Honda, and other "foreign" car companies have manufacturing plants in the US, correct? And Ford, GM, etc. have?plants overseas, correct?So is the issue that the "American" companies are just putting out an inferior product? Why bail out an inferior company, if my assumptions are true?

BTW: I drive a Civic, and have no problems with it. Wife drives a caravan, problems galore!!What say you.
Thanks, and HAPPY THANKSGIVING to ALL!!

 

ah, you might want to do a bit of research before you make any assumptions, lol. think about how many people work for those companies. If they go, then so do their jobs, then unemployment nationally dramatically increases, then the parts suppliers for the car manufacturers are then put out of business, which leads to more unemployment, and the economy cannot "restimulate" itself with so many consumers without pay. I'm not saying a bailout is within reason, but you can't just let them die, they're an essential part of the U.S. economy. I think they need a little government regulation as to how their future plans are arranged and where money is sunk into (not saying i support one party or another), but something needs to be done.

 

I say you need to look at the bigger picture. If the big 3 go down over 22 million jobs in the U.S. will be lost(that's over 16% of the working population) Stop bad mouthing American companies because you have had a few problems with one of them.


Also I had a 84 Cadillac go for 300k miles, my dad has a all original 1958 Ford that runs fine, my mom has a 97 Malibu with 200k miles on it and it's fine. Yet I had a pretty much stock 98 civic blow at 107,000 miles.

 

Do not be scared into thinking that Ford, GM, and Chrysler are going to go under. They will survive, but their assembly operations in the US likely won't -- whether we provide a bailout or not.

And keep in mind that a hugh percentage of the cars sold in the USA are made in the USA today not just by Ford, GM, and Chrysler but by Toyota, Honda, and many of the rest. They are built by American workers and they are being profitable. Why, you must ask? Because they are non-union operations and do not have the UAW hanging around their necks like large ship anchors.

 

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/11/23/o...s-70-hour-try/

UAW members do not take home $70/hour. That is the automaker's cost per active employee. What's the difference? The latter figure is total spent by automakers on wages and benefits divided by the number of active employees. The cost of benefits includes the pensions and health care costs for the hundreds of thousands of living retirees in addition to active workers. Those punching the clock every day, don't get a dime of that. As of last year, UAW workers made an average of $28/hour in wages + $10/hour in benefits. The rest went to retirees, a cost that is borne by the automakers. The reality is that unionized and non-unionized autoworkers actually make very similar wages and benefits.

You might be wondering why the UAW has had such a hard time organizing the US factories of Honda, Toyota, Nissan and others. A major part of it is because the workers there don't see a need to join. They already make as much as their unionized counterparts. The fact is that in industries like this, companies will often tend to match the compensation offered to union workers just to keep the union out. When I was growing up in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, there were two big steel companies in town, Stelco and Dofasco.

Also to the first poster.. they're called IMPORTS.. not "Foreign"...

 

the problem is also that honda, toyota, and nissan have all changed with the times providing the same cars they have which is what people want that are fuel efficient, safe and reliable. The american made companies have not changed at all they still release the same stuff they always have that gets not much better gas mileage and not dependable at all. They have brought it upon themselves and have seen it coming for a long time and have done nothing. Time will tell but i forsee at least one of the big three to go under completely. Also as for the unionized employees they are under contract so even if they do go under they are still required to pay them until their signed contract ends, so its a lose lose situation. Things will get much worse before they even get to begin getting better

 

My dad's 2001 Ford Explorer Sport Trac lasted 7 years, 280k miles, and it started having transmission problems.

Also, the intake manifold cracked... why you ask? it's made of plastic.

American auto companies have not been building their cars right recently, and for that they are paying a big price. Times have changed and they need to figure that out. If there had been more government regulation on fuel efficiency, the American auto companies might have had more of a chance.

 

Times have changed but nobody is willing to give the companies a chance. The new line of ecotec's and v6's from GM are among the best engines in the world, GM's top teir sports cars get better than 30mpg on the highway. Ford has had the absolute best work truck in the history of automobils along with shared specs, platforms, reliability, and gas milage with Mazda for all of their compacts and sub compacts sense 1988. Dodge offers a lifetime drive terrain warrenty. All of these companies have cars that get 30 to 40mpg on the highway, all of these companies offer great valued performance/sports cars, all 3 of these companies have among the best light and heavy duty comercial trucks/vans in the world.

Point blank stop hating, start trying to help your country. Not only on the automotive side of things but on everything. The American consumer needs to think how their life will be affected if the country goes deeper and deeper into a economic slump. The fallout will be alot more far reaching than you think.

 

Well, Consumers buy what they want, companies will produce what the consumer wants, It''s a big circle.
In the '90s, big automakers ridiculed Honda for not coming out with it's own line of V8s, now look at them...
In the '90s a GM company called Geo produced a little 3 cylinder, 1.0Litre econo car that delivered 30-40mpg the car was called the Metro. Chevy picked up the line after Geo disappeared. The cars were produced when gas was cheap, people did not want them because they were to small, the things did not get made because the consumer did not want it. Isuzu had a great 4 cylinder diesel truck called the Pup, in the 70s and 80s it delivered 30-40mpg. VW made the 70s and 80s rabbit that got 40-50mpg in the diesel version, these vehicles disappeared because the gas was cheap and the consumer did not want. I've actually got a 2000model Mazda 50hp 3.0Litre 4 cylinder diesel engine that I am going to get a starter and transmission for and put it in a small pickup to get the same mileage as the Isuzu Pup did back in the day.

 

Uhh 280,000 miles on it is nuts to me..thats 448,000 kms no one here in there right might would have a car to 448,000kms....the only person buying a car with 300,000 kms are highschool kids. If it took 280,000 miles for the manifold to crack thats not bad considering all the other things that could have gone wrong. I bet that part wasn't that expensive either.