by BMWDave himself:
http://www.carspin.net/content/archive/200..._car_primer.php (http://www.carspin.net/content/archive/2005_07_14_british_car_primer.php)
British manufacturers couldn't be in a better state? While they certainly could be doing worse, they are certainly well below perfection. Most importantly, every one of their major manufacturers has either gone under or been bought out by a foreign company, and even with that aid some (like Jaguar) are still suffering.
They certainly could and should be in much better shape than they are right now.
QuoteBritish manufacturers couldn't be in a better state? While they certainly could be doing worse, they are certainly well below perfection. Most importantly, every one of their major manufacturers has either gone under or been bought out by a foreign company, and even with that aid some (like Jaguar) are still suffering.
They certainly could and should be in much better shape than they are right now.
I said for the most part. And yes, there is always that mythical perfection that every carmaker strives for; to be independently owned, to have tons of money, etc. etc. But considering that
for the most part British manufacturers are doing extremely well at the moment, with Bentley sales up 447 % and Rolls Royce producing a stellar product, with upcoming models, and LR doing extremely well at the moment, those British manufacturers could not be in a better state, figuratively speaking.
Dan, was this posted anywhere besides c/d and CarSPIN?
QuoteQuoteBritish manufacturers couldn't be in a better state? While they certainly could be doing worse, they are certainly well below perfection. Most importantly, every one of their major manufacturers has either gone under or been bought out by a foreign company, and even with that aid some (like Jaguar) are still suffering.
They certainly could and should be in much better shape than they are right now.
I said for the most part. And yes, there is always that mythical perfection that every carmaker strives for; to be independently owned, to have tons of money, etc. etc. But considering that for the most part British manufacturers are doing extremely well at the moment, with Bentley sales up 447 % and Rolls Royce producing a stellar product, with upcoming models, and LR doing extremely well at the moment, those British manufacturers could not be in a better state, figuratively speaking.
But being independently owned and successful isn't just some idealistic dream, there are lots of other companies that way now worldwide. Just because they used to be in worse shape doesn't mean that they're doing the best that can be expected of them.
QuoteQuoteBritish manufacturers couldn't be in a better state? While they certainly could be doing worse, they are certainly well below perfection. Most importantly, every one of their major manufacturers has either gone under or been bought out by a foreign company, and even with that aid some (like Jaguar) are still suffering.
They certainly could and should be in much better shape than they are right now.
I said for the most part. And yes, there is always that mythical perfection that every carmaker strives for; to be independently owned, to have tons of money, etc. etc. But considering that for the most part British manufacturers are doing extremely well at the moment, with Bentley sales up 447 % and Rolls Royce producing a stellar product, with upcoming models, and LR doing extremely well at the moment, those British manufacturers could not be in a better state, figuratively speaking.
But being independently owned and successful isn't just some idealistic dream, there are lots of other companies that way now worldwide. Just because they used to be in worse shape doesn't mean that they're doing the best that can be expected of them.
QuoteQuoteQuoteBritish manufacturers couldn't be in a better state? While they certainly could be doing worse, they are certainly well below perfection. Most importantly, every one of their major manufacturers has either gone under or been bought out by a foreign company, and even with that aid some (like Jaguar) are still suffering.
They certainly could and should be in much better shape than they are right now.
I said for the most part. And yes, there is always that mythical perfection that every carmaker strives for; to be independently owned, to have tons of money, etc. etc. But considering that for the most part British manufacturers are doing extremely well at the moment, with Bentley sales up 447 % and Rolls Royce producing a stellar product, with upcoming models, and LR doing extremely well at the moment, those British manufacturers could not be in a better state, figuratively speaking.
But being independently owned and successful isn't just some idealistic dream, there are lots of other companies that way now worldwide. Just because they used to be in worse shape doesn't mean that they're doing the best that can be expected of them.
Just because they arent independently owned doesnt mean they are failures...Land Rover is doing better than ever under Ford. So is Aston Martin. And both Bentley and Rolls are producing stellar cars under their respective owners. Sure you could always want more, and one can always do better. But figuratively speaking, for the most part, British Automakers are doing amazing at the moment.
But besides that specific point, what did you think of the article as a whole?
I didn't say that they were failures, I'm just contesting the idea that selling well as a division of another company is not the epitome of a successful manufacturer.
QuoteBut besides that specific point, what did you think of the article as a whole?
It was in-depth and well-written, but I entirely disagree with the final conclusion.
QuoteI didn't say that they were failures, I'm just contesting the idea that selling well as a division of another company is not the epitome of a successful manufacturer.
Of course its not the epitome of a successful automaker. Frankly, you can take any automaker and say they can always do better. You can take Toyota, and say they can do better. But you can
always say that about any car maker. Therefore, saying a automaker "could not be in a better state" is a figurative term which means that they are doing extremely well. :)
QuoteQuoteI didn't say that they were failures, I'm just contesting the idea that selling well as a division of another company is not the epitome of a successful manufacturer.
Of course its not the epitome of a successful automaker. Frankly, you can take any automaker and say they can always do better. You can take Toyota, and say they can do better. But you can always say that about any car maker. Therefore, saying a automaker "could not be in a better state" is a figurative term which means that they are doing extremely well. :)
If you're saying that they're doing much better than they were, that's one thing. But "couldn't be in a better state" means that they are doing the absolute best that they could possibly be expected of them, which they certainly are not.
QuoteQuoteQuoteI didn't say that they were failures, I'm just contesting the idea that selling well as a division of another company is not the epitome of a successful manufacturer.
Of course its not the epitome of a successful automaker. Frankly, you can take any automaker and say they can always do better. You can take Toyota, and say they can do better. But you can always say that about any car maker. Therefore, saying a automaker "could not be in a better state" is a figurative term which means that they are doing extremely well. :)
If you're saying that they're doing much better than they were, that's one thing. But "couldn't be in a better state" means that they are doing the absolute best that they could possibly be expected of them, which they certainly are not.
Let me try to explain this:
"Could not be in a better state" is a figurative term. Of course I think that Rolls could be selling more cars, or Aston Martin more cars. Of course they all
could be better off, but they are all doing amazingly.
I could also say Toyota "could not be in a better state" since they are doing so well. But any automaker
can always do better. Thats is why the statement of "could not be better" is a
figuartive term.
I agree with you that they theoretically
could be doing better, but you can say that about anyone. And thats why the term of could not be in a better state is taken to mean that the subject is doing extremely well; it doesnt necessarily mean that they have reach the limit of their success.
Saying that they're doing great now in comparison to their earlier situation is one thing. But you're implying that, like Toyota, they can't be expected to be doing any better. Which I disagree with.
Posting great sales numbers is fine, many of them are doing that. Some, not all, are turning a profit for their new owners. But ALL are owned by outside companies. That's not what I'd call being in the best shape.
QuoteSaying that they're doing great now in comparison to their earlier situation is one thing. But you're implying that, like Toyota, they can't be expected to be doing any better. Which I disagree with.
Posting great sales numbers is fine, many of them are doing that. Some, not all, are turning a profit for their new owners. But ALL are owned by outside companies. That's not what I'd call being in the best shape.
I am not implying they are in the same state as Toyota...I was merely bringing an example as to where this "figurative speech" could be applied.
Fine. But it is illogical to say that the British automakers are currently being the best that they can be, however that's worded, considering all of their problems.
Higher sales do not mean that they are being successful.
QuoteFine. But it is illogical to say that the British automakers are currently being the best that they can be, however that's worded, considering all of their problems.
Higher sales do not mean that they are being successful.
And being owned by a certain other company certainly doesnt mean that they are being unsuccessful.
I think we are just arguing about the wording of the article, and we agree on the point... :)
me likey, except the part that said they're better than ever.
you have a good writing style, too dave.
QuoteQuoteFine. But it is illogical to say that the British automakers are currently being the best that they can be, however that's worded, considering all of their problems.
Higher sales do not mean that they are being successful.
And being owned by a certain other company certainly doesnt mean that they are being unsuccessful.
I think we are just arguing about the wording of the article, and we agree on the point... :)
That depends on what you're trying to say. Are you trying to say that they're currently doing the best that they had in the last thirty years or so, or that they couldn't be expected to be doing better? I'll agree with you if you meant the former.
QuoteQuoteQuoteFine. But it is illogical to say that the British automakers are currently being the best that they can be, however that's worded, considering all of their problems.
Higher sales do not mean that they are being successful.
And being owned by a certain other company certainly doesnt mean that they are being unsuccessful.
I think we are just arguing about the wording of the article, and we agree on the point... :)
That depends on what you're trying to say. Are you trying to say that they're currently doing the best that they had in the last thirty years or so, or that they couldn't be expected to be doing better? I'll agree with you if you meant the former.
I mean the former...they are doing better than they have been doing in a long time. Of course they could always do better, but my phrase "couldnt be better" was just a figure of speech.
Quoteme likey, except the part that said they're better than ever.
you have a good writing style, too dave.
Thank you :)
And for my response to the first part of your post, just follow the argument between me and Ifcar ;)
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteFine. But it is illogical to say that the British automakers are currently being the best that they can be, however that's worded, considering all of their problems.
Higher sales do not mean that they are being successful.
And being owned by a certain other company certainly doesnt mean that they are being unsuccessful.
I think we are just arguing about the wording of the article, and we agree on the point... :)
That depends on what you're trying to say. Are you trying to say that they're currently doing the best that they had in the last thirty years or so, or that they couldn't be expected to be doing better? I'll agree with you if you meant the former.
I mean the former...they are doing better than they have been doing in a long time. Of course they could always do better, but my phrase "couldnt be better" was just a figure of speech.
So by "couldn't be better" you meant "good, but could be better". <_<
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteFine. But it is illogical to say that the British automakers are currently being the best that they can be, however that's worded, considering all of their problems.
Higher sales do not mean that they are being successful.
And being owned by a certain other company certainly doesnt mean that they are being unsuccessful.
I think we are just arguing about the wording of the article, and we agree on the point... :)
That depends on what you're trying to say. Are you trying to say that they're currently doing the best that they had in the last thirty years or so, or that they couldn't be expected to be doing better? I'll agree with you if you meant the former.
I mean the former...they are doing better than they have been doing in a long time. Of course they could always do better, but my phrase "couldnt be better" was just a figure of speech.
So by "couldn't be better" you meant "good, but could be better". <_<
Like I said, its a figure of speech.
i would've said, they're are getting better.
QuoteQuoteme likey, except the part that said they're better than ever.
you have a good writing style, too dave.
Thank you :)
And for my response to the first part of your post, just follow the argument between me and Ifcar ;)
too long. :)
Quotei would've said, they're are getting better.
But its more than just getting better...I used a phrase which denotes that for the most part, they are in a very good situation now.
QuoteQuotei would've said, they're are getting better.
But its more than just getting better...I used a phrase which denotes that for the most part, they are in a very good situation now.
i would've said:
British automakers are doing very well now, compared to their dismal past, but they can get even better, or something like that.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteFine. But it is illogical to say that the British automakers are currently being the best that they can be, however that's worded, considering all of their problems.
Higher sales do not mean that they are being successful.
And being owned by a certain other company certainly doesnt mean that they are being unsuccessful.
I think we are just arguing about the wording of the article, and we agree on the point... :)
That depends on what you're trying to say. Are you trying to say that they're currently doing the best that they had in the last thirty years or so, or that they couldn't be expected to be doing better? I'll agree with you if you meant the former.
I mean the former...they are doing better than they have been doing in a long time. Of course they could always do better, but my phrase "couldnt be better" was just a figure of speech.
So by "couldn't be better" you meant "good, but could be better". <_<
Like I said, its a figure of speech.
It didn't really convey what you were trying to say then.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteFine. But it is illogical to say that the British automakers are currently being the best that they can be, however that's worded, considering all of their problems.
Higher sales do not mean that they are being successful.
And being owned by a certain other company certainly doesnt mean that they are being unsuccessful.
I think we are just arguing about the wording of the article, and we agree on the point... :)
That depends on what you're trying to say. Are you trying to say that they're currently doing the best that they had in the last thirty years or so, or that they couldn't be expected to be doing better? I'll agree with you if you meant the former.
I mean the former...they are doing better than they have been doing in a long time. Of course they could always do better, but my phrase "couldnt be better" was just a figure of speech.
So by "couldn't be better" you meant "good, but could be better". <_<
Like I said, its a figure of speech.
It didn't really convey what you were trying to say then.
It really doesnt pay to argue this since we are both just going back on forth. Let me explain what I meant:
The British car industry in the 80s and 90s was in disrepair, with sagging sales and all. Recently, Ford purchased both Aston Martin and Land Rover, and they are both doing great. BMW has RR, and Bentley has VW, which are both doing great.
Ultimately, one can say that this isnt the ideal situation, as it would be best if they were independently owned. But every automaker has a mythical best case scenario. Thus my statement that "they couldnt be in better shape" was a figure of speech, one intended to connote a sense of amazing success at the aformentioned automakers.
I didnt intend for you to believe that I said most British cars have reached the best financial, etc, state that they could be in. Because they havent. But all the same, for the most part, British automakers are doing extremely well, relative to how they have been until now, and that was what I was trying to convey.
I still think that it is vague, and even the way you explain it overdramatizes their success.
QuoteDan, 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! :)
"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.
Quote"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." <_<
Quote"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.
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.
QuoteNeither 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.
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.
Just because something is a catch phrase doesn't mean it shouldn't be accurate. :rolleyes:
QuoteJust because something is a catch phrase doesn't mean it shouldn't be accurate. :rolleyes:
So dont ever use the phrase "its killing me" again, or anything that isnt literal in the upmost sense of the term. :rolleyes:
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.
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... :rolleyes:
Quoteyou 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... :rolleyes:
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.
QuoteQuoteyou 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... :rolleyes:
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.
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.
QuoteBy "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.
"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.
Quote"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.
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.
QuoteYou 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.
You can use sales to gauge the success, just not the failure. Ever heard the term "double standard"?
QuoteYou 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.
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?
QuoteProfit 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 :)
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 % :lol:
Good to know.
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 (http://www.xak.com/main/newsshow.asp?id=46705)
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 (http://www.thecarconnection.com/Industry/Industry_News/Rolls-Royce_Resting_Comfortably.S175.A7988.html)
I'm out now, I will try to find more later.
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.
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).
QuoteYou 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).
Remember, it's just a figure of speech. :rolleyes: