Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
#526
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
do_not_spam_me@my-deja.com wrote:
> Matt Whiting 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?
>>
>>>It won't.
>
>
>>>Would GM sell more Cobalts/Vues if it wasn't burdened by union
>>>contracts?
>>
>>Yes, as they could price them $1-2,000 cheaper and they would likely
>>have higher build quality.
>>
>>
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>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.
>
>
> 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
> Matt Whiting 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?
>>
>>>It won't.
>
>
>>>Would GM sell more Cobalts/Vues if it wasn't burdened by union
>>>contracts?
>>
>>Yes, as they could price them $1-2,000 cheaper and they would likely
>>have higher build quality.
>>
>>
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>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.
>
>
> 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
#527
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
do_not_spam_me@my-deja.com wrote:
> Matt Whiting 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?
>>
>>>It won't.
>
>
>>>Would GM sell more Cobalts/Vues if it wasn't burdened by union
>>>contracts?
>>
>>Yes, as they could price them $1-2,000 cheaper and they would likely
>>have higher build quality.
>>
>>
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>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.
>
>
> 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
> Matt Whiting 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?
>>
>>>It won't.
>
>
>>>Would GM sell more Cobalts/Vues if it wasn't burdened by union
>>>contracts?
>>
>>Yes, as they could price them $1-2,000 cheaper and they would likely
>>have higher build quality.
>>
>>
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>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.
>
>
> 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
#528
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
do_not_spam_me@my-deja.com wrote:
> Matt Whiting 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?
>>
>>>It won't.
>
>
>>>Would GM sell more Cobalts/Vues if it wasn't burdened by union
>>>contracts?
>>
>>Yes, as they could price them $1-2,000 cheaper and they would likely
>>have higher build quality.
>>
>>
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>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.
>
>
> 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
> Matt Whiting 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?
>>
>>>It won't.
>
>
>>>Would GM sell more Cobalts/Vues if it wasn't burdened by union
>>>contracts?
>>
>>Yes, as they could price them $1-2,000 cheaper and they would likely
>>have higher build quality.
>>
>>
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>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.
>
>
> 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
#529
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Where did all the old Japs car go?
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 10:05:46 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
<mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:
>I guess you missed the part of my post that said you are confusing North
>America parts with US total content,
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...od=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."
>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.
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."
>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%.
I think I am going to go with what the WSJ says. As long as it's not
on their editorial page.
>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
Sorry, your credibility is near absolute zero, I have to believe the
WSJ on this one too.
>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?
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/2...01/110788.html
Where are yours?
>
>
>mike hunt
>
>
>
>"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> 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:
>
>> "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."
>>
>
<mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:
>I guess you missed the part of my post that said you are confusing North
>America parts with US total content,
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...od=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."
>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.
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."
>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%.
I think I am going to go with what the WSJ says. As long as it's not
on their editorial page.
>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
Sorry, your credibility is near absolute zero, I have to believe the
WSJ on this one too.
>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?
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/2...01/110788.html
Where are yours?
>
>
>mike hunt
>
>
>
>"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> 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:
>
>> "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."
>>
>
#530
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Where did all the old Japs car go?
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 10:05:46 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
<mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:
>I guess you missed the part of my post that said you are confusing North
>America parts with US total content,
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...od=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."
>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.
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."
>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%.
I think I am going to go with what the WSJ says. As long as it's not
on their editorial page.
>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
Sorry, your credibility is near absolute zero, I have to believe the
WSJ on this one too.
>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?
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/2...01/110788.html
Where are yours?
>
>
>mike hunt
>
>
>
>"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> 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:
>
>> "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."
>>
>
<mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:
>I guess you missed the part of my post that said you are confusing North
>America parts with US total content,
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...od=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."
>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.
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."
>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%.
I think I am going to go with what the WSJ says. As long as it's not
on their editorial page.
>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
Sorry, your credibility is near absolute zero, I have to believe the
WSJ on this one too.
>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?
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/2...01/110788.html
Where are yours?
>
>
>mike hunt
>
>
>
>"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> 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:
>
>> "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."
>>
>
#531
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Where did all the old Japs car go?
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 10:05:46 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
<mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:
>I guess you missed the part of my post that said you are confusing North
>America parts with US total content,
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...od=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."
>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.
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."
>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%.
I think I am going to go with what the WSJ says. As long as it's not
on their editorial page.
>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
Sorry, your credibility is near absolute zero, I have to believe the
WSJ on this one too.
>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?
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/2...01/110788.html
Where are yours?
>
>
>mike hunt
>
>
>
>"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> 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:
>
>> "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."
>>
>
<mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:
>I guess you missed the part of my post that said you are confusing North
>America parts with US total content,
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...od=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."
>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.
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."
>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%.
I think I am going to go with what the WSJ says. As long as it's not
on their editorial page.
>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
Sorry, your credibility is near absolute zero, I have to believe the
WSJ on this one too.
>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?
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/2...01/110788.html
Where are yours?
>
>
>mike hunt
>
>
>
>"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> 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:
>
>> "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."
>>
>
#532
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in
news:SoydnZn9GM8svkzZUSdV9g@ptd.net:
> Hyundai recently outscored Toyota and Honda in a recent consumer
> survey of initial quality, among new 2006 vehicle owners.
>
>
"INITIAL" quality...
give it 10 years...
--
1984 RZ350
news:SoydnZn9GM8svkzZUSdV9g@ptd.net:
> Hyundai recently outscored Toyota and Honda in a recent consumer
> survey of initial quality, among new 2006 vehicle owners.
>
>
"INITIAL" quality...
give it 10 years...
--
1984 RZ350
#533
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in
news:SoydnZn9GM8svkzZUSdV9g@ptd.net:
> Hyundai recently outscored Toyota and Honda in a recent consumer
> survey of initial quality, among new 2006 vehicle owners.
>
>
"INITIAL" quality...
give it 10 years...
--
1984 RZ350
news:SoydnZn9GM8svkzZUSdV9g@ptd.net:
> Hyundai recently outscored Toyota and Honda in a recent consumer
> survey of initial quality, among new 2006 vehicle owners.
>
>
"INITIAL" quality...
give it 10 years...
--
1984 RZ350
#534
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in
news:SoydnZn9GM8svkzZUSdV9g@ptd.net:
> Hyundai recently outscored Toyota and Honda in a recent consumer
> survey of initial quality, among new 2006 vehicle owners.
>
>
"INITIAL" quality...
give it 10 years...
--
1984 RZ350
news:SoydnZn9GM8svkzZUSdV9g@ptd.net:
> Hyundai recently outscored Toyota and Honda in a recent consumer
> survey of initial quality, among new 2006 vehicle owners.
>
>
"INITIAL" quality...
give it 10 years...
--
1984 RZ350
#535
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
"Ript" <not@chance.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9822DA1631047slurpatyermomorgasm@65.24.7.2 7...
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in
> news:SoydnZn9GM8svkzZUSdV9g@ptd.net:
>
>> Hyundai recently outscored Toyota and Honda in a recent consumer
>> survey of initial quality, among new 2006 vehicle owners.
>>
>>
>
> "INITIAL" quality...
> give it 10 years...
>
I'd be happy with 10 years from an Azera. My LeSabre is falling apart in
five.
#536
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
"Ript" <not@chance.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9822DA1631047slurpatyermomorgasm@65.24.7.2 7...
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in
> news:SoydnZn9GM8svkzZUSdV9g@ptd.net:
>
>> Hyundai recently outscored Toyota and Honda in a recent consumer
>> survey of initial quality, among new 2006 vehicle owners.
>>
>>
>
> "INITIAL" quality...
> give it 10 years...
>
I'd be happy with 10 years from an Azera. My LeSabre is falling apart in
five.
#537
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
"Ript" <not@chance.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9822DA1631047slurpatyermomorgasm@65.24.7.2 7...
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in
> news:SoydnZn9GM8svkzZUSdV9g@ptd.net:
>
>> Hyundai recently outscored Toyota and Honda in a recent consumer
>> survey of initial quality, among new 2006 vehicle owners.
>>
>>
>
> "INITIAL" quality...
> give it 10 years...
>
I'd be happy with 10 years from an Azera. My LeSabre is falling apart in
five.
#538
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
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
"Ript" <not@chance.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9822DA1631047slurpatyermomorgasm@65.24.7.2 7...
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in
> news:SoydnZn9GM8svkzZUSdV9g@ptd.net:
>
>> Hyundai recently outscored Toyota and Honda in a recent consumer
>> survey of initial quality, among new 2006 vehicle owners.
>>
>>
>
> "INITIAL" quality...
> give it 10 years...
>
>
> --
> 1984 RZ350
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
"Ript" <not@chance.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9822DA1631047slurpatyermomorgasm@65.24.7.2 7...
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in
> news:SoydnZn9GM8svkzZUSdV9g@ptd.net:
>
>> Hyundai recently outscored Toyota and Honda in a recent consumer
>> survey of initial quality, among new 2006 vehicle owners.
>>
>>
>
> "INITIAL" quality...
> give it 10 years...
>
>
> --
> 1984 RZ350
#539
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
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
"Ript" <not@chance.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9822DA1631047slurpatyermomorgasm@65.24.7.2 7...
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in
> news:SoydnZn9GM8svkzZUSdV9g@ptd.net:
>
>> Hyundai recently outscored Toyota and Honda in a recent consumer
>> survey of initial quality, among new 2006 vehicle owners.
>>
>>
>
> "INITIAL" quality...
> give it 10 years...
>
>
> --
> 1984 RZ350
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
"Ript" <not@chance.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9822DA1631047slurpatyermomorgasm@65.24.7.2 7...
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in
> news:SoydnZn9GM8svkzZUSdV9g@ptd.net:
>
>> Hyundai recently outscored Toyota and Honda in a recent consumer
>> survey of initial quality, among new 2006 vehicle owners.
>>
>>
>
> "INITIAL" quality...
> give it 10 years...
>
>
> --
> 1984 RZ350
#540
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
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
"Ript" <not@chance.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9822DA1631047slurpatyermomorgasm@65.24.7.2 7...
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in
> news:SoydnZn9GM8svkzZUSdV9g@ptd.net:
>
>> Hyundai recently outscored Toyota and Honda in a recent consumer
>> survey of initial quality, among new 2006 vehicle owners.
>>
>>
>
> "INITIAL" quality...
> give it 10 years...
>
>
> --
> 1984 RZ350
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
"Ript" <not@chance.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9822DA1631047slurpatyermomorgasm@65.24.7.2 7...
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in
> news:SoydnZn9GM8svkzZUSdV9g@ptd.net:
>
>> Hyundai recently outscored Toyota and Honda in a recent consumer
>> survey of initial quality, among new 2006 vehicle owners.
>>
>>
>
> "INITIAL" quality...
> give it 10 years...
>
>
> --
> 1984 RZ350