90 Replies to “The All-New 2009 Detroit Lineup”

  1. Magnificently funny, and so true.
    Was travelling last week and rented from Avis, got a Ford, and without even knowing it was a Ford I could tell it was an American car by: the god awful ergonomics (for example the hazard light switch still after all these years in that stupid location behind the steering wheel!), the lousy quality (the auto transmission always was a few seconds behind where it needed to be), and the general ugliness of the car.
    American cars lack refined engineering and they look and handle like dinosaurs. There is nothing elegant about them at all.
    Later in the week I was in a colleague’s Honda Accord, and what an unbelievable contrast. Like night and day.

  2. Truth in advertising!!!
    Have not bought anything built by them since 1980 and that was a 69 Dodge Dart with the slant six.
    Their obvious inability to operate within the very industry they created is just one more reason to ignore them every four years.

  3. Toyota just lat week officially opened their billion dollar production plant , right here in Woodstock, Ontario, current plans are to produce 75,000 units per year in a slow economy.
    Incidentally, they do not have a union in the plant, it’s my understanding that do not hire shit disturbing former union members from other plants.

  4. Closed shop labor law prevents pure competition for services offered.
    Many would gladly work for automakers for far, far less than UAW, CAW workers.
    Union parasites are going to kill off their host, but not after sucking as much cash out of the government (i.e. the rest of us) as possible.
    Support democracy on the workfloor, and put an end to closed-shop labor law.

  5. If the Harper was a legitimate, small-c fiscal conservative he would rely only on the market place and the bankruptcy process to restructure the auto sector rather than producing a deficit by wasting tax dollars.
    A genuine fiscal conservative would acknowledge that the government must not reward bad decisions, made by incompetent executives who require a change in mentality, by providing auto companies with a bridge loan to nowhere. These same uncompetitive companies would be back with their hands out in six months for even higher subsidies, and will be forced into bankruptcy within a year anyway; thus the government would only be subsidizing failure.
    An authentic fiscal conservative would apprehend that a change in the mentality of the executives in the union suites is mandatory if these companies ever expect to become competitive. Tough love is essential to make the union executives appreciate that auto workers’ wages must be restructured to make them comparative to non-union auto workers. These union executives must recognize that these companies must be in a position where they can compete with non-union auto producers, and that the most appropriate formula to achieve this is through bankruptcy.
    If our Prime Minister was a indisputable small-c fiscal conservative he would, under no circumstance, tolerate the country to return to a deficit position. A small-c conservative would cut the $230 billion budget by eradicating ineffectual programs, government assets and worthless crown corporations. He would then use the funds gained to lower the payroll tax which would put dollars into the hands of people who would immediately spend it.

  6. Closed shop labor law prevents pure competition for services offered.
    Many would gladly work for automakers for far, far less than UAW, CAW workers.
    Union parasites are going to kill off their host, but only after sucking as much cash out of the government (i.e. the rest of us) as possible.
    Support democracy on the workfloor, and put an end to closed-shop labor law.

  8. sorry joe , the toyota plant opening and the 1200 new jobs did not make the list of stories provided by CBCpravda.
    likely a CPC member there at the ribbon cutting. so pravda would boycott it.
    the US is looking at a 15 billion bailout. the big three have asked for 6.8 billion in Canada and the coalition of fools was preping for up to 30 billion. but why be cautious with OPM> other peoples money.

  9. Edmund: he couldn’t get the parasitical pariahs to agree to give up $1.95, do ya really think he could get support for what you proposed? After all conservative light is better than no conservative at all.

  10. Don’t forget all the factors beyond each companies control which they as North American manufacturers must comply with, and offshore manufacturers don’t.
    It’s not just that Ford makes crappy cars; the gov’t has seen to it that they’ll be expensive crappy cars.

  11. So, the Big Three parent companies were able to bargain for $25B in the good ‘ole USA.
    Here in Canada the Bloc Coalition was going to give them $30B.

  12. The old rule of thumb – Canada is just like the USA except you have to divide everything by 10.
    If the US bailout is $15 Billion why is ours 6.8 ? Should be $1.5Billion.

  13. Let’s see now.
    Ford – 100% foreign owned. check
    GM – 100% foreign owned. check
    Chrysler – 100% foreign owned. check
    Bailout billions money – 100% Canadian taxpayer money. cheque
    Oh man, just where is that Foreign Investment Review Agency when you really need it?

  15. Being conservative and not buying into the progressive clap trap of gender or racial equality, I feel the best should be rewarded not based on their gender or color of their skin and that’s why I buy Jap cars cause in my opinion they seem to have their shit together and build the best quality vehicles. Bailing out the big North American three you would think is against the progressive principle of white privilege.

  16. It’s a fixed poker game and the guy playing for the taxpayers at the table is going to get whipsawed until he’s cleaned out. Same deal in England a few years back. First the money to prevent bankruptcy, then bankruptcy, then governments on the hook for early out pensions, family medical care, and making up for failed pension plans of those already retired.
    You can already hear the puffed up green whackos telling everyone how to build electric cars but not how to make money doing it.

  17. Bailing out the big North American three you would think is against the progressive principle of white privilege.
    ~Shawn
    You are forgetting about all the non-white UAW workers who want the privilege of a bailout and then to go on strike this summer for a raise and more benefits.

  18. Well I guess the bailout to nowhere will soon be a reality as well. The obvious immorality of forcing taxpayers to fund risky business ventures is making my blood boil. MORAL HAZARD … enough said.

  19. Still boring to hear once again the diatribes against Detroit by those who wouldn’t know a good car if it ran over them.

  20. So what you are saying, is that the brakes suck as badly as the rest of the engineering and quality control iowavette?

  21. People buy their cars….the companies are too bloated to make a profit from them. Imagine what they could do if they focussed on cars rather than mangng the union, managing health care, managing the bankruptcy lawyers.
    Wholesale reorg, whether they do it through Ch 11 or call it something else and do the same thing.
    Ditch the lodestones of extorted promises….UAW has ,ade concessions, whther they are enough is another matter. CAW, dont think the concessions of two tier wage structure has been done…but I could be wrong.

  22. This ad must be similar to the CHRC and the basic cable package that gets shoved down my throat:
    You wouldn’t watch our shitty shows.
    So we’ll be taking your money anyway.
    I won’t copy the rest, I’m sure ya’ll get the point.

  23. Has GM dropped the 17million they spend on Viagra Pills as part of the UAW contract?
    Savings to GM,
    NO More Viagra for the UAW

  24. For the economically-challenged, sometimes an analogy can be very effective in driving home the silliness of propping up uneconomic enterprises. Here’s one industry FDR never got around to “saving” for which all pianists must be eternally grateful.

    The End of the US Piano Industry

  25. The weakest point of Ignatieff is economic knowledge and I am afraid many Canadians will buy into psychotic mania of bailouts. I wonder if Harper could resist and simply ask where the money should come from? Would supporters of the coalition lend them or perhaps the Unions empty their pockets?

  27. Shawn if you are looking for consistency from the left you’ll be looking for some time. Only a few months ago cars were evil if you asked a leftard. Today we need to make sure that the car companies survive to make more cars. It seems the left have thrown the environment under the bus.(pun intended)

  28. Bailout billions money – 100% Canadian taxpayer money. cheque: rocky
    Still chowin’ down at the farm subsidy trough, rocky?

  29. I think that this should be posted on every bill board across Canada. Maybe they ‘big 3’ would wake up then.

  30. If I had the money, I would buy a Flex today. For some reason, it is the most beautiful car I have ever seen.

  31. I’ll probably be trading in my 07 Civic on a new Escape Hybrid this summer.
    People who complain about the quality of North American cars are simply trumpeting what they heard or believed 15 years ago.

  32. When you say that the Big Three build vehicles nobody wants to buy, you must
    have overlooked that GM outsold Toyota by about 1.2 million vehicles in the
    U.S. and Ford outsold Honda by 850,000 and Nissan by 1.2 million in the U.S.
    GM was the world’s No. 1 automaker beating Toyota by 3,000 units.
    Read the whole letter…
    Source: http://www.pistonheads.com/Gassing/topic.asp?h=0&t=618302&nmt=A%20strong%20Letter%20from%20a%20Ford%20Dealer%20Principle%20in%20America

  35. I am totally against any bailout but if the politics of the day means it has to go ahead then how about this proposal.
    Instead of the giving the car companies one dime the Canadian government will give each Canadian taxpayer a $5,000 tax credit to purchase the Canadian built car of their choice. The government will offer this credit until $1.5 billion or whatever the total bailout amount is reached.
    In this way 300,000 consumers get a benefit and will buy the cars that they deem worthy instead of having Ottawa, the unions and the car companies decide where the money should go.

  36. “Instead of the giving the car companies one dime the Canadian government will give each Canadian taxpayer a $5,000 tax credit to purchase the Canadian built car of their choice.”
    I just bought a new Toyota RAV 4 last year.
    I don’t need another car.
    I’m against bailouts, but IF they were necessary, the Unions have to be dismantled first.
    No way do those Union b@stids get my taxes and then strike for a raise and more benefits this summer.

  37. Fritz – the Feds & Provincial governments did something like that with cattle at the beginning of the BSE fiasco. That $5000 would be clawed back by someone somehow. With the cattle, the sub was paid to the farmers at time of sale. The price of the cattle dropped by exactly the price of the subsidy the day after is was announced. Coincidence? I think not.
    Check this link out, I agree completely with some of the points.
    http://www.pistonheads.com/Gassing/topic.asp?h=0&t=618302&nmt=A%20strong%20Letter%20from%20a%20Ford%20Dealer%20Principle%20in%20America

  38. Fritz – the Feds & Provincial governments did something like that with cattle at the beginning of the BSE fiasco. That $5000 would be clawed back by someone somehow. With the cattle, the sub was paid to the farmers at time of sale. The price of the cattle dropped by exactly the price of the subsidy the day after is was announced. Coincidence? I think not.
    Check this link out, I agree completely with some of the points.

  39. Kevin @ 1:49 P.M.:
    Funny, that thought has crossed my mind, too. Not that I really consider the Flex to be beautiful, but it has a “crisp” appearance to its design that kind of harks back to cars of the ’60s. They’ve made a bit of break with that turdmobile look, and the wide fat window frames. It’s one of the few new cars I’d consider owning.
    The problem with the North American auto industry is not product quality, and it’s really not style, either. It’s entirely in their cost of operation; bloated unions, bloated benefits for retirees, and bloated management.
    If anything, the problem with the auto industry is that their products are, and have been for some time, too good. I’m currently driving a ’96 Diesel Suburban with 224,000 miles on it. Still runs like a pup, nary a rust hole in it, and the paint is still shiny. I don’t owe a penny on it. What motivation do I have to change? I can’t even get a Diesel in new Suburban, as far as I know. I could easily afford to buy a new one, but why should I increase my cost per mile?
    Used to be, out here in the oilpatch, the field hands were all about trading their trucks every year or so, just to have something new. Now, I’m beginning to see many more come around to my way of thinking, mile out the old beast, and buy new only when appearance/maintenance issues seem to justify the expense.
    I said “seem to” because it’s long been demonstrated that on a strict cost-per-mile standpoint, it’s nearly always cheaper to fix up what you have rather than trade up to something newer. If you have to incur debt to trade up, that just makes matters worse. But even if you pay cash, there is the opportunity cost of the money you sink into the new wheels.
    The solution for the auto makers is to go into Chapter 11 bankruptcy, shed a slew of useless middle-management types, and fire the upper management types whose sole interest is in short-term stock value. The long-term viability of the enterprise should be management’s focus. Then cancel the union contracts, and rehire employees individually, as needed. Of course, the Dems will never go for any of that.

  40. Portion of a “letter to the editor” being circulated to dealers right now…
    “When you say that the Big Three build vehicles nobody wants to buy, you must have overlooked that GM outsold Toyota by about 1.2 million vehicles in the U.S. and Ford outsold Honda by 850,000 and Nissan by 1.2 million in the U.S. GM was the world’s No. 1 automaker beating Toyota by 3,000 units.
    When you claim inferior quality comes from the Big Three, did you realize that Chevy makes the Malibu and Ford makes the Fusion that were both rated over the Camry and Accord by J.D. Power independent survey on initial quality? Did you bother to read the Consumer Report that rated Ford on par with good Japanese automakers.
    Did you realize Big Three’s gas guzzlers include the 33 mpg Malibu that
    beats the Accord. And for ’09 Ford introduces the Hybrid Fusion whose 39 mpg
    is the best midsize, beating the Camry Hybrid. Ford’s Focus beats the Corolla and Chevy’s Cobalt beats the Civic.
    When you ask how many times are we going to bail them out you must be referring to 1980. The only Big Three bailout was Chrysler, who paid back $1 billion, plus interest. GM and Ford have never received government aid.”
    I tried linking directly to it, but I’m getting caught in the spam trap.

  41. I don’t agree with the bailout. I think they are using this economic turbulence to their advantage. (hey money is going to the banks let’s get our share)
    But I do have some questions..
    What would the total cost of ei Payouts to the newly unemployed be over the next X number of years if the big three go under?
    How does this compare to the amount being offered in the bailout?
    What are the chances of this bailout working?
    If the bailout works, is the cost negated by the amount that would have been paid in ei and social assistance payouts over the next X number of years to the people who would have lost their job?
    If the big three go under, how long will it be before new employment positions become available?
    If new jobs become available would the skills needed match the skills of the people who lost their jobs from the big 3
    How much would it cost to retrain these people for a new job?

  42. I hate Toyota, Toyota makes the most boring vehicles to look at and don’t have an original bone in their corporate make-up. All design is based on European cars. The hype around Toyota as a corporationis up there with Sony and Apple.

  43. >”What would the total cost of ei Payouts to the newly unemployed be over the next X number of years if the big three go under?”
    Let’um strike for higher EI bebefits and see how far that gets ’em, Commie Union b@stids.
    >”How much would it cost to retrain these people for a new job?”
    How much of my taxes did it cost to train them to tighten lugnuts?

  44. EI is already funded, the bailout is not. Apples and oranges; unless, you are a Liberal. If you are a Liberal I guess it’s all your money anyway so screw Peter and pay Paul.

  45. It’s the “over the next X number of years” that gets me. As if Ontario is Newfoundland and EI payments last longer than a year.
    Hey Christopher N, we’re slowing down but the “Now Hiring” signs are still all over the place here in Alberta.

  46. Only in a small dead mind does a loan guarantee become a bailout. I suppose when you buy a house, you go to the bank for a bailout as well.

  48. Iberia:
    Would you go to a car dealership to buy a loaf of bread?
    In a functioning free market, it’s the banks that lend money and governments who set the rules.
    A government is NOT a bank. A government is an elected body representing the people whose primary duty it should be to treat taxpayers’ money responsibly.
    As Oz alludes to, the US government not only looked the other way, but it threatened to take to court lending institutions who did not lend money to people who did not have jobs or could not prove they had an ability to repay.
    Now, no government can force banks to lend money to anybody (they’ll just bring up the lawsuits during the Clinton administration) and even Obama can’t make people borrow money.

  49. Iberia…the bank does not buy my (bad)debt and obligations, I buy the money(credit)from the bank.

  50. “EI is already funded, the bailout is not. Apples and oranges; unless, you are a Liberal”
    sorry where is the money from the already funded ei Coming from? Isn’t it the taxpayer? and if the unemployed are not paying taxes.. that means that you the working person are picking up the tab. The government seems to run a one money pot system.
    “It’s the “over the next X number of years” that gets me. As if Ontario is Newfoundland and EI payments last longer than a year”
    I assumed that you would pick up on the idea that after ei Runs out they would get social assistance… in both cases tax payer money. and yes X number of years. as in how long before these people are working and paying taxes again.
    “Hey Christopher N, we’re slowing down but the “Now Hiring” signs are still all over the place here in Alberta.”
    That’s great I am glad things are going well out there. I don’t see how that changes things here.. unless you are suggesting that all the CAW union workers from the Greater Toronto Area that lose their job move to Alberta.. at which point I would be very thankful to you for taking the them off our hands.
    I am not saying that I am for the bailout
    but
    How much will a bail out cost vs the over all cost (dollars not psychological) of these people losing their job (I am also including the ripple affect here of the other businesses that depend on the big three)
    No where have I seen a cost to risk analysis of the bail out.
    of course this is all dependent on if the bail out works and they are able to turn things around.
    but
    My point being, if the bail out will be cheaper then paying ei and social assistance, retraining (they already know how to turn a lug nut, they need to learn another skill) over the next 1,2,3,4, (ie.X) years.. why would we pick the more expensive option?.. I thought that we are all about saving tax payers money.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation