Locate an Auto Repair Shop in Elbert, West Virginia

Elbert, WV Car Consumer Discussions

Re: Delphi strike vote by May 14th. [socala4]

by rroyce10 on Sat May 20 16:03:27 PDT 2006

... >>> **The transplant automakers have provided competitively paid jobs with benefits on par with the norm across the rest of the country. They also were wise to start operations in places where workers would be thankful for the jobs. And the use of team-based assembly methods should be better for morale. ============================ Really....? ... is that how it works.??? ..l.o.l... I've never been a fan of the UAW ... but let's be honest here, the "the transplant automakers" are paying 10cts on the dollar for the cost of their employee's ... Japanese Cars, American Retirees Tom Uhlman for The New York Times Richard Baugh, 61, who plans to retire in January, inspects the paint on a Toyota Camry in Georgetown, Ky. By EDUARDO PORTER Published: May 19, 2006 GEORGETOWN, Ky. — For the last quarter-century, Toyota, Honda and Nissan have strived to appear to American consumers like homegrown companies. Skip to next paragraph Tom Uhlman for The New York Times JoAnn Elbert, 45, works on the moon roof of a car on the Toyota assembly line in Georgetown, Ky. They built a string of manufacturing plants in the South, employing tens of thousands of local workers. They hired American designers. They spent millions on ads to trumpet their growing roots in communities across the country. "Being a good corporate citizen starts with hiring lots of good citizens," one Toyota ad says. Yet as they built up their operations, the Japanese "transplants" have worked hard not to resemble an American car company in one vital respect: how they treat their retirees. "We want to avoid commitments when we have no control over their costs," said Pete Gritton, the head of human resources for Toyota's United States manufacturing operations. "We can't build in things in such a way that we won't be able to keep our commitments later." Until recently, the issue has mostly been academic for the Japanese car companies. Most of the American factory workers they started hiring in the mid-1980's are still working. But age is creeping up on them. All three Japanese companies are anticipating that the ranks of retirees will swell over the next several years. Toyota's American arm, for example, has just 258 retired production workers (G.M., by contrast, has more than 400,000 retirees). But things will change over the next five years. In 2011 and 2012, a combined 1,700 workers will be eligible for retirement at Toyota — about 6 percent of its current labor force. Their retirement will contrast in a crucial way with their counterparts who have retired from the Big Three auto companies in that they will bear much more of the costs and the risks of retirement on their own. This difference adds up to an important cost disadvantage for the Big Three as they fight to regain market share. The benefit packages offered by Detroit's three carmakers to its blue-collar workers, negotiated over time with the United Automobile Workers union, pretty much fit a standard model. Retirees receive a pension check every month, which varies with the number of years served. An average worker who reaches retirement age at G.M. will get a monthly pension check worth about $50 for every year of service, up to a maximum of about $1,500 a month, which accrues after 30 years of service, according to a G.M. spokesman, Jerry Dubrowski. Retirees with 30 years of service get a supplement that brings their monthly check up to about $3,000 until they reach 62. Moreover, until last year, when General Motors and the union cut a deal for retirees to cover co-pays and deductibles, G.M. covered retirees' health care expenses. With benefits like these, it's no wonder that G.M. was once known as "Generous Motors." But these days, health care costs are causing enormous financial headaches for the Big Three. G.M. has an unfunded liability of $85 billion in today's money to cover future health care costs for workers and retirees. That is seven to eight times the market value of the whole company. General Motors estimates that health care costs add about $1,500 to the cost of each vehicle it makes in the United States. Chrysler claims a health care cost of $1,400 per vehicle. Ford says its burden is $1,100. G.M.'s pension plan has also been a drain. Since 1992, G.M. has plowed $56 billion in stock and cash into it. It is hoping to reduce its burden by offering all of its 105,000 U.A.W. workers buyout packages worth up to $140,000. It is still unclear how many plan to accept the offer. "The higher legacy costs are reflected in a less modern product," said George E. Hoffer, a professor of economics at Virginia Commonwealth University who has studied the auto industry. "They had to cut costs somewhere else and they cut costs in retooling." Japanese companies face little of this burden in Japan, where the government covers retirees' health care and pays a bigger share of workers' pensions. Toyota expected to pay out about $700 million in pension benefits in fiscal year 2006, which ended in March. That's less than a tenth of what G.M. expects to pay on its pensions this year. In the United States, retirees of the Japanese companies pay part of their health care costs. And the Japanese companies' pension obligations are a fraction of that of the American carmakers. While G.M. paid $5.4 billion last year for the health care of its 141,000 workers, 449,000 retirees and their dependents, Toyota said in its 2005 annual report that its obligations to cover the health care expenses for its retirees "are not material." At Honda, a 60-year-old retiree with 10 years of service would typically pay $345 a month for health care; a 62-year-old retiree with 25 years at the company would pay $70. Toyota also requires retirees to pay part of their premiums, based on years of service. In general, these retirees are cut off from the company health plan when they turn 65, and receive instead a lump sum with which they can buy supplementary insurance to Medicare. Honda is alone among the big three Japanese carmakers to still offer a defined-benefit pension guaranteeing a monthly check to newly retired workers in the United States. At Toyota, a worker's pension consists of an investment account in which the company deposits the equivalent of 5 percent of a worker's earnings each year, typically around $3,000 to $3,500. An employee can supplement that with a 401(k) plan, and the company matches contributions up to a maximum of 4 percent of the worker's income. For the company, these retirement packages carry no uncertainty. But they do for workers, whose nest eggs depend on their contributions and the financial markets.

