Auto Industry Report 2011

Policy Research and Strategic Planning Office
A State Affiliate of the U.S. Census Bureau
The Ohio Motor Vehicle Industry

February 2011
John R. Kasich, Governor of Ohio

Mark Kvamme, Director, Ohio Department of Development
THE OHIO MOTOR VEHICLE INDUSTRY

FEBRUARY 2011
B401 Don Larrick, Principal Analyst

Policy Research and Strategic Planning, Ohio Department of Development
P.O. Box 1001, Columbus, Oh. 43216-1001
Production Support:
Steven Kelley, Editor
Robert Schmidley, GIS Specialist
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Executive Summary - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Description of Ohios Motor Vehicle Industry- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Motor Vehicle Industrys Impact on Ohios Economy- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ohios Strategic Position in Motor Vehicle Assembly - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Notable Motor Vehicle Industry Manufacturers in Ohio- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
10
Recent Expansion and Attraction Announcements- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
18
The Concentration of the Industry in Ohio: Gross Domestic Product and Value-Added- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
20
The Composition of Ohios Motor Vehicle Industry: Value-Added - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
22
Four-Year Summaries of Light Vehicle Production in Ohio- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
24
Tier-1 Parts Suppliers - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
28
The Composition of Ohios Motor Vehicle Industry Employment at the Plants- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
32
Industry Wages- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
34
The Distribution of Industry Establishments Across Ohio - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
36
The Distribution of Industry Employment Across Ohio - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
38
Foreign Investment in Ohio - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
39
Trends - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
42
Employment - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
44
Gross Domestic Product - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
46
Value-Added by Ohios Motor Vehicle Industry - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
48
Light Vehicle Production in Ohio and the U.S. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
50
Capital Expenditures for Ohios Motor Vehicle Industry - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
52
Establishments - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
54
U.S. Industry Analysis and Outlook - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
56
Balance of Trade Trends - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
58
Market Share Trends - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
62
Industry Operations and Recent Trends- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
64
Technologies for Production Processes and Vehicles - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
68
The Near and Longer Term Outlooks - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
74
Assembler Profiles - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
78
Fiat SpA/Chrysler LLC - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
80
Ford Motor Co.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
82
General Motors Co - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
84
ii
Honda Motor Co. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
86
Navistar International Corp. and PACCAR, Inc. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
88
Appendices - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
89
Detailed Tables
90
Table A1:
Table A2:
Table A3:
Table A4:
Table A5:
Table A6:
Table A7:
Table A8a:
Table A8b:
Table A9:
Table A10:
Table A11:
Table A12:
Table A13a:
Table A13b:
Table A14:
Notable Motor Vehicle Industry Manufacturers in Ohio, 2010- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Expansion and Attraction Announcements in Ohios Motor Vehicle Industry, 2006-2009
Value-Added in Ohios Motor Vehicle Industry, 2007- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Detailed Light Vehicle Production in Ohio, 2007-2010
Motor Vehicle Industry Establishments and Employment, Ohio and the U.S., 2008 - - - - Motor Vehicle Industry Employment and Pay, Ohio and the U.S., 2008
Establishments and Employment in Ohios Motor Vehicle Industry by County, 2008 - - - Motor Vehicle Industry Employment Trends in Ohio, 2000-2008
Motor Vehicle Industry Employment Trends in the U.S., 2000-2008- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Total and Motor Vehicle Industry Gross Domestic Product, Ohio and the U.S., 1997-2008
Trends in Value-Added by Group for Ohio and the U.S., 1997-2008- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Light Vehicle Production in Ohio and the U.S., 1990-2010
Trends in Capital Expenditures by Group for Ohio and the U.S., 1997-2008 - - - - - - - - - Motor Vehicle Industry Establishment Trends in Ohio, 2000-2008
Motor Vehicle Industry Establishment Trends in the U.S., 2000-2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Exports as a Percentage of Imports Motor Vehicles, Engines and Parts by Area and
Type, 1999-2009
Table A15a: U.S. Sales of Imported and Domestic Light Vehicles, 1990-2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Table A15b: Percentages of U.S. Sales of Imported and Domestic Light Vehicles, 1990-2009
Table A16: Projections of Motor Vehicle Industry Employment, Ohio and the U.S., 2008-2018- - - - - -
iii
91
98
101
104
105
107
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
120
121
123
125
NAICS Codes: Industry Definition and Examples - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
126
Glossary - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 130
Notes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
131
Sources and References Cited - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
136
iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Motor vehicle assembly and the related manufacture of bodies, trailers and parts amount to 2.7 percent of the states
economic activity. The addition of goods production and service provision supporting the motor vehicle industry bring
the cluster total to 7.5 percent of Ohios output according to the Minnesota IMPLAN Group.
Ohio ranked second in the nation in value-added in both assembly and parts operations during 2008.
Ohio is at the center of the motor vehicle industry 68.2 percent of N. American light vehicle production during 2010
was in Ohio or within 500 miles (805 kilometers) of its borders.
13 different models totaling over 1.1 million light vehicles came from Ohios six high-volume light vehicle plants during
2010 one-seventh of U.S. output. These include over 100,000 each of some of the nations best-sellers: Accords,
CR-Vs, Jeep Wranglers, and Econoline vans.
The three plants assembling cars made over 510,000 vehicles over one-sixth of U.S. output.
The five plants assembling light trucks made over 590,000 vehicles about one-eighth of U.S. output.
34 companies on Fortunes U.S. 1,000 or Global 500 lists have industry plants in Ohio; seven of these maintain world
headquarters here.
Honda is the largest motor vehicle industry manufacturer in Ohio with over 13,200 (including subsidiaries) employed in
manufacturing operations, followed by General Motors with 9,500, Ford at 5,900, and 3,300 at Chrysler; 10 more companies employ at least 1,000 people here.
Parts suppliers are smaller but numerous; the 348 tier-1 supplier establishments in Ohio are 9.8 percent of such establishments in N. America, ranking second to Michigan among the surrounding states and provinces.
72,000 people were employed at assembly and parts plants, according to the Ohio Dept. of Job and Family Services.
From November, 2009, to November, 2010, employment in the assembly plants rose from 13,300 to 19,700, while
employment at parts plants was unchanged at 56,000.
The greatest concentrations of industry employment in Ohio occur in metal stamping (21.6 percent of the U.S.) and
transmission and power train parts (15.1 percent).
1
The production of motor vehicles, bodies, trailers and parts is diffused across the state 80 counties have at least one
industry establishment. One-half of the jobs were located in 10 counties: Cuyahoga, Hancock, Logan, Lorain, Lucas,
Montgomery, Richland, Shelby, Trumbull, and Union counties.
Dozens of companies (or their subsidiaries) from 11 foreign nations employ over 41,000 people in assembly and parts
production in Ohio; 13 of them are on Fortunes Global 500 list.
Overall capital expenditures for the industry in Ohio were roughly proportional to value-added here during the 19972008 period, indicating that the industry maintains its presence here.
117 industry investment announcements by 93 companies during the 2006-2009 period totaling $2.68 billion were
recorded by the Ohio Department of Development.
The latest available data show that overall motor vehicle industry wages/salaries in Ohio almost $53,700 per year.
Sales and production of light vehicles as well as medium- and heavy-duty trucks are expected to be higher in the near
future as the nation recovers from the recession.
DESCRIPTION OF OHIOS MOTOR VEHICLE INDUSTRY
THE MOTOR VEHICLE INDUSTRYS IMPACT ON OHIOS ECONOMY

OHIOS MOTOR VEHICLE CLUSTER
Output
(Billions)
Value
1
Added
(Billions)
Motor vehicles (3361)

Motor vehicle parts (3363)
Other motor vehicle and related industries (3362, 3261, 335911)
Motor vehicle industry subtotal
3
As a percent of state economy total
$32.2
$29.4
$4.8
$66.4
6.8%
$4.2
$7.7
$0.9
$12.8
2.7%
26.7
82.7
10.6
120.0
1.8%
$3.1
$6.9
$0.7
$10.7
3.9%
Other manufacturing industries (31-33p)

Other goods production (11, 21, 23)
Supporting goods subtotal
3
$13.8
$0.5
$14.3
1.5%
$3.7
$0.2
$3.9
0.8%
37.4
4.1
41.5
0.6%
$2.9
$0.2
$3.1
1.1%
Goods-production subtotal
3
$80.7
8.2%
$16.7
3.5%
161.4
2.4%
$13.8
5.0%
Transportation, warehousing, information and utilities (48-49, 51, 22)

Wholesale and retail trade (42, 44-45)
All other private sector services
Government (92)
Service-providing subtotal
3
$4.4
$7.8
$18.6
$0.5
$31.3
3.2%
$2.3
$5.2
$10.9
$0.2
$18.6
3.9%
19.8
67.3
147.3
2.7
237.1
3.6%
$1.2
$3.1
$6.5
$0.2
$11.0
4.0%
Total motor vehicle cluster

3
$112.0
11.4%
$35.3
7.5%
398.5
6.0%
$24.8
8.9%
State economy total
$983.4
Industry (NAICS Codes)
$473.7
Employment
(Thousands)
6,615.1
Compensation
(Billions)
$277.5
Notes: 1 Values are based on 2008 economic data. Output values indicate of the volume of industry transactions. Value-added estimates approximate
the net contributions to economic output. 2 Includes the value of benefits as well as wages and salaries. 3 Parts may not sum to subtotals and subtotals may not sum to the cluster totals due to rounding error. Percentages also are subject to rounding error.
Source: Minnesota IMPLAN Group (model 3.0, 2010).
The Ohio motor vehicle industry directly employed almost 120,000 workers 1.8 percent of all employees in the state.
A broader view of the industrys role in the economy takes into account a cluster of industries supplying capital equipment, parts, materials and even facilities.
An estimated 37,400 workers in Ohio made goods incorporated into motor vehicles, bodies, trailers and parts, or
that were used in the process. Examples of the former include windshields and windows, springs, nuts, bolts, bearings, valves, electronic parts, paints and metal coatings, adhesives, and sealing devices. These were often made
of steel, aluminum, glass, rubber, plastics or other chemical products. Examples of the latter include capital equipment and paperboard products.
About 4,100 more non-manufacturing goods-producing jobs notably in construction depended on presence of
the motor vehicle industry here. Altogether, 161,400 goods-producing jobs in Ohio 2.4 percent of the total were
directly and indirectly related to motor vehicle production.
Additional industries outside of goods production are part of the motor vehicle cluster.
An estimated 237,100 3.6 percent of all workers were in service industries related to motor vehicles goods,
notably including (but not limited to) transportation, warehousing, wholesale and retail trade, financing and insurance, and repair.
In addition to a larger number of jobs, the net aggregate economic impact of motor vehicle-related service sector
jobs exceeds that of the goods-producing cluster: $18.6 vs. $16.7 billion in value added.
Combining the impact of the manufacturing and service clusters means that a total of six percent of all Ohio workers
398,500 of 6,615,100 were directly and indirectly depended on the motor vehicle industry cluster for their livelihood.
The net value added of the goods and services amounted to 7.5 percent of the economy (Minnesota IMPLAN Group,
2010).
CANADA
Light Vehicle Assembly

Plants in North America
Ford St. Paul
!
!!
Chrysler Belvidere
UNITED STATES
Ford Chicago!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
! !
!!
GM Ft. Wayne
GM Lordstown
Mitsubishi Normal !
Ford
Kansas City
!!
GM Fairfax
GM !
Wentzville
!
!
Subaru
Lafayette
! Honda
Toyota
Princeton
!
!
Toyota
!
Blue Springs
Toyota Tijuana
Daimler Vance !
GM Arlington !
Ford Hermosillo
GM !
Shreveport
Nissan
Canton
Toyota Georgetown
Nissan Smyrna
VW Chattanooga
!
Greensburg
Ford Kentucky Truck

Ford Louisville
GM Bowling Green
Honda East Liberty

Honda Marysville
BMW Greer
Honda Lincoln
! Kia West
! Hyundai
Montgomery
Daimler
Ladson
Point
0
100
200
300
Toyota
San Antonio
Chrysler
Brampton
Toyota
Cambridge
GM
Ramos Arizpe
Prepared by: Ohio Department of Development,

Policy Research and Strategic Planning (March 2011)
Honda !
El Salto
GM San
Luis Potosi
GM Silao
Chrysler Toluca
Ford
Cuautitlan
!
!
R020711A
!
!
Nissan
Jiutepec
VW
Puebla
600
Miles
Honda Alliston
MEXICO
Nissan
Aguascalientes
500
Chrysler Saltillo
400
GM Oshawa
Car
Ford Oakville
GM Flint
GM Lansing
Truck
Grand River
!
Delta Township
GM
Orion Chrysler
GM
Sterling
!
! !
Detroit/
Heights
!
Hamtramck
!!
Ford Wayne
!!
! !
Stamping & Assembly
!
Chrysler
Michigan Truck
Windsor
!
AutoAlliance
Flat Rock
Ford
Dearborn
Truck
!
Chrysler
Toledo North
Toledo Supplier Park
!
!
!
Toyota Woodstock
CAMI Ingersoll
Ford St. Thomas
Chrysler
Warren Truck
Conner Avenue
Chrysler
Jefferson North
0
!
Ford Avon Lake

!
20
40
60
80
Miles
N. American Light Vehicle Production in 2010:

69-Plant Total - 11,960,670
The 20 Highest-Volume Plants Are Listed Below
White: Cars
Black: Light Trucks
Gray: Both
500,000
450,000
436,555 434,771
400,000
371,694
Vehicles Produced
350,000
341,237 340,561
313,327 313,030 312,125 309,436 307,698
304,679 300,500
300,000
283,253 282,029 278,272 277,696

272,340 272,082
261,315
246,743
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
Company - Plant
Source: Automotive News
Williams
Engine Plant 1
Engine Plant 2
"
Toledo
Machining
Henry
Defiance
Van Wert
!
Mercer
Hancock
Lima
# Engine
Anna
Engine
Shelby
Clark
Preble
Sharonville
Transmission
Knox
Harrison
Coshocton
Guernsey
Detroit Diesel
Remanufacturing
Belmont
Muskingum
Noble
Perry
Pickaway
Morgan
Hocking
"
Chrysler
Ford
Monroe
General Motors
Honda
Navistar, PACCAR
Daimler
Other
Washington
$
PACCAR
Kenworth
Assembly
Highland
Athens
*Establishments believed to employ

500 or more
Vinton
Meigs
Pike
Clermont
Jefferson
Franklin
Ross
Establishment
Location
Carroll
Tuscarawas
Licking
Clinton
Mahoning
Columbiana
Stark
Holmes
Technologies
Warren
@
@
Fairfield
Fayette
Notable Establishments*
in Ohio's
Motor Vehicle Industry
Wayne
Ashland
Greene
Butler
Hamilton
Medina
Morrow
Montgomery
Portage
Lordstown
Assembly
@
and
Metal Center
! Cardington Yutaka
Madison
DMAX
Trumbull
Parma
Metal
Center
Delaware
Union
Navistar
$ Assembly
Miami
Geauga
@
Marion
@ Champaign
@ Cuyahoga
Summit
East Liberty
Assembly
! Marysville
! Assembly
Logan
Erie
Richland
Hardin
!
@
Crawford
Russell's
Point
Transmission
Darke
Wyandot
Lorain
Huron
Seneca
@
@@
Putnam
Auglaize
Automotive
Components
Holding
Sandusky
Paulding
Celina Aluminum
Precision
Technology
Wood
Defiance
Foundry
Allen
Ohio
Assembly
Ottawa
Lucas
Fulton
Ashtabula
Lake
"
"
Toledo North
Toledo
Transmission
Jackson
Brown
Gallia
Adams
Scioto
Prepared by:
Ohio Department of Development
Policy Research and Strategic Planning
February 2011
Lawrence
R020711A
NOTABLE MOTOR VEHICLE INDUSTRY MANUFACTURERS IN OHIO

Thirty-four companies on Fortune magazines U.S.-1,000 or Global-500 lists have motor vehicle industry establishments in
Ohio. Seven of them maintain their world headquarters here: Cooper Tire & Rubber, Dana, Eaton, Goodyear Tire & Rubber, Parker-Hannifin, Thor Industries, and Worthington Industries. Honda is the largest industry employer with over
13,200 (including subsidiaries) in manufacturing operations.1 (Hondas total employment in Ohio exceeds 15,000 when
other support activities are included. An additional 4,200-plus are employed at companies Honda describes as affiliates.)
General Motors (GM) follows with over 9,500 (more, when non-manufacturing activities are included). Ford employs
5,900, and almost 3,300 work for Fiats Chrysler Group.2 Other companies employing at least 1,000 in Ohio include Behr
& Co., Cooper Tire & Rubber and Goodyear Tire & Rubber (both include corporate headquarters), International Automotive, KTH Parts, Magna International, PACCARs Kenworth division, PPG Industries, Showa, and Tokai Kogyo.
Establishments with non-motor vehicle industry NAICS codes have been included when their specific products are used
by the industry. Examples include Daimler AGs and GM-Isuzus diesel engine plants (Daimler rebuilds engines), GMs
foundry, and the automotive glass operations of Asahi Glass and PPG.
The map above shows the locations of the 46 manufacturing establishments with 500 or more employees. The list below
includes the Fortune companies with at least 50 people at a site as well as other companies employing 500 or more in
Ohio and having at least 50 people at a site.3 It is organized by NAICS code and includes the city where the site is located. Assembly or parts operations may not be the primary businesses of some of the companies on the list, but their
sites are included because their primary NAICS codes or products their clients buy make them as part of the industry.
Parent/Company/Division
Primary
NAICS
City
Transportation equipment industry codes:

33611: Automobiles and Light-Duty Motor Vehicles
General Motors LLC*/Lordstown Complex: Assembly & Metal Center
Honda affiliate: Jefferson Industries Corp.
Honda Motor Co.*/Marysville Assembly Plant
Honda Motor Co.*/Marysville Building 1
Honda Motor Co.*/Marysville Building 2
Toledo Molding & Die, Inc.10
Fiat SpA*3/Chrysler Group/Supplier Park4
336111
336111
336111
336111
336111
336111
336112
Lordstown
W. Jefferson
Marysville
Marysville
Marysville
Toledo
Toledo
10
Jobs
at Site^
4,500
370
5,000
150
200
100
1,188
Primary
NAICS
City
33611: Automobiles and Light-Duty Motor Vehicles (continued)

Fiat SpA*3/Chrysler Group/Toledo North Assembly
Ford Motor Co.*/Ohio Assembly Plant
Honda Motor Co.*/E. Liberty Assembly Plant
336112
336112
336112
Toledo
Avon Lake
E. Liberty
1,400
1,817
2,500
33612: Medium- and Heavy-Duty Trucks

Navistar, Inc.*9
PACCAR, Inc.*/Kenworth Division
33612
33612
Springfield
Chillicothe
690
1,100
3362: Motor Vehicle Bodies and Trailers

ARE Accessories LLC
Berkshire-Hathaway*/Scott Fetzer Co./Stahl Co.
Berkshire-Hathaway*/Scott Fetzer Co./Stahl Co.
Mac Trailer Manufacturing, Inc.
Thor Industries, Inc.*/Airstream, Inc.
336211
336212
336212
336212
336212
336213
Massillon
Cardington
Wooster
Salem
Alliance
Jackson Center
33631: Motor Vehicle Gasoline Engines and Engine Parts

Dover Corp.*/Wiseco Piston, Inc.
Ford Motor Co.*/Cleveland Engine Plant 15
Ford Motor Co.*/Cleveland Engine Plant 25
Ford Motor Co.*/Lima Engine Plant
Honda Motor Co.*/Anna Engine Plant
ThyssenKrupp AG*/ThyssenKrupp Crankshaft Co. LLC
336311
336311
336311
336311
336311
336312
Mentor
Brook Park
Brook Park
Lima
Anna
Fostoria
33632: Motor Vehicle Electrical and Electronic Equipment

Stanley Electric Co., Ltd./Stanley Electric US Co., Inc.
Delphi Automotive LLP*/Delphi Automotive Systems LLC
Honda affiliate: Toyo Denso Co., Ltd./Weastec, Inc.
Mitsubishi Electric Corp.*/Mitsubishi Electric Automotive
Stoneridge, Inc.
336321
336322
336322
336322
336322
London
Warren
Hillsboro
Mason
Mansfield
11
Jobs
at Site^
525
107
150
104
400
350
265
375
447
601
2,800
361
660
120
145
422
500
Primary
NAICS
City
33633: Motor Vehicle Steering and Suspension Components

Honda affiliate: Yamada Mfg. Co., Ltd./Yamada N. America, Inc.
Showa Corp./American Showa, Inc.
Showa Corp./American Showa, Inc.
ThyssenKrupp AG*/ThyssenKrupp Bilstein of America
33633
33633
33633
33633
S. Charleston
Blanchester
Sunbury
Hamilton
340
600
400
212
33634: Motor Vehicle Brake Systems

Aisin Seiki Co., Ltd.*/ADVICS Mfg. Ohio, Inc.
Cypress Group LLC/Cooper-Standard Automotive, Inc.*
Eaton Corp.*2
Honda affiliate: Nissin Kogyo Co., Ltd./Nissin Brake Ohio, Inc.
33634
33634
33634
33634
Lebanon
New Lexington
Cleveland
Findlay
625
352
200
750
33635: Motor Vehicle Transmissions and Parts

Fiat SpA*3/Chrysler Group/Machining Plant
Ford Motor Co.*/Sharonville Transmission (Business Courier)
General Motors LLC*/GMPT Toledo Transmission
Honda Motor Co.*/Honda Transmission Mfg. (160 more anticipated)
33635
33635
33635
33635
Perrysburg
Cincinnati
Toledo
Russells Point
700
1,600
1,564
1,050
33636: Motor Vehicle Seating and Interior Trim

International Automotive
Johnson Controls, Inc.*/Interiors LLC
Magna International*8/Magna Seating of America, Inc.
Magna International*8/Magna Seating of America, Inc.
33636
33636
33636
33636
Sidney
Oberlin
Warren
Strongsville
33637: Motor Vehicle Metal Stampings

American Trim LLC
ArcelorMittal*/Powerlasers Corp.
Ernie Green Industries, Inc./Florida Production Engineering
Ford Motor Co.*/Walton Hills Stamping Plant
General Motors LLC*GMPT Parma
Magna International*8/Decoma Intl. of America/Norplas Industries, Inc.
33637
33637
33637
33637
33637
33637
Sidney
Pioneer
New Madison
Cleveland
Parma
Northwood
12
Jobs
at Site^
350
250
250
60
600
65
230
415
1,490
496
Primary
NAICS
City
33637: Motor Vehicle Metal Stampings (continued)

Magna International*8/Magna Cosma International (fka Vehtek Systems, Inc.)
Midway Products Group, Inc./Findlay Products Corp.
Midway Products Group, Inc./P & A Industries, Inc.
Midway Products Group, Inc./Progressive Stamping, Inc.
Pacific Industrial Co., Ltd./Takumi Stamping
Worthington Industries, Inc.*/Gerstenslager Co.
33637
33637
33637
33637
33637
33637
Bowling Green
Findlay
Findlay
Ottoville
Fairfield
Wooster
33639: Other Motor Vehicle Parts

Behr GmbH & Co. KG/Behr Dayton Thermal Products
ArvinMeritor, Inc.*
Blackstone Group LP*/TRW Automotive, Inc.*1
Blackstone Group LP*/TRW Automotive, Inc.*1
Cummins, Inc.*/Cummins Filtration
Dana Holding Corp.*/Dana Ltd.
Dana Holding Corp.*/Dana Ltd.
Ernie Green Industries, Inc./Marion Industries, Inc.
Ford Motor Co.*/Automotive Components Holdings
F-Tech, Inc./F&P America Mfg., Inc.
Hitachi Ltd.*/Hitachi Metals America Ltd./AAP St. Marys Corp.
Honda affiliate: Kalida Mfg., Inc.
Honda affiliate: KTH Parts Industries, Inc.
Honda affiliate: Nihon Plast Co., Ltd./Neaton Auto Products Mfg., Inc.
Honda affiliate: Tanaka Seimitsu Kogyo Co., Ltd./FT Precision, Inc.
Honda affiliate: Tokyo Seat Ltd./TS Tech USA Corp.
Honda affiliate: Tokyo Seat Ltd./TS Trim Industries, Inc.
Honda Motor Co.*/AY Mfg. Ltd.
Honda Motor Co.*/Cardington Yutaka Technologies, Inc.
Honda Motor Co.*/U.S. Yachiyo
336391
336399
336399
336399
336399
336399
336399
336399
336399
336399
336399
336399
336399
336399
336399
336399
336399
336399
336399
336399
336399
336399
Dayton
Heath
Toledo
Fayette
Findlay
Maumee
Toledo
Warren
Warren
Marion
Sandusky
Troy
St. Marys
Kalida
Saint Paris
Eaton
Fredericktown
Reynoldsburg
Canal Winchester
Columbus
Cardington
Marion
13
Jobs
at Site^
75
130
200
250
150
428
2,000
364
55
140
250
500
100
200
120
230
600
650
470
250
770
700
225
150
537
200
650
141
Primary
NAICS
City
33639: Other Motor Vehicle Parts (continued)

Honeywell International, Inc.*
Johnson Controls, Inc.*/Interiors LLC
Magna International*8/Decoma Intl. of America/Magna Modular Systems, Inc.
Morioku Holdings Co., Ltd./Greenville Technology, Inc.
Pacific Industrial Co., Ltd./Pacific Mfg. Ohio, Inc.
Parker-Hannifin Corp.*
PSA Peugeot-Citreon SA*/Faurecia Exhaust Systems, Inc.
Sankei Giken Co., Ltd./Newman Technology, Inc.
Sanoh Industrial Co., Ltd./Sanoh America, Inc.
Sanoh Industrial Co., Ltd./Sanoh America, Inc.
Schaeffler KG/Schaeffler Group USA, Inc./LuK USA LLC
Tenneco, Inc.*
Tokai Kogyo Co., Ltd./Green Tokai Co., Ltd.
336399
336399
336399
336399
336399
336399
336399
336399
336399
336399
336399
336399
336399
336399
336399
336399
336399
336399
336399
336399
336399
Fostoria
Greenville
Wauseon
Fremont
Northwood
Toledo
Greenville
Fairfield
Wickliffe
Franklin
Toledo
Toledo
Mansfield
Findlay
Mt. Vernon
Wooster
Napoleon
Brookville
Delphos-Allen
Delphos-Van Wert
Tiffin
Related Industries:
PPG Industries*
PPG Industries*
Tokai Kogyo Co., Ltd./DTR Industries, Inc.
Ernie Green Industries, Inc./Florida Production Engineering
Cooper Tire & Rubber Co.*
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.*6
Yamashita Rubber Co., Ltd./YUSA Corp.
32551
32551
32622
326199
326211
326211
326291
Cleveland
Delaware
Bluffton
Circleville
Findlay
Akron
Washington CH
14
Jobs
at Site^
100
179
600
200
170
260
700
350
271
300
100
50
850
773
224
800
404
500
130
85
310
602
465
790
204
1,072
3,000
830
Primary
NAICS~
Jobs
at Site^
City
Related Industries (continued):

Asahi Glass Co., Ltd./AGC Automotive Americas
Guardian Automotive Products
Asahi Glass Co., Ltd./Belletech Corp. (PPG Industries, Inc.* owns 40 percent)
General Motors LLC*/Defiance Foundry (189 more anticipated)
Honda Motor Co.*/Celina Aluminum Precision Technology, Inc.
Daimler AG*/Detroit Diesel Remanufacturing
General Motors LLC*/DMAX (Isuzu Motors Ltd. owns 40 percent)
Enersys Corp.*
Johnson Controls, Inc.*/Battery Group
327211
327211
327215
327215
331511
33152
333618
333618
335911
335911
Bellefontaine
Millbury
Bellefontaine
Upper Sandusky
Defiance
Celina
Byesville
Dayton
Cleveland
Holland
370
225
140
500
1,342
500
500
547
168
456
Notes: ~ - non-industry codes are included if production is principally for motor vehicles; ^ - jobs figures are from various
sources, each thought to be the best available; * - a Fortune U.S.-1,000 or Global-500 company; 1 - both companies are
in the Fortune U.S.-1,000; 2 - 500 more are employed at corporate headquarters; 3 - Fiat currently owns 25 percent of
Chrysler, but seeks a 51 percent stake; 4 - Chrysler has no more than 450 people there; the remaining employment is
divided among four companies: Excel, Kuka, Magna International and OMMC; 5 employment at the two plants may
increase soon; 6 - includes headquarters employment; 7 - the company employs additional people at non-manufacturing
sites; 8 - not including jobs at Chrysler's Suppliers Park site; 9 - a summary figure for three facilities close to one another;
10 - an unconsolidated joint venture [sic at the company website] with Visteon (Ford's former parts division); fka formerly known as.
Sources: Darke county (2010), Fortune (2010), Gearino (2010), Harris (2010), Kaczala (2010), LexisNexis (2010), Licking
County (2009), Manta (2010), Marion, Ohio, Chamber of Commerce (2010), Niklewski (2009), ODOD (2010), Pickaway
Progress Partnership (2010), PRSP (2010), Sandusky County Economic Development Corp. (2010), and various
Company Websites.
Prepared by: Policy Research and Strategic Planning, Ohio Dept. of Development. Telephone 614/466-2116 (DL, 10/10).
See Table A1
15
16
Investment Announcements in Ohio's

Motor Vehicle Industry, 2006-2009
Four-Year Totals: $2,873.3 Million; 6,595 Jobs
$1,200.0
3,500
3,000
$1,000.0
2,500
2,000
$600.0
1,500
$400.0
1,000
$200.0
$0.0
Millions Planned
New Jobs Anticipated
500
2006
2007
2008
2009
$1,058.7
$731.1
$727.8
$159.2
1,652
1,247
2,878
890
Source: Policy Research & Strategic Planning

17
Jobs Anticipated
Millions Planned
$800.0
RECENT EXPANSION AND ATTRACTION ANNOUNCEMENTS

From 2006 through 2009 the Ohio Dept. of Development recorded 117 investment announcements by 93 companies in
the states motor vehicle industry totaling $2.68 billion. Over 6,600 new jobs and 3.52 million square feet of space are
anticipated when the projects are completed. The vast majority of these $2.27 billon, over 5,500 jobs, and 3.29 million
square feet are in the parts group (NAICS 3363 and products specifically for motor vehicles from non-transportation
equipment industries). Over $400 million is being invested in assembly and chassis plants (NAICS 3361), with the remaining $9.46 million for establishments making bodies and trailers (NAICS 3362). Almost 40 percent of the investment
$1.06B occurred in 2006. Forty-three percent of the anticipated new jobs were announced in 2008.
General Motors (GM) led all assemblers in Ohio by investing almost $1.39 billion during the four-year period.4 Ford followed with $284 million. Honda invested $111 million, with its affiliates collectively adding another $114 million. PACCARs Kenworth division planned to invest $50 million, and Chrysler planned to invest $27 million. Twenty-six parts companies announced investments of at least $10 million during the last four years, but only Bridgestone reached $100 million.
Assemblers also made nine of the 10 largest individual investments during 2006-2009 (Bridgestone is the exception). The
largest was $462.8 million for GMs transmission plant in Toledo in 2006. The company followed that with another $332
million for the same plant in 2007, and $317 million for its Lordstown assembly plant in 2008. All of the remaining top 10
investments were for parts operations. Kenworth and Honda announced smaller investments in their assembly plants.
These counts are part of the Ohio Private Investment Survey annually compiled by Policy Research & Strategic Planning
(2008-2010). A major investment must meet one of three criteria: at least 20,000 square feet of new space, $1 million to
be spent for land, building(s), or equipment, or 50 new jobs. Many of the major investments are phased in over a two-tothree year cycle, with production and employee counts phased in after project completion.
See Table A2
18
Value-Added by Segment in Ohio's

$25.0
30.0%
25.0%
$20.0
20.0%
(Billions)
$15.0
15.0%
$10.0
10.0%
$5.0
5.0%
$0.0
0.0%
33611:
Light
Vehicles
33612:
Med.Heavy
Duty
Trucks
3362:
Bodies &
Trailers
$9.9
$9.3
$0.6
13.5%
13.5%
13.6%
3361-3+:
Motor
Vehicle
Industry
3361:
Assembly
Value-added in Ohio
$21.5
Ohio as Pct. of U.S.
12.8%
3363:
Parts
336312:
Gasoline
Engines &
Parts
336321:
Vehicle
Lighting
Eqpt.
33636:
Seating,
Interior
Trim
$0.5
$10.6
$2.3
$0.3
$0.8
$2.9
$4.4
$0.4
3.7%
14.7%
25.5%
16.8%
15.8%
22.8%
10.0%
4.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007
19
33637:
3363n: All
Metal
Other
Stampings
Parts
32621,
335911:
Tires &
Batteries
THE CONCENTRATION OF THE INDUSTRY IN OHIO: GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT AND VALUEADDED
Gross domestic product data from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (2010a) show that the motor vehicle industry
overall (NAICS 3361-3) is concentrated in Ohio, but value-added data from the Census Bureau provide additional specific
information about which segments of the industry are more or less concentrated here. The chart above shows that parts
production and assembly work are the twin pillars of industry concentration here with 14.7 and 13.5 percent, respectively,
of national output. Some industries are exceptionally concentrated in Ohio, notably the production of gasoline engines
and their components, stamping operations, vehicular lighting equipment, and seating and interior trim, ranging from 15.8
to 25.5 percent of national production.5 Other parts industries, including tire production, are less concentrated here. Data
shown separately in table A3 add further detail to the portrait above.
The latest available data from the Annual Survey of Manufactures show that Ohio ranked second only to Michigan in assembly operations and parts production. The state ranked twelfth in body and trailer production (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2010a).
See Table A3
20
Value-Added by Segment in Ohio's

(in millions, except percentages)
Total: $21,467.0--100.0%
Tires & Batteries: $427.3--2.0%
Parts: $10,649.2--49.6%
All Other Parts:

Electrical/Electronic,
Steering, Suspension,
Brakes, Seating,
Interior Trim,
Air-Conditioning, Etc.:
$3,738.8--17.4%
Assembly: $9,920.1--46.2%
Cars & Lighty-Duty Trucks:

$9,294.0--43.3%
Metal Stampings:
$2,897.3--13.5%
Transmissions
& Parts:
$1,673.6--7.8%
Gasoline Engines
& Parts:
$2,339.6--10.9%
Medium & Heavy-Duty

Trucks: $626.1--2.9%
Bodies & Trailers: $470.4--2.2%
21
THE COMPOSITION OF OHIOS MOTOR VEHICLE INDUSTRY: VALUE-ADDED

Value-added data from the most recent Census of Manufactures provide insight into the composition of the motor vehicle
industry in Ohio as well as a basis for comparisons with other states and the country as a whole. The chart above illustrates the relative distribution of motor vehicle industry output, usually by industry subgroups. Assembly operations
(NAICS 3361) were 46.2 percent of industry production in the state. Specifically, cars and light-duty trucks combined
amounted to 43.3 percent of production while medium- and heavy-duty truck production was 2.9 percent.6
Parts production, including tires and storage batteries, was 51.6 percent of motor vehicle industry output in Ohio. Metal
stamping (33637) is the largest industry in the parts group with 13.5 percent of industry output, followed by gasoline engines and transmissions at 10.9 and 7.8 percent, respectively. The remaining parts industries combined for 19.4 percent
of industry output, but no one individually added more value than transmissions. Manufacturing bodies and trailers (3362)
constitutes 2.2 percent of industry output in Ohio.
The chart above also illustrates how much of the motor vehicle industry in Ohio is attributable to just six companies. Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, Honda, Navistar and PACCAR are high-volume assemblers, producing nearly all of the valueadded in assembly operations. They also dominate the parts industries. Notably, assemblers have long made almost all
of their own engines and transmissions, and do much of their own metal stamping. By adding assembly, engine, transmission and stamping percentages together, up to three-quarters of motor vehicle industry output in Ohio comes from
those six companies.
See Table A3
22
A Four-Year Summary of Light Vehicle Production in Ohio:

General Motors and Honda
800,000
701,318
700,000
697,583
587,304
Light Vehicles Assembled
600,000
500,000
489,188
463,596
411,379
400,000
300,000
200,000
158,099
87,927
100,000
2007
2008
2009
2010
2007
2008
2009
2010
Light Trucks
208,736
103,364
10
111,762
151,389
157,180
234,093
Cars
280,452
308,015
87,917
158,099
589,556
546,194
306,416
353,211
Honda
General Motors
Sources: Automotive News & Ward's. * - Initial estimate.
23
FOUR-YEAR SUMMARIES OF LIGHT VEHICLE PRODUCTION IN OHIO

The charts on the preceding and following pages summarize light vehicle production in Ohio during the last four years for
each of the four high-volume light vehicle assemblers. Each had one or two assembly plants here in this time period. The
charts and data shown in appendix tables A4 and A11 indicate the severity of the recession: collective production of light
vehicles in Ohio fell 55 percent from 1,748,000 in 2007 to 783,000 in 2009. Car and light truck production fell at nearly the
same rate over the two years, although light trucks dropped first with the high gasoline prices of 2008, and cars followed
in 2009. All four assemblers shared more or less in this production plunge. Production bounded 40.9 percent in 2010 to
1,103,000, a substantial improvement from 2009, but below the depressed level of 2008.
Honda, the highest-volume assembler in Ohio, saw combined production from its two plants fall by one-third the least of
the four from 701,000 to less than 464,000. 2010 production rose 26.7 percent from 2009 to around 587,000. These
summary figures mask more complex changes in the plants. Hondas light truck production increased each year from less
than 112,000 to over 234,000. This is principally due to increased in CR-V production in E. Liberty, which more than offset the net declines in RDX and Element production. Car production, which bounced back somewhat in 2010, reflects not
only a net drop in Accord and TL output, but the transfer of Civic production elsewhere. CR-Vs have replaced Civics in E.
Liberty. The only car production now in E. Liberty is the Accord Crosstour, which was launched in 2009 and expanded in
2010.
In contrast to Honda, GMs production fell 82 percent from 489,000 to less than 88,000 before recovering to 158,000.
The recession and high gasoline prices in 2008 and the subsequent drop in demand for mid-size SUVs were factors in
the decision to officially close the Moraine plant in December. (It appears 10 vehicles were assembled in January, 2009,
before it was permanently closed.) As with Honda, though, there is more to GMs drastic output drop than the impact of
the recession. Car production in Lordstown increased by 27,000-plus to 308,000 in 2008 before plummeting to less than
88,000 in 2009. At least part of the drop could be due to the termination of the G5 in preparation for launching the Cruze
in 2010. The still-relatively-low production of cars in 2010 in part reflects the termination of Cobalt production and the start
of Cruze production.
See Tables A4 & A11
24
A Four-Year Summary of Light Vehicle Production in Ohio:

Chrysler and Ford
800,000
700,000
Light Vehicles Assembled
600,000
500,000
400,000
377,911
300,000
248,484
236,658
179,918
200,000
143,885
126,640
121,471
88,054
100,000
0
Light Trucks
Cars
2007
2008
2009
2010
2007
2008
2009
2010
377,911
248,484
143,885
236,658
179,918
126,640
88,054
121,471
Chrysler
Sources: Automotive News & Ward's. * - Initial estimate.
Ford
25
Chrysler and Ford make only light trucks in Ohio. Chryslers production of sport-utility vehicles (SUVs) fell 61.9 percent
from almost 378,000 in 2007 to less than 144,000 in 2009. Production recovered to 236,000-plus in 2010, an increase of
64.5 percent from 2009, but still less than the depressed level of 2008. The recovery in 2010 was greater at Supplier
Park, which produces Jeep Wranglers, than at Toledo North, which produces the Dodge Nitro and the Jeep Liberty. Although the output of Nitros and Liberties in 2010 was notably greater than 2009, the production of Wranglers in 2010
surpassed 2008 levels to approach the (mostly) pre-recession levels of 2007.
Ford assembles Econoline vans at Avon Lake. Production fell 51 percent from almost 180,000 in 2007 to 88,000 in 2009.
It rebounded to 121,000-plus in 2010, a 38 percent increase, and only little less than output in 2008.
See Table A4 & A11
26
Other Tier-1 Suppliers* of Motor Vehicle Parts in North America

Area
Chrysler
Ford
GM
Honda
Kenworth
Navistar
Total^
Ohio:
Number
Percent
181
7.9%
202
7.1%
224
7.1%
114
8.5%
1
5.3%
15
12.1%
348
3.0%
Indiana:
Number
Percent
114
5.0%
133
4.7%
141
4.4%
48
3.6%
0
0.0%
8
6.5%
204
1.8%
Kentucky:
Number
Percent
57
2.5%
81
2.9%
79
2.5%
49
3.6%
0
0.0%
2
1.6%
143
1.2%
Michigan:
Number
Percent
433
19.0%
447
15.8%
501
15.8%
91
6.8%
1
5.3%
20
16.1%
615
5.3%
Ontario:
Number
Percent
224
9.8%
234
8.3%
278
8.8%
69
5.1%
0
0.0%
7
5.6%
346
3.0%
Pennsylvania:
Number
Percent
46
2.0%
44
1.6%
53
1.7%
12
0.9%
0
0.0%
5
4.0%
62
0.5%
West Virginia:
Number
Percent
4
0.2%
2
0.1%
3
0.1%
3
0.2%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
6
0.1%
North America:
Number
Percent
2,066
90.6%
2,274
80.2%
2,448
77.1%
692
51.4%
19
100.0%
123
99.2%
3,543
30.7%
the ELM World:
Number
Percent
2,281
100.0%
2,835
100.0%
3,175
100.0%
1,346
100.0%
19
100.0%
124
100.0%
11,532
100.0%
Notes: * - These are establishments.

