Thunder,
Most manufacture industries are a tough business, which requires a crystal
ball to be able to look into the future. That is why we don't want to put
the government in charge of making decisions. It can result in US companies
being non competitive in a global marketplace. Over the years, the
marketplace has proven to be the best method of allocating limited
resources.

In reality, US automakers should be able to predict rising oil prices and
offer cars and trucks offering high fuel efficiency and those offering high
power and torque.



"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 08:30:14 -0500, Sir Rodney Smithers wrote:

Thunder,
That wasn't the question, the question is should car manufacturers ONLY
build cars to a government mandate, or should they use initiative to do
better than the mandate, if they think it is something the consumer will
buy?

Well, as Toyota is eating GM's lunch, I would say they should use
initiative to do better, as Toyota did. However, I will also say car
manufacturing has to be a tough business. Predicting the market 5-10
years out, borders on needing a crystal ball.

If I recall correctly, Toyota can build a care with less man hours per car
than GM, and the hourly cost is lower, so they naturally can offer more car
per dollar than GM. The GM bureaucracy means it taks years to get a car
from concept to production. I remember in the mid 80's when I was doing
work at the BOC engineering facility in Flint, they were mocking up 96-98
cars. The problem is obvious.

Not to mention the onerous union problems



"Sir Rodney Smithers" Ask me about my knighthood. wrote in message
...
Thunder,
Most manufacture industries are a tough business, which requires a crystal
ball to be able to look into the future. That is why we don't want to
put
the government in charge of making decisions. It can result in US
companies
being non competitive in a global marketplace. Over the years, the
marketplace has proven to be the best method of allocating limited
resources.

In reality, US automakers should be able to predict rising oil prices and
offer cars and trucks offering high fuel efficiency and those offering
high
power and torque.



"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 08:30:14 -0500, Sir Rodney Smithers wrote:

Thunder,
That wasn't the question, the question is should car manufacturers ONLY
build cars to a government mandate, or should they use initiative to do
better than the mandate, if they think it is something the consumer
will
buy?

Well, as Toyota is eating GM's lunch, I would say they should use
initiative to do better, as Toyota did. However, I will also say car
manufacturing has to be a tough business. Predicting the market 5-10
years out, borders on needing a crystal ball.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 20:27:08 +0000, NOYB wrote:


But how can this be? Toyota builds a lot of its cars in the US.

Oh, never mind. Their US manufacturing plants are non-union.

That may be, but their labor costs are comparable.

No they're not. Labor costs *include* health care costs and retiree
benefits costs...two areas where GM, Ford, and Chrysler have a huge
comparative disadvantage.

GM's health insurance is second to none. Their dental insurance pays for
things that no other companies pay for. Their pension plans and
post-retirement health insurance is also among the top in any industry.
That's a good thing if you're an employee...right up until the company
begins to go broke because they can't afford the benefit packages any
longer.

A similar thing happened to the steel mills in northern Indiana. The unions
fought tooth and nail to prevent any cuts in benefit packages, always
threatening to strike if management tried to implement any cost-cutting
measures. The result? Management shut the plants down, declared
bankruptcy, and folks were left with nothing. Sometimes half a loaf is
better than no loaf at all.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 14:10:37 -0600, Dan J.S. wrote:


Yup it was Bush causing GM and Ford to build crappy vehicles that no one
wants. And to arrange for stupid "go for broke" union contracts.

One of the major reasons GM's cars aren't selling, is gas mileage.
Perhaps, the lower CAFE standards for small trucks and SUVs, was a little
short sighted.

I have an Infiniti G35 that gets worse mileage than any GM car that I've
ever owned. If you look at GM's midsize and full-size cars, their fuel
economy is as good as or better than the imports. Same goes for their
trucks.

Fuel economy isn't the reason. High labor costs is the reason.

"Sir Rodney Smithers" Ask me about my knighthood. wrote in message
...
Thunder,
Do you think companies should only manufacturer cars based upon government
mandates (ie CAFE standards)? Why did Toyota decide to try to do better
than the CAFE standards?

Perhaps some car buyers are smart enough to understand that if you can get
where you need to go by using less gas, it would be a great thing even if
gasoline cost absolutely nothing. You know - don't waste things no matter
what they are? I learned that from my parents, who lived through the
Depression with THEIR parents. It's still a good idea.

Jim Carter wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 20:27:08 +0000, NOYB wrote:
That may be, but their labor costs are comparable. There are several
reasons Toyota is eating GM's lunch, but unions aren't one of them. I've
said this before, when health care costs are 15% GDP, there is an
international competitive disadvantage, and Toyota has a younger

workforce.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/01/09/pf/a...toshow_walkup/

http://www.madeinusamag.com/Article8.html


Another reason that Toyota is ahead of GM is that the per vehicle unit cost
is less. Toyota also does not pay it's workers to sit around and do
nothing. Toyota also builds what the people want in a vehicle. The
quality of a Toyota is far superior to that of any GM car or truck.

I now own an GM made Chevy TrailBlazer and it will be my last GM product
that I buy. A Toyota Manufacturing Plant is located only 15 kilometers
from my home. Toyota is now in the process of building two more plants
within 60 kilometers of here.

I will buy what my neighbors build.

Jim C.


What models will be built in your area Jim? (pickups, SUVs autos?)

"Don White" wrote in message
...
.. What models will be built in your area Jim? (pickups, SUVs autos?)

The Toyota Motors Canada plant in Cambridge makes approx. 300,000 per year
of the Corolla, Matrix and the Lexus RX330. The engine plant makes approx.
150,000 4 cyl. engines per year.
The two new plants, which will be in Woodstock, will make the Rav 4 and the
Hino Trucks.

Jim C.

"P Fritz" wrote in message
...
Besides the fact that increasing cafe standards has costs thousands of
lives
and millions of dollars........but that doesn't matter to the liebrals.

Cost lives? How's that?

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 15:19:52 +0000, NOYB wrote:


One of the major reasons GM's cars aren't selling, is gas mileage.
Perhaps, the lower CAFE standards for small trucks and SUVs, was a
little short sighted.

I have an Infiniti G35 that gets worse mileage than any GM car that I've
ever owned. If you look at GM's midsize and full-size cars, their fuel
economy is as good as or better than the imports. Same goes for their
trucks.

Not my point, I'm not talking individual models. I'm talking fleet. GM's
production line is heavily weighted to SUVs and light trucks, gas
guzzlers. It's the 1970s all over again, and GM didn't learn it's lesson.
Americans may like large cars, but with the uncertainties of gas prices,
they prefer fuel efficient cars. Don't believe me? Check out Hummer
sales.

GM's problems are many. It's not just gas prices, and it's certainly not
just labor costs.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...4747-2,00.html


Fuel economy isn't the reason. High labor costs is the reason.

Legacy costs, perhaps, not labor costs. Toyota's American operations have
similar labor costs.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/01/09/pf/a...toshow_walkup/

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 18:54:55 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote:

"P Fritz" wrote in message
...
Besides the fact that increasing cafe standards has costs thousands of
lives
and millions of dollars........but that doesn't matter to the liebrals.

Cost lives? How's that?

The theory is that small fuel efficient cars are not as safe as land
sleds. I've read an estimate that CAFE standards might have added 2000
additional traffic fatalities since the 70s.