BMW making changes to the market shifts:
Second article
Second article
Bail Out Automakers ... or let 'em fall?
- Thread starter MA-Caver
- Start date
To show the market in August:
October numbers were for low 11 million or high 10 million volume market.
No one was buying for either fear or lack of finance from the financial market.
October numbers were for low 11 million or high 10 million volume market.
No one was buying for either fear or lack of finance from the financial market.
Britian is not immune to the market fall
China the fastest growing market has slowed
More in reference to safety standards and differences
US exports must meet the requirements to be sold in Europe.
The Ped Pro or Pedestrian Protection is to protect a person walking who gets hit by the car.
Note that the European manufacturers are not able to meet all the standards imposed upon them in their own market.
US exports must meet the requirements to be sold in Europe.
The Ped Pro or Pedestrian Protection is to protect a person walking who gets hit by the car.
Note that the European manufacturers are not able to meet all the standards imposed upon them in their own market.
Chrysler looking to build in Russia as well.
Data for sales out of Europe for the Month of August:
Sorry table formats did not keep with copy and paste. I will see if I can clean up and post again.
Sorry table formats did not keep with copy and paste. I will see if I can clean up and post again.
Wow Rich these are some very interesting posts that you are making. I am particularly interested in Chrysler's Jeep Wrangler with the 40 mile battery and then the fuel kicks in. Definitely that is something I would buy as soon as it is available!
It is also interesting to note based off your last chart and the Indian auto maker's forecast how car sales are plummeting world wide. :erg:
Yes the world markets are all down. The world financial sitation is not well. The world has made it much harder to get loans for companies and the individual.
I expect the world market sales to be real down this year and to follow up next year with being down as well.
But the experts were all thinking things might get bad and made plans for 12 million units here in the North America Market. This is over 25% reduction in sales. But as pointed out for August it was at those numbers and October was worse. So, while I understand the frustration of people in the words of BAIL OUT.
This is not the Financial industry using high risk investment to back up mortgages that put everything at risk especially when they called that High Risk as low or moderate at best. This is an industry that is looking to Borrow money so they can continue to operate and then pay back that money. It is tough, but that is their plan. They are not asking for a gift in money. There would be an interest rate assigned to the loan, that would also be paid back. This is not free money.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Frank Beckmann: Commentary
Beckmann: Members of Congress, not auto execs, deserve grilling
Excerpted from the DETROIT NEWS:
There was one major problem with this week's congressional hearings about the bid by Detroit's automakers for a government loan to stay in business -- the wrong people were under the gun.
Representatives and senators should have been answering questions from the automakers about why they approved government policies that have played the biggest role in driving American carmakers toward extinction.
The automakers have done what all businesses do -- they have created products their customers wanted to buy, and they have paid wages and benefits that were negotiated and agreed upon by management and labor.
Have they made mistakes? Of course -- from the Edsel to the Pinto, from the Corvair to the Cimarrron, from the Imperial to the K car, from job banks to full health care coverage for retirees.
As with all companies, Detroit's carmakers have paid for their errors in the market. They have suffered losses. And they have adjusted their product and policies to stay in business. What has pushed them to the brink has been a mortgage crisis and credit crunch not of their making.
This week, auto execs Rick Wagoner of General Motors, Alan Mulally of Ford and Robert Nardelli of Chrysler, along with United Auto Workers boss Ron Gettelfinger, were grilled by the ultimate second guessers, the politicians, most of whom don't have education degrees in economic fields or experience in making decisions on private employment, inventory and global competition.
One wishes the four could have asked the questions instead this week.
Why did members of Congress -- such as House Banking Chairman Barney Frank, Senate Banking Chairman Christoper Dodd and others -- raise fuel economy standards, adding more than $85 billion in costs as the industry was restructuring itself?
If the reason was forcing automakers to deal with higher gasoline prices, perhaps the politicians could explain why they have made fuel more scarce by blocking domestic drilling for oil and preventing new refineries from being built during the past three decades.
END EXCERPT
Impose EIGHTY-FIVE BILLION DOLLARS in costs and take no responsibility for the consequences, yeah, that's Congress.
Frank Beckmann: Commentary
Beckmann: Members of Congress, not auto execs, deserve grilling
Excerpted from the DETROIT NEWS:
There was one major problem with this week's congressional hearings about the bid by Detroit's automakers for a government loan to stay in business -- the wrong people were under the gun.
Representatives and senators should have been answering questions from the automakers about why they approved government policies that have played the biggest role in driving American carmakers toward extinction.
The automakers have done what all businesses do -- they have created products their customers wanted to buy, and they have paid wages and benefits that were negotiated and agreed upon by management and labor.
Have they made mistakes? Of course -- from the Edsel to the Pinto, from the Corvair to the Cimarrron, from the Imperial to the K car, from job banks to full health care coverage for retirees.
As with all companies, Detroit's carmakers have paid for their errors in the market. They have suffered losses. And they have adjusted their product and policies to stay in business. What has pushed them to the brink has been a mortgage crisis and credit crunch not of their making.
This week, auto execs Rick Wagoner of General Motors, Alan Mulally of Ford and Robert Nardelli of Chrysler, along with United Auto Workers boss Ron Gettelfinger, were grilled by the ultimate second guessers, the politicians, most of whom don't have education degrees in economic fields or experience in making decisions on private employment, inventory and global competition.
One wishes the four could have asked the questions instead this week.
Why did members of Congress -- such as House Banking Chairman Barney Frank, Senate Banking Chairman Christoper Dodd and others -- raise fuel economy standards, adding more than $85 billion in costs as the industry was restructuring itself?
If the reason was forcing automakers to deal with higher gasoline prices, perhaps the politicians could explain why they have made fuel more scarce by blocking domestic drilling for oil and preventing new refineries from being built during the past three decades.
END EXCERPT
Impose EIGHTY-FIVE BILLION DOLLARS in costs and take no responsibility for the consequences, yeah, that's Congress.
This is common from California to the national Congress. If they write a law and pass it, then they are not the bad guys. The cost of said law is added into to cost of the product but the people pay it and are no mad at the manufacturer and not the people who put the requirement in place.
In the late 90's the cost of cars remained pretty steady do to market influence, but from 96 on with the roll out of the new OBD II standards and the increased emission and safety standards since then. It all addes costs. The companies must pass this along or reduce profit and when things go bad then they do not have the cash reserves to get through.
As to the Corvair being a bad car. It was Nader who stated it was safe at any speed.
Well the Honda Insight and Toyota Prius and Smartcar are all unsafe at any speed by the same standards. If any of them were to get into a head on collision with a semi-truck even full size SUV there is nothing that can be done to make these vehicles safe. Does anyone comment about this? No back then BIGGER is better was the slogan. Now it is Green or Fuel Economy or Save the Planet, or pck your slogan that wants you to drive an unsafe car by the measure placed upon previous vehicles. But the media and those in power choose to over look it as it is not VOGUE.
While all the vehicle in this post I have mentioned have their merit and their market, making comparisons across time when the requirements and environment is not the same is not always going to give the logical answer. It can draw the emotional one though.
Gordon Nore
Senior Master
I found this blog post on another board. Don't know that I agree with all of it....
http://fastandloud.com/how-to-save-the-us-automotive-industry-in-10-not-so-simple-steps/
http://fastandloud.com/how-to-save-the-us-automotive-industry-in-10-not-so-simple-steps/
Gordon Nore
Senior Master
I saw a Corvair Pickup the other day. I had no idea any were still around.
Didn't know such a thing ever existed. I don't believe I've ever seen a stock vehicle with a ramp like that -- wonderfully practical.
The one I saw was Fire Engine red and white and looked better than the one in the pic I posted. Yeah, the rampside was an awesome Idea that, because it debuted on a Corvair was sunk. Thanks Ralph!
Gordon,
I do not agree with the site. I agree they have the right to express their opinion. But it shows they have no clue.
Europe to North America.
Drop Emissions standards to European Standards for Diesel.
Design for both markets.
Safety standards are not the same. But many do design for both markets, but this is why people ask "Why did they put this here and leave this wide open space over there?" Safety differences or protection for Right Hand drive.
Why not standardize all emissions standards and safety standards and make all cars the same size and the same weight class and the same drive controls. If they are all the same requirements then it would be easier.
Lots of other issues as well for some of the other points.
But that is my opinion.
More information at the following site:
Gordon Nore
Senior Master
...which I appreciate, Rich, because you obviously know the business.
Personally, I had a knee-jerk liberal reaction to the section in the blog about getting rid of unions. I'm a little fatigued about hearing unions are always THE problem.
What you say about building cars for foreign markets makes sense.
The Union did push things. The Companies gave many things. (* The Unions were required for a safe working place in the beginning and other issues as well. *) It was what happened. It is not good to try to blame the past. It is better to find a solution for the future.
Having markets and workers in those markets including the US it helps to benefit the balance of the Dollar versus other foriegn monies. It also helps with over all global markets. The problem is to take advantage of it, this means that capacity needs to be avialable in different markets. The problem is that this capacity costs money as well to have it "sitting" around.
