FCA to produce no *cars* in the US

[edyvw]

Originally Posted By: itguy08
Originally Posted By: edyvw

Really? BMW, MB etc. are very profitable. Unions here are piece of cake compare to those in Germany and they are still profitable.
When VW was deciding to open factory between Huntsville, AL and Chattanooga, TN reason why they choose TN is better education, and they even pushed for UAW to unionize their workers. The State of TN was the one who jumped and said NO!
So that [censored] about unions you can sell to someone else.


Ford and GM are profitable as well. FCA is as well. But they have heavy union presence and that has a cost. They also have lots of commitments to their past workers (healthcare/pensions) that a lot of these other manufacturers don't have. Also the contracts they have with the unions. I'm sure Ford, GM, FCA would love to open a non-union shop somewhere in the USA but there is a reason they don't have any. I doubt it's simply "cheap labor".

I'd not use VW as an example of working well in the USA. Look up Westmoreland: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Westmoreland_Assembly

Chattanooga voted to go union. It will be interesting to watch as a quick Google search seems that there is turmoil with the vote as well as VW's recognizing of the UAW.

Of course it has a cost. They have prior commitments? Well yeah. Only here in this country we argue how wages should be up, but we do not want unions, we want right to work states who by they way are what? at forefront of standard of living?
So no problems, if GM, Ford and FCA do not want to owe pensions, healthcare etc. we go to universal single payer HC system, pension system similar like in Germany etc.
Or we just take all benefits from workers but still claim how we want best from them.
Unions are not problem. [censored] products are.

 

[ToadU]

Unions are a huge problem. They continually shoot themselves in the face. They deserve what they get. Flame me. My Dad's company is union. The wages he pays to workers without a college degree are obscene.

He won't let me park my car on his driveway or infront of his house when I come visit unless I drive an American nameplate to his place. Otherwise I have to park at the end of the street and walk to his house.

At his office he pays a union scale wage to a "guard" at the entrance to his office parking lot. If your car is a foreign nameplate you park across the road in the dirt and walk to his office. If you have an American nameplate you are allowed to enter his office parking lot.

If you send somthing to him via Fed Ex his office won't accept it and refuse it. They only accept UPS and USPS.

Business trips have to be flown on all union airlines.

My "foreign nameplate" car is made in Tennessee and his Caddilac in Mexico. Go figure. I ignored his parking lot guard once when I was meeting dad for lunch. It was raining. He had my car impounded (irony on many levels) while we were at lunch--his guard texted him and he said to have it impounded. I didn't see that coming. He did give me a ride to the impound tow yard.

 

[wemay]

Originally Posted By: CKN
Originally Posted By: ToadU
"""""got it, emissions delete for the 6.7 would have fixed most of that. a shame"""""

--Emissions deletes are illegal. The DOT would shut me down. The bad publicity would put me out of business.

--Emissions deletes are expensive and void the manufacturers warranty.

--Diesels still do not make sense for my application. In every single parameter that matters gas engines outperform--especially the Ford V10. There is not one single advantage of having a diesel in my wreckers. Not one.



It seems for some reasons known only to the "OIL GODS" on BITOG breaking the law when it comes to emissions is morally acceptable.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT!



WIN!

 

[wemay]

"How Germany Builds Twice As Many Cars As The U.S. While Paying Its Workers Twice As Much"

http://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickall...h/#64676873289f

 

[Ethan1]

Originally Posted By: Nate1979
Originally Posted By: ToadU
Really who cares where somthing is built? It's a global economy that benefits everyone. I can tell you from having purchased a decent sized fleet of Dodge / Ram trucks for my wrecker fleet due to best bid prices they were universially junk and could not hold up to the abuse my company dishes out. (Had 16 at one time). That goes for the Cummins engine too. Junk. I have the data to prove it. That doesn't mean for someone else the chassis or Cummins might not be great but for how we use the trucks they cannot hold up. The Ford conventional chassis wreckers are so much more reliable than any other brand over 20 years of owning fleets of every manufactures. Dodge / Ram Junk. GMs very close to Ford but they shut down their med duty division. Hino Junk. Freightliner Junk Xs 10. International (and I really like international even custom ordered my motorhome with a Maxxforce engine) Junk Xs 10. Mitsubishi Junk. Isuzu Junk. Ford LCF (and I tried hard to like them) Junk. NIssan UD Junk. Who else am I leaving out. I have owned multiple chassis of each of these brands and am very organized and track everything.


If you think the Cummins is junk did you ever own the Ford 6.doh?


It's pronounced "six leaker" lol

I know a tow company owner who is buying Dodge and a construction company owner who is buying Chevy now due to their 6.0 experiences...

 

[ToadU]

What Chevies? GM abandoned medium duty trucks. The GMs were good and close to the Fords for reliability and I liked the 8.1 Vortec. The biggest problem for me with the 4500 / 5500 / 6500 Kodiacs was the overall size of the truck was too big. The Ford med duty chassis are much more compact and have much much better turining ratios. The Dodge aside from not holding up chassis wise and the Cummins a disaster for my application has a longer hood due to thr straight 6 verses the V config in thr Fords. Much better for tight spaces.

If you answer btw 3500HD Chevies they are simply not strong enough for a wrecker body, don't turn sharp enough and have a problem with the frame breaking in wrecker use. You almost never see GM / Chevy wreckers. Also, the largest percentage of 6.0 and 6.4 problems were with the 250 and 350 sizes. Even to this day if you buy a 450 and up Ford de rates the motors substantially for fleet / work longevity. This is huge in reducing problems. The 6.0 and 6.4 was about equal to the old Detroit / GM 6.5 Turbo diesel before the Duramax. If you understood the motor and were a bit lucky it would do pretty good and live a long time.

In the 250(0) 350(0) sizes all of the manufacturers are trying to build more HP power, more torque and one up each other. Once you get thr medium duty 450(0) and up the engine are derated and it makes all the difference in the world.

If your friend is buying 3500 Chevies then I assume he was buying 6.0 350s and those were pretty bad. Suggest he go gas and he will never go back if he is honest with himself.

Your other friend buying Dodge wreckers is probably a "traditional" towing company. They seem to do well overall as long as used by break-down towing services with at least a 60/40 highway / city driving mix.

The Rams can't hold up to the abuse and what we do with them and how we use them as I have explained. The turining ratio alone is a huge liability for us too.

 

[sciphi]

After experiencing a rental 200 for a week, good riddance. Looked like a million bucks, drove like 10 cents. My 130k mile Cruze's interior looked better than that woebegone rental's interior did with 110k fewer miles on the clock. The interior also managed to rattle constantly, as well as having some pretty glaring ergonomic issues. No wonder it's getting the ax.

I wonder if the CUSW platform that the Dart and 200 are based on was an entirely Detroit-led effort, or if it was more of a global effort. The US-designed smaller cars from the Detroit 3 were crummy until GM and Ford adapted their global models for the US market.

 

[Tomioka]

Lol the Dodge brothers must be rolling in their grave and Lee Iacocca must be facepalming to the ends of outer space. Why didn't Chrysler die off already?

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: sciphi
I wonder if the CUSW platform that the Dart and 200 are based on was an entirely Detroit-led effort, or if it was more of a global effort. The US-designed smaller cars from the Detroit 3 were crummy until GM and Ford adapted their global models for the US market.


I understand the 200's platform is a North American adaptation of a Fiat chassis, which means it's probably a US effort to "Americanize" that platform. I agree with you on your second point, and think it's interesting how every "American" small car model essentially stopped failing when they began using their global platforms (well, excepting Chrysler's effort, apparently).

 

[zzyzzx]

Originally Posted By: ToadU
Really who cares where somthing is built? It's a global economy that benefits everyone.


It doesn't benefit everyone:

 

[HerrStig]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: sciphi
I wonder if the CUSW platform that the Dart and 200 are based on was an entirely Detroit-led effort, or if it was more of a global effort. The US-designed smaller cars from the Detroit 3 were crummy until GM and Ford adapted their global models for the US market.


I understand the 200's platform is a North American adaptation of a Fiat chassis, which means it's probably a US effort to "Americanize" that platform. I agree with you on your second point, and think it's interesting how every "American" small car model essentially stopped failing when they began using their global platforms (well, excepting Chrysler's effort, apparently).
From what I read the 200 is an Alfa platform, most reviewers liked the handling but called the engines crude and loud.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted By: zzyzzx
Originally Posted By: ToadU
Really who cares where somthing is built? It's a global economy that benefits everyone.


It doesn't benefit everyone:

Of course it does not. Why? While manufacturing jobs went away half if not even more U.S. states cut education budgets. States are not preparing workforce for new economy.

 

[SlipperyPete]

Originally Posted By: edyvw
Originally Posted By: itguy08
Originally Posted By: edyvw

Really? BMW, MB etc. are very profitable. Unions here are piece of cake compare to those in Germany and they are still profitable.
When VW was deciding to open factory between Huntsville, AL and Chattanooga, TN reason why they choose TN is better education, and they even pushed for UAW to unionize their workers. The State of TN was the one who jumped and said NO!
So that [censored] about unions you can sell to someone else.


Ford and GM are profitable as well. FCA is as well. But they have heavy union presence and that has a cost. They also have lots of commitments to their past workers (healthcare/pensions) that a lot of these other manufacturers don't have. Also the contracts they have with the unions. I'm sure Ford, GM, FCA would love to open a non-union shop somewhere in the USA but there is a reason they don't have any. I doubt it's simply "cheap labor".

I'd not use VW as an example of working well in the USA. Look up Westmoreland: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Westmoreland_Assembly

Chattanooga voted to go union. It will be interesting to watch as a quick Google search seems that there is turmoil with the vote as well as VW's recognizing of the UAW.

Of course it has a cost. They have prior commitments? Well yeah. Only here in this country we argue how wages should be up, but we do not want unions, we want right to work states who by they way are what? at forefront of standard of living?
So no problems, if GM, Ford and FCA do not want to owe pensions, healthcare etc. we go to universal single payer HC system, pension system similar like in Germany etc.
Or we just take all benefits from workers but still claim how we want best from them.
Unions are not problem. [censored] products are.


How many of their own "brothers and sisters" did the UAW sell out by keeping quiet when Ford and GM started moving production of U.S. market vehicles to other countries? How many more jobs would we have if american companies made their U.S. products in the U.S.?

 

[nthach]

Originally Posted By: sciphi
The US-designed smaller cars from the Detroit 3 were crummy until GM and Ford adapted their global models for the US market.


The funny part was that Holden/Daewoo and Opel played a big part with the Cruze and Sonic, but it still feels "American" - I haven't driven one, but I've been in one for Uber/Lyft service. I driven a new Focus, and it certainly feels more cosmopolitan - it took me a bit to get used to the PowerShift DSG, in all honesty the Civic/Corolla feel very Americanized - as if Honda and Toyota let their Columbus and Georgetown operations design it. I'd rather take Cruze over a Corolla.

As for the Chrysler 200, I have to commend FCA for at least putting some thought into their product line, but I feel the ghost of Chrysler past is still over FCA - there is still an element of cheapness there.

I do recall the Cobalt and the earlier Foci - I acutally liked driving the older Focus, the Cobalt was a lukewarm effort from GM to banish the Cavalier from memory.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted By: nthach
Originally Posted By: sciphi
The US-designed smaller cars from the Detroit 3 were crummy until GM and Ford adapted their global models for the US market.


The funny part was that Holden/Daewoo and Opel played a big part with the Cruze and Sonic, but it still feels "American" - I haven't driven one, but I've been in one for Uber/Lyft service. I driven a new Focus, and it certainly feels more cosmopolitan - it took me a bit to get used to the PowerShift DSG, in all honesty the Civic/Corolla feel very Americanized - as if Honda and Toyota let their Columbus and Georgetown operations design it. I'd rather take Cruze over a Corolla.

As for the Chrysler 200, I have to commend FCA for at least putting some thought into their product line, but I feel the ghost of Chrysler past is still over FCA - there is still an element of cheapness there.

I do recall the Cobalt and the earlier Foci - I acutally liked driving the older Focus, the Cobalt was a lukewarm effort from GM to banish the Cavalier from memory.

It is keeping prices down.
Just take a look at all engine options in European versions of Focus, Opel etc. Same is with Honda and Toyota. In Europe, Honda models are Acura models in the U.S. Toyota has completely different models in Europe like Avensis etc. and it is night and day difference between them and the U.S> models.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: zzyzzx
It doesn't benefit everyone:

I can't speak for the 1%, but it should be no surprise that people who have been traditionally working subsistence lifestyles or working for fifty cents a day would benefit most from globalization. What does the source call the Asian middle class back in 1988? I suspect the Asian middle class back then was a lot worse off than the 1988 North American or western European middle class.

