In article , Brian Henderson wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 12:22:11 GMT, Bob the Tomato
wrote:

I don't mind paying for quality. Once in a while I buy cheap, if it
passes the grade. But I will pass the junk every time. If there is a
quality tool available, I will buy it if I can.

Same here, but the point I was making is that quality and "made in the
USA" are not always the same thing. In fact, they are not usually the
same thing most of time. Where a product is made should be irrelevant
to what the quality of the product is. A toy made with lead paint is
dangerous whether it's made in China or Chicago. Far too many people
act like "Made in the USA" is a stamp of quality, not location.

It's certainly more suggestive of quality than "Made in China". g

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Cooniedog wrote:

The answer to wasted superiority is simple - cheaper labor equals more
and much bigger profits for the U.S. companies, who happen to be the
cronies of the current administration.


Please, this goes way past the last 6 3/4 years. I know lots of folks
like the mantra, "It's Bush's fault", but let's be reasonable and recognize
that this problem has been going on for quite some time, with roots as far
back as the 50's and 60's. I'm not old enough to remember, but have had
mentors tell me about purchasing appliances or cars in that era. The US
manufacturers considered themselves to be the only game in town and really
pretty much didn't give a rip about the opinions or needs of consumers.
You also had organized labor applying extortionist demands on those
industries, forcing deeper and larger concessions -- the bill for which is
coming due even now. The bottom line here is greed and has been practiced
by both sides of this issue, labor and management.

One of the pieces of good news regarding the lowered value of the dollar
is that it is now making US goods attractive on the world market again.
Spoke with someone this morning who is involved in commercial aerospace
components -- they are seeing an upswing in foreign sales opportunities.

.... snip

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

On Nov 25, 10:02 am, Cooniedog wrote:
The answer to wasted superiority is simple - cheaper labor equals more
and much bigger profits for the U.S. companies, who happen to be the
cronies of the current administration.

mac davis wrote:
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 21:06:27 GMT, Brian Henderson
wrote:

On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 12:09:52 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Uh, you missed their taking over the entire consumer electronics
industry.
Because the Japanese could make a better product for less money, why
shouldn't they take over the industry? They earned it!

The question you should be asking is why the U.S. completely wasted
their superiority.

I watched the transition in the quality of Japanese steel.. from tin can quality
to better than ours (US)..
One of the reasons is that the Japanese government underwrites research and
renovation..

Back maybe 10 or 15 years, I watched a documentary on the steel industry and
they were pointing out that Japan was tearing down it's oldest steel mill and
rebuilding it to be better and efficient... and that the newest steel mill in
the US was almost 100 years old...
Same thing happened to our auto industry... the Japanese did their homework and
found out what the American people wanted and made it..


Sorry, Mac. As much as I dislike Bush, and his bunch of vicious
clowns, this has been going on for FAR longer than he's been a power
in national politics. We might start by blaming Nixon who opened up
modern China to trade. Or go way back and blame, lessee, nearly 60
eyar old history, Commodore Peary for opening up Japan, which
eventually led the way into the rest of Asia. This one has no
political ties of any real importance, though the past seven years
might have seen a bit of a speed boost.

On Nov 25, 12:23 pm, "Bonehenge (B A R R Y)"
wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 09:29:56 -0700, Doug Winterburn

wrote:

One thing the foreign pickups don't have is a diesel.

Oddly enough, they sell them everywhere else but North America. Many
Tacomas are sold worldwide, as the Hilux, with diesel engines. The 4
liter gas V6 is a North America-only powerplant.

The pickup truck as we know it, is kind of an American novelty in
certain ways.

Everywhere I've been around the world, most light commercial trucks
are either Sprinter-style vans or small, 6 wheel diesel cabover
trucks, ala Mitsubishi or Hino. I've seen both with 4 wheel drive.

It's very rare to see something like our leather-encrusted, quad-cab,
chrome plated pickups. It's not that you wouldn't see NICE,
_EXPENSIVE_ vehicles around, just that they're usually cars. The rest
of the world seems to have a much more distinct line between truck and
car, and different tastes.

FWIW, Toyota is playing with a large dually diesel now:

http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2007/11/05/069676.html

It's got an 8.0 litre, inline-six turbo diesel. G

Got to drive the then new Tundra in September of '06 at a press
conference. That one was immense, had the immense gas V8, and the
power was almost frightening. No quality comments apply, as the
interior trim and other bits were not yet set, but it pulled like a
train. They did announce, in response to questions, that a diesel
would be forthcoming in a year or two, but gave no details at all.

