Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views Does America Even Need Its Own Automakers?
1788 messages, Last post on Mar 03, 2009 at 2:18 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: nwng (May 23, 2007 2:03 pm) Bounty and "Made in USA" stuff is pricey, and I guess it's cheaper here, so whenever I go I just load up on it. I guess the allure of something made in the US is worth something to family members overseas... (that and the thought of getting the quilted quicker picker upper for less $$  )
|
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (May 22, 2007 8:23 am) Second, while companies like AM General, Cat, Prevost, Hughes, etc. may be able to make enough for defense today, how about if we encounter another situation like WW II? We will NEED american companies like GM, Ford, and Chrysler to pick up the slack and start building these things for a scaled up war. I think it would be dangerous to rely on a foreign company HQ'ed in a country purported to be our ally for any extra manufacturing we may need just because they have plants here. I know I'm being a little vague, but I could forsee a situation where we need the manufacturing capacity, and if all we had to rely on to pick up the slack was Toyota or Honda, and the Japanese gov't said "No, don't" because they don't believe in the American policy that led to this (hypothetical) major conflict, and the Administration was hesitant about just seizing their plants because they were trying to coax the Japanese to see things our way, it could be dangerous. Third, Humvees may be a poor excuse, but retaining our manufacturing base and job retention is an EXCELLENT reason for keeping the big 3 alive. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: cooterbfd (May 23, 2007 6:08 pm) I can't imagine such an idea ever flying in this country if, indeed, the Big Three went broke. They would just have to die off and be replaced by something else that can make a profit. Our weapons manufacturers are rolling in money--they are much better off than our car makers. So if you're saying to turn car makers into weapons manufacturers, rather than some dual-purpose enterprise, well that might work. Just convert the infrastructure. But we couldn't possibly need or sell that much weapon production. I suppose we could mothball all the factories, like we do with the mothball fleets ???? |
|
|
Replying to: cooterbfd (May 23, 2007 6:08 pm) We now have a manufacturing base that is capable of turning out astonishing amounts of military hardware. Darn good thing, too, since we are about to get an enormous bill for replacements for all the stuff we're wearing out overseas. Whichever side of the fence you might be on you have to know that's gonna be a heck of a bill.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: cooterbfd (May 23, 2007 6:08 pm) H3 in South Africa People keep refering to WWII but they forget that modern weapons and military vehicles don't have a thing to do with most modern vehicles. I mean a sherman tank and a tractor or construction bulldozer are not that different. The tank just has armor and a gun while the bulldozer does not. A M1A1 does not share anything at all with a big CAT bulldozer. Hell the armor isn't even made out of any kind of metal that you can even describe. The heaviest armor rating on the M1 is equivalent to 600 mm(23.6 inches) of conventional armor for kinetic rounds and 1,300 mm(51.2 inches) of conventional armor for chemical rounds. M1A1
|
|
|
Replying to: fezo (May 23, 2007 7:31 pm) That is the reason all you see in Congress is talk. They all know when we quit building war materials this country will go into a MASSIVE recession. We have no other giant projects to sustain the current economy. Talk of GM or Ford or Chrysler going away is very premature. We did bail Chrysler out once before. We subsidize every other industry, why not automakers?
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (May 24, 2007 6:24 am) However, as you point out, losing that kind of chunk out of our economy would indeed start us on a major recession. It would probably be cheaper in teh long run to do the bailout.
|
|
|
Replying to: fezo (May 24, 2007 6:44 am) The UAW needs to have ads showing line workers from the Big 3 driving BMW, Cadillacs and Mercedes to work. That would get the attention of the Honda and Toyota workers that can only afford a Yaris or Fit.
|
|
|
Replying to: british_rover (May 24, 2007 5:28 am)  An Abrams still uses a lot of automotive technology. They need transmissions, suspension pieces, gagues...that's why it's necessary to have a strong automotive industry in order to build tanks. Most tanks need engines too (The Abrams uses a turbine, so it's an exception). Remember, we don't ONLY make the Abrams...there's this little thing called the Bradley which uses a combustion engine...then the Marine corps LAVs and Army Stryker vehicles, which are also ICE, and use wheels rather than treads. Again, in addition to the engine and fuel system, you need shocks, struts, chassis engineering, transmissions, controls and gauges, tires, wheels.... Then of course, there's the military trucks, FAVs, and HMMWVs, which ARE in fact automobiles. Want to import them? |
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (May 24, 2007 7:00 am)
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Does America Even Need Its Own Automakers?
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
