that is actually funny. But do not mix the reasons and results. The Ford owning Mazda and Volvo is a RESULT of demand for import, where the demand is the REASON.
For some people plain Ford is not enouth, but they are willing to buy essentially the same platform-shared vehicle labeled Volvo. To do that, however, automakers are forced to share platforms to stay on the market. That is your globalization right there.

If Henry Ford would be alive now, he would probably say something like that: "You can buy any of our 8 brands as long it is a Ford"

den25

 

Just remember to keep the politics out of this one

 

I disagree. I think that Ford thinks the PSD doesn't need one- and so they charge us as option- when the engine should be fitted, in my opinion, with one from the factory.

-Mike

 

Thanks for the reminder Big. It's just when you start talking about jobs, point of manufacture and labor issues- you are already knee-deep in politics.

How about we try to move the issue away from opinions about what/whom is to blame for the downfall of the US auto industry and stick to how Ford can improve the next SD?

If you want to talk union / management responsibility, lets start a new thread.

The book "A Corporate Tragedy" chronicles the downfall of International Harvester. The author does an excellent job of laying out the history of IH and why the company came to a sad sad end. There are excellent interviews with management, and play by play of the failures to turn the company around. It is sad to read if you love American Agriculture and Industry- but essential to read if you want to understand the how and why at the beginning of the decline of the once great US industrial base. Of course, reading and understand that decline requires more than sticking to simplistic assumptions and knee-jerk political reactions.

-Mike

 

=den25]there is a lot of controversy among follow writers about why Ford is moving production into Mexico while Toyota - into US, and which one is less of an evel.

The real reason why Toyota is doing that, is a "chicken tax", 1973 treaty, result of the tax war with Germany. This 25% tax is applied to light trucks imported in US. Manufactured in US are tax-free. "Manufactured in US" means meeting the minimum domestic parts content criteria.

It appears that people in US are driving gas guzzlers unnessesary when the gaz is cheap and start to look for alternatives (that is smaller vehicles from japanese manufacturers) when it "suddenly" jumps. It happened in 1979 and it happening now, that is all. But you know what - use the vehicle adequate for the purpose and it would not happen.

den25[/QUOTE]

Den25:
I think you are correct when you bring up "adequate purpose" - If we did not have so many weekend cowboys and wannna be tough guys driving trucks they neither need nor use, we would all probably be better off. At least our fuel would be cheaper.

I disagree with your chronology above- Toyota and Nissan were competitive in the light truck market with imported trucks a decade earlier than you mention. In the 80's, the domestics (yes, there were Domestic Corporations in those days) for the most part, didn't really have a small trucks of their own- GM re-badged the Isuzu (Kinda like a Duramax engine today, huh?) Ford re-badged a Mazda, and Dodge re-badged a Mitsubishi. Which was all well and good but Toyota owned the market. And as I recall, Toyota could import the 1st gen 4-Runner as a truck as long as the back seat and top were installed in the US. I do not have any documentation backing this up, but as I recall the back seat and tops were installed at the port of entry in order to avoid the tax.

While I am sure you are correct in citing trade tax issues as a factor in where plants are located, NAFTA made it cheap to build in Mexico and import rather than build in the US. So, Toyota, Nissan and others have real options other than building in the US. Daimler chose to build Dodge trucks in Mexico. Toyota chose the US. And while a number of new plants have been built, we recently lost the bid to build a substantial Toyota car plant in the US (The plant went to Canada). When asked about the decision, Toyota cited health care costs.

Think about that the next time you see the majority party kill any effort to revamp our broken health care system. (Politics, I know. Sorry Big350) But I believe that the policies supported and enacted by the majority party are helping to drive industrial manufacturing jobs out of this country. And that hurts us all, regardless of which brand of truck you like and where it was built.

- Mike

 

My 06 F350 Super Duty dually is made in the USA.
Ed G

 

Let's use numbers: Ford has about 200,000 employees in US and Toyota 32,000. It is realy good that they may bring more jobs to us.

 

Excellent post. Very true. I believe there are more reasons than just fuel prices...but you pretty much nailed it.

 

Good point. I was not in US at that time to see all that. However, it is still in conceptual agreement with what I said. First of all, if there is no competition (when they brought small trucks), even 25% tax would not change the fact of dominance on the market. Second, re-badging, as an efford to catch-up, is usually ineffective because the initiator had a head start therefore bringing little competition.

Exellent info on bolting on "back seat and tops ... at the port of entry in order to avoid the tax".
Now, keep in mind that "Manufactured in US" means meeting the minimum domestic parts content criteria", as described in den25 post.

So that's the trick - domestic part content requirement CHANGES.
Say the ThreeWheel Motor Co wants to move manufacturing into the country with the hidden adenda to avoid that country's import tax. ThreeWheel Motor Co has to sign the agreement with governement first. In that agreement, "domestic part content" will be outlined; 1st year: 0%; 2nd year: 5% min; 3-rd year:10% min, 4-th year:25% min; 5-th year and further: 55% minimum. Or something like that.

That is why in the beginning ThreeWheel Motor Co can bolt the seats at the port on entry (empoying 20 guys) and be done with the tax; in 10 years the full assembly line will be required with 35,000 people involved.
Just the way to force the investments into country's economy, firmly, but gradually, for not to scare investors away.

Anyway, result of all this treaty stuff is that now most of light trucks sold in US have the "1" or "4" in the 1-st position of VIN number (country of manufacturing: USA), while a lot of passenger cars still have "j" (country of manufacturing: Japan) in VIN numbers (most notably Nissan, Toyota and Honda).

So - if, when buying the new vehicle, you are making sure it has "1" of "4" in VIN number, you are already doing a lot for your country. Look for different symbols if you want to benefit a different one.
http://www.autoinsurancetips.com/vin.htm

BigF350 - sorry, trying not to get into politics. Need to resolve it thought for the sake of understanding for myself and other readers/writers.

den25

 

NickFordMan,

I do agree with one of your points, in that both sides have to be more accomodating than in the past, otherwise they will both lose.

As for the rest, I'll just agree to disagree with you. Nothing personal was intended or implied, at any time.

Hopefully with more players coming into the market, some new and meaningful compromises can be reached, for the good of everybody.

 

If you ask me I think all this import craze is caused by the american media. They are so anit american it makes me sick. I work as a tech for a Dealership that sells all Ford brands and all Toyota Brands. They are busier then we are with recalls and repairs. Its funny isnt it. That the Today show wont tell you a single thing about all these recalls. But if Ford or Gm has a recall, no matter how small or insignificant, its front page news. Why dont they do a Dateline story on how crappy the Nissans and Izuzus are.

 

Ford, Toyota, and the rest of them are in the business to make money not the best vehicle possible. To believe otherwise is to show how naive you are. Do not underestimate the Toyota motor corp., they have come a long way since the days that all they produced were disposable cars. <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com[img] /><st1:City w:st=[/img]Toyota</st1:City>, and the rest of them are in the business to make money not to build the best vehicle possible. To believe otherwise is to be naive. Do not underestimate the T<st1:City w:st=" /><st1:City w:st="on">Toyota</st1:City> is very capable of building a full size heavy duty truck that would be superior to anything Ford currently has. Ford could respond by building a better truck. The question is would they and how fast could they respond. In the past Ford’s response to a market challenge has come to late or too little. Too little would be their usually response of just giving the vehicle a “face lift” new body panels and such. I want to believe Bill Ford is committed to taking back the market and producing innovative and reliable vehicles. I want to believe that his current speeches are more than just PR dribble, but I have a feeling it’s just going to be business as usually at Ford. I see this happening very shortly, the Toyota heavy-duty truck will come out and will blow everybody away in performance, HP/torque, and features the media will of course inflate these # even more. Ford will respond like they have in past. For the first three years they will push the buy American line and preach about how durable and long lasting the SD is. This of course will mean nothing for the people buying trucks because it's trendy. They trade their trucks in at least every 3 years for the next trendy truck, so who cares about durabilty. After that they will give the Superduty a new grill and say it's a new model then after they have relized they have lost the market share except for a few diehards start pointing fingers at who is to blame. After all of this and several new Ford CEOs they will produce a new truck that is at best only equal to the competition not better.

 

After all is said and done, sadly enough, it is still a Toyota.

 

Thats actually the good part. After its all said and done, no matter what Ford builds, its still a Ford.

 

Very true. Actually, the only way to make money by any commercial activity is to offer the product what (1) customer wants; (2) at the price customer could afford. In order to maximize the profit the (1) and (2) should maximized while the manufacturing cost should be minimized. So here is the recipe: make vehicle attractive/good specs/good reliability (while new) but cheap to make. Do not over-engineer it. The typical buyer of new vehicle keeps it for 3-5 years or 60-80K miles. Does not make sense to design it for more then 150K – it will be more expensive to make and could benefit only the used vehicle buyer, not the primary concern of automaker. Why “disposable car” is bad? It is not. In fact, every car will be disposed of sooner or later.

Look at the typical Ford vehicle. Over-engineered, heavy, marginal specs, simple design, well tested but old design parts; marginal initial quality. Not exactly the qualities the typical buyers are looking for. So why Ford is still in business?<o =""></o>

<o =""></o>Take the Crown Vic / Town Car. Old design /poor specs make less and less attractive on the civil market. Mercury Marauder sales are steadily declining. On the other hand, that is the only model in production today which is accepted as patrol car by cops in US and <st1:country-region><st1 ="">Canada</st1></st1:country-region> (except some special applications where SUVs are used). It does not have best acceleration or braking, but it is the only model that has the reliability/safety cops need. And so are taxi / limo drivers. Nobody else seem to need body-over-frame design of a passenger car. But it good for strenght, and also, it is good to make a stretch limo, right?

<o =""></o><st1:stockticker>IMO</st1:stockticker>, if not those corporate buyers or special applications (contractors, police, taxi, limo, rental, MediVac, municipality buyers, companies, universities, shuttle services/builders, RV builders, special needs van builders), Ford would be out of business already. <o =""></o>

den25<o =""></o>