Ohh no! Ford made a $1 Billion profit!

[K-DoG7p7]

And its thanks in part to the cash for clunkers program, but Fox News said the program was a failure!

What is this? I don't know whats going on any more!!

[dupont2005]

i'm happy for them and all but boy do they make some ugly cars. short of the towncar there is nothing in the ford fleet i would be happy driving, and even the towncar is borderline for looking so much like a police car. lincoln needs to make a bad ass 2 seater convertible.


oh yeah, the ford gt is pretty sweet too

[Lester C.]

In 2004 I bought a 2002 Honda Civic that now has 77 thousand miles on it and haven't had to take it to the shop once. My friend bought a 2003 Ford Taurus in 2005 has less than 32 thousand miles on it and has spend thousands upon thousands of dollars in repairs. And the kicker is he bought the warranty but Ford keeps weaseling out of its obligations. I am never going with a Ford again or any other American car for that matter unless I'm destitute and have no choice.

[the4thpip]

Most of the media trashed Germany's "cash for clunkers" program (we had it first, dontcha know?) until it became undeniable that it... worked.

[K-DoG7p7]

Ford makes plenty of good cars..


but they are only sold in europe
NANANANA

Like this.. the Ford Mondeo
http://images.paultan.org/images/Ford_Mondeo_Titanium_X_Sport_1.jpg
Its a very good car.

[suedenim]

The real question of how worthwhile Cash for Clunkers was (for the automakers) is whether it created sales (i.e., people bought new cars who otherwise would not buy new cars anytime soon) or just diverted sales (e.g., people who were planning to buy cars in September/October bought them in July/August instead.)

There are a lot of different definitions of "worked" too - i.e., worked how, and for whom? If it boiled down to a transfer of wealth from taxpayers to Ford, it worked great for Ford, but maybe not for you and me!

(I'm not actually sure what the answers to these questions are, btw, or whether the answers are publicly known/findable yet.)

[Cloudman]

the Ford Mondeo
http://images.paultan.org/images/Ford_Mondeo_Titanium_X_Sport_1.jpg
Its a very good car.

Quoted for the truth. That picture makes me Ford-gasm.

[K-DoG7p7]

I hate ford with a passion.. but the current Mondeo and Focus are quite good care

Ohh right i forgot you americans have a Focus too.. well its not the same car

http://www.ridelust.com/wp-content/uploads/ford_focus.jpg

[the4thpip]

The real question of how worthwhile Cash for Clunkers was (for the automakers) is whether it created sales (i.e., people bought new cars who otherwise would not buy new cars anytime soon) or just diverted sales (e.g., people who were planning to buy cars in September/October bought them in July/August instead.)

Well, here in Germany the program ran out months ago, but the headline today was that BMW today put ALL their employees back on working full time* and hiring temp workers to keep up with demand.

Another big success of the program (which was created by Social Democrats and Union Leaders, btw) was that the new cars on the road use roughly 20% less gas than the old "clunkers" they replaced!


*they made use of another government program which allowed employers to put workers on part-time while unemployment benefits would cover most of the difference to their full salaries for up to 18 months

[Nick Soapdish]

The real question of how worthwhile Cash for Clunkers was (for the automakers) is whether it created sales (i.e., people bought new cars who otherwise would not buy new cars anytime soon) or just diverted sales (e.g., people who were planning to buy cars in September/October bought them in July/August instead.)

There are a lot of different definitions of "worked" too - i.e., worked how, and for whom? If it boiled down to a transfer of wealth from taxpayers to Ford, it worked great for Ford, but maybe not for you and me!

(I'm not actually sure what the answers to these questions are, btw, or whether the answers are publicly known/findable yet.)

Well, it also worked for car buyers since they saved some money.

Honestly, I would've been ok with a program like that that didn't stimulate the economy at all (if the economy was doing fine) if the mileage increase was better. Some of the cars eligible under the program were "clunkers" as well, going by fuel efficiency. But even for those, it probably helped out on emissions because those tend to be worse on older cars.

[suedenim]

Well, it also worked for car buyers since they saved some money.


Not all of them, though. Theoretically at least, the program would hurt poor people (and the used car dealers who sell to them) who needed to buy a cheap used car, but couldn't (or had to pay more.) C4C took a large number of cars off the market, reducing supply (and thus raising the price of the remaining used car stock.)

All in all, though, I figure C4C, compared to most government programs with unintended consequences go, was "Mostly Harmless."

[DeadXMan]

Ford also didn't take a dime from the goverment.
Also did you take into account of the US ford plants they shut down.


now then how $$ for clunkers fail was

Ford was third behind Toyota and hundia (sp) in the program
meanwhile cherisler and GM( who needed this) did terrible.
( note SNL mocking Obama on stimilating the Japanenss economy)


Cash for clunkers also dystroyed much of the used cars side for dealers due to a clunker being define by gas milage, not by the traditional defination of being a rusted, worn out peice of crap. Many of the cars that deemed unfit for the road were still in great condition and could of been sold again at a profit, but they were forced to sabotage the engines and shred the cars.

[DeadXMan]

Well, it also worked for car buyers since they saved some money.

Honestly, I would've been ok with a program like that that didn't stimulate the economy at all (if the economy was doing fine) if the mileage increase was better. Some of the cars eligible under the program were "clunkers" as well, going by fuel efficiency. But even for those, it probably helped out on emissions because those tend to be worse on older cars.

not really, if you think about it.
sure the money you spend for gas might of drop a bit but now you have a $400 monthly bill. resitration fees, and most state requiring you having full coverage on a car you are making payments on.

meanwhile I in my paid off 03 F-150 with a V8 and four wheel drive spends at most $260 a month on gas and insurance.

[dupont2005]

Not all of them, though. Theoretically at least, the program would hurt poor people (and the used car dealers who sell to them) who needed to buy a cheap used car, but couldn't (or had to pay more.) C4C took a large number of cars off the market, reducing supply (and thus raising the price of the remaining used car stock.)

All in all, though, I figure C4C, compared to most government programs with unintended consequences go, was "Mostly Harmless."
it didn't hurt used car prices as far as private sales goes at all. major deals going on right now. i'm looking at several. certain models i have been eying for about 3 years now, waiting for my car to be paid off. i am seeing all time low prices. poor people can do just fine on craigslist despite the cash for clunkers program

[The Chief5425]

Cash for clunkers also dystroyed much of the used cars side for dealers due to a clunker being define by gas milage, not by the traditional defination of being a rusted, worn out peice of crap. Many of the cars that deemed unfit for the road were still in great condition and could of been sold again at a profit, but they were forced to sabotage the engines and shred the cars.

This. And also, let's not forget to take into account the price our children and grandchildren are going to have to pay for giving the Obama administration some good press for a few news cycles....$24,000.00 per car...

http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2009/11/01/the-real-cost-of-cash-for-clunkers/

All to provoke some sales that would've happened anyway a bit early.

[dupont2005]

not really, if you think about it.
sure the money you spend for gas might of drop a bit but now you have a $400 monthly bill. resitration fees, and most state requiring you having full coverage on a car you are making payments on.

meanwhile I in my paid off 03 F-150 with a V8 and four wheel drive spends at most $260 a month on gas and insurance.

but if you drove a dented and rusted 1980 caprice and were looking to get into a new vehicle already......


then yes, cash for clunkers would have gotten you about 5 times what your car was worth on a trade in. i also passed on the deal and am selling my car for a thousand less than cash for clunkers would have given me, because i was not in the market for a new car. if i were though, cash for clunkers would have saved me $1000 and a lot of hassle showing my car around to tire kicking procrastinators

[dupont2005]

Many of the cars that deemed unfit for the road were still in great condition and could of been sold again at a profit, but they were forced to sabotage the engines and shred the cars.

no they werent. they could have paid the $4500 to the buyer themselves. the government paid the trade in, the car belongs to the government, not the car dealership. the government wants the engine blown, it's their business. the dealerships were not FORCED to give up any trade in they paid for themselves. if a car really was worth putting back on the lot, they could have made it happen. the thing is, they didn't want more shit on the lot, they wanted shit off the lot

[suedenim]

now then how $$ for clunkers fail was

Ford was third behind Toyota and hundia (sp) in the program
meanwhile cherisler and GM( who needed this) did terrible.
( note SNL mocking Obama on stimilating the Japanenss economy)


Well, this part I think is largely irrelevant, given how globalized the auto industry is now (and that's a good thing, btw.) My Honda was built by American workers in Ohio, while some Big 3 cars are built in Mexico or Canada, etc.


Cash for clunkers also dystroyed much of the used cars side for dealers due to a clunker being define by gas milage, not by the traditional defination of being a rusted, worn out peice of crap. Many of the cars that deemed unfit for the road were still in great condition and could of been sold again at a profit, but they were forced to sabotage the engines and shred the cars.

This is a good point. One of the problems with C4C is that it was trying to serve two masters - to be both economically stimulative *and* a "green" initiative. The two ends are at cross-purposes, since the "green" portion of the program entailed destroying still-valuable property, which is stimulative in the sense that Hurricane Katrina was stimulative (i.e., not.) That part mutes the actually stimulative effects for automakers, new-car dealers and new-car buyers.

[KevinTBrown]

And its thanks in part to the cash for clunkers program, but Fox News said the program was a failure!

What is this? I don't know whats going on any more!!

Obviously it failed. C'mon. It's all right there.....

Ford would have made $1.1 billion instead! Maybe, or maybe not.

[DeadXMan]

but if you drove a dented and rusted 1980 caprice and were looking to get into a new vehicle already......




bondo and sheet metal is cheaper then a new car.

and there's nothing like working on a classic car. ( which by techical trems most cars from the 80's are now)

[Nick Soapdish]

not really, if you think about it.
sure the money you spend for gas might of drop a bit but now you have a $400 monthly bill. resitration fees, and most state requiring you having full coverage on a car you are making payments on.

meanwhile I in my paid off 03 F-150 with a V8 and four wheel drive spends at most $260 a month on gas and insurance.

And how much is your truck worth? You're not likely to be benefiting much from the trade-in so you aren't really the target audience. Instead, it's going to be attracting people that have the minimum trade-in value If they don't need or really want a car, then it's costing them money. You can't claim that it was just pent-up demand from people that were going to buy cars anyway, but that it's not helping those people.

[Nick Soapdish]

bondo and sheet metal is cheaper then a new car.

and there's nothing like working on a classic car. ( which by techical trems most cars from the 80's are now)

Then you're welcome to buy that 1980 Caprice and fix it up. Or fix up your own car. But don't pretend that it's a viable option for everyone. Like you. That 2003 F-150 isn't exactly a classic.

no they werent. they could have paid the $4500 to the buyer themselves. the government paid the trade in, the car belongs to the government, not the car dealership. the government wants the engine blown, it's their business. the dealerships were not FORCED to give up any trade in they paid for themselves. if a car really was worth putting back on the lot, they could have made it happen. the thing is, they didn't want more shit on the lot, they wanted shit off the lot

No, he did have a point there. They weren't worth $4500, but they could have still been usable and worth selling for the dealerships.

[dupont2005]

bondo and sheet metal is cheaper then a new car.

and there's nothing like working on a classic car. ( which by techical trems most cars from the 80's are now)

an 80's caprice is unlikely to ever be a worthwhile classic. and bondo don't fix 300k on the odo

[dupont2005]

No, he did have a point there. They weren't worth $4500, but they could have still been usable and worth selling for the dealerships.

well then, the dealer got outbid by the government, because the government bought that car. if the dealer had bought that car, he would have had a point. dealerships were not forced to destroy their own property, they were offered the opportunity to accept the governments money in exchange for disposing of the governments property. they were paid $4500 to destroy cars worth less than $4500. sounds like a sweet gig to me

[Village Idiot]

I am never going with a Ford again or any other American car for that matter unless I'm destitute and have no choice.

With that attitude, you soon will be. The auto industry is the last major industry in the US, and the one of the few places you can make a middle class living without a college degree. That will soon end.

The middle class drives the economy. As the middle class gets smaller and smaller. the economy becomes even less robust. The current recession may technically be over, but it might be 5 years before the lost jobs come back. And then most of the labor jobs will pay about $14 an hour. That's less than $30,000 a year, hardly enough for one person to live comfortably, let alone a whole family.

[Village Idiot]

Cash for clunkers also dystroyed much of the used cars side for dealers due to a clunker being define by gas milage, not by the traditional defination of being a rusted, worn out peice of crap. Many of the cars that deemed unfit for the road were still in great condition and could of been sold again at a profit, but they were forced to sabotage the engines and shred the cars.

Geez, the typos. :wink:

But to be fair, good parts from the clunkers could be salvaged, just not the motors and transmissions.

Somewhere, there is a page that helps show at what point it is better to buy a different vehicle. It factors in gas mileage, the cost of gas, and the cost of the vehicle spread out over the time period of the loan. Many times, even with the crappy mileage you are getting with your truck (me, too), it is cost efficient to keep driving the older truck. At $4 (US) a gallon, it is almost always better to buy a newer, more gas efficient vehicle.

[mikekerr3]

In 2004 I bought a 2002 Honda Civic that now has 77 thousand miles on it and haven't had to take it to the shop once. My friend bought a 2003 Ford Taurus in 2005 has less than 32 thousand miles on it and has spend thousands upon thousands of dollars in repairs. And the kicker is he bought the warranty but Ford keeps weaseling out of its obligations. I am never going with a Ford again or any other American car for that matter unless I'm destitute and have no choice.

It good to know hat some have no problem with helping the US becoming a third world country.

I've had my Ford t-bird since 97 and have had the significant costs of oil changes and a battery a couple of years ago.

You friend should change dealers and./or complain directly to ford.

[Nick Soapdish]

well then, the dealer got outbid by the government, because the government bought that car. if the dealer had bought that car, he would have had a point. dealerships were not forced to destroy their own property, they were offered the opportunity to accept the governments money in exchange for disposing of the governments property. they were paid $4500 to destroy cars worth less than $4500. sounds like a sweet gig to me

It was. I just agreed with the idea that usable property was destroyed which makes it less eco-friendly. Hopefully, they have bothered to keep the parts (beside the engine) that were worthwhile.

It good to know hat some have no problem with helping the US becoming a third world country.

I've had my Ford t-bird since 97 and have had the significant costs of oil changes and a battery a couple of years ago.

You friend should change dealers and./or complain directly to ford.

If you spend thousands of dollars on a company's product and get burned once, why would you want to go back to that company? Maybe he eventually gets satisfaction, but if it's that much of a hassle, why risk a repeat? It's a very small sample size, but I'm going to lean in favor of personal experience instead of a bunch of strangers telling me that it was just bad luck.

Besides, there are Fords made abroad and Toyotas in the states. It's not like either of them are wholly supporting the US or Japan.

[sk716]

As others have mentioned, there are Toyota, Honda, Mitsubishi, and even BMW's that are built in the USA. As long as you aren't buying a vehicle that wasn't built in the US you aren't harming the US.

Even though those companies happen to be owned and based in other nations it is much cheaper to manufacture the cars intended to sell in the US in the US. Along with the manufacture of most of the parts to build them. While the net profits on those vehicles go to Japan and Germany respectively the plants employ American workers and in many cases prop up the economy of American cities.

[Michael P]

Okay, Ford. Now take that money, turn it around and use it to make your company not suck.

[K-DoG7p7]

60% of the cars Toyota sells in North America are made in the US. and that number is rising as Toyota are opening more and more factories

[dupont2005]

Hopefully, they have bothered to keep the parts (beside the engine) that were worthwhile.


they did. my brother in law got a lot of parts for his work truck. i know junk yards had new parts on hand. a lot were crushed sure, but i believe the only requirement was that the engine be seized. and i do not agree that it was less eco-friendly. scrap metal gets reused. part of the reason the bill passed in the first place was because of the emissions benefits to ridding the nation of those cars. i also do not agree that dealerships were hurt. they received a boom in sales. the government subsidized the cost of their new vehicles for nothing. no bailouts, no federal acquisitions, no ceo's asked to step down. just fed money with no strings attached. and they have the nerve to bitch about it because they weren't given free cars too?

[Charles RB]

Ford was third behind Toyota and hundia (sp) in the program ... note SNL mocking Obama on stimilating the Japanenss economy

Both those companies have factories in America.

If you want US money to go to US companies instead of Japanese ones, then your country shouldn't be involved in a globalised marketplace.

[DeadXMan]

As others have mentioned, there are Toyota, Honda, Mitsubishi, and even BMW's that are built in the USA. As long as you aren't buying a vehicle that wasn't built in the US you aren't harming the US.

Even though those companies happen to be owned and based in other nations it is much cheaper to manufacture the cars intended to sell in the US in the US. Along with the manufacture of most of the parts to build them. While the net profits on those vehicles go to Japan and Germany respectively the plants employ American workers and in many cases prop up the economy of American cities.

Go say that in Detroit

:evilangry:

[K-DoG7p7]

Go say that in Detroit

:evilangry:

when "Detroit" starts making cars people want ...

you know how it goes

[dupont2005]

Go say that in Detroit

:evilangry:

toyota didn't pull out of detroit. gm, ford, and dodge did. luckily, the japanese are willing to give american manufacturing a shot

[Charles RB]

Go say that in Detroit


Detroit isn't the US. Her point still stands: foreign car companies hire American workers. If you or Detroit don't like that, push for your government to pull America out of a globalised marketplace.

[Iangould]

First, the $24,000 per car figure is total bullshit.

But Fox News says it's true and it supports some posters' prejudices so I guess that makes it true enough.

Second, when Ford makes a profit, it pays higher taxes, so do its suppliers and dealers.

When car sales go up, sales tax revenue goes up.

Plus people who buy new cars typically spend additional money on accessorizing - which also increases sales; sales tax revenues; company profits and income tax payments.

Oh and increased employment in the sector means fewer people on welfare.

It is isn't a perpetual motion machine - government (states and feds combined) probably got back 50% or more of the cost of the program immediately through higher tax revenue and lower welfare costs.

There's also the point that the government is a major shareholder in both GM and chrysler so if GM and Chrysler become more profitable, the share price goes up and the chances or the government selling their stakes quickly and breaking even or making a profit go up.

But the whole point of the program was that newer cars use less petrol; pollute less and are safer.

If you want to know whether cash for clunkers was a good deal or not, you need to know how much (imported) oil will no longer be used; how many fewer people will die in traffic accidents and how many people will survive or have better health because of reduced air pollution.

But saying "Goverment is Evil and Obama is a Marxist" is so much simpler than doing the calculation that says the program (leaving aside all the factors I just mentioned) increased the national debt by a whopping $10 per person.

Oh, noes! Now how will little Suzy be able to afford to go to college?

Think of the children! Won't someone think of the children?

[DeadXMan]

and you don't think ford closing plants this year and massive overhualing on cost overhead had nothing to do with it's profit?


Also what dose it what dose it say about Obama's bail out plan when the one company that refused to take a dime from the Goverment is more prtofitable while the other two are still in the shitter?

http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr150/DXM616/mustang.png

by the way

".....government even in its best state is but a necessary evil"

Thomas Paine

[Charles RB]

I'm curious - the scheme worked fine in Germany. That means it can work. Why do you seem to be arguing that it inherently cannot when another country has managed it?

[mikekerr3]

I'm curious - the scheme worked fine in Germany. That means it can work. Why do you seem to be arguing that it inherently cannot when another country has managed it?

Like in the case of ealth Care conservative don't think we are as comptent as the rest of the world.

[dupont2005]

and you don't think ford closing plants this year and massive overhualing on cost overhead had nothing to do with it's profit?


Also what dose it what dose it say about Obama's bail out plan when the one company that refused to take a dime from the Goverment is more prtofitable while the other two are still in the shitter?

http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr150/DXM616/mustang.png

by the way

".....government even in its best state is but a necessary evil"

Thomas Painesure, cutting costs had a lot to do with it. what does it say about the bailout? nothing really. it just says ford was not as bad off as gm. even when they were "bush's bailouts" i was not quick to criticize, because i'm not an economist. are you?


but i do know for sure that obama took more care to having oversight on spending and penalties for begging for bailouts. would ford had taken the bailout if it were just free money with no strings attached? probably. they saw the government would be all in their shit and they said "no thanks, we'll figure it out."

what i would like to know is, what does this say about the way ford had been operating the past four years?

[Gary_B]

Okay, Ford. Now take that money, turn it around and use it to make your company not suck.

Well, first there are some important things to do with that money. Such as pay shareholders and give bonuses to Ford's corporate executives.

[Nick Soapdish]

Also what dose it what dose it say about Obama's bail out plan when the one company that refused to take a dime from the Goverment is more prtofitable while the other two are still in the shitter?


Possibly it says that the company that didn't take bailout money was in better condition than the two that did. That might even be why they didn't take bailout money to begin with.

It also says that taking bailout money isn't a magic spell that will immediately turn everything around - something that anybody over the age of twelve should've known. It's completely asinine to imply otherwise.

[Iangould]

1. It says GM and Chrysler have been hugely unprofitable for years.

2. I'm curious as to how you know they're "still in the shitter" when they haven't released their quarterly statements yet. Tell me IF (and I have no idea how likely this is) the GM and/or Chrysler make a profit in the third quarter will that make you revise your views at all?

[dupont2005]

gm will do better next year. they redesigned the caprice to make it suitable as a dispatch police car once again, giving ford less of a stronghold on government accounts. that and the fact it's actually acquired by the government means we may see a whole lot of exempt plates on caprices soon. is it enough to keep them above water? probably not. but huge nationwide accounts combined with cutting the fat from production and better overall management may go a long way.

[OzBat!]

what i would like to know is, what does this say about the way ford had been operating the past four years?Honestly, if Ford had tried to do anything that drastic in the previous four years, their major stockholders would have brought back witch burning. There was just no way that kind of reorganisation would have been possible. Only thanks to the specter of Government bailouts linked to extensive oversight could they even contemplate wholesale restructuring of the corporation.

[OzBat!]

gm will do better next year. they redesigned the caprice to make it suitable as a dispatch police car once again, giving ford less of a stronghold on government accounts. that and the fact it's actually acquired by the government means we may see a whole lot of exempt plates on caprices soon. is it enough to keep them above water? probably not. but huge nationwide accounts combined with cutting the fat from production and better overall management may go a long way.

There was a lot of noise downunder in October about grabbing the US police vehicle market (http://www.carpoint.com.au/news/2009/large-passenger/holden/caprice/holden-unveils-police-caprice-16924). I haven't heard anything more about it yet, but it would be very interesting if it comes off.

[KevinTBrown]

There was a lot of noise downunder in October about grabbing the US police vehicle market (http://www.carpoint.com.au/news/2009/large-passenger/holden/caprice/holden-unveils-police-caprice-16924). I haven't heard anything more about it yet, but it would be very interesting if it comes off.

I hope not.

I mean, it would be a hell of a bitch to drive my car like this in the States:

http://www.myhealthbridge.com/Portals/60823/images//upside%20down%20car.jpg

[OzBat!]

Pffft. That's only if you directly import the right-hand-drive model, you have to invert it like that to bring it into line with the left-hand-drive market!

[The Chief5425]

First, the $24,000 per car figure is total bullshit.



And your evidence for this would be??

[Tyr]

With that attitude, you soon will be. The auto industry is the last major industry in the US, and the one of the few places you can make a middle class living without a college degree. That will soon end.

The middle class drives the economy. As the middle class gets smaller and smaller. the economy becomes even less robust. The current recession may technically be over, but it might be 5 years before the lost jobs come back. And then most of the labor jobs will pay about $14 an hour. That's less than $30,000 a year, hardly enough for one person to live comfortably, let alone a whole family.

I personally blame the unions more then I blame Lester dislike of American made cars.

[FalconX2000]

Ford makes plenty of good cars..


but they are only sold in europe
NANANANA

Like this.. the Ford Mondeo
http://images.paultan.org/images/Ford_Mondeo_Titanium_X_Sport_1.jpg
Its a very good car.

Wow...that's a pretty sweet car.

[dupont2005]

I personally blame the unions more then I blame Lester dislike of American made cars.

other markets with union labor do just fine. a union gm worker makes a few bucks an hour more than a non-union american toyota worker. and thats not counting all the foreign labor used in "american" auto manufacturing. the ceo of gm made 7 times what the toyota ceo made, and more than all japanese auto ceo's combined, even though gm was not making a profit and those other companies were. i find it AMAZING that these bastards act like they can't pay the pensions they OWE their retired workers, but they sure as shit can pay the half billion dollar salaries and hundred million dollar bonuses to their management

[K-DoG7p7]

This is the temporary new boss at GM

http://image.automotive.com/f/features/consumer/27379917+pheader/112_0907_05l+fritz_henderson+profile.jpg



This is the new boss at Toyota
http://teknomotif.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/01akio-toyoda.jpg

[dupont2005]

There was a lot of noise downunder in October about grabbing the US police vehicle market (http://www.carpoint.com.au/news/2009/large-passenger/holden/caprice/holden-unveils-police-caprice-16924). I haven't heard anything more about it yet, but it would be very interesting if it comes off.

hey, thats the caprice i was talking about. i didn't know it was a holden

[K-DoG7p7]

hey, thats the caprice i was talking about. i didn't know it was a holden
Well it is.. and that kinda makes it funny.. given that a big deal GM lands ends up providing jobs in Australia.. not the US..

[Alex L]

i'm happy for them and all but boy do they make some ugly cars. short of the towncar there is nothing in the ford fleet i would be happy driving, and even the towncar is borderline for looking so much like a police car. lincoln needs to make a bad ass 2 seater convertible.


oh yeah, the ford gt is pretty sweet too

They're turning around.

Got a new GM a couple of years back, I might rock a new Fiesta if I needed to buy a brand-spankin' new car next year.

Not sure if Lincoln NEEDS to make a new convertible; a large part of GM's downfall was that all of its brands released so many cars in so many segments, so they were essentially fighting against each other.

I hate ford with a passion.. but the current Mondeo and Focus are quite good care

Ohh right i forgot you americans have a Focus too.. well its not the same car

http://www.ridelust.com/wp-content/uploads/ford_focus.jpg

UK Focus = US Mazda3.

Or something like that.

[K-DoG7p7]

well yes in that they are both built on the C1 platform
but other then that.. no

[DeadXMan]

I personally blame the unions more then I blame Lester dislike of American made cars.

yes. how dare they fight for a 40hr work week, better pay and work conditions, heath insurance and try to stop companies exploiting "undocumented" workers.:mad:

(BTW I'm a union carpenter.)

So don't tie us with those whiney little Auto guys that never had to rebuild from the ground up.

[OzBat!]

hey, thats the caprice i was talking about. i didn't know it was a holden You'll note as well your Pontiac was a rebadged Holden Monaro. We've been designing models for the US market for years.

[mikekerr3]

And your evidence for this would be??

A total lack of evidence supporting the claim that it cost that much is pretty good evidence that the claim is bullshit.

[dupont2005]

Well it is.. and that kinda makes it funny.. given that a big deal GM lands ends up providing jobs in Australia.. not the US..

yeah that part sucks


but at least if gm can make some profits the fed can collect their dividends and then people can quit bitching about how their grandkids will be paying down this debt

[dupont2005]

You'll note as well your Pontiac was a rebadged Holden Monaro. We've been designing models for the US market for years.

holden makes an el camino looking thing too right? i wish that would get rebadged and marketed here

[kingdom2000]

The only reason I was against the cash for clunkers program is because I think American car companies need to go out of business and take their crappy designed to break cars and crappy, incredibly over the top unions with decades now of demands on the books and start from scratch. As it is the only lesson learned is to hate the government and their attempts to regulate...until they throw some money their way then the government is the bestest thing ever.

However, the idea is sound and I understand why it was done. In theory, every job saved or created from the program is a pay it forward which over the years would give or save the government far more then it paid out. Its the same reason why a city government builds a new stadium. The upfront costs create a massive load of debt but the long term benefits with new jobs, new businesses, homes, etc that build up around it often more then make up for it. Its why you have to look at the result of these programs five or so years after because thats really the only way to know they work. Same with the stimulus, its really a bit too early to claim a victory for either side.

I don't care what it is, all things have an excessive up front cost. Its the long term that makes it worthwhile. Technically the first iPhone probably cost $50 million or more in R&D but what if someone said that first phone wasn't worth it? How many companies, jobs, etc exist just to sell product for the phone? I don't mean Apple, I mean all the accessories, apps and more that has popped up in the last few years from this one device.

Its the same theory driving healthcare. The upfront costs are high but in the long term, it could become profitable because suddenly instead of hospitals being the hub of healthcare it will once again be the mom and pop operations as people don't wait until its an emergency to get care. Costs go down as a result (as emergencies are very expensive). This results in more small business to support these other small business, each hiring doctors, nurses, support staff, equipment (which in turn means more people to make, build, maintain said equipment, which leads to more people to manufacture the parts for that equipment which leads to more jobs for those that create the raw materials and all this doesn't include restuarants, supplies, etc for all those businesses and so one and so forth).

Simply put, the idea is one massive 5-10 year long drop of dominoes that leads to more income for everyone, especially the government because successful businesses and people means more tax income. More income means politicans can look good (because deficit goes down, programs get funded, whatever) and get elected. People forget that, its to the advantage of government to want businesses to succeed...but in a way that doesn't cost more money then it creates (thus regulation is born).

[Iangould]

And your evidence for this would be??

You made the claim, therefor it's your responsibility to prove it.

Tell me, before posting that figure, did you read the original source; did you look at any commentary about it; did you ask what possible agenda the people making the claim had?

Or did you just here a factoid, decide it agreed with your pre-existing biases and therefore it must be true?

[Iangould]

In order to determine whether these sales would have happened anyway, Edmunds.com analysts looked at sales of luxury cars and other vehicles not included under the Clunkers program.

Using traditional relationships between sales volumes of those vehicles and the types of vehicles sold under Cash for Clunkers, Edmunds.com projected what sales would normally have been during the Cash for Clunkers period and in the weeks after.

Yeah, that sounds like a completely rock-solid basis for making the calculation.

Because it's not like anything has happened to the US economy in the last year that might have influenced "traditional relationships between sales volumes".

link (http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/28/autos/clunkers_analysis/?postversion=2009102910)

[Abomination]

A total lack of evidence supporting the claim that it cost that much is pretty good evidence that the claim is bullshit.

These guys are the one's making the claim, not Fox News and it was widely reported.

http://www.edmunds.com/help/about/press/159446/article.html

Edmunds is a consumer information resource and they used historical data to make their conclusion. They are non partisan.

Sounds a lot more believable than the administrations claim of over 150,000 "saved" or "created" job data.

How do you a determine a job was "saved"?

What we do know is that their was a negative of 2.7 million jobs since January.

[Iangould]

GM has decided not to sell its Opel European operation after all.

link (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ajcMzIoBfW6Y&pos=1)

[Abomination]

In order to determine whether these sales would have happened anyway, Edmunds.com analysts looked at sales of luxury cars and other vehicles not included under the Clunkers program.

Using traditional relationships between sales volumes of those vehicles and the types of vehicles sold under Cash for Clunkers, Edmunds.com projected what sales would normally have been during the Cash for Clunkers period and in the weeks after.

Yeah, that sounds like a completely rock-solid basis for making the calculation.

Because it's not like anything has happened to the US economy in the last year that might have influenced "traditional relationships between sales volumes".

link (http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/28/autos/clunkers_analysis/?postversion=2009102910)

You do realize that even if you double their estimates it would still be $12,000 per additional vehicle. Where is a study that disputes these numbers?

[Iangould]

You do realize that even if you double their estimates it would still be $12,000 per additional vehicle. Where is a study that disputes these numbers?

Will you settle for a study that says they're out by a factor of more than ten? (http://www.bepress.com/ev/vol6/iss8/art4/)

I'm going to try to find a version that isn't paywalled.

[Iangould]

I can't find a full copy of the original report but this article (http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/09/u-del-c4c-20090902.html)summarises it.


Univ. of Delaware Researchers Conclude Cash for Clunkers Cost Exceeded Benefit
2 September 2009

Burton Abrams and George Parsons of the University of Delaware evaluated the efficiency of the recently concluded Cash for Clunkers (CARS) program and concluded that the cost exceeds the benefit by approximately $2,000 per vehicle, or close to $1.4 billion in total. Their paper appears in the online journal The Economists’ Voice.

Abrams and Parsons calculated the average national cost per vehicle turned in to be scrapped under CARS at $2,600. There is a $4,200 loss to the taxpayer (the average subsidy), but the CARS participant gains $1,600 per vehicle ($2,600 in the value of the price subsidy less the $1,000 loss of the clunker).

Assuming 12,000 as the average miles driven per year and using the average mpg of the retired vehicles (15.8 mpg) and the newly purchased vehicles (25.0), they calculated that the program cut gasoline consumption by some 280 gallons per year per vehicle. Assuming the average clunker would have lasted 3 more years (at which time a new, higher mpg vehicle would have been purchased), the gasoline savings works out to 804 gallons per vehicle on average.

[K-DoG7p7]

GM has decided not to sell its Opel European operation after all.

link (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ajcMzIoBfW6Y&pos=1)

To bad Opel does not make any good cars..
I mean the Insignia looks nice and all but its Opel, they suck more then Ford..
also its allready coming to the US as the Buick Regal.
The Astra is an okey car but they allready tried to sell that one to americans.
The GT wassnt even a Opel but a rebranded Saturn Sky (they should have let Opel build that one)

[mortari]

CFC showed me that if US markets lowered the price the cars all about $5000 They would sell more.

[the4thpip]

GM has decided not to sell its Opel European operation after all.

link (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ajcMzIoBfW6Y&pos=1)

Merkel is livid. And the workers may go on strike.

[K-DoG7p7]

Merkel is livid. And the workers may go on strike.

they should go on strike and demand better designers and product developers..

i'm just sayin

[the4thpip]

they should go on strike and demand better designers and product developers..

i'm just sayin

The newest Corsa got great reviews and won a few awards.

http://www.tuning4u.be/contents/media/corsa%20d.jpg

[K-DoG7p7]

its still an Opel, also it looks just like the Astra, seriusly did they even bring in any designers for that one?

[The Chief5425]

You made the claim, therefor it's your responsibility to prove it.



I did prove it by citing a source. Here's another source that ultimately uses the same backing data from car buying research site, Edmunds.com.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2009/10/620000657/1

So it's your turn to come up with a source that credibly refutes it...oh, and the CNN source you gave that gives the same figure--$24k per car--doesn't count.

Come back when you have something conclusive that refutes the figure. The rantings of some blogger in pajamas living in his Mom's basement don't count.

[Village Idiot]

and you don't think ford closing plants this year and massive overhualing on cost overhead had nothing to do with it's profit?


Also what dose it what dose it say about Obama's bail out plan when the one company that refused to take a dime from the Goverment is more prtofitable while the other two are still in the shitter?

Ford made the announcement of several plant closings in September of 2006. They had previously announced (January or February of 2006) that the announcements were coming, which means they were already making major changes almost 3 years before GM and Chrysler got the government buyouts.

Your query as to what "dose" it say about Obama's bailout (one word, btw) plan is a false query, as you are trying to make the suggestion that the bailout plan is why GM and Chrysler are not making a profit this year. Without the buyout, both GM and Chrysler would have likely ceased operations by now or early next year, which would have drastically increased unemployment at a time when unemployment is already at near records highs. (Every auto job lost takes another 9 with it.)

[Village Idiot]

Honestly, if Ford had tried to do anything that drastic in the previous four years, their major stockholders would have brought back witch burning. There was just no way that kind of reorganisation would have been possible. Only thanks to the specter of Government bailouts linked to extensive oversight could they even contemplate wholesale restructuring of the corporation.

See my previous post. Ford started restructuring at least 3 years ago.

[Village Idiot]

I personally blame the unions more then I blame Lester dislike of American made cars.

Unions don't make decisions on body styles of the autos, one of the main reasons people buy cars---because they like the look of them.

And unions don't make the decision to abandon the small car market in favor of building gas guzzling SUV and over-sized trucks.

Both of these decisions were key ibn the loss of market share when the price of gasoline doubled in less than 5 years.

[Village Idiot]

This is the temporary new boss at GM

http://image.automotive.com/f/features/consumer/27379917+pheader/112_0907_05l+fritz_henderson+profile.jpg



This is the new boss at Toyota
http://teknomotif.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/01akio-toyoda.jpg

POINT! for K-Dog. Toyota's new boss is obviously way cooler than GM's.

[Village Idiot]

Not sure if Lincoln NEEDS to make a new convertible; a large part of GM's downfall was that all of its brands released so many cars in so many segments, so they were essentially fighting against each other.

At least 10 years ago, I read an article that said GM was hurting its own sales and market because they had too many nameplates, and that GM would have to give up on one of its brands to strengthen the company.

Didn't happen until bankruptcy and the bailout. Pontiac should have been phased out over a year or two to lessen the blow, and the company might not have had to go into bankruptcy. Why didn't that happen? I don't know. Someone would have to ask the bosses in the upper ranks, the same bosses that made hundreds of millions of dollars over the last decade while running the company into the ground.

[Village Idiot]

I did prove it by citing a source. Here's another source that ultimately uses the same backing data from car buying research site, Edmunds.com.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2009/10/620000657/1

Chief, I can't argue the numbers one way or the other. I just don't know anything about those numbers. But citing USA Today as a source when they got their numbers from Edmunds is not more proof, just redundant proof.

[The Chief5425]

Chief, I can't argue the numbers one way or the other. I just don't know anything about those numbers. But citing USA Today as a source when they got their numbers from Edmunds is not more proof, just redundant proof.

Then provide something that rebutts Edmunds. Or not.

[the4thpip]

Then provide something that rebutts Edmunds. Or not.

Posts 71 and 72.

[K-DoG7p7]

POINT! for K-Dog. Toyota's new boss is obviously way cooler than GM's.

Akio Toyoda is a really cool guy, he is the grandson of the Founder (Kiichiro Toyoda) and he is to thank for Toyota getting back into making sportscars again.
also he races in this years and last years 24hours Nürburgring
he races under the alia "Morizo"

[Iangould]

The rantings of some blogger in pajamas living in his Mom's basement don't count.

Funny, that's pretty much what I think every time I see you're name on a post.

[Titan76]

and you don't think ford closing plants this year and massive overhualing on cost overhead had nothing to do with it's profit?


Also what dose it what dose it say about Obama's bail out plan when the one company that refused to take a dime from the Goverment is more prtofitable while the other two are still in the shitter?

http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr150/DXM616/mustang.png

by the way

".....government even in its best state is but a necessary evil"

Thomas Paine
Ford didn't take any bailout money from the Goverment because it recognized back in 2006 it was going into the shit hole unless it does something and fast, unlike GM and Chrylser. They got a new deal with the Union in 2007 that cut their costs, sold off some of their brands, and the biggest key of all, got a $23 billion loan from the banks before the credit crisis happen. Which was why GM and Chrylser had to get bailout money, because the banks wouldn't loan them any money.

Also, just to nick pick, Ford did at first beg the Goverment for bailout money but decided at the last minute, it didn't need any because it was burning less cash then they expected.

[The Chief5425]

So an economist from a left leaning university disputes (not disproves, disputes) a non-partisan organization that monitors car sales and still can't bring themselves to report anything positive, unless you consider costs exceeding benefits by $2,000 "full of win" for the Obama administration.

Oh, and as far as supposedly reducing carbon emissions? Didn't do that either.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2009/11/8216cash_for_clunkers8217_mean.html

‘Cash for Clunkers’ Hugely Successful at Buying People New Pickup Trucks
11/4/09 at 8:46 PM Comment 1Comment 1Comments
Photo: Getty Images

So a few months and Freedom of Information Act requests later, it turns out that more than anything else, Americans used the wildly popular “Cash for Clunkers” stimulus program to hustle the government into buying them new trucks. The most common trade in the program was one Ford F150 pickup truck for another.

Read more: ‘Cash for Clunkers’ Hugely Successful at Buying People New Pickup Trucks -- Daily Intel http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2009/11/8216cash_for_clunkers8217_mean.html#ixzz0Vz7v6aXv


Funny, that's pretty much what I think every time I see you're name on a post.

And I'm surprised you can read any posts at all through the genetic material crusted on your computer screen. How else would you like to make this all about personal attacks today?

[dupont2005]

So an economist from a left leaning university

depending on who you talk to, they are all left leaning except for, what, bob jones, regent, and liberty? for sure all the ivy leagues would be considered "left leaning" by the likes of you. would university of phoenix have been more suitable?


and as far as the cash for clunkers not reducing carbon emissions
http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/clunkers.asp

[dupont2005]

first comment on the article you linked


The 8,200 F150-for-F150 swaps only account for 1.2% of the total cars traded in.

[Tyr]

other markets with union labor do just fine. a union gm worker makes a few bucks an hour more than a non-union american toyota worker. and thats not counting all the foreign labor used in "american" auto manufacturing. the ceo of gm made 7 times what the toyota ceo made, and more than all japanese auto ceo's combined, even though gm was not making a profit and those other companies were. i find it AMAZING that these bastards act like they can't pay the pensions they OWE their retired workers, but they sure as shit can pay the half billion dollar salaries and hundred million dollar bonuses to their management

yes. how dare they fight for a 40hr work week, better pay and work conditions, heath insurance and try to stop companies exploiting "undocumented" workers.:mad:

(BTW I'm a union carpenter.)

So don't tie us with those whiney little Auto guys that never had to rebuild from the ground up.

Oh yeah, Unions are so freaking fantastic, that we folks up here in Washington are slowly losing Boeing thanks to Boeing's Union. We've already lost the production factory for Boeing's newest plane to South Carolina.

[Nick Soapdish]

first comment on the article you linked


The 8,200 F150-for-F150 swaps only account for 1.2% of the total cars traded in.

And an improvement from 15 - 18 mpg is still an improvement. But I do agree that they let the standards be way to lax when it came to considering what was fuel-efficient. But they basically had to for people to be able to buy American cars. Otherwise, it would've been even more heavily skewed towards Japanese cars than it was (not that all Japanese cars are fuel efficient).

[Corrina]

And I'm surprised you can read any posts at all through the genetic material crusted on your computer screen. How else would you like to make this all about personal attacks today?

How would you both like a few days off?

No? Then drop the personal comments on all sides. Only warning that you'll get.

[dupont2005]

Oh yeah, Unions are so freaking fantastic, that we folks up here in Washington are slowly losing Boeing thanks to Boeing's Union. We've already lost the production factory for Boeing's newest plane to South Carolina.

those poor stockholders! they must be living in the poor house!


or maybe not. maybe they are filthy rich but would still like to squeeze every cent of profit they could out of their production. i hope south carolina unionizes as well

[Village Idiot]

Then provide something that rebutts Edmunds. Or not.

That response is meaningless.

And I said I wasn't arguing your numbers.

[Village Idiot]

Oh, and as far as supposedly reducing carbon emissions? Didn't do that either.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2009/11/8216cash_for_clunkers8217_mean.html

FAIL.

One of the stipulations for Cash For Clunkers was that the new vehicle had to get at least 5 miles per gallon more than the old vehicle.