Failed four time presidential candidate and god of all ambulance chasers Ralph Nader has found a new enemy: China. The Center for Auto Safety, founded by Ralph Nader with part of the $425K court settlement paid by GM in 1970 for invasion of his privacy, has been researching recalls of Chinese auto parts. Those recalls are now posted on the safety center’s website. The New York Times took the bait, and ran a long story under the headline “Recalls of Chinese Auto Parts Are a Mounting Concern.” If the NYT would have just taken 20 minutes of research, they would have found that they’ve been snowed.
“There are so many automotive products coming in from China that American safety officials can’t keep track of them,” Clarence Ditlow, executive director of the Center for Auto Safety, told the Times. Opening salvo, five miles off target. The U.S. Customs Service has a record of every part entering the country. American safety officials are not mandated to keep track of them. Every part of every country may freely roam the U.S. of A.
So, on it’s own, the Center for Auto Safety went to the trouble of tracking down failed Chinese products.
After an exhaustive search, Nader’s Center for Auto Safety found 24 recalls of Chinese products, listed in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) records for the years 2007 and 2008. The 24 incidents involve a total of 1.2m products.
The high numbers were caused by three companies.
Eagle Eyes Traffic Industrial Co., Ltd. imported 404.546 replacement headlight assemblies which “do not contain required amber side reflectors.” Foreign Tire Sales, Inc. became infamous by importing 255k (some say 450k) Chinese tires which were in danger of tread separation. Harbor Freight Tools imported 295k fuses which took too long to blow.
Ditlow said his review convinces him that “too many Chinese companies are unfamiliar with – or don’t care about – safety standards” in the United States, and thus don’t meet them. According to Ditlow, automotive equipment made in China is less likely to comply with safety standards than the same product made in the United States. “The companies in North America know that process,” Ditlow said.
A quick analysis of the NHTSA database shows that Mr. Ditlow doesn’t know what he is talking about.
The NHTSA database lists 76,525 recalls since 1966. From 2007 to date– the period analyzed by the Center for Auto Safety– NHTSA lists 13,482 recalls. The database identifies the manufacturer or importer of the recalled product. It does not identify the country of origin.
The Center for Auto Safety found 24 products on the list made in China. That amounts to 0.18 percent. The NYT also did not find newsworthy that “China” is the only country listed on Nader’s website under “Import Recalls.” The countries of origin of the remaining 13,458 recalls remain unmentioned.
Also overlooked (and under-reported): during the same period, the database lists 419 recalls by Chrysler LLC, 678 recalls by Ford Motor Co, and a whopping 1,410 recalls by General Motors Corp.
The onus for creating a solid understanding of the safety standards sits squarely on the importer. United States federal law puts responsibility for the safety of the product on the American importer. The importer has to specify the factors that bring the product in compliance with U.S. regulations. The importer must verify that the imported part is in full compliance.
It is very easy to import auto parts to the United States and Canada. Some say, much too easy. There is no oversight. No prior verification is required by a governmental agency or authorized testing entity before the vehicle or equipment can be imported, sold or used. If reason develops to believe that a part does not meet standards, then authorities may conduct tests. If a noncompliance is found, a recall can be ordered.
The rest of the world operates on the principles established by the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations, a body of the United Nations. 58 countries, from Azerbaijan to New Zealand, are signatories to a common set of ECE Regulations for type approval of vehicles and components. Other countries, even if not formally participating in the agreement, recognize the ECE Regulations. They either mirror the ECE regulations content in their own national requirements, or permit the use and importation of ECE-approved vehicles or parts.
More than 120 ECE regulations cover most safety-relevant aspects. Each part or vehicle must successfully be tested as part of the type approval. The tests are performed by accredited, independent labs. Manufacturers must be audited. Production must likewise be in strict compliance with the certification. If non-compliant parts are found, the manufacturer– not the importer– can lose the certification.
In most countries that signed the agreement, using a non-certified part or vehicle is illegal. This is one of the reasons why one hears very little noise about Chinese quality from European countries. Prodded by Detroit (and most likely the Association of Ambulance Chasers) the U.S.A. refused to join the United Nations body.
And that’s the truth.
Perhaps the Times could have vetted this better, but the writer can slant the story to his/her bias anyway. For example, when you mentioned other recalls to bolster your case, only D3 companies were used as an example. Why not include a Japanese or European make or two? Surely they have recall rates over 0.18 percent…
Interesting.
I’ve seen a lot of very dodgy Chinese made parts for SAABs recently. A lot is being put through ebay or other more informal channels. I don’t understand the economics but have to assume it is the tip of an iceberg (i.e. 5-6 sales a month on ebay can’t sustain the manufacturer).
Excellent counterpoint to the Nader folks though. I wish they were concerned about our safety rather than making headlines on slow news days. There is a great untold story about how Nader and Co. delayed the implementation of tire pressure monitors in the US for five years.
Since I have the full NHTSA database on my laptop now, I can give you any maker. Ask and ye shall receive. Forrest River, “America’s Largest Producer of Towable RV’s and Cargo Trailers” for instance had 319 recalls in the 2007-2008 period. Toyota had 83. BMW 92. Volkswagen 118.
Thanks for that Bertel. It needed to be said. Toyota?
Well, at least the big three can say their quality is superior to the Chinese.
Thanks Bert, for reminding me of YET ANOTHER “IMPORT FIGHTER”:
http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/bv/corvair.htm
GM has a HISTORY of following, and in an attempt to “catch up”, to come out with a so-called “Import Fighter”….much like the later day Saturns.
Junk.
Why can’t GM ever LEAD? They USED to lead…but that was back in the 1940’s…maybe 1950’s.
GM is always in a “Reaction” mode, much like the over-hyped promises of the “YET TO COME” Volt.
But regarding Chinese auto parts, come on, have you not been witness to the recall of their tires? The ones which would blow out as you were driving down the freeway? Perhaps Ralph has a point. Have you researched any of it?
