No help or wrong help for Detroit?

Hey - you're welcome - anything I can do to help! (you're an idiot)

By the way - the example of the port deal was not saying which side of
the deal you came down on - the point was that *if* (not *that*) you
were on the 'con' side, based on your past history you would use the
semantic game of saying that we were "selling" our ports to the UAE, and
when you were called on that lie, you would say that they were using
semantics. That was equivalent to your shinanigans on the Chrysler loan
discusion.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

Open with an insult, always grand.

What was it about:
The media mis-reports things all the time and I do care about it.
That you did not understand?

There were no " shinanigans on the Chrysler loan discusion ". I'll
explain it to you again.

Someone says that if the government helps GM and/or Ford, Chrysler should
get the same out of fairness. I respond that chrysler already had theirs.
Chrsyler fans get all upset because I used the term 'taxpayer funded'.
They loose all track of the point and the thread because they didn't like
that term in classic usenet fashion. What do you call an arguement that
erupts out of nothing more than that? I call it semantic.

Daniel can write post after post after post where he purposely uses just
as or more inaccurate commonly believed items about Ford for the sole
purpose of bashing Ford, but I make a mistake with Chrysler and that
can't stand. Even when it didn't have a damn thing to do with the point
I was making. The difference between 'taxpayer funded' and 'government
loan guarantee' (which is really securing the loans with taxpayer funds)
was irrelvant for the point I was making.

If you had half a clue, you would realize there is no parallel here
between usenet and the media. But hey, whatever floats your boat.
Obviously you're just upset about something in the past and see this
trivial error in terms as your chance to strike back. Go back to my first
post and replace 'taxpayer funded bailout' with bailout secured with a
taxpayer backed loan guarantee' and notice how my point doesn't change
one bit. Obviously not equal to the reporting on port situation one bit.

But I am glad to know that even the tinest mistake on my part is such a
big deal.

 

In general, this hasn't been true for a long time. If people
consistently pay for their cars, lenders are willing to loan them far
more than they (the lenders) could recover if repo were necessary.
More than loan value, more than wholesale, more than retail, more than
retail plus sales tax. They'll even do it for people who only pay
more or less on time.

Sure, the owner can't sell the car outright, but because of the system
above, if he's paid regularly, can trade it, even if he's buried. The
lenders will help him get buried more.

The problem comes in when there's an involuntary outright sale, which
is essentially the situation if the car is totalled. The insurance
company is buying the car for its actual market value, which may be a
lot less than what's owed. In that case, the lender might accept an
exchange for a lien on a similar car which can be purchased for the
insurance proceeds, the buyer retaining an amount owed higher than the
car's value. OTOH, some insurance companies offer (for an additional
premium) coverage that will pay the loan amount if greater than the
value of the car. Where there's a demand, someone will step in and
make money off it.

 

I know several people who have rolled several negative equities along
into the next car. Before long, they have a $25,000 loans on $18,000
cars, or $40,000 loans on $27,000 cars! <G>

I know some of these idiots personally. I also hear this stuff over
and over on radio consumer and finance shows, so it's fairly safe to
say that this stuff happens all the time.

 

I think what you're saying may be true for the situation you have stated
(i.e. borrowing money to purchase a used car), but from my experience,
it isn't that way if you get a (non-car) loan and use your car for
collateral. Don't ask me why, but the banks apparently valuate a car
much differently if the loan is to *purchase* a used car (using that
loan) than if that same car is already owned and is simply put up as
collateral on an otherwise equivalent consumer loan.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

The much maligned (in this thread) Chrysler already invented the Road
Runner, a great success, but its not 1968 anymore. (Thinking also
here that my youngest kid's first car has tilt, cruise, locks,
windows, left seat, and she's not likely to settle for less than these
"necessities" in her next car.)

 

Not normally my style, but I made a very rare exception for you.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

No, but those were the days of yore for the domestics. I see a lot of
retro styling these days, but a little bit of retro equipment options
might stimulate interest in the domestics. After all, the imports
don't do this kind of thing at all, really.

E.P.

 

Increasing fragmentation is already killing Detroit. What's needed
isn't another one off model that's a "great success" selling 30,000
units. What's needed is the equivalent of the 84 Caravan/Voyager that
will sell a million units a year for several years with minimal
changes.

 

Too bad CAFE law all but prohibits it. (makes it costly) And yes, it is
retro, in respect of going back to the traditional product that made the
big three.

http://www.ford.com.au/range/falcon/models/
http://www.ford.com.au/range/fairlane/models/
http://www.ford.com.au/range/falconute/models/
http://www.holden.com.au/ (large, sport, luxury under new cars)

Ford and GM need to make something that is different that competitors
don't have, and that's traditional american cars as they should be for
the present day.

Yes the Monaro failed as the GTO. But it failed because they called it
the GTO, the lack of proper marketing, and the union issues. People today
expect 'The Judge' (
http://www.motorimania.it/manifestazioni/sportive/pontiac/images/Pontiac.Gto.Judge.jpg )
when they hear GTO rather than this: http://www.gtoaa.org/shows/rshow16.jpg
The Monaro fit the 1964 image of the GTO and thusly people didn't react
well to it. A failure of marketing not to know what image people had of
the GTO.

 

I've seen a situation where a bank branch manager could loan only NADA
wholesale on a used car and the same bank, through its dealer lending
department would loan selling price plus sales tax plus a couple of
thousand negative equity. The dealer writes up the paperwork, raising
the price of the purchase vehicle and the allowance for the trade so
it "looks" like there's equity but everyone knows what's going on.

 

Yea, I noticed the Crown Victoria is setting sales records. <sarcasm>

 

The crown vic does fit that profile. The crown vic is a continually
warmed over 1970s design.

 

The average new vehicle buyer in the US replaces their vehicle in three to
four years, with 45K to 60K on the clock. For them a finance contract of
four or five years is foolish. If the amount of the monthly payment is a
limited by their income, they would be way ahead with at two or three year
lease since the lease payment would be lower than a four or five year
purchase contact. When I would recommend a short term lease rather than a
longer term finance contract, many would say I'd rather own my vehicle. My
answer to that was, 'You don't own the one your are driving now and you will
not own it for another two or three years.


mike hunt

 

Todays CV has nothing in common with older models except the name. The
state of the art engine is all new, the transmission is all new, the body is
all new and the chassis is all new. The only thing that has not changed is
it the best buy in the country bar none, it last forever, it seems. 500K
to 750K is common

mike hunt

 

It has smooth contemporary styling, rack and pinion steering, and a
new modern engine. Not one in twenty potential buyers realizes its a
modification of Ford's 1979 LTD.

Meanwhile, I don't see any complaints about the fact the Porsche 911
is a warmed over 1950s car.

 

100% realize it comes in three flavors: old people's car, cop car, and
taxi. That serves as sufficent proxy that the design is essentially from
the 1970s.

While I am no Porsche expert, I do believe the 911 has had a ground up
redesign or three. I could be wrong but I would be surprised if it
hasn't.

 

I'm not debating the strengths and weaknesses of the Crown Victoria or
whether it is a great or terrible car.

I guess it depends on your definition of "modification," but I'd say that
the current Crown Victoria is not a modification of the 1979 LTD. The CV
received a completely new chassis in 2003 although CV, Mercury Grand
Marquis, and Lincoln Town car remain the only body-on-frame passenger cars
sold in the U.S. today. On the plus side, the body-on-frame architecture
of the Crown Vic, Grand Marquis, and Town Car make them good candidates for
stretching (I believe that Ford introduced a stretched wheelbase version for
use in NY taxi fleets). On the minus side, the body-on-frame architecture
is not a rigid as the monocoque construction used in the rest of the
automotive world. IMO, the combination of the same name, front engine/rear
drive, body on frame architecture, and similarity of the body style leads
people to think that the vehicle remains unchanged, and saying that it is
unchanged is not factually correct.

The same is true of the Porsche. They were originally mid-engined
body-on-frame cars and are now rear-engine monocoque construction. Other
than the name and family resemblance, there is no warming over.

 

LOL! That does seem to fit the Crown Victoria (and Buick) driver!

As long as 20 years ago, Toyota was very aware that they were in danger of
becoming the favorite car of middle-aged and next old people and began an
effort to get younger buyers. IMO, producing a car that appeals to young
first-time buyers is essential to garnering loyal customers and is the
reason why Toyota has managed to maintain sales growth for such a long time.
The Korean nameplates are also aware of this and are working to duplicate
Toyota's sales success. They appear to have fixed most of their quality
issues and they have a price advantage. I think that it is only a matter of
time before they improve their performance, fuel mileage, handling,
drivability, and interior finishes.

 

That's when I buy them.

I agree, but there are lots of foolish people out there.

They would be better off if they practice some combination of buying a
less expensive car, buying a used car and keeping their car for a
longer time.

But it would probably last for another ten years or more. If you put
the equivalent of a car payment in a savings account, you could easily
have $30,000 by then.