On 16/12/2023 9:46 am, Daryl wrote:
> On 15/12/2023 4:42 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 15/12/2023 3:47 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> They're death traps:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.drive.com.au/news/mg-5-mahindra-scorpio-zero-star-safety-ratings/?utm_campaign=syndication&utm_source=smh.com.au&utm_content=article_1&utm_medium=partner
>>>>
>>>> Oh and Mahindra, of course.
>>>>
>>>
>>> what a stupid title for your post. similar would be "Another reason
>>> not to live in Queensland", then posting because everyone there is a
>>> dickhead. different MG models have different ANCAP ratings. mine is 4
>>> .. https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/mg/zs/2cd523 .. while the
>>> electric version is 5 ..
>>> https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/mg/zs-ev/aed04c
>>>
>>
>> **The fact that MG chose to release a ZERO star vehicle in 2023
>> tarnishes the brand completely.
>
> Certainly not a good look for any brand.
>
>  Same as Ford, who released a 2 star
>> Mustang. Hell, Toyota can manage 5 stars for a fucking delivery van!
>>
>> Quite apart from the fact that I drove an MG in August. It was bad.
>> Very bad.
>>
>>
> I've not driven one so can't really comment but what concerns me is that
> people would rather buy a cheap new car than buy a good quality SH car
> for the same money.
> I see very little advantage if any in buying any new car at the moment,
> very poor value for your money.
>
>

**Depends. I bought my Subaru Levorg GT in 2017. List price was
$55,000.00 for the GT. Not the STi.

According to this, inflation should have increased the price by 14.5% +
2.5% = 17%.

The current Subaru equivalent is called the WRX AWD GT Sportswagon. List
price is $62,098.00. Driveaway. The current model has a larger engine
and a few other features lacking in the 2017 model, but they are
essentially very similar.

https://www.subaru.com.au/wrx

According to the inflation data, the current model should be $55,000.00
X 1.17 = $64,350.00.

Of course, that is just one example. I'm confident that some cars have
outstripped inflation and many (like many Toyota models) cannot be
purchased below list price.

IMO, most cast have been falling in real prices (inflation adjusted) for
many years. The Subaru is surprising, because it is made in Japan,
rather than a low cost nation like Thailand, China, Czech Republic or
India.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

Xeno wrote:
> On 16/12/2023 1:33 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>> Noddy wrote:
>>> On 15/12/2023 8:47 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>>>> On 15/12/2023 9:34 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>> They're death traps:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.drive.com.au/news/mg-5-mahindra-scorpio-zero-star-safety-ratings/?utm_campaign=syndication&utm_source=smh.com.au&utm_content=article_1&utm_medium=partner
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> Oh and Mahindra, of course.
>>>>>
>>>> Well maybe, they obviously aren't the safest things on the road,
>>>> but the zero rating is largely due to the lack of "Drivers aids".
>>>> Are they really so essential that they rank equally with
>>>> crashworthyness?
>>>
>>> Yes. They might not do a hell of a lot for you once you're in an
>>> accident, but they can do a hell of a lot to stop you from getting into
>>> an accident in the first place.
>>>
>>> Watch the video I linked to in my reply to Trevor about how poorly the
>>> Rav4 does in a Moose Test compared to the Nissan Qashqai or the Kia
>>> Sorento.
>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtQ24W_lamY
>>>
>>> The appalling handling ability of the Rav4 in this test seems to be
>>> due entirely to a completely inadequate electronic stability control
>>> system.
>>>
>>>
>>>> When I bought my Mazda 3 it had a 5 star rating, now it would be
>>>> lucky to make 3 down hill with the wind behind it.
>>>
>>> Your Mazda is irrelevant to anything being discussed here.
>>
>> no it isn't
>
> Irrelevance figures highly in the fraud's life. He was irrelevant (a
> loser) in the Victorian education system, irrelevant to the Victorian
> apprenticeship system (didn't qualify), irrelevant to the Victorian
> motor trade (didn't qualify) & irrelevant to the concept of safe and
> defensive driving (crippled in accidents). No wonder he's a serial
> projectionist about the *relevancy* of others.
>
> FWIW, Keith's Mazda is a *car* so its inclusion in a forum about cars
> is most assuredly *relevant*.

plus the comment was relevant to the thread

>
> It is worthy of note that Darren faked a complete career, including
> faked apprenticeships, faked trade qualifications and a faked car
> repair business, in the motor trade in order to gain relevancy in a
> car related forum. His various claims in order to appear relevant
> signals huge desperation! Truly sad!

he's not one who should be talking about relevancy!

--
Have a nice day!..

Noddy wrote:
> On 16/12/2023 9:46 am, Daryl wrote:
>> On 15/12/2023 4:42 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>> Quite apart from the fact that I drove an MG in August. It was bad.
>>> Very bad.
>>>
>>>
>> I've not driven one so can't really comment but what concerns me is
>> that people would rather buy a cheap new car than buy a good quality
>> SH car for the same money.
>> I see very little advantage if any in buying any new car at the
>> moment, very poor value for your money.
>
> It depends what you're buying. Everything is a mess at the moment and
> the used car market is especially so with people asking insane prices
> for 3 year old cars compared to new ones. I've actually seen people
> asking more for a used car than what it cost new, and some seem to
> think that makes sense in today's world of waiting some time for a new
> car to arrive.

my Lancer MY17 was advertied for $25,000 by the dealer, so more than the
ZS cost

>
> When it gets *that* stupid I'd rather have a new one any day.
>

--
Have a nice day!..

On 16/12/2023 1:52 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:

>
> According to this, inflation should have increased the price by 14.5% +
> 2.5% = 17%.

**Oops. Forgot the link:

https://www.rba.gov.au/calculator/annualDecimal.html

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

On 16/12/2023 1:52 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:

> IMO, most cast have been falling in real prices (inflation adjusted) for
> many years. The Subaru is surprising, because it is made in Japan,
> rather than a low cost nation like Thailand, China, Czech Republic or
> India.

That's probably more to do with Subaru being a relatively niche
manufacturer with a comparatively small model line-up compared to other
mainstream manufacturers. They have only two vehicle manufacturing
plants as far as I'm aware with one being in Japan and one in the US,
and that's clearly enough to meet their manufacturing demands.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 16/12/2023 2:56 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 16/12/2023 1:52 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>> IMO, most cast have been falling in real prices (inflation adjusted)
>> for many years. The Subaru is surprising, because it is made in Japan,
>> rather than a low cost nation like Thailand, China, Czech Republic or
>> India.
>
> That's probably more to do with Subaru being a relatively niche
> manufacturer with a comparatively small model line-up compared to other
> mainstream manufacturers. They have only two vehicle manufacturing
> plants as far as I'm aware with one being in Japan and one in the US,
> and that's clearly enough to meet their manufacturing demands.

**Nope. That does not explain the fall in inflation-adjusted price of my
Subaru (I haven't compared other models). I'm also not claiming that
Subaru is unique. I was making the point that most car prices have
fallen in the past few decades (inflation-adjusted).

In some cases, it is due to the fact that some manufacturers have opened
production plants in low cost nations. Such as: Mercedes - South Afrika,
Toyota - Thailand, Lots of companies - China, Suzuki - India, etc.

