Re: Consumer Reports misinforms about cars

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Steven M. Scharf - 06 May 2004 10:21 GMT

<MikeHunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:409548AA.36E2494B@mailcity.com...

> Look at the first number of the VIN#. A '1' indicates 'made in
> the America' of more than 75% American parts. '2' made in Canada
> of more than 75% American parts. '3' made in Mexico of more than
> 75% American parts. '4' made in America of more than 45% but less
> than 75% American parts. '5' made in America of less than 45%
> American parts. Most of the so call American made foreign cars
> are 4 and 5 with over a third being made in Japan with a 'J' as
> the first digit. Honda make more of the vehicle the sell in the
> US, in the US. Toyota for the most part merely assembles vehicle
> in the US with the exception of those build in the joint
> GM/Toyota plant in California. GM insisted they be at least 75%
> American. On the other hand over 90% of the Ford vehicles offered
> for sale in the US are a '1' On the over 85% of the GM vehicles
> offered for sale in the US are a '1' The majority of the
> remainder are 2 and 3. Even some of the other brands sold by GM
> and Ford will soon be assembled in the US as well. Personally I
> no longer buy any vehicle from any manufacture that is not a '1'
> Like they say check the label, buy American help your county in
> time of war.

If only it were that simple. The domestic content rules are hopelessly
contorted. They were designed to artificially boost the percentages of the
big 3 (at the time), in order to mislead the buying public.

The most glaring flaw is the value of labor is not included in the
calculations. Often, vehicles assembled in Mexico or Canada will have lower
actual domestic content, by value than vehicles assembled in the U.S., but
will show a higher domestic content on the window sticker. This suits the
purposes of the U.S. based automakers who are desperately trying to move as
much assembly outside the U.S. as possible.

Other flaws are related to how content from outside suppliers is counted.

The best of all worlds would be a vehicle assembled in the U.S., by a U.S.
manufacturer (GM or Ford), that also has very high domestic parts content.
Unfortunately, this information is not readily available.

The dealer organization for non-U.S. based manufacturers is understandably
upset with the stacked deck. See:
"http://www.aiam.org/main_pre_det.asp?PRID=13"

The labeling should be changed. It should state:

1. The country of assembly
2. The percentage of U.S. content, not including Mexican or Canadian content
3. The country of the corporation

Of course Ford and GM would fight this like crazy. It would force them to
admit that many so-called "domestic models" often have very, very little
actual U.S. content. Honda, Toyota, etc., would be happy to go to such a
labeling system.

The best thing to do when buying a new vehicle is to consider first where
the vehicle is assembled. Eliminate vehicles not assembled in the U.S., and
the U.S. doesn't include any other countries!

Second, look at the domestic content of parts, though this information is
not easily available. A good rule of thumb is that for U.S. makers divide
the percentage on the window sticker by 2, and for non-U.S. makers, multiply
the percentage on the window sticker by 1.5. This corrects for the
contortions in the domestic content rules.

Third, in the unlikely event that there is still a close race between models
you are considering, look at the country of origin of the manufacturer.

I think the most amusing abuse of the domestic content law is how Ford, at
one point, turned the Crown Vic and Marquis into imports, to get around some
CAF? issues. This was pre-NAFTA, and they used a Mexican axle and some
Japanese shocks, to lower the domestic content to below 75% so they could
get these models to be "imports." This was prior to the content labeling
law, so they didn't have to disclose the low domestic content on the label.
After the passage of the domestic content labeling law, they switched these
vehicles back to domestics (by which time they had increased the fuel
economy of their domestic line so CAF? was no longer a problem).

Reply to this Message

StonyMason@mailcity.com - 06 May 2004 20:19 GMT

Ford has two plants building the CV.. They said in the Senate
hearings that if the CAFE was raised they could not sell the
CV without a $500 guzzler tax. The Senate did not care. Ford
had to shut down the US production and move all of the
production to Canada and drop the American parts content to
less than 75% so it could be classed with the 4cy cars Ford
builds in Mexico to get buy the gas guzzler tax. Later as more
of the V6 models came on line and increased the US CAFE, they
were able to up the content to over 75% and rate the CV as built
in North America as are 95% of all the vehicle they offer for
sale in the US.

mike hunt

"Steven M. Starve" wrote:

> <MikeHunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> news:409548AA.36E2494B@mailcity.com...
[quoted text clipped - 72 lines]
> vehicles back to domestics (by which time they had increased the fuel
> economy of their domestic line so CAFÉ was no longer a problem).

Reply to this Message

Gordon Burditt - 06 May 2004 20:37 GMT

>> The best thing to do when buying a new vehicle is to consider first where
>> the vehicle is assembled. Eliminate vehicles not assembled in the U.S., and
>> the U.S. doesn't include any other countries!

(Not even California!)

The best thing to do when buying a new vehicle is to consider WHERE
THE METAL WAS MINED, by percentage of weight for each country.
Unfortunately, it's hard (usually impossible) to find that information
on the label.

>> I think the most amusing abuse of the domestic content law is how Ford, at
>> one point, turned the Crown Vic and Marquis into imports, to get around some
>> CAF? issues. This was pre-NAFTA, and they used a Mexican axle and some
>> Japanese shocks, to lower the domestic content to below 75% so they could
>> get these models to be "imports."

This is not an abuse of the domestic content law by Ford.
This was an abuse of the domestic content law by CONGRESS.

Gordon L. Burditt

Reply to this Message