America's Best Car Company

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Fortune via CNNMoney

As the story of the tarnished Crown hints, nothing was inevitable about Toyota's success. It has managed to survive discriminatory taxes, import restraints, and the occasional xenophobic hissy fit - U.S. workers taking sledgehammers to imported cars - to become something of a model citizen.
Good products, reasonable prices and foresight . . .

There's no question that coming in fresh, Toyota had some advantages over Detroit: It was unburdened by retiree obligations, union contracts that had been bid up over decades, and brands like Oldsmobile that refused to make money (or die). And yes, it was lucky to have small cars ready to sell when the first oil shocks hit in the 1970s.
Naturally, the 'blame the unions' crowd will find that excuse all encompassing. A more telling reason . . . how many brands has GM terminated, divested, or sold in the past decade? Good products at a reasonable price soothes a lot of ills.

One way Toyota reads the public mind is the think tank at Toyota Motor Sales in Torrance, Calif., where a research department staffed by 116 people monitors the industry and keeps tabs on demographic and economic developments. Its mission: to predict consumer trends and create a lineup of cars and trucks to capitalize on them.
The GM and Ford version . . . 'take the last redesign . . . add more chrome.'

To show that it was serious, Toyota decided to build a brand-new plant dedicated to this model in San Antonio. Far from normal transportation routes, the location is difficult logistically, but it did plop Toyota in the heart of truck country - and in a big, powerful state.
---
The latter is emphatically no coincidence. Beginning in 1988, when it started production in its first assembly plant in Georgetown, Ky., Toyota has been careful to locate each new assembly plant in a different state, partly to maximize congressional clout. "It is better to be spread as broadly as we can be spread," says Josephine Cooper, who runs Toyota's Washington, D.C., office. Toyota has no political action committee, but it has built an effective lobbying operation.
Less 'right to work' and more 'knowing which states have pols for sale . . . that they don't already own.'

In this sense Toyota can look as American as baseball, hot dogs, apple pie - and yes, Chevrolet. But in terms of how it's managed, that is not quite the case. Every U.S. function - sales and marketing, R&D, manufacturing - reports to Japan. U.S. managers sometimes endure 20-hour roundtrip flights to attend a single meeting. Japanese "coordinators" in the U.S. shadow each operation and make their own reports to headquarters. Organizationally it looks like a nightmare, but somehow the two-language, two-culture hybrid works.
Good management . . . good management . . . good management

The dramatic failure of any of the Detroit Three would destabilize the industry - and make Toyota the villain. "The most important management task at Toyota these days," says auto consultant Jim Womack, "is to manage the decline of the domestics."
The primary problems with the Detroit Three were not unionized labor or government regulations. The problem was always at the top . . . poor management. For decades, if you needed a good work truck, the Detroit 3 could deliver . . . exclusively. Despite their claims to the contrary, it looks like Toyota wants to take the last pot that the Detroit 3 had to micturate in.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
The primary problems with the Detroit Three were not unionized labor or government regulations. The problem was always at the top . . . poor management. For decades, if you needed a good work truck, the Detroit 3 could deliver . . . exclusively. Despite their claims to the contrary, it looks like Toyota wants to take the last pot that the Detroit 3 had to micturate in.
You forgot to factor in that quality is a significant component of the Toyota Production System, one that blurs the line between management and hourly wage employees on the production line.

Any employee on the assembly line can stop it for quality issues, resulting in a rapid response from management and engineering to resolve the problem. Empowering employees to control quality has consistently allowed Toyota to avoid the embarrassing recalls and rework operating costs that continue to plague American car companies. Toyota also cross trains its employees to serve multiple functions, thereby increasing job satisfaction and productivity.

American companies have been unable to mirror this process because of the barrier that exists between union and management...unions don't want cross training, because it eliminates job security through exclusive job codes and seniority...similarly, both unions and management are to blame for not breaking down the barriers between them to create a true quality driven organization.

Unions are not to blame for the woes of American car companies, but they are part of the equation.
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,313
534
126
The reason that Toyota is where it is at today is because of delayed gratification and not pursuing immediate profits at the expense of the future.

The cliff note, best bang for the buck, what have you done for me lately (stock wise) mentality is what is hurting American companies in the car business today, constantly looking for immediate gains.

