A lot of members here that live in the USA tend to bash the domestics at every opportunity.......is that to say you wish they would go under completely? How many people on this forum believe that the destruction of our domestic automotive industry would not impact their life? I would love to have a discussion with those of this mindset to point-out some connections they may have over-looked. The US is in real danger here people.......we are a nation in debt, like many of our citizens. If we don't start to protect our manufacturing base......we may lose our status of 'World Leader'. Don't think it hasn't happened to many other countries throughout history.....the USA is not immune.

Well, I think in order to get people to buy your product, you gotta have something good.

but this is not the case right now. I mean I know the Big 3 made great cars. but as far as design(mostly), and durabilitiy(on par, somewhat), American cars just got owned by Japanese and European cars.

and for the the historical high national debt, you have to thanks the big 3, Im talking about the higher ups in our government. Like Bush? for example. How much did Iraq cost us again? Yeah, of course we all want 10 bucks per barrel of oil. but even my junior high school cousin knows that is NOT possible to invade someone else llike that and expect everybody there to obey you. and now I swear if they try to touch Iran I seriously dont know whats going to happen.

(speaking of debt I know Im making monthly payments to my 8 now, but I gottta tell ya I have more than enough cash to pay the whole thing off, its just that I dont feel like to giving out all my cash at once. when I want to buy something I almost always make sure that I have at least couple more times of money than the cost before I'll hit the BUY button, to secure myself you know)

back to topic, if the Big 3 ... well lets talk about Ford for now, if they "die", of course it wont make any of us happy, but if they really die due to compeition. who is there to blame ? I will say nothing but the company itself, and its homeland governemtn.

Wonder why the GOLD price just hit 25 year high ? and US dollars going down and down and down ... I wonder why

so ...

Well, its tough, If you make ultra durable and reliable cars people aren't going to buy new cars every year. Profits go down, forcing you to use inferior parts and sacrafice durability and reliability. Then people are forced to buy new cars every few years, but they complain about durability and reliability.

Honestly, if the big 3 market share gets shunted to the other car companies the only sacrafice that will happen will possibly be some innovation caused by competition. But is that really a factor right now? I mean, we already tout imports as being top of the line as for technology, saftey, and performace. What competition based innovation did big 3 ever bring to the table? (rhetorical question)

So capitalism kills another home-based industry. Is it so bad that consumers are becoming more educated and want more equity for their dollar? I think not.

That being said, ford is down 7% this month. car sales ar up %60 due to the hybrids introduced, but they took a big hit on explorer and their truck line.

So capitalism kills another home-based industry. Is it so bad that consumers are becoming more educated and want more equity for their dollar? I think not.

ARE we becoming more educated? Is the doctor who buys a Mercedes helping his practice that is 80% domestic auto companies employees and their families? Everyone is impacted by the auto industry in some way. A domestic auto company doing poorly needing to close 12 plants does not balance with a foreign automaker opening 1 new plant. For every 1 person that works in the auto industry there are 5 people that work in a business that depends on the spending by auto industry employees. Foreign plants built on our soil do not contribute to our GDP or exports. Educated people should be afraid of where our country is headed and not about "equity for their dollar". Stock portfolios are only as good as the companies that support them......the whole thing is a house of cards. How many of your stock investments are in companies that actually make something? If they are service only....then they are risky. Service industries are exactly that.....they service somebody else, maybe another service industry. But all services are based around someone who actually produces something. Without the person who produces things.......who will need a bunch of services?

Illegal Aliens?

But all services are based around someone who actually produces something. Without the person who produces things.......who will need a bunch of services?

That being said, ford is down 7% this month. car sales ar up %60 due to the hybrids introduced, but they took a big hit on explorer and their truck line.


The issue is larger than Ford or GM. There are 1000's of businesses that depend on the Big 3......some are very large like Delphi and Visteon and some are very small like a gas station or restaurant across from a Ford or GM plant. Yes Ford is going through some problems......and moreso GM and Delphi, but it's the domestic side the industry as a whole that is in trouble. When was the last time in History that so many large American companies were on the verge of bankruptcy? These are all signs that something big is happening in our country. What if the world went to war over the last remaining sources of oil? Could the US build military equipment today on the same scale as WWII? You want to say 'Yes', but the answer would surprise many. Too many products are built in other countries......and it's not even the final products that I'm talking about. I'm talking components. Some of you think a WWIII is impossible......but I have to disagree. China, Russia, India, Japan, US, Europe, etc all have economies built around cheap oil and not one of us is ready to change. Let's say that 6 people are out in the desert (1 from each of the countries listed) and they find the last glass of water. All 6 are extremely thirsty........who gets to drink? Think about it.

Before you mention alternate fuels, note that executive officer of Exxon/Mobile has announced his retirement today with a payout of $400 million. The most recent budget from the Federal Gov't for alternate fuel research is $6.7 million. This country is not serious about alternate fuels and it shows.

I was being scarcastic.

This is the way capitalism functions. People look out for themselves, not for the total economy or their neighbor's buisness. This is seriously just a byproduct of the country that we live in. People want more stuff for their dollar, they don't care where it comes from. Look at everyone shopping on the internet now, shopping at walmart, buying foreign made clothes. Why would a person want to buy a $450 ipod at a local electronics store, when they can get a grey market on ebay for $250? Why would a person pay MSRP for a jar of pickles when they can save a dollar at Walmart?

With more people and greater international shipping and communication we are realizing that we (America) don't want to do hard and tedious work, but its costing us the money that we so love. Honestly, what would we do without the illegals??? We certainly don't want the crappy jobs for low pay.

Of course pure capitalism is a bad thing, it would just be a couple monoplies screwing us, and we combat that with government regulation, which is exactly what we need right now. No buyoffs, just hardcore consumer screwing taxes! I favor a $5,000 tax on all import cars. 100% Tax added to all imported goods, all of a sudden all those cheap products we love at walmart and neat foreign gagets aren't going to be so affordable, style of living will be down across the country, but dammit, we will all have the same style of living.

That, and an educated consumer is usually defined as a person who knows about the current market and "can shop around for the best price."

Only poor people buy foriegn made clothes from Wal-mart. I buy my cheap foriegn goods from Nordstrams :p

I don't know if this applies and I'm probably just ranting, but I'll blurb some thoughts.

I'm talking from the middle class point of view, not the rich who feel less of an impacts nor from the poor who feel alot worse and worry about better things than we do...such as food, rent, having something to wear, and taking care of their kids.

According to what I have read the average middle class income has gone down and seems to be headed for even lower levels.

Gas prices are at record highs in this country for no other reason than demand = limitless greed.

Because of gas, everything else has risen in price food, goods and services.

Automobile prices continue to climb, while the lack of sales has held it at a pretty constant level these past years.

Companies continue to outsrouce jobs from the US telling us they have to to keep their prices down so we can buy their products at a cheaper rate. Meanwhile, we lose the jobs we need to pay for those products. (I know...this is not extremely wide ranging yet)

Medical expenses are out of control and the government tells us they wont have money for us in the future. Money I might add, that they owe us considering they took from us to begin with.

Note: I wont go into the moral decline and other social issues that actually pose a greater threat.

Finally, the wages we earn have been stagnant for a long time now making the ever increasing prices for everything even more painful.

So...if we lost the big 2 (I guess 3 with Dodge but they are German now) we would lose alot of jobs and become less competitive in the automotive industry. We would lose 2 major corporations and honestly because of all the other factors or problems in our economy we would be headed for a tail spin that GOD knows where it will end.

I agree, to be honest I think Ford/GM let me down when I started searching for a new car and there were little options I'd like...or had a passion for.

So, it does matter to me and that's why I care about Ford & GM fixing their sinking ships, but I worry more about the economy as a whole and the ever lowering standards of the middle class and even worse...the ever increasing poor class and what they suffer through.

America has ALOT of domestic problems, a great enemy in Islamic terrorist, a ever lowering world opinion about everything American or what ever we do, and our citizens nor our government care enough about it to do anything about it. It’s like we are watching the decline of this great (but imperfect) nation right before our eyes and everyone is too busy living in selfishness to realize that we better start caring, and SOON.

Then again…honestly, this is to be expected…

So…I hope the big 2 really get their act together or else it will be another huge burden on an already tired nation…and tired economy. When ever there is a breakdown in morality (as our history has shown) everything else falls along with it.

Everything has it’s consequence…




Sorry for the rant, I did say a few things that Bascho was looking for...lol.

innovate or die it's their choice.. you can only go so far on name brand and reputation.. look at intel latley.. you can't keep producing crap and expect people to buy it. Once they realize they are getting less for the same or more money, they shift to the better deal.

There will still be plenty of competition, but price will go up if all that's left is imports...

If the big 3 actually look like they are going to tank, you bet that the govt will step in welfare them and tariff the imports to keep "competition"

Sorry for the rant, I did say a few things that Bascho was looking for...lol.


:yesnod: I really just wanted to have an open discussion with the members.....I have no expectations of anyone......just hope that responses are honest and not delusional. You made a lot of great points.

innovate or die it's their choice.. you can only go so far on name brand and reputation.. look at intel latley.. you can't keep producing crap and expect people to buy it. Once they realize they are getting less for the same or more money, they shift to the better deal.

There will still be plenty of competition, but price will go up if all that's left is imports...

If the big 3 actually look like they are going to tank, you bet that the govt will step in welfare them and tariff the imports to keep "competition"


But would you believe it if they came out and said, "here, this is the beautifully designed, high-quality, reliable vehicle you have all been looking for." The answer is 'no'. You will start listening to the people that had a horrible experience with Ford/GM back in 1989. You will consult your latest issue of Consumer Reports....which by-the-way will not give a 'buy' recommendation in the first year of production. You will read a highly-biased review from some auto rag that rips the company on soft trim materials (which may actually be identical to that used by another company they gave a glowing review), or the space.....or the design. People in this country happily trade a hands-on experience for someone else's account. Movie critics, music critics,.......auto critics.

Automotive reputation is one of those things that takes decades to build up, and just a couple years to destroy. Look at Honda when they started importing cars here. Everyone laughed. The kept working, on quality, and making sure they delivered something that the people wanted. Now they're considered a very good brand. Even Hyundai is looking much better than it did in the mid-80's when everyone laughed at the Excel they brought here.

I think the Big 3 just need to keep plugging along. If they can contain costs, develop new cars with good quality, that appeal to people, then they're going to reap the rewards, but it's going to take time. I already look at GM in a different light than I did back in the mid 80's and 90's. Having driven some of the new Caddies (CTS, STS, SRX, XLR) I'm quite impressed with the styling, build quality, materials, and from what I've read with regards to long term tests of these cars, overall quality is looking good. My wife and I are even considering purchasing one in the next year which would be the first true domestic car I've ever owned.

As to answer Bascho's original question... Do I think my world would change if the big three were gone? Yep. Do I think it would end? Nope. I also think my world would change if we stopped importing cars from other countries as well. The economy in general is moving in a global direction so there are many dependencies between seemingly unrelated goods that would be affected by just about any car manufacturer going out of business. I think, as an American, all I can do is hope that things turn around for the big 3, and I'm sure it will. It will just take a little time.

innovate or die it's their choice..

It's funny because i haven't really seen any japanese manufacturer other than mazda really innovate. The way i see it all the major japanese manufacturers have always copied what works and try to improve upon it. Mazda and Subaru to an extent seem to be the exceptions.

It's funny because i haven't really seen any japanese manufacturer other than mazda really innovate. The way i see it all the major japanese manufacturers have always copied what works and try to improve upon it. Mazda and Subaru to an extent seem to be the exceptions.
I agree there. Everything new from Toyota and Honda, IMO, is bland. There are a few exceptions here and there, but bland for the most part.

^ your comments are remarkably lucid for a town drunk :D:

^ your comments are remarkably lucid for a town drunk :D:
I'm between bottles :all_cohol

I'm between bottles :all_cohol

:beerchug:

I think we should look to the past for solutions to this problem.

Firstly we should addict the Chinese to opium, then sell it to them for ludicious profit.

Secondly, we should travel to third world countries capture males as slaves and bring them back to work.

Thridly, we should attack rich countries and steal their stuff. Namely, oil producing nations. Lets just drop a few nukes and steal all those fields, gas prices will really go down! We can also attack DeBeers' mines diamond mines also, but only if we have enough time to make it home for dinner.

Fourthly, women should be paid only $10 a day for their jobs, and they can't vote anymore.

Coming from the financial side of the rail industry, I see our traffic mix and customers and revenue streams daily. I can say that losing the Big 3 would wreak havoc on us. But it would not just affect us and our industry, hurting our indsutry will hurt everyone else.

How so? A lot of rail freight is not just raw materials (steel, coke, coal - all needed by the Big 3), but also finished consumer goods. If we're not moving enough of the raw materials, then not only will we need to lay off employees, but we'll also have to charge more to transport the consumer goods we can still move because we have lots of fixed costs between labor and infrastructure and healthcare, etc... The companies that are moving the freight, like us, will only absorb so much cost and the rest will be given to the consumer. So go ahead and mark-up that pair of jeans you've been wanting to purchase. If you like orange juice, that moves daily out of Florida in very expensive refrigerated trains, so go ahead and mark that up also. The list could go on and on.

At the same time, none of this makes me want to buy American out of nationalism. Several of the destinations for the raw materials we move are for foreign manufacturer's plants based in the U.S. Someone may have bought a Honda or a Toyota or a BMW, but many of them are built right here in the U.S.A. I bought the RX-8, and didn't flinch about it not being American made, or that it is made with very limited U.S. parts, if any at all. If the Big 3 wants my business, than they have to build somthing I want to buy. Me giving them business for the sake of giving them business doesn't encourage them to build a better product, or a product that I want. But not giving them my business should be incentive.

I think the big 3 is necessary for America and its economy to grow or at least to sustain. With that being said, the government should cut support to the the big 3. That goes out to all the other billion++ dollar corporations as well.

I believe that competion is good for the economy. Without all the supplemental funds/grants, corporate tax cuts, governement assist, etc. to (only sticking with) the big 3, the big 3 will have to make major changes in their organizations and companies. Eventually they produce quality cars at better value.

At first, many people will lose jobs, company's lose profits, but maybe this is what this country needs to shake up the corporate world and change the culture of dependency to these major corporations like the big 3.

That's all.. for now. :Freak_ani

If the Big 3 wants my business, than they have to build somthing I want to buy. Me giving them business for the sake of giving them business doesn't encourage them to build a better product, or a product that I want. But not giving them my business should be incentive.

I agree with what RedDevil is saying. If I owned a business (provided I have competition in the same business), I have to make an attractive product to my target consumer base. I can't just whip something up and say "here ya go, made in the good ol US of A" and EXPECT people to buy when my comp has designed the same kind of product better. Also, the higher-ups in the Big 3 need to quit putting so much money in their pockets and more into research and innovations for their products.

I agree there. Everything new from Toyota and Honda, IMO, is bland. There are a few exceptions here and there, but bland for the most part.

well i think the new civic or Fit, is a big change. it's a dramitic leap from analog gauges etc..

A lot of members here that live in the USA tend to bash the domestics at every opportunity.......is that to say you wish they would go under completely? Absolutely not! What I want is for them to start building a car worth buying. But, they think they can skate by on sales to rednecks who "only buy American" and don't care about the quality of the vehicle they buy.

How many people on this forum believe that the destruction of our domestic automotive industry would not impact their life? I remember hearing the same thing about automation in the workplace...how it would kill America. Well, here we are. We've adapted. And we will continue to adapt to whatever comes our way.

If the Big 3 wants my business, than they have to build somthing I want to buy. Me giving them business for the sake of giving them business doesn't encourage them to build a better product, or a product that I want. But not giving them my business should be incentive. Spot on. I buy what is best for me. I'm not going to spend gobs of money on a piece of crap just because of the company that builds it. That just gives manufacturers no incentive to make anything better. If Ford wants me to buy their products, then start building products worth buying. They have nobody to look at but themselves for their problems.

But would you believe it if they came out and said, "here, this is the beautifully designed, high-quality, reliable vehicle you have all been looking for." The answer is 'no'. You will start listening to the people that had a horrible experience with Ford/GM back in 1989. You will consult your latest issue of Consumer Reports....which by-the-way will not give a 'buy' recommendation in the first year of production. You will read a highly-biased review from some auto rag that rips the company on soft trim materials (which may actually be identical to that used by another company they gave a glowing review), or the space.....or the design. People in this country happily trade a hands-on experience for someone else's account. Movie critics, music critics,.......auto critics. What a bunch of baloney! First off, Ford and GM do not have any cars that are beautifully designed, high quality, and reliable, so this whole conversation is moot. Second, as others have pointed out, take a look at a company like Hyundai, which 10 years ago was totally ripped apart in the auto rags. Now, they are highly praised for the stylish, feature-filled, quality cars that they are producing. Nissan, just a few short years ago, was on the verge of annihilation. They restructured, retooled, and are now producing some great cars. Ford, meanwhile, continues to put out the same, tired, old crap ala the Fusion and Five Hundred.

And what's all this talk about the "big 3" having problems? Chrysler, with an operating profit of $1.5 billion in 2005, is doing just fine. And why are they doing fine while Ford and GM are suffering? They are coming out with new cars that people actually want...SRT4, Magnum, 300, Charger. Nothing in Ford's lineup can compare with the style and performance of these vehicles. Not to mention, while Chrysler, Mercedes, BMW, etc are having huge successes with their high performance divisions, Ford is dismantling theirs. Smart move! (See my other thread on this).

It's funny because i haven't really seen any japanese manufacturer other than mazda really innovate. Wow. A more incorrect statement I have not come across in some time. I'm guessing you call Mazda "innovative" because they have a rotary engine in one (very poor selling) vehicle, while you neglect to point out that almost all of their other cars are built on platforms designed by a company other than Mazda. Toyota, meanwhile, is at the forefront of hybrid-electric technology. No matter what you think of this technology, there is no denying the fact that there are many, many consumers demanding these cars and that they are selling like hotcakes. Also, take a look at the comparo in the May C&D...$15,000 compacts. With gas prices rising, this is a segment that is likely to explode in the near future...cheap cars, nice features, and great gas mileage. Included in this comparo: Dodge Caliber, Honda Fit, Hyundai Accent, Kia Rio5, Nissan Versa, Suzuki Reno, Toyota Yaris. Conspicuously absent are any Ford/GM products: a Focus or Cobalt equipped as these cars run up to $18K and the retooled Aveo isn't available. So, Ford and GM are already behind on the curve in this market segment.

In conclusion...ah, just read it :)

Absolutely not! What I want is for them to start building a car worth buying. But, they think they can skate by on sales to rednecks who "only buy American" and don't care about the quality of the vehicle they buy.

I remember hearing the same thing about automation in the workplace...how it would kill America. Well, here we are. We've adapted. And we will continue to adapt to whatever comes our way.

Spot on. I buy what is best for me. I'm not going to spend gobs of money on a piece of crap just because of the company that builds it. That just gives manufacturers no incentive to make anything better. If Ford wants me to buy their products, then start building products worth buying. They have nobody to look at but themselves for their problems.

What a bunch of baloney! First off, Ford and GM do not have any cars that are beautifully designed, high quality, and reliable, so this whole conversation is moot. Second, as others have pointed out, take a look at a company like Hyundai, which 10 years ago was totally ripped apart in the auto rags. Now, they are highly praised for the stylish, feature-filled, quality cars that they are producing. Nissan, just a few short years ago, was on the verge of annihilation. They restructured, retooled, and are now producing some great cars. Ford, meanwhile, continues to put out the same, tired, old crap ala the Fusion and Five Hundred.

And what's all this talk about the "big 3" having problems? Chrysler, with an operating profit of $1.5 billion in 2005, is doing just fine. And why are they doing fine while Ford and GM are suffering? They are coming out with new cars that people actually want...SRT4, Magnum, 300, Charger. Nothing in Ford's lineup can compare with the style and performance of these vehicles. Not to mention, while Chrysler, Mercedes, BMW, etc are having huge successes with their high performance divisions, Ford is dismantling theirs. Smart move! (See my other thread on this).

Wow. A more incorrect statement I have not come across in some time. I'm guessing you call Mazda "innovative" because they have a rotary engine in one (very poor selling) vehicle, while you neglect to point out that almost all of their other cars are built on platforms designed by a company other than Mazda. Toyota, meanwhile, is at the forefront of hybrid-electric technology. No matter what you think of this technology, there is no denying the fact that there are many, many consumers demanding these cars and that they are selling like hotcakes. Also, take a look at the comparo in the May C&D...$15,000 compacts. With gas prices rising, this is a segment that is likely to explode in the near future...cheap cars, nice features, and great gas mileage. Included in this comparo: Dodge Caliber, Honda Fit, Hyundai Accent, Kia Rio5, Nissan Versa, Suzuki Reno, Toyota Yaris. Conspicuously absent are any Ford/GM products: a Focus or Cobalt equipped as these cars run up to $18K and the retooled Aveo isn't available. So, Ford and GM are already behind on the curve in this market segment.

In conclusion...ah, just read it :)

:score: Excellent post

Now that I've read all of this it's my turn to try and sound smart. I appologize now in the event that I write a book.

I am just wrapping up an Operations Management class and wanted to share what I've learned in an attempt to help me study for my final tomorrow.

From what I've been reading the main themes I'm picking up on are: competition, quality of the vehicles, and what they give performance, comfort, space, value, etc.

Here's what's up. If the big 3 were to fall off the face of the planet I believe the country could be in trouble, but we'd adapt, we as a society and individuals aren't that dumb or lazy. (or so I hope) I would miss GM and Dodge (if they fall off, but for the time seem to be picking up the pace pretty well), but not Ford. Unless my precious Mazda would fall off the face of the planet too.

Now back to the points I noticed. As far as the problems with the companies I believe it's all coming down to Quality and Operations Management. In order to improve quality, lower prices, and such you (a company as a whole) has to Improve Quality, decrease costs caused by rework and mistakes, which leads to improved productivity, and hope to catch the market with better products with lower prices, then you can stay in business and provide more jobs. This is called Deming's Chain Reaction.

Now to the next level. How does a company such as Ford, GM, Dodge achieve this level of smarts. You need to pay attention to what the customer wants, not what you (the management) thinks the customer may want or what you'd like to produce and try to sell it. If you don't make products your customers like they won't sell, no brainer. I also agree that execs need to stop pocketing so much $ and worry about the company. I also agree that people are becoming more selfish, hence why execs are pocketing as much as they can. 94% of responsibility for quality falls on management.

One these companies finally start paying attention to the customers and following Deming's Chain Reaction they may start doing better. There is a lot more on Operations Management that could be applied to help these companies. Things like Deming's Chain are the reason Honda, Toyota, Mazda, and Hyundai are getting better. They pay attention to what the market demands and they find ways to cut costs and still maintain a quality product.

Overall the thing the big 3 need to remember is that they are in business not to earn a profit, but to satisfy the customer.

The big 3 will never fall off the face the earth. They would sell off their smaller divisions, they'd form a conglomerate like Daimler-Chrysler, and eventually the government would subsidize. But if they did, it'd have global consequences. Think about all the foreign holdings, all the materials and technologies etc. that come from all over the world.

Additionally, I see a lot of valid points as to why the big 3 are in trouble, but I believe one very important one was missed: Product cycles. Most of the imports are every bit as bland and boring as most of the domestics. Camry, Impala, Accord etc. bleh! Where the imports are beating the domestics hands down is product cycle. Domestic manufacturers generally redesign their vehicles every 7-9 years, vs. 4-6 years for imports. When GM killed the F-Body in '02 it was a 9 year old platform! Toyota redesigns the Camry every 5 years on the dot. Imports have built their customer base on maintaining momentum in terms of bringing people into the showroom a mere 5 years after buying whatever they are driving.

As far as Daimler-Chrysler goes, the only reason they are profitable is because of Chrysler's strong performance, and in my opinion their current offerings are far above Ford's and GM's in terms of design and quality. Of the cars I have owned so far ('89 Daihatsu, '94 Trooper, '99 Yukon, '02 Liberty, '05 RX-8) the Jeep was by far the best. After 60k miles and some extensive modifications it has no rattles, and every time something broke it was directly caused by me. I kept it when I bought the 8 and gave it to my mom. The Yukon on the other hand, which had cost $15,000 more had worn wheel bearings, malfunctioning cruise control and rattles abound at only 70k miles.

Technology is another issue, when I bought the 8 I was obviously interested in something sporty, which in my mind means something designed from the start as a technologically advanced vehicle and preferably small, and zippy. Well, that ruled out a lot of domestics that I had considered. Mustang: What's with the solid rear axle? This is the 21st century! Charger: No manual tranny? Motherf*&$er please! GTO: curb weight 3700 lbs?! That of course left the usual suspects: STI, EVO, Z, 8 - all imports. We all know where this ends, no need to go there.

One last thing. Financing a car when you can afford to pay it off is just not smart. Pay that thing off and take your monthly payment and invest it in mutual funds. Prudent investment will handily beat the interest rate of your loan, which means that at the end of the 36, or however many months, you'll have MORE money than you paid! If you need money lying around "just in case", either your job security is bad, in which case I would not buy a $30k sports car, or you don't have medical/homeowner's insurance in which case I would not buy a $30k sports car, but divert some funds to remedy that.

Sorry to go so far off track, I'll be quiet now.

I forsee Honda and Toyota ending up in the Big 2's position in about 10 years. Just look at the lack of inspiration in their product lines. They are already falling into the trap that GM and Ford fell into...Everyone buys our stuff for no other reason than they always have, so we don't have to continue improving our designs.

Assuming Ford and GM make it through the big slump they are in at the moment, and I feel that they will. They will be in the best possible position to regain market share with a vengence. Quality and looks are improving rapidly. And sales will go up. The UAW needs to be cut off at the knees, and recovery would happen rapidly. But therein lies the heart of the problem. The fall of GM and Ford would result in the next Great Depression (most likely on a global scale). North America (and primarily the US) are their only unprofitable markets. I don't know for sure, but I hope that a considerable portion of their posted losses are going toward making better and brighter future products.

The current new releases are a good sign of what's to come. And if they lead the way to ethanol powered vehicles (for which the US would be a major fuel producer), no one could stop them. Both are designing ethanol-electric hybrid prototypes if I recall correctly.

I think the issue with Ford and GM is not that no one like domestics, is that no one likes Ford and Gm's business model. I think the branding thing has got to go, platform engineering is great, but repackaging the same exact car with different "skin" just doesn't work.

We are now in an era that favors companies that are nimble and adaptive. Competition is greatly increased. If the Big3 disappear, some one else will take its place (probably Toyota) and life goes on. It is a little alarmist to think that GM or Ford will disappear. I do think that GM and other domestics will become smaller and more nimble.

BTW GM had it's chance. We protected them in the 80's and 90's with tarriffs. They tried to learn the "Toyota Way" with their joint venture at the NUMMI facility. Remember "It's a Different Company," Saturn's Slogan. Saturn was the offspring of the learnings at NUMMI and was tasked to teach GM a different/better way of designing, manufacturing and selling cars. Unfortunately it turned out that a little startup like Saturn have no chance of changing the massive and lithargic GM.

Wow. A more incorrect statement I have not come across in some time. I'm guessing you call Mazda "innovative" because they have a rotary engine in one (very poor selling) vehicle, while you neglect to point out that almost all of their other cars are built on platforms designed by a company other than Mazda. Toyota, meanwhile, is at the forefront of hybrid-electric technology. No matter what you think of this technology, there is no denying the fact that there are many, many consumers demanding these cars and that they are selling like hotcakes. Also, take a look at the comparo in the May C&D...$15,000 compacts. With gas prices rising, this is a segment that is likely to explode in the near future...cheap cars, nice features, and great gas mileage. Included in this comparo: Dodge Caliber, Honda Fit, Hyundai Accent, Kia Rio5, Nissan Versa, Suzuki Reno, Toyota Yaris. Conspicuously absent are any Ford/GM products: a Focus or Cobalt equipped as these cars run up to $18K and the retooled Aveo isn't available. So, Ford and GM are already behind on the curve in this market segment.

In conclusion...ah, just read it :)

Mazda is indeed innovative, and the rotary isn't why. Mazda's main innovation concerning the RX-8 is the way that it is a sports car retaining the convenience of a sports sedan. The rotary's been around for decades, but this is the first suicide-door layout in any kind of sports car (shut up Saturn, it's an econobox). Also there's Mazdaspeed, one of the industry's leaders in the in-house tuner trend, which you yourself mentioned, and their Mazdaspeed6 was one of, if not the first, cars to carry DISI technology off the production line. However, Mazda's most prominent example of innovation is of course the Kabura. One look at that thing should disprove any claims of Mazda's lack of innovation; even competitor's new concepts, like the new Supra or the Ford Reflex look nothing like it.

