UPDATE: Supportthebigthree.com Run by Toyota Supplier

Robert Farago
by Robert Farago

After our post on the “ 1000-DAY BIG THREE PLAN” to save the domestic automakers, TTAC commentators have been wondering about the man behind the website supportthebigthree.com. I’ve just got off the blower with site founder Sid Taylor who, it turns out, is the CEO of an automotive supplier named Set Enterprises. Scanning the site, it turns out the campaigner who would have Americans buy only Chrysler, Ford and GM products has a contract with Toyota. When asked about the apparent contradiction, Mr. Turner said the money involved is so small as to render the contract meaningless. “If I didn’t have Toyota it wouldn’t have any impact on my business.” Besides . . .

“Minority owned suppliers have trouble getting business from Toyota,” the former president of the National Association of Black Automotive Suppliers (NABAS) insists. Not to go too far off-topic, but is Mr. Taylor suggesting that Toyota is racist? “The numbers speak for themselves,” Taylor says. “You can draw your own conclusions.” Not to mention the fact that when it comes to supporting inner city causes, Taylor says “Toyota’s non-existent.”

OK, well, that’s that then. Back to the America first deal . . .

I asked Taylor about another contradiction: supporting American automakers who build cars abroad using foreign workers while eschewing cars built by foreign automakers in America using American workers. “You’ve got to ask yourself a simple question: where do the profits go?”

When I pointed out that the domestics haven’t made any profits for quite some time, Taylor blamed the American consumers, southern tax subsidies, foreign automotive import quotas and government fuel economy regulations for creating an “unfair playing field” that allowed foreign automakers to “build-up an excess war chest.”

So, nothing new there, then.

Taylor also answered the question that’s been vexing me since gamper sent me the link to his site. “When exactly did the thousand days start?” I asked. “January first,” Taylor revealed. Which means we only have 788 days to go before we learn whether Taylor’s campaign can save Chrysler, Ford and GM. Needless to say, we’ll keep you posted.

Robert Farago
Robert Farago

More by Robert Farago

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 45 comments
  • Eastaboga Eastaboga on Aug 13, 2009

    Paperpusher Eastaboga, I respect your perspectives and the points you have made above are correct, but I think Taylor’s point is that while the Toyota’s of the world attempt to “appear” to be committed to the MBE community, and to the “American worker” in general, their support is superficial. Is what they do within the rules, absolutely. Can we blame them for doing what is within the rules, nope. But, I can assure you that Ford, Chrysler & GM do not take an equity position in their MBE suppliers (except maybe in a distressed situation and they feel that must)because as you point out, the idea is give them an opportunity to become a successful supplier. And I think, whether or not you agree with Taylor’s point of view, its his perogative to complain when he can’t get sourced business because he’s not willing to sell an equity position to them. I hope you agree, while fully within the rules, that’s not the spirit of the MBE programs. If Toyota made an initial investment to incubate the business then divest once the business can stand on its own, that would be pretty cool, but that’s not what they do. I can agree with that, the rules should probably be tweaked to require that equity position to be bought out by outside investors over time. I also appreciate the constructive dialogue. I encourage everyone who's spent the time to comment on this to actually do a little research on it. It's a fascinating auto supplier industry sector and an example of private industry engaged in social policy. I would say, only to those speaking in soundbites, that an MBE must be a great supplier first and foremost, if not then they should not be awarded business by any OEM. For any such program to work, the results have to be mutually beneficial. OEM's actually do a fair amount of charity work, but this is not charity.

  • Loverofcars1969 Loverofcars1969 on Aug 13, 2009

    Cole Trickle : August 12th, 2009 at 5:53 pm Sweet ’stache, though. I think we can all agree on that. LOL I was thinking the same thing but didnt wanna be first to say it. Nice suit as well.

  • Turbo Is Black Magic My wife had one of these back in 06, did a ton of work to it… supercharger, full exhaust, full suspension.. it was a blast to drive even though it was still hilariously slow. Great for drive in nights, open the hatch fold the seats flat and just relax.Also this thing is a great example of how far we have come in crash safety even since just 2005… go look at these old crash tests now and I cringe at what a modern electric tank would do to this thing.
  • MaintenanceCosts Whenever the topic of the xB comes up…Me: "The style is fun. The combination of the box shape and the aggressive detailing is very JDM."Wife: "Those are ghetto."Me: "They're smaller than a Corolla outside and have the space of a RAV4 inside."Wife: "Those are ghetto."Me: "They're kind of fun to drive with a stick."Wife: "Those are ghetto."It's one of a few cars (including its fellow box, the Ford Flex) on which we will just never see eye to eye.
  • Oberkanone The alternative is a more expensive SUV. Yes, it will be missed.
  • Ajla I did like this one.
  • Zerofoo No, I won't miss this Chevrolet Malibu. It's a completely forgettable car. Who in their right mind would choose this over a V8 powered charger at the rental counter? Even the V6 charger is a far better drive.
Next