Tenneco who supply MMAL with Monroe Wylie Shocks & Walker exhausts for 380 and others to off load 70 :cry: odd jobs due to poor sales.

Tenneco who supply MMAL with Monroe Wylie Shocks & Walker exhausts for 380 and others to off load 70 odd jobs due to poor sales.

Yeah I seen that on Ch.7 in the 6.00 news. Ouch, if this 380 doesn't make it or doesn't sell at desired numbers (i'm sure it will will with a few adjustments), the effect to the economy will be contagious. It will not only effect MMAL but every bloody supplier. So while people may think hey Mitsu only employs like 2000 in Adelaide and some more in Sydney, have got it all wrong. In terms of suppliers it will probably effect more like in excess of 8,000 - 10,000 (according to some).

Honestly I think the government is partly to blame. I just with that they would replace some Police cars across the country with 380's and split an even share between them all. At the same time the government should get off there asses and start advertising how people should 'buy australian' to try and support the local economy (I mean something like 75% of cars sold last year were imports!). They could also raise tariffs instead of reducing them to rise the price of imported cars. It would not only help Mitsubishi, but, all other Australian car manufactures.

So in this sense if the government don't do anything to promote Australian products (or raise import tarrifs) before it's to late if MMAL or any other Australian car manufacture close down in the future the government should take some share of the blame.

It's not the Govt's fault. They designed a bad looking car...it doesnt sell.

It's not rocket science, it's MMAL's fault. I don't want to see my tax money going to flog a dead horse.

:owned: :stoopid:
Raising tariffs will only lead to poor quality and uncompetitive australian cars (like the 80's)
A lot of the police here are using AWD VRX's. Ive seen about 20 in different colours. Why should they suppport Mitsubishi over Holden or Ford? I certainly wouldnt want to get someone cuffed into a 380 rear door without hitting their head but this is besides the point.

The government has no responsibility to support car manufacturers. It's ridiculous that people think that everything is the government's "fault". If a company can't survive without handouts, then why should we continue, as taxpayers, to prop them up?

Yes, it is sad that Mitsubishi is in trouble, and yes, it will be a shame if a lot of people lose their jobs. However, Mitsubishi head office made a conscious decision to give MMAL a limited budget to develop the 380. Therefore, the company dug it's own grave.

Personally, I think the 380 is a reasonable car. It won't set the world on fire, but then again, neither do the Commodore or Falcon. The problem with Mitsubishi is that it has a tainted history and a dowdy image. To overcome the perception problems, they needed a car that was 50% better than everything else, not just equal to everything else.

I still believe that Mitsubishi should stop chasing the "big" car market, and concentrate on the medium car market. If they built the Galant (tuned to Australian conditions), they would have been on a winner. They should be competing with Honda, Subaru and Mazda, not Ford and Holden.

Edit: Spelling mistake :D

The government has no responsibility to support car manufacturers. It's ridiculous that people think that everything is the government's "fault". If a company can't survive without handouts, then why should we continue, as taxpayers, to prop them up?

Yes, it is sad that Mitsubishi is in trouble, and yes, it will be a shame if a lot of people lose their jobs. However, Mitsubishi head office made a conscious decision to give MMAL a limited budget to develop the 380. Therefore, the company dug it's own grave.

Personally, I think the 380 is a reasonable car. It won't set the world on fire, but then again, neither do the Commodore or Falcon. The problem with Mitsubishi is that it has a tainted history and a dowdy image. To overcome the perception problems, they needed a car that was 50% better than everything else, not just equal to everything else.

I still believe that Mitsubishi should stop chasing the "big" car market, and concentrate on the medium car market. If they built the Galant (tuned to Australian conditions), they would have been on a winner. They should be competing with Honda, Subaru and Mazda, not Ford and Holden.

Edit: Spelling mistake :D

fully agreed...
it annoys me how people want the govt to create an unfair playing field in the aussie market. that just means consumers get a bad deal.
why shouldnt imports sell at least 75% given the limited range of vehicles produced in australia

I guess part of the reason in rise in people going for imports is that the only locally produced cars are large family sedans.

Is it better for the government to pay $100 million to a business or $100 million in welfare payments (10000 people X $10000 for 6 months unemployment)?

People aren't buying large cars because of high fuel costs. The government should encourage LPG, diesel, hybrids or smaller cars. Also increase tariffs on 4WDs except for rural residents .... at least turn people from 4WDs to Australian cars.

fully agreed...
it annoys me how people want the govt to create an unfair playing field in the aussie market. that just means consumers get a bad deal.
why shouldnt imports sell at least 75% given the limited range of vehicles produced in australia

This is a valid arguement when every country plays by the same rules. At a time when the government is rationalising our industries, reducing tariffs and encouraging free trade agreements, our trading partners are taking advantage of the situation to gain market share. Most Asian countries still impose huge tariffs on goods, especially cars, imported from Australia while at the same time demanding that we allow them greater access to our market.

Perhaps the answer is to match trade tariff for trade tariff? You put a 150% tariff on our cars (Malaysia), and we do the same to yours. Or maybe do what Europe did and impose a limit on the number of imports allowed into the country? We have the greatest selection of cars available to us than any other western country, which, for our population size is just crazy. Surely some could go without affect the market.

The sad fact is that our motor industry is the last major manufacturing base we have in this country. Everything else has gone off shore where labour costs are cheaper. No one wants to see the car makers given hand outs, but the loss to the country if they leave would be devestating. To make matters worse, the government is talking about allowing major car imports from China in the near future. What do you think that would do to the sales of local cars?

Snagglepuss, the loss of manufacturing jobs from Australia is inevitable, whether tariffs are raised or not. The fact of the matter is that you have two options if you are a small economy.

1. Open the floodgates and build an economy where you specialise in niche, high tech markets (e.g. Singapore), or alternatively, become very good at one or two things (e.g. the Banking and Insurance industry in Switzerland); or

2. Hike up tariffs, under the banner of "fair competition". Then watch as your industries become stale, uncompetitive, overpriced and arrogant. Eventually, when gov't handouts run out, the industry collapses. Look at the car building industry in the UK. Also, remember Australia in the 70's and early 80's? If high tariffs still existed in Australia, would the Falcon and Commodore be the cars they are now? They'd still be producing cars with pushrod engines, drum brakes, and live axle rear ends :D

As for your European example, Europeans pay overinflated prices for goods in the name of saving European jobs. Food in Europe remains at artificially high prices, to pay farmers a "decent" wage, which in turn encourages them to produce too much food. To counteract the production of too much food, other farmers are paid NOT to produce! The crisis grows daily, yet the system is so entrenched that politicians are too scared to change it. Eventually, something will give way. When it does, it will be a huge disaster. Government meddling in the economy always ends in trouble. There endeth the economics lesson ;)

PS: Maybe this thread should be moved to another forum... it's definitely off topic now :D

It's not the Govt's fault. They designed a bad looking car...it doesnt sell.

It's not rocket science, it's MMAL's fault. I don't want to see my tax money going to flog a dead horse.

wat he said

wow
some people here have a clue about economics
good stuff...

It's not the Govt's fault. They designed a bad looking car...it doesnt sell.


:stoopid:

It's not the Govt's fault. They designed a bad looking car...it doesnt sell.

I wouldn't say bad - I'd say uninspiring. The thing the government is at fault for is reducing protection for the local automotive industry.


It's not rocket science, it's MMAL's fault. I don't want to see my tax money going to flog a dead horse.

Not correct. MMC designed the Galant so it is their fault. MMAL did the best they could with limited resources to change the donor Galant to the 380. They had a budget of $600 million of which almost a third was spent on modifications to the Tonsley Park assembly plant. Therefore less than $500 million was spent on the Mitsubishi 380 project. Ford and Holden will spend inexcess of $1 billion each for their all new models.

FF

Therefore less than $500 million was spent on the Mitsubishi 380 project.
FF
So for me that mean that Mitsubishi design team is overpayed, ignorant and useless, coz they redesigned Boulay’s model - nobody else. They knew from beginning that most people around the world doesn’t like Boulay’s ideas and MMJapan kick him out because of it, but MMAL was ignoring this fact and now they paying the price. BTW if I correctly remember Ford is spending appro. $25K on each new clay model. (full size). Even MMAL can afford to spend that much or even triple on each clay model, just to see how it looks before company will go ahead with project and spend so much money down the drain.. For sure incompetent person (team) took wrong decision and now many people will suffer. :cry:

Hmmmmmm...interesting arguments, and a little off topic, but..... the truth is, if Mitsubishi does withdraw from Australian Manufacturering it will be disastrous for the Australian economy.
Is the answer to increase tarrifs? Definately NO, we don't want a return to bad old days of poor quality Australian cars!
Do we still want an Australian car industry? Gawd I'd hope so. Its not just car imports that have gone up to 75%. People are buying imports in general in bigger and bigger amounts. And a lot of the time its to just save a few cents. Look at the recent A current affair story with orange farmers plowing orange tree's into the ground, unable to compete against cheaper imports.
Its all very well to say if Australian business can't compete 'then too bad people will buy the imports', but I think this is a very very sad indictment on our society, and a simplistic answer. A country of 20 million with high standards of living will never compete against Asian countries that pay workers $50 a week! We really do need to get behind our local manufacturer's.
(and yes I have always owned Australian cars, and always buy Australian where I can)
I think the question is do we want jobs for our kids in the future, or are we happy to buy more and more imports.

So for me that mean that Mitsubishi design team is overpayed, ignorant and useless, coz they redesigned Boulay’s model - nobody else. They knew from beginning that most people around the world doesn’t like Boulay’s ideas and MMJapan kick him out because of it, but MMAL was ignoring this fact and now they paying the price. BTW if I correctly remember Ford is spending appro. $25K on each new clay model. (full size). Even MMAL can afford to spend that much or even triple on each clay model, just to see how it looks before company will go ahead with project and spend so much money down the drain.. For sure incompetent person (team) took wrong decision and now many people will suffer. :cry:


NOT CORRECT.
Mitsubishi Australia had a replacement model almost ready to go for the TJ Magna. Boulay was the head designer at the time for all of Mitsubishi's world wide design. He had the backing of Mitsubishi Japan, and over ruled Mitsubishi Australia's design, despite protests from local Mitsubishi Australia executives. What a pity, from what I have been told the TJ update that the Australian design team had come up with was a lot better looker, even though it wasn't as substantial as the Boulay redesign. I think the TJ was goodlooking (and still is) to begin with, so why mess so much with it for gawds sake, just refine it! Imagine how well the AWD would have sold if it didn't have those ugly headlights!! If only :(
Anyway as they say its all history now, Boulay's design was a sales flop, he was sacked as Mitsubishi head of Design (they called it a mutual agreement to part) after other flops around the world, and the poor 380 was launched with Mitsubishi's name already being mud, and an up hill battle to sell. Who here has driven one? They are a very very good drive, and I'd recommend it.
And who here thinks they are ugly? I think the 380 VRX and GT are lookers. The 380 was shown to numerous review groups to see if the limited funds MMAL was given to update the Galant design could be made as attractive as possible to Australian motorists. It came out on top in all of them. Poor MMAL must be wondering what they have to do. Unfortunately timing got them with huge fuel price increases (it hurt all big cars).
But lets hope the market recovers, and more people buy 380's, falcons, Commodores and Camrys! Its good for the economy:)

Mitsubishi Australia had a replacement model almost ready to go for the TJ Magna. Boulay was the head designer at the time for all of Mitsubishi's world wide design. He had the backing of Mitsubishi Japan, and over ruled Mitsubishi Australia's design, despite protests from local Mitsubishi Australia executives. What a pity, from what I have been told the TJ update that the Australian design team had come up with was a lot better looker, even though it wasn't as substantial as the Boulay redesign. I think the TJ was goodlooking (and still is) to begin with, so why mess so much with it for gawds sake, just refine it!

Hey don't know if you have noticed but every magna model (gen2 & gen3 mainly) has always shared a design relation to the lancer. The centre pillar was removed on the TL to make way for the 380 and at the same time the CH lancer also had the centre pillar removed. What I'm trying to say is that the front end always has some design relationship to the larger car being the 380 or the Magna. So perhaps looking at the upcoming GS based Sport-back Lancer's front end (also on EVOX concept) could be enlarged, slightly redesigned to appear on the future 380 models? I just looks so much more bloody agressive then any other car and really makes a statement, something Mitsu needs. If they could some how intergrate those lights, that grill onto the front end of the 380 it should and will sell like hotcakes.

So for me that mean that Mitsubishi design team is overpayed, ignorant and useless, coz they redesigned Boulay’s model - nobody else. They knew from beginning that most people around the world doesn’t like Boulay’s ideas and MMJapan kick him out because of it, but MMAL was ignoring this fact and now they paying the price. BTW if I correctly remember Ford is spending appro. $25K on each new clay model. (full size). Even MMAL can afford to spend that much or even triple on each clay model, just to see how it looks before company will go ahead with project and spend so much money down the drain.. For sure incompetent person (team) took wrong decision and now many people will suffer. :cry:

The decision to use the Galant as the donor vehicle for the Magna replacement was made in 2002. This was long before Daimler-Chrysler bailing out of MMC which occured April 2004. Not long after the bailout a lot of D-C appointed people departed MMC and Boulay was one of them.

Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olivier_Boulay) is some information of interest about Oliver Boulay.

MMC didn't have the final say on styling direction prior to April 2004 as D-C had controlling interest of MMC until that date. By April 2004 it was too late for MMAL as the TL/KL Magna/Verada had already been released in late 2003 and MMC had committed MMAL to the Galant. The 380 project was too far advanced to stop or change significantly. And even if MMAL could have changed from the Galant there were no other suitable donor vehicles in MMC's catalogue as the Diamante model had been discontinued.

MMAL restyled the front of the Galant after Boulay's depature. This why the 380 has a unique look compared to the Galant. This is all MMAL could do with the time and funds they had at their disposal. If they had more of both then I am confident that more changes would have been introduced.

Therefore I think you statement "So for me that mean that Mitsubishi design team is overpayed, ignorant and useless" is unjustified as you are not aware of the circumstances which resulted in the 380 being released in its current form.

FF

NOT CORRECT. Mitsubishi Australia had a replacement model almost ready to go for the TJ Magna. Boulay was the head designer at the time for all of Mitsubishi's world wide design. He had the backing of Mitsubishi Japan, and over ruled Mitsubishi Australia's design, despite protests from local Mitsubishi Australia executives.

Similar story to the AU Falcon. The locals who knew and understood the Australian market were overuled by their parent companies due to the 'head office always knows better' mentality. Ford and Mitsubishi had styling designs thrust upon them which neither of them wanted.

FF

Not correct. MMC designed the Galant so it is their fault. MMAL did the best they could with limited resources to change the donor Galant to the 380. They had a budget of $600 million of which almost a third was spent on modifications to the Tonsley Park assembly plant. Therefore less than $500 million was spent on the Mitsubishi 380 project. Ford and Holden will spend inexcess of $1 billion each for their all new models.

Yes I know that. They still have a crap car to sell and it doesnt sell...that was my point. I did say the wrong thing in my post, my bad.

In the end...I see no reason for the Gov. to be forced to save a private company (this isnt directed solely at you FF mate). The reason people bought import cars is because what we have here must be boring! Obviously people are wanting something that isnt here, be it performance vs. price (very often the case with skylines and those other jap imports) or whatever.

In the end...I see no reason for the Gov. to be forced to save a private company (this isnt directed solely at you FF mate).
But this is. Correct me if im wrong FF but did Ford engine plant here in Geelong just receive 80 million to upgrade their production lines?

All car makers have the right to apply for government funding, all of the four (yes, even Toyota) get government funding on some projects.

Yes, it is true that a lot of industries (including all the car manufacturers) get gov't assistance in one form or another. However, that doesn't make it right :)

The simple fact is that manufacturing (or any industry) will always go to the lowest cost base if it tries to compete solely on price. Therefore, we shouldn't try to compete on price, but on innovation and technology. Look at Germany. It doesn't sell the cheapest cars, but it does have an enviable reputation for technology and quality. Australia should stop subsidising it's car industry on the basis that cars made here are more "expensive" to produce. If the Falcon, Commodore, 380 or Camry were as good as a 5 series BMW, would Australian manufacturers be whinging about Chinese and Korean imports? No, we'd all be happy to pay an extra 20-30k over a Hyundai/Kia/whatever.

Price is an excuse for a lack of innovation and poor build quality. I understand that cars have to be made to a price point, but that's no excuse for poor build quality. Ironically, Mitsubishi seems to have some of the best build quality...

Yes, it is true that a lot of industries (including all the car manufacturers) get gov't assistance in one form or another. However, that doesn't make it right :)

The simple fact is that manufacturing (or any industry) will always go to the lowest cost base if it tries to compete solely on price. Therefore, we shouldn't try to compete on price, but on innovation and technology. Look at Germany. It doesn't sell the cheapest cars, but it does have an enviable reputation for technology and quality. Australia should stop subsidising it's car industry on the basis that cars made here are more "expensive" to produce. If the Falcon, Commodore, 380 or Camry were as good as a 5 series BMW, would Australian manufacturers be whinging about Chinese and Korean imports? No, we'd all be happy to pay an extra 20-30k over a Hyundai/Kia/whatever.

Price is an excuse for a lack of innovation and poor build quality. I understand that cars have to be made to a price point, but that's no excuse for poor build quality. Ironically, Mitsubishi seems to have some of the best build quality...


I don't think anyone would describe a 380, Falcon, Commodore, or Camry as poor quality.
On a price basis they are amongst the best quality around.
Since the easing of Tariffs all local manufacturers have lifted their quality substanially.
The reason the government gives grants to local manufacturers is because they are so very important to the Australian economy. As someone else said it's not just the car manufacturer that will go under, the roll on effect would be devastating.....and the reason that the South Australian government sent the premier to Japan to lobby Mitsubishi motors not to pull out of Australia.
High fuel prices have hurt the local industry, with small cars selling big.
Lets hope the Aussie big car market recovers, do we really want imported big cars.....Ford Taurus anyone?

But this is. Correct me if im wrong FF but did Ford engine plant here in Geelong just receive 80 million to upgrade their production lines?
That was Ford's money although Ford did get 20 mill or so to help develop cleaner engines. I believe that the other locals are all getting grants as well to improve efficiency.

I don't think anyone would describe a 380, Falcon, Commodore, or Camry as poor quality.
On a price basis they are amongst the best quality around.
Since the easing of Tariffs all local manufacturers have lifted their quality substanially.
The reason the government gives grants to local manufacturers is because they are so very important to the Australian economy. As someone else said it's not just the car manufacturer that will go under, the roll on effect would be devastating.....and the reason that the South Australian government sent the premier to Japan to lobby Mitsubishi motors not to pull out of Australia.
High fuel prices have hurt the local industry, with small cars selling big.
Lets hope the Aussie big car market recovers, do we really want imported big cars.....Ford Taurus anyone?

Yes, I agree that Australian car manufacturers have lifted their game quite a bit. The question we have to ask ourselves is whether it is enough. Also, if the car industry isn't building cars that Australians want, doesn't that tell you something about it's efficiency?

The other point that should be made here is that there is a suggestion that governments should support Australian industry because otherwise it would result in a loss of jobs. However, ask yourself this question... where does the money come from? It comes from other Australians, either in the form of tax revenue, or indirectly through higher prices for goods. So really, what you're saying is that protecting industry is a nicer (and more acceptable) way of redistributing income, in lieu of paying people the dole. That works well in theory, but in practice it breeds inefficiency.

Also, if the car industry suddenly starts making millions, do you think taxpayers will see that money again? No... it will go into the pockets of shareholders. If you want to support industry, why don't you get the gov't to loan companies money at low interest rates? Surely this is better than just giving it away. In that way, you're supporting industry, but also letting industry know that they're not getting a freebie.

Isn't a low interest loan still giving money away though?

It's sad to say but unless the Aussie car manufacturers start making cars people want, they will all end up in the same difficulties that Mitsubishi finds itself now. Geez even Ford in the US has had major financial problems because they have been building cars that the designers like but the public doesn't. The 380 may be a technological marvel but I guess nobody wants to buy one ( I have seen none in Perth). Why that is I don't know. Perhaps the marketing people should get out of the factories once in a while and actually ask the public what they want in a car.

My next car will be a WRX ( I have a Ralliart Magna atm). None of the aussie car makers even have anything like this in their lineup so I am forced to buy from overseas.

And BTW, tariffs don't work and never will. They are bad for the economy. Anyway unless Labor gets into power (highly unlikley) tariffs won't be increased. It's all up to the car manufacturers to start making a decent product and stop blaming the government, public etc.

And BTW, tariffs don't work and never will. They are bad for the economy. Anyway unless Labor gets into power (highly unlikley) tariffs won't be increased. It's all up to the car manufacturers to start making a decent product and stop blaming the government, public etc.

How can tarrifs be bad for the economy? Tariffs are like an additional tax which ends up being an additional source of revenue for the country. This is easy money.

FF

How can tarrifs be bad for the economy? Tariffs are like an additional tax which ends up being an additional source of revenue for the country. This is easy money.

FF
Paid for by the end consumer, not importer.

Tariffs are bad for the economy at the end of the day because it means many of our industries protected by the respective tariffs are inefficient on a world stage, likewise, your trading partners will respond by placing a tariff on your exports, with the potential to raise the price above the export market's demand level.

Thought u had a finance background FF...

Paid for by the end consumer, not importer.

Tariffs are bad for the economy at the end of the day because it means many of our industries protected by the respective tariffs are inefficient on a world stage, likewise, your trading partners will respond by placing a tariff on your exports, with the potential to raise the price above the export market's demand level.

what he said
it can mean we arent focusing our energy on the industries we should

Mind you though, when Tariffs are too low (like at the moment) it hurts the local industry and can have a negative effect on the Australian economy. Thats why I think the government is stupid because they are shifting them from 10% to 5%. Instead they should rise them slightly to perhaps, 15%.

Mind you though, when Tariffs are too low (like at the moment) it hurts the local industry and can have a negative effect on the Australian economy. Thats why I think the government is stupid because they are shifting them from 10% to 5%. Instead they should rise them slightly to perhaps, 15%.

it will hurt the car industry however other industries will gain. the economy wont suffer overall.

Mind you though, when Tariffs are too low (like at the moment) it hurts the local industry and can have a negative effect on the Australian economy. Thats why I think the government is stupid because they are shifting them from 10% to 5%. Instead they should rise them slightly to perhaps, 15%.

Mostly tarriff reduction is done in a favourable exchange, for instance, we have lowered our tarriffs on vehicle imports from Asia, quite a favourable position to the regional market dominant Japanese companies.

Likewise, on the other hand, Singapore, Malaysia, Korea and Japan etc all lower their tarriffs on our exported steel/iron ore etc.

Paid for by the end consumer, not importer.

Tariffs are bad for the economy at the end of the day because it means many of our industries protected by the respective tariffs are inefficient on a world stage, likewise, your trading partners will respond by placing a tariff on your exports, with the potential to raise the price above the export market's demand level.

Thought u had a finance background FF...

Only for by the consumer if they purchase an imported vehicle or vehicles with a lot of imported components. It should not be a surprise that the VE Commodore will have the least amount of local content of any model Commodore. If tarrifs were still high I don't believe Holden would have dumped so many local suppliers.

"your trading partners will respond by placing a tariff on your exports" - our trading partners protect their local industries so why shouldn't we? Are we to become the white trash of Asia?

FF

Mind you though, when Tariffs are too low (like at the moment) it hurts the local industry and can have a negative effect on the Australian economy. Thats why I think the government is stupid because they are shifting them from 10% to 5%. Instead they should rise them slightly to perhaps, 15%.

:stoopid:

FF

Well atleast FF agree's with me.

"your trading partners will respond by placing a tariff on your exports" - our trading partners protect their local industries so why shouldn't we? Are we to become the white trash of Asia?

FF

nah, tariff reductions most commonly take the form of free trade agreements

nah, tariff reductions most commonly take the form of free trade agreements
Exactly right.

FF, your not making much logical sense - isolationalism and closed market economies have a proven track record of failure. Not worth protecting grossly inefficient industries at the impairment of our efficient industries.

Had it not been for the reduction in automotive import tariffs that we do now, we'd all still have quality on par of the mid 80s.

:confused: Ok any1 can explain to me - in economic way or other ,why in Germany people can buy German new car from 20K euro and Mazda 6 manual basic sedan start from 24k ?Why we can’t make here same car like Mercedes? Here is pic and copy from German web " http://www.gebrauchter-sportwagen.de/fahrzeugboerse-hannover-niedersachsen-/fiat-steiermark/ "MERCEDES-BENZ B 200 B-Klasse 4/5-Türer

Neue Suche
Zurück zur Liste


Fahrzeug Details
Preis EUR 20.790
Erstzulassung 00/0
Km-stand 0
Kraftstoff Benzin
kW/PS 100/136
Kraftstoffverbrauch kombiniert 6,8 l/100km
Kraftstoffverbrauch innerorts 8,6 l/100km
Kraftstoffverbrauch außerorts 5,8 l/100km
CO2-Emissionen kombiniert 163 g/km
Außenfarbe Laut Prospekt
Getriebeart Handschaltung
Zylinder 4
Hubraum 2034 cm³
Türen 5
Fahrzeugart Neuwagen
Angebotsnummer MBB11
Zusätzl. Mwst. ausweisbar "
And pic:

24k aus?

dave_au: whats wrong with the camira? :P (joke at the 80's quality lol)

I hate the A-class and B-class Mercedes. They are both horridly ugly cars that are both manufactured out of Germany; and anyone who buys one should be shot. The bottom of the the real Mercs was set at the C-class, but even that is no longer manufactured in Germany. If I was to purchase any 'european' car it would be an Audi.

Even if the B-class was $24k I still wouldn't buy someone....there just tooo ugly, specially from the back.

:confused: Ok any1 can explain to me - in economic way or other ,why in Germany people can buy German new car from 20K euro and Mazda 6 manual basic sedan start from 24k ?

