Jump to content
  • William Maley
    William Maley

    U.S. Is Planning To Hold Back On Issuing Car Tariffs

      The tariffs as high as 25% are on hold for the moment.

    Back i n May, the U.S. Commerce Department launched an investigation into car imports to determine the impact of car imports. The investigation falls under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 which states "whether imports of automobiles, including SUVs, vans and light trucks, and automotive parts into the United States threaten to impair the national security." This could allow the Trump administration to levy tariffs as high as 25 percent on foreign-built vehicles.

    Yesterday, the Commerce Department submitted their draft report into the investigation. The Trump administration has 90 days to determine whether or not to move forward on various measures such as implementing tariffs if the report concludes that imports are a security threat. But Bloomberg is reporting that the administration is holding off on imposing new tariffs. Two sources tell the publication that top officials are considering revising plans due to the report. The sources also said that the report "would be subject to further changes."

    President Trump has been using the threat of tariffs as leverage during negotiations with trade partners. Already, Trump has promised not to impose any auto tariffs on Europe while the two work on a new trade deal. But a number of foreign governments and companies have said the tariffs would cause more harm. The National Automobile Dealers Association estimates tariffs would add $2,270 to the cost of U.S.-built vehicles and $6,875 to the cost of imported vehicles.

    It doesn't help that many in Trump's senior economic team believe slapping tariffs on imported cars is a bad idea. According to a report from Axios yesterday, "about every member of his senior economic team besides Peter Navarro believes this is a terrible idea."

    Source: Bloomberg (Subscription Required), Axios



    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    4 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

    I'm for them if we're being charged them. I'm for whatever is most fair. None of the one-sided BS. 

    What do you mean... "being charged for them"?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    If US companies are charged to sell to X country, I believe it is fair to then charge X country's companies to sell their products here. 

    • Upvote 2

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    9 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

    If US companies are charged to sell to X country, I believe it is fair to then charge X country's companies to sell their products here. 

    Could not agree more. Don't like the current administration in the least but like Chinese intellectual property theft even less.

    • Upvote 1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    13 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

    If US companies are charged to sell to X country, I believe it is fair to then charge X country's companies to sell their products here. 

    It's the customers who are charged in the end. 

    But China now charges a 15% tariff on imported cars.

    The US charges a 25% tariff on imported trucks and has since the Kennedy Administration. 

    Edit: Furthermore, it's not like there is some huge flood of Chinese cars in the US market. Two of the three models that were sold here have already been pulled from US sales (CT6 PHEV and S60 Inscription). 

    Japan doesn't have a tariff on imported cars, and S. Korea's is fairly low.

    That's why a 25% tariff on cars imported into the U.S. from these countries doesn't make sense even from a retaliatory perspective. 

    • Upvote 2

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Personally, I don't care who or when. Point fingers at whoever you'd like. I just want it even for both parties. Charge 100% tariffs, charge 0% tariffs. Whatever it is, just be equal. 

    • Upvote 1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    3 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

    Personally, I don't care who or when. Point fingers at whoever you'd like. I just want it even for both parties. Charge 100% tariffs, charge 0% tariffs. Whatever it is, just be equal. 

    But that's why this 25% thing that Trump is going for makes no sense.  I agree with you that tariffs should be reciprocal... but that's not what he's doing. 25% on Japanese cars when they charge 0%? 

    It's hamfisted.  Had he come out with reciprocal tariffs, I think he would have gotten a lot more traction and agreements.

    • Upvote 1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    25 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

    But that's why this 25% thing that Trump is going for makes no sense.  I agree with you that tariffs should be reciprocal... but that's not what he's doing. 25% on Japanese cars when they charge 0%? 

    It's hamfisted.  Had he come out with reciprocal tariffs, I think he would have gotten a lot more traction and agreements.

    The idea is good, the implementation is terrible. 

    • Upvote 1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    We don't benefit from a future where a majority of our cars come from China, like so many other products.  And over time that will likely be inevitable.  If we get to that point where 3/4 of all our cars are coming from Mexico and China, is what we want to avoid.  What that means for an effective tariff setup back and forth, I don't know.  I do know the 25% number is bantered about and maybe that is just put out there to believe at some point in the future it will settle in at 10-15%.  I don't know.

    We do really have to ask the question, why does GM need to make something like the Envision in China, and ship it over, or why do they have to make pickups that sticker for 60k in Mexico.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    6 hours ago, daves87rs said:

    It ain’t going to be the cars you should worry about guys-it’s the parts!

    Repair will go through the roof......

    The whole thing is designed to work like that. It moves the tax burden to the working classes. 

    6 hours ago, regfootball said:

     

    We do really have to ask the question, why does GM need to make something like the Envision in China, and ship it over, or why do they have to make pickups that sticker for 60k in Mexico.

    Agreed. 

    • Upvote 2

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    8 hours ago, regfootball said:

    We don't benefit from a future where a majority of our cars come from China, like so many other products.  And over time that will likely be inevitable.  If we get to that point where 3/4 of all our cars are coming from Mexico and China, is what we want to avoid.  What that means for an effective tariff setup back and forth, I don't know.  I do know the 25% number is bantered about and maybe that is just put out there to believe at some point in the future it will settle in at 10-15%.  I don't know.

    We do really have to ask the question, why does GM need to make something like the Envision in China, and ship it over, or why do they have to make pickups that sticker for 60k in Mexico.

    Siimple answer-Wall Street-

    Make a major profit or die......

    • Upvote 2

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    12 hours ago, regfootball said:

    We don't benefit from a future where a majority of our cars come from China, like so many other products.  And over time that will likely be inevitable.  If we get to that point where 3/4 of all our cars are coming from Mexico and China, is what we want to avoid.  What that means for an effective tariff setup back and forth, I don't know.  I do know the 25% number is bantered about and maybe that is just put out there to believe at some point in the future it will settle in at 10-15%.  I don't know.

    We do really have to ask the question, why does GM need to make something like the Envision in China, and ship it over, or why do they have to make pickups that sticker for 60k in Mexico.

    GM makes the Envision in China because for every Buick that sells here, four are sold in China.  The Encore is already made in South Korea (the former Daewoo plants are now owned by GM); GM has them shipped to China or here in NA.  Whether it is parts or final assembly, the era where GM or Ford or FCA make virtually everything in the USA is long gone.  Supply chains are global and automakers are exploiting that.  If you want your next Chevy Trax to have MSRP to rival a Cadillac XT4, then the president should seek to have insanely high tariffs on cars AND car parts.  Consumers automatically lose when that happens.

    IOW, tariffs are still bad.  New car prices are quite high as they are.

    • Upvote 2

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    11 minutes ago, riviera74 said:

    GM makes the Envision in China because for every Buick that sells here, four are sold in China.  The Encore is already made in South Korea (the former Daewoo plants are now owned by GM); GM has them shipped to China or here in NA.  Whether it is parts or final assembly, the era where GM or Ford or FCA make virtually everything in the USA is long gone.  Supply chains are global and automakers are exploiting that.  If you want your next Chevy Trax to have MSRP to rival a Cadillac XT4, then the president should seek to have insanely high tariffs on cars AND car parts.  Consumers automatically lose when that happens.

    IOW, tariffs are still bad.  New car prices are quite high as they are.

    Quoted in its entirety for truth. 

    • Upvote 1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    part of the reason for low Envision sales is a price that does not mate up to the perceived public value.  With a better price (and not a 2012 design), it would have more volume.  The Encore makes more sense to bring from Korea because it is higher volume and exploiting cheaper wages there helps keep a small car sell for a small price in the US.

    I'd buy that logic 100% fully if it were just the Envision we were talking about here, but we all know they could produce this in an Equinox / Terrain plant if they wanted to, with the 45k sticker prices and such.  We also know the real intent of this was to be a big trojan horse to gain acceptance to producing GM cars in China and bringing them back here.  Its the first step towards GM producing 3/4 of their sales volume of the US outside the US, which is really unacceptable for a company that was kept alive by our own government, when Honda and Subaru etc seem to make a high percentage of the cars they sell in the US, here.

     

    Edited by regfootball

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites


    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Similar Content

    • By dfelt
      In the latest round of Trade War rhetoric is a question that has ended up in the courts, when is a passenger van really a cargo van and does this tariff engineering really justify getting around the 25% chicken tax?
      In response to President Donald Trump's tariff war, automakers are find interesting ways to play the grey area of the legal system. According to BNN Bloomberg and Bloomberg news, trade attorneys are closely watching the Ford Motor Co. legal case play out in federal court. This case deals with the importation of passenger vans that are then stripped down once they clear customs and sold as cargo vans. The difference here is that Ford pays 2.5% import duty on passenger vans versus te 25% import duty on light trucks / cargo vans. This challenge against Ford brought by U.S. Customs is challenging the practice of tariff engineering. The art of building a product one way, then changing it once cleared by customs for another use. With all the increased tariffs imposed by the Trump administration this could have critical impact on a region that many automakers have used to bring in a profitable product for market needs. 
      According to the news stories, a ruling by the Court of International Trade ruled in Ford's favor in 2017 but is being challenged by the administration in the U.S. Court of Appeals. Regardless if the U.S. and China come to terms for a new trade agreement, there are no promises that the in place tariffs would be repealed. Ford's argument is that tariff engineering is a legitimate maneuvers for firms exploring ways to mitigate duties by project reclassification, shifting production to other countries which changes the origins of product assembly.
      Trade lawyers across the country say this case will help establish legal guidelines for tariff engineering. To quote the story from BNN Bloomberg: 
      The U.S. Court of International Trade has stated that under the well-established customs law, manufacturers can intentionally make a product that can avoid higher tariffs with simple changes. What cannot be done is situations such as hiding a higher quality product in a lower quality product like high grade tobacco inside a case of lower grade tobacco. This case has come down to the wording on the import paperwork of "principally designed for the transport of persons". The current administration says this is a scheme for avoiding taxes and local jobs. Ford argues that the goods must be classified in their condition as imported, regardless of later alterations and ended use by consumers.
      Appeals court is expected to rule in the coming weeks.

      View full article
    • By dfelt
      In the latest round of Trade War rhetoric is a question that has ended up in the courts, when is a passenger van really a cargo van and does this tariff engineering really justify getting around the 25% chicken tax?
      In response to President Donald Trump's tariff war, automakers are find interesting ways to play the grey area of the legal system. According to BNN Bloomberg and Bloomberg news, trade attorneys are closely watching the Ford Motor Co. legal case play out in federal court. This case deals with the importation of passenger vans that are then stripped down once they clear customs and sold as cargo vans. The difference here is that Ford pays 2.5% import duty on passenger vans versus te 25% import duty on light trucks / cargo vans. This challenge against Ford brought by U.S. Customs is challenging the practice of tariff engineering. The art of building a product one way, then changing it once cleared by customs for another use. With all the increased tariffs imposed by the Trump administration this could have critical impact on a region that many automakers have used to bring in a profitable product for market needs. 
      According to the news stories, a ruling by the Court of International Trade ruled in Ford's favor in 2017 but is being challenged by the administration in the U.S. Court of Appeals. Regardless if the U.S. and China come to terms for a new trade agreement, there are no promises that the in place tariffs would be repealed. Ford's argument is that tariff engineering is a legitimate maneuvers for firms exploring ways to mitigate duties by project reclassification, shifting production to other countries which changes the origins of product assembly.
      Trade lawyers across the country say this case will help establish legal guidelines for tariff engineering. To quote the story from BNN Bloomberg: 
      The U.S. Court of International Trade has stated that under the well-established customs law, manufacturers can intentionally make a product that can avoid higher tariffs with simple changes. What cannot be done is situations such as hiding a higher quality product in a lower quality product like high grade tobacco inside a case of lower grade tobacco. This case has come down to the wording on the import paperwork of "principally designed for the transport of persons". The current administration says this is a scheme for avoiding taxes and local jobs. Ford argues that the goods must be classified in their condition as imported, regardless of later alterations and ended use by consumers.
      Appeals court is expected to rule in the coming weeks.
    • By William Maley
      The Chinese government is considering a proposal to reduce tariffs on U.S.-Built vehicles from the current 40 percent back down to the 15 percent before the trade war broke out between it and the U.S. Sources tell Bloomberg a proposal has been submitted to the cabinet to be reviewed in the coming days.
      This proposal stems from a trade summit in Buenos Aires where U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping agreed to a 90-day truce on the trade war earlier this month. After the meeting, Trump tweeted out that "China agreed to “reduce and remove” tariffs on imported American-made cars, something China did not confirm at the time." Shares of various automakers including Diamler, Ford, and Tesla rose on the news.
      The trade war between the U.S. and China has taken a toll on automakers. Both BMW and Dimaler have warned of lower profits as tariffs have forced them to raise prices in China. Others such as Volvo and Ford have made changes to production and vehicle plans. 
      China's Finance Ministry didn't respond to Bloomberg's request for a comment.
      Source: Bloomberg

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      The Chinese government is considering a proposal to reduce tariffs on U.S.-Built vehicles from the current 40 percent back down to the 15 percent before the trade war broke out between it and the U.S. Sources tell Bloomberg a proposal has been submitted to the cabinet to be reviewed in the coming days.
      This proposal stems from a trade summit in Buenos Aires where U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping agreed to a 90-day truce on the trade war earlier this month. After the meeting, Trump tweeted out that "China agreed to “reduce and remove” tariffs on imported American-made cars, something China did not confirm at the time." Shares of various automakers including Diamler, Ford, and Tesla rose on the news.
      The trade war between the U.S. and China has taken a toll on automakers. Both BMW and Dimaler have warned of lower profits as tariffs have forced them to raise prices in China. Others such as Volvo and Ford have made changes to production and vehicle plans. 
      China's Finance Ministry didn't respond to Bloomberg's request for a comment.
      Source: Bloomberg
  • Posts

    • DRIVEN: 2020 Subaru Ascent Premium (AWD 2.4 turbo) HIGHS: -Finally, what the market was looking for, a worthwhile Subaru entry into the 3 row crossover segment.  And packaging, size wise, styling, just about perfect for Subaru -2.4 engine can snarl, nice go juice, and the CVT is actually fairly responsive.  Moves out well, or at least feels like it does.  Makes the Ascent feel sporty actually. -As mentioned above, packaging is just about perfect for Subaru.  It might be considered a tweener, but it does not feel hulking or girthy...and it still will be garagable for many of those folks that would shop import brands.  Cabin width not as wide as a Traverse, noticeably so...but conversely feels like a nice size upgrade from an Outback.  Maybe if you try to have three in the second row its a concern but otherwise should be ok.  Plenty of comfort remains and the third row is decent sized for leg room.  This may be the sweet spot size of a 3 row for many customers. -Cloth seats were attractive and did feel nice at the bottom. -Simple clean dash layout, noticeably signature Subaru.  Some interesting trim.   -Open and airy feel inside the cabin, and likewise visibility out.  In particular in front it doesn't feel significantly larger in front then a Forester or Outback. -Carlike ride and handling.  At least in line with the sort of current expectations of a Subaru / Toyota / Honda type of customer.  And reasonably quiet inside. -Nothing particularly egregious, and entirely in line with Subaru and Japanese car in general brand character.  If you are a Subaru fan, this is your manna, this should EXCITE you. LOWS: ...all that said (above) -A few times I caught the CVT with its pants down and it went into slow response / rubber bandy mode. -Dash, to me, did feel plain and basic (and that also is entirely in character for a Subaru).  I will go on record saying that a Traverse is nicer inside and much more interesting.  -Steering felt light and numb enough that I can't say it was anything besides decent.  All while being a huge upgrade in steering compared to other Subarus I have driven the last few years.  It is very much improved compared to those.  And the suspension was composed enough in the Ascent that it didn't bounce and bob and weave like I had when i drove a Forester before. -I didn't dissect the cargo area greatly but I do think maybe it is down a little bit in terms of usable dimensions compared to say, a Traverse or Atlas....probably as useful or more useful than an Acadia. -At the end of the day, apart from the kind of lively powertrain, the whole rest of the vehicle is MILQUETOAST.  Which, if you are a Subaru fan, should EXCITE you.  I mean, I think a Santa Fe may be more appealing emotionally.  I was expecting something to feed the soul here, there is nothing.  How they made it still feel lifeless while still miraculously making this vastly improved over other Subarus, must have required special skill. SUMMARY: At the end of the day, a perfectly innocuous but highly useful device that absolutely fulfills the Subaru brand character while at the same time borders on being something equal to the NPC version of an automobile.  And some will absolutely love that.  While superbly capable, I think I VASTLY prefer my GM's or even the VW Atlas.  Seek those out instead if you want ANY personality in your 3 row family hauler.        
    • DRIVEN: 2020 Ford Explorer XLT 2.3 Ecoboost 4WD   MSRP 39,770 HIGHS:  -Complete redesign is sharp looking in the flesh, while still familiar and identifiable as an Explorer at the same time -Size was not sacrificed in the redesign, the Explorer is still a nice large vehicle in a time where EPA pressures are forcing smaller vehicles. -New RWD architecture dramatically improves space efficiency and driving feel all at the same time.  That combination almost never has been able to exist before.  Truly a complete beneficial ground up redesign. -2.3 Ecoboost now mated to new 10 speed automatic has nice pep and verve for most drivers, sounds good and smooth and refined enough.  New 10 speed worked real well. -Wow, what a change in the view out the hood.  Short front end (how did they do that with a RWD chassis?) and it drops away from line of sight such that your view out the front is open and airy and very easy to see what is going on; really quite awesome as far as that goes.  Fairly good visibility back and sides for an SUV otherwise compared to some others. -LOTS of ergonomic and interior packaging improvements.  The front seats are now farther apart and give a feel of a wider cabin, partially due to much thinner doors.  The seats themselves, while a bit shy of support are typical Ford spacious for wide MUHRICAN bottoms.  Even the base cloth feels of good quality.  The new gauge cluster is very nice, big upgrade over typical Ford (and this the base cluster).  The touch screen is nicely located and responsive and good looking.  The climate controls are simple and nicely within reach.  There is a nice wide console / armrest and a handy slot for phone or pens right below the touch screen.  Easy and get in the rear two seats and move around the cabin.  What a nice change overall in interior environment from past Fords, while still easily feeling like a Ford. -Trunk behind third row has neat flip up for a lower, flatter floor for your grocery bags (like other competitors do).  Not as big behind row 3 as maybe some others, but overall cargo capacity seems just fine. -OK, RWD fans, yes this drives like a RWD vehicle...you feel pushed.  I am not used to that anymore but the feel is such that those who like the feel of RWD, here you go.  A big difference in feel between the 2019 and 2020. -Overall the chassis, ride, etc, the overall feel of the vehicle is that of a rugged, large, solid, sturdy ride.  And decent steering feel.  This does not feel completely like a truck or completely like a typical crossover SUV / car.  It is something inbetween and I think drivers who have been looking forward to this new RWD chassis will like this.  This vehicle feels like it would handle rural and rugged environments better than some other typical competitors.  Perhaps this also partly why this is Ford's new police vehicle. LOWS: -These new Fords coming out this year its been discussed that they may have cheap interior bits.  There is some of that going on here.  The door and dash plastics seem like they might be very thin and the graining I think would come off more expensive looking if the quality of the plastic were better.  We don't always expect much from Ford anyways for interior quality so this may not be terribly egregious anyways.  If i compare it to the Traverse, I don't think you can say the Ford has better interior material quality.  The Traverse IMO may still have the better interior. -The 2.3 engine while working for most people I think there will be plenty of folks drawn to the Explorer because of the RWD chassis, I might recommend they try the ST version with the high power v6....or the upcoming hybrid.  If you like this vehicle and plan to invest in one long term you might see payback in owner satisfaction by upping for the more powerful options.  I do think overall the feel of a six or even 8 cylinder motor would be more at home in this new ride. -While as i said above, that Ford did a good job with the design, it almost already feels old to me.  It is so familiar looking that while still looking new is actually a bit tough for average people to pick out next to the 2019 (which i drove side by side before this).  Color and model may help you get a unique looking Explorer, just keep that in mind.  I guess the evolutionary styling works for Subaru etc.   -Seats could have been more supportive IMO.  I just think automakers are paring away so much at every gram of weight that items like the seats keep getting pared down so they don't feel as solid as maybe they could. -Notice I said above RWD fans will probably like the ride and handling of the Explorer.  I think those that like something more carlike may not care for the somewhat trucky feel.  This will be personal preference.  In addition, the vehicle may feel too large to some.  Also, personal preference.  It felt heavy, not really agile or athletic. SUMMARY: A bellweather, a successful reinvention and repositioning of the Explorer more back to its roots and slightly a bit out of the mainstream of a crossover market segment it purposely worked to fit into with the previous generation.  With its reinvention, it is a breath of fresh air into what has turned into a 'me too' segment.  Still, apart from some typical Ford cheapness inside, this brand new design should sell like hotcakes and please old and new Explorer fans alike.  I see this design carrying on for 8-10 years and being a big profit center for Ford.  My own personal rating is a B+ for interior cheapness and as I prefer the carlike FWD feel of some of the competition, but overall I give big props to Ford for going back to what fits into the Explorer brand character in what will be a hugely successful new design.    
  • Social Stream

  • Who's Online (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

  • My Clubs

About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We ♥ Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×
×
  • Create New...