I think the issue with Ford and GM is not that no one like domestics, is that no one likes Ford and Gm's business model. I think the branding thing has got to go, platform engineering is great, but repackaging the same exact car with different "skin" just doesn't work. Ooh, excellent, excellent point. This is something I was thinking about the other day but neglected to mention in my previous post.

I think that it is a HUGE problem that Ford and GM brands for the most part have no identity. They both have way too many brand names and I think they should look at paring them down (axing Oldsmobile was a good start). I much prefer the Toyota model, in which all of its brands have an identity: Scion (entry level cars for the younger crowd), Toyota (everyday, affordable people movers), Lexus (luxury brand). True, Toyota really needs to introduce a sports car to bring more people into dealerships, and they probably should also expand their TRD offerings, but they really have it right with their branding. DCX also has the right idea with Dodge (entry level), Chrysler (intermediate level), Mercedes (luxury brand), and Maybach (ultra luxury) with two speciality brands, Jeep and Smart.

Meanwhile, here we have GM, which has Chevrolet, Buick, Pontiac, GMC, Saturn, Saab, Holden, Opel, and Vauxhall, all of which basically produce the same kind of cars and have no identity. The only GM brands with any kind of identity are Cadillac and Hummer. Ford, while not quite as bad as GM, has Ford, Lincoln (which used to be a luxury division but is now relegated to selling rebadged Fusions), Mercury, Mazda, and Volvo all with no identities and all producing the same/similar vehicles (Jaguar, Land Rover, and Aston Martin are their other labels). It seems as if their theory of operation is that the reason people don't buy their cars is because of the badge on the front, not because of the quality of the car. My suggestion: ax Mercury; make Mazda the young/innovative brand ala Scion (already on the way); combine Lincoln and Volvo into one semi-luxury brand situated somewhere between Ford and Jaguar; bring back and/or expand the SVT and Mazdaspeed lines.

Mazda is indeed innovative, and the rotary isn't why. My main gripe with your previous statement is that you said that Toyota isn't innovative, while Mazda is. Clearly, Toyota is way ahead of the pack as far as innovation goes (the hybrid electrics and the introduction of the Scion line being two of the more recent and more impactful innovations).

A lot of members here that live in the USA tend to bash the domestics at every opportunity.......is that to say you wish they would go under completely? How many people on this forum believe that the destruction of our domestic automotive industry would not impact their life? I would love to have a discussion with those of this mindset to point-out some connections they may have over-looked. The US is in real danger here people.......we are a nation in debt, like many of our citizens. If we don't start to protect our manufacturing base......we may lose our status of 'World Leader'. Don't think it hasn't happened to many other countries throughout history.....the USA is not immune.
The last American car I bought was a lemon. If or when the Big 3 start making cars like the Japanese, then I'll start buying them again.

The last American car I bought was a lemon. If or when the Big 3 start making cars like the Japanese, then I'll start buying them again.


What was the last domestic? Also, the domestics have been building cars in the exaxt same way as the Japanese for quite some time now. You could walk into and Ford plant and think you were in a Toyota plant and vise versa. Everyone in the business copied Toyota's lean manufacturing design......they had to.

I think that it is a HUGE problem that Ford and GM brands for the most part have no identity. They both have way too many brand names and I think they should look at paring them down (axing Oldsmobile was a good start). I much prefer the Toyota model, in which all of its brands have an identity: Scion (entry level cars for the younger crowd), Toyota (everyday, affordable people movers), Lexus (luxury brand). True, Toyota really needs to introduce a sports car to bring more people into dealerships, and they probably should also expand their TRD offerings, but they really have it right with their branding. DCX also has the right idea with Dodge (entry level), Chrysler (intermediate level), Mercedes (luxury brand), and Maybach (ultra luxury) with two speciality brands, Jeep and Smart.

Meanwhile, here we have GM, which has Chevrolet, Buick, Pontiac, GMC, Saturn, Saab, Holden, Opel, and Vauxhall, all of which basically produce the same kind of cars and have no identity. The only GM brands with any kind of identity are Cadillac and Hummer. Ford, while not quite as bad as GM, has Ford, Lincoln (which used to be a luxury division but is now relegated to selling rebadged Fusions), Mercury, Mazda, and Volvo all with no identities and all producing the same/similar vehicles (Jaguar, Land Rover, and Aston Martin are their other labels). It seems as if their theory of operation is that the reason people don't buy their cars is because of the badge on the front, not because of the quality of the car. My suggestion: ax Mercury; make Mazda the young/innovative brand ala Scion (already on the way); combine Lincoln and Volvo into one semi-luxury brand situated somewhere between Ford and Jaguar; bring back and/or expand the SVT and Mazdaspeed lines.

Brand identity is a major focus of Ford's marketing and planning teams right now. We know that brand identity is a problem for Ford, Mercury, Lincoln, etc.......and we are trying to fix that. I think our plan of making Mercury a female brand is a better idea then killing it off. The last sales presentation I went to shows that Mercury has something like 68% female ownership. That is something they want to capitalize on and increase. Woman look for different things in a car then men......so it seems like a great market for Mercury to pursue. Lincoln is also going to be getting back to it's roots of Amercian luxury.....can't talk a lot about the upcoming products. Ford is probably the hardest to indentify IMO. I would love for the SVT division to be expanded to offer a performance version of every model......but that kind of thing takes a lot of $$$ that they just don't have right now. Nor does it make sense considering where gas prices are going.

A lot of people might not know how much $$$ Ford is investing in alternate fuel technologies......it's a lot! Ford is killing off other programs to pay for the research will be paramount to Ford in the next two decades. Ford really wants to be the alternate fuel leader of the domestic auto companies.....moreso the world. Many people love the SRT program at DCX and the Hemi engines....but those cars are going to be worth shit when gas is $5 per gallon. Ford is gearing up for the next decade where gas is expensive and hybrid and alternate fuel vehicles are necessary........not niche.

An issue that I would want to see would be the costs of all GM and Ford's materials. Delphi has stated recently that they were giving GM huge breaks on some of their parts. Yet, as example, on many domestic vehicles I still see rear drum brakes, while the imports only use disc. The Wall Street Journal a while back reported that every GM and Ford car had an extra ~$1500 added to the price of every vehicle just to cover legacy costs. Point of all this being, I bet there are many places to cut costs and improve the quality of parts they are using while not laying off significant amounts of workers.

Brand identity is a major focus of Ford's marketing and planning teams right now. We know that brand identity is a problem for Ford, Mercury, Lincoln, etc.......and we are trying to fix that. I think our plan of making Mercury a female brand is a better idea then killing it off. The last sales presentation I went to shows that Mercury has something like 68% female ownership. That is something they want to capitalize on and increase. Woman look for different things in a car then men......so it seems like a great market for Mercury to pursue. IMO, creating a brand for women is pretty lame. They'd be much better off killing the line altogether. Until they do, I believe they will continue to have brand-identity problems. Plus, with their current lineup, I don't see how anything is female oriented. All Mercury has is rebadged Fords (Grand Marquis = Crown Vic; Milan = Fusion; Montego = Five Hundred; Mariner = Escape; Mountaineer = Explorer; Monterey = Freestar). They aren't doing anything to actually DESIGN a car for women, they are just trying to use a marketing ploy. Lame.

Ford is probably the hardest to indentify IMO. I would love for the SVT division to be expanded to offer a performance version of every model......but that kind of thing takes a lot of $$$ that they just don't have right now. Nor does it make sense considering where gas prices are going. The "tuner" cars (SRT, AMG, STi, ///M, Mazdaspeed) are niche markets. They are not designed to be high volume sellers. The people interested in these cars generally do not care about gas mileage; they care about performance. The main purpose of these cars is to generate interest for the base model. This is where I DO believe the automotive press comes in. The 300 gets rave reviews everywhere, in part because of the awesome V8 engines that are offered. The car mags love this performance. But, the vast majority of actual owners bypass the SRT version and get the lower trim levels.
Also, take a look at Subaru since the WRX was introduced. The past 3 years (2003-2005) have all set records for sales, and all without having to do the "employee pricing" or otherwise price-slashing gimmick that Ford and GM have had to do. Bringing the WRX over has made people interested in Subarus.
The Five Hundred and Fusion have opened to some pretty ho-hum reviews. Imagine if Ford made them a bit more stylish and dropped in the 4.6L or better yet the 5.4L (maybe even turbo/supercharged!) engine. That would certainly garner some attention and interest. But, alas, they have decided not to do this.

A lot of people might not know how much $$$ Ford is investing in alternate fuel technologies......it's a lot! Ford is killing off other programs to pay for the research will be paramount to Ford in the next two decades. Ford really wants to be the alternate fuel leader of the domestic auto companies.....moreso the world. Many people love the SRT program at DCX and the Hemi engines....but those cars are going to be worth shit when gas is $5 per gallon. Ford is gearing up for the next decade where gas is expensive and hybrid and alternate fuel vehicles are necessary........not niche. You say this as if the other big auto makers (GM, DCX, Toyota, Honda, VW) aren't doing the same exact thing.

IMO, creating a brand for women is pretty lame. They'd be much better off killing the line altogether. Until they do, I believe they will continue to have brand-identity problems. Plus, with their current lineup, I don't see how anything is female oriented. All Mercury has is rebadged Fords (Grand Marquis = Crown Vic; Milan = Fusion; Montego = Five Hundred; Mariner = Escape; Mountaineer = Explorer; Monterey = Freestar). They aren't doing anything to actually DESIGN a car for women, they are just trying to use a marketing ploy. Lame.