Well to start with, 24k Euro is 38K Aus, then you have to take into account freight costs and customs, say $1,500, then you have the tariff of about 15% on european vehicles IIRC, therefore it comes out at a low $45,000, based on the German domestic market pricing as you've suggested.

Also, thats the price without consideration of storage costs whilst in Australia - many models are in high demand and will sell almost immediately, others get mothballed for a few months.

But remember, transfer pricing to international subsidiaries can be different - MB or BMW or whoever can place a premium price on the vehicle just because it's the "prestige" brand. Over in Europe, these cars are as common as bathwater, just like a ford or holden, but elsewhere in other markets, there is a perception of german efficiency and quality that's probably worth another $5,000, if your marketing department wants to maximise profit.

Ok, Dave I agree with you, if you’re thinking Australian way, but if U live and work there 24K Euro will be for you like $24K AUD. Monthly pay is between 2000 - 4000 Euro (Clear) .Over there small cup of tea or coffee cost 2,5 -3 euro = appro. 5 bux, .Any PUB -1 glass (250 ml) of Italian pis* call beer - 8 Euro, so we can’t compare euro to AUD in living standard way only commercial way. Now can you get my point of view?.

but if U live and work there 24K Euro will be for you like $24K AUD.
Yeah your refering to cost of living expenses, and yeah, Europe is a lot higher

Back on the subject posted.

When the public isn't buying your product, while shooting yourself in foot, it can affect those jobs.

Mitsubishi 380 sales slump

http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,18228306%255E462,00.html

TG

Exactly right.

FF, your not making much logical sense - isolationalism and closed market economies have a proven track record of failure. Not worth protecting grossly inefficient industries at the impairment of our efficient industries.

Had it not been for the reduction in automotive import tariffs that we do now, we'd all still have quality on par of the mid 80s.

I beg to differ as you are not making any sense. Economies of scale will mean that our small automotive manufacturing industry will never be as efficient as the German or Japanese giants. I agree that the industry had to improve from the ordinary levels back in the 1980s. And it has improved significantly. However the governement has gone too far the other way and let the locals at the mercy of cheap imports. They should have left tarrifs at 15% for the immediate future and let the locals reasses they local products and tailor future models for future new car buyers new demands. The problem is that some of the local manufacturers may not survive in the current climate long enough to conduct that self assessment and introduce the revised and more effiencent products.

FF

They should have left tarrifs at 15% for the immediate future and let the locals reasses they local products and tailor future models for future new car buyers new demands. The problem is that some of the local manufacturers may not survive in the current climate long enough to conduct that self assessment and introduce the revised and more effiencent products.


That's exactly what I mean. 15%-20% on automotive imports would be perfect. What's better importing more cars while you have local manufactures sometimes having in excess of 8,000 cars in a holding yard waiting for people to buy. The government should make a law that no cars can be imported until holding yards are below a certain stock percentage as to what they are producing. This would work and would ensure a more even spread of cars across the market.

Though for Australia to do that we would need a new PM, JH is too gung-ho when chaning tariff levels.

i give up

That's exactly what I mean. 15%-20% on automotive imports would be perfect. What's better importing more cars while you have local manufactures sometimes having in excess of 8,000 cars in a holding yard waiting for people to buy. The government should make a law that no cars can be imported until holding yards are below a certain stock percentage as to what they are producing. This would work and would ensure a more even spread of cars across the market.

Though for Australia to do that we would need a new PM, JH is too gung-ho when chaning tariff levels.

So in your world you are comfortable with forcing the consumer to purchase, what is clearly in many cases a substandard product, (please note I am not specifically referring to the 380 here) rather then being able to freely purchase what they want at a reasonable price.

Glad you're not in charge of this country's trade policy.

I beg to differ as you are not making any sense. Economies of scale will mean that our small automotive manufacturing industry will never be as efficient as the German or Japanese giants.
FF Disagree!

Tarriff protection in the automotive industry to date:
Taken from http://www.cis.org.au/POLICY/summer%209798/sum979812.htm
Protection (taxation) and jobs:

Protection is said to increase jobs in import competing industries. This is because those industries will be larger, due to the more favorable conditions that they experience. But an industry developed behind a wall of protection tends to become inefficient. While competition at home might be hot, real efficiency tests require international competition. The main pain from sustaining inefficient industries happens through reduced incomes. But it is not as if those reduced incomes enable employment to be maintained. Take, for example, Australia’s two most heavily protected industries, the textiles, clothing and footwear (TCF) and passenger motor vehicles (PMV) industries. Chart 1 shows that employment has been steadily falling in these industries over the past thirty years. This is despite large fluctuations in the level of protection. There is no link between protection and jobs, with the high levels of protection in the early mid-1980s seemingly unable to halt the flow of jobs out of these industries.

Chart 1b: Does protection affect employment?
Motor vehicles
http://www.cis.org.au/POLICY/chart2.gif

The perception that protectionism saves jobs is further weakened when we look at the effect of protection on employment in the whole economy. Protection (taxation) means those inputs for production that are (or could be) imported will be more expensive. For example, a farmer will have to pay more for machinery, as will a manufacturer who uses computers. With increased costs will come a scaling down of production, and therefore job losses. This is most evident in export industries, where demand is very sensitive to price. Therefore it is naïve to just focus on the import competing industries when looking at the employment effects of protection (taxation). Protection should not be looked at in terms of protecting jobs in import competing industries, but rather transferring resources – including labour – from efficient, non-protected industries, to inefficient protected ones.

Protection pushes import prices up, which means that consumers cannot afford as many goods and services. Tariffs cost the average Australian family $1000 per year. If tariffs were cut then they would be able to purchase an extra $1000 of goods and services. This would not only benefit the consumer, but would also benefit producers, as demand would increase. The flow on from this would be increased production and employment.

To summarise, tariffs and other protective devices place a hidden burden on consumers and producers in non-protected industries. The aim of this hidden premium is to keep jobs in Australia; however, it seems to have little effect on the industries that it is supposed to assist. To everyone else in the economy this premium is a cost that limits consumption and production.

Sometimes proponents of protection (that is, protection for them, taxation for you) will say ‘some industries must be able to compete, but what about a bit of protection to help them get started.’ This is the so-called infant industry argument. But experience shows it is very difficult to pick industries to protect (and to know which ones you are taxing), and even harder to withdraw support once given to them.

....
Not only is Australia reducing protection, but many other countries around the world are as well. What are the implications of this for Australia? Well, the news is generally good. Our exporters will not have to overcome the barriers that they once did. This will increase demand for our exports, meaning more production and jobs for us and increasing our standard of living.

Disagree!

haha that is awesome
and i know your right
but these guys your argueing with wont understand..

Dave, I'm with you all the way.

Disagree!

Tarriff protection in the automotive industry to date:
Taken from http://www.cis.org.au/POLICY/summer%209798/sum979812.htm
Protection (taxation) and jobs:

Protection is said to increase jobs in import competing industries. This is because those industries will be larger, due to the more favorable conditions that they experience. But an industry developed behind a wall of protection tends to become inefficient. While competition at home might be hot, real efficiency tests require international competition. The main pain from sustaining inefficient industries happens through reduced incomes. But it is not as if those reduced incomes enable employment to be maintained. Take, for example, Australia’s two most heavily protected industries, the textiles, clothing and footwear (TCF) and passenger motor vehicles (PMV) industries. Chart 1 shows that employment has been steadily falling in these industries over the past thirty years. This is despite large fluctuations in the level of protection. There is no link between protection and jobs, with the high levels of protection in the early mid-1980s seemingly unable to halt the flow of jobs out of these industries.

Chart 1b: Does protection affect employment?
Motor vehicles
http://www.cis.org.au/POLICY/chart2.gif

The perception that protectionism saves jobs is further weakened when we look at the effect of protection on employment in the whole economy. Protection (taxation) means those inputs for production that are (or could be) imported will be more expensive. For example, a farmer will have to pay more for machinery, as will a manufacturer who uses computers. With increased costs will come a scaling down of production, and therefore job losses. This is most evident in export industries, where demand is very sensitive to price. Therefore it is naïve to just focus on the import competing industries when looking at the employment effects of protection (taxation). Protection should not be looked at in terms of protecting jobs in import competing industries, but rather transferring resources – including labour – from efficient, non-protected industries, to inefficient protected ones.

Protection pushes import prices up, which means that consumers cannot afford as many goods and services. Tariffs cost the average Australian family $1000 per year. If tariffs were cut then they would be able to purchase an extra $1000 of goods and services. This would not only benefit the consumer, but would also benefit producers, as demand would increase. The flow on from this would be increased production and employment.

To summarise, tariffs and other protective devices place a hidden burden on consumers and producers in non-protected industries. The aim of this hidden premium is to keep jobs in Australia; however, it seems to have little effect on the industries that it is supposed to assist. To everyone else in the economy this premium is a cost that limits consumption and production.

Sometimes proponents of protection (that is, protection for them, taxation for you) will say ‘some industries must be able to compete, but what about a bit of protection to help them get started.’ This is the so-called infant industry argument. But experience shows it is very difficult to pick industries to protect (and to know which ones you are taxing), and even harder to withdraw support once given to them.

....
Not only is Australia reducing protection, but many other countries around the world are as well. What are the implications of this for Australia? Well, the news is generally good. Our exporters will not have to overcome the barriers that they once did. This will increase demand for our exports, meaning more production and jobs for us and increasing our standard of living.
Oh look FF... Facts!:bowrofl:

Ok #$%@ it then - lets just close the @#%$ing local industry and put 50,000 people and their families on welfare.

Morons.

FF

Ok #$%@ it then - lets just close the @#%$ing local industry and put 50,000 people and their families on welfare.

Morons.

FF
:sook:

How about keeping your cool,Falcon Freak.WHO9 ,FF will get over it.And some of you guys start buying the 380.

I can't. I am a supporter of the Australian manufacturing industry in general and specifically the local automotive manufacturing industry. It annoys me IMMENSELY that this country of ours is moving away from secondary industries to primary industries. All the economic powers of this world have strong manufacturing industries. Yet our country wants to turn itself into one big open cut mine. What do people think, that our natural resources are endless? Look at what happened to Nauru - they mined and exported all of there phospherous and are now bankrupt! Article about Nauru's economic plight (http://www.indexmundi.com/nauru/economy_overview.html)

FF

I can't. I am a supporter of the Australian manufacturing industry in general and specifically the local automotive manufacturing industry. It annoys me IMMENSLY that this country of ours is moving away from secondary industries to primary industries. All the economic powers of this world have strong manufacturing industries. Yet our country wants to turn itself into one big open cut mine. What do people think, that our natural resources are endless? Look at what happened to Nauru - they mined and exported all of there phospherous and are now bankrupt! Article about Nauru's economic plight (http://www.indexmundi.com/nauru/economy_overview.html)

FF
I actually agree with you on this one. Immensely!

