honestly… I’d buy one in a heartbeat. great DD/beater… especially a band spanking new car (although, for only 2500 a car, I wouldn’t put a whole lot of faith in reliability unless they plan to sell millions of these. that doesnt make up for a whole lot of $$$ invested in R&D)
[quote=“JayS,post:40,topic:28253"”]
Besides that, if it’s going to have 33hp you know it’s going to be made out of tissue paper and balsa wood, and in a crash with a 5000lb SUV it’s going to resemble a bug on the bumper.
[/quote]
Good point. Are there minimum crash safety standards, or
Aw fuck it. I’ll just admit that I’m looking for a way to justify my primal instinct to go apeshit with a sledge hammer on a 33hp car.:2fingers::shoot: :headbang:
[quote=“JayS,post:37,topic:28253"”]
Smell that? It’s the CEO’s at GM and Ford shitting their pants. China/India labor rates will be the death of GM and Ford if these slave labor rate cars make it to the US without heavy tarriffs.
[/quote]
Damnit! I agree with you again. I hate it when that happens :lol: Don’t let GOP hear you talking about tariffs - they’ll pull your card.
Yes the slave labor rates will kill the US auto industry. Another point to keep in mind is that while their slave labor is an advantage, the lack of regulation is an even bigger advantage for these vehicles. Those factories have virtually no compliance costs related to OS&H, wastewater treatment, indoor air quality, factory emmissions, etc. What regulations do exist in countries like China only incur costs by way of how much the factory bribes the local magistrates not to enforce them.
I’ve very against tarriff’s as a way to bail out the american auto industry as it exists today. The competition they’re getting from Toyota and Honda is coming from cars built right here in the US. Their problems today are because of union deals made in the past, and it’s not the government’s to tax us to pay for GM and Ford’s past mistakes.
But, on the other hand, you can’t allow companies to start selling cars in this country that were made by people making .50 an hour.
You need a multi-prong approach to fix the US auto industry.
- Big time union busting.
- Goverment is going to have to help out with the pensions, with concessions coming from the retires in exchange for the financial stability of their retirement plan.
- Tarriffs to allow a reasonable wage/benefits plan.
No pension, welcome to investing in a 401k like the rest of us.
No “free” health care, welcome to contributing a portion.
No 60k+ a year for standing at a stamping machine.
[quote=“91MR2,post:36,topic:28253"”]
This will KILL the used car market if it actually happens.
[/quote]
I dunno, maybe a little but not that much. How many people with 9k to spend on a car do you see going out and buying Aveos?
I would certainly much prefer a nicer used car, than a brand new piece of shit.
[quote=“BrockwayMT,post:43,topic:28253"”]
Damnit! I agree with you again. I hate it when that happens :lol: Don’t let GOP hear you talking about tariffs - they’ll pull your card.
Yes the slave labor rates will kill the US auto industry. Another point to keep in mind is that while their slave labor is an advantage, the lack of regulation is an even bigger advantage for these vehicles. Those factories have virtually no compliance costs related to OS&H, wastewater treatment, indoor air quality, factory emmissions, etc. What regulations do exist in countries like China only incur costs by way of how much the factory bribes the local magistrates not to enforce them.
[/quote]
Ironically all of my employees are in safety training today.
(My cost is about $20,000.00)
Do Chinese companies have to pay for their employees to be safe?
I am going to go out on a limb and say, “No”.
Edit: The tariffs would have to be OVER 1000% to be effective. Fat chance of having 1000% tariffs.
I call BS on every one of you claiming that you would buy one. Why would you spend 3000 of your own dollars on a car that wouldn’t be able to climb a hill with 2 full sized Americans in it? I bet you aren’t currently driving the most inexpensive and fuel efficient vehicle you could find, so why do you say that would change if you could buy the smallest cheapest car India has to offer? If you would buy one of these then why aren’t you currently driving a Geo Metro, Ford Festiva, or the like? Because you can’t buy one new?
These things are meant for third world countries, for tapping into markets where owning a vehicle is otherwise unreachable, where there are no used cars because nobody can afford them new to begin with. They won’t come here.
Can you buy a brand new metro or Festiva for $3000?
I’d like to see crash test ratings before I get in one.
“The automaker claims it will even pass a crash test.”
LEWL, well that’s good to know.
[quote=“davids,post:49,topic:28253"”]
I’d like to see crash test ratings before I get in one.
[/quote]
like it was stated before it could have a 5star rating across the board but that doesn’t mean anything because too many stupid americans buy big heavy tanks they don’t need.
for example. my SHO has excelent crash ratings and so does my saturn. now if you ram my SHO into my saturn i highly doubt the saturns ability to cause injury to the sho’s occupants.
and yes a massive amount of boost would get that 33hp up around 100 and i’m sure the light car would scoot!
Except that crash tests reference unmovable barriers. Vehicles don’t get bigger than unmovable barriers. If you want to consider geometry, such the bumper height of a hummer relative to the height of your head in a $2500 dollar Indian flinstonemobile, that’s another story. 
even if that ended up selling for $4000 brand new for some reason i guarentee that they’ll sell fast. If you’re a middle class parent and your kid NEEDS a car what would you do. Spend a few grand on something that is brand new, gets good fuel mileage and wont get them in trouble racing around!! Shit even a kid buying this could learn about $$. Working at a pizza shop 3 times a week you could pay for a brand new car…
good idea i think.
make if 55 HP and id buy it for $5k
[quote=“JayS,post:44,topic:28253"”]
I’ve very against tarriff’s as a way to bail out the american auto industry as it exists today. The competition they’re getting from Toyota and Honda is coming from cars built right here in the US. Their problems today are because of union deals made in the past, and it’s not the government’s to tax us to pay for GM and Ford’s past mistakes.
But, on the other hand, you can’t allow companies to start selling cars in this country that were made by people making .50 an hour.
You need a multi-prong approach to fix the US auto industry.
- Big time union busting.
- Goverment is going to have to help out with the pensions, with concessions coming from the retires in exchange for the financial stability of their retirement plan.
- Tarriffs to allow a reasonable wage/benefits plan.
No pension, welcome to investing in a 401k like the rest of us.
No “free” health care, welcome to contributing a portion.
No 60k+ a year for standing at a stamping machine.
[/quote]
Couple things…
-
Quality - detroit is making better cars but suffering from the stigma of cars made fifteen or twenty years ago - but it still isn’t Toyota level. But that answer lies in Wall Street. They need to accept that in order to make a quality car in the future they need to borrow and spend on R&D and quality parts and processes today. That means no profit for probably five years. But they won’t have it. Every day I work on cutting costs out of the automobile. Partly to offset rising business expenses (steel surcharges, health care) but mainly to make the investors more money because that is all they care about and that is what drives the business.
-
Lower cost of doing business - while some states are better than NY, and big companies have it better than small ones, I still think the costs of compliance and insurance are out of control. I think these costs could reduce if our system (economic/legal) was more sensible; tort reform maybe?
-
I agree with concessions on retirement benefits relating years of service from today on, or for new hires. On the other hand I feel that retirement is a contractual obligation on the part of the employer and they should not be allowed to back out of it (as the airlines did in bankruptcy court). What I am saying is that if you change the retirement system now, you can’t change what people already have. So if they have twenty years plus now, they get what is coming to them based on the twenty years and the agreement in force for that time. In five more years they can take the greater of either 25 years service on the new system or the old system benefit 20 plus 5 years under the new. I don’t believe in somebody working for 20 years on the employers promise of x% of the last year salary for the rest of your life (or whatever the calculation is) and then the company changes it today to be less. They promised it in the past so they have to live with it, whether the stockholders like it or not.
I just got to deal with GM about their “quality” cars. I realize everyone has issues, Toyota included, but it’s how you deal with them that really shows you the difference.
http://www.nyspeed.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27604
I know based on my experience this is my last GM product, regardless of what they release while I own the GTO. And since I’m a big “car guy”, lots of people will ask me in the course of a year which car they should get. Guess which brand will be crossed of my list of recommendations?