Maybe new cars are getting more aerodynamic?

[Blue07CivicEX]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Really? I suppose that explains why Detroit has been losing market share ever since the first VW Beetle landed on these shores, and is now on the verge of bankruptcy. That "but people like driving big vehicles" meme has been such a resounding success, hasn't it?

Have you also noticed that in the past 10 years every import manufacturer has started building SUV's? The reason Detroit went under was building rust buckets in the 80's and shotty workmanship and transmissions in the 90's. If somebody is sold a dodge truck, 25k miles in they need the tranny rebuilt, then 62k miles in they need another new tranny and this time it's not covered under the warranty you better believe that's the last Dodge they'll buy (true story). Then one year gas hits $4 and everyone stops buying their most popular models all together.

Detroit is bad because of American greed, everyone thinks they deserve a little more and they'll get it one way or another, well, sometimes people don't and this is the crap that happens.

[theunchosen]

Actually it has very little to do with either of those factors.

The american car companies are paying about 2 as much per employee overall and still trying to compete.

The branches of those companies that are showing viability are the ones not under union control. Detroit will die so long as they hold retarded union contracts.

SUVs and trucks are still the biggest sellers in 2008 and 2009. Its really not that their cars aren't selling its that they are paying too much out to people who do nothing(labor banks ridiculous pensions and so on.)

If you cut all of their employee pay packages to what Honda, Toyota, Kia or Hyundai pays per employee then they are viable market performers.

Its flatout myopic to claim its because they only manufacture "dumb" cars. I totally agree that the US autoindustry slacked off for about 20 years and made cars that were designed to fall apart after 100K miles so you would have to buy a new one or bring it to a dealer(most of the money that a dealership brings in is its service department, the scamming they pull on credit rates and fees is to keep the cash flow moving between major ripjobs.)

Still despite crappy cars from two decades ago people still buy them. Ford is actually still squeaking by because it pays just slightly less than GM and Chrysler on its union contracts and thats all it needed to avoid any outside assistance. Any organization that has had organized labor for more than 30-40 years has either gone under and moved or gone under and reorganized its contracts to be more reasonable. UPS even has problems and cannot compete with Fedex due to labor restrictions.

That said Ford is pretty ridiculous versatile, considering they put out new models that I don't even see advertised until well after I have seen them drive by. I'm pretty well informed and they still manage to dump new vehicles on the market. Also the US auto industry is one of the first manufacturers to put serious research into GDI and even deploy it in non-luxury "normal" cars(Chevy cobalt).

That said they are catching on that it needs to be FE friendly as well as have all the other features and they are coming along pretty well in that direction.

[evolutionmovement]

Another thing is that pretty much ALL the industry is getting hurt right now, it's just that the US companies don't have any financial cushion to weather it and their product range is more limited in terms of desirability.

[theunchosen]

Originally Posted by evolutionmovement

Another thing is that pretty much ALL the industry is getting hurt right now, it's just that the US companies don't have any financial cushion to weather it and their product range is more limited in terms of desirability.

I think we have to couch desireability in terms of affordability during economic down turns. Rich people. . .or even upper middles will buy whatever car is what they want somewhat regardless of economic times. The item that is going to hurt US autos is they are going to completely lose a chunk of their market share to imports.

That market share is the "replacement" category. People who have had their car a while and its showing signs that its time to move on. Normally these people will just swap what they had for a new model year, but now in the economic downturn lower, lower-mid, mid and even some parts of upper-mid(depending on whats going on with other sectors of their life) will have to look for something much less expensive. 26K base price for a Taurus(Ford Taurus 2009: See pricing details, car options, packages and more | Ford Vehicles) is going to send them packing for a 15K civic 2 dr coupe, or a 10K Hyundai Accent or a 12k+ Fit.

The reason those domestics can't compete is it costs to much to make them(roughly twice as much for the employees is what you are paying for in the 26 grand Ford Taurus because its not special). Hyundai, Kia, Honda and Toyota were aiming at collecting that low income bracket anyway and are going to have windfalls because the user base got shifted down.

Even if Detroit wanted to be green it knows it cant do it. Detroit can only make more expensive cars than the imports(blame labor) and so they HAVE to target audiences that don't really care and just want luxury, HP and shiny-ness. Would you buy Ford's 26,000 Prius over Toyota's 22,000 Prius. No, so Ford doesn't try they only make luxury cars, SUVs and sports cars.

[ModelE]

oh please... conservatives have been pointing to the unions as the reason american car companies are falling behind for decades. yes, they do pay more to the workers than foreign makers...slightly... but, it has been a combination of factors that has led to their decline... to blame their shortfalls on organized labor costs is ridiculous, and has been the republican party line on the topic since reagan.

[ModelE]

Originally Posted by theunchosen

Even if Detroit wanted to be green it knows it cant do it. Detroit can only make more expensive cars than the imports(blame labor) and so they HAVE to target audiences that don't really care and just want luxury, HP and shiny-ness. Would you buy Ford's 26,000 Prius over Toyota's 22,000 Prius. No, so Ford doesn't try they only make luxury cars, SUVs and sports cars.

your little "blame labor" dig is a classic conservative line.

"HAVE to target audiences that don't really care...."