 

[Orange]

While its true the American manufacturers have the legacy expenses, that is not because of unions. Up until about 1970, future retirement costs were treated as current wages and funded from money set aside from ongoing operations. This resulted in massive piles cash that were not available to the guys with shaded visors. So changes were made to allow the companies to raid the accounts and push the future costs onto the cost of future production. Well, the future is here and the result of the bad decision by management has become the unions fault.

Bill

 

[sciphi]

Originally Posted By: nthach
Originally Posted By: sciphi
The US-designed smaller cars from the Detroit 3 were crummy until GM and Ford adapted their global models for the US market.


The funny part was that Holden/Daewoo and Opel played a big part with the Cruze and Sonic, but it still feels "American" - I haven't driven one, but I've been in one for Uber/Lyft service. I driven a new Focus, and it certainly feels more cosmopolitan - it took me a bit to get used to the PowerShift DSG, in all honesty the Civic/Corolla feel very Americanized - as if Honda and Toyota let their Columbus and Georgetown operations design it. I'd rather take Cruze over a Corolla.

As for the Chrysler 200, I have to commend FCA for at least putting some thought into their product line, but I feel the ghost of Chrysler past is still over FCA - there is still an element of cheapness there.

I do recall the Cobalt and the earlier Foci - I acutally liked driving the older Focus, the Cobalt was a lukewarm effort from GM to banish the Cavalier from memory.


Americans associate certain traits with how a car feels. Little things like the doors making a solid "thunk" when they close instead of a hollow tinny sound, the feeling of the car moving "effortlessly", comfy seats, and being quiet above all else. A "compact" also has to get at least reasonable gas mileage. GM and Ford nailed it with the global Cruze and Focus. FCA with the Dart, not so much. The engines were either gutless at low revs (1.4T), thirsty (2.4), or both (2.0). The seats in a Dart weren't comfy for 30 seconds despite looking cool. They made a good-on-paper car like Hyundai used to do.

FCA also suffered from poor timing. If they had managed to introduce the Dart before either the Cruze or the current Focus had been introduced, folks likely would have plunked down good money to buy a product noticeably better than the Cobalt or previous-gen Focus. But since the Dart was introduced after the Cruze and new Focus had turned into sales successes, FCA just wasn't able to get the Dart noticed.

 

[eljefino]

Originally Posted By: Orange
While its true the American manufacturers have the legacy expenses, that is not because of unions. Up until about 1970, future retirement costs were treated as current wages and funded from money set aside from ongoing operations. This resulted in massive piles cash that were not available to the guys with shaded visors. So changes were made to allow the companies to raid the accounts and push the future costs onto the cost of future production. Well, the future is here and the result of the bad decision by management has become the unions fault.

Bill


Not just this but management was shorter-sighted and signed off on pensions and other future costs while the unions took the longer view. It takes two parties to sign a contract and each party was loyal to their backers. I can't fault someone if they manage to be "the best" at negotiating.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Orange
While its true the American manufacturers have the legacy expenses, that is not because of unions.

Truthfully, I'm not even trying to place the blame on unions. For whatever reason one wishes to blame and/or thank, we in North America have had a fairly wealthy middle class, basically since the end of WWII. And, I'm not trying to get into talk about how the middle class has gone downhill, uphill, or whatever. In North America and western Europe, the middle class, particularly in the beginning of the period shown on the graph, was dramatically better off than the middle classes in much of Asia, with the possible exclusion of Japan. Most of Asia, including even South Korea and Taiwan, had nowhere to go but up with respect to a middle class. So, of course their middle class showed remarkable improvements.

Basically, what I'm getting at is that industrialization really benefited our middle class, and that's what's benefited the middle classes in these other nations. That was been helped by globalization, but that's really not the point. It's not an us versus them thing at all. Western Europe and North America still got wealthier. Obviously, our wealth didn't improve as much as those who went from subsistence farming to an industrial society in half a generation. Had "globalization" somehow not occurred, we wouldn't have seen that graph shift with us getting the 80%+ growth and Asia getting the few percentage points. That notion is ridiculous.