Elbert

by sawmill on Sat Aug 16 09:10:09 PDT 2003

You're lucky. Even with all the problems, it is still a fun car to drive and to look at. There is no question that Lincoln recognizes the problems and fixes them -- it is just that sometimes the mechnics are not well trained, or certain parts are kept in Detroit and only released to the dealer repair shop when the need arises -- but this has gotten better now that there are more cars on the road, and the mechanics see the patterns of problems LS's have. The proof is in the Technical Service Bulletins -- especially the ones that say do not repair unless the customer asks - like replacement of the defective rear window actuators.

2001 Uppdate

by eor2 on Fri Aug 15 20:24:00 PDT 2003

To those considering the LS, and those with lots of concern about quality. I have a 2001 LSV8 Sport with all options, with 34,000 miles, for 2 1/2 years. Only problems to date have been a "sensor failur" at about 15K, and one of the rear windows drives failed at 32K. Both were fixed without question by the dealer. In the case of the rear window unit, the diagnostics specs on the work order stated that both were to be replaced, and both were. The only thing I would really like to improve is the slightly bumpy ride of the Firestones. That I will solve when the tires need to be replaced, which is not soon based on the current tread. It is a fun car to drive, plenty of room, and more power than I can often use. The power & torque really shine when passing at highway speeds. You are slammed back in the seat. Not as impressive at lower speeds, but not bad. The biggest problem is keeping within the "acceptable" over the limit range on the interstate. As to dealers, mine here in the Seattle area is excellent in my book. Service is prompt, efficient, no arguments, loaners, and the sales people really knew the car specs. Marketing is a problem for this car and I agree with many of the posts on this board in that respect. Lincoln does not know how to market a performance car, that simple. In this area BMW's and MB's are the "status car" for many. However, except for resale value the LS has it over many of them in my book. I read this board every couple of weeks but rarely comment. However felt it was time to comment, given some of the latest postings. Elbert

Ref albert19

by eor2 on Tue Apr 24 22:04:22 PDT 2001

I too spent a good deal of time evaluating the car, and had some concerns with some of the issues raised on this site. However, those issues alerted me to possible problems to look for. I bought an 2001 V8 Sport (with Firehawks) 2 1/2 weeks ago, and so far have had no problems. Some observations: Moonroof: Have it and love it. Never had one before. At the 72-73 MPH speed range where the vibrations are reported, none that I can detect. Road noise. Definately more noise on rough asphault or concreate. Very quiet on smooth asphalt. Wind noise. None below 60 mph that I can detect. However, on a 300 mile trip yesterday, I did get wind noise when running at 80mph with a 20 mph headwind for a total wind speed of 100mph. Not real bad, but definately there. Fuel consumption. On same 300 mile trip. At 70-73mph, and 2k-2.4krpm, the readout was averaging 27mpg. At 75-80mph, and 2.5+k, the readout was averaging 21-22mpg. Actual for the trip was 24.3mpg for 300 miles, 280 of which was on interstate or expresway. Driving to and from work (a mix of conditions) I am getting 18mpg. Demographics: I live 40 miles SE of Seattle in a semi rural town. Have seen only one LS come through here in 5 months of watching. An occaisional Jag S. Go to Seattle and its environs, and I have seen less than a dozen LS's. BUT, Beamers, and Benzs are dime a dozen around here. I agree with one of the postings, check out the car thoroughly. But don't be spooked by some of the concerns raised. Elbert

by mviglianco1 on Tue Jun 20 15:21:58 PDT 2000

Everyone is so worried about their rites. Yes, everyone has the rite to access publicly owned lands but where does it say everyone has the rite to access these places by whatever means they want to because it is fun and it is their rite. So much BS happens in this country because people claim it is their rite. Where does it say that you are garunteed the right to drive a motor vehicle on public land. That is a priviledge that should be allowed to be revoked in specific situations. I'm sorry but just because someone is physically unable to get to a backcountry site does not mean they have to the right to strap on on engine to get there. Why dont we just build a chairlift or an elevator to get to the top of Mt.Elbert? It does not take a tree hugging hippie to understand that motor vehicles are more intrusive on the environment then pedestrian activities. A snow mobile or ATV being used "by the book" still polutes. To say that a hiker or skiier can leave behind some litter is missing the point completely, so can a snowmobiler. A freaking bear can knock over your trash can and drag some litter into the woods but what does that have to do with anything? Just my opinion