I tell you what…I bought a Chinese flashlight at Harbor Freight…a MagLite knock-off…and I can’t even get the spent D’cell batteries out of the damn thing. They WILL NOT come out! the shaft allowed the things to enter, but short of heating the thing up with a blowtorch, the damn batteries are stuck. And the threaded end-piece…well, I’ll tell you what…you do NOT want anything of this “quality” driving down the road with your life in the swing.
But then again, there are untold millions who bought GM’s junk, maybe the Chinese have a chance at the Wal-Mart, Harbor Freight crowd after all.
Re. the United Nations:
Why does a supposed “sovereign” nation have to sign up to a “higher authority” (ie, the UN)?
Can you tell me why any one or any body or any organization SHOULD look to the UN as an authority? To do so gives up your own sovereignty and to elevate the status of a global government.
Is that what you want? Hell if I do. The EU, with it’s “appointed” (non-elected) government is surely NOT a role model for America.
If you believe it is in your best interest to be taxed and regulated by appointed officials, by all means, bow down.
I’ll tell you what, though, to most freedom-loving Americans, the idea of bowing down to the UN (a Rockefeller creation) is despicable.
Can’t Ralph Nader ever shut up? I’d like to run over that man with a Corvair.
Actually, Nader is doing his country a disservice with the amateurish “analysis.” There is a high likelihood that many parts recalled by US auto or parts manufacturers are in fact of Chinese origin. Simply due to the fact that most of America’s (and for that matter, Europe’s) parts manufacturing base has been exported to China long ago.
But in this case, it doesn’t matter. US law is clear: The one who brings the part into the country is responsible for it. If you buy crud, you will die by the crud. The folks who buy cheap parts in China and sell them via Ebay probably never have heard of NHSTA and don’t realize in what trouble they can be, including jail time.
I’m not sure which is Nader’s biggest concern – his advocacy for the truth or his over inflated ego.
He certainly sensationalized the facts in “Unsafe at any Speed” on the Corvair. The VW Beetle had the same suspension as the Corvair and he didn’t say a word about the VW. I think the Corvette had a similar suspension setup. Eventually that was all fixed in the second generaton Corvair but the damage had been done.
The man definitely has an agenda about the auto industry – especially anti-GM. Statistics can be presented/manipulated to prove any point of view. Surprise, surprise the New York Times hasn’t examined his assertions very well.
The origin of many parts is China. They are cheap. Our society is obsessed with getting cheap stuff at the expense of other considerations – like safety, enviroment, employment. We get the cheap stuff we pay for.
@luscious: But regarding Chinese auto parts, come on, have you not been witness to the recall of their tires? The ones which would blow out as you were driving down the freeway? Perhaps Ralph has a point. Have you researched any of it?
Yes. Actually, the poor guy is a friend of a friend. He screwed up. He should have monitored the quality. He did not. I’m in the parts business. We have our own people at the factories. And on top of that, we hire 3rd party auditors who need to sign off on everything. If the part is non-compliant, it doesn’t even go into the container.
Well, as far as “models” go,…I’ve been to China. I can honestly say with confidence that China, with it’s “anything goes” junk …is not a role model for America.
Perhaps you living over there have become numbed by it, being completely immersed in it every where you go…and while it may be good for THEM, it sure as hell isn’t good for America.
Is that what America has worked hard for, for the past 200+ years, to become a 3rd-World nation like China? Maybe in some minds, but not in mine.
Its kind of nice having certain standards, you know…for example, clean air (I hope you don’t come down with mercury poisoning over there w/ all the dirty coal they are burning), clean drinking water, and yes…even safe cars.
I don’t see too many people over here clamoring for a $2000 Tata with golf-cart wheels.
I don’t know if this is still true, but back in the 1990s there was a significant problem with auto parts being counterfeited by cheap Third World (mostly Chinese) manufacturers.
So, the customer would buy a part that came in a box labeled Valeo or Bosch or Bendix, when in fact the parts were cheap copies.
I got burned by a bogus clutch assembly for my ’88 Integra (which lasted about 9 months before some of the Belleville spring “fingers” bent).
Who knows, if we keep on this “Globalization” trend, maybe America will soon find those holes in the floor where you squat to go to the bathroom to be quite commonplace. Just like CHINA!
And if we REALLY work hard at “globalization”, we too can have raw sewage run down our streets…just like INDIA!!
Come on, now people, you’re not “prejudiced”, are you?
You don’t LIKE the “colors of the rainbow”?? What the Hell is wrong with you?
@luscious:
You aren’t keeping up with what American corporations do. They have moved parts production to China long ago. Federal Mogul is huge in China. Where are Bendix brake pads being made? I can show you the factory. A week ago, I wrote an article in Gasgoo about six large American parts manufacturers who have been put on credit watch. All but one have huge operations in China: http://www.gasgoo.com/auto-news/1008717/Global-auto-suppliers-on-credit-watch-bankruptcies-in-Europe.html
And yes, the pollution going along with all that manufacturing has been exported to China also.
The real problem here is the drop-our-pants, who needs regulations mindset of the US government. I would love to see the US participate in the ECE regulations scheme, or better yet go with German’s TUV approval scheme for replacement parts.
There is a horrific amount of junk being installed as both replacement parts and accessories on vehicles in the US. The government so far has taken a see no evil view of the thing. Yes, China is the source of much of this substandard product, but that is because the importers of said products make price the first and only priority.
Does anyone actually take the New York Times seriously as a news source anymore?
@eric stephans: So, the customer would buy a part that came in a box labeled Valeo or Bosch or Bendix, when in fact the parts were cheap copies.
They want you to believe that.
Valeo, Bosch, Bendix all have huge operations in China.
@John Horner: Right you are. BTW, the TÜV doesn’t have their own scheme. They are an accredited lab for ECE certification. They have more than 2000 people in China. We work with them. They are good.
Bertel,
Have you actually gone “native” and squatted over one of those 6″ holes to go to the bathroom?
If so, didn’t you think there “has GOT to be a more Civilized way of doing this”?
