Search the Community

There might be this slight chance of Proton making a comeback to 🇸🇬 due to Geely’s advice? https://paultan.org/2020/01/30/geely-asks-proton-to-expand-into-southeast-asia-initial-focus-on-thailand-indonesia-and-singapore/

In Malaysia now .. still a lot of ah Pek in proton saga with 3 pedals driving

That means you are too Young to know,after the Malaysia's GoodYear,they sold so many Tyres,inc Proton & b&b Japanese Cars Sizes & many Truck Tyres,mostly sizes like 9.00- 10.00-20.

And Proton from Boleh. Which completely changed Proton quality.

MPVs and SUVs have been around for so long.....nothing to shoutabout.....u can see a lot of them q cutting when they drive thru custom.... Proton and Perodua...B&B car there, as a matter of fact a lot of B&B car from proton, toyota, honda and nissan.... if i stay there, i will just get a Perodua kelisa to drive around....

I drive proton liao lor like that. hahahahaha. Wait. you asking me or you asking @Benarsenal. . . .😂

That one time when Proton and Dr. Mahathir were conned into a USA-export deal https://www.wapcar.my/news/that-one-time-when-proton-and-dr-mahathir-were-conned-into-a-usaexport-deal-4589 If you grew up in the ‘80s, you would know that our first Proton Saga was developed from the Mitsubishi Lancer Fiore. A couple of months ago, I shared that the Proton Saga had not one, but two little known distant American cousins – the Dodge Colt and Plymouth Colt. Mitsubishi Lancer Fiore, the donor car It is only fitting for the post to be followed up with story of Malcolm Bricklin, a name of you will not find in Proton’s official history, the man who promised Dr. Mahathir that he will make the Proton Saga into one of the top-10 best sellers in the US, and Mahathir believed him. A master hustler, Bricklin is one of the few men who can claim to have outwitted Tun Dr. Mahathir, and know how to manipulate Dr Mahathir’s desperation to turn Proton into a success story amidst a bad recession. The story of Proton’s attempt to export the Saga to the US is a saga of deceit and financial trickery, involving power brokers of the highest level of the government, including USA’s former US Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger. Yes, the man who served under President Nixon had a hand in the Proton Saga’s export deal, and this was how it all played out. Born in 1939 to a working class family in Philadelphia in USA, Malcolm Bricklin’s first business was selling franchise rights to his Handyman chain of hardware stores, which investors later found out was riddled with accounting frauds. He was sued and declared bankrupt at the age of 26. But Bricklin is like a proverbial cockroach, he won’t die. He responded by hustling harder and ventured into an entirely different business – automotive. In 1965, he got in touch with Innocenti, the Italian company that made Lambretta scooters. Innocenti had made a bad judgement on American demand for scooters and was left with a huge stock of unsold Lambrettas. Bricklin has since rebranded himself into a ‘consultant’ and made a deal with Innocenti, taking over all their unsold stock. Somehow Bricklin managed to sign up enough dealers to take on the Lambrettas. True to his hustling style, he visited dealers in a rented Rolls-Royce. Subaru 360 Whether he actually made money from the deal or not is immaterial, because he would use that success story to pitch to Fuji Heavy Industries (FHI) – the parent company of Subaru, for his next deal. But before Subaru cars came into the picture, he convinced FHI to allow him to import the Fuji Rabbit scooters into the US. He would later build upon that deal to import Subaru cars and with that, he founded Subaru of America in 1968. This was the late ‘60s. The Subaru cars in question were not the all-wheel-drive Legacy, but the tiny rear-engine 360cc two-cylinder air-cooled Subaru 360 – basically a Japanese VW Beetle but a lot smaller. As expected, introducing a Japanese kei car into the US was a disaster. Subaru of America was on the verge of bankruptcy and desperate to gain credibility, Bricklin tried to convince the former President of Ford Motor Company, Bunkie Knudsen to join him. If you thought his ruse of meeting Lambretta dealers in a rented Rolls-Royce was comical, Bricklin arrived at Knudsen’s home in a helicopter, landing on Knudsen’s house’s lawn. Knudsen saw through the lies and nothing came out of their meeting. Meanwhile, a lot more financial misconduct was happening at the sinking Subaru of America, which later found its lifeline in the form of a new investor – the Koffman family, who extended a line of credit to the company but under one condition; Bricklin had to go. So in 1971, Malcolm Bricklin, the founder of Subaru of America, parted ways with the Pleiades star cluster Japanese brand. Is this the end of Bricklin? Not yet. Far from it. Bricklin moved across the border, this time with his sights aimed at the Canada’s New Brunswick provincial government. A master salesman, Bricklin was the embodiment of someone who could sell ice to Eskimos. He had no experience in car manufacturing, but somehow he convinced the Canadian state government to loan him USD 5.5 million and be given land to build his ‘Bricklin Safety Vehicle, or SV-1 for short. Bricklin SV-1 He only had one hand-built unit to show but that was all he needed for his sales pitch. He got the land and the money, but as expected, he couldn’t deliver. Once again, Bricklin was declared bankrupt. He returned to the US, at about the same time Fiat was pulling out of USA. He founded International Automobile Importers (IAI) and repeated with Fiat more or less the same tricks employed on his previous Lambretta deal. Having established a relationship with Fiat, he ended up getting connected to Yugoslavia’s Yugo, which made rebadged Fiats. With Yugo, Bricklin found an under-served niche in the US. The Yugo was then the cheapest car on sale in the US and was his biggest success to date, albeit a very short-lived one. Bricklin reportedly sold his interest in Yugo of America, which was parked under IAI, for USD 20 million. It was around this time that he approached Proton. He did it by leveraging on his contact with Lawrence Eagleburger, the former US ambassador to Yugoslavia who later served as board member of Yugo of America. Eagleburger was also the President of Kissinger Associates, which served as a match maker in the world of politics and business. At the centre of Kissinger Associates was Henry Kissinger, the former US Secretary of State. Prior to joining the US government, Kissinger was an academician at Harvard University, and had once taught Dr. Mahathir at the university’s International Seminar in 1967. Kissinger Associates demanded USD 200,000 in consulting fee and USD 10 for every Proton that Bricklin would eventually sell. Bricklin paid the sum and work began in 1986. At that time, a bad recession was hitting Malaysia and the car market had shrunk by half. Proton was in trouble, losing money on every car sold. The government desperately needed to export the Proton if the factory is to keep running. Yugo of America/Global Motor's management, from left: Tony Ciminera, Malcolm Bricklin, Bill Prior Tony Ciminera, a former motoring journalist at Road and Track magazine before becoming Bricklin’s No.2 at Global Motors retold his experience meeting of Tun Dr. Mahathir in the book ‘The Yugo – The rise and fall of the worst car in history’ by Jason Vuic. “They took us to [see Mahathir] in a police car with flags flying on the fenders and all that. He hosted us in this big enormous room. A special protocol officer came in and gave us dos and don’ts. Then [Mahathir himself] came in. Bill Prior (Bricklin’s PR man) did a presentation and the prime minister was very impressed. Sitting there in the room were just executives from the factory itself. And the prime minister just turned to them and said, ‘Sounds great. Let’s do it.’ Just like that. We were stunned. The factory guys were a little miffed, because it was being rammed down their throats. I don’t think they minded the car being exported to the US, but they wanted to explore it more and have more discussion. But Mahathir just said ‘You will do it.’” Mahathir was sold by Bricklin’s promise to sell 250,000 Protons in the US by 1993, which would make it the 7th most popular car in the US. Bricklin also pledged USD 10 million to convert the Saga to left-hand drive and homologate it to meet US regulations in 15 months. Left-hand drive Proton Saga prototypes. It's claimed that these were meant for homologation for the US market but we have our doubts - it's missing mandatory for US-market 5 mph bumpers. Credit: Jabatan Penerangan, and Proton Saga, Iswara, LMST Enthusiast FB Any experienced automotive industry personnel would immediately notice that the timelines and volumes promised by Bricklin were not realistic, especially considering the company’s background. For whatever reasons, perhaps due to the Kissinger factor, Dr. Mahathir agreed to it. Obviously Mahathir wasn’t aware of Bricklin’s history of the SV-1, Subaru, or even the Handyman stores fiasco. Shortly after the approval by Mahathir, Bricklin founded Proton America Inc. (PAI) and on 3-December 1986, an agreement was signed between Proton and Proton America Inc., which was parked under a newly created subsidiary of IAI, Global Motors. But what torpedoed the Proton Saga USA-export deal was not Bricklin’s incompetence, but Proton’s technical partner Mitsubishi. The deal was a no-go right from the beginning. Ultimately, Proton depended on Mitsubishi Motors to supply the engines and transmission. Mitsubishi already had a 50:50 joint venture with Chrysler (Diamond-Star Motors) to produce the Lancer in the US, selling it as the Dodge/Plymouth Colt. Allowing a third Lancer-based model into the US would certainly create problems for the joint venture. Kenji Iwabuchi, standing next to Dr. Mahathir Meanwhile, Proton’s financial standings continued to deteriorate and by August 1988, Dr. Mahathir lost patience and finally agreed to replace the Malaysian management of Proton led by Dato’ Wan Nik Ismail with Japanese executives from Mitsubishi Motors, led by Managing Director Kenji Iwabuchi, and later Mitsuo Hattori. The then Finance Minister Daim Zainuddin reportedly expressed his disappointment with the local managers, saying “If that happens to a Japanese, he commits hara-kiri.” One of the first thing Iwabuchi did at Proton was to cancel the deal with Bricklin, who then tried to file a suit for breach of contract following recommendations made by lawyers connected to, once again, Kissinger Associates’ Lawrence Eagleburger. They proved to be rather lousy lawyers, because the contract was made between PAI and Proton, not Mitsubishi, who had no obligation to provide the engine and transmission. PAI had no case against Mitsubishi. In fact, Proton had every right to counter-sue PAI for non-delivery of services provided – the completion of left-hand drive prototype and homologation – but for whatever reasons, Proton/Mahathir left the matter as it is, closed that embarrassing chapter of Proton, and moved on. This parliamentary hansard dated 15-March 1989 records the question by Bagan's DAP MP Teoh Teik Huat, which was answered by the then Minister at PM's Deparment Kasitah Gaddam But even if Mitsubishi agreed to supply the engines and transmission, it wouldn’t make any difference because Bricklin would still not be able to deliver on getting the homologation done. The collateral damage was Wall Street investment firm Mabon, Nugent & Company, which had to be closed down once the Proton deal went south. The investment firm, which wasn’t very big by Wall Street standards to begin with, bet everything it had on the deal, with the goal of acquiring Global Motors, which had a lofty ambition of becoming an umbrella brand for cheap cars of America – India’s Mahindra, Indonesia’s Lincah Gama (rebadged Isuzu Trooper), Romania’s Oltcit (rebadged Citroens). Their idea was to chase the long tail of cheap cars chart. “We all got sucked in. But Mabon, Nugent was stupid. I mean really stupid. They bet the ranch. A company that’d been around since the 1890s bet its capital on this thing. On the promise of a car coming to America based only on what Mahathir said to Kissinger. He said, ‘Yeah, I’ll give it to you.’ And Bricklin and Mabon, Nugent and everybody built a castle out of this thing,” said someone closed to the deal to the book’s author Jason Vuic. I guess back in the roaring ‘80s, when credit was cheap and everyone thought they could make money on the stock market, few stopped to ask the most basic question, which is what if Mitsubishi, who then owned 30 percent of Proton, disagreed. Malcolm Bricklin in 2017 As for Bricklin, he was last heard peddling his Bricklin EV pitch, and working on something related to art galleries.

