 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / GMC Cars / August 2006Who will be the US "Big 3" in 2016?
My prediction for the 2016 *retail* US sales rankings: 1) Toyota 2) Honda 3) Hyundai 4) GM-Ford (as a merged company) Did you forget the "Cherry" will be here by 2008 LOL mike hunt > My prediction for the 2016 *retail* US sales rankings: > > 1) Toyota > 2) Honda > 3) Hyundai > 4) GM-Ford (as a merged company) > My prediction for the 2016 *retail* US sales rankings: > > 1) Toyota > 2) Honda > 3) Hyundai > 4) GM-Ford (as a merged company) Why is Hyundai on the list? Everything I have seen made by them is a piece of sh.t compared to anything Japaneese or American. Hyundai recently outscored Toyota and Honda in a recent consumer survey of initial quality, among new 2006 vehicle owners. mike >> My prediction for the 2016 *retail* US sales rankings: >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Why is Hyundai on the list? Everything I have seen made by them is a piece > of sh.t compared to anything Japaneese or American. >>> My prediction for the 2016 *retail* US sales rankings: >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > mike Oh, I haven't looked at anything new. I only buy what I can pay cash for. So do I LOL mike >>>> My prediction for the 2016 *retail* US sales rankings: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Oh, I haven't looked at anything new. I only buy what I can pay cash for. > Hyundai recently outscored Toyota and Honda in a recent consumer survey of > initial quality, among new 2006 vehicle owners. > > mike They also manufacture large cranes. Toyota is into forklifts. Honda makes lawnmowers. I read recently where Honda is going to begin building aircraft for small business. All three are surely making their mark. > >> My prediction for the 2016 *retail* US sales rankings: > >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Why is Hyundai on the list? Everything I have seen made by them is a piece > > of sh.t compared to anything Japaneese or American. -- > Hyundai recently outscored Toyota and Honda in a recent consumer survey of > initial quality, among new 2006 vehicle owners. > > mike My company has had 2 new Hyundais in the past year and I find that hard to believe. The initial quality to me was above the "Big" 3 but well behind Toyota and Honda. The Santa Fe and the Elantra we have, have many many small but annoying problems within the first 5000 miles. > Hyundai recently outscored Toyota and Honda in a recent consumer > survey of initial quality, among new 2006 vehicle owners. "INITIAL" quality... give it 10 years...  Signature1984 RZ350 >> My prediction for the 2016 *retail* US sales rankings: >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Why is Hyundai on the list? Everything I have seen made by them is a piece >of sh.t compared to anything Japaneese or American. And yet that P.O.S. is able to offer a 100,000 mile warranty. GM is still 3year/36,000 ( maybe they know something ) <rj> "Reasoned Insanity" <mintclovers@@yahoo.com> wrote in message > Why is Hyundai on the list? Everything I have seen made by them is a piece > of sh.t compared to anything Japaneese or American. I'm not ready to buy one but they have come a long way in the past few years. >> My prediction for the 2016 *retail* US sales rankings: >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Why is Hyundai on the list? Everything I have seen made by them is a piece > of sh.t compared to anything Japaneese or American. Hundai is a heck of a success story. Near death after selling a bunch of crappy cars, they turned things completely around in recent years. Don't give up on Ford or GM they can make a comeback. IMHO, their fist big step is making cars that appeal to younger people. All the teens want Hondas and Toyotas and probably continue buying them as they age. I've worked for the same emplyer for 17 years and know many people well. If they're not driving a Ford or GM truck, then it is a Toyota, Honda or Mazda. Many of the US passenger cars are older models. One minor trend is a couple of new Ford Fusions out in the lot. I find myself wanting a Toyota Yaris liftback. I find myself needing something with better mileage for daily driving (I need to keep the truck for hauling for my side business). Once I again, the American Automakers are asleep at the wheel. They don't produce anything that compares to the Yaris/Fit/Scion. Yes GM has the Aveo, but what's with the crappy fuel mileage? I looked at the Focus, but the design looks tired and boring after nearly 7 years. Next there's the Ranger compact truck. A decent, reliable vehicle that actually has some Japanese hardware in it, but Ford won't redesign years after it should have been and the "middle" engine is the anemic 3.0L V6 that gets SUV like gas milege and has less HP than many 4 bangers (like GMs new model). The 4L V6 is better after they gave it some more power a few years ago, but the full size truck mileage mumbers stink. Next there's GM that dumps the compact truck and intruduces a redesigned "midsized" pickup in the midst of higher gas prices. Fuel economy could be a bit better and it still gets the solid black dot treatment with CRs reliability score - just like the crappy S10 it replaced. Pontiac. Lets build cars that all the models look the same! Let's make the GTO a family appeal car. RIP new GTO. Sheesh. Overall, their problem is they are too slow in responding to the marketplace and seem to clueless in designing cars with appeal. John > Don't give up on Ford or GM they can make a comeback. > > IMHO, their fist big step is making cars that appeal to younger people. I agree with you, but there is not a single gotta-have vehicle for the under 21 year old trendsetter in the current GM or Ford lineups. Not a single one. Two years ago the Hummer was on such a list, but high fuel prices have put that one to bed. Even the Corvette and Mustang are really cars for middle age guys who want another trip down memory lane. John > > Don't give up on Ford or GM they can make a comeback. > > IMHO, their fist big step is making cars that appeal to younger people. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Even the Corvette and Mustang are really cars for middle age guys who > want another trip down memory lane. John I was wondering what you think GM and Ford should be putting in their cars or doing to them to give them more of a youth's appeal. You looking for more sportier with wings and ground effects? i'm not trying to bash you, i am asking because i am an engineering student whom is trying to pursue a career in the automotive industry and i would like to hear yours and anyone elses opinions on what you think the American car manufacturers need to do with their cars to make them more suitable for the public so that they can stay in the top 3. all opinion are greatly appreciated, thanks. Build cars like the Mustang and Corvette and sell them for $10,000 LOL mike hunt >> > Don't give up on Ford or GM they can make a comeback. >> > IMHO, their fist big step is making cars that appeal to younger people. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > more suitable for the public so that they can stay in the top 3. all > opinion are greatly appreciated, thanks. > Build cars like the Mustang and Corvette and sell them for $10,000 LOL That is just about how much those 2 models are worth. Only in your small world LOL mike hunt >> Build cars like the Mustang and Corvette and sell them for $10,000 LOL > > That is just about how much those 2 models are worth. > Only in your small world LOL > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >> That is just about how much those 2 models are worth. Detroit can build cars? That is a new one. > Only in your small world LOL > > mike hunt It can be a small world, but like the Budweiser Clivesdale, you have blinders on, bigtime. >> > Don't give up on Ford or GM they can make a comeback. >> > IMHO, their fist big step is making cars that appeal to younger people. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > more suitable for the public so that they can stay in the top 3. all > opinion are greatly appreciated, thanks. I'm not a car designer by any means, but Ford should stop doing silly things like with the Focus: Why the hell keep the performance engine out of the ZX3 and only in the sedan? Compare the tired styling of the Focus to the modern look of the foreign offerings! The same with GM's Cobalt. Too much leftover styling from the Cavalier. As quoted from Edmund's review, "Cobalt's design seems rather bland and its materials low-grade". The Japanese vehicles tend to put technology in to engines of even the lowest priced models, such as VVT for good performance from smaller engines that get great gas mileage. John > I'm not a car designer by any means, but Ford should stop doing silly things > like with the Focus: Why the hell keep the performance engine out of the ZX3 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > John Toyota and Honda pull off major redesigns of their big selling cars every 3-6 years. Once upon a time, the US companies INVENTED the idea of constant design updates to keep the vehicles interesting. Somehow in the 1970s they lost the ability to do so. One could blame government regulations, but how then do you explain the fact that the Japanese pull it off like clockwork while selling cars all over the world in left and right side control configurations as well? John That is easy. Because of CAFE, date certain deadlines, the domestics had to spend billions to change their manufacturing facilities over from RWD, to build the more costly. less safe FWD vehicles to make vehicles smaller and lighter, yet still have sufficient room for five people that American wanted. At the some time, because of date certain deadlines, we had to do required emission and crash improvements, sucking up mope millions of dollars of capital. The imports needed only improve the small vehicles they already produced, in low cost countries, to meet emission and crash improvements. By setting date certain deadlines, rather than goals to be met as new technology could be developed, the government set back innovation in the America automobile industry by ten years. It would have been far better to set goals rather than timetables, as the government now does, and allowed those billions to spent on R&D rather than production facilities. The far better vehicles of today in terms of crash safety, fuel efficiency, nearly zero emissions, as well as the improved reliability and longevity could have been available ten or even fifteen years sooner. mike hunt > Toyota and Honda pull off major redesigns of their big selling cars every > 3-6 years. Once upon a time, the US companies INVENTED the idea of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > John > That is easy. Because of CAFE, date certain deadlines, the domestics had to > spend billions to change their manufacturing facilities over from RWD, to > build the more costly. less safe FWD vehicles to make vehicles smaller and > lighter, yet still have sufficient room for five people that American > wanted. Once again you are full of excuses for ineffective management. You failed to mention the complete focus of the US companies on raking in profits from the truck and SUV boom while paying the management and workers handsomely and failing to invest effectively in the future. You have a pattern Mike. When GM makes bad intake manifold gaskets for two decades you blame goverment regulations (asbestos). When the auto makers get killed by foreign competition you blame the government. I suppose that if you break your own leg in your front yard you will come up with a reason why emissions legistlation kept you from filling in the hole left by a ground squirrel! You should see the movie "Thank You for Smoking". The protagonist reminds me of you :). John You know, all this time I thought the "Big 3" were LEXUS, TOYOTA AND SCION.... That statement is too stupid to deserve a reply. mike hunt >> That is easy. Because of CAFE, date certain deadlines, the domestics had >> to spend billions to change their manufacturing facilities over from RWD, to build the more costly. less safe FWD vehicles to make vehicles smaller and lighter, yet still have sufficient room for five people that American wanted. At the some time, because of date certain deadlines, we had to do required emission and crash improvements, sucking up more millions of dollars of capital. The imports needed only improve the small vehicles they already produced, in low cost countries, to meet emission and crash improvements. By setting date certain deadlines, rather than goals to be met as new technology could be developed, the government set back innovation in the America automobile industry by ten years. It would have been far better to set goals rather than timetables, as the government now does, and allowed those billions to spent on R&D rather than production facilities. The far better vehicles of today in terms of crash safety, fuel efficiency, nearly zero emissions, as well as the improved reliability and longevity could have been available ten or even fifteen years sooner. . > Once again you are full of excuses for ineffective management. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > John >> That is easy. Because of CAFE, date certain deadlines, the domestics had to >> spend billions to change their manufacturing facilities over from RWD, to [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >up with a reason why emissions legistlation kept you from filling in the >hole left by a ground squirrel! Nonsense, it will be Clinton's fault. >You should see the movie "Thank You for Smoking". The protagonist >reminds me of you :). > >John > That is easy. Because of CAFE, date certain deadlines, the domestics had to spend > billions to change their manufacturing facilities over from RWD, to build the more [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > At the some time, because of date certain deadlines, we had to do required emission > and crash improvements, sucking up mope millions of dollars of capital. Have you forgotten where those millions/billions of dollars went? Into the pockets of American workers! jim menning For sure but they could have been used to bring the more technologically advanced cars we can buy today, to market ten or fifteen years sooner. mike hunt enning" <jmenningSPAM@new.rr.com> wrote in message news:hPdBg.1048$UN4.646@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com... >> That is easy. Because of CAFE, date certain deadlines, the domestics had >> to spend billions to change their manufacturing facilities over from RWD, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > jim menning > Because of CAFE, date certain deadlines, the domestics had to > spend billions to change their manufacturing facilities over from RWD, to > build the more costly. less safe FWD vehicles to make vehicles smaller and > lighter, yet still have sufficient room for five people that American > wanted. Do you mean FWD is inherently less safe than RWD? > At the some time, because of date certain deadlines, we had to do required > emission and crash improvements, sucking up mope millions of dollars of > capital. The imports needed only improve the small vehicles they already > produced, in low cost countries, to meet emission and crash improvements. But the import makers also changed their chassis designs completely and switched from RWD to FWD, except Honda. > By setting date certain deadlines, rather than goals to be met as new > technology could be developed, the government set back innovation in the > America automobile industry by ten years. What innovations has the auto industry, American or foreign, made to vehicles since the 1960s that weren't the direct or indirect result of government requirements for safety, emissions, or fuel economy? I get the impresson that the majority of advancements in the industry have been on the production side, as evidenced by the need for far fewer workers to produce the same number of cars. The car busines hasn't been nearly as innovative as electronics or biotechnology. Mike Hunter wrote: >> Because of CAFE, date certain deadlines, the domestics had to >> spend billions to change their manufacturing facilities over from RWD, to >> build the more costly. less safe FWD vehicles to make vehicles smaller >> and >> lighter, yet still have sufficient room for five people that American >> wanted. A high ranking GM manager told me the reason they changed to FWD was that they could build the car $50 cheaper than a RWD. I have no idea if that is true. You can tell your 'high ranking' friend he does not know what he is taking about. Ford sold the first FWD Fords to dealers below cost, just to meet CAFE, so they could still sell the larger RWD cars they were still building to make money. It took three years for economies of scale to bring down the build costs ;) mike hunt > Mike Hunter wrote: >>> Because of CAFE, date certain deadlines, the domestics had to [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > they could build the car $50 cheaper than a RWD. I have no idea if that > is true. >You can tell your 'high ranking' friend he does not know what he is taking >about. Ford sold the first FWD Fords to dealers below cost, just to meet [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >mike hunt It would be just as correct to say that Ford sold small cars below cost to offset poor milage due to big cars. I don't see what FWD has to do with it. Besides, there is a limit to how much you would be willing to lose on small cars just to hit the CAFE numbers. Remember, you don't have to hit the CAFE numbers. Ferrari and Rolls Royce never made the numbers but they are still allowed to sell cars here. >> Mike Hunter wrote: >>>> Because of CAFE, date certain deadlines, the domestics had to [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> they could build the car $50 cheaper than a RWD. I have no idea if that >> is true. You believe that because you know nothing about how CAFE rules are applied, I suppose. ;) mike >>You can tell your 'high ranking' friend he does not know what he is taking >>about. Ford sold the first FWD Fords to dealers below cost, just to meet [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > hit the CAFE numbers. Ferrari and Rolls Royce never made the numbers > but they are still allowed to sell cars here. >You believe that because you know nothing about how CAFE rules are applied, >I suppose. ;) > >mike Perhaps you could point me to the website for those 30mpg RRs and Ferraris? >>>You can tell your 'high ranking' friend he does not know what he is taking >>>about. Ford sold the first FWD Fords to dealers below cost, just to meet [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> hit the CAFE numbers. Ferrari and Rolls Royce never made the numbers >> but they are still allowed to sell cars here. Do your own research. I don't do homework for my own grand children. CAFE for cars is 27.5 MPG not 30 MPG. Hint; Gas Guzzler Tax mike hunt >>You believe that because you know nothing about how CAFE rules are >>applied, [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >>> hit the CAFE numbers. Ferrari and Rolls Royce never made the numbers >>> but they are still allowed to sell cars here. >Do your own research. I don't do homework for my own grand children. CAFE >for cars is 27.5 MPG not 30 MPG. Hint; Gas Guzzler Tax I am aware that the CAFE standard for cars is 27.5 mpg. I am also aware that, if you sell a lot of cars that get (optimistically) 15 mpg then you have to have some over 30 if you are going to meet the target. I also know that neither RR nor Ferrari has ever sold a car that was rated at 30 mpg by the EPA. The Gas Guzzler tax in only indirectly related to the CAFE standards. You can meet the CAFE standard and still have some vehicles hit by the GGT. Conversely, you can miss the CAFE target and yet not pay the GGT. And, to reiterate my original point (which you wish to dismiss with a wave of your hand), you can always simply miss the CAFE standard and just pay the tax. No car maker *has* to meet the CAFE standard and there are a number that never have. >mike hunt > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >>>> hit the CAFE numbers. Ferrari and Rolls Royce never made the numbers >>>> but they are still allowed to sell cars here. Who ever said there were not, but they pay a huge gas guzzler tax for the privilege. The last of the large Chrysler New Yorkers, that was sold alongside the smaller FWD NY, has a guzzler tax of $500 The RWD NY cost so much less to build than the FWD NY that Chrysler sold it for several years before discontinuing the model The fact is the mix of vehicles must be sales weighed to avoid the tax, not just have higher mileage models available for sale Ford had to sell two of its smaller cars to one CV to avoid a guzzler tax on the CV, until the CV was equipped with EFI.. Ford eventually stopped building the CV in the US and move all of the production to the Canadian CV plant to calculate its CAFE with it other 'import' cars made in Mexico when CAFE went to 27.5 ;) mike hunt >>Do your own research. I don't do homework for my own grand children. >>CAFE [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] >>>>> hit the CAFE numbers. Ferrari and Rolls Royce never made the numbers >>>>> but they are still allowed to sell cars here. > > A high ranking GM manager told me the reason they changed to FWD was that > > they could build the car $50 cheaper than a RWD. I have no idea if that > > is true > You can tell your 'high ranking' friend he does not know what he is taking > about. Ford sold the first FWD Fords to dealers below cost, just to meet > CAFE, so they could still sell the larger RWD cars they were still building > to make money. It took three years for economies of scale to bring down > the build costs ;) If auto makers and parts suppliers had to start from scratch, including all the machinery, how much more would FWD cost compared to RWD? > Mike Hunter wrote: >>> Because of CAFE, date certain deadlines, the domestics had to [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > they could build the car $50 cheaper than a RWD. I have no idea if that > is true. At Toyota, FWD is less expensive to make than RWD. I do no know why the same is not true at Ford. SignatureRay O (correct punctuation to reply) You believe that because you know nothing about how vehicles are built on an assembly, I supose ;) mike hunt >> Mike