The Big 3 Auto bailout

[minnie61650]

The members are not really funding the UAW. The company is paying the members "enough" that they can pay their dues and still "make a living wage". They are a closed shop - so the workers have no choice but to fund the unions largess. Therefore, the UAW is most definitely and directly a beneficiary of taxpayer money.

I still fail to see a collation between dues paid by members and our govenment funded loans to the auto companies.

I guess I will agree to respectfully disagree with you.

 

[Galahad]

I belive that statement is your personal opinion.

True. It is my personal opinion.

Thankfully the days of jimmy Hoffa are long gone.


JMHO

It is also my personal opinion that the above, sadly, is not true. They are little "cleaner" about it now - but just as corrupt.

 

[minnie61650]

<SNIP> Your use of the word "concessions" implies that the union still asserts that they are owed more than what is provided by an unencumbered labor market, i.e., the labor market most of us work within. <SNIP>

That is not the meaning of the word "concessions" I felt was implied.
I thought it was used to convey that a agreement that made earlier was changed because certain circumstances had changed. The party who compromises the most ( the one who settles for less) is said to have made concessions.

JMHO

 

[bicker]

Let's make this simple:

Are you denying the union's insistence that there continue to be a collective bargaining contract?

If not, your concerns about my comment are without foundation.

 

[minnie61650]

<SNIP>
If not, your concerns about my comment are without foundation.

Personally I feel my concerns about your comment are well founded.

BTW:

I can not find "collective bargaining contract " as a definition or a synonym for "concessions"in this online thesaurus.

This is what I found:

Main Entry: concession
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: yielding, adjustment
Synonyms: acknowledgment, admission, allowance, assent, authorization, boon, buyback, compromise, confession, copout, deal, giveback, giving in, grant, indulgence, permission, permit, privilege, rollback, sellout, surrender, trade-off, warrant

Main Entry: concession
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: An accommodation made in the light of special or extenuating circumstances.
Synonyms: allowance



Link:

http://thesaurus.reference.com/the?q=concession&search=

 

[bicker]

 

[daisax]

I haven't bought American in 12 years, but I went with my sister to buy a Kia last week. The business office was in the conglomerate's Chevy building, so we strolled over and waited in the showroom while they got their paperwork together. It was shocking to me how shoddy the Chevys were -- cars that were $15,000 more than the one she bought with light weight/tin can-like doors. We went from vehicle to vehicle and were really astonished by how unsubstantial they were. No way would I feel safe in one. And until they make a better product, people who left American cars won't be going back.

It's not even like we have a specific family brand loyalty -- Mom's got an Acura (and the difference between her high end Acura and the high end Chevys was remarkable), I've got a mid level Subaru and my sister is sticking with Kia (had a very bad accident in her last one and while it was totaled, the passenger compartment was virtually unaffected).

We grew up with Fords -- American cars weren't always made like Pringles cans. And until they stop making up for labor costs with inferior product, buyers won't come back.

 

[minnie61650]

I haven't bought American in 12 years, but I went with my sister to buy a Kia last week. The business office was in the conglomerate's Chevy building, so we strolled over and waited in the showroom while they got their paperwork together. It was shocking to me how shoddy the Chevys were -- cars that were $15,000 more than the one she bought with light weight/tin can-like doors. We went from vehicle to vehicle and were really astonished by how unsubstantial they were. No way would I feel safe in one. ....

Actually the light weight/tin can doors (your words not not mine) are built that way on pupose for your protection. They are crumple zones.

Whenever a car is involved in a crash, intense kinetic forces are at work. A given amount of force is present during any crash. The actual numbers vary based on the speed and mass of the car and the speed and mass of whatever it hits. Physicists measure this force as acceleration -- even when moving from a high speed to a lower speed, any change in speed over time is scientifically referred to as acceleration. To avoid confusion, we will refer to crash acceleration as deceleration.

Crumple zones accomplish two safety goals. They reduce the initial force of the crash, and they redistribute the force before it reaches the vehicle's occupants.<SNIP>

Crumple zones accomplish this by creating a buffer zone around the perimeter of the car. Certain parts of a car are inherently rigid and resistant to deforming, such as the passenger compartment and the engine. If those rigid parts hit something, they will decelerate very quickly, resulting in a lot of force. Surrounding those parts with crumple zones allows the less rigid materials to take the initial impact. The car begins decelerating as soon as the crumple zone starts crumpling, extending the deceleration over a few extra tenths of a second.

Crumple zones also help redistribute the force of impact. All of the force has to go somewhere -- the goal is to send it away from the occupants. Think of the force involved in a crash as a force budget. Everything that happens to the car during an impact and every person inside of the car at the time of the impact spends some of the force. If the car hits a non-stationary object, like a parked car, then some force is transferred to that object. If the car hits something with a glancing blow and spins or rolls, much of the force is spent on the spinning and rolling. If parts of the car fly off, even more force is spent. Most importantly, damage to the car itself spends force. Bending parts of the frame, smashing body panels, shattering glass -- all of these actions require energy. Think of how much force is needed to bend the steel frame of a car. That amount of force is spent on bending the frame, so it is never transmitted to the occupants.

Crumple zones are based on that concept. Parts of the car are built with special structures inside them that are designed to be damaged, crumpled, crushed and broken. We'll explain the structures themselves shortly, but the fundamental idea is that it takes force to damage them. Crumple zones spend as much force as possible so that other parts of the car as well as the occupants don't suffer the effects.

Link to full article:

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/crumple-zone1.htm

 

[minnie61650]

<SNIP>

We grew up with Fords -- American cars weren't always made like Pringles cans. <SNIOP> ....

You are correct American cars weren't always made like Pringles cans.
In the 50's and 60's they were made of heavy steel. They also were not as safe as today's lighter cars that are made to crumple on impact..

I say better a crushed/totaled Pringles car with drivers and passengers who have less serious injuries than heavy metal car that is only dented but whose drivers and passengers are killed or seriously injured.

 

[minnie61650]

Here is an interesting crash test article.
It mentions that "General Motors designs its head restraints to meet a variety of driver sizes rather than focusing on a single set of metrics," GM (Charts, Fortune 500) said in a statement regarding recent rear impact tests on SUVs, trucks and vans. "Head restraints are part of the integrated approach to occupant protection in all GM vehicles."

My niece who is a university professor at a Michigan college was one of the individules GM used for measurements. She is 4'10" tall and very petite.
They had her sit in several different model vehicles to make sure she could adjust the driver's seat to fit her body type and tomake sure that the head restraints would work well for her body type also.

She told us how through they seemed be. She also needed to wear different shoes( Heels, sandles, tennis shoes etc. )during the testing.

Crash test is pain in the neck for car makers
Why some auto makers are putting a safety group's rear impact test on the hot seat.
By Peter Valdes-Dapena, CNNMoney.com staff writer
July 13 2007: 9:42 AM EDT


NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Some car companies - even those that have "Top Safety Pick Awards" from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety - say its rear impact protection test doesn't reflect reality, and that its methods force auto makers into a one-size-fits-all solution.

The institute's rear impact test, which was developed in conjunction with auto safety groups around the world, is supposed to show how well a car protects you from whiplash in case of a rear collision.

While whiplash may not seem like much, it's a big deal if you suffer from it - the pain is severe and can last for weeks or months. And it's a really big deal if you're running an insurance company. Whiplash claims cost them $8.5 billion every year, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

Two years ago, the institute begin giving out "Top Safety Pick" awards for car, SUV and van models that get its top rating of "Good" for front side and rear impact protection. Winning car companies even get an actual trophy.

But getting a top grade for front and side impact protection, where poor performance means an increased likelihood of death, isn't enough to win the prize. Autos have to protect against whiplash too.

Cars that have earned the institute's "Top Safety Pick" award include the 2008 Ford (Charts, Fortune 500) Taurus, the Volvo C70 convertible and Hyundai Entourage minivan.

But some cars that get top "Good" ratings for both front and side impact crash ratings, including the BMW 3-series and the Toyota Camry and Avalon, still get "Poor" ratings for rear impact protection.

The Insurance Institute's rear impact safety test has two parts. The first simply measures the seat to determine the relationship between the seat back and head restraint, which is commonly known as a headrest.

Only seats with a headrest that's located and shaped to prevent the head from moving back in a crash even get to go on to the actual "impact" test. If not, the seat automatically gets a "Poor" or "Marginal" rating.

Seats that get an "Acceptable" or "Good" rating - the institute's two best ratings - are then mounted on a moving platform, and a crash test dummy is seatbelted in pace. A puff of compressed air sends the sled forward in a sudden movement to mimic the impact of a car traveling at 20 miles per hour.

Automakers object to these tests for two reasons. The first is that the Institute crash-tests seats once using a single average-sized crash test dummy. Car companies say they test their seats using dummies of various sizes.

"General Motors designs its head restraints to meet a variety of driver sizes rather than focusing on a single set of metrics," GM (Charts, Fortune 500) said in a statement regarding recent rear impact tests on SUVs, trucks and vans. "Head restraints are part of the integrated approach to occupant protection in all GM vehicles."

The Institute counters that, in real life, people rarely adjust their head restraints, usually leaving them in the lowest position no matter how tall they are. In an impact test, however, the institute does move the headrest to the proper height for the dummy. At worst, said Institute president Adrian Lund, it still replicates a situation that's probably safer for occupants than real life.

Some car companies object to the fact that the "impact" test is conducted using a sled rather than a real car being hit by another real car.

"Impact absorbing structures on Toyota vehicles play a major role in helping to effectively absorb impact energy in the event of a front, side or rear collision," said Toyota (Charts) in a statement. "When performing the rear crash dynamic test, the IIHS procedure does not take the whole vehicle into account."

Crashing real cars is expensive, though, and the Institute wrecks many real cars for front and side impact crash tests. In the rear impact protection test, said Lund, the jet of air that briefly rockets the sled forward is precisely programmed, from the rate of acceleration to the way the sled stops, to emulate the movement of a vehicle's passenger compartment during a 20 mile-per-hour rear hit.

In the end, the Institute insists, its rear impact test is just as good as crashing real cars, which shows in reduced whiplash claims for occupants with "Good" seats.

"Of all the safety devices in our vehicle," said Russ Rader, a spokesman for the Insurance Institute, "you are more likely to need a good head restraint than an airbag"

Most trucks, SUVs do poorly in whiplash test
Ford teams up to test plug-in hybrids
GM and Ford products on the comeback

Link:

http://money.cnn.com/2007/07/11/autos/rear_impact_test/index.htm

 

[daisax]

The implication is that the heavier foreign cars don't have crumple zones, which isn't true.

I want a safe car that will go to 150,000-200,000 miles. When the US Automakers consistently make one, I'll be happy to buy it.

 

[Galahad]

I want a safe car that will go to 150,000-200,000 miles. When the US Automakers consistently make one, I'll be happy to buy it.

I would add to that that if the logic that lead me to stop buying American cars is to hold for a decision to return to them, then my Japanese cars would have to start to suck. It wouldn't be enough, frankly, that American cars "get better". Thankfully the days when people make buying decisions based up a perceived obligation to buy from a certain company are virtually behind us.

 

[rascalmom]

From the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety website:

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/default.aspx

Top Safety Picks 2009
Current winners listed at left | Past Top Safety Pick winners

The Institute rates vehicles good, acceptable, marginal, or poor based on performance in high-speed front and side crash tests plus evaluations of seat/head restraints for protection against neck injuries in rear impacts. The first requirement for a vehicle to become a Top Safety Pick is to earn good ratings in all three Institute tests. Another requirement is that winning vehicles must offer electronic stability control. This requirement is based on Institute research indicating that ESC significantly reduces crash risk, especially the risk of fatal single-vehicle crashes, by helping drivers maintain control of their vehicles during emergency maneuvers.

Here are the Top Vehicles in each of their 11 categories (I've highlighted the cars made by the Big 3):

Top Safety Pick 2009 award winners
Large cars +

Acura RL

Audi A6

Cadillac CTS

Ford TaurusLincoln MKS

Mercury Sable

Toyota Avalon

Volvo S80


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Midsize cars +

Acura TL

Acura TSX

Audi A3

Audi A4

BMW 3 series
4-door models

Ford Fusion
with optional electronic stability control

Honda Accord
4-door models

Mercedes C class

Mercury Milan
with optional electronic stability control

Saab 9-3

Subaru Legacy

Volkswagen Jetta

Volkswagen Passat


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Midsize convertibles +

Saab 9-3

Volkswagen Eos

Volvo C70


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Small cars +

Honda Civic
4-door models (except Si) with optional electronic stability control

Mitsubishi Lancer
with optional electronic stability control

Scion xB

Subaru Impreza

Toyota Corolla
with optional electronic stability control

Volkswagen Rabbit
4-door models


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Minicar +

Honda Fit
with optional electronic stability control


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Minivans +

Honda Odyssey

Hyundai Entourage

Kia Sedona


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Large SUVs +

Audi Q7

Buick Enclave

Chevrolet Traverse

GMC Acadia

Saturn Outlook

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Midsize SUVs +

Acura MDX

Acura RDX

BMW X3

BMW X5

Ford Edge

Ford Flex

Ford Taurus X

Honda Pilot

Hyundai Santa Fe

Hyundai Veracruz

Infiniti EX35

Lincoln MKX

Mercedes M class

Nissan Murano

Saturn VUE


Subaru Tribeca

Toyota FJ Cruiser

Toyota Highlander

Volvo XC90


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Small SUVs +
Ford Escape
Honda CR-V

Honda Element

Mazda Tribute

Mercury Mariner
Mitsubishi Outlander

Nissan Rogue

Subaru Forester

Toyota RAV4

Volkswagen Tiguan


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Large pickups +
Ford F-150

Honda Ridgeline

Toyota Tundra


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Small pickup +

Toyota Tacoma

These lists are in alphabetical order. It is interesting that the only category in which the Big 3 dominates is the Large SUV's. They are tied with other brands in the Large Car category. With all the badges and models put out by the Big 3, you would think they would be doing better in this testing. The rankings above are based on receiving a minimum of a "good" rating in front and side collisions and head-restraint effectiveness.

So unless you want a large SUV, you are probably NOT safer with the "tin can" doors that the pp saw at the Chevy dealership.

I am sad to not see any American cars in the minivan category - that was an original American idea, but it seems that other manufacturers now do it better. I drove minivans all the years my children were growning up - I'm sure other parents would agree that that category in particular should place a high emphasis on vehicle safety.

 

[minnie61650]

From the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety website:<SNIP>
I am sad to not see any American cars in the minivan category - that was an original American idea, but it seems that other manufacturers now do it better.

Just an FYI:

GM and Ford no longer make the family minivans.
That is why in November of this year when DH traded in his Chevy minivan work vehicle which had over 120,000 miles on it, (BTW it ran well and he never had a problem with it but he just wanted a newer work vehiclel) he bought a Saturn Outlook.

When I asked him why he decided to get an SUV instead of a minivan he said GM and Ford no longer make the minivan.

 

[rascalmom]

Just an FYI:

GM and Ford no longer make the family minivans.
That is why in November of this year when DH traded in his Chevy minivan work vehicle which had over 120,000 miles on it, (BTW it ran well and he never had a problem with it but he just wanted a newer work vehiclel) he bought a Saturn Outlook.

When I asked him why he decided to get an SUV instead of a minivan he said GM and Ford no longer make the minivan.

I didn't know that - so Chrysler has the only American made minivans?

That is kind of sad that Ford/GM gave up on a whole vehicle type. I know minivans have lost favor in recent years & SUV's are perceived as "cooler" by a lot of folks. But the minivans are wonderfully practical and more fuel efficient - I found them great in the years I was hauling Brownie troops and T-ball teams around.

I have an SUV now too, but I chose it more for the luxury features that were available in that category....those weren't available in minivans except for the Chrysler Town & Country. I had one Chrysler minivan & had a multitude of problems....didn't want to waste my time and money on another. My mother has a Ford Windstar that has served her well. We have a 12 year old Honda Odyssey that we keep as a backup - it still does great. The Chrysler/Plymouth we had was falling apart at 4 years.

 

[minnie61650]

I didn't know that - so Chrysler has the only American made minivans?

That is kind of sad that Ford/GM gave up on a whole vehicle type. I know minivans have lost favor in recent years & SUV's are perceived as "cooler" by a lot of folks. But the minivans are wonderfully practical and more fuel efficient - I found them great in the years I was hauling Brownie troops and T-ball teams around.

.

It is kind of sad.
DH's favorite minivan was his Oldsmobile van which he drove for 4 years. He traded that one in for his Chevy van 3 years ago. He really wanted another Oldsmobiel van but GM stopped making the OLsmobiel line the year before. We have 4 children who are grown now and a grandson so DH would the minivans for work and then when 5 or more of us wanted to go somewhere we would use the van for a little more room instead of my
Buick.

 

[silmarg]

I am a big Oldsmobile fan.

I owned a 1976 Cutlass and put 240,000 miles on it.

I bought an brand new 2001 Alero after they annouced the demise of the Olds brand (for $13k), and she has given me no problems over the past 7+ years.