frozen swing arm bolt -- part 2

[Ben]

so i was browsing the kawasaki sight the other day see this klv1000... dropped kawasaki usa a note asking if it was comming to usa.. and they told me ... 2004 season is not over and no new models will be added till 2005. anyone here hear of it.. got any news.. as another post of mine indicated.. i am looking to go multi piston. they did say they would send marketing my input. so if you are interested.. get to kawasaki.com and hit the contact us link on the bottom and drop them a line. here's a link to the english klv1000 page. http://www.kawasaki.co.uk/product.asp?Id=B63F541662

[Alan L Henderson]

BEN wrote:

> > so i was browsing the kawasaki sight the other day see this klv1000... dropped kawasaki > usa a note asking if it was comming to usa.. and they told me ... 2004 season is not over > and no new models will be added till 2005.

Can you say rebadged Suzuki? Alan A13 Ia

[Ben]

how could 2 unrelated companies that sell in the same market do a rebadge job? wierd. well kawasaki takes a better approach at the painting by far..

[John Kokola]

http://www.motorcycledaily.com/30aug01suzukiandkawasakijv.html http://www.motorcyclenewswire.com/news.cfm?newsid=1886 --John Kokola

> -----Original Message----- > From: BEN [mailto:pr0fess0r_frink@...] > > how could 2 unrelated companies that sell in the same market do > a rebadge job?

[Eric L. Green]

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004, BEN wrote:

> how could 2 unrelated companies that sell in the same market do a > rebadge job? wierd.

Kawasaki and Suzuki have entered a remarketing agreement due to Suzuki's desire to focus on its car business and Kawasaki's desire to do something about its sagging market share and weak technology in various important areas. Part of the agreement is that Kawasaki gets to cherry-pick Suzuki's parts bin and rebadge Suzuki motorcycles as Kawasaki motorcycles in order to compensate for the, err, distinct lack of innovation on the part of Kawaski lately when it comes to putting high technology on its new bikes. Thus DRZ400=KLX400, DR1000=KLV1000, and undoubtedly more in the future. Suzuki is in turn remarketing some of Kawasaki's big cruisers and ATV's, markets which Suzuki is weak in. Yes, it is a bizarre agreement. I think that only two Japanese motorcycle companies under pressure from the Japanese government to remain solvent could have entered into such an agreement, which appears to be aimed at propping up Kawasaki, which is at the moment the weakest Japanese motorcycle company with the least technology in its basket of technologies. The Japanese do business on a different basis than we do here in America, they are aimed as much at maintaining Japan's industrial and employment base as at making profits. Given Japan's aging population, though, it's unclear how long they'll be able to do this. Japan is facing a demographic implosion in the future due to a birth rate below the replacement rate, and, due to widespread racism in Japan towards anybody who is not racially Japanese, cannot rely on immigration to handle the problem of maintaining sufficient workforce to keep the economy going the way that the Western Europeans and the United States are doing. Racism worked as a short term mechanism for uniting the Japanese people before, during, and after WWII (and explains their treatment of Chinese, Koreans, and Filipinos during the war), but it is unclear whether, as a long term strategy for national survival, it is one that can work. -E

[James]

But they are related! They merged forces recently. Cheaper for them to do it that way. Jim

----- Original Message ----- From: "BEN" To: DSN_klr650@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2004 5:21 PM Subject: [DSN_klr650] Re: nklr Kawasaki KLV1000 > > > how could 2 unrelated companies that sell in the same market do a rebadge job? > wierd. > well kawasaki takes a better approach at the painting by far.. > > > > > > > List sponsored by Dual Sport News at www.dualsportnews.com. List FAQ courtesy of Chris Krok at: www.bigcee.com/klr650faq.html > Unsubscribe by sending a blank message to: > DSN_klr650-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com . > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > >

[Randy Shultz]

--- In DSN_klr650@yahoogroups.com, "Eric L. Green" wrote:

> On Sun, 24 Oct 2004, BEN wrote: > Yes, it is a bizarre agreement. I think that only two Japanese

motorcycle

> companies under pressure from the Japanese government to remain

solvent

> could have entered into such an agreement, which appears to be

aimed at

> propping up Kawasaki, which is at the moment the weakest Japanese > motorcycle company with the least technology in its basket of > technologies.

