Short GM article......sentiments all about *MANAGEMENT*...

[redgtxdi]

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/P136968.asp?GT1=7390

After much to do about GM deciding against bakruptcy and instead choosing major cuts & layoffs, I was surprised to read this headline at first. I don't know much about this Robert Walbert but he seems to be hitting the nail on the head with regards to GM (and Fords?) future.

I know that Ford is gonna get a big kick in the pants here in the near future as their new Explorer seems to be destined for stardom............BUT...........

ONLY if gas prices stay on the low side. I went from spending $3.10 for gas in September to paying $2.29 for gas on my Tday's weekend road trip this week.

There's also talk in the article of GM goin' to the Feds to whine for help.

While I think it's good to ask for help sometimes, I think in this case GM needs to simply do what people are telling them to do. REVAMP MANAGEMENT!!!!!!

Toyota's been showing them how to make cars........(good cars)......now for...........ehhhh.......I'll say starting the Camry/Accord crazy days........let's say 15 years. (I'm sure lots will argue since the 80's, but I'm gonna be generous).

I, personally, have more hope in Ford than in GM, but I'm not overly proud of either in the last 15 years.

I heard somebody mention in another car forum/article/blog that theAmerican car will be like the American TV. We don't make 'em anymore & who cares. Well.................to that I'd like to say that I think Detroit has a little more pride and certainly a longer bloodline in automaking than solid state circuitry. I really hope we don't give up Detroit muscle that easily.

😕

 

[TRUMPHENT]

Wasn't the Saturn supposed to be the New GM? Brand new plants, new designs and all new organization? I guess if you scratch the paint on a Saturn you still see GM is the same.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: TRUMPHENT
Wasn't the Saturn supposed to be the New GM? Brand new plants, new designs and all new organization? I guess if you scratch the paint on a Saturn you still see GM is the same.

They fell down on the job. Honda didn't roll out the Civic and say, "this is as good as it gets . . . deal with it." Saturn had real potential but GM didn't really believe in Saturn. They did not seek to substantially improve upon the R&D of vehicles or in manufacturing them. Most of that money went towards the umpteen different iterations that GM has of trucks and SUVs.

Various supply-side apologists will blame unions, pensions, and healthcare costs for the problems at GM and Ford but here's one word for them . . . Solstice. Although GM is late to the small roadster party, the Solstice looks like a stud. It might even eat the Miata's lunch after the rough edges are resolved. The Saturn Sky should sell well, too. In essence, build a good product, price it appropriately, and people will buy it . . . a lot of it. Invest a little money into making it better (every other year or so), charge more for it, and people will buy even more of them. Repeat and reap the rewards.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: TRUMPHENT
Wasn't the Saturn supposed to be the New GM? Brand new plants, new designs and all new organization? I guess if you scratch the paint on a Saturn you still see GM is the same.

They fell down on the job. Honda didn't roll out the Civic and say, "this is as good as it gets . . . deal with it." Saturn had real potential but GM didn't really believe in Saturn. They did not seek to substantially improve upon the R&D of vehicles or in manufacturing them. Most of that money went towards the umpteen different iterations that GM has of trucks and SUVs.

Various supply-side apologists will blame unions, pensions, and healthcare costs for the problems at GM and Ford but here's one word for them . . . Solstice. Although GM is late to the small roadster party, the Solstice looks like a stud. It might even eat the Miata's lunch after the rough edges are resolved. The Saturn Sky should sell well, too. In essence, build a good product, price it appropriately, and people will buy it . . . a lot of it. Invest a little money into making it better (every other year or so), charge more for it, and people will buy even more of them. Repeat and reap the rewards.

Currently GM is losing $1500/vehicle due to labor costs, pensions and such. That is a bit of hard problem to make up with volume. It does not help that UAW takes 25% more manhours to put a car together than foriegn plants in the US.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Good that you arrived on cue, charrison.😉

I have a different perspective. If GM and Ford didn't have to beg consumers to buy their vehicles (at a substantial discount), then the costs of pensions/healthcare wouldn't be such a strain.

Further, "informed" societies have enough sense to provide universal healthcare, thereby freeing up ALL industries to focus on making products (and profits) instead of operating as de facto HMOs.

plant efficiency isn't a good explanation for GM woes

OSHAWA, ONT., TORONTO -- Employees at General Motors of Canada Ltd.'s sprawling Oshawa factory learned a harsh lesson yesterday as layoffs hit North America's largest car manufacturer. No matter how productive the company's Canadian plants are, the financial woes at the struggling U.S. auto giant are now too deep to escape.
---
The Oshawa plants are among the most efficient in North America -- ahead of several Toyota and Honda operations -- and form Canada's largest auto manufacturing site.

Obviously, hard working and intelligent Canadians aren't the same as typical American UAW members, but it highlights the point that efficiency is far from the primary problem. GM's most pressing issue is that nobody wants to pay for their products.

The company will chop 1,000 jobs at the Oshawa No. 1 plant, maker of Chevy Impalas and Monte Carlos, by eliminating one of its shifts. The Oshawa No. 2 plant, which manufactures the Pontiac Grand Prix and the Buick LaCrosse and Allure models, will lose both of its shifts by the end of 2008, leading to 2,750 layoffs.

Healthcare costs are a problem in the US, but if that was the primary problem MORE jobs should be going to Canada, eh?

Although UAW rules certainly contribute to inefficiency, the fact that domestics do quite well in some areas (production of rear drive trannies, V8 engines, etc) is proof that "effort" from the top down has a far more dramatic effect.

 

[dahunan]

I have not read the thread.. just adding in some info.. I was looking for a car on ebay and noticed that many chevy's have horrible horrible resale value..

1998 Blazers that sold for around $30,000 are only selling for around $3000 - $4500 now .. but a comparable Passport or 4 Runner sells for about 8 - 10,000

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: dahunan
I have not read the thread.. just adding in some info.. I was looking for a car on ebay and noticed that many chevy's have horrible horrible resale value..

1998 Blazers that sold for around $30,000 are only selling for around $3000 - $4500 now .. but a comparable Passport or Four Runner sells for about 8 - 10,000

Well, simply put . . . even in "good times" domestic automakers had to incentivize the purchase of their vehicles. Combined with the lower quality/features, discounted prices conspire to lower resale value. It's a vicious cycle, because even newer vehicles that have made substantial improvements in quality, features, etc are shackled to the reputations of prior products.

Obviously, GM made pretty good money on Trailblazers . . . past and present. But it's likely that party is over. But instead of building something that people really want and are willing to pay MRSP for . . . GM insists on building 20 different vehicles off that platform and then sell them with $4000 discounts.

 

[OrganizedChaos]

either GM or fords needs to get off there butt and come out with a stylish but cheap ultra-reliable car with a 4 cylinder turbo-diesel.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Good that you arrived on cue, charrison.😉

I have a different perspective. If GM and Ford didn't have to beg consumers to buy their vehicles (at a substantial discount), then the costs of pensions/healthcare wouldn't be such a strain.

The discount wouldnt matter if they didnt lose money on every car they sell. Discount of 0 or 4000, as long as you make money on it it becomes an irrelevant point how much you discount it.
On the other hand, if your losing money regardless if you give a discount or not you have a major problem.

Further, "informed" societies have enough sense to provide universal healthcare, thereby freeing up ALL industries to focus on making products (and profits) instead of operating as de facto HMOs.

Oh nice. A "hold my hand and change my diaper" liberal. How about we leave politics out?
The simply fact is, health care costs are ALWAYS paid by someone. In America the primary payer is the individual/employer. In some other countries its the government.
But that doesnt come free, something those living there convienently forget to mention.
Those governments dont give away free healthcare. They pay your healthcare, you pay them back in the form of taxes. Theres a reason Europe pays 5 times what we pay for gas and it isnt because they use a higher octane. Its to support the social programs.

plant efficiency isn't a good explanation for GM woes

OSHAWA, ONT., TORONTO -- Employees at General Motors of Canada Ltd.'s sprawling Oshawa factory learned a harsh lesson yesterday as layoffs hit North America's largest car manufacturer. No matter how productive the company's Canadian plants are, the financial woes at the struggling U.S. auto giant are now too deep to escape.
---
The Oshawa plants are among the most efficient in North America -- ahead of several Toyota and Honda operations -- and form Canada's largest auto manufacturing site.

Obviously, hard working and intelligent Canadians aren't the same as typical American UAW members, but it highlights the point that efficiency is far from the primary problem. GM's most pressing issue is that nobody wants to pay for their products.

The company will chop 1,000 jobs at the Oshawa No. 1 plant, maker of Chevy Impalas and Monte Carlos, by eliminating one of its shifts. The Oshawa No. 2 plant, which manufactures the Pontiac Grand Prix and the Buick LaCrosse and Allure models, will lose both of its shifts by the end of 2008, leading to 2,750 layoffs.

Healthcare costs are a problem in the US, but if that was the primary problem MORE jobs should be going to Canada, eh?

Compare those numbers again. If GM lays off 2000 Canadian workers and 30,000 American workers, whos taking a bigger hit?

Although UAW rules certainly contribute to inefficiency, the fact that domestics do quite well in some areas (production of rear drive trannies, V8 engines, etc) is proof that "effort" from the top down has a far more dramatic effect.

Or it could be because those successful domestics arent hindered by the UAW........

Not to say that management changes arent needed at GM, but I think your understating the worker/union/healthcare issue by a fairly large amount.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

It's amazing how uninformative a long post can be . . .

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
It's amazing how uninformative a long post can be . . .

So you admit your too stupid to see where your wrong.
Fair nuff.

 

[sandorski]

The whole "fault of Unions/Agreements" arguement falls flat on its' face when one fact is taken into account: Despite undercutting the competition in Price, GM/Ford continue to lose Marketshare. Their Products don't suffer due to their High Price, they suffer because the US Consumer is willing to pay a Higher Price for their Competitors vehicles. This wasn't so bad when GM/Ford could charge a Premium for SUVs, but with increased Gas Prices and increased Competition they are now losing that Cash Cow as well.

The business philosophy between the Big 3 and Foreign Competitors is also a major reason for these differences. GM/Ford don't look beyond a couple years and many have said they barely look beyond the Current Quarter to make Business decisions. OTOH, Japanese and other Foreign competitors look Years into the future basing their decisions on longterm trends and such. Short term thinking hits the occassional Jackpot, but in the end, Longterm thinking will prevail.

That all said, sure, if Unions, Retirees, and whomever else decided to make concessions to GM/Ford they'd have a better chance of survival. However, that doesn't mean that those groups have anything to do with GM's/Ford's problems, they just happen to be those who will suffer most from failures in management, like most of the time management fails.

I predict in 10 years the Big Three will be history, if they truly still exist now since Chrysler merged with Mercedes(err, Daimler). GM/Ford will probably shrink to Niche Market Producers or just Medium sized players in a market dominated by Toyota/Honda. GM/Ford may hold their Foreign Properties, if they can afford to, if they do those properties will likely be their major source of Income. Wouldn't surprise me at all if they completely abandone Branding Products in their own name and just become entities managing their Foreign Holdings, but I've reached far enough on that one. 😉

 

[Stunt]

GM is much further ahead than Ford with regards to lean manufacturing and production practices. The problem with GM is their severe overlap in product offerings. It seems like they half-ass design 20 models and duplicate them (see Saturn Relay, Chev Uplander, Pontiac SV6)...i mean honestly, what is the point of that. Honda and Toyota make one van, one small suv, one large suv, one mid size, one compact and they excel at them. Why waste so much time developing models that people don't want when you can have one car that everyone likes? I think Ford is futher ahead on this front (if they get rid of Mercury).

On the business side; there's a three fold problem; suppliers, labour, and customers. Customers hate the cars and are only buying when dirt cheap prices are offered (means people will buy crap at the right price), Labour (GM is very limited by their overpaid union), Suppliers (GM offloads cost on suppliers, Honda and Toyota will go into supplier's plants and help improve. GM treats suppliers like crap).

GM will have a rude awakening. But they will survive...only with MAJOR restructuring. Focusing on labour exclusively is seriously misguided.

 

[compuwiz1]

Two thoughts:

1. Stop buying Jap cars!

2. Hold our USA car makers accountable for quality and economy.

E/T

 

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: TRUMPHENT
Wasn't the Saturn supposed to be the New GM? Brand new plants, new designs and all new organization? I guess if you scratch the paint on a Saturn you still see GM is the same.

They fell down on the job. Honda didn't roll out the Civic and say, "this is as good as it gets . . . deal with it." Saturn had real potential but GM didn't really believe in Saturn. They did not seek to substantially improve upon the R&D of vehicles or in manufacturing them. Most of that money went towards the umpteen different iterations that GM has of trucks and SUVs.

Various supply-side apologists will blame unions, pensions, and healthcare costs for the problems at GM and Ford but here's one word for them . . . Solstice. Although GM is late to the small roadster party, the Solstice looks like a stud. It might even eat the Miata's lunch after the rough edges are resolved. The Saturn Sky should sell well, too. In essence, build a good product, price it appropriately, and people will buy it . . . a lot of it. Invest a little money into making it better (every other year or so), charge more for it, and people will buy even more of them. Repeat and reap the rewards.

Currently GM is losing $1500/vehicle due to labor costs, pensions and such. That is a bit of hard problem to make up with volume. It does not help that UAW takes 25% more manhours to put a car together than foriegn plants in the US.

You missed the part about what constitutes the real problem though. Here, I'll dig it out for you:

They fell down on the job. Honda didn't roll out the Civic and say, "this is as good as it gets . . . deal with it." Saturn had real potential but GM didn't really believe in Saturn. They did not seek to substantially improve upon the R&D of vehicles or in manufacturing them. Most of that money went towards the umpteen different iterations that GM has of trucks and SUVs.

There ya go!
Don't mention it. 😉

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
Two thoughts:

1. Stop buying Jap cars!

2. Hold our USA car makers accountable for quality and economy.

E/T

Wrong. Buying the worst product is going to encourage that manufacturer to create a better product? No! It's the other way around.
And the word "Jap" is derogatory. This isn't 1947.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Good that you arrived on cue, charrison.😉

I have a different perspective. If GM and Ford didn't have to beg consumers to buy their vehicles (at a substantial discount), then the costs of pensions/healthcare wouldn't be such a strain.

Further, "informed" societies have enough sense to provide universal healthcare, thereby freeing up ALL industries to focus on making products (and profits) instead of operating as de facto HMOs.

plant efficiency isn't a good explanation for GM woes

OSHAWA, ONT., TORONTO -- Employees at General Motors of Canada Ltd.'s sprawling Oshawa factory learned a harsh lesson yesterday as layoffs hit North America's largest car manufacturer. No matter how productive the company's Canadian plants are, the financial woes at the struggling U.S. auto giant are now too deep to escape.
---
The Oshawa plants are among the most efficient in North America -- ahead of several Toyota and Honda operations -- and form Canada's largest auto manufacturing site.

Obviously, hard working and intelligent Canadians aren't the same as typical American UAW members, but it highlights the point that efficiency is far from the primary problem. GM's most pressing issue is that nobody wants to pay for their products.

The company will chop 1,000 jobs at the Oshawa No. 1 plant, maker of Chevy Impalas and Monte Carlos, by eliminating one of its shifts. The Oshawa No. 2 plant, which manufactures the Pontiac Grand Prix and the Buick LaCrosse and Allure models, will lose both of its shifts by the end of 2008, leading to 2,750 layoffs.

Healthcare costs are a problem in the US, but if that was the primary problem MORE jobs should be going to Canada, eh?

Although UAW rules certainly contribute to inefficiency, the fact that domestics do quite well in some areas (production of rear drive trannies, V8 engines, etc) is proof that "effort" from the top down has a far more dramatic effect.

And look who is right on cue to twist my words. I have never claimed every plant GM is the model of inneffeciency, but I will say on average GM/ford on average take more man hours to produce a car. I wont disagree a better product line would help prop up prices, but a better product line will not fix the problems they have with their cost structure. Making a better product line is not going to remove their 3:1 retiree to worker ratio. When it comes to price GM is starting off behind.

 

[compuwiz1]

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: TRUMPHENT
Wasn't the Saturn supposed to be the New GM? Brand new plants, new designs and all new organization? I guess if you scratch the paint on a Saturn you still see GM is the same.

They fell down on the job. Honda didn't roll out the Civic and say, "this is as good as it gets . . . deal with it." Saturn had real potential but GM didn't really believe in Saturn. They did not seek to substantially improve upon the R&D of vehicles or in manufacturing them. Most of that money went towards the umpteen different iterations that GM has of trucks and SUVs.

Various supply-side apologists will blame unions, pensions, and healthcare costs for the problems at GM and Ford but here's one word for them . . . Solstice. Although GM is late to the small roadster party, the Solstice looks like a stud. It might even eat the Miata's lunch after the rough edges are resolved. The Saturn Sky should sell well, too. In essence, build a good product, price it appropriately, and people will buy it . . . a lot of it. Invest a little money into making it better (every other year or so), charge more for it, and people will buy even more of them. Repeat and reap the rewards.

Currently GM is losing $1500/vehicle due to labor costs, pensions and such. That is a bit of hard problem to make up with volume. It does not help that UAW takes 25% more manhours to put a car together than foriegn plants in the US.

You missed the part about what constitutes the real problem though. Here, I'll dig it out for you:

They fell down on the job. Honda didn't roll out the Civic and say, "this is as good as it gets . . . deal with it." Saturn had real potential but GM didn't really believe in Saturn. They did not seek to substantially improve upon the R&D of vehicles or in manufacturing them. Most of that money went towards the umpteen different iterations that GM has of trucks and SUVs.

There ya go!
Don't mention it. 😉

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
Two thoughts:

1. Stop buying Jap cars!

2. Hold our USA car makers accountable for quality and economy.

E/T

Wrong. Buying the worst product is going to encourage that manufacturer to create a better product? No! It's the other way around.
And the word "Jap" is derogatory. This isn't 1947.

This isn't 1947 and Jap is short for Japanese. I just didn't feel like typing the whole word out...don't read more into it.

Buying the worst product, is better than selling out. We can deal with worst products, and strive to make them better. We cannot continue to let other countries become major economic forces, in our own country, at our expense. If, as an example, the ubangis start shipping gross volumes of products to us and prosper, do you think they are going to give all that money to us? Hell, no..guess where the money is going back to. Some of you morons just don't get it.

 

[Future Shock]

If you want to compare how well GM and Ford each know about building cars, it may pay to look at their acquisitions. GM purchased Saab, which has resulted (in most Saab loyalists minds) in Saabs decreasing in quality, style, and desirability. Ford purchased Volvo, Jaguar, and now Land Rover. Certainly in Jaguar's case there has been a large benefit in quality and engineering, Volvo hasn't been harmed, and the new Land Rover LR3/Discovery is UK's Vehicle of the Year in 2005 (and the previous version was lackluster at best). So overall Ford seems to have been able to go into their forgein acquisisions and add enough manufacturing know-how to help right things.

Certainly not the only metric you can apply, but I thought it was interesting...

Future Shock

 

[coolkatz321]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: TRUMPHENT
Wasn't the Saturn supposed to be the New GM? Brand new plants, new designs and all new organization? I guess if you scratch the paint on a Saturn you still see GM is the same.

They fell down on the job. Honda didn't roll out the Civic and say, "this is as good as it gets . . . deal with it." Saturn had real potential but GM didn't really believe in Saturn. They did not seek to substantially improve upon the R&D of vehicles or in manufacturing them. Most of that money went towards the umpteen different iterations that GM has of trucks and SUVs.

Various supply-side apologists will blame unions, pensions, and healthcare costs for the problems at GM and Ford but here's one word for them . . . Solstice. Although GM is late to the small roadster party, the Solstice looks like a stud. It might even eat the Miata's lunch after the rough edges are resolved. The Saturn Sky should sell well, too. In essence, build a good product, price it appropriately, and people will buy it . . . a lot of it. Invest a little money into making it better (every other year or so), charge more for it, and people will buy even more of them. Repeat and reap the rewards.

Currently GM is losing $1500/vehicle due to labor costs, pensions and such. That is a bit of hard problem to make up with volume. It does not help that UAW takes 25% more manhours to put a car together than foriegn plants in the US.

You missed the part about what constitutes the real problem though. Here, I'll dig it out for you:

They fell down on the job. Honda didn't roll out the Civic and say, "this is as good as it gets . . . deal with it." Saturn had real potential but GM didn't really believe in Saturn. They did not seek to substantially improve upon the R&D of vehicles or in manufacturing them. Most of that money went towards the umpteen different iterations that GM has of trucks and SUVs.

There ya go!
Don't mention it. 😉

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
Two thoughts:

1. Stop buying Jap cars!

2. Hold our USA car makers accountable for quality and economy.

E/T

Wrong. Buying the worst product is going to encourage that manufacturer to create a better product? No! It's the other way around.
And the word "Jap" is derogatory. This isn't 1947.

This isn't 1947 and Jap is short for Japanese. I just didn't feel like typing the whole word out...don't read more into it.

Buying the worst product, is better than selling out. We can deal with worst products, and strive to make them better. We cannot continue to let other countries become major economic forces, in our own country, at our expense. If, as an example, the ubangis start shipping gross volumes of products to us and prosper, do you think they are going to give all that money to us? Hell, no..guess where the money is going back to. Some of you morons just don't get it.

Do you know why I own two Toyota's and a Subaru? It's because they're not made like complete crap. I would much rather own a Japanese or German Car (Honda, Subaru, Toyota, VW, Mercedes) than ANY car made from a US manufacturer. Why would people buy a Trailblazer, which failed inspection tests, when they could get a Forerunner which is made much better? Why buy a Jaguar, which also failed inspection tests, when people could get a Lexus instead. And foreign cars get much better mileage as well. Mayb we'll start buying domestic cars when they aren't made like crap. It's not about supporting foreign companies; it's about buying for quality.

 

[nergee]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: TRUMPHENT
Wasn't the Saturn supposed to be the New GM? Brand new plants, new designs and all new organization? I guess if you scratch the paint on a Saturn you still see GM is the same.

They fell down on the job. Honda didn't roll out the Civic and say, "this is as good as it gets . . . deal with it." Saturn had real potential but GM didn't really believe in Saturn. They did not seek to substantially improve upon the R&D of vehicles or in manufacturing them. Most of that money went towards the umpteen different iterations that GM has of trucks and SUVs.

Various supply-side apologists will blame unions, pensions, and healthcare costs for the problems at GM and Ford but here's one word for them . . . Solstice. Although GM is late to the small roadster party, the Solstice looks like a stud. It might even eat the Miata's lunch after the rough edges are resolved. The Saturn Sky should sell well, too. In essence, build a good product, price it appropriately, and people will buy it . . . a lot of it. Invest a little money into making it better (every other year or so), charge more for it, and people will buy even more of them. Repeat and reap the rewards.

Currently GM is losing $1500/vehicle due to labor costs, pensions and such. That is a bit of hard problem to make up with volume. It does not help that UAW takes 25% more manhours to put a car together than foriegn plants in the US.

You missed the part about what constitutes the real problem though. Here, I'll dig it out for you:

They fell down on the job. Honda didn't roll out the Civic and say, "this is as good as it gets . . . deal with it." Saturn had real potential but GM didn't really believe in Saturn. They did not seek to substantially improve upon the R&D of vehicles or in manufacturing them. Most of that money went towards the umpteen different iterations that GM has of trucks and SUVs.

There ya go!
Don't mention it. 😉

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
Two thoughts:

1. Stop buying Jap cars!

2. Hold our USA car makers accountable for quality and economy.

E/T

Wrong. Buying the worst product is going to encourage that manufacturer to create a better product? No! It's the other way around.
And the word "Jap" is derogatory. This isn't 1947.

This isn't 1947 and Jap is short for Japanese. I just didn't feel like typing the whole word out...don't read more into it.

Buying the worst product, is better than selling out. We can deal with worst products, and strive to make them better. We cannot continue to let other countries become major economic forces, in our own country, at our expense. If, as an example, the ubangis start shipping gross volumes of products to us and prosper, do you think they are going to give all that money to us? Hell, no..guess where the money is going back to. Some of you morons just don't get it.

You buy the worst products made and call those who don't morons? No wonder GM is where it is........

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Stunt
GM is much further ahead than Ford with regards to lean manufacturing and production practices. The problem with GM is their severe overlap in product offerings. It seems like they half-ass design 20 models and duplicate them (see Saturn Relay, Chev Uplander, Pontiac SV6)...i mean honestly, what is the point of that. Honda and Toyota make one van, one small suv, one large suv, one mid size, one compact and they excel at them. Why waste so much time developing models that people don't want when you can have one car that everyone likes? I think Ford is futher ahead on this front (if they get rid of Mercury).

On the business side; there's a three fold problem; suppliers, labour, and customers. Customers hate the cars and are only buying when dirt cheap prices are offered (means people will buy crap at the right price), Labour (GM is very limited by their overpaid union), Suppliers (GM offloads cost on suppliers, Honda and Toyota will go into supplier's plants and help improve. GM treats suppliers like crap).

GM will have a rude awakening. But they will survive...only with MAJOR restructuring. Focusing on labour exclusively is seriously misguided.

Very true about GMs product offering. They need to cut their product offerings by a large amount and focus on a smaller set. This will reduce costs by eliminating the need to market the same car under several brand names. It will also eliminate the management needed to market and sell these cars.

The Big 3 will need to restructure if they want to compete and this means from the top down. Management has just as much blame as the the unions in the fall of these companies.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Failure requires a scapegoat.

It is certainly no secret that American car companies have failed to demonstrate the strategic thinking and planning required to not only survive, but actually offer the same quality, reliability and affordability vehicles as produced by many foreign manufacturers. Yet if you look at what makes many foreign competitors successful, it is a production model of highly automated facilities, engineering and manufacturing design integration, lean supply chain principles, and productive relationships between management and workers to such an extent that there is no distinct line between the two.

American car manufacturers are still using antiquated production models that defined factory life for much of the 20th century...management resist change, and the unions place obstacles in the path of any efforts towards change.

Different market segments require different thinking when it comes to manufacturing...Toyota, Nissan and Honda all provide affordable and reliable cars, but also have luxury vehicle divisions that tap into the snob effect market of the consumer elite, or those who like to pretend they are...all offer streamlined and target market specific vehicles to satisfy demand in different markets...if you look at GM and Ford, they often produce cars that compete with their own products...numerous offerings at seemingly random price points, with nothing to really differentiate their vehicles from the competition.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: TRUMPHENT
Wasn't the Saturn supposed to be the New GM? Brand new plants, new designs and all new organization? I guess if you scratch the paint on a Saturn you still see GM is the same.

They fell down on the job. Honda didn't roll out the Civic and say, "this is as good as it gets . . . deal with it." Saturn had real potential but GM didn't really believe in Saturn. They did not seek to substantially improve upon the R&D of vehicles or in manufacturing them. Most of that money went towards the umpteen different iterations that GM has of trucks and SUVs.

Various supply-side apologists will blame unions, pensions, and healthcare costs for the problems at GM and Ford but here's one word for them . . . Solstice. Although GM is late to the small roadster party, the Solstice looks like a stud. It might even eat the Miata's lunch after the rough edges are resolved. The Saturn Sky should sell well, too. In essence, build a good product, price it appropriately, and people will buy it . . . a lot of it. Invest a little money into making it better (every other year or so), charge more for it, and people will buy even more of them. Repeat and reap the rewards.

Currently GM is losing $1500/vehicle due to labor costs, pensions and such. That is a bit of hard problem to make up with volume. It does not help that UAW takes 25% more manhours to put a car together than foriegn plants in the US.

You missed the part about what constitutes the real problem though. Here, I'll dig it out for you:

They fell down on the job. Honda didn't roll out the Civic and say, "this is as good as it gets . . . deal with it." Saturn had real potential but GM didn't really believe in Saturn. They did not seek to substantially improve upon the R&D of vehicles or in manufacturing them. Most of that money went towards the umpteen different iterations that GM has of trucks and SUVs.

There ya go!
Don't mention it. 😉

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
Two thoughts:

1. Stop buying Jap cars!

2. Hold our USA car makers accountable for quality and economy.

E/T

Wrong. Buying the worst product is going to encourage that manufacturer to create a better product? No! It's the other way around.
And the word "Jap" is derogatory. This isn't 1947.

This isn't 1947 and Jap is short for Japanese. I just didn't feel like typing the whole word out...don't read more into it.

Buying the worst product, is better than selling out. We can deal with worst products, and strive to make them better. We cannot continue to let other countries become major economic forces, in our own country, at our expense. If, as an example, the ubangis start shipping gross volumes of products to us and prosper, do you think they are going to give all that money to us? Hell, no..guess where the money is going back to. Some of you morons just don't get it.

Compuwiz1,

I'm interested to hear your thoughts on outsourcing. This should be interesting.

 

[TheSlamma]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
Two thoughts:

1. Stop buying Jap cars!

2. Hold our USA car makers accountable for quality and economy.

E/T

It's a great thought, but when I buy a Jap car am I not displaying to US makers I want QUALITY

 

[Ferocious]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: TRUMPHENT
Wasn't the Saturn supposed to be the New GM? Brand new plants, new designs and all new organization? I guess if you scratch the paint on a Saturn you still see GM is the same.

They fell down on the job. Honda didn't roll out the Civic and say, "this is as good as it gets . . . deal with it." Saturn had real potential but GM didn't really believe in Saturn. They did not seek to substantially improve upon the R&D of vehicles or in manufacturing them. Most of that money went towards the umpteen different iterations that GM has of trucks and SUVs.

Various supply-side apologists will blame unions, pensions, and healthcare costs for the problems at GM and Ford but here's one word for them . . . Solstice. Although GM is late to the small roadster party, the Solstice looks like a stud. It might even eat the Miata's lunch after the rough edges are resolved. The Saturn Sky should sell well, too. In essence, build a good product, price it appropriately, and people will buy it . . . a lot of it. Invest a little money into making it better (every other year or so), charge more for it, and people will buy even more of them. Repeat and reap the rewards.

Currently GM is losing $1500/vehicle due to labor costs, pensions and such. That is a bit of hard problem to make up with volume. It does not help that UAW takes 25% more manhours to put a car together than foriegn plants in the US.

Yes the foreign plants have done a much better job at capital investment. And honestly....just have more designers who are in tune with what buyers want.

American management needs to learn a thing or two. Actually they need to learn a lot of things.