It is a cultural problem that is present in both unions and management who look out for number one (themselves) at the expense of everything else as long as they get theirs.

Here is a long article in newsweek that explains this better and how Hiroshi Okuda's long term strategy and vision from 1995 is paying off today.

Why Toyota Is Becoming the World?s Top Carmaker

Why Toyota Is Becoming the World?s Top Carmaker
Toyota is on track to pass General Motors this year as the world's No. 1 auto company. How GM plans to fight back.
By Keith Naughton and Allan Sloan
Newsweek

March 12, 2007 issue - General Motors and Toyota were once neck-and-neck when it came to developing high-mileage gasoline-electric hybrid cars. About a decade ago, you see, both firms had cracked the code on how to engineer a hybrid, and GM even had a running prototype. But the new technology was so costly that the automakers would have had to initially sell hybrids at a loss to build a market for them. The differing paths the two companies took symbolize why Toyota has become wildly profitable in the United States while GM has been losing its shirt in its home market. And why Toyota, riding GM's bumper, is likely to pass it this year to become the world's biggest car company.

To GM, selling hybrids at a loss didn't make business sense. So it took a pass. To Toyota, hybrids looked like a reasonable bet on the future. It developed the Prius, selling it at a loss for years (by all accounts except its own). Today, the Prius is eking out a small profit for Toyota in the United States. Vastly more important, it's the hottest hybrid on the market and provides a halo for Toyota, making it appear to be the world's greenest carmaker even as it rolls out gas-guzzling trucks. GM, meanwhile, is playing catch-up and defending itself from allegations that its Hummer SUV melts the planet. "We made a bad decision," GM vice chairman Bob Lutz now says. "Being known as the technology laggard is not conducive to selling automobiles."

In addition to taking different technological paths, Toyota and GM have taken different approaches toward expansion in the U.S. market. Toyota last week announced plans to build a $1.3 billion assembly plant, its eighth in North America, in Elvis Land: Tupelo, Miss. "No company since Henry Ford has grown production at the rate Toyota is," says economist Sean McAlinden of the Center for Automotive Research. GM, by contrast, is closing U.S. plants. It's also overhauling its models to make them more stylish and fuel-efficient. While GM achieved a surprising 3.4 percent increase in sales last month, its biggest expansion hopes hang on a possible purchase of money-losing Chrysler, whose problems are very much like GM's own.

What's at stake here goes miles beyond a battle between two automakers. After all, nearly 900,000 Americans work in the auto industry?the largest chunk still for the Detroit Three?and the car business accounts for nearly 4 percent of the nation's GDP. For the United States and Japan, GM and Toyota are trophy corporations that have been protagonists in a long-running national rivalry. The winner of this race could determine who drives the global economy in the 21st century.

You've heard plenty about the differences between GM and Toyota when it comes to jobs, carbon emissions, pensions and health-care costs. But it all boils down to a simple bit of math: Toyota makes cars for less than it costs GM, and it gets to sell them at a higher price than GM does.



It's taken 50 years for Toyota to reach this point?but, then, staying power and the "Toyota Way" philosophy of continuous improvement are what the automaker is all about. Since introducing the tinny, 60-horsepower Toyopet Crown in the United States (1957 sales: 288), Toyota has built a rock-solid reputation for producing reliable cars. It achieved that by investing in bulletproof quality, advanced technology and high-mileage engines. It developed a superefficient manufacturing method, known as the Toyota Production System, that relentlessly roots out waste and builds in quality. (Workers stop the line thousands of times a day to make sure no glitch gets through.) It is emulated the world over and slavishly copied by GM. Toyota didn't dump cars into airport rental lots just to keep its factories rolling, as GM did. The result: a virtuous cycle that gives Toyota models topnotch resale value. After three years, Toyota's models retain 52 percent of their value, versus 43 percent for GM, according to the Automotive Lease Guide. That's a big reason the Toyota Camry has been America's favorite car for the past five years, outselling GM's No. 1 car, the Chevy Impala, by 35 percent in 2006.

For its part, GM, like its Motown cohorts, went for a bigger-is-better strategy, boosting the horsepower and heft of its models over the past 20 years. Sales of those big rigs tanked when gas prices soared above $3 last year. GM also undermined the resale value of its models by overproducing them and giving them away at fire-sale prices. That flawed strategy wrecked GM's reputation, and allows Toyota to sell its cars at a premium of $1,600 apiece relative to GM, according to auto researcher the Harbour-Felax Group. Compounding the problem, GM gave its union workers generous benefits that cost the automaker $73 billion over the past decade. That's money GM could have spent making its models better than Toyota's. In fact, it's such a vast sum that it equals nearly 10 years' worth of R&D budgets, GM execs say. Health-care costs alone add $1,200 to the cost of each car GM builds in the United States. By contrast, Toyota's health-care costs are about $200 per car. The upshot: Toyota has a stunning $1,800 profit-per-car advantage over GM in the United States, says Harbour-Felax.

Toyota is reaping the benefits of an ambitious growth strategy it launched in 1995. That's when Hiroshi Okuda became the first non-Toyoda family member to run the company and did away with a tradition of "cooperative competition," which meant keeping a respectful distance behind GM. Instead, Okuda did the unthinkable: he went public with an audacious target to capture first 10 percent of the global car market, and then 15 percent. Toyota blew past both goals, achieving the 15 percent milestone last year, four years ahead of schedule.

Now Toyota is marshaling its most formidable asset: its phenomenal wealth. It's on track to make a record profit of $13 billion this year, most of that earned in the United States, where it now sells more cars than it does in Japan. As a result of its enormous profits, Toyota has $36 billion of cash on hand and a stock-market value of more than $200 billion. That's 12 times what GM shares are worth. And Toyota drives that money right back into its cars, outspending GM for the past two years. As a result, Toyota will replace 83 percent of its product line by the end of the decade? the most new models of any automaker, according to Merrill Lynch.



GM, meantime, is trying to reverse-engineer its losing approach. It's reducing its dependence on guzzlers by rolling out a parade of hybrids and crossover utility vehicles. Over the past year, GM has cut $9 billion in costs, much of it through a wrenching downsizing that eliminated 33,000 jobs. That helped GM earn an estimated profit of $2.5 billion last year, after losing $10.6 billion in 2005. GM is also boosting its budget for new models by about $1 billion this year. Execs are ratcheting up the rhetoric. "I don't view Toyota as an insurmountable obstacle that GM can't vanquish," says Lutz.

More significantly, GM is showing a new willingness to roll the dice in its dalliance with Chrysler. Neither GM nor DaimlerChrysler will comment on or confirm the talks. Buying Chrysler would keep GM ahead of Toyota in vehicles sold, maintaining the leadership GM established in 1930, when it shot past the struggling Ford Motor. But analysts still see Toyota leaving GM in its rearview mirror. Auto researcher CSM Worldwide projects Toyota will edge past GM this year and, by 2013, will be outselling the American automaker by a score of 10.7 million vehicles to 8.9 million. That would give Toyota a nearly 2 million-vehicle lead over GM?which is roughly the number of autos Chrysler sold last year, and it plans to cut capacity. So buying Chrysler would only forestall the inevitable. GM's Chrysler courtship highlights another telling contrast: GM often tries quick fixes, while Toyota is known for consistency and a long-term focus. No surprise, then, that Toyota won't be among Chrysler's suitors. "I cannot find any benefit from buying [Chrysler]," Toyota executive vice president Tokuichi Uranishi told NEWSWEEK. "No synergy."

Toyota is trying to shut out all the hoopla over its rise to the top. "What we are worrying about is if our employees become arrogant or complacent, assuming we are No. 1," says Uranishi. Already, Toyota is experiencing what a Cadillac ad once called "the penalty of leadership." "Toyota is on the front page for everything we do now," says Toyota's executive vice president Jim Lentz. Lately, that's included bad press for a NASCAR cheating scandal and, most painfully, negative news about a rash of recalls. Headquarters is so worried about the quality problems that Toyota chairman Fujio Cho made a public apology in Japan last summer, complete with a deep bow. Now Toyota's leaders are tapping the brakes on its runaway expansion and tightening the screws on quality. "Without quality," says Uranishi, "there is no growth for Toyota."

GM chairman Rick Wagoner, no stranger to bad press, feels Toyota's pain. "We are becoming more alike than different," he told NEWSWEEK. He contends that the two giants will reach equilibrium, staying within a car length (or two) of each other. And though he didn't discuss Chrysler with NEWSWEEK, he described an auto industry that will continue to consolidate. "There can be more than one winner," says Wagoner. "Look at the cola business in the U.S. It used to be a lot of players, and now it's down to just two."