Like I said: The surprise to me is that Subaru have been able to reduce
overheads in a high cost nation like Japan. I am not surprised that
companies like Mercedes have lowered their costs by manufacturing in
South Afrika.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

On 16/12/2023 4:50 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 16/12/2023 2:56 pm, Noddy wrote:

>>> IMO, most cast have been falling in real prices (inflation adjusted)
>>> for many years. The Subaru is surprising, because it is made in
>>> Japan, rather thana low cost nation like Thailand, China, Czech
>>> Republic or India.
>>
>> That's probably more to do with Subaru being a relatively niche
>> manufacturer with a comparatively small model line-up compared to
>> other mainstream manufacturers. They have only two vehicle
>> manufacturing plants as far as I'm aware with one being in Japan and
>> one in the US, and that's clearly enough to meet their manufacturing
>> demands.
>
> **Nope. That does not explain the fall in inflation-adjusted price of my
> Subaru (I haven't compared other models). I'm also not claiming that
> Subaru is unique. I was making the point that most car prices have
> fallen in the past few decades (inflation-adjusted).

Firstly, you can forget the ridiculous notion of "inflation adjusted
prices" as it's as much a load of utter bullshit as claiming that
grocery prices or in fact the cost of living in general has fallen when
"inflation adjusted prices" are applied. It's a load of nonsense. Car
prices have continued to steadily climb over the last few decades like
everything else.

Secondly, Subaru is a minor player on the world car market, and the fact
that they still make cars in Japan while most other manufacturers have
moved to cheaper labour markets is most likely more to do with the fact
that they don't sell enough cars to justify the cost of building a new
manufacturing plant in another country than it is anything else.

You also have to take into account that like everyone else they compete
against they need to be competitive if they're going to survive. So
while their cost per unit price may be higher for building cars in Japan
rather than Thailand or South Africa, they have to sell on the same
market as everyone else and if they're going to remain competitive then
it means they have a significantly smaller profit margin than most other
manufacturers.

Sucks to be them.

> In some cases, it is due to the fact that some manufacturers have opened
> production plants in low cost nations. Such as: Mercedes - South Afrika,
> Toyota - Thailand, Lots of companies - China, Suzuki - India, etc.

I can't think of a single company, be it car manufacturer or anyone
else, who has seen a reduction in manufacturing costs as anything other
than an increased annual profit. In fact I think the notion that
companies move their manufacturing bases to lower cost labour markets
with the idea of reducing their manufacturing costs and passing those
savings onto the end user is nothing but pure fantasy :)

> Like I said: The surprise to me is that Subaru have been able to reduce
> overheads in a high cost nation like Japan.

You have no more of an idea of what Subaru's "overheads" are than I or
anyone else does, and are just assuming that because they're able to
remain in the market competing with manufacturers who's labour costs are
most likely lower that they have found some magical way of reducing
their costs to maintain their profit margins.

The reality is most likely that they're not doing that at all, and are
just making less money per car than the next guy.

> I am not surprised that companies like Mercedes have lowered their
costs by manufacturing in
> South Afrika.

It's no secret. They *all* do. Lowering manufacturing costs by moving to
cut price labour markets is the exact reason why people set up shop in
those countries in the first place, but how that translates into cheaper
cars for you and me is not exactly clear. As I said, car prices have
done nothing but rise, and all building them in cheap labour countries
means is that the manufacturers make more money for every car they sell.

Great for them. Not so much for you and me.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 16/12/2023 12:20 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 16/12/2023 9:46 am, Daryl wrote:
>> On 15/12/2023 4:42 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>> Quite apart from the fact that I drove an MG in August. It was bad.
>>> Very bad.
>>>
>>>
>> I've not driven one so can't really comment but what concerns me is
>> that people would rather buy a cheap new car than buy a good quality
>> SH car for the same money.
>> I see very little advantage if any in buying any new car at the
>> moment, very poor value for your money.
>
> It depends what you're buying. Everything is a mess at the moment and
> the used car market is especially so with people asking insane prices
> for 3 year old cars compared to new ones. I've actually seen people
> asking more for a used car than what it cost new, and some seem to think
> that makes sense in today's world of waiting some time for a new car to
> arrive.
>
> When it gets *that* stupid I'd rather have a new one any day.
>

Agree if we are talking about late model SH cars which are being sold at
inflated prices.
What I'm saying though is that I see very little advantage of new cars
over a well looked after older car say up to 10yrs old, for example when
I look at our 2016 Golf I see little or no advantage in replacing it
with a new Golf, the new model may have a few more electronic gadgets
but nothing that I consider significant, certainly not worth spending an
extra $20k + on.

--
Daryl

On 16/12/2023 1:52 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 16/12/2023 9:46 am, Daryl wrote:
>> On 15/12/2023 4:42 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 15/12/2023 3:47 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>> They're death traps:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.drive.com.au/news/mg-5-mahindra-scorpio-zero-star-safety-ratings/?utm_campaign=syndication&utm_source=smh.com.au&utm_content=article_1&utm_medium=partner
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh and Mahindra, of course.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> what a stupid title for your post. similar would be "Another reason
>>>> not to live in Queensland", then posting because everyone there is a
>>>> dickhead. different MG models have different ANCAP ratings. mine is
>>>> 4 .. https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/mg/zs/2cd523 .. while
>>>> the electric version is 5 ..
>>>> https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/mg/zs-ev/aed04c
>>>>
>>>
>>> **The fact that MG chose to release a ZERO star vehicle in 2023
>>> tarnishes the brand completely.
>>
>> Certainly not a good look for any brand.
>>
>>   Same as Ford, who released a 2 star
>>> Mustang. Hell, Toyota can manage 5 stars for a fucking delivery van!
>>>
>>> Quite apart from the fact that I drove an MG in August. It was bad.
>>> Very bad.
>>>
>>>
>> I've not driven one so can't really comment but what concerns me is
>> that people would rather buy a cheap new car than buy a good quality
>> SH car for the same money.
>> I see very little advantage if any in buying any new car at the
>> moment, very poor value for your money.
>>
>>
>
> **Depends. I bought my Subaru Levorg GT in 2017. List price was
> $55,000.00 for the GT. Not the STi.
>
> According to this, inflation should have increased the price by 14.5% +
> 2.5% = 17%.
>
> The current Subaru equivalent is called the WRX AWD GT Sportswagon. List
> price is $62,098.00. Driveaway. The current model has a larger engine
> and a few other features lacking in the 2017 model, but they are
> essentially very similar.
>
> https://www.subaru.com.au/wrx
>
>
> According to the inflation data, the current model should be $55,000.00
> X 1.17 = $64,350.00.
>
> Of course, that is just one example. I'm confident that some cars have
> outstripped inflation and many (like many Toyota models) cannot be
> purchased below list price.
>
> IMO, most cast have been falling in real prices (inflation adjusted) for
> many years. The Subaru is surprising, because it is made in Japan,
> rather than a low cost nation like Thailand, China, Czech Republic or
> India.
>

I was thinking about the cars themselves, if you traded your Levorg on a
new WRX wagon you wouldn't gain all that much, not enough difference in
the cars to be worth spending the money on.
Different if your car has done 300,00km and is 20yrs old.

