Various Topics on Mercedes-Benz

..retwe.. ..l.c..

On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 20:29:44 -0800 (PST), buydomestic@usa.com wrote:

>On Feb 12, 10:16*am, "tater" <taternwa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> <buydomes...@usa.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:bbb87af8-e1fe-4b8c-8435-4c0ed51f6315@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23124844/
>>
>> > GM just made it known that they lost 39 billion in 2007, the largest
>> > ever annual loss for a US automaker.
>>
>> > The big three are losing money, and if we don't give them the support
>> > they need, they are going to go under. *Consider buying an American
>> > car.
>>
>> American cars are ****. Made by unionists more worried about when their
>> next coffee break is than making quality cars. They've negotiated themselves
>> right out of jobs as the big auto makers cut back. *It's not possible to do
>> business
>> that way and compete on a world wide economy.
>>
>> A couple years ago I bought a Nissan truck with 92,000 miles on it and
>> didn't bat an eye. I wouldn't even think of owning an American made
>> car with over 60,000 miles on it. They fall apart.
>
>But it's not that way all the way across the board. Not all American
>Cars are unreliable. There are some that are considered as reliable
>as a Honda or Toyota, at least if you're buying new. If you're buying
>used, CR certainly recommends a lot more import models than domestic
>models in their used car section, but they do recommend some domestic
>ones. I would expect that to change a little in the next few years
>though. The Big 3 are still getting beaten badly by Toyota and Honda
>when it comes to reliability, but more new American cars are getting
>the CR reliability mark now than five or six years ago.
>
>>
>> When American auto makers start turning out a quality product at
>> a competitive price I'll take a look at them.
>>
>> t


I have an 85 F150 Ford in my driveway with 169000 miles on it and a 97
Honda Prelude with 80000.
I wouldn't want to try to predict which one will fail first but I do
know which one is the most expensive to maintain.
Somebody here told me the other day I wasn't qualified to work on the
Honda and I should pay $800 for a belt although I am perfectly capable
of doing anything to the Ford.
I can't even use common fluids in the Honda. The antifreeze is 4-5
times as much.

..rd.. ..Gr..

On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 15:16:22 GMT, "tater" <taternwanda@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
><buydomestic@usa.com> wrote in message
>news:bbb87af8-e1fe-4b8c-8435-4c0ed51f6315@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23124844/
>>
>> GM just made it known that they lost 39 billion in 2007, the largest
>> ever annual loss for a US automaker.
>>
>> The big three are losing money, and if we don't give them the support
>> they need, they are going to go under. Consider buying an American
>> car.
>>
>
>American cars are ****. Made by unionists more worried about when their
>next coffee break is than making quality cars.

It's not the union worker's fault. You could hire a team of Formula 1
mechanics to dis***emble and re***emble a Detroit 3 car and it would
still be a piece of ****.

.... ..owm.. ..ew..

In article <u9f4r31s4a4kun403f4ee83bvb4leuo86a@4ax.com>,
still just me <wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Thing I've never understood is why the American cars we get in the UK - at
> >a far higher price than in the US - have such very poor interiors. Cheap
> >plastics etc. After all UK (Euro) Fords and Vauxhalls are ok.

> I though Vauxhall was a GM brand now (?)

Has been for a very long time.

The point I was making is US cars sold in the UK are priced for the UK
market - ie about double what they cost in the US. So similar to locally
produced vehicles. But the quality is very much worse.

--
*Being healthy is merely the slowest possible rate at which one can die.

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

.... ..owm.. ..ew..

In article <md05r3119e84aoidnffo8onrm6sl7pkkhc@4ax.com>,
Gordon McGrew <gRmEcMgOrVeEw@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >American cars are ****. Made by unionists more worried about when their
> >next coffee break is than making quality cars.

> It's not the union worker's fault. You could hire a team of Formula 1
> mechanics to dis***emble and re***emble a Detroit 3 car and it would
> still be a piece of ****.

Yup. It's nice to have a fall guy though. Saves approaching the real
problems. Since I'm reading this on a BMW group the OP might like to
ponder why BMW recognises unions but manages to be one of the most
profitable car makers world wide.

--
*I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it *

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

....

