|
|
Post by bolverk on Nov 18, 2008 12:26:39 GMT -5
Perhaps they should receive tax cuts since they are making electric cars that produce zero greenhouse emissions. Had these tax cuts (for low emission vehicles / high MPG) been implemented earlier, Big Auto might not be in the dire straights they currently find themselves in. Unless they have found a way to manufacture, charge and have batteries that never die, it still produces green house gas emissions. Even if the engine does not. |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Nov 18, 2008 12:33:54 GMT -5
You have a small part of it correct. They also put all their eggs in the high-margin SUV basket which screwed them in the end. They also failed to upgrade their plants, some of which haven't been upgraded for 50 years. The Japanese car companies are models of efficiency. They build new plants, focus on reliable cars that will drive us into the future, and build cars that get pretty good gas mileage. Detroit is completely out of touch with the global marketplace. Failed to upgrade their plants? Exactly what do you mean by upgrade? All their eggs in one basket in the high-margin SUV market? First, you make money selling what people buy, which was SUV's. But, as intelligent as you are you blame the automaker for what people want to drive. Automakers are in business to make money. Out of touch with the global market place you say? I don't think so, just not allowed to export cars to protected markets. They do a fine job of producing what Americans want, who cares about what the rest of the world wants. Now unions, on the other hand, have killed the goose that lays the golden eggs. |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Nov 18, 2008 13:40:32 GMT -5
Really? Then why are more foreign cars sold in the US than domestic?
US automakers have successfully fostered the false idea that SUVs are safer to drive. That's why you see so many blimps on wheels out there on the road.
You sound like a broken record. It must be so easy to be conservative. You just roll out the same lines year after year to explain away complex problems. You're so ignorant to the truth of the matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Nov 18, 2008 17:24:35 GMT -5
Well saunterelle, I happen to have a very, very good friend who made his money off of the automobile industry. At least that is where they began, by selling cars. As more and more union control was achieved, profits for the dealerships diminished to the point of running the small dealer out of business first, forcing them to make money on repairing vehicles or going out of business.
After that, so went the body shop. Why, because of over regulation of the industry in the Bay Area. Paint mixtures, paint types, recirculating systems to capture fumes, more and more restrictive smog regulations not associated to the automobile and many more things forced the body shop closure to maintain profitability to the auto repair side of the business. Of course that meant a loss of three or four jobs that did not get added to other businesses in the area.
Now, even that part of his business is under attack. It gets harder and harder to find people to recycle the oil. Even more regulations on smog not associated with the vehicle have been added. Soon, his business will evaporate completely, because of people like you. And the final jobs that keep food on peoples tables will disappear with their business. No other business will replace them. The regulations are so stiff, there is no more profitability in this area.
First, unions added like $4,000 to the cost of an automobile. Raises to $20 an hour to turn a screw or a bolt in the late 70's and early 80's. Now, this very day, the UAW (United Auto Workers) is asking for the same $25 billion for the union to cover insurance, in addition to the $25 billion for the Auto Industry.
No, unions are not the problem are they. The real problem is people like you who will buy any double speak, hook, line and sinker. You are, to put it bluntly, a fool.
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Nov 18, 2008 17:50:31 GMT -5
No bolverk, you are the fool. I admitted that unions were a part of the problem but they are not the only thing sinking the automakers.
You failed to address the other parts of the problem. Perhaps this is because you're a stubborn partisan hack. A large part of the automaker's problem is that they've put all their eggs in the SUV basket instead of giving Americans the cars they want: Reliable, safe vehicles that get great gas mileage. You cry that it's the union's fault without examining the root cause of the problem. How foolish of you.
