Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Car Forum / Ford / Ford Cars / March 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Toyota Deals the Final Blow to GM and Ford with New Engine...

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
The BallJoint Stud - 22 Feb 2006 05:42 GMT
Toyota Deals the Final Blow to GM and Ford with New Engine block
manufacturing technique that will cut each engine cost by $1000. Toyota
plans to transfer reduced cost to customer. WWII soon to come to a true end
when Toyota places the nails in the coffin.
tom - 22 Feb 2006 07:01 GMT
and why would someone that goes to a newsgroup for ford trucks give a flying
rats a.s about this post by a rectal orifice about a piece of jap sh.t that
will go into a jap shitbox?????
> Toyota Deals the Final Blow to GM and Ford with New Engine block
> manufacturing technique that will cut each engine cost by $1000. Toyota
> plans to transfer reduced cost to customer. WWII soon to come to a true end
> when Toyota places the nails in the coffin.
Backyard Mechanic - 22 Feb 2006 13:38 GMT
> Toyota Deals the Final Blow to GM and Ford with New Engine block
> manufacturing technique that will cut each engine cost by $1000.

Cut engine cost by $1000?

I doubt that!  Unless they've found a way to start with seeds.

Signature

Yeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price
you pay..DEAL with it!

Al Bundy - 22 Feb 2006 13:40 GMT
> Toyota Deals the Final Blow to GM and Ford with New Engine block
> manufacturing technique that will cut each engine cost by $1000. Toyota
> plans to transfer reduced cost to customer. WWII soon to come to a true end
> when Toyota places the nails in the coffin.

I have not researched this new proclamation, but it doesn't meet the
initial BS test. I don't think there's $1,000 in machining cost there
to be saved.
Backyard Mechanic - 22 Feb 2006 14:01 GMT
>> Toyota Deals the Final Blow to GM and Ford with New Engine block
>> manufacturing technique that will cut each engine cost by $1000.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> initial BS test. I don't think there's $1,000 in machining cost there
> to be saved.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060222.RTOYOTA22/TPSto
ry/TPBusiness/

and

http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=118353

The new engine technology is now in use not only at Bodine, which Toyota
bought in 1990, but also at foundries in Japan and China.

*****Partly as a result,**** the cost of building an engine for the
redesigned Camry that was scheduled to go on sale in March will be about
$1,000, half the cost of an engine for the previous generation of Camrys,
says Gary Convis, executive vice president for North American
manufacturing.

I'm still a sceptic...
Signature

Yeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price
you pay..DEAL with it!

Lee C. Carpenter - 22 Feb 2006 13:57 GMT
> Toyota Deals the Final Blow to GM and Ford with New Engine block
> manufacturing technique that will cut each engine cost by $1000. Toyota
> plans to transfer reduced cost to customer. WWII soon to come to a true
> end
> when Toyota places the nails in the coffin.

Slave labor?
gosinn@gmail.com - 22 Feb 2006 14:04 GMT
Made of magnesium materials
Very impressive!
Light weight
Tim or Linda - 22 Feb 2006 14:14 GMT
Magnesium....WOW I bet the firefighter's will love that.

> Made of magnesium materials
> Very impressive!
> Light weight
Cool Jet - 22 Feb 2006 23:08 GMT
> Magnesium....WOW I bet the firefighter's will love that.
>
> <gosinn@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > Made of magnesium materials
> > Very impressive!
> > Light weight

*LOL* I have fond memories of how hot and brightly magnesium would burn
in the Science lab! Toyota could add a whole new meaning to "running
hot"!!!
gosinn@gmail.com - 23 Feb 2006 09:49 GMT
> *LOL* I have fond memories of how hot and brightly magnesium would burn
> in the Science lab! Toyota could add a whole new meaning to "running
> hot"!!!

This one is three years old

AMC-SC1 A New Magnesium Alloy for Engine Blocks

It proved to be a major challenge developing a magnesium alloy that had
the necessary thermal and mechanical properties, but the new alloy
(AMC-SC 1) developed by Dr Bettles and colleagues has both alloy
content and heat-treatment conditions optimised for performance and
cost. The alloy can be prepared and processed using standard
techniques, and is suitable for the production of precision castings
using a standard sand casting process.

