Turquoise wrote:
DrunkFace wrote:
Karbin wrote:
A big part of the problem is NA is one of the few places that auto corps can import to with out high tax tariffs.
If one of the Detroit 3 want to import a car to say, Korea, first there's a import tax of 90%. Then there's ALWAYS something on the car that doesn't meet their safety rules. ( the one that keeps being used is license plate location on imports. Keeps changing week to week)
Japan.... well... from NA to them is just about imposable. The paper work and taxes would make a , say, G6 cost about as much as a fully dressed out Hummer here.
Europe... import rules make it cheaper to just buy a plant and build there then to import. These rules don't apply to Euro auto corps...just auto corps from NA.
BMW, Merc and Audi have a big enough demand that it's cheaper to build some in NA and import the rest. They also get to say "Hey look, we're building here."
China.... export only with NA.. No imports. Build it here only. And yes Buick is the biggest seller there for NA type cars.
I have no idea what you're saying. You have 'import' and 'export' mixed up several times eg. you can't
import something to another country. and consequently what you said makes no sense what so ever.
But one question: How come Japan and Europe can import and export to each other very successfully? Is it some kind of conspiracy out to get only NA car manufactures? Or is it that NA car manufactures just can't build a car worth selling overseas?
Then there's ALWAYS something on the car that doesn't meet their safety rules.
You build to the market, if you want to export something you take their laws into consideration when developing. And again, Japan and Europe can meet NA safety standards why not the other way round?
Actually, both American automakers and East Asian ones run into tariffs and other barriers to trade in Europe. There are American cars in Europe (Ford does pretty well in some sectors) just like there are Japanese ones, but any automaker outside of the EU has to deal with a lot more red tape when trying to do business in Europe, as opposed to doing business here.
On the other hand, Japan, Korea, and China are all also protectionist.
In general, America has some of the most open markets in the world. We engage in far less protectionism than most other countries. This results in more choices for consumers but makes it harder for some of our own companies to compete globally.
Granted, a lot of GM's problems can be traced to quality and labor issues. The fact that Ford can find its niche in Europe shows that, despite tariffs and protectionism, they can still flourish (albeit with a competitive disadvantage).
And yet Japanese cars are still very successful in Europe.
And European cars are very successful in Asia.
Australia has a 10% duty on car imports (5% on off road and commercial vehicles) and European and Asian cars are everywhere, yet American cars are nearly non existent. Why is that?
America has its fair share of tariffs and when it doesn't tax imports it subsidies local industry making it near impossible for others to compete. One example is farmers who can afford to sell their product at a loss to undercut competition but get enough government subsidies to remain in business. America is great at claiming free markets yet still has high protectionism in many industries.
Ford Europe is a practically a different company to ford US, they make different car and are successful because of it. The same can be said for Holden in Australia and Vauxel in Europe, they make cars for the market they operate in, but more importantly they make them so they'll appeal to export markets as well.
FatherTed wrote:
noooo, defenders are fucking amazing for off road, ive drove one on my uncles farm and its unreal how much you can throw at it.
i admit the jap 4x4's may be technically better, but ive often found they lack the sheer brute force needed.
Land Cruiser beats everything for off roading capabilities and reliability.
