GM will recall 22,000 2005-07 Corvettes

[MCompact]

Originally Posted By: artificialist

Now people are refusing to buy GM and Chrysler because of their tax revenue going to those builders.


That would be me. I refuse to give aid or comfort to Gubmint Motors, Fiat America, or the UAW.
That said, after my Mazda fiasco, my money will only go to Great Britain(motorcycles) or Germany(automobiles).

 

[Ed_T]

If the 'domestics' were so great, the issue of 'foreign' cars crowding them out would not even exist. BTW, my 'foreign' car was was assembled in Lexington, KY. I don't know the % of domestic parts content, but it's likely up pretty high.

It ain't perfect, but compared to my experiences in the past with all manner of domestics, from Lincoln to Chrysler with GM's mixed in, I will repeat myself that some of the 'foreign' manufacturers produce some of the most reliable and least problematic vehicles extant.

These are the facts as I see them, and I have put my money where my mouth is.

 

[BeanCounter]

Originally Posted By: ls1mike

Really? Seems like my tax dollars paid for cash for clunkers and the inport companies made out good on that deal.



That is a pretty decent point, although the [censored] companies just lucked out on our country's stupidity, thinking that the C4C would help out our domestic car manufacturers.

I have an '07 GM but I bought it used.
I really do like it a lot, so I won't complain, but I very well may never buy a new car off the lot to begin with, and, unfortunately, probably not a car from a company that still owes the government funds.

I am and always have been a GM fan, and that won't stop. But, coincidentally, I happen to like older GM's better than the majority of new ones so I don't mind picking up an old roller and dropping in a crate engine.

 

[ShiningArcanine]

Originally Posted By: BeanCounter
Originally Posted By: ls1mike

Really? Seems like my tax dollars paid for cash for clunkers and the inport companies made out good on that deal.



That is a pretty decent point, although the [censored] companies just lucked out on our country's stupidity, thinking that the C4C would help out our domestic car manufacturers.

I have an '07 GM but I bought it used.
I really do like it a lot, so I won't complain, but I very well may never buy a new car off the lot to begin with, and, unfortunately, probably not a car from a company that still owes the government funds.

I am and always have been a GM fan, and that won't stop. But, coincidentally, I happen to like older GM's better than the majority of new ones so I don't mind picking up an old roller and dropping in a crate engine.

Only about a tenth of the cash for clunkers sales were actually sales that would not have happened without the program. The rest of them were sales that were going to happen, but the owners qualified and cashed in. The fact that many of the cars purchased were made by Japanese companies just reflects the current market situation in that the Japanese vehicles are more desirable than the American vehicles.

Note, although I did not read all of the details of the edmunds (I think they did it) study, the definition of not happening for the purpose of the study is most likely, "not happening within the next 2 years" rather than "not happening at all". Anyway, the reason car sales are slumping is because many of the sales that would have happened now happened when Cash for Clunkers was in effect.

 

[Win]

Originally Posted By: John_K
Originally Posted By: SWSportsman
What ever happended to assembling car bodys with nuts and bolts?


Exactly. Imagine how these will hold up over the years.

John


Just fine if it's done right.

Aircraft have been glued together for decades.

Jaguar has been gluing the XJ series cars together since MY 2004, and the new XK shortly after that. I think the Astons began being glued together shortly after Jaguar.

It's a vastly superior way to manufacture a car.


edit: I don't remember any wheels flying off GM cars, at least not since 1975 when I began driving. I do recall front wheels falling off Toyota trucks, and saw a Toyota tripod on the side of the road as recently as this Summer.

 

[Patman]

Originally Posted By: dailydriver
BTW; My brother NEVER,EVER had this problem with his '06 C6.
In fact, it has been just as reliable as one of all of your "infallible" TOYotas! (not to mention 10x as quick/better handling, and 10,000x more FUN!!!!)

And Marc's car is wicked fast too, making it even more amazing how reliable it has been! I was so happy to hear he ran in the high 10s with his car at the end of last year!

