks routinely make Worst 10 lists for Customer service along with Cell Phone and Cable companies. Again, if you have to compare yourself to them to look good, you are setting low standards.

Also, a car is the biggest monetary transaction most people will make on something outside of their home. It's a little easier to support the home team if were talking about glassware you buy for $19.99 verses an automobile that averages over $30,000 these days, and that doesn't include maintenance and servicing/repair costs.

Another example, if the maker of my defective $19.99 neck and shoulder massaging machine doesn't want to honor their warranty; I'm out $20 and can buy another brand; maybe spend more next time. But get a bum transmission, leaky early failure head gaskets, and A/C system and your talking $3,000+ to keep your ride working. If you add in that the ride isn't fun to drive, is not comfortable, or quiet, or anything else of redeeming value, and there you have the BIG 3 90's product IMO. People used to say in the old days that German cars were expensive to keep running, but at least they had a performance luxury machine when it ran; not a rattle trap clunker.

Mr_Shiftright · June 2017

The auto industry is also the basis for military vehicles and possibly all kinds of weapons manufacturing. A country would be nuts to throw away that infrastructure.

berri · June 2017

America has already let too much of its industrial base go away like electronics. Basically we've given the upper hand to China (and what we didn't give away they've pretty much stolen without any repercussions).

tlong · June 2017

Mr_Shiftright said:
The auto industry is also the basis for military vehicles and possibly all kinds of weapons manufacturing. A country would be nuts to throw away that infrastructure.

Of course we've thrown away a lot of other infrastructure.
I suspect the bailout was more political than strategic in this regard. I don't give the politicians nearly enough credit for insight for it to have been strategic.

I've always said that the bailouts looked good at the start, but just wait until the first big downturn hits - are our big dinosaur automakers REALLY in better shape now? Are they able to survive another bit downturn or will we be once again faced with the same grim choices - bail them out or they fail?

circlew · June 2017

If there had been no bailout, Ford, Toyota and Honda would have picked up market share. That would have increased U.S. factories and jobs once the recession was over. The loss of GM would be like the loss of Pan Am, TWA and other companies that had a strong American heritage but lost their competitiveness. It would have perhaps tugged on the heartstrings of America, but not really hurt the economy. As a result, the auto industry bailout was not critical to the U.S. economy, like the rescue of AIG or the banking system.

berri · June 2017

I think the airlines is a bad analogy. We now have a oligopoly with higher prices (all fees considered) , lousy service and bad seating accommodations thanks to the loss of so many carriers. Consolidation leads to loss of competition and the consumer comes out the loser in the long run. Big Pharma is another example.

fintail · June 2017

I think the recession only really ended on paper. Some places are booming, but there are still hard times in many others. Those D3-linked suppliers would have flatlined. And yes, the issue of consolidation is a real one, not to mention, not every D3 employee buys a D3 car. And if it was all political. Big Orange wouldn't have won in key rust belt areas.

I don't have a problem aiding an ailing industry (especially one as strategically important as transportation manufacturing), as every other developed country does likewise. I know we fail in many areas compared to other first world locations, but we shouldn't in all. We aid our FIRE cabal immensely, bailing it out even when not needed. Real-estate-based industries especially - federally backed loans and tax deductible interest are really just subsidies , and when the terms get sweeter in reaction to declining markers, bailouts. Few complain about the finance world, you know, the one that creates recessions and depressions, without fear of real accountability.

When the next downturn hits, examine who made it happen.

Mr_Shiftright · June 2017

It's hard to know how it would have played out otherwise. In any event, it would been rolling some mighty big dice.

Besides I rather doubt Honda and Toyota would be moving to Detroit. They want non-union labor, slimmer pensions and corporate profits flowing back to Japan. These are not exactly benevolent institutions catering to the American middle class.

There's a difference between "having a job" and being part of the "American Dream".

Then, too, we must consider the massive supply chain that feeds the auto industry.

Sure, every rich country will survive an economic collapse, and if the Great Depression tells us anything, it tells us that not every part of the country suffers equally.

I think Michigan & Ohio and perhaps nearby states would have been flattened.

berri · June 2017

Frankly, many who naysay the auto bailout with concepts like imports will make up the difference often seem to lack a handle on the fixed costs aspect of manufacturing. Transplants and many overseas plants and vendors are structured close to capacity to minimize overhead drag. Adding capacity leads to brick and mortar in these situations which first delays product availability and then adds to product cost structure. Even taking over a GM plant, disregarding the HR implications of UAW, normally ends up requiring a lot of investment to retool and change layouts. Oftentimes companies find it cheaper to just rip most things out and replace the setup. But it is still expensive and requires capital investment, including financing. Sometimes we in America think everyone will kill to get more share here, but the truth of the matter is there are often faster growing markets elsewhere that lead to better growth opportunities and a preferable investment return for the limited capital available to a company. Then for imports there is the matter of transport vessel and docking availability and costs, as well as currency valuations and the resulting lag between production and delivery (payment). That cash flow lag and exchange rate fluctuations has to be covered and financed. These are some major issues that convinced Japan and Korea Inc. to build transplants here (but in a generally more favorable time economically for them in the US). Note: this is one of the reasons for the non US company expansions in Mexico rather than here more recently. It is not just labor rates. On the pure economics side, less producers tends to make cost/price curves less elastic (ie - higher prices).

Mr_Shiftright · June 2017

Get 'Em Before They Clear the Shelves at BimmerMart

andres3 · June 2017

Mr_Shiftright said:
It's hard to know how it would have played out otherwise. In any event, it would been rolling some mighty big dice.

Besides I rather doubt Honda and Toyota would be moving to Detroit. They want non-union labor, slimmer pensions and corporate profits flowing back to Japan. These are not exactly benevolent institutions catering to the American middle class.

There's a difference between "having a job" and being part of the "American Dream".

Then, too, we must consider the massive supply chain that feeds the auto industry.

Sure, every rich country will survive an economic collapse, and if the Great Depression tells us anything, it tells us that not every part of the country suffers equally.

I think Michigan & Ohio and perhaps nearby states would have been flattened.

And then CA would make movies about it

There are actually a few good movies, docu-dramas, and/or documentaries covering the subject of the last recession, but they seem to get very little press.

As to living the American Dream by working for the Big 3 vs. Honda, I find that a bit hard to believe. Sure, everyone would like being overpaid with overkill benefits, but would you like it all the same if you know that it is driving your employer into bankruptcy? I have a feeling a survey of morale at Chrysler prior to the 2nd bailouts for them would not have showed people "living the dream" so to speak. They might be well paid, but how much can you enjoy being part of the "Caliber" product team?

I just don't think Mr. Toyota would be impressed by someones resume stating "QC manager in charge of Dodge Neon product quality 1994-2000." LOL!

fintail · June 2017

Are any of those movies apolitical? I know it's hard to find apolitical documentary of bailouts, the "libertarian" types are triggered by such things, and they can be real propagandists. You know, those who "built it" themselves (with a parental free ride, parents helping with house, being born at a lucky time, etc).

It's not just line worker compensation driving incompetent firms into bankruptcy - likely not even the primary reason. The executive leadership was completely incompetent, and in virtually every industry, remains free from accountability. Let them eat cake.

suydam · June 2017

Documentaries are always made from a point of view. As long as you realize that, no reason to dismiss them.

Mr_Shiftright · June 2017

As long as the employer is profitable, I don't have a problem with high wages for people. If GM paid its workers $50 an hour, and posted a profit in that year, then they were making money on that guys' hour. If GM didn't make money that year, who is to say that GM management didn't screw up?

fintail · June 2017

Interesting piece in the news feed this morning - I suspect many consumers couldn't care less. No doubt the savings will be passed down...LOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

andres3 · June 2017

Mr_Shiftright said:
As long as the employer is profitable, I don't have a problem with high wages for people. If GM paid its workers $50 an hour, and posted a profit in that year, then they were making money on that guys' hour. If GM didn't make money that year, who is to say that GM management didn't screw up?

The accounting magic to post profits is sometimes questionable.

Did you fund your pensions, health care, and warranty funds adequately before posting that profit? If so, then yes, it is true profit, but if not, it is just magician-ship. Also, shouldn't their be a rainy day fund during boom times? Maybe a "claims" fund for when those faulty ignition lawsuits come back to bite you. Is there a "inflated residual" fund for all those subsidized leases? When you are losing billions per month, there are a lot of factors losing money all at the same time.

Mr_Shiftright · June 2017

Well I would have thought that the person making $500 an hour is being paid to do his job, which is to figure out how the guy making $50 an hour won't lose his job. It's not like building cars is some new business model. I really don't think that Chrysler's workforce voted unanimously to build the Dodge Neon.

andres3 · June 2017

fintail said:
Interesting piece in the news feed this morning - I suspect many consumers couldn't care less. No doubt the savings will be passed down...LOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

Fords from China? Count me in the "no thanks" group for that! Unless of course, that makes a Focus RS $9,999. However, I think you are right, the savings on labor will probably not translate into low prices for consumers.

andres3 · June 2017

Mr_Shiftright said:
Well I would have thought that the person making $500 an hour is being paid to do his job, which is to figure out how the guy making $50 an hour won't lose his job. It's not like building cars is some new business model. I really don't think that Chrysler's workforce voted unanimously to build the Dodge Neon.

The problem is the guy making $500/hour is more interested in his year-end bonus and his golden parachute. How about tying Executive compensation to Consumer Reports Reliability results?

Mr_Shiftright · June 2017

I think Chrysler/Fiat should sell the company to its employees---see what they can do with it.

Michaell · June 2017

Mr_Shiftright said:
I think Chrysler/Fiat should sell the company to its employees---see what they can do with it.

Sell? Exactly how much did Fiat pay for it in the first place?

I think giving the company to the employees - White and blue collar - is the right thing to do.

fintail · June 2017

Fiat only bought it for Jeep and Ram anyway, right?

fintail · June 2017

I wouldn't do it based on political reasons more than anything else. Funny though, I have a friend who loves the new XT6 hybrid - made in China, and he doesn't care a bit. I suspect to the average consumer, the reaction will be the same.

andres3 said:

Fords from China? Count me in the "no thanks" group for that! Unless of course, that makes a Focus RS $9,999. However, I think you are right, the savings on labor will probably not translate into low prices for consumers.

Michaell · June 2017

fintail said:

Fiat only bought it for Jeep and Ram anyway, right?

Fiat didn't buy anything - it was gifted to them from the US Govt and Cerebus in exchange for Fiat technology being used for US models - the Dart and the 200.

fintail · June 2017

So Jeep and Ram were traded for an engine family

I suspect Chrysler passenger cars didn't have a huge value as an independent concern.

Michaell said:

Fiat didn't buy anything - it was gifted to them from the US Govt and Cerebus in exchange for Fiat technology being used for US models - the Dart and the 200.

Michaell · June 2017

fintail said:
So Jeep and Ram were traded for an engine family I suspect Chrysler passenger cars didn't have a huge value as an independent concern.

Michaell said:

Fiat didn't buy anything - it was gifted to them from the US Govt and Cerebus in exchange for Fiat technology being used for US models - the Dart and the 200.

I just reviewed the broad strokes of the deal (see the book "Mondo Agnelli", which is a history of Fiat, and their merger with Chrysler)

When the US Gov't loaned Chrysler money as part of TARP, there were three conditions:

1. long term viability
2. international competitiveness
3. energy efficient vehicles

At first, Chrysler tried to merge with GM, but there was too much product overlap (duh)

FIAT entered the picture, and always maintained a 'no cash in' approach to the negotiations. Settled on an initial stake of 20% in Chrysler (UAW was at 55%, US and Canadian governments had the rest), with the ability to increase the stake to 35% when certain milestones were met (introducing a car that got 40MPG to the US market).

fintail · June 2017

Quite a gamble. Of course, Europeans love Jeeps and Ram has to have huge profit margins, so they must have a plan.

Michaell · June 2017

fintail said:
Quite a gamble. Of course, Europeans love Jeeps and Ram has to have huge profit margins, so they must have a plan.

At the moment, FCA is trying to engineer a merger with another manufacturer, but they are being repelled by pretty much everybody.

What is likely to happen is that FCA will run out of cash, then someone will swoop in and pick over the carcass for pennies on the dollar.

andres3 · June 2017

fintail said:
I wouldn't do it based on political reasons more than anything else. Funny though, I have a friend who loves the new XT6 hybrid - made in China, and he doesn't care a bit. I suspect to the average consumer, the reaction will be the same.

andres3 said:

Fords from China? Count me in the "no thanks" group for that! Unless of course, that makes a Focus RS $9,999. However, I think you are right, the savings on labor will probably not translate into low prices for consumers.

The reactiion will be the same until it starts breaking down. If the quality control is high and they don't break down, they'll never notice. However, if it does turn into a lemon, they'll look for reasons why and then they'll notice where it was made. The blame should probably be with Ford more than China though.

Saw a Chevy pickup truck stalled out/broken down in the 2nd lane of the freeway nearing an exit ramp for another freeway (78W from I15N) this morning. Fortunately, I got there soon after he broke down and was able to maneuver in the first lane. Traffic is always a crawl in that location, so he's going along bumper to bumper, and the Big 3 is responsible for turning congestion into gridlock

Michaell · June 2017

andres3 said:

fintail said:
I wouldn't do it based on political reasons more than anything else. Funny though, I have a friend who loves the new XT6 hybrid - made in China, and he doesn't care a bit. I suspect to the average consumer, the reaction will be the same.

andres3 said:

Fords from China? Count me in the "no thanks" group for that! Unless of course, that makes a Focus RS $9,999. However, I think you are right, the savings on labor will probably not translate into low prices for consumers.

The reactiion will be the same until it starts breaking down. If the quality control is high and they don't break down, they'll never notice. However, if it does turn into a lemon, they'll look for reasons why and then they'll notice where it was made. The blame should probably be with Ford more than China though.

Saw a Chevy pickup truck stalled out/broken down in the 2nd lane of the freeway nearing an exit ramp for another freeway (78W from I15N) this morning. Fortunately, I got there soon after he broke down and was able to maneuver in the first lane. Traffic is always a crawl in that location, so he's going along bumper to bumper, and the Big 3 is responsible for turning congestion into gridlock

I'm amazed at how much traffic there is in North County, these days.

Glad my sister has a commute of less than a mile to her office.

andres3 · June 2017

Michaell said:

andres3 said:

fintail said:
I wouldn't do it based on political reasons more than anything else. Funny though, I have a friend who loves the new XT6 hybrid - made in China, and he doesn't care a bit. I suspect to the average consumer, the reaction will be the same.

andres3 said:

Fords from China? Count me in the "no thanks" group for that! Unless of course, that makes a Focus RS $9,999. However, I think you are right, the savings on labor will probably not translate into low prices for consumers.

The reactiion will be the same until it starts breaking down. If the quality control is high and they don't break down, they'll never notice. However, if it does turn into a lemon, they'll look for reasons why and then they'll notice where it was made. The blame should probably be with Ford more than China though.

Saw a Chevy pickup truck stalled out/broken down in the 2nd lane of the freeway nearing an exit ramp for another freeway (78W from I15N) this morning. Fortunately, I got there soon after he broke down and was able to maneuver in the first lane. Traffic is always a crawl in that location, so he's going along bumper to bumper, and the Big 3 is responsible for turning congestion into gridlock
I'm amazed at how much traffic there is in North County, these days.

Glad my sister has a commute of less than a mile to her office.

Commutes suck, in part, because your exposed to law enforcement for more time and miles, which means you get tickets more regularly. For people that drive near over 15,000 miles per year, year after year, and still never get a ticket, I commend you.

I got a speeding ticket in the Kia the other day on a stretch I think I got a ticket almost 10 years ago. Therefore, I know the traffic & engineering survey will show the speed limit is set well below the 85th percentile, and also that the stretch of roadway is 6 or 8 times safer (accidents per million miles) than the typical roadway. Strange use of enforcement the other morning during morning rush (around 7 AM). Two motorcycle Sheriffs; another guy was pulled over all of 15 seconds after I had been. Wasn't using my radar detector; absolutely should have; probably would have saved me. I did slow down 200-300 yards before crossing the motorcycle's path, but that wasn't good enough apparently.

If you slow down to the "speed limit" 200 yards before reaching a "so-called potential hazard" was a hazard really created? Shows I was paying attention and observant; they should go after the distracted people that don't hit the brakes

andres3 · June 2017

Michaell said:

fintail said:
Quite a gamble. Of course, Europeans love Jeeps and Ram has to have huge profit margins, so they must have a plan.
At the moment, FCA is trying to engineer a merger with another manufacturer, but they are being repelled by pretty much everybody.

What is likely to happen is that FCA will run out of cash, then someone will swoop in and pick over the carcass for pennies on the dollar.

I got my bid in for providing 25 hours of management/week in exchange for complete ownership and a salary of a new Dodge Viper every year. I think I'm under-pricing every automotive CEO out there.

Michaell · June 2017

andres3 said:

Michaell said:

fintail said:
Quite a gamble. Of course, Europeans love Jeeps and Ram has to have huge profit margins, so they must have a plan.
At the moment, FCA is trying to engineer a merger with another manufacturer, but they are being repelled by pretty much everybody.

What is likely to happen is that FCA will run out of cash, then someone will swoop in and pick over the carcass for pennies on the dollar.
I got my bid in for providing 25 hours of management/week in exchange for complete ownership and a salary of a new Dodge Viper every year. I think I'm under-pricing every automotive CEO out there.

But, does Chrysler want someone with a saucer-sized chip on their shoulder running the company?

We all know how you feel about your '94 Neon...

:laughing:

Sucks about the ticket.

berri · June 2017

Funny prediction about FCA: AMC got Jeep in a fire sale, then Renault got it, then Chrysler. If FCA goes down in flames I wouldn't be surprised to see China buy it. Jeep and RAM still have some cachet.

Michaell · June 2017

berri said:
Funny prediction about FCA: AMC got Jeep in a fire sale, then Renault got it, then Chrysler. If FCA goes down in flames I wouldn't be surprised to see China buy it. Jeep and RAM still have some cachet.

You forgot Daimler-Benz and Cerebus, before FCA.

tlong · June 2017

Now that Ford is moving Focus production to China, am I correct that the first two Chinese produced vehicles were GM engines a few years ago (in small SUV as I recall?) and now the Focus?

This is why I think the focus on "American makes" is very simplistic. It's the Japanese makes that are not yet using China. And they provide a lot of economy to the US as well. Companies like GM had higher numbers of workers but a lot of that was because they were inefficient and couldn't be profitable at those labor levels. So what good are those jobs if they are basically unsustainable anyway?

fintail · June 2017

Caddy CT6 hybrid, already on these shores, is made in China. There were "low feature" GM engines built in China around 2005, mostly found in Equinox IIRC.

andres3 · June 2017

tlong said:
Now that Ford is moving Focus production to China, am I correct that the first two Chinese produced vehicles were GM engines a few years ago (in small SUV as I recall?) and now the Focus?

This is why I think the focus on "American makes" is very simplistic. It's the Japanese makes that are not yet using China. And they provide a lot of economy to the US as well. Companies like GM had higher numbers of workers but a lot of that was because they were inefficient and couldn't be profitable at those labor levels. So what good are those jobs if they are basically unsustainable anyway?

That's been my argument against bailouts the whole time; they are unsustainable propping up unsustainable jobs. Better to "save" sustainable jobs.

I can keep a lot of $75,000 a year people employed for quite some time if you give me 50 Billion Dollars in Tax Payer money. Even if I have them just watch paint dry and grass grow!

U.S. Auto Market News and Reviews

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles