WakeWorld (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/index.php)
-   Boats, Accessories & Tow Vehicles (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=3183)
-   -   toyota stops U.S. car/truck sales!!! (http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/showthread.php?t=771104)

motorcitymatt 01-26-2010 6:11 PM

After being hit with the largest recall in US history, toyota has halted new vehicle sales. Has this changed any ones feelings towards the auto maker?

wake_upppp 01-26-2010 6:18 PM

Possibly...<img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/clipart/wink.gif" border=0>

hatepain 01-26-2010 6:24 PM

OMG the halo is broken! Two major recalls inside 3 months is gonna sting. I feel bad for all the dealers with huge inventories if these vehicles on their lot.

lifetimewarranty 01-26-2010 6:25 PM

This ought to be interesting...<img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/messages/3183/771107.jpg" alt="Upload">

rio_sanger 01-26-2010 6:28 PM

<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/runaway-toyotas-problem-persists-recall/story?id=9618735" target="_blank">http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/runaway-toyotas-problem-persists-recall/story?id=9618735</a>

wakeboardin2k4 01-26-2010 6:39 PM

Good, hopefully this will open peoples eyes to the possibility of converting some people who believe that Japanese cars are the only ones that are capable of remaining on the road for a long period of time. <BR> <BR>Buying American supports our fellow American workers. <BR> <BR>PS: Dont want people to take this as me trying to be a d1ck against foreign cars. I dont want that to be the presumption

loudontn 01-26-2010 6:41 PM

Who buys new cars anyway? It's ridiculous. I'll still buy a used Toyota over anything else.

hatepain 01-26-2010 6:44 PM

^^^Damn good Kool Aid, hah?

loudontn 01-26-2010 6:48 PM

Since I've owned my '98 Toyota 4Runner, which I repaired as a wreck, I've put 200,000 miles on it (from the 70k it was at when I bought it). I've also, in that period of time, owned 3 Fords (Mustang, Thunderbird, Explorer), a Jeep, and a Chrysler with a Mercedes engine (Crossfire). My 4Runner has never broke down, ever. Each and every one of the aforementioned cars aside from the 4Runner have...several times. So, if you call that Kool Aid, Yes. Yes sir, and I'll have some more.

taft 01-26-2010 6:56 PM

Those 4Runners are great. I've got a '96 that I've put 530,000 KM on. Never broken down once.

riddick 01-26-2010 7:01 PM

Eric...Come on man!!! This is 2010!! Most of the "foreign cars" are made right here in America... <BR> <BR>And, Some of the "American Cars" are mostly made overseas...

smitty1258 01-26-2010 7:11 PM

I think the only persons eyes who need opened here are Erics....

bill_airjunky 01-26-2010 7:17 PM

I put 2 engines in my 98 4'Runner before I unloaded it. The first one blew with under 90k miles on it. And the 2nd one didn't like towing an 1800 lb boat &amp; tanked in under 40k. You can have'em.

lifetimewarranty 01-26-2010 7:18 PM

I owned a toyota truck. Never broke down, other than the times where each and everything broke down...and I mean every fricking part. <BR> <BR>And toyota parts are seriously pricey! That toyota cost me more to maintain than my Porsche's (and not to mention my Chevrolet's). <BR> <BR>I would never go back to toys since owning GM products since then.

loudontn 01-26-2010 7:23 PM

Well, my little V6 in my 4Runner has pulled my old 17' I/O a hundred times and has pulled my 24v a few times as well <img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/clipart/biggrin.gif" border=0>

michridr69 01-26-2010 7:29 PM

About time, they are trash. People buying toyota trucks? like c'mon just buy a smart car and put a hitch on it, probably tow better

jimmy_z 01-26-2010 7:30 PM

If recalls had anything to do with people buying cars we would all be walking or riding bikes. All manufacturers are subject to them at one time or another. <BR> <BR>Consumers have short memories. When the vehicle gets fixed for free it seems to provide the Alzheimer effect. <BR> <BR>I wont affect Toyota in the long term at all.

brianinpdx 01-26-2010 7:39 PM

Pretty interesting thread <BR> <BR>From a personal point of view Ive never been satisfied with my American car purchases. <BR> <BR>From a country point of view I think it's a sad state of affairs when you have Automotive CEOs taking millions a year in salary and then millions more in stock options. Regarless how the company does. Google a few Japanese auto CEOs and you'll find that's not the case. Kinda feels like buying American doesn't really help the little guy. <BR> <BR>just my 2 cents

trdon 01-26-2010 7:53 PM

my american made tundra has 95K on it and I bought it new. Been pulling boats with it since day one. I have had 1 O2 sensor go and a turnbuckle that adjusts the e-brake sieze up and that is all I have dont to it. I had a dodge truck that sucked more gas than this and it was a V6 with much worse relability. I have had fords treat me well. My 95 stang has been bulletproof as was my wife's ZX2 that had 32K when we bought it and 175 when we sold it. It went in favor of a new 08 corolla. I just stick with what I have had luck with, I really dont care what anybody thinks of me because of it. Just dont expect me to give you a ride to the dealer to pick up your junk when it keeps breaking down.

rallyart 01-26-2010 7:58 PM

Toyota stopped sales on 8 of their models. Not everything. It's North American ones that are stopped.

peter_c 01-26-2010 10:18 PM

Show me a car made today that when you push the gas to the floor and then hit the brakes that the car will not stop? I haven't found an average production model yet that won't stop! <BR> <BR>Now hitting the gas instead of the brakes would make sense. <BR> <BR>Audi's were all easily stoppable by hitting the brakes at even full throttle. I owned a supposed self accelerating 5000 model and tested the theory. <BR> <BR>Edit: BTW Toyota is much better at admitting their faults and resolving them than any domestic manufacturer. <BR> <BR>(Message edited by peter_c on January 26, 2010)

alans 01-27-2010 4:03 AM

Toyota Temporarily Suspends Sales of Selected Vehicles <BR>TORRANCE, Calif., January 26, 2010 - - Toyota Motor Sales (TMS), U.S.A., Inc., today announced that it is instructing Toyota dealers to temporarily suspend sales of eight models involved in the recall for sticking accelerator pedal, announced on January 21, 2010. <BR> <BR>“Helping ensure the safety of our customers and restoring confidence in Toyota are very important to our company,” said Group Vice President and Toyota Division General Manager Bob Carter. “This action is necessary until a remedy is finalized. We’re making every effort to address this situation for our customers as quickly as possible.” <BR> <BR>Toyota announced it would recall approximately 2.3 million vehicles to correct sticking accelerator pedals on specific Toyota Division models. Toyota has investigated isolated reports of sticking accelerator pedal mechanisms in certain vehicles without the presence of floor mats. There is a possibility that certain accelerator pedal mechanisms may, in rare instances, mechanically stick in a partially depressed position or return slowly to the idle position. <BR> <BR>Toyota’s accelerator pedal recall and suspension of sales is confined to the following Toyota Division vehicles: <BR> <BR>2009-2010 RAV4, <BR>2009-2010 Corolla, <BR>2009-2010 Matrix, <BR>2005-2010 Avalon, <BR>Certain 2007-2010 Camry, <BR>2010 Highlander, <BR>2007-2010 Tundra, <BR>2008-2010 Sequoia <BR> <BR>No Lexus Division or Scion vehicles are affected by these actions. Also not affected are Toyota Prius, Tacoma, Sienna, Venza, Solara, Yaris, 4Runner, FJ Cruiser, Land Cruiser and select Camry models, including all Camry hybrids, which will remain for sale. <BR> <BR>Due to the sales suspension, Toyota is expected to stop producing vehicles on the following production lines for the week of February 1 to assess and coordinate activities. The North America vehicle production facilities affected are: <BR> <BR>• Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Canada (Corolla, Matrix, and RAV4) <BR>• Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Indiana (Sequoia and Highlander) <BR>• Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky – Line 1 (Camry and Avalon) <BR>• Subaru of Indiana Automotive, Inc. (Camry) <BR>• Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Texas (Tundra) <BR> <BR>No other North American Toyota vehicle production facilities are affected by the decision to stop production. <BR> <BR>The sticking accelerator pedal recall is separate from the on-going recall of Toyota and Lexus vehicles to reduce the risk of pedal entrapment by incorrect or out of place accessory floor mats. Approximately 1.7 million Toyota Division vehicles are subject to both separate recall actions.

alans 01-27-2010 4:05 AM

4 Runner, not recalled.. <IMG SRC="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/clipart/happy.gif" ALT=":-)" BORDER=0>

loudontn 01-27-2010 4:09 AM

• Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Canada (Corolla, Matrix, and RAV4) <BR>• Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Indiana (Sequoia and Highlander) <BR>• Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky – Line 1 (Camry and Avalon) <BR>• Subaru of Indiana Automotive, Inc. (Camry) <BR>• Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Texas (Tundra) <BR> <BR> <BR>Man! That's what we get for going abroad for our cars! <img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/clipart/rofl.gif" border=0>

01-27-2010 6:30 AM

There are four people in Dallas, TX who died over the holidays b/c of the known accelerator sticking problem. Lawsuits are going to come out of the woodwork. Acclerator stuck going a corner and they drove into a pond and drowned. <BR> <BR>I'd rather drive my tahoe that is made in Wisconsin having 177,000 miles only having to replace a water and fuel pump versus having a Toyota and plunging into an ice cold pond to my death b/c the acclerator stuck and Toyota knew about the problem. <BR> <BR>Just my 2 cents

sidekicknicholas 01-27-2010 6:33 AM

least they did the recall, remember ford triton engines that blew spark plugs?! my friend worked for ford and said they didn't recall because it would have broke them... thats worse IMO. <BR> <BR>It sucks they made a <font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font> product, its cool they are owning up to it

lifetimewarranty 01-27-2010 6:34 AM

"Edit: BTW Toyota is much better at admitting their faults and resolving them than any domestic manufacturer. " <BR> <BR>I don't see it that way. I think that Toyota has been legendary at lying to us dumb consumers. I think they've been good at getting around "recalls" by calling them "service updates" or some sort of thing. <BR> <BR>Remember the 1 ton trucks??? Didn't 1 Ton really mean 2000 lb towing capacity, not 2000 lb payload?<img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/messages/3183/771180.jpg" alt="Upload"> <BR> <BR>( I know they weren't on par with a F350...) <BR> <BR>They also seemed to have Consumer Reports in their pocket, and that helped them avoid being called out for things that the domestics were. <BR> <BR>Also - Wasn't toyota bailed out by the Japanese government? As much as I hated seeing GM bailed out, I would buy a Obama GM before a Yukio Toyota. <BR> <BR> <BR>(edit - Nick, I think they were forced into it. they said "it's just your floor mats" for a long time and didn't deal with it) <BR> <BR>(Message edited by lifetimewarranty on January 27, 2010)

dougr 01-27-2010 6:43 AM

i loved my 04 4runner, 150k just traded it in for a used 07 tahoe (needed more room and more tow cap for the new boat) i towed my 06 bu vride all over the place without a problem. the runner is a great product, i cant believe the that 6 cyl ripped with that boat behind it. i would guess the trailer and boat had to have been 5000lbs or really close to it

sidekicknicholas 01-27-2010 6:45 AM

My gas pedal has stuck because of floor mat, in two different cars <BR>*I usually stack two floormarts for the front seats (used the most)* <BR>you know how I fixed the problem?! I moved them. <BR> <BR>When I was in Florida and my only truck/car was an F-250 and it blew out a spark plug you know how I fixed the problem.... spent $2000 ! <BR> <BR>The majority of Toyota's problem, from what I understand, is people are so stupid they couldn't move/get a new floormat... with a few being an internal bad design... it seems a recall is over-the-top...I would image they could design a test for the actual sticky pedal, take your car in, get it tested... in the mean time take out your floor mat.

patrick232 01-27-2010 7:33 AM

I think this is not the floormat problem. It seems to be something different. Why stop production if all you need to do is redesign a floormat for more room around the gas pedal? Could it be something in the throttle by wire?

denverd1 01-27-2010 7:39 AM

old 4runners had undersized engines to start with. <BR> <BR><blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1><b>quote:</b></font><p>About time, they are trash. People buying toyota trucks? like c'mon just buy a smart car and put a hitch on it, probably tow better<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <BR>huh??? <BR> <BR>At any rate, just roll 100k on my sequoia. It's paid for and I'm still completely happy with it. I think Toyo did the right thing halting sales keeping those unsafe vehicles off the road.

lifetimewarranty 01-27-2010 8:09 AM

Toyota has know about the problem for years (at least since 2007). Stop drinking the kool aid, guys. <BR> <BR><a href="http://www.autoevolution.com/news/biller-has-evidence-of-toyota-cover-up-11590.html" target="_blank">http://www.autoevolution.com/news/biller-has-evidence-of-toyota-cover-up-11590.html</a> <BR> <BR>"Toyota allegedly concealed and destroyed evidence regarding at least 300 accidents. " <BR> <BR>"This is clearly information that Toyota does not want the public to see. Now it has found a safe haven from shredders. These boxes may contain the only surviving evidence of the cover-up and destruction of evidence alleged by Mr. Biller. Toyota's accident victims need to see the information inside these boxes immediately to find out if the Japanese auto giant perverted the course of American justice,"

innov8 01-27-2010 9:04 AM

Damn that's not good for Toyota if true.^^^^^^

kylenautique 01-27-2010 9:49 AM

My dads Toyota Avalon's engine blew up. There was a problem with V6 engines put in those cars. The oil would turn into sludge and ruin the top end of the engine causing major damage to the cylinders. There was a mileage recall on them. My dads did this and it was 500miles over on the recall, and they denied his engine for replacement. It was pretty lame. We had to replace the engine on a car with 55,000 miles. I still believe in Toyota making a good product. They have had some issues though, like the 3.0 V6 is under powered and can blow head gaskets. The 3.4 engine is much better. I think the value toyotas hold as used cars is kind of crazy, but they have built their reputation on being reliable. Personally I'm really happy with my 2001 Dodge Dakota 4x4 with the 4.7 V8. Runs great and tows my boat fine. I have even towed my friends 23ft mobius XLV and a 2008 Wakesetter 23ft boat with it and it does ok.

motorcitymatt 01-27-2010 11:44 AM

In 2008 37,000 tundras were recalled because of a defect in the camshaft. Under heavy acceleration or towing etc. The cams were breaking in half.... <BR> <BR>OUCH!!! <BR> <BR>I know 37k is squat compared to the latest two recalls, but breaking camshafts would really make me wonder how much R&amp;D toyota is putting into their product launches??? <BR> <BR>Is this the END of toyota's percieved quality supremacy???

josharre2000 01-27-2010 11:59 AM

I have had 4 Landcrusiers over the past 20 years. Each of them have gone well beyond 200k miles (no i did not buy them new). I honestly think my combined maint bills (dealer stuff) has not exceeded $1000.00 I do all my oil changes, knuckle rebuilds, scheduled maint, etc. I certainly can not say the same about the Chevys and Fords I have had. I agree Toyota has some serious quality issues with the models they sell here in the US. The only model which is sold in the US that still made in Japan (Araco Plant) is the Landcruiser. Too bad they cant import some of the stuff they sell in other markets... The twin turbo diesel trucks and landcrusers they sell in the middle east, africa and OZ are truely bullet proof.

loudontn 01-27-2010 12:02 PM

"Is this the END of toyota's percieved quality supremacy???" <BR> <BR>No.

malibuboats4 01-27-2010 12:12 PM

Nick, its not the floor mats. Thats what they thought at first. The Avalon that crashed had the floor mats in the trunk.

lifetimewarranty 01-27-2010 12:12 PM

You're probably right, Cody. People are blind and will probably continue to be. <BR> <BR>Josh. Your experience is the opposite of mine. The Chevy's fords and Dodge's I've owned haven't cost much of anything to keep up, but my toyota cost me a fortune to maintain. <BR> <BR>2 of my neighbors have gotten rid of late model Toyotas and went to Hondas because of huge costs of repairs. These are late model, low mile vehicles also - needing tranny's, and other high dollar stuff, and also basically just falling apart. <BR> <BR>Time will tell, but I think people are wise enough to see the problems with this brand.}

loudontn 01-27-2010 12:39 PM

"You're probably right, Cody. People are blind and will probably continue to be." <BR> <BR>A recall for a new-car design flaw, that's unlikely to be foreseeable in initial testing anyway, is not indicative of any short-coming in their long-term quality, which is where their "quality supremacy" comes from. As long as they continue to build cars that above average last 150k+ miles, people will err on the side of statistics and purchase a Toyota if they're looking for longevity in their purchase. Their consistent manufacturing of reliable cars is the reason that Ford and Chevrolet say that their cars are "comparably reliable" or unfoundedly "more reliable" in their commercials, and why Toyota doesn't need to say anything about it.

kinger 01-27-2010 12:42 PM

Does anyone have any ACTUAL stats on the quality supremacy of Toyota?

formfunction 01-27-2010 12:46 PM

If a person is not capable of taking a car out of gear in a emergency situation they have no business driving.

peter_c 01-27-2010 1:18 PM

lifetimewarranty, you obviously have had a bad experience with Toyota, but seem to be okay with Honda? FWIW Honda has had their share of problems especially with transmissions. Work in the industry for a long time and you get to see all of the manufacturers have flaws. <BR> <BR>How about good old Ford, not forgetting the Explorer tire issue: <BR>"On June 10, 1980, NHTSA made an initial determination of defect in Ford vehicles with C-3, C-4, C-6, FMX, and JATCO automatic transmissions. The alleged problem with the transmissions is that a safety defect permits them to slip accidentally from park to reverse. As of the date of determination, <font color="ff0000">NHTSA had received 23,000 complaints about Ford transmissions, including reports of 6,000 accidents, 1,710 injuries, and 98 fatalities--primarily the young and old, unable to save themselves--directly attributable to transmission slippage.</font> As detailed below, this defect finding eventually resulted in a pseudo-recall wherein <font color="ff0000">Ford agreed to mail warning labels to 23 million owners of Fords with these transmissions rather than recall them for mechanical repair.</font>" <BR> <BR>98 fatalities sure sounds a lot higher than the 8 or so claimed against Toyota, and Ford did nothing to resolve the actual issue. <BR> <BR>Don't forget the Ford F150 extended cab crushing in the passenger zone, or the GM "W" cars crushing in a minor accident causing many deaths. <BR> <BR>My Chevy stalled due to a defective CKP sensor that damn near sent me off the road when the power steering went away without warning. Known problem that was NEVER recalled. I considered it very dangerous and when the dealer said they couldn't duplicate the problem, and I should go ahead and take the truck, I told them we both know what causes it to stall. Replace the part, because if my woman is driving and gets in an accident I will sue (It stalled 8 times while she was driving it to the dealership). The service manager then said they will replace it, only after a stern conversation which is why the service manager was involved in the first place. <BR> <BR>GO FORD and GM! Chrysler is right in there too. <BR> <BR>I stand behind what I said, Toyota is better than any of the domestics for resolving issues. <BR> <BR>Volvo on the other hand had ONE failure during TESTING and recalled all their models effected for a seatbelt issue that never caused even an injury.

denverd1 01-27-2010 1:29 PM

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1><b>quote:</b></font><p>Does anyone have any ACTUAL stats on the quality supremacy of Toyota?<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <BR> <BR>Like what? The fact the we've all owned high mileage domestic vehicles that had major problems? Or the fact that a lot of us have had high mileage toyotas with zero problems? What else do you need? <BR> <BR>Toyota doesn't pay anyone to tout their product. We're talking about experiences with various vehicles including Toyota, Ford, Gov't motors, etc. There are no agendas here. Again, what else do you need? <BR> <BR>Every car makers has problems including toyota. But they're handling it the best they can . Until then, no more problematic vehicles will be sold. What else are they expected to do?

loudontn 01-27-2010 1:32 PM

and for the record, incase anyone thinks I'm not looking at this objectively, my primary tow vehicle is a 2004 Ford F-150 FX4 V8 and I have no complaints...oh wait, nevermind, it overheats constantly.

wakemikey 01-27-2010 1:46 PM

American Car CEOs make average 1.5m/yr while Japanese make about .4m/yr according to Time article in a quick google search. Nearly all cars in the US are made in the US from US parts. I think American executive pay is obscene.

wakeandmx 01-27-2010 7:08 PM

I had 235,000 on my 95 Chevrolet, original motor, trans and rear end. Im happy with my 09. Will never buy anything else. Although there's good ones and bad ones in all of them.

humboldt9 01-27-2010 7:43 PM

I've got an '05 4Runner with the I-Force V8 and it's a tank. Tows my V210 like there's nothing behind it.

kingskrew 01-27-2010 7:50 PM

<img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/messages/3183/771450.jpg" alt="Upload">

882001 01-27-2010 8:24 PM

that graph is right on volkswagon is garbage. the ford graph lumps all the 6.0 in with all the others, if they had skipped that motor they would be in better rankings

denverd1 01-28-2010 7:25 AM

Folks you can add Ford to the list. It's limited 1600 vehicles, but they stopped production until they diagnosed a similar problem. heard on CNBC this morning....

denverd1 01-28-2010 7:30 AM

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1><b>quote:</b></font><p>American Car CEOs make average 1.5m/yr while Japanese make about .4m/yr according to Time article in a quick google search. Nearly all cars in the US are made in the US from US parts. I think American executive pay is obscene.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <BR>Before the demise of US car makers, GM's assembly line workers were making nearly $100/hr with benefits included. Sorry, but exec pay was not the problem. Unions and big labor brought down domestics autos. <BR> <BR>Did you know that United Auto Workers, the union org for domestic auto workers, was Obama's biggest campaign contributor leading up to the election? And you wonder why GM and F couldn't come to an agreement on labor negotiations...

kinger 01-28-2010 7:34 AM

I agree w/Nacho, in addition the Japanese CEO's are in most cases supplied housing (which is very expensive in Japan).

lifetimewarranty 01-28-2010 10:18 AM

"Folks you can add Ford to the list. It's limited 1600 vehicles, but they stopped production until they diagnosed a similar problem. heard on CNBC this morning...." <BR> <BR>I couldn't find anything to back that up. But, I did find this... <BR> <BR>"Ford sees more consumer interest after Toyota recall" <BR> <BR><a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN284934720100128?type=marketsNews" target="_blank">http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN284934720100128?type=marketsNews</a> <BR> <BR>and this one... <BR>"Ford Kicks in Gear with First Profitable Year Since '05" <BR> <BR><a href="http://www.cnbc.com/id/35124201" target="_blank">http://www.cnbc.com/id/35124201</a> <BR> <BR>Ford is now kicking a$$ and taking names it would seem.

vrider202 01-28-2010 10:55 AM

Toyota has been give a free pass by the media for years. Whenever Ford or GM has a recall it's the lead story on the news and front page in the papers. Not so, Toyota. Most people have never heard of the problems they have with their engines sludging. They have some nice cars but have put out some junk, too.

denverd1 01-28-2010 11:16 AM

Ok, well here it is: <BR><a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704194504575030891636493402.html?m od=WSJ_hpp_sections_business" target="_blank">http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704194504575030891636493402.html?m od=WSJ_hpp_sections_business</a> <BR> <BR>And yes, Ford is kicking ass and taking names. Def the best of whats left of the Big 3.

lifetimewarranty 01-28-2010 12:15 PM

Come on, Nacho. You are reaching there... <BR> <BR>"Ford Motor Co. has stopped production of a full-size commercial vehicle in China after discovering that the gas pedal used came from the supplier involved in the recall at Toyota Motor Co." <BR> <BR> <BR>Commercial vehicle...china...oh - same company that Toyota used, so they are going to "question" it. Good for Ford. That is stepping up to the plate, friends.

alans 01-28-2010 12:20 PM

$100/ hr. Forget being a doctor or Lawyer. Give me a rivet gun... <IMG SRC="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/clipart/happy.gif" ALT=":-)" BORDER=0>

denverd1 01-28-2010 12:44 PM

^ no shat. <BR> <BR>LTW, i heard on the CNBC this morning getting ready for work. After reading the article, it is a bit of a stretch as it's the China division of Ford IIRC. Point is not to slam Ford, but more that as a global economy the parts and production of these vehicles is not as geographically centralized as ppl think. Beating the "Buy American" drum isn't winning any arguments.

wakemikey 01-28-2010 1:12 PM

Nacho Nacho Nacho This is a gross misstatement, but it does make me laugh that you really think the company leadership would ever pay their workers $100/hr. That would be quite generous of them! <BR> <BR><a href="http://mediamatters.org/columns/200811250012" target="_blank">http://mediamatters.org/columns/200811250012</a> <BR>It's been one week since New York Times financial columnist Andrew Ross Sorkin wrote that at General Motors, "the average worker was paid about $70 an hour, including health care and pension costs." <BR> <BR>What that $70 figure (or $73) actually represents is what it costs GM in total labor expenses, on an hourly basis, to manufacture autos. <BR> <BR>Do you see that there's a big distinction? General Motors doles out $70 an hour in overall labor costs to manufacture cars. But individual employees don't get paid $70 an hour to make cars. (The discrepancy between costs and wages is explained by additional benefits, pension fees, and health-care costs GM pays out to current and retired employees.) <BR> <BR>By the way, here's the right way to cover the issue: In a November 18 column, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch's David Nicklaus wrote that the Big Three "need to bring their labor costs, which average $72 an hour, closer to the Honda or Toyota level of about $45." Note how Nicklaus never implied that labors costs equaled take-home wages. Why? Because they don't. (And kudos to Washington Post business columnist Steven Pearlstein, who refuses to use the $70-an-hour figure because it's so misleading.) <BR> <BR>(Message edited by wakemikey on January 28, 2010)

kinger 01-28-2010 1:25 PM

This article doesn't really show anything but a democratic media member responding to the claims of a republican run media groups. Yes the $70 is not correct, but neither is this guy trying to imply that they make $23. Thats crap, as far as I am concerned why would you not factor in retirement benefits when they were negotiated by the UAW. Like any other accounting the numbers can be manipulated to make anyones case.

taft 01-28-2010 1:26 PM

Comon LTW, you're painting a badly skewed picture here. You're leaving out everything Toyota has done well, posting information that most likely isn't true, and ran with the information that Ford didn't lose money -for a change- this past year. <BR> <BR>Yes, Toyota screwed up. Yes Ford is improving and made made money in the previous year. <BR> <BR>Toyota has a 71 year history of providing good products, which has consistently been shown through customer satisfaction and repeat purchases. <BR> <BR>Ford turned a profit by and large through debt and cost restructuring. It remains to be seen how the company continues to advances its operations in the future. <BR> <BR>Which company is more attractive due to its history and future outlook? Toyota still holds that lead. While it is taking a hit currently -and of course there is heightened interest in its competitors due to the recent news- there are no long-term red flags signaling the company will lose its dominance in the market.

bcail 01-28-2010 1:33 PM

I've got a 99 F350 that Ford is just now recalling for a cruise control issue. Listed as a possible fire hazard.

denverd1 01-28-2010 1:37 PM

Are you serious??? I'm talking what it costs GM to pay those ppl WITH BENEFITS INCLUDED. <BR> <BR><blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1><b>quote:</b></font><p>GM's assembly line workers were making nearly $100/hr with benefits included.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <BR> <BR>Ok, I said nearly $100. $72 + employer FICA withholding and other taxes is bumping $100 buddy. <BR> <BR>Keep in mind, we're talking about BENEFITS INCLUDED. And my research comes from 2003, when GM's problems arose. What those ppl take home from their paycheck isn't my business. I was analyzing the company for investment in their securities. Cost to the COMPANY is where I'm concerned. Again, with BENEFITS INCLUDED. If the money they spend isn't benefiting the employees, then there's another problem: the cadillac health and pension plans that choked the company. <BR> <BR>As you point out: <BR>(The discrepancy between costs and wages is explained by additional benefits, pension fees, and health-care costs GM pays out to current and retired employees.) <BR> <BR>Bottom line is GM paid too much, not that blue collar workers were actually earning it.

kinger 01-28-2010 1:40 PM

I would be interested to see info on this 71 year proven history, I don't doubt it but is that factual information or assumptions?

denverd1 01-28-2010 1:42 PM

Next, you're going to say that retired workers shouldn't be included in the computation. What you don't realize is that's how a pension works. And it's a dying breed of retirement plan for obvious reasons. (Current employees fund retired workers. Like social security, medicare, etc. And we all know how successful those are.) <BR> <BR>So, yes its very much a part of GM labor costs and should be included as it is a growing strain on the company.

wakemikey 01-28-2010 1:44 PM

<a href="http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/assembly-line" target="_blank">http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/assembly-line</a> <BR> <BR>If you've been following the auto industry's crisis, then you've probably read or heard a lot about overpaid American autoworkers--in particular, the fact that the average hourly employee of the Big Three makes $70 per hour. <BR> <BR>That's an awful lot of money. Seventy dollars an hour in wages works out to almost $150,000 a year in gross income, if you assume a forty-hour work week. Is it any wonder the Big Three are in trouble? And with auto workers making so much, why should taxpayers--many of whom make far less--finance a plan to bail them out? <BR> <BR>Well, here's one reason: The figure is wildly misleading. <BR> <BR>Let's start with the fact that it's not $70 per hour in wages. According to Kristin Dziczek of the Center for Automative Research--who was my primary source for the figures you are about to read--average wages for workers at Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors were just $28 per hour as of 2007. That works out to a little less than $60,000 a year in gross income--hardly outrageous, particularly when you consider the physical demands of automobile assembly work and the skills most workers must acquire over the course of their careers.

denverd1 01-28-2010 1:44 PM

One more thing, its quite generous of UAW, not Gov't Motors. GM has been fighting the UAW for since about 2002 over these very costs.

wakemikey 01-28-2010 1:45 PM

Sure the cost of pensions should be included when discussing the overall costs to build a car. But you are using that figure to show that the workers are overpaid and to blame for the auto industrys failure. This is far from the truth. Typical misrepresentation. <BR> <BR>(Message edited by wakemikey on January 28, 2010)

denverd1 01-28-2010 1:48 PM

Do you have a comment or are you going to keep quoting the crap you google? <BR> <BR>again to quote your article: <BR>"But then what's the source of that $70 hourly figure? It didn't come out of thin air. Analysts came up with it by including the cost of all employer-provided benefits--namely, health insurance and pensions--and then dividing by the number of workers."

alans 01-28-2010 1:49 PM

I am an Employee Benefits Consultant, I spend a lot of time analyzing wages/benefits/taxes. Hourly employees are usually blown away when I show them what it costs their company to employ them. <BR> <BR>Assuming GM's cost is $70 per hour of labor. <BR> <BR>You factor in sick days, vacation, bonuses, health insurance, life insurance, disability, state, federal, fica, medicare, social security, training, unemployment, etc... <BR> <BR>Assuming they actually get paid for 2000 hrs a year. And assuming that their salary equates to about 60% of what they cost to employ (pretty normal for a company with rich benefits, like GM.) <BR> <BR>Their average income is about $42/hour or $84,000 per year, before TAXES.

denverd1 01-28-2010 1:49 PM

I'm blaming UAW. <BR> <BR>what's your point??? <BR> <BR>(Message edited by denverd1 on January 28, 2010)

denverd1 01-28-2010 1:55 PM

Here's another way to look at it: the company paid for those benefits and wages. Do you not expect those costs to end up in the price of a new vehicle? <BR> <BR>Here's another stat for ya, albeit a dated one: On average, a new GM vehicle price tag has about $4000 in wages and benefits by the time it hits the lot. <BR> <BR>Google away...

wakemikey 01-28-2010 2:52 PM

"Do you have a comment or are you going to keep quoting the crap you google? " <BR> <BR>Sorry I assumed you would read more than the first paragraph, so I didn't post all the relevant points here. Guess I gave to. <BR> <BR>But then what's the source of that $70 hourly figure? It didn't come out of thin air. Analysts came up with it by including the cost of all employer-provided benefits--namely, health insurance and pensions--and then dividing by the number of workers. The result, they found, was that benefits for Big Three cost about $42 per hour, per employee. Add that to the wages--again, $28 per hour--and you get the $70 figure. Voila. <BR> <BR>Except ... notice something weird about this calculation? It's not as if each active worker is getting health benefits and pensions worth $42 per hour. That would come to nearly twice his or her wages. (Talk about gold-plated coverage!) Instead, each active worker is getting benefits equal only to a fraction of that--probably around $10 per hour, according to estimates from the International Motor Vehicle Program. The number only gets to $70 an hour if you include the cost of benefits for retirees--in other words, the cost of benefits for other people. One of the few people to grasp this was Portfolio.com's Felix Salmon. As he noted yesterday, the claim that workers are getting $70 an hour in compensation is just "not true." <BR> <BR>Of course, the cost of benefits for those retirees--you may have heard people refer to them as "legacy costs"--do represent an extra cost burden that only the Big Three shoulder. And, yes, it makes it difficult for the Big Three to compete with foreign-owned automakers that don't have to pay the same costs. But don't forget why those costs are so high. While the transplants don't offer the same kind of benefits that the Big Three do, the main reason for their present cost advantage is that they just don't have many retirees. <BR> <BR>The first foreign-owned plants didn't start up here until the 1980s; many of the existing ones came well after that. As of a year ago, Toyota's entire U.S. operation had less than 1,000 retirees. Compare that to a company like General Motors, which has been around for more than a century and which supports literally hundreds of thousands of former workers and spouses. As you might expect, many of these have the sorts of advanced medical problems you expect from people to develop in old age. And, it should go without saying, those conditions cost a ton of money to treat. <BR> <BR>Notice how, in this article, I've constantly referred to 2007 figures? There's a good reason. In 2007, the Big Three signed a breakthrough contract with the United Auto Workers (UAW) designed, once and for all, to eliminate the compensation gap between domestic and foreign automakers in the U.S. <BR> <BR>(edit out content for length) <BR> <BR>But the next time you hear somebody say the unions have to make serious salary and benefit concessions, keep in mind that they already have--enough to keep the companies competitive, if only they can survive this crisis. <BR> <BR>--- <BR> <BR>The only point I was trying to make is that it is incorrect to blame the workers because the cost of wages and benefits are out of control. That is simply not a fact. Their actual PAY is normal. Yes benefits across the board need to be lowered, but that is not what you said.

joshugan 01-28-2010 4:48 PM

I plan to own used Toyotas all my life. <BR> <BR>Toyota has a problem with an accelerator and they're fixing it. End of story. <BR> <BR>Now if this began happening all the time maybe I'd reconsider BUT it's not.

mikes 01-28-2010 4:56 PM

<b>"Ford Motor Co. has stopped production of a full-size commercial vehicle in China after discovering that the gas pedal used came from the supplier involved in the recall at Toyota Motor Co." </b> <BR> <BR> This is a good point that some are missing here. Just about every recall on autos,motorcycles,etc. is not due to poor production by a manufacturer. It is almost <u>always</u> a vendor problem. Toyota contracts out alot of parts, those same parts/poorly manufactured products could wind up on any manufacturers vehicle. Unfortunately, the vendor never takes the heat, the manufacturer does. Most often than not, it's the vendor agreeing to produce xx amount of parts for xx amount of dollars, then cutting corners w/ materials etc. during actual manufacturing(after the automaker has tested the prototypes) to make more money on the other end. Not speculating that's what happened here, but it is a very common cause for recalls. <BR> <BR> Toyota may be having issues with this one, but anyone familiar with the recall they did on the Tacoma pick-ups in the Northeast can not make the argument that they did not act in the best interest of their customers during that campaign. <BR> <BR> edit; I do not own a Toyota. No kool-aid here. <BR> <BR>(Message edited by MikeS on January 28, 2010)

denverd1 01-29-2010 7:50 AM

Mikester, lol. The stuff I quoted, again straight from the articles you linked, were at the bottom of the article, but whatever. I can see your not content unless you have the last word. I still don't understand what your point is, or why you keep reiterating the same crap and linking the same content to support whatever argument it is you're making... You're a liberal and you hate Toyota. We get it. <BR> <BR>My sources are the quarterly and annual reports from 2003 and 2004. 10Q &amp; 10Ks. This is what the company publishes to shareholders and investors. They can be found at <a href="http://www.sec.gov" target="_blank">http://www.sec.gov</a> <BR> <BR>What you're not understanding is that its not the company's responsibility to support its retirees. Thats why there's a gap and that why ongoing labor costs are so high. Thats why pensions aka "defined benefit plans" are the dying breed of retirement plans, as posted yesterday. I never blamed the EE's at GM for anything, simply stating that the COMBINED COSTS OF WAGES BENEFITS AND PENSION COSTS were thru the roof and have been for years. I BLAME THE UAW for handcuffing the company. And I blame GM's mgmt for not controlling costs. Still don't understand your point.... <img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/clipart/crazy.gif" border=0> <BR> <BR>I think you're saying GM EE's are good ppl.

denverd1 01-29-2010 8:12 AM

In other news, Toyota has found the cause of the sticky pedals. Looks like they have hearings (U.S. House Oversight and Government Reform Committee: have fun with that) to get things going again. <BR> <BR><a href="http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Toyota-finds-fix-for-gas-apf-1508338387.html?x=0&amp;sec=topStories&amp;pos=3&a mp;asset=&amp;ccode=" target="_blank">http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Toyota-finds-fix-for-gas-apf-1508338387.html?x=0&amp;sec=topStories&amp;pos=3&a mp;asset=&amp;ccode=</a>

Walt 01-29-2010 4:08 PM

Honda has some issues right now too. <a href="http://www.carcomplaints.com/Honda/Accord/2008/brakes/premature_brake_wear.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.carcomplaints.com/Honda/Accord/2008/brakes/premature_brake_wear.shtml</a> <BR> <BR>The rear brakes on my wife's 08 Accord were smoked at 20k. The people at Honda have not been helpful at all and are trying to tell me that it's normal wear and tear. <img src="http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/clipart/angry.gif" border=0> My friends 08 Honda had the same deal. <BR> <BR>I've owned a lot of Fords and have never had any major problems other than a fuel pump and it was warranted. We have owned three imports and have had more problems with them by far. (Lexus SC400, 05 Nissan Pathfinder and now the 08 Honda.)

talltigeguy 02-01-2010 12:02 PM

I think this is a great discussion, but the only problem that has not been brought up is that the UAW benefits include an incredibly generous early retirement. Can't you retire after 25-30 years if you work for the UAW? So that means that if you get on after high school, you might be able to retire before age 50. That is some serious legacy cost there. <BR> <BR>Last time I read, there are 2 workers for every retiree at GM. That explains part of how the workers are not making $70 per hour, but the company is paying out at least that much per active worker.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 2:40 PM.