• Jan 3, 2006
So, Iran looks to be one of the Next Big Things for automakers in their chase to find lower cost manufacturing, but it's clear that the country's auto industry has much bigger aspirations than serving as China's slave labor. Iran already imports "knockdown kits" from Asia, but in an attempt to fully mature its auto industry, the country continues to work towards the manufacture of its own engine.
Make no mistake, though - exporting parts will still be a large part of what the country does. Iran's export of automotive components is expected to top $300M in 2006 (a healthy 67% increase over the '05 levels), and sales of $1B/year are in the country's five-year plan. It should be interesting to see if any of these parts make it to the West, and if so, how well they are received.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 19 Comments
      • 9 Years Ago
      "I am glad to see that some wonderfully intelligent people read and comment on this blog."

      Touch鬠jackass.
      • 9 Years Ago
      Here is an interesting quote from an article in today's Opinion Journal (Wall Street Journal) by Mary Anastasia O'Grady that at least shows monetary benefits to "free" nations versus "repressed" and everything inbetween. More important should be the thought that in "free" countries, we normally don't have to worry about the secret police coming for us in the middle of the night, as the Stazi (East German Secret Police) did as recently as 20 years ago, for one example. Here's the quote:

      The 2006 Index of Economic Freedom, published today by the Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal, provides powerful clues. The annual report surveys 157 countries, grading property rights protection, the regulatory environment, tax rates, fiscal policy, government intervention in the economy, monetary policy, black markets and trade policy, assigning each a numerical rating. Each country falls into one of four categories: "free," "mostly free," "mostly unfree" and "repressed." This year's results are here.

      As they do every year, the index authors observe the average per capita income of countries in each category. Not surprisingly, over the years, they have found a strong relationship between economic freedom and prosperity. Yet there is something more that can be observed in this pattern: Countries that liberalize quickly and thoroughly achieve resounding successes, politically and economically. Conversely, gradualism risks stagnation and even reversals, because the benefits are not evident enough to impress the electorate and generate a momentum in their favor.

      Take, for example, the difference between the wealth of "repressed" economies and "mostly unfree" economies. The per capita GDP of the former is $4,239 while of the latter it is a tad lower at $4,058. This suggests that reforms that move a country one step up in economic liberty, on average, produce no material benefit to the population.

      The jump from "mostly unfree" to "mostly free" yields a much better return but still leaves a country not particularly well-off. "Mostly free" countries have a per capita GDP of $13,530, while "free" countries have, on average, a per capita GDP of over $30,000.
      • 9 Years Ago
      I am glad to see that some wonderfully intelligent people read and comment on this blog. I am even more pleased to see that what they say is so relevant and makes so much sense.

      Surely, in Iran - a country of 68 million people - only one person is capable of making everything from automobile engines to nuclear power stations (just like only 4 people in the USA - with its population of 296 million people - make everything). So it's rather odd that the one person who makes everything in Iran has decided to concentrate more on the nuclear facilities and less on 4-cylinder internal combustion engines. Surely, they didn't really believe all the threatening words that the West sends Iran on a daily basis. Surely, they don't feel threatened by the US military pretty much surrounding Iran by invading Afghanistan and Iraq without either country declaring war on the US or the US declaring war on them. Surely, they're not upset by the US President including Iran in an "Axis of Evil" just after they helped the US defeat the Taleban in Afghanistan. Surely, they don't want to be able to retaliate if one of the nuclear ICBMS the US is pointing at Iran (a country without nuclear weapons) ends up landing in Iran.

      Let us take note that these most learned of all people, who have given us their precious time and knowledge (e.g. about the B52 and AGM129), have hinted to us that it is more than accurate to say that 100% of the people of a country like Iran are just like their president, a talent-less and mad religious fundamentalist with a messianic sense of purpose. If one thinks about this for a moment, it explains why 100% of the US population are just like George W. Bush (right?), a talent-less and mad religious fundamentalist with a messianic sense of purpose.

      I think, somewhere on this page, someone said something about the Iranian car industry wanting to make engines rather than buy them from abroad. I don't know who it was, but come on. Put something relevant on this blog. It's called The Political and Military Debate Blog for Morons with No Knowledge or Understanding of History, Geography, Politics, and Death and Destruction. Post some relevant stories on this blog dammit. What the hell do you think it's called? Autoblog?

      Forgive my awfully simple and insignificant statement, oh great minds of the Universe, but I'd like to mention a possible theory that the speed at which a person judges things and the relevance of their comments are proportional to the reciprocal of the sum of the size of their knowledge and their level of intelligence. Try to avoid undergoing a cerebral melt-down while you attempt to understand the former statement, morons.
      • 9 Years Ago

      Dear Mr. MyName,

      As one of our intrepid figures in US history proclaimed to his opponent 61 years ago Dec 22nd and I now say to you and Mr. Ahmadinejad; "NUTS!".

      May the good people of Iran find peace, prosperity and democracy in their lifetime.
      • 9 Years Ago
      Actually #8 the first nuclear B-52 was deployed in February 1955

      It's service life is projected out to 2040. How's that for service life? That's 84 years of service if it goes that long.

      Of course Paul, would say the Oriental management system could have done better. To which we should all tell Paul.

      "Watch for the flash, duck and cover, kiss your lame ass goodbye."



      • 9 Years Ago
      as an iranian i'm so proud to see ur sopport over my country ... it's sure there r lots of problems but if u go back and look at ur own country u'll see that under its skin ... same stuff r layin' ... great information about my country's auto industry ... and in addition in 2006-2010 the all new L90 a $1Bil. foreign/local joint project is expected to produce and export over 300,000 units of L90 to EU ... with price of only ERO5000 per unit ... this is gonna be one of the cheapest cars for EU members. (especially the for the new 10 members of EU)!

      take a look at www.ikco.com
      now u can call 911
      • 9 Years Ago
      Perhaps after the Iranians attempt to wipe out both Israel AND the US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, we'll be sending them multiple nuclear ICBMs as a little parting gift, Edsel. Or is that what an AGM-129 is?

      I distinctly recall one of the freed American hostages coming home in early 1980 who was asked by the assinine moronic mainstream media pundit "would you ever go back to Iran?" and he replied "sure - in a
      B-52".

      For those of you not in the know, a B-52 was (since 1958) and still is an active-duty US Air Force bomber capable of carrying multiple nuclear bombs, cruise missiles (with conventional or nuclear warheads), bunker-buster as well as "conventional" bombs. Plus now we have other more modern bombers too, some of which are essentially invisible to radar.
      • 9 Years Ago
      Paul,

      Get your head out of your ass and read:

      Notes from Toyota Land

      By Darius Mehri an American engineer who worked for Toyota.

      It's an eye opener pal.

      • 9 Years Ago
      LOL

      The kind of engine Iran would build would likely have to get 3 mpg and require 15 quarts of oil a month to be financially viable for its gregarious oil industry.

      Maybe they should check into some old GM "OHV" rejects or Mazda rotary technology.
      • 9 Years Ago
      See www.townhall.com and look for an article written by Thomas Sowell called "Serious or Suicide" which pretty well describes the conundrum that Western Civilization finds itself vis-a-vis Iran.

      Apparently it is easier to build nuclear bombs than a good four cylinder engine. Certainly easier when you have help from Germany, Russia, France, North Korea, Pakistan and others, anyway.
      • 9 Years Ago
      What a freaking joke. Two of the biggest jokes converging on one thread: Iranian auto industry and Paul. Now I've seen everything. Now excuse me while I prepare for prayer facing Mecca.
      • 9 Years Ago
      So, does this mean it's easier for a country to build a nuclear weapon than a decent 4 cylinder engine???
    • Load More Comments