Hi guys, great discussion. But as any true economist knows, economic theory does not translate perfectly into the 'real world'.

So tariff reduction is an extremely dangerous game for the following reasons:

It assumes that the market is 'perfect', that the tariff reduction is passed directly onto consumers. In fact, it could just make the importers more profitable and stronger without any consumer benefit.

It also assumes a level playing field amongst trading countries. This is ridiculous, most automotive countries in our region have tariffs in the 40-60% mark, therefore they can dump there offerings here, but we can't economically export there.

Tariff reduction does also not take into account the economic benefit local manufacturing has on the revenue system. According to Access Economics (a few years ago) a car manufacturer the size of Toyota Australia pumps $250 million every year into the tax system (payroll tax, income tax of employees, company tax, GST etc). Remember this money builds roads, pays for social security etc. A vehicle importer the size of Mazda puts in around $7 million. So let’s give some help to the locals.

Anyway, I really hope we can all stand behind our great aussie car makers and continue supporting their products. P.S. Mitsubishi - make a 380 wagon!

FF you can and will keep your cool on the forum mate...Just a friendly warning.

Finally a good debate!


But as any true economist knows, economic theory does not translate perfectly into the 'real world'. And that exactly why raising tariffs wont work either. With what I posted above, you can see that the real world, job losses continued at their current rate despite the heavy raise of tariffs in the automotive industry during the 80s.



It assumes that the market is 'perfect', that the tariff reduction is passed directly onto consumers. In fact, it could just make the importers more profitable and stronger without any consumer benefit. And by not having this competiton, this would allow the local manufacturers to produce crap and charge the earth for it. A great example of extreme protectionism is - communism! Look at just how well each communist or socialist closed market economy have suceeded in recent years, with the exception of China, which introduced "capitalist trade zones".


It also assumes a level playing field amongst trading countries. This is ridiculous, most automotive countries in our region have tariffs in the 40-60% mark, therefore they can dump there offerings here, but we can't economically export there. This is why the World Trade Organisation and ASEAN exist - Australia's trade foreign policy is on a bi-lateral and multi-lateral front - Australia has negotiated with all of the countries in our region, and if I recall correctly it was Australia who pushed automotive trade tariff reductions for the ASEAN nations, and IIRC, all ASEAN countries will have the same automotive tariffs by 2020.

Thinking back to a few years ago at uni now, but I recall a deal was struck in good faith that Australia would lower it's economic tariffs first to allow some of the developing nations in our region (eg Thailand before we gained a FTA with them) to begin development of an automotive industry, eg Proton, Honda and Toyota opening factories in Thailand etc.

On first glance, this policy does sound like a hinderance, afterall, it may appear that you are giving some countries an advantage. But then, consider all the iron ore or steel we would be selling to them, all the technical expertise etc. You can't sit here and judge one industries microeconomics, you need to look how other industries might find an advantage.


Tariff reduction does also not take into account the economic benefit local manufacturing has on the revenue system. According to Access Economics (a few years ago) a car manufacturer the size of Toyota Australia pumps $250 million every year into the tax system (payroll tax, income tax of employees, company tax, GST etc). There is no doubt whatsoever that profitable local industry pumps more money into the tax system than importers, however, Toyota, Holden and any other major exporter would not be where they are today without exports, and the importance of free trade for exports is paramount. In fact Toyota is the largest automotive exporter - and a profitable one - who knows if they would be injecting so much money into the revenue cycle had they not been exporting.

However, the same cannot always be said for automotive manufacturers when they are making a loss. MMAL would not have paid any corporate income tax for quite a while now, and I imagine the SA government would be giving concessional rates for payroll and stamp duty considering the amount of SA taxpayer's money is already invested in MMAL.

Likewise, there are millions of dollars being spent by the four locals to enchance competitiveness due to international competition.


Anyway, I really hope we can all stand behind our great aussie car makers and continue supporting their products. P.S. Mitsubishi - make a 380 wagon! You and me both!

In all honesty, you probably could find a few uni professors here and there who do believe in protectionism, isolationalism and the like, my own personal belief is that their in the minority, and the free market approach is the most sound. Still I'm sure there have been many fierce debates across many unis and in most halls of government.


It annoys me IMMENSELY that this country of ours is moving away from secondary industries to primary industries.
I will actually agree with you there, that's why it's important to work now to get our secondary industries that efficient on the global scale. No matter what you do, you will eventually have to face international market forces. Singapore and Taiwan did it with their tech industries in the space of 10 years, South Korea is doing in 20 years what it took the Japanese 40 years and the Germans 60 years to pioneer. Protection isn't the answer. Efficiency is IMHO.

In all honesty, you probably could find a few uni professors here and there who do believe in protectionism, isolationalism and the like, my own personal belief is that their in the minority, and the free market approach is the most sound. Still I'm sure there have been many fierce debates across many unis and in most halls of government.


They are called Labor voters. A species that is slowly becoming extinct (Federally anyway):D

They are called Labor voters. A species that is slowly becoming extinct (Federally anyway)
well ill vote democrats then

well ill vote democrats then

Mmmmm. Natasha :drool: