Thread: Death Of The Australian Motoring Industry

Originally Posted by PAT303

You might try reading the News on this forum,LR borrowed huge amounts of money from the British taxpayer,not from Tata,that money was used to hire british workers to supply material and labour to build their new factories,LR created thousands of jobs and all the money stayed in the economy,thats before any vehicles were sold,LR not only thinks ahead but is smart about it. Pat

Very good points in there Pat,When i am on site for 14 days i don't get to catch up on what's posted on the forum and as a result i do miss a lot of news.

I am not trying to say that Toyota,Holden,Ford are blameless far from it.I feel the workers deserve better,and the loss of this industry is huge mistake that should not have happened.I bet there are blokes on this forum who remember how proud they were when they bought their first Australian Falcon or Kingswood.

Now that feeling will be lost.

Originally Posted by disco man

Ok fair enough,do you think magazine tests have no relevance at all and are a complete waste of time and prove nothing?.I get your point about Toyota but the Toyota's used by exploration even the new ones cope a lot better.

And yes the Land Bruiser interior is woeful and no better than a Proton Jumbuck.

They gave the FJ cruiser 4wd of the year,ever driven one?,it doesn't say much for Toyota when the best vehicle they make is a 10 year old Prado chassis with a stupid body. Pat

When it comes down to it I'm fed up with people in Australia whinging about cheap imports,people like Jerry Harvey,he wants imports taxed so he can continue to rip us off.I'm still waiting for someone to explain how I can buy parts from the UK for a tenth of what we pay here,how the hell can we make a diff lock in Melbourne,ship it to America,buy it,ship it back to Australia cheaper than buying it here?,how does that work?. Pat

Originally Posted by PAT303

They gave the FJ cruiser 4wd of the year,ever driven one?,it doesn't say much for Toyota when the best vehicle they make is a 10 year old Prado chassis with a stupid body. Pat

I get your point,they ain't always right.But at the same time the D3 and D4 and Range Rover have come out on top in many magazine tests.Land Rover the worlds most awarded 4x4 must have come from somewhere.

Originally Posted by PAT303

So we rate cars on magazine tests,sorry,trying not to laugh.Since when has Toyota suspension coped with rutted tracks,or not had cooling issue's,or had electrics that didn't leave you stranded and have you seen the plastic in the LC?,it's made from recycled milk bottles. Pat

ummm Pat....sorry to tell you this but I just spent two weeks in the SA remote areas in company with 2 LC200s and those barges coped better with the roads...which I brought up in a previous thread....than my disco.

I'm not ashamed to admit it.....in fact I was very impressed with the LC200s.

I think the only time I bettered them was in real hard rutted creek climb outs and definitely on fuel consumption.

Way back at the start of this thread there was mention of one Senator John Button and his grand plans, one was to reduce the then 4 vehicle manufacturers to 3, Goodbye Leyland! and with it the only truly Australian designed and built vehicle,the Leyland P76, yeah! the P38,only half the car they thought it would be what let it down was the over-management and the lack of quality control and the unskilled Ethnic labour force, Leyland UK was having issues with funds and Union bastardry, so that signalled the death knell for the UK company, which John Button took advantage of.

Originally Posted by UncleHo

Way back at the start of this thread there was mention of one Senator John Button and his grand plans, one was to reduce the then 4 vehicle manufacturers to 3, Goodbye Leyland! and with it the only truly Australian designed and built vehicle,the Leyland P76, yeah! the P38,only half the car they thought it would be what let it down was the over-management and the lack of quality control and the unskilled Ethnic labour force, Leyland UK was having issues with funds and Union bastardry, so that signalled the death knell for the UK company, which John Button took advantage of.

Uncle, all Australian manufacturers and assemblers used an unskilled ethnic labour force. Australian cars were not built by Australians but by Italians, Greeks, Turks, Lebanese, Egyptians, Iraqis, Maltese, Vietnamese, Poms. BMC seemed to have a higher proportion of Poms working there than we had down the road at GM-H Pagewood. There were hardly any Aussies on the line at Pagewood. Those that were had been there a short time and only wanted a job to give them a grubstake to look for a better one, or had been there 20 years and were happy to have a monotonous low paid job. Assemblers were about the lowest paid industrial workers in the country.

Originally Posted by chuck

Well now we aren't subsidising the car makers we should stop the rest.

Starting with the mining industry:
1. They can start paying full price for fuel like the rest of us.
2. Remote area income tax subsidies should be stopped.

Perhaps we should stop pensions and the like as well.

Remember if people don't earn good money they have nothing to spend.
If they don't spend the economy goes into recession.

Originally Posted by TerryO

From what I have read the mining industry get a rebate on the portion of the fuel tax that is meant to go towards public road up keep.

Reason they don't wear out public roads because their machinery doesn't drive on public roads and that being the case then that sounds reasonable to me. The Greens rave on about the mining industry getting subsidised fuel when that is not actually true, not once have I heard them admit why the mining industry gets fuel rebates which would shoot down their argument if it was widely known I reckon.

I would guess that is the same for those in the maritime related industries that use diesel in boats. ... Is it?

Pretty much on the money Terry.

The mining industry actually DO pay the full price for their diesel fuel, including the tax (which was introduced as a levy to be directed towards the upkeep of roads). They then claim a "diesel fuel rebate", which is in effect a refund of the tax on that component of their fuel which is used in machines that do not travel on public roads (mining equipment, power generation etc).

Same applies for marine industries, farming industry - and believe it or not, railway trains - they don't use the roads either.

It never ceases to amaze me when people come up with this recycled drivel promoted by the greens, based on them telling only half the story (the half that they believe the gullible will swallow).

And as for removing remote area income tax subsidies - wow - that is the response of a typical city dweller who has no knowledge of what is involved in living and working outside of their sheltered environment. Sure - if the cost of living in remote areas was the same as that in the cities, and the same services and infrastructure was provided to people in remote areas that are available to the city dwellers, then remove the tax breaks. Until then, suck it up princess. If it wasn't for the people prepared to live and work in the remote areas, you'd find that there wouldn't be any money to pay for the luxuries you take for granted.