^ - Includes any motor vehicle assembler any where.
Source: ELM International (2010) - www.eautoportal.com/.
Prepared by: Policy Research & Strategic Planning, Ohio Dept. of Development. Phone 614/466-2116 (DL, 9/10).
27
TIER-1 PARTS SUPPLIERS

All assemblers deal with independent parts suppliers also referred to as tier-1 companies regardless of how many of
their own parts they make. ELM International records information on over 11,500 such establishments in the world. However, the table above focuses on those supplying parts, modules, and systems to the high-volume assemblers with plants
in Ohio: Chrysler, Ford, General Motors (GM), Honda, the Kenworth division of PACCAR, and Navistar. The figures in the
table above indicate that there are 348 establishments operating in Ohio. Of those 348, 224 ship to GM, 202 to Ford, 181
to Chrysler, 114 to Honda, 15 to Navistar and one to Kenworth. Summing the counts for these six customers produces a
number greater than 348. Therefore, some of the establishments make parts for more than one assembler. In addition to
Ohio, the table above also shows counts of suppliers by assembler for the areas surrounding Ohio. Of the six areas, only
Michigan has substantially more tier-1 suppliers than Ohio, and Ontario come close with 346.
Between seven and nine percent of all tier-1 supply establishments for Chrysler, Ford, GM and Honda are located in
Ohio;7 12.1 percent of Navistars suppliers are in Ohio.
Some companies concentrate on supplying original equipment to assemblers. These include Dana, Delphi, Goodyear
Tire & Rubber, Johnson Controls, Magna International, Superior Industries, Tenneco Automotive, TRW (some of whose
establishments were sold to form the Blackstone Group), and Visteon. Other original equipment companies, such as
Allied Signal, Eaton, General Electric, 3M, PPG Industries, Textron, and United Technologies, have significant operations,
but receive most of their revenue from outside of the motor vehicle industry. This also is true of smaller tier-1 companies
listed in ELMs data base. Still other companies make parts that are more likely to be sold in the aftermarket as replacements; the largest include ArvinMeritor, Cooper Tire & Rubber, Danas Echlin division, and Federal-Mogul (Levy, 2010:
11, 24). As previously noted, many of these companies have establishments in Ohio.
Parts companies survive by making a few specialized items requiring a high degree of skill, and doing so more efficiently
than assemblers. Their ability to spread research, development, and equipment expenditures over several contracts as
well as selling their expertise to a number of assemblers gives them a cost advantage over assemblers. They also are
less likely to have a unionized labor force. Tier-1 companies try to maintain a diversified supply base the tier-2 and tier3 companies to ensure a steady flow of parts at competitive prices. However, assemblers and tier-1 companies have
been occasionally willing to provide financial and managerial assistance to the latter to maintain timely parts production
(Levy, 2010: 23-24).
Original equipment sales tend to be cyclical because they follow the sales of new vehicles. Aftermarket sales are more
stable than original equipment sales due to the tendency to keep vehicles longer. The improved durability of newer
28
original equipment dampened aftermarket sales until the recession compelled owners to fix vehicles instead of purchasing
new ones (Levy, 2010: 14, 24).
The role of tire makers in the industry is often discussed separately from other parts makers. In 2009, 26 million tires
were delivered to assemblers for new light vehicles, with another 208 million shipped as replacements according Modern
Tire Dealer, an industry publication cited by Levy (2010: 25). The sum of the two figures is a 12 percent drop from the
2008 total, reflecting the impact of the recession. Despite their low profit margins (when compared with per unit aftermarket sales) and smaller percentage of total sales, original equipment sales are important for several reasons. Original
equipment sales help aftermarket sales because owners tend to replace tires with the same brand. In turn, this means a
larger market share than could be attained in the aftermarket alone, and greater economies of scale reduce per-unit operating costs. Original equipment sales also reduce distribution and advertising expenses (Levy, 2010: 25).
The tire industry is highly capital intensive. Research and development efforts, production technology, and operations are
very expensive. Consequently, the industry is dominated by a small number of vertically integrated giants; Bridgestone,
Goodyear, and Michelin together account for about one-half of worldwide tire production (Levy, 2010: 11). (The vertical
integration does not extend into distribution and retail sales. Other large companies dominate this part of the business.)
Cost pressures and the increased number of niche markets compelled the giants to adopt flexible manufacturing techniques. These more sophisticated processes allow producers to economically meet customers specifications. Global tire
makers also pursue technical improvements in their products as a means of drawing attention in a competitive market
(Prat, 1998). According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, tires have indeed become better at resisting wear. Consumers can search the Administrations website; start with http://www.safercar.gov/.
29
30
Employment in Ohio's Motor Vehicle Industry

Estimated Total: 111,865--100%
Parts: 83,731--74.8%
Motor Vehicle Assembly:

22,382--20.0%
Cars:
12,443--11.1%
Other Parts:
13,489--12.1%
Light Trucks:
7,312--6.5%
Metal Stamping:
20,324--18.2%
Bodies & Trailers:

5,752--5.1%
Gasoline Engines,
Two Diesel Plants,
Two Foundries, &
Engine Parts:
10,812--9.7%
Seating & Interior
Trim: 6,442--5.8%
Transmission &
Power Train Parts:
11,353--10.1%
Tires: 3,119--2.8%
Brake Systems: 3,391--3.0%
Steering &
Suspension
Parts: 5,391
--4.8%
Electrical &
Electronic Eqpt.,
Storage Batteries
9,410--8.4%
Sources: Harris, PR&SP, & U.S. Census Bureau, 2008
31
Medium &
Heavy-duty Trucks:
2,627--2.3%
THE COMPOSITION OF OHIOS MOTOR VEHICLE INDUSTRY EMPLOYMENT AT THE PLANTS

The latest detailed data from the Census Bureau (supplemented by other sources) show that 111,800-plus people worked in Ohios motor vehicle industry. The chart above illustrates the distribution of employment within the industry. Over
22,300 or 20.0 percent worked at assembly plants (NAICS 3361). Most of jobs in the assembly group 12,400-plus,
11.1 percent were found in car plants, followed by 7,300 6.5 percent in light trucks, and over 2,600 2.3 percent at
establishments assembling buses and medium-to-heavy-duty trucks. Fifty-seven hundred-plus 5.1 percent worked in
bodies and trailers (3362).
About 83,700 74.8 percent worked in parts industries including tires, storage batteries, and those employed at two
foundries and two diesel engine plants (3363, 32621, 335911, 3315 and 333618, respectively).8 The largest industry within the parts group was metal stamping 20,300-plus jobs, or 18.2 percent. It was followed by other motor vehicle parts
close to 13,500 and 12.1 percent, transmission and power train parts 11,300-plus, 10.1 percent, and engines and engine parts 10,800, 9.7 percent. The remaining parts industries each employed less than 10,000, ranging from 2.8 percent to 8.4 percent of the industry total. (These detailed data come primarily from the Census Bureaus County Business
Patterns series. Less detailed data from the states Labor Market Information division show 19,700 employed at assembly
plants (3361) and 56,000 employed in parts (3363 only) in November, 2010.)
Light truck plants are the largest in the industry, averaging well over 1,400 employees each, followed by car plants at
1,000-plus. These averages reflect the dichotomy between the high-volume light vehicle plants that employ well over
1,000 and the much smaller, specialized operations not focused on mass market vehicles. The smallest plants in the
industry are those making bodies and trailers, carburetors-pistons-rings-valves (336311), and retreading tires (326212);
they typically employ less than 100 people. Heavy-duty truck (33612) and all other parts plants typically employ a few
hundred. Like assembly plants, though, certain parts plants particularly those producing engines and transmissions for
mass markets can employ over 1,000.
Comparisons with national figures are also instructive (and based solely on the five NAICS codes defining the industry).
Overall motor vehicle industry employment is concentrated in Ohio, with 11.3 percent of the national industrys workers
here. By comparison, 3.9 percent of all employees in the nation (excluding those on farms, at railroads, and in government) worked in Ohio. Specific industries especially concentrated in Ohio include metal stamping 21.6 percent of the
national industry total, car assembly 17.2 percent, transmission and power train parts (33635) 15.1 percent, steering
and suspension (33633) 14.4 percent, and vehicular lighting equipment (336321) 13.8 percent. On the other hand,
employment in motor homes (336213) and travel trailers and campers (336214) is not concentrated here.
See Table A5
32
Pay in Ohio's Motor Vehicle Industries

$80,000
160.0%
$70,000
140.0%
134.8%
127.2%
$60,000
120.0%
111.5%
111.1%
103.2%
113.3%
105.6%
105.1%
110.4%
99.0%
96.7%
$50,000
100.0%
Annual Pay
98.9%
93.9%
90.8%
$40,000
80.0%
$67,304 $67,992
$62,391
$62,129
$30,000
$59,227
$60,760
60.0%
$57,430
$55,727
$53,727
$50,657
$20,000
$49,538
$39,719
$38,510
$38,599
40.0%
$39,341
$35,188
$10,000
20.0%
$0
0.0%
Total
Motor
(non-farm Vehicle
private Industry
sector)
Total
Asmbly.
Plants
Cars & Medium & Bodies &

Light
HeavyTrailers
Trucks
Duty
Trucks
Parts
Overall
Parts:
Gas
Engns.
Parts:
Elec'l &
Elec'c
Eqpt.
Industry
33
Parts:
Parts:
Parts:
Parts:
Parts:
Steering
Brake Trnsmsn. Seating & Stamping
& Spnsn. Systems & Power Interior
Train
Trim
Parts:
Other
Related
Industries
As a Percentage of Corresponding U.S. Industry
123.7%
119.0%
INDUSTRY WAGES
Census Bureau data charted above show that employees in Ohios motor vehicle industry were estimated to have averaged $53,700-plus in wages and salaries for the latest year available. This figure is 111.1 percent of the corresponding
national average, and $15,200 above the average for all non-agricultural, non-rail private sector employees in Ohio.
There is considerable variation within the industry: work at vehicle assembly plants (3361) paid $67,300 per year, while
bodies and trailers (3362) paid $39,700, and parts (3363) averaged $50,600-plus. People working in the related tires and
batteries cluster average $55,700. These averages more or less surpassed the corresponding national averages.
There can be substantial variation between the individual industries within these segments. People working at plants
assembling light vehicles averaged almost $68,000, while those assembling medium- and heavy-duty trucks averaged
$62,100. Variation in the parts group was even greater. At one end, gasoline engines paid the highest almost $62,400,
closely followed by transmissions and power train parts with $60,700-plus. Two other industries averaged in the high$50,000s: electrical and electronic equipment (33632) and steering and suspension (33633). Except for stamping, which
averaged $49,500-plus, the remaining parts industries averaged less than $40,000. One possible explanation for the
higher wages in engine, transmission and stamping is that a large portion of employment is at subdivisions of high-volume
assemblers, while those in other groups are less likely to work for assemblers. The relatively high pay in the related industries segment is driven by new tire production (326211), which averaged about $60,700.
See Table A6
34
!
!
! !
Williams
15
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!!
Henry
4
!
Putnam
5
!
! !
Allen
9
Shelby
6
!
Miami
7
!
!! !
!! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !
! ! !
!! !
!!
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
!
! ! !!
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
!
!
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
!! ! !! ! !! !
!! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
! !
!
! ! !
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
Hardin
2
Logan
8
!
!
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! !! ! !! ! !
! !
!!!!
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !! ! !
!! !
! !!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
Clark
19
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
Seneca
8
Erie
6
Wyandot
7
!
!!
Fayette
3
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
Cuyahoga
64
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
!! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
!
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! !!
!
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
!! ! !! !
! ! ! !
! !
!
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !! !
! !
!! !
! !
! ! !
!! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
!
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
!! ! !! !
! ! ! !
! ! !
!! !
! !
! !
!! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
!! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! !
!! !
!! ! !! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! !!
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
!
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
!! ! !! !
! ! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
!! !
! !
! !
!! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! !! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
!
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
!! ! !! !
! ! ! !
! ! !
!! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
!
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
!! ! !! !
! ! ! !
! !
!
! !
!! !
! !
!! !
!! ! !! !
Richland
15
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
Medina
14
Summit
30
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
!
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
!
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!! !
! !
! !
!
! !
!
Ashland
1
!
Wayne
12
Brown
1
!
Highland
2
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !!
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
!
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
Coshocton
Muskingum
Perry
1
!
Jackson
1
Guernsey
1
!
Morgan
1
Noble
1
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Mahoning
9
Columbiana
6
Jefferson
2
Harrison
1
Statewide: 650
Belmont
4
!
Establishments
in County
None
Monroe
1
!
Athens
Washington
2
!
5-9
!
!
1-4
!
!
!
!
10 - 19
!
!
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
20 - 64
Sources:
2008 County Business Patterns,
U.S. Census Bureau; Selectory
Business Database, Harris InfoSource
Meigs
!
Gallia
1
!
Prepared by:
February 2011
Lawrence
!
Vinton
Fairfield
4
Number of Establishments
in Ohio's
!
!
Tuscarawas
9
!
Carroll
1
!
Scioto
3
! !
!
!
! ! !
Adams
! ! !
Pike
1
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
! !
!
!
! !
!!
! ! !
! ! !
!
!
! ! !
! ! !
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
! !
!
!
Stark
18
! !
! !
Trumbull
17
!
!
! !
! !
! !
!
!
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
!
!
! ! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
Licking
8
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !
! !
!! !
! !
!! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
! !
! !
Knox
4
!
!
Ashtabula
9
!
!
!
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
Portage
3
!
!
Holmes
8
!
!
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
!
!
! ! !
! !
Ross
3
!! !
! !
!! ! !!! !
! ! ! !
Hocking
Clinton
3
Geauga
3
! !
! !
!! ! !!! !
! ! ! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !! ! !! !
! ! ! ! !
! !
!
!
! !
!! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
!! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
Pickaway
1
! !! ! !! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !! ! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !! ! !
!
! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! !
! !
!! !
! !
! !
!! !
! ! !
! !
!! !
! !
! !
! !! ! !! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
!! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! !
! !
! ! !
!! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! !
!
!
! ! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
Lorain
21
! !
! ! !
!
!
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! !
!!
! !
! !
Lake
11
! !
! !
!
!
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
!
!
! ! !
!
!
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !! ! !
! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! ! !
! !
!
!
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! !
Franklin
35
! !
! ! !
! ! !!
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
!! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! ! !! ! !
! !
!
! ! !
!! !
! !
! ! !
! ! !
! !
!
!
! !
Delaware
6
! !
!
!
! !
Morrow
4
! ! !
!
! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! !! ! !
! ! !
! !
! !
!
!
! ! !
!
!
Huron
3
!
!
!
!
! ! !
! !
!
!
! !
!
! !
!! ! !
!
!
!
Marion
6
!
Crawford
8
!
!
! !
Madison
5
!
!
!
!
!!
Union
1
! !!
!
!
! !
Sandusky
9
!
!
! !
Champaign
1
!
! !
! !
!
!
! !
! !!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!!
! !
! ! !
Ottawa
3
! !! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! ! !! ! !
Clermont
6
!
Greene
2
Hancock
18
!
!
!
!
Warren
9
!!
! !
! ! !
!! !
! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
!
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
!
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
!
! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
!
! ! !
Montgomery
32
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! ! !
Wood
10
! !
! !
!!
!
!
!! ! !!
! ! !
! !
!! !
! !
Hamilton
12
!! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!! ! !!
!
! ! !
!! !
! !
! !
! ! !
!
! !
! !
! ! !
!! !
! !
! ! !
!
! ! !
!! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
! !
!
! ! !! !
! ! !
!! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!! ! !! ! !! ! !!! ! !! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
! !
!! !
! !
! !
!
! !
!! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!! !
! !
!! !
! !
! !
!! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
!
! !
! ! !! !
!
! ! !
! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!! ! !! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
Butler
12
! ! !
!! !
! !
!
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
! !
!! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !
! ! !
!! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
!! !
! ! !
!! !
! !
! ! !
!
!
!! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! !
! !
! ! !
!
! ! !
!! !
!!
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
!
!
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
!
!
! ! !
!! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! !
! !
! ! !
!! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
!! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! !! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
!
! ! !
! !
! !
Preble
3
! !
! !
! ! !
! ! !
! !
!
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
Lucas
32
!
!
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
!!
! ! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
!! ! !
!
!
! !
Darke
6
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
!!
! !
! ! !
! !
Auglaize
4
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
!
!
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! ! !! !
Mercer
2
! ! !
! !
!
!!
! !
!! ! !
Fulton
7
Van Wert
6
!
!
!
!
Paulding
4
Defiance
8
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
35
R020711A
THE DISTRIBUTION OF INDUSTRY ESTABLISHMENTS ACROSS OHIO

The motor vehicle industry is widely distributed across Ohio. The latest available data, mapped above, shows that 650
establishments9 were found in 80 counties. However, the majority of establishments could be found in 13 counties:
Cuyahoga 64, Franklin 35, Lucas and Montgomery 32 each, Summit 30, Lorain 21, Clark 19, Hancock and
Stark 18 each, Trumbull 17, Richland and Williams 15 each, and Medina 14. Five more counties had 10 to 12
plants each: Butler, Hamilton, Lake, Wayne and Wood. Twenty-five counties had from five to nine establishments, and 37
had from one to four.
It is interesting to note that the eight counties with the nine high-volume assembly plants Clark, Logan, Lorain, Lucas,
Montgomery, Ross, Trumbull, and Union had a total of 133 industry establishments. This is a significant portion of the
industry 20.5 percent, but far from the majority.
See Table A7
36
Williams
1,434
Fulton
1,022
!
!
!
Defiance
2,396
!
!
!
!
Henry
788
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
!
! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! !
!
! ! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
! !
! ! !
!
! ! !
! !
! ! !
!
! ! !
! !
!
! !
! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! ! !
! !
!
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
! !
! ! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !! !
! !
! !
! ! !! !
! ! !
! !! !
! !
!
! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! !! ! !
! ! ! ! !
!! !! ! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
!! ! !
! !
! !
!! !
! !
! ! ! !
! !! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
!! !
! !! !
! ! !! !
! !! !
! !
! ! !! ! !
!! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! ! !!! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! !
Lucas
8,145
! !
!! !
! !
! !! !
! ! !
! ! !! !
! ! ! !
! !! !
! ! !
! !
!
! !
! ! !! ! !
! ! ! ! !
!
! !
! !
! ! ! !
! !!
! ! !
! ! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
!
! ! !
!
! !
! !
!
! ! !
!
! !
!
! ! ! ! !
!
! !
!
! ! !
!
! !
! ! !
!
! !
!
! ! ! !
!
Wood
2,032
!
Ottawa
58
! ! ! ! !
!! !! ! ! !!
! ! ! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
Paulding
366
!
! !
!
!
!
Darke
332
Preble
740
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Erie
1,868
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
!!
!
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
!! !
! ! !!
! ! !! ! !
! !
!!
! !! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
!!
! !! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! ! !! ! !
! !
!
! ! !
!!
!
! !! !
!!
!
! !! !
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Union
5,300
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !! ! ! !
!
! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! !
! !
!
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !! ! !
! !
! ! !
! ! !! ! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !!
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !! ! !! ! !
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! ! !! ! !
! ! ! ! !
!! !
! !
! ! !!
! !! !! !! ! !!
! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!!
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !! ! !
! !
! !! ! ! ! ! ! !
!!
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
!! !
! !
! ! !!
! ! !
! ! !! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! !
!
! !
! !! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!!
!
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
!
!!
!
!
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
!
!
!
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
Montgomery
6,960
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
Greene
31
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
Clermont
417
!
!
Brown
3
!
!
!
!
Highland
95
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Morrow
742
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! !
! !! ! ! !
! !
! !
!! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !!
! !! ! !! !
! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
Knox
671
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !!
! !! ! !! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !!
! !!
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! !! ! ! !
! ! !
! !! ! !! !
! ! ! ! !
! !
!!!!
! !
! !!
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !! ! !! !
! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !!
! !!
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !! ! !! !
! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !!
! !!
! !
! ! !
! !
! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!!
Medina
772
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!!
!
!
!
!
Holmes
127
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! ! ! !
! !! ! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
Stark
1,675
!
Trumbull
9,798
Mahoning
206
Muskingum
Carroll
3
!
Jefferson
22
!
! !
Belmont
159
!
Fairfield
163
!
Perry
3
!
Morgan
333
Noble
333
!
Monroe
15
!
!
!
Ross
1,676
!!
!!
! !
! !
Adams
Pike
143
Hocking
!
Athens
Jackson
3
!
!
!
!
1 - 499
500 - 2,499
!
!
!
!
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
2,500 - 4,999
5,000 - 9,798
Sources:
2008 County Business Patterns,
U.S. Census Bureau; Selectory
Business Database, Harris InfoSource
Meigs
!
Gallia
143
!
Prepared by:
February 2011
Lawrence
!
Vinton
Scioto
71
Washington
5
!
!
None
Employment
in County
Statewide: 109,326
Harrison
3
Guernsey
500
Total Employment
in Ohio's
Columbiana
345
! !
! ! ! ! !
! !! ! ! !
!
!
Coshocton
!
!!
Tuscarawas
290
Portage
363
!
!
!
!
Wayne
2,339
!
!
!
!
!
Summit
2,968
!
! !
! !
! ! !
!
!
! !
! ! !
! !
!
!
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
Cuyahoga
6,918
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !! ! !! !
! ! !
! !
! !! ! !! !
! ! ! ! !
Licking
1,487
! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! !! ! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !!
! !
! !
!!
Geauga
37
! ! !
!! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! !! ! ! !
! ! !
!! ! !
Ashtabula
223
! !
!! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
!!
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !!
! !
Pickaway
143
!
!
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! ! !
! !!
! !
Lake
365
! ! !
Franklin
3,094
!!
! !
!
!
!!
Ashland
15
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
Richland
3,383
!
!
!
!!
!!
! !
Fayette
152
!
!
!
!
!
!
Clinton
812
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
Madison
1,571
!
!
Warren
2,026
Clark
1,575
!
!
! ! !
! ! !! ! !
!
!
Delaware
760
! !
!
!
! !
! ! !
! ! !
!
!
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !
! ! !!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
!! !
! !
! !
!
! !
!
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
! !
! ! !
! ! !
!
! ! !
! ! !
! !
! ! !
!
! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! !! ! !
! ! !
! !
! !! !
! !
! !
!!
!
!
!
! ! !
! !
! !
Hamilton
1,993
! !
Champaign
666
! ! !
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
Crawford
790
!
! !
! ! !! ! !
! !
! ! !
Miami
1,016
!
!
! ! !!
! ! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!! !
! !
Logan
3,976
! !
!
!
Marion
643
Lorain
3,611
!
!!
! !
! !
!
!
!
! !
! !!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
! ! !
!!!! !
! !! !
!!
!
!
!
! ! !
!!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
Shelby
3,771
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Huron
292
Wyandot
843
! !
!!
!
!
!
!
! !
Seneca
1,266
!!
!
!
Hardin
400
!
!
!
!
!
!
Butler
1,381
! !
!
!
Hancock
4,247
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
Allen
2,132
Auglaize
819
!
!
Putnam
890
Mercer
333
Van Wert
753
!
!
! !
! !
! !
Sandusky
1,090
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
37
R020711A
THE DISTRIBUTION OF INDUSTRY EMPLOYMENT ACROSS OHIO

The map above shows the distribution of motor vehicle industry employment by county. The eight counties with highvolume assembly plants Clark, Logan, Lorain, Lucas, Montgomery, Ross, Trumbull, and Union had 133 industry establishments (20.5 percent of the total), but about 41,100 industry jobs (37.5 percent of the total). High-volume assembly
plants are large employers and may support a number of parts jobs close by. Counties that formed this pattern included
Lucas (an estimated 8,100-plus jobs, around 1,800 of which were at the assembly plants), Montgomery (6,900-plus jobs
estimated, with at least 1,500 at the assembly plant in March), and Trumbull (about 9,800 jobs estimated, with at least
2,500 at the assembly plant in March).
The other assembly-plant counties have fewer industry jobs, but border counties that have large numbers of parts employees. All of the 5,300 jobs in Union were at the plant, with almost 3,100 parts jobs in Franklin. In Logan, over 2,500 of
the 3,900-plus jobs were at the assembly plant, with 3,700-plus parts jobs in Shelby. 2,300 of the 3,600 jobs in Lorain
were at the assembly plant, with about 6,900 parts jobs in Cuyahoga. At least 500 of the estimated 1,500-plus jobs in
Clark were at the assembly plant, and Clark borders Montgomery. Ross County, with at least 1,000 of the 1,600-plus jobs
at the plant, is the exception to this pattern.
Other counties which had large numbers of parts jobs included Summit well over 2,900 (excluding 3,000 at Goodyears
headquarters), Hancock 4,200-plus (including tires), Richland close to 3,400 (the GM stamping plant has since closed), Defiance about 2,400 (a GM foundry), Wayne over 2,300, Allen 2,100-plus (a Ford engine plant), Wood over
2,000, Hamilton close to 2,000 (a Ford transmission plant), and Erie 1,800-plus (Ford).
Altogether, five counties Cuyahoga, Lucas, Montgomery, Trumbull and Union each had over 5,000 jobs, six counties
Franklin, Hancock, Logan, Lorain, Richland and Shelby had from 3,000 to 4,999 jobs, 19 counties had from 1,000 to
2,999 jobs, and 50 counties had from 1 to 999.
See Table A7
38
FOREIGN INVESTMENT IN OHIO

Dozens of foreign-based companies have subsidiaries and/or joint ventures in Ohios motor vehicle industry; 13 of them
are on Fortunes Global 500 list. The following list identifies them, the countries where the home office is located, their
subsidiaries in Ohio, and the total number of employees in the state. Sometimes the arrangements are complex, as evidenced by Hondas subsidiaries and affiliates in Ohio. The affiliates may be partially owned by Honda, a joint venture
between Honda and other companies, or they may be independent but have Honda as their principal customer.
Foreign Parents
Country
Ohio Subsidiaries ^
Ahresty
Aisin Seiki Co., Ltd.*
1
ArcelorMittal*
1
Asahi Glass Co., Ltd.*
Japan
Japan
Luxembourg
Japan
Automodular Corp.
1
Behr GmbH & Co. KG
Beijing Wanxiang Industrial Corp.
Carat-Duchatelet Holdings
Daimler AG*
Feintool International Holding
Fiat SpA*
Fine Sinter Co., Ltd.
F-Tech, Inc.
Fuserashi Co., Ltd.
GS ElecTech Co.
Hirschvogel Holding GmbH
1
Hitachi Ltd.*
Honda Motor Co.*
Canada
Germany
China
Belgium
Germany
Switzerland
Italy
Japan
Japan
Japan
Japan
Germany
Japan
Japan
Ahresty Wilmington Corp.

ADVICS Mfg. Ohio, Inc.
Powerlasers Corp.
(total)
AGC Automotive
Belletech Corp. (PPG Industries* owns 40 percent)
Automodular Assemblies, Inc.
Behr Dayton Thermal Products, Inc.
1
Powers & Sons LLC
Centigon USA
1
Detroit Diesel
1
Feintool Cincinnati, Inc.
2
Chrysler Group LLC
American Fine Sinter Co., Ltd.
F & P America Mfg., Inc.
Fuserashi International Tech
GSW Mfg., Inc.
Hirschvogel, Inc.
Hitachi Metals America/AAP St. Marys Corp.
(total)
1
Honda of America Mfg. Co.
AY Mfg. Ltd.
Cardington Yutaka Technologies, Inc.
U.S. Yachiyo
Yachiyo of America
(total)
Neaton Auto Products Mfg., Inc.
Nissin Brake Ohio, Inc.
FT Precision, Inc.
Weastec, Inc.
(subtotal)
TS Tech N. America, Inc.
Honda affiliates:
Nihon Plast Co., Ltd.
Nissin Kogyo Co., Ltd.
Tanaka Seimitsu Kogyo Co., Ltd.
Toyo Denso Co., Ltd.
Tokyo Seat (TS) Ltd.
Japan
39
Total
Jobs
420
625
65
510
370
140
20
2,000
220
90
500
240
2,550
125
650
22
135
150
470
13,281
12,250
200
650
141
40
2,872
700
750
225
145
712
25
Foreign Parents
Country
Honda affiliates (continued)

Yamada Mfg. Co., Ltd.
Imasen Electric Industrial Co.
Ishikawa Gasket Co., Ltd.
Isuzu Motors Co., Ltd.
Johnson Electric International
Kasai Kogyo Co., Ltd.
Kongsberg Automotive Holdings ASA
Kumi Kasei Co., Ltd.
Magna International, Inc.*
Japan
Japan
Japan
Switzerland
Japan
Norway
Japan
Canada
Mancor Canada, Inc.

Matcor-Matsu
Meteor Gummiwerke KH Badje GmbH & Co.
Miba AG
Mitsubishi Electric Corp.*
Molten Co.
Morioku Co. Ltd.
Muro Corp.
NHK Spring Co., Ltd.
Nippon Seiki Co., Ltd.
Nissen Chemitec, Inc.
Ofta Press Co., Ltd.
Pacific Industrial Co., Ltd.
Canada
Canada
Germany
Austria
Japan
Japan
Japan
Japan
Japan
Japan
Japan
Japan
Japan
Pioneer Corp.
PSA Peugeot Citroen SA*
Roki Co., Ltd.
Sankei Giken Kogyo Co., Ltd.
Sankyo Kogyo Co., Ltd.
Sanoh Industrial Co., Ltd.
Schaffler KG
Sekisui Chemical Co., Ltd.
Shougang Corp.
Showa Corp.
Showa Denko K.K.
Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.
Sulzer AG
Japan
France
Japan
Japan
Japan
Japan
Germany
Japan
China
Japan
Japan
Japan
Switzerland
Ohio Subsidiaries^
Total
Jobs
TS Tech USA Corp.

TS Trim Industries, Inc.
Yamada N. America, Inc.
Imasen Bucyrus Technology, Inc.
Ishikawa Gasket of America, Inc.
DMAX (GM* actually owns 60 percent)
Saia-Burgess, Inc.
M-Tek, Inc.
Kongsberg Systems I & II
Kamco Industries, Inc.
(total)
Decoma International (including Norplas)
Magna (including Cosma, Gra-Mag and Supplier Park)
Mancor Ohio, Inc.
Matsu Ohio
Meteor Sealing Systems LLC
Miba Bearings US and Miba Sinter USA
Mitsubishi Electric Automotive
1
Molten Corp.
Greenville Technology, Inc.
Murotech Ohio Corp.
New Mather Metals, Inc.
New Sabina Industries, Inc.
Nissen Chemitec America, Inc. (fka London Industries, Inc.)
Ohta Press US, Inc.
(total)
Pacific Industries USA, Inc./Pacific Mfg. Ohio
Pacific Industries USA, Inc./Takumi Stamping
Pioneer Automotive Techs
Faurecia Exhaust Systems, Inc.
Filtech, Inc.
Newman Technology, Inc.
SK Tech, Inc.
Sanoh America, Inc.
1
LuK USA LLC
Sekisui America Corp.
Beijing West Industries Co., Ltd.
American Showa, Inc.
Showa Aluminum Corp. of America
Stanley Electric U.S. Co., Inc.
(total)
Euroflamm Select, Inc.
Sulzer Transmissions Technologies
150
537
340
220
30
550
330
340
155
350
1,341
756
585
50
122
155
230
422
250
700
60
194
390
200
25
500
350
150
310
450
335
850
50
997
800
10
233
1,000
476
660
111
36
75
40
Foreign Parents
Country
Ohio Subsidiaries^
Total
Jobs
Taichi-S Co., Ltd.

Taiho Kogyo Co., Ltd.
TFO Corp.
1
ThyssenKrupp AG*
Japan
Japan
Japan
Germany
Tokai Kogyo Co., Ltd.
Japan
Toyobo Co., Ltd.

