Not "built", but instead controlling % of shares/ownership.

Sorry H.G.P., but those are examples of where the cars are BUILT, i.e. where are the factories that build them.

The Pontiac GTO is BUILT in Australia by Holden, a GM company. Is that car Australian? Is it American because GM owns Holden? Or is the Holden Monaro Australian because it was designed and engineered in Australia, built by Australians, and sold only in the Australian market? The GTO is sold only in the North-American market, as a Pontiac. Maybe it's American. But it's really just a re-skinned Holden Monaro.

The Saab 9-2x is BUILT in Japan by Subaru, at the time a GM company (yes they only held a small part of the parent company Fuji Heavy Industries at the time, but large enough to have control of 'just' Subaru -- yes GM sold that share to Toyota). Is that car American? GM "owns controlling % of shares/ownership'' of Saab. Or is the Subaru Impreza WRX Japanese because it was designed and engineered in Japan, built by Japanese? Or is the Saab 9-2x Swedish because Saab is a Swedish brand? Hmmm.

The Dodge Sprinter is clearly a Mercedes-Benz 3190. It is designed and 'built' in Germany (or assembled in domestic markets from 'kits' with German-made parts). But it is a Dodge, clearly and American brand. Is it American? Or German?

Okay, by H.G.P.'s standards, even the Dodge Magnum would be German. It shares LOTS of parts with the Mercedes E-Class. Even the big-ol' Dodge Ram is German. Daimler-Chrysler is still headquartered in Stuttgart. Want some lederhosen with those cowboy boots?

My points were to challenge just WHAT a Japanese car really is, as people seem to think that any car with a Japanese nameplate must be superior to a car with an American nameplate.

So H.G.P.'s logic would say that a Mazda, 'not "built", but instead controlling % of shares/ownership', is an American car even if it is built in Japan (ala Mazda RX8 and Mazda 3, or the late Mazda Millenia)?

And a Nissan would therefore be French? Was there ever a time when a Renault topped Consumer Reports list? How about a Citroen? Peugeot?

The Pontiac Vibe and Toyota Matrix (and the previous generation Toyota Corolla and Chevrolet Prism) are mostly the same car, built in the same assembly plant in Van Nuys, CA and utilize the same engines, transmissions, main electrical components, etc. So one is Japanese and the other is American, I understand. Why would the buying public believe that the Toyota is better? Why would a 2001 Toyota Corolla have a better resale value than a 2001 Chevrolet Prism? Why would the Matrix be 'better' than the Vibe. Neither are great cars.

I'm not saying I know the answers. I'm just as perplexed as you should be.

E

http://www.assemblymag.com/CDA/ArticleInformation/coverstory/BNPCoverStoryItem/0,6490,135204,00.html

IF YOU DOUBT THE IMPACT OF THE BIG-THREE ON THE US ECONOMY

Copied from the article dated 10/2004:

In 1952, Charles Erwin Wilson, president of General Motors Corp., told a congressional committee: “What is good for the country is good for General Motors, and what’s good for General Motors is good for the country.”

More than 50 years later, Wilson’s boast still rings true, at least according to ASSEMBLY magazine’s latest research project: the Assembly Top 50. To determine the impact of product assembly on the U.S. economy, ASSEMBLY magazine ranked the top 50 publicly owned manufacturing companies by gross revenue. To qualify for our list, a company had to derive a significant portion of its gross revenue from products that it assembled or that it designed and had assembled by another company. More importantly, some of this assembly, whether in-house or outsourced, had to occur in the United States.

By those standards, GM is clearly No. 1. In 2003, the company posted a gross revenue of more than $185.5 billion, or a whopping 1.7 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product. That makes GM the top assembler not just in the United States, but the world. Only three other manufacturers in the world made more money than GM last year, and those are oil companies.

While Wilson’s statement may seem like braggadocio today, our survey reinforces what the former Defense secretary was really trying to communicate to Congress: Since the first Model T rolled off the line, the assembly of machines that roll, float or fly has been critical to the U.S. economy.

In the Assembly Top 50, six of the top 10 assemblers are the major automotive OEMs. Moreover, 32 of the Assembly Top 50 assemble cars, trucks, tractors, planes, trains, ships, tanks, missiles and spacecraft—or major components of those machines. All totaled, these companies account for 78 percent of the $1.9 trillion in revenue amassed by the Top 50. And that’s not including contract manufacturers, such as Sanmina-SCI Corp. (No. 39, San Jose, CA), that assemble the ever-growing number of electronic components inside today’s vehicles.

Here’s some of what’s going on at the Assembly Top 50.


No. 1, General Motors Corp., Detroit

A flexible vehicle-architecture strategy has enabled GM to optimize resources globally, take better advantage of economies of scale, and develop products tailor-made for each region. For example, the Epsilon architecture spawned the Opel Vectra, Saab 9-3, Chevy Malibu and Pontiac G6. The new Pontiac GTO, based on the Holden Monaro, was developed in less than 2 years.

“In today’s increasingly global auto industry, the winners will be those companies that best combine the efficiencies of global scale with a superb focus on local markets,” says Rick Wagoner, GM’s chairman and CEO. “In both of those regards, I like GM’s position.”

GM’s investments in China during the 1990s are paying off. In 2003, China became the world’s third-largest automotive market, and GM’s unit sales in that country increased 46 percent last year. The Chevrolet Spark is the first mini-car produced by GM’s SAIC-GM-Wuling joint venture and the first Chevy manufactured in China.

Soaring health care costs remain a major challenge for GM and all U.S. companies. GM is the largest private purchaser of health care in the United States. During 2003, the company spent $4.8 billion on health care for its 1.1 million U.S. employees, retirees and their dependents. That’s more than the company spent on steel. On an expense basis, every vehicle GM manufactures in the United States starts with a $1,400 bill for health care.


No. 2, DaimlerChrysler AG, Stuttgart, Germany

During the next 3 years, DaimlerChrysler plans to launch some 50 new products. Half of those will come from the Chrysler Group, including nine new models by the end of 2004.

In 2003, DaimlerChrysler invested approximately $7 billion in R&D, and $8.3 billion in property, plants and equipment. Major investments were made by the Mercedes Car Group to equip plants in Rastatt, Germany, and Tuscaloosa, AL, to assemble the new A-Class and M-Class vehicles and the new Smart Forfour. Investments for the Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge brands included funds to modify the plant in Newark, NJ, to assemble the new Dodge Durango.

In December 2003, China approved an application to establish a joint venture between DaimlerChrysler, the Taiwanese China Motor Corp., and the Chinese Fujian Motor Industry Group. The joint venture will construct a new plant in Fuzhou City to assemble the Mercedes-Benz Sprinter and Viano Vito vans. The plant, which will open at the end of 2005, will have an annual capacity of 40,000 units.


No. 3, Ford Motor Co., Dearborn, MI

Ford has dubbed 2004 the “Year of the Car,” because most of the new products it introduced in North America this year were cars. That includes the 2005 Ford Focus, Five Hundred, Freestyle, GT and Mustang, as well as the Mercury Montego.

Among the domestic automakers, Ford is leading in hybrid and fuel cell technology. This year, the company began selling a fuel cell powered version of the Ford Focus to commercial fleets. The company also introduced the Ford Escape Hybrid, a mainstream sport-utility vehicle with a full hybrid-electric powertrain. The Escape Hybrid is expected to achieve more than 35 miles per gallon in city driving.

“Consumer-Driven Six Sigma,” Ford’s quality improvement and waste elimination methodology, has dramatically affected the company’s operations. Since its inception, Ford has completed more than 9,500 projects that have saved the company $1.7 billion worldwide, including $731 million in 2003. In addition, the automaker attributes about half of its current-model quality improvement to Consumer-Driven Six Sigma. Warranty costs in 2003 were down 18 percent compared with 2002 spending.

Also in 2003, Ford began implementing a program called Team Value Management (TVM). The process brings together cross-functional teams to improve value and quality. Working collaboratively with its suppliers, Ford assessed the gaps between its actual costs and industry benchmarks. Ford credits TVM for achieving record reductions in total material costs for 2003.

Ford is continuing to implement its new flexible manufacturing system, which standardizes operations, allows multiple models to be built on the same assembly line, and enables faster product changeovers. Three more plants in the United States began using the new system this year. By the end of the decade, all of Ford’s European assembly plants and 75 percent of its North American plants will have flexible systems in place.

Like GM, Ford is counting on common vehicle architectures to help increase flexibility, reduce costs, and shorten development times. The company plans to reduce the number of architectures it uses by 25 percent by the end of the decade.

(By the way, Toyota was #5 just after General Electric and just before IBM)

E

The "Cat iis LONG out of the bag", either sit in the dugout and stare, or innovate.