02-21-2012, 03:10 AM | #67 |
Private
13
Rep 78
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-21-2012, 04:06 AM | #68 | |
Lieutenant Colonel
53
Rep 1,544
Posts |
Quote:
As I said b4, Sinopec/PetroChina's fuel that are sold in HK come from the same refinery (& refined to the same standard) as the big 3, only the additives are different (i.e. less advanced). So if u buy the cheapest brand it is still RON98 & EU-compliant in terms of Sulpur levels. Therefore Sinopec/PetroChina in HK doesn't equal to Sinopec/PetroChina in PRC. For me I use Esso as I have discount from them which matches wht Sinopec gives, plus I only use the cheap version anyway. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-21-2012, 04:07 AM | #69 |
Lieutenant Colonel
53
Rep 1,544
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-21-2012, 04:37 AM | #70 | |
Private
13
Rep 78
Posts |
Quote:
Back to original topic, then counter argument would be if Sinopec adopts the same standard for HK, I don't see low quality fuel issue you mentioned earlier. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-21-2012, 04:40 AM | #71 | |
Private
13
Rep 78
Posts |
Quote:
Well, I guess HK does not need to worry about this given its social-political stance. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-21-2012, 05:42 AM | #72 | |
Lieutenant Colonel
53
Rep 1,544
Posts |
Quote:
The fuel quality issues I mentioned earlier only applies if Sinopec or PetroChina dominates the whole market instead of the Western guys. U must remember the LPG taxi stalling fiasco which happened earlier........... |
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-21-2012, 05:45 AM | #73 |
Lieutenant Colonel
53
Rep 1,544
Posts |
No, I don't worry, cos petrol does not have such strategic value in HK when compared with, say, telecommunications. Besides, HK is an open economy & there are no laws stipulating ownership in most industries (save perhaps the media).
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-21-2012, 06:25 AM | #74 | |
Private
13
Rep 78
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-21-2012, 09:59 PM | #75 |
Lieutenant
40
Rep 423
Posts |
I don't disagree. But my point was that the Japanese non-premium brands were able to establish well in HK historically, so there was little reason why the American brands could'nt do the same, except for a lack of market interest. Or perhaps an admission that the US vehicles just aren't competitive internationally until quite recently.
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-21-2012, 11:24 PM | #76 | |
Lieutenant Colonel
53
Rep 1,544
Posts |
Quote:
1.) lack of suitable products during the growth phase of the HK market. just look at wht GM offered during the 70's/80's/90's. 2.) lack of rhd products. together with point 1.), that's the reason behind Ford selling UK/German cars in hk. 3.) market positioning & pricing. jap brands are very clear, mass market products that are cheaper than the equivalent Ford/VW/Opel/Fiat etc. 4.) quality & reliability. can they match the japanese?? 5.) marketing clout. Crown Motors handled Toyota since 1966 in HK, & their parent Inchcape is the largest car distributor in the world (as well as for Toyota themselves). u've already answered the question, GM/Ford/Chrysler/AMC Jeep etc. were concentrating wholly on their domestic market (it was enough to feed them) & became complacent due to their dominance. their woes extend up to a few yrs ago when they were forced to change. if u talk abt competitiveness of US cars then they are uncompetitive since the muscle car era, & their new found competitiveness are in a very large part due to engineering talent from their European & Asian arms. for the HK market, many brands (inlcuding US brands) have come & gone, those that are standing today were here in the 60's & 70's. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
|
|