Cross-Pond Primer: Brit Autos in the U.S.

[TurboDan]

Dan, was this posted anywhere besides c/d and CarSPIN?

Nope.  Feel free to link it to any forum you post in.  It's a greatw ay to promote your writing and the site!  :)  

[TBR]

"Overall, British manufacturers, for the most part, could not be in a better state."

I don't understand the use of that "figure of speech", in most instances they are behind their competitors in sales and are all owned by German or American companies.  

[ifcar]

"Overall, British manufacturers, for the most part, could not be in a better state."

I don't understand the use of that "figure of speech", in most instances they are behind their competitors in sales and are all owned by German or American companies.

He just finally explained that "couldn't be in a better state" meant "could be in a better state."  <_<  

[BMWDave]

"Overall, British manufacturers, for the most part, could not be in a better state."

I don't understand the use of that "figure of speech", in most instances they are behind their competitors in sales and are all owned by German or American companies.

Just to give a parable:

    If I am on a basketball team, and doing horribly, and I say "its killing me", does that mean I am actually dying?  Well  minded readers take that to mean that I am going through a stressful situation, were that to be the case.

    Similarly here, when I say "could not be in a better state", its a figure of speech intended to connote a situation where the automakers are doing extremely well.  And as I said before, I dont view foreign ownership as the mark of being unsuccessful.

[ifcar]

Neither do I. I just think the wording that you chose conveys the opposite message of what you mean; "figure of speech" or not, it doesn't say what you're trying to say.

[BMWDave]

Neither do I. I just think the wording that you chose conveys the opposite message of what you mean; "figure of speech" or not, it doesn't say what you're trying to say.

Would someone who said something is "killing him" mean exactly what he said?  Of course not.  You use a phrase like that to say something is irking you.  Similarly here, phrases like that, since they never can be true (you can always improve) are not to be taken literally.

[ifcar]

But "killing him" is a recognizeable phrase whose meaning is clear. What you said could be interpreted either the way you meant it or the exact opposite, and easily so.  

[TBR]

Just because something is a catch phrase doesn't mean it shouldn't be accurate.

[BMWDave]

Just because something is a catch phrase doesn't mean it shouldn't be accurate.

So dont ever use the phrase "its killing me" again, or anything that isnt literal in the upmost sense of the term.

[TBR]

Okay, I won't. I don't like catch phrases and have no desire to use them. In most cases when people say "couldn't be doing better" that is what they mean, that isn't the case here for the reasons I specified in my first post.  

[Raghavan]

you know what, i think you guys are getting too worked up over a small sentence. dave explained what he meant, so GET OVER IT! geez...

[ifcar]

you know what, i think you guys are getting too worked up over a small sentence. dave explained what he meant, so GET OVER IT! geez...

The point is that it was a concluding sentence that drastically altered what he was trying to say. The conclusion is extremely important, and it came off saying almost the polar opposite of what he was trying to say.

[BMWDave]

you know what, i think you guys are getting too worked up over a small sentence. dave explained what he meant, so GET OVER IT! geez...

The point is that it was a concluding sentence that drastically altered what he was trying to say. The conclusion is extremely important, and it came off saying almost the polar opposite of what he was trying to say.

It was not the polar opposite at all...I still think you are misunderstanding me.  My point of the article was the British cars are doing amazingly at the moment, and at the summation of the article, I said exactly that.  You may have disagreed with my word usage, but I concluded with saying exactly what I wanted to say.

[ifcar]

By "couldn't be doing better" you meant "great, but could be doing better." Unless you disagree with the idea that the British manufacturers could feasibly be expected to be doing better than they are, that's pretty close to the opposite there.

Yes, it's only the word usage that I'm disagreeing with, but it is a very significant point. It greatly confuses the conclusion of the article.

[BMWDave]

By "couldn't be doing better" you meant "great, but could be doing better." Unless you disagree with the idea that the British manufacturers could feasibly be expected to be doing better than they are, that's pretty close to the opposite there.

Yes, it's only the word usage that I'm disagreeing with, but it is a very significant point. It greatly confuses the conclusion of the article.

According to you then, one should never use the phrase "couldnt be doing better" because it can never be true, and thus will "always be the polar opposite" of what you want to say.   Someone or something can always do better, so to use that sentence implies that the subject in question is in a great situation at the moment.

[ifcar]

"Couldn't be doing better" referring to something that truly couldn't be expected to be doing any better is fine. Toyota's financial situation, raking in billions in profits while domestic competitors are running in the red, could be described as "couldn't be better."

But British automakers COULD be in better shape, and could feasibly be expected to be in better shape. Just because they're doing better than they were still doesn't mean that they couldn't and shouldn't be doing far better still.

[BMWDave]

"Couldn't be doing better" referring to something that truly couldn't be expected to be doing any better is fine. Toyota's financial situation, raking in billions in profits while domestic competitors are running in the red, could be described as "couldn't be better."

But British automakers COULD be in better shape, and could feasibly be expected to be in better shape. Just because they're doing better than they were still doesn't mean that they couldn't and shouldn't be doing far better still.

Bentley sales are up 447 %!  That certainly qualifies as a "couldnt be doing better" situation in my book.

Aston has just made the world class DB9, is on Ferrari tail in terms of units sold, and is coming out with a world class AM Vantage.  That qualifies as a "couldnt be doing better" situation in my book.

Rolls Royce has made a world class Phantom, and has in the works a brand new convertible.  

Land Rover sales are projected to go up 40 %!  Now of course, it would be better if they went up 80% percent, but realistically,  they are doing very well.  The brand new LR3 is doing extremely well, and the Range Rover Sport and Range Rover have been very well received.  The freelander is the only sore spot, and a redesigned and better one is on the way.  That certainly qualifies as a "couldnt be doing better" situation in my book.

Once again, "couldnt be doing better" is used to describe a situation in which the subject is doing extremely, extremely well.

You used Toyota as an example.  Toyota is a massive automaker, is a mainstream one, and has a luxury brand.  It has plants all over the globe.  British car makers are generally low volume, so you cant use the Toyota example of it "raking in billions" simply because the British market isnt tuned to such large profits.

[ifcar]

You just said on C/D that success couldn't be measured by sales on the low-volume brands. You can't pick and choose.

Furthermore, sales are only up because the new owners introduced more less-expensive models.  

[BMWDave]

You just said on C/D that success couldn't be measured by sales on the low-volume brands. You can't pick and choose.

Furthermore, sales are only up because the new owners introduced more less-expensive models.

What I said was that you cant use low sales to indicate unsuccessfulness in the British Automakers.

[ifcar]

You can use sales to gauge the success, just not the failure. Ever heard the term "double standard"?

[BMWDave]

You can use sales to gauge the success, just not the failure. Ever heard the term "double standard"?

I am using sales increases as one of the marks of success, you are correct.

You, however, would like to say that if they arent selling as many cars as the likes of Toyota, they are a failure.  You can consider a "sales decrease" are mark of unsuccessfulness, however.  

The British industry operates with low volume...you are saying a completely different argument.  You want to use volume as an indicator, while I am using sales increases.  Big difference.

There is no double standard here.

[ifcar]

Profit is a far better indicator than sales anyway, as sales can be spurred simply by lower prices. Do you have any profit figures for British manufacturers/divisions?

[BMWDave]

Profit is a far better indicator than sales anyway, as sales can be spurred simply by lower prices. Do you have any profit figures for British manufacturers/divisions?

Let me check them up :)  

[BMWDave]

Its hard to find them on the internet, but I'm trying to find profits.

But I know RR's airplane engine division profits were 21 %

[ifcar]

Good to know.  

[BMWDave]

I'm not getting exact profits, but I will give you wahtever I found:

""The aim is to achieve the 9 per cent return required of the rest of the group. That will take another year but our launch costs have already been written off," said Dr Paefgen, former Audi division head.

"Bentley is having the best sales in its 86-year history and we've only just begun"

http://www.xak.com/main/newsshow.asp?id=46705

[BMWDave]

This is for Rolls Royce:

"BMW doesn't break out the revenue and income from Rolls' operation but Krause said in an interview during the North American International Auto Show that profits were adequate. "I will tell you this, as acting chairman of Rolls-Royce, that we're not unhappy with the profit situation at Rolls-Royce," said Krause, who became chairman after two other top executives had decided to leave the company."

http://www.thecarconnection.com/Industry/I...S175.A7988.html

[BMWDave]

I'm out now, I will try to find more later.

[ifcar]

Considering how well RR was doing in the past, even breaking even would be a collosal improvement, so his little commentary can't really be interpreted as any more than just that.

[TBR]

You said that Bentley couldn't be doing better, right? Well, they could be doing much better. First, they could be owned by a  British company. Second, their biggest seller could have more British influence than German influence (which would result in more sales).