Important of Leadership and people mindset.. https://www.wapcar.my/news/40-years-ago-china-can’t-even-ckd-a-car-how-did-they-overtake-proton-and-perodua-31163 40 years ago China can’t even CKD a car, how did they overtake Proton and Perodua? Hans·Jul 26, 2021 02:07 PM When Proton was established in 1983, China didn’t even have a single modern car plant. By 1983, when Malaysia had become the first country outside of Germany to assemble a W126 Mercedes-Benz S-Class, China was still clobbering together ‘60s era Soviet sedans. We were once a rising Asian Tiger. At its peak in FY2010, Proton exported 22,000 cars (including CKD kits), not the highest but it was pretty decent for 100 percent Malaysia-developed products. Our technical competency was ahead of Thailand and Indonesia. Export of Proton cars to the UK, early '90s Today, Proton exports less than 2,000 cars annually. Meanwhile, Perodua exported 8,000 units in 2014. This has since dropped to just 2,825 cars in 2019. What happened to Malaysia's automotive industry? Perodua Myvi is exported to the Indonesia as a Sirion, but sales are limited by import quotas Also read: Why the Perodua Myvi continues to struggle in export markets? Meanwhile, China is now the world’s most important car market, selling over 25 million cars annually, and is the world’s capital of EVs. Once a technological backwater, China is now home to brands like Nio, which challenges the best EVs from BMW and Mercedes-Benz China's success was not supposed to happened, neither was Malaysia's decline Critics will say that comparison with China is unfair because of its huge domestic market, which grants it huge economies of scale. But that’s an overly simplistic view because India (1.38 billion population) is just as big but is still not yet an automotive powerhouse. Indonesia is the world's fourth most populous country, with over 270 million people but yet its Timor national car project failed. Remember that 10 million population Sweden is home to Volvo (Trucks), Scania, Volvo Cars, Koenigsegg, and SKF. Magna Steyr-made G-Class. Austria has a small population of just 9 million, but it does contract manufacturing for many legendary nameplates. Austria has a population of just 9 million but it is home to Magna Steyr, the world's most famous automotive contract manufacturer. Thanks to its many automotive engineering consultancies and specialist suppliers, it's hard to find a European car that doesn't have input from Austria. And don't forget that the 6 million population Singapore will be making Hyundai EVs soon. So while economies of scale is important, the world is too big and too complex for a binary yes/no, right/wrong view. Geely's Zeeker 001 is an EV styled like a Porsche Panamera Sport Turismo To say that China had it easy because of its huge domestic market also glosses over the fact that Chinese companies had to overcome hardships unimaginable by comfortable middle-class Malaysians. Remember that China endured what's known in history as the 'Century of Humiliation', facing one war after another, from being bullied by Western powers to legalize opium and cede control of its territories, to dealing with its many civil wars, it’s a miracle that China is still intact today. German, Japanese or Korean? It's Chinese. This is a Changan Uni-T. The company is owned by the Chongqing state government. When Volkswagen first set up business in China in the 1983, the same year Proton was established, VW found China to have no industrial base to support a modern automotive industry. STAC's Anting plant in 1983. Posth was shocked at the conditions - parts strewn everywhere, half-completed body shells left outside, broken windows allowed rain to enter VW executive board member Martin Posth, who was tasked to setup the first modern car factory in China, said in his memoir 1,000 Days in Shanghai, “The building had nothing in common with my understanding of a production facility.” Shanghai SH760A Posth was recounting his first visit to the state-owned Shanghai Automobile Tractor Corporation’s (precursor to today’s SAIC) plant in Anting, the site selected for VW to launch its entry into China. It was the ‘80s but the plant was still producing a Shanghai SH760A, a lightly modified ‘60s era Soviet sedan, using very rudimentary means. Chinese plants were using ropes and bamboo structures to manually move cars. Compared to China, Malaysian plants were like a sci-fi movie set. All photos taken in 1983 “I couldn’t for the life of me imagine the dilapidated factory producing even a single car that would come near being acceptable, based on our standards,” he added, questioning his bosses at Wolfsburg's rationale on working with the Chinese! China's rudimentary body shop before VW's entry vs Malaysia's highly automated facilities Malaysia, once the rising Asian Tiger Meanwhile, Malaysia has been making modern cars since 1967 – the Volvo 144S, the first country outside of Sweden to build Volvos. We know how to run car plants and make basic car parts – tyres, air filters, seats, instrument clusters, rubber parts, 12V batteries, windshields and windows, headlights, interior plastics etc. Swedish Motor Assemblers (now known as Volvo Car Manufacturing Malaysia) in 1967. Even until the '80s, Chinese car plants still couldn't match '60s Malaysia Our generally English-speaking work force makes it easy for foreign manufacturers to work with us and our economy was booming. Every major car producing nation had a vehicle assembly operation in Malaysia. CKD cars in Malaysia in 1981. There were nearly twice as many brands as today. From the British to the Americans, to the Japanese, Swedes, French, Italians, and German, everyone had local assembly operations here. If you were to go further back, the Australians (Holden) would be represented too. Only the Koreans were not on the list but that's because they haven't started exporting. Also read: Once poorer than Malaysia, how Korea’s car industry progressed further than ours? Even Dr. Carl Hahn, then Chairman of the Volkswagen Group and one of the most powerful figures in the automotive industry, saw it necessary to pay a visit to Malaysia. Foreign manufactures found it very easy to invest in Malaysia. Skilled workforce is plenty. Meanwhile, China had very few mechanics outside the military. We were not just good in manufacturing, Malaysians were running the entire end-to-end cycle of the car business, from financing to after-sales to marketing, and we were known to be among the best in Asia outside of Japan. Foreign manufacturers could trust skilled Malaysians to run the business. Yes, that's a very young Datuk Seri Ben Yeoh of Bermaz. This was in 1984, when he was with Daihatsu. The Germans at Daimler were so impressed with Cycle & Carriage that they gave the city of Ipoh, which had one of the highest concentration of Mercedes-Benzes for any city in the world (buoyed by the tin mining boom in the ‘50s), a giant logo to be put on top of the limestone hill at the city’s entrance. The now-closed down AMIM plant, Shah Alam Later, they returned to Malaysia to inspect the now defunct AMIM plant in Shah Alam, liked what they saw and moved heavens and mountains to allow Malaysia to become the first country outside of Germany to assemble an S-Class. The Italians noted City Motors’ marketing prowess. Buoyed by the tin mining boom, the Guilia and the Alfetta were the BMW 3 Series of the '60s and '70s. Malaysia was then one of Alfa Romeo's most important markets in Asia and the first country outside of Italy to use Alfa Romeo as police cars. PDRM's Alfa Romeo Alfetta. Credit: Alfista Malaysia In its heydays, Nissan saw Tan Chong as its most influential overseas distributor in Asia. Meanwhile in China, Posth said that the Chinese weren’t just starting from zero, but below zero. Machinery was lacking in China then. Modernization of VW's plant in China were done with manual labour. The only Chinese with a driver’s license were military personnel and nobody outside the military knew how to fix cars, never mind finding a local Chinese who knew anything about running a car company. VW Santana, the first modern car built in China, 11-April 1983. The first 100 units were made using imported German parts, as a trial to see if the Germans and Chinese could work together. The Shanghai-VW joint venture would only be formalized in 1985 “No matter what you touch, you lay your hands on a dozen of problems,” said Posth. From these extremely difficult beginnings, Posth would lay the foundation to make Volkswagen the