--
Daryl

On 16/12/2023 12:20 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 16/12/2023 9:52 am, Daryl wrote:
>> On 15/12/2023 8:47 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 15/12/2023 9:34 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> They're death traps:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.drive.com.au/news/mg-5-mahindra-scorpio-zero-star-safety-ratings/?utm_campaign=syndication&utm_source=smh.com.au&utm_content=article_1&utm_medium=partner
>>>>
>>>> Oh and Mahindra, of course.
>>>>
>>> Well maybe, they obviously aren't the safest things on the road, but
>>> the zero rating is largely due to the lack of "Drivers aids". Are
>>> they really so essential that they rank equally with crashworthyness?
>>> When I bought my Mazda 3 it had a 5 star rating, now it would be
>>> lucky to make 3 down hill with the wind behind it. It's still the
>>> same car with the same protections, but since it doesn't have
>>> lane-keep assist, driver attention monitors, or speed warnings, it
>>> seems that it's much more dangerous than when I bought it 7 years
>>> ago. My feeling is that they should give bonus point for having these
>>> things rather than dropping the result to zero for not having them.
>>
>>
>> I agree that some of the tech is over rated but what's concerning is
>> the lack of a good enough crash structure to protect the occupants in
>> a serious crash.
>> Your Mazda's crash structure won't be lacking and that's why I'd
>> rather buy something like your Mazda than a new MG.
>> I feel safer in my 21yr old MB than I would in a new Chinese car.
>
> How many airbags does your old Benz have? :)
>
>
>
>
AFAIK its got 7 airbags.
Also has ABS, tc and stability control.

--
Daryl

Noddy wrote:

>
> The unfortunate thing with tyres is that a *lot* of their ability to
> perform is subjective,

What rubbish.

> and we've all seen examples of that. How many
> times have you heard someone say they have a particular set on their car
> and love them, but you had some and thought they were completely shithouse?

You drive fourbys. The most important tyre criteria for those mobile
speed humps is mileage (kilometreage?)
>
> Personally I think it's as silly to associate expensive tyres with
> quality performance...

as if you'd know. And as a noted fishbum you probably buy your tyres
from the wreckers across the road in lovely Merrimu.

alvey

On 16/12/2023 6:14 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 16/12/2023 12:20 pm, Noddy wrote:

>> How many airbags does your old Benz have? :)
>>
>>
>>
>>
> AFAIK its got 7 airbags.
> Also has ABS, tc and stability control.

How do you reckon it would stack up in a current ANCAP crash test? I'm
sure it was a safe car in it's day, but it would probably struggle to
rate today.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 16/12/2023 12:16 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 16/12/2023 9:41 am, Daryl wrote:
>> On 15/12/2023 10:34 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> They're death traps:
>>>
>>> https://www.drive.com.au/news/mg-5-mahindra-scorpio-zero-star-safety-ratings/?utm_campaign=syndication&utm_source=smh.com.au&utm_content=article_1&utm_medium=partner
>>>
>>> Oh and Mahindra, of course.
>>>
>> To me the biggest concern is not the lack of electronic safety aids,
>> its their poor "crash structures", best to avoid having any crash but
>> when you do that's when things get ugly in cheap cars.
>
> It is, but then vehicle safety is as much about avoiding accidents as it
> is about the protection offered *in* an accident.
>
>> Another thing that IMHO aren't required to be of a higher standard are
>> tyres, in my experience cheap tyres can be very dangerous especially
>> in wet conditions yet cheap tyres are still allowed to be sold.
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXOE1DpjQGg
>
> The unfortunate thing with tyres is that a *lot* of their ability to
> perform is subjective, and we've all seen examples of that. How many
> times have you heard someone say they have a particular set on their car
> and love them, but you had some and thought they were completely shithouse?
>
> Personally I think it's as silly to associate expensive tyres with
> quality performance as it is to equate cheap tyres with rubbish. I've
> had good and bad tyres in both categories, and I'd happily bet the farm
> that I'm not the only one.
>
>
True that higher cost doesn't guarantee quality or performance but with
tyres it often does, I've never owned cheap tyres that I found to be any
good but on the other hand I've been disappointed with more expensive tyres.
The tyre tests in the video I posted are done semi scientifically and
the results speak for themselves, the difference between cheap no name
and known brand name tyres is very noticeable when you look at dry and
wet braking performance, the difference is often very significant and if
there is an Australian standard for tyres then IMHO its not good enough.
The difference in wet braking from 100kph to 0 between tyres can be more
than 10mtrs which can be the difference between life and death.
The Michelin's on my Benz are almost 7yrs old, have done about 50,000km
yet they look less than half worn and they still perform very
significantly better than the cheap Winrun Chinese junk that the dealer
fitted.
I acknowledge that not all cheaper tyres are terrible but regardless of
brand or price they should have to meet a min standard for dry/wet
braking distances, if the rubbish tyres that were on my Benz when I
bought it meet the standard then the standard is very wrong.

--
Daryl

On 16/12/2023 6:27 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 16/12/2023 6:14 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 16/12/2023 12:20 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>>> How many airbags does your old Benz have? :)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> AFAIK its got 7 airbags.
>> Also has ABS, tc and stability control.
>
> How do you reckon it would stack up in a current ANCAP crash test? I'm
> sure it was a safe car in it's day, but it would probably struggle to
> rate today.
>
>
It wouldn't rate all that well if it needed some of the newer driver
aids to have the max rating.
What it has got that a cheap Chinese car hasn't is an incredibly well
made safety structure and is made by a company that invented most of the
safety in cars that we now take for granted.

Daryl

On 16/12/2023 5:37 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 16/12/2023 4:50 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 16/12/2023 2:56 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>>>> IMO, most cast have been falling in real prices (inflation adjusted)
>>>> for many years. The Subaru is surprising, because it is made in
>>>> Japan, rather thana low cost nation like Thailand, China, Czech
>>>> Republic or India.
>>>
>>> That's probably more to do with Subaru being a relatively niche
>>> manufacturer with a comparatively small model line-up compared to
>>> other mainstream manufacturers. They have only two vehicle
>>> manufacturing plants as far as I'm aware with one being in Japan and
>>> one in the US, and that's clearly enough to meet their manufacturing
>>> demands.
>>
>> **Nope. That does not explain the fall in inflation-adjusted price of
>> my Subaru (I haven't compared other models). I'm also not claiming
>> that Subaru is unique. I was making the point that most car prices
>> have fallen in the past few decades (inflation-adjusted).
>
> Firstly, you can forget the ridiculous notion of "inflation adjusted
> prices" as it's as much a load of utter bullshit as claiming that

That you say "inflation adjusted prices" is a load of utter bullshit
says much about your education and your understanding of basic maths.

> grocery prices or in fact the cost of living in general has fallen when
> "inflation adjusted prices" are applied. It's a load of nonsense. Car
> prices have continued to steadily climb over the last few decades like
> everything else.

It's all beyond your ken Darren, give up trying to work it out. Even a
pocket calculator won't help if you don't understand basic concepts.

> Secondly, Subaru is a minor player on the world car market, and the fact
> that they still make cars in Japan while most other manufacturers have
> moved to cheaper labour markets is most likely more to do with the fact
> that they don't sell enough cars to justify the cost of building a new
> manufacturing plant in another country than it is anything else.

But Darren, Subaru does build cars in the US. In fact Subaru builds 50%
of their US market cars in Lafayette, Indiana. You should read this;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subaru_of_Indiana_Automotive

Your research ability is as astounding as your maths ability.
>
> You also have to take into account that like everyone else they compete
> against they need to be competitive if they're going to survive. So
> while their cost per unit price may be higher for building cars in Japan
> rather than Thailand or South Africa, they have to sell on the same
> market as everyone else and if they're going to remain competitive then
> it means they have a significantly smaller profit margin than most other
> manufacturers.
>
> Sucks to be them.

Subaru are doing Ok, sucks to be you!
>
>> In some cases, it is due to the fact that some manufacturers have
>> opened production plants in low cost nations. Such as: Mercedes -
>> South Afrika, Toyota - Thailand, Lots of companies - China, Suzuki -
>> India, etc.
>
> I can't think of a single company, be it car manufacturer or anyone
> else, who has seen a reduction in manufacturing costs as anything other
> than an increased annual profit. In fact I think the notion that
> companies move their manufacturing bases to lower cost labour markets
> with the idea of reducing their manufacturing costs and passing those
> savings onto the end user is nothing but pure fantasy :)
>
>> Like I said: The surprise to me is that Subaru have been able to
>> reduce overheads in a high cost nation like Japan.

Automation Darren. It's what the US will be doing in the next decade as
globalisation comes to a screaming halt and onshoring/reshoring become
the new trends.

> You have no more of an idea of what Subaru's "overheads" are than I or
> anyone else does, and are just assuming that because they're able to
> remain in the market competing with manufacturers who's labour costs are
> most likely lower that they have found some magical way of reducing
> their costs to maintain their profit margins.
>
> The reality is most likely that they're not doing that at all, and are
> just making less money per car than the next guy.
>
They are still in business Darren, and still an independent company.
>
>  > I am not surprised that companies like Mercedes have lowered their
> costs by manufacturing in
>> South Afrika.
>
> It's no secret. They *all* do. Lowering manufacturing costs by moving to
> cut price labour markets is the exact reason why people set up shop in

Not the only reason Darren. For instance, Toyota was making money with
its Altona plant, it's closure was for *political reasons*.

> those countries in the first place, but how that translates into cheaper
> cars for you and me is not exactly clear. As I said, car prices have

Not clear to you - entirely unsurprising! You can't even comprehend
*inflation* FFS.

> done nothing but rise, and all building them in cheap labour countries
> means is that the manufacturers make more money for every car they sell.
>
> Great for them. Not so much for you and me.
>
World economics, globalisation, car manufacturing - it's all beyond your
ken Darren, give it up!

I have direct *first hand experience* working in an overseas facility
where labour costs were definitely *not* the reason for setting up the
plant. The plant had a labour cost of <5% of the Canadian equivalent,
employed in excess of 5,000 workers, and the refined product was of a
much lower purity than the Canadian product. The Canadian equivalent
plant had a workforce of just 70 people but produced more refined
product at a greater purity. The big difference was in the educational
status of the two workforces. Politics and economics also forced the
issue, labour savings were never part of the equation. Oh, and this was
in the days *before automation*

https://www.businessblogshub.com/2017/11/pros-and-cons-of-offshoring/

Some of the pros and cons of offshoring include:

Pros:

Cost Savings
In a competitive market, when a company requires a profit boost, the
business operations can be offshored to reduce cost and labour expenses.

Less Real Estate
Reduced staffing would lead to a reduction in space. Real estate costs
are usually high in places where staffing cost is high too. But many
offshore locations can have low costs on land purchase.

Managing Risk
Offshore locations that have been well-planned serve to reduce
associative risks with offshoring. This is true in case of outsourcing
the offshored processes as the companies would be a specialist in this
field.

Tax Advantage
Offshoring provides a lot of tax benefits, especially for these overseas
companies.

Cons:
Offshoring also challenges economies where a lack of jobs results in a
brain drain and loss of expertise.

Communication issues
One major drawback of offshoring is the language barrier. English may be
the common language, but understanding ascents are challenging and cause
confusion and miscommunication of orders and requirements.

Cultural and social barriers
There will always be challenges with adapting to a new environment and
culture. In the workplace, the way people behave is likely to differ
from what you’re used to, and this may also apply to your attire.
Even in regions that speak the same language, some nuisances can get in
the way and cause some initial alienation.
For example, in the USA, straight-talking is appreciated, whereas to do
likewise in a more religious nation may be considered offensive.

Time zone differences
Appropriate shift patterns need to be assigned to match the time
differences between zones.

Security
Offshoring does come with security issues and hence strict protocols and
safety measures need to be implemented.

Loss of Intellectual Property
Overseas loss of IP would mean the multiplication of the original cost.

Higher offshore cost
The offshore labor cost might be about 70% lower, but other utilities
might be costly, like electricity in some countries.

So Darren, until you have *experience* with offshoring, please keep your
yap shut!

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

alvey wrote:
> Noddy wrote:
>
>>
>> The unfortunate thing with tyres is that a *lot* of their ability to
>> perform is subjective,
>
> What rubbish.
>
>> and we've all seen examples of that. How many times have you heard
>> someone say they have a particular set on their car and love them,
>> but you had some and thought they were completely shithouse?
>
> You drive fourbys. The most important tyre criteria for those mobile
> speed humps is mileage (kilometreage?)
>>
>> Personally I think it's as silly to associate expensive tyres with
>> quality performance...

not silly at all. it's the normal thing. the more expensive something
is, the better the quality or performance that's expected. not always
the case, but as a general rule, so not silly at all to "associate
expensive tyres with quality performance". what is silly tho, is the
stupid ideas he comes out with.

>
> as if you'd know. And as a noted fishbum you probably buy your tyres
> from the wreckers across the road in lovely Merrimu.
>
>
> alvey

--
Have a nice day!..

On 16/12/2023 4:37 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 16/12/2023 4:50 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 16/12/2023 2:56 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>>>> IMO, most cast have been falling in real prices (inflation adjusted)
>>>> for many years. The Subaru is surprising, because it is made in
>>>> Japan, rather thana low cost nation like Thailand, China, Czech
>>>> Republic or India.
>>>
>>> That's probably more to do with Subaru being a relatively niche
>>> manufacturer with a comparatively small model line-up compared to
>>> other mainstream manufacturers. They have only two vehicle
>>> manufacturing plants as far as I'm aware with one being in Japan and
>>> one in the US, and that's clearly enough to meet their manufacturing
>>> demands.
>>
>> **Nope. That does not explain the fall in inflation-adjusted price of
>> my Subaru (I haven't compared other models). I'm also not claiming
>> that Subaru is unique. I was making the point that most car prices
>> have fallen in the past few decades (inflation-adjusted).
>
> Firstly, you can forget the ridiculous notion of "inflation adjusted
> prices" as it's as much a load of utter bullshit as claiming that
> grocery prices or in fact the cost of living in general has fallen when
> "inflation adjusted prices" are applied. It's a load of nonsense. Car
> prices have continued to steadily climb over the last few decades like
> everything else.
>
> Secondly, Subaru is a minor player on the world car market, and the fact
> that they still make cars in Japan while most other manufacturers have
> moved to cheaper labour markets is most likely more to do with the fact
> that they don't sell enough cars to justify the cost of building a new
> manufacturing plant in another country than it is anything else.
>
> You also have to take into account that like everyone else they compete
> against they need to be competitive if they're going to survive. So
> while their cost per unit price may be higher for building cars in Japan
> rather than Thailand or South Africa, they have to sell on the same
> market as everyone else and if they're going to remain competitive then
> it means they have a significantly smaller profit margin than most other
> manufacturers.
>
> Sucks to be them.
>
>> In some cases, it is due to the fact that some manufacturers have
>> opened production plants in low cost nations. Such as: Mercedes -
>> South Afrika, Toyota - Thailand, Lots of companies - China, Suzuki -
>> India, etc.
>
> I can't think of a single company, be it car manufacturer or anyone
> else, who has seen a reduction in manufacturing costs as anything other
> than an increased annual profit. In fact I think the notion that
> companies move their manufacturing bases to lower cost labour markets
> with the idea of reducing their manufacturing costs and passing those
> savings onto the end user is nothing but pure fantasy :)
>
>> Like I said: The surprise to me is that Subaru have been able to
>> reduce overheads in a high cost nation like Japan.
>
> You have no more of an idea of what Subaru's "overheads" are than I or
> anyone else does, and are just assuming that because they're able to
> remain in the market competing with manufacturers who's labour costs are
> most likely lower that they have found some magical way of reducing
> their costs to maintain their profit margins.
>
> The reality is most likely that they're not doing that at all, and are
> just making less money per car than the next guy.
>
>
>  > I am not surprised that companies like Mercedes have lowered their
> costs by manufacturing in
>> South Afrika.
>
> It's no secret. They *all* do. Lowering manufacturing costs by moving to
> cut price labour markets is the exact reason why people set up shop in
> those countries in the first place, but how that translates into cheaper
> cars for you and me is not exactly clear. As I said, car prices have
> done nothing but rise, and all building them in cheap labour countries
> means is that the manufacturers make more money for every car they sell.
>
> Great for them. Not so much for you and me.
>
>
OTOH, had they not moved to low labour cost countries, prices would
likely have gone up even more.

On 16/12/2023 8:49 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
> On 16/12/2023 4:37 pm, Noddy wrote:

>> It's no secret. They *all* do. Lowering manufacturing costs by moving
>> to cut price labour markets is the exact reason why people set up shop
>> in those countries in the first place, but how that translates into
>> cheaper cars for you and me is not exactly clear. As I said, car
>> prices have done nothing but rise, and all building them in cheap
>> labour countries means is that the manufacturers make more money for
>> every car they sell.
>>
>> Great for them. Not so much for you and me.
>>
>>
> OTOH, had they not moved to low labour cost countries, prices would
> likely have gone up even more.

They may have done, but there is no way we can know for certain. However
one thing is for sure. The move to low cost labour production had zero
effect on the price per unit to the consumer in terms of making cars
more affordable.

Trevor seems to think that Subaru stands out as one of the "few" who
still makes cars in Japan and because of that they have some magical way
of balancing their bottom line in a high cost labour market compared to
many others, but what he doesn't seem to realise is that Subaru are far
from on their own with Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Suzuki, Daihatsu,
Mitsubishi and Isuzu *all* still operating car manufacturing plants in
Japan along with Subaru who together build almost 10 million cars a year
where around 40% are exported.

The main difference between Subaru and the rest is that Suby don't have
poverty pack or commercial models which tend to be made in places like
Thailand.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 16/12/2023 7:05 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 16/12/2023 6:27 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 16/12/2023 6:14 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>> On 16/12/2023 12:20 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>
>>>> How many airbags does your old Benz have? :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> AFAIK its got 7 airbags.
>>> Also has ABS, tc and stability control.
>>
>> How do you reckon it would stack up in a current ANCAP crash test? I'm
>> sure it was a safe car in it's day, but it would probably struggle to
>> rate today.
>>
>>
> It wouldn't rate all that well if it needed some of the newer driver
> aids to have the max rating.

Well, car safety today isn't just about passive chassis integrity. It's
about how well each car conforms to the current standard.

That's what I was referring to in reply to Keith in stating that his
Mazda was irrelevant to anything being discussed here, as it is. It
complied to the standards of *it's* day, but it's a 5 year old car (or
thereabouts) and the testing criteria is comparing *new* cars against
each other based on the standards of *today*, not used cars from a few
years ago.

His Mazda doesn't suddenly become unsafe in light of the added tech
found in newer models, and is no less safe than it was when he first
bought it. But it's level of safety has been superseded by cars that are
now safer than it is.

> What it has got that a cheap Chinese car hasn't is an incredibly well
> made safety structure and is made by a company that invented most of the
> safety in cars that we now take for granted.

This isn't exactly your model, but it *does* give a decent indication of
just how far cars have progressed in the last 25 years:

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6V6mtTOIgfU&ab_channel=GommeBlog.it%3ACar%26Performance

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

Xeno wrote:
> On 16/12/2023 5:37 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 16/12/2023 4:50 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 16/12/2023 2:56 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>
>>>>> IMO, most cast have been falling in real prices (inflation
>>>>> adjusted) for many years. The Subaru is surprising, because it is
>>>>> made in Japan, rather thana low cost nation like Thailand, China,
>>>>> Czech Republic or India.
>>>>
>>>> That's probably more to do with Subaru being a relatively niche
>>>> manufacturer with a comparatively small model line-up compared to
>>>> other mainstream manufacturers. They have only two vehicle
>>>> manufacturing plants as far as I'm aware with one being in Japan
>>>> and one in the US, and that's clearly enough to meet their
>>>> manufacturing demands.
>>>
>>> **Nope. That does not explain the fall in inflation-adjusted price
>>> of my Subaru (I haven't compared other models). I'm also not
>>> claiming that Subaru is unique. I was making the point that most car
>>> prices have fallen in the past few decades (inflation-adjusted).
>>
>> Firstly, you can forget the ridiculous notion of "inflation adjusted
>> prices" as it's as much a load of utter bullshit as claiming that
>
> That you say "inflation adjusted prices" is a load of utter bullshit
> says much about your education and your understanding of basic maths.
>
>> grocery prices or in fact the cost of living in general has fallen
>> when "inflation adjusted prices" are applied. It's a load of
>> nonsense. Car prices have continued to steadily climb over the last
>> few decades like everything else.
>
> It's all beyond your ken Darren, give up trying to work it out. Even a
> pocket calculator won't help if you don't understand basic concepts.

LOL! poor old noddy. such things are definitely beyond his ken! on the
12/9/1964 I paid 75 pounds for a 16 year old 1948 Vauxhall, my first
car. in today's prices that's close to $2,500 dollars. today for even
LESS money I could buy a 16 year old Holden Barina, with air bags, auto
transmission, radial tyres, power steering, etc., etc.,

https://www.carsales.com.au/cars/details/2007-holden-barina-tk-auto-my07/SSE-AD-16115998/?Cr=2

someone should ask noddy.. would he rather have the Vauxhall or the
Barrina, lol?

Cars have never been cheaper and better than they are now

>
>> Secondly, Subaru is a minor player on the world car market, and the
>> fact that they still make cars in Japan while most other
>> manufacturers have moved to cheaper labour markets is most likely
>> more to do with the fact that they don't sell enough cars to justify
>> the cost of building a new manufacturing plant in another country
>> than it is anything else.
>
> But Darren, Subaru does build cars in the US. In fact Subaru builds
> 50% of their US market cars in Lafayette, Indiana. You should read this;
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subaru_of_Indiana_Automotive
>
> Your research ability is as astounding as your maths ability.
>>
>> You also have to take into account that like everyone else they
>> compete against they need to be competitive if they're going to
>> survive. So while their cost per unit price may be higher for
>> building cars in Japan rather than Thailand or South Africa, they
>> have to sell on the same market as everyone else and if they're going
>> to remain competitive then it means they have a significantly smaller
>> profit margin than most other manufacturers.
>>
>> Sucks to be them.
>
> Subaru are doing Ok, sucks to be you!
>>
>>> In some cases, it is due to the fact that some manufacturers have
>>> opened production plants in low cost nations. Such as: Mercedes -
>>> South Afrika, Toyota - Thailand, Lots of companies - China, Suzuki -
>>> India, etc.
>>
>> I can't think of a single company, be it car manufacturer or anyone
>> else, who has seen a reduction in manufacturing costs as anything
>> other than an increased annual profit. In fact I think the notion
>> that companies move their manufacturing bases to lower cost labour
>> markets with the idea of reducing their manufacturing costs and
>> passing those savings onto the end user is nothing but pure fantasy :)
>>
>>> Like I said: The surprise to me is that Subaru have been able to
>>> reduce overheads in a high cost nation like Japan.
>
> Automation Darren. It's what the US will be doing in the next decade
> as globalisation comes to a screaming halt and onshoring/reshoring
> become the new trends.
>
>> You have no more of an idea of what Subaru's "overheads" are than I
>> or anyone else does, and are just assuming that because they're able
>> to remain in the market competing with manufacturers who's labour
>> costs are most likely lower that they have found some magical way of
>> reducing their costs to maintain their profit margins.
>>
>> The reality is most likely that they're not doing that at all, and
>> are just making less money per car than the next guy.
>>
> They are still in business Darren, and still an independent company.
>>
>>   > I am not surprised that companies like Mercedes have lowered
>> their costs by manufacturing in
>>> South Afrika.
>>
>> It's no secret. They *all* do. Lowering manufacturing costs by moving
>> to cut price labour markets is the exact reason why people set up
>> shop in
>
> Not the only reason Darren. For instance, Toyota was making money with
> its Altona plant, it's closure was for *political reasons*.
>
>> those countries in the first place, but how that translates into
>> cheaper cars for you and me is not exactly clear. As I said, car
>> prices have
>
> Not clear to you - entirely unsurprising! You can't even comprehend
> *inflation* FFS.
>
>> done nothing but rise, and all building them in cheap labour
>> countries means is that the manufacturers make more money for every
>> car they sell.
>>
>> Great for them. Not so much for you and me.
>>
> World economics, globalisation, car manufacturing - it's all beyond
> your ken Darren, give it up!
>
> I have direct *first hand experience* working in an overseas facility
> where labour costs were definitely *not* the reason for setting up the
> plant. The plant had a labour cost of <5% of the Canadian equivalent,
> employed in excess of 5,000 workers, and the refined product was of a
> much lower purity than the Canadian product. The Canadian equivalent
> plant had a workforce of just 70 people but produced more refined
> product at a greater purity. The big difference was in the educational
> status of the two workforces. Politics and economics also forced the
> issue, labour savings were never part of the equation. Oh, and this
> was in the days *before automation*
>
>
> https://www.businessblogshub.com/2017/11/pros-and-cons-of-offshoring/
>
> Some of the pros and cons of offshoring include:
>
> Pros:
>
> Cost Savings
> In a competitive market, when a company requires a profit boost, the
> business operations can be offshored to reduce cost and labour expenses.
>
> Less Real Estate
> Reduced staffing would lead to a reduction in space. Real estate costs
> are usually high in places where staffing cost is high too. But many
> offshore locations can have low costs on land purchase.
>
> Managing Risk
> Offshore locations that have been well-planned serve to reduce
> associative risks with offshoring. This is true in case of outsourcing
> the offshored processes as the companies would be a specialist in this
> field.
>
> Tax Advantage
> Offshoring provides a lot of tax benefits, especially for these
> overseas companies.
>
> Cons:
> Offshoring also challenges economies where a lack of jobs results in a
> brain drain and loss of expertise.
>
> Communication issues
> One major drawback of offshoring is the language barrier. English may
> be the common language, but understanding ascents are challenging and
> cause confusion and miscommunication of orders and requirements.
>
> Cultural and social barriers
> There will always be challenges with adapting to a new environment and
> culture. In the workplace, the way people behave is likely to differ
> from what you’re used to, and this may also apply to your attire.
> Even in regions that speak the same language, some nuisances can get
> in the way and cause some initial alienation.
> For example, in the USA, straight-talking is appreciated, whereas to
> do likewise in a more religious nation may be considered offensive.
>
> Time zone differences
> Appropriate shift patterns need to be assigned to match the time
> differences between zones.
>
> Security
> Offshoring does come with security issues and hence strict protocols
> and safety measures need to be implemented.
>
> Loss of Intellectual Property
> Overseas loss of IP would mean the multiplication of the original cost.
>
> Higher offshore cost
> The offshore labor cost might be about 70% lower, but other utilities
> might be costly, like electricity in some countries.
>
>
> So Darren, until you have *experience* with offshoring, please keep
> your yap shut!
>
>

On 16/12/2023 5:37 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 16/12/2023 4:50 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 16/12/2023 2:56 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>>>> IMO, most cast have been falling in real prices (inflation adjusted)
>>>> for many years. The Subaru is surprising, because it is made in
>>>> Japan, rather thana low cost nation like Thailand, China, Czech
>>>> Republic or India.
>>>
>>> That's probably more to do with Subaru being a relatively niche
>>> manufacturer with a comparatively small model line-up compared to
>>> other mainstream manufacturers. They have only two vehicle
>>> manufacturing plants as far as I'm aware with one being in Japan and
>>> one in the US, and that's clearly enough to meet their manufacturing
>>> demands.
>>
>> **Nope. That does not explain the fall in inflation-adjusted price of
>> my Subaru (I haven't compared other models). I'm also not claiming
>> that Subaru is unique. I was making the point that most car prices
>> have fallen in the past few decades (inflation-adjusted).
>
> Firstly, you can forget the ridiculous notion of "inflation adjusted
> prices" as it's as much a load of utter bullshit as claiming that
> grocery prices or in fact the cost of living in general has fallen when
> "inflation adjusted prices" are applied. It's a load of nonsense.

**No, it is not. It is perfectly valid and has been used for many years
to explain pricing for everything from houses to potatoes.

