Slashdot Mirror
Chinese-Built Cars Are Coming To the US Next Year
cartechboy (2660665) writes "Made In China." It's a sticker we all know too well here in the U.S., and yet, it seems not everything we buy is made in China. To date, there haven't been Chinese-built cars in the U.S., but we keep hearing they are coming. Now it seems it's about to become a reality, as Chinese-built Volvos will be arriving in the U.S. as early as 2015. The first model to arrive will be the S60L. The payoff for Volvo if it manages to convince buyers that its cars built in China are just as good as those currently built in Europe is vast. Not only will it save on production costs, but it will help buffer against exchange rate fluctuations. Volvo's planning to make China a manufacturing hub, and that makes sense since it's now owned by Chinese parent company Geely. But will Chinese-built cars be just as good as European-built cars, and will consumers be able to tell the difference?
Anyone want to make any bets on how long they're being sold here in the U.S. before someone dies in an accident because it was made with sub-standard parts, or poor quality control?
Don't mod me down as a troll or flamebait, either, because it's not like there isn't a history of low-quality crap coming out of China.
And toothpaste. Sadly it's getting harder and harder to avoid buying food that has at least some ingredients from China.
>But will Chinese-built cars be just as good as European-built cars
Yes.
Have you seen the quality of European built cars?
Have you noticed the vast Chinese manufacturing industry that assembles all the technology.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Doc Brown: No wonder this car failed. It says "Made in China".
Marty McFly: What do you mean, Doc? All the best stuff is made in China.
Doc Brown: Unbelievable.
But how is a "folks' wagon" or "Fix It Again, Tony" any worse than something you have to "Fix Or Repair Daily"? You go somewhere in an F-O-R-D, and you come back in a D-R-O-F: Driver Returns On Foot.
I'm minded from earlier cases of problems with Chinese-sourced products that the Chinese attitude is very much "It's the buyer's responsibility to make sure they're getting what they ordered and paid for. If they don't check, it's their fault for being so gullible.". Not exactly the attitude I'd be looking for out of a manufacturing center.
I'm told that Chinese manufacturers make things exactly as flimsy as their client wants them. Pay more, get more. Did Nintendo consoles lose their Tonka Tough reputation when Nintendo moved manufacturing to PRC?
Most of my apple kit is manufactured in China, and is as good a build quality of any electronics I own, as far as I can tell.
It seems that the quality is determined by the design; that is, the Chinese manufactures build it as awesomely or as cheaply as you tell them to.
The fear is that unscrupulous manufacturers will substitute inferior inputs, I suppose, but it appears that, at least for premium brands like Apple and Lenovo, that is not happening. As for labor inputs and standards, well, scruples seem to be lax everywhere but Germany. Personally, I try to be aware of the social impacts of the products I buy, but when I have purchased stuff produced under questionable social conditions, said stuff has never seemed to have suffered any performance degradation. Rather, unfortunately, the opposite is sometimes the case.
Actually, the Chinese will build to any spec. If they can build it on the same quality requirements for cheaper, you tell them you want it to your quality spec and you pay less.
This is unlike Germany, where the only quality level is "high", and you pay for German manufacture. German manufacturers won't provide you with a lower cost-tier and a lesser-duty-cycle product.
By the by, quality is the degree to which a deliverable satisfies requirements. A car that falls apart after 5 years isn't any higher quality than a car that runs for 50 years, if you're going to replace either in 5 years anyway. If the former is much cheaper to own and maintain for the first 5 years than the latter, then the former is of higher quality; if the latter is cheaper to own and maintain, then the latter is over-engineered and can be stripped back to last 5 years and cost much less, better satisfying quality requirements.
Many of us want cars which will satisfy a low total cost for acceptable function. The car should last longer to avoid a new expensive purchase, and require minimal maintenance to retain its important functions (reliability, safety, comforts, emissions, and so on). Our quality standards are the cheapest thing we can get for the presumed function and comfort level, which is why economy cars are so popular in the US: they don't save very much on gas, they don't drive as well as something with a V6 or V8 and a sports suspension, but they're cheap and they tend to have a good duty cycle (even GM's ecotec engines are built to last, never mind the newer non-Ford engines Mazda has been putting in the 3).
Support my political activism on Patreon.
A car uses approx. 1/2 the total energy it will consume in an average working lifetime during manufacture.
It follows that if we wish a lower carbon footprint, we mandate a long lived car
with especial emphasis on long life steering and drivetrains
Thus the used car market gluts in a decade, ending the 'trade up' value of cars.
result? Even the tier 1 buyers demand easily replaced bodies to go on long life vehicles, cutting life cycle fuel costs.
Growing up in the mid-late 80s, I vaguely remember the US having a total freak-out session about the Japanese taking over. I was a kid, but I've also been told that things like MBA programs did anything they could to jump on the Japan bandwagon, training people in Japanese management techniques, manufacturing processes, etc. People were absolutely convinced that there was some magic that the Japanese people and economy had that absolutely had to be emulated. Even before the 80s, having the Japanese car companies come in and encroach on the Big Three's turf was a huge mind-shift.
I wonder if China is going to succeed where Japan failed sometimes, but I also know we've been down this road. There's no real secret to their success in manufacturing:
- They have a huge population, and most of them are not averse to factory work. (We've taught 2 or 3 generations now in the US that manufacturing is a dead end job.)
- A strong, authoritarian central government in China has control over the people and key industries, and can make instant decisions to bolster growth with zero debate. They can also crush dissent -- can you imagine how much easier life would be in the US without the president having to fight Congress over everything?
- As we've seen, environmental laws aren't enforced the way they are here. Even the most laissez-faire among us can recognize that China has pollution problems.
The one thing I see that's different from the 80s is that people in general in the US aren't as well off as they were. Even back then, there were still a few industries that provided lifetime employment at good wages. Same thing goes for retirement -- pensions were still available to some people, so they didn't have to be paranoid about retirement. Now, everyone needs cheaper and cheaper stuff. China is the home of cheap manufacturing and will continue to be for quite some time. Until people feel more confident and can spend actual income rather than incurring more debt, convincing people to pay more for a higher-quality product is going to be a tough sell. And that's where I think China might have an opening -- what Japan did for high end manufacturing in the 70s/80s, China is doing to the low end to some extent.
I own a European made Volvo (I think it was made in Belgium.) It's almost 10 years old and has 120K miles on it. The engine will run forever, and the car is fine except for the things you would expect to start wearing out around the 10 year mark (belts, bearings, engine mounts, etc.) Volvos are (were?) designed for extremely long service life, kind of like Toyota Land Cruisers. It'll be interesting to see if the new owners keep the quality the same.
One thing's for sure - the next 10 years will be very interesting. I come from the Rust Belt, and being a Rust Belt 80s kid was no fun. Now the god of almighty free market efficiency is coming for the last decent manufacturing jobs. Even more worrisome is the loss of white collar employment, you know, the stuff we studied for so we didn't have to work in a factory. Unless the economy does a complete shift of some kind, we're going to have to get used to extremely high sustained levels of unemployment.
About 5 years ago I stopped investing in Chinese companies. Why? Because I didn't want to support even indirectly a regime that, without apology, oppressed Tibet and supported the despotic regime of North Korea. I hold them largely responsible for sacrificing millions of my long-separated brothers (yes, I'm ethnic Korean) through starvation and torture simply to keep a "buffer state" in between them and the "capitalist" (ha ha, what irony) South Korea and U.S.
My stance was only hardened by their support, for purely geopolitical/economic considerations (OIL), of Syria and Iran (and, I think Libya). They and Russia have kept those regimes propped up and have made the tragedies in the Middle East even worse (of course America started it but at least we know now that most of us were idiots to be led by one). That's not to mention the authoritarian and despotic regimes that China is supporting in Africa purely for their resources.
Look, I know the West (and especially the U.S.) have done a LOT of bad things but the Chinese don't even make a pretense of things like human rights, even in their own country. As I've said, they've been willing to sacrifice millions for a modicum of security (they could've asked the U.S. and S. Korea if, in return for not letting the Kims return to North Korea from one of their trips to China, we would promise not to put American troops north of the 38th parallel. As if S. Korea would even want American troops on the peninsula once the threat was gone). Now, living in S.E. Asia, I see firsthand how China with its growing power is throwing away treaties and agreements it has signed in order to bully the Vietnamese and Philippines with their ridiculous "cow tongue" shaped demarcation of the seas. They are returning to 19th century "gunboat" diplomacy in the 21 century world.
I fear that as China grows ever stronger, they will continue to discard previous commitments to peace and will literally force their will upon the world. Is that what you want to support? I'm a realist, and I love my gadgets and my improved standard of living brought on by the flood of low-cost Chinese products (often produced with stolen patents and technologies but that's another story) and I'm not quite ready to live without. However, when there's a choice, when you can purchase something that is identical (hopefully) in every way including price to another but one is made in China and one was made in Sweden(?), I hope you'll make the same choice I do.
If China, not the U.S. had the power the NSA has; would any of us have any protection at all? Think of what kind of world that would be to live in. (That's what 1.2 billion people ARE living in).
From friends of mine who have done Chinese imports, there are times when the first prototypes are of excellent quality... then after a run or two, shortcuts are made, metal is specced cheaper, the full welds you are paying for get replaced with spot welds, the stainless steel alloy needed for strength gets replaced by pot metal, etc.
Then there is the China rare earth issue. China has it set up that you pay a lot more to export the rare earths than to have one of their factories produce your goods.
We already had China try coming to US shores with cars before. In 2008, Chery was going to have a dealership set up in Austin... but the economy tanked and they scuttled their plans.
That 1984 US VW Passats that were made in Mexico are now the Volkswagen Santana, that is made and sold in China.
The factories in Mexico were packed up and moved to China and the model remanufactured under the label of VW Santana.
Every cab in Shanghai is essentially a brand new 1984 VW Passat.
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
>>> A car that falls apart after 5 years isn't any higher quality than a car that runs for 50 years, if you're going to replace either in 5 years anyway.
Faulty thinking. While you might get tired and replace car in 5 years, a car that runs for 50 years will have multiple owners. Its residual value will be higher. Environmental impact of manufacturing and then recycling it will be lessened due to getting spread over many more years.
Car that runs for 50 years is always higher quality that on that falls apart after 5 years no matter how you use it.
Until you start talking to fanboys in my extended family who claim that so long as the headquarters is on U.S. soil, it's a desirable "American car", and if the headquarters is elsewhere, it's an undesirable "foreign car". They think a Ford made in Mexico is more desirably "American" than a Toyota or Honda made in their home state. The excuse is that "the money goes back to Americans", but fanboys can't specify what "the money" means. Wages go to the economy of the state where the factory is located, and profits go to shareholders who may live around the world. How should I get through to them?
early days? as an owner of a fairly new kia thats about the shit the bed at 72k miles (and thousands of dollars worth or repairs their worthless warranty wont cover) I assure you they are still garbage
Volvo only makes trucks- the company dumped the car division but let it keep the name. Ford bought it, sucked out everything of value it could then sold it to the Chinese for 1/6 the price. Your 2001 was a Ford Volvo-- a few years of Ford shaking things up then it probably got better but not the same as it once was as ford extracted whatever value they saw before dumping it cheap on the Chinese. Something I believe was a $5 billion loss for Ford over like 7 years or something... they must have got something out of that deal rather than just straight up losing that money... Notice Fords got better during the time -- could be they moved all the good people/tech over.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Nobody buys Volvo because of who assembled it. They buy because of who engineered it. There is a difference there. Parts are made all over the world, are interchangeable to a degree, and can be assembled rather easily. What differentiates cars is who engineered them.
I'm all for anything that puts Bruce Springsteen out of a job.
American Third Position
Finally, a real choice!
Just fyi, Geely makes the current iteration of the famous London Black Taxi Cab.
Let us your example of timing belts. One can use a chain, less prone to mechanical failure but it is heavier and takes up more room – both affecting fuel efficient. Or one can use a belt, which is basically a glorified rubber band, which is lighter, smaller, but more prone to mechanical failure. And because the current engine compartment is so compact on today's cars it is a real bugger to replace in most cars.
Just one example of many. My personal favorite is engine compression. All things being equal, the higher the compression, the better the fuel mileage and the shorter the life of engine.
There are trade-offs. If you want to increase durability you need to use larger, less efficient parts or more expensive parts. Of course, using more expensive parts to increase durability my not decrease maintenance costs. Increasing durability does not automatically reduce total operating costs or total carbon emissions.
It follows that we mandate a long-lived car if we want to save money, too, unless building a long-lived car costs 5 times as much as building a short-lived car that has 1/3 the life span. Most people will go for a car that lasts 6 years and costs $20k over a car that lasts 20 years and costs $120k--which is why we have economy cars all over the US, with a duty cycle of about 100k, at an average of 12k/year driving miles.
That's kind of irrelevant, anyway. The Chinese can build high quality; they often build frail things because we ask for frail duty cycles. That set of cheap Chinese knives you got for $10? It was commissioned as a set of sharp, non-rusting knives for cheap as possible, with high aluminum content being acceptable to quality standards. They took it right to the bare bottom of acceptance criteria, driving the production cost down low. They can also forge you a $150 chef's knife out of the finest steel, if you want.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
The only people I seen driving Volvo or Saab are college professors. Seriously.
Must be the image of a foreign car with a "I'm smarter than you and I want it to show" attitude.
And at least on my area, they must come from the factory all rusted out.
By the by, quality is the degree to which a deliverable satisfies requirements. A car that falls apart after 5 years isn't any higher quality than a car that runs for 50 years, if you're going to replace either in 5 years anyway. If the former is much cheaper to own and maintain for the first 5 years than the latter, then the former is of higher quality; if the latter is cheaper to own and maintain, then the latter is over-engineered and can be stripped back to last 5 years and cost much less, better satisfying quality requirements.
By ignoring resale value, your numbers are completely divorced from reality and lead to irrational conclusions.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
No, even the Chinese government can't bring themselves to tell that big of a lie.
My personal favorite is engine compression. All things being equal, the higher the compression, the better the fuel mileage and the shorter the life of engine.
I'd love some evidence for this claim, compression has been rising since the early 80's pretty much on a parallel with increased engine reliability. I know everything isn't equal as engineering has obviously gotten better over that time period, but the only direct large scale evidence I'm aware of says there's no negative correlation between compression ratio and reliability. In fact some of the least reliable engines still sold are lower compression because they're based off older designs that haven't had a good clean sheet modern replacement done yet.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
The reason why bad quality stuffs are coming out of China is because either consumers demand lower price stuffs or companies demand higher profit. If you want good quality stuffs, you got to pay higher. A vacuum cleaner used to cost me $500. I can't even find one that is more than $150 at wal-mart the last time I checked. Anyone thinks they could get away with selling their cheap quality products at high price quarter after quarter, year after year, they are delusional.
The build quality of modern vehicles has little to do with where it is made. The vast majority of assembly is done by machine (with the exception of Porsche and some other high end cars that are still built largely by hand). What determines reliability is how the cars are engineered.
Painting with very broad brush strokes, here is my experience with cars:
Japanese cars: Simple design, minimalist engineering, extremely reliable and cheap to operate
European cars: Complex design, somewhat over engineered, reliable but expensive to maintain
American cars: Poor design, not durable (in my experience), not very reliable but cheap to fix
Quick anecdotal evidence: I was taking my car in for some routine maintenance and they are giving me a drive home in the customer shuttle (a Chrysler PT Cruiser). I look and notice that it has about 80.000 miles on it and ask the guy driving it if it has been reliable. He tells me that they had to replace the motor mounts 3 times so far. 3 times! That, folks, is inferior design. My Honda has 110,000 miles and the original motor mounts. Original engine and tranny for that matter. Runs like a Swiss watch.
I'm not suggesting that all American cars are junk but I travel a lot and rent a lot of cars and my perception is that Japanese and European cars are far superior. I have driven nearly everything on the road.
What astounds me is that Chevy can build a fantastic car like the Corvette and yet nearly everything else is sub par. Ok, the new Malibu is a big improvement...I'll give them that. Ford? Well, the Mustang finally got rid of the live rear axle suspension. Now they are only about 10 years behind every other sports car on the road. Chrysler? They have some innovative designs but the quality continues to be horrible on balance.
None of this is a knock on the assembly workers. If the cars are well engineered they will last, whether they are made in Japan, Europe, USA or China.
Simple engineering. Higher compression ratios means that the engine is running hotter and under more stress, ergo shorter life spans all things being equal.
You are probably thinking of current day where they have mastered the engineering. If you look at the Japanese auto manufactures you can see small steady increases in engineering, fuel economy and higher engine economy. They were selling cheap, dependable, fuel efficient cars – they had to master the engineering. Contract that to the North American auto manufactures which tried to increase engine compression – lots of issues there.
That being said, I would argue that today's highly reliable high compression engines have a shorter life span than GM's late 60s 455 cu in V/8. Very low compression, very low stress, very long lifespan. And it could be easily fixed. Overall carbon emissions are probably higher overall than a comparable car today even factoring in the longer time span. As they said, it "could pass anything on the highway expect a gas station".
Another good place is to look diesel engines. Once they lose the ability to retain compress it is time to junk them – not much can be done to rehabilitee them. Go on any farm and you can probably find a 1950s era 2 piston diesel tractor still running on the place. Once again those engines run on very low compression.
In the 1960's the prevailing opinion about Japanese quality is that it was inferior in every way except cost, and there was ample justification for that opinion. Then the same thing happened again a couple decades later, but this time it was Taiwan. In the early 1900's? Germany was the dog-shit bottom-feeder of manufacturing.
All three of the above are now considered to be among the highest-quality manufacturers in the world.
Things change.
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
I think you are slightly off my point so let me try to restate. When I am talking about diesels, I am trying to compare diesels to other diesels.
As to your point, diesels tend to more durable then gas engines because they are simpler. Diesels tend to have higher compression ratios because it is the compression that ignites the fuel, not sparkplugs. However one has real problems when the diesels engine can no longer hold pressure.
Within diesels engines, diesels with lower compression ratios tend to last longer than diesels with higher compression ratios. The durability of 1950s John Deere tractors are legendary, big bores and low compression, less stress on the block. They can run for decades. It is a simple, robust design. Newer tractors have higher compression ratios so more power and higher efficiency. However this causes more stress and causes more pressure leaks, ergo their engines last for a shorter time.