The car doesn't have to be completely different to appeal to the female gender. Woman appreciate different colors and textures.....think fashion industry.


The "tuner" cars (SRT, AMG, STi, ///M, Mazdaspeed) are niche markets. They are not designed to be high volume sellers. The people interested in these cars generally do not care about gas mileage; they care about performance. The main purpose of these cars is to generate interest for the base model. This is where I DO believe the automotive press comes in. The 300 gets rave reviews everywhere, in part because of the awesome V8 engines that are offered. The car mags love this performance. But, the vast majority of actual owners bypass the SRT version and get the lower trim levels.

I think in two years that the SRT program is going to disappear.

Also, take a look at Subaru since the WRX was introduced. The past 3 years (2003-2005) have all set records for sales, and all without having to do the "employee pricing" or otherwise price-slashing gimmick that Ford and GM have had to do. Bringing the WRX over has made people interested in Subarus.


What people are interested in Subaru? Subaru is a 'nobody' in terms of US market share. You sound like such a fanboi.


The Five Hundred and Fusion have opened to some pretty ho-hum reviews. Imagine if Ford made them a bit more stylish and dropped in the 4.6L or better yet the 5.4L (maybe even turbo/supercharged!) engine. That would certainly garner some attention and interest. But, alas, they have decided not to do this.

You really need to stop thinking 20th century and open your mind. Gas will be $5 per gallon in 2008 (bet on it)......responsible auto companies are not interested in developing more V8 technology.

You say this as if the other big auto makers (GM, DCX, Toyota, Honda, VW) aren't doing the same exact thing.

DCX has a hybrid vehicle for sale?? What is it called? Does DCX have any flex-fuel vehicles available? I've never heard about them. GM is trying hybrid technology for 2007/2008 but their hybrid system is a joke compared to Toyota's and Ford's system. Ford is going to have 4 hybrid offerings for the model year 2007 available this fall (Escape, Mariner, Tribute, Fusion). In model year 2008 we will have 8 hybrid vehicles (Adding Edge, MKX, Milan, Zephyr). I remember reading recently that Honda is not investing anymore $$$ in hybrid versions of their line-up due to low sales. Toyota is the only good example of another company committed to alternate fuel. Not sure about VW....but they are certainly not advertising their offering of alternate fuel vehicles.

Please do not bring up diesel as alternate fuel......you only sound stupid considering the length of history diesel has been used in automobiles.

A lot of people might not know how much $$$ Ford is investing in alternate fuel technologies......it's a lot! Ford is killing off other programs to pay for the research will be paramount to Ford in the next two decades. Ford really wants to be the alternate fuel leader of the domestic auto companies.....moreso the world.

It's one thing to spend money on research it quite another to get results from that research. The key component in Innovation is making money. A creative idea that cannot be marketed is just a creative idea, but a creative idea that can make money is innovative. Toyota to me is innovative because they did research with hybrid technology and started making money with it. Ford and GM both need innovation to survive, no more of these pie in the sky research projects. Make money now or the long-term research project will be worthless.

The car doesn't have to be completely different to appeal to the female gender. Woman appreciate different colors and textures.....think fashion industry. What a waste of money and resources to have a completely separate organization that is devoted to having different colors and fabrics in identical cars. Why not just make a Fusion with different color options?

I think in two years that the SRT program is going to disappear. You also think that Ford will be completely turned around in 2 years, so I really don't put too much stock in what you "think". Do you have an argument why you think this will be the case?

What people are interested in Subaru? Subaru is a 'nobody' in terms of US market share. You sound like such a fanboi. Do you have a problem with reading comprehension or do you just like to read what you want to read? Since Subaru introduced the WRX, they have set sales records every year. This further reinforces my argument that these niche cars are not supposed to be high volume sellers, they are to get buyers interested in the brand. And I'm the fanboi? Compared to you, who thinks Ford can do no wrong despite what all the data says, I am nowhere near a fanboi.

You really need to stop thinking 20th century and open your mind. Gas will be $5 per gallon in 2008 (bet on it)......responsible auto companies are not interested in developing more V8 technology. You need to come back to reality. There are many, many people who will continue to buy high performance vehicles, regardless of the price of gas. As long as there are people to buy these cars, manufacturers will continue to make them. And again, many of these models are used to get customers interested in the brand. Unforunately, Ford is shutting itself out of this market segment.

DCX has a hybrid vehicle for sale?? What is it called? Does DCX have any flex-fuel vehicles available? I've never heard about them. Just because you're ignorant is no excuse. My company has been working with GM and DCX on hybrid technology since the early 90s. We produce hybrid-electric drivetrains for vehicles where it is actually useful - buses and light trucks. In fact, my company and our customer (Orion Bus Industries - which is owned by DCX!) is the world leader in this kind of hybrid-electric technology. Our system offers more than 50% better gas mileage than a traditional diesel bus. You can't say the same for any hybrid engine that Ford puts out.

It's one thing to spend money on research it quite another to get results from that research. The key component in Innovation is making money. A creative idea that can be marketed is just a creative idea, but a creative idea that can make money is innovative. Toyota to me is innovative because they did research with hybrid technology and started making money with it.


Toyota has really only had sales success with hybrid technology in the Prius which sold more on being trendy then actual merit. Hybrid technology prior to the year 2006 has been a novelty technology. Sales of the Escape Hybrid and Mariner Hybrid increased 145% last month based not on novelty but necessity. Ford is going to start making money off the research once gas prices force the public into hybrid necessity on a larger scale. Currently only two companies are prepared for that shift......Ford and Toyota. Everyone else is playing catch-up.

A lot of members here that live in the USA tend to bash the domestics at every opportunity.......is that to say you wish they would go under completely? How many people on this forum believe that the destruction of our domestic automotive industry would not impact their life? I would love to have a discussion with those of this mindset to point-out some connections they may have over-looked. The US is in real danger here people.......we are a nation in debt, like many of our citizens. If we don't start to protect our manufacturing base......we may lose our status of 'World Leader'. Don't think it hasn't happened to many other countries throughout history.....the USA is not immune.


It's the workers in those companies that have caused their own downfall. And before I get flamed I believe unions were a great thing when people needed them, now it's out of control. Here's some problems because of Unions in the auto industry:

1.) It's near impossible to fire an incompetent worker without a book full of paperwork. Even then mangers are still scared of being sued. This takes up a lot of money.

2.)Pensions and wages are out of control. Joe blow factory worker making 90k a year is a little excessive. But here's the kicker, because of Joe Blow making that kind of money they have infiltrated thousands of neighborhoods with those higher wages and now it actually costs more to live. I.E. Inflation. Good for Joe for making that kind of cash but if they hadn't been demanding higher wages in the first place a dollar would go a lot farther and the companies wouldn't be in financial hell. And those workers would still be experiencing similar qualities of life.

3.)Unions has turned the automotive industry into a business of providing benefits, and they have to sell autos to pay for those benefits.

4.)Automotive Unions (and many others) are all part of the "Big Business" problem in today's Government. And is part of the reason why Bush or any border State governor won't send national guard down to the US/Mexican Border. Because the politicans are scared of the unions and scared of the liberal media. Unions make a small factor in this but it's there.

5.)Unions are why Harley-Davidson's are pieces of crap (they are getting better) and why a US made motorcycle costs 16 to 24k while I can go buy an American made honda that will out perform and outlast that harley for a fraction of the cost.

What benefit do you get when you buy a domestic car? Nothing. Other than trying to support your fellow american. But any car you buy foreign or domestic is helping the American industry in some form or the other. Domestic cars are no longer better made, sometimes it's worse, it's not more reliable, and it's certainly not cheaper. My wife has a almost new chevy and it's starting to have more serious issues than my RX8 (which i haven't had any serious issues with). It's only a year old and the air conditioning doesn't work.

Bottom line, socialist programs like unions are destroying our economy. There's a time and a place for a Union, like during civil rights but is it really necessary anymore? I'm not entirely against unions, I think they are just taking their rights over the top. For instance, like the teachers unions. During the presidential election they pretty much went mafia on everyone in it and said "WE WILL SUPPORT JOHN KERRY!" My mother didn't want to have anything to do with that narcissistic socialist. But yet she had no voice in the matter. She of course wasn't forced to vote for the man, thank God. But the teachers Union wasn't the only union to do that.

To protect the domestic car industry the Workers are going to have to take a pay cut (not anything HUGE) and a pension cut (not huge either). And that will save domestic cars. I guess that was the whole point of my rant.

..phew I'm done...got off on a tangent...yeah...come on...let the flaming begin. I know my opinion isn't a popular one.

What a waste of money and resources to have a completely separate organization that is devoted to having different colors and fabrics in identical cars. Why not just make a Fusion with different color options?

It's not your money so why are you complaining?

You also think that Ford will be completely turned around in 2 years, so I really don't put too much stock in what you "think". Do you have an argument why you think this will be the case?

I never thought that Ford would be turned around in 2 years.....most likely 10. Big companies like Ford move slowly.....but the point is that they are changing for the future of the industry. Also, I think I already made my point about why SRT would disappear in 2 years......$5 per gallon gas. SRT vehicles are not exotics that draw millionares to the showroom.....they are $40K and draw Nascar fans.....middle-class Americans who absolutely care about gas prices.

Do you have a problem with reading comprehension or do you just like to read what you want to read? Since Subaru introduced the WRX, they have set sales records every year. This further reinforces my argument that these niche cars are not supposed to be high volume sellers, they are to get buyers interested in the brand. And I'm the fanboi? Compared to you, who thinks Ford can do no wrong despite what all the data says, I am nowhere near a fanboi.