Practical testing of the AMC-SC1 Magnesium Engine Block

More recently, AVL List, a leading European engine design company, has
designed a three cylinder diesel engine with a magnesium block weighing
14kg. This has been fitted into a Volkswagen Lupo and is currently
being road tested in and around Graz, Austria. The magnesium engine
block could soon become as common as alloy wheels in the list of
desirable attributes for new vehicles.

http://www.azom.com/details.asp?ArticleID=2073#_AMC-SC1_A_New
Backyard Mechanic - 22 Feb 2006 17:24 GMT
> Made of magnesium materials
> Very impressive!
> Light weight

You know it's customary to point to some authoritative source for that sort
of stuff.

While it's nice to use NG for discussing this sort of issue, MOST of us
know our way around the web... and get pissed when others just comment on
things without helping rest of us not have to search for it.

Near as I can tell from searching, it's cam covers, etc... not structural
assemblies...

Signature

Yeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price
you pay..DEAL with it!

Al Bundy - 22 Feb 2006 22:22 GMT
Your link says the block is poured aluminum casting.
It reminds me of two things. The Vega for one. And those sheet metal
blocks of long ago. (Was it the Crosby?)
You can test and test a new design like Toyota's. They still won't know
until enough are produced whether they meet customer needs or save the
money intended.
Nate Nagel - 23 Feb 2006 02:42 GMT
> Your link says the block is poured aluminum casting.
> It reminds me of two things. The Vega for one. And those sheet metal
> blocks of long ago. (Was it the Crosby?)
> You can test and test a new design like Toyota's. They still won't know
> until enough are produced whether they meet customer needs or save the
> money intended.

Crosley, it was.  CoBra (Copper Brazed) engine.  I think they eventually
went to a conventional cast block.

nate

Signature

replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Big Al - 23 Feb 2006 06:24 GMT
> Your link says the block is poured aluminum casting.
> It reminds me of two things. The Vega for one. And those sheet metal
> blocks of long ago. (Was it the Crosby?)
> You can test and test a new design like Toyota's. They still won't know
> until enough are produced whether they meet customer needs or save the
> money intended.

Vega blocks were die cast, like most outboards.

Al
Spam Hater - 23 Feb 2006 07:10 GMT
> Vega

UGH! You reminded me of another GM horror show.
The Vega got me into my first Japanese car for urban driving.
Mike Levy - 22 Feb 2006 22:41 GMT
>> Made of magnesium materials
>> Very impressive!
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>Near as I can tell from searching, it's cam covers, etc... not structural
>assemblies...

Magnesium is magnesium.  Sure, there's less of it, but it's still
there and will still burn VERY hot...
Nate Nagel - 23 Feb 2006 02:43 GMT
>>>Made of magnesium materials
>>>Very impressive!
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> Magnesium is magnesium.  Sure, there's less of it, but it's still
> there and will still burn VERY hot...

Worked for Volkswagen for years...

nate

Signature

replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Tom Adkins - 23 Feb 2006 03:27 GMT
>>>> Made of magnesium materials Very impressive!
>>>> Light weight
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> nate

 VW blocks worked for me too. Toss one on a good bonfire sometime.
Jebidiah Springfield - 23 Feb 2006 03:57 GMT
> >>>> Made of magnesium materials Very impressive!
> >>>> Light weight
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> >> Magnesium is magnesium.  Sure, there's less of it, but it's still
> >> there and will still burn VERY hot...

It dosnt  matter how hot it gets...Toyota is working on a new kind of air
that cool cooler  than regular  air.  We are at war and battles are being
planned ahead of  time.
RSCamaro - 23 Feb 2006 22:07 GMT
>> >> Magnesium is magnesium.  Sure, there's less of it, but it's still
>> >> there and will still burn VERY hot...
>> >
>It dosnt  matter how hot it gets...Toyota is working on a new kind of air
>that cool cooler  than regular  air.  We are at war and battles are being
>planned ahead of  time.

Jeeze and I though that making wetter water was going to transform the
automotive world.  

                              ...Ron
--
68'RS Camaro
88'Formula
00'GT Mustang
Nate Nagel - 23 Feb 2006 11:49 GMT
>>>>> Made of magnesium materials Very impressive!
>>>>> Light weight
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
>  VW blocks worked for me too. Toss one on a good bonfire sometime.

LOL there is a web site somewhere with pics of a RAMVA member doing just
that...  makes lots of pretty colors.

Personally, I prefer them mounted behind the seats of a small, 2-seat,
targa bodied car though.  (I am not sure if the Type 4/914 engine
actually has a magnesium case though.)

nate

Signature

replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

El Bandito - 23 Feb 2006 04:59 GMT
Unless I don't remember my physics/chemistry classes, doesn't Magnesium
consume itself at insane temps?

Yeah boss, my car just ignited iteslf and went for a meltdown, I'l be a
little late...
Signature


(\_ _/)
(='.'=) This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your
(")_(") signature to help him gain world domination.

>>>>Made of magnesium materials Very impressive!
>>>>Light weight
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> nate
Backyard Mechanic - 23 Feb 2006 15:14 GMT
>>Near as I can tell from searching, it's cam covers, etc... not
>>structural assemblies...
>
> Magnesium is magnesium.  Sure, there's less of it, but it's still
> there and will still burn VERY hot...

Umm... now we're getting into arcane inanities.

Point: Magnesium cam covers or Fiero 4 cylinder blocks; biggest fire
hazard?  

Was a time a decade or so ago, when driving on Interstate and seeing column
of black smoke ahead... you knew what you would find when you got there.

Signature

Yeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price
you pay..DEAL with it!

C. E. White - 22 Feb 2006 15:40 GMT
> Toyota Deals the Final Blow to GM and Ford with New Engine block
> manufacturing technique that will cut each engine cost by $1000. Toyota
> plans to transfer reduced cost to customer. WWII soon to come to a true end
> when Toyota places the nails in the coffin.

Care to cite a reference? Could it be
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aTkufGZiqHOs&refer=us ?
This is a ridiculous article, apparently written by the Toyota PR firm.

The total manufacturing cost for many engines is under $1000, so this seems
like a total BS story. I can only assume that the old Camry engine is
horrendously expensive, since saving  $1000 only reduces the cost by 50%. At
$1000 the "new" Camry V-6 still costs more to build than a Buick 3.8L or a
Ford 4.6L. So instead of highlighting Toyota's efficiency, it point out how
inefficient the company actually is.

You might want to look at this old Wall Street Journal Story from 1996 -
http://www.rbbi.com/folders/engn/toyota.htm . Back then Toyota was going to
reduce the cost to produce an engine from $600 to $400. Seem like they must
have really gone down hill if they are now going to save $1000 to
manufacture an engine, when they claimed they could build them for $400 in
1996.

You need to watch Toyota, they cut corners in subtle ways that end up cost
the Customer many extra dollars down the road. As incredible as it seems,
many Toyota engines don't use hydraulic valve lifters and require very
expensive routine valve clearance adjustments. This probably saves Toyota
$50 when they build the engine and costs the Customer hundreds when they
have the valve clearances inspected and adjusted (if they have it checked at
all).

Ed
dh - 22 Feb 2006 22:56 GMT
> > Toyota Deals the Final Blow to GM and Ford with New Engine block
> > manufacturing technique that will cut each engine cost by $1000. Toyota
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> manufacture an engine, when they claimed they could build them for $400 in
> 1996.

Do you read the links you post?  This is certainly apples and oranges.  That
was the engine for a "dirt-cheap" car to be introduced in Asia.  Not very
likely to be the same thing as the motor for a Camry.