No.1 brand in the world’s most important car market. The same year Shanghai-VW joint venture was formed, Malaysia was already making its own car. Today, Chinese brands are on their way to catchup with foreign rivals. They are not quite there yet, but are damn close. What was missing in Malaysia? Studying the development of China’s automotive industry against Malaysia’s, the biggest difference is not economies of scale (not relevant in ‘80s China), but the lack of meritocracy on our part. The early days of Proton and Perodua were left under the care of government-appointed bureaucrats who weren’t very good at looking after the interest of Malaysia. Proton entered a deal with Mitsubishi Motors, paying high royalties but could not export the Proton Saga without the approval of Mitsubishi, so much for being a national car. Hyundai too relied on Mitsubishi engines for their early models but faced no such export restrictions because this was the first and most important requirement for the Koreans. Hyundai made sure no such nonsense would happen. Also read: That one time when Proton and Dr. Mahathir were conned into a USA-export deal As for the first Perodua Kancil, it was based on an older generation Daihatsu Mira that was no longer produced in Japan. Japan had switched to fuel injection engines but Malaysia accepted a deal that involved closing off a portion of the market so Daihatsu could offload its old carburetor engines to Malaysia. From its first rollout in 1994 until it was discontinued in 2010, Perodua sold a shocking 725,870 units of the Kancil! One of the pre-conditions for the Volkswagen deal in China was that the car must be of current technology. The Santana (Passat B2) that VW gave China had just been launched in Germany one year earlier. The other pre-condition was that the joint venture must be funded with foreign currency, since China was too poor to afford more currency outflow. The game plan for the Chinese was quite simple – invite the foreigners, keep the partnership under tight Chinese control, keep the money within China. The last part was most crucial. Contract signing between STAC and VW in 1982 China was then too poor to be in any position of bargaining power but they pulled it off anyway. Explaining how they did it requires another post, but the short story is that while Shanghai officials were baiting Volkswagen, their peers in the neighbouring province of Jilin were baiting Toyota (via FAW). To get a better deal, Shanghai later opened talks with GM, which in 1997, offered SAIC the then-new Buick Century to China, while VW was still flogging its 14-year old Santana. Beijing was pitting VW against Toyota and GM to get a better deal for China. In contrast, Malaysia decided that it was a fair deal to block out foreign competition for Mitsubishi (and now Geely) and Daihatsu to profit from Malaysia uncontested. Whatever few cards the Chinese government had, they played it very well. Which brings us to another point about Chinese government officials. It’s not about market size or technology, it’s about humans The Chinese civil service model is quite different from the West. Instead, the Chinese civil works like a private company (ironic given it’s a communist background), where civil servants are graded based on their performance on economic growth of their region, job creation, and more recently, air quality – before they can be promoted (and sometimes, demoted). One cannot be appointed into a ministerial position until one has proven himself / herself at say, a mayor level. Chinese civil service structure. Credit: Eric Li, Ted Talk, A Tale of Two Political Systems Over in Malaysia, the position of a minister and chairman of GLCs are awarded based political patronage, not their qualifications. Remember Prasarana's gaffe? Consider the architect of China’s latest national automotive policy, Wan Gang, who until 2018, served as China’s Minister of Science and Technology. He is often credited as the person who made China the world’s capital for EV technology. Prior to working for the government, Wan was Tongji University’s professor of automotive engineering. He holds a doctorate from Germany’s Technical University of Clausthal, and before that, he was an engineer for Audi AG, serving as program manager for the B5-generation Audi A4. No permanent protection for China’s ‘national’ brands Another element of meritocracy in China is its treatment of local car manufacturers. Chinese manufacturers are protected from foreign competition by a 1994 rule that requires all foreigners looking to set up business in China to form joint ventures (JVs) with local manufacturers, with equity of the foreign company capped at 50 percent – it’s a way to protect local manufacturers, allowing them to quickly learn Western technology. In 2014, China's Ministry of Industry and Information Technology warned Chinese manufacturers that after 20 years, it is time to remove all protection. Chinese government will remove all protection for Chinese car manufacturers by 2022. By 2018, Beijing removed the equity cap for JVs for electrified vehicle. Soon, Tesla started plans to build a plant in Shanghai - the first 100% foreign-owned car plant. Chinese EV models will now have to compete directly with Tesla. By 2022, the equity cap will be abolished for all vehicle types. Not only that, import taxes on CBU cars have been slashed from 25 percent to 15 percent. This is inevitable as China needs to ease trade war tensions with USA and Europe. Turning the attention back to Malaysia, is Proton and Perodua stronger than when it started? From a domestic sales stand point, yes they are but when judged on merit, they made little progress in exports. Since two of our biggest brands don’t export much, our local parts suppliers are also not very competitive. According to the last manufacturing census done in 2015, only 167 out of 525 Malaysian parts manufacturers were engaged in exports. Malaysia has since lost 40% of foreign brands doing CKD Meanwhile, more foreign brands are pulling out from manufacturing in Malaysia. In the early ’80s, before Proton, Malaysia had 21 foreign brands with CKD operations here. Today, we only have 12, down by nearly half. Of course, the value of investments from the remaining manufacturers have also increased multiple folds but so have our neighbours Thailand and Indonesia. A child who lives off his parent’s money doesn’t get credit for growing taller right? Actually, the outcome of Malaysia’s national car and the eventual rise of China was evident from the moment the Proton-Mitsubishi Motors and Shanghai-VW partnership were established. Kenji Iwabuchi, standing next to Dr. Mahathir Despite enjoying generous government protection, Proton was losing money, mostly due to rapid increase in Yen value following the signing of the Plaza Accord by France, Germany, USA, UK, and Japan (but the Yen appreciation problem affects everyone equally). By 1988, 3 years after the Saga’s launch, Dr. Mahathir lost his patience and to keep the program going, he replaced the local management of Proton with Mitsubishi Motor’s Kenji Iwabuchi, and later Mitsuo Hattori - thus defeating the purpose of a national car. The then Finance Minister Daim Zainuddin reportedly expressed his disappointment with the local managers, saying “If that happens to a Japanese (losing money despite no competition), he commits hara-kiri.” (actually, the correct term is Seppuku). Meanwhile over in China, Posth’s German colleagues at Wolfsburg would often laugh at his Chinese project by asking him “How are your Chinese Micky Mice getting on?” Posth saw first-hand how fast Shanghai-VW's Anting plant was catching up with the West But Posth knew the inevitable outcome, that China will eventually surpass everyone else. Every German engineer who arrived in China to teach the locals were amazed at their eagerness to learn and catch up with the West. Xpeng P7 says, "Sorry, BMW i what?" “The Chinese understood anything that had to do with manual labour in next to no time. In the shortest time imaginable, they were assembling cars better and more quickly than anywhere else in the world – and this has not changed right up to the present day,” he noted in his book, but added to the journey ahead will be long and arduous. China wasn't the only automotive force that started way behind Malaysia. Korea too had a very difficult start. It emerged from the Korean War as one of the poorest countries in the world. This next post is a story of how Korea’s car industry overtook Malaysia's.

I have a friend nearly got Robbed or Kidnapped,when He driving his S500 in Malaysia,a Old Proton come out from no where,banged his Back,with 4 persons in the Proton,He easily outrun that Proton,He reach a Toll Station & reported the incident to an Officer there.

Proton recently announced that it has signed a deal with smart Automobile Company to introduce the brand’s upcoming electric vehicles in Malaysia and Thailand in the near future. If you’re wondering whether this is the same smart brand that was responsible for the tiny smart ForTwo two-seater compact car that you may have caught a glimpse of on Malaysian roads in the mid-2000s, then you are right. But then again, it is not the same smart brand that you may have known and this deal with Proton certainly does not involve any smart ForTwo or ForFour which were made by the brand when it was still a division of Mercedez-Benz. This is because the smart Automobile Company that we highlighted here is actually a new joint venture company between Mercedez-Benz and Geely. Announced in late 2019, the joint venture is focusing on the new generation of smart-branded electric vehicles that will be released in China as well as the global markets. Mercedes-Benz Design is responsible for the interior and exterior look of these new generation smart electric vehicles while their development and engineering are handled by Geely. Given Geely’s status as one of Proton’s parent companies, it is not hard to see why the Malaysian automaker was roped into this deal which will see Proton Edar becoming the importer, distributor, and dealer for smart cars in Malaysia and Thailand. Additionally, Proton Edar will also be responsible for smart’s after-sales services in both countries as well. While we are not going to see a mass-produced Proton electric vehicle through this deal, the brand’s Chairman, Syed Faisal Albar pointed out that it will still allow Proton to gain experience and build up the necessary skills that the company needs to be part of the New Energy Vehicle’s market in this region. No release timeline was mentioned in the announcement though but the wait shouldn’t be that long as Daimler and Geely have already planned to launch the first group of the new generation smart electric vehicles within this year.

Last year I rented one X70 too. Feel it's a nice drive too. Then I realised all Proton signal are also left side like conti. But I don't like the flat bottom steering and the high window ..... Can't rest my right arm on the window ledge.

Chope parking lot for his i4 lah. I ask him to buy Ora Cat but he say too cheap for his blue propeller. It is a blessing for us, as we can never understand the pain of the rich, everyday have to crack their head on how to spend their money... @RH1667 Proton much more upmarket now (since under Geely). You should be worried there might be no more Perodua, since Daihatsu is in trouble now.

No Proton model, sad 🤭🤭🤭

25 years ago a brain scientist made a bet with a philosopher that in 25 years time well today they would find out where consciousness sits in the brain. The philosopher said they will never find it in 25 years! Christof Koch, the neuroscientist, and David Chalmers, the philosopher, butt heads in 1994 at a now legendary conference in Tucson, Ariz., called Toward a Scientific Basis for Consciousness. Koch was a star of the meeting. Together with biophysicist Francis Crick, he had been proclaiming in Scientific American and elsewhere that consciousness, which philosophers have wrestled with for millennia, was scientifically tractable. Not everyone in Tucson was convinced. Chalmers, younger and then far less well known than Koch, argued that neither 40-hertz oscillations nor any other strictly physical process could account for why perceptions are accompanied by conscious sensations, such as the crushing boredom evoked by a jargony lecture. I have a vivid memory of the audience perking up when Chalmers called consciousness “the hard problem.” That was the first time I heard that now famous phrase. Chalmers suggested that the hard problem might be solved by assuming that “information” is a fundamental property of reality. This hypothesis, unlike Crick and Koch’s 40-hertz model, could account for consciousness in any system, not just one with a brain. Even a thermostat, which processes a little information, might be a little conscious, Chalmers speculated. Unimpressed, Koch confronted Chalmers at a cocktail reception and denounced his information hypothesis as untestable and hence pointless. “Why don’t you just say that when you have a brain, the Holy Ghost comes down and makes you conscious?” Koch grumbled. Chalmers replied coolly that the Holy Ghost hypothesis conflicted with his own subjective experience. “But how do I know that your subjective experience is the same as mine?” Koch exclaimed. “How do I even know you’re conscious?” Koch was implicitly raising what I call the solipsism problem, to which I will return. Over the next decade, however, Koch’s position shifted dramatically, as he embraced an ambitious information-based model invented by neuroscientist Giulio Tononi. Called integrated information theory, or IIT, the model is much more detailed than the one Chalmers sketched out in Tucson. IIT holds that consciousness arises in any system whose components swap information in a certain mathematically defined way. In 2009 Koch spelled out the theory’s startling implications in Scientific American. A single proton, which consists of three interacting quarks, might possess a glimmer of consciousness, he conjectured. IIT seemed to corroborate the ancient metaphysical doctrine of panpsychism, which holds that consciousness pervades everything. Perplexed by these claims, in 2015 I attended a workshop on integrated information theory at N.Y.U. The speakers included Tononi, IIT’s inventor, Koch, now director of the Allen Institute for Brain Science, and Chalmers, co-director of N.Y.U.’s Center for Mind, Brain and Consciousness. Although most speakers at the workshop treated IIT gently, quantum computing expert Scott Aaronson eviscerated it. According to IIT’s mathematical definition of information, Aaronson pointed out, a compact disc player running error-correction codes can be far more conscious than a human being. I came away from the workshop with more basic objections to IIT. In a 1990 interview Claude Shannon, who invented information theory in the 1940s, told me that the information in a system is proportional to its capacity to “surprise” an observer, which I take to mean that information requires a conscious entity to be informed. Explaining consciousness with a concept that presupposes consciousness strikes me as circular reasoning—cheating. Moreover IIT, like all theories that allow for nonhuman consciousness, poses what I referred to above as the solipsism problem: no human can be sure that any other human is conscious, let alone a jellyfish, thermostat or proton. Koch has proposed building a “consciousness meter” that would measure consciousness in any object in the same way that a thermometer measures temperature, but this device remains a thought experiment, a fantasy. So where do things stand today? Thanks in part to the efforts of Koch and Chalmers, more researchers than ever are trying to solve the conundrum of consciousness. They are probing the brain with optogenetics, functional magnetic resonance imaging, transcranial magnetic stimulation and electrodes implanted inside brains. And they are modeling their data with ever more powerful, artificial-intelligence-augmented algorithms. These efforts were showcased at the 26th annual conference of the Association for the Scientific Study of Consciousness at N.Y.U., where Koch and Chalmers met to settle their bet. At the June 22–25 gathering, scores of researchers from all over the world, some unborn when Koch and Chalmers first clashed in Tucson, presented their latest ideas and data. The diversity of perspectives was dizzying. The old 40-hertz oscillation hypothesis of Crick and Koch has yielded to a welter of fancier neural-correlate models. In some, the prefrontal cortex is essential to consciousness; others focus on activity in different regions of the brain or involving specific types of neuron or modes of neural communication. Speakers also delved into the consciousness of primates, spiders and plants, the ontological status of virtual reality and dreams and the implications of dementia and other pathological states. One topic that was conspicuously absent was quantum mechanics, which physicists such as John Wheeler and Roger Penrose have linked to consciousness. Chalmers has recently toyed with a model that fuses integrated information theory and quantum mechanics. But when I asked Chalmers about the omission of quantum theories of consciousness, he informed me that they were too fringy for this conference. So quantum theories were beyond the pale. But what about the poster on how consciousness can be explained by relativity, which provides a way to unite first-person and third-person frames of reference? What about the session that considered whether artificial intelligences such as ChatGPT are conscious and hence morally responsible? What about the talks on mystical experiences induced by meditation, DMT and LSD? Speakers fretted over the proliferation of theories. “Growth is not always benign,” said philosopher Robert Chis-Ciure in a talk on falsification of theories. “Cancer is a good example.” During the same evening event at which Koch and Chalmers settled their bet, researchers presented the results of rigorous tests of integrated information theory and a rival model, the global workspace theory, in which consciousness serves as the brain’s way of spotlighting critical information. The results of the tests were inconclusive. Some data favor IIT; others favor the global workspace. This conclusion is hardly surprising, given that the brain is so hideously complex and that consciousness is so poorly defined, as multiple speakers acknowledged. All of this is to say that consciousness research, far from converging toward a unifying paradigm, has become more fractious and chaotic than ever. Back to the bet between Koch and Chalmers: They agreed that, for Koch to win, the evidence for a neural signature of consciousness must be “clear.” That word “clear” doomed Koch. “It’s clear that things are not clear,” Chalmers said, and Koch, grimacing, concurred. He stalked off the stage and reappeared with a case of wine as the audience laughed and applauded. Koch then doubled down on his bet. Twenty-five years from now, he predicted, when he will be age 91 and Chalmers will be age 82, consciousness researchers will achieve the “clarity” that now eludes them. Chalmers, shaking Koch’s hand, took the bet. A neuroscientist clad in gold and red and a philosopher sheathed in black took the stage before a packed, murmuring auditorium at New York University on Friday night. The two men were grinning, especially the philosopher. They were here to settle a bet made in the late 1990s on one of science’s biggest questions: How does a brain, a lump of matter, generate subjective conscious states such as the blend of anticipation and nostalgia I felt watching these guys? Before I reveal their bet’s resolution, let me take you through its twisty backstory, which reveals why consciousness remains a topic of such fascination and frustration to anyone with even the slightest intellectual leaning. I first saw Christof Koch, the neuroscientist, and David Chalmers, the philosopher, butt heads in 1994 at a now legendary