As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

CAFE Standards and the Big 3

redimpulseredimpulse Registered User regular
edited April 2007 in Debate and/or Discourse
Recently this has been brought to my attention and I'd like to see some debating and/or discourse on this subject.

CAFE - Corporate Average Fuel Economy - Standard has been around for a while now. And up until now, it hasn't been a big deal because the Big 3 (DaimlerChrysler, FoMoCo and GM) have been able to meet the standard. Currently it's set at 27.5 MPG. Not a big deal, right? [Last poll was 2004] GM's current average is 28.8, Ford is 26.3 (almost got it) and DaimlerChrysler is 29.7. This is an average of every vehicle manufactured for sale in the US. This standard has been in place since 1989, for MY 1990 vehicles.

Talks are now in place to gradually raise the CAFE standard from 27.5 to 34.0 by 2017. Now environmentally speaking, this could be a good thing. I'm all for better average fuel economy. But is this going to spell the end for Detroit Muscle? It has already started. Related story here. General Motors, who has been on its way back to profits, has decided to put the first exciting lineup in years on hold because of this. Thus once again dooming us to continue driving dated architecture. No statements from DaimlerChrysler yet, but with Chrysler's future hanging by a thread and the threat of new CAFE standards, I'm fairly sure that the high performance RWD sedans such as the 300C, Charger and Magnum will be greatly affected by this. Also no word from Ford.

Please keep in mind that I'm not concerned nor worried about the import market. For this issue, other countries' economies aren't my worry. What I'm concerned about here is the already hurting domestic automotive market, and its effect on the US economy. So what are your thoughts? Is this truly a change for the better? Will the three oldest automotive companies in the world be able to compensate (again) with these changing and more stringent standards?

Also please keep in mind that these averages include every passenger vehicle and light duty truck produced in the US under 8,500 GWVR. So this takes Hummer H2/H1, GM/Dodge/Ford heavy duty trucks, and commercial vehicles out of the equation. It does include everything from the Ford Focus to the Chevy Suburban 1500 (2500 exempted.)

rbsig.jpg
redimpulse on

Posts

  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    The numbers are horribly misleading, because if you look at their whole consumer fleet, the average is way lower, since it doesn't take SUVs into account.

    I'd much rather see SUV's added into the CAFE standard than see the standard go up.

    American auto manufacturers are terrible, and should have been run out of business decades ago.

    Thanatos on
  • PheezerPheezer Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2007
    You know what?

    Fuck 'em.

    Fuck 'em right in their collective stupid asses.

    If they can't put together a competitive, exciting line up of vehicles while meeting the higher standard, they don't deserve to be in business.

    Pheezer on
    IT'S GOT ME REACHING IN MY POCKET IT'S GOT ME FORKING OVER CASH
    CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
  • redimpulseredimpulse Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    A lot of the SUVs are taken into account, as most of them are under the 8,500 GWVR limit. They are classified as "Light Duty Passenger Trucks" because they're built body-on-frame using mainly truck parts.

    [I was going to list all that are taken into account, but it'd be easier to list the ones that aren't]

    Chevy Suburban/GMC Yukon XL 2500.
    Ford Excursion (no longer produced MY 2007)
    Hummer H2
    Hummer H1

    Also, GM 2500HD/3500 trucks
    Ford F-250 SuperDuty and F-350
    Dodge Ram 2500 MegaCab and 3500 models.

    All the other SUVs and fullsize trucks are part of the average.

    redimpulse on
    rbsig.jpg
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    redimpulse wrote: »
    A lot of the SUVs are taken into account, as most of them are under the 8,500 GWVR limit. They are classified as "Light Duty Passenger Trucks" because they're built body-on-frame using mainly truck parts.

    [I was going to list all that are taken into account, but it'd be easier to list the ones that aren't]

    Chevy Suburban/GMC Yukon XL 2500.
    Ford Excursion (no longer produced MY 2007)
    Hummer H2
    Hummer H1

    Also, GM 2500HD/3500 trucks
    Ford F-250 SuperDuty and F-350
    Dodge Ram 2500 MegaCab and 3500 models.

    All the other SUVs and fullsize trucks are part of the average.
    I was under the impression that most SUVs and light trucks fell under a different CAFE standard, though I could be wrong.

    In any case, my philosophy falls in line with pheezer's. If they can't keep up, well, then, it really wasn't at all nice having an American automotive industry, and I'll be much happier when we don't.

    Thanatos on
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    pheezer FD wrote: »
    You know what?

    Fuck 'em.

    Fuck 'em right in their collective stupid asses.

    If they can't put together a competitive, exciting line up of vehicles while meeting the higher standard, they don't deserve to be in business.

    Goumindong on
    wbBv3fj.png
  • redimpulseredimpulse Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Okay, I understand and respect that.

    So what about the economic ramifications if they were to go out of business? The companies themselves employ almost 1 million Americans, and that doesn't count parts suppliers, marketers, all dealership employees (no dealership is auto maker owned) and other businesses that deal specifically with these companies.

    [edit] When Oldsmobile closed, almost 100,000 jobs were lost. And that's just one division of GM. GM currently has 12 separate auto companies, not just in the US but globally. Ford has quite a few as well.[/edit]

    redimpulse on
    rbsig.jpg
  • hambonehambone Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    But over the last two decades, more and more "imports" are manufactured domestically. If the big 3 go under and foreign companies move in to fill the void, there's a very good chance that they'll be employing a hefty portion of those laid off workers.

    hambone on
    Just a bunch of intoxicated pigeons.
  • Spaten OptimatorSpaten Optimator Smooth Operator Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    When CAFE standards remain stagnant, domestic automakers generally revert to gas guzzlers and don't bother addressing fuel economy while Toyota and Honda develop fuel-efficient cars. Oil prices rise, and GM gets its ass handed to it by companies capable of long-term vision. If Detroit actually cared about improving fuel economy as a competitive issue (which they should), this wouldn't be a problem at all. Frankly, this move should make domestic manufacturers more competitive, not less. Their business model sucks.

    At least we get to have a laugh out of this:
    "Carbon dioxide is a natural byproduct of burning gas and directly proportional to the amount of fuel burned. If we legislate CO(-2) from cars, why not legislate we take one less breath per minute since humans release capricious amounts of CO(-2) each time they exhale?" he argued.

    Capricious. Ha.

    On a side note, it seems as though health care costs are a much bigger problem for the industry. Universal health care would really help out the U.S. automakers, and that's a legitimate problem as opposed to this self-created snafu.

    Spaten Optimator on
  • PheezerPheezer Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2007
    hambone wrote: »
    But over the last two decades, more and more "imports" are manufactured domestically. If the big 3 go under and foreign companies move in to fill the void, there's a very good chance that they'll be employing a hefty portion of those laid off workers.

    I seem to recall the claim being made that "imports" have more North American parts in them than "domestics", and that most of the "import" automobiles sold in North American are also assembled in North America.

    Think about it this way:
    Land is expensive in Japan. There's a lot less of it to go around. International freight is expensive.

    If the big three go out of business, it's not because people have stopped buying cars, it's because people have started buying OTHER cars. Cars produced by companies that have an interest in making them on the same piece of land that their consumers are on because it's cheaper.

    If Ford goes out of business because Toyota and Honda ate up all of their customers, well Toyota and Honda are obviously going to be expanding business in North America. They need to make the cars before they can sell them. They need employees and factories to make these cars. They will be interested in experienced employees that they don't have to spend so much time training.

    Do you see where I'm going with this

    If the big three go out of business, it'll be because they got pushed out for being stupid and slow to adapt. The companies that take over their business will step up production in North America to meet the increased demand. Yes, some employees may not find new work right away or might need to re-skill late in life and end up working retail and boo-hoo I'm sad but that's no one's fault except the stupid assholes that can't design a decent ride that gets good mileage and doesn't fall the fuck apart.

    On the overall balance, having foreign auto manufacturers push domestic ones out of business really won't fuck up the economy that bad at all. It might be a really smart time to pursue free trade agreements with countries whose auto makers are less retarded than the American ones.

    Pheezer on
    IT'S GOT ME REACHING IN MY POCKET IT'S GOT ME FORKING OVER CASH
    CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    I honestly don't understand the issue that faces the big 3. It isn't as though the Fed is demanding they take charge and produce vehicles with impossible to reach MPG's in order to reassert our dominance in the auto-market. Japan has been making cars with a third better, up to twice the MPG as our cars have for years. Not hybrid cars, mind you, but stock cars that just aren't designed horribly.

    Also, muscle comes mainly from a ratio of horsepower to weight. If your car is more lightweight it'll be able to go from 0-60 in a comparable period of time with a V4 rather than a V8. BMW and Mercedes are taking this route without sacrificing much of anything. Hell they're even adding some more bells and whistles while improving their gas mileage.

    moniker on
  • ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2007
    redimpulse wrote: »
    Recently this has been brought to my attention and I'd like to see some debating and/or discourse on this subject.

    CAFE - Corporate Average Fuel Economy - Standard has been around for a while now. And up until now, it hasn't been a big deal because the Big 3 (DaimlerChrysler, FoMoCo and GM) have been able to meet the standard. Currently it's set at 27.5 MPG. Not a big deal, right? [Last poll was 2004] GM's current average is 28.8, Ford is 26.3 (almost got it) and DaimlerChrysler is 29.7. This is an average of every vehicle manufactured for sale in the US. This standard has been in place since 1989, for MY 1990 vehicles.

    Talks are now in place to gradually raise the CAFE standard from 27.5 to 34.0 by 2017. Now environmentally speaking, this could be a good thing. I'm all for better average fuel economy. But is this going to spell the end for Detroit Muscle? It has already started. Related story here. General Motors, who has been on its way back to profits, has decided to put the first exciting lineup in years on hold because of this. Thus once again dooming us to continue driving dated architecture. No statements from DaimlerChrysler yet, but with Chrysler's future hanging by a thread and the threat of new CAFE standards, I'm fairly sure that the high performance RWD sedans such as the 300C, Charger and Magnum will be greatly affected by this. Also no word from Ford.

    Please keep in mind that I'm not concerned nor worried about the import market. For this issue, other countries' economies aren't my worry. What I'm concerned about here is the already hurting domestic automotive market, and its effect on the US economy. So what are your thoughts? Is this truly a change for the better? Will the three oldest automotive companies in the world be able to compensate (again) with these changing and more stringent standards?

    Also please keep in mind that these averages include every passenger vehicle and light duty truck produced in the US under 8,500 GWVR. So this takes Hummer H2/H1, GM/Dodge/Ford heavy duty trucks, and commercial vehicles out of the equation. It does include everything from the Ford Focus to the Chevy Suburban 1500 (2500 exempted.)

    Well, it is the will of capitalism that those who can't compete or adapt go out of business.

    ege02 on
  • PheezerPheezer Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2007
    Bear also in mind that a big reason why the big 3 aren't doing so hot is that consumers WANT efficient cars. This is something they should have caught on to about 20 years ago.

    In addition to the market directly telling them in the clearest language it knows that consumers want efficiency, the government is threatening legislation in this direction.

    Who is this mystery government?

    Oh it's a democracy, so it's the people. The people who buy cars. People who buy cars are voting for stiffer standards in terms of fuel efficiency, both with their dollars, and literally with their support for legislation forcing the automakers to listen to the market they're seemingly intent on ignoring.

    Most companies do not get to fuck up twice on this scale, over this time period, without going out of business. I don't care who they employee either, giving them a free ride because they're too stupid to stay in business only supports and perpetuates shitty, stupid business practises. Like ignoring the consumer. Any economic hardship suffered by their bankruptcy will merely be a step on the path to a better future.

    Pheezer on
    IT'S GOT ME REACHING IN MY POCKET IT'S GOT ME FORKING OVER CASH
    CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    On a side note, it seems as though health care costs are a much bigger problem for the industry.
    Exactly correct.
    Universal health care would really help out the U.S. automakers, and that's a legitimate problem as opposed to this self-created snafu.
    No, because then everyone has less money because we're paying 40% in taxes, which means we'd buy less cars. Telling the unions to fuck off would help the US auto industry - especially given Detroit's unemployment rate - but the companies are too chickenshit to point out that if the company goes under, the unions don't get any health insurance, so they're better off taking cuts and getting something, and also that's what we're doing and we really don't care if it upsets you.

    Salvation122 on
  • Marty81Marty81 Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    redimpulse wrote: »
    Recently this has been brought to my attention and I'd like to see some debating and/or discourse on this subject.

    CAFE - Corporate Average Fuel Economy - Standard has been around for a while now. This is an average of every vehicle manufactured for sale in the US.

    When you say average, do you mean "mean" or "median?"

    Marty81 on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    On a side note, it seems as though health care costs are a much bigger problem for the industry.
    Exactly correct.
    Universal health care would really help out the U.S. automakers, and that's a legitimate problem as opposed to this self-created snafu.
    No, because then everyone has less money because we're paying 40% in taxes, which means we'd buy less cars. Telling the unions to fuck off would help the US auto industry - especially given Detroit's unemployment rate - but the companies are too chickenshit to point out that if the company goes under, the unions don't get any health insurance, so they're better off taking cuts and getting something, and also that's what we're doing and we really don't care if it upsets you.

    How would we have less money if the burden of insurance was taken off of the employer's hands giving them more money to raise their employee's salaries? Of course, this is assuming they'd actually give everybody a raise rather than be greedy assholes which is rather misguided, but still.

    moniker on
  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    It also assumes that the increase in salary is commisurate with the increase in taxes which is by no means a certainty. It is very, very possible that people would lose out even assuming the companies did not deliberately bend their employees over and fuck them in the ass.

    Salvation122 on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    It also assumes that the increase in salary is commisurate with the increase in taxes which is by no means a certainty. It is very, very possible that people would lose out even assuming the companies did not deliberately bend their employees over and fuck them in the ass.
    Yes, if only the unions would just bend over and take one up the ass for the team, everything would be peachy.

    Or, better, we could nationalize healthcare, and instead of it being major business' responsibility to provide health care, it becomes the government's, which turns it into a shared burden instead of a burden held by only a few companies. Oh, hey, and then we also get rid of some of the externalities driving spiraling healthcare costs, like people who can't afford healthcare waiting until they need emergency care to see a doctor, or people having to declare bankruptcy because they can't afford their medical bills.

    Thanatos on
  • ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor changed Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    TFA wrote:
    "Small-car mileage only counts toward CAFE if you build them here, and you can't build small cars here at a profit," Lutz said.

    What is meant by this?

    Also, I think I just soiled myself over that 400hp 30 mpg (hwy) Camaro. How can they say they're having trouble increasing fuel economy when they're trotting that fucking thing around the show circuit?

    ArbitraryDescriptor on
  • khainkhain Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    TFA wrote:
    "Small-car mileage only counts toward CAFE if you build them here, and you can't build small cars here at a profit," Lutz said.

    What is meant by this?

    Also, I think I just soiled myself over that 400hp 30 mpg (hwy) Camaro. How can they say they're having trouble increasing fuel economy when they're trotting that fucking thing around the show circuit?

    That Camaro convertible is a luxury car and he's talking about a normal car with high mpg like the ones Japanese manufactures make. I can't see him being correct though.

    khain on
  • ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor changed Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    khain wrote: »
    TFA wrote:
    "Small-car mileage only counts toward CAFE if you build them here, and you can't build small cars here at a profit," Lutz said.

    What is meant by this?

    Also, I think I just soiled myself over that 400hp 30 mpg (hwy) Camaro. How can they say they're having trouble increasing fuel economy when they're trotting that fucking thing around the show circuit?

    That Camaro convertible is a luxury car and he's talking about a normal car with high mpg like the ones Japanese manufactures make. I can't see him being correct though.

    Luxury shmuxury. Whats important is that it has a 6 litre engine and still gets some impressive mileage. Would not the same design principles applied to a more efficient 4 cylinder engine yield even better mileage? Yes. Yes all kinds of ways; I'd think.

    ArbitraryDescriptor on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Yes. Yes all kinds of ways; I'd think.

    This is why you'll never get a job at Ford.

    moniker on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    I think the problem isn't that small cars that get high mileage can't be built here. It's that it can't be done at a profit. Which is to say while they can build sexy pieces of machinery like the Camaro here and make money, to build less expensive passenger cars can't be done here at a profit...they have to build them in Mexico or wherever else US manufacturers build cars. At which point they no longer count towards their numbers.

    Basically due to the incredible labor expenses of building cars here the only thing they can make a profit on is sportscars and trucks. Or at least that's what I'm getting from that quote, and what I've heard in the past.

    mcdermott on
  • siliconenhancedsiliconenhanced __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2007
    Thanatos wrote: »
    It also assumes that the increase in salary is commisurate with the increase in taxes which is by no means a certainty. It is very, very possible that people would lose out even assuming the companies did not deliberately bend their employees over and fuck them in the ass.
    Yes, if only the unions would just bend over and take one up the ass for the team, everything would be peachy.

    Or, better, we could nationalize healthcare, and instead of it being major business' responsibility to provide health care, it becomes the government's, which turns it into a shared burden instead of a burden held by only a few companies. Oh, hey, and then we also get rid of some of the externalities driving spiraling healthcare costs, like people who can't afford healthcare waiting until they need emergency care to see a doctor, or people having to declare bankruptcy because they can't afford their medical bills.

    Can we cut down on CEO perks like driving a company into the red, getting a multimillion dollar severance bonus before doing it to another company?

    Cause if we can, you'd be my Big Wish Daddy, Than.

    Edit: Where the fuck are all the "invisible hand olol" motherfuckers around here who love thinking free markets solve everything? Noticeably quiet when its giant corporations who are getting boned because of their own reactionary policies. I could choke on the irony.

    siliconenhanced on
  • LavaKnightLavaKnight Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    I think there's potential for CAFE standards to do a lot of good if the minimum standard is high enough. I'm not sure if 34 mpg will accomplish that, as the Big 3 might just each make a 50/60 mpg hybrid to meet the average and call it even. Now, I'm not sure if one incredibly fuel efficient car would be able to bring the average up enough, but I'm sure the American manufacturers would put in the least effort possible under current business models in order to achieve the new standard.

    I wonder what the standard would have to be to bring each of the gas guzzlers up 7-10 mpg on the whole?

    Also, I was under the impression that most SUV's and Trucks didn't fall under the jurisdiction of the same standards as well. Do we know for sure one way or the other? If this is the case, then most definitely they should be added to the group standard. That in and of itself would force the manufacturers to increase mpg on most of those vehicles.

    LavaKnight on
  • redimpulseredimpulse Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    khain wrote: »
    TFA wrote:
    "Small-car mileage only counts toward CAFE if you build them here, and you can't build small cars here at a profit," Lutz said.

    What is meant by this?

    Also, I think I just soiled myself over that 400hp 30 mpg (hwy) Camaro. How can they say they're having trouble increasing fuel economy when they're trotting that fucking thing around the show circuit?

    That Camaro convertible is a luxury car and he's talking about a normal car with high mpg like the ones Japanese manufactures make. I can't see him being correct though.

    Well there is the current Impala/Monte Carlo SS and Grand Prix GXP. 303 hp 327 cid V8 that's rated at 28 mpg highway. I know people who have averaged about 30-31 (at times) in these cars. Also, ArbitraryDescriptor, what Lutz was getting at is this: The most efficient vehicle sold by GM is not a GM vehicle. The Chevrolet Aveo, imported and marketed by GM, is a Daewoo vehicle imported from South Korea. This car counts toward Daewoo's CAFE, not GM's. Also there is very little profit in vehicles anymore. With the internet and other resources giving people the ability to see build costs, invoice price and the like, people are less and less paying anywhere near sticker for a vehicle thus destroying profit. The average small to medium sedan produced only has between 900 and 2300 worth of profit. This of course being shared between dealership employees, transporters, marketing companies, and finally the maker. When people pay invoice price or less, they're literally receiving the vehicle at cost. Therefore it's just not profitable anymore to produce those vehicles here. It's cheaper for the company to outsource these small vehicles and have them imported.

    t Marty: According to CAFE, it is an average of every vehicle PRODUCED for sale. So not an average of the models, but an average of the fleet build for the model year. So lets say that GM produces 77% worth of fleet as lower end, higher fuel economy vehicles. That means that the larger, less economical vehicles only make up 23% of GM's CAFE average.

    GM over the past 8 or so years have invested millions of dollars making their current lineup more efficient and safe. The problem here is that the current lineup is ancient. The most popular domestic vehicle platform in the US - the GM W-body which currently is sold as the Impala, Monte Carlo, Grand Prix and LaCrosse - has been around since 1988. Almost 20 years old, it has been the base for the many of the best selling cars (domestic or import) in the US since day one. GM needed this lineup refresh badly, and I think what Lutz was trying to get at is that with these new, more stringent standards again being set in place, they have to remove the capital going to plant retooling, design and implementation and put it back into revamping the same old, tired cars.

    Oh, and Chrysler has chimed in on this a little bit. The LX platform, which is the 300c, Charger and Magnum, has been pinned for death in the near future. They are working on a replacement platform, the LY, but they are refusing to state whether it will continue to offer RWD V8 performance even as an option.
    LavaKnight wrote:
    I wonder what the standard would have to be to bring each of the gas guzzlers up 7-10 mpg on the whole?

    Also, I was under the impression that most SUV's and Trucks didn't fall under the jurisdiction of the same standards as well. Do we know for sure one way or the other? If this is the case, then most definitely they should be added to the group standard. That in and of itself would force the manufacturers to increase mpg on most of those vehicles.
    By "gas guzzlers" I expect you mean light duty trucks and SUVs. They guzzle gas for a reason; because they're built with the ability to tow and haul large amounts. GM already offers a hybrid Silverado 1500 which averages 20 mpg, but due to the fact that the majority of the buyers of these trucks use them for hauling purposes - whether business or personal - it's tough to offer a truck that gets great fuel economy and can still meet expectations. A lot of this can be blamed on competition, too. GM states for one model year that their 1500 can haul 8500 lbs. Well Ford comes back and says "Well our F-150 can haul 9,000! Take that GM!" The Dodge comes in with say 9,400 lbs. The next year, GM has to up their hauling ability to stay competitive, and then so does Ford, GM, Nissan and Toyota (By the way, when it comes to fullsize light duty trucks, the Toyota Tundra gets the worst fuel economy with a tested average of 15.7.) It's a cycle. And it takes a lot of energy to move that much weight.
    As I stated much earlier, most SUVs and trucks fall under CAFE standards. The cutoff is 8,500 lbs GVWR (gross vehicle weight rating) which only exempts the largest, heaviest of SUVs and trucks. See my post near the top of this thread to see which ones are exempted.

    redimpulse on
    rbsig.jpg
  • PheezerPheezer Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2007
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I think the problem isn't that small cars that get high mileage can't be built here. It's that it can't be done at a profit. Which is to say while they can build sexy pieces of machinery like the Camaro here and make money, to build less expensive passenger cars can't be done here at a profit...they have to build them in Mexico or wherever else US manufacturers build cars. At which point they no longer count towards their numbers.

    Basically due to the incredible labor expenses of building cars here the only thing they can make a profit on is sportscars and trucks. Or at least that's what I'm getting from that quote, and what I've heard in the past.

    http://www.toyota.com/about/operations/manufacturing/

    Both the Carolla and Camry are produced in North America and neither are produced in Mexico.

    You know why?

    Because Toyota's quality standards require understanding and active involvement from the line employees. You need people with at minimum high school educations from a first world country if you're going to be able to get them trained to Toyota's standards. That means they cannot use cheap, rural, poverty stricken Mexican labour because the labourers are worthless to them.

    Stop listening to the lies coming from Detroit. It can and is being done here. The problem is that they can't do it, not that it can't be done.

    EDIT:
    My bad, they produce the Matrix here as well. They do not produce the Carolla as a completed vehicle, they only produce stamped parts for it here.

    They also make pretty much the full line of trucks and SUVs, and the Lexus RX350 in NA.

    Pheezer on
    IT'S GOT ME REACHING IN MY POCKET IT'S GOT ME FORKING OVER CASH
    CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Thanatos wrote: »
    It also assumes that the increase in salary is commisurate with the increase in taxes which is by no means a certainty. It is very, very possible that people would lose out even assuming the companies did not deliberately bend their employees over and fuck them in the ass.
    Yes, if only the unions would just bend over and take one up the ass for the team, everything would be peachy.

    Or, better, we could nationalize healthcare, and instead of it being major business' responsibility to provide health care, it becomes the government's, which turns it into a shared burden instead of a burden held by only a few companies. Oh, hey, and then we also get rid of some of the externalities driving spiraling healthcare costs, like people who can't afford healthcare waiting until they need emergency care to see a doctor, or people having to declare bankruptcy because they can't afford their medical bills.
    And adds new externalities like people going to the emergency room every time they get the sniffles because, hell, it's free anyway.
    Where the fuck are all the "invisible hand olol" motherfuckers around here who love thinking free markets solve everything? Noticeably quiet when its giant corporations who are getting boned because of their own reactionary policies. I could choke on the irony.
    Uh, what?

    Salvation122 on
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    And adds new externalities like people going to the emergency room every time they get the sniffles because, hell, it's free anyway.

    There are a number of factors that contribute to emergency department overuse. These factors can be managed in any kind of healthcare system. Nationalized health care does not necessarily mean free healthcare.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • variantvariant Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Is it true that Toyota and Honda are able to beat the shit out of american companies because they're heavily subsidized in japan or something?

    variant on
  • ProtoProto Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    variant wrote: »
    Is it true that Toyota and Honda are able to beat the shit out of american companies because they're heavily subsidized in japan or something?

    whaaa?

    Proto on
    and her knees up on the glove compartment
    took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
  • variantvariant Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Proto wrote: »
    variant wrote: »
    Is it true that Toyota and Honda are able to beat the shit out of american companies because they're heavily subsidized in japan or something?

    whaaa?

    I forget where I heard it, something about Japan weakening the yen to make exports cheaper in foreign countries, which increases the manufacturer's profits when they translate overseas revenues in to yen, which is a huge advantage because apparently the costs of things aren't changing even though the yen is weakening?


    It might just be an excuse by us automakers but the point seems pretty valid, unless i'm missing someting crucial.

    http://www.autoyensubsidy.org/

    variant on
  • hambonehambone Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    It's true that a weakened relative currency will increase exports. I don't know enough about the Japanese economy to say that they're deliberately keeping the Yen weak to subsidize auto companies (or all other exports).

    hambone on
    Just a bunch of intoxicated pigeons.
  • Spaten OptimatorSpaten Optimator Smooth Operator Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    At any rate, that doesn't explain why Japanese automakers are run more efficiently and put out a superior product.

    edit: And why do I get the feeling that GM is purposely downplaying the abilities of the Chevy Volt? On a recent episode of Science Friday, their VP of Environment and Energy did a segment on the car. She mentioned that it was a 'pure electric' car that had a range of 40 miles. Great.

    In the next segment, the guests were a little embarrassed because they had to correct her: the car has a combustion engine, and can travel hundreds of miles when it is used to recharge the battery. GM appears to just really want to call it an 'electric car.' Which it is for the first 40 miles, but why not mention that number isn't the maximum range? Plug-in hybrids look promising, but get the damn marketing straightened out.

    Spaten Optimator on
  • redimpulseredimpulse Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Japanese automakers run more efficiently and put out better products because that's how Japan works. They have very little land, very few "Natural" resources that can be exported for profit. They have adapted to this by being incredibly efficient producing other products. Same reason why the best electronics come from Japan. It's a huge market and the country found a way to rake in massive profits.

    You won't find too many unionized Nissan, Toyota, Hyundai or Honda plants in the United States, which also contributes to the increased costs to the big three. They have to deal with the UAW on a massive scale and they're infamous for driving up working wages and costs for the consumer and manufacturer.

    t pheezer: There are a lot of vehicles - high quality vehicles - built in Mexico. VW Jetta and New Beetle, Nissan Versa(which has actually been sold in Mexico for quite some time), some Honda Pilots and Ridgelines, Fusion/MKZ/Milan (most reliable Ford sedan in years), the list goes on. Mexican produced vehicles are made to very high standards, so don't quite discount Mexican labor as "cheap, rural, poverty stricken Mexican labour because the labourers are worthless to them."

    redimpulse on
    rbsig.jpg
  • skippydumptruckskippydumptruck begin again Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    I honestly don't understand the issue that faces the big 3. It isn't as though the Fed is demanding they take charge and produce vehicles with impossible to reach MPG's in order to reassert our dominance in the auto-market. Japan has been making cars with a third better, up to twice the MPG as our cars have for years. Not hybrid cars, mind you, but stock cars that just aren't designed horribly.

    Also, muscle comes mainly from a ratio of horsepower to weight. If your car is more lightweight it'll be able to go from 0-60 in a comparable period of time with a V4 rather than a V8. BMW and Mercedes are taking this route without sacrificing much of anything. Hell they're even adding some more bells and whistles while improving their gas mileage.

    Thank you for making this point. I just wanted to say that, for example, the Honda s2000 shows that you can make a 4 cylinder car faster than the older v8 Mustang GTs and a little slower than the new ones.

    (also, I don't think any current car manufacturers make a v4)

    skippydumptruck on
  • GooeyGooey (\/)┌¶─¶┐(\/) pinch pinchRegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    khain wrote: »
    TFA wrote:
    "Small-car mileage only counts toward CAFE if you build them here, and you can't build small cars here at a profit," Lutz said.

    What is meant by this?

    Also, I think I just soiled myself over that 400hp 30 mpg (hwy) Camaro. How can they say they're having trouble increasing fuel economy when they're trotting that fucking thing around the show circuit?

    That Camaro convertible is a luxury car and he's talking about a normal car with high mpg like the ones Japanese manufactures make. I can't see him being correct though.

    Luxury shmuxury. Whats important is that it has a 6 litre engine and still gets some impressive mileage. Would not the same design principles applied to a more efficient 4 cylinder engine yield even better mileage? Yes. Yes all kinds of ways; I'd think.


    If we're talking about efficiency as power for fuel consumed, the LSx series of motors has the highest BSFC rating (numerically lowest) of any production motor ever last time I checked. It's funny when people talk about "big, slow, dumb" American car companies, but when they (GM) design a series of motors that are basically the best engines ever made from a performance per fuel consumed standpoint no one makes a peep.

    1/2 ton vehicles should be added to the CAFE standards list because of thier sales volume and the fact that they use motors that are also used in passenger cars. 3/4 ton and up shouldn't, mainly because these trucks are sold in small numbers (relatively) and typically are designed for extreme abuse. In other words, you're not going to be able to design a truck/motor that can pull 24,000 pounds with a gooseneck AND meet CAFE standards without spending a gazillion dollars.


    Edit-

    FWIW, GM spends about $1500 dollars in severences for every car sold IIRC. Also the lowest salaries for the UAC workers are about 20-24 bucks an hour (again, IIRC). I would find sources, but I'm not really debating anything. It's just food for thought.

    Also, if you think that working in a modern auto plant requires more skill than repeatedly pushing a series of buttons, you're a fool. The only exceptions are luxury cars/brands.

    Gooey on
    919UOwT.png
Sign In or Register to comment.