Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
#301
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
John Horner wrote:
> My prediction for the 2016 *retail* US sales rankings:
>
> 1) Toyota
> 2) Honda
> 3) Hyundai
> 4) GM-Ford (as a merged company)
Not to take the side of certain idiot flag wavers for GM, but I
seriously doubt that GM and Ford merged into a single company would not
outsell all other car makers in the U.S.
> My prediction for the 2016 *retail* US sales rankings:
>
> 1) Toyota
> 2) Honda
> 3) Hyundai
> 4) GM-Ford (as a merged company)
Not to take the side of certain idiot flag wavers for GM, but I
seriously doubt that GM and Ford merged into a single company would not
outsell all other car makers in the U.S.
#302
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
John Horner wrote:
> My prediction for the 2016 *retail* US sales rankings:
>
> 1) Toyota
> 2) Honda
> 3) Hyundai
> 4) GM-Ford (as a merged company)
Not to take the side of certain idiot flag wavers for GM, but I
seriously doubt that GM and Ford merged into a single company would not
outsell all other car makers in the U.S.
> My prediction for the 2016 *retail* US sales rankings:
>
> 1) Toyota
> 2) Honda
> 3) Hyundai
> 4) GM-Ford (as a merged company)
Not to take the side of certain idiot flag wavers for GM, but I
seriously doubt that GM and Ford merged into a single company would not
outsell all other car makers in the U.S.
#303
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
John Horner wrote:
> My prediction for the 2016 *retail* US sales rankings:
>
> 1) Toyota
> 2) Honda
> 3) Hyundai
> 4) GM-Ford (as a merged company)
Not to take the side of certain idiot flag wavers for GM, but I
seriously doubt that GM and Ford merged into a single company would not
outsell all other car makers in the U.S.
> My prediction for the 2016 *retail* US sales rankings:
>
> 1) Toyota
> 2) Honda
> 3) Hyundai
> 4) GM-Ford (as a merged company)
Not to take the side of certain idiot flag wavers for GM, but I
seriously doubt that GM and Ford merged into a single company would not
outsell all other car makers in the U.S.
#304
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
Mike Hunter wrote:
> Because of CAFE, date certain deadlines, the domestics had to
> spend billions to change their manufacturing facilities over from RWD, to
> build the more costly. less safe FWD vehicles to make vehicles smaller and
> lighter, yet still have sufficient room for five people that American
> wanted.
Do you mean FWD is inherently less safe than RWD?
> At the some time, because of date certain deadlines, we had to do required
> emission and crash improvements, sucking up mope millions of dollars of
> capital. The imports needed only improve the small vehicles they already
> produced, in low cost countries, to meet emission and crash improvements.
But the import makers also changed their chassis designs completely and
switched from RWD to FWD, except Honda.
> By setting date certain deadlines, rather than goals to be met as new
> technology could be developed, the government set back innovation in the
> America automobile industry by ten years.
What innovations has the auto industry, American or foreign, made to
vehicles since the 1960s that weren't the direct or indirect result of
government requirements for safety, emissions, or fuel economy? I get
the impresson that the majority of advancements in the industry have
been on the production side, as evidenced by the need for far fewer
workers to produce the same number of cars. The car busines hasn't
been nearly as innovative as electronics or biotechnology.
#305
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
Mike Hunter wrote:
> Because of CAFE, date certain deadlines, the domestics had to
> spend billions to change their manufacturing facilities over from RWD, to
> build the more costly. less safe FWD vehicles to make vehicles smaller and
> lighter, yet still have sufficient room for five people that American
> wanted.
Do you mean FWD is inherently less safe than RWD?
> At the some time, because of date certain deadlines, we had to do required
> emission and crash improvements, sucking up mope millions of dollars of
> capital. The imports needed only improve the small vehicles they already
> produced, in low cost countries, to meet emission and crash improvements.
But the import makers also changed their chassis designs completely and
switched from RWD to FWD, except Honda.
> By setting date certain deadlines, rather than goals to be met as new
> technology could be developed, the government set back innovation in the
> America automobile industry by ten years.
What innovations has the auto industry, American or foreign, made to
vehicles since the 1960s that weren't the direct or indirect result of
government requirements for safety, emissions, or fuel economy? I get
the impresson that the majority of advancements in the industry have
been on the production side, as evidenced by the need for far fewer
workers to produce the same number of cars. The car busines hasn't
been nearly as innovative as electronics or biotechnology.
#306
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
Mike Hunter wrote:
> Because of CAFE, date certain deadlines, the domestics had to
> spend billions to change their manufacturing facilities over from RWD, to
> build the more costly. less safe FWD vehicles to make vehicles smaller and
> lighter, yet still have sufficient room for five people that American
> wanted.
Do you mean FWD is inherently less safe than RWD?
> At the some time, because of date certain deadlines, we had to do required
> emission and crash improvements, sucking up mope millions of dollars of
> capital. The imports needed only improve the small vehicles they already
> produced, in low cost countries, to meet emission and crash improvements.
But the import makers also changed their chassis designs completely and
switched from RWD to FWD, except Honda.
> By setting date certain deadlines, rather than goals to be met as new
> technology could be developed, the government set back innovation in the
> America automobile industry by ten years.
What innovations has the auto industry, American or foreign, made to
vehicles since the 1960s that weren't the direct or indirect result of
government requirements for safety, emissions, or fuel economy? I get
the impresson that the majority of advancements in the industry have
been on the production side, as evidenced by the need for far fewer
workers to produce the same number of cars. The car busines hasn't
been nearly as innovative as electronics or biotechnology.
#307
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
dbu. wrote:
> Their first big step is unloading all the union contracts. They are
> watching Northwest do in their unions. GM will follow. Cut overhead
> first.
How will that improve GM management?
Would GM sell more Cobalts/Vues if it wasn't burdened by union
contracts?
> Their first big step is unloading all the union contracts. They are
> watching Northwest do in their unions. GM will follow. Cut overhead
> first.
How will that improve GM management?
Would GM sell more Cobalts/Vues if it wasn't burdened by union
contracts?
#308
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
dbu. wrote:
> Their first big step is unloading all the union contracts. They are
> watching Northwest do in their unions. GM will follow. Cut overhead
> first.
How will that improve GM management?
Would GM sell more Cobalts/Vues if it wasn't burdened by union
contracts?
> Their first big step is unloading all the union contracts. They are
> watching Northwest do in their unions. GM will follow. Cut overhead
> first.
How will that improve GM management?
Would GM sell more Cobalts/Vues if it wasn't burdened by union
contracts?
#309
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
dbu. wrote:
> Their first big step is unloading all the union contracts. They are
> watching Northwest do in their unions. GM will follow. Cut overhead
> first.
How will that improve GM management?
Would GM sell more Cobalts/Vues if it wasn't burdened by union
contracts?
> Their first big step is unloading all the union contracts. They are
> watching Northwest do in their unions. GM will follow. Cut overhead
> first.
How will that improve GM management?
Would GM sell more Cobalts/Vues if it wasn't burdened by union
contracts?
#310
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
do_not_spam_me@my-deja.com wrote:
> Not to take the side of certain idiot flag wavers for GM, but I
> seriously doubt that GM and Ford merged into a single company would not
> outsell all other car makers in the U.S.
Together GM and Ford have $500.000.000.000 in debt
Merged into one bankruptcy it would be spectacular
#311
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
do_not_spam_me@my-deja.com wrote:
> Not to take the side of certain idiot flag wavers for GM, but I
> seriously doubt that GM and Ford merged into a single company would not
> outsell all other car makers in the U.S.
Together GM and Ford have $500.000.000.000 in debt
Merged into one bankruptcy it would be spectacular
#312
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
do_not_spam_me@my-deja.com wrote:
> Not to take the side of certain idiot flag wavers for GM, but I
> seriously doubt that GM and Ford merged into a single company would not
> outsell all other car makers in the U.S.
Together GM and Ford have $500.000.000.000 in debt
Merged into one bankruptcy it would be spectacular
#313
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
dgk wrote:
> If you want to level the playing field, then let's have national
> health coverage like all the other industrialized countries. Get it
> off the back of the corporations. Why should GM have to pay for it
> while Honda doesn't?
This is the most pro-capitalist thing we could do.
> If you want to level the playing field, then let's have national
> health coverage like all the other industrialized countries. Get it
> off the back of the corporations. Why should GM have to pay for it
> while Honda doesn't?
This is the most pro-capitalist thing we could do.
#314
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
dgk wrote:
> If you want to level the playing field, then let's have national
> health coverage like all the other industrialized countries. Get it
> off the back of the corporations. Why should GM have to pay for it
> while Honda doesn't?
This is the most pro-capitalist thing we could do.
> If you want to level the playing field, then let's have national
> health coverage like all the other industrialized countries. Get it
> off the back of the corporations. Why should GM have to pay for it
> while Honda doesn't?
This is the most pro-capitalist thing we could do.
#315
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
dgk wrote:
> If you want to level the playing field, then let's have national
> health coverage like all the other industrialized countries. Get it
> off the back of the corporations. Why should GM have to pay for it
> while Honda doesn't?
This is the most pro-capitalist thing we could do.
> If you want to level the playing field, then let's have national
> health coverage like all the other industrialized countries. Get it
> off the back of the corporations. Why should GM have to pay for it
> while Honda doesn't?
This is the most pro-capitalist thing we could do.