Wake Up GM and Chrysler

51hornet · Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2009 7:25 pm Post subject: Wake Up GM and Chrysler

Here is a pretty interesting little blog that discusses what went wrong at GM. I did not agree with everything but I think he is fundamentally correct when your brand does not focus on quality you are sunk. Of more interest to me was the set of GM commercials he shows. Liked those.

blogs.bnet.com/salesmachine/?p=2003

Dave53-7C · Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2009 11:40 pm Post subject: Re: Wake Up GM and Chrysler

Even though the author presents no hardcore facts, only conjecture, he is entitled to his opinion. If his opinions were valid, brand marketing would have killed every company by now. What went wrong at GM is what went wrong with the world, a very bad economy.

From glancing at the author's bio, it is obvious to me that he has never had grease under his nails and couldn't tell a spark plug from a henway. I wonder if he's an "authority" on foreign cars, too.

Up until the mid 70's, every car manufacturer's models looked different and, in the case of GM, drove differently. For example, Chevys rode rough, Pontiacs drove rough, but had guts and the smoothest shift levers in the world. Oldmobiles with positive valve rotators had a nice clicking sound and were so heavy, they sat in gear until you hit the gas. Buicks drove like Cadillacs and Cadillacs had such quick power steering, you would take a 90 degree turn by whipping the wheel once. As far as looks, they were different from brand to brand, even if some components were shared. Sure, as time passed, GM got lazy (or cheap) and relied upon badge engineering as opposed to allowing each division the autonomy they once had.

There's nothing wrong with any company using every legal means possible to sell products or services. If buyers are swayed by the emotions exuded by an adman's sultry temptress, a car's design or the promise of living a gilded existance, nobody is hurt when people aspire, even if only in dreams, to be someone or something better. If to some the promise a particular vehicle will lift them away from day to day drudgery, I'm all for it. Who among those of us that love old cars can say they don't own them because of their appearance, performance, dreams they represent, or the image they project.

If GM had allowed divisions to remain independent and the company kept true to advertising of the 50's, 60's and 70's, things would have been different. So different that they would not be on the verge of bankruptcy? No, not when confronted by the virtual collapse of the world economy.

Quality? The author thinks something was wrong with GM quality? Sure, quality may have tanked slightly in the 70's, but that was soon rectified. Hell, it was Cadillac that set "The Standard of the World" with its cars and American cars were revered throught the world and, to some extent, still are. And, as not to be left behind, Lincoln and Imperial answered Cadillac's call and, in doing so, brought about healthy competition that increased design, features and quality.

If any fault lies with domestic auto manufacturers, it's their failure to curb employee expenses. Nothing against the UAW workers, but who can argue that something is not wrong with our system when college grads earn less than someone installing a seat in a vehicle.

SoapBox

You bet.

51hornet · Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 1:25 am Post subject: Re: Wake Up GM and Chrysler

I think a problem with the new "bloggers" out there is they are too young to have grown up with the cars the way we did. They do not have the link to the past like we do. Back in the day you could get into a fist fight over who made the best car. It was my Dad always buys Buick always has always will. You do not see that passion now. And heck I don't feel it either for new cars it just isn't the same all the passion is gone as far as I can see. Most young people I talk to are not into car brands they don't care. They look at price and what its got. They will drive any brand and be happy.

Heck I had friends who were so into Chrysler and GM and Ford. They would argue all day long. If they drove GM and Ford was selling a car for ten bucks they walked on by. They only drove GM. Really its why we drive classics we want back that passion we want to sit in a car that was inspired by the space race that as rockets on the fender and the people who built them loved doing it.

As to car quality we worked on all of those brands and between 74-85 quality was in the toilet we used to get new cars in when you sat inside them you could see out the top of the doors the panels fit so bad. Returns, recalls ruled. We got a lot of business fixing new cars. I remember my Dad realigning panels on new cars the owners had taken them to the dealer and they made it worse so they came to Dad. We even had a deal with the local Chrysler dealer to do predelivery repairs to new cars. Oh it was hoot. At the same time foreign cars were crap boxes especially the Japanese cars. The engines ran great but the rest of the car was plastic. But they learned and their cars got better and quality rose. The domestics got better and line automation and robots meant the cars had uniform quality. Last four cars I had really had no problems. I traded them at 4 years and that was that. Quality is way better now.

What did not change at the big three was the internal culture. They did not see that times were a changing and they got caught with their pants down and the bad economy exposed all of these cracks. When you look at Ford they began a culture change around 98 so they were in way better shape to take on the changing market you can see it in their cars and the way the business is conducted. If the recession had hit next year instead of now Ford would have completed its internal restructure and probably would have eaten GM and Chrysler for lunch. They probably still will. Its been a fun journey.

Dave53-7C · Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:09 am Post subject: Re: Wake Up GM and Chrysler

Thats so true. I was thinking the same thing when I was reading his comments. Years ago, people felt they were defined by their choice in cars and would argue the point. Something else is that kids back then often seemed to go with brand their parents favored. Today, the passion is gone and most kids, as you've said, don't care.

Right again. I remember having the "whose car line is better arguement" with friends when I was young. It was more often based in stubbon brand loyalty rather than fact.

Sure, quality went down in the period you mentioned, but it improved and cars are more reliable now and do last longer. It's no surprise that your father's shop did lots of business in completing work that shold have been done in Detroit. Chrysler is no surprise, their quality was always sub-par. No pun intended. If you look at the volume of panel shims that GM used back then, it's a wonder any cars left the line looking good.

I truely believe that the pay rate for line workers increased artificially, at such a rate and pace that employee costs presented the greatest burden to Detroit. Rather than negotiating with the UAW to help keep employee costs in line, Detroit kept paying and had to steal money away from other areas like R&D, design, and marketing. Ford's claim to fame is that the wealth of a single family is dependent on the company's fortunes. Sure, the stock holders cry about the preferential voting rights attached to Ford family owned stock, but I believe it's the Ford family's tenacity in holding on to wealth is behind the drive to survive. GM and Chrysler have no such motivational force. Bill Ford was spot on in selecting Alan Mullally to run Ford. That man saw the precursors of economic failure and leveraged Ford's assets, sold underperforming brands and cut costs. Ford is on the right track and the family will do whatever is required before it turns over control in order to get federal assistance.

51hornet · Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:26 am Post subject: Re: Wake Up GM and Chrysler

I think Ford is poised to eat a lot of lunches here. They were smart they bolstered there NA line with efficient Euro models that look pretty darn good and gas efficient. The new line they are showing is pretty much where the market will be when this recession starts to recede. They will be in good shape.

GM on the other hand has a terrible lineup of cars. They are just plain crap for design. They have some gems but the line is a kludge it has no coherence. In the old days you knew exactly what the line up was and where you got your car in that lineup. Today WTF who knows. Chrysler just as bad. Cars that look like shoe boxes must be in over there. Take some freakin chances you can only go up. There are too many old guard left in these companies they need to clean house in the management team. Do not bring in cost cutting bean counters bring in people who love cars. In the day guys like DeLorean they loved cars they ate slept and breathed cars. We need those guys and they are going to be in their 30's-40's bring them in. When the team is passionate about cars then you have excitement in the brand.

Yes the union wages seem out of line. I would never begrudge anyone to get a good deal for themselves but GM has workers who have been retired for longer than they worked and they were picking up full pension and benefits. That was plain crazy no one can sustain that.

51hornet · Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 2:11 pm Post subject: Re: Wake Up GM and Chrysler

Another opinion:

www.washingtonpost.com...02445.html

Dave53-7C · Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 2:13 pm Post subject: Re: Wake Up GM and Chrysler

Indeed, Ford is moving in the right direction with their eco-boost engines, Sync system and soon to arrive Euro design cars. As part of their restructuring plans, they're moving away from larger vehicles to smaller ones with better fuel economy. Rumor has it that the Torrence Avenue plant in Chicago and the Chicago Heights stamping plant will be producing the 2011 unibody Explorer. Those facilities produced the Taurus and may be best equipped to do unibody work. I'm not sure what the Louisville, KY plant will be building in lieu of the Explorer.

While driving to and from the city today, a late model Chevy Monte Carlo drove past and all I could think was who the hell decided that was an appealing design that would sell. The damed thing was gruesome and looked like it was melting.

Sure, GM has some good designs, but they're shared between divisions. Aside from getting more plastic chrome and fake wood, why would someone pay more for the Buick crossover as opposed to the Chevy model? You'd think that with the expanses of metal available on these cars, they could bend it into more interesting shapes. As far as Chrysler is concerned, their days of being a viable engineering company are so far away, you'd need the Hubble telescope to glimps them. True, the car guys Harley Earl, Bunky Knudson, John DeLorean and their kind drove design and marketing and their companies sold cars. I'm not dismissing the idea, but I'm not sure if the 30-40 year old crowd has enough of a take on history to be of use. I think a blend of the younger and older crowd is the best mix. The younger crowd can bring modern ideas to the table while the old guard can bring experience and knowledge of what made for appealing cars that sold. When I was 30, I knew what motivated me and remember those things well. However, I doubt a 30 year old has much insight into what will motivate a 40+ year old. That's why every business needs to be multi-generational.

I'm not against unions or the people who belong to them, but there comes a point when the ever increasing pay and benefits exceed the value of the return. If your favoite restaurant went union and had to pay their wait staff $50.00 and hour, would you be willing to pay $100.00 for a sandwich? Of course you wouldn't, but that's the path Detroit chose. The manufacturers and the union lavished money and benefits on laborers to to a point that served only to drive costs up and profits down. Worker compensation needs to be based on the value of return the employee brings to the company. It's just like what I've said about the dregs working at discount stores wanting a union so they can get better pay. NEWSFLASH, entry level jobs are just that. They are menial and do not bring a return to the employer sufficient for them to be able to pay a stockboy $30.00+ an hour plus benefits. If the stockboy needs more money to support his "family", he needs to apply himself and get a better paying job. Expecting of forcing an employer to pay inflated wages just because you want them to is what helped get us where we are. That mentality doesn't fly anymore. People need to learn that if you want to make the big money, you need to get an education, work long, hard hours and take some calculated risks. Reward should be based on what one contributes. Taking more than you give is an unsustainable plan which is doomed to failure.