"only makes luxury cars, SUVs and sports cars."
okay really, just look at their product line. their only "sports car" per se, is the mustang. thats 1 car. luxury cars. hmm... the closest thing to a Ford Luxury Car that i can think of is a lincoln town car.
so really, weak argument.

[theunchosen]

Subaru is owned by Ford and all of their cars are in this range, Lincoln is owned by Ford and all their cars are in this range and mercury might as well be indistinguishable from Ford badged cars.

If they could turn a pofit selling a car for slightly more than Honda they would because then they could beat honda off the market.

And its not slight. Seriously a 50% pay increase per hour is not slight. Take 2/3 of your pay and give it back to your employer and call it slight then I'll talk about that. Then come back and tell me its ok for someone to work the line and make more than the average ChE, M.E. C.E. E.C.E E.E. I.E.(average pay after employment for 5 years upon graduation is 65K) after working for 5 years and having spent 4 years in college and paid 30,000 dollars.

So yeah its called overhead and any business with high pensions, labor banking, and unreasonably high pay has high overhead and can't compete with others in the market with very low overhead. Its why monopoly busting was extended to eliminate vertical monopolies because they had such small overhead costs no one else could compete and within a few years it wiped out competitors(US Steel). I am not bringing politics into it. I am discussing economics and business macro.

Its like this. Honda pays 12K to make a car 2K to ship it and then sells it for 15 and makes 1K to pay for RD and other overhead that isn't consumed in the original 12 or the shipped 2. Ford,GM Chrysler have to shell out 18K to build it and 2K. Even if they sell at a loss(not paying RD and other not directly included overhead) its still 5K more expensive than the Honda.

Honda Accord, Toyota Prius, Corolla Camry are all in the 20K range but Ford, GM and Chrysler all have to come in above that at 24-27K. If Toyota and Honda sell more cars and Ford GM and Chrysler don't have overhead issues then they have no reason not to lower prices to compete. They might be stupid but they are not completely retarded.

<edit>
For crying out loud, you can get army surplus 30K mile HMMWVs cheaper than you can get them from GM.

I don't know how much you know about cars but the HMMWV has 0 straight axles, all downturned to get to the wheels without sacrificing ground clearance with 4 wheel drive. The H1s are all straight axle with less powerful engines(and slightly less FE go figure). If you want to explain to me how a vehicle substantially more expensive and complicated can be bought for less with 0 negative advantages on a regular basis go ahead.

To the topic I think we are swinging back a leetle towards the golden era of car design from say 80-94 where aero, FE, HP and comfort were blended for maximization of all pieces. I am biased as The Honda Del Sol sprang forward from that era but. . .you know.

It would be nice to see a return to that ideology with the bleeding edge tech of composites. Imagine having a standard production car from carbon fiber/fiberglass new engine design like v-tec but GDI for us. A 1500 lb car with lrr tires a few solar panels a few batteries regen braking EV assist GDI constant lean burn under mass production could own the market.
</edit>

[winkosmosis]

Subaru isn't owned by Ford

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Blue07CivicEX

Have you also noticed that in the past 10 years every import manufacturer has started building SUV's?

Sure. Have you noticed that those SUVs are generally a lot smaller than their Detroit counterparts, and are only a small part of the import makers product line?

What you're seeing is Toyota, Honda, and the rest going after even more market share. They OWN the small car market, to the point that the few small cars Detroit tries to sell are re-badged Japanese & Korean products. If they want to increase their sales, they either have to fight amongst themselves for the small car market, or go after that fraction of the market that's been buying the big stuff.

In any case, all it takes to disprove the "Americans only want big cars" meme is to look at either sales, or what's actually out there on the roads. A lot of Americans, probably a sizeable majority, obviously don't want big cars (or SUVs or oversized pickups), because they're driving something else - and often that something else costs as much or more than the oversized American equivalent.

[theunchosen]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Sure. Have you noticed that those SUVs are generally a lot smaller than their Detroit counterparts, and are only a small part of the import makers product line?

What you're seeing is Toyota, Honda, and the rest going after even more market share. They OWN the small car market, to the point that the few small cars Detroit tries to sell are re-badged Japanese & Korean products. If they want to increase their sales, they either have to fight amongst themselves for the small car market, or go after that fraction of the market that's been buying the big stuff.

In any case, all it takes to disprove the "Americans only want big cars" meme is to look at either sales, or what's actually out there on the roads. A lot of Americans, probably a sizeable majority, obviously don't want big cars (or SUVs or oversized pickups), because they're driving something else - and often that something else costs as much or more than the oversized American equivalent.

Thats why they don't. Go browse their normal selection of coups and sedans. more exepnsive than import counterparts.

I disagree on the what people are buying/driving. Still pretty overwhelmingly people buy larger vehicles(they might be smaller than they used to be but still SUVs). If it weren't true (that people were still heavily buying larger vehicles) then the US auto industry would be under already considering half of their proceeds came from SUVs and trucks. Even foreign manufacturers see a pretty heavy ratio of car:SUV still.

And I'll admit my mistake on the Subaru thing, a long time ago a shop mechanic I went to told me that and cited the reason that made it apparent was components that cars had in common were the same piece. Either he was lying or Subaru did the smart thing and used off the shelf pieces.