Tremcar Technologies, Inc.
USUI Kokusai Sangyo Kaisha Ltd.
Valeo SA
Wangxiang Holdings Corp.
Windsor Mold, Inc.
Japan
Canada
Japan
France
China
Canada
Yamashita Rubber
Zeppelin-Stiftung
Japan
Germany
Setex, Inc.
Taiho Corp. of America
TFO Tech Co., Ltd.
(total)
ThyssenKrupp Bilstein of America, Inc.
ThyssenKrupp Crankshaft Co. LLC
(total)
DTR Industries, Inc.
Green Tokai Co., Ltd.
Toyobo Kureha America Co., Ltd. (aka TK America)
Tremcar USA, Inc.
USUI International Corp.
Valeo Climate Control Corp.
Powers & Sons LLC
(total)
Autoplas
Windsor Mold, Inc. (aka Precision Automotive Plastics )
YUSA Corp.
ZF Trading N. America
475
135
140
573
212
361
1,290
790
500
40
22
50
285
220
100
50
50
830
15
Notes: ^ - some manufacturing subsidiaries are classified outside of the industry by their NAICS codes, but are included because a significant portion of their output is used by parts makers or assemblers; * a Fortune U.S.-1,000 or Global-500 company; aka also known as; fka formerly known as; 1 employs additional people in Ohio outside of the industry; 2 excludes non-Chrysler employees at Supplier Park; 3 Honda affiliates with no foreign parent are not shown here.
Sources: Fortune (2010), Gnau (2010), Harris (2010), LexisNexis (2010), ODOD (2010), PRSP (2010), Wikipedia (2011), and various company websites.
Honda of America Manufacturing is the largest foreign-based company in Ohios motor vehicle industry, employing more
than 13,100 at its manufacturing facilities. Over 2,800 more are employed by Hondas affiliates. Fiat is the second largest
foreign-based employer with 2,500-plus, followed by Behr with 2,000. Other foreign-based companies with at least 1,000
workers in Ohio include Showa (steering and suspension components), and Tokai Kogyo (rubber and glass). Except for
Honda and Fiat, the companies listed above are exclusively parts manufacturers. None manufactures trailers or batteries,
but one, a Pacific Industrial subsidiary, makes tire values.
The dozens of foreign parent companies or joint venture partners have headquarters in 11 nations. Seven are located in
Germany, six in Canada, three each in China and Switzerland, two in France, and one each in Austria, Belgium, Italy,
Luxembourg and Norway. The remaining ones at least 44 are Japanese. Although exact numbers may be difficult to
derive, it is safe to say that Japanese-based companies account for close to 75 percent of all foreign-based company employment related to Ohios motor vehicle industry.
41
TRENDS
42
Employment Trends in Ohio's Motor Vehicle Industry: 2000-2010

Focusing on Parts & Assembly Plants
160,000
150,800
141,300
140,000
133,300
127,600 125,700
124,300
119,000
120,000
Number of Jobs
106,600
100,000
95,000
80,000
75,700
72,000
69,300
60,000
40,000
20,000
2000*
2001*
Asmbly. Plnts. 39,200 36,600

MV Parts
111,600 104,700
2002*
2003*
2004*
2005*
2006*
2007*
2008*
2009*
11/2009 11/2010
33,700
31,200
30,900
29,700
28,100
24,900
22,500
16,600
13,300
19,700
99,600
96,400
94,800
94,600
90,900
81,700
72,500
55,400
56,000
56,000
Note: * - Annual Average
Source: ODJFS/LMI
43
EMPLOYMENT
The great deal of attention paid to the extraordinary changes in the motor vehicle industry during the last few years requires the most current data available. The chart above shows the history and current levels of employment in the two
largest motor vehicle industry groups according to ODJFS/LMI (2010). Combined employment fell from 150,800 in 2000
to 72,000 in 2009. The greater share of job losses occurred in the larger parts group (NAICS 3363) from 111,600 to
55,400, but the smaller assembly group (3361) showed a larger percentage decline (57.7 percent). During a recent 12month period for which data are available (November, 2009, to November, 2010), employment in the assembly group
actually grew by 6,400 from 13,300 to 19,700, while employment in the parts group remained unchanged at 56,000.
The data from County Business Patterns, while time-delayed, permit a more inclusive and detailed description of industry
employment changes. Data in table A8a show employment in Ohios motor vehicle industry fell from 157,700-plus in 2000
to less than 123,000 in 2002, but bounced back over 131,000 for 2003 and 2004. In 2005 and 2006 it held steady around
126,400, but fell to less than 109,000 by March of 2008. Overall, 49,200 jobs were disappeared a 31 percent loss. The
job losses were almost entirely in the two groups mentioned above. The parts group had the greatest absolute net loss
over 37,400 jobs, followed by the assembly group with 11,60010 but the two were nearly equal in proportion: 33 and 34
percent. There were fluctuations but little net change in the summary figures for the smaller groups: bodies and trailers
(3362) and the related industries.
The news was not uniformly bad in Ohio. An exception of note was a net increase of 1,000 jobs in the seating and trim
industry (33636). However, the figure of 6,400-plus for 2008 is about 900 below the peak of 7,300-plus in mid-decade.
Table A8b shows that the recent history of employment in Ohio is roughly similar to what was happening across the U.S.
Overall industry employment fell by close to 338,000, or 26 percent. It fell in the two larger groups: by 31 percent in parts,
and by nearly 23 percent in assembly. Unlike Ohio, national employment in the related industries fell by about 20 percent,
and by nine percent in bodies and trailers.
See Tables A8a & A8b
44
Motor Vehicle Industry (NAICS 3361-3363) Output

and Its Concentration in Ohio, 1997-2008
$140.00
18.0%
16.0%
14.0%
Value of Industry Output

(in billions,
standardized on 2005)
$100.00
12.0%
$80.00
10.0%
8.0%
$60.00
6.0%
$40.00
4.0%
$20.00
2.0%
$0.00
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Ohio: MV Output
$11.56 $13.81 $12.73 $13.34 $11.35 $13.73 $13.19 $15.10 $15.48 $16.44 $14.92 $13.44
U.S. MV Output
$79.08 $88.43 $89.98 $93.50 $84.39 $100.52 $106.12 $106.48 $112.62 $120.96 $120.64 $112.65
Ohio Total GDP--Percent of U.S.
4.0%
4.0%
3.9%
3.8%
3.7%
3.7%
3.7%
3.6%
3.5%
3.4%
3.4%
3.4%
Ohio MV GDP--Percent of U.S.
14.6%
15.6%
14.1%
14.3%
13.4%
13.7%
12.4%
14.2%
13.7%
13.6%
12.4%
11.9%
Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis

45
0.0%
Ohio as a Percentage of the U.S.
$120.00
GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) data are summary figures for the net value of goods and services added by the people
working in a state and using the capital therein. They are calculated for each industry in every state, including, of course,
the motor vehicle industry in Ohio. The chart above illustrates both the concentration of the industry in the state and its
cyclical nature. While economic activity in Ohio comprised roughly 3.4 to 4.0 percent of total domestic output from 1997
through 2008, typically 12 to 15 percent of U.S. motor vehicle industry goods (NAICS 3361-3) originated here. Ohio was
second only to Michigan in the output of motor vehicles and equipment from 1997 through 2007, barely slipping to third
after Indiana in 2008 (U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2010a).
The cyclical nature of motor vehicle industry output is evident after adjusting for inflation. The national output of industry
goods rose from 1997 through 2000 before falling in 2001. Output more-than-recovered in 2002, and continued growing
through 2006. Output from Ohio corresponds closely, but not exactly, with the national figures. National output in 2007
was virtually unchanged from 2006, but output from Ohio fell. Output here and across the nation fell in 2008. In other
words, trends in Ohios motor vehicle industry largely reflect what was happening throughout the nation. The pronounced
swings in output such as these are principally due to consumers desires to feel comfortable before spending so much
money. Sales and production typically rise during periods of sustained economic growth because jobs are plentiful,
and customers feel sufficiently confident making large expenditures. Conversely, sales and production fall when the
economy contracts and the unemployment rate is high. Sales also may be affected by secondary factors such as the cost
of gasoline, engineering and style changes, credit availability and low interest rates, and safety considerations (Levy,
2010: 22-23).
The net change in the volume of industry production in Ohio during this time was an increase of 16.2 percent less than
the corresponding national increase, but a greater growth rate than for the state as a whole. This means that the industry
remains concentrated here, and has become a slightly larger part of the states economy during this time. However, this
change may be only the consequence of the time period covered, and may not indicate any long-term trend.
See Table A9
46
Value-Added in Ohio's Motor Vehicle Industry

(NAICS 3361 & 3363) 1997-2008
$16.0
25.0%
$14.0
20.0%
Billions
$10.0
15.0%
$8.0
10.0%
$6.0
$4.0
5.0%
$2.0
$0.0
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
3361: Assembly Value
$10.8
$13.5
$13.3
$12.1
$10.4
$12.7
$9.6
$10.5
$10.8
$10.9
$9.9
$7.5
3363: Parts Value
$11.3
$11.0
$11.7
$11.2
$9.4
$11.8
$12.3
$13.5
$12.4
$11.3
$10.6
$8.6
3361: Assembly Pct. of U.S. 14.8% 20.4% 17.2% 19.6% 19.2% 17.6% 12.3% 14.8% 16.0% 16.5% 13.6% 14.3%
3363: Parts Pct. of U.S.
15.3% 14.2% 13.7% 13.3% 12.6% 13.6% 14.6% 16.3% 15.2% 14.0% 14.4% 13.7%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
47
0.0%
Percent of U.S.
$12.0
VALUE-ADDED BY OHIOS MOTOR VEHICLE INDUSTRY

Value-added data provide additional insight because they are available at the group level.11 The chart and data table
above illustrate a number of characteristics of the industry:
The industry in Ohio is overwhelmingly comprised motor vehicle assembly and parts operations. In the aggregate,
both are multibillion-dollar endeavors. However, neither group dominates the industry. Values-added in assembly
and parts operations were $7.5 and $8.6 billion, respectively, in 2008, the lowest in the time covered. (There is no
adjustment for inflation.) These amounts contrast with the bodies and trailers group, which plays a much smaller
role in the industry here.12
Assembly and parts operations are directly dependent on one another, but they do not necessarily change in the
same direction from one year to the next. This reflects the facts that parts made here are used in vehicles assembled here and elsewhere, and parts made outside of Ohio may be used by assembly plants here. Parts also
are made for the replacement market as well as original equipment.
The overall concentration of the motor vehicle industry in Ohio reflects the concentration of the two largest groups:
assembly and parts operations. The percentage of value-added by assembly operations in Ohio ranged from 12.3
to 20.4 percent of the national total, while parts operations ranged from 12.6 to 15.3 percent of the corresponding
total. The corresponding 12-year averages from table A10 are 16.2 and 14.2 percent, both of which are greater
than the industry GDP average of 13.6 percent. The 12-year average for bodies and trailers was 4.5 percent.13
See Tables A9 & A10
48
Light Vehicle Production in Ohio and the U.S., 1990-2010

8,000
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
P
r
o
d
u
c
e
d
7,000
i
n
6,000
t
h
o
u
s
a
n
d
s
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
U.S. Cars
U.S. Lt.
Ohio Cars
Ohio Lt.
2008
2010
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Ohio Lt. Trucks 631
678
565
Ohio Cars
967
915 1,006 960
843
796
813
907
855
893
840
918
842
723
848
957
944
912
785
878
630
389
592
989 1,085 1,105 1,016 1,056 1,022 1,016 990
928
797
882
885
870
854
394
511
U.S. Lt. Trucks 3,464 3,177 3,808 4,608 5,332 5,306 5,749 6,197 6,448 7,387 7,228 6,546 7,261 7,577 7,731 7,625 6,893 6,828 4,896 3,280 4,699
U.S. Cars
6,078 5,440 5,667 5,982 6,601 6,340 6,083 5,934 5,554 5,638 5,542 4,879 5,019 4,510 4,230 4,321 4,367 3,924 3,777 2,331 2,941
Sources: Automotive News & Ward's.
49
LIGHT VEHICLE PRODUCTION IN OHIO AND THE U.S.

Light vehicle production is the core of the motor vehicle industry, comprising the vast majority of all motor vehicles made.
The chart above illustrates the ups and downs of production in Ohio and the U.S. from 1990 through 2010. These fluctuations reflect various influences, including economic expansion and contraction, the opening and closing of plants, and
changes in companies product-mixes. In Ohio, the majority of production shifted from light trucks to cars during the mid1980s as Honda increased production in first Marysville and then in E. Liberty. Cars were the majority of light vehicles
produced in Ohio from 1990 through 2002. 2003 was the first year since 1988 in which more light trucks than cars rolled
off assembly lines in Ohio. Neither car nor light truck production has consistently dominated since then, although light
truck production has dropped with the closure of Fords Lorain plant in 2005 and GMs Moraine plant in 2008-9. However,
it rebounded in 2010 as Hondas E. Liberty plant changed to emphasize sport-utility vehicles.
This differs from the national trend. Data in table A11, as well as the chart above, show production shifting from cars to
light trucks. Car production still comprised 63.7 percent of U.S. light vehicle production in 1990. By 1997, car production
was 48.9 percent of the same, and fell to 35.4 percent in 2004. It rose above 40 percent during the recession years of
2008-9, but dropped below that level in the recovery of 2010. Two explanations have been offered for these shifts. First,
the addition of car-like amenities and handling characteristics has made light trucks substitutes for large cars and station
wagons (Levy, 2010: 9); indeed, many are now based on car platforms. Second, light truck sales (and hence production)
also were facilitated by relatively low gasoline prices most of the time.14 While these factors explained the greater demand for light trucks, assemblers were motivated by the higher profit such sales provided and encouraged by the lower
corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) requirements (Gott, et.al., 1999) of the time.
These contrasting shifts of production-mixes mean that Ohio has become a relatively more important source for cars, rising from 13.9 percent of U.S. output in 1990 to 22.6 percent in 2008. At the same time, the state became a relatively less
important source for light trucks. Factories in Ohio produced 21.3 percent of the nations light trucks in 1991, but only
about 12 percent since 1999. Ohio moved up from third to second rank in car production (after Michigan), but fell from
first and second rankings in light truck production to second and third (after Michigan and Missouri).
Throughout this transition, Ohio has typically been the source of one-seventh to one-sixth of light vehicles made in the
U.S. The combined high numbers of cars and light trucks almost always make Ohio the second-ranked source for light
vehicles.
See Table A11
50
Capital Expenditures in Ohio's Motor Vehicle Industry

25.0%
$2.00
20.0%
$1.50
15.0%
$1.00
10.0%
$0.50
5.0%
Billions
$2.50
$0.00
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
3361: Assembly Expndtrs.
$0.45
$0.36
$0.75
$0.84
$0.46
$0.32
$0.29
$0.42
$0.45
$0.57
$0.27
$0.14
3363: Parts Expndtrs.
$1.89
$1.67
$1.32
$1.12
$1.10
$1.37
$0.93
$1.12
$0.80
$1.54
$1.03
$1.18
3361: Assembly Pct. of U.S.
8.4%
6.8%
15.6% 17.6% 10.4%
6.6%
5.5%
9.0%
10.6% 14.1%
7.1%
3.3%
3363: Parts Pct. of U.S.
19.9% 17.0% 14.0% 12.6% 13.1% 18.1% 12.6% 18.0% 11.9% 22.4% 15.5% 17.3%
51
0.0%
Percent of U.S.
(NAICS 3361 & 3363) 1997-2008
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES FOR OHIOS MOTOR VEHICLE INDUSTRY

The chart above shows how much money companies have spent purchasing land, buildings, and equipment for production in Ohio, both in dollars and as a percentage of all such industry expenditures in the nation. Total expenditures fluctuated during the years shown, ranging between $2.37 and $1.22 billion (1997 and 2003). (Again, there is no adjustment
for inflation.) These represent any where from 9.4 to 18.8 percent of the industrys annual investments (2003 and 2006).
The 12-year average was 9.5 percent. Capital expenditures for body and trailer production in Ohio also vary widely, but
seldom exceed $20 million a year.
Levy (2004) offers an explanation of the up-and-down character of industry investment at the local level. He notes that
large capital expenditures are required for product development and launching new models. While companies do this all
the time, individual models typically are made at just one plant, with the consequence that capital expenditures at the local
level may be highly variable over the course of the years. This also characterizes engine, transmission and stamping
plants. Based on the chart above, this certainly appears true for Ohio.15
Most capital expenditures in Ohio are made for parts production: in an average year, about $733 of every $1,000 spent.
An additional $259 goes for assembly operations, with the remaining $8 for bodies and trailers. These proportions vary
from year to year.
Despite some notable exceptions, it is hard to argue that companies are abandoning their facilities in Ohio at least in a
relative sense. Short time periods make it difficult to distinguish fluctuations and volatility from genuine trends. Consequently, averages may be more useful. In this regard, the figures are fairly close. On average, 14.5 percent of the industrys value-added from 1997-2008 originated in Ohio, while industry establishments in Ohio absorbed a comparable 13.3
percent of capital expenditures, and had 11.8 percent of comparable employment in 2008. These varied by group: the
figures for assembly plants were 16.2 percent of value-added, 9.5 percent of capital expenditures, and 12.3 percent of
jobs, but the corresponding figures for parts plants were 14.2 percent, 16.0 percent, and 13.5 percent.
See Tables A5, A10 & A12
52
Establishments Trends in Ohio's Motor Vehicle Industry: 2000-2008

800
700
648
653
645
658
673
647
612
606
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
336111: Cars
11
12
13
10
14
14
14
15
12
336112: Light Trucks
33612: Heavy Duty Trucks
10
10
11
3362: Bodies & Trailers
71
70
72
80
82
80
95
101
94
3363: Parts
479
462
462
499
498
493
490
498
480
Related Industries
55
57
48
48
46
43
45
45
45
Number of Establishments
627
600
500
400
300
200
100
0

53
ESTABLISHMENTS
Further evidence that the motor vehicle industry is not abandoning production in Ohio is seen in above chart showing the
number of establishments by industry group from 2000 to 2008. The net change was an increase from 627 to 647, although totals ranged from 606 in 2002 to 673 in 2007. While these fluctuations are the aggregate result of all the changes
in the constituent industries, most of the changes are seen primarily in the in parts group (NAICS 3363) as well as a rise in
the number of body and trailer plants (3362). These increases were partially offset by a decline in related industry plants.
While the total number of assembly plants (3361) has risen, the number of high-volume assembly plants fell by one;
Fords Lorain plant closed at the end of 2005. (The data may eventually reflect the fact that GMs Moraine plant was closed by 2009.)
Details in table A13a do not point to any specific industry as the sole mover of changes in the parts group; the number of
establishments rose in some and fell in others. The most notable change in parts has been the rebound of stamping
plants (33637) since 2002. Also noteworthy are the increasing number of body and trailer plants (3362) and the decreasing number of tire retreading plants (326212).
The total number of motor vehicle industry establishments in the nation also fluctuated, but numbered 125 less in 2008
than in 2000, a net decrease of 1.3 percent. The most notable portions of this decline happened in other motor vehicle
electrical and electronic equipment (336322) and tire retreading (326212), down 278 and 199 establishments, respectively. Other specific industries losing notable numbers include light vehicles (33611), carburetors-pistons-rings-valves
(336311), and brake systems (33634). On the other hand, the number of establishments producing parts for steering and
suspension (33633), seating and interior trim (33636) and all other motor vehicle parts (336399) substantially increased
just not enough to offset the losses.
It is also worth noting that motor vehicle industry establishments, whether in Ohio or across the nation, have faired better
than manufacturing establishments in general. The total number of manufacturing establishments in Ohio fell by 10 percent from 2000 through 2008, only slightly more than the eight percent decline across America.
54
55
U.S. INDUSTRY ANALYSIS AND OUTLOOK
56
Exports of Motor Vehicles and Parts and Accessories as a Percentage

of Imports and the Value of the Dollar, 1999-2009
90.0%
140.0
120.0
70.0%
100.0
60.0%
50.0%
80.0
40.0%
60.0
30.0%
40.0
20.0%
20.0
10.0%
0.0%
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Total
42.4% 41.4% 40.1% 39.1% 38.7% 39.4% 41.5% 42.2% 47.2% 52.5% 51.9%
Motor Vehicles
21.7% 20.4% 20.2% 21.7% 24.1% 25.5% 30.1% 30.7% 38.7% 46.1% 42.9%
Parts and Accessories
81.6% 81.8% 80.7% 73.0% 65.3% 63.5% 59.7% 61.6% 60.8% 62.7% 64.7%
Index Value of the Dollar 116.87 119.45 125.91 126.66 119.09 113.59 110.81 108.52 103.40 99.83 105.87
Sources: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Federal Reserve Board

57
0.0
Value of the Dollar
Exports as a Percentage of Imports
80.0%
BALANCE OF TRADE TRENDS

The broadest trade measures include parts and accessories as well as motor vehicles (new and used). The common
base for comparing (and combining) the two groups is their dollar value. The chart above shows the changes in the U.S.
trade deficit in motor vehicles, parts-and-accessories, and the combination of the two (Total) for 1999 through 2009.16
Relatively speaking, the Total trade deficit increased slightly from 1999 to 2003, indicated by the falling value of exportsas-a-percent-age-of-imports from 42.4 to 38.4 percent. The deficit in motor vehicles has been relatively greater than the
deficit in parts and accessories. This is indicated by the much lower ratio of exports-to-imports in vehicles less than 25
percent during those years than the same ratio for parts and accessories 65 to 82 percent.
A partial explanation for the changes in trade deficits is the changing value of the dollar. A lower value of the dollar makes
American-made goods relatively less expensive for foreigners to buy and foreign goods more expensive for people and
companies in American to buy. A higher value has the opposite effects. The slight increase in the index value of the dollar from 1999 to 2003 appears to have increased the relative Total deficit in exactly in this way. Conversely, the dollars
larger decline after 2002 accompanied a larger decrease the relative Total deficit. The relationship also is seen in the two
components more for motor vehicles than parts-and-accessories even though it does not match-up every year.17
It should be noted that the effect of currency fluctuations on U.S.-based companies can be complex. The devaluation of
Asian currencies aided U.S.-based tire manufacturers by making their principal raw material natural rubber less expensive (Prat, 1998). One U.S.-based tire manufacturer even increased production at its Asian plants. The devaluation
of Asian currencies made its own products inexpensive imports, thereby decreasing its costs.
Trade agreements can affect levels of trade independently of the dollars value. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has boosted motor vehicle trade among the member countries. It permitted manufacturers to rationalize
production, improving productivity and profitability. The effect of NAFTA on U.S.-Canadian trade has been less dramatic
than on U.S.-Mexican trade because Canada and the U.S. already had small or no tariffs (Gott, et.al., 1999). However,
Mexicos membership in both NAFTA and MERCOSUR links the North and South American trade blocks, and its lower
costs make it an attractive location for exports to other Latin America nations, not just to the U.S. and Canada (Levy,
1999).
The implementation of NAFTA may also help explain the relative increase in the U.S. industrys trade deficit. While American exports to Canada and Mexico increased, imports from those countries increased even more. The most notable industry effect was that more vehicles were imported from Mexico. Levy (2001) argued that the impact of the strong dollar
was greater than the effect of NAFTA.
58
Government policy may have unintended consequences on trade. U.S.-based companies shifted the assembly of some
larger (and more expensive) cars to Canada in order to meet the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) requirements
for vehicles assembled in the U.S. (Adams, 1998). This shows up in the U.S.-Canadian trade statistics. Most of the bilateral industry trade with Canada consists of intra-company shipments (Gott, et.al., 1999). The U.S. exports more engines and other parts to Canada than it imports from Canada. However, many of those engines and parts come back to
the U.S. in vehicles; the U.S. trade deficit with Canada in vehicles has, until 2009, more than offset the surplus in engines,
parts and accessories (U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2010b).
Finally, the growth of industry in a developing country may also affect the balance of trade. Chinese companies plan to
export vehicles to America. However, a delay of a few years is expected due to a current lack of distribution channels and
unresolved issues concerning quality and safety. In an ironic twist, though, GM might import up to 50,000 small Chinesemade vehicles per year by 2014 (Levy 2010: 17).
See Table A14
59
60
U.S. Market Share Sales Trends in Light Vehicles

by Brand & Import Status: 1990 - 2009
100%
90%
80%
Percentage of Sales
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997*
1998*
1999*
2000*
2001*
2002*
2003*
2004*
2005*
2006*
2007*
2008^
2009^
U.S.B.T. 28.9%
29.0%
32.1%
34.6%
35.9%
37.2%
38.9%
38.2%
39.8%
38.9%
38.7%
39.2%
39.7%
40.2%
40.1%
38.7%
35.1%
34.2%
29.2%
27.3%
U.S.B.C. 43.2%
41.9%
40.4%
39.6%
37.7%
36.4%
34.5%
33.4%
30.6%
30.0%
28.1%
25.3%
23.3%
21.5%
20.0%
19.5%
19.8%
18.0%
19.2%
17.5%
J.B.D.T.
1.1%
1.5%
2.1%
2.7%
3.1%
2.9%
3.0%
3.1%
3.3%
4.2%
5.2%
5.7%
5.7%
6.8%
8.2%
9.1%
9.2%
9.2%
8.9%
9.1%
J.B.D.C.
7.5%
9.0%
8.9%
8.9%
9.4%
10.5%
11.9%
12.1%
12.2%
11.1%
11.1%
11.4%
11.5%
11.7%
12.4%
12.9%
12.8%
14.0%
15.5%
17.3%
J.B.I.T.
4.1%
4.2%
3.1%
2.6%
2.6%
2.5%
2.7%
3.5%
3.9%
4.1%
4.3%
4.6%
4.9%
5.4%
4.9%
4.6%
5.7%
6.1%
5.6%
4.9%
J.B.I.C.
10.8%
10.8%
10.0%
8.6%
7.8%
6.4%
4.7%
4.9%
4.5%
4.6%
5.1%
5.1%
5.7%
5.1%
5.1%
5.7%
7.3%
7.7%
9.5%
8.9%
Others
4.4%
3.8%
3.4%
3.0%
3.5%
3.9%
4.4%
4.7%
5.7%
7.1%
7.6%
8.8%
9.3%
9.3%
9.3%
9.4%
10.1%
10.7%
12.1%
14.8%
Sources: Automotive News, Ward's. Note: * - 1997 and later years not entirely comparable with earlier years; ^ - Automotive News data.
Abbreviations used: B - Brand; C - Car; D - Domestic; I - Import; J - Japanese; T - Light Truck; U.S. - United States.
61
MARKET SHARE TRENDS

Market share trends are important because sooner or later capacity [i.e., the number of plants making goods and employing people] follows market share (Harbour Consulting, 2006: 11). Starting with the energy crisis in 1973, the U.S. light
vehicle market was transformed from a stable oligopoly into the most competitive market in the world as Japanese-brand
assemblers captured a significant portion of sales. They did so by offering higher quality products better matching shifting
consumer demand. Competition compelled U.S.-brand assemblers to address both quality and organizational problems.
The latter (and their suppliers) restructured their organizations and re-engineered their vehicles (and parts), improving design and quality while reducing costs. Design and quality issues are now much less distinguishing. The intensely competitive market limits the pricing power of assemblers. In some cases, new models are priced the same or lower than earlier
models even though the new models may have more features than the old models (Levy, 2010: 22).18
Never-the-less, the struggle for market share continues. The chart above illustrates a number of market share trends in
U.S. light vehicle sales during the last 20 years. After fluctuating between 70 and 74 percent from 1990 through 1998, the
combined share of U.S. brand cars and light trucks (USBC and USBT) fell below 70 percent of all sales in 1999, and
continued to fall each year through 2009, when it was 44.8 percent. For most of this period, the net loss of market share
for U.S. brands is the combination of two countervailing trends. Sales of USBTs rose from 28.9 percent in 1990 to 40.2
percent in 2003. (U.S.-brand assemblers adapted faster than the competition to changing consumer tastes in this segment, but foreign-brand assemblers have been targeting this market.) However, this was not enough to counter-balance
the declining market share of USBCs, which fell from 43.2 percent in 1990 to 21.5 percent in 2003. Things took a turn for
the worse for U.S.-based assemblers in 2004 when USBTs started losing market share down 12.9 percent, and USBCs
continued losing market share down 4.0 percent. Foreign car brands, whether imported or domestically assembled,
have combined for the majority of car sales in America since 2002 (Automotive News, 2010; Wards, 1991-2008). In
2009, Toyota had 19.3 percent of U.S. car sales, GM had 16 percent, Honda 12.8 percent, Ford 11.6 percent, Nissan 9.4
percent and Chrysler 4.2 percent (Levy, 2010: 10).
Some of the market share loss of U.S. brands may be attributed to the changing value of the dollar. Statistics from the
Federal Reserve Board (1993, 1996, 1999, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010) show a net decline in the value of the dollar from
1990 to 1995, after which it steadily rose until 2002, and declined until 2008. The chart above shows that imports share
of motor vehicle sales (essentially the bottom three blocks of each stacked bar in the chart) fell from 19.3 percent in 1990
to 12.9 percent in 1995, and then grew to 19.8 percent in 2002, with little change until 2006.19 However, the 7 percent rise
in imports market share does not account for all of the 10.7 percent decline in market share of U.S. brands from 1995 to
2002. Part of the difference is the increased share 3.6 percent of Japanese-brand light trucks and cars assembled in
N. America (JBDT and JBDC) from 1995 to 2002. Appendix table A15b shows the details. Furthermore, the decline in
62
the value of the dollar since 2002 is inconsistent with the increasing share of imports in the same period.
The chart also illustrates the continuing shift of production of Japanese brand vehicles to N. America. In 1990, 8.6 percent of sales in America were of Japanese brand cars and trucks made here, while 14.9 percent belonged to Japanese
imports. By 1996, the share of Japanese imports had dropped to 7.4 percent of U.S. sales, while the share of domestically made Japanese-brand vehicles had risen to 14.9 percent. Shifting production from Japan to N. America achieved
intended goals: circumvent the import quotas of the 1980s, insulate sales from the effects of changing currency values,
and facilitate adaption to local tastes. (The rising value of the yen at the time made imported Japanese vehicles relatively
more expensive when compared with vehicles produced in the U.S.) Since 1996, though, Japanese imports have risen
with little regard to the changing value of the dollar to claim 13.9 percent of U.S. sales. Domestically made Japanese
vehicles had 26.5 percent of the market in 2009. The total 40.3 percent is the largest Japanese-brand share. The
corresponding decline in market share of U.S. brands 44.9 percent in 2009 was mostly at the cost of GM and Ford.
However, the collective market share of U.S. brands improved slightly in 2010 (Levy, 2010: 17, 20).
Other vehicle makers individually have only toe-holds in the American market their combined share of sales never surpassed five percent until 1998. The improved design and quality of U.S. vehicles, as well as the declining value of the
dollar, probably were factors in the decisions by European producers such as Peugeot, Renault, and Fiat to leave the U.S.
market (Gott, et.al., 1999: 36-39).20 Their increasing market share since 1993 is largely consistent with the rising value of
the dollar. However, the strong value of the Euro hurt sales of European brands in the early part of this decade (Levy,
2004). Under these circumstances, the recent rise of other vehicle makers reflects the growing share of S. Korean assemblers. Hyundai and Kias combined market share rose to 7.1 percent in 2009 from 4.5 percent in 2005, helped in part
by their improved reputation for quality (Levy, 2010: 12-13, 20). Non-Japan-based foreign assemblers also have opened
assembly operations here.
The constant competition for market share led to much more frequent use of rebates and discounts by dealers and assemblers. While per-unit costs of vehicles can be lowered by maintaining high demand which rebates and discounts are
intended to stimulate, failure to lower costs at the same time simply reduces profit. These practices are less likely with
models for which demand is higher (Levy, 2010: 22-23).21
Finally, it has been noted that foreign-based makers of heavy-duty trucks have not threatened their American counterparts
with imports for two reasons. First, heavy-duty trucks are not manufactured in many foreign countries because there is
little need for such trucks distances traveled are shorter, and few roads could accommodate them. Second, the few
such assemblers have preferred to buy U.S.-based assets rather than establish their own manufacturing facilities. On the
other hand, some foreign medium-duty truck makers have made some inroads into the American market with their exports
(Jaffe, 2010: 16).
63
INDUSTRY OPERATIONS AND RECENT TRENDS

