Fix GM & Ford: US Loan to Honda & Toyota to buy them!
Comments
-
I never said it was. But it is the job of the consumer to educate themselves and if the consumer deliberately says "I ain't gonna look at no GM, my granpaw said theys was junk so theys junk and I ain't lookin'!" then they aren't educating themselves.
All I'm saying is lose the 'tude and go LOOK for yourself and GET educated.
And a lot of those people go out and buy Euro brands that aren't even as
good as ours. But all I have to go with is my expeirence. I'l still look at the
big three. I can buy a new F150 a lot cheaper than a Toyota. But Ill have
to see how the new model holds up over the next couple of years. What
would of been a "no brainer, buy the Ford" has become a "well, maybe not".
In about two years, we'll see if the new F150 is a go or not."The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." --Thomas Jefferson -
the big problem is the guys who buld the cars and trucks are payed way to much. this is a non skilled job that any one can do. you dont need a degree or anything. people who work the line make more than teachers.
what the autos must do.
1. cut cost by paying line workers more in line with foren auto worker.
2 pay the big wigs less money. andmake them pay for their own perks they can aford it.
3. they have two many cars that compete with their own product. define each brand.
4. go green or go home they need to go green cars andtrucks and make them not suck. -
sucks2beme wrote: »Yes we do. We also understand they could be a bottomless money pit.
The management and unions suck in Detroit. Fire them all and start over.
It's like at American Airlines a few years ago. They got the union to
take a 10% cut accross the board. They then decided the best way
to spend the money was on executive bonuses. The rot starts at the top.
Dumping the union would drop the average car price $2000. Yet, what would I buy?
Other than a truck, they don't make a car I'd own. How do you fix
dead innovation. Other than Corvette, they have sucked the life out of the company.
Make a good mid-size that's reliable and doesn't look butt ugly.
Watch the buyers come back.
I have a lot of friends who put in 20-30 years in a GM plant that was closed a few years ago. Union people. It's hard-**** work. You're on a line in a company that wants you to be as efficient a part of its machinery as a human can possibly be. If they can replace you with a robot, they do.
Part of that American Dream is that the people who actually bust their backs building them get a decent salary for it. There's plenty of people who bail because it's hard, even with the benefits.
You want to point a finger, point it at management. They don't give two **** in a biscuit for American consumers or workers.
They'll move that plant to Mexico or Brazil because Mexico doesn't have Unions and they can make a bigger bottom-line. What kind of American loyalty is that?
That should tell people a few things about where the problem with Detroit lies.
The decision to build unsafe cars, cars like my Taurus with a factory head-gasket guaranteed to fail at 50k- that's management, my friend. -
I have a lot of friends who put in 20-30 years in a GM plant that was closed a few years ago. Union people. It's hard-**** work.
Lots of jobs are hard, very few pay what some of those union guys get paid. Not to mention the ridiculous pensions.
You can't pay someone doing unskilled labor 80k a year. It just doesn't make sense.
Know how to judge whether someone should be getting paid what they are? Ask them what they'll do if they get fired. If they say "I don't know, work at Wendy's", then they probably deserve the salary of a Wendy's employee, because that's the extent of their skillset.
If they roll of a list of jobs they could do because they are skilled and useful, then they probably deserve a much higher pay.If you will it, dude, it is no dream. -
bobman1235 wrote: »Lots of jobs are hard, very few pay what some of those union guys get paid. Not to mention the ridiculous pensions.
You can't pay someone doing unskilled labor 80k a year. It just doesn't make sense.
Know how to judge whether someone should be getting paid what they are? Ask them what they'll do if they get fired. If they say "I don't know, work at Wendy's", then they probably deserve the salary of a Wendy's employee, because that's the extent of their skillset.
If they roll of a list of jobs they could do because they are skilled and useful, then they probably deserve a much higher pay.
I'd call building an American car a skilled job, not luck of the draw between GM and Wendy's. They got shifted around periodically to learn other positions. Most of these people also knew how to do some facet of residential construction.
Did you read that GM is opening a $300 million plant in Petersburg, Russia to build SUV's? -
Building a car is a skilled job. TIghtening the same screw as it comes down the assembly line for 8 hours a day is something a trained monkey could do.
Don't get me wrong, there are many, MANY skilled workers in auto plants. There are also many, MANY unskilled ones who get paid too much.If you will it, dude, it is no dream. -
bobman1235 wrote: »Building a car is a skilled job. TIghtening the same screw as it comes down the assembly line for 8 hours a day is something a trained monkey could do.
Don't get me wrong, there are many, MANY skilled workers in auto plants. There are also many, MANY unskilled ones who get paid too much.
Such as ?Sal Palooza -
mrbigbluelight wrote: »Such as ?
Honestly? It's not like I'm saying something revolutionary here. YOu want specifics, look them up.If you will it, dude, it is no dream. -
Sorry, but there is nothing that anyone is doing on the assembly line that's worth $78/hr...
Especially when Honda and Toyota are paying $48 for US workers...There is no genuine justice in any scheme of feeding and coddling the loafer whose only ponderable energies are devoted wholly to reproduction. Nine-tenths of the rights he bellows for are really privileges and he does nothing to deserve them. We not only acquired a vast population of morons, we have inculcated all morons, old or young, with the doctrine that the decent and industrious people of the country are bound to support them for all time.-Menkin -
Sorry, but there is nothing that anyone is doing on the assembly line that's worth $78/hr...
Especially when Honda and Toyota are paying $48 for US workers...
What position on the assembly line pays $78/hr ?Sal Palooza -
I believe that figure is when they factor in all the benefits that are included, and just not the actual hourly rate.
-
That's the "burden rate". Add up all costs for an employee.
Unknown if that's the true burden rate, or just the salary
+bennies. You'd be surprized to know what yours is.
Every company keeps track of it. It's quite often used to
support or kill off outsourcing/contracting."The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." --Thomas Jefferson -
Sorry, but there is nothing that anyone is doing on the assembly line that's worth $78/hr...
Especially when Honda and Toyota are paying $48 for US workers...
Sorry, but the exact same thing can be said of the executives and their salaries.
Why does it seem that the only ones harping on how much an autoworker gets paid, fall (mostly) into one of two groups?
A) Young, idealistic adults, not ambitious enough to go get a high paying job.
People with degrees that seem to think they are the only ones worthy of a good living. (could it be, because all students are pushed towards college, and away from productive, skilled trades?)
Back on topic.
The UAW will have to make big concessions, if they are to remain employed long-term. I disagree with sticking it to the retirees. They put in their time, and deserve what they negotiated for themselves.
Allowing the Big3 to shirk their responsibilities to the retirees could open the door to any business in trouble, doing the same to you or someone you care about. The UAW needs to acknowledge this to keep an eye toward their future. They have enough membership to support their retirees, even if they have to raise their dues. In the end, it's the UAW, who is responsible for their membership.
Why should American companies (as a whole) pay the same as foreign? Are we looking to lower the standard of living, to align with, say, China, Japan, or India? Like them, or hate them, unions have elevated wages, living standards, working conditions, and worker safety for nearly everyone, union, or non.
I will agree that the UAW has gotten too big for their collective britches, and better wake the hell up. -
Although I was not in Congress when either the Lockheed or the New York City bailouts were enacted, I would have opposed both of those actions, as well as the proposed action regarding Chrysler, for many of the same reasons. Let me explain those reasons.
In a nation that is sinking in a sea of debt, it is irresponsible for this Congress to be considering a measure that would add billions to that debt. The expansion of credit is one of the primary forms of inflation. It is not merely inflationary in its effects; it is inflation itself. If this $1.5 billion is created by the federal government, it will ripple and percolate through our banking system, and because of our fractional reserve system, the ultimate growth in the money supply will be far more than $1.5 billion. The standard multiplier is six; that means an infusion of $1.5 billion will eventually result in a $9 billion increase in the money supply. In his testimony before the House Banking Committee, the former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, Alan Greenspan, stated that
Loan guarantees, insofar as the issue of inflation is concerned, are virtually indistinguishable from on-budget financing, and that the major cause of inflation into this country has been an excessive amount of credit preemption, largely in the area of guarantees, which . . . has created excessive monetary growth and is the base of inflation in the system.
A vote for the Chrysler bailout is, simply put, a vote for further inflation.
Some may argue that the inflation is necessary in order to avoid unemployment, echoing the now repudiated idea of A.W. Phillips, that less inflation means more unemployment and vice versa. The past few years of our experience with inflation and unemployment should convince everyone that high inflation and high unemployment can exist side-by-side. I believe the connection is even closer: Inflation causes unemployment perhaps not immediately, but in the longer run and we are now in the longer run of our past inflationary policies. It follows that a vote for aid to Chrysler, because it is a vote for inflation, is also a vote for more unemployment.
Such unemployment may not be obvious, but it will nonetheless be real. One of the things that bothers me most about this entire discussion is that it centers around only what is obvious. Saving 100,000 jobs at Chrysler is obvious; losing 100,000 jobs, one by one around the country is not obvious, but they will nonetheless be lost, should aid to Chrysler pass.
Let me explain why I believe this to be so. If this aid takes the form of loan guarantees rather than direct loans (and, I add parenthetically, that over $1 billion of the New York City loan guarantees has been converted into direct federal loans by the Federal Financing Bank) it will be tantamount to an allocation of credit to Chrysler. That means that Chrysler will get capital that would have gone to other more efficient and more profitable businesses. Because this capital will be diverted by these loan guarantees to a less efficient business, it is highly probable that more jobs will be lost through invisible unemployment than would be were Chrysler to fail. I hasten to point out that this will result in all the increased costs to the government that the proponents of the bailout so loudly declare they wish to avoid. Of course, the costs will not all be centered in Michigan; unemployment checks, welfare checks, food stamp benefits will increase nationwide, in big and small towns, urban centers and rural America. Rather than a few localities suffering noticeably; many will suffer almost invisibly. Workers who have nothing to do with Chrysler will lose their jobs or pay the taxes and higher prices caused by this bailout. The average industrial worker earns half of what the average Chrysler workers earns, and under the UAW contract, the Chrysler workers will be receiving a $500 million pay and benefits rise over the next three years. I have always thought that businesses in trouble cut costs; the Chrysler workers will receive far more in wage increases alone over the next ten years than this bailout amounts to. That (and other facts) would indicate to me that the Chrysler workers have not made any sacrifices and that they hope, through federal aid, to maintain their relatively high wages at the expense of the lower-paid workers in this country. We are being asked to shift the burden from the relatively well-off workers at Chrysler to the relatively worse-off workers throughout America. A Chrysler bailout will be a shifting of burdens that should be borne by those involved.
Do we in Congress have the authority, either moral or constitutional, to cause this suffering? I can find no provision in the Constitution authorizing Congress to make loans or loan guarantees to anyone, let alone to major corporations. Nor have I yet seen a valid moral argument concluding that we, as representatives of all the people, have the right to tax the American people most of whom receive less in wages and benefits than Chrysler workers to support a multibillion-dollar corporation. What right have we and I pose a serious question that deserves an answer what right have we to force the American taxpayers to risk their money in a business venture which private investors dealing in their own funds have judged to be too risky? Chrysler paper is now classified; that means that any private investor who is handling funds for his depositors, shareholders, or clients may be judged as violating his fiduciary responsibilities should he invest in Chrysler. Dont we have a trust equally important from the American people? Are we not betraying their trust by voting for a Chrysler bailout? I believe so.
Rather than supporting this patchwork and temporary solution, we should be addressing those factors, over which we have control and for which we are responsible, that have brought Chrysler to the brink of bankruptcy. In his testimony before the House Banking Committee, President Iacocca listed three factors that caused the troubles at Chrysler: (1) government regulations; (2) inflation; and (3) the gasoline allocation system that caused last springs gasoline shortages. Please note that all three factors are the responsibility of the Congress. We wrote the regulations or gave some bureaucrats a blank check to write the regulations. We are responsible for inflation through our mismanagement of the monetary system. And we empowered the Department of Energy to create a gasoline allocation system that brilliantly achieved what I had heretofore thought impossible: gasoline shortages in Houston, the oil capital of the United States.
It is our responsibility to diagnose the Chrysler disease accurately. Instead, we are acting like political quacks, prescribing potions to treat symptoms, while the cause of those symptoms rages on unabated. Chrysler is not unique; it is merely the prototype, the harbinger, of crises to come. Dr. Greenspan testified that the most likely sequence of events, in his view, would be federal loan guarantees followed by a Chrysler failure anyway. Unless the disease is correctly diagnosed, the potions we prescribe will kill the patient.
I would urge this Committee and the whole Senate to act with more deliberation than the House has acted. This form of welfare for corporations must end. Just because it was extended to Lockheed does not mean that it should be extended to Chrysler. Bad precedents should not be followed, and these precedents are particularly bad. Because Lockheed, a large corporation, New York City, the largest city, and now Chrysler, the tenth largest corporation in the country, are the three institutions to which aid has been or will be extended, one can conclude that there is an obvious pattern of discrimination in the action of this Congress.
Last year there were 200,000 bankruptcies in this country, according to U.S. News & World Report. Yet we have selected only the largest for our aid. This is discrimination of the crassest sort. We ignore the smaller victims of this governments policies simply because they are small. Only the largest, those with the most clout, the most pull, get our attention. This aristocracy of pull is morally indefensible. What answer can be given to the small businessman driven into bankruptcy by government regulations when he asks: You bailed out Chrysler, why not me? No justification can be given for this discrimination between the powerful and the powerless, the big and the small.
It is an axiom of our legal system that all citizens are to enjoy the equal protection of the laws. That axiom is violated daily by our tax laws, and now by this proposed corporate welfare plan for Chrysler. Apparently some citizens are more equal than others. That is a notion I reject, and I hope you do, too. I urge you to reject this proposal for all the reasons I have stated. -
sucks2beme wrote: »And a lot of those people go out and buy Euro brands that aren't even as
good as ours. But all I have to go with is my expeirence. I'l still look at the
big three. I can buy a new F150 a lot cheaper than a Toyota. But Ill have
to see how the new model holds up over the next couple of years. What
would of been a "no brainer, buy the Ford" has become a "well, maybe not".
In about two years, we'll see if the new F150 is a go or not.
Im sorry, but anyone who doubts that the F150 is a solid vehicle has gotta be crazy. The biggest problem with the F150 - notable since the new body style in 04 is a faulty window motor and a leaking 3rd brake light.
My F150 just crossed 120,000 miles
Rides great, no squeaks or rattles. Starts up immediately everytime, tranny is very tight and does not miss. Engine uses zero oil and leaks none as well.
Is the Tundra a good truck? Yes. It is a very good truck, but it is not designed to be an extremely heavy duty truck. The frame isn't half what the F150 frame is...
But anyways, again, the F150 since 04 has been solid as a rock and several people have hit 250-300,000 on the internet with those models with almost no major repairs.
Now older F150 models, I would say is a different story, starting all the way with crash test ratings
- Not Tom ::::::: Any system can play Diana Krall. Only the best can play Limp Bizkit. -
Wow, I just read that long post and I will just simply say this.....
Either we pay to bail or we pay for their funeral. Either way, we pay.~ In search of accurate reproduction of music. Real sound is my reference and while perfection may not be attainable? If I chase it, I might just catch excellence. ~ -
My 05 F150 just turned 42k. I heart my truck other than the bad gas mileage. I don't see it going anywhere anytime soon. It's a keeper. I like the looks of the Tundra and the engine seems pretty bad **** but if you watch one drive over RR tracks it looks like the bed is mounted on springs.
ScottI like speakers that are bigger than a small refrigerator but smaller than a big refrigerator:D -
Vr3MxStyler2k3 wrote: »Im sorry, but anyone who doubts that the F150 is a solid vehicle has gotta be crazy. The biggest problem with the F150 - notable since the new body style in 04 is a faulty window motor and a leaking 3rd brake light.
My F150 just crossed 120,000 miles
Rides great, no squeaks or rattles. Starts up immediately everytime, tranny is very tight and does not miss. Engine uses zero oil and leaks none as well.
Is the Tundra a good truck? Yes. It is a very good truck, but it is not designed to be an extremely heavy duty truck. The frame isn't half what the F150 frame is...
But anyways, again, the F150 since 04 has been solid as a rock and several people have hit 250-300,000 on the internet with those models with almost no major repairs.
Now older F150 models, I would say is a different story, starting all the way with crash test ratings
They did finally fix the short threads/spark plug pop out problem
on the v8's. The new heads have a lot more threads holding the plug in place.
That was my biggest complaint on the 98 f150. I had two blow out.
The 2002 Mountaineer-there's a ticking time bomb. Too much already (only 42k)
And the rear end's started whining. I've had the tranny flushed, but
the 5 speed auto is a known trouble spot.
I'm not crazy. Maybe I just hit some bad years. But what esle can I go by?
Older Ford stuff held up. Anything that broke got fixed and stayed fixed.
I'm trying to wait for son #2 to finish college before buying another vehicle.
The truck is up to about 185k. I office out of the house, so I'm hoping
to be able to squeeze out a couple of years.
I don't think I'm really all that hard to please. I don't get pissed if a water
pump, alternator, or other small crap goes out. A couple of hours later,
it's fixed. I avoid shops where possible. I even cleaned all the EGR passage
crud out of intake myself. But rebuilding limited slip rears is a bit much.
And the new 5 speeds are NOT servicable by the casual mechanic.
Hell, most of the shops I tried to get to flush the tranny couldn't/wouldn't do it.
I had to drop it off for two damn days at Ford.
I.m glad to hear you have had good luck with your truck. Like I said, I like
the F150, I'm just a bit gun shy on the Ford stuff after the 2002 POS."The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." --Thomas Jefferson -
I thought Chrysler had something with that Chrysler 300
And then what did they do? Give you a choice between a gas sucking V6, an even more gas sucking V6, and a super gas-pig V8.
I rented one and liked it. I stopped by a dealer (this was like 05 or 06?) and asked what they had in a fuel efficient 4-cylinder model.
They just laughed. So I hopped in my 30+ MPG 4-cylinder Toyota Solara and left.
That 300 is one of the biggest POS I have ever worked on next to the Ford Expedition (The biggest POS ever). The 300's suspention and the manner it is put together is a joke a horrible joke. The Ford's front end is the single worst POS I have ever seen. This Ford had a light deer hit (as stated by the owner who could not believe what he was seeing) and I **** you not the whole front end was laid back on the front of the engine everything from the bumper to the grille and the rad. support broke to pieces and fell on the ground when I took off the bumper cover as it was all laying in the skid pan. There is no protection what so ever before the engine, nothing. It is made of the shittiest thinnest plastic I have ever seen and well to make a long story short both are **** and need to be removed from the road.
I think that before the Union gets addressed the CEO's need to be thrashed. I seen a 20/20 spot where the GM chooch who is the head of the Hybrid design teem stated (when asked) that he had 2 personal jets and 2 personal helicopters one for him and one for his wife. FFF him. He is one guy and at the cost of one jet $10mil. and 1 Heli $5mil that would mean he has $30mil. as play money. He stated that the reason for the his and her's aero toys is because his wife is a Com. pilot, BFD, I have a friend who is one also and he can't swing that kind of coin. What kind of wage+ bonus do you think he is making to have that kind of stuff? I would think that if you look at the wages of those CEO's you would and could keep GM in good standing as a money maker. The CEO's are milking the cow dry and no matter what you give them they will keep doing it and to think it started with Enron's CEO's stealing and lying to get all they could.
I have to stop now.
Sorry for the rant. I have a dear friend being affected by all this madness and it makes me sick to think that it is hitting so close to home.
Dave -
dave shepard wrote:I would think that if you look at the wages of those CEO's you would and could keep GM in good standing as a money maker. The CEO's are milking the cow dry and no matter what you give them they will keep doing it
The salaries of the CEOs is not even a drop in the bucket for a company the size of GM or Ford. You could take their compensation down to $1 and it would have NO IMPACT upon the viability of the companies. GM burns through more cash in a few hours than it pays it's CEO for a year. It may make you feel good to blame them for the problems, but the problem is multifaceted and NO ONE ISSUE is the cause or the solution."Just because youre offended doesnt mean youre right." - Ricky Gervais
"For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible." - Stuart Chase
"Consistency requires you to be as ignorant today as you were a year ago." - Bernard Berenson -
No......but I thought it was an interesting twist on the whole debacle........
All I hope is that Chrysler is still around when I go get the 300 when I'm not traveling so much. Right now it makes no sense to buy one considering I'm not home enough to actually drive the thing.........
Oh God please don't, really don't. -
Plus you have to consider the fact that a good CEO that can run a company of that size will not accept the job if it only pays half of what he could do for another industry. Would you? Hell no, you'd most likely take the higher paying job. I sure as hell would.The salaries of the CEOs is not even a drop in the bucket for a company the size of GM or Ford. You could take their compensation down to $1 and it would have NO IMPACT upon the viability of the companies. GM burns through more cash in a few hours than it pays it's CEO for a year. It may make you feel good to blame them for the problems, but the problem is multifaceted and NO ONE ISSUE is the cause or the solution.
But it does seem that what they are paying the CEO's to do currently, they haven't been getting their money's worth. For years.
And another thing. Why the F did whomever allow Honda to build a factory in the south with incentives that give them incredible tax breaks? Who's brilliant F'n idea was that?~ In search of accurate reproduction of music. Real sound is my reference and while perfection may not be attainable? If I chase it, I might just catch excellence. ~ -
treitz3 wrote:And another thing. Why the F did whomever allow Honda to build a factory in the south with incentives that give them incredible tax breaks? Who's brilliant F'n idea was that?
That would be the state and local governments...who now have an industry in their state/municipality that provides jobs and stabilty to the area. They are making many times over the tax breaks they "gave away" in sales, property and income taxes. Not a bad move."Just because youre offended doesnt mean youre right." - Ricky Gervais
"For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible." - Stuart Chase
"Consistency requires you to be as ignorant today as you were a year ago." - Bernard Berenson -
Oh, my bad. It was my understanding that the federal government made this happen about 10-15 years ago. Couldn't they do the same thing for the big three instead of foreign companies?~ In search of accurate reproduction of music. Real sound is my reference and while perfection may not be attainable? If I chase it, I might just catch excellence. ~
-
Plus you have to consider the fact that a good CEO that can run a company of that size will not accept the job if it only pays half of what he could do for another industry. Would you? Hell no, you'd most likely take the higher paying job. I sure as hell would.
But it does seem that what they are paying the CEO's to do currently, they haven't been getting their money's worth. For years.
And another thing. Why the F did whomever allow Honda to build a factory in the south with incentives that give them incredible tax breaks? Who's brilliant F'n idea was that?
They give football teams stadiums and tax breaks. Why not a big employer?
I'm sure somebody would take the job as CEO of GM for less pay.
Just like somebody took the job at the lower paying Honda plant down south.
And they they couldn't do a much worse job of running it. I'm still trying to
get a handle on how finance company CEOs that ran the company into
the ground earned a bonus? Shouldn't that have been tied to profits?
Of course my company's last CEO was sued to give back his bonus
for accounting fraud, along with three other top execs.
I'm really too stupid to get it. Maybe someone could explain it to me.
I just had to take my yearly business ethics certification. A policy
started because a bunch of well educated MBAs didn't know the
difference between right and wrong? Come on. They knew the difference,
they just didn't care. And a hour long online course isn't gonna fix that
crap. Only jailtime."The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." --Thomas Jefferson -
Nissan , Toyota , Honda which are the big 3 in Japanese cars employee Americans. All the dealerships have Americans working in them.
Bottom line is this, if Americans built a better vehicle , then they would not be where they are. Not to mention I would have never left GM.
I'm one of those people who lost there job during all this madness. I'm as bitter as it comes. I don't want to see any American lose there job , but the big 3 American car companies did this all to them self. They easily could have been a lot better, look at the Corvette , one of our very best vehicles build quality. Look at Ford Trucks, there is hope , they should put there money into quality control instead of a second Private jet.
-Americans do build a better vehicle...im sorry they let you go, still no reason to speak poorly of the US quality and their superioritry
-i do not wish to go point by point on why,,,that would take days and you would stilll dismiss any and all logic ...point by point
-fact iz you prefer YOUR **** vehicles for being CHEAPER and CHEAPER QUALITY ...fact iz i do not respect your iresponsible consumer descision , not even a little tiny bit [very sad really]
-if you wrenched profesionaly youd have a better understanding of vehicle quality
-your un-American by your purchasing decissions and you may deny this but youre just fooling yourself
-i feel it iz consumer ineptness and youre in total denial [irregardless of corvettes in the equation]
-you still may not park your 'import' at ANY of my businesses and my employees love that about me !!!
-BUY USA products...or you are, well extremely UNAMERICAN...how can you deny that ???
-i still cant believe your not embarressed to own an import ???
-i may love your stereo and your music tastes but the respect ends there
-/mx-"Don't BAN me Bro!" -
-Americans do build a better vehicle...im sorry they let you go, still no reason to speak poorly of the US quality and their superioritry
-i do not wish to go point by point on why,,,that would take days and you would stilll dismiss any and all logic ...point by point
-fact iz you prefer YOUR **** vehicles for being CHEAPER and CHEAPER QUALITY ...fact iz i do not respect your iresponsible consumer descision , not even a little tiny bit [very sad really]
-if you wrenched profesionaly youd have a better understanding of vehicle quality
-your un-American by your purchasing decissions and you may deny this but youre just fooling yourself
-i feel it iz consumer ineptness and youre in total denial [irregardless of corvettes in the equation]
-you still may not park your 'import' at ANY of my businesses and my employees love that about me !!!
-BUY USA products...or you are, well extremely UNAMERICAN...how can you deny that ???
-i still cant believe your not embarressed to own an import ???
-i may love your stereo and your music tastes but the respect ends there
-/mx
I am and have worked on all makes of autos for over 18yrs and can tell you that the best come from Germany and the Swiss (BMW, Volvo, Benz, VW, Saab etc) bar none. There are only a few and I mean a few GM's, Dodge or Ford's that I see as good build quality and I own 3 Dodge's the Neon is one that gets the best mpg I got for the wife which is not the best built but is still better built then the Dodge 300 Hemi I am currently repairing. The Volvo S80 was a beast in build quality as was the Porsch 911 Carrea I had completely repainted. Don't delieve me go to a lot and tap on the metal and feel and hear for yourself, the metal is thicker and doesn't flex nearly as easy as any domestic around.
As for being embarrassed to own an import and being un-American for doing so?!! You really don't know what the hell your talking about because you either haven't been in the driving arena long enough or you are extreamly shallow and probably should shut your mouth. Piss off smart ****. -
-yes german engineering iz very fine...but at a price [dbl +]
-and mr keyboard commando; you got me very ascared :eek:
-highly doubt youd say that to my face...infact i know you would not
-concerning german motorbikes ans motorcars ...they are extremely well built and engineered...perhaps the very best in the world
-still wouldnt own one...:rolleyes:, because im an AMERICAN !!!-"Don't BAN me Bro!" -
The Big Three have a poor business model and apparently do not build a competitve product. They account for only 4% of GDP and are an embarassment that will ultimately not be missed.
-
dave shepard wrote: »...the best come from Germany and the Swiss (BMW, Volvo, Benz, VW, Saab etc) bar none.
Dude, none of those cars are Swiss.
BMW, Mercedes Benz and VW are German and Saab and Volvo are Swedish.
I really don't think there is anything automotive made in Switzerland that is sold here in the U.S.Expert Moron Extraordinaire
You're just jealous 'cause the voices don't talk to you!
