home

Help For Auto Makers Moves Forward

Call it a rescue plan, call it a loan, call it a bailout: can we call it a done deal?

Democratic leaders in Congress and the White House will meet again on Saturday to negotiate a rescue plan to help U.S. automakers, a congressional source told Reuters on Friday.

Nancy Pelosi abandoned her objection to using an existing $25 billion advanced technology fund to help pay for the bailout rescue plan loan. She conditioned her compromise on "a guarantee that those funds will be replenished in a matter of weeks” to avoid delaying the development of more fuel-efficient vehicles.

Congress needs to provide oversight and assure accountability, but do we really need a car czar? Can we at least get rid of the drug czar to preserve a proper balance of czardoms? [more ...]

Any legislation Congress might approve - in an emergency session next week - is likely to include appointment of a trustee or board to assure that General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co., and Chrysler LLC use the aid to return their firms to viability. ...

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Friday supported the idea of an auto trustee who would oversee spending of federal aid, set conditions and make sure the promised concessions are met. "The 'car czar' approach I envision would approximate a bankruptcy proceeding, except that it would occur outside of a bankruptcy court," Schumer wrote to colleagues Friday. "A single government trustee would be appointed to lead the entire process."

< Joshua Kezer Deserves a New Trial | Saturday College Football Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    In our rush to condemn the Big 3 (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 11:25:58 AM EST
    as short-sighted purveyors of automotive plonk may I remind us that ALL US car sales from EVERY car maker are down by around 30-50%, not just the Big 3.

    In November Nissan's sales were down the most (44%) and Ford's the least (30%).

    My Dodge Durango has 140K miles on it and runs like a top.

    Fuel efficiency is not the key, building a product that people want to buy is.

    Would you please (2.00 / 0) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 12:10:21 PM EST
    quit bringing up facts?

    I mean really....... Making what people want?

    Where do such ideas come from??

    Parent

    would this be the same (4.80 / 5) (#5)
    by cpinva on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 09:55:09 PM EST
    level of oversight and accountability required for the financial sector, with their bailout funds?

    if so, expect a black hole.

    Buuut! There will be a (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by nycstray on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 10:21:50 PM EST
    Car Czar!!!  {grin}

    I seriously can't understand why accountability isn't always part of plans. It was one of the things I like about Hillary's import safety proposal. She had very clear consequences spelled out. My kind of "contract". These days, it seems like we are just handing over money, responsibility, etc with no contract. In my little pea brain, that's just bad business practice.

    Parent

    Why should the Congresscritters hold anyone (none / 0) (#17)
    by DeborahNC on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 01:00:41 AM EST
    accountable when THEY don't want to be held  accountable? Might set a bad precedent!

    Parent
    A view that I share (4.75 / 4) (#56)
    by Dave B on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 08:46:23 AM EST
    I thought this article was interesting considering those who think it is unfair to support our domestic auto makers.

    Since 1992, states where we have transplants have located have put in over $3 billion dollars in incentives and I would point out that is the money that the state settled for and I want to go specifically to Alabama if I could for a minute. We have Hyundai Motor Company that got $252 million in incentives. Toyota there got $29 million in incentives. Honda, $158 million and Mercedes $253 million in incentives. It just seems odd to us that we can help the financial institutions in this country and that we can offer incentives to our competitors to come here and compete against us but at the same time, we are willing to walk away from an industry that is the backbone of our economy.

    And while I read these figures to you, which are the actual figures that we have been able to dig up. I want to go to one particular story and that is the plant in Mercedes, the Mercedes plant in Alabama.

    As it turned out, as I said Alabama offered $253 million but the state offered to train the workers, clear and improve the sites, upgrade the utilities, buy 2,500 vehicles and it is estimated that that incentive package totaled somewhere around $175,000/per employee to create those jobs there. And on top of this, that state gave this automaker a large parcel of land-around $250-$300 million dollars. That was the same price or cost to them of building a facility.

    So we can support our competition but we can't support an industry that is in need? And this need was not brought about because of what the industry has done.

    The entire article is here:

    Full Story

    thank Dave B (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by DFLer on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 09:41:44 AM EST
    I was about to go looking for that info.

    Sen. Shelby is a hypocrite on this issue because of the stats cited above.

    I've heard many southern elected officials complaining about "why should the citizens of my state help bailout other states?...etc" These are the same states that regularly receive more in federal assistance than they pay in federal taxes.

    Aaarrgh.

    Parent

    It is interesting to (4.66 / 3) (#51)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 06:48:09 AM EST
    note there was a lot less debate on the hill over the 700 Billion given to the financial sector as compared to the 15 Billion offered to the big 3.  

    Jon Stewart pretty much nails it.

    The Congress should have (none / 0) (#52)
    by alsace on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 08:06:56 AM EST
    at least as many hearing-hours per billion for the second $350B as they had for the $15B they merely moved from one account to another.  Probably, though, the weeks of excessive posturing would require the appointment of a Capitol Chiropractor.

    Parent
    Interesting indeed.... (none / 0) (#53)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 08:19:32 AM EST
    We must remember Wall St. is in charge of safeguarding and expanding the personal fortunes of Congress-critters.  They're on the same team...they're buddies.  Scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.

    Detroit on the other hand, though Congress may be tight with the guys in the boardroom, they got no love for the guys on the line.  Congress can always find cushy jobs for the guys in the boardroom if push comes to shove, like car czar of under-secretary of fuel-efficiency development.

    If your collar is blue or off-white, screw you.

    Parent

    IThere should be conditions and oversite (4.50 / 2) (#2)
    by oculus on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 08:51:51 PM EST
    written into law and a trustee to make sure our tax dollars are spent as intented by Congress and that there is accountability.

    Oh man... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 09:41:00 PM EST
    ...conditions, oversite and accountability?!  You dreamer, you.  

    Parent
    Boy, I'd love congress itself (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 10:41:39 PM EST
    to be accountable for spending our tax dollars as intended, never mind the private industries/citizens the dollars go to.

    I've always dreamed of a checklist on our income tax returns indicating where we authorize our taxes to be spent. True Democracy...

    Parent

    I've had the same dream regarding (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by nycstray on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 10:46:09 PM EST
    an income tax checklist! I would just love to be able to do that at least once in my life.

    Parent
    burn the money (4.20 / 5) (#6)
    by jarober on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 10:19:04 PM EST
    I'd rather have Congress get stacks of 100's and burn them.  The waste would be smaller.  GM and Chrysler are dead.  Any money thrown at them is just being wasted.

    If those industries (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by cal1942 on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 11:40:12 PM EST
    are lost you can expect massive unemployment throughout the nation.

    It would be well beyond stupid to let them fail.

    Parent

    so it's better (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 01:43:21 AM EST
    It would be well beyond stupid to let them fail.

    to artificially prop them up? they weren't exactly setting new income records before the current economic situation, and it takes a while to re-tool production, after you come up with designs for vehicles people actually want to buy.

    what exactly are all the employees supposed to be doing, while waiting for the above to happen? as well, pretty much all car manufacturers, domestic and foreign, are facing great difficulties.

    foreign manufacturers, and their domestic subsidiaries/dealers, employ a pretty substantial number of people in the US. if they go under, it will also result in huge #'s of unemployed. should the US government bail them out too?

    Parent

    You're (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by cal1942 on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 03:04:38 AM EST
    remarks miss the point and betray a complete lack of understanding of what's at stake not just for the millions of directly affected workers but for the nation's future as a whole.

    Foreign manufacturers work under an entirely different set of rules.  They aren't under the thumb of our finance industry, they haven't the legacy obligations and their governments won't allow them to fail come what may. Their governments will subsidize them, grant them, loan them, whatever is necessary to stay afloat. Their impact in this nation doesn't begin to approach the impact of the domestic auto industry. The foreign presence is limited to some assembly, sales and marketing. The domestic auto indutry's presence here is a complete top to bottom manufacturing enterprise from research, development, testing, manufacturing, sales, marketing, etc. All of the parts. In addition to various types of line workers the domestic auto industry employs thousands of skilled tradesmen, engineers in many disciplines and significant numbers of a wide range of other professionals.  Lose this industry and it will be lost forever along with the knowledge and skills necessary in a modern nation. The result is that America would become nothing more than a stop on someone's sales route, a diminishing one at that and history's biggest joke.

    Letting this industry fail would be a disgrace that would dwarf the disgrace of allowing New Orleans to drown.

    Parent

    Other than agriculture (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Fabian on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 04:59:08 AM EST
    do we HAVE a nationally supported industry?

    There is NO such thing as a free market.  We are competing every day against an array of nations and industries that are subsidized, enhanced, supported, encouraged by a variety of obvious and subtle methods.

    Any nation that went truly Free Market would have its businesses and industries either undercut or bought out by other nations looking to reduce the competition or exploit the total lack of regulation.

    I don't think we have the obligation to support every business or industry, but we should support those that are strategically significant.

    Parent

    Absolutely right... (none / 0) (#54)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 08:28:09 AM EST
    about there being no free market on earth.

    The problem is that "strategically significant" might just come to mean "connected"...and our version of crony-captialism/rigged markets get even more rigged and crony-fied.  We end up no better than the old USSR, where the connected dined on filet mignon, while the proles waited on a bread line while paying for the filet mignon for the conected.

    The more I thik about it, the best way to "save our economy", or as I like to call it..."squeeze another 20 years out of the failed model" is to just cut a check for 50 grand for every man, woman, and child.  At least that's fair.  Stupid and suicidal...but fair.

    Parent

    Sometimes (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Fabian on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 09:25:12 AM EST
    I wonder about the future of our civilization.

    Not our species, because we've proved to be an incredibly adaptable species.  But the very social instincts that makes us collectively strong and resilient is the same drive that causes us to be collectively stupid, short sighted and aggressive.

    We are self limiting.  We will consume as many resources as possible to keep ahead of the Them, even if it means impoverishing centuries of our descendants and destroying everything we have built.

    If this is Intelligent Design, then the Designer is a moron!  That's why I believe in evolution - because all the evidence points to a driving force that only thinks about surviving long enough to create the next generation.  That works for individuals and species, but it totally bombs out for societies and civilizations.  As far as evolution is concerned, the newest generation is more than welcome to devour everything the previous generation has built if it increases the current generation's chances of survival.

    Parent

    A question (none / 0) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 11:23:05 AM EST
    As far as evolution is concerned, the newest generation is more than welcome to devour everything the previous generation has built if it increases the current generation's chances of survival.

    What if it doesn't?

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#62)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 11:36:36 AM EST
    The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins.

    Parent
    Sure (none / 0) (#10)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 11:18:38 PM EST

    The CAFE standards will continue to kill them.

    Parent
    Absolutely ridiculous (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by cal1942 on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 11:37:52 PM EST
    comment Amir.

    Parent
    CAFE standards could have saved them (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Fabian on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 05:00:10 AM EST
    by forcing them to diversify.

    Instead...well, you should know the story by now.

    Parent

    CAFE standards (none / 0) (#59)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 11:13:04 AM EST

    CAFE standards force production of vehicles that meet political requirements rather than those that are the most profitable.  

    The big three should focus on production that turns a profit.  CAFE is a costly diversion.  

    GM's Chevy Volt will be counted at 100mpg for CAFE purposes even though it uses no gas.  It will get 40 miles on a charge and is priced at $40,000.  It will be sold at a loss.  The market for a $40,000 vehicle with a 40 mile range is miniscule.  BTW, it will probably have even shorter range in cold weather.  Any GM bail out should require they stop pouring money down that rat hole.  

    Parent

    It does use gas (none / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 12:48:57 PM EST
    Really? (none / 0) (#68)
    by Radix on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 02:31:51 PM EST
    The big three should focus on production that turns a profit.

    Isn't this their current strategy? How's it working out so far?

    Parent
    The current strategy (none / 0) (#69)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 02:40:46 PM EST

    The current strategy is to first comply with CAFE, and then make a profit.  Dropping an unprofitable model is more or less out of the question if it results in CAFE violation.  

    Parent
    Your position would (none / 0) (#71)
    by Radix on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 03:12:30 PM EST
    probably be more compelling if the Japanese and German automakers didn't exist. These folks seem not only to be able to produce efficient vehicles, as well as, reliable, they do so at a profit to boot.

    Parent
    Nissan sales down 44% in Nov. (none / 0) (#72)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 04:56:02 PM EST
    Biggest loss in sales of any of the major car makers.

    Parent
    True, however GM, et al, (none / 0) (#75)
    by Radix on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 06:33:29 PM EST
    have been loosing market share, to the foreign makers, for years. So while the Japanese automakers are currently being affected by the downturn, their long term viability is a lot rosier than GM and friends. Truth be told, even if the world economies hadn't hit this pot whole, it's doubtful the US auto makers would have survived the next ten years with out serious taxpayer bailouts.

    Parent
    A ten year prediction! (none / 0) (#76)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 07:09:06 PM EST
    I'd be happy with guessing correctly what the S&P is going to do the day after tomorrow...

    Parent
    Interesting (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Steve M on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 12:16:53 AM EST
    how ideology leads people to say really dumb things sometimes.

    Parent
    I agree completely. (none / 0) (#66)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 12:40:22 PM EST

    You bet.

    Parent
    How many (4.00 / 1) (#1)
    by WS on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 08:47:59 PM EST
    czars are there?

    Somehow... (4.00 / 1) (#3)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 09:37:14 PM EST
    ...I don't think the Military-Industrial complex would let such a vital cog in the machine like the auto makers go under without a bit of a fight.  

    It's not in the interest of National Security to lose the infrastructure that allows us to have the capacity to ramp-up production of military vehicles (and who knows what else) in a time of need.  

    Unless you just pick one of the Big 3 and nationalize it, I guess.

    It's also (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by cal1942 on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 11:50:24 PM EST
    a vital domestic industry which millions, directly or indirectly, depend upon for their livlihood.

    Allowing the destruction of so many communities and the destruction of the lives of millions would be a national disgrace that would dwarf the drowning of New Orleans.

    Parent

    But in a way we already allowed it... (none / 0) (#55)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 08:34:51 AM EST
    these companies are broke because we the people didn't buy enough of their cars.

    Now you can blame management, labor, and/or the consumer for that....but that is what is "allowing" them to fail, not the government, though they play a role too with the regulation and taxation of auto-makers.

    It's not like a business raises their proverbial hand and asks Uncle Sam "May I go belly up?"..they go belly up when they are spending more than they are making. 2 plus 2 does not ask permission to equal 4.

    Parent

    I am interested in how many people (4.00 / 1) (#15)
    by eric on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 12:45:38 AM EST
    still drive domestic cars and why they bought them instead of foreign brands.  I really am.

    I am not giving up on domestic cars, except for maybe Chrysler, but otherwise there is some hope.  But with that being said, I don't see a lot of quality coming from the American car companies.  My last three cars, all used, were Honda, SAAB, and Mazda.  All were excellent and better than what I viewed to be crappy domestic offerings.

    There is no question that the domestic companies have done well in the SUV market, and probably produced the best monster trucks and NASCARs, but when it comes to small, normal, regular passernger cars, what have they done?  Toyota and Honda have done well but are also seeing lower sales, but are not on the brink of bankruptcy.

    Anyway, I hate to see people unemployed, but maybe we should just sponser some kind of buyout of GM by Toyota or something?

    Well, the Foreign/Domestic line (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by andgarden on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 12:52:13 AM EST
    is fairly blurred. Your Saab, for example, probably had GM parts in it. It may have even been mostly Opel (GM Europe).

    I think the problem for the big 3 is that they ceded the sedan market to imports and focused on high margin "light trucks" (AKA, SUVs). But what with gas prices and then the economy. . .

    Generally speaking, I don't want to save the big three, but there are just so many jobs attached that doing nothing is not an option. And given how much they're bleeding, I would actually find it difficult to argue against nationalization. It would probably be a better deal for taxpayers.

    Parent

    I don't want to bailout anymore financial, (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by DeborahNC on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 01:16:38 AM EST
    insurance, auto, or any other businesses who've proven to be irresponsible decision-makers. But, I agree with you that the failure of the US auto industry would be a huge burden on the economy and American workers.

    It would have a trickle-down effect that would adversely impact other businesses like auto parts and more. Many of those people would lose their jobs too.

    I am furious at the so-called management in these companies; their greed and cra**y attitudes have affected so many average, hard-working people who just want to provide for their families. I see it directly in some of the communities near where I live. People are truly devastated. Some of their situations are tragic.

    Parent

    Not my Saab (none / 0) (#22)
    by eric on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 01:23:16 AM EST
    it was a 1992, pure Swedish.  Yes, GM owns it now, but they have ruined it.  My friends 2004 Saab is way too GM, the interior has cup holders and too much stuff.  I can tell why people are turned off.

    Anyway, I don't wish any ill will on anyone, but as things go, I look around my city and I don't see a lot of domestic cars.  Looking down my street, 2 out of 3 cars are not "domestic", although I hear that Toyota and Honda make many of their cars here.

    One interesting anecdote:  I have a 1997 Mazda Protege.  Japan made.  It has close to 200,000 miles.  Runs great.  I love it because it is a nice 4 door normal sized car that is reliable.

    My wife has a new 2006 Mazda 6 made here (it is more or less made by Ford.)  She bought it because her last car was a Mazda.  However, her car sucks.  Too big, bad turning radius, it just isn't a car that works in an urban environment.  The interior is plastic overload  - it looks like typical American garbage.  Things break.  It is crap.  It is a classic example of Ford/Mazda not having a clue.

    Parent

    Well, FWIW (none / 0) (#24)
    by andgarden on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 01:27:04 AM EST
    My dad's last Saab was a '93 9000 CSE, and it was a serious lemon. 100% Swedish, though--complete with turbo lag.

    I live in a city where I don't have to drive, but if I did, I would most likely not buy an American car. (BTW, the big three know how to make decent cars, just look at the european Focus. Problem is they couldn't sell it for a profit in America).

    Parent

    too bad (none / 0) (#27)
    by eric on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 01:32:57 AM EST
    about the 9000, it could be that GM creeped in there and ruined it.  At that point, GM had a 50% stake.

    The 94 SAAB is to be avoided at all costs...why?  Because that is when GM took over.

    Saabs are quirky, chevy's just plain suck.

    Parent

    The '93 was 100% Swedish (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by andgarden on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 01:36:28 AM EST
    right down to the German engine computer that never seemed to work ;-).

    My mom had a '94 900 to replace an '84, and it really never had any problems. But it was a very close relative of the Opel Omega, right down to the timing belt V6. . .

    Parent

    heh (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by eric on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 02:00:17 AM EST
    all saabs, until GM got involved, had a 4.  They tried another 6 cyl again recently, i think.

    My 92 4 cylinder was about the best motor I have ever experienced.  And no timing belt, it was a timing chain.  :)

    Parent

    Indeed, Saab's are very quirky, but I love to (none / 0) (#29)
    by DeborahNC on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 01:37:54 AM EST
    drive them. My Volvos have been great. I had a 1987 model that had around 250,000 miles on it(240 DL). Hardly had any trouble with it until the very end.

    I was so sorry to lose it.

    Parent

    There's a Swedish thing. . . (none / 0) (#33)
    by andgarden on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 01:45:00 AM EST
    Before everyone had an SUV, Saabs were just about the only cars that could seem to get around in the snow.

    Parent
    Do Saabs still require pills in the (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 01:46:33 AM EST
    gastank?  

    Parent
    heh (none / 0) (#35)
    by andgarden on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 01:47:50 AM EST
    I think a million years ago you had to put oil in or something. But that's when they were using a 3 stroke engine.

    Parent
    Up until some time in (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by eric on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 02:02:36 AM EST
    the 60's, SAABs were still using a two stroke engine that required mixing the gas.  Heh.  They were ahead of the game on lots of things, but on the 2 stroke motor, not so much.

    Parent
    Kurt (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by andgarden on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 02:06:45 AM EST
    Vonnegut:

    Unlike all other cars, but like your lawnmower and your outboard, it had a two-stroke rather than a four-stroke engine. So every time you filled your tank with gas you had to pour in a can of oil as well. For whatever reason, straight women did not want to do this.



    Parent
    Did I dream the part about the pill (none / 0) (#44)
    by oculus on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 02:23:44 AM EST
    in the gas tank?  Maybe, as I can't find any reference to it on Saab's website or elsewhere.  This is interesting though:

    As early as 1957 Saab introduced seatbelts as an option for cars on the Swedish market. Originally two-point safety belts, it would take some years for the innovation to be accepted as standard equipment by buyers.



    Parent
    True about Saab, but that boxy 240DL was (none / 0) (#37)
    by DeborahNC on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 01:48:40 AM EST
    terrible to drive in snow and ice. The newer Volvos that have front wheel drive are okay, but not quite as good as the Saab.

    Parent
    And the answer is... (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 12:04:46 PM EST
    still drive domestic cars and why they bought them instead of foreign brands.  I really am.

    In my view Detroit learned its quality lessons in the 70's. Since 1983 I have purchased US brand cars and trucks with excellent service, quality and performance. I look for value, not just the lowest price.

    Before I purchase I do a lot of research and careful evaluation. (The engineer in me?) No manufacturer is excluded except based on price range and basics. (4door sedan)

    Currently I drive a 2006 Lacrene (Buick). It has had no mechanical or quality issues. On the road it gets 26-27 MPG which drops to 22-23 around town.

    I find that the one link that most people overlook is the dealer. A good one takes the vehicle you just purchased and gives it a thorough prep... not just a wash job and here's the keys.

    I sell my own "used car" and pay cash for the replacement. Part of the "owner regret" is looking at large payments stretching out for years. That magnifies all other issues.

    I think many people, especially the youngsters, have heard so many horror takes about US cars, and so much "my car is great" re the transplants they have a real bias.

    (I once worked with a guy whose Camry went through two transmissions yet maintained the car was great. jimakappj's maxim: Never ask anyone about the quality of a car they still own.)

    And yes, this is all anecdotal.

    Parent

    I agree completely (none / 0) (#74)
    by Dave B on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 06:26:34 PM EST
    Ten years ago I bought a Dodge Dakota.  I'm an engineer like you.  I researched the heck out of mid size trucks.  I had heard about quality issues with the Dodge, but the price was about $4k less than anything comparable.  Over 10 years I spent a little over $2k in repairs.  I feel that I got a pretty good deal.  I had a co-worker that spent a ton of money on repairs on a Toyota Camry, warped heads, a bad transmission, wheel bearing replacements.  She just raves about the fantastic quality of the Camry.  You could not argue with her.

    My wife drives a VW Passat.  62k miles, and I have spent thousands on repairs.

    Parent

    Saab owned by GM; (none / 0) (#18)
    by seeker on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 01:09:16 AM EST
    Mazda by Ford (if I remember correctly)--Two brands the execs talked about divesting in their testimony.  Volvo owned by Ford (I think)--another divestiture.

    Parent
    Ford bought Jaguar too. They made some (none / 0) (#21)
    by DeborahNC on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 01:22:44 AM EST
    improvements in things like small interior devices, but Jaguar was never quite the same again IMO.

    Parent
    Although I tried to find a Camry (none / 0) (#20)
    by oculus on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 01:17:03 AM EST
    that was not built in the U.S., turns out there aren't any that are for sale in U.S.  Georgetown, KY.

    Parent
    Which begs the question (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by eric on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 01:27:54 AM EST
    why we dont just let Honda and Toyota be our auto makers.  They make most of their cars here now, anyway.  And, they don't suck.

    Parent
    Jobs, Jobs, Jobs, Jobs (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by andgarden on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 01:32:15 AM EST
    There's also a national security argument.

    But yeah, you could make the argument that propping up domestic car manufacturers is somewhat protectionist and an overall negative. Even if that were true, shutting the whole thing down over night would be a really bad idea, especially in the middle of a recession.

    Parent

    In the 80s they were mostly built (none / 0) (#23)
    by andgarden on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 01:23:56 AM EST
    in Japan. The fit and finish has gone down since then IMO. (Yes, I was a little car geek).

    Parent
    Following on this question (none / 0) (#30)
    by eric on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 01:39:08 AM EST
    Assume you just won $30,000.  What car would you buy?  American? Import?

    I can't think of a Domestic car I would even think of buying.

    Parent

    Find an extra five grand and buy a BMW (none / 0) (#32)
    by andgarden on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 01:44:00 AM EST
    In the alternative, probably a Volkswagen, Audi, or Toyota.  

    Parent
    I gave up on VW after many (none / 0) (#36)
    by oculus on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 01:47:59 AM EST
    uears of loyalty.  Maybe they've improved but I'm sticking w/Toyota.

    Parent
    I think the Passat is a very well-built car (none / 0) (#39)
    by andgarden on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 01:53:48 AM EST
    I'm not so hot on the current styling, though.

    Parent
    What new BMW can you buy for 35K? (none / 0) (#38)
    by DeborahNC on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 01:51:24 AM EST
    I think you can probably (none / 0) (#40)
    by andgarden on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 01:54:27 AM EST
    pull off a 3 series. If you can drive stick, it's easier. (I can, but prefer not to).

    Parent
    I drove a stick for years and loved it. Even that (none / 0) (#45)
    by DeborahNC on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 02:38:10 AM EST
    1987 Volvo was a 5-speed stick. But over the last several years I've had an automatic.

    BMWs are the best! My past couple of car purchases have been used (previously-driven) cars. I had known this guy, Bill, for a long time, and he owned his own business. He'd been telling me to come by his dealership and take a look around. At first, I was hesitant to buy a used car because of all of the horror stories I'd heard, but the more I thought about it, it made sense.

    I've tried to get a car that was at least 3 years old, because after that the price really goes down. Well, the last purchase I made was a BMW, and I got an excellent price for it, otherwise I wouldn't have bought it.

    When I got into it for a test drive, I knew immediately I wanted that car. He'd been telling me for years that BMW was the best car he sold, and that he'd been driving one for at least 20 years. BTW, he only sells imports.

    I'd recommend BMW in a heartbeat, primarily for the way it drives. It has lots of pick-up, a great turning radius, and feels safer than any car I've owned. I'd recommend it to anyone. But, personally, I wouldn't buy a new one, because I just don't like to spend that much money on a car. It's not my highest priority, but I do love a good-driving car.

    Parent

    BTW, the BMW I have drives like a performance (none / 0) (#46)
    by DeborahNC on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 02:49:57 AM EST
    car, not a luxury car, of the American variety. The whole car feels like a "performance" car.

    Parent
    Have you lost a key yet? (none / 0) (#63)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 11:37:31 AM EST
    They only cost $100+ to replace.

    Have you lost more than 5 (iirc) keys yet? Replacing the module that recognizes the key will only cost you about $250. Plus 2 new keys.

    Have you had a dead battery yet? If you try to jump start the car you will likely blow out the key module. (new module + 2 new keys).

    How much does your coolant cost/quart?

    I'm so done with German cars.

    Parent

    Sounds as if you've had multiple problems (none / 0) (#78)
    by DeborahNC on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 02:17:37 PM EST
    with your BMW. I've owned mine for 3-4 years and have not had one major problem with it.

    Undoubtedly, upper end foreign cars are more expensive to maintain. You mentioned that you were through with German-made cars. What others have you owned and what were the problems? I like to get info. about cars from their owners.

    I'll share another experience I've had with foreign cars. Where you get them serviced is important. One particular place was highly recommended to me, and I took my car there several times, but the cost was astronomical. At first, I tolerated it because they were always accommodating, etc., but then decided that it was more than I wanted to spend and found a place that serviced foreign cars that was much more reasonable.

    Anyway, I've found that even within the same area that the prices for car repair and service are highly variable.

    Parent

    My wife's car is a MB ML320. (none / 0) (#80)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 06:41:28 PM EST
    Prices I mentioned are German car specialist prices, which are less than the dealer, aka, the "stealer."

    Read some of the www.BenzWorld.org discussion forums.

    There is basically no significant difference in reliability between German cars and other makes, but they do cost 2X as much to fix...

    Parent

    As Long As the Automakers (none / 0) (#50)
    by bob h on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 06:44:39 AM EST
    are signing on to higher fuel efficiency standards as part of the deal, it makes little sense to preserve that original $25 billion.

    So, my friend, (none / 0) (#70)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 03:06:24 PM EST
    who lost his job and his pension with United Airlines a few years ago, says that the government refused to bailout the airline companies after 9/11, resulting in loss of jobs for many, and it's not fair that they are now bailing out the automakers and banks. What should I say to him?

    and there's bad. This is some of the bad.

    Parent
    Didn't the PGB (none / 0) (#77)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 11:20:36 AM EST
    step in and protect part of his pension?

    Parent