Toyota, however, has no intention of letting up. Its steroidal new pickup truck, designed on a theme Toyota calls "the power of the fist," could be the knockout blow to Detroit's last bastion. An entire generation grew up with Toyota cars, from Corolla to Camry to Lexus, but traditional truckers spurned its pickups as wimpy. Now the new Tundra has been supersized and stuffed with a big V-8 engine. Toyota expects to double its pickup sales, thanks to buyers like Ray McCrary, who just traded in a three-week-old GMC pickup for a Tundra. "I'm one of those good ole boys who never thought about buying a Toyota truck because you thought it was a toy," says McCrary, of Memphis. "But after I drove that Tundra, I just had to have it. It handles like a car, but it's built like a truck."

Plenty of good ole boys are making those Tundras at Toyota's new $1.28 billion pickup plant, situated on a sprawling former ranch in San Antonio, Texas. There's a giant Lone Star over the entrance and a Texas flag flapping in the breeze. Inside, though, the Toyota Production System is hard at work. A traffic jam of honking "tuggers" pulls racks full of parts to the assembly line, where every 63 seconds a shiny new pickup rolls off. "A plant in Texas is a brilliant strategy," says Citigroup auto analyst Jon Rogers. "Toyota is putting their future customers to work." One of them is Bruno Garcia, 35, who stamps out Tundra body panels by day but drives home in a Ford pickup. "I was one of those guys who would rather push a Ford than drive a Chevy," he says. "But I'm going to buy a Tundra, and I'll try to convert my Dad as soon as his Dodge dies."

Completing the circle, GM's trying to go green while Toyota's making macho. GM has given the go-ahead to the 150-miles-per-gallon Chevy Volt plug-in hybrid that lit up the Detroit Auto Show this year. It's proceeding despite the fact that the batteries needed to run the Volt haven't really been invented, or at least perfected, yet. But GM R&D chief Larry Burns is confident the batteries will be ready in time for the Volt to hit the road in about four years. Burns now wishes GM hadn't killed the plug-in hybrid EV1 prototype his engineers had on the road a decade ago: "If we could turn back the hands of time," says Burns, "we could have had the Chevy Volt 10 years earlier." Just like that old prototype, the Volt won't generate immediate profits. But times have changed. "We're the underdog now," explains GM VP Mark LaNeve. "So you're more willing to take risks." Better late than never.


 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,833
2,620
136
I know I'm only a sample of one, but the only Toyota I've ever owned (Sienna minivan) has had far more defects, bugs and annoyances than the Dodge minivan it replaced. It's possible some day I MIGHT buy another Toyota, but I'm certainly not going to seek them out or pay the premium that Toyotas (and Hondas) so often command in the marketplace.
 

bigdog1218

Golden Member
Mar 7, 2001
1,674
2
0
This might have been news 6-7 years ago when Toyota was at the top of their game. Today Toyota makes mediocre cars at best and continues to decline. Hyundai now is where Toyota was a decade ago, making affordable, reliable cars.
 

GroundedSailor

Platinum Member
Feb 18, 2001
2,502
0
76
Originally posted by: BarneyFife
Didn't Toyota lead all car companies in recalls last year?

Yes sometime in July or August they took over the no 1 spot in most cars recalled.



 

Orignal Earl

Diamond Member
Oct 27, 2005
8,059
55
86
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

American companies have been unable to mirror this process because of the barrier that exists between union and management...unions don't want cross training, because it eliminates job security through exclusive job codes and seniority...similarly, both unions and management are to blame for not breaking down the barriers between them to create a true quality driven organization.

Unions are not to blame for the woes of American car companies, but they are part of the equation.

I work in a Steelworker shop. We practice Lean manufacturing, I move between three departments as needed

We're Lean We're Mean We Are the United Steelworkers of America

 

ntdz

Diamond Member
Aug 5, 2004
6,989
0
0
I fail to see how a company that's not even number one in it's industry conquered it's industry.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
I mostly agree with what babydoc has to say on this, but unions have played a part in the demise of the big 3, but management has certantly had their share of problems.

The big 3 lacked flexible manufacturing, so when the gas prices shot up, they were stuck trying the sell suvs, that were no longer hot sellers. Ford for example, the expedition shared few parts with the f-150 up until this model year. Now they come off the same line with >80% shared parts. Had it been this way from the start, the fall off of sub sales would not have hurt nearly as bad. Was this the fault of engineering? management? or unions trying to keep headcount up and more shops open. I doubt we will ever know where the blame for such problems lie.

It does appear that GM and ford appear ready to make a come back. They have both improved their product lines and quality over the years. Ford new v-6 promises to be quite good pushing more 265HP on regular gas. They also have direct injection version with turbochargers that push 400HP. V8 power, v6 economy. Cant wait to see these hitting the streets.

I welcome toyoto coming into the fullsize truck market. They are going to have prove themselves however.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: ntdz
I fail to see how a company that's not even number one in it's industry conquered it's industry.
In the same way that Apple gets all the buzz in the computer world, even though Microsoft is still much larger and in far more places.

Microsoft, like GM, is old and boring.
While Apple, and Toyota, are the new exciting people on the block.

BTW I'll take a Honda over a Toyota, better cars :)
 

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
15,471
7,992
136
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
The primary problems with the Detroit Three were not unionized labor or government regulations. The problem was always at the top . . . poor management. For decades, if you needed a good work truck, the Detroit 3 could deliver . . . exclusively. Despite their claims to the contrary, it looks like Toyota wants to take the last pot that the Detroit 3 had to micturate in.
You forgot to factor in that quality is a significant component of the Toyota Production System, one that blurs the line between management and hourly wage employees on the production line.

Any employee on the assembly line can stop it for quality issues, resulting in a rapid response from management and engineering to resolve the problem. Empowering employees to control quality has consistently allowed Toyota to avoid the embarrassing recalls and rework operating costs that continue to plague American car companies. Toyota also cross trains its employees to serve multiple functions, thereby increasing job satisfaction and productivity.

American companies have been unable to mirror this process because of the barrier that exists between union and management...unions don't want cross training, because it eliminates job security through exclusive job codes and seniority...similarly, both unions and management are to blame for not breaking down the barriers between them to create a true quality driven organization.

Unions are not to blame for the woes of American car companies, but they are part of the equation.
QFT :thumbsup: G1 starbuck

 

imported_Shivetya

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2005
2,978
1
0
Originally posted by: charrison

It does appear that GM and ford appear ready to make a come back. They have both improved their product lines and quality over the years. Ford new v-6 promises to be quite good pushing more 265HP on regular gas. They also have direct injection version with turbochargers that push 400HP. V8 power, v6 economy. Cant wait to see these hitting the streets.

I welcome toyoto coming into the fullsize truck market. They are going to have prove themselves however.

Anyone else see the problem there? Horsepower wars in a time when we should be concentrating on fuel economy and better methods to power cars?

Sorry, the Japanese have already played the horsepower wars and won. My Murano develops 260hp in a v6 with regular gas and the model has done so for 4+ years. My G35 did 300+ on premium. Hell you can get Maxima's that do 260 on regular for years.

The Americans are late to the market, again. Look at the Ford Edge. A crossover Ford needed 3 to 5 years ago. Now its out, overweight and overpriced. Nice looking machine but if I had to choose from it or a new Murano I wouldn't even think twice. Its not competitive.

If the American car makers want to take back the market they would jump all over alternative fuels and get a system to market. Both Ford and GM could trump the Japanese with such a system. Yet they won't. Toyota and Honda will dominate the alternative fuel systems.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Originally posted by: charrison

It does appear that GM and ford appear ready to make a come back. They have both improved their product lines and quality over the years. Ford new v-6 promises to be quite good pushing more 265HP on regular gas. They also have direct injection version with turbochargers that push 400HP. V8 power, v6 economy. Cant wait to see these hitting the streets.

I welcome toyoto coming into the fullsize truck market. They are going to have prove themselves however.

Anyone else see the problem there? Horsepower wars in a time when we should be concentrating on fuel economy and better methods to power cars?

Sorry, the Japanese have already played the horsepower wars and won. My Murano develops 260hp in a v6 with regular gas and the model has done so for 4+ years. My G35 did 300+ on premium. Hell you can get Maxima's that do 260 on regular for years.

The Americans are late to the market, again. Look at the Ford Edge. A crossover Ford needed 3 to 5 years ago. Now its out, overweight and overpriced. Nice looking machine but if I had to choose from it or a new Murano I wouldn't even think twice. Its not competitive.

If the American car makers want to take back the market they would jump all over alternative fuels and get a system to market. Both Ford and GM could trump the Japanese with such a system. Yet they won't. Toyota and Honda will dominate the alternative fuel systems.


Your wrong, check your owners manual. Nissan requires premium gas to get the HP rating. It will run on regular, but it does not get the rated HP. I ran my my nissan on regular for about 60k miles without a problem, but now it knocks unless it gets premium.

I agree the edge and the v-6 cyclone is late, but i know the cyclone is competitve. I have not checked to see how the edge stacks up to the competition, but it seems to selling well out of the gate.

And the HP wars are not all that dumb, as it will allow downsizing of engines.
 

Orignal Earl

Diamond Member
Oct 27, 2005
8,059
55
86
Originally posted by: tweaker2
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
The primary problems with the Detroit Three were not unionized labor or government regulations. The problem was always at the top . . . poor management. For decades, if you needed a good work truck, the Detroit 3 could deliver . . . exclusively. Despite their claims to the contrary, it looks like Toyota wants to take the last pot that the Detroit 3 had to micturate in.
You forgot to factor in that quality is a significant component of the Toyota Production System, one that blurs the line between management and hourly wage employees on the production line.

Any employee on the assembly line can stop it for quality issues, resulting in a rapid response from management and engineering to resolve the problem. Empowering employees to control quality has consistently allowed Toyota to avoid the embarrassing recalls and rework operating costs that continue to plague American car companies. Toyota also cross trains its employees to serve multiple functions, thereby increasing job satisfaction and productivity.

American companies have been unable to mirror this process because of the barrier that exists between union and management...unions don't want cross training, because it eliminates job security through exclusive job codes and seniority...similarly, both unions and management are to blame for not breaking down the barriers between them to create a true quality driven organization.

Unions are not to blame for the woes of American car companies, but they are part of the equation.
QFT :thumbsup: G1 starbuck

So even though I belong to the largest union in America and we practice all the things that Starbuck says we don't. Your just going to agree with him and quote him for truth
Weird, but alright
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Orignal Earl
Originally posted by: tweaker2
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
The primary problems with the Detroit Three were not unionized labor or government regulations. The problem was always at the top . . . poor management. For decades, if you needed a good work truck, the Detroit 3 could deliver . . . exclusively. Despite their claims to the contrary, it looks like Toyota wants to take the last pot that the Detroit 3 had to micturate in.
You forgot to factor in that quality is a significant component of the Toyota Production System, one that blurs the line between management and hourly wage employees on the production line.

Any employee on the assembly line can stop it for quality issues, resulting in a rapid response from management and engineering to resolve the problem. Empowering employees to control quality has consistently allowed Toyota to avoid the embarrassing recalls and rework operating costs that continue to plague American car companies. Toyota also cross trains its employees to serve multiple functions, thereby increasing job satisfaction and productivity.

American companies have been unable to mirror this process because of the barrier that exists between union and management...unions don't want cross training, because it eliminates job security through exclusive job codes and seniority...similarly, both unions and management are to blame for not breaking down the barriers between them to create a true quality driven organization.

Unions are not to blame for the woes of American car companies, but they are part of the equation.
QFT :thumbsup: G1 starbuck

So even though I belong to the largest union in America and we practice all the things that Starbuck says we don't. Your just going to agree with him and quote him for truth
Weird, but alright

Tell us about how the steel unions operated 20 years ago and how competition affected them? There were some ugly years for steel union because of competition, the same thing is happening to uaw right now. The uaw has to embrace lean manufacturing, more automation,lower headcount and more flexible work rules if they want to survive.
 

Orignal Earl

Diamond Member
Oct 27, 2005
8,059
55
86
Originally posted by: charrison

Tell us about how the steel unions operated 20 years ago and how competition affected them? There were some ugly years for steel union because of competition, the same thing is happening to uaw right now. The uaw has to embrace lean manufacturing, more automation,lower headcount and more flexible work rules if they want to survive.

Yep, 20 years was along time ago. Lots has changed, we can keep going back 20 more years pointing out faults on both sides
I had always thought the unions introduced Workers Comp but it was actually the Companies trying to save themselves from being sued every time a worker got hurt


I agree with your point on the uaw
 

Ryan

Lifer
Oct 31, 2000
27,519
2
81
Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
Originally posted by: BarneyFife
Didn't Toyota lead all car companies in recalls last year?

Yes sometime in July or August they took over the no 1 spot in most cars recalled.

AFAIK, Toyota ended up behind GM, and DCX in terms of the number of recalls issued. At the end of this thread at The Car Lounge, recall totals were discussed with a nice graph: http://forums.thecarlounge.net/zerothread?id=3114714

It shows GM and Ford making great quality increases, but still they have more than Toyota.
 

steppinthrax

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2006
3,990
6
81
Originally posted by: bigdog1218
This might have been news 6-7 years ago when Toyota was at the top of their game. Today Toyota makes mediocre cars at best and continues to decline. Hyundai now is where Toyota was a decade ago, making affordable, reliable cars.

Toyota still has a significant higher quality then some american cars. If you check Consumer reports 2007. The cars on the top for reliability and quaility are Toyota, Honda, Nissan etc.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Originally posted by: Thump553
I know I'm only a sample of one, but the only Toyota I've ever owned (Sienna minivan) has had far more defects, bugs and annoyances than the Dodge minivan it replaced. It's possible some day I MIGHT buy another Toyota, but I'm certainly not going to seek them out or pay the premium that Toyotas (and Hondas) so often command in the marketplace.

Not to defend Toyota but let's be honest . . . Chrysler/Dodge is pretty d@mn good at that minivan action. Then again, the Odyssey and Sienna have indeed crashed that party as well.

Arguably, Toyota's primary kink in the armor over the past few years has been their need to operate OVER capacity. You build a reputation for quality by building quality products. You profit by selling as many as possible . . . which means you build as many as possible. When quality and quantity clash . . . quality invariably loses. But I bet the top dogs at Toyota would be the first ones to admit their mistakes in pushing production beyond capacity.

Despite having only 4 makes (Toyota, Lexus, Scion . . . sort of Daihatsu??) Toyota will likely sell more cars globally than GM in 2007. A better analogy would be calling Toyota (Cathay Pacific) and GM (Delta). Toyota is Boeing and GM is Airbus . . .
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
I would like to say one thing. Unions do not run companies. Companies are mismanaged by management. That is how companies fail or succeed.
 

Rustican

Member
Feb 7, 2005
120
0
76
Originally posted by: piasabird
I would like to say one thing. Unions do not run companies. Companies are mismanaged by management. That is how companies fail or succeed.


I'd like to say that when companies realize there is a problem and the business has to be restructured to remain alive/competitive, negotiating with unions to accept new changes slows down if not stops the reorganization process entirely.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Originally posted by: Rustican
Originally posted by: piasabird
I would like to say one thing. Unions do not run companies. Companies are mismanaged by management. That is how companies fail or succeed.


I'd like to say that when companies realize there is a problem and the business has to be restructured to remain alive/competitive, negotiating with unions to accept new changes slows down if not stops the reorganization process entirely.

Management: We've horribly misjudged the market. Our products are not innovative enough to sell at a premium nor competitive enough to sell without huge discounts. Our focus on short-term gains (for shareholders) at the expense of competent long-term strategic planning and execution has left us with few options:

1) layoff much of the workforce
2) significant salary cuts
3) reduction in benefits
4) salary cuts, revoking shares, and firing of management responsible for the problems in the first place

Ignore that last one . . . some kind of weird typo.


Ford and GM have been steaming towards an iceberg for MANY years. You avoid the iceberg by turning EARLY not by throwing people overboards and hoping that you only hit the tip.
 

GroundedSailor

Platinum Member
Feb 18, 2001
2,502
0
76
Originally posted by: Ryan
Originally posted by: GroundedSailor
Originally posted by: BarneyFife
Didn't Toyota lead all car companies in recalls last year?

Yes sometime in July or August they took over the no 1 spot in most cars recalled.

AFAIK, Toyota ended up behind GM, and DCX in terms of the number of recalls issued. At the end of this thread at The Car Lounge, recall totals were discussed with a nice graph: http://forums.thecarlounge.net/zerothread?id=3114714

It shows GM and Ford making great quality increases, but still they have more than Toyota.
Yes but that list only covers US recalls. The No 1 spot was for total number of vehicles worldwide.