Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?

Can you point us to that case study?

Matt

 

You are entitled to your opinion, no mater how convoluted it may be.
However the domestics I now buy are just as good, or better, than any
import I have ever owned and I spend a lot less to drive them home when new.
One sees a lot of Japanese cars and trucks in domestic used lots as well.

You are confusing North America parts with US parts, North America parts
includes Canada and Mexico. My 2007 Mustang GT convertible has a parts
label that says the north American parts content is 80%, the tranny is built
by Ford in France. The first number of the VIN is a '1' indicating its
total US content, as defined by the Department of Commerce and includes all
of the things listed in the disclaimer on the NA parts label, is more that
70%.

The Sienna has a '4' as the first number of the VIN which means it US
content is above 40% but less than 70%, as defined by the DOC, and therefore
only assembled in the US of mostly imported parts not made in the US,
regardless of the NA parts label indication. The engine and tranny in the
Sienna are made in Japan. Teh Camry and Tundra have a '5' indicating a US
content of less than 40% regardless of the NA content label indication

mike hunt

 

Basic geography for you Mike-you must have gone to public school-is that
North American is not the same as "American". "American" means the 50 US
states and the assorted territories and possessions. Do try to get
"American" right in the future and the Mustang has fewer American parts than
Toyota Sienna so Ford's claim(s) for an American car are just as false as
their chances for continued existence as an independent car company-see link
below:

http://tinyurl.com/lvfda

or

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB114731076341249773-HGAy7lJ09H_wFrUq6whlcBMUBXo_20060609.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top

 

If the Sienna did indeed have more than 70% US content as you seem to
believe, the first number of the VIN would be a '1,' as is the case with the
Mustang that does have the required 70% US content, rather than the '4' that
the Sienna has. A '4' indicates the US content is more than 40% but less
than 70% North American parts label indicates parts from the US, Canada
and Mexico, not the USA


mike hunt

 

I don't think we disagree. You may note that I said, "union demands
have and continue to be at least one of the major causes of
unprofitability" (emphasis should be on ONE of the major causes).

I also agree the designs are (although getting better) lacking in
what I'm looking for in a car -- and apparently others feel the same.

 

Count me in on that. I drove America cars all of my life until four
years ago (I'm 57 now). I finally started to realize just how much
I was spending for service and that I didn't like my choices when it
came time to buy another vehicle. Now my older son and I have
Acuras, my wide, other son and daughter in-law have Hondas. We all
love them and are happy to be paying much less to maintain them.
Most importantly, they are better built and good designs that I WANT.

 

Sigh, you really are unable to read and comprehend.

 

Well Mike, there you go again. Let's bring it back to fact land, shall
we? Here is a link to a Wall St. Journal article from May of this
year:

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB114731076341249773-vC7NDlPLXotsdDHpLbpm5Ewbo9E_20060610.html?mod=tff_article


"Statistics from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
that were publicized in "Auto Industry Update: 2006," a presentation
by Farmington Hills, Mich., research company CSM Worldwide, show only
65% of the content of a Ford Mustang comes from the U.S. or Canada.
Ford Motor Co. buys the rest of the Mustang's parts abroad. By
contrast, the Sienna, sold by Japan's Toyota Motor Corp., is assembled
in Indiana with 90% local components."

 

I think it's an internal one (not to GM but my employer), but I'm sure
analysts in the investment community have made similar estimates.

 

It's not realistic to assume GM would cut prices because those cars are
already among their cheapest, and Nissan didn't cut prices when it
eliminated $500-$1,000 of corporate debt per vehicle.

And why would build quality improve? GM's quality is currently all
over the place, from above average to rather dismal.

 

I guess you missed the part of my post that said you are confusing North
America parts with US total content, North America parts includes Canada and
Mexico. My 2007 Mustang GT convertible has a parts label that says the
North American parts content is 80%, the tranny is built by Ford in France.
The first number of the VIN is a '1' indicating its total US content, as
defined by the Department of Commerce and includes all of the things listed
in the disclaimer on the NA parts label, is more that 70%.

The Sienna has a '4' as the first number of the VIN which means it US
content is above 40% but less than 70%, as defined by the DOC, and therefore
only assembled in the US of mostly imported parts not made in the US,
regardless of the NA parts label indication. The engine and tranny in the
Sienna are made in Japan. The Camry and Tundra have a '5' indicating a US
content of less than 40% regardless of the NA content label indication

Use a little logic, the NA parts label was actually indicative of US content
how could a Camry, made in Japan, show NA parts label with the body, engine
and tranny made in Japan claim its has of 80% NA parts?


mike hunt

 

You could move workers around with greater flexibility without worrying
about union job classification issues. You could pay for performance
rather than seniority. And you could fire workers who aren't doing
their jobs well.


Matt

 

The problems with that argument are that Saturn has a more flexible
union contract than the rest of GM, but Saturn quality went from the
best to some of the worst within GM, and the unionized Toyota factories
in Japan and California have higher quality levels than the nonunion
one in Kentucky.

So again, please explain why build quality would improve with a new
labor contract.

 

I explained it. You don't like the explanation, but that doesn't change
the fact that I explained it.

Matt

 

I guess you missed the part of my post where I cited the Wall St.
Journal and quoted from the article. Funny that you did manage to
snip that part from your reply. I will help you out by pasting it
back in and pointing out some parts of it.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB114731076341249773-vC7NDlPLXotsdDHpLbpm5Ewbo9E_20060610.html?mod=tff_article

"Statistics from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
that were publicized in "Auto Industry Update: 2006," a presentation
by Farmington Hills, Mich., research company CSM Worldwide, show only
65% of the content of a Ford Mustang comes from the U.S. or Canada."

Now, who should we believe? The most respected business paper in the
world or Mike Hunt who has been repeatedly fact smacked in his
newsgroup posts?

"Ford Motor Co. buys the rest of the Mustang's parts abroad. By
contrast, the Sienna, sold by Japan's Toyota Motor Corp., is assembled
in Indiana with 90% local components."

I think I am going to go with what the WSJ says. As long as it's not
on their editorial page.

Sorry, your credibility is near absolute zero, I have to believe the
WSJ on this one too.

Well, let's start with the facts. In 2005, Toyota produced more than
1.55 million vehicles, more than 1.3 million engines and nearly
400,000 automatic transmissions at its North American manufacturing
facilities.

About 98% of all US-market Camrys are assembled in the US. Most if
not all of these have US made engines and transmissions. I believe
that Toyota is allowed to average the (few) Japanese-built Camrys with
the (many) US-built Camrys. Under these circumstances, it is easy to
see how a Japanese-built Camry culd have an 80% domestic content
rating,

Here are my sources:

http://www.toyota.com/about/operations/manufacturing/

http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2005/06/01/110788.html

Where are yours?

 

"INITIAL" quality...
give it 10 years...

 

I'd be happy with 10 years from an Azera. My LeSabre is falling apart in
five.

 

Why? Every vehicle will have some sort of problem in ten years The
average new vehicle buyer in the US buys another new vehicle in three or
four years with 30K to 45K on the clock, in any event. Most of the other
new vehicle buyers will do likewise in seven years. Only around 2% of new
vehicle buyers keep their vehicles longer than seven years as their primary
vehicle. However you are missing the point, Hyundai did indeed outscore
Toyota and Honda in that survey of initial quality, among new 2006 vehicle
owners, and their vehicles sell for twenty five to thirty percent less.


mike hunt

 

Those cars end up in the junk yards, lets face it, they were not purchased
for their classic styling.

 

Japanese Classic Car Show: Long Beach

http://www.cardomain.com/event/2005/10/01/JCCS