Find Reviews by Make:
The NY Times has an interactive widget that shows all domestically-produced vehicles, their point of assembly, whether they’re union-assembled, and where their engine and transmission were produced. What, no parts-content-origin-percentages? Oh well, the message is clear: Americans build tons of hugely popular automobiles.
13 Comments on “Would The Real Domestic Auto Industry Please Stand Up?...”
Read all comments
This is a fantastic service!
Keeping track of all the different brands is easy and there are surprises: GM has more truck brands than cars!
Thank you NY Times and TTAC for making this available.
The problem has never really rested with the American worker. Workers all over the world can make a crappy product and we can put together a POS with the best of them. Its the corporate make-my-money now mentality that has screwed over the American consumer. That attitude trickles down to the dealers and the workers and breeds indifference.
+1 to the above comment……line workers/rank/file-cubicle engineers aren’t the problem. Problem lies with management and to a lesser extent–the distribution channel.
The majority of America just doesn’t care anymore.
Immigration will cause whites to be a minority by 2012. Then the majority will have no concept on the importance of unionism and manufacturing in the u.S.
And that’s why I like Cars!!!
A nice effort by the Times, but they missed the fact that many vehicles have multiple assembly sites. Accords, for example, are built in both Ohio and Alabama. Tacomas are built in both California and Mexico. Civics come from Canada, Indiana and Japan. In all these cases the NYT piece only lists one of the assembly sites.
The problem has never really rested with the American worker. Workers all over the world can make a crappy product and we can put together a POS with the best of them.
The point is that for example a GM truck made in Mexico is virtually identical to one made in the US (other then the better paint due to regulations) while the mexican worker makes a small fraction of the wages. The cost of the unionized worker IS the problem.
Too bad the real people who need to see this kinda thing don’t know how to use a computer.
The cost of the unionized worker IS the problem.
As has been pointed out—frequently—is that GM is a much lower-cost producer than Toyota or Honda. The problem isn’t the worker, the problem is the inability to design or market a product that people want to buy.
GM could make their cars in Mexico, India or China and they’d still lose money because Honda and Toyota don’t have to stack thousand dollar bills on the hood to entice customers.
The Pontiac Vibe is listed as a truck while its Toyota equivalent isn’t listed, even if it is a truck.
Rod Panhard
The Pontiac Vibe is listed as a truck while its Toyota equivalent isn’t listed, even if it is a truck.
That’s because the Matrix is made in Canada.
psarhjinian
That is an additional but separate issue.
When comparing two equal vehicles the additional labor cost from the excessive union wages can not be justified in the form of higher quality or productivity.
Actually it is the opposite, internal quality audits always showed the Mexican plants ahead. (This is GM, I don’t know about others, but would expect the same)
“When comparing two equal vehicles the additional labor cost from the excessive union wages can not be justified in the form of higher quality or productivity.”
This is incorrect on a general basis. You can be paid more if you are more productive as your unit cost may be lower. This is a gross generalization, though, and in some instances your assertion would be correct.
If I can do the work of 1.5 men and you pay me 2x the going wage, I am an “overpaid” worker but your unit cost for me is lower than if you had 2 men (can’t quite get that 0.5 man-day) doing the same work. My overhead costs to you are fixed; introduce another body and now you have twice the overhead cost (pension, health care, benefits, etc.) as with the single, more productive individual.
The same applies for the same number of workers at two different plants who are more efficient. If one set of workers are 50% more efficient than their counterparts, that means their labor cost per unit produced is 50% less than their counterparts.
Regardless, after dealing with my company’s corporate accountants more than I care to, I am inclined to think that all beancounters need to be thrown back into the dungeons. Rules like Sarbanes-Oxley Act were never created due to the shennagins of engineers.