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Snip



Until recently their Craftsman Professional jigsaw was a Bosch. Now
it's an Australian made Triton, which may be a brilliant move on both
parts--Triton makes good stuff and they've never had a major US
distributer before. If I hadn't just gotten a new Bosch I might give
it a try just to see if it's as good as other Triton stuff.

Not all Triton tools are Australian made. The much admired Triton router is
made in China.

"Doug Winterburn" wrote in message
...
Leon wrote:



One thing the foreign pickups don't have is a diesel. Last year I got a
used (57k miles) '04 Silverado 2500HD 6.6L Duramax regular cab full box
with the Allison transmission. The previous owner put a Banks exhaust
system on it. It is one towing machine for my 5th wheel! Gets 23mpg
highway and 13.5mpg towing (on a 4200 mile trip this last summer). It was
_very_ comfortable on that trip.

I understand the new diesels will have to have Urea introduced to help cut
down on the pollution. Urea? Apparently the dealer will have to fill that
tank periodically. Honda is coming out with a diesel that will not need the
Urea to pass the emission tests.

The biggest discomfort of my older 97 and the new 07 GMC and Chevy vehicles
was and are the back seats. You have to like setting in a back seat that
forces a right angle seating position and a seat back that is perpendicular
to the ground to call the back seat comfortable. As with my older Silverado
the fronts seats were acceptable.

On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 12:50:45 -0800 (PST), Charlie Self
wrote:


As a general statement, I think there has been a basic upgrading of
quality in the past two decades, with more and more woodworkers
demanding better tools.

Do you remember when people would complain about a body rattle in a
pickup, and be told "It's a pickup truck, who cares?"

_All_ vehicles are better than they were 20 years ago.

Thank Toyota and Nissan. G

On Nov 25, 3:23 pm, Brian Henderson
wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 00:34:47 GMT, Ralph wrote:
Have to agree with you Mac. Remember when "J.A.Pan & Co." meant junk or
popcorn toys (must be dating myself there). Their first cars into North
America were a joke, but they did their homework and now they are
forerunners in industry. It seems that China may be following the same
route.

Precisely. They succeed because they want to succeed, they're hungry
for success. You get a lot of American companies who think that
because they bother to open their doors in the morning, they deserve
success and the world will beat a path to their door because they're
Americans.

Ain't so.

There's a word for that: Arrogance.
I dealt with a product 20+ years ago. The producers of that product
'Corp X' didn't think I was important enough to be dealt with on the
same basis as their 'bigger' accounts. I didn't get the price-breaks,
I had to pay for freight, while their 'bigger' accounts were getting
wined and dined. That was all to be expected....up to a point.
Then, when the 'off-shore' boys got into the game, and even one Texas
company, I was treated like I was going to be a player in my
territory. They helped me with samples, gave me price breaks on
quantity orders..IOW.. they did all the things that the other company
simply didn't have time for.

I wasn't the only fabricator who got sick and tired of feeling like I
was 'bothering' them when I placed an order with CorpX.

All of a sudden, CorpX headquarters realised that sales were dropping
all over the place. They lost massive market share. They tried
everything. Intimidation, bullying, starting rumours, lying about the
quality of their competitors...and it just made me and my fellow
fabricators more and more resolved to beat the big guys who danced to
Corp X's fiddle.
Guess what?
"We have a whole new attitude" (After a few of the big guys went belly
up because of the onslaught of eStone etc)
Now they are all over us, giving us stuff, trying to get back the 80%
of the market share they lost.
Now, they are arrogant in a different way. They think we don't see
through their schemes. They think we're stupid.

Now, if a woman cheats on you...will you ever trust her again? Or will
you save the nice presents for your mistress?

....waitasec... that didn't come out right...but I had already hit the
'send' button...

On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 13:01:47 -0800 (PST), Charlie Self
wrote:


Got to drive the then new Tundra in September of '06 at a press
conference. That one was immense, had the immense gas V8, and the
power was almost frightening. No quality comments apply, as the
interior trim and other bits were not yet set, but it pulled like a
train.

Ask Leon. G

I have a "little" Tacoma, which had no problem towing a 5000 lb. Volvo
fro Westchester airport to Meriden, CT a few weeks back.

Did I mention the oil filter is on top of the engine?

Charlie Self wrote:
On Nov 24, 7:41 am, "J. Clarke" wrote:
Charlie Self wrote:
On Nov 24, 2:22 am, "J. Clarke" wrote:
John Horner wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

rolling eyes They have more than four times the population
of
the
US in the same land area. They have trouble feeding all the
people
they have. Further, they are not and have never been a
Christian
nation or a nation that owes any part of its heritage to any
religion
that is part of the heritage of Christianity, so no, on no
count
is
it wrong for the Chinese to require women who have been so
irresponsible as to become pregnant in violation of the law and
common sense to have abortions.

I'm not a Christian either, so I don't see what that has to do
with
this.

You must realize that not all laws are just, eh? Legalized
slavery
in the US was never just, although it was legal.

So if you are not a Christian then what is your basis for the
allegation that abortion is wrong?

Quite possibly the forced aspect of it, I'd guess.

If it's not morally wrong then why is the forced aspect of it
wrong?
The women know the law.


So if someone makes a law saying you have to eat two servings of
pickeled pigs' feet per day, you should obey because you know the
law?

My father loved 'em. They make me puke. That kind of force is wrong.

No, if the law says that if you scratch your balls in public you have
to eat two servings of pickled pigs feet you shouldn't scratch your
balls in public unless you are willing to eat two servings of pickled
pigs feet.

It's not a case of being forced to do something with no antecedent,
it's a case of one act being the consequence of another.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

In article , "Leon" wrote:

I understand the new diesels will have to have Urea introduced to help cut
down on the pollution. Urea? Apparently the dealer will have to fill that
tank periodically.

Can't you just pee in it??

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Brian Henderson" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 17:23:13 GMT, "Bonehenge (B A R R Y)"
wrote:

Oddly enough, they sell them everywhere else but North America. Many
Tacomas are sold worldwide, as the Hilux, with diesel engines. The 4
liter gas V6 is a North America-only powerplant.

That's because Americans don't really like disesl. It's like looking
at the car market in the UK and Europe compared to the US. There are
tons of really nice, extremely gas-efficient cars made in Europe but
because they're not the size of a schoolbus, Americans won't drive
them. We bitch about gas heading for $5 a gallon, but we won't give
up our gas-guzzling SUVs. Go figure.

The biggest problem with Diesel in the US is passing the latest emission
standards. I have heard that many will have to use Urea injected some where
in the process and that is obtained from the dealer.

In article , wrote:

I have a "little" Tacoma, which had no problem towing a 5000 lb. Volvo
fro Westchester airport to Meriden, CT a few weeks back.

Did I mention the oil filter is on top of the engine?

Where it belongs. Oh, how I hate changing oil on an engine with a filter
mounted open end up. What ever made anyone think that was a good idea?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Leon wrote:

I understand the new diesels will have to have Urea introduced to help cut
down on the pollution. Urea? Apparently the dealer will have to fill that
tank periodically. Honda is coming out with a diesel that will not need the
Urea to pass the emission tests.

Hadn't heard that. I was told the new ultra low sulfer fuel made diesel
less polluting than gas. There's certainly no diesel odor or black
smoke from the late models I've seen/smelled. I know one Safeway gas
station in Washington State had 20% soy bio-diesel. The problem for
older pre '07 diesel engines and the low sulfer fuel is supposed to be a
lack of lubricity causing wear on the turbo. But then, the local Chevy
dealer claims no need for any additive as the oil companies already add it.

(Doug Miller) wrote in
. net:

In article , "Leon"
wrote:

I understand the new diesels will have to have Urea introduced to help
cut down on the pollution. Urea? Apparently the dealer will have to
fill that tank periodically.

Can't you just pee in it??

You need high purity urea:
http://www.fueltechnv.com/apcUreaReagent.php


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 12:17:06 -0600, dpb wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 14:51:10 -0600, dpb wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:
...

There will always be a segment of the market that wants high quality
and is willing to pay a reasonable amount more for that quality. ...
Yes, but it's the size of that market that was under question here.
Your comment was "not nearly enough". The customer base for the
product was steadily growing and the operation was quite profitable,
more so than the other segment in the company that had always depended
on imports and big box positioning. Under what criteria do you assign
a "not nearly enough" definition to the size of that select customer
base?

If you are right, with the strategy of consolidation and globalization
now firmly in place, it should be growing even faster and even more
profitable. Not so. Try shrinking and losing.
Well, not having full access to the books nor having a seat on the board
of directors, it's not quite possible to fully answer in detail for your
specific former employer.

So what part of my post do you disbelieve and need additional proof?
I'm constrained from being able to offer it, just curious as to why
you would question my credibility.

The remark was, however, made as an overall
generalization, not a specific case study.

I see, however, you commented in a portion of the thread that was
talking about woodworking machinery.
There was also one very important additional word in the comment you
have chosen to not quote and that was "apparently" which was simply a
reflection of the reality of what was chosen to be done.

I have no idea what you just said.

If they were
satisfied w/ the growth and size of the market one would presume the
decision would have gone another direction.

Corporate leaders, who have not really done much but have fast tracked
to the top, rarely have the insight to leave well enough alone when
they have the "golden goose" They often want to kill it to get the
"gold"
I understand your position and sympathize but facts is facts on both
sides of the equation. You see one set; it's pretty clear management
saw another based on their actions.

There are no facts on the Corporate hack side of the equation, only
speculation. Sustained profitability and growth over a long period of
time is a fact. A strategy of greed is not based on any fact
whatsoever, just a gleem in ones eye. "if we can squeeze a little
more out of this thing, our bonuses will be much larger". I'm sorry
you can find sympathy in that attitude, it is one of the reasons they
get away with it.

I wasn't in the boardroom, were you? I understand you were on the
factory floor and have a viewpoint of what you saw from there. I can't
say I'm pleased w/ the decision either, simply that I have too little
actual factual information to judge other than from the decision made
apparently the markets and profitability weren't to the level desired so
a decision was made to change.

Whether it will turn out to have the desired overall end effect isn't
yet known for longterm even though certainly it isn't clear it has had
the desired effect for the type of folks who tend to congregate here.
What it will do for their overall market share, etc., is still to be
determined.

--

"Cooniedog" wrote in message
...
The answer to wasted superiority is simple - cheaper labor equals more and
much bigger profits for the U.S. companies, who happen to be the cronies
of the current administration.


Two quick questions:

1. Wasn't Most Favored Nation trading status granted to China in 1980 under
the Carter administration?
2. Under what Constitutional provision or by what specific law would this or
any other president be able to restrain trade for non-beligerant
merchandise?

No ax to grind, no desire for an argument, just questions.

Glen

Brian Henderson wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 17:23:13 GMT, "Bonehenge (B A R R Y)"
wrote:

Oddly enough, they sell them everywhere else but North America. Many
Tacomas are sold worldwide, as the Hilux, with diesel engines. The 4
liter gas V6 is a North America-only powerplant.

That's because Americans don't really like disesl. ...

And there are (or at least were) some reasons for that -- noisier, odor,
harder starting in cold weather, relative limited fuel availability for
passenger cars (rather than commercial trucks), inexpensive gaoline,
etc., certainly played a role in there not being much of a significant
demand. More recently, it's been the EPA emission standards that apply
to passenger vehicles as opposed to trucks that are a hindrance.

I would wager if the fuel costs and distances in other parts of the
world, primarily Europe, had been similar that the similarities to US
vehicles would be far more than they are. As the saying goes,
"different time, different place".

--

Charlie Self wrote:
On Nov 24, 11:53 am, dpb wrote:
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

...

... How many people are willing to spend $xxx more for brand D
knowing they have superior quality of a machine built by experienced
craftsmen?
Not nearly enough, apparently...

--

It's hard to buy what is not available.

But apparently the volume wasn't sufficient to convince them it was in
their best interests to continue catering solely to that segment as a
distinguishing characteristic...

--

"Bonehenge (B A R R Y)" wrote in message
...

Do you remember when people would complain about a body rattle in a
pickup, and be told "It's a pickup truck, who cares?"

I remember in the late 70's when GM could not put a bed on a pick-up that
aligned with the back glass. New trucks on the lot looked like thay had
been wrecked when looked at from the rear.


_All_ vehicles are better than they were 20 years ago.

Thank Toyota and Nissan. G

Yes, and partial thanks goes to Detroit and the labor unions that had the
strangle hold. Had they not charged too much for poor quality the Japanese
would not be quite as far along as they are today.

On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 21:17:52 GMT, "Bonehenge (B A R R Y)"
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 13:01:47 -0800 (PST), Charlie Self
wrote:


Got to drive the then new Tundra in September of '06 at a press
conference. That one was immense, had the immense gas V8, and the
power was almost frightening. No quality comments apply, as the
interior trim and other bits were not yet set, but it pulled like a
train.

Ask Leon. G

I have a "little" Tacoma, which had no problem towing a 5000 lb. Volvo
fro Westchester airport to Meriden, CT a few weeks back.

Did I mention the oil filter is on top of the engine?


Yep, isn't that delightful. As one who has always changed oil myself,
I really like that. I did have to learn (the hard way) that the
"catch"tray around the filter will not actually hold the entire
contents of the filter ( I would have bet good money it would) and
that one should pull the drain plug and place a container beneath
first, but after that lesson, I'm happy.

Frank

Brian Henderson wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 17:23:13 GMT, "Bonehenge (B A R R Y)"
wrote:

Oddly enough, they sell them everywhere else but North America. Many
Tacomas are sold worldwide, as the Hilux, with diesel engines. The 4
liter gas V6 is a North America-only powerplant.

That's because Americans don't really like disesl. It's like looking
at the car market in the UK and Europe compared to the US. There are
tons of really nice, extremely gas-efficient cars made in Europe but
because they're not the size of a schoolbus, Americans won't drive
them. We bitch about gas heading for $5 a gallon, but we won't give
up our gas-guzzling SUVs. Go figure.

Those of us that tow 5th wheel trailers love diesel power/torque and
mileage compared to gas. You can pretty much tell what's under the hood
when you come to a long uphill grade. My tow runs about 11,000 gross
with a 1200 lb hitch weight. Other than occasional light chucking, the
rear view mirror is the main indication something is behind the truck.

"Bonehenge (B A R R Y)" wrote in message
...


Ask Leon. G

LOL, The interior is on par with GM however I think I prefer the vinyl over
the plastic door trim panels. Other than that everything else looks better.
IMHO. ;~)
Oh, and the 5.7 does have enough power. ;~)



I have a "little" Tacoma, which had no problem towing a 5000 lb. Volvo
fro Westchester airport to Meriden, CT a few weeks back.

Did I mention the oil filter is on top of the engine?

You have the V6, I was delighted to see the oil filter on top when I took
the Tundra V6 on a test drive. Unfortunately the 5.78 has a hidden oil
filter that to this day I have not seen. I think it is located on the
bottom front of the engine above a skid plate. It may very well pay to let
the dealer change the oil, all 7 to 8 quarts. I'll have to watch them on
the first change and see where the filter is and how much trouble it will be
to change it.

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
...



Yep, isn't that delightful. As one who has always changed oil myself,
I really like that. I did have to learn (the hard way) that the
"catch"tray around the filter will not actually hold the entire
contents of the filter ( I would have bet good money it would) and
that one should pull the drain plug and place a container beneath
first, but after that lesson, I'm happy.

Frank

Have you tried letting the vehicle set for 10-15 minutes to let the oil in
the filter drain back in to the engine? Or is there a check valve that
prevents that?

Brian Henderson wrote:

On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 17:23:13 GMT, "Bonehenge (B A R R Y)"
wrote:

Oddly enough, they sell them everywhere else but North America. Many
Tacomas are sold worldwide, as the Hilux, with diesel engines. The 4
liter gas V6 is a North America-only powerplant.

That's because Americans don't really like disesl. It's like looking
at the car market in the UK and Europe compared to the US. There are
tons of really nice, extremely gas-efficient cars made in Europe but
because they're not the size of a schoolbus, Americans won't drive
them. We bitch about gas heading for $5 a gallon, but we won't give
up our gas-guzzling SUVs. Go figure.

Maybe because we know there are answers other than driving glorified
bubbles powered by lawn mower engines? We have ample opportunity, shale
oil in the west, Anwar to the north, oil off of Florida before the Chinese
and Cubans suck it dry, etc. The reserves are there, but the will to
overcome the resistance to developing our own sources seems to be weak.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 21:22:59 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

Where it belongs. Oh, how I hate changing oil on an engine with a filter
mounted open end up. What ever made anyone think that was a good idea?


You got that right.

A 20 oz. soda bottle sits nicely on the belt to collect what falls in
the drip tray.

What, there's no drip tray on other trucks? G

On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 21:57:40 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:

IMHO. ;~)
Oh, and the 5.7 does have enough power. ;~)

The 4.0 has plenty of power in the Tacoma! G

You have the V6, I was delighted to see the oil filter on top when I took
the Tundra V6 on a test drive. Unfortunately the 5.78 has a hidden oil
filter that to this day I have not seen.

Sorry!

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , "J. Clarke" wrote:

Until recently their Craftsman Professional jigsaw was a Bosch. Now
it's an Australian made Triton, which may be a brilliant move on both
parts--Triton makes good stuff and they've never had a major US
distributer before. If I hadn't just gotten a new Bosch I might give
it a try just to see if it's as good as other Triton stuff.

Interesting... and just when I was looking to pick up a replacement, too.
Anybody have experience with the Triton jigsaws? Is the Sears version simply a
rebadged OEM unit, or are there functional differences?


I'm also looking for a replacement, and
I've been to both CDN and US Sears
sites. The US price looks good. The CDN
price - not so much.

Tanus

On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 22:05:56 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:


"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
.. .



Yep, isn't that delightful. As one who has always changed oil myself,
I really like that. I did have to learn (the hard way) that the
"catch"tray around the filter will not actually hold the entire
contents of the filter ( I would have bet good money it would) and
that one should pull the drain plug and place a container beneath
first, but after that lesson, I'm happy.

Frank

Have you tried letting the vehicle set for 10-15 minutes to let the oil in
the filter drain back in to the engine? Or is there a check valve that
prevents that?

I guess their is a check valve. The vehicle sat for at least that
long on my last oil change.

Frank

On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 15:35:15 -0600, dpb wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 12:17:06 -0600, dpb wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 14:51:10 -0600, dpb wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:
...

There will always be a segment of the market that wants high quality
and is willing to pay a reasonable amount more for that quality. ...
Yes, but it's the size of that market that was under question here.
Your comment was "not nearly enough". The customer base for the
product was steadily growing and the operation was quite profitable,
more so than the other segment in the company that had always depended
on imports and big box positioning. Under what criteria do you assign
a "not nearly enough" definition to the size of that select customer
base?

If you are right, with the strategy of consolidation and globalization
now firmly in place, it should be growing even faster and even more
profitable. Not so. Try shrinking and losing.
Well, not having full access to the books nor having a seat on the board
of directors, it's not quite possible to fully answer in detail for your
specific former employer.

So what part of my post do you disbelieve and need additional proof?
I'm constrained from being able to offer it, just curious as to why
you would question my credibility.

The remark was, however, made as an overall
generalization, not a specific case study.

I see, however, you commented in a portion of the thread that was
talking about woodworking machinery.
There was also one very important additional word in the comment you
have chosen to not quote and that was "apparently" which was simply a
reflection of the reality of what was chosen to be done.

I have no idea what you just said.

If they were
satisfied w/ the growth and size of the market one would presume the
decision would have gone another direction.

Corporate leaders, who have not really done much but have fast tracked
to the top, rarely have the insight to leave well enough alone when
they have the "golden goose" They often want to kill it to get the
"gold"
I understand your position and sympathize but facts is facts on both
sides of the equation. You see one set; it's pretty clear management
saw another based on their actions.

There are no facts on the Corporate hack side of the equation, only
speculation. Sustained profitability and growth over a long period of
time is a fact. A strategy of greed is not based on any fact
whatsoever, just a gleem in ones eye. "if we can squeeze a little
more out of this thing, our bonuses will be much larger". I'm sorry
you can find sympathy in that attitude, it is one of the reasons they
get away with it.

I wasn't in the boardroom, were you?

No, I was a vice president, a company officer fully exposed to all
financial data specific to the company in all segments. The group and
corporate financial information was available to anyone who asked for
an annual report. There is nothing "secret" that happened in the
boardroom that would negate the actual financial results of the
specific company or my operation. It is as I described and I'm
constrained by confidentiality agreements that outlive my employment
from going into any more detail than that although they don't mean
much at this point.

I understand you were on the
factory floor and have a viewpoint of what you saw from there.

See above.

I can't
say I'm pleased w/ the decision either, simply that I have too little
actual factual information to judge other than from the decision made
apparently the markets and profitability weren't to the level desired so
a decision was made to change.

The operation met and far exceeded all the financial targets for
growth, return on invested capital, cash flow, and return on sales
when many operations in the corporation were not meeting them. See
again the statement about unmitigated greed (and stupidity should be
added). If that is not enough "factual" information, so be it.

Whether it will turn out to have the desired overall end effect isn't
yet known for longterm

You don't know about the concept of present value do you. At this
point in history, the chances of it turning out with the desired
overall end effect financially are zero. The group was sold at a deep
discount (about $500 million) to sales volume after a number of break
even years followed the disastrous strategy. So those corporate
officers can *never* recoup what they have lost for the stockholders
of the corporation. It's lost for good.


even though certainly it isn't clear it has had
the desired effect for the type of folks who tend to congregate here.
What it will do for their overall market share, etc., is still to be
determined.

What do you mean by that? The desired effect of the corporate hacks
who initiated the strategy was to ruin the reputation of the brand and
lose significant market share? That has already happened. And
believe me when you have market share, it is a lot easier to keep it
than it is to get it back. My career was devoted to keeping and
growing it.

Frank

On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 15:51:34 -0600, Frank Boettcher
wrote:


Yep, isn't that delightful. As one who has always changed oil myself,
I really like that. I did have to learn (the hard way) that the
"catch"tray around the filter will not actually hold the entire
contents of the filter ( I would have bet good money it would) and
that one should pull the drain plug and place a container beneath
first, but after that lesson, I'm happy.


Do you use Toyota filters?

I use the OEM filters, ($4.22/ea. if I buy 2 at the dealer, free plug
washers included...) and by the time I get the truck up on my ramps
and drain the oil, the filter is nearly empty.

Or, do you pull the filter before draining the pan?

Maybe aftermarket filters have some sort of check valve, which isn't
necessary due to the location of the filter in relation to the
lubricated parts?

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 22:05:56 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:


"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
. ..



Yep, isn't that delightful. As one who has always changed oil myself,
I really like that. I did have to learn (the hard way) that the
"catch"tray around the filter will not actually hold the entire
contents of the filter ( I would have bet good money it would) and
that one should pull the drain plug and place a container beneath
first, but after that lesson, I'm happy.

Frank

Have you tried letting the vehicle set for 10-15 minutes to let the oil in
the filter drain back in to the engine? Or is there a check valve that
prevents that?

I guess their is a check valve. The vehicle sat for at least that
long on my last oil change.

LOL. that sounds par. I guess you had better still be quick. ;~)

Frank Boettcher wrote:

.... snip

I wasn't in the boardroom, were you?

No, I was a vice president, a company officer fully exposed to all
financial data specific to the company in all segments. The group and
corporate financial information was available to anyone who asked for
an annual report. There is nothing "secret" that happened in the
boardroom that would negate the actual financial results of the
specific company or my operation. It is as I described and I'm
constrained by confidentiality agreements that outlive my employment
from going into any more detail than that although they don't mean
much at this point.

It's good to hear from someone with a close perspective of the situation.

.... snip

You don't know about the concept of present value do you. At this
point in history, the chances of it turning out with the desired
overall end effect financially are zero. The group was sold at a deep
discount (about $500 million) to sales volume after a number of break
even years followed the disastrous strategy. So those corporate
officers can *never* recoup what they have lost for the stockholders
of the corporation. It's lost for good.


Did the off-shoring decision occur before or after Pentair sold Delta?




--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Tanus wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Until recently their Craftsman Professional jigsaw was a Bosch.
Now
it's an Australian made Triton, which may be a brilliant move on
both parts--Triton makes good stuff and they've never had a major
US
distributer before. If I hadn't just gotten a new Bosch I might
give it a try just to see if it's as good as other Triton stuff.

Interesting... and just when I was looking to pick up a
replacement,
too.
Anybody have experience with the Triton jigsaws? Is the Sears
version simply a rebadged OEM unit, or are there functional
differences?


I'm also looking for a replacement, and
I've been to both CDN and US Sears
sites. The US price looks good. The CDN
price - not so much.

Whether there are functional differences is always the question, but
in practical terms it's unlikely as that kind of retooling for a
limited production run generally costs more than just continuing to
make what was already in production. Changing the color of the
plastic and slapping a different label on is one thing, changing the
mechanical design is quite another.

I recall reading a review somewhere but now I can't find it.

Of course if you want to play safe, the latest Bosch from Coastal is
only about 45 bucks more.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 15:35:15 -0600, dpb wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 12:17:06 -0600, dpb wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 14:51:10 -0600, dpb wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:
...

There will always be a segment of the market that wants high quality
and is willing to pay a reasonable amount more for that quality. ...
Yes, but it's the size of that market that was under question here.
Your comment was "not nearly enough". The customer base for the
product was steadily growing and the operation was quite profitable,
more so than the other segment in the company that had always depended
on imports and big box positioning. Under what criteria do you assign
a "not nearly enough" definition to the size of that select customer
base?

If you are right, with the strategy of consolidation and globalization
now firmly in place, it should be growing even faster and even more
profitable. Not so. Try shrinking and losing.
Well, not having full access to the books nor having a seat on the board
of directors, it's not quite possible to fully answer in detail for your
specific former employer.
So what part of my post do you disbelieve and need additional proof?
I'm constrained from being able to offer it, just curious as to why
you would question my credibility.

The remark was, however, made as an overall
generalization, not a specific case study.
I see, however, you commented in a portion of the thread that was
talking about woodworking machinery.
There was also one very important additional word in the comment you
have chosen to not quote and that was "apparently" which was simply a
reflection of the reality of what was chosen to be done.
I have no idea what you just said.

If they were
satisfied w/ the growth and size of the market one would presume the
decision would have gone another direction.
Corporate leaders, who have not really done much but have fast tracked
to the top, rarely have the insight to leave well enough alone when
they have the "golden goose" They often want to kill it to get the
"gold"
I understand your position and sympathize but facts is facts on both
sides of the equation. You see one set; it's pretty clear management
saw another based on their actions.
There are no facts on the Corporate hack side of the equation, only
speculation. Sustained profitability and growth over a long period of
time is a fact. A strategy of greed is not based on any fact
whatsoever, just a gleem in ones eye. "if we can squeeze a little
more out of this thing, our bonuses will be much larger". I'm sorry
you can find sympathy in that attitude, it is one of the reasons they
get away with it.
I wasn't in the boardroom, were you?

....

The operation met and far exceeded all the financial targets for
growth, return on invested capital, cash flow, and return on sales
when many operations in the corporation were not meeting them. See
again the statement about unmitigated greed (and stupidity should be
added). If that is not enough "factual" information, so be it.
Whether it will turn out to have the desired overall end effect isn't
yet known for longterm

You don't know about the concept of present value do you. At this
point in history, the chances of it turning out with the desired
overall end effect financially are zero. The group was sold at a deep
discount (about $500 million) to sales volume after a number of break
even years followed the disastrous strategy. So those corporate
officers can *never* recoup what they have lost for the stockholders
of the corporation. It's lost for good.


even though certainly it isn't clear it has had
the desired effect for the type of folks who tend to congregate here.
What it will do for their overall market share, etc., is still to be
determined.

What do you mean by that?

I mean what percentage of the overall share of the market will be theirs
10, 20, ?? years from now? There are more folks here on a percentage
basis that buy higher-end than the overall market I think simply owing
to the nature of the group. Otoh, it appears to me the purpose of new
strategy is to try to make inroads towards the broader segments. That,
as I said before, isn't what _I_ would have wanted, but it seems where
they're going. They may drive the car completely in the ditch, too, I
don't know...

Again, I wish many things were the way they used to be, including
casting foundry in McMinnville, but it's a different world...

--

On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 17:31:47 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:

... snip

I wasn't in the boardroom, were you?

No, I was a vice president, a company officer fully exposed to all
financial data specific to the company in all segments. The group and
corporate financial information was available to anyone who asked for
an annual report. There is nothing "secret" that happened in the
boardroom that would negate the actual financial results of the
specific company or my operation. It is as I described and I'm
constrained by confidentiality agreements that outlive my employment
from going into any more detail than that although they don't mean
much at this point.

It's good to hear from someone with a close perspective of the situation.

... snip

You don't know about the concept of present value do you. At this
point in history, the chances of it turning out with the desired
overall end effect financially are zero. The group was sold at a deep
discount (about $500 million) to sales volume after a number of break
even years followed the disastrous strategy. So those corporate
officers can *never* recoup what they have lost for the stockholders
of the corporation. It's lost for good.


Did the off-shoring decision occur before or after Pentair sold Delta?


Before. Pentair only starting looking for a buyer after the strategy
went very, very bad. The Tool Group, the most profitable part of
Pentairs business throughout my tenure, went south in a hurry. Stock
dropped to about half its pre consolidation/globalization level losing
about a billion bucks of shareholder value.

Public record. Annual reports. Glossy words, but you can't hide the
numbers. Also Fortune wrote an article about the disaster, 2000 or
2001. It was very accurate except for the parts that indicated the
"current Corporate management had a handle on the fix".

Frank

On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 19:38:51 -0600, dpb wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 15:35:15 -0600, dpb wrote:



Again, I wish many things were the way they used to be, including
casting foundry in McMinnville, but it's a different world...


Why on earth......

Frank

On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 18:56:15 -0500, "Bonehenge (B A R R Y)"
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 15:51:34 -0600, Frank Boettcher
wrote:


Yep, isn't that delightful. As one who has always changed oil myself,
I really like that. I did have to learn (the hard way) that the
"catch"tray around the filter will not actually hold the entire
contents of the filter ( I would have bet good money it would) and
that one should pull the drain plug and place a container beneath
first, but after that lesson, I'm happy.


Do you use Toyota filters?

No, this last change I used an premium aftermarket filter.

I use the OEM filters, ($4.22/ea. if I buy 2 at the dealer, free plug
washers included...) and by the time I get the truck up on my ramps
and drain the oil, the filter is nearly empty.

Or, do you pull the filter before draining the pan?

Nope, drained the pan first.

Maybe aftermarket filters have some sort of check valve, which isn't
necessary due to the location of the filter in relation to the
lubricated parts?

Not a big deal, put a container under the catch tray drain. Took one
change to learn that.

But it's nice to be able to stand up and see what you're doing. I
change my sons filter strictly by feel.

Frank

"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
...

But it's nice to be able to stand up and see what you're doing. I
change my sons filter strictly by feel.

LOL Or as in my wife's old Acura, feel and burn, jump and bang your
knuckles.


Frank

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:44:51 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:


"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
.. .

But it's nice to be able to stand up and see what you're doing. I
change my sons filter strictly by feel.

LOL Or as in my wife's old Acura, feel and burn, jump and bang your
knuckles.


Transverse engine, back side of block, up in a pocket? I've never
actually seen that spot, just always hope I got the seat clean before
putting the new filter on.

Frank