An interesting book about U.S. vs. Japanese car makers is "The
Reckoning" by David Halberstam. It compares Nissan and Ford but is
relevant to the others as well. One of the main themes is that U.S. car
makers are run mostly by bean counters looking at the short term bottom
line whereas Japanese companies are run by engineers and manufacturing
people who are truly 'car people' and more concerned with a quality
product. It was written in the mid 80's but is still applicable today.
An interesting read...

..o.. ..rs..

M.M. <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>An interesting book about U.S. vs. Japanese car makers is "The
>Reckoning" by David Halberstam. It compares Nissan and Ford but is
>relevant to the others as well. One of the main themes is that U.S. car
>makers are run mostly by bean counters looking at the short term bottom
>line whereas Japanese companies are run by engineers and manufacturing
>people who are truly 'car people' and more concerned with a quality
>product. It was written in the mid 80's but is still applicable today.
>An interesting read...

It is less and less applicable these days, as Japanese car makers are
falling into the same traps that destroyed American car makers and are
increasingly becoming concerned with short term profits rather than the
end product. It is very disturbing. There are an increasing number of
MBAs running Japanese car companies, and that's a bad sign.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

..d..

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 02:04:30 -0000, "R. Mark Clayton"
<nospamclayton@btinternet.com> waffled on about something:

>
>"still just me" <wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:u9f4r31s4a4kun403f4ee83bvb4leuo86a@4ax.com.. .
>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 23:38:26 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
>> <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> When American auto makers start turning out a quality product at
>>>> a competitive price I'll take a look at them.
>>
>> Geez, I some people want everything. Just buy American, fill it with
>> $40b Exxon gas, and stop ur whining! Don't you understand that there
>> are CEO salaries at stake here?
>>
>> On a lighter note, when GM Management gets a friggin clue they might
>> be able to make some money. Don't expect it in the foreseeable future.
>> They've only made it this far due to inertia.
>>
>>>Thing I've never understood is why the American cars we get in the UK - at
>>>a far higher price than in the US - have such very poor interiors. Cheap
>>>plastics etc. After all UK (Euro) Fords and Vauxhalls are ok.
>>
>> I though Vauxhall was a GM brand now (?)
>
>Yes that's the odd thing - Ford and GM actually make some quite good cars in
>Europe these days, and to be fair many EU marques had horrifying reputations
>a generation ago: -
>
>Citroen - over complex, unrepairable.
>Fiat - rust
>BL - everything
>Skoda - "the worst new cars sold in Britain - Car Magazine"
>etc.

Errrrr... Have you ever fiddled with a Citroen C6? Some things haven't
changed!

D0d6y.
--
MUSHROOMS ARE THE OPIATE OF THE MOOSES

..o.. ..rs..

Dave Plowman (News) <dave@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
>
>It's not possible for a country like the US to compete *at all* in the
>world wide economy if you think the workforce wage cost is the only
>important factor. You simply couldn't pay anyone as little as a Chinese
>labourer as they couldn't even afford to buy food at US prices. Or
>accommodation. Etc.

It's hell at the bottom of the market. You don't want to be competing
solely on price, because no matter how cheap and lousy you can make a
product, someone else can make it worse for less.

The only way American companies (and Europeans companies for that matter)
can compete in a global market is on quality. You have to be able to sell
a better product.

For the most part, the American car manufacturers are falling down on the
job when it comes to selling a better product. That's not because of the
workers, but they're the ones that are having to deal with the consequences.

>Thing I've never understood is why the American cars we get in the UK - at
>a far higher price than in the US - have such very poor interiors. Cheap
>plastics etc. After all UK (Euro) Fords and Vauxhalls are ok.

Because that's what Americans are willing to accept, so that's what the
manufacturers give us. But then, I miss British cars with wooden dashboards.... --scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

....

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> It is less and less applicable these days, as Japanese car makers are
> falling into the same traps that destroyed American car makers and are
> increasingly becoming concerned with short term profits rather than the
> end product. It is very disturbing. There are an increasing number of
> MBAs running Japanese car companies, and that's a bad sign.
> --scott

Yeah, I'm afraid you're right, looking at some of the new stuff from
Honda and Toyota. Maybe it's the Korean's turn...or the Chinese...

..retwe.. ..l.c..

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:42:01 -0700, "M.M." <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

>Maybe it's the Korean's turn...or the Chinese...
Korea already has a significant market penetration and when the
Chinese come on board I doubt there will be much of a US or Japanese
car market ... at least not in the lower tier.