Jump to content

Steel & Aluminum Tariffs Could Cost GM $1 Billion – Here’s Why GM Is Keeping Quiet

Gorehamj

Recommended Posts

Gorehamj Senior Enthusiast

Gorehamj

Posted
Posted

GM-PontiacMetalCenter-07.JPG

John Goreham
Contributing Writer, GM-Trucks.com
3-6-2018

 

General Motors could lose up to $1 Billion in profits per year if the 25% tariff on steel and 10% tariff on Aluminum proposed by President Trump actually go into effect. This, according to a report in Market Watch who cites Goldman Sachs as having done the math. Don’t expect GM’s Mary Barra to pull an Elon Musk style hissy fit though. Here’s why. 

 

One very specific tariff has benefited General Motors and its peers in the U.S. automotive industry for over 55 years. The “Chicken Tax” as it is most commonly known, is a U.S. 25% import tariff on light trucks covering nations not included in the North American Free Trade Agreement. The dispute began under President Kennedy, during a trade argument primarily over American chicken with European countries. As a counter to the tax imposed on American food exports, President Johnson instituted the retaliatory tariff which has very effectively blocked the importation of any pickup truck made outside of North America in any significant (or insignificant) number in the modern age.

 

The 25% import tariff on light trucks first initiated during Kennedy’s administration and instituted during Johnson's protecting American automakers’ truck business was kept in place by Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Trump. Automakers have been pretty careful not to complain about the tariff, since it accounts for a huge volume of jobs in America, Mexico, and Canada. And even more importantly perhaps, huge profits.

Coby7 Senior Enthusiast

Coby7

Posted
Posted

I think Ford would tend to lose more since 46% of aluminum comes from Canada.

Coby7 Senior Enthusiast

Coby7

Posted
Posted

Sorry, I guess that's wrong.  46% of all aluminum imported to the US is from Canada. Ford actually imports 88% of it's aluminum from Canada because of it's quality.

Coby7 Senior Enthusiast

Coby7

Posted
Posted

25% tariff on aluminum is a lot, may be enough to tip the scale.  Ford may have to move their truck plants to Canada.  Now how does that help US jobs?

Logan Lanfear Enthusiast

Logan Lanfear

Posted
Posted

Yeah its hard to not bring politics into something like this.  I hate to see American companies hurting because of tax and having to buy more expensive material.  1 billion would definitely cut into profit and could cause cost cutting elsewhere.  

reardiff Enthusiast

reardiff

Posted
Posted

Or they pass it along to the consumer and we end up paying even more. 

KARNUT Senior Enthusiast

KARNUT

Posted
Posted

I wouldn’t mind paying a little more if its means more Americans getting jobs. I’m retired so I don’t need a job, I lived the American dream. I don’t mind paying a little more so someone else can.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

sdeeter19555 Senior Enthusiast

sdeeter19555

Posted
Posted
I wouldn’t mind paying a little more if its means more Americans getting jobs. I’m retired so I don’t need a job, I lived the American dream. I don’t mind paying a little more so someone else can.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm not retired and I don't mind paying it forward either...I also try hard to use very local contractors and buy local goods. It all helps in the end...

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

MikeNH Senior Enthusiast

MikeNH

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Coby7 said:

Sorry, I guess that's wrong.  46% of all aluminum imported to the US is from Canada. Ford actually imports 88% of it's aluminum from Canada because of it's quality.

I doubt there would be a tariff on materials from Canada since it would be covered by NAFTA. This is pretty squarely aimed at China and their practice of dumping goods and materials at sub-market prices into the US. Frankly if it hurts China, I'll gladly pay more for my next truck.

Yonah_Mtn Enthusiast

Yonah_Mtn

Posted
Posted

Every foreign nation protects their workers with high import tariffs and only the US doesn't.. IMO, what would be fair is reciprocal. If another nations levies high tariffs or duties on American products; then, America charges the same on their products. IMO, reciprocal is fair to everyone.  

Coby7 Senior Enthusiast

Coby7

Posted
Posted

But that's not free trade. The whole idea behind North American free trade is free trade.  It was starting to work we should give it time or maybe lock currencies.

Likarok Senior Enthusiast

Likarok

Posted
Posted

I really feel that this is really aimed at China and Russia! They are the # 1 and 2 producers of both products by billions of tons, but Canada is the #3 in aluminum. (US is #9) With the US defence industry and as pointed out, the auto industry relying on these products it would in the long run end up costing US taxpayers more if they were to tariff a ready supply of aluminum right on the same continent. I think Trump is saying that the renegotiation of NAFTA needs to get done sooner rather than later and he is trying to light a fire under some beaurocratic asses.! But who knows. my 2cents  hahahaha

 

And here is a fact that I just learned. 8 of the top 10 producing iron ore mines in the world are in Australia. Wow! Glad they are on or side! 

 

That that my friends is your steel, aluminum and iron ore lesson for the day!

MikeNH Senior Enthusiast

MikeNH

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Likarok said:

I really feel that this is really aimed at China and Russia! They are the # 1 and 2 producers of both products by billions of tons, but Canada is the #3 in aluminum. (US is #9) With the US defence industry and as pointed out, the auto industry relying on these products it would in the long run end up costing US taxpayers more if they were to tariff a ready supply of aluminum right on the same continent. I think Trump is saying that the renegotiation of NAFTA needs to get done sooner rather than later and he is trying to light a fire under some beaurocratic asses.! But who knows. my 2cents  hahahaha

 

And here is a fact that I just learned. 8 of the top 10 producing iron ore mines in the world are in Australia. Wow! Glad they are on or side! 

 

That that my friends is your steel, aluminum and iron ore lesson for the day!

The Chinese own a lot of the mines in Australia. 

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Grumpy Bear
      Some Assembly is Required

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      Can it still be Assembled I?    Stribeck says that we need a certain amount of viscosity under conditions of load and velocity to prevent two surfaces of a know roughness from tearing each other asunder. And we have marketing trying to tell the masses that those two surfaced require less of that commodity due to more exact limits being placed on the same old clearances. We also know that there are limits to how hard something can before it becomes to brittle to be viable and to smooth to 'wet' the surface and that both of those conditions have been known and met since about the Second World War.    That viscosity value shook out at 10 centistokes at 212 F just under a hundred years ago.  Give this a look: [Anton Parr]     What is advertised is the Kinematic viscosity (mm2/s) or that which has been density adjusted but the value we are after is the dynamic viscosity (mPa.s) or true viscosity. You can see that this number is dependent on density thus base stock and temperature. You can also see that an SAE 30 doesn't reach that value in this example. However an SAE 30 that is at the upper end of the SAE 30 range; 12.5 cSt (mm2/s), might. 12.5 * .83 = 10.375 (mm2/s). If you could find an SAE 30 at the upper end these days.   Then there is the complication of viscosity modifiers or VII or VM, whatever you wish to call them. Polymers added to very thin base oils, perhaps 3 to 6 cP oils, that will meet the SAE *W30 spec at 'tested' shear rates and 100 C/212F  target temperature. So a polymer fortified base that is a fraction of the 10 cP requirement Stribeck insist upon.   This could be all well and good if those polymers didn't have two very problematic 'features'. They shear or loose viscosity both 1.) permanently and 2.) temporality. And they do both omitted in the advertised data with the distinct  purpose of deceiving the consumer of the actual operating state of the fluid. I've shown the example of Warren Oils COSTCO 10.91 cSt 5W30 formuation several times where the 100 C HTHS value is 6.9 cP!! That's the temporary shear down and with and SSI or shear stability index of 9.4 cSt. Note the intentional deception in using mixed units?    After a short while that 9.4 cSt oil has a viscosity corrected dynamic value of 7.8 cP. But as the SSI is still within the range of an SAE *W30 whose lower value is 9.3 cSt.    This allows them to continue to call this SAE 16 weight oil a 30 weight, the cake, and still meet the API requirements for fuel efficiency IMPROVEMENT mandated by the EPA. The eating of the cake. By the time you've worn out your motor doing the responsible thing by adhering to the warranty requirements, (the stick), you get deprived of the carrot, wear control. So sad, to bad.   So what can be done? Do I need actually say? [Anton Parr]       Even this must be monitored if the oil is on the low side and the VII an organic or you opt for a 0W40 with an even lighter base oil and more / higher MW VII. (Note the lower density of the 40 weight versus the SAE 30 mono-weight?)    There is another workaround. Temperature. An SAE *W30 run at a bulk temperature of between 180 and 195 F.    Being the belt and suspenders sort I am I do both. Run it cook and run it heavy.    In Part II I'll work the AW package. 
    • Atlas
      Wow I'm in a pickle. (Broke down truck) and a story.

      By Atlas · Posted

      So, do I go elbow-deep on this thing or list it for sale and play dumb? Seems to "runs good."   I'm about $1200 away from having: -a rebuilt injector ($300) -a new cat ($250) -a new cat back exhaust (OE style) ($300) -a new AC compressor ($200) -AC refrigerant charge ($150)   In theory, this should rectify the obvious detracting issues from its value and operability. Cold AC with a non-squeaking AC pulley both sounds and feels good. An exhaust that isn't cut/hacked in 17 different places and doesn't vibrate on a crossmember would make it sound and feel less janky. A working cat would help the stink, and will save the earth, but *if and only if* the fuel system is working properly, which would also address the intermittent "rich" CEL.   Heard a good one... CEL for "Rich condition" means you haven't spent enough money on the truck lately, and it's letting you know.   Rebuilding the injector would seem to be the most important part. Replacing the cat would be secondary. I don't think mine is plugged or overly restricted, but it might be a little restricted? I have no good way to tell other than seat of the pants feel. I hate the smell.   The current theory is I have a rich idle problem: A bad fuel pressure regulator, or a leaking injector(s) being the highest probabilities. I already replaced the FPR but that doesn't mean its replacement isn't also bad. It was a new part from Dorman, but the packaging looked like it had been sitting on a shelf for 20 years.   This is the (single) upstream O2 sensor shown at idle. I'm getting a lot of "rich" it seems. Sometimes it stays high like that and doesn't drop down. That makes me think it's processing injector leaks or a partially stuck open injector.     Other times it looks like this. Nice oscillations between rich and lean, which is what I think it should be. Under load and at speed, the oscillations are nice and tight and uniform looking, high and low.     Fuel trims suggest the PCM is compensating pretty hard at idle to pull fuel out. But it's not enough to trip a CEL. Something about slowing to a stop: brake vaccum booster, EGR, or the EVAP purge is delayed, or there's pooled fuel in the intake again that's draining into a cylinder is enough to set the CEL. Of course, in two days of driving, it hasn't set. I was hoping to actually look at the freeze-frame data when it sets. IAT is high because it's idling on an 83 degree day here.  
    • Another JR
      Gasser Subforum Has Been Quiet - - So, Regenerative Braking and Using L10

      By Another JR · Posted

      Have considered installing a DC to DC charger in your camper to replace your isolator?  
    • newdude
      Gas fill door

      By newdude · Posted

      Common failure.  You need to replace the fuel door housing.   The painted cover transfers over to the new housing.  To remove the old one there is 4 spots where you poke the plastic to release it.  
    • newdude
      Gasser Subforum Has Been Quiet - - So, Regenerative Braking and Using L10

      By newdude · Posted

      No such thing as regenerative braking on a pure ICE vehicle.     Regenerative braking is the re-capture of energy from electric motors and stores it in the battery pack.  So hybrids, PHEV and EVs have regenerative braking.     What you are seeing is the charging system changing modes is all.  Its likely entering charge mode for some sort of reason is all.  All of the charging modes will be listed below.   As for L10 vs D.  L10 turns off automatic grade braking.  L10 puts you in control of grade downshifts where in D it will automatically do it based on brake pedal position and other factors.  Otherwise L10 and D drive exactly the same aside from that one aspect.    Battery Sulfation Mode The BCM will enter this mode when the interpreted Generator output voltage is less than 13.2 V for 45 minutes. When this condition exists the BCM will enter Charge Mode for 2–3 minutes. The BCM will then determine which mode to enter depending on voltage requirements.   Charge Mode The BCM will enter Charge Mode when ever one of the following conditions are met:   Windshield wipers are ON for more than 3 s. Climate Control Voltage Boost Mode Request is true, as sensed by the HVAC control module via serial data. High speed cooling fan, rear defogger, and HVAC high speed blower operation can cause the BCM to enter the Charge Mode. The estimated battery temperature is less than 0°C (32°F). Battery State of Charge is less than 80%. Vehicle speed is greater than 145 km/h (90 mph) A current sensor malfunction exists. System voltage is determined to be below 12.56 V When any one of these conditions is met, the system will set targeted generator output voltage to a charging voltage between 13.9–15.5 V, depending on the battery state of charge and estimated battery temperature.   Fuel Economy Mode The BCM will enter Fuel Economy Mode when the estimated battery temperature is at least 0°C (32°F) but less than or equal to 80°C (176°F), the calculated battery current is less than 15 A and greater than −8 A, and the battery state-of-charge is greater than or equal to 80%. Its targeted generator output voltage is the open circuit voltage of the battery and can be between 12.5–13.1 V. When fuel economy mode is active, the generator is not charging, only maintaining open circuit battery voltage. The BCM will exit this mode and enter Charge Mode when any of the conditions described above are present.   Headlamp Mode The BCM will enter Headlamp Mode when ever the head lamps are ON (high or low beams). Voltage will be regulated between 13.9–14.5 V.   Start Up Mode When the engine is started the BCM sets a targeted generator output voltage of 14.5 V for 30 s.   Tow/Haul Mode (if applicable) Pressing the Tow/Haul Mode button located on the center stack, the vehicle system voltage is raised and the remote (non-vehicle) battery will be charged. Having the headlamps on will raise the system voltage and if the Tow/Haul button is applied it will not serve any purpose. The voltage is regulated between 13.9-14.5 V.      

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...