Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
#466
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: FWD / RWD
"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:YPGcnW09q6LwPUXZUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> What lower parts costs? Many of the parts needed to meet CAFE and
> emission standards added significant 'costs' to build the vehicle.
I agree that many of the parts needed to meet CAFE and emission standards
add significant costs to build the vehicle, but most of those parts would be
on the vehicle regardless of driveline configuration.
The extra cost of
> preassembly have to do with extra man hours. Some preassembly, like a
> competed door, can save money because it use to take more time to do on
> the line, but that is not the case with the compete FWD assembly
Assuming that you mean that assembling a transaxle takes more man-hours than
a transmission/driveshaft/differential/axle, then I follow what you're
saying.
Few realize
> the cost of building a car like the Lexus versions of Toyotas are only a
> relative few hundreds dollars more, yet the cars sell for many thousands
> more retail.
>
>
>
> mike hunt
>
True, as is the case with Lincoln versions of Fords; Cadillac versions of
Chevrolet/GMC; Mercedes Benz versions of Chryslers; Audi versions of
Volkswagens, and so on, although I do not see the relevance of this to the
discussion of FWD vs. RWD.
--
Ray O
(correct punctuation to reply)
#467
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: FWD / RWD
"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:YPGcnW09q6LwPUXZUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> What lower parts costs? Many of the parts needed to meet CAFE and
> emission standards added significant 'costs' to build the vehicle.
I agree that many of the parts needed to meet CAFE and emission standards
add significant costs to build the vehicle, but most of those parts would be
on the vehicle regardless of driveline configuration.
The extra cost of
> preassembly have to do with extra man hours. Some preassembly, like a
> competed door, can save money because it use to take more time to do on
> the line, but that is not the case with the compete FWD assembly
Assuming that you mean that assembling a transaxle takes more man-hours than
a transmission/driveshaft/differential/axle, then I follow what you're
saying.
Few realize
> the cost of building a car like the Lexus versions of Toyotas are only a
> relative few hundreds dollars more, yet the cars sell for many thousands
> more retail.
>
>
>
> mike hunt
>
True, as is the case with Lincoln versions of Fords; Cadillac versions of
Chevrolet/GMC; Mercedes Benz versions of Chryslers; Audi versions of
Volkswagens, and so on, although I do not see the relevance of this to the
discussion of FWD vs. RWD.
--
Ray O
(correct punctuation to reply)
#468
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: FWD / RWD
"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:YPGcnW09q6LwPUXZUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> What lower parts costs? Many of the parts needed to meet CAFE and
> emission standards added significant 'costs' to build the vehicle.
I agree that many of the parts needed to meet CAFE and emission standards
add significant costs to build the vehicle, but most of those parts would be
on the vehicle regardless of driveline configuration.
The extra cost of
> preassembly have to do with extra man hours. Some preassembly, like a
> competed door, can save money because it use to take more time to do on
> the line, but that is not the case with the compete FWD assembly
Assuming that you mean that assembling a transaxle takes more man-hours than
a transmission/driveshaft/differential/axle, then I follow what you're
saying.
Few realize
> the cost of building a car like the Lexus versions of Toyotas are only a
> relative few hundreds dollars more, yet the cars sell for many thousands
> more retail.
>
>
>
> mike hunt
>
True, as is the case with Lincoln versions of Fords; Cadillac versions of
Chevrolet/GMC; Mercedes Benz versions of Chryslers; Audi versions of
Volkswagens, and so on, although I do not see the relevance of this to the
discussion of FWD vs. RWD.
--
Ray O
(correct punctuation to reply)
#469
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Where did all the old Japs car go?
"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:7z6dnasT2KHB10rZUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> What do you mean running them down? I simply asked a question, where are
> the old Jap cars if they are so superior? I have been saying for a long
> time that every manufacture is building good stuff today, both domestic
> and import brands. The only real difference among them is style and
> price. One need not pay a premium price to get a reliable vehicle today
>
> You perception is not correct. There were as many or more Japanese cars
> sold in the US in the sixties than there were cars from Europe, I owned a
> few myself.
>
> I have owned many Japanese cars. Where I part company with the import
> buyers, who love to come into domestic NGs and say there cars are all
> junk, and have us believe Jap cars are superior to domestics, of the same
> class and price range. From what I have seen in my years in the business
> is that is more myth than fact.
>
> Why else would Honda and Toyota buyers be posting in a GM NG, to say nice
> things? LOL
>
>
> mike hunt
>
>
> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel@flycast.net> wrote in message
> news:eb62510tas@news2.newsguy.com...
>> Mike Hunter wrote:
>>> It certainly is a question of longevity. If the Japs cars have always
>>> been so much better than American cars, as some would have us believe,
>>> why are there few if any Jap car left from 50 or evn 40 years ago? There
>>> are plenty of American cars around and running, even many other foreign
>>> cars sold in the US from around the world . The evidence says Jap cars
>>> are apparently not as superior as the Jap car buyer would like us to
>>> believe.
>>>
>>> mike
>>
>> because in 1950 or even 1960 Japan wasn't importing cars to the US in any
>> appreciable numbers because they were still rebuilding their domestic
>> infrastructure. Geez, you're a flaming dumbass sometimes. Don't get me
>> wrong, I'm not a big Japanese car fan, but to simply run them down all
>> the time is just ignorant. Japanese cars are and have been a viable
>> alternative to American cars (and sometimes a better one) for the last 30
>> years; unless the American mfgrs. really start competing, they're here to
>> stay.
>>
>> nate
>>
>> --
>> replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
>> http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
>
>
Face it Mike, Toyota builds a van, Sienna, that has more "American" parts
than the Ford Mustang-yes I have the link. The so called domestic car
companies build a *lot* of cars/trucks in Mexico and Canada and these are
vehicles made by others, not our folks. The domestics also have a *large*
base of former customers that did buy from American car companies and got
thoroughly screwed by the products and poor customer service and they have
very, very, very long memories. Those screwed former customers of the
domestic car companies, me among them, would not even consider looking at a
Detroit offering before exhausting every other alternative. Detroit's
chickens have come home to roost and good riddance to them.
#470
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Where did all the old Japs car go?
"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:7z6dnasT2KHB10rZUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> What do you mean running them down? I simply asked a question, where are
> the old Jap cars if they are so superior? I have been saying for a long
> time that every manufacture is building good stuff today, both domestic
> and import brands. The only real difference among them is style and
> price. One need not pay a premium price to get a reliable vehicle today
>
> You perception is not correct. There were as many or more Japanese cars
> sold in the US in the sixties than there were cars from Europe, I owned a
> few myself.
>
> I have owned many Japanese cars. Where I part company with the import
> buyers, who love to come into domestic NGs and say there cars are all
> junk, and have us believe Jap cars are superior to domestics, of the same
> class and price range. From what I have seen in my years in the business
> is that is more myth than fact.
>
> Why else would Honda and Toyota buyers be posting in a GM NG, to say nice
> things? LOL
>
>
> mike hunt
>
>
> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel@flycast.net> wrote in message
> news:eb62510tas@news2.newsguy.com...
>> Mike Hunter wrote:
>>> It certainly is a question of longevity. If the Japs cars have always
>>> been so much better than American cars, as some would have us believe,
>>> why are there few if any Jap car left from 50 or evn 40 years ago? There
>>> are plenty of American cars around and running, even many other foreign
>>> cars sold in the US from around the world . The evidence says Jap cars
>>> are apparently not as superior as the Jap car buyer would like us to
>>> believe.
>>>
>>> mike
>>
>> because in 1950 or even 1960 Japan wasn't importing cars to the US in any
>> appreciable numbers because they were still rebuilding their domestic
>> infrastructure. Geez, you're a flaming dumbass sometimes. Don't get me
>> wrong, I'm not a big Japanese car fan, but to simply run them down all
>> the time is just ignorant. Japanese cars are and have been a viable
>> alternative to American cars (and sometimes a better one) for the last 30
>> years; unless the American mfgrs. really start competing, they're here to
>> stay.
>>
>> nate
>>
>> --
>> replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
>> http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
>
>
Face it Mike, Toyota builds a van, Sienna, that has more "American" parts
than the Ford Mustang-yes I have the link. The so called domestic car
companies build a *lot* of cars/trucks in Mexico and Canada and these are
vehicles made by others, not our folks. The domestics also have a *large*
base of former customers that did buy from American car companies and got
thoroughly screwed by the products and poor customer service and they have
very, very, very long memories. Those screwed former customers of the
domestic car companies, me among them, would not even consider looking at a
Detroit offering before exhausting every other alternative. Detroit's
chickens have come home to roost and good riddance to them.
#471
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Where did all the old Japs car go?
"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:7z6dnasT2KHB10rZUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> What do you mean running them down? I simply asked a question, where are
> the old Jap cars if they are so superior? I have been saying for a long
> time that every manufacture is building good stuff today, both domestic
> and import brands. The only real difference among them is style and
> price. One need not pay a premium price to get a reliable vehicle today
>
> You perception is not correct. There were as many or more Japanese cars
> sold in the US in the sixties than there were cars from Europe, I owned a
> few myself.
>
> I have owned many Japanese cars. Where I part company with the import
> buyers, who love to come into domestic NGs and say there cars are all
> junk, and have us believe Jap cars are superior to domestics, of the same
> class and price range. From what I have seen in my years in the business
> is that is more myth than fact.
>
> Why else would Honda and Toyota buyers be posting in a GM NG, to say nice
> things? LOL
>
>
> mike hunt
>
>
> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel@flycast.net> wrote in message
> news:eb62510tas@news2.newsguy.com...
>> Mike Hunter wrote:
>>> It certainly is a question of longevity. If the Japs cars have always
>>> been so much better than American cars, as some would have us believe,
>>> why are there few if any Jap car left from 50 or evn 40 years ago? There
>>> are plenty of American cars around and running, even many other foreign
>>> cars sold in the US from around the world . The evidence says Jap cars
>>> are apparently not as superior as the Jap car buyer would like us to
>>> believe.
>>>
>>> mike
>>
>> because in 1950 or even 1960 Japan wasn't importing cars to the US in any
>> appreciable numbers because they were still rebuilding their domestic
>> infrastructure. Geez, you're a flaming dumbass sometimes. Don't get me
>> wrong, I'm not a big Japanese car fan, but to simply run them down all
>> the time is just ignorant. Japanese cars are and have been a viable
>> alternative to American cars (and sometimes a better one) for the last 30
>> years; unless the American mfgrs. really start competing, they're here to
>> stay.
>>
>> nate
>>
>> --
>> replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
>> http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
>
>
Face it Mike, Toyota builds a van, Sienna, that has more "American" parts
than the Ford Mustang-yes I have the link. The so called domestic car
companies build a *lot* of cars/trucks in Mexico and Canada and these are
vehicles made by others, not our folks. The domestics also have a *large*
base of former customers that did buy from American car companies and got
thoroughly screwed by the products and poor customer service and they have
very, very, very long memories. Those screwed former customers of the
domestic car companies, me among them, would not even consider looking at a
Detroit offering before exhausting every other alternative. Detroit's
chickens have come home to roost and good riddance to them.
#472
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
"NotBloodyLikely" <tmagee@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155051697.419183.238890@p79g2000cwp.googlegr oups.com...
<...>
> The same thing happened recently to the airline industry. For example,
> Air Canada had huge demands placed on them by their unions. In the
> end, the only union that wasn't willing to compromise was the pilots'
> union... greedy greedy. The result? Creditor Protection and
> near-bankruptcy, and the pilots wound up taking big wage cuts anyway.
> Now a few years later, Air Canada is back to profitability in a large
> part because they got the greedy, unreasonable union monkey off their
> back.
Actually, this is a result of deregulation and competitioin, at least in the
US.
The wages that many airline emploees are getting are relatively low. A lot
of retired pilots are getting very little in pensions, compared to what they
were promised, because of the bankruptcy that the airlines went through. The
pension are now run by the US Gov't. (as a result of the bankruptcy) and
they are capped at low values, in part because the pilots retired at 60, the
oldest pilots are allowed to fly (at least in the cabins). In addition, a
lot of flight attendents and other airline employees are working longer
hours.
The airlines without unions have mostly done better.
> I see the auto industry in north america suffering the same fate unless
> their unions start compromising.
>
> Unions have their place, but their purpose should be to protect their
> workers' rights and safety, instead of inflating wages.
>
>> > Remember the cleaning woman in
>> > the new recently that was pulling about 100k in wages and pension? She
>> > was
>> I wouldn't call what she did smart. It was totally unreasonable.
>> Again, I agree that the company was stupid in allowing it to occur.
>
> If she was part of the union, she didn't have a choice. Smart or not,
> the union told her what she earned. If she wasn't part of the union,
> she should be running GM, because obviously she is one tough
> negotiator.
I would call someone who makes $100k per year cleaning pretty smart. That's
more than teachers get almost everywhere. Heck, that is more than a lot of
doctors.
Jeff
> Tim
>
#473
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
"NotBloodyLikely" <tmagee@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155051697.419183.238890@p79g2000cwp.googlegr oups.com...
<...>
> The same thing happened recently to the airline industry. For example,
> Air Canada had huge demands placed on them by their unions. In the
> end, the only union that wasn't willing to compromise was the pilots'
> union... greedy greedy. The result? Creditor Protection and
> near-bankruptcy, and the pilots wound up taking big wage cuts anyway.
> Now a few years later, Air Canada is back to profitability in a large
> part because they got the greedy, unreasonable union monkey off their
> back.
Actually, this is a result of deregulation and competitioin, at least in the
US.
The wages that many airline emploees are getting are relatively low. A lot
of retired pilots are getting very little in pensions, compared to what they
were promised, because of the bankruptcy that the airlines went through. The
pension are now run by the US Gov't. (as a result of the bankruptcy) and
they are capped at low values, in part because the pilots retired at 60, the
oldest pilots are allowed to fly (at least in the cabins). In addition, a
lot of flight attendents and other airline employees are working longer
hours.
The airlines without unions have mostly done better.
> I see the auto industry in north america suffering the same fate unless
> their unions start compromising.
>
> Unions have their place, but their purpose should be to protect their
> workers' rights and safety, instead of inflating wages.
>
>> > Remember the cleaning woman in
>> > the new recently that was pulling about 100k in wages and pension? She
>> > was
>> I wouldn't call what she did smart. It was totally unreasonable.
>> Again, I agree that the company was stupid in allowing it to occur.
>
> If she was part of the union, she didn't have a choice. Smart or not,
> the union told her what she earned. If she wasn't part of the union,
> she should be running GM, because obviously she is one tough
> negotiator.
I would call someone who makes $100k per year cleaning pretty smart. That's
more than teachers get almost everywhere. Heck, that is more than a lot of
doctors.
Jeff
> Tim
>
#474
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
"NotBloodyLikely" <tmagee@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155051697.419183.238890@p79g2000cwp.googlegr oups.com...
<...>
> The same thing happened recently to the airline industry. For example,
> Air Canada had huge demands placed on them by their unions. In the
> end, the only union that wasn't willing to compromise was the pilots'
> union... greedy greedy. The result? Creditor Protection and
> near-bankruptcy, and the pilots wound up taking big wage cuts anyway.
> Now a few years later, Air Canada is back to profitability in a large
> part because they got the greedy, unreasonable union monkey off their
> back.
Actually, this is a result of deregulation and competitioin, at least in the
US.
The wages that many airline emploees are getting are relatively low. A lot
of retired pilots are getting very little in pensions, compared to what they
were promised, because of the bankruptcy that the airlines went through. The
pension are now run by the US Gov't. (as a result of the bankruptcy) and
they are capped at low values, in part because the pilots retired at 60, the
oldest pilots are allowed to fly (at least in the cabins). In addition, a
lot of flight attendents and other airline employees are working longer
hours.
The airlines without unions have mostly done better.
> I see the auto industry in north america suffering the same fate unless
> their unions start compromising.
>
> Unions have their place, but their purpose should be to protect their
> workers' rights and safety, instead of inflating wages.
>
>> > Remember the cleaning woman in
>> > the new recently that was pulling about 100k in wages and pension? She
>> > was
>> I wouldn't call what she did smart. It was totally unreasonable.
>> Again, I agree that the company was stupid in allowing it to occur.
>
> If she was part of the union, she didn't have a choice. Smart or not,
> the union told her what she earned. If she wasn't part of the union,
> she should be running GM, because obviously she is one tough
> negotiator.
I would call someone who makes $100k per year cleaning pretty smart. That's
more than teachers get almost everywhere. Heck, that is more than a lot of
doctors.
Jeff
> Tim
>
#475
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
Lee Florack wrote:
>do_not_spam_me@my-deja.com wrote:
>> 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?
>It won't help management much. However, you cannot ignore the facts
>about the horrendous burden that extremely high salaries (when
>compared to value provided), high healthcare costs and ridiculous
>retirement costs -- all the result of union demands have and
>continue to be at least one of the major causes of unprofitability.
>Even if the management teams of Ford and GM could somehow produce
>some desirable cars anytime soon, the profit margins would still be
>too low.
You're still too much a GM apologist because I've seen a case study
showing that if GM had Toyota's production efficiency - without any
changes in its labor cost structure, GM would have been profitable
every year. That's not to say that labor, health care, and pension
costs are huge burdens, but even if those costs were zero GM would
still be losing market share and producing bad designs that look like
more like furniture or boom boxes than like motor vehicles.
#476
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
Lee Florack wrote:
>do_not_spam_me@my-deja.com wrote:
>> 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?
>It won't help management much. However, you cannot ignore the facts
>about the horrendous burden that extremely high salaries (when
>compared to value provided), high healthcare costs and ridiculous
>retirement costs -- all the result of union demands have and
>continue to be at least one of the major causes of unprofitability.
>Even if the management teams of Ford and GM could somehow produce
>some desirable cars anytime soon, the profit margins would still be
>too low.
You're still too much a GM apologist because I've seen a case study
showing that if GM had Toyota's production efficiency - without any
changes in its labor cost structure, GM would have been profitable
every year. That's not to say that labor, health care, and pension
costs are huge burdens, but even if those costs were zero GM would
still be losing market share and producing bad designs that look like
more like furniture or boom boxes than like motor vehicles.
#477
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
Lee Florack wrote:
>do_not_spam_me@my-deja.com wrote:
>> 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?
>It won't help management much. However, you cannot ignore the facts
>about the horrendous burden that extremely high salaries (when
>compared to value provided), high healthcare costs and ridiculous
>retirement costs -- all the result of union demands have and
>continue to be at least one of the major causes of unprofitability.
>Even if the management teams of Ford and GM could somehow produce
>some desirable cars anytime soon, the profit margins would still be
>too low.
You're still too much a GM apologist because I've seen a case study
showing that if GM had Toyota's production efficiency - without any
changes in its labor cost structure, GM would have been profitable
every year. That's not to say that labor, health care, and pension
costs are huge burdens, but even if those costs were zero GM would
still be losing market share and producing bad designs that look like
more like furniture or boom boxes than like motor vehicles.
#478
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
Jeff wrote:
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> news:i-icnfcmZpai6kvZUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> > Isn't envy one of the deadly sins?
> What are you talking about?
>
> I would really help if you inline post rather than top-post.
That's impossible during incessant masturbation. He's aided by Car
Toons and Highlights magazines.
#479
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
Jeff wrote:
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> news:i-icnfcmZpai6kvZUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> > Isn't envy one of the deadly sins?
> What are you talking about?
>
> I would really help if you inline post rather than top-post.
That's impossible during incessant masturbation. He's aided by Car
Toons and Highlights magazines.
#480
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
Jeff wrote:
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> news:i-icnfcmZpai6kvZUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> > Isn't envy one of the deadly sins?
> What are you talking about?
>
> I would really help if you inline post rather than top-post.
That's impossible during incessant masturbation. He's aided by Car
Toons and Highlights magazines.