conference in Tucson, Ariz., called Toward a Scientific Basis for Consciousness. Koch was a star of the meeting. Together with biophysicist Francis Crick, he had been proclaiming in Scientific American and elsewhere that consciousness, which philosophers have wrestled with for millennia, was scientifically tractable. Just as Crick and geneticist James Watson solved heredity by decoding DNA’s double helix, scientists would crack consciousness by discovering its neural underpinnings, or “correlates.” Or so Crick and Koch claimed. They even identified a possible basis for consciousness: brain cells firing in synchrony 40 times per second. Not everyone in Tucson was convinced. Chalmers, younger and then far less well known than Koch, argued that neither 40-hertz oscillations nor any other strictly physical process could account for why perceptions are accompanied by conscious sensations, such as the crushing boredom evoked by a jargony lecture. I have a vivid memory of the audience perking up when Chalmers called consciousness “the hard problem.” That was the first time I heard that now famous phrase. Chalmers suggested that the hard problem might be solved by assuming that “information” is a fundamental property of reality. This hypothesis, unlike Crick and Koch’s 40-hertz model, could account for consciousness in any system, not just one with a brain. Even a thermostat, which processes a little information, might be a little conscious, Chalmers speculated. Unimpressed, Koch confronted Chalmers at a cocktail reception and denounced his information hypothesis as untestable and hence pointless. “Why don’t you just say that when you have a brain, the Holy Ghost comes down and makes you conscious?” Koch grumbled. Chalmers replied coolly that the Holy Ghost hypothesis conflicted with his own subjective experience. “But how do I know that your subjective experience is the same as mine?” Koch exclaimed. “How do I even know you’re conscious?” Koch was implicitly raising what I call the solipsism problem, to which I will return. I highlighted the clash between Koch and Chalmers in a 1994 article for Scientific American, “Can Science Explain Consciousness?” I’ve been tracking their careers ever since. Their views hadn’t changed much when they made their wager in 1998 at the annual meeting of the Association for the Scientific Study of Consciousness, which they helped establish. Koch bet Chalmers a case of wine that within 25 years—that is, by 2023—researchers would discover a “clear” neural pattern underlying consciousness. Over the next decade, however, Koch’s position shifted dramatically, as he embraced an ambitious information-based model invented by neuroscientist Giulio Tononi. Called integrated information theory, or IIT, the model is much more detailed than the one Chalmers sketched out in Tucson. IIT holds that consciousness arises in any system whose components swap information in a certain mathematically defined way. In 2009 Koch spelled out the theory’s startling implications in Scientific American. A single proton, which consists of three interacting quarks, might possess a glimmer of consciousness, he conjectured. IIT seemed to corroborate the ancient metaphysical doctrine of panpsychism, which holds that consciousness pervades everything. Perplexed by these claims, in 2015 I attended a workshop on integrated information theory at N.Y.U. The speakers included Tononi, IIT’s inventor, Koch, now director of the Allen Institute for Brain Science, and Chalmers, co-director of N.Y.U.’s Center for Mind, Brain and Consciousness. Although most speakers at the workshop treated IIT gently, quantum computing expert Scott Aaronson eviscerated it. According to IIT’s mathematical definition of information, Aaronson pointed out, a compact disc player running error-correction codes can be far more conscious than a human being. I came away from the workshop with more basic objections to IIT. In a 1990 interview Claude Shannon, who invented information theory in the 1940s, told me that the information in a system is proportional to its capacity to “surprise” an observer, which I take to mean that information requires a conscious entity to be informed. Explaining consciousness with a concept that presupposes consciousness strikes me as circular reasoning—cheating. Moreover IIT, like all theories that allow for nonhuman consciousness, poses what I referred to above as the solipsism problem: no human can be sure that any other human is conscious, let alone a jellyfish, thermostat or proton. Koch has proposed building a “consciousness meter” that would measure consciousness in any object in the same way that a thermometer measures temperature, but this device remains a thought experiment, a fantasy. So where do things stand today? Thanks in part to the efforts of Koch and Chalmers, more researchers than ever are trying to solve the conundrum of consciousness. They are probing the brain with optogenetics, functional magnetic resonance imaging, transcranial magnetic stimulation and electrodes implanted inside brains. And they are modeling their data with ever more powerful, artificial-intelligence-augmented algorithms. These efforts were showcased at the 26th annual conference of the Association for the Scientific Study of Consciousness at N.Y.U., where Koch and Chalmers met to settle their bet. At the June 22–25 gathering, scores of researchers from all over the world, some unborn when Koch and Chalmers first clashed in Tucson, presented their latest ideas and data. The diversity of perspectives was dizzying. The old 40-hertz oscillation hypothesis of Crick and Koch has yielded to a welter of fancier neural-correlate models. In some, the prefrontal cortex is essential to consciousness; others focus on activity in different regions of the brain or involving specific types of neuron or modes of neural communication. Speakers also delved into the consciousness of primates, spiders and plants, the ontological status of virtual reality and dreams and the implications of dementia and other pathological states. One topic that was conspicuously absent was quantum mechanics, which physicists such as John Wheeler and Roger Penrose have linked to consciousness. Chalmers has recently toyed with a model that fuses integrated information theory and quantum mechanics. But when I asked Chalmers about the omission of quantum theories of consciousness, he informed me that they were too fringy for this conference. So quantum theories were beyond the pale. But what about the poster on how consciousness can be explained by relativity, which provides a way to unite first-person and third-person frames of reference? What about the session that considered whether artificial intelligences such as ChatGPT are conscious and hence morally responsible? What about the talks on mystical experiences induced by meditation, DMT and LSD? Speakers fretted over the proliferation of theories. “Growth is not always benign,” said philosopher Robert Chis-Ciure in a talk on falsification of theories. “Cancer is a good example.” During the same evening event at which Koch and Chalmers settled their bet, researchers presented the results of rigorous tests of integrated information theory and a rival model, the global workspace theory, in which consciousness serves as the brain’s way of spotlighting critical information. The results of the tests were inconclusive. Some data favor IIT; others favor the global workspace. This conclusion is hardly surprising, given that the brain is so hideously complex and that consciousness is so poorly defined, as multiple speakers acknowledged. All of this is to say that consciousness research, far from converging toward a unifying paradigm, has become more fractious and chaotic than ever. Back to the bet between Koch and Chalmers: They agreed that, for Koch to win, the evidence for a neural signature of consciousness must be “clear.” That word “clear” doomed Koch. “It’s clear that things are not clear,” Chalmers said, and Koch, grimacing, concurred. He stalked off the stage and reappeared with a case of wine as the audience laughed and applauded. Koch then doubled down on his bet. Twenty-five years from now, he predicted, when he will be age 91 and Chalmers will be age 82, consciousness researchers will achieve the “clarity” that now eludes them. Chalmers, shaking Koch’s hand, took the bet. “I hope I lose,” Chalmers said, “but I suspect I’ll win.” I suspect so, too. I bet consciousness will be even more baffling in 2048 than it is today. I hope to live long enough to see Koch give Chalmers another case of wine. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-25-year-old-bet-about-consciousness-has-finally-been-settled/

another story of Geely with Proton.. I like below text: In 2006 Malaysia rejected Geely investment plan of 100million, then 11 years after its rejection, Geely would return to Malaysia in 2017 to take control of Proton. Ironic isn’t it? In that 11 years, Geely went from being a maker of industrial garbage that Indonesian taxi drivers didn’t want to drive to a maker of fine cars like this Geely Xingyue L. https://www.wapcar.my/news/in-2006-geely-wanted-to-invest-rm-100m-in-malaysia-who-rejected-it-to-protect-proton-and-perodua-31481 In 2006 Geely wanted to invest RM 100m in Malaysia, who rejected it to protect Proton and Perodua Hans·Aug 2, 2021 02:51 PM For many Malaysians, Geely is a brand that’s synonymous with Proton. The Chinese brand that in June 2017, came out of nowhere to become a permanent fixture in our collective consciousness, owning 49.9 percent of our national carmaker. But what if I tell you that Proton is actually Geely’s second attempt to enter Malaysia? Back in 2006, Geely came to Malaysia to partner with alloy wheel manufacturer Tan Sri Cam Soh, whose Alado Bumi Sdn. Bhd. had already gained some traction with Chery, to invest in a local assembly (CKD) operation. 2005 Geely CK. Such a terrible looking car. Was there any reason for Proton/Perodua to be concerned? To do this, Geely partnered with Soh’s other company Information Gateway Corp Sdn Bhd (IGC). IGC is to contract Johor Bahru’s Oriental Assemblers to build 10,000 Geely cars per year. Oriental Assemblers - who were they? Located in Jalan Tampoi in Johor Bahru, Oriental Assemblers was once a General Motors plant making Vauxhall / Opel models, before the American firm sold it in 1980. Early generation Honda Accord and Civic models at Oriental Most Malaysians however will remember Oriental Assemblers as the company that built Honda cars between the ‘70s and the late ‘90s, when its sister company Kah Motor was the franchise holder for Honda cars in Malaysia. Honda CR-V was the first CKD Honda produced at the Pegoh plant, in 2003. Dankaku means (trial) pre-production. Photo taken in 2002. Seiji Kuraishi (3rd from left) was CEO of Honda Malaysia then. Honda Malaysia would later take over the distributorship from Kah Motor in November 2000 and by 2003, production of Honda cars were transferred to Honda’s own Pegoh plant in Melaka. After that, Oriental Assemblers switched to assembling Hyundai cars, which were sold under its sister-company Oriental-Hyundai’s Kah Bintang dealer network, and briefly, contract manufacturing for Mercedes-Benz cars until Mercedes-Benz Malaysia (then known as DaimlerChrysler Malaysia, taking over from Cycle and Carriage Bintang) setup its own plant in 2005. Today, Oriental Assemblers is owned by the Berjaya group, renamed to Berjaya Assembly Sdn. Bhd. It now does contract assembly for Maxus and a few other local rebadged Chinese light commercial vehicles. Geely’s offer to Malaysia Back to Geely. The proposed investment was worth a not-very-small RM 100 million. Geely wants to make Malaysia its right-hand drive assembly hub, eventually exporting to 42 right-hand drive countries. Geely CK1, front and rear is an ugly mash up of the then current W203 Mercedes C-Class Contract manufacturing at the Oriental Assemblers plant was only the start. A new dedicated plant for Geely was to be considered further down the line. The plan was to CKD the Geely CK1, a very ugly, badly copied W203 Mercedes-Benz C-Class, which was stilll current then. Malaysia’s response to Geely The mid-2000s was a period when Malaysian policy makers were adapting to the ASEAN Free Trade Agreement (AFTA) - now superseded by ATIGA (ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement) – that it had signed with Thailand and Indonesia. Import duties for cars with at least 40 percent regional content were abolished but the sneaky Malaysians secretly plotted to move the goal post back home. While import duties were indeed slashed, Malaysia raised excise duties for imported cars – essentially keeping prices of cars (and car tax collection) status quo. Officially, Malaysia says its national car policy is no more but - and it’s a big but - it grants car makers that do R&D here – a thinly veiled reference to Proton and Perodua, since Malaysia is too small for others to do any real R&D here – close to 100% excise duty discount, essentially keeping national car privileges intact while paying lip service to free trade agreements. Also read: Why is a Proton X70 cheaper than a Honda CR-V by RM53k? What's the difference in taxes? The 2000s were a low point for Proton It made little difference, Proton continued to lose market share. Between 2002 and 2006, Proton’s sales had fallen by nearly 50 percent! From a record high of 214,985 units (a record that still stands today) to 115,706 units. Meanwhile, Perodua was doing better, improving from 127,478 units to 155,419 units in the same 5-year period, usurping Proton for the sales crown. Also read: Once unbeatable, Proton lost its No.1 rank not because of Perodua, but the PC. How? Curiously, sales of the Perodua Kancil actually increased as it aged, as explained here. Malaysia feared that allowing cheap locally-produced Geely cars into Malaysia would erode Proton’s (and to a certain extent, Perodua’s) position even further. Despite the RM 100 million commitment from Geely, the Malaysian rebuffed Geely’s proposal with two ridiculous requirements – the cars made cannot have engine capacities below 1.6-litre (essentially Proton and Perodua’s market), and 80 percent of the production must be exported (meaning just 2,000 cars can be sold in Malaysia annually). The latter was yet another moving of the goal post by the Malaysian government, as the previous requirement was 70 percent. Proton in the 2010s. Exports peaked in FY2010, with 22,000 units (including CKD kits) Geely’s response Annoyed by the moving of the goal post, Geely cancelled all talks with Malaysia and took the money to Indonesia, appointing PT Gaya Motor, which operates a plant just outside of Jakarta, as its contract manufacturer. The Geely CK1 was launched in Indonesia in May 2007. Locally-assembled Geely MK models joined October 2009. So how did Geely performed in Indonesia? Terrible – you can’t expect any other outcome right? Geely MK At its peak in 2012, Geely sold 1,232 units (for reference, Proton Indonesia sold 2,263 units then). Few private buyers bought a Geely, with most of the sales coming from taxi operators. None went back to place more orders. Geely MK taxi in Indonesia The quality of the Geely MK was horrendous, with some taxi drivers reporting that the clutch and brake pedals could become loose after repeated hard use! Some threatened to strike if they are not allowed to go back to their previous Toyota Limo (Indonesian market taxi-specs Toyota Vios). Note the Limo badge instead of Vios By 2014, sales had dropped to just 193 units (while Proton sold 523 units) and Geely pulled out of Indonesia one year later. Proton held out slightly longer, pulling out in 2019 but sales had already dropped to low two digit figures in the years before. Once blocked by China, Geely was not supposed to exist 11 years after its rejection, Geely would return to Malaysia in 2017 to take control of Proton. Ironic isn’t it? 11 years later, Geely says "You have no choice but to shake my hands now" In that 11 years, Geely went from being a maker of industrial garbage that Indonesian taxi drivers didn’t want to drive to a maker of fine cars like this Geely Xingyue L. As explained in my previous post, it’s overly simplistic to conclude that Chinese brands had it easy because of their huge domestic market. If that’s the case, the 1.3 billion-population India’s Tata would’ve rivalled Great Wall Motor and the 270 million-population Indonesia’s (fourth biggest in the world) Timor national car project wouldn’t have failed. There was one more important point that I had to skip in my previous post, to keep the word count tight. Coming from a country that mollycoddles Proton and Perodua, many assumed that Geely is China’s pride and therefore received huge support from the Chinese government, when the opposite is true. That’s right, in its early days, Beijing was actively stopping Geely from making cars. Geely's founder Li Shufu and the rundown building that served as Geely's first factory - making refrigerator parts Consistent with the China’s philosophy of a centrally planned economy, Geely, which is not owned by any state-owned enterprises (SOE, their version of GLC), was seen by Beijing as an overly ambitious village pumpkin poking its nose into something it's not supposed to. Early days of China’s automotive policy, Geely to be shutdown Although the Shanghai-VW project – production of the first modern car in China – began in 1983, a formal automotive policy would only be put in place in 1987. Beijing’s original plan to accelerate its automotive industry centered on just 6 state-owned companies, colloquially referred to as the “3 big 3 small plan” (三大三小), 3 SOEs each for large and small vehicles. The SAIC-VW joint venture plant in Anting, Shanghai In the ‘3 Big’ group is First Automobile Works (FAW), Second Automobile Works (now known as Dongfeng Motor), and Shanghai Automotive Company (now known as SAIC). In the ‘3 small’ group is Beijing Automobile Industry (now known as BAIC), Tianjin Automobile Industry, and Guangzhou Automobile Industry (now known as GAC Group). 1983 VW Santana (Passat B2), the first modern car produced in China. Domestic brand cars would only follow much later Political cadres assigned to these SOEs were supposed to run a profitable joint venture (JV) with foreign manufacturers and pick Western technology (‘steal’ if necessary). SAIC for example, partnered with VW and GM. In a complex arrangement, foreign partners also spread out their risk and extend their sales network across the very big China by having more than one partner. Toyota for example, counts both GAC and FAW as its partner, offering slightly different models to their two ‘local wives.’ Foreigners joke that key to a successful car business in China is to have two very capable wives, one for each key market region, but at the same time keep the two wives far apart from each other. FAW-Toyota gets the Corolla, GAC-Toyota gets the Levin - both identical cars except for the front-end design It is why the Toyota Corolla Altis is sold under two different names in China – Corolla and Levin, and why Volkswagen has such a confusing array of SUVs and sedans, one each for their SAIC-VW and FAW-VW joint ventures. China doesn’t like surprises and Geely is a surprise. Founder Li Shufu came from a farming village near Taizhou, province of Zhejiang, far away from the industrial and political centres of Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Beijing. In China, some say that the sharpest business people come from Zhejiang. Do you know who else came from Zhejiang? Jack Ma (Alibaba) and Ding Lei (NetEase). To make cars, you need a license, which Geely didn’t have back in the early ‘90s. There are two important idioms that all Chinese businessmen believe – yibu yibu (one step at a time) and daole qiaotou jiuguo qiao (you cross the bridge only when you reach it, meaning don’t succumb to analysis paralysis). The first seeks to mitigate risk, the seconds encourages risk taking. Together, these two believes form a yin-yang balance that pushes Chinese entrepeneurs forward. Geely's entry into the automotive business is via 2-wheelers With the 4-wheeler business locked out, Li went one rung lower, making cheap scooters in 1993. Years later, an opportunity would appear when the Deyang Prison Vehicle Factory (yes, a factory in a prison. Remember this is Communist China), which used to make military trucks, was closed down. Li bought over the factory and voila – he now has a license. Geely Haoqing, Geely's first car was a rebadged licensed copy of a Daihatsu Charade In 1997, Geely built its first car, the Geely Haoqing, a licensed copy of another licensed copy, Tianjian-FAW’s Xiali, a rebadged third-generation Daihatsu Charade. But the manufacturing license Geely had doesn’t allow it to make larger, more profitable sedans, and sales were limited only to certain regions. To sell his cars throughout the country, Li needed approval from Beijing. Li once penned a poem, “There were but a few sincere, wise, brave children who walked barefoot on the ice in order to realize the dream of a Kingdom of Cars.” Geely's cringe-worthy appearance at the 2005 Frankfurt Motor Show. Thankfully, their motor show exhibits are a lot better today In 1999, when China's top economic planner Zeng Peiyan visited Li’s hometown in Zhejiang, Li pleaded with Zeng saying, "I would not regret even if we fail, but could you please give us an opportunity first? If we succeed, we can help explore a new road to develop China's auto industry, and if we fail, we are not wasting the nation's money." And that last bit, my dear Malaysian readers, is the biggest difference between Geely and our (quasi) national brands and why they are contended with being mere ‘jaguh kampungs’. Typical of the Chinese, Zeng didn’t give a clear yes/no answer but an impression has been made. Remember it’s yibu yibu. 15 years later, SAIC was still making the same VW Santana. Beijing was getting impatient At the same time, Beijing was getting impatient with the original members of the elite 3 Big 3 Small grouping. These state-owned companies appear to be getting too comfortable leveraging on their foreign partners, effectively becoming rent seekers of foreign technology. Beijing was in a hurry to grow a competitive Chinese car and if these state-owned companies are moving too slowly, Beijing will introduce a new player into the game, just to shake things up. SAIC had partnered with VW for 15 years but it’s still making the same VW Santana. It was only after Geely was allowed to make sedans that SAIC bucked up and acquired Britain’s MG Rover and Maxus. Again, compare this very meritocracy-based decision versus our national car projects. Some would argue that Malaysia is too small to have more than 2 national car manufacturers. That’s true, but don’t focus on one tree and lose sight of the forest – was the same meritocracy used in developing Proton’s vendors, dealers, and management ranks, at least in the crucial ‘80s and ‘90s when Malaysia had a small window of opportunity to get ahead of Korea, Thailand, and Indonesia? Also read: Once poorer than Malaysia, how Korea’s car industry progressed further than ours? There’s no point saying that things are different at Proton today, the train has left the platform. Geely Xingyue Back to Geely. Two more years would pass and by 2001, one year after China’s entry into the World Trade Organization, China started liberalizing its economy and Geely was finally granted an automobile manufacturing license, the first private company in China to have it. Later, Great Wall and Chery would follow suit – each with equally inspiring stories of tenacity and wit. The rest of Geely’s story is what you know today. Not bad for a company that Beijing didn’t recognize, whose money was rejected by the Malaysia, and whose cars were hated by Indonesian taxi drivers.

Few days ago I was taking grab in JB. Came an old Hyundai Sonata which was maintained like new. I told the driver his car was maintained very well . Great job there. But he said he is selling it already. Ask him what car he wanna buy next. He said Vellfire. 😁 So yes, MPVs and SUVs are gainning traction over there. The Proton X70 was very nice and comfortable.....drove once over there....I left deeply impressed by the value it gives.

i remember we went to KL to meet a boss (fr sg but stay there) at KLCC, he came in uncle-style of polo t n pants with slipper looks like a mechanic, drive a proton saga

Overseas

https://mothership.sg/2020/08/malaysian-drive-old-proton/ Hi, I'm Ken. This is my experience of a 27 years old Malaysian guy on driving an old Proton car in year 2020. Ever since graduating from my university on 3 years ago, I've been driving this car as my daily car. Time to sell this old Proton for a new car that is more suitable for someone of my age? Not yet. The car I'm driving is just a 1999 Proton Saga Iswara 1.3 Aeroback. An old car that is as normal as you can get in Malaysia. Not a BMW, Lexus, Audi, Nissan GT-R or any other luxury cars. Owning a new car in Malaysia can be expensive considering the price of a new car per average monthly income ratio. By average, I would say it is easily over RM500 per month for the upkeep of a new car in Malaysia even if it is an entry level car. By average, what was needed for the upkeep of this Proton Saga Iswara per month would be around RM300, inclusive of fuel, maintenance and any random repairs. Yup, that would be around RM3600 per year and it should roughly be enough to keep my car running for a year. It doesn't demand repair every single month of course and those are the months that I can save up more. What have I learned from driving a 21 years old Proton as my daily car? Well, at first during my early days of driving it, I do get a lot of negative feedback from it as it was in quite a poor condition before I restored it. Many recommended me to take up a car loan for a new car instead of wasting my money to fix up this Proton Saga. It is a good thing that I din't or else I would still be paying at least RM500 per month for the 9 years car loan installment at this moment. I haven't even include the costs for fuel and the yearly insurance costs which isn't cheap for a new car. My current income is eligible to sign up for a RM50k to RM60k car loan from a bank but why spend so much per month to pay for a new car that I use as a daily point A to B transport? Not only that, a car value depreciates quickly per year, even faster than the amount that you are paying in a year for some cars. Say if I buy a car for RM60k under a 9 years loan, by the time I finished repaying the loan, the car is probably worth only RM20k by then. RM40k lost in depreciation and I have not even factor in the amount that I've lost in paying interest rates to the bank. Instead of tying myself up under a loan commitment, I'm better off driving this old Proton Saga and save up all the extra money per month. What I can get with the extra money would be flexibility as it can be invested, given to family, saved up for the future, for property, etc. Obviously compared to my similarly aged peers, I look like the sad poor guy who drives an outdated old Proton Saga that his family handed it down to him when others are driving shiny brand new cars with latest technology. Some will even say that I am risking my life because of the poor safety features in this car. Hmm, does that mean that motorcycle riders are battling against life and death daily as they ride out? Or maybe your parents or the older generations are risking their lives too during a few decades ago when they are driving cars like this? I can't say there is a 100% guarantee in road safety regardless of what car that you are driving but having a nearly empty bank account per month due to high commitments is a guaranteed risk in personal finance management.

source: https://paultan.org/2021/09/01/gallery-2021-proton-persona-1-6-premium-rm56k/?utm_source=featuredpostsdesktop-gallery-2021-proton-persona-1-6-premium-rm56k&utm_medium=internallinks&utm_campaign=internallinks The Proton Persona was officially unveiled its latest facelift guise early last month, though due to pandemic restrictions at the time, it is only now that we can bring you live images of the national carmaker’s once again revised B-segment sedan. Here it is, in visual detail. The example photographed here is the top 1.6 Premium CVT, to give its variant name, and is priced at RM55,800 on-the-road excluding insurance. Under the skin is a 1,597 cc naturally aspirated engine that produces 109 PS at 5,750 rpm and 150 Nm of torque at 4,000 rpm and mated to a continously variable transmission driving the front wheels. Its front end receives the latest Proton emblem located within a redesigned grille, paired with LED headlamps on this range-topping Premium variant. Its front bumper has also been brought up to date with a refresh, and LED daytime running lights continue to be located at the bumper insert panels. At the rear, changes that identify the 2022 model-year facelift are more reserved and still closely resemble the previous iteration, here bringing darkened tail lamp housings, and the rear bumper’s lower section wear a similar design to that of its predecessor, which was itself a facelift in 2019. Rolling stock on the 2022 Persona in this Premium trim is a set of 16-inch alloy wheels in a dual tone finish, shod in tyres measuring 185/55R16. The middle Executive trim variant gets the same wheel design in a plain finish. The interior gets the lion’s share of revisions in this facelift, and the Premium variant is differentiated here with brown leatherette upholstery whereas the Executive and Standard variants get fabric trim instead. Front and centre with the most prominent interior update is the freestanding eight-inch infotainment screen that now sits above the horizontal air-conditioning vents, whereas the screen was previously between vertical vents. Exclusive to the Premium variant in 2022 Persona range is the “Hi Proton” voice command function, while adding navigation, music streaming, weather forecasts as well as 4G and Wi-Fi connectivity. Safety kit in the 2022 Persona 1.6 Premium CVT is comprised of six airbags (front, side and curtain), plus two rear parking sensors added from the Executive variant onwards. Standard across the board are ABS, EBD, brake assist, stability control, traction control and hill hold assist. These culminate in a five-star Asean NCAP rating for the 2022 Persona and the related Iriz, based on testing conducted under the 2017-2020 protocol. Last but not least, the 2022 Proton Persona gets a choice of six exterior colours, of which five are available for the Premium variant. This is the Premium-exclusive Space Grey finish photographed here, and others also available for the range-topper are Snow White, Armour Silver, Rosewood Maroon and Ruby Red.

Lotus,hmmm,Made in British,owned by Proton & now in Chinese Hand,i wonder Engine still use Toyota Unit.?

U hv a Proton? Rarest thing on sg roads

Many camry unkers aunties retired so less common now Vezel is the new proton of SG...!

People really look at that classic merc and think it's a "piece of junk"? I mean if it's an old rusty toyota or proton with peeling paint maybe can understand la. How can that classic merc be a piece of junk unless they are deliberating trolling...