" We will never abandon those who make Australia's cars "

[.FoMoCo.]

from smh today:

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politi...129-1qnwg.htmll

THE fight for Australia's car industry is back in the headlines, with hard news at Toyota and open warfare in the Coalition.
It could well have been resolved long ago. In the depths of the global economic crisis, GM Holden's then chief executive Mark Reuss put the choice to me in the starkest of terms. Australia could be part of the new GM - or we could close the doors forever on the proud history that began with the Chifley Holden.
I was reminded of that day - and the hard days that were to come for Geelong, Altona and Elizabeth - by President Obama's State of the Union address last week. His account of America's struggle for auto was a defining moment in the speech; just as it has become a defining theme of his presidency.
Advertisement: Story continues below
Obama's choice, of course, had to be made in full view of the world. Many will recall the desperate missions sent from Detroit, as the US auto giants staggered ever deeper into crisis. Detroit itself was a terrible symbol of America's industrial decline: the great auto heartland turned urban wasteland. There were many who feared it would never rise again.
The President himself would not give up, and the country staked heavily on his faith in a manufacturing recovery.
Before the crisis passed, the US and Canadian governments would acquire some 60 per cent of General Motors, at a cost exceeding $US50 billion. The total US assistance package cost $264 per American per year - about 14 times more than the per capita costs for Australia's industry. Even that figure excludes the nine-digit deals pushed through at state level.
To the critics, it could never seem rational. Divide the total assistance by the number of people directly employed in auto, and the price will always seem too high. But that is fool's logic, as Obama understood.
Lose the major vehicle producers, and you lose the component makers. Lose those firms, and you lose the toolers, the metal manufacturers, the suppliers of glass, chemicals and plastics. Lose their cars, and you lose the technical and scientific capabilities required to make them.
So Obama knew, as I knew, that the fight for auto is never just a fight for cars. It is a fight for the kind of society we want to be. We want a society that provides high-skilled, high-wage jobs. We want a society that values advanced industrial production. That is why we want to be countries that made cars.
This government makes no pretence that there will never be a layoff in a car factory, nor do we claim to manage the factories. What we seek to do is to preserve the capabilities in the bad times, so we can expand when conditions improve.
Obama made the same promise to America, and it has been kept. General Motors is once more the world's number one auto maker; Chrysler is the fastest-growing car company in the US; and Ford is investing billions in new models.
The industry has added nearly 160,000 jobs. That effect has rippled throughout the economy. Indeed, the President's newly released Investing in America report suggests that the auto industry accounts for almost a quarter of the increase in industrial production since the manufacturing recovery began. Little wonder that auto is the centre of Obama's vision for manufacturing - and manufacturing is the first line in his blueprint for the nation.
For my part, there have been many hard days since I took up this fight. I have shared them with workers across the country. However hard the test, the choice has always been simple.
We did not choose defeat in the global economic crisis. We will not give up on the workers of the car industry now. This nation will hold fast to the path of progress.
And if our political opponents will not share our fight, there are a million Australians in manufacturing who will.

Looks like the feds are well and truly behind local manufacturing. Good to hear!

[Buntz]

I like Senator Kim Carr. He's welcome to have a beer at my place.

[Wretched]

that's nice. now they just need to build cars people want also with added quality control for no added cost.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by Wretched

added quality control for no added cost.

And I want 3 wishes from a genie. Lets see who gets it first.

[falconnut]

Quality Control
GM

pick one.

[drew`SEVNT5]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

And I want 3 wishes from a genie. Lets see who gets it first.

Wish in one hand, defecate in the other. See which one fills up first.

[mik]

i reckon it`s less about what people want and much more about what they can afford, from my point of view a $20,000 small medium car or less is what majority of the lower paid workers can afford....... if that,
or a good second handy for which there are heaps of, neither helps sales of big cars unfortunately, i won`t mention the cost of living.

[Wretched]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

And I want 3 wishes from a genie. Lets see who gets it first.

And that's why the local car makers will continue to slide into oblivion while myself and others will continue to support makes who do take quality seriously.

[bobthebilda]

Mr Carr keeps trying to fool people with the way he uses numbers. there was a thread the other week in which he said the US gave the auto industry $264 per person per year. Then they used this to compare it to the money that australia gives to its auto industry each year. But the big difference is, The US never gave it to the auto manufacturers, it bought stakes in the companies.

Before the crisis passed, the US and Canadian governments would acquire some 60 per cent of General Motors, at a cost exceeding $US50 billion. The total US assistance package cost $264 per American per year - about 14 times more than the per capita costs for Australia's industry. Even that figure excludes the nine-digit deals pushed through at state level.
To the critics, it could never seem rational.

Theres a huge difference in spending money to buy a company like the US did, and just giving the auto companies money so the heads can fly off around the world to visit car shows, like australia does.

There was a chance that the US government could have made money from its investment, unlike the australian model.

This guy continually comes up with untruths about the industry from how many people are employed in it, to how much it is funded compared to other countries. One does have to wonder if his comments does the industry any good because quoting another US president " you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you cant fool all of the people all of the time".

I think Mr Carr fears that if he doesnt support the union leaders, theres a good chance they may ruin his next Australia Day party.

[Gobes32]

Originally Posted by mik

i reckon it`s less about what people want and much more about what they can afford, from my point of view a $20,000 small medium car or less is what majority of the lower paid workers can afford....... if that,
or a good second handy for which there are heaps of, neither helps sales of big cars unfortunately, i won`t mention the cost of living.

Very true, a 23k Cruze seems more achievable than a 39k Falcon.

[.FoMoCo.]

This idea that Fords have serious reliability and quality control issues is a myth.

BMW:

http://news.drive.com.au/drive/motor...101-179ps.html

http://www.bimmerfest.com/news/49430...ure-fuel-pump-

Toyota:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009%E2...ehicle_recalls

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7A84V120111109


Mercedes Benz:

http://www.recalls.gov.au/content/in.../itemId/952860

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7345SO20110405

http://www.autoblog.com/2011/10/17/m...diesel-models/

Porsche:

http://www.topspeed.com/cars/car-new...d-ar88987.html

http://www.motortrend.com/new_cars/1...tible/recalls/

Mazda:

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stor...da-recall.html

http://rotarynews.com/node/view/822

Kia:

http://www.autoblog.com/2012/01/20/k...airbag-issues/

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/03/auto...call/index.htm

Hyundai:

http://www.recalls.gov.au/content/in.../itemId/952887

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/04/20/m...issues-affect/


And these are not trivial things; seat belts, wheels nuts, fuel pumps, electricals, brake lights, accelerator pedals jamming, rust, ect, ect, etc.

I could go on for hours with these sources, reuters, cnn, wikipedia, motortrend, aust federal govt, and so on. So the facts are there in black and white.

To say Euro or Jap or korean stuff has top notch QC and flawless design may have evidence anecdotally, but a 5 minute search from reliable sources proves otherwise.

The local fords are built to a price, hence some of the cheaper materials, but to suggest they fall apart left right and centre is unjustified, especially in the context of these "esteemed" brands.

[falconnut]

I can confirm the fuel pump issues.

All my old Cressida's (2x mx62 1983 gli's) and my mums 84' had terrible stock fuel pumps.

They always used to slow down or just randomly refuse to work.

Had to run them back and forward off a old battery to get them to work.

Loud as all hell too.

Newer 92 grande doesnt have this problem but still its always in the back of my mind with older cars.

[DanielXR8]

Originally Posted by .FoMoCo.

This idea that Fords have serious reliability and quality control issues is a myth....

Whether Ford do or do not have reliability and quality has nothing to do with any other brand and everything to do with Ford. Calling it a myth because company x also has problems is a flawed argument.

[.FoMoCo.]

Ok then let me rephrase.

Does Ford have QC and reliability problems? Yes.

Do other more expensive brands have QC and reliability problems? Yes.

Do Japanese brands that have a reputation for reliability have QC and reliability problems? Yes.

The comparison I was drawing was to counter comments made earlier that local fords need to improve reliability to compete. Most of these prejudiced pre-conceived ideas about brands are baseless.

And that's why the local car makers will continue to slide into oblivion while myself and others will continue to support makes who do take quality seriously.

now they just need to build cars people want also with added quality control for no added cost

[.FoMoCo.]

Originally Posted by .FoMoCo.

This idea that Fords have serious reliability and quality control issues is a myth.

Should have said:

This idea that Fords have serious reliability and quality control issues beyond the levels of other brands is a myth.

[Wretched]

Originally Posted by .FoMoCo.

Ok then let me rephrase.

Does Ford have QC and reliability problems? Yes.

Do other more expensive brands have QC and reliability problems? Yes.

Do Japanese brands that have a reputation for reliability have QC and reliability problems? Yes.

The comparison I was drawing was to counter comments made earlier that local fords need to improve reliability to compete. Most of these prejudiced pre-conceived ideas about brands are baseless.

Baseless?
Well after owning two Falcons myself and experiencing the so called quality of our local product I will never venture back (my issues have been documented well on this forum), once bitten twice shy.
This is not just limited to myself either, I come from a family that for as long as I remember have only bought Falcons and all but one was a disaster, funnily enough it was a blue XD Falcon that was the best of the lot.

I since then moved to a Ford Focus and have had a fairy tale run with it in comparison. My comment was not in regards to Ford in general it was the local made Ford products. I never said that other makes don't have issues, cars a mechanical products with thousands of moving parts, some do wear out. Others (including Ford overseas) strive to improve their quality.
My issues are the fact that Ford AU don't look to take quality seriously and with a comment like

And I want 3 wishes from a genie. Lets see who gets it first

it is no wonder people are moving away from them.

Quality control shouldn't be an extra it should be included. Ford EU have been known for developing a quality product and my experiences with two Focus' (LR and LT) have shown this. If I am to buy another Ford it will be another Euro based one.

[.FoMoCo.]

I, too have owned plenty of Fords. No majors problems with any of them. Even had a series 1 AU that went like a steam train. 2 people in my family have owned Subarus, both with plenty of problems. My friend works for a company that had early Focus models as fleet vehicles. They were abandoned with multiple issues, one of them was chewing out disc brake rotors within 20,000 kms from new.
While I'm not here to dispute anyone's personal experiences with brand X or Y, maybe we can have a look across the board and truly examine this claim that the local fords are pumped out without any care, when compared to other brands.

[Gobes32]

Ford's biggest problem is with their suppliers. Ford themselves don't make diff bushes, ball joints and brake hoses. Some problems are through flawed design, others through inferior products.

Take this case for example, Ford employee buys a brand new BA XR8, costs him nearly a years wages, has owned it for two days when it conks out on the way to work. RACV truck has to tow it to dealer where it is found a dodgy alternator destroyed the loom and took out the computer with it. Car gets fixed within a week and all is good again. Now this person understood it was an outside issue and accepted that it happens, but how many people would refuse to ever buy a Ford again not realizing that Bosch supply to all the major manufacturers???

[.FoMoCo.]

Yeah, good point. This is what I'm on about with these pre conceived ideas about things.
Brand image is not something that is readily changed.

[Wretched]

Originally Posted by Gobes32

Ford's biggest problem is with their suppliers. Ford themselves don't make diff bushes, ball joints and brake hoses. Some problems are through flawed design, others through inferior products.

Take this case for example, Ford employee buys a brand new BA XR8, costs him nearly a years wages, has owned it for two days when it conks out on the way to work. RACV truck has to tow it to dealer where it is found a dodgy alternator destroyed the loom and took out the computer with it. Car gets fixed within a week and all is good again. Now this person understood it was an outside issue and accepted that it happens, but how many people would refuse to ever buy a Ford again not realizing that Bosch supply to all the major manufacturers???

From my discussions with PBR/Bosch engineers and project managers, the components are built and designed to Ford's specification. So whilst I agree that one failure in 10000 doesn't mean a quality issue if there is many failures it would lead to a design related issue.
One such is the brakes material used that caused many to receive warped discs.

[.FoMoCo.]

Wouldn't it really grate to find out your 300k Porsche was topping the list of the most unreliable cars in the US?

http:// http://theage.drive.com.au/m...028-1mn7b.html

[Wretched]

Originally Posted by .FoMoCo.

Wouldn't it really grate to find out your 300k Porsche was topping the list of the most unreliable cars in the US?

http:// http://theage.drive.com.au/m...028-1mn7b.html

But in Germany they rate highly. Funny that.

[.FoMoCo.]

Then again, I wonder how many 911's are used as daily drivers? Not too many i would imagine. They shouldn't be any where near the top ten unreliable list anywhere considering their price tag and reputation for superior design.
On the other hand, there are hundreds of thousands of falcons as taxis nationwide. Why would taxi operators choose such a lemon?
By extension, wretched, you are saying FOA's poor design parameters for their suppliers is leading to this perceived unreliability?
Using this logic, the superior design behind BMW, Mercedes-Benz, VW, porsche and so on means they have ultra reliability? Right?

[.FoMoCo.]

And if we can circle back around to the OP, maybe with the right support, FOA can improve their whole operation to become world class.

[TC200six]

Originally Posted by Wretched

But in Germany they rate highly. Funny that.

But in the UK, Porsche is still down as the second most unreliable brand

http://www.reliabilityindex.com/manufacturer

[Wretched]

Originally Posted by .FoMoCo.

Then again, I wonder how many 911's are used as daily drivers? Not too many i would imagine. They shouldn't be any where near the top ten unreliable list anywhere considering their price tag and reputation for superior design.
On the other hand, there are hundreds of thousands of falcons as taxis nationwide. Why would taxi operators choose such a lemon?
By extension, wretched, you are saying FOA's poor design parameters for their suppliers is leading to this perceived unreliability?
Using this logic, the superior design behind BMW, Mercedes-Benz, VW, porsche and so on means they have ultra reliability? Right?

What I was getting at with my post was that these so called reliability lists are all about perception hence the differences in results. What someone who buys a 200k porsche expects from their car as opposed to someone who buys a 20k Hyundai. The only thing that can be established from them is that buy a Toyota based product (Lexus, Scion, Toyota, etc) and you're consistently getting what is perceived to be a reliable quality product.

Taxi's are second hand cars, not new. They use the Falcon because of its long history with LPG, it's vast amount of spare parts and the fact they're cheap. Just like in other countries they use their own makes for taxis unless you believe every country uses a Falcon taxi ;)

What I said is Ford specify the parameters in which a component is to be made for the car. This of course is dictated by cost. Other times they will use an off the shelf product with minor changes made to accomodate their needs.

[.FoMoCo.]

Originally Posted by Wretched

Taxi's are second hand cars, not new.

Really? They don't buy them new? You sure about that?

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by Wretched

And that's why the local car makers will continue to slide into oblivion while myself and others will continue to support makes who do take quality seriously.

Ford do take quality seriously, the point I laughed at is that you said added quality control for no extra cost. Everything costs money, and the costs must be passed onto the consumer.

You can't have it both ways.

[Wretched]

Originally Posted by .FoMoCo.

Really? They don't buy them new? You sure about that?

Well Ford do not make a taxi pack anymore. So if they're bought brand spankers it is up to the license owner.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by .FoMoCo.

Really? They don't buy them new? You sure about that?

Most taxis are purchased second hand from government auctions, not directly from Ford.
Ford is hoping that EcoLPI will give fleets and taxis the vehicle they have been asking for.