GroundedSailor
Platinum Member
- Feb 18, 2001
- 2,502
- 0
- 76
Also maybe people are beginning to realize the Total Cost of Ownership for Toyota cars is higher than the TCO for similar domestics.
boomerang
Lifer
- Jun 19, 2000
- 18,883
- 641
- 126
Just because of Obama, i am gonna get an American car next time. Probably a hybrid SUV of some sort (Ford Escape perhaps). I know i'm getting get the shits from the people around me (I live in BC) but from reading the forums and other things, there definitely some decent US-made cars out there. Thanks guys!
Engineer
Elite Member
- Oct 9, 1999
- 39,230
- 701
- 126
While that's true, at this point, Ford and GM need cash flow to survive while trying to implement their "right sizing" and restructuring plans. Without the cash flow (regardless if they are making profits) from sales, liquidations of other units or borrowing (from the private sector or government loans, there is absolutely ZERO chance of survival. Ford has the best chance of survival right now. (Really wish I could have pulled the trigger when Ford stock sank to $1.01 earlier this year. I looked at it (live) and told a co-worker that this would be a great buy. It rose to as high as $5.99 during the last week!
)
Stunt
Diamond Member
- Jul 17, 2002
- 9,717
- 2
- 0
Agreed...unfortunately you are attempting to correlate vehicle sales with cash flow; this is not the case. We have no idea from those numbers how much it cost to produce those vehicles or how much they sold for. Cash flow is defined as revenue minus costs. I agree the big 3 need to maximize cash flow...Originally posted by: Engineer
While that's true, at this point, Ford and GM need cash flow to survive while trying to implement their "right sizing" and restructuring plans. Without the cash flow (regardless if they are making profits) from sales, liquidations of other units or borrowing (from the private sector or government loans, there is absolutely ZERO chance of survival. Ford has the best chance of survival right now. (Really wish I could have pulled the trigger when Ford stock sank to $1.01 earlier this year. I looked at it (live) and told a co-worker that this would be a great buy. It rose to as high as $5.99 during the last week!
I would never buy auto or airline stock. Low barriers to entry, too much competition, capital intensive, products constantly change.
Engineer
Elite Member
- Oct 9, 1999
- 39,230
- 701
- 126
But at a buck a share, it wasn't about long term holdings. I, as well as several coworkers who actually bought Ford at under $2.00 per share, were looking for an oversold condition. Now that it went up to 6X what it bottomed out at, seems like it could have been a great trade stock.
Oh, as for the cash flow statement above, it was meant that they are lowering their prices and offering so many incentives just to clear inventory and generate cash...any cash is good at this time. I also feel that their "payment guarantees" played a part in this, as it did with Hyundai a few months ago.
Originally posted by: Stunt
Agreed...unfortunately you are attempting to correlate vehicle sales with cash flow; this is not the case. We have no idea from those numbers how much it cost to produce those vehicles or how much they sold for. Cash flow is defined as revenue minus costs. I agree the big 3 need to maximize cash flow...Originally posted by: Engineer
While that's true, at this point, Ford and GM need cash flow to survive while trying to implement their "right sizing" and restructuring plans. Without the cash flow (regardless if they are making profits) from sales, liquidations of other units or borrowing (from the private sector or government loans, there is absolutely ZERO chance of survival. Ford has the best chance of survival right now. (Really wish I could have pulled the trigger when Ford stock sank to $1.01 earlier this year. I looked at it (live) and told a co-worker that this would be a great buy. It rose to as high as $5.99 during the last week!
I would never buy auto or airline stock. Low barriers to entry, too much competition, capital intensive, products constantly change.
actually autos have very high barriers to entry; having a name brand is incredibly important. Thats why have countries like korea heavily subsidize your auto companies for decades is necessary to get people to buy you car just do you can have a name. On top of it the capital costs are enormous, and need large volumes to see decent economies of scale.
Schadenfroh
Elite Member
- Mar 8, 2003
- 38,416
- 4
- 0
I would be disappointed to hear this had Toyota not mothballed their plant in my state. But, I understand that it is not a good idea to expand production during a supply glut.
Nissan for the win!
Nissan for the win!
Stunt
Diamond Member
- Jul 17, 2002
- 9,717
- 2
- 0
By barriers to entry i mean it's pretty simple for any manufacturer develop a similar product or make a popular product. I mean look how fast market share has eroded over the last few years with massive incentives...hyundai, toyota, honda, nissan have all dominated the US car market as of late. Brand is less important these daysOriginally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: Stunt
Agreed...unfortunately you are attempting to correlate vehicle sales with cash flow; this is not the case. We have no idea from those numbers how much it cost to produce those vehicles or how much they sold for. Cash flow is defined as revenue minus costs. I agree the big 3 need to maximize cash flow...Originally posted by: Engineer
While that's true, at this point, Ford and GM need cash flow to survive while trying to implement their "right sizing" and restructuring plans. Without the cash flow (regardless if they are making profits) from sales, liquidations of other units or borrowing (from the private sector or government loans, there is absolutely ZERO chance of survival. Ford has the best chance of survival right now. (Really wish I could have pulled the trigger when Ford stock sank to $1.01 earlier this year. I looked at it (live) and told a co-worker that this would be a great buy. It rose to as high as $5.99 during the last week!
I would never buy auto or airline stock. Low barriers to entry, too much competition, capital intensive, products constantly change.
actually autos have very high barriers to entry; having a name brand is incredibly important. Thats why have countries like korea heavily subsidize your auto companies for decades is necessary to get people to buy you car just do you can have a name. On top of it the capital costs are enormous, and need large volumes to see decent economies of scale.
Stunt
Diamond Member
- Jul 17, 2002
- 9,717
- 2
- 0
When the economy slows...the first thing hit is consumer discretionary, I'm surprised the big 3 were struggling when sales were at an all time high. They should have been rolling in cash during expansion, and live off cash reserves in the hard times.
They built a new plant close to where i live too for the Rav4. Toyota makes the Rav4, corolla, matrix, and rx350 in canada.
Originally posted by: Stunt
By barriers to entry i mean it's pretty simple for any manufacturer develop a similar product or make a popular product. I mean look how fast market share has eroded over the last few years with massive incentives...hyundai, toyota, honda, nissan have all dominated the US car market as of late. Brand is less important these daysOriginally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: Stunt
Agreed...unfortunately you are attempting to correlate vehicle sales with cash flow; this is not the case. We have no idea from those numbers how much it cost to produce those vehicles or how much they sold for. Cash flow is defined as revenue minus costs. I agree the big 3 need to maximize cash flow...Originally posted by: Engineer
While that's true, at this point, Ford and GM need cash flow to survive while trying to implement their "right sizing" and restructuring plans. Without the cash flow (regardless if they are making profits) from sales, liquidations of other units or borrowing (from the private sector or government loans, there is absolutely ZERO chance of survival. Ford has the best chance of survival right now. (Really wish I could have pulled the trigger when Ford stock sank to $1.01 earlier this year. I looked at it (live) and told a co-worker that this would be a great buy. It rose to as high as $5.99 during the last week!
I would never buy auto or airline stock. Low barriers to entry, too much competition, capital intensive, products constantly change.
actually autos have very high barriers to entry; having a name brand is incredibly important. Thats why have countries like korea heavily subsidize your auto companies for decades is necessary to get people to buy you car just do you can have a name. On top of it the capital costs are enormous, and need large volumes to see decent economies of scale.
and most of those companies entered the market in the 60's it took a generation for this to happen
Stunt
Diamond Member
- Jul 17, 2002
- 9,717
- 2
- 0
Hyundai didn't do their brand any favors in the early days. All the gains have been made very recently. Don't get me wrong I'm not down playing the effect of a strong brand but all it takes is a good product from any one of 10 companies for a product line to be completely slaughtered.Originally posted by: miketheidiot
and most of those companies entered the market in the 60's it took a generation for this to happenOriginally posted by: Stunt
By barriers to entry i mean it's pretty simple for any manufacturer develop a similar product or make a popular product. I mean look how fast market share has eroded over the last few years with massive incentives...hyundai, toyota, honda, nissan have all dominated the US car market as of late. Brand is less important these daysOriginally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: Stunt
Agreed...unfortunately you are attempting to correlate vehicle sales with cash flow; this is not the case. We have no idea from those numbers how much it cost to produce those vehicles or how much they sold for. Cash flow is defined as revenue minus costs. I agree the big 3 need to maximize cash flow...Originally posted by: Engineer
While that's true, at this point, Ford and GM need cash flow to survive while trying to implement their "right sizing" and restructuring plans. Without the cash flow (regardless if they are making profits) from sales, liquidations of other units or borrowing (from the private sector or government loans, there is absolutely ZERO chance of survival. Ford has the best chance of survival right now. (Really wish I could have pulled the trigger when Ford stock sank to $1.01 earlier this year. I looked at it (live) and told a co-worker that this would be a great buy. It rose to as high as $5.99 during the last week!
I would never buy auto or airline stock. Low barriers to entry, too much competition, capital intensive, products constantly change.
actually autos have very high barriers to entry; having a name brand is incredibly important. Thats why have countries like korea heavily subsidize your auto companies for decades is necessary to get people to buy you car just do you can have a name. On top of it the capital costs are enormous, and need large volumes to see decent economies of scale.
What a fucking crock of shit. The quality of American vehicles (except Chrysler) is on par if not better than the imports.
Keep spewing you lies. Remind me again what vehicle of the year had it's title revoked. Oh, it was a Toyota.
Being a GM owner AND a Toyota owner, I will not buy a Toyota again. I shouldn't have to take my 2 week old Sienna back to the dealership 3 times to fix O2 sensors, imporperly formed exhaust manifolds and the tire pressure sensor system. It would have been 4 times, but the seat belt height adjuster broke right before we took it in to fix the tire pressure sensor system so we got a 2 for 1 on that one. My GM truck bought a month before the Toyota has been in once, and that was because I needed new brakes after 70K miles. Oh, the Yota needed new brakes after 35K miles.
Toyota quality is a myth. 95-00 Tacomas are being bought back because of frame FAILURES because the frames were not properly rust protected because toyota wanted to save a few bucks. Frames are literally being destroyed by rust. Now the problem is showing up on early model Tundra's.
You can keep thinking American vehicles are crap but we all know your farts stink just as bad as the rest of us, even if you do like your own aroma.
My Honda Civic has more US components and a larger portion of it was assembled here in the US than every GM car available on the Market
2002 honda civic EX had a 95% domestic parts and assembly right on the window sticker. Made here in Ohio at the East Liberty plant.
never doubted that you were going to say the civic or accord... but that wasnt the bullshit part, the bullshit part was the "than every GM car available on the market" hence, bullshit.
It was true for the 2002 Year models..... now when the Lordstown GM plant ( Also here in OHIO) went full bore with the cobalt in 04, this changed. Gm relies heavily on Canadian assembly and parts and and mexican Parts
which is why, i believe all window stickers have it "parts made in US/Canada" and then the other countries.
Originally posted by: TruePaige
Same. It's because Saturn is being discontinued and it is shaking consumer confidence.
Yep. Saturn always was the stepchild of GM. Now it's worse.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter