The best automotive deal in the US in the 90's was a two year old
Chevy Nova. Actually nice cars, since Toyota built them.
However, dealer service was iffy, repairs at the dealer were iffy (it
wasn't a 350 with a carburetor, after all....), and GM's reputation
for small cars has still not recovered from the Vega and the other
junk. They also have a well deserved reputation for poor quality.
Peter
On Dec 8, 2008, at 12:41 PM, Rich Thomas wrote:
So after spending billion$ on advertising, they still can't beat
the competition with the exact same car, tarted up (hmmm maybe it
has something to do with the dealers? Don't know. Or overall
reputation for quality and commitment?). That makes me want to
give them billion$ more to help them out.
It boggles the mind.
--R
Tom Hargrave wrote:
Rich,
The issue is not quality or cost but America's perception of small
American
cars.
For example, when GM & Toyota manufactured cars in the US as a joint
venture, the Toyotas had consistently higher reviews and reported
less
warranty issues. But the two product lines were the exact same cars,
manufactured by the exact same workers, with the exact same parts.
The only
difference was the trim package.
Chrysler's joint venture with Nissan netted the exact same
results. The 3000
GT rated higher than the Dodge Stealth. And these were also the
exact same
cars with different trim packaged. And even today, the old 3000 GT
has a
much stronger following than the Dodge Stealth.
Thanks,
Tom Hargrave
www.kegkits.com
256-656-1924
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:mercedes-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Rich Thomas
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 10:28 AM
To: Mercedes Discussion List
Subject: Re: [MBZ] Cerberus wants money back
OK so that means the consumers don't want their (small) product
but they do want small products from the Japanese companies. (And
I have heard that Ford, and maybe the others', cars are doing well
in Europe and elsewhere v. the competition, why there and not
here?) I guess we can mess with the market by providing (taxpayer-
paid) incentives for people to buy cars they would rather not
have, for cost or quality or utility or whatever other reasons, to
keep an inefficient inept (insert your own in-word here)
"American" company in business, just because it is big. When does
that stop? Have not heard the good answers to that, and the
senators have no clue either, and the guys who are telling them
are the ones they say they want fired. Who to believe? What to
believe?
The military thing is a different kettle of fish. Not sure that
relates well to a well-paid (hard-working?) auto worker, except
for a similar level of ongoing benefits, you can see the reasons.
An apple v. an orange, but it does raise an interesting issue as
to how all this gets paid for on an ongoing basis when the till
has only so much (real) money in it. Where are the choices made?
How much do you personally want to send to Unkie every month to
carry the auto industry, the retired military and GS workers, the
people who lose their jobs in market shakeouts, banks, credit card
companies, door/window manufacturers, people who "bought" more
house than they could pay for, on and on and on. Do you run your
family finances that way (like a lot of people seem to do)?
Do Honda and Toyota have large retiree commitments, like Big3/
UAW? I don't know the answer to that.
--R
Tom Hargrave wrote:
The big three have built smaller cars here in the states. They tried
repeatedly & we would not buy them. We wanted mid-size & larger
cars from
American auto makers. One great example of this is Saturn, who
built a
long
line of smaller, efficient cars. Saturn is performing so dismally
that its
one of the brands GM needs to can.
As far as legacy costs go, I suppose you also want us to cut all
of our
military retiree benefits? Their retirement & medical benefits
represent
much greater legacy costs to our economy than the auto workers
retirement
benefits. But I guess it's OK with our armed forces because the
cost is
hidden in the Federal Budget?
The only way to shed enough cost right now is to drop the retiree
benefits
and that's not going to happen. Ironically, if this were 20 years
later,
Toyota and Honda would be in the same position because their
retiree base
will also be past their active employee base by then.
Thanks,
Tom Hargrave
www.kegkits.com
256-656-1924
_______________________________________
http://www.okiebenz.com
For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com
To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/
To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.9.15/1834 -
Release Date: 12/6/2008
4:55 PM
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.9.15/1834 -
Release Date: 12/6/2008
4:55 PM
_______________________________________
http://www.okiebenz.com
For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com
To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/
To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
_______________________________________
http://www.okiebenz.com
For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com
To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/
To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
_______________________________________
http://www.okiebenz.com
For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com
To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/
To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