Hunter wrote: >>>> Because of CAFE, date certain deadlines, the domestics had to [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > At Toyota, FWD is less expensive to make than RWD. I do no know why the > same is not true at Ford. > You believe that because you know nothing about how vehicles are built on > an assembly, I supose ;) > > mike hunt I believe that because that is what the chief engineers for the Tercel and Corolla design teams told me when I asked why Toyota had decided to develop FWD cars without a previous history ;-) I am not doubting that the case may be different at Ford or other companies. Perhaps Toyota's assembly methodology allows them to save money on FWD cars? SignatureRay O (correct punctuation to reply) >>> Mike Hunter wrote: >>>>> Because of CAFE, date certain deadlines, the domestics had to [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> At Toyota, FWD is less expensive to make than RWD. I do no know why the >> same is not true at Ford. >> You believe that because you know nothing about how vehicles are built on >> an assembly, I supose ;) [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >>> At Toyota, FWD is less expensive to make than RWD. I do no know why the >>> same is not true at Ford. Mike just could not bear the thought that they (Toyota) knew what they were doing. I have not intention of teaching a class in a NG of how FWD and RWD assembly lines must be operated, no matter the brand. I'll simply say again you obviously know nothing about how vehicles are built on an assembly line if that is what you believe. mike hunt >> You believe that because you know nothing about how vehicles are built on >> an assembly, I supose ;) [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >>> At Toyota, FWD is less expensive to make than RWD. I do no know why the >>> same is not true at Ford. >I have not intention of teaching a class in a NG of how FWD and RWD >assembly lines must be operated, no matter the brand. I'll simply say >again you obviously know nothing about how vehicles are built on an >assembly line if that is what you believe. > > mike hunt I do not profess to be an expert on how assembly lines are operated, I only assume that the design engineers I spoke with had some expertise in that area. Toyota uses the same assembly lines for FWD and RWD, at least back in the fall of 1985, when I saw RWD Corolla Hatchbacks coming down the same line as FWD Celicas at Tahara. Before then, I was not aware that it was practical to assemble not only different driveline configurations, but different models on the same line. Why do FWD vehicles cost more to assemble than RWD vehicles? SignatureRay O (correct punctuation to reply) > Why do FWD vehicles cost more to assemble than RWD vehicles? They don't. In fact, FWD is easier to assemble because the entire engine, transmission, front end assembly can be built freestanding and then inserted as a unit into the vehicle, typically from the underside. If you live near an automobile assembly plant you can probably arrange a tour and see for yourself. Another advantage of FWD is slightly reduced drivetran losses which means that more of the power generated by the engine makes it to the road-tire interface. All other things being equal, a FWD implementation will yield higher fuel economy than the same component set implemented as RWD. Mike's rantings can generally be safely ignored. He generally hides behind statements like "I dont' do research for my kids". John >> Why do FWD vehicles cost more to assemble than RWD vehicles? > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > John I spent 15 years working for an automaker, and while I do not consider myself an expert on vehicle production systems, I am not totally unaware of assembly methods and the advantages and disadvantages of FWD and RWD powertrains. I've read a few of Mike's posts, I was hoping to hear his explanation of why FWD costs more than RWD. SignatureRay O (correct punctuation to reply) >>> Why do FWD vehicles cost more to assemble than RWD vehicles? >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >I've read a few of Mike's posts, I was hoping to hear his explanation of why >FWD costs more than RWD. Mike is long on brash statements and short on explanations and supporting evidence. There was a time when he might have thrown out some BS explanation only to be skewered with solid evidence refuting his outlandish claim. Now he just acts like it is beneath his dignity to support any claim he makes. FWD vehicles require more off line preassembly, which is more expensive . mike hunt >>I have not intention of teaching a class in a NG of how FWD and RWD >>assembly lines must be operated, no matter the brand. I'll simply say [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Why do FWD vehicles cost more to assemble than RWD vehicles? > FWD vehicles require more off line preassembly, which is more expensive . > > mike hunt That makes some sense, but why is off line preassembly more expensive than on line? Wouldn't the lower parts costs make up for some of the higher preassembly costs? SignatureRay O (correct punctuation to reply) >>>I have not intention of teaching a class in a NG of how FWD and RWD >>>assembly lines must be operated, no matter the brand. I'll simply say [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> >> Why do FWD vehicles cost more to assemble than RWD vehicles? What lower parts costs? Many of the parts needed to meet CAFE and emission standards added significant 'costs' to build the vehicle. The extra cost of preassembly have to do with extra man hours. Some preassembly, like a competed door, can save money because it use to take more time to do on the line, but that is not the case with the compete FWD assembly Few realize the cost of building a car like the Lexus versions of Toyotas are only a relative few hundreds dollars more, yet the cars sell for many thousands more retail. mike hunt >> FWD vehicles require more off line preassembly, which is more expensive . >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > on line? Wouldn't the lower parts costs make up for some of the higher > preassembly costs? > What lower parts costs? Many of the parts needed to meet CAFE and > emission standards added significant 'costs' to build the vehicle. I agree that many of the parts needed to meet CAFE and emission standards add significant costs to build the vehicle, but most of those parts would be on the vehicle regardless of driveline configuration. The extra cost of > preassembly have to do with extra man hours. Some preassembly, like a > competed door, can save money because it use to take more time to do on > the line, but that is not the case with the compete FWD assembly Assuming that you mean that assembling a transaxle takes more man-hours than a transmission/driveshaft/differential/axle, then I follow what you're saying. Few realize > the cost of building a car like the Lexus versions of Toyotas are only a > relative few hundreds dollars more, yet the cars sell for many thousands > more retail. > > mike hunt True, as is the case with Lincoln versions of Fords; Cadillac versions of Chevrolet/GMC; Mercedes Benz versions of Chryslers; Audi versions of Volkswagens, and so on, although I do not see the relevance of this to the discussion of FWD vs. RWD. SignatureRay O (correct punctuation to reply) > Few realize > the cost of building a car like the Lexus versions of Toyotas are only a > relative few hundreds dollars more, yet the cars sell for many thousands > more retail. Kind of like a top end Chev vs the base model EH! > You believe that because you know nothing about how vehicles are built on an > assembly, I supose ;) > > mike hunt a transaxle is cheaper to produce than a transmission with a seperate axle. this is where the FWD 'assembly' cost savings come from. bob z. http://www.siemensvdo.com/press/releases/chassisandcarbody/2006/sv-200608-001-e.htm " integrate the drivetrain, steering, shock absorbers and brakes directly into the wheels of future cars" > > You believe that because you know nothing about how vehicles are built on an > > assembly, I supose ;) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > bob z. > " integrate the drivetrain, steering, shock absorbers and brakes > directly into the wheels of future cars" ISTR the Apollo astronauts took a vehicle something like that to the Moon with them. ;-) SignatureAndrew Stephenson >http://www.siemensvdo.com/press/releases/chassisandcarbody/2006/sv-200608-001-e.htm > >" integrate the drivetrain, steering, shock absorbers and brakes >directly into the wheels of future cars" Red Bull gives you wings. > Yes GM has the Aveo, but what's with the crappy fuel > mileage? Old technology from the Daewoo fire-sale. GM slapped the Chevy name on a failed Korean car and is selling 'em cheap. Honda Fit - 33 City, 38 Highway Toyota Yaris - 34 City, 40 Highway Chevy Aveo - 27 City, 35 Highway Fit MSRP $13,850 Yaris MSRP $11,825 Aveo MSRP $13,050 So much for the Chevy being bargain priced. Of course you can probably get "deals" on the Chevy while the Honda and Toyota are sold out and not being discounted, but that again speaks to the desireability of the vehicles. John Aveo MSRP starts at $9,995 mike >> Yes GM has the Aveo, but what's with the crappy fuel mileage? > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > John Sure, if you want a stripped Aveo without air conditioning, CD player or anything else you can buy the sub $10k special. Almost nobody does. John > Aveo MSRP starts at $9,995 > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >>Toyota Yaris - 34 City, 40 Highway >>Chevy Aveo - 27 City, 35 Highway > >> My prediction for the 2016 *retail* US sales rankings: > >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > or Mazda. Many of the US passenger cars are older models. One minor trend is > a couple of new Ford Fusions out in the lot. Their first big step is unloading all the union contracts. They are watching Northwest do in their unions. GM will follow. Cut overhead first. > I find myself wanting a Toyota Yaris liftback. I find myself needing > something with better mileage for daily driving (I need to keep the truck [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > and seem to clueless in designing cars with appeal. > John -- >> >> My prediction for the 2016 *retail* US sales rankings: >> >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >watching Northwest do in their unions. GM will follow. Cut overhead >first. If you want to level the playing field, then let's have national health coverage like all the other industrialized countries. Get it off the back of the corporations. Why should GM have to pay for it while Honda doesn't? Hondas employees in the US do not get as good a wage, benefits, including healthcare, or pensions as do GMs employees. Surely you do not believe that national health coverage will be free, do you? Why do you think gas cost $6 or more in Europe and they have a VAT tax? LOL mike >>> >> My prediction for the 2016 *retail* US sales rankings: >>> >> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > off the back of the corporations. Why should GM have to pay for it > while Honda doesn't? > Why do you think gas cost > $6 or more in Europe and they have a VAT tax? In order to promote good transport systems and it is working Excessive taxation slows economic growth. Hence the poor economic growth in Europe, over the past ten years or so, and the high unemployment rates. Free medical is anything but free. Surly you do not want the US to emulate Europe? ;) mike hunt >> Why do you think gas cost >> $6 or more in Europe and they have a VAT tax? > > In order to promote good transport systems and it is working Taxation on petrol has prompted new technology to go away from petrol and thus promoted smaller cars, bigger trains and better economy US could do well emulating Europe Europe has been improving a lot its transport system over the last decades and not the least because of controlled taxation by taxing petrol and promoting alternatives Market economy with lots of interventions by the governments in health care and unemployment benefits has created a very good balance and a strong middle class The high unemployment rates are mainly in former east areas and results of former centralised controled governments The production per manhours is much higher in Europe than in the US The norm is for 6 weeks paid vacations, many countries 35 hour work weeks, not unusual around 50 year pension schemes The underground economy where people pay each other without letting the government know is also quite high so the overall economy is much better than the official figures show Unemployed people, people on holidays, medical benefits or pensions are often working and paid with black money giving extra strenght to the economy The US could learn a lot from Europe but they do not because they think they know it all > Excessive taxation slows economic growth. Hence the poor economic growth in > Europe, over the past ten years or so, and the high unemployment rates. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > > > In order to promote good transport systems and it is working > Taxation on petrol has prompted new technology to go away from petrol > and thus promoted smaller cars, bigger trains and better economy [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > The US could learn a lot from Europe but they do not because they think > they know it all Let me guess - English is your second language? If not, you should find your high school English teacher and sue her for not doing her job. >> Excessive taxation slows economic growth. Hence the poor economic growth >> in [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> > >> > In order to promote good transport systems and it is working >> The US could learn a lot from Europe but they do not because they >> think they know it all > > Let me guess - English is your second language? If not, you should > find your high school English teacher and sue her for not doing her > job. Well, he's Finnish... but his English is a helluva lot better than most Brits who post on the Soccer forums. Lay off him, never mind his Economics are bullshit! SignatureYeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price you pay..DEAL with it! Well.... What is wrong with my economics? Economics I have had many teachers in and if you want to be added to that list I would sure like to know what is wrong with it Unlike many others I am very willing to learn and not the least from friendly, knowing people > his Economics are bullshit! > > -- > Yeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price > you pay..DEAL with it! > Well.... > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Unlike many others I am very willing to learn and not the least from > friendly, knowing people Well, not so much your economics as the underlying assumptions...the social Economics are usually taught as a re-skin of Marxist theology under the same sort of thinking as Keynes used. Which is that you might assume one variable does not affect the other. Example being: that you can adjust inflation rate by raising taxes, which supposedly reduces demand thus price for discretionary spending. Which is, short term true but long term false as the earner will then adjust price/wage for inflation so as to maintain the profit or standard of living. All the above is not learned through classroom lecture but best from watching and remembering the effects after. >> his Economics are bullshit! >> >> -- >> Yeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price >> you pay..DEAL with it! SignatureYeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price you pay..DEAL with it! > Well, not so much your economics as the underlying assumptions...the > social Economics are usually taught as a re-skin of Marxist theology [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > All the above is not learned through classroom lecture but best from > watching and remembering the effects after. I think that if you consider the production per manhour in US and compare it with manhour in Europe that you will see that the Europe figure is much much higher In Europe people work much fewer hours, have longer vacations, have better job security The market economy is in effect in both cases but the European one has a more humane touch and is actually working better Look at the value of the dollar for one thing The dollar compared to the pound is close to 1:2 now and it used to be 1:1 a few years back The raltionship between the Dollar to Euro is also slipping dollar used to be $ > Euro and is now $ < Euro Europe is still working off the effects of the former east problems but even with those problems the manhour in Europe gives higher productivity than the manhour does in US I am then talking about Europe as a whole The former east part is still lagging way behind both but changing quickly as time goes by and new generation of people grow up The older generation living under centralised government that ended roughly 16 years ago has really high unemployment rate and are used to the central taking all initiative When the new generation born after the fall of the Berlin wall is coming of age things are changing a lot The strange thing is that as Europe is changing away from centralised government because of its failures than US is going more and more towards centralised government It is happening so gradually that everyman is hardly noticing it More and more big brother tendencies is deteriorating the productivity of the manhour in the US system The unions in many big cos in US are much more a hindrance for increased productivity than the general system in effect in Europe > I think that if you consider the production per manhour in US and > compare it with manhour in Europe that you will see that the Europe > figure is much much higher LINK THAT!!!! If you CAN, leave out Great Britain.. SignatureYeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price you pay..DEAL with it! The Socialists really have you brain washed, it that is what you believe The US economy is rising at nearly twice the rate in Europe, over the past ten years, and it is twice the size to begin with. Compare GNP and see who is better off. The US is the freest economy in the world, to a fault, the US does not restrict imports or the exportation of capital as they do in Europe.. How many European and British corporation make there highest profits in the US? Why do you think the Japs have a piss poor share of the market in Europe? IF Europe acted like the US in that regard, the only cars you could buy in Europe would be Japanese. ;) mike hunt >> Well, not so much your economics as the underlying assumptions...the >> social Economics are usually taught as a re-skin of Marxist theology [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > The unions in many big cos in US are much more a hindrance for > increased productivity than the general system in effect in Europe English is about my 10th language It would be good of you to point out my mistakes - I am always willing to learn I did not have an english teacher I learn most my languages without the aid of teachers The spellcheckers have been very helpful and living in the countries too as well as frequent visits Not to mention helpful hints from friendly people in newsgroups > Let me guess - English is your second language? If not, you should find > your high school English teacher and sue her for not doing her job. And yet the Europeans have a real hard time with patrolling its back yard and who has to the rescue? You're allowed only one guess... JT > Taxation on petrol has prompted new technology to go away from petrol > and thus promoted smaller cars, bigger trains and better economy [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > > > > > In order to promote good transport systems and it is working >Excessive taxation slows economic growth. Hence the poor economic growth in >Europe, over the past ten years or so, and the high unemployment rates. >Free medical is anything but free. Surly you do not want the US to emulate >Europe? ;) > >mike hunt Here is a question for you, Mike. What is the second richest country in the world that doesn't have nationalized health care? >>> Why do you think gas cost >>> $6 or more in Europe and they have a VAT tax? >> >> In order to promote good transport systems and it is working >>Excessive taxation slows economic growth. Hence the poor economic >>growth in Europe, over the past ten years or so, and the high [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Here is a question for you, Mike. What is the second richest country > in the world that doesn't have nationalized health care? Here's one for you... where do those folks who cant, or dont want to, wait for their NHS number to come up typically go as an option? What is the state of hospitals in the UK and Canada? SignatureYeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer, putting up with my 'smartass' is the price you pay..DEAL with it! >Hondas employees in the US do not get as good a wage, benefits, including >healthcare, or pensions as do GMs employees. Surely you do not believe that >national health coverage will be free, do you? No, but it costs a lot less than health care in the US and everyone has it. Why do you think gas cost >$6 or more in Europe and they have a VAT tax? LOL > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >> off the back of the corporations. Why should GM have to pay for it >> while Honda doesn't? >>Hondas employees in the US do not get as good a wage, benefits, including >>healthcare, or pensions as do GMs employees. Surely you do not believe that >>national health coverage will be free, do you? > >No, but it costs a lot less than health care in the US and everyone >has it. . . . remainder of the posting snipped fro brevity Gordon, The reasons that health care costs more in the USA boils down to 3 points: 1) The citizens of the US subsidize the health care of the rest of the world. How? Easy - the R&D costs in drugs, medical appliances and other medical devices invented and perfected here that are used throughout the rest of the world. You need look no further than Canada to see the results - the Canadian gov. demands that the drug companies sell their drugs at the price the Canadian gov. demands they be sold at, regardless of the real costs, or Canadian law allows the Canadian gov. to expropraite the patent (which in the US would be a crime called extortion). So the drug companies transfer their costs back to the citizens of the USA. 2) The cost of our INSANE tort legal system. I don't think I need to elaborate on this - folks far more learened that I am on the law have already sliced that salami. 3) The stubborness of a lot of folks in the US (and at times I have to include myself in this group) that do not pay enough attention to preventative care. It nearly always costs more to fix something wrong with a human if it is let go than if it is nipped while small. I see the same thing every day with cars too. One of the oil filter companies had a whole ad campaign built around that - the tag line of the ad series was "pay me now or pay me BIG later". Regards, Bill Bowen Sacramento, CA >>>Hondas employees in the US do not get as good a wage, benefits, including >>>healthcare, or pensions as do GMs employees. Surely you do not believe that [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >called extortion). So the drug companies transfer their costs back to >the citizens of the USA. Really? The Canadian government can command a US company to sell its products in Canada and then set the price? And all the other countries can do this also? How does that work? Don't be naive. Big Pharma makes a good profit selling to those other countries. They are making a killing in the US. Don't believe the big sob stories about their research and FDA approval costs and the great new drugs they give us. While there are constant improvements in drugs, most new drugs launched on the market are little or no better than the old ones and a new drug always carries an uncertain risk. And a lot of the research is marketing driven. >2) The cost of our INSANE tort legal system. I don't think I need to >elaborate on this - folks far more learened that I am on the law have [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Bill Bowen > Sacramento, CA > >Hondas employees in the US do not get as good a wage, benefits, including > >healthcare, or pensions as do GMs employees. Surely you do not believe that > >national health coverage will be free, do you? > > No, but it costs a lot less than health care in the US and everyone > has it. I hope IF it comes down to national health care that someone explains how it will work, how it will be funded and how much we'll have to pay BEFORE it is voted on. To this day I do not have a clue as to how this monster would work. Do even any of the lawmakers have a clue. It gets batted around and everybody rah-rah's it without knowing the intimate details. Scary. -- > > >Hondas employees in the US do not get as good a wage, benefits, including > > >healthcare, or pensions as do GMs employees. Surely you do not believe that [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > details. Scary. > -- If it were to be run like anything else the guv'ment does... We be screwed! JT Just as with everything else you buy, YOU will pay the price. The difference is now you can pick and chose what and were you buy, what you buy. If the government takes over they will tell you what to pay and take if from you in taxes. They will tell you to whom you must go, and when, to receive your 'Free' care. Has the government EVER run anything efficiently that you know of? Look at Medicare. When presented it was estimated to cost a certain amount annually in ten years. Those that were opposed to the government getting into healthcare said it will cost twice that much, they were wrong. It cost five times as much. Before Medicare it cost around two hours pay to go to a doctor, now it cost six hours pay. A hospital bed a days wages, now you can not get a bed for a weeks wages. Look at drugs for seniors. Even with a competitive system to keep cost down, cost of drugs to the individual are still going up. Imagine what will happen if everyone, including the rich and super rich can get free drugs and healthcare? mike hunt >> >Hondas employees in the US do not get as good a wage, benefits, >> >including [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > batted around and everybody rah-rah's it without knowing the intimate > details. Scary. > Just as with everything else you buy, YOU will pay the price. The > difference is now you can pick and chose what and were you buy, what [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >> clue. It gets batted around and everybody rah-rah's it without >> knowing the intimate details. Scary. Instead of creating a nationwide healthcare system, we oughta shore up the free market healthcare system in several ways. First, we need more MD's and nurses, and this can be done by creating more medical colleges and expanding nursing education programs. Quality of care would go up, and costs would go way down. Supply and demand. There are few spots open in medical schools. The difference in credentials between those getting in and those not getting in are negligable at best. There are many qualified people who can't get into medical school, because there are so few spots open. Also nursing. A family friend is a nursing professor at a university near here. There are way more applicants to the nursing program than spots open in the program -- about 5 to 1. There aren't many spots open (even though there's a huge demand for nurses to the point that some make $50/hour), because there aren't enough nursing instructors (they'd rather make $50/hour as nurses in the hospital rather than $20/hour as nursing instructors at a college). We need to increase funding for nursing instructors so as to train more nurses. Also, we need to cap these huge medical malpractice jury awards. Many times, the awards are lopsided. A few victims get the lion's share of the malpractice dollars available, while others get nothing due to the malpractice insurance co. going bankrupt. Capping awards would lower the huge rates that doctors have to pay. All of these measures WOULD lower medical cost and increase the level of time a physician could spend with their patients, and overall improve the healthcare industry. Everyone who want to lower health care cost in the US should write to their Senators and ask them to vote to stop debate, on pending tort reform legislation so it can come up before the Senate for a vote, and you will have more Doctors and Nurses. I have a personal friend, a well known heart surgeon who no longer practices because of Mal Practice Insurance costs. mike hunt >> Just as with everything else you buy, YOU will pay the price. The >> difference is now you can pick and chose what and were you buy, what [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > physician could spend with their patients, and overall improve the > healthcare industry. >Just as with everything else you buy, YOU will pay the price. The >difference is now you can pick and chose what and were you buy, what you [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >were wrong. It cost five times as much. Before Medicare it cost around two >hours pay to go to a doctor, now it cost six hours pay. But medicare pays less than private insurance. And private insurance pays less than you do with no insurance. How the hell can it be Medicare's fault that the price is high. The fact is that Medicare runs a very tight ship. (Except for Bush's welfare subsidy to Big Pharma masquerading as a drug plan for seniors.) >A hospital bed a >days wages, now you can not get a bed for a weeks wages. Look at drugs for >seniors. Even with a competitive system to keep cost down, cost of drugs to >the individual are still going up. Imagine what will happen if everyone, >including the rich and super rich can get free drugs and healthcare? Yep, what we have now is the most expensive health care in the world. When you look at it that way, hard to imagine that the government could make it worse. >mike hunt > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> batted around and everybody rah-rah's it without knowing the intimate >> details. Scary. WHO THE f.ck CARES? Take it to email or an appropriate newsgroup. Just go to alt.autos.toyota if you want to see what you're turning this previously fine newgroup into. "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in news:elmop- 945457.18200404082006@nntp2.usenetserver.com: > WHO THE f.ck CARES? > > Take it to email or an appropriate newsgroup. > > Just go to alt.autos.toyota if you want to see what you're turning this > previously fine newgroup into. Obviously you don't care about things that are important. So why not just overlook the off-topic threads and move on? Or killfile some folks. You pencil necked geek. > > WHO THE f.ck CARES? > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Obviously you don't care about things that are important. I care. But you don't get into heated debates about health care in the middle of my son's school Christmas play. Everything has an appropriate time and place, and an inappropriate time and place. I suppose you go to Wendy's and stand at people's lunch tables and start screaming your opinions about welfare, right? After all--according to you--"you care" and therefore it's appropriate, right? You think the government can not make things worse? You have never been in a VA hospital or seen by a VA doctor. Piss poor doctors and second rate coverage if you can even get into a Hospital or find a doctor You are confused Medicare sets the rates charged by hospitals and doctors in a given area, and sets them high. I don't know what private coverage you have but my coverage arranges with doctors and hospital to pay far less than Medicare allows per person in the area. The reason Medicare pays five times as much as the VA for the same coverage, is Medicare payments to hospital are a round about way to reimburse hospitals and doctors for free emergency care they must provide, under the Hill Burton Act, for the indigent.. The only was a doctor can charge you less than the Medicare rate is for him not to treat Medicare patients Paying for drugs was never a problem for me but I now spend around $250 less a month for my meds, since the drug law went into effect, and I do not buy part 'D'. The sad part is, even though I never applied for SS, because of the Medicare law I can not even buy private coverage unless I sign up and pay for part 'B.' Because of all the old folks in Florida, they get all of their drugs free and need not pay a monthly premium. mike hunt >>Just as with everything else you buy, YOU will pay the price. The >>difference is now you can pick and chose what and were you buy, what you [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >>the individual are still going up. Imagine what will happen if everyone, >>including the rich and super rich can get free drugs and healthcare? >>mike hunt > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > When you look at it that way, hard to imagine that the government > could make it worse. > Yep, what we have now is the most expensive health care in the world. > When you look at it that way, hard to imagine that the government > could make it worse. What you say should make a lot of sense, but in my mind, NOTHING could be worse than having the government run anything so important. Everything I've ever seen the government try to take over is always poorly run and more costly. Can you think of anything they've run better and more cheaply? Let's even make that easier. Can you think of anything they've run well? Personally, I want the government in my life much less than it already is. Not more. > Gordon McGrew wrote: >> >> Yep, what we have now is the most expensive health care >> in the world. It's a virtual monopoly, and consumers (1) are discouraged from shopping around for the best prices; (2) usually have no awareness of what their insurer is paying for medical care and how this differs from what someone with other or no insurance would pay. Unlike auto repair shops, when was the last time anyone saw doctors' offices advertising the cost of a routine 10k mile body checkup in the local newspaper? Or what's the cheapest ER within twenty miles for getting a laceration sewed up? Given the wait times in many ERs for such an injury, may as well make the driving radius 100 miles. (Wait times can routinely be long in some ERs, because some are dedicated to certain types of injury, and these injuries fill up the ER.) Consumers, overcome with fear uncertainty and doubt, now view health insurance as not something for peace of mind but something from which they should get their money's worth every year. Which of course just raises health insurance prices more. It seems increasingly more "funny money" is getting around, too. E.g. in the past year for two minor procedures, once the billing source heard I was not affiliated with any insurer but was paying directly, they slashed my bills. So now the uninsured can count on the insured to pay the cost of "negotiating" lower fees? I do not want to rely on this (even though in theory I received a smaller bill these last times). It's not free market action. Consumers have no idea of the actual costs of services. It does resemble a pyramid scheme: Insurance Company X says that, by purchasing their plan, you'll get a 20% discount from the "normal" price that doctor's office Y charges. Y does not want to give money away, so s/he raises the prices on services. X responds by raising the prices for the consumer. The consumer Z is just happy s/he's getting 20% off whatever price. >> When you look at it that way, hard to imagine that the >> government >> could make it worse. Government intervenes to prevent monopolistic practices all the time. While health care providers and insurers may not be breaking the law on trusts (= monopolies), they are violating the principles on which this law is based. > What you say should make a lot of sense, but in my mind, > NOTHING could be worse than having the government run > anything so important. Everything I've ever seen the > government try to take over is always poorly run and more > costly. Can you think of anything they've run better and > more cheaply? This is a trick question, since rarely have direct comparisons been possible. We could talk about the construction of interstate highways, USPS vs. UPS (they seem pretty competitive), disaster relief (despite Katrina, it would be only conjecture to say a private firm could handle such a situation better), Medicare for the 65 and older crowd vs. private insurance today, and not get anywhere meaningful. >> Yep, what we have now is the most expensive health care in the world. >> When you look at it that way, hard to imagine that the government [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Everything I've ever seen the government try to take over is >always poorly run and more costly. The USPS makes a profit and only charges 39 cents to deliver a letter to Buttfuck Idaho. > Can you think of anything >they've run better and more cheaply? Well, the US Army used to pay a soldier $15,000 plus rations to drive a truck in a war zone. Now they give Haliburton |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message