 

[yeti]

artificialist -- you state "no japanese car maker has done that to the american taxpayer", re: "tax revenue going to those builders" --(g.m., and chrysler). obviously, you've forgotten about the hundreds of millions of tax dollars thrown at the foreign companies in order to get them to build plants in the u.s., and canada.
several people refuse to buy g.m an chryco cars because of gov't assistance (LOANS). NOT subsidies, as given to the foreign makers to locate here. using the logic of these people -- they should not be buying the transplants' products.
since gov't assistance is the issue -- then why do people eat american produced food, fly on several of the airlines that went bankrupt, or buy products made from the american steel companies that went bankrupt? all of these industries have been getting gov't subsidies, not loans, for many, many years. this applies,as well, to canada -- but to a lesser degree. yet nobody speaks of this. only the domestic auto industry.
the ones that refuse to buy domestic cars based on this premise, yet eat domestic food subsidized by taxes, fly on airlines subsidized by taxes, or buy goods made by formerly bankrupt steel companies that are subsidized by taxes, are, BY DEFINITION,hypocrites. i mean no disrespect to these people, but everything i said is fact. one cannot refute facts. if one is going to talk the talk, one should back it up.
i don't feel bad about going off topic, since this thread went off topic many posts back. have a good night.

 

[MCompact]

Originally Posted By: yeti

several people refuse to buy g.m an chryco cars because of gov't assistance (LOANS). NOT subsidies, as given to the foreign makers to locate here. using the logic of these people -- they should not be buying the transplants' products.


That's why I only buy German cars made in Germany(Deutschland Uber Alles!) and British bikes made in England(God Save The Queen!).

The Jeep and Mazda were "one time only" aberrations...

 

[yeti]

"... 'one time only' aberrations". lol. i call it a momentary lapse of reason. we all have that, from time to time.

 

[MCompact]

Originally Posted By: yeti
"... 'one time only' aberrations". lol. i call it a momentary lapse of reason. we all have that, from time to time.


That IS true with regards to the Mazda, but I must admit that I really do like the Wrangler- it's been reliable, fun to drive, and it still looks almost new inside and out.

 

[Black_Thunder]

Originally Posted By: BeanCounter

P.S. - I don't remember wheels flying off GM fullsize vehicles.



I believe some of the H2's had a wheel flying issue, when the defective tie-rod ends would snap causing the front wheels to go there own ways.

 

[benjamming]

yeti,

Which states have written checks to which auto manufactures in regards to tax dollars thrown at them? My state, Alabama, gave many tax breaks but that is different, much different IMHO, than writing a check to a company from federal government coffers.

You bring up good points about other industries that are subsidized by the federal government. The airline industry is one that I whine about quite a bit. This industry would look drastically different if not for all government business. For example, many, many meetings could very easily be held via video teleconference. But nope, we must fly out dozens of folks for a week to attend a 2 hour meeting on a Wednesday.

 

[yeti]

ben... -- every time, in the last several years, i've heard that a company has chosen a site for a plant, the state, or province, has given the co. money. the states bid against several other states, or provinces, just to get the plant. this is common knowledge, and has been happening for years.
they might call it tax break, incentive, employee training funding -- the politicians get creative in how they word it. it's all semantics, and, bottom line is that it amounts to a tax subsidy. i'd be surprised if any new plants, in the last 10 or 15 years, were NOT "subsidized" by taxpayers.the big 3 do it, as well. they squeeze the provincial, state and federal gov'ts for money,or, as you say, "tax breaks" or they threaten to relocate.again, these goings on are common knowledge.
we're off topic here, so lets kill this now. another thread can always be started.

 

[BeanCounter]

Originally Posted By: benjamming

Which states have written checks to which auto manufactures in regards to tax dollars thrown at them? My state, Alabama, gave many tax breaks but that is different, much different IMHO, than writing a check to a company from federal government coffers.


You must not understand the difference between a "loan" and a "subsidy". And to say AL has given many tax breaks is generous. They have given hundreds of millions of dollars away.

 

[benjamming]

yeti,

One of my points is that there is a world of difference between the state government doing something & the federal government doing something. There is a lot of difference between someone not having to pay as much tax vs. getting a check in the mail.
BTW, what is the source of your information that have you heard stating that state governments have given checks to auto mfg?
Yep, states bid against other states to get a mfg plant. I'm not sure what this has to do with anything though.

beancounter,
Those two terms have nothing to do with this mini-discussion.

"And to say AL has given many tax breaks is generous. They have given hundreds of millions of dollars away."

How does that 1st statement not say the 2nd statement. Would you prefer that I add some superfluous statements along with some hyperbole in there & presented in a condescending tone to better imitate the evening news?

In addition, you can't give away something you don't have. You give away the potential but nothing real. I know, two different ways to look at it. Did you really lose money if you didn't sell as much? I subscribe to the definition which says, no you didn't lose any money. Others subscribe to yes, you did lose money (potential as it may be).

 

[yeti]

ben... -- read the last sentence of my last post.

 

[benjamming]

good point. I missed that. My apologies to all. Carry on.

So, anyone have this recall fix done?