05PRED500,


"I have proven this in several industries and the poll takers back me up in nearly every count. PRICE DOES NOT SELL. It sounds simple right? But, you and others probably don't agree. Then why, with higher pricing, do imports sell very well against domestics? Why don't the major import brands get into the pricing war as much? They don't have to."
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ____________

Most here in the 'Buy American' camp are trying, for good reasons for the American consumer and worker, to impart the benefits of American loyalty. As I said before, the 70's oil embargo took allot of quality out of the Big 4 in their tuff recovery from that very bad economic time period. It was the perfect storm against the U.S. auto maker and best time for the imports. American autos can now stand with the imports. It will take some time to get the consumer back. Look no further than Polaris to see that the consumer will indeed come back. No thanks to unfair trade none the less. It's a miracle we do as well as we do!

Price does matter on many fronts, if not as important a factor in auto sales. We have a store in town called Harbor Freight. Cheep stuff hammered from Chinese rock. If you have to ask why I don't shop much there, you wouldn't understand. Anyway, time is telling us that price does matter when buying a car. Have you not read the latest GM sales reports?

 

Hey Lukester...You and I agree more than we disagree.

A side note to your Polaris comment. The head service guy at my dealer told my that although Fuji designed the 700, Polaris is now building it. I think Polaris does a great job up against some very stiff competition.



Sure, GMs sales numbers are up. They are basically giving away their product. So, yes, in this respect. Price does matter. But, they aren't making up ground very quickly financially. It will take a lot more long term thinking rather than the same ole discount ideas. This type of tactic further reduces the residual/resale values in their used vehicles and cheapens the brand overall.

I hate to say it. But, I have bought a few things from Harbor Frieght. They have some of the exact same clamps as Home Depot and Lowes for a whole lot less. I won't buy any of the really crappy stuff there. Although I did get a cheap grinder there because I couldn't see paying 2 1/2 times the price for something I will use a few times a year to sharpen the Dixie Chopper blades.

 

Ask the head guy.If polaris is now building the 700 who build it befor now?The head guy mite not know what he wants you to think he knows.

 

Gee, the 6X6 is only $7300. That even buries more money! Good point!

you don't make what we want, so let us pay for you to R&D what we need, oh - and whatever you learn you can use on consumer vehicles for profit

sounds like a subsidy to me, but not to you, only other countries do subsidies.

You didn't check, and don't know crap. I don't pretent to know it all, but I know it's MUCH more than a few shuttles.

A level playing field is what you're asking for? What's fair?

U.S. government subsidies, mostly in the form of military and NASA contracts, research and development expenditure and tax subsidies have enabled the U.S. aerospace industry to maintain its global dominance for more than 50 years.

* Unlike European launch investment, none of this support has to be repaid - and in fact is not repaid
* Since 1992, Boeing has received around $ 23 billon in subsidies from the U.S. government.
* The total U.S. Government indirect support of the U.S. LCA industry in FY 2003 alone was up to $2.74 billion. This represents around 11.9% of the FY 2003 commercial turnover of the U.S. LCA industry.
* Since 1990, Boeing has outsourced increasingly large shares of its civil aircraft programs to other countries, e.g. Japan (more than 60% of the 7E7). The governments of these countries subsidize these shares, such that Boeing’s programs also receive substantial foreign subsidies.
* Since 1990 Boeing has avoided paying around more than $1.2 billion in federal taxes through the use of off-shore Foreign Sales Corporations (FSC). This is a direct (and illegal) government subsidy prohibited by international rules.

From 2001 to 2003, Boeing has invested only $2.8 billion of its own funds in commercial aircraft R&D and capital expenditure compared to $9.4 billion by Airbus. Lack of R&D and capital investment, has meant that Boeing has not launched any new programs since 1990.

I'm not defending Airbus, just not being fooled by our own propaganda, and because it's our propaganda you blindly believe this is the way it is. Two sides to every story, usually some truth to each. However, I'm not hard over either side like some here. It’s funny how you people can point the finger at others, but not see clearly what is happening in your own back yard. Remember that glass house saying? Does anyone here know the total subsidies granted each for a direct comparison? No. And you never will.

 

What in the world does lean manufacturing have to do with the comments regarding Walmart? No one even remotely suggested that they have the same business tactics. As propnut put it, "Wallmart is not a manufacturer. They are a US manufacturer killer."

Interesting.. you guys are the ones that said that lean techniques are so great. Because you said that Toyota was using them. And if you knew anthing about lean techniques, you would know they can be applied to any business. And if Wal Mart is a manufacturing killer, then you are also pred.

Regarding how good or bad Toyota is, I am really not sure how you determine a "great" company.

I was basing it on your own analysis. It sems that you are jusdging the worthyness of a company based on its techniques and management. So if you have an argument with that, you can blame yourself

GM is laying people off left and right because they can't compete. They are losing $2000+ per car. You consider them "great". Toyota is very profitable. They are a good corporate citizen. People that work there love it. Their US suppliers love them. But, they are "presumably great"

Hmm.. GM is now the biggest off shore manufacturer in China: latest news flash. So it seems that GM is quite capable of competing on a level playing field (China). GM is a better corporate citizen because they have higher content and employ more citizens. They have better benefits (although that may change). And they will get the loss per car down. But that is due to increased costs of production which translates to higher sales price. Just compare the costs of Camry to the Domestic cars and you immediately se that Camry is $2000 cheaper.

Hmm. What do you do for a living? Surely it isn't managing anything...

Hmm.. At least I don't sell cheap off shore widgets like you do.. and just like Wal Mart does

 

For years, Toyota has branded themselves as a "quality" auto maker. Thus, they don't discount nearly as much. I worked for a large company that owned various dealerships including Toyota, Ford, Pontiac, and a few others in various markets. In EVERY segment, the imports averaged higher margins by significant amounts. Why, because the domestic builders got themselves in a pickle when there were quality questions. And, the questions were in fact valid at the time. So, the discount the heck out of their vehicles through "cash back", large dealer incentives which were almost always passed on to the customer, ridiculous financing, and every other poorly planned give-a-way they could think of.

It would be instructive to also point out that even though domestic manufacturers may have had quality problems many years ago, we can't ignore the imports were incapable of lasting without completely rusting ou in only a few years. And if you wanted to fix your own car, imports parts were so expensive that you might as well throw the car away. Futhermore, their production facilities were not in the US, so they were a capital drain on our economy even then. It is for these reasons that imports were very bad. So don't just point out the problems with domestic autos and ignore the import problems.

I have proven this in several industries and the poll takers back me up in nearly every count. PRICE DOES NOT SELL. It sounds simple right? But, you and others probably don't agree. Then why, with higher pricing, do imports sell very well against domestics? Why don't the major import brands get into the pricing war as much? They don't have to.

This is a very interesting comment. I guess we forgot about all the people that bought GM in june eh?. And the imports are lower priced than domestic. If we come the Camry to the Taurus, we find the Camry is $2000 cheaper. So price does matter.

In this alleged pro buy American society, as one of the polls on this thread revealed, imports do extremely well. Is a Toyota matrix REALLY better than a Pontiac Vibe? I don't know. I have never driven either. But, for the most part, the American public has a very open mind when shopping for cars and anything else for that matter. Even though GM and Ford are putting out some decent products, they are not packaged well. In general, they don't "feel" as good. The interior materials are not as "rich" feeling. Their designs are still behind the imports in general. Go ahead, flame me on this if you like. But, the imports are selling more vehicles at higher prices in important catagories. Telling people to "buy American" just isn't going to get it.

The Matrix is also $2000 cheaper than the Pontiac Vibe. The imports are selling vehicles at lower prices and thats why they are selling, so I don't see where your argument is coming from.

Take the new Mustang, for example. It is a decent looking car with some good power in the GT form and it is priced right. But, they veered too far from the prototype, which was beautiful, plus it had an independant rear suspension. Yes, I know that it is difficult to stay close to the original designs because of safety, cost, etc. But, the imports do it. The imports also do a very good job of getting very good power from smaller motors. The 350Z (I owned a 2003) is amazing. Lots of torque, 287-300HP all from a super smooth running VQ 3.5L with a GREAT shifting short throw transmission. I raced my Z and she was VERY competitve.

I am not sure why you are comparing a Mustang at base MSRP $24000 with a Z that at base MSRP of $27000. Even the most expensive hardtop GT is only $26750 whereas the Z is $36000. Maybe you should pick a more realistic comparison.

If you want to compete, quit dropping pricing and branding yourself as a "discount" builder. Put some more money into the touchy feely parts of the interior. Hire some designers with some serious talent and then have the ***** to go with the project. A couple of examples...Solstice, 350Z, Chrysler 300, Dodge Magnum, Corvette, Scion (ugly but marketable), etc... The Solstice, IMO, is a missed opportunity. There should be a more powerful motor option and most of all, the base price should have been increased by $1500 - $2000. They would not lose many sales over that price difference.

It seems to me that the domestic automakers must drop prices to compete with cheaper off-shore models. Since as we have seen "PRICE MATTERS".

Go ahead Bryce, attack well thought out ideas. Attack me personally for not knowing what I am talking about. Tell me I should apply for the GM CEO position. Oh yea, tell me I am not who I say I am. Ha! Ha! My ideas speak for themselves and they are backed up by fact, experience, and very basic knowledge.

Just because you thought them out quite well does not mean they are valid. I seriously think you should apply at GM.. you have all of their problems solved. I can't tell you who you are not, because I don't know who you are. And since you posted your ideas in this forum, they are always open to debate.. just like mine.