> You need to watch Toyota, they cut corners in subtle ways that end up cost
> the Customer many extra dollars down the road. As incredible as it seems,
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Ed

The proof's in the pudding.  Toyota is selling a very nice car at prices
competitive with GM and Ford offerings and MAKING MONEY doing it.
C. E. White - 22 Feb 2006 23:48 GMT
>> > Toyota Deals the Final Blow to GM and Ford with New Engine block
>> > manufacturing technique that will cut each engine cost by $1000. Toyota
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
> was the engine for a "dirt-cheap" car to be introduced in Asia.  Not very
> likely to be the same thing as the motor for a Camry.

So the current Camry engine cost FOUR times as much as a 1994 four cylinder?
It is inconceivable that that the third rate Camry V-6 costs $2000 to build.
This whole "saving $1000" claim is some sort of silly Toyota PR campaigned
designed to polish the Toyota image. What they should have reported is
something along the lines of "Toyota finally get a grip on excessive engine
costs." It reminds me of managers who inflate their departmental budgets and
then, when pushed, announce significant cost savings so that they can look
like heros.

>> You need to watch Toyota, they cut corners in subtle ways that end up
>> cost
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> The proof's in the pudding.  Toyota is selling a very nice car at prices
> competitive with GM and Ford offerings and MAKING MONEY doing it.

If you think third rate designs are "very nice vehicles" then I Toyota is
your brand. Toyota charges thousands more for comparable vehicles while
paying far less in salray and benefits to their workforce. As far as I can
tell the whole Toyota sucess story is based on convincing people that they
should pay more for less.

Ed
DH - 23 Feb 2006 19:40 GMT
> > Do you read the links you post?  This is certainly apples and oranges.
> > That
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> then, when pushed, announce significant cost savings so that they can look
> like heros.

"Third rate Camry V-6?"  Hah!  GM wishes it was so.  My '01 Sienna has one
of those engines in it.  I test-drove the competing Chevy and Chrysler
offerings.  Compared to the Sienna, they're both dogs.

> >> You need to watch Toyota, they cut corners in subtle ways that end up
> >> cost
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
> Ed

Yeah, convincing poor bastards like me to buy their cars by pricing them
competitively, delivering lots of features and offering excellent
reliability.  The excellent performance, matching-or-better gas mileage and
quiet cabin were all just irrelevant bonuses.
John Horner - 27 Feb 2006 15:31 GMT
> So the current Camry engine cost FOUR times as much as a 1994 four cylinder?
> It is inconceivable that that the third rate Camry V-6 costs $2000 to build.

Calling a Toyota V-6 third rate must make the GM 3.4/3.5 l engine
something like 10th rate!

John
Jebidiah Springfield - 23 Feb 2006 04:00 GMT
> > > Toyota Deals the Final Blow to GM and Ford with New Engine block
> > > manufacturing technique that will cut each engine cost by $1000. Toyota
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> >
> > Care to cite a reference? Could it be

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aTkufGZiqHOs&refer=us
> ?
> > This is a ridiculous article, apparently written by the Toyota PR firm.
[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]
> The proof's in the pudding.  Toyota is selling a very nice car at prices
> competitive with GM and Ford offerings and MAKING MONEY doing it.

Yeh  Americans are  stupid and will  buy anything especially if its somebody
elses stuff just because other people have colder ice.

> *** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
> *** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
Spam Hater - 23 Feb 2006 07:08 GMT
> Yeh  Americans are  stupid and will  buy anything especially if its somebody
> elses stuff just because other people have colder ice.

Yes it's amazing how many still buy crap vehicles, consuming too much
fuel and which they think are American, yet many are imported.
See GM's bottom end junk cars imported from Korea.
rootcon@yahoo.com - 26 Feb 2006 19:10 GMT
> You need to watch Toyota, they cut corners in subtle ways that end up cost
> the Customer many extra dollars down the road. As incredible as it seems,
> many Toyota engines don't use hydraulic valve lifters and require very
> expensive routine valve clearance adjustments. This probably saves Toyota
> $50 when they build the engine and costs the Customer hundreds when they
> have the valve clearances inspected and adjusted

While I agree toyota does cut corners as you say, this is not a good
example.

I have a '95 Subaru legacy with hydraulic lash adjusters (HLAs) and its
not the best idea ever. Search for the Tick of Death (name doesn't
really fit as its not extremely harmful to the engine). HLAs are
notorious for sticking (not pumping up) and causing a tick that
eminates from the rocker arms. The engine contines to run, probably
90-95%, but annoys the hell out of the driver. Also causes excess fuel
consumption and performance loss, as the affected valves have a lull
period when they should opening.

There are reasons why toyota doesn't use HLAs, and IMO, they're fairly
valid. I'd criticize their less-than-sturdy suspension. Take a pry bar
sometime and push down on corolla ball joints, the support arm just
bends.
Hairy - 27 Feb 2006 02:56 GMT
As incredible as it seems,
> > many Toyota engines don't use hydraulic valve lifters and require very
> > expensive routine valve clearance adjustments. This probably saves Toyota
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> I have a '95 Subaru legacy with hydraulic lash adjusters (HLAs) and its
> not the best idea ever.

It certainly is a "good idea". Just poorly executed.

> There are reasons why toyota doesn't use HLAs, and IMO, they're fairly
valid.

Yes, with the sludging problems they have, hydraulic lifters would be a very
bad idea.

I'd criticize their less-than-sturdy suspension. Take a pry bar
> sometime and push down on corolla ball joints, the support arm just
> bends.
dh - 27 Feb 2006 04:06 GMT
> As incredible as it seems,
> > > many Toyota engines don't use hydraulic valve lifters and require very
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> Yes, with the sludging problems they have, hydraulic lifters would be a very
> bad idea.

What sludging problem?  I know at least 6 other people with '98-'03 Toyota
Siennas similar to mine and no one has reported problems with their engine.

>  I'd criticize their less-than-sturdy suspension. Take a pry bar
> > sometime and push down on corolla ball joints, the support arm just
> > bends.
Harry Face - 22 Feb 2006 16:15 GMT
We will have to waitand see what shaving $1000 off the cost of the
engine has in store for the customer 40,000 miles down the road. GM
shaaved some cost & weight off the 3800 by installing a plastic intake
manifold's and the results were not well received by car owners.

Time Will Tell.

     Harryface    
05 Park Avenue     34,255
91 Bonneville LE  306,010        


Mike Hunter - 23 Feb 2006 19:15 GMT
Most MEFI engine today use a composite intake manifold, since generally the
only thing distributed is air, not a fuel mixture.

mike hunt

> We will have to waitand see what shaving $1000 off the cost of the
> engine has in store for the customer 40,000 miles down the road. GM
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> 05 Park Avenue     34,255
> 91 Bonneville LE  306,010
gosinn@gmail.com - 27 Feb 2006 08:04 GMT
The cost of production is just 10% of the total price
The rest is marketing and transport
The car companies can set whatever price they want
Difference between Toyota and the rest is they need less advertisement
C. E. White - 27 Feb 2006 13:19 GMT
> The cost of production is just 10% of the total price
> The rest is marketing and transport
> The car companies can set whatever price they want
> Difference between Toyota and the rest is they need less advertisement

Huh????

If anything Toyota runs more ads than anyone - at least in my area. They do
run some of the most bizarre ads - like the whole "moving forward series"
and some of the most outrageously dishonest ads - like the whole Tacoma
series of ads. In the end, I guess they know what they are doing since the
third rate Camry is the best selling car in America. Oh what a feeling,
moving forward, whatever.

Ed
Stuuder - 23 Feb 2006 00:40 GMT
Doesn't really say what this new "technique" is. Aluminum blocks are not
new.Neither is magnesium, ever been to a VW block burning party at the
Bonneville salt flats???:-) IMO the "new" technique _could_ be the same
GM has used for the last several years on their new in-lines, namely
lost foam investment casting.............

http://www.castmetalsfederation.com/process.asp?procid=3&name=Lost%20Foam

http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/jk/at_010306.htm

Stuuder

> Toyota Deals the Final Blow to GM and Ford with New Engine block
> manufacturing technique that will cut each engine cost by $1000. Toyota
> plans to transfer reduced cost to customer. WWII soon to come to a true end
> when Toyota places the nails in the coffin.
ShoeSaleman - 23 Feb 2006 02:07 GMT
> Doesn't really say what this new "technique" is. Aluminum blocks are not
> new.Neither is magnesium, ever been to a VW block burning party at the
> Bonneville salt flats???:-) IMO the "new" technique _could_ be the same
> GM has used for the last several years on their new in-lines, namely
> lost foam investment casting.............

just out of curiousity, how hard is it to get them to flame up?
Lee C. Carpenter - 23 Feb 2006 02:48 GMT
883 degrees F

>> Doesn't really say what this new "technique" is. Aluminum blocks are not
>> new.Neither is magnesium, ever been to a VW block burning party at the
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>>
> just out of curiousity, how hard is it to get them to flame up?
El Bandito - 23 Feb 2006 05:00 GMT
a standard cigarette lighter (an old BIC) will turn a roll of magnesium into
a really bright fire...

Signature

(\_ _/)
(='.'=) This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your
(")_(") signature to help him gain world domination.

> 883 degrees F
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>>>
>> just out of curiousity, how hard is it to get them to flame up?
Mike Hunter - 23 Feb 2006 18:50 GMT
Perhaps but Toyota is still is in a distant forth place in sales in the US,
the world largest market.   ;)

mike hunt

> Toyota Deals the Final Blow to GM and Ford with New Engine block
> manufacturing technique that will cut each engine cost by $1000. Toyota
> plans to transfer reduced cost to customer. WWII soon to come to a true
> end
> when Toyota places the nails in the coffin.
N8N - 23 Feb 2006 19:02 GMT
Try a respectable second.

http://www.morgancom.com/AutoSalesSummary0206.pdf

your info is apparently out of date.

nate

> Perhaps but Toyota is still is in a distant forth place in sales in the US,
> the world largest market.   ;)
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> > end
> > when Toyota places the nails in the coffin.
Mike Hunter - 23 Feb 2006 19:38 GMT
We can assume you are not a math major, right?   LOL

Total 2005 US sales approximately 16,600,000

GM            26%    4,316,000
Ford          18%    2,988,000
Chrysler     13%    2,158,000
Toyota       11%    1,826,000

Both GM and Ford sold more light trucks alone than Lexus, Toyota
and Scion sold cars and light trucks combined

mike hunt

> Try a respectable second.
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>>
>> mike hunt
DH - 23 Feb 2006 21:06 GMT
> We can assume you are not a math major, right?   LOL
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> and Scion sold cars and light trucks combined
> mike hunt

And your source for this would be...?

Care to comment on which manufacturers are making money?  Or on the "Vol %
Change" figures in the report N8N provided from Morgan & Company?

> > Try a respectable second.
> >
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> >>
> >> mike hunt
gosinn@gmail.com - 23 Feb 2006 21:31 GMT
CHICAGO (AFP) - Asian automakers continued to eat away at the US market
share of the top American car companies even as the Big Three's US
sales rose overall in January, according to sales figures.

Struggling Ford Motor Company and General Motors Corp posted their
first monthly sales gains since they ended popular employee discount
programs in August.

But they were unable to reverse a downward trend in market share that
contributed to massive financial losses and plans to layoff a combined
60,000 workers in the next two years.

DaimlerChrysler also posted its first monthly sales increase since
September, although it is in better shape after having managed to
increase its market share in 2005 to 19.2 percent from 18.6 percent in
2004.

The Big Three domestic automakers saw their overall market share fall
to 55.7 percent of the massive US market from 57.3 percent in January
2005, according to Autodata.

Asian brands saw market share increase to 37.5 percent from 36.3
percent a year ago.

European brands saw moderate growth, gaining 6.8 percent of the market
in January compared with 6.5 percent a year ago.

Overall sales rose 7.6 percent to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of
17.64 million units compared with 16.34 million units last January,
according to Autodata.

"January auto sales were clearly much better than expected," said
Stephen Stanley, chief economist at RBS Greenwich Capital. "We are on a
pace to see a month-to-month increase in the seasonally adjusted sales
pace, perhaps to around 17.7 million units or so."

Analysts polled by Thomson First Call had expected a seasonally
adjusted annual sales rate, on average, of 16.5 million vehicles. Wall
Street had previously forecast a sales decline at all three of the
major domestic manufacturers.

January's sales gains among domestic automakers were largely a result
of fleet sales to bulk buyers like rental car agencies and the
government, which do not pay as much as retail customers.

Ford estimated that the sales increase of about 65,000 vehicles for all
automakers in January was comprised of about 55,000 vehicles sold to
fleet buyers.

GM said its retail sales dropped seven percent in January but it was
able to post a six percent increase overall due to fleet sales which
accounted for 30 percent of the vehicles it sold.

GM said Wednesday it hoped to see an improvement in sales in the second
quarter of this year with the introduction of a new line of
sport-utility vehicles.

Those hopes were bolstered with the strong welcome the new Chevy Tahoe
received: sales rose 53 percent to 13,093 vehicles in January.

"We had solid results in January and showed some very encouraging
pockets of strength," Mark LaNeve, General Motors North America vice
president of vehicle sales, service and marketing, said in a statement.

Total GM sales reached 296,003 vehicles with car sales up 14.6 percent
to 134,467 and truck sales down 0.5 percent to 161,536 compared with
January 2005.

But a senior executive at Ford said the bet GM is placing on large SUVs
is risky as he expects sales of full-sized SUVs -- which fell 19
percent last year -- to continue to decline to an end-decade level of
650,000 to 700,000 units sold per year, compared to 800,000 in 2005.

"We're down to the core SUV buyer who needs the capabilities of that
product," George Pippas, Ford's sales analysis manager, said in a
conference call. "The rate at which it declines probably has most to do
with gas prices."

Ford's sales rose two percent to 205,671 vehicles in January as
better-than-expected car sales offset sales losses of SUVs.

DaimlerChrysler meanwhile saw a five-percent increase in January with
total US sales reaching 167,934 compared with 160,212 in January 2005.

Of the Asian brands, American Honda Motor Company posted the strongest
gains, with sales up 20.7 percent to 98,394 vehicles.

Toyota Motor Sales USA reported its best-ever January sales, up 14
percent to 160,625 vehicles.

Korean automaker Hyundai Motor America saw sales climb 16.1 percent to
30,208 vehicles.

Nissan North America was the only Asian automaker to post a loss, with
January sales down 0.9 percent to 75,891 vehicles.

http://au.biz.yahoo.com/060202/33/ii38.html
C. E. White - 27 Feb 2006 13:22 GMT
I think it is interesting that Ford is struggling, yet made 2 Billion
Dollars last year.

Ed

> CHICAGO (AFP) - Asian automakers continued to eat away at the US market
> share of the top American car companies even as the Big Three's US
[quoted text clipped - 93 lines]
>
> http://au.biz.yahoo.com/060202/33/ii38.html
Joe - 06 Mar 2006 01:02 GMT
>I think it is interesting that Ford is struggling, yet made 2 Billion
> Dollars last year.

Ford is in better financial shape than GM, I guess, but they're shrinking
like crazy. Check out total sales figures for Ford from, say, 1999 until
now.
Mike Hunter - 24 Feb 2006 00:21 GMT
I don't do home work for my own grand children what make you think I'll do
yours?   Do your own search   ;)

mike hunt
>> We can assume you are not a math major, right?   LOL
>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>> Both GM and Ford sold more light trucks alone than Lexus, Toyota
>> and Scion sold cars and light trucks combined

>> mike hunt
>
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> *** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from
> http://www.SecureIX.com ***
dh - 24 Feb 2006 01:41 GMT
> I don't do home work for my own grand children what make you think I'll do
> yours?   Do your own search   ;)

If they want good grades, I'm quite sure they don't want you to do their
homework.

Your numbers are your unsupported claims until you offer substantiation.
Without a citation, you might as well say GM sold 6 billion cars and Toyota
sold 8.  Without citation, those numbers mean just as much as the ones you
presented.

> mike hunt
> >> We can assume you are not a math major, right?   LOL
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
> > *** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from
> > http://www.SecureIX.com ***
Mike Hunter - 24 Feb 2006 19:27 GMT
Do a search so you have some idea of what you are talking about then maybe
we can talk   ;)

mike hunt

>> I don't do home work for my own grand children what make you think I'll
>> do
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>>
>> >> mike hunt
DH - 24 Feb 2006 21:49 GMT
> Do a search so you have some idea of what you are talking about then maybe
> we can talk   ;)
> mike hunt

Nope.  Your numbers are worthless without a source.  I'm not going to search
the net looking for 4,316,000.  Provide a source for them and they'll be
considered in due course.

> >> I don't do home work for my own grand children what make you think I'll
> >> do
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> >>
> >> >> mike hunt
John Horner - 27 Feb 2006 15:51 GMT
> And your source for this would be...?

Mike Hunt does this sort of thing frequently.  Not long ago he did post
the source for "information" about Hyundai automotive's financials, only
he got it completely wrong and referenced the Hyundai company which does
shipping and natural resources.

He has a habit of only seeing what he wants to see and can be safely
ignored.

John
Mike Hunter - 27 Feb 2006 19:11 GMT
Once again you are not correct, I did not post Hyundai as a source for
anything.  I do not post sources frequently or ever, do you own home work.
At most I may suggest one search a specific site, like the Congressional
Record, the NHTSA or Automotive News but never a link.   Do you own search
and you will find the exact information I found as the basis for what I
post.

mike hunt

>> And your source for this would be...?
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> John
Nate Nagel - 28 Feb 2006 01:21 GMT
> Once again you are not correct, I did not post Hyundai as a source for
> anything.  I do not post sources frequently or ever, do you own home work.

And that is all you need to know about "Mike Hunter" and his credibility.

nate

Signature

replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Spam Hater - 27 Feb 2006 21:08 GMT
> Mike Hunt does this sort of thing frequently.  Not long ago he did post
> the source for "information" about Hyundai automotive's financials, only
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> He has a habit of only seeing what he wants to see and can be safely
> ignored.

I've noticed that.
I suspect he's a retired GM manager, who is still seeing the car
business through dark glasses.
N8N - 23 Feb 2006 22:45 GMT
> We can assume you are not a math major, right?   LOL

this is true, I majored in engineering.  And I meant to say "third" not
"second."

> Total 2005 US sales approximately 16,600,000
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Both GM and Ford sold more light trucks alone than Lexus, Toyota
> and Scion sold cars and light trucks combined

In Jan '06 and for model YTD '06 Toyota is outselling Chrysler/Jeep.
Ford is just barely ahead.  Also if you look at

http://www.morgancom.com/automotivenews.htm

you will see that that is unlikely to change.  It would be funny if it
weren't so sad.  It is especially sad that the foreign subsidiaries of
Ford and GM make so much better products than we get here in their home
market.

nate
C. E. White - 27 Feb 2006 13:31 GMT
So why don't you include Jaguar, Land Rover, Volvo, and Mazda in with Ford?
This moves the Ford group up to around 18.5% of the US market. Seems only
fair since the Toyota group includes vehicle built in various locations,
including some built under contract and by partially owned subsidiaries.
Ditto for GM and DiamlerChryler. Seems unfair to tout Toyota's success while
ignoring the fact that the "big three" are really worldwide companies that
build and sell cars around the world.

Ed

> > We can assume you are not a math major, right?   LOL
>
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>
> nate
N8N - 27 Feb 2006 16:22 GMT
Three reasons...

1) those vehicles are not designed in the US for the most part

2) the first set of stats that I found were broken down by brand and
solely concerned the US market, which is what we were discussing

3) they are, for the most part, significantly better than the
US-designed and branded vehicles from those companies, which was part
of the point that I was trying to make :)

nate

> So why don't you include Jaguar, Land Rover, Volvo, and Mazda in with Ford?
> This moves the Ford group up to around 18.5% of the US market. Seems only
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
> >
> > nate
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.