On Feb 27, 2011, at 5:44 PM, John Sessoms wrote: > From: frank theriault > >> On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Paul Stenquist >> <[email protected]> wrote: <snip> It was also necessary due to >> onerous obligations to the union. >> >> Heaven forbid we should pay workers a fair wage... >> >>>> Many of those agreements were made at a time when the Detroit >>>> automakers monopolized the U.S. car market. The union would >>>> strike, and the automakers would give them whatever they wanted >>>> and roll it into the price of the cars. That usually meant taking >>>> quality out. >>>> >> Hey, don't blame the unions for the decision of the automakers to >> make lousy cars. They ~could~ have said, "We'll just keep making the >> best cars we can, whatever the price may be (or even better, at a >> reduced profit), because the consumer doesn't mind spending a fair >> price for a quality product." >> >> But no, they thought more about short term gain than long-term >> customer satisfaction. The consumers (not such a stupid lot after >> all) voted with their feet. They bought foreign quality, even well >> after the price gap between domestic and foreign was minimal to nil. >> >> The other thing you're not factoring into the equation is how >> Detroit handled the rising price of fuel in the 70's along with >> government enforced safety and pollution standards. (which standards >> wouldn't have been necessary if Detroit had "done the right thing" >> all along and made safe, clean cars). Detroit's downfall began when >> they stopped doing what they did best (front-engined >> rear-wheel-drive vehicles) and tried to out-Japanese the Japanese >> with small cars that were simply pieces of crap. Can you say >> "Firenza"? >> > > I'll differ with you on some points here. You're blaming the engineers for > the failings of the bean counters. > > GM did have quality issues for a short time in the early 80s, but those were > fairly rapidly overcome. What they were not able to overcome was the > perception of quality issues that lingered long after GM corrected them. > > And GM's problems with rising fuel prices, safety and pollution standards > stem not from trying to "out-Japanese the Japanese" with small cars, but from > trying to avoid the standards altogether by concentrating on SUVs. > > The "light truck" segment kept GM afloat for a while because they were > subject to lesser requirements in those areas and were therefore more > profitable to manufacture. > > But when the crunch came and fuel prices spiked to the point consumers could > no longer ignore the low fuel efficiency of SUVs, GM had neither the > alternative models in the pipeline nor the experience to draw upon to make > the necessary transition. > > Compare GM to Ford, who *did* try to compete with the imports in the small to > medium size market. Despite Ford's own problems with the (temporary) collapse > of the SUV market, Ford faced neither bankruptcy, nor needed government > bail-outs because they had alternative lines in production that allowed them > to weather the storm. > > The largest segment of the "import" market is the mid-sized luxury sedan. > That's an area where GM should be able to compete. It is, after all, their > area of traditional expertise. > > And most of those "imports" are actually manufactured here in the U.S. (and > under NAFTA, Canada and Mexico). Additionally, many of the "import" > manufacturers have cooperative or co-manufacturing agreements with the U.S. > "Big Three". > > Only Fiat and Chrysler are cooperating to any significant level, and that of course is brand new. GM and Toyota abandoned their partnership effort quite a few years ago, and Ford no longer has any substantial interest in Mazda. Mazda is currently using some of the same platforms Ford used on their last generation. Ford is now a full generation ahead of Mazda in platform development.
GM's new Cruze is very competitive with the best of the small imports: http://www.nytimes.com/pages/automobiles/index.html Paul > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3470 - Release Date: 02/26/11 > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
