How similar are Toyota & GM? - Page 2 - GreenHybrid

bwilson4web · #11 (**permalink**) 07-30-2006, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Kite

GM and Toyota definitely have a different way of spinning hybrid technology.

GM
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2...20/015349.html

I think I've figured it out:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lutz

“Toyota has said, economically, hybrids make no sense. The reduction in fuel [consumption] does not pay for the technological content and cost of the vehicle so therefore economically it remains fairly nonsensical, so that’s the left-brain analytical argument.

This is a "CNW Marketing" claim, not a Toyota claim. I suspect Bob Lutz just got his sources confused by citing CNW's claim, not something found in the known Toyota sources. CNW of course claims they got their information from and around Toyota so it would be an easy mistake for Lutz to make.

Bob Wilson

Archslater · #12 (**permalink**) 07-31-2006, 04:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phoebeisis

Bob, Honda claims that it built or is building its latest plants in Canada to dodge the healthcare costs it has to pay in the USA.
Charlie

Honda just announced last month that they are building a brand new $550 million plant in Greensburg, Indiana. Toyota has also invested heavily in plant upgrades in Indiana recently. I don't think they are avoiding the U.S.

I do agree with you in regards to a national healthcare system, and I don't understand why G.M. and Ford aren't lobbying hard for this. Given their size, they could be a major influence in government policy regarding healthcare reform. There are a lot of nay-sayers on 'socialized' healthcare, but in 2004 the U.S. was spending 16% of its Gross Domestic Product on healthcare related costs, the highest by far among industrialized countries. The quality of our care also ranks very low among our counterparts. People gripe about the effect a govt healthcare system would have on taxes, which is debatable... but think of the savings in insurance costs. It would also make the U.S. a much more attractive place to locate industry for global companies. It doesn't help that we are also among the most obese countries.

In other news the front page of yesterday's paper said that Health insurance premiums are expected to increase 10% again this year, far outpacing inflation as usual. At some point this will reach a critical mass, and something will have to be done.

Archslater · #13 (**permalink**) 07-31-2006, 04:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phoebeisis

Hmmm, I agree. I have always said I didn't-and don't -think Toyota makes a nickel on the Prius. All the BS about "efficient Japanese management and production techniques" has been pure BS for the last 15 years. All the car companies "read the same books" and adopt the most efficient production methods.

American companies still lag behind the Japanese on the man-hours per vehicle comparisons, although they are improving steadily. I suppose there are other reasons for this.

http://www.aiada.org/article.asp?id=41280

This article makes it sound like there is still something to 'efficient Japanese management and production techniques', although in fairness, it stated that GM had the most efficient North American plant.

bwilson4web · #14 (**permalink**) 07-31-2006, 06:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archslater

American companies still lag behind the Japanese on the man-hours per vehicle comparisons, although they are improving steadily. I suppose there are other reasons for this.

http://www.aiada.org/article.asp?id=41280

This article makes it sound like there is still something to 'efficient Japanese management and production techniques', although in fairness, it stated that GM had the most efficient North American plant.

THANKS! I've been wondering where CNW Marketing got their data and now I think we've found one primary source. What is not clear is where the Japanese hybrid plant data came from but I've sent an e-mail querry to Harbour.

Bob Wilson

Chilly · #15 (**permalink**) 08-02-2006, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martinjlm

There's another thread where I went through exhaustive detail to point out that GM is currently funding pension requirements for all retired AND CURRENT employees, based on current financial standards for actuarial estimates. I'd prefer not to go through that again, so if anybody remembers the thread, please post a link to it.

Peace,

Martin

This article disagree's with your statement.

But Toyota does not have GM's retiree health burden, a mountain that at year-end totaled an unfunded $64 billion and that, in annual effect on the bottom line, adds about $1,300 to the cost of every car and truck GM makes in the U.S.

http://www.mutualofamerica.com/articles/Fortune/March%2006/Fortune.asp