Detroit Auto Show

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: boomerang

They're out there, but they're called motorcycles. The 70's are long gone brother.

Heh, even motorcycles have been going up. Even Vespas, which have recently become a lot more available, have nearly doubled in price due to exchange rates the past year or so.

Consider what happened in India with regards to the Tata Nano... Basic, no frills, and a design philosophy to cut nearly everything non-essential. Target price $2500. If we had that kind of thinking over here, we should be able to construct something to sell for twice that. If the body could meet safety standards (maybe not 5-star anything, but adequate enough to be legal), then an upgraded powertrain, wheel bearings, and brakes would make it viable. You just have to think a little outside the box to get it done. It isn't like we don't have the technology to do it. If we can sell a full-size body-on-frame car like the Grand Marquis for nearly the same price as the current 4-bangers (base model, but still) and still make a profit, anything is possible...

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
If you want glitz and glamour, you can go to the Maybach or Lamborghini display. If I was Ford, I'd be embarassed to bring out a Taurus with leather and a nav and put a price tag of $35k. Or a Fusion with leather/Nav and sell it for $30k.

As someone brought up in this thread, someone needs to build a basic family Sedan for under $15k that someone making $13 hour can afford. Most of the car prices at the auto show were ridiculous.

You missed the point, tripped on your ignorance...and landed on your fail face.
The Taurus and Fusion were displayed at the Detroit Auto Show this way because it's their DEBUT. Keyword there. The debut for the Accord and Camry when they were unveiled were the same way. Current lineups typically have the whole spectrum on display on the carpet with the doors open.
The imports play it the same way.

 

[thecoolnessrune]

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
I went to the auto show this morning and again the Detroit auto makers are falling prey to stupidity. You go through the Honda section and you see a 23k Accord and a 17k Civic. You go through Ford and you see a 30k Ford Fusion, 35k Ford Taurus, etc...

How can they compete when they are bringing overpriced cars to the show? Show us the 22k Fusion, the $25k Taurus.

Gm wasn't fairing much better with the budget car being a 17k Aveo.

But when you get to the dealerships, with haggling you can get that 35k Taurus for 28-30k. With haggling you can get that 23k Accord for 26k... maybe.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
If you want glitz and glamour, you can go to the Maybach or Lamborghini display. If I was Ford, I'd be embarassed to bring out a Taurus with leather and a nav and put a price tag of $35k. Or a Fusion with leather/Nav and sell it for $30k.

As someone brought up in this thread, someone needs to build a basic family Sedan for under $15k that someone making $13 hour can afford. Most of the car prices at the auto show were ridiculous.

Someone making $13 an hour shouldn't be buying a brand new car.

As others have said, Ford and GM all have cars in the same price ranges as Toyota and Honda. As someone also pointed out, Ford at least, had multiple Fusions on display.

 

[AdamK47]

Here is Conan O'Brien's take on the auto show.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: masteryoda34
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that US automakers pay their union employees ~$70/hour versus ~$45/hour for non-union foreign automakers. ($$'s include total benefits.)

This has been debunked many times.

Not really. Yes, the $70/hour figure includes retirement benefits cost, but that doesn't make it inaccurate. Non-union employees will have 401(k) type plans that incur no employer cost once the employee has retired while union employees have pensions which effectively mean that the employer pays the employee for the duration of that employees life. So while the cost for a given non-union employee ends when that employee retires, the cost for a union employee continues after retirement until that employee (and his or her spouse, if they have one) dies. It is absolutely fair and accurate to amortize that continuing cost as an expense for the company during the time the employee is working.

ZV

 

[SparkyJJO]

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
If you want glitz and glamour, you can go to the Maybach or Lamborghini display. If I was Ford, I'd be embarassed to bring out a Taurus with leather and a nav and put a price tag of $35k. Or a Fusion with leather/Nav and sell it for $30k.

As someone brought up in this thread, someone needs to build a basic family Sedan for under $15k that someone making $13 hour can afford. Most of the car prices at the auto show were ridiculous.

It's an auto SHOW. At SHOWS you don't show off your cheapo cars. What is the point of the show then? Who really wants to go to a show to see econoboxes? Most don't, they go to see new cars or well-appointed cars or hotrods or such. Not to look and go ooooh aaahhhh at some $8K econobox. Pointless waste of time and money to do that.

 

[Squisher]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: masteryoda34
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that US automakers pay their union employees ~$70/hour versus ~$45/hour for non-union foreign automakers. ($$'s include total benefits.)

This has been debunked many times.

Not really. Yes, the $70/hour figure includes retirement benefits cost, but that doesn't make it inaccurate. Non-union employees will have 401(k) type plans that incur no employer cost once the employee has retired while union employees have pensions which effectively mean that the employer pays the employee for the duration of that employees life. So while the cost for a given non-union employee ends when that employee retires, the cost for a union employee continues after retirement until that employee (and his or her spouse, if they have one) dies. It is absolutely fair and accurate to amortize that continuing cost as an expense for the company during the time the employee is working.

ZV

Actually, it is retiree healthcare that gives the bulk of the difference (not their pay) and with passage of 2007 contracts that was made moot for the next 85 years with a one time payment into a fund administered by the union (VEBA).

Text

 

[earthman]

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that US automakers pay their union employees ~$70/hour versus ~$45/hour for non-union foreign automakers. ($$'s include total benefits.)

This is both inaccurate and irrelevant. The workers in foreign transplant factories here wouldn't get $15 bucks an hour if it wasn't for the UAW, and the possibility of organizing in those factories. You can't compare costs here to costs in foreign factories where the company isn't responsible for either health care or pension costs. When this country has a national health system and a national pension system, we'll be on a level playing field and you can quote numbers all you want.

It's funny (or depressing, depending on your viewpoint) how the answer most people have is to join the race to the bottom.

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

Originally posted by: AdamK47
Here is Conan O'Brien's take on the auto show.

That was hilarious. I feel bad for the guy that worked on the LaCrosse design. Conan ripped into him pretty good.