Consider buying American!

I dont feel a bit sorry for G.M and their losses. I worked at a Chevy
dealer for 33 years and saw how their products were. I have owned Honda
and Toyota products for over 20 years and loved every one. We can only
hope in the near future that G.M.'s new name might be:
General Motors division of Toyota Motor Corp.
Scott

--
Message posted using http://www.talkaboutautos.com/group/....makers.honda/
More information at http://www.talkaboutautos.com/faq.html

> wrote in message ...
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 20:54:55 GMT, still just me
> > wrote:
>
>>>I can't even use common fluids in the Honda. The antifreeze is 4-5
>>>times as much.
>>
>>I have difficulty believing that. Maybe your aged Ford uses the green
>>stuff on sale,
>
> I have never seen Honda antifreeze "on sale" or really for sale at all
> beyond the dealer. It is also half the strength. A gallon costs at
> least twice what a national brand costs and you need twice as much of
> it.

How often you need it?
Why do you make big fuss about $20 dollars spend once per 2 years?

"zonie" <sjemoomaw@nospam> wrote in message lkaboutautos.com...
> I dont feel a bit sorry for G.M and their losses. I worked at a Chevy
> dealer for 33 years and saw how their products were. I have owned Honda
> and Toyota products for over 20 years and loved every one. We can only
> hope in the near future that G.M.'s new name might be:
> General Motors division of Toyota Motor Corp.

I am not sure if it would be good for toyota or honda
to carry so much of dead weight.

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <etKsj.332$Cs.92@trnddc04>, Jeff >
> wrote:
>
>>> Hey, Jeff:
>>>
>>> http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ne...nG=Search+News
>>>
>>> "GM lost $US722 million in the December quarter and a record $US38.7
>>> billion for 2007"
>>>
>>> Tell us again the bedtime story about how GM was the only automaker
>>> whose sales improved last month.
>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/02/bu...=business&oref
>> =slogin>
>>
>> You can read it yourself.
>
> Oh, I'm not saying it isn't true. But it's a bedtime story, intended
> solely to make you warm and fuzzy. There is no meaning to that
> particular data point at all.

And tell us what the meaning of the GM loss is.

You might want to note that $38.3 billion of the loss is related to the
way deferred tax assets are evaluated.

GM certainly is not doing great in North America, but it is making some
progress.

jeff

http://www.gm.com/corporate/investor...ings/index.jsp

Jeff wrote:

>I haven't heard of a lot of major problems for Mercedes Benz or BMW. but
>they are expensive to repair. I remember in my younger days, I took
>apart a MB engine, I think from a late 70s MB. The engine was much more
>complicated to disassemble than a US V8. There were more head bolts, the
>oil pan came in two pieces, and there were a lot more parts than in a US
>V8. I didn't see the bill for the engine rebuild, but I bet it was more
>than for a Chevy 350.

There was a comparison in one of the magazines, recently, between GM's
LS7 and the Mercedes/AMG 6.2L engine. Very similar performance, but
the GM engine was was under $10k, while the AMG engine costs $50k!

As much as I admire the engineering in engines like the AMD and BMW's
4.0 V8 in the M3, I really question the expense of wringing so much
power out of "smaller" motors like that.

stupid... wringing?
it is called efficiency.
M5=V10 with 507 HP
More than 100hp per Litre capacity.... BRILLIANCE.


"dizzy" > wrote in message
...
> Jeff wrote:
>
>>I haven't heard of a lot of major problems for Mercedes Benz or BMW. but
>>they are expensive to repair. I remember in my younger days, I took
>>apart a MB engine, I think from a late 70s MB. The engine was much more
>>complicated to disassemble than a US V8. There were more head bolts, the
>>oil pan came in two pieces, and there were a lot more parts than in a US
>>V8. I didn't see the bill for the engine rebuild, but I bet it was more
>>than for a Chevy 350.
>
> There was a comparison in one of the magazines, recently, between GM's
> LS7 and the Mercedes/AMG 6.2L engine. Very similar performance, but
> the GM engine was was under $10k, while the AMG engine costs $50k!
>
> As much as I admire the engineering in engines like the AMD and BMW's
> 4.0 V8 in the M3, I really question the expense of wringing so much
> power out of "smaller" motors like that.
>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In article <xOhsj.6466$Wr4.4683@trnddc05>,
says...

> The Japanese subsidies of Toyota and Honda pay corporate income tax to
> states and the federal gov't as well as local property and other taxes.
> How much in taxes they pay is not known.

Maybe not by you. Data from EDGAROnline:

In 2007, Toyota Motor Co. paid $7.609 billion in taxes.
In 2007, Honda Motor Co. paid $2.4127 billion in taxes.
In 2007, General Motors had a $2.785 billion tax credit on losses.
In 2007, Ford Motor Co. had a $2.646 billion tax credit on losses

Chrysler is now private, so does not report financials.


> You're welcome to search the internet or the even the Toyota and Honda
> websites to find out how many people they employ.

According to Hoovers:

American Honda Motor Co. employed 25,000 people in 2005.

Toyota is organized differently, with subsidiaries in different
locations:

Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America Inc. employed
5,600 people in 2007.
Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. employed 5,000 people in
2007.
Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Indiana, Inc. employed 3,000 people in 2007.
Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Texas, Inc. employed 2,295 people in 2007.
Total: 15,895 people.

--Gene

On Feb 12, 8:37 am, wrote:
snip
>
> Here are some American models recommended in the 2007 Consumer Reports
> Annual Auto Issue:
>
snip

Consider how few inexpensive and/or fuel efficient cars are on the
list.
If Detroit wants to win back buyers, they'd better start building cars
young buyers can afford to buy and operate.

Gene S. Berkowitz wrote:
> In article <xOhsj.6466$Wr4.4683@trnddc05>,
> says...
>
>> The Japanese subsidies of Toyota and Honda pay corporate income tax to
>> states and the federal gov't as well as local property and other taxes.
>> How much in taxes they pay is not known.
>
> Maybe not by you. Data from EDGAROnline:
>
> In 2007, Toyota Motor Co. paid $7.609 billion in taxes.
> In 2007, Honda Motor Co. paid $2.4127 billion in taxes.
> In 2007, General Motors had a $2.785 billion tax credit on losses.
> In 2007, Ford Motor Co. had a $2.646 billion tax credit on losses

These figures are total taxes, and include taxes paid outside the US.

> Chrysler is now private, so does not report financials.
>
>
>> You're welcome to search the internet or the even the Toyota and Honda
>> websites to find out how many people they employ.
>
> According to Hoovers:
>
> American Honda Motor Co. employed 25,000 people in 2005.
>
> Toyota is organized differently, with subsidiaries in different
> locations:
>
> Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America Inc. employed
> 5,600 people in 2007.
> Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. employed 5,000 people in
> 2007.
> Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Indiana, Inc. employed 3,000 people in 2007.
> Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Texas, Inc. employed 2,295 people in 2007.
> Total: 15,895 people.

Although not individually reported by Toyota or the US government, each
of the Toyota companies are US companies that pay US taxes.

Toyota spends nearly $30 billion a year in the US on goods and services,
including auto parts. So there are a lot more workers indirectly employed.

I wonder what the number is for each of the Michigan 3.

Jeff

> --Gene

"swllz" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Tony Harding wrote:
>> tater wrote:
>>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23124844/
>>>>
>>>> GM just made it known that they lost 39 billion in 2007, the largest
>>>> ever annual loss for a US automaker.
>>>>
>>>> The big three are losing money, and if we don't give them the support
>>>> they need, they are going to go under. Consider buying an American
>>>> car.
>>>>
>>>
>>> American cars are crap. Made by unionists more worried about when their
>>> next coffee break is than making quality cars. They've negotiated
>>> themselves
>>> right out of jobs as the big auto makers cut back. It's not possible to
>>> do business that way and compete on a world wide economy.
>>
>>
>> It's hardly the workers' fault - Honda & Toyota employ American workers
>> and turn out quality vehicles. This is a management failing.
>
> It is very true. The top management in GM should be blamed. GM assemble
> line workers do not make much more than assemble line worker in TOYOTA.
> They just assemble what have been planed and designed by management. The
> top management in GM take home a huge salary and bouns compare to TOYOTA
> or HONDA top management.

What are the annual healthcare and retirement benefit costs for GM and Ford,
owing to the UAW contracts, as compared with Honda and Toyota? So to say
that those Japanese companies take care of their empoyees as well as the Big
Three is an outright lie.