Kawasaki is not just a motorcycle company. The motorcycle division is just a small part of Kawasaki Heavy Industries. KHI makes everything from locomotives to jet engines, satellites, construction equipment, ships, and submarines. Joint agreements like this aren't bizarre at all. American car companies do this with foreign companies fairly regularly. When you don't want to invest capital in filling out your product line, but want to take advantage of your existing delare/service network, this is one way to do it. You re-badge someone elses product, and give your dealers something else to sell. Make a little profit re- selling an existing product without having to invest capital in research and development. Randy

[Eric L. Green]

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004, Randy Shultz wrote:

> --- In DSN_klr650@yahoogroups.com, "Eric L. Green" > wrote: > > On Sun, 24 Oct 2004, BEN wrote: > > > Yes, it is a bizarre agreement. I think that only two Japanese > motorcycle > > companies under pressure from the Japanese government to remain > solvent > > could have entered into such an agreement, which appears to be > Joint agreements like this aren't bizarre at all. American car > companies do this with foreign companies fairly regularly. When you

Not exactly. I've never seen two American auto companies enter into a marketing agreement like this. I don't think it'd be possible even if we were in the situation where we were in the mid 1970's, where there were four American car companies (AMC, Chrysler, GM, Ford). If, say, AMC and Chrysler (the two weakest car companies at the time) had entered into a joint development agreement where, say, Chrysler provided their car and truck products to AMC in exchange for AMC allowing them to market Jeep products rebadged as Dodge products, you would have heard screaming from the lawyers from the other two car companies almost immediately about "anti-competitive activities" and "anti-trust" and what have you. Where American companies DO make such deals with foreign car companies, it is generally in exchange for an ownership share. For example, General Motors owns Volvo and owns a sizable portion of Subaru (Fuji Heavy Industries, rather). So they have no problem doing cross marketing there, selling rebadged Subarus as Volvos, etc. General Motors sold rebadged Toyota Corollas for many years as the Geo/Chevy Prizm, but that was in exchange for ownership share in Toyota's Fremont auto plant (which had been a GM auto plant that was being closed, but which was essentially sold to Toyota for producing the Corolla) so that GM could steal Toyota's production technologies legally. Similarly, GM markets some Suzuki automotive products, but they also have a sizable ownership stake in Suzuki. Similarly, Chrysler in the past marketed a number of Mitsubishi products, but in turn had an ownership share in Mitsubishi. (This relationship seems to have fallen onto hard times since the Germans took over Chrysler, though... the Germans seem even more resistant to joint ventures than the Americans, though Porsche and VW have had some joint ventures in the past, such as the 914 being powered by a VW motor, and of course the joint Porsche/VW SUV). A straight rebadging agreement like the one between Kawasaki and Suzuki, without any kind of ownership share... the only similar agreement I can think of in recent times is the one between Porsche and VW for their SUV, and that's limited to a single product with no guarantee of any future cooperation. I truly believe that, from a cultural point of view if not from a legal point of view, the Kawasaki/Suzuki relationship is uniquely Japanese, and could not recur anywhere else. Finally, regarding Kawasaki's other businesses: They would not have stopped Kawasaki from shutting down its motorcycle division if sales had continued to sag, any more than Fuji Heavy Industry's other businesses would have stopped them from shutting down the Subaru car business if sales had continued to sag. The Japanese government set up a joint agreement between Subaru and Nissan whereby Subaru could dip into the Nissan parts bin (the mirrors on a Subaru I owned in the late 90's was made by Nissan -- said so on the bottom -- and undoubtedly other parts were also), then set up the agreement with GM to gain access to the GM parts bin as well as investment by GM to solve their cash flow problems. Add in some quirky ads starring Paul Hogan and Martina Navaratalova, and you end up with a resurgence in sales and rebadged Subarus being sold as Volvos. The Japanese government is reluctant to let *any* industrial subsidiaries fail, no matter how small a part of the parent company's business, and the Kawasaki/Suzuki deal bears all the handprints of Japanese governmental interference -- especially when you consider that for a while Suzuki was seriously thinking about getting out of the motorcycle business to concentrate on cars. -E

[Randy Shultz]

This stuff goes on all the time in many industries. Even in the motorcycle sector, the Kawaski/Suzuki arrangement is not unique. Aprilia and Piaggio did one too, and their release noted that it was common in the auto industry as well. Ain't no big deal. Isn't unique to Japanese companies. Just good business. Your reasoning about saving Japanese jobs doesn't make any sense to me anyway. Re-badging doesn't save any manufacturing jobs. All it does is save R&D expense. Reduces risk of new product introductions. Randy --- In DSN_klr650@yahoogroups.com, "Eric L. Green" wrote:

> On Mon, 25 Oct 2004, Randy Shultz wrote: > > --- In DSN_klr650@yahoogroups.com, "Eric L. Green"

> > wrote: > > > On Sun, 24 Oct 2004, BEN wrote: > > > > > Yes, it is a bizarre agreement. I think that only two Japanese > > motorcycle > > > companies under pressure from the Japanese government to remain > > solvent > > > could have entered into such an agreement, which appears to be > > > Joint agreements like this aren't bizarre at all. American car > > companies do this with foreign companies fairly regularly. When

you

> > Not exactly. I've never seen two American auto companies enter into

a

> marketing agreement like this. I don't think it'd be possible even

if we

> were in the situation where we were in the mid 1970's, where there

were

> four American car companies (AMC, Chrysler, GM, Ford). If, say, AMC

and

> Chrysler (the two weakest car companies at the time) had entered

into a

> joint development agreement where, say, Chrysler provided their car

and

> truck products to AMC in exchange for AMC allowing them to market

Jeep

> products rebadged as Dodge products, you would have heard screaming

from

> the lawyers from the other two car companies almost immediately

about

> "anti-competitive activities" and "anti-trust" and what have you. > > Where American companies DO make such deals with foreign car

companies, it

> is generally in exchange for an ownership share. For example,

General

> Motors owns Volvo and owns a sizable portion of Subaru (Fuji Heavy > Industries, rather). So they have no problem doing cross marketing

there,

> selling rebadged Subarus as Volvos, etc. General Motors sold

rebadged

> Toyota Corollas for many years as the Geo/Chevy Prizm, but that was

in

> exchange for ownership share in Toyota's Fremont auto plant (which

had

> been a GM auto plant that was being closed, but which was

essentially sold

> to Toyota for producing the Corolla) so that GM could steal Toyota's > production technologies legally. Similarly, GM markets some Suzuki > automotive products, but they also have a sizable ownership stake in > Suzuki. Similarly, Chrysler in the past marketed a number of

Mitsubishi

> products, but in turn had an ownership share in Mitsubishi. (This > relationship seems to have fallen onto hard times since the Germans

took

> over Chrysler, though... the Germans seem even more resistant to

joint

> ventures than the Americans, though Porsche and VW have had some

joint

> ventures in the past, such as the 914 being powered by a VW motor,

and of

> course the joint Porsche/VW SUV). > > A straight rebadging agreement like the one between Kawasaki and

Suzuki,

> without any kind of ownership share... the only similar agreement I

can

> think of in recent times is the one between Porsche and VW for

their SUV,

> and that's limited to a single product with no guarantee of any

future

> cooperation. I truly believe that, from a cultural point of view if

not

> from a legal point of view, the Kawasaki/Suzuki relationship is

uniquely

> Japanese, and could not recur anywhere else. > > Finally, regarding Kawasaki's other businesses: They would not have > stopped Kawasaki from shutting down its motorcycle division if

sales had

> continued to sag, any more than Fuji Heavy Industry's other

businesses

> would have stopped them from shutting down the Subaru car business

if

> sales had continued to sag. The Japanese government set up a joint > agreement between Subaru and Nissan whereby Subaru could dip into

the

> Nissan parts bin (the mirrors on a Subaru I owned in the late 90's

was

> made by Nissan -- said so on the bottom -- and undoubtedly other

parts

> were also), then set up the agreement with GM to gain access to the

GM

> parts bin as well as investment by GM to solve their cash flow

problems.

> Add in some quirky ads starring Paul Hogan and Martina

Navaratalova, and

> you end up with a resurgence in sales and rebadged Subarus being

sold as

> Volvos. The Japanese government is reluctant to let *any* industrial > subsidiaries fail, no matter how small a part of the parent

company's

> business, and the Kawasaki/Suzuki deal bears all the handprints of > Japanese governmental interference -- especially when you consider

that

> for a while Suzuki was seriously thinking about getting out of the > motorcycle business to concentrate on cars. > > -E

[James]

I had a Dodge Omni 1981 that had a VW 1.8 and a 5 speed in it. Ran terrific. Unibody rusted away. My brother had a Dodge Caravan that had the Mitsubishi 2.6. Got it for 5.00 at a dealership that had one of those tag sales. If you picked the right tag, you got a car for 5.00!. The carbs in those though were junk. What is the oddest combination you have seen/owned/heard of? Jim

----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric L. Green" To: "Randy Shultz" Cc: DSN_klr650@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2004 11:56 PM Subject: Re: [DSN_klr650] Re: nklr Kawasaki KLV1000 > > On Mon, 25 Oct 2004, Randy Shultz wrote: > > --- In DSN_klr650@yahoogroups.com, "Eric L. Green" > > wrote: > > > On Sun, 24 Oct 2004, BEN wrote: > > > > > Yes, it is a bizarre agreement. I think that only two Japanese > > motorcycle > > > companies under pressure from the Japanese government to remain > > solvent > > > could have entered into such an agreement, which appears to be > > > Joint agreements like this aren't bizarre at all. American car > > companies do this with foreign companies fairly regularly. When you > > Not exactly. I've never seen two American auto companies enter into a > marketing agreement like this. I don't think it'd be possible even if we > were in the situation where we were in the mid 1970's, where there were > four American car companies (AMC, Chrysler, GM, Ford). If, say, AMC and > Chrysler (the two weakest car companies at the time) had entered into a > joint development agreement where, say, Chrysler provided their car and > truck products to AMC in exchange for AMC allowing them to market Jeep > products rebadged as Dodge products, you would have heard screaming from > the lawyers from the other two car companies almost immediately about > "anti-competitive activities" and "anti-trust" and what have you. > > Where American companies DO make such deals with foreign car companies, it > is generally in exchange for an ownership share. For example, General > Motors owns Volvo and owns a sizable portion of Subaru (Fuji Heavy > Industries, rather). So they have no problem doing cross marketing there, > selling rebadged Subarus as Volvos, etc. General Motors sold rebadged > Toyota Corollas for many years as the Geo/Chevy Prizm, but that was in > exchange for ownership share in Toyota's Fremont auto plant (which had > been a GM auto plant that was being closed, but which was essentially sold > to Toyota for producing the Corolla) so that GM could steal Toyota's > production technologies legally. Similarly, GM markets some Suzuki > automotive products, but they also have a sizable ownership stake in > Suzuki. Similarly, Chrysler in the past marketed a number of Mitsubishi > products, but in turn had an ownership share in Mitsubishi. (This > relationship seems to have fallen onto hard times since the Germans took > over Chrysler, though... the Germans seem even more resistant to joint > ventures than the Americans, though Porsche and VW have had some joint > ventures in the past, such as the 914 being powered by a VW motor, and of > course the joint Porsche/VW SUV). > > A straight rebadging agreement like the one between Kawasaki and Suzuki, > without any kind of ownership share... the only similar agreement I can > think of in recent times is the one between Porsche and VW for their SUV, > and that's limited to a single product with no guarantee of any future > cooperation. I truly believe that, from a cultural point of view if not > from a legal point of view, the Kawasaki/Suzuki relationship is uniquely > Japanese, and could not recur anywhere else. > > Finally, regarding Kawasaki's other businesses: They would not have > stopped Kawasaki from shutting down its motorcycle division if sales had > continued to sag, any more than Fuji Heavy Industry's other businesses > would have stopped them from shutting down the Subaru car business if > sales had continued to sag. The Japanese government set up a joint > agreement between Subaru and Nissan whereby Subaru could dip into the > Nissan parts bin (the mirrors on a Subaru I owned in the late 90's was > made by Nissan -- said so on the bottom -- and undoubtedly other parts > were also), then set up the agreement with GM to gain access to the GM > parts bin as well as investment by GM to solve their cash flow problems. > Add in some quirky ads starring Paul Hogan and Martina Navaratalova, and > you end up with a resurgence in sales and rebadged Subarus being sold as > Volvos. The Japanese government is reluctant to let *any* industrial > subsidiaries fail, no matter how small a part of the parent company's > business, and the Kawasaki/Suzuki deal bears all the handprints of > Japanese governmental interference -- especially when you consider that > for a while Suzuki was seriously thinking about getting out of the > motorcycle business to concentrate on cars. > > -E > > > List sponsored by Dual Sport News at www.dualsportnews.com. List FAQ courtesy of Chris Krok at: www.bigcee.com/klr650faq.html > Unsubscribe by sending a blank message to: > DSN_klr650-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com . > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > >