It makes a lot more sense if you understand that it’s just a negotiating chip. The tariffs will disappear when he gets concessions like more border security and commitments to build more vehicles in the U.S.
I expect him to backpedal and say we’ll give the automakers 1-2 years to prepare. He’s just trying to show them he’s willing to do it to get them to commit to more US manufacturing. Which can’t be done overnight.
My point exactly. Ditch the primaries and have an open election with all candidates then take the top 3-4 vote getters and have a runoff. That seems to be the only way to get a centrist candidate elected. If the dems were smart they would have gone with a more moderate candidate who was against open borders and other extreme left ideals. They would have won in a landslide.
Not as easy as body on frame, but the same way they built fusion and edge on the same platform. Or escape and focus. Fiesta and Ecosport. Explorer and Taurus.
Yeah, right, he knows that can’t happen when their profit margins are 6-8%. He’s just playing the long game here to get more U.S. manufacturing. I bet he backs off and gives them 2-3 years - you can’t move manufacturing overnight.
Which is not something he would normally do except as a short term threat just to prove he could do it hoping to spur more investment in US production. He knows exactly what this will do to American companies in the interim.
I would expect all brands to raise their prices in respo se but who really knows what will happen.
I agree this seems unlikely to be sustained. But I’m going to start shopping in stock vehicles just to be safe.
I understand short term tariffs as a negotiation tactic. I understand wanting to encourage more auto manufacturing in the U.S. and leveling the playing field with foreign brands being subsidized by their government. But an across the board chicken tax on everything is just stupid and allows US mfrs to increase prices 20% and still undercut the imports.
You’re looking at it from the product perspective but you need to look at the buyers. You can make the most aspirational cool vehicle but if most of the potential buyers are price biased they aren’t going to pay any kind of premium. Ford tried that with titanium escapes, focii and fusions which were great vehicles but all buyers wanted (except me apparently) were cheap SE models. A sedan would have to sell on price alone so that could work of costs can be kept low enough but some type of truck or utility would fare better.
I think it’s insane that we’re talking about whether or not to offer a BASE engine with 350 hp!!! It wasn’t that long ago that the MAX power available in a passenger vehicle was 320 hp. Crazy.
One more point - it’s not that it’s competition per se it’s licensing. Let’s take cornhole boards that people love to build with sports logos. They’re charging a lot more for those boards with sports logos and selling a lot more of them because of the logo so it’s only fair that the logo owner get a licensing fee. And they should be allowed to decide whether it’s a product they want their logo on.
That’s not how I read it. It said that if the shifter wasn’t put all the way in park then it could be jarred out of park. But it sounded to me like once it was in park it was ok. But maybe I misread it.
Cost and resources to change over. Huge impact on supply chain contracts old and new. I think the EV skunkworks project really demonstrated how much this was needed.