concept that every adult is entitled to personal automotive transport
GM could really gain a lot of points with me if they retooled a big SUV plant to build something like LRT train cars. The US auto market isn't going back the 4.4 million units sold a couple years back. Bailout or not there is excess capacity. Alternative fuel vehicles aren't the answer - alternative manufacturing is the answer.
One question, is anyone here considering the purchase of a Ford, GM or Chrysler product anytime soon. How many here actually drive a domestic car that's less than 5 years old?
My guess is very few. I'm not sure how these companies will survive at all without a serious change in direction.
I drive a 7 year old Toyota that I'm not planning to get rid of anytime soon. If I did have to go out and replace my car today, the only model from the "big three" I'd even consider looking at would be the Chevy Aveo. Still, its reviews are only about in the middle of the pack for it's class and it's not even really a GM car anyway - it's built by Daewoo for GM.
I am of the belief that if you guys want money, you guys now gotta play by our rules - And I'd love for the rules to be as progressive as possible.
• Significantly increase CAFE standards
• Increase safety standards
• Enforce/create mandatory recycling/return requirements
• Significantly penalize creating personal & fleet vehicles greater than 3,000#
• Mandatory government oversight of accounting and bookkeeping practices. Eliminate bonuses and similar "incentives" to upper management.
• Require increased development of public-transportation vehicles & infrastructure.
Essentially make this first one so onerous so that we don't have a line of billionaires standing in line at the treasury. The "loan" needs to come with a fee, and that fee is the federal government regulating you up their backside until you get your act together, and then some.
get off the public transit. car companies design cars. they are not going to invent a new industry. (and i thought you guys were for decreasing the size of these companies.)
regulation has already happened with the revised cafe standards. bullying the big three with additional regulation is counterproductive.
public-private partnership in research and development is not socialism. the whole patriotic, this is unamerican line, is pure chauvanism. the only way for government and industry to solve our most urgent problems is to work together. think what would happen if the government worked with private industry to solve climate change in the same way government works with the military industrial complex to manufacture war.
manufacturing war is directly beneficial to many money (& power) interests. this is just part of human nature.
the rest is completely delusional. climate change is not an "urgent problem" and nobody is going to "solve it" because the climate at its essence has always been changing and always will change. as architects, however, we can continue to artificially craft environments to our meet our physical & psychological needs. but no amount of federal help, bail-out, partnership or whatever is going to change the realities that we face today.
i wouldn't think of it as bullying - or maybe even regulation - jafidler. i'd think of it as terms of a contract or binding elements.
a bully doesn't give you money, a bully takes it. the giver of money, in this case, should be able to expect something in return - and something measurable. if the big three scare congress/taxpayers into giving them this money no strings attached THEY'RE the bullies.
seeing as how the auto industry plays a significant role in the military industrial complex, trucking and construction industry, cars are hardly the only thing they do. they could retool, they do it all the time, and build for the new New Deal and build for transit, and for a green future. i have heard recently that one thing the govt could do is promise to enter into fleet agreements, with a premium, if the auto companies built hybrid vehicles.
CAFE could EASILY increased, easily. the question is how quickly could engines in large scale vehicles be re-worked to burn natural gas?
the big three are asking for a bridge loan. the 700 billion dollar bailout is entirely different. but if people are either afraid they're gonna be on the dole or are on the dole then they ain't gonna be buying any cars. if there was any other industry still left here ie television, clothing, widgets etc, they would all be in the same situation. also, dammit isn't the RoMaNce and RoCk'n'RoLl???
I really do feel for the people who will lose their jobs if they go into C11 or go under, but how much are we to spend/give to these idiots so they can maintain these jobs? Haven't the car companies gotten special treatment all along? Since WWII, the government has spent millions to built the interstate highway system and millions more to maintain it/expand it so cars can go everywhere; at the same time they let the rails system go down the tubes and car companies bought up and destroyed rail systems in several cities, just to be sure there was little competition. On top of that, they had the gift of absurdly cheap gas prices compared to, say, Europe, so that they could keep building and selling gas guzzlers. How is this competitive capitalism?
So they get the first gas crisis in the 70's, which should have been the writing on the wall to "get small and efficient" (it was for Europe and Japan) but what do they do? they give some lip service and build the worst fucking crap small cars ever made (Vega, Pinto, etc) while continuing their bloated ways: and then they build even more and larger guzzlers, their lovely SUVs, in the 80s and 90s and rake in the money (you should check out the profit margins on some of those behemoths) and get even more bloated. Then the panic comes and they run begging to the government and taxpayers for a bailout. Well I say fuck'em: go into C11, make some real changes, and come out of that lean and mean...or if not, go under, then maybe you'll learn.
I don't see this as bullying, its called making an example. If you want the american taxpayers to clean up after the mess you made, then you have to deal with the consequences, and the consequences are intense regulation. Its a way to keep a bailout (or bridge loan taken without the intention of repaying it, whatever you want to call it) as the option of last resort among companies.
If they did their jobs right, they wouldn't be in this mess now would they?
If the market is always right and government is always wrong and they are going bankrupt, then its the market telling them they are wrong and they should just go under already.
But really its more do as I say, not as I do. Corporate welfare. If the big three - in cahoots with other big business - didn't torpedo Hillary's 90's health care initiative, they'd be paying a lot less for health-care right now wouldn't they? Yup. If they chose not to fight increasing CAFE standards and safety initiatives, they'd be a lot better off now, wouldn't they? Yup.
But they didn't do either of those things, they did the opposite because they cannot see the big picture.
Because the fallout of total collapse of the big 3 would be devastating (especially in the upper midwest) I'd be magnanimous and support a bailout, but the price is going to be steep, and that price will not be money, but rather standards and controls to keep them from running off the rails again, because they are obviously cannot do that on their own.
toyota and honda have the exact same class size cars in their line up; it's indusry standard. is the difference between a toyota landcruiser and a hummer all that different? why single the big three out?
the only difference in the fleets is that toyota bet on hybrids and they won, at least in terms of perception.
once again, there are two things going on with this. one is an immediate cash loan made available to the big three to offset the effects of the economy, same as the banking industry received in the bailout. the second is what most people here seem to be talking about, i.e. money used to promote fuel efficiency and alternative energy research. i would argue that if that money is made available only with mandates and regulation attached, it does not foster a spirit of research and innovation. i believe it could even backfire with that logic. suppose you attach a higher cafe standard to the money. the big three will only design to that goal when the real goal should be how do we innovate to curb climate change or decrease our dependence on foreign oil. i'm not advocating for free money to the auto industry, but the terms attached to the money need to promote the most desirable outcome and not inhibit innovation.
[btw the development of the national highway system is a great example of public-private partnership that lead to a huge step forward in this country.]
Oh yea, that's the only difference. Well maybe check out the repair performance of Toyota and Honda's small and mid-size cars starting, let's say, in the middle 80's to today. Why do you think so many people changed over from American built crap to what they were offering? They guessed right long before the recent hybrids.
And, yes, I know that a lot of their cars are now built here, but they imported their quality control programs too. I never bought from the big 3 (I owned two Toyotas in the 80's and loved them, and have also owned Hondas) because I didn't like their design (and not just how they look from the outside, but how they are configured and detailed) and repair records, and a lot of people did the same. These are things that the big 3 could have responded to and learned from all along, but they chose greed instead, and that's why I single them out.
(and I can't even believe you would even compare the built quality of a Landcruiser with that piece-of-shit-hunk-of-metal Hummer)
Don't disagree with the national highway system...I like going places with my car too. But I also like taking the train, which I mainly do when I go to Europe, 'cause I sure as hell ain't going to pay the prices Amtrak charges here and can't get to half the places I would want to go anyway.
The creaky, leaky vehicles of the 1980s and '90s are long gone. Consumer Reports recently found that "Ford's reliability is now on par with good Japanese automakers." The independent J.D. Power Initial Quality Study scored Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, Ford, GMC, Mercury, Pontiac and Lincoln brands' overall quality as high or higher than that of Acura, Audi, BMW, Honda, Nissan, Scion, Volkswagen and Volvo.
Power rated the Chevrolet Malibu the highest-quality midsize sedan. Both the Malibu and Ford Fusion scored better than the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry.
land crusher and h3 mpgs are almost identical. still though it is about perception. some people will look past this match and point out that the hummer (which is built in indianastan) is a macho in your face vehicle that hates women while the toyota, although big and a gas guzzler, is a nice gas guzzler.
no offense, emilio, but what is the point of arguing the big three's quality in the 1970s? i'm not denying they have made some shitty cars, but what does that have to do with the current situation?
Yea, jaf, you quote all the reports you want: meanwhile, people are quoting with their money and feet.
Also, as a design professional, I can also compare design quality (how doors sound when they close, how trim is installed, how the car drives) with my own senses, and I ain't convinced by the new and improved big 3.
I started in the 70's, but I could go back further: the big 3 have historically mainly been entitled and arrogant companies who refuse change and follow nothing but the bottom line, and they are now paying for it. No, I don't believe that they have changed that much, and will not change unless they learn a tough lesson.
General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC sold 8.5 million vehicles in the United States last year and millions more around the world. GM outsold Toyota by about 1.2 million vehicles in the United States last year and holds a U.S. lead over Toyota of about 560,000 so far this year. Globally, GM in 2007 remained the world's largest automaker, selling 9,369,524 vehicles worldwide -- about 3,000 more than Toyota.
Ford outsold Honda by about 850,000 and Nissan by more than 1.3 million vehicles in the United States last year.
Chrysler sold more vehicles here than Nissan and Hyundai combined in 2007 and so far this year.
And the fact that they are now totally unprepared for what is happening in the economy and the world, when they had the same warnings as all other car companies but chose not to heed it (like killing the electric car, for example), tells me that a bailout will teach them nothing.
Ok, so they sell more vehicles...so why are they are the ones about to go down the tubes and looking for a bailout? At minimum, that tells me they are worse stewards of their profits than foreign companies: again, greed (pocketing the profits) over change and development.
i'm sorry, but i take issue with the dodge dart being a POS, i owned a few, and in fact i wish i owned one right now. easy as fuck to fix, easy as fuck. 225 slant six with single barrel carb, and 3 speed on the column. tricked out easy mofo.
this is pointless discussion because either with or without this $25 billion bailout the Ford & GM are going to die...it's just a question of whether it happens in 2009 or 2010 (maybe 2011 at the latest).
oddly, i don't think it will be too bad on detroit proper (except for an empty RenCen) but the d's suburbs will be murdered. i'd also expect a rivival of the cass corridor as displaced, auto execs suddenly find themselves looking for a crack fix.
there is no difference between detroit proper and its suburbs; they are one and the same. there's also no crack in the cass corridor. i go there every saturday for my free trade coffee and organic baked goods.
toyota and honda have the exact same class size cars in their line up; it's indusry standard. is the difference between a toyota landcruiser and a hummer all that different? why single the big three out?
the only difference in the fleets is that toyota bet on hybrids and they won, at least in terms of perception.
I'd also say that Toyota, Honda, and other foreign manufacturers kept alive a much stronger fleet of small and mid sized cars during the height of the SUV craze that the big three. Now that everyone wants small again, it's paying off for the foreigns.
The Corolla, Civic and Sentra have been consistent performers in this market segment over the past 30 years. The big three don't really have anything to match that. Even if they have some models of comparable quality, they seem to change model names and styling around on their small cars too often for any model to develop a solid following in the way of the Civic.
Big three small cars also tend to lack options like premium audio, ipod docks, GPS nav, and so on that have given the foreigns a perception of coolness.
If the big three cared about small cars they sure didn't act like it, and customers have responded in kind.
the big three have offered premium upgrades on most of their sedans for a number of years. i've driven ford my entire life (primarily escorts and focuses) and have been satisfied with their options and overall performance.
also, isn't the consumer just a wee bit to blame? people wanted to drive big trucks and suvs. the big three did not ram this down anyone's throats. toyota and honda wanted to be competitive in these markets as well. it's not as though the foreign automakers refused to make these models; they were just less successful than the big three in their sales.
i will admit that big three made a major strategic mistake by not getting into the hybrid game sooner. but in the early 00s, all of the different automakers, foreign and domestic, were gambling on different technologies in their r&d. honda was exploring hydrogen fuel cell technology. ford was exploring ethanol. gm was looking into plug-in electric. toyota put its eggs in the hybrid basket and was the first company to successfully introduce hyper-fuel efficient vehicles into the market, and they have been rewarded for that. but imagine if there were a unified approach to this effort - a partnership between government and industry to, say, introduce hydrogen refueling infrastructure on a national level that would create a unified response within the entire auto industry. after the immediate financial needs of the auto industry have stabilized, that's the level we need to be discussing how government money is used within the auto industry, not just retooling existing factories and cafe standards.
honestly, i think that we Americans need to get over this mindset that says we need to drive massive vehicles, with large engines that go as fast as hell. i love my muscle cars, gawd, i'd love to have ANY late 60's early 70's MOPAR, would love it, but at the same time this nostalgia for times that will never come again needs to die already! die fucker die.
we need to stop stroking our egos and get with the reality or else we're doomed.
Bailout the car companies??
GM could really gain a lot of points with me if they retooled a big SUV plant to build something like LRT train cars. The US auto market isn't going back the 4.4 million units sold a couple years back. Bailout or not there is excess capacity. Alternative fuel vehicles aren't the answer - alternative manufacturing is the answer.
One question, is anyone here considering the purchase of a Ford, GM or Chrysler product anytime soon. How many here actually drive a domestic car that's less than 5 years old?
My guess is very few. I'm not sure how these companies will survive at all without a serious change in direction.
I drive a 7 year old Toyota that I'm not planning to get rid of anytime soon. If I did have to go out and replace my car today, the only model from the "big three" I'd even consider looking at would be the Chevy Aveo. Still, its reviews are only about in the middle of the pack for it's class and it's not even really a GM car anyway - it's built by Daewoo for GM.
I am of the belief that if you guys want money, you guys now gotta play by our rules - And I'd love for the rules to be as progressive as possible.
• Significantly increase CAFE standards
• Increase safety standards
• Enforce/create mandatory recycling/return requirements
• Significantly penalize creating personal & fleet vehicles greater than 3,000#
• Mandatory government oversight of accounting and bookkeeping practices. Eliminate bonuses and similar "incentives" to upper management.
• Require increased development of public-transportation vehicles & infrastructure.
Essentially make this first one so onerous so that we don't have a line of billionaires standing in line at the treasury. The "loan" needs to come with a fee, and that fee is the federal government regulating you up their backside until you get your act together, and then some.
get off the public transit. car companies design cars. they are not going to invent a new industry. (and i thought you guys were for decreasing the size of these companies.)
regulation has already happened with the revised cafe standards. bullying the big three with additional regulation is counterproductive.
public-private partnership in research and development is not socialism. the whole patriotic, this is unamerican line, is pure chauvanism. the only way for government and industry to solve our most urgent problems is to work together. think what would happen if the government worked with private industry to solve climate change in the same way government works with the military industrial complex to manufacture war.
manufacturing war is directly beneficial to many money (& power) interests. this is just part of human nature.
the rest is completely delusional. climate change is not an "urgent problem" and nobody is going to "solve it" because the climate at its essence has always been changing and always will change. as architects, however, we can continue to artificially craft environments to our meet our physical & psychological needs. but no amount of federal help, bail-out, partnership or whatever is going to change the realities that we face today.
i wouldn't think of it as bullying - or maybe even regulation - jafidler. i'd think of it as terms of a contract or binding elements.
a bully doesn't give you money, a bully takes it. the giver of money, in this case, should be able to expect something in return - and something measurable. if the big three scare congress/taxpayers into giving them this money no strings attached THEY'RE the bullies.
the honda plant in indianastan is producing in mid 2009 a natural gas powered civic for you mr. and mrs. consumer.
The UAW leadership should be put in jail
seeing as how the auto industry plays a significant role in the military industrial complex, trucking and construction industry, cars are hardly the only thing they do. they could retool, they do it all the time, and build for the new New Deal and build for transit, and for a green future. i have heard recently that one thing the govt could do is promise to enter into fleet agreements, with a premium, if the auto companies built hybrid vehicles.
CAFE could EASILY increased, easily. the question is how quickly could engines in large scale vehicles be re-worked to burn natural gas?
clam, i agree, i still have that image of the union rep from Roger & Me in my head, what a tool.
the big three are asking for a bridge loan. the 700 billion dollar bailout is entirely different. but if people are either afraid they're gonna be on the dole or are on the dole then they ain't gonna be buying any cars. if there was any other industry still left here ie television, clothing, widgets etc, they would all be in the same situation. also, dammit isn't the RoMaNce and RoCk'n'RoLl???
I really do feel for the people who will lose their jobs if they go into C11 or go under, but how much are we to spend/give to these idiots so they can maintain these jobs? Haven't the car companies gotten special treatment all along? Since WWII, the government has spent millions to built the interstate highway system and millions more to maintain it/expand it so cars can go everywhere; at the same time they let the rails system go down the tubes and car companies bought up and destroyed rail systems in several cities, just to be sure there was little competition. On top of that, they had the gift of absurdly cheap gas prices compared to, say, Europe, so that they could keep building and selling gas guzzlers. How is this competitive capitalism?
So they get the first gas crisis in the 70's, which should have been the writing on the wall to "get small and efficient" (it was for Europe and Japan) but what do they do? they give some lip service and build the worst fucking crap small cars ever made (Vega, Pinto, etc) while continuing their bloated ways: and then they build even more and larger guzzlers, their lovely SUVs, in the 80s and 90s and rake in the money (you should check out the profit margins on some of those behemoths) and get even more bloated. Then the panic comes and they run begging to the government and taxpayers for a bailout. Well I say fuck'em: go into C11, make some real changes, and come out of that lean and mean...or if not, go under, then maybe you'll learn.
gm has twenty models that average over 30 mpg. according to their ceo who was just on pbs.
I don't see this as bullying, its called making an example. If you want the american taxpayers to clean up after the mess you made, then you have to deal with the consequences, and the consequences are intense regulation. Its a way to keep a bailout (or bridge loan taken without the intention of repaying it, whatever you want to call it) as the option of last resort among companies.
If they did their jobs right, they wouldn't be in this mess now would they?
If the market is always right and government is always wrong and they are going bankrupt, then its the market telling them they are wrong and they should just go under already.
But really its more do as I say, not as I do. Corporate welfare. If the big three - in cahoots with other big business - didn't torpedo Hillary's 90's health care initiative, they'd be paying a lot less for health-care right now wouldn't they? Yup. If they chose not to fight increasing CAFE standards and safety initiatives, they'd be a lot better off now, wouldn't they? Yup.
But they didn't do either of those things, they did the opposite because they cannot see the big picture.
Because the fallout of total collapse of the big 3 would be devastating (especially in the upper midwest) I'd be magnanimous and support a bailout, but the price is going to be steep, and that price will not be money, but rather standards and controls to keep them from running off the rails again, because they are obviously cannot do that on their own.
toyota and honda have the exact same class size cars in their line up; it's indusry standard. is the difference between a toyota landcruiser and a hummer all that different? why single the big three out?
the only difference in the fleets is that toyota bet on hybrids and they won, at least in terms of perception.
once again, there are two things going on with this. one is an immediate cash loan made available to the big three to offset the effects of the economy, same as the banking industry received in the bailout. the second is what most people here seem to be talking about, i.e. money used to promote fuel efficiency and alternative energy research. i would argue that if that money is made available only with mandates and regulation attached, it does not foster a spirit of research and innovation. i believe it could even backfire with that logic. suppose you attach a higher cafe standard to the money. the big three will only design to that goal when the real goal should be how do we innovate to curb climate change or decrease our dependence on foreign oil. i'm not advocating for free money to the auto industry, but the terms attached to the money need to promote the most desirable outcome and not inhibit innovation.
[btw the development of the national highway system is a great example of public-private partnership that lead to a huge step forward in this country.]
Oh yea, that's the only difference. Well maybe check out the repair performance of Toyota and Honda's small and mid-size cars starting, let's say, in the middle 80's to today. Why do you think so many people changed over from American built crap to what they were offering? They guessed right long before the recent hybrids.
And, yes, I know that a lot of their cars are now built here, but they imported their quality control programs too. I never bought from the big 3 (I owned two Toyotas in the 80's and loved them, and have also owned Hondas) because I didn't like their design (and not just how they look from the outside, but how they are configured and detailed) and repair records, and a lot of people did the same. These are things that the big 3 could have responded to and learned from all along, but they chose greed instead, and that's why I single them out.
(and I can't even believe you would even compare the built quality of a Landcruiser with that piece-of-shit-hunk-of-metal Hummer)
Don't disagree with the national highway system...I like going places with my car too. But I also like taking the train, which I mainly do when I go to Europe, 'cause I sure as hell ain't going to pay the prices Amtrak charges here and can't get to half the places I would want to go anyway.
Power rated the Chevrolet Malibu the highest-quality midsize sedan. Both the Malibu and Ford Fusion scored better than the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry.
land crusher and h3 mpgs are almost identical. still though it is about perception. some people will look past this match and point out that the hummer (which is built in indianastan) is a macho in your face vehicle that hates women while the toyota, although big and a gas guzzler, is a nice gas guzzler.
Exhibit one on why the big 3 should not have even survived the 70s:
Chevy Vega
Chevy Chevette (my brother had one: left him stranded on more than one occasion)
Ford Pinto
Ford Granada
Dodge Dart (my parents had one: mostly in the repair shop)
AMC Gremlin
Oldsmobile Cutlass (inspiration for 6000 SUX in Robocop)
I rest my case.
no offense, emilio, but what is the point of arguing the big three's quality in the 1970s? i'm not denying they have made some shitty cars, but what does that have to do with the current situation?
Yea, jaf, you quote all the reports you want: meanwhile, people are quoting with their money and feet.
Also, as a design professional, I can also compare design quality (how doors sound when they close, how trim is installed, how the car drives) with my own senses, and I ain't convinced by the new and improved big 3.
I started in the 70's, but I could go back further: the big 3 have historically mainly been entitled and arrogant companies who refuse change and follow nothing but the bottom line, and they are now paying for it. No, I don't believe that they have changed that much, and will not change unless they learn a tough lesson.
Ford outsold Honda by about 850,000 and Nissan by more than 1.3 million vehicles in the United States last year.
Chrysler sold more vehicles here than Nissan and Hyundai combined in 2007 and so far this year.
And the fact that they are now totally unprepared for what is happening in the economy and the world, when they had the same warnings as all other car companies but chose not to heed it (like killing the electric car, for example), tells me that a bailout will teach them nothing.
i will never buy a packard, de soto or hudson again those cars were always in the shop!
Ok, so they sell more vehicles...so why are they are the ones about to go down the tubes and looking for a bailout? At minimum, that tells me they are worse stewards of their profits than foreign companies: again, greed (pocketing the profits) over change and development.
i'm sorry, but i take issue with the dodge dart being a POS, i owned a few, and in fact i wish i owned one right now. easy as fuck to fix, easy as fuck. 225 slant six with single barrel carb, and 3 speed on the column. tricked out easy mofo.
Well, if you do your own work and modifications that would be different.
But I've had my rant for the day...peace out.
?
Click and Clack like their Darts -- that's good enuf for me !
maybe your DoDgEmAtErIaL!
...that i am, that i am...
i really couldn't imagine THIS between a kia and hyundai...
Sweet. It's been a while.
I like this one. God knows how they shot the last third of it. . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w808lSxUYJ4
it's all slowed down and shot w/ long lenses, to make the action look closer than it is.
when my dad was an aide de camp to a 4 star, they had drivers that (supposedly) could drive like that.
they certainly were really good at driving fast in heavy ass cars
you know that the car companies killed the public trans system in detroit back in the day......
Like this ?
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/11/16-6
they took out all the steet trolleys and sold them to mexico city (which still uses them today) and stopped more than half the bus lines.
and the davidson freeway in detroit was the first 'expressway' to be built......at least to my knowledge
b
good one. this one freaking WaNgChUnGs!!!
Go Detroit !
This ? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CE2i08S3YeY&feature=related
this is pointless discussion because either with or without this $25 billion bailout the Ford & GM are going to die...it's just a question of whether it happens in 2009 or 2010 (maybe 2011 at the latest).
oddly, i don't think it will be too bad on detroit proper (except for an empty RenCen) but the d's suburbs will be murdered. i'd also expect a rivival of the cass corridor as displaced, auto execs suddenly find themselves looking for a crack fix.
there is no difference between detroit proper and its suburbs; they are one and the same. there's also no crack in the cass corridor. i go there every saturday for my free trade coffee and organic baked goods.
there is a huge difference...the drugs & crime will return in force as soon as the industry folds which is inevitable. revolution inches closer!
the only difference in the fleets is that toyota bet on hybrids and they won, at least in terms of perception.
I'd also say that Toyota, Honda, and other foreign manufacturers kept alive a much stronger fleet of small and mid sized cars during the height of the SUV craze that the big three. Now that everyone wants small again, it's paying off for the foreigns.
The Corolla, Civic and Sentra have been consistent performers in this market segment over the past 30 years. The big three don't really have anything to match that. Even if they have some models of comparable quality, they seem to change model names and styling around on their small cars too often for any model to develop a solid following in the way of the Civic.
Big three small cars also tend to lack options like premium audio, ipod docks, GPS nav, and so on that have given the foreigns a perception of coolness.
If the big three cared about small cars they sure didn't act like it, and customers have responded in kind.
i test drove a focus svt a few years back and it had premium audio, a six speed, 17" tires, and generally hauled some ass.
the big three have offered premium upgrades on most of their sedans for a number of years. i've driven ford my entire life (primarily escorts and focuses) and have been satisfied with their options and overall performance.
also, isn't the consumer just a wee bit to blame? people wanted to drive big trucks and suvs. the big three did not ram this down anyone's throats. toyota and honda wanted to be competitive in these markets as well. it's not as though the foreign automakers refused to make these models; they were just less successful than the big three in their sales.
i will admit that big three made a major strategic mistake by not getting into the hybrid game sooner. but in the early 00s, all of the different automakers, foreign and domestic, were gambling on different technologies in their r&d. honda was exploring hydrogen fuel cell technology. ford was exploring ethanol. gm was looking into plug-in electric. toyota put its eggs in the hybrid basket and was the first company to successfully introduce hyper-fuel efficient vehicles into the market, and they have been rewarded for that. but imagine if there were a unified approach to this effort - a partnership between government and industry to, say, introduce hydrogen refueling infrastructure on a national level that would create a unified response within the entire auto industry. after the immediate financial needs of the auto industry have stabilized, that's the level we need to be discussing how government money is used within the auto industry, not just retooling existing factories and cafe standards.
sounds like something is happening in DC.
honestly, i think that we Americans need to get over this mindset that says we need to drive massive vehicles, with large engines that go as fast as hell. i love my muscle cars, gawd, i'd love to have ANY late 60's early 70's MOPAR, would love it, but at the same time this nostalgia for times that will never come again needs to die already! die fucker die.
we need to stop stroking our egos and get with the reality or else we're doomed.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.