|
|
|
|
Post by maxsawdust on Nov 18, 2008 19:38:39 GMT -5
A large part of the automaker's problem is that they've put all their eggs in the SUV basket instead of giving Americans the cars they want: Dear Che Guevarra shirt wearing douche nozzle AKA Saunterelle - IN case you hadn't noticed there are a SHIT ton of SUV's on the road. I guess it was all those people buying cars they didn't want. And yes studies show SUVs to be safer..See this is a LINK TO FACTUAL DATA - Try em sometime instead of spouting your INSANE DRIVEL. www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/1269791.html?page=2SNIPPED : According to 2005 statistics collected by Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), very large sport utility vehicles, like the Dodge Durnago and the Chevrolet Suburban, have the lowest death rates on the road—about 24 occupants killed for every million registered vehicles no more than three years old. At the other end of the spectrum are mini cars, such as the Mini Cooper or the Toyota Yaris. As a group, they average 144 deaths per million registered vehicles. Midsize SUVs, including the Honda Pilot or Nissan Pathfinder, average 57 deaths, while midsize cars, like the Ford Fusion and Honda Accord, run as high as 70 deaths per million vehicles. Average things out and you are, on the whole, safer in an SUV than you are in a passenger car—their death rate ratio is 47 per million compared to 86You DO have at LEAST a rudimentary understanding of PHYSICS do you not? |
|
|
|
Post by surefire on Nov 18, 2008 20:39:00 GMT -5
I can't think of any good quality cars made by an American car company, For a quality vehicle the two automakers that come to mind are Toyota/Lexus, and Honda/Acura. If you all have access to Consumer Reports online you'll see that the greater majority of recommended cars are made by international automakers. The trucks category was the only one that had the majority of American recommends. Ford Focus, and the Mustang rated fairly well and a few others did ok. Plus, one never knows anymore which automaker you're dealing with since it seems many are intermingled. I read that Land Rover/Jaguar were recently sold by Ford to the Tata company in India, and if you have an hour you can figure out what happened to Daimler-Chrysler, which is now Daimler AG. Chrysler has been busy, look at Wikipedia: Agreed regarding American cars. Based on my interpretation of Consumer Report's latest yearly publicatioin, Ford seems to do all-right in general. Lot's of "C" grades (average). With a few models above and below this. GM is usually the worst, with several "F" grades (black filled circles), followed closely by Chrysler. I've never owned a Chrysler or Ford... but I know the GMs I owned were all junk. I'm now in the Lexus/Toyota, and Honda crowd. I don't care much for Honda's Acura division because they feel like expensive Hondas to me. No better ride than a regular Honda. At least with Lexus, it is a IMO significant comfort upgrade over the standard Toyota--and IMO comparable to BMW and Mercedes. I know some will say American cars have improved lately and are comparable to the top Asian cars, but I've yet to run across one that felt quality. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Nov 18, 2008 22:15:29 GMT -5
A large part of the automaker's problem is that they've put all their eggs in the SUV basket instead of giving Americans the cars they want actually, starting in the late 90's and even more so in the early 2000's when american demand for SUV's was in it's prime almost ALL automakers produced SUV's to satisfy the market. prior to then had you ever seen a honda truck? a mercedes SUV? a BMW SUV? so, as you can see, automakers produce what sells. end of story. pay more attention, take some notes, and this class will go a lot easier for you.  it will really chap your ass to know that i have more than one of those "blimps on wheels." and i love the looks i get when i pull up to a red light along side one of you prius-driving wussies. one thought always comes to mind in that situation........head on collision.  --Ford F-150, best truck for 31 years now. hooah! |
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Nov 18, 2008 22:23:28 GMT -5
Saunterelle, why do you keep pushing that $100,000+ car? It is so far out of the reach of most people it isn't funny.
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Nov 19, 2008 0:50:11 GMT -5
How about a study from our government: eetd.lbl.gov/EAP/teepa/pdf/Are_SUVs_Safer.pdf Here's an excerpt: "The risk to drivers of average midsize and large cars is about the same as for the average
SUV. The risks differ in their makeup, with a higher fraction
of fatalities in SUVs from rollovers. Similarly, the risk to drivers
of the safest midsize and large car models (Avalon, Camry, and
Accord) is about the same as for the safest SUVs (Suburban,
Cherokee, and Tahoe). However, the average SUV poses nearly
twice the risk to drivers of other vehicles as do the average
midsize and large cars. The net result is that the combined risk
of the average SUV (129) is about 25 to 30 percent higher than
that of the average midsize (105) or large car (100)."So it seems that SUV owners (like TNG) are not any safer than midsize car owners yet they put others on the road at TWICE THE RISK OF DEATH. Looks like SUVs are the vehicle of choice for selfish, uncaring people. Proves my point. Lemme guess, tiny pecker? |
|
|
|
Post by jgaffney on Nov 19, 2008 1:46:10 GMT -5
Saunterelle, how are you coming on that CNG Honda Civic I have repeatedly pointed you to? Isn't it time for you to walk the walk? |
|
|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Nov 19, 2008 9:39:32 GMT -5
I agree that Lexus is definitely the better car. I hesitated saying we've owned them for the last 15 years starting with the original little ES250. We currently have a LS400 with 260k miles on it with little repairs except maintenance. I want to ditch the car actually but my frugal spouse won't let go of it until it hits the 300k mark, and I find that sentiment shocking since it's a V8 and isn't exactly economical. We've also owned the ES300 which is similar t the Camry but it was superior in interior/trim and was a nimble car. My parents had a Camry and it was definitely not as well made, but over all was a good performing car for them.
BMW, Mercedes, and Volvo have not performed as well in Consumer Reports in the past, and I often wonder why people don't read the reviews before plunking thousands of dollars first.
If my life were different I would love to buy the Porsche Cayenne Turbo S (doesn't have to be the Turbo) or the 911 GT3 RS, one can dream anyway...
|
|