Companies making light vehicles (NAICS 33611) and companies assembling medium- and heavy-duty trucks (NAICS
33612) have a number of characteristics in common despite serving different markets. (The former serve mostly families
and individuals, the latter usually serve organizations looking for capital goods.) Both produce their own components or
purchase them from independent suppliers. The modules and parts mostly metal, plastic, rubber and/or glass are
shipped to plants where workers assemble them into vehicles. Companies in both industries engage in the more profitable and riskier activities of leasing and financing. Medium- and heavy-duty truck makers also offer maintenance and
repair services (Levy, 2010; Jaffe, 2010: 7, 9, 12, 16-17).
Price competition in both industries is intense, continuing regardless of how well the economy is doing (Levy, 2010: 22;
Jaffe, 2010: 16). While both may offer rebates or discounts, the practice has become much more frequent among light
vehicle assemblers due, in this era of globalization, to the larger number of light vehicle assemblers operating in N.
America (Levy, 2010: 22). As mentioned in the preceding section, the light vehicle market has not been an oligopoly in
decades. Although there are now just four heavy-duty truck assemblers in N. America, the size, knowledge of market
choices and the financial soundness of customers counter-balances that concentration (Jaffe, 2010: 16).22
Both industries are cyclical, albeit for different reasons. Purchasing a new light vehicle usually is the second largest expenditure a person or family makes, and people need to feel confident that they can afford it. As previously noted, new
light vehicle sales take-off when the economy is expanding and people feel secure in their employment prospects, but fall
dramatically when the economy contracts and the unemployment rate is high (Levy, 2010: 23). Medium- and heavy-duty
trucks are capital goods, and as such, purchases lag the economy. Purchases are made to add capacity as well as replace aging equipment. During times of economic weakness, orders fall or are cancelled. Owners may choose to repair
trucks, and fleet operators have even cannibalized idle trucks for spare parts (Jaffe, 2010: 17).
In other ways, the two industries differ. Heavy-duty trucks usually are customized to suit the buyers needs.23 Buyers
select engines, transmissions, axles, suspensions, wheels, tires, brake systems, seating and other features based on
considerations such as distance per trip, geography, and cargo type. More recent optional features that improve safety
and efficiency include GPS-based tracking and communications systems, antilock brakes, and crash-avoidance warning
systems. Because trucks are so customized, assemblers concentrate on the design of platforms and rely on suppliers to
design the various mechanical and electrical systems that they assemble into a complete vehicle. This lets assemblers
maintain the lowest possible fixed cost base and maximizes flexibility for customers. Basic vehicle redesigns may not be
made for 10 years. New designs result from breakthroughs such as improved aerodynamics or weight reductions. Parts
suppliers may make interim improvements, and they work with assemblers to meet safety and emissions regulations
(Jaffe, 2010: 16).
64
By contrast, light vehicle makers have sought to shorten model life times to five years. They bring new models to market
in about three years, and aim to reduce this to two years. The accelerated pace may be due in part to changing consumer tastes and regulatory requirements, but the practice also keeps a companys line-up fresh. It has been accomplished
by having product designers work with engineers, thereby minimizing redesign work in later development stages (Levy,
2010: 20); work with industrial process designers also minimizes assembly time (Harbour Consulting, 2004).
The motor vehicle industry seems to change daily, perhaps the consequence of the two most important, interrelated industry trends: competition and globalization. Competition increases when companies enter markets around the globe
(again, as noted in the preceding section), and emerging markets such as Brazil, Russia, India and China present opportunities for higher-growth rates for established companies, with the attendant competition for market share. Such markets
also are characterized by lower manufacturing costs, which certainly help U.S.-based companies overall bottom lines.
Companies have closed plants in high-cost regions while opening plants in the high-growth locales to offset high material
costs as well as to better serve their customers (Levy, 2010: 16).24
The industrial process has changed over the years as companies have entered new territories and now compete in markets around the world. The intensified competition compelled companies not only to improve quality, but also to cut costs
wherever possible. (Better quality means, among other things, that products last longer, and that less time is needed for
routine maintenance.) A number of organizational and technical changes have been made pursuing these goals. The
assembly process has been simplified in a number of ways. Vehicles today contain fewer parts than in the past. Fewer
parts mean lower production costs as well as less chance of assembly errors. Simplification also means that the number
of stampings required for sheet metal parts such as hoods, trunks, fenders and doors has been reduced (Levy, 2010: 20;
also see Jaffe, 2010: 9, 16).
Perhaps the most far-reaching change for motor vehicle assemblers (NAICS 33611) has been the shift of work from assemblers to tier-1 suppliers. Two examples illustrate these changes. In the past, seats were made at the assembly plant
from the inventory of components. Now, assemblers order seats from an off-site facility, and have them delivered just-intime for incorporation into the vehicle. (Suppliers delivering goods in reusable containers reduce waste and pollution
costs.) Meeting these demands is easier if suppliers locate close to their customers, as orders are placed daily or even
hourly (Levy, 2010: 21). Similarly, the pistons, cylinder liners, connecting rods, and related bearings were made by different companies at different locations and shipped to a plant for assembly. Now, a single company has combined the
operations, delivering a tested, more reliable system (which it at least helped design) at less cost than before (Gaines,
1999; Levy, 1999).
65
The first example is simply shifting the work off-site. The second represents the reorganization of the supplier base and
its relationship with assemblers. Suppliers are now involved with assemblers in designing, developing, and engineering
components and systems (Levy, 2010: 20). They also may assemble the components into modules, and do quality control testing. There are advantages and risks for both with this approach. Pooling organizational resources facilitated and
shortened R&D cycles as well as actual production. Shifting these activities to suppliers reduces some investment risks
and costs for assemblers while drawing both closer. Under these circumstances, contracts are no longer done annually,
but for the life of the model. The contracts stipulate supplier productivity targets offsetting inflation and lowering per-unit
costs for the assemblers. In turn, assemblers agree to share the savings they achieve with suppliers. Suppliers are left to
decide how to meet assemblers goals on costs, quality, performance, timing, and features. They can choose their own
tier-2 and tier-3 suppliers. While the rewards may be greater for suppliers (Levy, 2010: 24-25), failure to meet expectations can cost suppliers business. Chrysler withdrew from a deal with Collins & Aikman over price and quality concerns
regarding a bumper for its Jeep Liberty (Levy, 2004).
While the relationship between assemblers and tier-1 suppliers may be closer, it is not cozy. Tier-1 suppliers face financial pressures in the form of higher prices for materials and assemblers demanding lower prices (Levy, 2010: 6).25 Yet,
with more invested in suppliers, assemblers and even tier-1 companies have been known to aid their crucial suppliers with
staff or loans to avoid costly delays in production. Although it took a toll on suppliers, the recessions impact was not as
bad as expected precisely for those reasons. For example, Delphi, which emerged from bankruptcy in the fall of 2009,
helped companies with purchasing and manufacturing (Levy, 2010: 24). Delphi also had received help from GM when the
former was in bankruptcy (Karush, 2006).26
The closer relationship with assemblers means that tier-1 suppliers have opportunities overseas with emerging markets
and for the same reasons as assemblers: low cost labor for manufacturing and engineering, and rapidly growing local
demand. Overseas expansion also supports assemblers efforts to consolidate designs across international markets as
well as supplying assemblers (Levy, 2010: 6, 16).
Assemblers and tier-1 suppliers around the world would like to reduce the number of suppliers with whom they deal to
further trim costs and increase efficiency.27 Indeed, the supplier base is becoming smaller as companies merge or leave
the business. Mergers and acquisitions among and by suppliers are done for a number of reasons. A larger size enables
the new company to offer more products and/or integrate components into a module, thereby spreading overhead costs
and reducing per unit costs. Larger companies also are better able to follow and service their clients around the world,
making themselves more valuable to clients and more likely to get contracts. Tier-1 suppliers, in turn, are trying to reduce
the number of their (tier-2) suppliers in order to reduce their own costs and improve efficiency. The result is that the number of suppliers is shrinking as companies either merge or leave the business (Levy, 2004).
66
One consequence of suppliers assuming subassembly work has been the standardization of final assembly procedures
for different model vehicles. In other words, when the same modules are used in different models, it is easier if those
modules are assembled in the same order regardless of what model is being assembled. Given the tight schedules and
close coordination between assemblers and tier-1 and tier-2 suppliers that just-in-time manufacturing requires, standardizing the process saves money (Harbour Consulting, 2004). Conversely, the commonality of parts and the standardization of assembly processes enable companies to assemble more models on one line. The key for an assemblers
efficient operation then is rapidly and inexpensively making the necessary changes for different models. (An example
might be re-programming welding machines instead of swapping them out.)
Harbour Consulting (2004) believes that this results in the more efficient use of facilities. For example, greater demand
for one model produced by one plant and little demand for another made at a second plant could lead to overtime at the
former and underutilization of labor and equipment at the latter. If the second plant could quickly and easily switch between production setups for the two models, then overtime could be reduced at the first plant and the second plants facilities would be better utilized. (This also means it is easier to fill niche markets Durbin, 2006). This can only happen if
there is a just-in-time supply system, sufficient commonalities between the two vehicles components, the assembly sequences are standardized, and the same equipment can be used for either model with little or no change.
67
TECHNOLOGIES FOR PRODUCTION PROCESSES AND VEHICLES

Innovative technologies have been an important part of improving productivity at the plant. Examples include computeraided design, engineering, and manufacturing (CAD/CAE/CAM), the adoption of progressive die presses (progs) at
stamping plants, and the use of the Internet. Computer technology has revolutionized the design process. It used to take
12 workers 12 weeks to produce a clay model of a proposed new vehicle. Today, one designer with CAD equipment and
software can produce an animated video in three weeks, and an individual part may be designed in as little as one hour
(Levy, 2010: 20). Progs are faster, form multiple parts with one stroke, take less space, and cost less (Harbour & Associates, 2001). Assemblers and suppliers can use the Internet to communicate more quickly and easily; consolidating
supply chain transactions and logistics to a single location can reduce companies costs.
However, such innovations may come with tradeoffs. For example, aluminum wheels may weigh less and work better
with rubber than steel, but aluminum costs more per pound than steel. Similarly, progs work better with coiled steel than
with steel blanks, and are less effective with aluminum. Prog die changes may take longer than die changes with the tandem presses they replace, and require more training for workers. The Internet website Covinsint, started by GM, Ford
and Chrysler as a one-stop bidding shop for suppliers, was sold to Compuware because it did not work as well as envisioned. Compuware kept the name and tried to improve on the companys successes as it competed with other electronic commerce exchanges for business (Harbour & Associates, 2001; Harbour Consulting, 2004). Furthermore, the
price transparency of online competitive bidding has put downward pressure on prices and profits for suppliers of commodity items. On the other hand, suppliers of high value-added items generally have been less affected (Levy, 2010: 23).
Innovative technologies also have been an important part of creating safer, higher quality vehicles. Technical advances
have been spurred by consumer demand and/or new government regulations.28 Engine makers have improved fuel efficiency to the point where they can extract nearly twice as much power from a gallon of gas as they did 25 years ago
(Whoriskey, 2011). Six-speed transmissions are replacing conventional four- and five-speed transmissions; they have
fewer parts, weigh less, modestly improve fuel efficiency, and perform better when accelerating and moving through traffic
(Harbour Consulting, 2006: 170-171). Further examples include tire pressure monitors, inflatable curtains and the related
knee and side air-bags, electronic stability controls and their integration with anti-lock breaking systems, (Levy, 2010: 19).
However, vehicle makers have been caught between conflicting demands from government regulators and consumers.
They must comply with standards for safety, fuel consumption and pollution control, each of which impacts vehicle performance. Gains in fuel efficiency largely have gone to satisfy consumers preferences for more powerful engines, not to
increasing mileage per gallon (Whoriskey, 2011). Government regulations may work at cross purposes. For example, the
easiest way to improve fuel economy is to reduce vehicle weight, but ceteris paribus, that reduces safety in a collision,
68
and adding pollution control equipment adds weight to a vehicle. The efforts to satisfy conflicting demands force manufacturers to adopt complex solutions29 that add to a vehicles cost (Levy, 2010: 13-14).
New rules requiring assemblers light vehicle fleets to average 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016, as well as stricter emission
standards, went into effect in 2010 (Levy, 2010: 14), and turbochargers are becoming the preferred choice for assemblers
needing moderately priced, off-the-shelf technology to meet new corporate average fuel economy targets.30 Examples of
vehicles using turbochargers include the Lordstown-made Cruze, a Cleveland-made engine for Fords F-150, and any
vehicle with a clean-diesel engine (Gearino, 2010a; Sedgwick and Roy, 2010).
In May, 2010, President Obama directed the EPA and the NHTSA to write the first-ever fuel efficiency standards for
medium- and heavy-duty trucks. Although heavy-duty trucks are less than five percent of the vehicles sold in the nation,
they emit 20 percent of the greenhouse gases from the transportation sector. The new rules would encourage mediumand heavy-duty truck manufacturers to replace old diesel engines with new ones reducing pollutants by 90 percent (Williams, 2010). The EPA and the U.S. Dept. of Transportation estimate that truck operators could recoup the cost of the
required technology upgrades in fuel savings in less than a year (Staff, 2010b).
Efforts to improve fuel economy and meet emissions requirements have gone beyond improving components to include
alternative power sources. Long before the recent rise in gasoline prices, people and organizations inside and outside of
the industry have been investigating diesel, ethanol, natural gas31 and electricity as supplements to, or replacements of,
gasoline. Diesel engines are more fuel-efficient than gasoline engines, able to go 25-30 percent farther per gallon because they run on a leaner mixture of fuel and air. That also means, ceteris paribus, they emit less CO2 than gasoline
engines and accelerate faster. However, these advantages must be weighed against their disadvantages. Diesels cost
more for a number of reasons: they have to be sturdier and heavier because they operate at higher pressures, and their
fuel injection system is more complex. Diesel fuel is more expensive, and the number of fuel stations is limited. Both
engines and fuel must also meet stricter emission standards in America. However, this last problem may be diminishing
with the shift to low-sulfur fuel and Hondas recently-patented method of reducing nitrous oxide (Harbour Consulting,
2006: 144-145; Kiley, 2008). Biological (i.e., renewable) sources of diesel fuel are also being investigated (Wikipedia,
2011). Clean-burning diesel engines also are a cheaper option than engines running on natural gas (Heywood, 2006:
62).32
The use of ethanol (a.k.a. grain alcohol) as a fuel has a long history (Wikipedia, 2011), even though it becomes a viable
supplement-to/replacement-for gasoline on an industrial scale only when the price of oil is greater than $30 per barrel
(Rohter, 2006).33 Ethanol has a higher octane content than gasoline (Green, 2006),34 and is a renewable energy source
(Rohter, 2006; Wikipedia, 2011).35 Unlike diesels, engines using ethanol are not substantially different from those using
69
gasoline (Green, 2006). In fact, engines running on either gasoline or ethanol so-called flexible fuel engines are manufactured by the hundreds of thousands (Green, 2006), and the gasohol used in gasoline engines is 10 percent ethanol
(Fischetti, 2006). The only technical disadvantages of ethanol are that it is more corrosive than gasoline which is easily
remedied, and that engines running on ethanol are hard to start when cold which is why it is blended with gasoline. E85
fuel is 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline.36 The EPA raised the limit on the amount of ethanol that may be
blended into gasoline from 10 to 15 percent, but only for light vehicles made after 2006. This is not a mandate, and the
decision whether to offer it will be left to fuel suppliers and retailers (Bartash, 2010).
Alternative fuels have other problems and limits. Choi (2006) cited a University of Minnesota study comparing energy
gains and environmental impacts of ethanol and biodiesel that concluded that biodiesel was the better choice. Soybeanbased biodiesel fuel returned more energy and produced less greenhouse gases when compared with corn-based ethanol
production. It also entailed less nitrogen, phosphorus and pesticide pollution. However, Choi notes one limitation found
by the scientists: Dedicating all current U.S. corn and soybean production to biofuels, however, would meet only 12 percent of gasoline demand and 6 percent of diesel demand. Prairie grass may provide larger biofuel supplies with greater
environmental benefits (2006: 38). This statistic was roughly consistent with fact that 20 percent of corn production in
2006 was converted to ethanol (Jaffe, 2010: 7), and that ethanol comprised about 2 percent of U.S. transportation fuel
(Heywood, 2006: 62). Heywood adds that ethanol made from residues and waste of plants seldom used as food could be
more efficient and produce fewer greenhouse gases. Kammen (2006) came to a similar conclusion. By 2009, corn production was only slightly greater than in 2006, but the portion used for fuel had risen to about one-third (Jaffe, 2010: 7).
Concern also has been expressed that so much corn is being used for ethanol that theres less available for people and
animals to eat, and that prices of other corn-based products rose as a consequence (Mercer, 2008). Ceteris paribus, increasing demand for corn-based ethanol increases prices for corn and other corn-based products, including food. However, the relationship may not be so simple because other factors come into play. People may substitute other products
to replace corn, more farmers may choose to plant more corn in response to higher corn prices, and the variations in
weather will always play a role (Koff, 2010).
Battery-powered vehicles date to the early 20th century. Their initial advantages of fewer moving parts and, therefore,
fewer breakdowns were out-weighed by their bulk, limited range, lengthy recharge times and slower acceleration rates.
In addition, gasoline was cheap, readily available, and easy to transport (Vellequette, 2008). The disadvantages remained significant even in times of expensive gasoline and concerns about pollution (battery-powered vehicles emit no
pollutants) and despite battery improvements.
However, things may be changing. Neil (2006) described the changes by comparing GMs EV1, the most advanced bat70
tery-powered car from the mid-1990s, with the Tesla Roadster. The EV1 used nickel metal hydride batteries that, under
ideal conditions, would last about 150 miles, with a full charge taking eight hours. The Roadster uses lithium-ion batteries
that last for 250 miles, with a full charge taking 3.5 hours; and it comes with a portable charging pack so that it does not
exclusively rely on its home charging station. The company also claims that the Roadster can accelerate from 0 to 60
miles per hour in four seconds, and has a top speed of 130 mile per hour. The sporty Roadster is relatively expensive at
$85,000-$100,000, although a sedan for less than $50,000 may soon be available.
Other companies around the world also are manufacturing battery-powered cars. One example from Ohio is the ZAP
Alias. The car had three wheels with two seats side-by-side. Power is provided by rechargeable lithium-ion batteries,
with a range exceeding 100 miles and speeds up to 100 miles per hour. The car initially is intended as a second car the
one usually driven less than 30 miles per day (Vellequette, 2008).37
The Detroit Three also are working on battery-powered vehicles. One example is the Chevy Volt; it is an electric vehicle
that can go 40 miles under normal driving conditions before the battery pack needs to be recharged. It takes about six
hours to recharge the lithium-ion battery pack from a standard 110-volt electrical outlet. The on-board flexible-fuel engine
serves only to recharge the batteries, thereby extending the range to hundreds of miles; it does not provide power to turn
the wheels via a transmission and driveshaft. GM has rolled out the Volt, and Nissan is just beginning to deliver its all
electric Leaf at this writing (Levy, 2010: 18). Chrysler has developed a prototype electric Jeep that gets the equivalent of
50 mpg and has a range of 400 miles (Chavez, 2008).
While battery technology has improved, other issues need to be resolved before battery-powered vehicles are widely
adopted. The U.S. lacks the manufacturing capacity for batteries, drive motors and electronic control according to one
industry insider cited by Schoenberger (2008). Other problems that manufacturers and utilities need to address include
electric grid capacity,38 standardizing plugs, safety measures, and locations for recharging stations public garages, curbside meters, and workplace parking lots. Public policy supports for electric vehicles are also needed (Business Courier of
Cincinnati, 2008). Progress on some of these issues is evident. General Electric has developed a charging station, and
plans to purchase 25,000 electric vehicles by 2015, including 12,000 Volts from GM (Hirsch, 2010). Delphi, among
others, is developing a wireless charging system for hybrid and electric vehicles. Drivers park their vehicles over pads
that can transfer 3,300-plus watts to a receiver on the vehicle as fast as most residential plug-in chargers (Colias, 2010a).
The U.S. government has purchased thousands of hybrid vehicles, supporting about 10 percent of that market (Keane
and Green, 2010).
Fuel cells are the other power source for electric vehicles. They produce electricity as a result of a chemical reaction.
They run longer than battery-powered vehicles, and can be quickly refueled. Those using hydrogen emit only heat and
71
water vapor as by products, while those using other fuels produce few emissions. Given equivalent units of fuel, hydrogen-based fuel cell vehicles are about twice as efficient as those powered by internal combustion engines (Harbour &
Associates, 2001; Wald, 2004). For example, GMs model delivers the gasoline equivalent of 43 mpg with a range of 200
miles (Thomas, 2008), and Hondas model gets the equivalent of 68 mpg (Business First, 2008) with a range of 270
(Thomas, 2008) or 280 miles (Jones, 2008a).
GM and Honda are field testing hydrogen-based fuel cell-powered light vehicles, and favorable reactions have been reported. One driver of Hondas model commented that there was no sacrifice he did not feel he was puttering around in
an underpowered, cramped little soapbox (Thomas, 2008). Indeed, Hondas most recent model can go from 0 to 60 mph
in 10 seconds (Jones, 2008a), has a top speed of 99 mph, and seats four people. Its 148-pound fuel cell stack is 30 percent lighter than the previous model, and one-third the size of the 1999 model (Kageyama, 2008).
Fuel cells are appealing, but obstacles to widespread use remain. Fuel cells are heavy, difficult to make and not completely reliable in freezing weather (Jones, 2008a). Hydrogen does not freely exist on Earth, and producing it depends on
current energy sources. The sources are either expensive or the technology for using them is not widely available and
that includes electrolysis powered by water, wind and the sun. The current practice of extracting hydrogen from natural
gas (coal is another source of hydrogen) produces about one-half of the greenhouse gases that a gasoline engine does,
but costs the equivalent of $3 per gallon (Thomas, 2008). Once produced, hydrogen must be moved to a point where it is
stored is stored before being distributed to vehicles.39 However, there are very few hydrogen filling stations in the country
right now (Jones, 2008a), and building a distribution system may take decades (Ogden, 2006). Problems with storing
hydrogen on the vehicle are now seen as less of a problem because storage tanks have been design to diffuse hydrogen
into the air in non-flammable concentrations if punctured or leaking (Thomas, 2008).
A last alternative has received a lot of attention in the press as it has become increasingly popular. Hybrid vehicles combine battery-powered electric motors with internal combustion engines to turn the wheels while reducing fuel consumption
in the latter. It needs to be emphasized that battery-powered electric motors can be combined with any type of internal
combustion engine using any type of fuel gasoline, gasoline-ethanol blends, natural gas, diesel to create a hybrid
system (Levy, 2010: 18). Hybrid vehicles using rechargeable batteries have been introduced (Romm and Frank, 2006:
78).40
There are a variety of hybrid systems. Those using all techniques may improve fuel economy by up to 60 percent, while
those simply shutting off the internal combustion engine during stops improve fuel economy about 10 percent. The techniques include reducing engine size which, ceteris paribus, reduces fuel consumption; replacing the familiar Otto (fourstroke) cycle internal combustion engine with the less powerful but more fuel efficient Atkinson (two-stroke) cycle en72
gine;41 running the vehicles electrical components from the batteries instead of the internal combustion engine;42 and
capturing via regenerative braking43 energy that would otherwise be lost (Romm and Frank, 2006: 75). In the same vein
of recapturing otherwise-lost energy, more efficient thermocouples converting heat from engines and exhaust systems
into electricity have been developed recently (Mayhood, 2008). Although a number of assemblers offer hybrid vehicles,
Toyota has the most advanced hybrid system and the majority of the sales in America. It has registered over 650 patents,
and licenses the technology to other companies (Harbour Consulting, 2006: 144).
Incorporating hybrid technologies can add thousand of dollars to a vehicles cost, and batteries are significant part of the
extra cost. The choice is between incorporating more techniques with the attendant complexity achieving greater fuel
economy at higher cost vs. fewer techniques with less complexity, achieving some fuel saving at a lower cost. Japanesebased companies have tended to choose the former, and U.S.-based companies have tended to choose the latter (Jones,
2008b). As mentioned earlier, battery technology has improved; as production volumes rise, the premium prices paid for
hybrids are expected to drop. Some assemblers are now pricing their hybrid premium models the same as the non-hybrid
versions (Schoenberger, 2010d). Nevertheless, owners must operate their vehicles for a while before recouping the extra
cost in lower fuel expenditures, and for any one vehicle, the length of time depends on how many miles a vehicle is driven
per year as well as the price of fuel (Romm and Frank, 2006). Consumers also must be persuaded that hybrids despite
a decade of virtually trouble-free performance are reliable vehicles (Pooley, et.al., 2011).
Heywood (2006: 62) estimates that it will take years even decades before any of the fuel efficiency technologies discussed is competitive and widely diffused in motor vehicles.
73
THE NEAR AND LONGER TERM OUTLOOKS

While many of the trends identified earlier are expected to continue into the foreseeable future, analysts may differ in the
details, and new developments will emerge. Topics about which they prognosticate include sales volumes, the direction
of technologies and fuel prices, and the number of jobs.
Analysts are forecasting light vehicle sales ranging from 12.7 to 14 million in 2011 as the economy grows again, consumer confidence returns, and credit conditions ease. This is a continuing improvement from the depths of the recession in
2009, when sales were 10.4 million, but still below the 16.1 million of 2007 (Levy, 2010: 9; Snyder, 2010). Medium- and
heavy-duty truck sales are forecast to improve by 25 percent in 2011. This is substantially higher than 2010, which in turn
was better than 2009, and is due to improving demand for truck services (again, due to an improving economy) and the
need to replace aging vehicles (Jaffe, 2010: 5; Levy, 2010: 9).
Similarly, the outlook for parts suppliers in 2011 also is positive, but not without caveats. While suppliers will benefit from
the higher volume demanded, they still face price pressures from assemblers as well as high and volatile costs of commodities and raw materials. Tire production should rise with new vehicle production and increased replacement demand
(Levy, 2010: 6-7).
Analysts differ in their assessment of long-term prospects for the industry. Levy (2004) describes the N. American and
Western European light vehicle markets are mature and saturated, and predicts long-term sales growth therein will be
relatively slow and cyclical. However, Woods (2009) forecasts output from U.S. assembly plants (NAICS 3361) to grow at
a faster-than-average rate of 3.1 percent for the 2008-2018 decade. Output from bodies and trailers (3362) is expected to
nearly match the growth rate for the economy as a whole: (2.7 and 2.8 percent, respectively), while output from the parts
group (3363) to lag at only 1.2 percent per year. Suppliers share these last sentiments (Sedgwick, 2010a).
The longer-term potential for higher growth rates exists in the developing markets of Latin America, Eastern Europe, and
Asia notably Brazil, China, India and Russia. In fact, the Chinese market became the worlds largest for new vehicles in
2009, and will remain so (Levy, 2010: 5). However, exports of motor vehicles are unlikely to grow significantly for several
reasons. Some Asian countries are developing their own industries or restrict the access of U.S. manufacturers. Others
are subject to risks such as currency crises. Even if trade barriers did not exist, the typical U.S.-made product is overequipped and far too expensive for emerging markets. Production costs (labor, energy, regulatory requirements, etc.)
make this so. To a limited extent, this is true even of Canada. Canadians are much wealthier than typical consumers in
emerging markets, but they generally are not as wealthy as Americans, and Canadas population is one-ninth that of the
U.S. Consequently, the best-selling American-made models are the less expensive ones (Levy, 1999). Instead of trying
74
to export to areas outside of N. America, U.S.-based assemblers may circumvent trade barriers by doing what they have
done in the past: (1) set up operations in the markets in which they want to sell, even if the governments require using
some locally produced parts, (2) buy a significant stake in a local company, and/or (3) form a joint venture with a local
company (Gaines, 1999; Gott, et.al., 1999; Nielsen, 2000).
The long term outlook for suppliers is mixed. The number of suppliers may continue to shrink even though, as a group,
they survived the recession better than expected. Reduced business from the Detroit Three, cost pressures, and divestitures result in smaller numbers (Levy, 2010: 17). More assembler alliances may shrink the number of platforms, with a
subsequent reduction in suppliers (Sedgwick, 2010b). On the other hand, the remaining suppliers, like assemblers, have
growth opportunities in emerging markets (Levy, 2010:16). Analysts disagree about the extent to which merger and acquisitions will occur (Colis, 2010b; Levy, 2010: 16-17; Staff, 2010a).
Within the overall sales forecast are a number of trends. The high oil prices of 2008 hurt consumers in many parts of the
world (Charlton, 2008). While the recession sharply reduced oil prices from that peak, medium- and long-term oil prices
are expected to trend higher, principally because of strong growth and increased demand in Asian countries (Levy, 2010:
6, 18).44 Consequently, consumers are expected to purchase vehicles that are more fuel efficient, regardless of whether
they are cars or light trucks.
High gasoline prices make alternative fuels and the associated technologies more practical. The demand for renewable
fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel are expected to slowly grow in the near future due to only moderate growth in gasoline consumption (Jaffe, 2010: 7) and assuming the price of oil remains high. A number of motor vehicle company officials
and industry analysts believe ethanol usage by light vehicles could increase if the federal government acted to encourage
its use beyond simply mandating that renewable fuel usage increase.45 They suggest incentives for service stations to
install more pumps offering E85 (a mixture of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline) and/or subsidies to lower its
costs. Its also noteworthy that assemblers plan to sell more vehicles with flexible fuel engines those using either gasoline or ethanol (Thomas, 2006).
Increased use of electronics and safety equipment is expected. Both may diffuse from high-end to mass-market vehicles
(Levy, 2010: 12). Similarly, the use of turbochargers is expected to increase to 25 percent of all vehicles sold by 2015
(Sedgwick and Roy, 2010). Sales of hybrids are expected to increase, as more companies offer more models with the
option of hybrid drives. Levy (2010: 18) cites a J.D. Power and Associates forecast of hybrid electric sales approaching
1.25 million in 2014, a 424 percent increase over 2009. This translates into an increase from 2.8 to 7.6 percent of the
U.S. market. It is possible that most new car models will offer hybrid power sources as an option by 2020 (Romm and
Frank, 2006). More sophisticated systems will recapture more of the braking energy used to recharge hybrid batteries
75
(Romm and Frank, 2006: 75). Honda plans to sell a natural gas-powered version of the Civic in all 50 states when the car
is redesigned in 2011. Ford and Chrysler also say they are developing natural gas models (Bloomberg, 2010).
Industry employment may grow a bit in the near future as sales and production return to normal levels. However, Woods
(2009) projects employment declines from 2008 through 2018 for the overall U.S. motor vehicle industry. Most of the
losses will occur in the parts group (NAICS 3363): 101,100, or 18.6 percent, while the bodies and trailers group (3362)
may have the smallest numbers: 11,100, or 7.8 percent. Losses in the assembly group (3361) are expected to fall between the two: 31,000, or 16.3 percent. Similarly, the Ohio Dept. of Jobs and Family Services/Labor Market Information
(ODJFS/LMI, 2011) expected employment in the parts group to fall by 20,900, or 28.9 percent. LMI also forecast a loss of
5,900 jobs 26.5 percent in assembly operations, and 1,700 jobs 24.3 percent in the bodies and trailers group.
Overall, it projects that 28,500 motor vehicle industry jobs in Ohio will disappear, a decline of 28.0 percent. Not all of the
job reductions will be due to lay-offs. Some of the job reductions will occur through attrition, others will be the result of
buy-outs or early retirements.
See Table A16
76
77
ASSEMBLER PROFILES
78
"
"
Lucas
Fulton
Williams
Defiance
Toledo North
"
Ottawa
Geauga
Toledo
Machining
Henry
Ashtabula
Lake
Cuyahoga
Erie
Sandusky
Paulding
Summit
Huron
Seneca
Trumbull
Lorain
Wood
Portage
Medina
Mahoning
Hancock
Putnam
Wyandot
Van Wert
Chrysler Group LLC

in Ohio
Crawford
Allen
Ashland
Wayne
Columbiana
Stark
Richland
Hardin
Mercer
Marion
Auglaize
Carroll
Holmes
Morrow
Jefferson
Logan
Tuscarawas
Knox
Shelby
Union
Harrison
Coshocton
Delaware
Darke
Champaign
Licking
Miami
Guernsey
Clark
Belmont
Muskingum
Franklin
Montgomery
Madison
Preble
Fairfield
Greene
Fayette
Butler
Warren
Noble
Perry
Pickaway
Morgan
Hocking
Clinton
Monroe
Washington
Ross
Athens
Vinton
Hamilton
Highland
Meigs
Pike
Clermont
Jackson
Brown
Gallia
Adams
Scioto
Prepared by:
February 2011
Lawrence
79
R020711A
Fiat SpA/Chrysler LLC

Website: www.chryslergroupllc.com
2009 Revenue for Fiat: $69,639,000,000 ranked 85th overall in the world.
Profit for Fiat: -$1,165,000,000 -1.7 percent of revenue (Fortune, 2010).
2010 Light Vehicle Production for Chrysler LLC:
in N. America: 1,571,662 ranked 3rd with 13.1 percent of all N. American light vehicle production;
in Ohio: 236,658 ranked 2nd in the state, with 15.1 percent of its N. American light vehicle production here
(Automotive News, 2011).
Fiat (from an acronym which translates as Italian Automobile Factory of Turin) was the 10th-ranked motor vehicle manufacturer in the world, as judged by 2009 revenue. Sergio Marchionne is the CEO. Fiat has assembly plants in Europe
and S. America as well as joint ventures in Russia and Asia. Other brands include Alfa Romeo, Ferrari, Lancia, and Maserati. Fiat also makes agricultural and construction equipment. The latest worldwide employment figure is 190,651.
Chrysler LLC emerged from bankruptcy in 2010, and retains its headquartered in Auburn Hills, Michigan, where Sergio
Marchionne also is CEO, and C. Robert Kidder is Chairman. Michael Manley is President and CEO of the Jeep Brand
(Chrysler, 2011; LexisNexis, 2010; Wikipedia, 2011). Marchionne wants to sell Jeep as a premium brand outside of the
U.S. (Staff, 2010c). Chryslers other brands are Dodge and Ram (Chrysler, 2011).
Fiat took a 20 percent stake in Chrysler in 2009 principally by covering the costs of retooling a Chrysler plant to produce
and sell its vehicles in the U.S. and secondarily by providing Chrysler with the technology for smaller, more fuel efficient
vehicles. Each company also got access to the others distribution network. Fiat can achieve its goal of a 51 percent
stake in Chrysler when three performance criteria are met and government loans to Chrysler are repaid. One of the performance criteria was met in January, 2011, and Fiat now has a 25 percent stake (Wikipedia, 2011). Chrysler plans an
initial public offering in 2011 (Gardner, 2010).
Although Chrysler was the 2nd-ranked producer of light vehicles and the 1st-ranked producer of light trucks in the state in
2010, it has the lightest footprint of all high-volume assemblers. It has three manufacturing plants here two assembly
plants in Toledo and power train operation in Perrysburg combined employ a little less than 3,300, including those
directly employed by other companies but working under its aegis at Supplier Park. Mauro Pino was chosen to manage
the two Jeep plants. He is introducing a new manufacturing system to improve efficiency and product quality for one of
Chryslers crucial money makers (Wernle, 2010).
80
Engine Plant 1
Engine Plant 2
Lucas
Fulton
Williams
Ohio
Assembly#
Ottawa
Defiance
#
Sandusky Automotive
Components
Holdings
Wood
Henry
Paulding
Geauga
Cuyahoga
# Walton Hills
Stamping
Lorain
Summit
Portage
Mahoning
Wyandot
Lima
# Engine
Trumbull
Ford Motor Company

in Ohio
Medina
Hancock
Putnam
Allen
Erie
Huron
Seneca
Van Wert
Ashtabula
Lake
Crawford
Ashland
Wayne
Columbiana
Stark
Richland
Hardin
Marion
Auglaize
Mercer
Carroll
Holmes
Morrow
Jefferson
Logan
Tuscarawas
Knox
Shelby
Union
Harrison
Coshocton
Delaware
Darke
Champaign
Licking
Miami
Guernsey
Clark
Belmont
Muskingum
Franklin
Montgomery
Madison
Preble
Fairfield
Greene
Fayette
Warren
Butler
#
Hamilton
Pickaway
Monroe
Morgan
Hocking
Clinton
Sharonville
Transmission
Noble
Perry
Washington
Ross
Athens
Vinton
Highland
Meigs
Pike
Clermont
Jackson
Brown
Gallia
Adams
Scioto
Prepared by:
February 2011
Lawrence
81
R020711A
Ford Motor Co.

Website: www.ford.com
2009 Revenue: $118,308,000,000 ranked 8th overall in the U.S. and 23rd overall in the world;
Profit: $2,717,000,000 2.3 percent of revenue (Fortune, 2010).
2010 Light Vehicle Production:
in N. America: 2,324,383 ranked 2nd with 19.4 percent of all N. American light vehicle production;
in Ohio: 121,471 ranked 4th in the state, with 5.2 percent of its N. American light vehicle production here
Ford was the 3rd-ranked motor vehicle manufacturer in the world, as judged by 2009 revenue, and the only one of the
Detroit Three not to file bankruptcy in 2009. The companys world headquarters is in Dearborn, Michigan, where William
Clay Ford Jr. is Executive Chairman, and Alan Mulally is President and CEO. Its only other brand is Lincoln. The companys principal business is manufacturing motor vehicles and parts, but it also has interests in real estate, insurance,
financial and management services. The company has business ventures on every continent in the world. The latest
worldwide employment figure is 198,000 (Ford, 2011; Fortune, 2010; LexisNexis, 2010).
Fords footprint in Ohio is much greater than the simple number of vans it assembled in 2010 would lead one to believe.
In addition to its Ohio Assembly plant in Avon Lake, which employs 1,800, Ford has six more major manufacturing establishments here more than any other assembler. These include three gasoline engine plants (two in Brook Park and one
in Lima), with combined employment over 1,400, a transmission plant in Sharonville with well over 1,600 workers, and 400
employees at its Walton Hills stamping plant. Adding the 600 employees at its Automotive Components parts subsidiary
in Sandusky brings its total employment here to 5,900.
Ford will continue producing the Econoline van at Avon Lake until 2015, when it might replace it with an unspecified new
vehicle. A new body shop may also be in the offing (Allyn, 2010). Fords Engine Plant No. 1 is the source for the new
turbo-charged V-6 engines replacing the V-8s in it F-150 pickup (Gearino, 2010a). 300 jobs have been added for a second shift at the plant. However, the jobs at Engine Plant No. 2 may be in jeopardy when production of the 3-liter V-6
ends in 2011 (Schoenberger, 2010b).
82
Toledo
Transmission
G
Williams
Ottawa
Geauga
Cuyahoga
Erie
Sandusky
Defiance
Foundry
Paulding
Trumbull
Portage
Summit
Huron
Seneca
Parma
Metal
Center
Lorain
Wood
Lordstown
Assembly Mahoning
and
Metal Center
Medina
Hancock
Putnam
Wyandot
Van Wert
Crawford
Allen
Ashland
Wayne
Richland
Columbiana
Stark
Hardin
Marion
Auglaize
Carroll
Holmes
Morrow
General Motors
in Ohio
Henry
Defiance
Mercer
Ashtabula
Lake
Lucas
Fulton
Jefferson
Logan
Tuscarawas
Knox
Shelby
Union
Harrison
Coshocton
Delaware
Darke
Champaign
Licking
Miami
Guernsey
Clark
Belmont
Muskingum
Franklin
Montgomery
Madison
Preble
Fairfield
DMAX
Butler
Warren
Greene
Fayette
Noble
Perry
Pickaway
Morgan
Hocking
Clinton
Monroe
Washington
Ross
Athens
Vinton
Hamilton
Highland
Meigs
Pike
Clermont
Jackson
Brown
Gallia
Adams
Scioto
Prepared by:
February 2011
Lawrence
83
R020711A
General Motors Co.

Website: www.gm.com
2009 Revenue: $104,589,000,000 ranked 15th overall in the U.S. and 38th overall in the world;
Profit: Not available (Fortune, 2010).
in N. America: 2,565,616 ranked 1st with 21.5 percent of all N. American light vehicle production;
in Ohio: 158,099 ranked 3rd in the state, with 6.2 percent of its N. American light vehicle production here
General Motors Co. (GM) is the successor to General Motors Corp., which went bankrupt in 2009. The new company,
which emerged in 2009, retained a substantial part of the old corporations assets. Although the new company made an
initial public offering of shares in November, 2010, the U.S. Government still owns 26 percent (GM, 2011; Wikipedia,
2011). GM recently withdrew its application for $14.4 billion in low-interest loans from the U.S. Dept. Energy, saying its
resources are sufficient to modernize its facilities (Staff, 2011). GM was the 5th-ranked motor vehicle assembler in the
world, as judged by 2009 revenue. The companys world headquarters is in Detroit, Michigan, where Daniel F. Akerson is
chairman and CEO, and Mark L. Reuss is President of GM N. America. Brands associated with GM include Buick,
Cadillac, Chevrolet, Daewoo, GMC, Holden, Isuzu, Jiefang, Vauxhall, and Wuling. The latest worldwide employment
figure is 209,000 (GM, 2011).
GMs 3rd rank in light vehicle assembly in Ohio understates its role in the states economy for two reasons: 1) 2010 was a
year of change at the Lordstown assembly plant with the transition from Cobalt to Cruze production, and 2) the company
employs over 9,500 at five manufacturing plants around the state, second only to Honda. The plurality of jobs 4,500
are at the Lordstown assembly and metal center (an adjacent stamping facility), with 1,300-plus at its Defiance foundry,
nearly 1,500 at the Parma stamping plant, and well over 1,600 at Toledo Transmission. GM also employs over 500 at
DMAX in Dayton. The last is a joint venture with Isuzu Motors (which has a 40 percent stake) producing diesel engines
for medium-duty trucks.
Recent news for GM in Ohio has been good. Lordstown has increased production of the Cruze, currently running three
shifts a day (Schoenberger, 2010a). GM added a new press and increased employment at its Parma stamping plant from
800 at the end of 2008 to 1,500 now. Parma has taken in some of the work, people and equipment from plants that closed in the recession, including Mansfield (Schoenberger, 2010c). GM plans to increase engine production for the Volt and
the Cruze, which in turn means increasing production at the Defiance foundry the supplies the engine plant(s) (Reuters,
2010).
84
Ashtabula
Lake
Lucas
Fulton
Williams
Ottawa
Geauga
Cuyahoga
Defiance
Erie
Sandusky
Henry
Paulding
Mahoning
Wyandot
Van Wert
Crawford
Allen
Portage
Medina
Hancock
Putnam
Celina
Aluminum
Summit
Huron
Seneca
Trumbull
Lorain
Wood
Honda Motor Company

in Ohio
Ashland
Wayne
Columbiana
Stark
Richland
Hardin
Auglaize
Mercer
Anna !
Engine
Russells Point
Transmission Marion
East Liberty
!
Assembly
Logan
Shelby
Darke
Champaign
Miami
! Union
!
Cardington Yutaka
! Technologies
Tuscarawas
Knox
Delaware
Harrison
Coshocton
Licking
Guernsey
Belmont
Muskingum
Franklin
Clark
Jefferson
Morrow
Marysville
Assembly
Carroll
Holmes
Montgomery
Madison
Preble
Fairfield
Greene
Fayette
Butler
Warren
Noble
Perry
Pickaway
Morgan
Hocking
Clinton
Monroe
Washington
Ross
Athens
Vinton
Hamilton
Highland
Meigs
Pike
Clermont
Jackson
Brown
Gallia
Adams
Scioto
Prepared by:
February 2011
Lawrence
85
R020711A
Honda Motor Co.

Websites: world.honda.com, and www.ohio.honda.com
2009 Revenue: $92,400,000,000 ranked 51st overall in the world;
Profit: $2,891,000,000 3.1 percent of revenue (Fortune, 2010).
in N. America: 1,287,775 ranked 4th with 10.8 percent of all N. American light vehicle production;
in Ohio: 587,304 ranked 1st in the state, with 45.6 percent of its N. American light vehicle production here
Honda was the 6th-ranked motor vehicle manufacturer in the world, as judged by 2009 revenue. The companys world
headquarters is in Tokyo, Japan, where Takanobu Ito is President and CEO. Tetsuo Iwamura is President and CEO of
American Honda Motor Co. While the companys principal business is manufacturing light vehicles, it also makes motorcycles, all terrain vehicles, portable generators, lawn mowers, power tillers, and general purpose engines. Its only other
brand is Acura. The latest worldwide employment figure is 181,876 (Fortune, 2010; LexisNexis, 2010; Honda, 2011).
Honda is the 1st-ranked light vehicle assembler in Ohio in more ways than one. It produced the largest number of cars
and the second largest number of light trucks at its two plants in Marysville and E. Liberty during 2010. The company also
employs over 13,200 in its manufacturing establishments. Of that number, 12,200 work at five locations: 5,300 at the
Marysville complex and 2,500 in E. Liberty, 2,800 at the Anna engine plant, over 1,000 at the Russells Point transmission
plant, and 500 at the Celina foundry. At least 1,000 more make parts at subsidiaries not bearing the Honda name. An
additional 4,200-plus make parts at Hondas keiretsu partners.
Honda is adding a third production line at its Russells Point transmission plant, increasing capacity from 800,000 to
1,000,000 per year. 60 new jobs are expected in 2011, and another 100 in 2012 (Gearino, 2010c). Honda also plans to
stop production of its Element in 2011 due to low sales, but it probably will increase CR-V production in its place (Burns,
2011), and it will refresh the design for the Accord (Greimel, 2010).
86
Ashtabula
Lake
Lucas
Fulton
Williams
Ottawa
Geauga
Defiance
Cuyahoga
Henry
Wood
Erie
Sandusky
Paulding
Summit
Huron
Seneca
Trumbull
Lorain
Portage
Medina
Mahoning
Hancock
Putnam
Wyandot
Van Wert
Crawford
Allen
Ashland
Wayne
Navistar International
and
PACCAR/Kenworth
in Ohio
Columbiana
Stark
Richland
Hardin
Mercer
Marion
Auglaize
Carroll
Holmes
Morrow
Jefferson
Logan
Tuscarawas
Knox
Shelby
Union
Harrison
Coshocton
Delaware
Darke
Champaign
Miami
Montgomery
Licking
Navistar
Assembly
Clark
Preble
Madison
Fairfield
Greene
Fayette
Butler
Warren
Noble
Perry
Pickaway
Ross
Highland
Monroe
Washington
$
PACCAR
Kenworth
Assembly
Athens
Vinton
Meigs
Pike
Clermont
Belmont
Morgan
Hocking
Clinton
Hamilton
Guernsey
Muskingum
Franklin
Jackson
Brown
Gallia
Adams
Scioto
Prepared by:
February 2011
Lawrence
87
R020711A
Navistar International Corp.

Website: www.navistar.com
2009 Revenue: $11,569,000,000 ranked 202nd overall in the U.S., not in the top 500 in the world;
Profits: $320,000,000 2.8 percent of revenue (Fortune, 2010).
Navistar is the fourth largest medium- and heavy-duty truck maker in the world. Technically a holding company, its world
headquarters is in Warrenville, Illinois, where Daniel C. Ustian is Chairman, President and CEO. The companys principal
business is assembling medium- and heavy-duty trucks and buses. It also manufactures recreational vehicles, truck and
bus bodies and chassis, diesel engines (both for its own and private labels), and other parts. The company provides financing for dealers and retail customers, and owns an insurance company. Besides its N. American plants, the company
assembles trucks in S. Africa, and has a joint venture with Mahindra in India. 17,900 is the companys latest worldwide
employment figure, with 690 at its Springfield facilities (Cogliano, 2010; Jaffe, 2010: 8; LexisNexis, 2010; Navistar, 2011).
PACCAR, Inc.
Website: www.paccar.com
2009 Revenue: $8,086,500,000 ranked 282nd overall in the U.S., not in the top 500 in the world;
Profits: $111,900,000 1.4 percent of revenue (Fortune, 2010).
PACCAR (from the original Pacific Car) was formed by the merger of Kenworth and Peterbilt. It is the third largest medium- and heavy-duty truck maker in the world, with operations in N. America and in Australia, and in Europe through its
subsidiaries DAF and Leyland. It also makes engines and other parts, off-road trucks, winches and hoists, and has related sales, leasing, financing and repair operations. Its world headquarters is in Bellevue, Washington, where Mark C.
Pigott is Chairman and CEO, and James G. Cardillo is President. 15,200 is the latest worldwide employment figure,
including 1,100 at its Kenworth assembly plant in Chillicothe (Harris, 2010; LexisNexis, 2010; Jaffe, 2010: 8; PACCAR,
2011).
88
APPENDICES
89
DETAILED TABLES
90
Table A1: Notable Motor Vehicle Industry Manufacturers in Ohio, 2010

Jobs
Aisin Seiki Co., Ltd.*/ADVICS Mfg. Ohio, Inc.
American Trim LLC
ArcelorMittal*/Powerlasers Corp.
ARE Accessories LLC
ArvinMeritor, Inc.*
Asahi Glass Co., Ltd.
AGC Automotive Americas
Belletech Corp. (PPG Industries, Inc.* owns 40 percent)
Behr GmbH & Co. KG/Behr Dayton Thermal Products
Berkshire-Hathaway*/Scott Fetzer Co.
Stahl Co.
Stahl Co.
1
Blackstone Group LP/TRW Automotive Holdings, Inc.*
TRW Automotive, Inc.
Cooper Tire & Rubber Co.*
Cummins, Inc.*/Cummins Filtration
Cypress Group LLC/Cooper-Standard Automotive, Inc.*
Daimler AG*/Detroit Diesel Remanufacturing
Dana Holding Corp.*
Dana Ltd.
Dana Ltd.
Delphi Automotive LLP*
Delphi Automotive Systems LLC
Dover Corp.*/Wiseco Piston, Inc.
Primary
NAICS~
City
33634
33637
33637
336211
336399
Lebanon
Sidney
Pioneer
Massillon
Heath
327211
327215
336391
Bellefontaine
Bellefontaine
Dayton
Total At Site^
625
600
65
525
364
510
370
140
2,000
257
336212
336212
Cardington
Wooster
107
150
237
336311
336399
336399
326211
336399
33634
333618
Cleveland
Toledo
Fayette
Findlay
Findlay
New Lexington
Byesville
336399
336399
Maumee
Toledo
42
55
140
1,072
250
352
500
600
500
100
470
336399
336322
336399
336399
336311
91
Warren
Warren
Warren
Vandalia
Mentor
200
120
120
30
265

Jobs
Eaton Corp.*2
Enersys Corp.*
Ernie Green Industries, Inc.
Florida Production Engineering
Florida Production Engineering
Marion Industries, Inc.
Fiat SpA*3/Chrysler Group LLC
Toledo North Assembly
4
Supplier Park
Machining Plant
Ford Motor Co.*5
Ohio Assembly Plant
Cleveland Engine Plant 1
Cleveland Engine Plant 2
Lima Engine Plant
Sharonville Transmission
Walton Hills Stamping Plant
Automotive Components Holdings
General Motors Co.*
Defiance Foundry (plans call for adding 189)
DMAX (Isuzu Motors Ltd. owns 40 percent)
Lordstown Complex: Assembly & Metal Center
GMPT Toledo Transmission
GMPT Parma
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.*6
Primary
NAICS~
City
33634
335911
Cleveland
Cleveland
326199
33637
336399
Circleville
New Madison
Marion
336112
336112
33635
Toledo
Toledo
Perrysburg
336112
336311
336311
336311
33635
33637
336399
336399
Avon Lake
Brook Park
Brook Park
Lima
Cincinnati
Cleveland
Sandusky
Troy
331511
333618
336111/637
33635
33637
326211
Defiance
Dayton
Lordstown
Toledo
Parma
Akron
Total At Site^
200
168
664
204
230
230
3,288
1,400
1,188
700
5,915
1,817
375
447
601
1,660
415
600
650
9,533
1,342
547
4,500
1,654
1,490
3,000
725
327211
327215
92
Millbury
Upper Sandusky
225
500

Jobs
Hitachi Ltd.*/Hitachi Metals America Ltd./AAP St. Marys Corp.
Honda Motor Co.*
AY Mfg. Ltd.
Cardington Yutaka Technologies, Inc.
7
Honda of America Manufacturing, Inc. (subtotal)
Honda Foundry Co. Ltd./Celina Aluminum Precision Technology, Inc.
Marysville Assembly Plant
Marysville Building 1
Marysville Building 2
E. Liberty Assembly Plant
Anna Engine Plant
Honda Transmission Mfg.
U.S. Yachiyo
Yachiyo of America
Honda affiliates:
Jefferson Industries Corp.
KTH Parts Industries, Inc. (subtotal)
Kalida Mfg., Inc.
KTH Parts Industries, Inc.
Nihon Plast Co., Ltd./Neaton Auto Products Mfg., Inc.
Nissin Kogyo Co., Ltd./Nissin Brake Ohio, Inc.
Tanaka Seimitsu Kogyo Co., Ltd./FT Precision, Inc.
Toyo Denso Co., Ltd./Weastec, Inc.
Tokyo Seat Ltd./TS Tech Co., Ltd. (subtotal)
TS Tech N. America, Inc.
TS Tech USA Corp.
TS Trim Industries, Inc.
Yamada Mfg. Co., Ltd./Yamada N. America, Inc.
93
Primary
NAICS~
City
336399
St. Marys
Total At Site^
470
13,281
336399
336399
Columbus
Cardington
200
650
12,200
33152
336111
336111
336111
336112
336311
33635
336399
33637
Celina
Marysville
Marysville
Marysville
E. Liberty
Anna
Russells Point
Marion
Columbus
336111
W. Jefferson
336399
336399
336399
33634
336399
336322
Kalida
Saint Paris
Eaton
Findlay
Fredericktown
Hillsboro
500
5,000
150
200
2,500
2,800
1,050
141
40
4,262
370
1,020
250
770
700
750
225
145
712
33637
336399
336399
33633
Reynoldsburg
Reynoldsburg
Canal Winchester
South Charleston
25
150
537
340

Jobs
Honeywell International, Inc.
Honeywell International, Inc.
Johnson Controls, Inc.*
Battery Group
Interiors LLC
Interiors LLC
Lear Corp.*
Lear Corp.
Lear Corp.
Magna International*8
Decoma International of America/Magna Modular Systems, Inc.
Decoma International of America/Norplas Industries, Inc.
Magna Cosma International (fka Vehtek Systems, Inc.)
Magna Seating of America, Inc.
Magna Seating of America, Inc.
Magna Seating of America, Inc./Gra-Mag Truck Interior Systems
Midway Products Group, Inc.
Findlay Products Corp.
P & A Industries, Inc.
Progressive Stamping, Inc.
Mitsubishi Electric Corp.*/Mitsubishi Electric Automotive
94
Primary
NAICS~
City
336399
336399
Fostoria
Greenville
33636
336399
336399
Sidney
Wauseon
Fremont
Total At Site^
279
100
179
1,150
350
600
200
876
335911
336360
336399
Holland
Oberlin
Northwood
33636
33636
Columbus
Lordstown
336212
336212
Salem
Alliance
336399
33637
33637
33636
33636
33636
Toledo
Northwood
Bowling Green
Warren
Strongsville
London
33637
33637
33637
336322
Findlay
Findlay
Ottoville
Mason
456
250
170
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
504
104
400
1,181
260
496
75
250
60
40
580
130
200
250
422

Jobs
Morioku Holdings Co., Ltd./Greenville Technology, Inc.
Navistar, Inc.*9
PACCAR, Inc.*/Kenworth Division
Pacific Industrial Co., Ltd.
Pacific Mfg. Ohio, Inc.
Takumi Stamping
Parker-Hannifin Corp.*
PPG Industries*
PPG Industries
PPG Industries
PSA Peugeot-Citreon SA*
Sankei Giken Co., Ltd./Newman Technology, Inc.
Sanoh Industrial Co., Ltd.
Sanoh America, Inc.
Sanoh America, Inc.
Schaeffler KG/Schaeffler Group USA, Inc./LuK USA LLC
Showa Corp.
Stanley Electric Co., Ltd./Stanley Electric US Co., Inc.
Stoneridge, Inc.
Tenneco, Inc.*
Thor Industries, Inc.*/Airstream, Inc.
ThyssenKrupp AG*
ThyssenKrupp Bilstein of America
ThyssenKrupp Crankshaft Co. LLC
Primary
NAICS~
City
336399
33612
33612
Greenville
Springfield
Chillicothe
336399
33637
336399
Fairfield
Fairfield
Wickliffe
Total At Site^
700
690
1,100
500
350
150
271
1,067
32551
32551
Cleveland
Delaware
336399
336399
336399
336399
Franklin
Toledo
Toledo
Mansfield
602
465
450
300
100
50
850
997
336399
336399
336399
Findlay
Mt. Vernon
Wooster
33633
33633
336321
336322
336399
336213
Blanchester
Sunbury
London
Mansfield
Napoleon
Jackson Center
773
224
800
1,000
600
400
660
500
404
350
573
33633
336312
95
Hamilton
Fostoria
212
361

Jobs
Tokai Kogyo Co., Ltd.
DTR Industries, Inc.
Green Tokai Co., Ltd.
Toledo Molding & Die, Inc.
Worthington Industries, Inc.*
Gerstenslager Co.
Gerstenslager Co.
Yamashita Rubber Co., Ltd./YUSA Corp.
Primary
NAICS~
City
32622
336399
Bluffton
Brookville
336111
336399
336399
336399
Toledo
Delphos-Allen
Delphos-Van Wert
Tiffin
33637
33637
326291
Wooster
Clyde
Total At Site^
1,290
790
500
625
100
130
85
310
463
428
35
830
Notes: ~ - non-industry codes are included if production is principally for motor vehicles; ^ - jobs figures are from various sources,
each thought to be the best available; * - a Fortune U.S.-1,000 or Global-500 company; 1 - both companies are in the
Fortune U.S.-1,000; 2 - 500 more are employed at corporate headquarters; 3 - Fiat currently owns 20 percent of Chrysler,
but seeks a 51 percent stake; 4 - Chrysler has no more than 450 people there; the remaining employment is divided among
among four companies: Excel, Kuka, Magna International and OMMC; 5 - Ford has closed its Brook Park casting plant, but
employment at the two engine plants may soon; 6 - includes headquarters employment; 7 - the company employs additional
people at non-manufacturing sites; 8 - not including jobs at Chrysler's Supplier Park site; 9 - a summary figure for three
facilities close to one another; 10 - an "unconsolidated joint venture" [sic at the company website] with Visteon (Ford's
former parts division); fka - formerly known as; n.a. - not available.
Sources: Darke County (2010), Fortune (2010), Gearino (2010c), Harris (2010), Kaczala (2010), LexisNexis (2010), Licking County (2009), Manta (2010), Marion, Ohio, Chamber of Commerce (2010), Niklewski (2009), ODOD (2010), Pickaway Progress Partnership (2010), PRSP (2010), Sandusky County Economic Development Corp. (2010), and various Company
Websites (2010).
Prepared by: Policy Research and Strategic Planning, Ohio Dept. of Development. Telephone 614/466-2116 (DL, 10/10).
96
97
Table A2: Expansion and Attraction Announcements in Ohio's Motor Vehicle Industry, 2006-2009
Year
County
NAICS
Code*
Product
New or
Expanded
Total
Invested
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
Aisin Seiki Co. Ltd., et. al./Advics N. America, Inc./Advics Mfg. Ohio, Inc.
Asahi Glass Co., Ltd./AFG Industries, Inc.
ASC Industries, Inc.
Atlas Industries, Inc.
Atsumitec/Ada Technologies
Behr GmbH & Co. KG/Behr America
Braun Industries
Bucyrus Precision Tech.
Cerberus Capital Mgt. L.P./Tower Automotive, Inc.
Clarion Co., Ltd./CK Technologies
Commercial Vehicle Group, Inc.
Core Molding Technologies, Inc.
Dayton Polymeric Products
Farber Specialty Vehicles
Fastener Industries, Inc./Joseph Industries, Inc.
Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc./'Fleetwood Travel Trailers
Fuserashi International Technology
General Motors Corp.
Hitachi Ltd./Hitachi Metals America/AAP St. Marys Corp.
Honda affiliate: Kalida Mfg. Co.
Honda affiliate: Tanaka Seimitsu Kogyo Co., Ltd./FT Precision, Inc.
Honda affiliate: Toyo Denso Co., Ltd./Weastec, Inc.
Honda affiliate: Yamada N. America
Honda Motor Co./Honda Foundry Co., Ltd./Celina Aluminum Precision Tech.
Honda Motor Co./Honda of America Mfg.
Knorr-Bremse AG/Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems LLC
Lacal Equipment
Morgenthaler LLP/Formed Fiber Technologies, Inc.
New Sabina Industries
Nifco, Inc./Nifco America Corp.
NV Bekaert SA/Bekaert Corp.
PACCAR, Inc./Kenworth Truck Co.
Plastic Trim LLC
PSA Peugeot Citroen SA/Faurecia Exhaust Systems
ThyssenKrupp AG
Tigers Polymer Corp./Tigerpoly Manufacturing, Inc.
US Aeroteam
USUI International
Worthington Precision Metal, Inc.
YSK Corp.
Warren
Logan
Summit
Sandusky
Hardin
Montgomery
Van Wert
Crawford
Sandusky
Williams
Franklin
Franklin
Montgomery
Franklin
Portage
Williams
Miami
Medina
Defiance
Lucas
Auglaize
Putnam
Knox
Highland
Clark
Mercer
Shelby
Logan
Lorain
Shelby
Shelby
Clinton
Fairfield
Wayne
Ross
Greene
Miami
Seneca
Franklin
Greene
Butler
Lake
Ross
33634
327211
336399
336312
336399
336391
336211
336399
336211
326199
336399
326199
326199
336111
33635
336214
336399
33637
331511
33635
336399
336399
33633
336399
33633
336311
336312
33635
33634
336399
336399
336399
326199
331111
33612
326199
336399
336312
336312
336412
336399
336399
336399
Brake systems
Motor vehicle glass
Motor vehicle pumps
Crankshafts
Motor vehicle parts
Motor vehicle HV/AC systems
Ambulances
Motor vehicle parts
Chassis frames
Plastic motor vehicle parts
Truck cabs
Motor vehicle fiberglass parts
Motor vehicle plastics
Motor vehicle modifications
Torque converters
Recreational vehicles
Motor vehicle parts
Motor vehicle stampings
Engine blocks
Motor vehicle transmissions
Motor vehicle parts
Motor vehicle parts
Motor vehicle parts
Motor vehicle parts
Motor vehicle steering systems
Motor vehicle parts
Gasoline engines
Motor vehicle transmission parts
Brake systems
Motor vehicle parts
Motor vehicle seating
Motor vehicle parts
Steel tire cord
Heavy-duty truck assembly
Motor vehicle parts
Crankshafts
Engine parts
Motor vehicle/aerospace parts
Motor vehicle fans
Motor vehicle parts
Motor vehicle parts
Expanded
Expanded
Expanded
Expanded
Expanded
Expanded
Expanded
Expanded
Expanded
Expanded
New
Expanded
Expanded
Expanded
Expanded
Expanded
Expanded
Expanded
Expanded
Expanded
Expanded
Expanded
Expanded
Expanded
Expanded
Expanded
Expanded
Expanded
Expanded
New
Expanded
Expanded
Expanded
Expanded
Expanded
Expanded
Expanded
Expanded
Expanded
New
Expanded
Expanded
Expanded
$37,000,000
$5,700,000
$3,000,000
$4,200,000
$1,900,000
$16,000,000
$1,400,000
$5,300,000
$5,600,000
$6,000,000
$30,000,000
$4,600,000
$632,000
$2,850,000
$2,700,000
$755,000
$20,000,000
$4,000,000
$109,500,000
$462,800,000
$23,000,000
$2,100,000
$6,033,000
$10,000,000
$26,000,000
$10,200,000
$75,000,000
$3,000,000
$2,900,000
$2,620,000
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$1,200,000
$4,558,000
$50,000,000
$1,800,000
$17,350,000
$40,000,000
$3,000,000
$2,500,000
$6,500,000
$8,000,000
$24,000,000
2006 Subtotals:
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
Advanced Engineering Solutions

AO Smith Corp./GSW Mfg.
A-Stamp
Boler Co./Hendrickson USA
Ernie Green Industries/Florida Production Engineering, Inc.
Ford Motor Co.
Jobs
Space
(Sq. Ft.)
10
100
100
25
35
25,000
12
10
74
36
80
52
60
20
34,000
70,000
58,000
50,000
60,000
94,000
40,000
34,560
200
2
40,000
20
30
63
42
30
21
40
400,000
125,000
50,000
48,000
69,000
10
35
40
15
87,000
35,100
100,000
65
150
100
55
45
50
25
55,000
94,000
125,000
40,000
$1,058,698,000 1,652 1,733,660
Warren
Hancock
Williams
Licking
Pickaway
Hamilton
336399
336322
33637
33633
336399
33635
98
Motor vehicle parts

Motor vehicle wiring products
Suspension systems
Motor vehicle parts
Expanded
Expanded
Expanded
Expanded
Expanded
Expanded
$3,500,000
$1,000,000
$1,700,000
$1,500,000
$3,300,000
$200,000,000
72
50
20
40
33
70,000
40,000
Year
County
NAICS
Code*
Product
New or
Expanded
Total
Invested
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007

Guardian Industries Corp./Guardian Glass
Harco Industries, Inc.
Honda affiliate: Jefferson Industries Corp.
Honda affiliate: Nissin Kogyo Co., Ltd./Nissin Brake Ohio
Honda Motor Co./Yachiyo Industry Co., Ltd./Yachiyo of America
Imasen Bucyrus Technology
International Automotive Components Group
Marion Industries
Newman Technology
Okamoto Industries
Rieter Holdings Ltd./Rieter Automotive Carpets Ltd.
Shiloh Industries, Inc.
Tenneco, Inc./Tenneco Automotive
Miami
Lucas
Defiance
Hancock
Montgomery
Madison
Hancock
Union
Franklin
Crawford
Sandusky
Marion
Richland
Erie
Lucas
Lorain
Montgomery
336399
33635
331511
327211
336399
336399
33634
336111
33637
336399
336399
336399
336399
336399
336399
33637
336399
Motor vehicle parts

Engine blocks
Motor vehicle glass
Brake hoses
Motor vehicle parts
Brake systems
Light vehicle assembly
Motor vehicle parts
Motor vehicle parts
Motor vehicle parts
Motor vehicle parts
Motor vehicle carpet
Motor vehicle parts
Expanded
Expanded
Expanded
Expanded
New
Expanded
Expanded
Expanded
New
Expanded
Expanded
Expanded
Expanded
New
Expanded
New
New
$3,500,000
$332,000,000
$61,000,000
$2,100,000
$7,400,000
$10,000,000
$50,000,000
$2,500,000
$11,500,000
$4,000,000
$2,600,000
$8,000,000
$3,000,000
$3,500,000
$6,000,000
$3,000,000
$10,000,000
2007 Subtotals:
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
Bridgestone Corp.
Camaco Lorain Mfg.
Chrysler LLC
Consolidated Vehicle Converters
Defiance Metal Products
ECS Tuning
Ford Motor Co.
General Motors Corp./DMAX Ltd. (joint venture with Isuzu Motors Ltd.)
Grand Rock Co.
Harco Industries, Inc.
Hi-Stat Mfg.
Honda affiliate: Kalida Mfg. Co.
Honda affiliate: TS Tech Co., Ltd./TS Tech USA Corp.
International Automotive Components Groups
International Automotive Components Groups
Kyklos Bearing, Inc.
Liteflex LLC
Magna International, Inc./Decoma Systems
Mahle International GmbH
Maumee Authority Stamping
Miba AG/Miba Bearings US LLC
Miba AG/Miba Sinter USA
Ohio Metal Technologies
Pacific Industrial Co., Ltd./Pacific Industries USA, Inc./Takumi Stamping, Inc.
PPG Industries, Inc.
Sanoh Industrial Co., Ltd./Sanoh America, Inc. (f.k.a. Hisan)
Sumitomo/SMI Crankshafts
Sutphen Corp.
Tenneco, Inc./Tenneco Automotive
Summit
Lorain
Wood
Montgomery
Defiance
Summit
Allen
Trumbull
Trumbull
Montgomery
Lake
Montgomery
Richland
Putnam
Franklin
Union
Union
Fulton
Sandusky
Erie
Montgomery
Lucas
Morgan
Lucas
Morgan
Morgan
Licking
Butler
Delaware
Knox
Seneca
Clark
Montgomery
99
326211
33637
33635
33635
33637
336399
336312
336111
33637
333618
336211
33634
336322
336396
33636
336111
336111
336399
336399
33635
33633
336399
336312
33637
33635
336399
332111
33637
32551
336399
336312
33612
336399
Tires
Torque converters
Torque converters
Motor vehicle parts
Gasoline engines
Car assembly
Diesel engines
Truck bodies
Brake hose assembly
Motor vehicle sensors
Motor vehicle parts
Motor vehicle seats
Motor vehicle parts
Motor vehicle parts
Motor vehicle bearings
Composite springs
Motor vehicle parts assembly
Gasoline engine parts
Motor vehicle bearings
Motor vehicle parts
Motor vehicle forgings
Motor vehicle paint
Motor vehicle parts
Crankshafts
Fire truck chassis
Motor vehicle parts
Expanded
Expanded
Expanded
New
Expanded
New
Expanded
Expanded
Expanded
Expanded
Expanded
New
Expanded
Expanded
Expanded
Expanded
Expanded
Expanded
Expanded
Expanded
New
Expanded
Expanded
New
Expanded
Expanded
Expanded
Expanded
Expanded
New
Expanded
Expanded
New
Jobs
Space
(Sq. Ft.)
75,000
10
80,000
80
50
120,000
40,000
34
101
150
22
10
120
80
25
350
47,000
$731,100,000 1,247
476,000
$100,000,000
240,000
40,500
40
$27,000,000
$3,000,000
$1,700,000
$1,500,000
$12,600,000
$317,000,000
$49,000,000
$63,500,000
$1,700,000
$4,000,000
$3,900,000
$9,800,000
$4,120,000
$2,100,000
$10,500,000
$2,000,000
$1,500,000
$1,700,000
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$26,000,000
$6,900,000
$3,600,000
$12,000,000
$9,000,000
$10,000,000
$1,000,000
$27,500,000
20
44
6
219
600
50
225
15
100
4,000
3,000
30,000
55,000
35,200
260
150
30
99,000
50,000
450
30
60
15
25
40
50
30
350
120,000
35,000
120,000
200,000
150,000
20,000
Year
2008 Transeo Global Vehicle
County
NAICS
Code*
Product
New or
Expanded
Clark
336111
Armored vehicles
New
2008 Subtotals:
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
Arvin Meritor, Inc.

Camaco Lorain Mfg.
Cooper Tire & Rubber Co.
Crown Battery
CSP of Ohio
Delphi Packard Electric
Ford Motor Co.
Ford Motor Co./Automotive Components Holding LLC
Magna International, Inc./Exteriors and Interiors
PDI Group
Sulzer Corp.
Superior Trim
SuperTrapp Industries, Inc.
Tekfor
WEK Industries, Inc.
Total
Invested
Jobs
$200,000
69
Space
(Sq. Ft.)
$727,820,000 2,878 1,197,700
Licking
Lorain
Hancock
Sandusky
Ashtabula
Trumbull
Cuyahoga
Erie
Union
Union
Lucas
Cuyahoga
Montgomery
Hancock
Cuyahoga
Wayne
Ashtabula
33635
332999
326211
335911
326199
336322
336312
336321
336111
336111
336111
33635
33635
33636
336399
332111
326199
Vehicle axles
Auto seat frames
Tires
Batteries
Composite auto parts
Auto parts
Motor vehicle engines
Auto lighting
Auto assembly
Motor Vehicles
Auto parts assembly
Military trailers
Auto parts
Auto fabric
Exhaust systems
Auto forgings
Plastic auto parts
2009 subtotals:
Expanded
Expanded
Expanded
Expanded
Expanded
Expanded
Expanded
Expanded
Expanded
Expanded
Expanded
New
Expanded
Expanded
Expanded
Expanded
Expanded
$10,400,000
$5,000,000
$34,500,000
$1,000,000
$2,300,000
$55,000,000
$16,200,000
$1,400,000
$1,400,000
$17,500,000
$1,500,000
$2,200,000
$3,000,000
$1,300,000
$5,000,000
$1,500,000
$159,200,000
Grand Totals 2006-2009:
50
100
30
100
70
250
2,300
124
6
10
45,000
25,000
30
70
50
40,000
890
112,300
$2,676,818,000 6,667 3,519,660
Notes: * - Establishments with NAICS codes outside of the industry definition are included here when their products are made for motor vehicles.
Abbreviations Used: Mfg. - manufacturing.
Source: Policy Research & Strategic Planning (2008, 2009, 2010).
Prepared by: Policy Research & Strategic Planning, Ohio Dept. of Development. Telephone 614/466-2116 (JK, DL, 9/10).
100
Table A3: Value-Added in Ohio's Motor Vehicle Industry, 2007 (in millions, except percentages)
Value-Added in Ohio
NAICS
Code
DistribuAmount tion in Ohio
Industries
Motor Vehicle (MV) Industry
Transportation Equipment Industries Include:

3361
33611
336111
336112
33612
MV Assembly
Automobile & Light Duty Motor Vehicles
Automobiles
Light Truck & Utility Vehicles
Heavy Duty Trucks
3362
336211
336212
336213&4
MV Bodies & Trailers

MV Bodies
Truck Trailers
Motor Homes, Travel Trailers, & Campers^
3363
33631
336311
336312
33632
336321
336322
33633
33634
MV Parts
MV Gas Engines & Engine Parts
Carburetors, Pistons, Rings, & Valves
Gasoline Engines & Engine Parts
MV Electrical & Electronic Eqpt.
Vehicular Lighting Eqpt.
Other MV Electrical & Electronic Eqpt.
MV Steering & Suspension Parts
MV Brake Systems
101
ValueOhio as
Added a Percent
in the U.S. of the U.S.
$21,467.0
100.0%
$168,332.2
12.8%
$21,039.7
98.0%
$158,413.2
13.3%
$9,920.1
$9,294.0
D
D
$626.1
46.2%
43.3%
n.a.
n.a.
2.9%
$73,382.3
$68,785.5
$22,035.6
$46,749.9
$4,596.8
13.5%
13.5%
n.a.
n.a.
13.6%
$470.4
$268.6
$84.6
$117.1
2.2%
1.3%
0.4%
0.5%
$12,783.3
$4,364.4
$2,594.5
$5,824.4
3.7%
6.2%
3.3%
2.0%
$10,649.2
$2,339.6
$77.2
$2,262.4
$478.5
$268.5
$209.9
$525.9
$488.3
49.6%
10.9%
0.4%
10.5%
2.2%
1.3%
1.0%
2.4%
2.3%
$72,247.5
$9,877.4
$1,022.5
$8,854.9
$7,648.1
$1,596.5
$6,051.6
$4,026.3
$3,822.2
14.7%
23.7%
7.6%
25.5%
6.3%
16.8%
3.5%
13.1%
12.8%
Table A3: Value-Added in Ohio's Motor Vehicle Industry, 2007 (in millions, except percentages)
Value-Added in Ohio
NAICS
Code
33635
33636
33637
33639
336391
336399
Industries
MV Transmission & Power Train Parts
MV Seating & Interior Trim
MV Metal Stamping
Other MV Parts
Motor Vehicle Air-Conditioning
All Other MV Parts
Non-transportation Industries Include:

32621
326211
326212
335911
Tires
Tire Mfg. (Exc. Retreading)
Tire Retreading
Storage Batteries*
DistribuAmount tion in Ohio
ValueOhio as
Added a Percent
in the U.S. of the U.S.
$1,673.6
$827.6
$2,897.3
$1,418.5
$108.8
$1,309.7
7.8%
3.9%
13.5%
6.6%
0.5%
6.1%
$12,202.4
$5,248.6
$12,710.1
$16,712.5
$2,134.5
$14,578.0
13.7%
15.8%
22.8%
8.5%
5.1%
9.0%
$427.3
2.0%
$9,919.0
4.3%
$403.0
$366.4
$36.6
1.9%
1.7%
0.2%
$7,665.5
$6,672.5
$611.3
5.3%
5.5%
6.0%
$24.3
0.1%
$2,253.5
1.1%
Notes: D - Suppressed to maintain confidentiality; n.a. - not available; ^ - estimated by subtraction.

* - The value-added figure for Ohio was suppressed, and the encompassing figure for batteries (NAICS
33591) was used instead. Given that the only non-storage battery plant (NAICS 335912) in Ohio employed less than 20 people out of a total of 875 for all battery production, the $24.3 million figure may be
only a slight over-statement.
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census (2010c).
Prepared by: Policy Research & Strategic Planning, Ohio Dept. of Development. Telephone 614/466-2116
(DL, 9/10).
102
103
Table A4: Detailed Light Vehicle Production in Ohio, 2007-2010

2010
2009
2008
Company and City/Assembly Type

Nameplate and Model
Vehicles
Produced
Percent
of Production
Total Light Vehicles

Total Cars
Total Light Trucks
1,103,532
511,310
592,222
100.0%
46.3%
53.7%
Fiat/Chrysler Group: Light Trucks

Toledo North:
Dodge Nitro
Jeep Liberty
Toledo Supplier Park (fka South or Stickney):
Jeep Wrangler
Jeep Wrangler Unlimited
236,658
91,973
27,562
64,411
144,685
59,181
85,504
21.4%
8.3%
2.5%
5.8%
13.1%
5.4%
7.7%
143,885
58,933
16,066
42,867
84,952
34,776
50,176
18.4%
7.5%
2.1%
5.5%
10.8%
4.4%
6.4%
248,484
120,577
38,974
81,603
127,907
52,153
75,754
16.7%
8.1%
2.6%
5.5%
8.6%
3.5%
5.1%
377,911
221,195
113,793
107,402
156,716
62,436
94,280
21.6%
12.7%
6.5%
6.1%
9.0%
3.6%
5.4%
Ford: Light Trucks

Avon Lake (aka Ohio Assembly):
Ford Econoline
121,471
121,471
121,471
11.0%
11.0%
11.0%
88,054
88,054
88,054
11.2%
11.2%
11.2%
126,640
126,640
126,640
8.5%
8.5%
8.5%
179,918
179,918
179,918
10.3%
10.3%
10.3%
Transit Connect may replace it in 2015.
GM: Light Vehicles

Lordstown--Cars:
Chevrolet Cobalt
Chevrolet Cruze
Pontiac G5
Moraine--Light Trucks:
Buick Rainier
Chevrolet TrailBlazer
GMC Envoy
Isuzu Ascender
Saab 9-7X
158,099
158,099
91,796
66,303
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14.3%
14.3%
8.3%
6.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
87,927
87,917
79,314
0
8,603
10
0
5
3
0
2
11.2%
11.2%
10.1%
0.0%
1.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
411,379
308,015
250,002
0
58,013
103,364
0
71,490
27,405
310
4,159
27.7%
20.8%
16.8%
0.0%
3.9%
7.0%
0.0%
4.8%
1.8%
0.0%
0.3%
489,188
280,452
226,314
0
54,138
208,736
2,561
148,658
49,539
2,502
5,476
28.0%
16.0%
12.9%
0.0%
3.1%
11.9%
0.1%
8.5%
2.8%
0.1%
0.3%
Sub-compacts
Replaced by the Cruze mid-2010.
Replaced the Cobalt mid-2010.
Production ended in 2009; never sold in U.S.
Permanently closed, January, 2009.
Production ended in 2007.
Mid-size SUV.
Mid-size SUV.
Mid-size SUV.
Mid-size SUV.
Honda: Light Vehicles

Car Subtotal
Light Truck Subtotal
E. Liberty--Light Vehicles:
Accord Crosstour--Car
Civic--Car
CR-V--Light Truck
Element--Light Truck
Marysville--Light Vehicles:
Accord--Car
Acura RDX--Light Truck
Acura TL--Car
587,304
353,211
234,093
246,743
33,200
0
196,743
16,800
340,561
284,717
20,550
35,294
53.2%
32.0%
21.2%
22.4%
3.0%
0.0%
17.8%
1.5%
30.9%
25.8%
1.9%
3.2%
463,596
306,416
157,180
161,601
9,158
5,162
133,361
13,920
301,995
263,255
9,899
28,841
59.2%
39.1%
20.1%
20.6%
1.2%
0.7%
17.0%
1.8%
38.5%
33.6%
1.3%
3.7%
697,583
546,194
151,389
237,883
0
107,454
110,821
19,608
459,700
381,533
20,960
57,207
47.0%
36.8%
10.2%
16.0%
0.0%
7.2%
7.5%
1.3%
31.0%
25.7%
1.4%
3.9%
701,318
589,556
111,762
242,475
0
156,032
48,867
37,576
458,843
366,870
25,319
66,654
40.1%
33.7%
6.4%
13.9%
0.0%
8.9%
2.8%
2.1%
26.2%
21.0%
1.4%
3.8%
Vehicles
Produced
Percent
of Production
2007
783,462 100.0%
394,333 50.3%
389,129 49.7%
Vehicles
Produced
Percent
of Production
1,484,086 100.0%
854,209 57.6%
629,877 42.4%
Notes: aka - also known as; fka - formerly known as.

Sources: Automotive News (2010, 2011), Ward's (2009).
104
Vehicles
Produced
Percent
of Production
Comments
1,748,335 100.0%
870,008 49.8%
878,327 50.2%
Small sport-utility vehicles (SUVs).
Production began in 2009.

Civic production moved to Greensburg, In., in 2009.
SUV redesign scheduled in 2011.
Production will soon end due to low sales.
V-6 ended mid-2009, I-4 remains.
A crossover utility vehicle (CUV).
Table A5: Motor Vehicle Industry Establishments and Employment, Ohio and the U.S., 2008
Ohio
NAICS
Code
Shorter Industry Title

Total (non-farm private sector)
Establishments
U.S.
Employment
Mean
Establishments
Employment
Mean
Estab- Employlishments
ment
263,761 4,728,416
17.9
7,601,169
120,903,551
15.9
3.5%
3.9%
647
108,538
167.8
8,996
957,453
106.4
7.2%
11.3%
602
103,886
172.6
8,237
879,398
106.8
7.3%
11.8%
22,382
799.4
19,755 1,162.1
12,443 1,036.9
7,312 1,462.4
2,627
238.8
377
277
186
91
100
182,072
153,426
72,367
81,059
28,646
482.9
553.9
389.1
890.8
286.5
7.4%
6.1%
6.5%
5.5%
11.0%
12.3%
12.9%
17.2%
9.0%
9.2%
3361
33611
336111
336112
33612
MV Assembly
Automobiles*
Light Truck & Utility Vehicles*
Heavy Duty Trucks
28
17
12
5
11
3362
336211
336212
336213
336214

MV Bodies
Truck Trailers
Motor Homes*
Travel Trailers & Campers*
94
41
25
3
25
5,752
3,386
1,078
59
1,229
61.2
82.6
43.1
19.8
49.1
2,156
839
429
79
809
136,404
47,548
25,853
16,009
46,994
63.3
56.7
60.3
202.6
58.1
4.4%
4.9%
5.8%
3.8%
3.1%
4.2%
7.1%
4.2%
0.4%
2.6%
3363
33631
336311
336312
33632
336321
336322
33633
33634
33635
33636
33637
33639
336391
336399
MV Parts
MV Gas Engines & Engine Parts*
Carburetors, Pistons, Rings, & Valves*
Gasoline Engines & Engine Parts*
Vehicular Lighting Eqpt.*
Other MV Electrical & Electronic Eqpt.*
MV Brake Systems
MV Metal Stamping
Other MV Parts
Motor Vehicle Air-Conditioning*
All Other MV Parts*
480
58
7
51
37
8
29
23
28
27
36
154
117
6
111
75,752
7,152
574
6,578
8,210
1,807
6,403
5,391
3,391
11,353
6,442
20,324
13,489
1,722
11,767
157.8
123.3
82.0
129.0
221.9
225.9
220.8
234.4
121.1
420.5
178.9
132.0
115.3
287.0
106.0
5,704
949
114
835
792
107
685
261
233
524
409
788
1,748
78
1,670
560,922
60,550
8,842
51,708
66,128
13,086
53,042
37,429
27,370
75,269
49,958
94,263
149,955
15,451
134,504
98.3
63.8
77.6
61.9
83.5
122.3
77.4
143.4
117.5
143.6
122.1
119.6
85.8
198.1
80.5
8.4%
6.1%
6.1%
6.1%
4.7%
7.5%
4.2%
8.8%
12.0%
5.2%
8.8%
19.5%
6.7%
7.7%
6.6%
13.5%
11.8%
6.5%
12.7%
12.4%
13.8%
12.1%
14.4%
12.4%
15.1%
12.9%
21.6%
9.0%
11.1%
8.7%
105
Table A5: Motor Vehicle Industry Establishments and Employment, Ohio and the U.S., 2008
Ohio
NAICS
Code
The Related Industries Include:

32621
326211
326212
335911
Tires
Tire Retreading
Storage Batteries
U.S.
Establishments
Employment
Mean
Establishments
Employment
Mean
Estab- Employlishments
ment
45
4,652
103.4
759
78,055
102.8
5.9%
6.0%
38
9
29
3,452
3,010
442
90.8
334.4
15.2
643
134
509
58,207
50,246
7,961
90.5
375.0
15.6
5.9%
6.7%
5.7%
5.9%
6.0%
5.6%
1,200
171.4
116
19,848
171.1
6.0%
6.0%
Notes: * - The Ohio employment figure is (or contains) an estimate.

Abbreviations used: Eqpt. - equipment; Exc. - except; Mfg. - manufacturing; MV - motor vehicle. It should also be noted that neither the iron foundries
dedicated to the motor vehicle industry, particularly Ford's in Brookpark and General Motor's (GM's) in Defiance, nor the diesel engine plants of GM
and Daimler AG in Dayton and Byesville, respectively, are included in this table because their NAICS codes (331511 and 333618) exclude them,
and there is no ready comparison to the nation as a whole. If such a comparison was possible, then there would have been over 3,600 more
workers in Ohio's motor vehicle industry - and thousands more throughout the nation - in 2008. Ford's foundry closed in 2010.
Sources: Harris (2008); ODOD (2008); U.S. Bureau of the Census (2010b).
Prepared by: Policy Research & Strategic Planning, Ohio Dept. of Development. Telephone 614/466-2116 (DL, 10/10).
106
Table A6: Motor Vehicle Industry Employment and Pay, Ohio and the U.S., 2008
Ohio
NAICS
Code


3361
33611
336111
336112
33612
MV Assembly
Automobiles*
Light Truck & Utility Vehicles*
Heavy Duty Trucks
3362
336211
336212
336213
336214

MV Bodies
Truck Trailers
Motor Homes*
Travel Trailers & Campers*
3363
33631
336311
336312
33632
336321
336322
33633
33634
33635
33636
33637
33639
336391
336399
MV Parts
MV Gas Engines & Engine Parts*
MV Brake Systems
MV Metal Stamping
Other MV Parts
Motor Vehicle Air-Conditioning*
All Other MV Parts*
Employment
Mean
4,728,416
$182,093.3 $38,510
120,903,551
$5,130,509.2 $42,435
90.8%
108,538
$5,831.5 $53,727
957,453
$46,297.8 $48,355
111.1%
103,886
$5,572.2 $53,638
879,398
$42,395.4 $48,210
111.3%
$1,506.4
$1,343.2
$860.3
$482.9
$163.2
$67,304
$67,992
$69,137
$66,043
$62,129
182,072
153,426
72,367
81,059
28,646
$11,870.5
$10,549.9
$5,138.8
$5,411.1
$1,320.6
$65,197
$68,762
$71,010
$66,755
$46,100
103.2%
98.9%
97.4%
98.9%
134.8%
$228.5 $39,719
$136.6 $40,337
$45.4 $42,072
D
n.a.
D
n.a.
136,404
47,548
25,853
16,009
46,994
$4,780.5
$1,849.9
$912.4
$463.7
$1,554.5
$35,047
$38,905
$35,293
$28,964
$33,079
113.3%
103.7%
119.2%
n.a.
n.a.
560,922
60,550
8,842
51,708
66,128
13,086
53,042
37,429
27,370
75,269
49,958
94,263
149,955
15,451
134,504
$25,744.4
$3,174.6
$380.1
$2,794.4
$3,080.2
$573.4
$2,506.8
$1,737.4
$1,025.9
$4,331.1
$1,993.2
$4,444.8
$5,957.2
$686.8
$5,270.5
$45,897
$52,429
$42,992
$54,043
$46,579
$43,816
$47,260
$46,419
$37,483
$57,542
$39,897
$47,153
$39,727
$44,447
$39,184
110.4%
119.0%
n.a.
n.a.
127.2%
136.2%
125.1%
123.7%
93.9%
105.6%
96.7%
105.1%
99.0%
106.2%
97.5%
5,752
3,386
1,078
59
1,229
75,752
7,152
574
6,578
8,210
1,807
6,403
5,391
3,391
11,353
6,442
20,324
13,489
1,722
11,767
$3,837.4
$446.2
D
D
$486.3
$107.8
$378.4
$309.6
$119.3
$689.8
$248.7
$1,006.8
$530.7
$81.3
$449.4
107
$50,657
$62,391
n.a.
n.a.
$59,227
$59,664
$59,104
$57,430
$35,188
$60,760
$38,599
$49,538
$39,341
$47,205
$38,191
Payroll
in millions
Ohio Means
as a Percent of
U.S. Means
Employment
22,382
19,755
12,443
7,312
2,627
Payroll
in millions
U.S.
Mean
Table A6: Motor Vehicle Industry Employment and Pay, Ohio and the U.S., 2008
Ohio
NAICS
Code

32621
326211
326212
335911
Tires
Tire Retreading
Storage Batteries
Employment
Payroll
in millions
U.S.
Payroll
in millions
Ohio Means
as a Percent of
U.S. Means
Mean
Employment
4,652
$259.2 $55,727
78,055
$3,902.4 $49,995
111.5%
3,452
3,010
442
$198.1 $57,399
$182.7 $60,695
$15.4 $34,950
58,207
50,246
7,961
$2,969.3 $51,013
$2,697.7 $53,690
$271.6 $34,120
112.5%
113.0%
102.4%
1,200
$61.1 $50,920
19,848
$933.1 $47,011
108.3%
Mean
Notes: * - The Ohio employment figure is (or contains) an estimate; D - suppressed to maintain confidentiality; n.a. - not available.
Abbreviations used: Eqpt. - equipment; Exc. - except; Mfg. - manufacturing; MV - motor vehicle. It should also be noted that neither the iron foundries
dedicated to the motor vehicle industry, particularly Ford's in Brookpark and General Motor's (GM's) in Defiance, nor the diesel engine plants of GM
and Daimler AG in Dayton and Byesville, respectively, are included in this table because their NAICS codes (331511 and 333618) exclude them,
and there is no ready comparison to the nation as a whole. If such a comparison was possible, then there would have been over 3,600 more
workers in Ohio's motor vehicle industry - and thousands more throughout the nation - in 2008.
Sources: Harris (2008); ODOD (2008); U.S. Bureau of the Census (2010b).
108
109
Table A7: Establishments and Employment in Ohio's Motor Vehicle Industry by County, 2008
Area Name
Ohio
Adams
Allen
Ashland
Ashtabula
Athens
Auglaize
Belmont
Brown
Butler
Carroll
Champaign
Clark
Clermont
Clinton
Columbiana
Coshocton
Crawford
Cuyahoga^
Darke
Defiance^
Delaware
Erie
Fairfield
Fayette
Franklin
Fulton
Gallia
Geauga
Establishments
Employment*
650
109,326
0
9
1
9
0
4
4
1
12
1
1
19
6
3
6
0
8
64
6
8
6
6
4
3
35
7
1
3
0
2,132
15
223
0
819
159
3
1,381
3
666
1,575
417
812
345
0
790
6,918
332
2,396
760
1,868
163
152
3,094
1,022
143
37
Area Name
Establishments
Employment*
2
1
12
18
2
1
4
2
0
8
3
1
2
4
11
0
8
8
21
32
5
9
6
14
0
2
7
1
32
1
31
500
1,993
4,247
400
3
788
95
0
127
292
3
22
671
365
0
1,487
3,976
3,611
8,145
1,571
206
643
772
0
333
1,016
15
6,960
333
Greene
Guernsey^
Hamilton
Hancock
Hardin
Harrison
Henry
Highland
Hocking
Holmes
Huron
Jackson
Jefferson
Knox
Lake
Lawrence
Licking
Logan
Lorain
Lucas
Madison
Mahoning
Marion
Medina
Meigs
Mercer
Miami
Monroe
Montgomery^
Morgan
Area Name
Morrow
Muskingum
Noble
Ottawa
Paulding
Perry
Pickaway
Pike
Portage
Preble
Putnam
Richland
Ross
Sandusky
Scioto
Seneca
Shelby
Stark
Summit
Trumbull
Tuscarawas
Union
Van Wert
Vinton
Warren
Washington
Wayne
Williams~
Wood
Wyandot
Establishments
Employment*
4
0
1
3
4
1
1
1
3
3
5
15
3
9
3
8
6
18
30
17
9
1
6
0
9
2
12
15
10
7
742
0
333
58
366
3
143
143
363
740
890
3,383
1,676
1,090
71
1,266
3,771
1,675
2,968
9,798
290
5,300
753
0
2,026
5
2,339
1,434
2,032
843
Notes: * - Employment figures are estimates or incorporate estimates; some end-of-year figures were used in place of mid-March estimates, with the consequence that county totals tend to be a little low; ^ - Figures include Ford's casting plant in Cuyahoga, GM's casting plant in Defiance, Daimler's
diesel plant in Guernsey, and the GM-Isuzu joint venture in the DMAX diesel plant in Montgomery; ~ - Continental's construction equipment tire
plant is excluded.
Sources: Harris (2008), ODOD (2008), and U.S. Bureau of the Census (2010b), Zelm (2008).
Prepared by: Policy Research & Strategic Planning, Ohio Dept. of Development. Telephone 800/848-1300, or 614/466-2116 (DL, 10/10).
110
Table A8a: Motor Vehicle Industry Employment Trends in Ohio, 2000-2008

Changes:
2000-2008
NAICS
Code
11-92
31-33
32621-3363
Total
Manufacturing

3361
MV Assembly
33611
Automobile & Light Duty Motor Vehicles*^
336111
Automobiles*^
336112
Light Truck & Utility Vehicles*^
33612
Heavy Duty Trucks*^
3362
336211
336212
336213&4

MV Bodies
Truck Trailers
Motor Homes, Travel Trailers, & Campers
3363
33631
336311
336312
33632
336321
336322
33633
33634
33635
33636
33637
33639
336391
336399
MV Parts
MV Brake Systems
MV Metal Stamping
Other MV Parts^
Motor Vehicle Air-Conditioning*^
All Other MV Parts*

32621
Tires
326211
326212
Tire Retreading
335911
Storage Batteries*
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Number Percent
5,001,980
988,612
157,766
4,932,943
936,161
144,540
4,743,151
829,456
122,766
4,770,283
838,725
133,279
4,762,205
814,662
131,612
4,762,618
792,783
126,487
4,825,510
787,946
126,396
4,782,141
761,167
116,443
4,728,416
742,787
108,538
-273,564
-5.5%
-245,825 -24.9%
-49,228 -31.2%
153,126
34,023
28,036
13,837
14,199
5,987
139,578
33,797
28,580
13,167
15,413
5,217
117,328
28,698
24,778
11,978
12,800
3,920
128,411
27,365
24,018
13,053
10,965
3,347
127,358
28,584
25,230
13,210
12,020
3,354
122,193
27,323
23,619
12,261
11,359
3,704
122,222
26,844
23,172
14,169
9,003
3,672
112,007
23,573
20,443
12,230
8,213
3,130
103,886
22,382
19,755
12,443
7,312
2,627
5,899
3,452
1,370
1,077
4,884
3,033
917
934
4,171
2,606
716
849
3,603
1,988
764
851
4,264
2,137
1,222
905
4,552
2,334
1,171
1,047
4,936
2,462
1,501
973
5,444
3,230
1,289
925
5,752
3,386
1,078
1,288
113,204
10,407
1,149
9,258
15,531
2,267
13,264
9,219
7,234
13,259
5,421
30,607
21,526
3,859
17,667
100,897
9,185
837
8,348
13,456
1,914
11,542
8,282
6,127
12,593
5,372
26,588
19,294
3,576
15,718
84,459
8,462
340
8,122
5,813
708
5,105
6,260
5,554
11,462
5,503
25,573
15,832
3,193
12,639
97,443
10,108
514
9,594
9,949
1,320
8,629
6,164
8,066
13,404
7,268
26,378
16,106
3,208
12,898
94,510
9,453
642
8,811
9,051
1,084
7,967
5,642
7,304
13,751
7,177
25,088
17,044
3,621
13,423
90,318
8,621
652
7,969
8,506
1,032
7,474
4,927
6,361
13,305
7,317
24,037
17,244
3,103
14,141
90,442
8,459
641
7,818
9,668
2,182
7,486
4,884
6,204
13,088
7,315
24,268
16,556
3,177
13,379
82,990
8,061
536
7,525
9,100
2,019
7,081
5,123
4,981
11,596
7,320
21,664
15,145
2,653
12,492
75,752
7,152
574
6,578
8,210
1,807
6,403
5,391
3,391
11,353
6,442
20,324
13,489
1,722
11,767
-37,452
-3,255
-575
-2,680
-7,321
-460
-6,861
-3,828
-3,843
-1,906
1,021
-10,283
-8,037
-2,137
-5,900
-33.1%
-31.3%
-50.1%
-28.9%
-47.1%
-20.3%
-51.7%
-41.5%
-53.1%
-14.4%
18.8%
-33.6%
-37.3%
-55.4%
-33.4%
4,640
3,683
3,314
369
957
4,962
4,053
3,588
465
909
5,438
4,456
3,996
460
982
4,868
3,718
3,182
536
1,150
4,254
3,179
2,722
457
1,075
4,294
3,261
2,746
515
1,033
4,174
3,138
2,747
391
1,036
4,436
3,335
2,895
440
1,101
4,652
3,452
3,010
442
1,200
12
-231
-304
73
243
0.3%
-6.3%
-9.2%
19.8%
25.4%
Notes: * - Employment figures may be (or contain) estimates. ^ - Employment information from Harris (1998-2006) and/or OSR (2004, 2006) may be incorporated.
Abbreviations used: Eqpt. - equipment; Exc. - except; Mfg. - manufacturing; MV - motor vehicle.
Sources: Harris (2000-2006); ODOD (2004, 2006, 2008), U.S. Bureau of the Census (2002, 2003b, 2004, 2005b, 2006, 2007b, 2008b, 2009, 2010b).
111
-49,240
-11,641
-8,281
-1,394
-6,887
-3,360
-32.2%
-34.2%
-29.5%
-10.1%
-48.5%
-56.1%
-147
-2.5%
-66
-1.9%
-292 -21.3%
211 19.6%
Table A8b: Motor Vehicle Industry Employment Trends in the U.S., 2000-2008
Changes:
2000-2008
NAICS
Code
11-92
31-33
32621-3363
Total
Manufacturing

3361
MV Assembly
33611
336111
Automobiles
336112
33612
Heavy Duty Trucks
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Number Percent
114,064,976
16,473,994
1,295,227
115,061,184
15,950,424
1,183,040
112,400,654
14,393,609
1,075,597
113,398,043
14,132,020
1,116,495
115,074,924
13,821,976
1,131,767
116,317,003
13,667,337
1,112,879
119,917,165
13,631,683
1,088,700
120,604,265
13,320,172
1,017,328
120,903,551
13,096,159
957,453
6,838,575
6.0%
-3,377,835 -20.5%
-337,774 -26.1%
1,198,065
235,413
199,974
101,962
98,012
35,439
1,087,564
215,132
187,713
97,321
90,392
27,419
988,398
216,886
196,197
112,453
83,744
20,689
1,032,461
211,454
183,401
74,821
108,580
28,053
1,049,744
216,793
187,216
79,087
108,129
29,577
1,033,204
214,536
182,188
74,410
107,778
32,348
1,007,939
211,162
179,040
75,225
103,815
32,122
941,711
196,493
165,884
73,095
92,789
30,609
879,398
182,072
153,426
72,367
81,059
28,646
-318,667
-53,341
-46,548
-29,595
-16,953
-6,793
-26.6%
-22.7%
-23.3%
-29.0%
-17.3%
-19.2%
3362
336211
336212
336213&4

MV Bodies
Truck Trailers
150,461
51,428
38,396
60,637
132,765
48,089
28,261
56,415
114,410
39,280
22,008
53,122
132,617
43,704
23,716
65,197
143,888
44,969
25,698
73,221
147,634
46,204
29,000
72,430
155,649
47,566
32,260
75,823
151,588
50,391
32,854
68,343
136,404
47,548
25,853
63,003
3363
33631
336311
336312
33632
336321
336322
33633
33634
33635
33636
33637
33639
336391
336399
MV Parts
MV Brake Systems
MV Metal Stamping
Other MV Parts
All Other MV Parts
812,191
105,256
20,242
85,014
113,031
16,501
96,530
50,001
43,115
118,268
53,783
129,416
199,321
21,894
177,427
739,667
98,182
18,345
79,837
104,769
16,126
88,643
44,251
39,484
105,316
50,433
115,931
181,301
19,406
161,895
657,102
80,507
14,511
65,996
83,434
13,752
69,682
36,109
36,478
92,395
47,931
111,908
168,340
12,985
155,355
688,390
92,286
13,134
79,152
89,283
15,637
73,646
39,098
41,419
93,687
54,858
115,517
162,242
15,431
146,811
689,063
91,805
12,649
79,156
87,042
14,742
72,300
37,272
40,905
94,626
56,891
114,664
165,858
17,913
147,945
671,034
80,904
10,948
69,956
85,313
14,962
70,351
37,810
39,373
90,795
57,390
111,168
168,281
16,750
151,531
641,128
76,649
10,537
66,112
77,631
15,615
62,016
39,390
33,782
83,756
52,842
110,578
166,500
17,249
149,251
593,630
71,895
10,132
61,763
69,341
13,378
55,963
35,972
30,859
77,968
52,186
100,006
155,403
15,994
139,409
560,922
60,550
8,842
51,708
66,128
13,086
53,042
37,429
27,370
75,269
49,958
94,263
149,955
15,451
134,504
-251,269
-44,706
-11,400
-33,306
-46,903
-3,415
-43,488
-12,572
-15,745
-42,999
-3,825
-35,153
-49,366
-6,443
-42,923
-30.9%
-42.5%
-56.3%
-39.2%
-41.5%
-20.7%
-45.1%
-25.1%
-36.5%
-36.4%
-7.1%
-27.2%
-24.8%
-29.4%
-24.2%
97,162
74,325
66,133
8,192
22,837
95,476
72,481
63,931
8,550
22,995
87,199
68,862
60,905
7,957
18,337
84,034
66,587
58,188
8,399
17,447
82,023
64,007
55,064
8,943
18,016
79,675
62,621
54,323
8,298
17,054
80,761
62,478
53,985
8,493
18,283
75,617
57,964
49,756
8,208
17,653
78,055
58,207
50,246
7,961
19,848
-19,107
-16,118
-15,887
-231
-2,989
-19.7%
-21.7%
-24.0%
-2.8%
-13.1%

32621
Tires
326211
326212
Tire Retreading
335911
Storage Batteries
Note: Abbreviations used: Eqpt. - equipment; Exc. - except; Mfg. - manufacturing; MV - motor vehicle.
Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census (2002, 2003b, 2004, 2005b, 2006, 2007b, 2008b, 2009, 2010b).
112
-14,057
-9.3%
-3,880
-7.5%
-12,543 -32.7%
2,366
3.9%
Table A9: Total and Motor Vehicle Industry Gross Domestic Product for Ohio and the U.S., 1997-2008
(in billions of chained dollars, except percentages, and standardized on 2005)
Motor Vehicles, Bodies, Trailers & Parts
(NAICS 3361-3363) GDP
Year
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Total GDP
Ohio
U.S.
Ohio
Percent
Dollar Change
As
Value
from Percent
(billions) Prior Yr. of Total
Percent
Dollar Change
As
Value
from Percent
(billions) Prior Yr. of Total
Percent
Dollar Change
Value
from
(billions) Prior Yr.
2.9%
3.4%
3.0%
3.1%
2.7%
3.2%
3.0%
3.4%
3.5%
3.7%
3.4%
3.0%
$79.08
$88.43
$89.98
$93.50
$84.39
$100.52
$106.12
$106.48
$112.62
$120.96
$120.64
$112.65
0.8%
0.9%
0.8%
0.8%
0.7%
0.9%
0.9%
0.9%
0.9%
0.9%
0.9%
0.9%
$397.37
$410.50
$418.17
$429.11
$420.38
$429.75
$433.97
$442.32
$444.72
$440.70
$444.93
$441.78
0.1%
$33.57
42.5%
0.1%
$44.41
11.2%
$11.56
$13.81
$12.73
$13.34
$11.35
$13.73
$13.19
$15.10
$15.48
$16.44
$14.92
$13.44
19.4%
-7.8%
4.8%
-14.9%
21.0%
-3.9%
14.5%
2.6%
6.1%
-9.2%
-9.9%
11.8%
1.7%
3.9%
-9.7%
19.1%
5.6%
0.3%
5.8%
7.4%
-0.3%
-6.6%
U.S.
3.3%
1.9%
2.6%
-2.0%
2.2%
1.0%
1.9%
0.5%
-0.9%
1.0%
-0.7%
Ohio as a Percent of the U.S.
Percent
Dollar Change
Value
from
(billions) Prior Yr.
$9,847.07
$10,275.90
$10,767.50
$11,223.10
$11,364.20
$11,560.30
$11,807.80
$12,212.60
$12,554.50
$12,895.90
$13,162.80
$13,181.90
4.4%
4.8%
4.2%
1.3%
1.7%
2.1%
3.4%
2.8%
2.7%
2.1%
0.1%
NAICS
33613363
Ohio::U.S.
Concentration
Total
Ratio
14.6%
15.6%
14.1%
14.3%
13.4%
13.7%
12.4%
14.2%
13.7%
13.6%
12.4%
11.9%
4.0%
4.0%
3.9%
3.8%
3.7%
3.7%
3.7%
3.6%
3.5%
3.4%
3.4%
3.4%
3.62
3.91
3.64
3.73
3.63
3.67
3.38
3.91
3.88
3.98
3.66
3.56
-2.7%
-0.7%
-0.06
Net Changes, 1997-2008

Numeric
Percent
$1.88
16.2%
$3,334.83
33.9%
Notes: State GDP is analogous to national GDP, but not identical with it due to minor technical differences. Chained dollars adjusts for inflation,
allowing comparisons of the volume of goods produced from year to year.
Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (2010a).
113
Table A10: Trends in Value-Added by Group for Ohio and the U.S., 1997-2008
(in millions of dollars)
Ohio
U.S.
Year
3361:
Assembly
3362:
Bodies &
Trailers*
3363:
Parts
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
$10,760.0
$13,493.2
$13,344.9
$12,092.3
$10,408.9
$12,686.7
$9,606.0
$10,541.7
$10,800.6
$10,908.5
$9,920.1
$7,469.2
$281.9
$331.0
$331.2
$339.9
$273.1
$244.0
$272.5
$703.1
$945.8
$1,122.4
$470.4
$244.5
$11,275.6
$10,977.3
$11,665.1
$11,197.9
$9,362.9
$11,753.1
$12,292.3
$13,504.4
$12,361.1
$11,298.8
$10,649.2
$8,586.0
Summary
3361:
Assembly
3362:
Bodies &
Trailers
3363:
Parts
Summary
$22,317.5
$24,801.4
$25,341.2
$23,630.2
$20,044.9
$24,683.9
$22,170.8
$24,749.2
$24,107.5
$23,329.8
$21,039.7
$16,299.7
$72,575.0
$66,288.7
$77,424.7
$61,627.7
$54,172.8
$72,157.1
$78,239.9
$71,100.6
$67,605.8
$66,035.3
$73,039.6
$52,337.0
$7,693.7
$8,474.4
$10,158.9
$9,871.3
$8,417.3
$8,741.7
$9,475.8
$11,186.5
$12,292.5
$13,482.8
$12,806.0
$10,207.7
$73,797.9
$77,370.5
$85,426.3
$84,481.3
$74,532.3
$86,428.2
$84,401.2
$83,006.0
$81,289.8
$80,497.4
$74,178.3
$62,812.2
$154,066.6
$152,133.6
$173,009.9
$155,980.3
$137,122.4
$167,327.0
$172,117.0
$165,293.2
$161,188.0
$160,015.6
$160,023.9
$125,356.9
Average percentages for the 12-year period:
3361:
3362:
As- Bodies &
sembly Trailers*
Summary
14.8%
20.4%
17.2%
19.6%
19.2%
17.6%
12.3%
14.8%
16.0%
16.5%
13.6%
14.3%
3.7%
3.9%
3.3%
3.4%
3.2%
2.8%
2.9%
6.3%
7.7%
8.3%
3.7%
2.4%
15.3%
14.2%
13.7%
13.3%
12.6%
13.6%
14.6%
16.3%
15.2%
14.0%
14.4%
13.7%
14.5%
16.3%
14.6%
15.1%
14.6%
14.8%
12.9%
15.0%
15.0%
14.6%
13.1%
13.0%
16.2%
4.5%
14.2%
14.5%
Note: * - Data for this group are unreliable, as indicated by the relatively large standard errors of the estimates (not shown).
Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census (2003a, 2005a, 2007a, 2008a, 2010a).
Prepared by: Policy Research & Strategic Planning, Ohio Dept. of Development. Telephone 800/848-1300 or 614/466-2116 (DL, 9/10).
114
3363:
Parts
Table A11: Light Vehicle Production in Ohio and the U.S., 1990-2010
Ohio
Year
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Cars
843,476 *
966,663 *
914,951 *
1,005,870
959,856
988,869
1,084,599
1,105,007
1,016,129
1,055,762
1,022,393
1,016,218
989,509
927,925
797,009
882,222
884,734
870,008
854,209
394,333
511,310
Light
Trucks
631,178
677,811 *
564,887 *
795,541
812,660
907,288
855,430
893,447
840,416
918,210
841,636
722,869
847,787
956,952
943,622
912,367
785,007
878,327
629,877
389,129
592,222
U.S.
Cars %
Light of Light
Vehicles Vehicles
1,474,654
1,644,474
1,479,838
1,801,411
1,772,516
1,896,157
1,940,029
1,998,454
1,856,545
1,973,972
1,864,029
1,739,087
1,837,296
1,884,877
1,740,631
1,794,589
1,669,741
1,748,335
1,484,086
783,462
1,103,532
57.2%
58.8%
61.8%
55.8%
54.2%
52.2%
55.9%
55.3%
54.7%
53.5%
54.8%
58.4%
53.9%
49.2%
45.8%
49.2%
53.0%
49.8%
57.6%
50.3%
46.3%
Cars
Light
Trucks
6,077,885
5,439,864
5,666,891
5,982,120
6,601,223
6,339,892
6,082,835
5,933,921
5,554,373
5,637,949
5,542,217
4,879,119
5,018,777
4,510,469
4,229,625
4,321,272
4,366,996
3,924,268
3,776,641
2,331,435
2,941,214
3,463,527
3,176,719
3,808,159
4,608,017
5,332,048
5,306,197
5,749,418
6,196,565
6,448,290
7,387,029
7,228,497
6,545,570
7,260,805
7,576,559
7,730,729
7,625,381
6,893,281
6,828,042
4,896,450
3,280,365
4,699,198
Ohio as Percent of U.S.

Cars %
Light of Light
Vehicles Vehicles
9,541,412
8,616,583
9,475,050
10,590,137
11,933,271
11,646,089
11,832,253
12,130,486
12,002,663
13,024,978
12,770,714
11,424,689
12,279,582
12,087,028
11,960,354
11,946,653
11,260,277
10,752,310
8,673,091
5,611,800
7,640,412
63.7%
63.1%
59.8%
56.5%
55.3%
54.4%
51.4%
48.9%
46.3%
43.3%
43.4%
42.7%
40.9%
37.3%
35.4%
36.2%
38.8%
36.5%
43.5%
41.5%
38.5%
Cars
13.9%
17.8%
16.1%
16.8%
14.5%
15.6%
17.8%
18.6%
18.3%
18.7%
18.4%
20.8%
19.7%
20.6%
18.8%
20.4%
20.3%
22.2%
22.6%
16.9%
17.4%
Light
Light
Trucks Vehicles
18.2%
21.3%
14.8%
17.3%
15.2%
17.1%
14.9%
14.4%
13.0%
12.4%
11.6%
11.0%
11.7%
12.6%
12.2%
12.0%
11.4%
12.9%
12.9%
11.9%
12.6%
Notes: * - Model year production, which does not coincide with the calendar year. Research for a prior report showed that combining
and comparing model and calendar year data introduces only minimal distortions. Therefore, comparisons of Ohio with the U.S.
for these years are useful, but not entirely valid; ^ - Initial estimates subject to revision.
Sources: Automotive News (2010, 2011), Ward's (1991-2008).
Prepared by: Policy Research & Strategic Planning, Ohio Dept. of Development (DL, 1/11).
115
15.5%
19.1%
15.6%
17.0%
14.9%
16.3%
16.4%
16.5%
15.5%
15.2%
14.6%
15.2%
15.0%
15.6%
14.6%
15.0%
14.8%
16.3%
17.1%
14.0%
14.4%
Table A12: Trends in Capital Expenditures by Group for Ohio and the U.S., 1997-2008
(in millions of dollars)
Ohio
U.S.
Year
3361:
Assembly
3362:
Bodies &
Trailers*
3363:
Parts
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
$454.1
$364.1
$745.7
$840.2
$462.6
$318.6
$285.3
$421.3
$453.8
$570.5
$268.2
$135.8
$26.6
$12.6
$16.6
$13.6
$6.7
$8.3
$4.6
$14.6
$22.7
$11.1
$14.0
$12.0
$1,888.5
$1,669.7
$1,323.6
$1,118.0
$1,099.9
$1,366.9
$932.7
$1,123.6
$803.2
$1,543.9
$1,032.4
$1,184.4
Summary
3361:
Assembly
3362:
Bodies &
Trailers
3363:
Parts
Summary
$2,369.3
$2,046.4
$2,086.0
$1,971.8
$1,569.2
$1,693.8
$1,222.6
$1,559.5
$1,279.7
$2,125.4
$1,314.6
$1,332.2
$5,406.6
$5,383.8
$4,773.5
$4,777.8
$4,461.3
$4,802.2
$5,186.7
$4,686.8
$4,283.1
$4,042.8
$3,765.1
$4,151.3
$441.1
$377.8
$463.7
$588.1
$503.3
$328.0
$386.8
$441.5
$391.2
$393.5
$413.9
$337.3
$9,489.4
$9,830.8
$9,464.3
$8,863.0
$8,390.4
$7,534.3
$7,377.3
$6,259.2
$6,759.4
$6,884.3
$6,675.5
$6,849.9
$15,337.1
$15,592.3
$14,701.4
$14,229.0
$13,355.0
$12,664.5
$12,950.7
$11,387.5
$11,433.6
$11,320.6
$10,854.5
$11,338.5
Average percentages for the 12-year period:
3361:
3362:
As- Bodies &
sembly Trailers*
Summary
8.4%
6.8%
15.6%
17.6%
10.4%
6.6%
5.5%
9.0%
10.6%
14.1%
7.1%
3.3%
6.0%
3.3%
3.6%
2.3%
1.3%
2.5%
1.2%
3.3%
5.8%
2.8%
3.4%
3.6%
19.9%
17.0%
14.0%
12.6%
13.1%
18.1%
12.6%
18.0%
11.9%
22.4%
15.5%
17.3%
15.4%
13.1%
14.2%
13.9%
11.8%
13.4%
9.4%
13.7%
11.2%
18.8%
12.1%
11.7%
9.5%
3.2%
16.0%
13.3%
Note: * - Data for this group are unreliable, as indicated by the relatively large standard errors of the estimates (not shown).
Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census (2003a, 2005a, 2007a, 2008a, 2010a).
Prepared by: Policy Research & Strategic Planning, Ohio Dept. of Development. Telephone 800/848-1300 or 614/466-2116 (DL, 9/10).
116
3363:
Parts
Table A13a: Motor Vehicle Industry Establishment Trends in Ohio, 2000-2008

Changes:
2000-2008
NAICS
Code
11-92
31-33
32621-3363

Manufacturing

3361
MV Assembly
33611
336111
Automobiles
336112
33612
Heavy Duty Trucks
3362
336211
336212
336213&4

MV Bodies
Truck Trailers
3363
33631
336311
336312
33632
336321
336322
33633
33634
33635
33636
33637
33639
336391
336399
MV Parts
MV Brake Systems
MV Metal Stamping
Other MV Parts
All Other MV Parts

32621
Tires
326211
326212
Tire Retreading
335911
Storage Batteries
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Number Percent
270,509
17,704
627
269,944
17,597
612
271,181
17,189
606
270,255
17,082
648
271,733
16,887
653
270,968
16,617
645
269,914
16,401
658
270,299
16,174
673
263,761
15,941
647
-6,748
-2.5%
-1,763 -10.0%
20
3.2%
572
22
15
11
4
7
555
23
16
12
4
7
558
24
16
13
3
8
600
21
14
10
4
7
607
27
18
14
4
9
602
29
19
14
5
10
613
28
19
14
5
9
628
29
19
15
4
10
602
28
17
12
5
11
30
6
2
1
1
4
5.2%
27.3%
13.3%
9.1%
25.0%
57.1%
71
37
16
18
70
38
13
19
72
38
14
20
80
42
16
22
82
38
20
24
80
35
18
27
95
43
24
28
101
46
22
33
94
41
25
28
23
4
9
10
32.4%
10.8%
56.3%
55.6%
479
51
11
40
55
11
44
21
25
33
25
140
129
6
123
462
49
12
37
53
10
43
21
21
30
26
135
127
6
121
462
46
6
40
50
11
39
24
26
34
24
130
128
7
121
499
49
6
43
44
9
35
23
33
40
31
154
125
6
119
498
55
7
48
41
8
33
22
33
38
32
156
121
6
115
493
49
7
42
38
8
30
23
29
35
34
159
126
5
121
490
54
7
47
39
9
30
24
29
35
37
152
120
5
115
498
61
7
54
38
9
29
26
27
35
37
149
125
7
118
480
58
7
51
37
8
29
23
28
27
36
154
117
6
111
1
7
-4
11
-18
-3
-15
2
3
-6
11
14
-12
0
-12
0.2%
13.7%
-36.4%
27.5%
-32.7%
-27.3%
-34.1%
9.5%
12.0%
-18.2%
44.0%
10.0%
-9.3%
0.0%
-9.8%
55
50
10
40
5
57
51
11
40
6
48
41
10
31
7
48
42
11
31
6
46
40
12
28
6
43
37
10
27
6
45
38
9
29
7
45
39
9
30
6
45
38
9
29
7
-10
-12
-1
-11
2
-18.2%
-24.0%
-10.0%
-27.5%
40.0%
Abbreviations used: Eqpt. - equipment; Exc. - except; Mfg. - manufacturing; MV - motor vehicle.
Source: Harris (2004, 2006), ODOD (2004, 2006), U.S. Bureau of the Census (2002, 2003b, 2004, 2005b, 2006, 2007b, 2008b, 2009, 2010b).
117
Table A13b: Motor Vehicle Industry Establishment Trends in the U.S., 2000-2008
Changes:
2000-2008
NAICS
Code
11-92
31-33
32621-3363

Manufacturing

3361
MV Assembly
33611
336111
Automobiles
336112
33612
Heavy Duty Trucks
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
7,070,048
354,498
9,118
7,095,302
352,619
8,974
7,200,770
344,341
8,668
7,254,745
341,849
9,012
7,387,724
339,083
9,061
7,499,702
333,460
8,945
7,601,160
331,062
8,871
7,705,018
331,355
8,862
7,601,169
326,216
8,996
8,112
410
324
217
107
86
7,998
410
321
221
100
89
7,833
395
308
207
101
87
8,160
367
273
172
101
94
8,240
377
275
183
92
102
8,168
380
281
180
101
99
8,083
370
275
181
94
95
8,091
378
280
193
87
98
8,237
377
277
186
91
100
Number Percent
531,121
-28,282
-122
7.5%
-8.0%
-1.3%
125
1.5%
-33
-8.0%
-47 -14.5%
-31 -14.3%
-16 -15.0%
14 16.3%
3362
336211
336212
336213&4

MV Bodies
Truck Trailers
2,081
822
394
865
2,062
811
393
858
2,001
753
388
860
2,142
837
394
911
2,195
826
408
961
2,164
814
391
959
2,157
820
394
943
2,187
845
394
948
2,156
839
429
888
75
17
35
23
3.6%
2.1%
8.9%
2.7%
3363
33631
336311
336312
33632
336321
336322
33633
33634
33635
33636
33637
33639
336391
336399
MV Parts
MV Brake Systems
MV Metal Stamping
Other MV Parts
All Other MV Parts
5,621
982
135
847
1,072
109
963
207
266
509
335
754
1,496
69
1,427
5,526
984
138
846
1,034
100
934
204
260
507
338
740
1,459
69
1,390
5,437
971
127
844
922
100
822
221
253
513
332
719
1,506
72
1,434
5,651
1,042
128
914
880
99
781
233
262
536
392
790
1,516
87
1,429
5,668
1,021
127
894
854
103
751
229
262
534
407
788
1,573
86
1,487
5,624
1,005
115
890
828
102
726
246
251
533
399
792
1,570
80
1,490
5,556
992
116
876
799
102
697
257
241
535
421
781
1,530
72
1,458
5,526
1,010
115
895
800
102
698
253
238
526
407
758
1,534
77
1,457
5,704
949
114
835
792
107
685
261
233
524
409
788
1,748
78
1,670
83
-33
-21
-12
-280
-2
-278
54
-33
15
74
34
252
9
243
1.5%
-3.4%
-15.6%
-1.4%
-26.1%
-1.8%
-28.9%
26.1%
-12.4%
2.9%
22.1%
4.5%
16.8%
13.0%
17.0%
1,006
868
160
708
138
976
838
161
677
138
835
707
149
558
128
852
722
153
569
130
821
692
145
547
129
777
656
138
518
121
788
663
138
525
125
771
649
129
520
122
759
643
134
509
116
-247
-225
-26
-199
-22
-24.6%
-25.9%
-16.3%
-28.1%
-15.9%

32621
Tires
326211
326212
Tire Retreading
335911
Storage Batteries
Note: Abbreviations used: Eqpt. - equipment; Exc. - except; Mfg. - manufacturing; MV - motor vehicle.
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census (2002, 2003b, 2004, 2005b, 2006, 2007b, 2008b, 2009, 2010b).
118
119
Table A14: Exports as a Percentage of Imports - Motor Vehicles, Engines and Parts by Area and Type, 1999-2009
Activity
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Total
Passenger cars, new & used
Trucks, buses & special purpose vehicles
Engines & engine parts
Other parts & accessories
42.4%
17.1%
44.1%
61.6%
87.8%
41.4%
15.3%
50.3%
68.5%
85.8%
40.1%
16.7%
39.3%
71.8%
83.2%
39.1%
18.0%
43.1%
67.7%
74.4%
38.7%
19.3%
51.7%
63.5%
65.8%
39.4%
20.1%
56.9%
59.6%
64.6%
41.5%
24.7%
59.5%
58.7%
60.0%
42.2%
25.1%
61.9%
62.2%
61.5%
47.2%
32.7%
73.1%
65.1%
59.7%
Canada:
72.7%
27.3%
52.0%
136.2%
196.6%
72.5%
27.2%
53.7%
138.2%
188.0%
71.3%
28.3%
48.2%
153.0%
179.5%
75.7%
32.8%
57.9%
146.6%
171.8%
77.4%
35.2%
71.0%
142.4%
155.1%
Other areas:
25.6%
11.6%
30.0%
31.9%
48.4%
26.4%
10.0%
44.1%
41.8%
51.3%
26.6%
12.1%
27.3%
44.8%
51.7%
24.0%
12.5%
23.4%
42.8%
42.6%
23.2%
13.6%
27.3%
38.7%
36.5%
2008
2009
52.5%
51.9%
39.5%
33.9%
98.4% 103.8%
67.6%
68.0%
61.3%
63.9%
75.0%
76.8%
82.5%
88.5%
99.9% 102.6%
29.4%
33.5%
35.9%
41.2%
46.7%
36.9%
80.4%
78.3%
93.6% 110.9% 176.7% 347.0%
134.4% 147.2% 173.2% 158.9% 176.5% 138.7%
159.5% 152.2% 158.1% 163.4% 173.9% 200.0%
24.6%
16.3%
29.0%
36.2%
35.0%
26.8%
21.1%
34.6%
33.7%
32.5%
27.2%
21.1%
28.1%
34.6%
35.2%
32.3%
29.5%
37.3%
40.2%
33.8%
38.3%
37.0%
50.3%
43.5%
36.8%
36.9%
32.8%
38.4%
51.1%
38.8%
Sources: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (2010b).

Bala
120
Table A15a: U.S. Sales of Imported and Domestic Light Vehicles, 1990-2009
Domestic Built
Imports
Totals
Year & type
U.S.
Brand
Japanese
Brand
All
Others
Total
U.S.
Brand
Japanese
Brand
All
Others
Total
U.S.
Brand
Japanese
Brand
All
Others
Total
1990: Cars
Trucks
Total
5,816,642
4,070,242
9,886,884
1,060,585
162,660
1,223,245
19,661
1,640
21,301
6,896,888
4,234,542
11,131,430
296,778
19,150
315,928
1,533,339
583,717
2,117,056
573,204
23,498
596,702
2,403,321
626,365
3,029,686
6,113,420
4,089,392
10,202,812
2,593,924
746,377
3,340,301
592,865
25,138
618,003
9,300,209
4,860,907
14,161,116
1991: Cars
Trucks
Total
4,993,456
3,625,545
8,619,001
1,124,401
188,420
1,312,821
18,930
1,329
20,259
6,136,787
3,815,294
9,952,081
254,572
9,970
264,542
1,348,123
522,736
1,870,859
435,204
16,597
451,801
2,037,899
549,303
2,587,202
5,248,028
3,635,515
8,883,543
2,472,524
711,156
3,183,680
454,134
17,926
472,060
8,174,686
4,364,597
12,539,283
1992: Cars
Trucks
Total
5,098,605
4,204,150
9,302,755
1,160,967
277,127
1,438,094
26,344
446
26,790
6,285,916
4,481,723
10,767,639
202,476
12,822
215,298
1,313,806
402,794
1,716,600
410,915
6,923
417,838
1,927,197
422,539
2,349,736
5,301,081
4,216,972
9,518,053
2,474,773
679,921
3,154,694
437,259
7,369
444,628
8,213,113
4,904,262
13,117,375
1993: Cars
Trucks
Total
5,454,470
4,907,793
10,362,263
1,264,601
379,373
1,643,974
22,596
5
22,601
6,741,667
5,287,171
12,028,838
166,500
10,112
176,612
1,216,952
373,179
1,590,131
392,740
10,544
403,284
1,776,192
393,835
2,170,027
5,620,970
4,917,905
10,538,875
2,481,553
752,552
3,234,105
415,336
10,549
425,885
8,517,859
5,681,006
14,198,865
1994: Cars
Trucks
Total
5,734,817
5,521,991
11,256,808
1,447,223
473,573
1,920,796
73,263
0
73,263
7,255,303
5,995,564
13,250,867
73,720
9,028
82,748
1,209,002
399,545
1,608,547
452,492
16,720
469,212
1,735,214
425,293
2,160,507
5,808,537
5,531,019
11,339,556
2,656,225
873,118
3,529,343
525,755
16,720
542,475
8,990,517
6,420,857
15,411,374
1995: Cars
Trucks
Total
5,433,959
5,622,090
11,056,049
1,594,725
441,007
2,035,732
100,023
0
100,023
7,128,707
6,063,097
13,191,804
74,065
7,840
81,905
967,906
380,923
1,348,829
464,286
29,501
493,787
1,506,257
418,264
1,924,521
5,508,024
5,629,930
11,137,954
2,562,631
821,930
3,384,561
564,309
29,501
593,810
8,634,964
6,481,361
15,116,325
1996: Cars
Trucks
Total
5,283,829
6,004,180
11,288,009
1,840,015
459,689
2,299,704
129,738
10,165
139,903
7,253,582
6,474,034
13,727,616
43,727
6,525
50,252
722,403
414,715
1,137,118
506,042
34,085
540,127
1,272,172
455,325
1,727,497
5,327,556
6,010,705
11,338,261
2,562,418
874,404
3,436,822
635,780
44,250
680,030
8,525,754
6,929,359
15,455,113
1997*: Cars
Trucks
Total
4,947,704
5,778,757
10,726,461
1,827,257
473,971
2,301,228
141,808
14,712
156,520
6,916,769
6,267,440
13,184,209
106,608
2,949
109,557
737,506
533,953
1,271,459
511,191
45,305
556,496
1,355,305
582,207
1,937,512
5,054,312
5,781,706
10,836,018
2,564,763
1,007,924
3,572,687
652,999
60,017
713,016
8,272,074
6,849,647
15,121,721
1998*: Cars
Trucks
Total
4,671,055
6,181,040
10,852,095
1,891,048
518,411
2,409,459
199,278
43,804
243,082
6,761,381
6,743,255
13,504,636
83,370
3,207
86,577
706,939
603,078
1,310,017
587,789
51,746
639,535
1,378,098
658,031
2,036,129
4,754,425
6,184,247
10,938,672
2,597,987
1,121,489
3,719,476
787,067
95,550
882,617
8,139,479
7,401,286
15,540,765
1999*: Cars
Trucks
Total
4,863,463
6,567,196
11,430,659
1,870,805
715,372
2,586,177
245,089
137,463
382,552
6,979,357
7,420,031
14,399,388
206,340
4,109
210,449
783,597
685,956
1,469,553
728,990
85,158
814,148
1,718,927
775,223
2,494,150
5,069,803
6,571,305
11,641,108
2,654,402
1,401,328
4,055,730
974,079
222,621
1,196,700
8,698,284
8,195,254
16,893,538
2000*: Cars
Trucks
Total
4,651,346
6,675,664
11,327,010
1,922,657
895,081
2,817,738
256,502
80,060
336,562
6,830,505
7,650,805
14,481,310
216,786
38,306
255,092
885,094
737,590
1,622,684
914,240
76,429
990,669
2,016,120
852,325
2,868,445
4,868,132
6,713,970
11,582,102
2,807,751
1,632,671
4,440,422
1,170,742
156,489
1,327,231
8,846,625
8,503,130
17,349,755
121
Table A15a: U.S. Sales of Imported and Domestic Light Vehicles, 1990-2009
Domestic Built
Imports
Totals
Year & type
U.S.
Brand
Japanese
Brand
All
Others
Total
U.S.
Brand
Japanese
Brand
All
Others
Total
U.S.
Brand
Japanese
Brand
All
Others
Total
2001*: Cars
Trucks
Total
4,132,495
6,664,127
10,796,622
1,953,838
967,980
2,921,818
238,663
86,357
325,020
6,324,996
7,718,464
14,043,460
193,241
51,799
245,040
865,424
793,396
1,658,820
1,038,964
136,085
1,175,049
2,097,629
981,280
3,078,909
4,325,736
6,715,926
11,041,662
2,819,262
1,761,376
4,580,638
1,277,627
222,442
1,500,069
8,422,625
8,699,744
17,122,369
2002*: Cars
Trucks
Total
3,736,251
6,609,603
10,345,854
1,927,076
954,593
2,881,669
214,318
82,568
296,886
5,877,645
7,646,764
13,524,409
185,726
66,032
251,758
952,315
819,295
1,771,610
1,087,543
181,048
1,268,591
2,225,584
1,066,375
3,291,959
3,921,977
6,675,635
10,597,612
2,879,391
1,773,888
4,653,279
1,301,861
263,616
1,565,477
8,103,229
8,713,139
16,816,368
2003*: Cars
Trucks
Total
3,391,080
6,600,737
9,991,817
1,941,147
1,129,552
3,070,699
195,203
71,103
266,306
5,527,430
7,801,392
13,328,822
194,047
94,839
288,886
844,482
892,164
1,736,646
1,044,522
240,177
1,284,699
2,083,051
1,227,180
3,310,231
3,585,127
6,695,576
10,280,703
2,785,629
2,021,716
4,807,345
1,239,725
311,280
1,551,005
7,610,481
9,028,572
16,639,053
2004*: Cars
Trucks
Total
3,114,964
6,664,465
9,779,429
2,094,307
1,389,089
3,483,396
147,602
61,176
208,778
5,356,873
8,114,730
13,471,603
253,039
102,052
355,091
852,346
824,785
1,677,131
1,043,674
319,421
1,363,095
2,149,059
1,246,258
3,395,317
3,368,003
6,766,517
10,134,520
2,946,653
2,213,874
5,160,527
1,191,276
380,597
1,571,873
7,505,932
9,360,988
16,866,920
2005*: Cars
Trucks
Total
3,075,058
6,441,730
9,516,788
2,189,281
1,546,113
3,735,394
216,194
77,530
293,724
5,480,533
8,065,373
13,545,906
234,455
117,187
351,642
969,341
773,429
1,742,770
982,737
324,699
1,307,436
2,186,533
1,215,315
3,401,848
3,309,513
6,558,917
9,868,430
3,158,622
2,319,542
5,478,164
1,198,931
402,229
1,601,160
7,667,066
9,280,688
16,947,754
2006*: Cars
Trucks
Total
3,068,116
5,675,676
8,743,792
2,107,786
1,522,237
3,630,023
300,188
138,883
439,071
5,476,090
7,336,796
12,812,886
198,446
117,425
315,871
1,207,354
938,955
2,146,309
938,964
290,370
1,229,334
2,344,764
1,346,750
3,691,514
3,266,562
5,793,101
9,059,663
3,315,140
2,461,192
5,776,332
1,239,152
429,253
1,668,405
7,820,854
8,683,546
16,504,400
2007*: Cars
Trucks
Total
2,708,404
5,397,480
8,105,884
2,259,309
1,484,315
3,743,624
285,637
200,929
486,566
5,253,350
7,082,724
12,336,074
185,388
111,103
296,491
1,240,663
982,240
2,222,903
939,012
294,742
1,233,754
2,365,063
1,388,085
3,753,148
2,893,792
5,508,583
8,402,375
3,499,972
2,466,555
5,966,527
1,224,649
495,671
1,720,320
7,618,413
8,470,809
16,089,222
2008^: Cars
Trucks
Total
2,379,316
3,834,378
6,213,694
2,049,953
1,183,528
3,233,481
247,174
176,168
423,342
4,676,443
5,194,074
9,870,517
163,254
33,272
196,526
1,258,793
744,026
2,002,819
943,619
232,206
1,175,825
2,365,666
1,009,504
3,375,170
2,542,570
3,867,650
6,410,220
3,308,746
1,927,554
5,236,300
1,190,793
408,374
1,599,167
7,042,109
6,203,578
13,245,687
2009^: Cars
Trucks
Total
1,706,252
2,822,709
4,528,961
1,809,047
953,758
2,762,805
242,665
170,518
413,183
3,757,964
3,946,985
7,704,949
122,571
28,853
151,424
932,504
512,984
1,445,488
879,388
250,255
1,129,643
1,934,463
792,092
2,726,555
1,828,823
2,851,562
4,680,385
2,741,551
1,466,742
4,208,293
1,122,053
420,773
1,542,826
5,692,427
4,739,077
10,431,504
Note: * - Wards changed how data are presented; therefore, figures for 1997 and after are not entirely comparable with earlier years; ^ - Automotive News data.
Sources: Automotive News (2010), Ward's (1993, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2008).
122
Table A15b: Percentages of U.S. Sales of Imported and Domestic Light Vehicles, 1990-2009
Domestic Built
Imports
Totals
Year & type
U.S.
Brand
Japanese
Brand
All
Others
Total
U.S.
Brand
Japanese
Brand
All
Others
Total
U.S.
Brand
Japanese
Brand
All
Others
Total
1990: Cars
Trucks
Total
41.1%
28.7%
69.8%
7.5%
1.1%
8.6%
0.1%
0.0%
0.2%
48.7%
29.9%
78.6%
2.1%
0.1%
2.2%
10.8%
4.1%
14.9%
4.0%
0.2%
4.2%
17.0%
4.4%
21.4%
43.2%
28.9%
72.0%
18.3%
5.3%
23.6%
4.2%
0.2%
4.4%
65.7%
34.3%
100.0%
1991: Cars
Trucks
Total
39.8%
28.9%
68.7%
9.0%
1.5%
10.5%
0.2%
0.0%
0.2%
48.9%
30.4%
79.4%
2.0%
0.1%
2.1%
10.8%
4.2%
14.9%
3.5%
0.1%
3.6%
16.3%
4.4%
20.6%
41.9%
29.0%
70.8%
19.7%
5.7%
25.4%
3.6%
0.1%
3.8%
65.2%
34.8%
100.0%
1992: Cars
Trucks
Total
38.9%
32.1%
70.9%
8.9%
2.1%
11.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.2%
47.9%
34.2%
82.1%
1.5%
0.1%
1.6%
10.0%
3.1%
13.1%
3.1%
0.1%
3.2%
14.7%
3.2%
17.9%
40.4%
32.1%
72.6%
18.9%
5.2%
24.0%
3.3%
0.1%
3.4%
62.6%
37.4%
100.0%
1993: Cars
Trucks
Total
38.4%
34.6%
73.0%
8.9%
2.7%
11.6%
0.2%
0.0%
0.2%
47.5%
37.2%
84.7%
1.2%
0.1%
1.2%
8.6%
2.6%
11.2%
2.8%
0.1%
2.8%
12.5%
2.8%
15.3%
39.6%
34.6%
74.2%
17.5%
5.3%
22.8%
2.9%
0.1%
3.0%
60.0%
40.0%
100.0%
1994: Cars
Trucks
Total
37.2%
35.8%
73.0%
9.4%
3.1%
12.5%
0.5%
0.0%
0.5%
47.1%
38.9%
86.0%
0.5%
0.1%
0.5%
7.8%
2.6%
10.4%
2.9%
0.1%
3.0%
11.3%
2.8%
14.0%
37.7%
35.9%
73.6%
17.2%
5.7%
22.9%
3.4%
0.1%
3.5%
58.3%
41.7%
100.0%
1995: Cars
Trucks
Total
35.9%
37.2%
73.1%
10.5%
2.9%
13.5%
0.7%
0.0%
0.7%
47.2%
40.1%
87.3%
0.5%
0.1%
0.5%
6.4%
2.5%
8.9%
3.1%
0.2%
3.3%
10.0%
2.8%
12.7%
36.4%
37.2%
73.7%
17.0%
5.4%
22.4%
3.7%
0.2%
3.9%
57.1%
42.9%
100.0%
1996: Cars
Trucks
Total
34.2%
38.8%
73.0%
11.9%
3.0%
14.9%
0.8%
0.1%
0.9%
46.9%
41.9%
88.8%
0.3%
0.0%
0.3%
4.7%
2.7%
7.4%
3.3%
0.2%
3.5%
8.2%
2.9%
11.2%
34.5%
38.9%
73.4%
16.6%
5.7%
22.2%
4.1%
0.3%
4.4%
55.2%
44.8%
100.0%
1997*: Cars
Trucks
Total
32.7%
38.2%
70.9%
12.1%
3.1%
15.2%
0.9%
0.1%
1.0%
45.7%
41.4%
87.2%
0.7%
0.0%
0.7%
4.9%
3.5%
8.4%
3.4%
0.3%
3.7%
9.0%
3.9%
12.8%
33.4%
38.2%
71.7%
17.0%
6.7%
23.6%
4.3%
0.4%
4.7%
54.7%
45.3%
100.0%
1998*: Cars
Trucks
Total
30.1%
39.8%
69.8%
12.2%
3.3%
15.5%
1.3%
0.3%
1.6%
43.5%
43.4%
86.9%
0.5%
0.0%
0.6%
4.5%
3.9%
8.4%
3.8%
0.3%
4.1%
8.9%
4.2%
13.1%
30.6%
39.8%
70.4%
16.7%
7.2%
23.9%
5.1%
0.6%
5.7%
52.4%
47.6%
100.0%
1999*: Cars
Trucks
Total
28.8%
38.9%
67.7%
11.1%
4.2%
15.3%
1.5%
0.8%
2.3%
41.3%
43.9%
85.2%
1.2%
0.0%
1.2%
4.6%
4.1%
8.7%
4.3%
0.5%
4.8%
10.2%
4.6%
14.8%
30.0%
38.9%
68.9%
15.7%
8.3%
24.0%
5.8%
1.3%
7.1%
51.5%
48.5%
100.0%
2000*: Cars
Trucks
Total
26.8%
38.5%
65.3%
11.1%
5.2%
16.2%
1.5%
0.5%
1.9%
39.4%
44.1%
83.5%
1.2%
0.2%
1.5%
5.1%
4.3%
9.4%
5.3%
0.4%
5.7%
11.6%
4.9%
16.5%
28.1%
38.7%
66.8%
16.2%
9.4%
25.6%
6.7%
0.9%
7.6%
51.0%
49.0%
100.0%
123
Table A15b: Percentages of U.S. Sales of Imported and Domestic Light Vehicles, 1990-2009
Domestic Built
Imports
Totals
Year & type
U.S.
Brand
Japanese
Brand
All
Others
Total
U.S.
Brand
Japanese
Brand
All
Others
Total
U.S.
Brand
Japanese
Brand
All
Others
Total
2001*: Cars
Trucks
Total
24.1%
38.9%
63.1%
11.4%
5.7%
17.1%
1.4%
0.5%
1.9%
36.9%
45.1%
82.0%
1.1%
0.3%
1.4%
5.1%
4.6%
9.7%
6.1%
0.8%
6.9%
12.3%
5.7%
18.0%
25.3%
39.2%
64.5%
16.5%
10.3%
26.8%
7.5%
1.3%
8.8%
49.2%
50.8%
100.0%
2002*: Cars
Trucks
Total
22.2%
39.3%
61.5%
11.5%
5.7%
17.1%
1.3%
0.5%
1.8%
35.0%
45.5%
80.4%
1.1%
0.4%
1.5%
5.7%
4.9%
10.5%
6.5%
1.1%
7.5%
13.2%
6.3%
19.6%
23.3%
39.7%
63.0%
17.1%
10.5%
27.7%
7.7%
1.6%
9.3%
48.2%
51.8%
100.0%
2003*: Cars
Trucks
Total
20.4%
39.7%
60.1%
11.7%
6.8%
18.5%
1.2%
0.4%
1.6%
33.2%
46.9%
80.1%
1.2%
0.6%
1.7%
5.1%
5.4%
10.4%
6.3%
1.4%
7.7%
12.5%
7.4%
19.9%
21.5%
40.2%
61.8%
16.7%
12.2%
28.9%
7.5%
1.9%
9.3%
45.7%
54.3%
100.0%
2004*: Cars
Trucks
Total
18.5%
39.5%
58.0%
12.4%
8.2%
20.7%
0.9%
0.4%
1.2%
31.8%
48.1%
79.9%
1.5%
0.6%
2.1%
5.1%
4.9%
9.9%
6.2%
1.9%
8.1%
12.7%
7.4%
20.1%
20.0%
40.1%
60.1%
17.5%
13.1%
30.6%
7.1%
2.3%
9.3%
44.5%
55.5%
100.0%
2005*: Cars
Trucks
Total
18.1%
38.0%
56.2%
12.9%
9.1%
22.0%
1.3%
0.5%
1.7%
32.3%
47.6%
79.9%
1.4%
0.7%
2.1%
5.7%
4.6%
10.3%
5.8%
1.9%
7.7%
12.9%
7.2%
20.1%
19.5%
38.7%
58.2%
18.6%
13.7%
32.3%
7.1%
2.4%
9.4%
45.2%
54.8%
100.0%
2006*: Cars
Trucks
Total
18.6%
34.4%
53.0%
12.8%
9.2%
22.0%
1.8%
0.8%
2.7%
33.2%
44.5%
77.6%
1.2%
0.7%
1.9%
7.3%
5.7%
13.0%
5.7%
1.8%
7.4%
14.2%
8.2%
22.4%
19.8%
35.1%
54.9%
20.1%
14.9%
35.0%
7.5%
2.6%
10.1%
47.4%
52.6%
100.0%
2007*: Cars
Trucks
Total
16.8%
33.5%
50.4%
14.0%
9.2%
23.3%
1.8%
1.2%
3.0%
32.7%
44.0%
76.7%
1.2%
0.7%
1.8%
7.7%
6.1%
13.8%
5.8%
1.8%
7.7%
14.7%
8.6%
23.3%
18.0%
34.2%
52.2%
21.8%
15.3%
37.1%
7.6%
3.1%
10.7%
47.4%
52.6%
100.0%
2008^: Cars
Trucks
Total
18.0%
28.9%
46.9%
15.5%
8.9%
24.4%
1.9%
1.3%
3.2%
35.3%
39.2%
74.5%
1.2%
0.3%
1.5%
9.5%
5.6%
15.1%
7.1%
1.8%
8.9%
17.9%
7.6%
25.5%
19.2%
29.2%
48.4%
25.0%
14.6%
39.5%
9.0%
3.1%
12.1%
53.2%
46.8%
100.0%
2009^: Cars
Trucks
Total
16.4%
27.1%
43.4%
17.3%
9.1%
26.5%
2.3%
1.6%
4.0%
36.0%
37.8%
73.9%
1.2%
0.3%
1.5%
8.9%
4.9%
13.9%
8.4%
2.4%
10.8%
18.5%
7.6%
26.1%
17.5%
27.3%
44.9%
26.3%
14.1%
40.3%
10.8%
4.0%
14.8%
54.6%
45.4%
100.0%
Note: * - Wards changed how data are presented; therefore, figures for 1997 and after are not entirely comparable with earlier years; ^ - Automotive News data.
Sources: Automotive News (2010), Ward's (1993, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2008).
124
Table A16: Projections of Motor Vehicle Industry Employment,* Ohio and the U.S., 2008-2018
Jobs
NAICS
Code
Ohio:
31-33
3361-3
3361
3362
3363
U.S.:
31-33
3361-3
3361
3362
3363
Changes
Actual
Projected
Number
Percent
Total
Manufacturing
MV Core Groups Subtotal
MV Assembly
MV Parts
5,726,100
739,000
101,700
22,300
7,000
72,400
5,975,100
629,000
73,200
16,400
5,300
51,500
249,000
-110,000
-28,500
-5,900
-1,700
-20,900
4.3%
-14.9%
-28.0%
-26.5%
-24.3%
-28.9%
Total
Manufacturing
MV Core Groups Subtotal
MV Assembly
MV Parts
150,931,700
13,431,200
877,000
190,700
141,900
544,400
166,205,600
12,225,200
733,800
159,700
130,800
443,300
15,273,900
-1,206,000
-143,200
-31,000
-11,100
-101,100
10.1%
-9.0%
-16.3%
-16.3%
-7.8%
-18.6%
Note: * - Projections have not been made for tires (NAICS 32621) or storage batteries (335911).
Sources: ODJFS/LMI (2011); Woods (2009).
125
NAICS CODES: INDUSTRY DEFINITION AND EXAMPLES

Beginning with the 1997 Economic Censuses, the nations industry statistics have been collected under the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) (Office of Management and Budget, 1998). Establishments producing goods
or providing services sufficiently alike are classified in the same industry. A six-digit NAICS code is assigned to each industry. Closely related industries formed an industry group. The first four digits of the code indicate the group to which
the industries belong. (A five-digit code defines a subgroup when it subsumes more than one six-digit code; otherwise, it
serves as an industry code.) Industry groups with common elements and shared characteristics comprise a major industry or sub-sector, and are indicated by the first three digits of the code. Most of the data from government sources used in
this report have been collected under that system.
Three groups from the transportation equipment sub-sector (NAICS 336) combine to form the core of the motor vehicle
industry in this report. They are motor vehicles (3361, also referred to as assembly operations), motor vehicle bodies and
trailers (3362), and motor vehicle parts (3363). The tires subgroup (32621) and storage batteries (335911) are included
when information is available because most of the goods produced in those industries are original equipment or replacement parts for motor vehicles. Industries wherein most of the goods produced are not used in motor vehicles are excluded from this report, although some exceptions may be made for establishments at least mostly dedicated to motor vehicle
parts. Diesel engine and automotive glass production (333618 and 327215, respectively) are examples of this.
The defining concept for the motor vehicle industry is manufacturing equipment for transporting people and goods over a
network of roads. This definition excludes establishments producing ships, boats, railroad and aerospace vehicles and
equipment. Also excluded for various reasons are establishments producing motorcycles, bicycles, military armored vehicles and tanks, all-terrain vehicles, go-carts, golf carts, racecars, snowmobiles, animal-drawn vehicles, childrens vehicles and components of such. After the discussion of the industrys impact on Ohios economy, industries dependent on
motor vehicles suppliers of materials to the industry, makers of equipment used to manufacture motor vehicles-bodiestrailers-and-parts, wholesalers, retailers, gas stations, and repair services are not included.
Motor vehicle establishments use production processes similar to machinery manufacturers (333): bending, forming,
welding, machining and assembling metal, glass, rubber and/or plastic parts into components and finished products.
However, most machinery is used to produce other goods, and the goods-moving machinery agricultural, construction,
and material-handling equipment is not intended for highway use. Other people-moving machinery such as elevators,
escalators, or moving sidewalks is also classified in the machinery industry.
Examples of products made in various motor vehicle industries follow the NAICS codes and industry titles below.
126
The transportation equipment industries:

3361
33611
336111
336112
33612
3362
336211
336212
336213
336214
3363
33631
336311
336312
Motor Vehicles.
Automobiles and Light Duty Motor Vehicles.
Automobiles. Establishments assemble complete automobiles (uni-body or body and chassis) or produce
chassis alone. The manufacture of car bodies or assembling vehicles on a purchased chassis is classified
in 336211.
Light Trucks and Utility Vehicles. Establishments assemble complete light trucks (body and chassis) or
produce light truck chassis alone. Light duty trucks include minivans, pick-ups, and sport-utility vehicles.
The manufacture of truck and bus bodies or assembling vehicles on a purchased chassis is classified in
336211.
Heavy Duty Trucks. Heavy-duty trucks also include buses, heavy-duty motor homes, and other special
purpose heavy-duty motor vehicles for highway use. Establishments assemble complete trucks (body and
chassis) or chassis alone. Medium-duty trucks (as defined by Wards) are also included in this industry.
Motor Vehicle Bodies and Trailers.
Motor Vehicle Bodies. Establishments produce truck cabs as well as car, truck and bus bodies. These may
be sold separately or assembled on a purchased chassis and sold as complete vehicles. Dump truck lifting
mechanisms and fifth wheels are included.
Truck Trailers. Examples also include truck trailer chassis, cargo container chassis, detachable trailer
bodies, and detachable trailer chassis sold separately.
Motor Homes. The defining element is the integration of the motor and the living quarters in the same unit.
Whether or not the chassis is purchased is irrelevant. Car and van conversion is included if the work is done
on an assembly line. Mobile homes are classified in 321991, and customized cars and trailers are classified
in 811121.
Travel Trailers and Campers. Examples include transport trailers for cars, camping trailers, horse trailers,
and utility trailers.
Motor Vehicle Parts.
Motor Vehicle Gasoline Engines and Engine Parts.
Carburetors, Pistons, Rings, and Valves. Both original and rebuilt equipment is included.
Gasoline Engines and Engine Parts. Examples include crankshafts, flywheels, ring gears, fuel injection
systems and parts, manifolds, positive crankcase ventilation (PCV) valves, mechanical pumps, and timing
gears and chains. Both original and rebuilt equipment is included. Other gasoline engine equipment car127
33632
336321
336322
33633
33634
33635
33636
33637
33639
336391
336399
buretors, pistons, piston rings, valves, wiring harnesses, electrical and electronic equipment, transmissions,
radiators, steering and suspension components, rubber and plastic belts and hoses without fittings is classified elsewhere in 3363. Stationary gasoline engines and parts of the same nature but not for use in motor
vehicles are classified outside of the motor vehicle industry. All diesel engines, including those used in
motor vehicles, are classified in 333618.
Motor Vehicle Electrical and Electronic Equipment.
Vehicular Lighting Equipment. Vehicular lighting fixtures are included, but bulbs are classified elsewhere.
Other Motor Vehicle Electrical and Electronic Equipment. Examples include alternators, generators, coils,
distributors, ignition cable sets, wiring harnesses, instrument control panels, spark plugs, block and battery
heaters, and windshield washer pumps. Equipment of the same nature but not for use with motor vehicles is
classified elsewhere. Electric motors (even for electric vehicles), railway traffic control signals and passenger car alarms, and car stereos are classified elsewhere.
Motor Vehicle Steering and Suspension Components. Examples include steering wheels and columns, rack
and pinion steering assemblies, struts, and shock absorbers. Spring manufacturers are classified in fabricated metal products (332).
Motor Vehicle Brake Systems. Examples include cylinders, drums, hose assemblies, calipers, pads, linings
and shoes. Rubber and plastic hose and belting without fittings are classified in 326.
Motor Vehicle Transmissions and Parts. Examples include automatic and manual transmissions, axle bearings, differentials and axle assemblies, torque converters, and universal joints. Both original and rebuilt
equipment is included. Mechanical power transmission equipment not for use in motor vehicles is classified
elsewhere.
Motor Vehicle Seating and Interior Trim. Seat belts, and seat and tire covers are included.
Motor Vehicle Metal Stampings. Examples include fenders, hard tops, body parts, moldings, and exterior
trim. Tops for convertibles are classified in 336399.
Other Motor Vehicle Parts.
Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning. This industry produces air conditioning compressors and systems for cars,
trucks and buses. It also produces them for vehicles that are not part of the motor vehicle industry: aircraft
(NAICS 336411), farm machinery (NAICS 333111), construction machinery (NAICS 33312), and related
vehicles. The reason equipment for such other vehicles is included is probably because it is highly similar to
that used in motor vehicles and the greatest portion of it is used in motor vehicles. Establishments producing air-conditioning compressors and systems not used in vehicles are classified in NAICS 333415.
All Other Motor Vehicle Parts. Examples include air bags, catalytic converters, intake filters, luggage and
utility racks, mufflers, resonators, radiators (including those for stationary engines), trailer hitches, and wheel
rims. Both original and rebuilt equipment is included.
128
The related industries:

32621
326211
326212
Tires.
Tire Manufacturing, except retreading. Includes pneumatic, semi-pneumatic and solid tires, inner tubes, and
repair materials. Most new tires are produced for motor vehicles.
Tire retreading. The feature distinguishing this industry from tire repair service is the reliance on assembly
line operations. Retreads are used by school buses and commercial trucks (Rubber Manufacturers Association, 2006). These markets are much smaller than the markets for passenger cars and non-commercial
light trucks.
335911
Storage Batteries. In particular, lead-acid batteries smaller than 1.5 cubic feet.
129
GLOSSARY
A number of terms used in this report have more or less specific meanings. The term motor vehicles includes a variety of
products: cars, vans, sport-utility vehicles (SUVs), crossover vehicles, buses and trucks. The basic industry divisions are
between passenger cars, light trucks, and medium- and heavy-duty trucks. The most detailed industry reports divide
trucks into eight classes based on gross vehicle weight (GVW - the combined weight of the vehicle and its maximum payload). These eight classes are regrouped into light, medium, and heavy-duty for general discussion. It must be noted that
classes comprising the light, medium and heavy groups vary by author. Wards (1990-2008) considered class 1-3 trucks,
with GVWs of 14,000 pounds or less, light-duty. Light trucks include small and family vans, sport-utility vehicles (SUVs),
and pickups. Levys (2010: 9) discussion of light duty trucks is limited to class 1 and 2 (GVWs of 10,000 pounds or less);
such trucks comprised around 95 percent of all truck sales in 2009. Class 4, 5, 6, and 7 trucks, with GVWs ranging from
14,001 to 33,000 pounds, are medium-duty trucks. However, Jaffe (2010: 5) limits his discussions of medium-duty trucks
to classes 5-7 (GVWs of 16,001-33,000 pounds). Class 8 trucks, with GVWs over 33,000 pounds, are heavy-duty. The
Census Bureau considers any truck with a GVW over 14,000 pounds i.e., classes 4-8 to be heavy duty (U.S. Bureau
of the Census, 2011).
Assembler distinguishes motor vehicle manufacturers such as Ford, GM, Honda, or Kenworth from other companies
making only the parts and modules comprising a vehicle. The latter are parts manufacturers or suppliers. Suppliers produce goods and modules for use either as original equipment (OE) or to be sold as replacement parts in the aftermarket
(AM). Many do both to varying degrees. Parts makers also are grouped depending on their position in the supply chain.
Tier 1 refers to those selling parts and sub-assemblies directly to assemblers. Tier 2 companies make parts for tier 1
companies, and tier 3 companies supply the raw materials to tier 1 and 2 companies. Powertrain is a generic term refering to engines and transmissions.
130
NOTES
1
Hondas plants in E. Liberty and Marysville assemble both cars and light trucks.
Fiat currently owns 25 percent of Chrylser, but seeks a 51 percent stake.
Total company employment figures for the motor vehicle industry include the sites employing less than 50 people. See table A1 for the
complete list of company manufacturing sites in Ohio. For example, Lear is excluded from the text, but is included in table A1.
This includes $63.5 million for the DMAX diesel engine plant, a joint venture with Isuzu Motors, Ltd.; most assembler figures in this section
include investments in parts operations.
The concentration would be even higher if diesel engine production for motor vehicles was included.
Value-added data for cars (NAICS 336111) and light trucks (336112) are suppressed to avoid disclosure of confidential information. However, given that light trucks were produced in slightly larger numbers than cars in 2007 (Wards, 2008), and assuming that light trucks
average at least a little higher value, one might guess that the value-added for light trucks was the larger part of the two in light vehicle
assembly (33611).
The fact that 51.4 percent of all of Hondas tier-1 suppliers are located in N. America indicates just how much of an American company
Honda has become.
Ford closed its foundry in October, 2010.
The two large foundries (NAICS code 3315) dedicated to the motor vehicle industry were excluded in the previous section so that consistent comparisons could be made with the national industry. They are included in this section, and their employment is included in the next
section.
10
Data from ODJFS/LMI and Census Bureau are not strictly comparable because the two use different data collection techniques with different time frames, and occasionally classify establishments differently.
11
Value-added and GDP figures are closely related. The computation of GDP begins with value-added (largely the difference between the
value of shipments and the costs of labor and materials), and proceeds by subtracting additional costs such as services purchased by the
manufacturing establishment. This explains why GDP figures are less than value-added figures.
12
The percentage of value-added for bodies and trailers in Ohio during 2004-2006 are greater than the percent of U.S. GDP originating in
Ohio, leading one to believe that the former is concentrated here. However, the percentages for value-added in bodies and trailers and
the totals on which they are based are not reliable because the relative standard errors of the bodies and trailers estimates are way too
high (see U.S. Census Bureau, 2008a).
13
Using value-added in Ohio as a percentage of the nation removes the effects of inflation, making comparisons of one year with any other
131
more meaningful. It should also be noted that the decline in value added from 2002 to 2003 is inconsistent with the increases of GDP and
light vehicle production for the same period (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2005a; U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2010a; Wards, 2005).
14
Conversely, the 2008 spike in gas prices provided some support for car sales and production while light truck sales plunged. As the
economic recovery took hold in 2010 and gas prices fell to pre-spike levels, truck sales rebounded more than car sales. Yet as gas prices
once again topped $3.00 per gallon early in 2011, truck sales slowed and car sales are picked up. These changes are evident to dealers
and assemblers in as little as 60 days (Reuters, 2011).
15
Capital expenditures also vary with the size and degree of vertical integration of the company. GM and Ford generally spend more than
the smaller and less vertically integrated Chrysler (Levy, 2010: 21).
16
In this section, vehicles, parts, and accessories from Canada and Mexico are imports. In the Market Share Trends section that follows,
they are considered domestic production.
17
One possible explanation for the mismatches is that U.S. trade is asymmetric. Overall, about one-half of industry exports go to Canada,
while imports from Canada are a minor part of all imports. Furthermore, change in the index value of the dollar based on a number of
currencies is a crude measure, poorly capturing the effects of specific currency change on trade in specific items from specific countries.
It works better with the overall balance of trade.
18
U.S.-brand assemblers have made substantial progress in matching the initial-quality and frequency-of-repair re-cords of Japanese-brand
assemblers. At the same time, though, assemblers recalls have risen. This is probably due to the increased use of electronics, tougher
standards, and better reporting (Harbour Consulting, 2004).
19
The Federal Reserve Board used different indices to measure the value of the dollar. The G10 covered the period from 1967 through
1998, when it was discontinued. The G5a dates to 1995. While the numbers differed during the overlapping periods, the trends are the
same. A small of number of imports are included in U.S. brands, and Others includes some non-Japanese brands made in the U.S.
However, these percentages are tiny, roughly counter balancing one another, and do not alter the conclusion.
20
Fiat re-entered the N. American market when it took a stake in Chrysler and gained access to the latters distribution system. Renault has
an indirect interest with its large minority interest in Nissan.
21
The actions of light vehicle assemblers contrast with those of medium- and heavy-duty truck makers, who have used discounts and rebates to stimulate sales only when necessary (Jaffe, 2010: 17).
22
The four are: Daimler AG notably with its Freightliner division, Navistar, PACCAR and Volvo (Jaffe, 2010: 16).
23
Assemblers also establish and support a network of independent dealers with wholesale financing, marketing strategies and materials,
etc. Dealers, in turn, sell to independent truck operators persons who typically buy just one vehicle from inventory (Jaffe, 2010: 17).
24
Conversely, companies based in Russia, China and India are acquiring or taking stakes in the Western companies. Given the current
difficulties, at least some companies are willing to sell assets, technology or skills. The most noted example is Fords sale of Jaguar and
132
Land Rover to Indias Tata Motors, and its sale of Volvo cars to the Zhejiang Geely Group. Mostly, though, it involves parts companies
selling assets, technology and skills to cash rich foreigners. Chinese companies also are looking to acquire U.S. parts suppliers (Levy,
2010: 17).
25
Assemblers also face challenges in dealing with higher costs of raw material (steel, copper, rubber and plastics) due to increased demand
for commodities. For both assemblers and suppliers, rapid growth in developing countries particularly China is a significant factor in
such demand.
26
Delphi in 2011 differs from the company that entered bankruptcy in 2005. Back then it had 119 product lines, and derived at least one-half
of its revenue from GM. 70 percent of its revenue came from N. America, 25 percent from Europe, and five percent from Asia. Now it has
35 product lines, and derives 18 percent of its revenue from GM, with a geographic distribution of 27 percent from N. America, 43 percent
from Europe, and 18 percent from Asia (Colias, 2010a).
27
On the other hand, the reliance on one source for a component risks slow-downs or even stoppages at assembly plants when production
slows down or stops at the plant where the component is made. For example, operations at seven Chrysler and three GM assembly
plants slowed for lack of a single part because of hurricane-induced floods at the supplier in North Carolina (Associated Press, 1999).
28
In the U.S., new safety features usually are incorporated by regulation; in Europe, they typically originate with customer demand. Consequently, European parts makers are leaders in this field (Levy, 2010: 19).
29
One example is Hondas V-6 engine, made in Anna, can operate on three or four cylinders as well. Other possibilities include automatically turning off the engine at stop lights (some hybrids already use this), using booster batteries during acceleration to supplement engines
design for maintaining speed, getting gasoline engines to diesel, and improving vehicular aerodynamics even for the underbody (Phelan,
2008).
30
Turbochargers work by using exhaust gases to turn a rotor that drives a compressor pumping more air into the combustion chamber, thus
increasing power. Consequently, turbocharged engines may be made smaller, thereby improving fuel economy without sacrificing power;
a modern turbocharged V-6 performs about like a V-8 without one. Turbochargers have been around for years, but only recently has the
technology become more reliable for widespread use in gasoline engines. About eight percent of the vehicles sold in America during 2010
were so equipped (Gearino, 2010a; Sedgwick and Roy, 2010).
31
Natural gas is a generic term referring to methane and ethane the two most common types but also including propane, butane, and
other paraffin hydrocarbons. These are subject to processing before use. Gasoline consists of liquid hydrocarbons derived from crude
petroleum by a variety of processes (Parker, 1984).
32
Engines using natural gas also emit fewer pollutants than gasoline, but such vehicles have limited ranges, and there is no distribution network comparable to that for gasoline and diesel fuel. Hondas Anna plant has made engines that use natural gas (Harbour Consulting,
2004), but it has limited sales of vehicles with such engines to fleet operations.
33
Decades ago, farmers produced ethanol for use in their own engines (Wikipedia, 2011); cost-cutting and technical improvements in the
production process may further reduce the break-even price of ethanol (Rohter, 2006).
133
34
Octane ratings of gasoline are based on the ratio of 2,2,4-trimethylpentane, which has eight carbon atoms chained together, to heptane
(seven carbon atoms). Gasoline rated at 87 octane has a ratio of the former to the latter of 87 to 13. The more complex the chain, the
more the molecule can be compressed before spontaneously igniting, allowing the engine to operate at a higher compression ratio and
producing greater power. The octane rating of ethanol is typically 108-110 (Fischetti, 2006).
35
Ethanol can be fermented from a variety of plants; sugarcane is a better source than corn. Brazilian officials claim that U.S. import duties
of $.54 per gallon prevent the industry from developing even faster (Rohter, 2006; Wikipedia, 2011).
36
The reason cold engines are harder to start with ethanol is that it is less volatile than gasoline.
37
It is important to note that the Alias and other such vehicles are classified as motor cycles because they have three wheels. This designnation exempts them from a number of safety features required for four wheel vehicles, thereby reducing costs. Furthermore, they were
illegal on Ohio roads until the legislature changed the word from saddle to seat in the Ohio Revised Code when defining a motor cycle
(Vellequette, 2008e).
38
The rise of electric vehicles, whether all-electric or hybrid, would require a power grid capable of handling the increased load. This could
include people charging vehicles in anticipation of power loss in a storm. A grid often takes days to completely recover from a disaster,
while gas stations can quickly reopen if they have generators to power their pumps (Schnably, 2010).
39
Grant, et.al., (2006) suggested hydrogen can be extracted from the next generation of nuclear reactors, liquefied and used as a coolant for
super-conducting wires transmitting power while it is pumped to distribution centers.
40
Hondas head of research and development was skeptical of plug-in hybrids because he says the battery technology is not ready; other
companies disagree (Rowley, 2008).
41
See Wikipedia (2011) for illustrations of the differences between the two internal combustion engine types.
42
It is more efficient to run electrical devices from a steady power source such as a battery than to adapt them to work with a highly varying
power source such as an internal combustion engine (Romm and Frank, 2006).
43
Just as a motor can transform electrical energy stored in a battery into torque (the force that produces wheel rotation and hauling power),
the process can run in reverse so that the torque created by slowing a moving car generates electricity that can be accumulated in the
battery (Romm and Frank, 2006: 74-76).
44
The U.S. Energy Information Administration forecasts worldwide demand for oil to rise from 84 to 111 million barrels per day in 2035.
Prices per barrel are expected to average $125, but could go as high as $200 (standardized on 2009) (cited in Funk, 2010). Experts
debate just exactly when world oil production will plateau or peak, followed by an inevitable decline. Some have concluded that it could
occur in the next decade, while others think it is decades away. Many industry experts argue that todays high prices are temporary,
the result of technical bottleneck, sharply rising demand from Asia, and a plummeting dollar (Roberts, 2008: 88). Others argue that
speculation by large investors is the primary reason. Whatever the reason, though, high prices have not generated the output that prior
price jumps have. Some industry experts counter this last point by noting that political and economic impediments above ground have
134
prevented extracting more of what is below ground. Even if these problems are resolved and output increased, worldwide demand is
expected to grow due to continued population growth as well as economic development, eventually outstripping supply. Extracting what
remains will be much more difficult and costly. Furthermore, the amount of oil discovered each year since the early 1960s has trended
downward. World oil production from existing fields has been falling by as much as eight percent per year, meaning that the oil companies
must develop an average of up to seven million barrels in additional capacity every day to maintain current total output levels let alone
additional output to meet growing demand. Biofuels and more efficient motor vehicles may compensate to a degree for a while, but
sooner or later more fundamental and extensive changes to our currently energy-hungry lifestyle and economy must be made (Roberts,
2008).
Under these circumstances, it is ironic that U.S. gasoline consumption has declined a bit from its 2006 peak. Gasoline consumption here
is predicted to continue declining for several reasons: the growing demand for gasoline in rapidly developing Asian economies with the
concomitant higher prices, higher fuel economy standards for light vehicles starting in 2012, mandated increases in ethanol use, the growing use of vehicles at least partially powered by electricity, and less driving by aging baby boomers (Fahey, 2010).
45
The Renewable Fuel Program of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 in effect mandates a rise in renewable fuel use in gasoline to 7.5 billion
gallons by 2012, nearly double the estimated four billion gallons of fuel ethanol consumed in the U.S. in 2005. The Energy Independence
and Security Act of 2007 expanded the Renewable Fuels Standard to require that 36 billion gallons of ethanol and other fuels be blended
into gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel by 2022 (Jaffe, 2010: 7). Fuel ethanol production in 2009 was 10.9 billion gallons, while gasoline
production for motors was 134.7 billion gallons (U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2011).
135
SOURCES AND REFERENCES CITED

Adams, David, 1998
Plants cant catch up, Akron Beacon Journal, July 16, pp. D1-D2.
Allyn, Scot, 2010
Workers at Avon Lake Ford plant hear some good news, the Lorain Morning Journal, November 17, found at
<http://www.morningjournal.com/articles/2010/11/17news/mj3684673.txt>.
Associated Press, 1999
Flooding slows auto production, Columbus Dispatch, September 23, p. 2B.
Automotive News, 2009-2011
Articles and statistics found at <http://www.autonews.com/>.
Bartash, Jeffry, 2010
Fill `er up with E15: EPA OKs more ethanol, Columbus Dispatch, October 14, p. A10.
Burns, Matt, 2011
Honda eyes CR-V production shift to Ohio, February 2, Business First, found at
<http://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2011/02/02/honda >.
Business Courier of Cincinnati, 2008
Duke Energy teams with General Motors on electric-car project, July 23, found at
<http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2008/07/21/... >.
Business First of Columbus, 2008
Honda to lease hydrogen-powered Clarity in July, June 17, found at <http://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/stories/2008/06/16/... >.
Charlton, Angela, 2008
Gas prices drive other nations to boiling point, Columbus Dispatch, June 1, pp. D1-D2.
Chavez, Jon, 2008
Chrysler exec visits Toledo, touts electric Jeep, December 4, found at <http://toledoblade.com>.
Choi, Charles Q., 2006
Biodiesel Is Better, Scientific American, September, p. 38.
Chrysler, 2011
Information found at <http://www.chryslergroupllc.com>.
136
Cogliano, 2010
Navistar, UAW reach tentative contract, Dayton Business Journal, October 18, found at
<http://www.bizjournals.com/dayton/news/2010/10/17/navistar-uaw-reach-tentative-contract.html... >.
Colias, Mike, 2010a
Delphi plans wireless vehicle-charging units, Automotive News, September 29, found at <http://www.autonews.com/apps/... >.
Colias, Mike, 2010b
Report: Global suppliers are poised for M&A binge, Automotive News, October 29, found at <http://www.autonews.com/apps/... >.
Company Websites, 2010-2011
Various company websites.
Darke County, 2010
Information found at <http://www.darkecountyohio.com/cwt/external/webpages/economic_development/... >.
Durbin, Dee-Ann, 2006
New car? Join the crowd, Columbus Dispatch, April 15, pp. D1-D2.
ELM International, Inc., 2010
<http://www.eautoportal.com/>.
Fahey, Jonathon, 2010
U.S. gas demand down for good, experts says, Columbus Dispatch, December 21, pp. A1 & A4.
Federal Reserve Board, 1987, 1990, 1993, 1996, 1999, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010
Federal Reserve Bulletin (various months). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Table 3.28. Also
<http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/G5A/current>.
Fischetti, Mark, 2006
Carbon Hooch, Scientific American, June, pp. 88-89.
Ford, 2011
Information found at <http://www.ford.com>.
Fortune, 2010
The Fortune U.S. 1,000 and Global 500 lists found at <http://www.fortune.com>.
Funk, John, 2010
Look out oil prices to hit $200 a barrel by 2035, projection shows, found at >http://cleveland .com/business/ >.
137
Gaines, Robin L., 1999

Automotive Parts, The U.S. Industry and Trade Outlook `99. New York, N.Y.: the McGraw-Hill Cos., pp. 37-1 37-10.
Gardner, Greg, 2010
Poised for a rebirth, Columbus Dispatch, November 24, pp. A8-A9.
Gearino, Dan, 2010a
Success by subtraction? Columbus, Dispatch, November 27, pp. A8-A9.
_______, 2010c
Honda to add 60 more jobs to plant, Columbus, Dispatch, December 18, pp. A8-A9.
General Motors, 2011
Information found at <http://www.gm.com>.
Gott, Phil, et.al., 1999
Motor Vehicles, The U.S. Industry and Trade Outlook `99. New York, N.Y.: the McGraw-Hill Cos., pp. 36-1 36-13.
Grant, Paul M., et.al., 2006
A Power Grid for the Hydrogen Economy, Scientific American, July, pp. 77-83.
Green, Jeff, 2006
Ethanol use expected to keep growing, GM executive says, Columbus Dispatch, May 22, p. 1.
Greimel, Hans, 2010
Honda stresses product, tech blitz to get back on track, Automotive News, November 8, found at <http://www.autonews.com/apps/... >.
Harbour & Associates/Harbour Consulting, 2001, 2004, 2006
The Harbour Reports: North America 2001, 2004, 2006. Troy, Mi.: the Co.
Harris, 1998-2010
Ohio Industrial Directory: 1999-2011. Twinsburg, Oh.: the Co. The electronic versions are Ohio Industrial Directory 2002-2010 [machine-readable databases] / prepared by Harris InfoSource International. Twinsburg, Oh.: the company [producer and
distributor].
Heywood, John B., 2006
Fueling Our Transportation Future, Scientific American, September, pp. 60-63.
Hirsch, Jerry, 2010
General Electric says it will buy 25,000 electric vehicles by 2015, Los Angeles Times, November 12, found at
http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/... .
138
Honda, 2011
Information found at <http://world.honda.com> and <http://www.ohio.honda.com>.
Jaffe, Michael, 2010
Heavy Equipment & Trucks, Standard & Poors Industry Surveys (June 17). New York, NY: the McGraw-Hill Cos.
Jones, Roland, 2008a
Future murky for hydrogen-powered Clarity, June 25, found at <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25243581/>.
_______, 2008b
Future hybrids could be worth waiting for, June 20, found at <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25188772/>.
Kaczala, Kelly, 2010
Northwood Magna Norplas plans expansion, 300 new jobs, found at < http://www.presspublications.com/from-the-press/... >.
Kageyama, Yuri, 2008
Fuel-cell car a better ride, Honda says, Columbus Dispatch, May 25, p. D6.
Kammen, Daniel M., 2006
The Rise of Renewable Energy, Scientific American, September, pp. 84-93.
Karush, Sarah, 2006
Delphi workers offered buyouts, Columbus Dispatch, June 10, pp. C1-C2.
Keane, Angela G., and Jeff Green, 2010
GM, Ford hybrids get U.S. boost, Columbus Dispatch, November 26, pp. A6-A7.
Kiley, David, 2008
Diesels Are Coming. But Will Anyone Want Them? July 22. Found at
<http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/july2008/bw20080722_304665.htm>.
Koff, Stephen, 2010
Corn prices could have ripple effect next year, Columbus Dispatch, December 30, pp. A12-A13.
Levy, Efraim, 1999
Autos & Auto Parts, Standard & Poors Industry Surveys (June 17). New York, NY: the McGraw-Hill Cos.
_______, 2001
139
_______, 2004
_______, 2010
LexisNexis, 2010
Corporate Affiliations. New Providence, NJ: the Co.
Licking County, 2010
<http://www.lcounty.com/planning/econ_dev/PDF/Largest%20Employers.PDF>.
Manta, 2010
Various company data found at <http://www.manta.com>.
Marion County Chamber of Commerce, 2010
Information found at <http://www.marionareachamber.org/web_pages/area_largest_employers.htm>.
Mayhood, Kevin, 2008
OSU device converts heat, sunlight into electricity, Columbus Dispatch, July 25, pp. B1-B2.
Mercer, David, 2008
Ethanols popularity wanes amid rising food prices, found at <http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2008-05-21-ethanolproblems_N.htm>.
Minnesota IMPLAN Group, 2010
Proprietary economic estimation software; data are from 2008.
Navistar, 2011
Information found at <http://www.navistar.com>.
Neil, Dan, 2006
High-voltage roadster, Columbus Dispatch, August 5, p. G1.
Nielsen, Forrest, 2000
Automotive Parts, U.S. Industry and Trade Outlook 2000. New York, NY: the McGraw-Hill Cos., pp. 37-1 37-14.
Niklewski, Chandra, 2009
Honeywell cuts 170 local jobs, found at <http://www.reviewtimes.com/Issues/2009/Jul/02/... >.
140
Office of Management and Budget, 1998

North American Industry Classification System: United States, 1997. Lanham, Md.: Bernan Press. Also found at
<http://www.ntis.gov/naics>.
Ogden, Joan, 2006
High Hopes for HYDROGEN, Scientific American, September, pp. 94-101.
ODOD (Ohio Dept. of Development), 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010
Internal sources.
ODJFS/LMI (Ohio Dept. of Job and Family Services/Labor Market Information), 2010
Labor Market Review, found at <http://lmi.state.oh.us/>.
_______, 2011
Industry Employment Projections Report, 2008-2018, found at <http://lmi.state.oh.us/proj/projections/ohio/industry.pdf>.
PACCAR, 2011
Information found at <http://www.paccar.com>.
Parker, Sybil P. (Ed.), 1984
rd
McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms (3 ed.). New York, NY: the Co.
Phelan, Mark, 2008
Industrys challenge: Making domestic cars fun, efficient, Columbus Dispatch, July 13, pp. D1-D2.
Pickaway Progress Partnership, 2010
Information found at <http://www.pickawayprogress.com/FastFacts.asp>.
Pooley, Eric, et.al., 2011
Charged for Battle, Bloomberg Businessweek, January 3-9, pp. 48-56.
PRSP (Policy Research & Strategic Planning), 2010a
International Corporate Investment in Ohio Operations. Columbus, Oh.: Ohio Dept. of Development.
_______, 2010b
Private Investment Survey. Columbus, Oh.: Ohio Dept. of Development.
Prat, Raimundo, 1998
Rubber, U.S. Industry & Trade Outlook `99. New York: the McGraw-Hill Cos., pp. 12.1-12.8.
141
Reuters, 2010,
GM to boost small engine production in 3 plants, Automotive News, found at <http://www.autonews.com/apps/... >.
_______, 2011,
Gasoline price rises give automakers whiplash, Automotive News, January 17, found at <http://www.autonews.com/apps/... >.
Roberts, Paul, 2008
Tapped Out, National Geographic, June, pp. 87-91.
Rohter, Larry, 2006
In Brazil, cars run sweetly on sugar, Columbus Dispatch, April 16, pp. B1-B2.
Romm, Joseph J. and Andrew A. Frank, 2006
Hybrid Vehicles Gain Traction, Scientific American 292: 4 (April), pp. 72-79.
Rowley, Ian, 2008
Honda Goes Whole Hog For Hybrids, Business Week, July 28, pp. 62-63.
Sandusky County Economic Development Corp., 2010
Information found at <http://www.sanduskycountyedc.org/Top%20Employers/Default.asp>.
Schnably, Stephen, 2010
Letters, Scientific American, November, p. 12.
Schoenberger, Robert, 2008
Green cars may not help U.S. manufacturing, August 12. Found at
<http://blog.cleveland.com/business/2008/08/green_cars_may_not_help_us_man.html>.
_______, 2010a
Chevrolet Cruze off to a good start, but sales need to go higher, November 3, found at <http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/...
>.
_______, 2010b
Ford starts second shift at Brook Park; gets tax credit for $100 million in upgrades at 2 plants, December 7, found at
<http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/... >.
_______, 2010c
New presses running at General Motors Parma plant, December 20, found at <http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/... >.
_______, 2010d
A smaller price to pay, Columbus Dispatch, December 15, pp. A12-A13.
142
Sedgwick, David, 2010a

Survey: Most N.A. suppliers expect little, no growth, Automotive News, October 18, found at <http://www.autonews.com/apps/... >.
_______, 2010b
New keiretsu model will thin out suppliers, Automotive News, November 9, found at <http://www.autonews.com/apps/... >.
Sedgwick, David, and Ray Roy, 2010
Turbos surge as low-cost route to CAFE compliance, Automotive News, November 1, found at <http://www.autonews.com/apps/... >.
Snyder, Jesse, 2010
14 million in `11? It could happen, Automotive News, December 13, found at
<http://www.autonews.com/apps/... >.
Staff, 2010a
Auto parts sector in roller coaster comeback, Automotive News, October 7, found at <http://www.autonews.com/apps/... >.
_______, 2010b
Large trucks must reduce emissions as much as 20% by 2018, Automotive News, October 27, found at
<http://www.autonews.com/apps/... >.
_______, 2010c
Fiat plays double or quits with Chrysler, The Economist, November 25, found at
<http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/... >.
_______, 2011
GM drops its request for $14.4 billion loan, Columbus Dispatch, January 28, p. A13.
Thomas, Ken, 2006
Big Three to double flexible-fuel vehicles, Columbus Dispatch, June 29, p. G2.
_______, 2008
Test-drive the future, Columbus Dispatch, September 8, pp. C12-C11.
U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2003a, 2005a, 2007a, 2008a, 2010a
Annual Survey of Manufactures: Geographic Area Statistics M(AS) 2001, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2008. Washington, D.C.: PDF files found at
<http://www.census.gov>.
_______, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003b, 2004, 2005b, 2006, 2007b, 2008b, 2009, 2010b
County Business Patterns (Ohio & U.S.) 1998-2008. Washington, D.C.: PDF files found at <http://www.census.gov>. Machine-readable
files only from 2005 onward prepared by the Bureau. Washington, D.C.: the Bureau [producer and distributor].
143
_______, 2010c
2007 Economic Census: Manufacturing, Geographic Area Series (Ohio) EC07-31A-OH. Washington, D.C.: PDF file found at
<http://www.census.gov>.
_______, 2011
Definition of heavy duty trucks by GVW found at <http://www.census.gov>.
U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2010a
Gross Domestic Product by Industry, 1977-2008 [machine-readable database]/prepared by the Bureau. Washing-ton, D.C.: the Bureau
[producer and distributor]. Found at <http://www.bea.gov>.
_______, 2010b
Survey of Current Business, 90:7 (July).
U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2011
Data found at <http://www.eia.doe.gov/>, search by subject.
Vellequette, Larry P., 2008
Maumee firm builds prototype of electric vehicle, June 16. Found at
<http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080616/BUSINESS02/806160335...>.
Wald, Matthew L., 2004
Questions about a Hydrogen Economy, Scientific American 290: 5 (May), pp. 66-73.
Wards, 1991-2008
Wards Automotive Yearbooks: 1988-2008. Southfield, Mi.: Wards Communications.
Wernle, Bradford, 2010
In Toledo, an Italian whirlwind brings the Fiat gospel, Automotive News, December 20, found at <http://www.autonews.com/apps... >.
Whoriskey, Peter, 2011
Fuel efficiency not driving auto sales, Columbus Dispatch, January 3, pp. A6-A7.
Wikipedia, 2011
Various subjects found at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page>. Some specific points may be on previous versions of pages.
Williams, Vanessa R., 2010
U.S. to set new fuel-efficiency rules for medium, heavy trucks, Automotive News, October 21, found at
<http://www.autonews.com/article/... >.
144
Woods, Rose A., 2009

Industry output and employment projections to 2018, Monthly Labor Review, November, pp. 52-81, found at
<http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2009/11/art4full.pdf>.
Zelm, Annie, 2008
Slow times idle 136 at ACH, June 28. Found at <http://www.sanduskyregister.com/articles/2008/06/28/front/806789.txt>.
145

Auto Industry Report 2011

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Auto Industry Report 2011

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Policy Research and Strategic Planning Office

A State Affiliate of the U.S. Census Bureau

The Ohio Motor Vehicle Industry

John R. Kasich, Governor of Ohio

THE OHIO MOTOR VEHICLE INDUSTRY

B401 Don Larrick, Principal Analyst

Description of Ohios Motor Vehicle Industry- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Motor Vehicle Industrys Impact on Ohios Economy- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Ohios Strategic Position in Motor Vehicle Assembly - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Notable Motor Vehicle Industry Manufacturers in Ohio- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Recent Expansion and Attraction Announcements- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Composition of Ohios Motor Vehicle Industry: Value-Added - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Four-Year Summaries of Light Vehicle Production in Ohio- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Tier-1 Parts Suppliers - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Composition of Ohios Motor Vehicle Industry Employment at the Plants- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Distribution of Industry Establishments Across Ohio - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Distribution of Industry Employment Across Ohio - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Foreign Investment in Ohio - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Gross Domestic Product - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Value-Added by Ohios Motor Vehicle Industry - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Light Vehicle Production in Ohio and the U.S. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Capital Expenditures for Ohios Motor Vehicle Industry - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

U.S. Industry Analysis and Outlook - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Balance of Trade Trends - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Market Share Trends - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Industry Operations and Recent Trends- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Technologies for Production Processes and Vehicles - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Near and Longer Term Outlooks - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Fiat SpA/Chrysler LLC - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Ford Motor Co.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Honda Motor Co. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Navistar International Corp. and PACCAR, Inc. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

NAICS Codes: Industry Definition and Examples - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Sources and References Cited - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

DESCRIPTION OF OHIOS MOTOR VEHICLE INDUSTRY

THE MOTOR VEHICLE INDUSTRYS IMPACT ON OHIOS ECONOMY

Motor vehicles (3361)

Other manufacturing industries (31-33p)

Transportation, warehousing, information and utilities (48-49, 51, 22)

Total motor vehicle cluster

State economy total

Industry (NAICS Codes)

Light Vehicle Assembly

Ford St. Paul

Ford Kentucky Truck

Honda East Liberty

Prepared by: Ohio Department of Development,

Ford St. Thomas

Ford Avon Lake

N. American Light Vehicle Production in 2010:

Black: Light Trucks

283,253 282,029 278,272 277,696

*Establishments believed to employ

NOTABLE MOTOR VEHICLE INDUSTRY MANUFACTURERS IN OHIO

Transportation equipment industry codes:

33611: Automobiles and Light-Duty Motor Vehicles (continued)

33612: Medium- and Heavy-Duty Trucks

3362: Motor Vehicle Bodies and Trailers

33631: Motor Vehicle Gasoline Engines and Engine Parts

33632: Motor Vehicle Electrical and Electronic Equipment

33633: Motor Vehicle Steering and Suspension Components

33634: Motor Vehicle Brake Systems

33635: Motor Vehicle Transmissions and Parts

33636: Motor Vehicle Seating and Interior Trim