I’m serious. And do you feel like a human being when you are driving down the road in one of their “native” Yugo equivalents?
I know big name companies are over there…but I also know the government welcomes them there so their own POORLY run companies can hopefully learn an thing or two.
Maybe Toto (who makes some really fine Japanese toilets and urinals) is over there teaching them a thing or two.
@luscious: I live in a duplex on the 39th and 40th floor with a grand view of Beijing. All three bathrooms have proper sit-down toilets. I have seen – but never used – one of the squat holes. Some Chinese claim they are more sanitary, because you don’t sit where the other guy shat.
China’s roads are mostly filled with cars built by joint ventures with US, Japanese, and European companies. The cars are mirror images to the foreign models. I’ve never sat in a home-grown QQ.
Currently, I’m in Tokyo. After having typed this, I will peruse the heated Toto toilet seat with many buttons, courtesy of my Japanese father-in-law who thought I should have one. This concludes my discussion of bathroom topics.
HAHAHA, gotta love Globalization!! :)
Be Good!…and thanks for the articles. Regardless of whether or not I agree w/ them, they are very thought-provoking…and well written.
luscious,
safe to say you’re overlooking the history of industrialization. a few generations ago, we derisively dismissed japan’s supposedly atavistic culture and its then supposedly crappy products. go back a hundred or so years, euro-snobs saw the US as a rogue nation of copycats and cheap products. or you can refer to an alternate universe and your alternate history, with our pristine utopian society which hasn’t gone through the hell that’s endemic to other places.
you’ve overlooked the original post, whose intent was to highlight ralph nader’s lack of objectivity, and (even more disturbingly), the NYT’s lack of scruples.
Of course progress has to begin somewhere. That’s all find and well.
But what I’m saying is that Ralph Nadar IS being objective!
Is he lying? If so, where? The truth is, the US has no business “signing up” to anything the UN produces…and well, the Chinese DO make tons of JUNK.
That’s about as “objective” as one can get.
If that sounds offensive, I can’t quite bring myself to apologize.
Hey Ralph: Shark!
If you can’t read where I mentioned the junk GM has made over the years, then I cannot help you.
If you can’t read where I mentioned that “progress has to begin somewhere”, again…I cannot help you.
If you wish to buy a slightly used Chinese flashlight, please contact me at your earliest convenience…batteries included.
I, being a twit, see nothing wrong whatsoever with calling junk “junk”. Perhaps you’d like to open the first Geely dealership. I hear Saturn may have a few vacancies for you.
*sighs* replace ‘geely’ with ‘toyota’.
and replace the american industrial economy with the ottoman empire. you may assert that it won’t happen. but newer and better challengers will surface. and i can assure you they sure as hell won’t come from america.
yeah we can laugh at others. but others are constantly improving their products, whereas we’re laughing. and we’re laughing while we’re blissfully ignorant of economic history.
Then do yourself a favor…with the full backing of history, you need to capitalize on my total ignorance and again…open the first Chinese dealership.
What’s that thought running through your head? “Hmmm, I only have one life, maybe 40-50 years of living left to live…and of the 180 Chinese ‘auto manufacturers’…maybe 4 will make it big…and will not be the next problem-ridden ‘Nissan’, but will be the next ‘Toyota’?”
My guess (and I’m only guessing, mind you) is that Bertel flies to/from home on either a Boeing or an Airbus…and NOT one of those Chinese knock-off Tupolevs. But hey…I could be wrong.
Since neither Ralph Nader nor Clarence Ditlow have anything to say to me, it is fitting that their blitherings were in the New York Times.
Harbor Freight sells a lot of real crap, much of it made in China. But, their prices are crazy low. I have some Harbor Freight items which work well enough like my 12 ton shop press. It was priced at about 1/5th of what a good brand press goes for and has met my home workshop needs for years without fail. On the other hand, I tried a pair of Harbor Freight tin snips which were simply useless.
The quality problem is, however, Harbor Freight.
Compare a Chinese made Milwaukee power tool to the similar item from Harbor Freight and you will see there is no comparison, and that the Milwaukee tool cost many times more than the cheap clone from Harbor Freight. Or, compare a Jet branded Chinese drill press to a Harbor Freight drill press of similar capacity … big difference.
Personally I still buy Not Made in China when I can, but it is getting harder and harder to do!
The reality of the Chinese business model is that money is all that matters. Protein count low in the dog food or baby milk, well just add melamine and make sure the testing doesn’t catch it. Lead based toy paint is cheaper than the alternative, so a few kids have low IQ scores, just as long as the bottom line looks good. Problems with the FDA, NHTSA or any other US watchdog agencies, hire lobbyists to contribute to the re-election campaigns of key senators and congressmen so they can control the amount of scutiny Chinese products undergo. Without country of origin labeling we have no idea where the dangerous stuff is made. In the case of automobiles we can only trust the OEM to put parts in that meet specs but remember it is the OEM that writes the spec. My experience with Chinese auto parts has been that you have to watch them closely as they will give you good samples but then try to skirt the spec on the production parts.
I’m always amazed at the bitterness toward Nader in the automotive space. Here we have a man who GM tried their damnedest to wreck in a very dirty, very underhanded fashion and he’s treated like a pariah, all for saying that the emperor had no clothes.
Yes, he was sensationalist, but you have to be to get press. But he wasn’t the one who knowingly made a defective product, hired PIs to dig dirt and/or hired hookers with intent to entrap. No, that would be the work of one of, if not the, biggest corporations at the time.
And yet he’s the bad one? How the hell do you people reconcile that on your little moral compass?
The reality of the Chinese business model is that money is all that matters.
Don’t kid yourself that American or European companies wouldn’t be doing this if they thought they could get away with it. They can’t only because we’ve kicked their asses in court and in the legislature over the past century.
Remember the industrial revolution? The pollution crises in post-war agriculture and industry? The tobacco industry’s stalling over health issues? Corporations’** default behaviour is to screw people as much as possible; China’s just aren’t as far along the curve as we are.
This is why, despite the whinging of ideologues on both sides of the spectrum, social democracy works. You have accountability and responsibility, or at least a modicum of such; something you do not get in either full laissez-faire or in oligarchy.
** not people in corporations, but the entity itself. People are basically decent, law-abiding and respectful. Mobs–and corporations are legalized mobs with special tax and liability rights–are selfish, hurtful and callous.
Bravo, psarhjinian! Very well said.
Listen, I believe in balance. I think MOST people do. But once you’ve been fired, or downsized, not once,…not twice…but three times, you BEGIN to see the TRUE PICTURE.
I’m not even a UAW supporter. Some of their tactics I find to be repugnant. But here is the TRUE nature of “Capitalism”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre
That’s right…the very same Rockefellers who kill their own employees for striking…are the same Rockefellers these people so thoroughly love via the United Nations!
I believe in Sovereignty of the people, I support the Democratic process…and NONE of that exists in China. Hell, the people making all the junk are living day-to-day in their own excrement and within company-owned tenements…ie, it’s called “indentured servitude”. It’s something we fought hard to ELIMINATE. Yet, because we have a “worldly” business-type living over there, we have to somehow LOVE it…and blaspheme a man with little real power and significance for speaking the truth?
So you don’t like Ralph Nadar…BFD. Anyone with a lick of sense can relate to the China=Junk statement…because, …that’s the truth!!
Will the junk improve? I have no doubt it will! Will the enslavement over in China end any time soon? I don’t know…they have several Billion people living day-to-day…so don’t count on it. Am I hopeful it will? Without a doubt.
China’s roads are mostly filled with cars built by joint ventures with US, Japanese, and European companies. The cars are mirror images to the foreign models. I’ve never sat in a home-grown QQ.
Maybe in Beijing this is true. I’ve only been to China once but I have read of the generally high standard of living within Beijing compared to the rest of the country. And compared to my adventures in Shenyang vs. Beijing it appears to be true.
I wouldn’t say “mirror image” the predominately VW cabs were almost all lightly updated 80’s Jetta design (Santana) and even then the chinese versions had cut rate rubber floors and vinyl headliners. Some of the nicer cabs were old early 90’s design Passats (Santana 2000). I rode in a couple domestic make cabs, a Chery and a fancy new Jin Bei, both of them were obviously of lower quality than even the worst American car with their shiny, creaky and brittle plastic interiors. Beijing seems like paradise compared to any other Chinese city, almost every cab was a new Hyundai Elantra, still with the usual rubber floor and vinyl headliner of course. Beyond cabs there are an awful lot of other old designs running around. I was working at the BMW factory there and those appeared to be pretty much the same though, and current designs. They were not exactly selling a ton of them in ’05 when I was there though.
Obviously China needs to figure out how to build vehicles up to the standard of their possible customers, and I have no doubt they will. Maybe after this global downturn they can crack the US market. They aren’t even importing cars here yet. Their home market is probably not demanding high-quality products yet becuase the gov’t is keeping labor costs low artificially through currency manipulation so the purchasing power of the Chinese consumer remains low…outside of Beijing that is.
Have you actually gone “native” and squatted over one of those 6″ holes to go to the bathroom?
The Toyota factory in Kyushu has your choice of the western style toilet, or the traditional Japanese style trough. Most Americans cringe and shake their head at the idea of a heated toilet seat that jets hot water at your ass. Some of these differences are not economical they are cultural.
Compare a Chinese made Milwaukee power tool to the similar item from Harbor Freight and you will see there is no comparison
Excellent point. Cheap labor allows Harbor Freight to hit that low price point, but cheap crap is not all that low cost labor is capable of.
There is still room for quality and as consumers we all must demand it.
If you require quality in anything you buy, it enables manufacture with higher input costs in the form of environmental concerns and particularly labour.
Why are the best marine diesel engines made in Finland? Why are the best ships made in Italy? Why are the best aircraft made in the France (or USA if you must argue it)?
If we all let a price driven disposable culture take over for cars (as this is a car site), it will not be environmentally sustainable. We already need two whole Earth’s to provide the lifestyle that we’re living. If we’re prepared to make cars less durable as they become cheaper, then it is not sustainable.
Unfortunately, in my experience, the Chinese contribution to manufacturing has been to help otherwise good brand names find ways to substitute materials, or just basic design, to be ever cheaper. The Chinese love it if things are made twice when they could have been made once.
Electronics is only just recovering with very heavy oversight from HP, Sony, Apple etc, and it is very possible to buy Chinese crap in that segment too.
I know Bertel disagrees, but there is a subtle difference in our position. I’m not saying the Chinese CAN’T manufacture quality if directed, but that it’s a greater problem, driven by perception of “requirement” from consumers to brand owners and then into manufacturing, that things have to be ever cheaper. The Chinese are only too happy to help make something disposable when it could have been made more durable.
Well Bertel, I’m not too impressed by the virtues shown by the Chinese in their manufacturing practices. Same applies to the Taiwanese. Basically they seem not to give a shit about quality or safety. Does it never occur to the Chinese to make something good rather than a visual knockoff? Or do they just not understand? Or not care?
Anyway, the same bunch of Dick Taters are still running the place, just letting a few more folks have some freedom in business than in the past. Raises the olde standard of living quite a bit. You have nice toilets on the 40th floor, you say. How well is the building itself constructed? Not too much water in the concrete, I hope? Plenty of rebar and structural steel? But then how could you tell, any more than some poor sap who just put Chinese tires on his car? The building’ll last a while before it falls apart, barring an earthquake. Long enough for the perpetrators to be far away.
Because in the electronics repair industry fake transistors, capacitors and chips are the norm, lovingly handmade in Mongolian tents. Not. Made by some businessman somewhere in the great empire with all the virtue of a seasoned con-artist. How else do you explain knockoff parts, watches, DVDs and everything else man can imagine? Like fake ISO 9001 QA stickers, available to stick on anything. Makes a mockery of the ISO process.
The Chinese government got into the WTO with WalMart’s help and is now busily kicking in the doors of the WTO’s house rules. Was a post here on TTAC the other day about it. And for US citizens averse to some invisible hand of a plutocrat telling them what to do, may I point out that the IMF, World Bank, WTO and famously, the UN, are American creations? Fer crissake, learn some history before blathering on about sovereign nation’s rights. The rest of the world is a bit fed up with the American idea of do what I say, not what I do, because we’re special.
As you say, Bertel, good quality can be had from Chinese manufacturers by standing over them and making sure. The German inspectors, no doubt clad in white gloves as is their wont, won’t let anything badly-made get through the system. It’s my opinion that when they turn their back, crap stuff is wangled through. Why? Because the system being used is quality control, outmoded in advanced manufacturing since Deming brought operations research and quality assurance systems to the fore during and after WW2. If you inspect every part to ensure compliance with spec, you’re wasting time and manpower, especially if you then put third party auditors on the job as well. I mean, it’s screamingly inefficient and it does not turn out first rate goods. Far from it. It says the manufacturing process is out of control, purely and simply, just like Mercedes Benz was in 1990 when MIT published their study of who actually made quality automobiles. It also means you don’t trust your Chinese suppliers, so why should I?
You need a manufacturing system that runs on its own — the Japanese do it on consumer goods. Quality Assurance. Nobody else does, but relies on the threat of having their pants sued off for faulty goods. That, and a modicum of self-respect. Good luck suing the Chinese, so Western governments make importers liable instead, which is about as useful as setting car mileage standards and then pricing gas with no real taxes on it and expecting everyone to drive around in Kia Rios for the good of the country. Ain’t going to happen.
No, every free soul dreams up excuses for why they personally shouldn’t be bound by rules that affect their freedom of choice, or as I see constantly on this blog, people saying “Nice car, I’d buy it if it cost $6999, was a wagon with AWD, leather, and had a seven speed manual transmission, because I hate automatics and DSGs. I’m a pure left foot clutch artist and a true driver! Besides I need to practice my double-clutching skills!” Yeah, sure.
We get those kind of people all the time in our retail audio business. Twits that come in and say things like “You probably don’t have a blah blah blah with a twist on top, do you? Bet you don’t! ” When we do have it, the distraught idiot, caught in a trap of his own making, always falls back on the excuse of last resort: “Oh, I didn’t want to spend $300, I was thinking they should cost $18.95.”
Perhaps that’s why the Chinese manufacturing syndrome exists, as others point out above. A lot of folks want the appearance, not the substance of the real thing. When this impacts on safety issues, disaster can strike and the true perpertrators essentially get away scot-free. Except for the occasional dumbass caught in the searchlights and sentenced to death by a kangaroo court. Intellectual rights? The Chinese don’t recognize them. Oh sure, they say they’re working on it. I see no sign of progress myself.
Nader has his faults, to be sure, but speaking up on the Corvair wasn’t one of them. Unfortunately, his book was years late, after the problem was fixed. His jibe at Chinese parts is also late by years, but unfortunately, IMO, completely apropos based on my experience. The NYT’s perspicacity? I couldn’t possibly venture an opinion as I don’t read the rag. However, judging by the constant bashing it receives on this blog, I wonder why others DO read it and then complain. Why bother to read it if it’s consistently bad?
This discussion proves two old hats:
One, it is all too easy to manipulate people into hating foreigners while distracting from one’s own failures. We don’t learn, it happens again and again. And we fall for it, again and again. A cynical Lenin called his supporters in the West “useful idiots” because they are so easily manipulated.
Two, the charitable assumption is that Nader is an idiot who can’t count. The more sinister version is that he’s deliberately misleading the people he tried to represent four times so far. Thank God he failed on that one too.
Guys like Nader exist because the Government (that we presumably elect to serve and protect us) are asleep at the switch. Industry lobbyists are always hanging around Washington; the voting public gets far fewer audiences with our “esteemed officials”.
What gets me is that the economics has actually removed the choice of “buying American”; even long-respected American brands don’t even bother to offer an item, say, 15% more expensive that’s made here. Sheeple demand the Wal-Mart model: Make it cheap, when it blows up or breaks, they’ll buy another from us – which is why I avoid WM, and pay special attention to those “Exclusively at Wal-Mart” goods – it’s code for “we get our own model number from the manufacturer, so you get a less-durable item (at a price point) and you can’t cross-shop on price, becuase other retailers don’t have that same part number (which, BTW, Wal-Mart does not print in their flyers).
As to Harbor Freight, wear safety goggles when using their tools, and use American-Made jack stands when using $39.95 “4 ton” Chinese-made floor jack; even if you’re jacking up a bicycle.
Forward-Slash Rant :-)
psharjinian: I’m always amazed at the bitterness toward Nader in the automotive space. Here we have a man who GM tried their damnedest to wreck in a very dirty, very underhanded fashion and he’s treated like a pariah, all for saying that the emperor had no clothes.
GM didn’t cover itself with glory when its executives authorized an investigation of Ralph Nader, and should be ashamed.
But so should Mr. Nader.
He shamefully bent the facts of the case against the Corvair, and continued to lie about the car, even when it was exonerated in the courts and by the federal government.
psharjinian: Yes, he was sensationalist, but you have to be to get press.
That’s not the problem. He brazenly twisted the truth regarding the Corvair.
If you can find it, you should read the article by Karl Ludvigsen in the August 1969 issue of Car and Driver.
It gives a very thorough chronology of the entire Corvair saga, and shows how Nader either twisted the facts or told outright lies about the Corvair and the resolution of the Corvair product liability cases against GM.
psharjinian: But he wasn’t the one who knowingly made a defective product, hired PIs to dig dirt and/or hired hookers with intent to entrap. No, that would be the work of one of, if not the, biggest corporations at the time.
The Corvair was not a defective product. It was different, but not defective.
psharjinian: And yet he’s the bad one? How the hell do you people reconcile that on your little moral compass?
I reconcile it with the fact that, I don’t use my moral compass without knowing all of the facts of of a particular case, and, because I do know the facts of this particular case, I realize that Mr. Nader isn’t the saint many portray him to be.
He also hasn’t exactly covered himself with glory in the decades after Unsafe at Any Speed was published.
In late 1995, I recall him yelping that 6,400 additional people would die on the highways in the U.S. every year if the federal government repealed the national 65 mph speed limit.
The government wisely did, and – oops! – the increase in total fatalities was a very small amount, related more to a booming economy (which encourages travel) than to the repeal of the speed limit.
Fatalitites per 100 million miles driven – the true measure of safey, as it accounts for more people driving more miles – actually fell for that year (1996).
If you can find it, you should read the article by Karl Ludvigsen in the August 1969 issue of Car and Driver.
It gives a very thorough chronology of the entire Corvair saga, and shows how Nader either twisted the facts or told outright lies about the Corvair and the resolution of the Corvair product liability cases against GM.
Car & Driver is not exactly what you might call an unbiased source even now. Back then, anything anti-automotive would have gotten the mainstream auto press on your back incredibly quickly.
Nader, to be crude, pissed in the cornflakes of GM and, by association, those who made money from them. C&D has a history of overlooking GM’s more amusing failures. Recall that this was the organization that lauded each and every one of GM’s compacts since, and including, the Corvair, including gems like the Citation and Monza.
Golden rule of auto journalism #1: if the reviewer gets to give the car back after a few days, then the review means nothing. Golden rule #2: if the magazine accepts advertising and/or gives perks to writers**, always assume an agenda.
Now, one of the criticisms is that Nader’s book came out after GM made modifications to the Corvair’s suspension. This is true, but it ignores the fact that Nader did bring concerns about the car to GM before the book was published, and that GM did fight tooth and nail against both safety regulation and oversight and fixing the Corvair itself before being pressed to.
The Corvair was an example of this, and auto fans who deride Nader on the grounds of timing are failing to see the forest for the trees: the point wasn’t just that the Corvair was unsafe (indeed, only a small part of the whole book is about that specific car), it’s that automakers were not going to make safer cars unless they had absolutely no other choice. Nader’s work forced automakers to accept oversight, rather than just spin the “trust us” line and let the courts sort it out if they were wrong.
The other common criticism was that Nader singled out GM at the expense of other makes. This is true, but oversimplified. He did call Porsche and VW on the carpet for the same issue as the Corvair, but it’s not like they sold anything near GM’s volume, or had anything resembling GM’s influence and arrogance.
He also hasn’t exactly covered himself with glory in the decades after Unsafe at Any Speed was published.
No, but at least he’s aboveboard, if more than a little boy-who-cried-wolf. I’d certainly trust his opinion before that of some paid industry shill or automotive fanboy.
** Remember that they tried to hire hookers to frame Nader? What do you think they’ve given guys like Ludvigsen or Davis? A box of cookies at Christmas?
Bertel Schmitt :
December 21st, 2008 at 11:55 am
Actually, Nader is doing his country a disservice with the amateurish “analysis.” There is a high likelihood that many parts recalled by US auto or parts manufacturers are in fact of Chinese origin. Simply due to the fact that most of America’s (and for that matter, Europe’s) parts manufacturing base has been exported to China long ago.
But in this case, it doesn’t matter. US law is clear: The one who brings the part into the country is responsible for it. If you buy crud, you will die by the crud. The folks who buy cheap parts in China and sell them via Ebay probably never have heard of NHSTA and don’t realize in what trouble they can be, including jail time.
Bertel, you are very right on this. The OEM is in the end responsible for the parts, and all of them know it very well. They try to ensure the quality of their chinese parts by enforcing quality assurance mechanims on them, requiring certification of plants. No OEM would be so stupid to buy such stuff just off the rack in China.
As far as I remember, I read some years ago that GM even was channeling parts through a central company, where basically all incoming parts were checked (it may have been in the US). It cost some money, but was still worth it.
More problematic are spare parts, which often enough are not approved and may be even fake. A lot of that comes from China, but also other third world countries.
Anyway: as you showed, Nader is completely off the mark on this one.
psarhjinian :
He did call Porsche and VW on the carpet for the same issue as the Corvair, but it’s not like they sold anything near GM’s volume
Yeah, it’s too bad the Beetle never caught on for VW.
psharjinian: Car & Driver is not exactly what you might call an unbiased source even now.
You should read the article. Mr. Ludvigsen quotes extensively from the trial records, and notes that the big case against the Corvair was thrown out by the judge, after hearing the testimony of expert witnesses. (Nader didn’t even have a driver’s license, let alone an engineering degree.)
The federal government also cleared the car, after extensive testing.
Those are the facts. It is not bias to report the facts, even if the facts are favorable to the Corvair.
psharjinian: C&D has a history of overlooking GM’s more amusing failures. Recall that this was the organization that lauded each and every one of GM’s compacts since, and including, the Corvair, including gems like the Citation and Monza.
You should also note that Consumer Reports tested the 1960 Corvair, and called the car “engaging to drive” and suggested that prospective buyers “need not be unduly concerned” regarding its rear-engine configuration and potential effects on handling.
Then, as now, the magazine did not accept either advertising or test cars on loan from the manufacturers.
That deflates your contention that the only reviewers who said nice things about the original Corvair did so because GM used its influence to squelch criticism.
psharjinian: Golden rule of auto journalism #1: if the reviewer gets to give the car back after a few days, then the review means nothing. Golden rule #2: if the magazine accepts advertising and/or gives perks to writers**, always assume an agenda.
You need to actually read issues of Car and Driver from the 1960s and 1970s. They did not hesitate to trash a car – including a 1968 Opel Kadett that they editors parked in front of a junkyard to illustrate the reviewers’ opinion of it. GM yanked all advertising in response, but the magazine did not back down.
Second, the idea that Mr. Nader did not have his own agenda, and that said agenda was only for the public interest, is naive at best.
psharjinian: Now, one of the criticisms is that Nader’s book came out after GM made modifications to the Corvair’s suspension. This is true, but it ignores the fact that Nader did bring concerns about the car to GM before the book was published, and that GM did fight tooth and nail against both safety regulation and oversight and fixing the Corvair itself before being pressed to.
How exactly did Nader bring his concerns to GM regarding the Corvair? I would imagine that GM would rightly require more proof than accusations written on his stationery bearing his firm’s name in the letterhead. His book contains little, if any, true engineering analysis of the Corvair.
His book appeared in 1965. The changes were made to the Corvair’s rear suspension for the 1964 model year, and the completely new 1965 model appeared in the fall of 1964. Given industry lead times, the changes to the Corvair were planned long before his book appeared.
GM wasn’t reacting to Nader’s book when it changed the Corvairs rear suspension.
psharjinian: The Corvair was an example of this, and auto fans who deride Nader on the grounds of timing are failing to see the forest for the trees: the point wasn’t just that the Corvair was unsafe (indeed, only a small part of the whole book is about that specific car), it’s that automakers were not going to make safer cars unless they had absolutely no other choice.
Then how do you explain Ford offering seat belts and other safety equipment in 1956? Or that the fatality rate per 100 million miles driven had been declining long before his book appeared, which suggests that cars were getting safer before the 1967 model year, when the first federal safety standards went into effect?
psharjinian: The other common criticism was that Nader singled out GM at the expense of other makes. This is true, but oversimplified. He did call Porsche and VW on the carpet for the same issue as the Corvair, but it’s not like they sold anything near GM’s volume, or had anything resembling GM’s influence and arrogance.
VW was selling the Beetle in the hundreds of thousands by the mid-1960s. It was one of the most popular cars on the road in the 1960s. If anything, its sales INCREASED throughout the 1960s, while the Corvair’s sales decreased dramatically after 1965.
psharjinian: No, but at least he’s aboveboard, if more than a little boy-who-cried-wolf. I’d certainly trust his opinion before that of some paid industry shill or automotive fanboy.
If you trust him on speed limits and the “speed kills” baloney, you will be very disappointed, because he has been consistently wrong. It’s the automotive “fanboys” who are better informed on that one.
psharjinian: Remember that they tried to hire hookers to frame Nader? What do you think they’ve given guys like Ludvigsen or Davis? A box of cookies at Christmas?
Proof please. You have no proof that their opinions were bought. Just because they took the opposite of Nader in his battle against GM doesn’t mean that they are automatically corrupt, which is what you are saying. Nor is Mr. Nader automatically pure, just because he happens to be pitted against GM.
You should also know that Mr. Nader has consistenly refused to reveal HIS sources of income. What’s sauce for the goose…
Mr. Ludvigsen quotes extensively from the trial records, and notes that the big case against the Corvair was thrown out by the judge, after hearing the testimony of expert witnesses. (Nader didn’t even have a driver’s license, let alone an engineering degree.)
Nader’s point with regards to the Covair was that it was far too easy for non-engineers to get into real trouble. The car’s dynamics were pathetically sensitive to tire pressures, and those pressure requirements were bizarre. Note that there were already several lawsuits against GM prior to Nader even getting involved; heck, it was the volume of suits that prompted his investigation.
That GM modified it should be evidence that it wasn’t perhaps optimally designed.
Again, I find it very hard to understand why we’re trying to defend GM against Ralph Nader, other than what sounds like sour grapes from people who think they know better.
Proof please. You have no proof that their opinions were bought.
No, but there’s a hell of a burden of proof on them, isn’t there? This very site has called the objectivity of automotive journalism into question several times and found it lacking, and this is in an era where it’s pathetically easy to validate a lack of objectivity. When Nader was at his zenith, the media was far less transparent.
Do you seriously think that the editors of Car And Driver don’t have just a little bit of bias? Either because they have a responsibility to their advertisers, or because a non-engineer, non-industry persion did the job that they, as engineers and/or industry insiders, should be doing?
Then how do you explain Ford offering seat belts and other safety equipment in 1956? Or that the fatality rate per 100 million miles driven had been declining long before his book appeared, which suggests that cars were getting safer before the 1967 model year, when the first federal safety standards went into effect?
You’re trying to make this black-and-white and it isn’t. Automakers aren’t going to build outright deathtraps, but they’re also not going to put in a dime they can’t absolutely justify. It’s always a balance. Nader’s work did put an emphasis on safety that flat-out wasn’t there before.
Free-marketeers don’t like to admit this, but the market isn’t interested in making everyone happy and healthy; it’s about keeping most of the people moderately happy and making certain people very rich. That, in turn, means a certain number of people get thrown under the proverbial bus, and those people are usually the most disenfranchised members of society.
Automotive safety was like that. It wasn’t something that was going to get top billing, and certainly not in cheaper cars, because the market supposedly didn’t want it. It took Nader and others to so much as get the NHTSA created, and it takes continued vigilance to keep the NHTSA from becoming like a lapdog of industry it’s supposed to regulate (like, say, the FCC is)
You should also know that Mr. Nader has consistenly refused to reveal HIS sources of income. What’s sauce for the goose…
Wrong. The man makes an assload of money from stock ownership, notably from Cisco Systems. He donates just about all of it. This is all public information, and refutations usually come down to “well, I don’t believe it”.
I’ve followed Nader’s career for a while. I don’t completely agree with the man, but what I do see I like. It’s not common to see someone take the mickey out of both conservatives and liberals as he has, and I give him a lot of respect for it. He pissed off both political machines, and I think that’s a large part of why he, unlike many other “liberals”, gets an unfair share of sniping.
The recent “Uncle Tom” debacle was an example of this. It may have been less than sensitive language, but he’s right to say that Obama really isn’t offering anything for the disenfranchised and really could amount to little more than a feel-good shill. The disgusting hissy-fit on the part of the liberal media is sickening, as it was when he was being blamed for losing the election for Gore, or for outing Democratic efforts to dissuade him from running.
If I had the full weight of both sides of the American political spectrum bearing down on me, I’d be a noisy, annoying prick, too.
They still had some of those squat over the hole inthe floor toilets in france when I lived there in the mid-60s. I was appalled.
psharjinian: Nader’s point with regards to the Covair was that it was far too easy for non-engineers to get into real trouble. The car’s dynamics were pathetically sensitive to tire pressures, and those pressure requirements were bizarre. Note that there were already several lawsuits against GM prior to Nader even getting involved; heck, it was the volume of suits that prompted his investigation.
“Different” and “requires more maintenance” are not synonomous with “unsafe.”
Mr. Nader apparently had trouble making this distinction, which says more about him than anything about the Corvair.
Regarding the early Corvair cases, GM was winning them, too. But, in one case, GM’s insurance carrier settled out of court (I believe it was the Perini case), which enraged GM, and encouraged the company to take a more active role in the defense of the Corvair.
Many of the cases were then consolidated into one big case. The lead case involved a young man who was killed when his 1960 Corvair collided with a Plymouth on a two-lane road. His stepfather was a well-known trial lawyer. They alleged that the young man’s death was caused by the defective rear suspension in the Corvair.
The judge, after listening to testimony from expert witnesses with engineering and racing backgrounds, ruled in GM’s favor. He tossed out of court many of the plaintiffs’ contentions regarding the Corvair. At that point, it was game over for Corvair plaintiffs.
psharjinian: That GM modified it should be evidence that it wasn’t perhaps optimally designed.
No, because then every improvement to a product would be taken as proof that the original was faulty. This would discourage innovation.
Plus, your original contention was that GM only made the modifications in reponse to pressure from Nader. Given product development timelines, and the appearance of Mr. Nader’s book, this is not so.
psharjinian: Again, I find it very hard to understand why we’re trying to defend GM against Ralph Nader, other than what sounds like sour grapes from people who think they know better.
Because, as should be apparent from these posts, I’ve taken the time to do more than read Unsafe at Any Speed, and therefore know the all of the facts.
Sorry, as in the discussions over global warming and health care, you need to understand that just because someone has reached a different conclusion than you have doesn’t mean that they are corrupt, or under the spell of big business, the Republican Party, etc.
psharjinian: No, but there’s a hell of a burden of proof on them, isn’t there? This very site has called the objectivity of automotive journalism into question several times and found it lacking, and this is in an era where it’s pathetically easy to validate a lack of objectivity.
First, you are making the accusations against Mr. Ludvigsen and Mr. Davis, so the burden of proof is on YOU.
Second, you are assuming that every journalist who disagrees with Nader (and you) is automatically tainted by some outside force, while his motives are only pure.
Sorry, but there are many of us who have looked at this case and have drawn very different conclusions based on the evidence, not a free dinner from GM.
psharjinian: When Nader was at his zenith, the media was far less transparent.
The media was actually quite enamored with him in the 1960s. If anything, he was something of a Golden Boy, especially after it was discovered that GM had been dumb enough to hire that private investigator.
psharjinian: Do you seriously think that the editors of Car And Driver don’t have just a little bit of bias? Either because they have a responsibility to their advertisers, or because a non-engineer, non-industry persion did the job that they, as engineers and/or industry insiders, should be doing?
The problem with your argument is that Mr. Ludvigsen didn’t quote Patrick Bedard or David E. Davis, Jr., in his article.
He drew his arguments from the COURT CASES and testimony of ENGINEERS and RACERS in the trial. So any charges of “bias” in his article are nonsense.
And I’m waiting for an explanation of why Consumer Reports had nice things to say about the original Corvair, when it didn’t accept advertising dollars, or test cars on loan from the manufacturers. It blows a hole in your theory that the Corvair was a deathtrap, and that the only way the car could get a favorable review was for GM to bribe or threaten the publication.
psharjinian: You’re trying to make this black-and-white and it isn’t. Automakers aren’t going to build outright deathtraps, but they’re also not going to put in a dime they can’t absolutely justify. It’s always a balance. Nader’s work did put an emphasis on safety that flat-out wasn’t there before.
No, you are the one trying to make this black-and–white by saying that “that automakers were not going to make safer cars unless they had absolutely no other choice.”
Which is wrong, based on the improving fatality statistics prior to 1967 and Ford’s attempt to market safety equipment in 1956.
psharjinian: Wrong. The man makes an assload of money from stock ownership, notably from Cisco Systems. He donates just about all of it. This is all public information, and refutations usually come down to “well, I don’t believe it”.
Sorry, but you are wrong. How did he buy the stock in the first place?
He needed a source of income to buy it.
It didn’t just fall into his lap, like manna from heaven.
They aren’t giving away shares in Cisco or other companies at the Goodwill store.
psharjinian: If I had the full weight of both sides of the American political spectrum bearing down on me, I’d be a noisy, annoying prick, too.
You are confusing the Nader of 1965 with the Nader of 2008.
He didn’t have the “full weight of both sides of the American political spectrum bearing down on him” in 1965. If anything, he was a liberal darling at that time.
Even during the 1995 debate over the elimination of the national 65 mph speed limit, his hysterical predictions of Automotive Armageddon were accepted by the media pretty much without question.
He didn’t tick off liberals until the 2000 election.
I never fail to be amazed at the naivete of some people. To say that the media whose paycheques depend on advertising from automotive sources does not have an agenda to avoid making those sources look bad is the height of absudity. The partisanship of print, radio and TV media is the reason they are waneing as souces of unbiased information and blogs like this one are becoming trusted sources. The fact that you can’t find a paper trail leading from our news sources and politicians to big industry does not mean that it does not exist it simply means they did a good job of hiding it. In the 90s headquarters decreed that accepting tickets to sporting events or free lunches or vacations from vendors we dealt with was forbidden. All that happened was vendors replaced our names with ficticious names on the expense slips. As has been shown by the mismanagement of GM, the only thing big companies care about is the immediate not the long term. So it is with the auto industry that continues to use a part even when they know it’s bad, hoping that the subsequent law suits won’t cost as much as redesigning the part.