Toyota blames costs, not UAW, for NUMMI pullout
in [Toyota]
|
From: Jeff Strickland on 5 Sep 2009 17:34 "JoeSpareBedroom" <newstrash(a)frontiernet.net> wrote in message news:IJAom.8891$nP6.8259(a)newsfe25.iad... > "Ed Pawlowski" <esp(a)snet.net> wrote in message > news:8oydnSTIebepSz_XnZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >> >> "JoeSpareBedroom" <newstrash(a)frontiernet.net> wrote in message >>> >>> That's great, but it doesn't support the premise that car shows are an >>> indicator of automotive quality. >> >> There are more '65 Chevy and Fords there than '65 Datsuns, even as a >> percentage of sales in that years. Older Toyota bodes never lasted that >> long in spite of the drivetrain running about forever. >> > > > What percentage of show cars have 100% original bodywork? In other words, > what percentage have had no body work done at all? > That's impossible to know. If you watch Barratt Jackson, the percentage of them commanding premium prices is very high. If you don't know what Barratt Jackson is, then you should put the mouse down and move away from the computer. You should consider stepping back from the crack pipe too.
From: JoeSpareBedroom on 5 Sep 2009 17:42 "Jeff Strickland" <crwlrjeff(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:h7ulgu$1fr$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > "JoeSpareBedroom" <newstrash(a)frontiernet.net> wrote in message > news:IJAom.8891$nP6.8259(a)newsfe25.iad... >> "Ed Pawlowski" <esp(a)snet.net> wrote in message >> news:8oydnSTIebepSz_XnZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >>> >>> "JoeSpareBedroom" <newstrash(a)frontiernet.net> wrote in message >>>> >>>> That's great, but it doesn't support the premise that car shows are an >>>> indicator of automotive quality. >>> >>> There are more '65 Chevy and Fords there than '65 Datsuns, even as a >>> percentage of sales in that years. Older Toyota bodes never lasted that >>> long in spite of the drivetrain running about forever. >>> >> >> >> What percentage of show cars have 100% original bodywork? In other words, >> what percentage have had no body work done at all? >> > > That's impossible to know. In that case, Ed P's comment about "bodes" is meaningless, unless he has data about original body work. There might be rules about that in certain car shows. I don't know. I'll wait for his response rather than guess. > If you watch Barratt Jackson, the percentage of them commanding premium > prices is very high. If you don't know what Barratt Jackson is, then you > should put the mouse down and move away from the computer. Why should I move away from computer if I don't know what Barratt Jackon is? > You should consider stepping back from the crack pipe too. You're even angrier than usual today.
From: Jeff on 5 Sep 2009 17:57 On Sep 5, 3:00 pm, "Mike" <mikehu...(a)lycos.com> wrote: > The fact is every manufacturer is building great cars today. The only real > difference is style and price. It seems to me one should be more concerned > about how well the dealership takes care of them and what they charge for > parts and service because they all, at some point need parts and service. > > Look at ANY survey of buyers and they will reveal they all make around 2% > that are not up the manufacturers build quality, that is why they ALL offer > a warranty even Rolls Royce. > > Why anyone pays more money hoping they do not get one of the 2% makes no > since. No since? Since means after, as in, Mike makes no sense since he started drinking again. Where do you get your 2% figure? What does that mean? 2% of vehicles have any problems? 2% of vehicles have a problem that is severe enough to cause it to be returned under the lemon law? Only 2% of your brain is working? Jef > "Jeff" <jeff....(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:a0babb3c-4b50-423e-8e9f-d782786e3d1a(a)j19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 1, 7:01 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" <newstr...(a)frontiernet.net> > wrote: > > > > > "Vic Smith" <thismailautodele...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > > >news:ll8r95p9iaf56vs1j55stikuv5b35t0qe0(a)4ax.com... > > > > On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 12:57:04 -0400, "80 Knight" <nos...(a)nospam.com> > > > wrote: > > > >>"JoeSpareBedroom" <newstr...(a)frontiernet.net> wrote in message > > > >>> My experience was the direct opposite of yours. From 1975 through > > >>> 1982, > > >>> I > > >>> had nothing but hideous luck with Fords & GM cars. Please tell me what > > >>> factor (advertising, faith, etc) would make someone try again with > > >>> products which sucked in the past. I've had things go wrong with > > >>> foreign > > >>> cars, but never anything so stupid that it could only have been caused > > >>> by > > >>> complete incompetence in the design department. > > > >>If you haven't owned a Ford or GM since 1982, how can you claim newer > > >>models > > >>are garbage? I can *kind of* understand why you would be hesitant to > > >>purchase a brand new one, based on your previous experience, but > > >>seriously. > > > > He's an old guy with old ways of thought. When he's gone a new > > > generation of car owners will be ascendant. > > > Sort of reminds me of those who remember Pearl Harbor as an excuse to > > > be anti-Jap. > > > Just a generation later, but the same way of thinking. > > > Tells the kids, "Back in '82, when you were just a twinkle in your > > > dad's eye, I had an altercation with a Chevy Citation......" > > > So sad. > > > > --Vic > > > If you'd owned a hideous product which now costs $20K to $40K, would you > > risk that money just to see if the product had improved 20 years later? > > > Yes or no? Don't lie. > > Just to see if it's better? There are other ways to find out if a car > company is making better models, like consumer reports and cars owned > by friends. People do share information about cars, read reviews in > the paper (although one must be careful because many of the reviews > are poorly-disguised ads), and read car magazines. Car companies do > get reputations for quality of cars. > > BTW, when I buy a Ford Fusion, I don't buy an newer version of an old > Mustang, but a totally different car. Ford makes some great cars and > some cars that are not so good. Ditto GM, Chrysler, Mercedes, Toyota, > Honda, Kia and all the rest (at least those sold now in the US - some > like Yugo were never good). > > Jeff
From: Ed Pawlowski on 5 Sep 2009 18:00 "JoeSpareBedroom" <newstrash(a)frontiernet.net> wrote in message >>>> >>>> There are more '65 Chevy and Fords there than '65 Datsuns, even as a >>>> percentage of sales in that years. Older Toyota bodes never lasted >>>> that long in spite of the drivetrain running about forever. >>>> >>> >>> >>> What percentage of show cars have 100% original bodywork? In other >>> words, what percentage have had no body work done at all? >>> >> >> That's impossible to know. > > In that case, Ed P's comment about "bodes" is meaningless, unless he has > data about original body work. There might be rules about that in certain > car shows. I don't know. I'll wait for his response rather than guess. You'd have to clarify the category. There are shows specific to certain makes, certain year ranges, and original versus custom. In a custom category original body makes no difference. I don't know the rules of restorations. I do know that if a car is 100% original, it is valued far more than a better looking car that has a lot of replacements. My brother won quite a few shows with a Model A that was 100% original (except for tires) and had the bill of sale and bills from service in the 1920's. He sold it because once you show it, not much else to do with it aside from prevent deterioration. His Mustangs had replacement parts as needed, but his Pony convertible was all original. It was so pristine, Ford bought it back from him. Getting back on point, one reason you don't find older Japanese cars in shows is because no one really wanted to bother keeping them. They had bland style, bland performance, needed a lot of body upkeep, little appeal to a collector.
From: Jeff on 5 Sep 2009 18:01
On Sep 5, 3:42 pm, "Mike" <mikehu...(a)lycos.com> wrote: > Who is Ken Pool? LOL > > Have you ever tried to find the source of the funding for the "jobs bank," > set up by Detroit automakers and Delphi Corp. as part of an extraordinary > job security agreement with the United Auto Workers union? > > Every UAW members and the companies both have each been paying sixty five > cents and hour into the "Jobs Bank Fund," since the auto companies and the > Union agreed to the contact clause! Jobs bank workers are paid from that > interest bearing fund. > > In addition the companies saved millions of dollars by not having to pay > unemployment benefits and higher state unemployment taxes, dummy! > > "Joe$#itForBrains" > > <newstr...(a)frontiernet.net> wrote in message > > news:4eyom.8789$nP6.5489(a)newsfe25.iad... > > > Similar: > > > WAYNE -- Ken Pool is making good money. On weekdays, he shows up at 7 a..m. > > at Ford Motor Co.'s Michigan Truck Plant in Wayne, signs in, and then > > starts working -- on a crossword puzzle. Pool hates the monotony, but the > > pay is good: more than $31 an hour, plus benefits. > > > "We just go in and play crossword puzzles, watch videos that someone > > brings in or read the newspaper," he says. "Otherwise, I've just sat." > > > Pool is one of more than 12,000 American autoworkers who, instead of > > installing windshields or bending sheet metal, spend their days counting > > the hours in a jobs bank set up by Detroit automakers and Delphi Corp. as > > part of an extraordinary job security agreement with the United Auto > > Workers union. > > >http://fernleynews.ning.com/profiles/blogs/jobs-bank-programs-12000-paid > > > "Mike" <mikehu...(a)lycos.com> wrote in message > >news:4aa2adea$0$32219$ce5e7886(a)news-radius.ptd.net... > >> Sounds to me like there is a MANAGEMENT problem in that plant, if that is > >> what you believe. LOL > > >> My techs were members of the Machinists Union. If any of my guys did > >> what you suggested, I would fire them and there it not a thing the > >> Machinists Union, or ANY Union, could do to stop me, dummy > > >> "Michael Dobony" <sur...(a)stopassaultnow.net> wrote in message > >>news:1171nonnccxxo$.49ayppcvp4u$.dlg(a)40tude.net... > >>> On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 14:02:56 -0400, Mike wrote: > > >>>> You mean the Union Contracts that included "abusive waste" that Toyota > >>>> signed with the UAW? > > >>>> The only "power" a Union has over a manufacturer is to require it to > >>>> abide > >>>> by their contract. > > >>> It is abusive when UAW workers push their benefits to the limit, when > >>> workers clock in, slip out the back fence, spend the day at the bar, > >>> return > >>> to clock out, and go home, without doing any work, and the union > >>> endorses > >>> this. > > >>>> "Michael Dobony" Old man, the jobs bank was suspended. Try to keep up. <http://www.autonews.com/article/20081203/ANA01/812039981/1128> |