Car
> prices have continued to steadily climb over the last few decades like
> everything else.

**No, they have not. They have actually fallen, relative to incomes. In
1977, my 2L Ford Escort cost me around 4 months' wages. I was earning an
average salary back then. An average salary today is $90,000.00. 40% of
$90k is $36k. $36k will buy a car which is quicker, more capable, safer
and far more reliable than the old Escort.

>
> Secondly, Subaru is a minor player on the world car market, and the fact
> that they still make cars in Japan while most other manufacturers have
> moved to cheaper labour markets is most likely more to do with the fact
> that they don't sell enough cars to justify the cost of building a new
> manufacturing plant in another country than it is anything else.

**Not my point. By moving to a low cost nation, car manufacturers have
had the opportunity to reduce prices. IF THEY CHOOSE. Or they can just
pocket the difference. Subaru has no opportunity to do either, yet the
cost of their cars (well, the Levorg/WRX Sportswagon) has fallen in
cost, relative to incomes.

>
> You also have to take into account that like everyone else they compete
> against they need to be competitive if they're going to survive. So
> while their cost per unit price may be higher for building cars in Japan
> rather than Thailand or South Africa, they have to sell on the same
> market as everyone else and if they're going to remain competitive then
> it means they have a significantly smaller profit margin than most other
> manufacturers.

**Very likely, but has nothing to do with point I made.

>
> Sucks to be them.

**Sure.

>
>> In some cases, it is due to the fact that some manufacturers have
>> opened production plants in low cost nations. Such as: Mercedes -
>> South Afrika, Toyota - Thailand, Lots of companies - China, Suzuki -
>> India, etc.
>
> I can't think of a single company, be it car manufacturer or anyone
> else, who has seen a reduction in manufacturing costs as anything other
> than an increased annual profit. In fact I think the notion that
> companies move their manufacturing bases to lower cost labour markets
> with the idea of reducing their manufacturing costs and passing those
> savings onto the end user is nothing but pure fantasy :)

**Possibly. A very close examination would be needed to verify.
Equivalent models in the Skoda range are cheaper than their VW ones.

>
>> Like I said: The surprise to me is that Subaru have been able to
>> reduce overheads in a high cost nation like Japan.
>
> You have no more of an idea of what Subaru's "overheads" are than I or
> anyone else does, and are just assuming that because they're able to
> remain in the market competing with manufacturers who's labour costs are
> most likely lower that they have found some magical way of reducing
> their costs to maintain their profit margins.

**"Magical"? Nope. Modern manufacturing methods and automation.

>
> The reality is most likely that they're not doing that at all, and are
> just making less money per car than the next guy.

**Quite possibly.

>
>
>  > I am not surprised that companies like Mercedes have lowered their
> costs by manufacturing in
>> South Afrika.
>
> It's no secret. They *all* do. Lowering manufacturing costs by moving to
> cut price labour markets is the exact reason why people set up shop in
> those countries in the first place, but how that translates into cheaper
> cars for you and me is not exactly clear. As I said, car prices have
> done nothing but rise, and all building them in cheap labour countries
> means is that the manufacturers make more money for every car they sell.
>
> Great for them. Not so much for you and me.

**Possibly.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

Noddy wrote:

> Firstly, you can forget the ridiculous notion of "inflation adjusted
> prices" as it's as much a load of utter bullshit as claiming that
> grocery prices or in fact the cost of living in general has fallen when
> "inflation adjusted prices" are applied. It's a load of nonsense.

Gak!!!
That one's going straight into the fool room! What a buffoon.

alvey
Snorting at the irony of the above buffoons' recent declaration that the
world is getting dumber.

On 17/12/2023 10:26 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 16/12/2023 5:37 pm, Noddy wrote:

>> Firstly, you can forget the ridiculous notion of "inflation adjusted
>> prices" as it's as much a load of utter bullshit as claiming that
>> grocery prices or in fact the cost of living in general has fallen
>> when "inflation adjusted prices" are applied. It's a load of nonsense.
>
> **No, it is not. It is perfectly valid and has been used for many years
> to explain pricing for everything from houses to potatoes.

So house prices have risen relative to inflation, have they? :)

>  Car
>> prices have continued to steadily climb over the last few decades like
>> everything else.
>
> **No, they have not. They have actually fallen, relative to incomes.

This is probably the most ridiculous argument anyone can make in
relation to prices. You cannot gauge "affordability" when wages are not
a constant. You can relate prices to the *average* wage, but the average
wage doesn't apply to everyone which makes any result you get from doing
so to be completely useless.

> In 1977, my 2L Ford Escort cost me around 4 months' wages. I was earning an
> average salary back then. An average salary today is $90,000.00. 40% of
> $90k is $36k. $36k will buy a car which is quicker, more capable, safer
> and far more reliable than the old Escort.

That's lovely, but all that shows is how affordable things were for
*you*. Not for me, or him, or the guy up the street.

>> Secondly, Subaru is a minor player on the world car market, and the
>> fact that they still make cars in Japan while most other manufacturers
>> have moved to cheaper labour markets is most likely more to do with
>> the fact that they don't sell enough cars to justify the cost of
>> building a new manufacturing plant in another country than it is
>> anything else.
>
> **Not my point. By moving to a low cost nation, car manufacturers have
> had the opportunity to reduce prices. IF THEY CHOOSE.

But that's not what you were saying. What you were saying is that a move
to cheap labour sources has brought about a reduction in new car prices,
and there is zero evidence of that anywhere.

> Or they can just pocket the difference.

That's all they've ever done :)

> Subaru has no opportunity to do either, yet the
> cost of their cars (well, the Levorg/WRX Sportswagon) has fallen in
> cost, relative to incomes.

Subaru are free to do as they please, but they choose not to for
whatever reason and the sole biggest driver of prices is the market.

>> You also have to take into account that like everyone else they
>> compete against they need to be competitive if they're going to
>> survive. So while their cost per unit price may be higher for building
>> cars in Japan rather than Thailand or South Africa, they have to sell
>> on the same market as everyone else and if they're going to remain
>> competitive then it means they have a significantly smaller profit
>> margin than most other manufacturers.
>
> **Very likely, but has nothing to do with point I made.

It has everything to do with it :)

Your contention was that Subaru remain a Japanese based manufacturer
because they've worked out some magical way of being competitive whilst
enduring higher than average labour costs, when the reality is that
they're no different to the other 8 or so Japanese manufacturers who
still maintain a large Japanese based manufacturing base with the
exception being that they don't have any poverty pack or commercial
models made in Thailand.

>> I can't think of a single company, be it car manufacturer or anyone
>> else, who has seen a reduction in manufacturing costs as anything
>> other than an increased annual profit. In fact I think the notion that
>> companies move their manufacturing bases to lower cost labour markets
>> with the idea of reducing their manufacturing costs and passing those
>> savings onto the end user is nothing but pure fantasy :)
>
> **Possibly. A very close examination would be needed to verify.
> Equivalent models in the Skoda range are cheaper than their VW ones.

Badge engineering has been like that all over the world. It's more a
case of commercial strategy than any difference in manufacturing costs.
>>> Like I said: The surprise to me is that Subaru have been able to
>>> reduce overheads in a high cost nation like Japan.
>>
>> You have no more of an idea of what Subaru's "overheads" are than I or
>> anyone else does, and are just assuming that because they're able to
>> remain in the market competing with manufacturers who's labour costs
>> are most likely lower that they have found some magical way of
>> reducing their costs to maintain their profit margins.
>
> **"Magical"? Nope. Modern manufacturing methods and automation.
Automation? :)

If automation is the key difference then the cost of labour is
completely irrelevant. Thai or South African robots don't cost any less
to run than Japanese ones :)

Like a lot of things they do, the Japanese business model is fairly
unique and as far as car building goes there are certain peculiarities
you don't see in too many other places. For example the Japanese
government heavily subsidises the domestic car manufacturing industry
while at the same time imposing insanely restrictive import penalties
making it extremely prohibitive for any foreign manufacturer to sell
cars in Japan itself. That combined with the ridiculously stringent
testing requirements on cars once they reach a certain age which attract
high enough fees that make ownership a financial burden once a vehicle
reaches 5 years old or so gives the Japanese manufacturers a
spectacularly protected market that virtually ensures their own survival.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 17/12/2023 10:26 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 16/12/2023 5:37 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 16/12/2023 4:50 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 16/12/2023 2:56 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>
>>>>> IMO, most cast have been falling in real prices (inflation
>>>>> adjusted) for many years. The Subaru is surprising, because it is
>>>>> made in Japan, rather thana low cost nation like Thailand, China,
>>>>> Czech Republic or India.
>>>>
>>>> That's probably more to do with Subaru being a relatively niche
>>>> manufacturer with a comparatively small model line-up compared to
>>>> other mainstream manufacturers. They have only two vehicle
>>>> manufacturing plants as far as I'm aware with one being in Japan and
>>>> one in the US, and that's clearly enough to meet their manufacturing
>>>> demands.
>>>
>>> **Nope. That does not explain the fall in inflation-adjusted price of
>>> my Subaru (I haven't compared other models). I'm also not claiming
>>> that Subaru is unique. I was making the point that most car prices
>>> have fallen in the past few decades (inflation-adjusted).
>>
>> Firstly, you can forget the ridiculous notion of "inflation adjusted
>> prices" as it's as much a load of utter bullshit as claiming that
>> grocery prices or in fact the cost of living in general has fallen
>> when "inflation adjusted prices" are applied. It's a load of nonsense.
>
> **No, it is not. It is perfectly valid and has been used for many years
> to explain pricing for everything from houses to potatoes.
>
>  Car
>> prices have continued to steadily climb over the last few decades like
>> everything else.
>
> **No, they have not. They have actually fallen, relative to incomes. In
> 1977, my 2L Ford Escort cost me around 4 months' wages. I was earning an
> average salary back then. An average salary today is $90,000.00. 40% of
> $90k is $36k. $36k will buy a car which is quicker, more capable, safer
> and far more reliable than the old Escort.
>
>
>
>>
>> Secondly, Subaru is a minor player on the world car market, and the
>> fact that they still make cars in Japan while most other manufacturers
>> have moved to cheaper labour markets is most likely more to do with
>> the fact that they don't sell enough cars to justify the cost of
>> building a new manufacturing plant in another country than it is
>> anything else.
>
> **Not my point. By moving to a low cost nation, car manufacturers have
> had the opportunity to reduce prices. IF THEY CHOOSE. Or they can just
> pocket the difference. Subaru has no opportunity to do either, yet the
> cost of their cars (well, the Levorg/WRX Sportswagon) has fallen in
> cost, relative to incomes.
>
>>
>> You also have to take into account that like everyone else they
>> compete against they need to be competitive if they're going to
>> survive. So while their cost per unit price may be higher for building
>> cars in Japan rather than Thailand or South Africa, they have to sell
>> on the same market as everyone else and if they're going to remain
>> competitive then it means they have a significantly smaller profit
>> margin than most other manufacturers.
>
> **Very likely, but has nothing to do with point I made.
>
>>
>> Sucks to be them.
>
> **Sure.
>
>>
>>> In some cases, it is due to the fact that some manufacturers have
>>> opened production plants in low cost nations. Such as: Mercedes -
>>> South Afrika, Toyota - Thailand, Lots of companies - China, Suzuki -
>>> India, etc.
>>
>> I can't think of a single company, be it car manufacturer or anyone
>> else, who has seen a reduction in manufacturing costs as anything
>> other than an increased annual profit. In fact I think the notion that
>> companies move their manufacturing bases to lower cost labour markets
>> with the idea of reducing their manufacturing costs and passing those
>> savings onto the end user is nothing but pure fantasy :)
>
> **Possibly. A very close examination would be needed to verify.
> Equivalent models in the Skoda range are cheaper than their VW ones.

And the VW models are cheaper than the Audi equivalents, some models of
all 3 brands share their platforms/mechanicals but there are 3 different
price points mostly due to the way each brand is marketed and trim levels.

--
Daryl

On 17/12/2023 10:26 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 16/12/2023 5:37 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 16/12/2023 4:50 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 16/12/2023 2:56 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>
>>>>> IMO, most cast have been falling in real prices (inflation
>>>>> adjusted) for many years. The Subaru is surprising, because it is
>>>>> made in Japan, rather thana low cost nation like Thailand, China,
>>>>> Czech Republic or India.
>>>>
>>>> That's probably more to do with Subaru being a relatively niche
>>>> manufacturer with a comparatively small model line-up compared to
>>>> other mainstream manufacturers. They have only two vehicle
>>>> manufacturing plants as far as I'm aware with one being in Japan and
>>>> one in the US, and that's clearly enough to meet their manufacturing
>>>> demands.
>>>
>>> **Nope. That does not explain the fall in inflation-adjusted price of
>>> my Subaru (I haven't compared other models). I'm also not claiming
>>> that Subaru is unique. I was making the point that most car prices
>>> have fallen in the past few decades (inflation-adjusted).
>>
>> Firstly, you can forget the ridiculous notion of "inflation adjusted
>> prices" as it's as much a load of utter bullshit as claiming that
>> grocery prices or in fact the cost of living in general has fallen
>> when "inflation adjusted prices" are applied. It's a load of nonsense.
>
> **No, it is not. It is perfectly valid and has been used for many years
> to explain pricing for everything from houses to potatoes.
>
>  Car
>> prices have continued to steadily climb over the last few decades like
>> everything else.
>
> **No, they have not. They have actually fallen, relative to incomes. In
> 1977, my 2L Ford Escort cost me around 4 months' wages. I was earning an
> average salary back then. An average salary today is $90,000.00. 40% of
> $90k is $36k. $36k will buy a car which is quicker, more capable, safer
> and far more reliable than the old Escort.

Its even possible that a nice example of a Mk1 Escort could be worth
more than $36K today especially if it was one of the special models like
a GT1600:-)
Your "average" salary back then must have been pretty damn good if you
could pay for a new car with only 4mths salary.
Average salary is just that, take away all the multi million dollar CEO
salaries and the salaries of the grossly overpaid construction "workers"
and the "average" would plummet, back in 1977 there were far fewer
overpaid CEO's and construction "workers" to inflate the average.

--
Daryl