 

Bryce, Go to Ford's web site. You can do a comparison there. I compared the Taurus to the Accord and Camry. When matching the vehicles, YOU HAVE TO MATCH EQUAL OPTIONS to get an accurate comparison.

No matter what you say, the Taurus is CHEAPER!!!

The Matrix, when comparing the SAME options is NOT cheaper than the Vibe.

This pricing does not take into consideration the ridiculous discounts the domestics are giving because they can't compete otherwise!!

Simply put, your are wrong. Again, I use FACTS, not blind loyalty to make my point.

 

Originally posted by: propnut
Gee, the 6X6 is only $7300. That even buries more money! Good point!

It is clear that the contract is far from complete. And we don't know the details of everything that will be delivered. So your offhanded remark about burying more money shows your complete lack of understanding of this type of business. But hey, if you cannot read a price list, then maybe I will help you, the MV700 goes for just over $10,000 to the Military. Now since you do not know the mixture of ATVs in this contract, or how much R&D is in this contract, or how much is parts cost, I guess you know nothing about this contract. Now if you weren't so cynical, you might be more intrigued by what is in the pipeline. For instance the militarized version of the 6x6. Or how about the possibility of a diesel MV. No.. I think we can pretty much sum up all your posts as trash and bash.

you don't make what we want, so let us pay for you to R&D what we need, oh - and whatever you learn you can use on consumer vehicles for profit

It is most typical that anyone will pay the R&D costs for a product that is specially made for them. Especially when it is such a narrow market as the military. It seems that your cynical view on the world and off-shore-itis is clouding your judgement when it comes to the Polaris contract. So I guess your brilliant idea is to not use what we learn for consumers products? Good idea!! Now-a-days military hardware is often based on commercial hardware. That is what COTS is all about. And in this case, the Military and Polaris have joined forces in an extraordinary application of COTS. So don't give us your BS about military cost over-runs and such.

You didn't check, and don't know crap. I don't pretent to know it all, but I know it's MUCH more than a few shuttles.

Of course its more than the Space Shuttle. Once again your cynical side is showing. And since I don't know crap, I guess that means you know crap intimately, eh? The space shuttle clearly was only an example. However, I guess we could list all the things that Boeing does for NASA.. But I doubt that would that make you happy since you seem to be baffled about the R&D process.

U.S. government subsidies, mostly in the form of military and NASA contracts, research and development expenditure and tax subsidies have enabled the U.S. aerospace industry to maintain its global dominance for more than 50 years.

If NASA gets a product or a service from Boeing, then that is clearly money for service and that is what the US economy is all about. So I don't understand your beef. And US global dominance in aerospace is bad for what reason?

Boeing spends 4.4% of sales on R&D. The owners of Airbus spend 6.6% of sales on R&D. I am sure everyone wants to spend more, but there are often realities that we can't ignore. To blindly suggest that we can spend as much as we want on R&D ignores these realities. Seems to me, the military aerospace industry was hit hard in the 90s and is now rebounding due to Bush policies. Similarly, the Commercial airline industry was hit hard due to 911 and is now starting to rebound. Both industries are core competences of Boeing and it is clear they were taking a toll. However, the fact that R&D for Boeing is on the rise is encouraging. It is too easy to discount a company by saying they are not spending enough on new products or R&D without considering realities.

Talk about subsidies, maybe you should look at the $84,000 per-year-per-vehicle price tag the Japanese Government is paying to Toyota and Honda to lease a fleet of fuel cell vehicles.

Every single country subsidizes domestic companies. So whats the problem? Your distaste for Polaris is showing through in your trashing of Polaris's Military contract. You have bashed every US company with your cynical posts. I would suggest you go back to your Honda forum where you might be more appreciated.

 

The Standard 4dr Camry: Air,Auto, 160hp, power everything and CD is $19,025
The Standard 4dr Taurus SE: Air, Auto, 153hp, power everything and no CD is $21,595.

So lets see.. less HP, no CD player. Difference is $2570.

Shall I also show you the numbers for Vibe and Matrix? Next time check your facts 05PRED500. Another line of BS from o5Pred500

 

Misrepresenting again, huh Bryce?

Look at ALL of the options and all of the factors. BTW...Ford is getting that 153hp from a 3L V6 na dToyota is getting 160HP from a 2.4L 4cyl. Nevertheless, you do still get a V6, Keyless Entry, Aluminum wheels, trip computer, floor mats. To top it all off, you failed to mention that the Taurus has more torque at 185lb ft vs 163 lb ft. Don't forget the phenominal finance deals that Ford provides. Toyota almost never has deals as good.

First of all, the base model is by no means the biggest seller for either company. When you start to move into the higher level models, the Camry really jumps up in price. So, go check your information a-gain...

Of course, you can buy a Taurus for less than you can a Camry after discounts, yet the Camry out sells the Taurus. Why do you think this is?