patrick.net

S8? Like that one in Ronin? :-)

I heard that performance cars cost a lot more in maintenance (e.g. different tires for front and rear). Is that true?

If I get a 2005 Audi, will it still be reliable 5 years in the future (2014-2015)? Our 6-year-old Toyota seems to be a lot more trouble-free than the Volvo we had when it was 6 years old.

Perhaps we should have a "I hate front wheel drive" thread. :-)

I am mostly a speed-limit driver and yet I cannot stand the handling of FWD cars. Besides, I have never seen a FWD car with more than 300 lb/ft of torque. Perhaps it is a physical limitation or something like that.

Yeah...Ronin, great movie! For reliability, I don't think you can beat a Honda or Toyota--maybe someday GM will compare, but not now. I have an 2002 Audi A4 Quattro. I like the car, but I'm not sure I'd buy another--too much maintenance for me. Tires for performance cars cost more to replace because they have higher speed ratings--and usually wear out quicker. My stock tires are like $250 each.

I cannot stand the handling of FWD cars....Perhaps it is a physical limitation or something like that.

Yeah, all that torque to the same wheels while you're trying to steer imbalances the handling. Before my Audi, I had the last model of the Honda Prelude w/200HP. It was a great car, but the power up front felt uneasy if I really pushed it hard--the A4 is much better w/Quattro, while being a heavier car. Audis also have a great stability management system. It's literally impossible to slide the car because the power and braking is managed by an onboard computer, keeping the car on track. For example, I go out to a gravel lot near Shoreline Amphitheater to practice controlled slides. I have to switch the system off to get the car to slide at all--on gravel! I consider it the best feature next to the AWD.

@Permenant_Marker

how much of these ‘american’ cars are made in Canada & Mexico?
I once saw a report that listed the ‘american %’ in each car, shockingly lot of american cars are assembled some where else. On the contrary, lot of Japanese companies have plants here. For example Subaru has a plant in INdiana.
I want to support American industry. But I get turned off with all this ‘flag waiving’. You want to compete in a auto market, you have to invent more than a giant tank/SUV that has 16 cupholders. For a while only thing American companies improved was number of cup-holders, vehicles got bigger and bigger. While toyota did the first practical hybrid car.

My point is not how many cars are made overseas but how many AMERICAN WORKERS these companies employ currently. GM = 34,000 Americans Toyota = 7,000 Americans. GM could offshore 5,000 people and still employ more Americans. Flag waiving shows pride, but yes I agree we need to produce better vehicles...the pictures I have shown above are a good example of the adjustments being made by American auto-makers. Somewhere around 2003 the automakers started realizing they were headed down the wrong path.

Thanks Kurt!

GM = 34,000 Americans Toyota = 7,000 Americans.

Avtovaz employs over 100000 people, but is continuing to make Lada good for Russia?

...is continuing to make Lada good for Russia?

If there's an argument against state-owned industry, it would be the Lada, Skoda, Volga, and now-defunct Trabant automobiles of E.Europe. One could say those cars worked OK, but the simplest of Toyota platforms would easily overshadow them. Maybe there's some hope for the new VW, Hyundai and Toyota plants in Russia?

Hyundai is a dang good car. They followed the K.I.S.S. rule.

4X says

@Permenant_Marker

how much of these ‘american’ cars are made in Canada & Mexico?

I once saw a report that listed the ‘american %’ in each car, shockingly lot of american cars are assembled some where else. On the contrary, lot of Japanese companies have plants here. For example Subaru has a plant in INdiana.

I want to support American industry. But I get turned off with all this ‘flag waiving’. You want to compete in a auto market, you have to invent more than a giant tank/SUV that has 16 cupholders. For a while only thing American companies improved was number of cup-holders, vehicles got bigger and bigger. While toyota did the first practical hybrid car.

My point is not how many cars are made overseas but how many AMERICAN WORKERS these companies employ currently. GM = 34,000 Americans Toyota = 7,000 Americans. GM could offshore 5,000 people and still employ more Americans. Flag waiving shows pride, but yes I agree we need to produce better vehicles…the pictures I have shown above are a good example of the adjustments being made by American auto-makers. Somewhere around 2003 the automakers started realizing they were headed down the wrong path.

If all you care about is how many americans are employed, why not advocate for more wars? After all, the peak employment period in the US was during world war 2.

@Kevin

...it was also the peak point at which GDP to DEBT was at its highest. It takes a lot of money to fund a war.

@BAP

Hyundai is a dang good car. They followed the K.I.S.S. rule.

Are you not a conservative?...you support Hyundai?....here is how I see it, if I planned to raise a family in Japan then I would buy Japanese vehicles and support those 70,000 japanese workers.

@PeterP

GM = 34,000 Americans Toyota = 7,000 Americans.

Avtovaz employs over 100000 people, but is continuing to make Lada good for Russia?

Well, if Russia opened up their markets to foreign companies that opened plants that employed 7,000 Russians I would tell you NO. It is unamerican to continue buying products not produced or developed by local companies. Why?...because it is one and the same as offshoring jobs. If you want economic recovery, then how about bringing manufacturing, service and engineering jobs back to America. We can reduce unemployment by 10% just by bringing jobs back....you know, I am starting to feel like a lot of folks on these threads dont have many American values any longer.

4X says

@BAP

Hyundai is a dang good car. They followed the K.I.S.S. rule.

Are you not a conservative?…you support Hyundai?….here is how I see it, if I planned to raise a family in Japan then I would buy Japanese vehicles and support those 70,000 japanese workers.

Or you could ride Japanese trains which support millions of Japanese workers.

4X says

If you want economic recovery, then how about bringing manufacturing, service and engineering jobs back to America. We can reduce unemployment by 10% just by bringing jobs back…

Woah, so we'd only have a 9% unemployment rate instead of a 10% unemployment rate? Awesome.

Oh, wait -- except for all of those technology, pharmaceutical, consulting, entertainment, heavy machinery, airplane, and (get ready for it) automobile companies that do more business outside of the US than they do domestically and would be hurt more than anyone if unemployment rose in the markets that they serve.

You think the Googles and Apples of the world would still need to employ 30,000+ people if the Chinas and Indias of the world weren't growing so rapidly?

"It was all poop to make America build Ford Fiesta"

Don't diss the fiesta. Fiesta's were never made in America. The ones imported to America were made (very well made) in Germany. I owned 3 during the 80's as daily drivers with a 67 mustang stuffed full of nascar 427 for my weekend toy (10.32 in the quarter, SSBA regional record holder, and major source of street racing income. really good toy) . Fiesta's were one of the most fun little cars ever made. Closest you could come to driving a go cart legally on the street. Tough and very reliable cars that thrived on abuse. Unstoppable in snow. I racked up 450,000 miles between the three even though two suffered premature deaths by getting wrecked while on loan to friends. Really wish I had kept the last one.

4X,
I have never bought anything but GM .... ever. Not even once. And now Barry gets to play boss-for-a-day with my GM products. Dang it.

I just was being honest in my opinion ... my MotherInLaw has a Houndai and since I am on the service and repair crew and for the car I can attest to its quaility as a get-in-and-go grocery getter. It has a more Spartan design and lacks a bunch of extra electronics ... I view it as the Model A version of Asain cars. I think Toyota and Honda have superior engine perfomance tech, but they try to get all fancey with braking and traction and crap like that. lol

I like many things that are not AMerican based ... being a free market conservative means I want the best to be the best by beating out the competition ... if the Asain car folks build a re-pop of a 1957 Chevy that matched my desires as printed above that could be had for $20K, I'd be driving me one. OTOH, if all GM can do is copy the Asain's and give me FWD crap drawn by the same guy that drew Transformers and Auto-bots ... the same guys that think "drifitng" takes talent or performance (drifting is a friggin joke) ... if that is all GM has to offer, then Houndai will beat their butts.

eaither way, I'll be driving a RWD GM until the day of my funeral, where I will ride in the back of a Herse .. that may be on an Asain chassis by that time, and powered by cow farts and banana peels.

@bob,
true, they were fun and scary. The worst torque-steer car I ever ever ever drove. And a wheel bolt pattern as rare as the Volvo 3 lug.

@Kevin

Woah, so we’d only have a 9% unemployment rate instead of a 10% unemployment rate? Awesome.

Not, The year and a half prior to 9/11 saw the loss of 1.6 million American jobs. The six months following 9/11 saw the loss of an additional 2.5 million American jobs. One estimate is that one-third of all US jobs are offshorable, and many of these are the kind of jobs that underpin the American middle-class, upon which the entire economy depends.

Oh, wait — except for all of those technology, pharmaceutical, consulting, entertainment, heavy machinery, airplane, and (get ready for it) automobile companies that do more business outside of the US than they do domestically and would be hurt more than anyone if unemployment rose in the markets that they serve. You think the Googles and Apples of the world would still need to employ 30,000+ people if the Chinas and Indias of the world weren’t growing so rapidly?

Read this article then tell me that offshoring 1/3 of all American jobs is good for the middle class. I agree we need other markets but we are the number 1 market in the world for products, goods or services.

http://www.progressiveliving.org/editorial_offshoring_American_jobs.htm

Read this article then tell me that offshoring 1/3 of all American jobs is good for the middle class.

I really doubt the existence of a middle class is sustainable anyway. Being too rich to collect welfare and too poor to hire representation, it will be crushed under the weight of taxation and shredded to bits by the fury of economic cycles.

The poor has nothing to lose. The rich can profit from booms and busts. The middle class only has vulnerable assets like homes, backed by debt like mortgages.

If you truly want to protect the middle class, you should at least support a flat tax. (Even flat tax is discriminatory against production. I prefer a poll tax.)

I will look that up.

Peter P says

If you truly want to protect the middle class, you should at least support a flat tax. (Even flat tax is discriminatory against production. I prefer a poll tax.)

How does a regressive tax help the middle class?? It will help the rich and super rich, not the average citizen...

@Tatupu

An argument raised by opponents of the flat tax is that corporations or wealthy persons might move to countries with lower taxes, especially in a single country context. The argument states that this would lead to a race to the bottom in which countries compete to offer ever-lower taxes for the rich, so that the rich become even richer, while the poor and middle classes, unable to financially handle relocation to another country, are left to shoulder the entire cost of all government services. A consequence would be an ever-worsening under-funding and neglect of the public sector.

Opponents of the flat tax argue that the end result of this race to the bottom is social disintegration (see also failed state), a situation from which even the richest cannot benefit. It is argued that in order to prevent this it is the responsibility of local and national governments everywhere to ensure that the rich pay a fair share of the tax burden. Concepts such as flat rate taxes are therefore said to be irresponsible at a global level, even if they may seem to grant a temporary advantage at a national level. In other words, making economic conditions too desirable in one country may have the effect of forcing other countries to compete by making their conditions equally desirable. It could however be argued that even in the absence of a flat tax, this situation in which the very wealthy relocate to lower tax jurisdictions already exists.

How does a regressive tax help the middle class??

Because a progressive tax is regressive against the middle class. Most wealthier people can find ways to dramatically reduce their marginal tax rates through. Only those who make "decent" salaries with no businesses are really subjected to the progressiveness of progressive taxation. I wonder what that group is!

Do you really think the super rich pays the top tax rate?

When I am super rich I am going to support tax-funded welfare because I can keep my serfs alive and working with lower wage.

Now, I am not saying the rich is not paying enough tax. It should be rewarding to be in a position of wealth. As a society, it is important to incentivize production.

Peter P says

How does a regressive tax help the middle class??
Because a progressive tax is regressive against the middle class. Most wealthier people can find ways to dramatically reduce their marginal tax rates through. Only those who make “decent” salaries with no businesses are really subjected to the progressiveness of progressive taxation. I wonder what that group is!
Do you really think the super rich pays the top tax rate?
When I am super rich I am going to support tax-funded welfare because I can keep my serfs alive and working with lower wage.
Now, I am not saying the rich is not paying enough tax. It should be rewarding to be in a position of wealth. As a society, it is important to incentivize production.

Your argument isn't against a progressive tax then, it's against all the tax breaks and loopholes in the current tax code. That is completely independent of the tax system. I don't disagree with that argument--but then we wouldn't need that huge Internal Revenue Service and 10,000 forms...

Your argument isn’t against a progressive tax then, it’s against all the tax breaks and loopholes in the current tax code.

In some sense, yes. However, it was also an argument against oppositions to flat/regressive taxation.

Concepts such as flat rate taxes are therefore said to be irresponsible at a global level, even if they may seem to grant a temporary advantage at a national level.

Screw the world. It is all about competition.

Also, when tax rates around the world were near zero, humanity moved along just fine.

A consequence would be an ever-worsening under-funding and neglect of the public sector.

With a superior private sector, the public sector can be ignored.

Evolution got us here, but if we reject all forms of Social Darwinism, our downfall as a species is nigh. Compassion might be a virtue, or it might be a flaw. Until we let evolution run its course there is no way to know.

THis post is about keeping American care companies alive...

Sorry...

How about letting car companies dissolve and re-emerge as new entities. This should eliminate their pension/union liabilities. They can re-hire workers at market rate.

In short, we cannot keep them around as welfare companies that make cars. They have to become car companies.

They will thrive in no time.

Peter P ... I agree. Again.

Agreed, the unions and pensions have crippled our ability to compete.

Undoubtedly, America has the best engineers and the best environment for innovation. There is no reason why our car companies cannot prosper without the baggage of union and pension.

I like the Buick Lacrosse very much but the price approaches $38K with 3.5L engine, xenon headlights, and navigation. Hmm... I am not even sure what the depreciation curve is going to look like.

Perhaps I just do not like buying new cars. There are fully loaded 2008 Infiniti G35's for less than $28K on the market. And it is RWD. :-)

I am not a brand conscious person but I think GM will have a better chance competing with a new brand. Perhaps something like "Zeus" to go against Lexus. Somehow brand names with X or Z are very sexy. Besides, who can beat the god of gods?

Bap33 says

@bob,
true, they were fun and scary. The worst torque-steer car I ever ever ever drove. And a wheel bolt pattern as rare as the Volvo 3 lug.

You never drove a dodge colt glh then. I don't worry about torque steer, that's what the steering wheel is there for. Between kicking the front end loose with torque steer and hard braking into trailing throttle oversteer you can really have a blast. The body was really stiff so it didn't squirm around on you. Donuts in reverse are lots of fun also. Didn't consider it scary at all. Scary was pushing my 86 5.0 coupe with goodyear gatorbacks really hard in a bumpy corner. I believe more 5.0's went off the road backwards than any other car ever made. Really scary was any type of corner at all going more than 5mph on my old kawasaki 750 two stroke bike. I'm not convinced the front and rear wheels were actually connected together. But what a rocket in a straight line. Fiesta's had a standard sized 4 bolt pattern, you must be thinking of another car.

Peter P says

Also, when tax rates around the world were near zero, humanity moved along just fine.

When do you believe this magical time existed? Taxes have existed as long as we've had governments.

Of course, there were long periods of such extreme disparity between wealth and poverty that most people didn't pay taxes (like the middle ages). If you want to go back to that time, you're welcome to it. You won't be one of the rich people in that system, though.

I thought even after the Civil War federal tax rate was only at 3-5%. That was near zero, right?

Only after the reign of an evil president, Woodrow Wilson, tax got out of hand. Seriously, I don't think he was much better than FDR.

@Peter

Watch it Peter...you almost mentioned my hero...Teddy Roosevelt. LOL

Teddy is fine. :-)

Did you see "him" in Night at the Museum?

LOL

Night at the Museum was a darn good flick for me and the kiddies. The first one was much better in my opinion, but the second one had location shots that my 13yr old daughter enjoyed since she went to DC for a week on a National Leader's thingy a few years ago. Bedtime Stories with Sandler is good too.

Smithsonian museums are some of the best in the world.

I have yet to watch the second one. Perhaps I should put it on the Netflix queue.