Consider buying American!

On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 05:37:57 -0800, buydomestic wrote:

> 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.
>
> Here are some American models recommended in the 2007 Consumer Reports
> Annual Auto Issue:

There are a couple problems with American car manufacturers in general,
and GM in particular:

The workforce gets bored easily. Bored workers do fair work.

The Management is more interested in making shareholders happy than
customers.

And the biggest failure of the system: even if your people are building
the cars the best they can, the car is no better than the quality of the
parts that go into it.

This is where the Japanese really kick ass. The parts are far more
reliable than their American counterparts. Remember what happened when GM
sytarted making Corollas (Geo Prizm)? They put Delco parts into them! The
highest failure components on a Prizm are the alternator and the radio.
Smart people who realize they have a Corolla in disguise go to a Toyota
dealer and buy a rebuilt Denso alternator and drive for the next 150,000+
miles without even thinking about it.

Once GM starts thinking Customer over shareholder, and quality parts
rather than cheap parts, GM will again regain it's composure and move back
to the top. And I don't mean in sales. You give people a large enough
incentive, they'll buy the car no matter how crummy. I ALMOST went to look
at a Cobalt, because a new one was $3,000 less than the Scion I bought
with 11,500 miles. Bit based on the reliability figures of the Cavalier
the Cobalt replaced, the idea left my head in 5 minutes.

If GM can get their parts manufacturers to approach the quality and
longevity of Denso, Hitachi, etc, GM might once again become #1 in
QUALITY, and not just pushing cars to rental agencies to boost sales...

Hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒ*ク wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 05:37:57 -0800, buydomestic wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>> Here are some American models recommended in the 2007 Consumer Reports
>> Annual Auto Issue:
>
> There are a couple problems with American car manufacturers in general,
> and GM in particular:
>
> The workforce gets bored easily. Bored workers do fair work.

How does this affect GM workers more than other workers? Or Ford and
Chrysler workers more than the workers for the foreign automakers?

> The Management is more interested in making shareholders happy than
> customers.

Chrysler does not have shareholders.

> And the biggest failure of the system: even if your people are building
> the cars the best they can, the car is no better than the quality of the
> parts that go into it.

This is true for US-made Hondas and Toyotas, too.

> This is where the Japanese really kick ass. The parts are far more
> reliable than their American counterparts. Remember what happened when GM
> sytarted making Corollas (Geo Prizm)? They put Delco parts into them! The
> highest failure components on a Prizm are the alternator and the radio.
> Smart people who realize they have a Corolla in disguise go to a Toyota
> dealer and buy a rebuilt Denso alternator and drive for the next 150,000+
> miles without even thinking about it.
>
> Once GM starts thinking Customer over shareholder, and quality parts
> rather than cheap parts, GM will again regain it's composure and move back
> to the top. And I don't mean in sales. You give people a large enough
> incentive, they'll buy the car no matter how crummy. I ALMOST went to look
> at a Cobalt, because a new one was $3,000 less than the Scion I bought
> with 11,500 miles. Bit based on the reliability figures of the Cavalier
> the Cobalt replaced, the idea left my head in 5 minutes.
>
> If GM can get their parts manufacturers to approach the quality and
> longevity of Denso, Hitachi, etc, GM might once again become #1 in
> QUALITY, and not just pushing cars to rental agencies to boost sales...

GM and Ford have decreased sales to rental fleets.

Jeff

Jeff wrote:
> Hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒ*ク wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 05:37:57 -0800, buydomestic wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Here are some American models recommended in the 2007 Consumer Reports
>>> Annual Auto Issue:
>>
>> There are a couple problems with American car manufacturers in general,
>> and GM in particular:
>>
>> The workforce gets bored easily. Bored workers do fair work.
>
> How does this affect GM workers more than other workers? Or Ford and
> Chrysler workers more than the workers for the foreign automakers?
>
>> The Management is more interested in making shareholders happy than
>> customers.
>
> Chrysler does not have shareholders.
>
>> And the biggest failure of the system: even if your people are building
>> the cars the best they can, the car is no better than the quality of the
>> parts that go into it.
>
> This is true for US-made Hondas and Toyotas, too.

the difference is the spec the auto maker writes for the parts. honda
and toyota specs are very high. domestic specs are way lower.



>
>> This is where the Japanese really kick ass. The parts are far more
>> reliable than their American counterparts. Remember what happened when GM
>> sytarted making Corollas (Geo Prizm)? They put Delco parts into them! The
>> highest failure components on a Prizm are the alternator and the radio.
>> Smart people who realize they have a Corolla in disguise go to a Toyota
>> dealer and buy a rebuilt Denso alternator and drive for the next 150,000+
>> miles without even thinking about it.
>> Once GM starts thinking Customer over shareholder, and quality parts
>> rather than cheap parts, GM will again regain it's composure and move
>> back
>> to the top. And I don't mean in sales. You give people a large enough
>> incentive, they'll buy the car no matter how crummy. I ALMOST went to
>> look
>> at a Cobalt, because a new one was $3,000 less than the Scion I bought
>> with 11,500 miles. Bit based on the reliability figures of the Cavalier
>> the Cobalt replaced, the idea left my head in 5 minutes.
>>
>> If GM can get their parts manufacturers to approach the quality and
>> longevity of Denso, Hitachi, etc, GM might once again become #1 in
>> QUALITY, and not just pushing cars to rental agencies to boost sales...
>
> GM and Ford have decreased sales to rental fleets.
>
> Jeff

Johnny Hageyama wrote:
>
> Tony Harding wrote:
>> BaJoRi wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>> Wake up, dude, Japan, along with every other first world country with
>> the exception of the US, has universal health coverage and retirement
>> benefits, so Japanese companies, et al., have no direct health care
>> and/or retirement costs. Makes for quite a competitive advantage,
>> doesn't it?
>
> Furthermore the Japanese health care system, both the public and
> private portions, is incredibly cheap, costing less than half as much
> as the American system does, this despite Americans making far fewer
> doctor visits.

It's really staggering to think about it. IIRC, one rationale for
"market driven" health care is to eliminate what they call "frivolous"
doctor's visits. I don't personally know anyone who drops by the
doctor's office just because he has decent health coverage. Most people
are too busy.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article >,
> Elmo P. Shagnasty > wrote:
>> In article >,
>> "Dave Plowman (News)" > wrote:
>
>>> I'm a 'BMW guy'. BMW saw sense and ditched belts some 15 years ago.
>
>> Why does BMW care? They've created a market in the US where their
>> target market leases the cars and turns them around before the warranty
>> is up.
>
> The world does *not* consist of the US. But in any case like most makers
> offer a warranty on secondhand cars.
>
>> BMW doesn't give a **** about maintenance costs down the road. That's
>> some other ******'s problem, not BMWs.
>
> Really? They include maintenance in the sale price for 100,000 miles -
> which can be extended for a fixed payment. A good reason for using chains.
>
> But since chains cost more and are inferior in every way (in your
> opinion) just what is your explanation for BMW using them ?

Plus Porsche, which has used timing chains in the 911 series since it
was first shown in 1963 (the Frankfort auto show). MB does, too, at
least on some models, same for VW.

jim beam wrote:
> Tony Harding wrote:
>> jim beam wrote:
>>> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>>>> In article >,
>>>> jim beam > wrote:
>>>>> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>>>>>> In article > ,
>>>>>> jim beam > wrote:
>>>>>>>> There's at least one Vauxhall (GM) available in the UK where the
>>>>>>>> engine has to come out to change the belt. If this is the case it
>>>>>>>> would be little more overall cost to change a chain. And in
>>>>>>>> practice
>>>>>>>> less since it would have a greatly longer life.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> how much longer is "greatly longer"? put numbers to it.
>>>>>> On average over 4 times longer than a belt. Some may never need
>>>>>> changing throughout the service life of the engine.
>>>>
>>>>> 1. it's more like 1.5 times.
>>>>
>>>> Don't be silly.
>>>
>>> because you don't know or care about chain stretch doesn't mean it's
>>> not happening. chains stretch enough to be out of spec in about this
>>> mileage span.
>>>
>>>
>>>> The newsgroups are full of cars breaking cam belts - but
>>>> how often do you hear of a chain going?
>>>
>>> belts "go" when they're too old and have been used too long. chains
>>> usually wear out to the extent that they wreck the rest of the timing
>>> gear and turn the engine into a sluggish polluter.
>>
>> Any links to support this claim?
>
> by definition, as the chain stretches, the timing drifts. think about it.

In other words, no, not a scintilla.

I worked at a Chevy dealer at the time the Prizm was around. Chevy even had
a letter out to replace the failed Delco alt. with a Denso unit. GM and
Ford dug their own graves buy giving us piles of junk. Time for them to
crawl in their holes and die. Scott

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

jim beam wrote:
> wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 19:43:32 -0800, jim beam
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>> It is a lot of blind faith to put in a rubber belt.
>>> how odd. methinks you put a lot of faith in the rubber seals in your
>>> braking system - why the disparate religions?
>>>
>> It is why you have TWO separate brake systems. (at least before the
>> ABS system) You can lose your brakes without a 100% chance of
>> totalling your car but if I lose this belt I have been guaranteed a
>> 100% chance of totalling my engine.
>
> wrong answer. dual circuit is because of hydraulic problems, not rubber
> problems.
>
> the point is, your "rubber belt" is the same kind of technology that
> holds race tires together at 160+ mph, that suspends elevators in modern
> buildings, that provides reliability and precision in extreme
> applications in countless machines all over the world, every day. don't
> trivialize something that you don't properly understand.

Sounds pretty interesting, any chance of a link or 2?

jim beam wrote:
> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>> In article >,
>> Tony Harding > wrote:
>>
>>>>> (2) I think you mean to say that "neither statement IS wrong."
>>>>> "Neither" is singular,
>>>> there are two instances, hence the plural - "neither of these two
>>>> statements are wrong". something like "neither do i" is singular.
>>> Wrong! The subject of the sentence is "neither", which is singular.
>>> Without the qualification ("of these two statements") it would read
>>> "neither is wrong" (not "neither are wrong").
>>
>> (jim, he's correct)
>>
>
> ok, let me re-state for the pedants:
>
> "neither of these two statements are wrong".
>
> happy now?

I was happy to start with, but you're still wrong. Sorry.

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 09:06:16 -0800, Phil Robyn > wrote:

>jim beam wrote:
>> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> Tony Harding > wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> (2) I think you mean to say that "neither statement IS wrong."
>>>>>> "Neither" is singular,
>>>>> there are two instances, hence the plural - "neither of these two
>>>>> statements are wrong". something like "neither do i" is singular.
>>>> Wrong! The subject of the sentence is "neither", which is singular.
>>>> Without the qualification ("of these two statements") it would read
>>>> "neither is wrong" (not "neither are wrong").
>>>
>>> (jim, he's correct)
>>>
>>
>> ok, let me re-state for the pedants:
>>
>> "neither of these two statements are wrong".
>>
>> happy now?
>
>No. You should have quit while you were behind. You're just making
>it worse.


Phil it doesn't matter about the grammar being right or wrong - we ENGLISH
invented the language so we can do what we like with it. Anyway,
the way ENGLISH has been diluted by US immigrants over the years who is to say
what is the correct grammar
--

Sir Hugh of Bognor

The difference between men and boys is the price of their toys.

Intelligence is not knowing the answer but knowing where and how to find it!

Hugh Gundersen

Bognor Regis, W.Sussex, England, UK