What does sales records mean? I am not a Ford fanboi, but I can't stand people that have made up their mind on an issue/company and are not willing to change their opinion......ever. You come on to every thread about Ford and bash the company. You are a hater.

You need to come back to reality. There are many, many people who will continue to buy high performance vehicles, regardless of the price of gas. As long as there are people to buy these cars, manufacturers will continue to make them. And again, many of these models are used to get customers interested in the brand. Unforunately, Ford is shutting itself out of this market segment.

"many many people" ......how many is 'many many'?


Just because you're ignorant is no excuse. My company has been working with GM and DCX on hybrid technology since the early 90s. We produce hybrid-electric drivetrains for vehicles where it is actually useful - buses and light trucks. In fact, my company and our customer (Orion Bus Industries - which is owned by DCX!) is the world leader in this kind of hybrid-electric technology. Our system offers more than 50% better gas mileage than a traditional diesel bus. You can't say the same for any hybrid engine that Ford puts out.

So why hasn't DCX used this amazing 'world leading' technology your company helped design in their light vehicles? By the way, the hybrid that Ford uses was purchased from Toyota.....so I guess you think Toyota's system is inferior as well.

I never thought that Ford would be turned around in 2 years.....most likely 10. Big companies like Ford move slowly.....but the point is that they are changing for the future of the industry. Also, I think I already made my point about why SRT would disappear in 2 years......$5 per gallon gas. SRT vehicles are not exotics that draw millionares to the showroom.....they are $40K and draw Nascar fans.....middle-class Americans who absolutely care about gas prices. I guess I could talk until I was blue in the face and it would never sink in with you. There will ALWAYS be a market for high performance/low gas mileage cars. Believe what you want, but that's a fact. They still sell sports cars in Europe, don't they, despite gas at $7+ a gallon?

What does sales records mean? It means that in 2003, they sold more vehicles in the US then they ever have. Then, in 2004, they sold more vehicles in the US then they ever have. Then, in 2005, they sold more vehicles in the US then they ever have. All without the "employee discout" and price-slashing gimmicks that Ford had to use, all while losing market share.

I am not a Ford fanboi, but I can't stand people that have made up their mind on an issue/company and are not willing to change their opinion......ever. You come on to every thread about Ford and bash the company. You are a hater. Please, you are the biggest Ford lover on here. Take this thread, for example. You say that you want to have a discussion about the big 3 automakers, but it is now clear that all you want to do is telling everybody how rosy things are at Ford, the same as you do in every other Ford thread. I, on the other hand, recognize that Ford is in HUGE trouble, and I have offered some suggestions (axing Mercury, rebranding the other brands, bring back SVT, etc), but you just dismiss them out-of-hand.

I am certainly willing to change my mind on Ford. They just have to start building something worth owner. Right now, they build crap. You on the other hand, tell us, "Ok, maybe Ford hasn't been very good in the past. But, wait until you see what we've got in store for you guys. Trust us. Start buying Fords and you will see." Well, I for one have to see it to believe it. Nothing Ford has done in the recent past makes me believe that they will be coming out with anything interesting in the future. I will buy anything that interests me. So far, I've owned 1 of these brands of vehicles: Oldsmobile, Mitsubishi, Porsche, BMW, Hyundai, Subaru, and Mazda. The only one I soured on was Mitsubishi. I would buy any of the others again. If anything, I am a BMW and Porsche fanboi, not a Subaru fanboi.

So why hasn't DCX used this amazing 'world leading' technology your company helped design in their light vehicles? You'll have to ask DCX about that; I don't work for them. I actually work on the C-17 flight control system and have nothing to do with the hybrid electic vehicle (HEV) side of the business. I can only guess that maybe they don't think hybrid electrics will be a long-term solution or that they have something better in the pipeline. Just because Ford is staking its entire future on hybrid electrics doesn't mean that it will pan out.

By the way, the hybrid that Ford uses was purchased from Toyota.....so I guess you think Toyota's system is inferior as well. So, here you are reprimanding people for not buying American, while Ford is going out to buy Toyota technology because they can't develop anything on their own??

Wow. A more incorrect statement I have not come across in some time. I'm guessing you call Mazda "innovative" because they have a rotary engine in one (very poor selling) vehicle, while you neglect to point out that almost all of their other cars are built on platforms designed by a company other than Mazda. Toyota, meanwhile, is at the forefront of hybrid-electric technology. No matter what you think of this technology, there is no denying the fact that there are many, many consumers demanding these cars and that they are selling like hotcakes. Also, take a look at the comparo in the May C&D...$15,000 compacts. With gas prices rising, this is a segment that is likely to explode in the near future...cheap cars, nice features, and great gas mileage. Included in this comparo: Dodge Caliber, Honda Fit, Hyundai Accent, Kia Rio5, Nissan Versa, Suzuki Reno, Toyota Yaris. Conspicuously absent are any Ford/GM products: a Focus or Cobalt equipped as these cars run up to $18K and the retooled Aveo isn't available. So, Ford and GM are already behind on the curve in this market segment.

In conclusion...ah, just read it :)

You are going all over the place with your arguments. What i said has to do with one thing only, that innovation has not led to mass profits at toyota and honda. Copying and improving has.

You are going all over the place with your arguments. What i said has to do with one thing only, that innovation has not led to mass profits at toyota and honda. Copying and improving has.

Innovation = copying and improving the previous design. There are very, very, very, very few truly brand new ideas. Almost all advances, in every industry, are based on improving something previous.

I guess I could talk until I was blue in the face and it would never sink in with you. There will ALWAYS be a market for high performance/low gas mileage cars. Believe what you want, but that's a fact. They still sell sports cars in Europe, don't they, despite gas at $7+ a gallon?

I am not saying that the performance car market will disappear completely.....but an SRT version of every model will not survive in a $5 per gallon gas market.

It means that in 2003, they sold more vehicles in the US then they ever have. Then, in 2004, they sold more vehicles in the US then they ever have. Then, in 2005, they sold more vehicles in the US then they ever have. All without the "employee discout" and price-slashing gimmicks that Ford had to use, all while losing market share.

Well that is commendable......good for Subaru (no hating here)

Please, you are the biggest Ford lover on here. Take this thread, for example. You say that you want to have a discussion about the big 3 automakers, but it is now clear that all you want to do is telling everybody how rosy things are at Ford, the same as you do in every other Ford thread. I, on the other hand, recognize that Ford is in HUGE trouble, and I have offered some suggestions (axing Mercury, rebranding the other brands, bring back SVT, etc), but you just dismiss them out-of-hand.

It's not hard to be the biggest Ford lover on a Mazda forum :D: My intention for the discussion was not to talk about any one domestic auto company but rather to discuss the economic impact of their demise as a whole. Someone else brought-up Ford and I felt compelled to defend. Your suggestions about how to fix Ford are laughable since you are obviously not in the industry. Do I tell you how to build flight controls? Axing Mercury!!! Their sales are up 30% this year.....you sound stupid for even suggesting that. How does rebranding help define brand identity? Lincoln and Volvo.....are you serious? What company do you think most people would respond as the safest cars on the road? Why would Ford mess with Volvo at all?....they have great brand identity.

I am certainly willing to change my mind on Ford. They just have to start building something worth owner. Right now, they build crap. You on the other hand, tell us, "Ok, maybe Ford hasn't been very good in the past. But, wait until you see what we've got in store for you guys. Trust us. Start buying Fords and you will see." Well, I for one have to see it to believe it. Nothing Ford has done in the recent past makes me believe that they will be coming out with anything interesting in the future. I will buy anything that interests me. So far, I've owned 1 of these brands of vehicles: Oldsmobile, Mitsubishi, Porsche, BMW, Hyundai, Subaru, and Mazda. The only one I soured on was Mitsubishi. I would buy any of the others again. If anything, I am a BMW and Porsche fanboi, not a Subaru fanboi.

You are not in the minority by having to see to believe......I am the same way. In fact, I might have a similar opinion of Ford if I didn't work for the company and have access to future vehicle information. I understand about buying what interests you.....and I hope that one day Ford has such a product and that you are open to giving it try. Being of German decent, I am also a big fan of Porsche and BMW......so don't confuse my pride in Ford for me being a fanboi.

You'll have to ask DCX about that; I don't work for them. I actually work on the C-17 flight control system and have nothing to do with the hybrid electic vehicle (HEV) side of the business. I can only guess that maybe they don't think hybrid electrics will be a long-term solution or that they have something better in the pipeline. Just because Ford is staking its entire future on hybrid electrics doesn't mean that it will pan out.

I don't see how hybrid electronic systems are not long-term solutions......but I can tell you that Ford is investing in every area of alternate fuel research.....especially hydrogen.

So, here you are reprimanding people for not buying American, while Ford is going out to buy Toyota technology because they can't develop anything on their own??

I am not reprimanding anyone.......I merely wanted to have a discussion. Hello??? I have an RX8 which is hardly American. I am not living the perfect life....but I do understand that we as a country are heading down a dangerous road.

It's not hard to be the biggest Ford lover on a Mazda forum :D: My intention for the discussion was not to talk about any one domestic auto company but rather to discuss the economic impact of their demise as a whole. Someone else brought-up Ford and I felt compelled to defend. Your suggestions about how to fix Ford are laughable since you are obviously not in the industry. Do I tell you how to build flight controls? Axing Mercury!!! Their sales are up 30% this year.....you sound stupid for even suggesting that. How does rebranding help define brand identity? Lincoln and Volvo.....are you serious? What company do you think most people would respond as the safest cars on the road? Why would Ford mess with Volvo at all?....they have great brand identity. Does Ford have some secret sales numbers that they show employees just to get their hopes up? A quick look at the YTD sales figures shows that Mercury sales are down 5.6% compared to last year, Ford is down 3.6%, Volvo is down 11.1%.
http://www.corporate-ir.net/ireye/ir_site.zhtml?ticker=F&script=414&layout=-6&item_id=850725

Ford US sales down 7% so far this year, while Toyota is up 8.5% and Honda is up 8.3%. But keep telling us Ford is fine...

I don't see how hybrid electronic systems are not long-term solutions......but I can tell you that Ford is investing in every area of alternate fuel research.....especially hydrogen. Hybrids still depend on petroleum to run. For the long-term, we need to start migrating to alternative energy sources. Hybrids are a short term solution, but so are diesels and fuel cells.

Does Ford have some secret sales numbers that they show employees just to get their hopes up? A quick look at the YTD sales figures shows that Mercury sales are down 5.6% compared to last year, Ford is down 3.6%, Volvo is down 11.1%.
http://www.corporate-ir.net/ireye/ir_site.zhtml?ticker=F&script=414&layout=-6&item_id=850725

I am talking about April '05 vs April '06.......Mercury car sales are up 30% and the Mariner is up 40%. The Mountaineer and Monterey (the only losers) will eventually be terminated. I never said Volvo sales were up.....only that brand identity is high.


Hybrids still depend on petroleum to run. For the long-term, we need to start migrating to alternative energy sources. Hybrids are a short term solution, but so are diesels and fuel cells.

What in the term 'hybrid electric' denotes fossil fuel burning? A hybrid electric can consist of 100% ethanol burning/electric or hydrogen burning/electric. I do agree that alternate fuels are the future.....and they can be incorporated into hybrid powertrains.

I am talking about April '05 vs April '06.......Mercury car sales are up 30% and the Mariner is up 40%. The Mountaineer and Monterey (the only losers) will eventually be terminated. I never said Volvo sales were up.....only that brand identity is high. Ah, I see, you're just cherry-picking the data that makes the numbers look the best. Despite a 21.7% (not 30%) increase in April sales, Mercury is still down 5.6% on the year.

Ford US sales down 7% so far this year, while Toyota is up 8.5% and Honda is up 8.3%. But keep telling us Ford is fine...

I never said Ford was 'fine' right this second......obviously laying off 30,000 people is not something a company doing 'fine' does. I realize I cannot disclose the things that I have seen.......but, I can tell you that everything you've bashed Ford about is not a secret.....Ford understands the problems facing the company. Toyota & Honda are doing great right now because they were able to forecast the change in American market segment interests far sooner than the domestics. They had small cars ready to go when gas went over $3. They have nailed down their quality processes in design and production which resulted in quality products. Even more powerful is the perception that everything they make is going to be high quality. The domestic companies face the exact opposite market perception of every product they make will be unreliable.

Ford is paying attention and can see what the customers want. We are moving towards more fuel efficient car-based SUV's......the largest SUV's will have more efficient diesel engine options in 2007 starting with the Navigator. There is more......but I cannot say at this time. I am not trying to convince you buy Ford vehicles.......just to make you understand that Ford understands their problems and is working to fix them.

Ah, I see, you're just cherry-picking the data that makes the numbers look the best. Despite a 21.7% (not 30%) increase in April sales, Mercury is still down 5.6% on the year.


Not cherry picking exactly. You think the entire brand needs to be killed even though most of the nameplates have increased significantly.

Grand Marquis +32.7%
Montego +26%
Mariner +39.5%
Milan N/A

Ford disagrees with killing the brand and would rather cut the loser nameplates instead. The Monterey minivan at neg 51% really brings the entire brands #'s down.....don't you agree? After looking at that chart....do you still think that Ford should kill Mercury? I mean REALLY kill the brand when so many of the nameplates are doing very well.

Not cherry picking exactly. You think the entire brand needs to be killed even though most of the nameplates have increased significantly.

Grand Marquis +32.7%
Montego +26%
Mariner +39.5%
Milan N/A
Again, taking one month's sales figures doesn't tell you very much. Is it an anomaly? Or maybe April 2005 was a particularly slow month for Ford? Or it could be any of a number of other reasons. The trend so far for the year is a decline in sales.

Ford disagrees with killing the brand and would rather cut the loser nameplates instead. The Monterey minivan at neg 51% really brings the entire brands #'s down.....don't you agree? After looking at that chart....do you still think that Ford should kill Mercury? I mean REALLY kill the brand when so many of the nameplates are doing very well. Yes, I believe it is absolutely the best thing to do for Ford as a company to ax Mercury because I think that the Toyota and DCX models for branding are the correct way to go. Mercury has no identity. All Mercury does is take Ford products and rebadge them. It is a very narrow view to say, "Well, Mercury had x number of sales, so we need to keep it afloat." Think of the effect on the company as a whole if they restructured the way I said. Many of those Mercury sales will go to the equivalent Ford vehicle. Plus, Mazda, Ford, and Lincoln/Volvo could have their own identities, also helping sales.

Ford is paying attention and can see what the customers want. We are moving towards more fuel efficient car-based SUV's......the largest SUV's will have more efficient diesel engine options in 2007 starting with the Navigator. There is more......but I cannot say at this time. I am not trying to convince you buy Ford vehicles.......just to make you understand that Ford understands their problems and is working to fix them. Every company has problems and is trying to fix them, even the Toyotas and Hondas of the world. What matters is whether or not what they are doing will really help. Ford has shown me nothing over the past 15 years that would make me believe that they are capable of turning the company around, especially since all the other companies around them are also continually improving. I guess only time will tell.

But Mercury now has a VERY hot spokewoman on their commercials. If this line must be dropped, move her to the Mazda ones becuase they're kind of lame.

Yes, I believe it is absolutely the best thing to do for Ford as a company to ax Mercury because I think that the Toyota and DCX models for branding are the correct way to go. Mercury has no identity. All Mercury does is take Ford products and rebadge them. It is a very narrow view to say, "Well, Mercury had x number of sales, so we need to keep it afloat." Think of the effect on the company as a whole if they restructured the way I said. Many of those Mercury sales will go to the equivalent Ford vehicle. Plus, Mazda, Ford, and Lincoln/Volvo could have their own identities, also helping sales.

I agree that some Mercury products too closely resemble Ford products....but the NEW Mercury product offerings should show that has changed. The Milan looks nothing like the Fusion. Mercury is not going to get a version of the Edge/MKX vehicle....but rather a completely different CUV which will only be from Mercury. I completely disagree that Mercury needs to be killed. I think the image of a female marketed brand is genius and will be well received by woman in the US.

I respect your opinions on what you think Ford should do with it's brands......but I don't agree with any of them.

Subaru setting sales records isn't too difficult to imagine considering their shitty sales history.

There's a fanboi in the room, and he doesn't work for Ford...

Subaru setting sales records isn't too difficult to imagine considering their shitty sales history.

There's a fanboi in the room, and he doesn't work for Ford...

How about if you don't have anything to contribute to this conversation you keep your mouth shut, you rednecked retard. There is absolutely nothing in this thread where I promote Subaru, except to say that they have set sales records every year for the past three years, as supplementing evidence to my argument that high performance divisions improve sales of other product lines. I also say that Toyota and Honda have increasing sales this year. Does that make me a Honda and Toyota fanboi?

At least Subaru can turn a profit. Loser.

North Americans are financing a huge war machine - China!

Most only see quarter profit earnings, the more sophisticated might see trade imbalance and debt, but it goes much further than that.

Some day you will see China rise and rear it's ugly head (no thanks to the lucrative North American economy).

North Americans are financing a huge war machine - China!

Most only see quarter profit earnings, the more sophisticated might see trade imbalance and debt, but it goes much further than that.

Some day you will see China rise and rear it's ugly head (no thanks to the lucrative North American economy).
And this relates to the Big 3 in what way?

And this relates to the Big 3 in what way?

The Big 3 like many other big companies are investing heavily in China right now. I think his comment is definitely on topic.

This will be a bit off topic, but I think the fears over China are overblown. I don't want to contrue that I support their government, or any of their political agendas. That said, U.S. investment in them, and vice versa, brings us closer and closer and more dependent on each other. When has economic co-dependence led to war? Will we in the future be fighting over fossil fuels - if you listen to the Doom and Gloom report, of course we will. But until it happens, it hasn't happened, and North America has huge oil reserves. Is China building a huge military industrial complex, maybe so, but our economic ties still remain.

Further, China is a socio-political anomaly. They allow wide sweeping free enterprise in Hong Kong and many of their other industrial cities now - Shanghai, etc...yet they have a strict quasi-communist government in control (read Marx's manifesto, they don't completely match the description). This government takes over most successful private enterprises consistently and aborbs it back into their bureaucracy. I don't believe these two sides, the government vs. free enterprise, can in the long term co-exist. It creates too much a society of the haves and have-nots. And once the have-nots become more educated and catch on to what they are missing, that's when the party is over. Funny, I thought that was one of the primary reasons behind political revolution in the Manifesto.

In short, I don't see any issue in investing in China, or them investing in us. A policy of Isolationism has never worked for the U.S., and we are not the power we are today by following such political/economic policy.

This will be a bit off topic, but I think the fears over China are overblown. I don't want to contrue that I support their government, or any of their political agendas. That said, U.S. investment in them, and vice versa, brings us closer and closer and more dependent on each other. When has economic co-dependence led to war? Will we in the future be fighting over fossil fuels - if you listen to the Doom and Gloom report, of course we will. But until it happens, it hasn't happened, and North America has huge oil reserves. Is China building a huge military industrial complex, maybe so, but our economic ties still remain.

Further, China is a socio-political anomaly. They allow wide sweeping free enterprise in Hong Kong and many of their other industrial cities now - Shanghai, etc...yet they have a strict quasi-communist government in control (read Marx's manifesto, they don't completely match the description). This government takes over most successful private enterprises consistently and aborbs it back into their bureaucracy. I don't believe these two sides, the government vs. free enterprise, can in the long term co-exist. It creates too much a society of the haves and have-nots. And once the have-nots become more educated and catch on to what they are missing, that's when the party is over. Funny, I thought that was one of the primary reasons behind political revolution in the Manifesto.

In short, I don't see any issue in investing in China, or them investing in us. A policy of Isolationism has never worked for the U.S., and we are not the power we are today by following such political/economic policy.


I agree 100% that the more the US is integrated into China and vise versa that the lower the probability of a military dispute with them becomes. However, China is not a country that cares about the US staying the 'world leader'......the Chinese want that title for themselves. I am not against globalization because I am an educated person who will have options no matter what occurs in this country. However, I am not blind to the fact that many Americans are not educated and are being hurt by globalization. Globalization is an world equalizer.......countries like the US which are the richest in the world will only be brought down during this equalization. Countries like India, Russia & China in which the majority of the country is below the poverty level, they can only go up through globalization.

The disappearance of a middle class is a dangerous thing for a nation. Like it or not a large part of the US middle class is not considered 'skilled labor'. Many of these people do not have the ability to be retrained to become 'skilled labor'. Some certainly will.......but not most, most will have to take lower paying jobs and drop from the middle class. When people are poor they become desperate......crime inevitably increases. One cannot deny that the destruction of the middle class in the US will make some parts of the country more dangerous to live in. Quality of life for most US citizens will decrease in the next decade.

I forsee Honda and Toyota ending up in the Big 2's position in about 10 years. Just look at the lack of inspiration in their product lines. They are already falling into the trap that GM and Ford fell into...Everyone buys our stuff for no other reason than they always have, so we don't have to continue improving our designs.

Assuming Ford and GM make it through the big slump they are in at the moment, and I feel that they will. They will be in the best possible position to regain market share with a vengence. Quality and looks are improving rapidly. And sales will go up. The UAW needs to be cut off at the knees, and recovery would happen rapidly. But therein lies the heart of the problem. The fall of GM and Ford would result in the next Great Depression (most likely on a global scale). North America (and primarily the US) are their only unprofitable markets. I don't know for sure, but I hope that a considerable portion of their posted losses are going toward making better and brighter future products.

The current new releases are a good sign of what's to come. And if they lead the way to ethanol powered vehicles (for which the US would be a major fuel producer), no one could stop them. Both are designing ethanol-electric hybrid prototypes if I recall correctly.

I agree with much of this.

Honda's auto division would be in serious trouble without the US... something like 90% of their sales. Hondas are no longer inexpensive, new and interesting, nor a great value. Hondas sell on their reputation. Much of the same applies to Toyota as well... some of the most boring cars I have ever seen. Even the Scion's don't interest me...

Granted my views may be skewed coming from a manufacturing background, and working in the Auto industry now as an engineer...

But I can say that if the Big 3 (or Detroit 3 since they are shrinking) went under, the US economy would be hurt badly. The auto industry (globally) would also suffer because all auto manufacturers with facilities in the US share about 90% of the tier 1 and 2 auto suppliers. If GM for example went under, the suppliers would lose a HUGE customer and eventually lose money. This in turn would affect their ability to maintain the low costs resulting from high production, and it would certainly begin affecting Toyota, Nissan, Honda, DaimlerChrysler, etc etc in terms of quality and cost of parts.

Also consider the loss of jobs, as the auto industry supports many small towns employing upwards of 7000 per assy plant. With those people out of work, nobody is going to spend any money on luxuries and the economy crashes there as well.


And about China (strictly speaking mfg, etc), I am not concerned at this point. Cheap labor isn't everything....at this point, China's manufacturing is behind about 20 years worth of technology. Many of their workers have no clue what the parts they are making do, and are only trained in their process. This means workers can't multi-task like the skilled auto workers here, and can't recognize quality probs as easily b/c they don't know what the part they are making is for a car (this isn't a slam or generalization...this is from an article about employee training....in an effort to save cost, Chinese factory workers are not trained to understand/improve their processes like the workers are in the States).

They have some catching up to do before they are a real threat. The main way to fight it though is to value quality, and not always buy the cheapest thing available.

Lastly, a lot of auto companies are building factories in China..........but this is NOT to save cost and move our factories overseas. It is very expensive to ship cars, and China is expected to be the new automotive gold mine. The economy in China is starting to improve where more and more Chinese people are able to afford to buy cars....it is expected to explode into a new automotive market with the dense population. A lot of the companies, like Toyota, Ford, GM, Nissan, etc are building factories THERE to sell cars THERE! They are not being imported to the US.

As for the future of Toyota/Honda in comparison to the Detroit 3, you are comparing apples and oranges. Toyota is a conservative company building reliable cars for the masses (and can be boring, yes), but design isn't the key to success. You can't please everyone. The main reason Toyota/Honda are doing well is because they are building to match demand, not in a production race like the Detroit 3 were in the 80's and 90's. We build what will sell. It's also about technology....while GM sat back and reaped the rewards of big trucks and SUV's, Toyota was thinking about the future and developing one of the most high-tech hybrid systems yet (not all hybrids are created equal...Toyota sold their technology from 10years ago to another auto manufacturer in the past year). As a result, the Detroit 3 were crying for legislation to limit Toyota's hybrid production but the reality was they had an opportunity to develop something themselves, but instead kept making large SUV's without developing something to cope with future gas prices.

This forward thinking and safe, long-term planning = business success.


In short, don't believe everything you read in the paper...a lot of it is tainted with politics, etc..................

As for the future of Toyota/Honda in comparison to the Detroit 3, you are comparing apples and oranges. Toyota is a conservative company building reliable cars for the masses (and can be boring, yes), but design isn't the key to success. You can't please everyone. The main reason Toyota/Honda are doing well is because they are building to match demand, not in a production race like the Detroit 3 were in the 80's and 90's. We build what will sell. It's also about technology....while GM sat back and reaped the rewards of big trucks and SUV's, Toyota was thinking about the future and developing one of the most high-tech hybrid systems yet (not all hybrids are created equal...Toyota sold their technology from 10years ago to another auto manufacturer in the past year). As a result, the Detroit 3 were crying for legislation to limit Toyota's hybrid production but the reality was they had an opportunity to develop something themselves, but instead kept making large SUV's without developing something to cope with future gas prices.

This forward thinking and safe, long-term planning = business success.

I agree to a certain extent, however gas-electric hybrids are still dependent on a failing resource. Once the true cost of ownership hits Joe consumer, demand for such vehicles will rapidly decrease. It's a stop gap measure, that Toyota had the forsight to take advantage of, but it will not sustain them in the long run. The Camry is becoming the Japanese version of a Buick sedan, and just keeps getting bigger and bigger. Short of an injection of inspiration, Toyota and Honda will be losing market share vice gaining. It's hard to stay motivated once you're on top, while it's very easy to be motivated from the bottom (just look at Hyundai, Toyota and Honda's next big threat).

But I can say that if the Big 3 (or Detroit 3 since they are shrinking) went under, the US economy would be hurt badly. The auto industry (globally) would also suffer because all auto manufacturers with facilities in the US share about 90% of the tier 1 and 2 auto suppliers. If GM for example went under, the suppliers would lose a HUGE customer and eventually lose money. This in turn would affect their ability to maintain the low costs resulting from high production, and it would certainly begin affecting Toyota, Nissan, Honda, DaimlerChrysler, etc etc in terms of quality and cost of parts.

Well put, I agree 100%.


Also consider the loss of jobs, as the auto industry supports many small towns employing upwards of 7000 per assy plant. With those people out of work, nobody is going to spend any money on luxuries and the economy crashes there as well.

....and 7,000 is really just automotive sector jobs......start counting the grocery stores, salons, restaurants, bars, etc that service these small automotive towns and you basically kill the town as a whole. It's a sad and scary thing.

And about China (strictly speaking mfg, etc), I am not concerned at this point. Cheap labor isn't everything....at this point, China's manufacturing is behind about 20 years worth of technology. Many of their workers have no clue what the parts they are making do, and are only trained in their process. This means workers can't multi-task like the skilled auto workers here, and can't recognize quality probs as easily b/c they don't know what the part they are making is for a car (this isn't a slam or generalization...this is from an article about employee training....in an effort to save cost, Chinese factory workers are not trained to understand/improve their processes like the workers are in the States).

Absolutely true. You can say that American manufacturing labor is too expensive.....but it is the best in the world next to Japan. Chinese labor will take many many years to get to the same standard as the US which has been in the manufacturing business for more than 100 years.



Lastly, a lot of auto companies are building factories in China..........but this is NOT to save cost and move our factories overseas. It is very expensive to ship cars, and China is expected to be the new automotive gold mine. The economy in China is starting to improve where more and more Chinese people are able to afford to buy cars....it is expected to explode into a new automotive market with the dense population. A lot of the companies, like Toyota, Ford, GM, Nissan, etc are building factories THERE to sell cars THERE! They are not being imported to the US.

I don't think finished automobiles will ever be built in China by GM, Ford & DCX for shipment to the US. However, I know for a fact that components for our domestic autos are currently and will continue to be sourced in China. I have seen major increases in Chinese suppliers for domestic auto components in the last 2 years. I agree the the large investments by the Big 3 are more about getting their foot in the China door before Toyota closes it. But the automotive suppliers want into China to supply the world.....not just the Chinese market.