Autoincar.com reports that Honda CEO Takeo Fukui is down with the U.S. Department of Energy’s $25b loan program. You know the boondoggle that provides no-to-low interest loans to automakers for retooling 20-year-old-or-more factories to build more fuel efficient vehicles than previous. Which could include a Honda factory, but won’t, ’cause Honda isn’t hemorrhaging cash. And there’s a reason for that relative success vis a vis The Big 2.8. “The times have changed,” Fukui said. “Their response was too slow.” Fukui also claimed Honda avoided disaster by not expanding into the pickup truck sector. “We didn’t dabble in that, and that worked out well for us,” he said at a Tokyo hotel. Anyway, never mind. No harm, no foul. And U.S. federal aid to the truck-heavy domestics is no biggie. “It is totally proper for the U.S. government to help out U.S. automakers.”
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
Well, yeah, but while Rick “Aruba, Baby!” was in the back offices trying to shave 2.5 cents off the price of a heater control knob(well, actually sending a letter to the supplier telling them to do it or else), ol’ Takeo was off designing winning racing motorcycles. So, really what the heck does that Japanese guy know anyway? Anyway, Takeo greenlighted the Ridgeline, he just wasn’t stupid enough to bet the whole company on it. Although if he doesn’t get around to updating the VFR to that fabulous MotoGP v-5 they ran a couple of years ago, there is going to be hell to pay!
Plus it doesn’t hurt that they can build Accords in the same plant that they build the Ridgeline, Pilot and Odyssey. I guess making light trucks from a shared mid-size platform wasn’t so dumb after all…
Totally cool and controlled. Knows Honda is producing a product so good that government subsidies to competitors will be little more than an annoyance. IMO the best thing Honda ever did was to show that American autoworkers could produce a quality product given the right environment. Why exactly do US GM and Ford plants need subsidies when US Honda plants do not?
This seems to confirm what I’ve always believed; produce a quality product that people actually wanted to buy, maintain that level of quality and people will continue to purchase it. Yes, you can always find a cheaper vehicle than a Honda but the bottom line seems to be, still, you get what you pay for. I’ve always been unhappy with the concept of lowest bidder gets the contract…maybe it’s the cynicsm I’ve learned over the years in law enforcement but I keep thinking; ‘what are they cutting out or how sturdy are the parts they’re using, etc..’
Kudos to TTAC for all the enjoyment and information it’s provided me. I’ve generated several spirited discussions with my brother who is a self-employed small businssman when I send him articles about GM self-destructing and such and he insists that it’s all about the union health care/retirement costs and government mandates and I maintain it’s basically a lack of quality vehicles. The bean counters have been the near-death of way too many good vehicles.I’ve noticed their fingerprints all over my 2006 SE-R which replaced my 1996 SE-R. The ’06 has a little more power since Nissan put the 2.5 in it and some more bells and whistles, but the quality of construction seems lighter and less robust than my ’96. My brother insists that profits for the shareholders is the primary function of any business, probably valid, but sad. Cars should be built by those who love and enjoy them and whose objective is the best possible car for a given cost.See, even cops can live in a fantasy world at times.
I think it feeds into each other.
Higher labor costs mean you need to cut corners to maintain the price; nobody would buy an identical car that cost 2k more. Lower quality damages the brand, which means they have to have lower prices to sell cars, which means more corners to cut, and so on.
It’s a nasty feedback loop really.
I’ve always been unhappy with the concept of lowest bidder gets the contract
Not to go on a tangent but I had one client that deliberately chose the second lowest bid as a policy to discourage suppliers bidding so low they’d have to either lose money or sell crap. Made a lot of sense to me.
What’s interesting about this position, if I have my history correct, is that the Japanese government refused to help Honda build an export car business in the late sixties. Honda decided to go ahead on their own.
I wonder if they’ve since decided government help is more trouble than it’s worth. But I don’t know if they’ve had government assistance since then.
“Fukui also claimed Honda avoided disaster by not expanding into the pickup truck sector. “We didn’t dabble in that, and that worked out well for us”
Ummm what? cough.. Ridgeline… cough…
The ridgeline is not a “truck”. It is unibody not body on frame. As Ridgeline and Pilot sales go down the same assembly line starts cranking out Accords.
Not that I am defending the horrid looking Ridgeline (or Pilot) but Honda did not get into the “pickup truck” business and certainly didn’t spend the kind of development money that Toyota spent on the Tundra.