Our Suggested Holiday Reading List
By Bob Lutz
GM Vice Chairman
During these unprecedented times, the familiarity of yet another holiday season upon us is particularly welcome. Although there is much work to be done, we’ll all be glad to have a moment or two to reflect on what’s important, and on the tasks that lay ahead.
I hope that you and yours have a terrific and relaxing holiday season. If you do get time to relax, I’d like to suggest a bit of light reading. It’s not your traditional holiday reading list, I’ll admit, but it is some pretty important material.
The sheer volume of words written about the auto industry in the past month or two is enough to fill the Library of Congress. (Yes, I’m employing irony.) Some of the material generated has been ill-informed and off the mark. Some have used the same old and outdated anti-Detroit rhetoric and bias we’ve been seeing for years.
But some of the coverage has been quite the opposite… enlightening, informative, and, so to speak, on the money. Some of these stories say exactly what we’ve been trying to get across to the American people and their elected representatives. Some of them say, well, let’s just refer to what I said in response to one of Lou Dobbs’ comments when I appeared on his CNN program, “I would never dare to say what you just said, but I think you said it all.”
Please take a moment to read some of these very important stories, and pass them along. Happy holidays and Happy 2009. See you next year.
- The Washington Post
Perceptions of Detroit Are Miles From Reality
By Warren Brown - The New York Times
Left and Right, Piling on
By William Kristol - The Wall Street Journal
The Bailout That Won’t
By Holman W. Jenkins - The Washington Post
A Bridge for the Carmakers
By Jeffrey D. Sachs
114 Comments
Leave a Reply
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
The Washington Post article is nothing but propaganda – Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger sued GM and Ford Motor Co. (among others), for making vehicles that cost California Billions of dollars in its fight against the effects of global warming.
General Motors, Ford, Toyota Motor Corp., DaimlerChrysler AG, Honda Motor Co. and Nissan Motor Co. have created a “public nuisance” by making millions of vehicles that emit huge quantities of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that increases the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere, according to a complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Oakland.
READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE HERE:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aSthCirr_IoI&refer=us
WE DON’T NEED SPIN ANYMORE – JUST MAKE THE CARS THAT THE PUBLIC WANTS
Mr. Lutz,
Happy holidays!
Thank you for pointing out these four interesting articles that, really, tell a lot of truth.
I can’t wait for the positive reaction when the forthcoming, beautiful Buick LaCrosse is introduced (though I wish it would have used the concept car’s name, “Invicta”). Please continue that level of refinement and design for all future Buick models and you’ll see Americans quickly return to GM!
And for people such as myself who live in a big city, how about a practical and premium Buick Agila?
Sincerely,
- Christopher Popa
You want to give me a Christmas present?
Tell me you have decided not to name the Cobalt replacement Cruze!
Keep it Cobalt, go with Nova, anything but DO NOT CALL IT CRUZE!
I would like to add to your holiday reading material.
Here is a list I comprised of effected jobs and companies if the US Auto Industry were to fail:
1. 100’s of 1,000’s of GM, FORD and Chyrsler CEO’s, other executives, upper management, middle management, lower management and UAW employees jobs gone.
a. Cars
b. Trucks
c. Buses for public transportation and schools
d. delivery vans
e. heavy equipment engines
f. boat engines
g. semi trucks
h. military vehicles
i. fire trucks
j. ambulances
k. taxi’s
l. police cars
m. tractor engines
n. more I may have forgotten
2. 1000’s of contract employees that work within the plants.
3. 1000’s and 1000’s of car dealerships and their employees.
4. Plastics Factories
5. Chemical Companies
6. Steel Companies
7. 1000’s and 1000’s in the Scientific Technological Community
8.Textile Companies
9. Leather Companies, which effects ranchers
10. Aluminum Companies
11. Glass Companies
12. Batteries Companies and possible future battery companies for electric cars
13. Tire Companies
14. Computer Companies that make the vehicle chips
15. Carpet Companies
16. Parts Manufactures that are located in all 50 states. They employ 100’s of 1000’s of people
17. Companies that also make Aerospace and plane parts and engines
18. Trucking, Rail and Ocean Liner Shipment Companies
19. Natural Gas and Electricity Companies that provide for the factories
20. 100’s of 1000’s of Small Businesses that are located in any area where there are factories because their customer base will be gone
21. 25% – 30% of all national retail and service sales because that’s what these employees spend.
22. 1,000,000,000’s of tax base gone: say goodbye to local schools, social services, emergency services, social security etc….
23. Health Care Insurance Companies will lose customers and most will fall (let grandma die?????)
24. All of you that love your Foreign US Manufactured Vehicle, they will be gone too because they use the same suppliers.
25. All of the other companies I forgot or am not aware of.
I could go on and on and on….. Get a clue people. Our country is already starting to go down the toilet. Are you willing to push the handle for the final flush???? If you think the US Auto Industry going into liquidation won’t effect you then you are mistaken and misinformed. The Big 3 Auto Industry with all of the secondary companies they support is one of the largest corporations in the world!!!!!
Yes, we should buy and drive vehicles that are less dependent on foreign and domestic oil companies. I hear a lot of people talk, but I sure don’t see many on the road. It’s not that the US Auto Industry doesn’t produce them, it’s that not many people buy them. THAT IS A FACT!!!!! Let’s say you make green pants and red pants. The customer buys more red pants than green pants regardless that the green pants fit better. Are you going to buy and sell more red pants or buy more green pants and go out of business because they don’t sell????? I think we all know the answer to that. This is a dilemma that we need to come up with a good answer for. The companies are trying their best to answer that dilemma but they can’t force a customer to purchase what they don’t want. The Foreign Auto Makers make gas guzzlers and sell several of them too. Look it up. One more point on this subject. we have to produce trucks and SUV’s. Millions of businesses depend on trucks to do their jobs. If you own a large boat or camper, how will you tow it if you don’t have a truck???? If you have a family with more than 3 children, how will you transport them if you don’t have a large SUV or Wagon???? Every time I see a government Official, including President Bush or President Elect Obama, they are transported in a large SUV for their protection. Do people think about these things?????
MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!!!!!!!
Good morning Mr Lutz,
I get that you are trying to get across to people that GM changed and I will admit it has to some extent. What I would like you to understand is that there is always a lag between a new reality and the widespread perception of that reality in the public’s eyes. Being astounded like your director of Global Communication does not help in any way , in fact it detracts the public from perceiving GM as it is today since his reaction can be interpreted as someone who belittle the public, the customers.
There was a lag between perception and reality when GM started making crap. People still gave GM chance after chance, and pretended that the problems they were having were only exceptions to the rule (GM makes great cars). I didn’t see GM’s management get astounded that people were misperceiving GM as making good cars. Maybe they were but they did not want to do anything to change it $$$$. It took a while for the customers to get that GM was making crap. GM profited from the misperception a long time, now GM is paying for the lag in perception that GM is better. GM should not complain, GM should just ride it out. Actions speak louder than words. The articles you linked are all interesting but they are words on a piece of paper. It will take time for people to consider GM cars againg, You can speed up that process, not by quoting statistics or articles but by getting cars in the hands of people, get creative.
What would also help would be a BIG apology from GM saying that they are sorry they made such crap. People need to vent, they are mad, they were tricked. That is what you are hearing in this blog. GM needs to make a public apology in the media and listen to people vent if GM wants thost negatives emotions to dissipate.
Congress should understand this lag effect also and not be affected by it in their decision to bail you out or not..
Merry Christmas
“If you own a large boat or camper, how will you tow it if you don’t have a truck???? “
Owning a boat or camper is a discretionary activity — not an essential one.
But, there will always be trucks and vans for people who really need them. Ranchers, farmers, contractors, business owners, and many others need trucks and vans to do a job and make a living. Companies will make what they need to do their jobs, just as there are companies that make the Kenworths, Macks, and Peterbilts you see towing trailers and cargo across our highways.
What will change is the number of SUVs and heavy pickup trucks that are owned and driven by people who really have no use for them — other than as a status symbol, a social signifier, or to compensate for some psychological deficiency.
I never really understood why there are so many different products in each country of the world. I was looking at Holden’s web site the other day for curiosity. I could not believe that the had such fine looking cars. I imagine all the work that went into designing and producing them. Why not take these very cars to the entire world. The look every bit as good as the best selling Accord and Camry in the US. This is marketing 101 like BMW, Mercedes, VW etc. already know.Create a strong brand image and do not duplicate efforts. Just think how much better the products would be if you could focus on a few designs.
I look at the fact that the Cruze will come out in China first and have seen a Buick prototype that looks better than any Buick I have seen in America. I almost feel that GM really is not interested in doing well in the US. It just makes no sense. For all of my life GM and american cars have been an inside joke. GM recently apologized for decades of low quality etc. It is what we have always known. We need new US car companies or a reborn GM with new structure that is worthy to be called an american company. I guess I want to be as proud as Germans and Japanese. I would like to desire US cars and have the world do the same! I would like the a GM that had brands with the same names and models in every country just like BMW etc.
I was looking at the Malibu the other day and thought this is really a large car. The trunk and b pillar is so stretched. For good or bad I don’t see how is could be compared to the crisp styling of the Accord and Camry. The Malibu should have been smaller and the Malibu design could have been the next Impala. Please don’t tell me the Impala will be even bigger. The styling of the Holden’s look better than all of these and would compete better with Camry.
Ted, please, get real. Arnold Schwarzenegger is doing propaganda. How serious could I take a person, who supports the very same political party, which rejected to signing the Kyoto-Protocol all the time!?
Dear Mr. Lutz,
I think there’s a lot of truth in this story from the Washington Post, regarding perception. This report does meet my own observations. BTW, Perception still is an issue over here, which Opel has to fight with. After all, the latest news have been promising, meaning additional production shifts due to the high demand for the Insignia. However, I don’t care about prejudices. I care about my knowledge. And so I’ll keep on buying your cars. Merry Christmas from Germany!
So many people are stupid beyond belief, the news cannot wait to see Detriot go down, CNBC talks everyday how GM should give up and they don’t make cars people want, please they all drive toyotas and hondas, I’m sick of it here in so.cal. toyota capital it makes me sick COME ON GM now is the time to seize the moment and launch a massive ad campain to tell America to buy GM and how toyota has destoyed this country.
bluebaby
Yal think too much.
If it took a genius, rocket scientist, and an Einstein what do you get? An equation.
You get a bunch of reporters, what do you get? Words.
You take somebody who thinks too much, what do you get? Too much thinking and not enouph action.
Still waiting on the world to solve GM’s problems, while the world waits on GM to solve theirs.
Now what do you have, too many stupid questions with too many answers.
That answer is simple brand supremacy.
It works like this. Each brand and each product within the breand does a little bit better every year.
Rocket science.
Not quite but we do have it upside down. You see GM is not king, it’s more like a president. A president is there to serve the people. With a king, the people are there to serve the king.
GM’s existence is to serve the brand, the brands are not there to serve GM.
Now if the brand does well GM it will do well for GM while the brand is uplifted. But if the brand does bad, GM is the first to suffer. I know it’s hard being a servant.
But look GM doesn’t sell cars, Chevrolet does, so as president GM would want to do everything it can to make sure Chevrolet is uplifted. to Put GM before Chevrolet, who does that serve?
Bottom line, just like a president no one can solve the world’s problems, the only thing that person does is make the resorces available that everyone can do their job well.
That paradigm has created the most successful nation in the history of mankind. So why change the paradigm?
A brand head can solve Chevrolet’s problems. A brand head can solve Pontiac’s problems. A brand head can solve Buick’s problems.
But you can take a seven headed Einstein, throw in a rocket scientist, Phd, doctor, astrophysicist all you want to solve GM’s problems and the world and all you get is an ugly looking Medusa.
Fastlane short. Want to solve GM’s problems consult the book call 1-800-Build a brand.
or try the book “Brand Building for Dummies”. Or if it’s not to hard consult the spirits of GM Earl, Durant, and Sloan.
Speed up the fastlane short…
I know nothing but to build a brand.
Ted Lewandowski, Interesting comments and article. I do sometimes wonder though, on the issue of carbon dioxide, why the eco-nuts keep forgetting that trees, grass, flowers and other plants breathe in carbon dioxide and ‘exhale’ oxygen. So, if their so worried about CO levels, then maybe they need to add more vegetation to their urban areas to offset these emissions.
Who really is in charge of North American product strategy? Is it Bob Lutz or Mark LaNeve? It’s quite sad that LaNeve seems to belong to the new generation of young leaders. But from his comments, we can deduce that he seems hesitant in killing Pontiac and Saturn. Pontiac doesn’t make the Trans-Am Firebird anymore. And GM already has an equivalent product, it’s called Camaro. And did he mean that Chevrolet can’t be an import fighter as Saturn does? A few hundred fan letters mean just that: a few hundred more sales for Saturn.
Besides the obvious Chevrolet and Cadillac, only Buick and GMC should be kept. Buick can be a hedge for Cadillac for those that don’t like edgy styling. And a premium brand means a better profit margin. GMC has the macho factor to attract the male buyers. It has SUVs/trucks/crossovers with muscular lines and bigger horsepower. Toytoa soon will have a Prius brand besides Toyota, Lexus and Scion. It makes sense to have these 4 brands only.
One thing GM has to learn in life is that once you lose some things in life, you can never get them back. GM will never have 50% market share again. And you still doesn’t have any credible answer to Honda Fit. GM needs to have a best-in-class model in every segment. And focus on product quality and reliability, fuel economy, interior quality(no hard plastic) and resale value. Stop the stupid incentive war among the Big 3. Enhance partnership with Ford Motor on powertrain and quality initiative.
Excellent post. The truth really hurts people like Ted, the mainstream media types with pro-Toyota agendas and Thomas Friedman. Warren Brown is the man and I am amazed he is still employed after writing so many accurate articles about the auto industry. He is one of the few auto writers working for a major paper that gives American vehicles a fair chance.
Ted,
I would love for you to explain to me why California thinks it can be addicted to cars and then blame automakers for making them. I question the sanity and intelligence of anyone who buys into such a philosophy. Californians could help the environment by not living in sprawl choked, car dependent suburbs and exurbs and learning how to use public transportation. if they really cared about global warming they would move to NYC, DC, Boston or any other city where car ownership is optional. Its absurd to blame automakers for pollution when you live in one of the most car dependent states in the country.
I’ve noticed the new types of General Motors commercials on TV lately and I would like to commend you on them. I’m talking about the ones that highlight some of the awesome products GM has to offer and end with a saying similar to, “Only offered by GM, surprised?”. I would LOVE to see more of these and I would LOVE to see them target competitor’s vehicles even more aggressively. I know the vehicles that GM produces put the competition to shame, but the American public still has bad perceptions.
I love GM with all my heart and it bothers me to see the company get put down by people who don’t even know what they’re talking about. I’m sure you have your own effective marketing strategies, but I wish GM would stand up for itself more aggressively. Lately, I have come into contact with so many people who are negative about General Motors because they have been fed false facts. It would make it so much easier for me to respectfully correct these people if GM got some of these facts into mainstream media. It would also help me sleep a lot better at night knowing the company isn’t being defaced somewhere by a bunch of misinformed idiots.
Best regards,
Jon Markee
Suggested reading for GM executives, designers, and engineers-
“Designing Tomorrow’s Cars,” Walter H. Korff, 1980, M-C Publications.
Let me begin my agreeing with Bob Lutz’s repeated principles: CAFE is not the proper course for reducing energy demand, bankruptcy is not the right solution, and GM has done a lot to reform itself and its products. I have minor issues with details, but I agree with the premise of each of those points. Simply put: I don’t feel GM has done enough to reform in some ways.
First off, the truck boom is dead. Yes, there is a resurgence of truck sales. Let’s look at why: you have huge discounts on expensive products. When I see a fully loaded full-size, king cab V-8 pickup truck with 40% off the sticker price, even I want to jump on it. I bought a monster for the same price and twice the power. Nevertheless, the boom is over. The state has become involved, and it will not permit domestic manufacturers to build gas-guzzlers in the quantities they had in the past. Let’s give CAFE some credit–impending heightened measures also prevent that. Impression is a factor, too: sucking down crude is no longer seen as just being environmentally careless, it’s also seen as fuel (every pun intended) for adversaries abroad.
It appears that Saturn will be retired–a sensible decision. I contend, like others, that the Astra deserved more effort and time than the General gave it. It had the ingredients to be great car for the US. I respect GM for putting in effort to reform the division; I am sad to see it was to no avail. I just hope Saturn’s excellent customer service does spread out to remaining brands. I’m pleased to read Hummer and Saab being sold. I’d like to see Pontiac turned into a real low-volume performance division, focusing on the Solstice and the G8. I don’t know what to do about Buick. Is it really necessary here? What bracket does it cover? The new LaCrosse looks nice, but you don’t need another luxury car. You also don’t need a whole division consuming ad dollars for the sale of rebadged Chevrolet trucks. Yes, I do mean GMC.
Of all the brands, I’m pleased to see Chevrolet being the one storming forward. The upcoming Equinox seems like an adequate replacement for the Vue. The Volt should be a game-changer. The Cruze looks great–possibly the first good GM small car since the 1965 Corvair. I know concepts are all show and rarely go, but the Nomad would have been a nice sporty contender to the Mini crown.
The capitalist in me, however, is upset the core issue of union legacy costs has not been properly addressed. The UAW’s public unwillingness to resolve the matter pushes me away from wanting to embrace GM or any of the Detroit Three. I do not want my dollars fueling a system that is just a recipe for future decay. Until this matter is resolved, GM and Motown will not truly reformed. I suggest moving to union-hostile Southeast. Atlanta would make for a great new HQ, with state incentives. Leave Detroit to Ford and what’s left of Chrysler.
Forgive my ignorance (as i am Australian) If GM isn’t making cars people DON’T want how do they manage to sell more cars than anyone else?
>I was looking at the Malibu the other day and thought this is really a large car. The trunk and b pillar is so stretched. For good or bad I don’t see how is could be compared to the crisp styling of the Accord and Camry. The Malibu should have been smaller and the Malibu design could have been the next Impala. Please don’t tell me the Impala will be even bigger. The styling of the Holden’s look better than all of these and would compete better with Camry.<
I always thought that also. The current Malibu should have been the Impala (with round taillights) and the Malibu should have been smaller, around the same size as the Fusion.
What would be fun to see is every car maker pull out of California – every single car maker. Then Californians will be able to go across state lines to buy one and have an opportunity to throw their politicians out of office.
CO2 is not a nuisance, its a benefit to the planet, it helps plants grow and helps sea life.
A majority of published scientists have rejected global warming theory.
“The Cruze looks great–possibly the first good GM small car since the 1965 Corvair. “
That may be true of the Cruze — but then, there is always that unfortunate name they picked for it.
Will someone at GM please explain your line of thinking in naming a car “Cruze?” Perhaps some GM marketing whiz has a solid explanation for picking that name? Perhaps we will understand and all shake out heards wisely when we at last understand the reasoning? You must have spent millions of dollars in marketing research and on focus groups before settling on “Cruze,” but please tell us, what mystical thing did you learn did you learn from your research that says “Cruze” would be a great name?
Until you explain, most of us — I suspect — will continue to think it a dumb name. And then again, we might continue to think it dumb, no matter how rational your explanation.
Here’s a great story from Windsor Star: GM workers prepare for retirement. (http://www.windsorstar.com/news/shift-change/workers+prepare+retirement/1108776/story.html)
“I was looking at the Malibu the other day and thought this is really a large car. The trunk and b pillar is so stretched. For good or bad I don’t see how is could be compared to the crisp styling of the Accord and Camry.”
I hate to break this to you but the new Accord is larger than the Malibu in every dimension. The Altima and camry are about the same length as the Malibu but both cars are wider. The Malibu is not a large car by today’s midsize car standards. In fact, the two largest midsize cars on sale today are made by Mazda and Honda. I think your perceptions of GM would change if you actually got a better handle on the facts. I find it comical that you honestly think GM should be taking styling lessons from Toyota and Honda. The new Accord has been universally panned for its dull styling while the Malibu has been universally praised. The Malibu is one of the best looking cars in its class. The last thing GM should do is look to Japan for styling inspiration since their recent designs have been some of the best on the market.
For the record there are several GM models that are sold in various countries under the same name. The Cruze is a new product that will be sold around the world. I find it odd that you dont feel Americans can be proud of vehicles like the Malibu, Vette, CTS, Enclave, Aura, etc. What is embarrassing about those vehicles? How do they not compare favorably to vehicles coming out of Japan and Europe?
Jon Markee,
I agree 100% about the commercials. THey are exactly what GM needs at this point and they should stick to this theme. They need to focus all advertising on dispelling myths about their products and comparing them directly to the imports.
My holidays would be happy if you stepped down as Vice Chairman of GM. You have ruined a once-great American company and you should pay the penalty. I don’t understand how you can live with yourself after having impacted and continuing to impact so many people’s lives in such a negative way. I currently own a GM car (Chevy Equinox) but it will be the last GM car that I own as long as current management is in place at this institution.
Doug K.
The reason the UAW’s Contract has so many pages is because they are required to put all of the legal mumbo-jumbo in it. They have to put all of the legal stuff from the insurance companies, social security, health and safety, etc…. So, when you remove that it is slightly over 200 pages. Therefore, get your facts in place before you speak all of you union bashers.
Yes, there were some muscle based tactics in the past by the UAW and other unions, but THAT WAS THE PAST!!!!!!! Do we not all have things in the past that may have been wrong or we are not proud of????? Aren’t we all suppose to have the right to change and/or regret our actions in the past????? Have you never made mistakes???? That doesn’t mean that the UAW today is the same as the UAW of the past. CIVILIZED, mature negotiations are practiced now. The union has taken several concessions in the past several years to assist the companies bottom line. All aspects of my health care have been cut in half. The UAW members will now be paying money out of their own paychecks to support the retirees benefits and retirement pay. Wages for new employees have been cut in half. Wage increases are almost nonexistent. So again, what do you want them to do???? Work for free or minimum wage??? Do you want their health care costs to fall on your federal tax dollars or the company to pay them???
I am so sick and tired of the union bashing!!!!!! If it wasn’t for unions YOU would not benefit from the pay (even law based minimum wage) and health and safety laws/rules that are in place now for all workers including non-union employees in this country. That is why it is a law that ALL employees that work over 40 hrs in one week MUST be payed overtime pay. That is why OSHA is in place. That is why there are governmental worker protection agencies in place. So, you should thank the unions, not condemn them!!!!!!! Do a little research and you will find that these are the facts!!!!!!
Bob Lutz: “The sheer volume of words written about the auto industry in the past month or two is enough to fill the Library of Congress. (Yes, I’m employing irony.)”
Wagoner flew down to DC in a private jet to beg for a bailout. Was that ironic or what?
By the way, if you go to DC looking for a bailout – excuse me, a loan secured by nothing but vapor when you have negative income at rates I can’t get with 50% down on a house where payments equal less than 20% of my monthly take-home – do you expect the press not to cover this?
Sheth writes, “The truth really hurts people like Ted, the mainstream media types with pro-Toyota agendas and Thomas Friedman. ”
Why would “mainstream media types” have a “pro-Toyota bias?” What’s in it for them? Does Toyota own a lot of these news outlets or something?
I don’t think they do and, consequently, I don’t think they have a pro-Toyota bias… I’m going with the simple explanation for why GM gets more negative press than Toyota… GM doesn’t do business as well as Toyota. This explanation aligns well with observations of their income statements and shifts in market share.
I disagree that the current commercials are acceptable. I’m guessing that these were quick and easier to produce and are perhaps placeholders for upcoming ideas. But these ads will have little effect. Those that hate GM will view these as desperate propaganda and be turned off. Perhaps GM didn’t learn their lesson from the “This isn’t your Dad’s Oldsmobile” campaign.
Instead, I’d suggest making ads that are perhaps more old-fashioned and direct. Make an ad that focuses on the car, not the company. Stay away from the touchy-feely concepts and get down to the meat of the product. I really like the way Bob Lutz and Ed Welburn talk about new and upcoming products. They discuss the little details that I wouldn’t notice or appreciate. Bring some of that same treatment to your ads and talk about specifics, like ride, interior materials, the engine, design, and so on. Turn the cars and trucks into case studies and show the public your goods. This is nothing groundbreaking. Just old fashioned advertising. People are tired of car ads that don’t really talk about the car and instead focus on sales and discounts. I know I sure as hell am. Every car ad on TV these days are for promotions. NONE are about the cars. The only other direction I see are for luxury cars, and these ads tend to be obnoxious and snotty. Its time for more direct, honest ads.
Redd, the name Cobalt was the one I was questioning. Seriously, what were they on when they named that car? Why would they want a name that evokes visions of blue-ish rocks? The car was never offered with Cobalt colored paint either. That name makes zero sense. At least with Cruze you might imagine going out for a relaxing drive somewhere. So to me at least, the name is a correction for an earlier naming error.
Gerry said: “CAFE is not the proper course for reducing energy demand.”
Why is that Gerry?
In 1975 Congress passed the first CAFE law. In the next 10 years, the average fuel economy for passenger cars in the U.S. nearly doubled from 13.5 mpg to almost 27 mpg. I’d say that was pretty successful.
The problem came in the mid-1980’s when GM and Ford lobbied the Reagan administration to make the standards less robust. They got what they wanted, and CAFE started coming down, plus the standards for light trucks and SUVs were lowered even more. That reduction in CAFE standards was almost solely responsible for the explosion of SUVs and all the baggage that came along with that.
Had we continued on the trajectory we started in 1975, we would by now have a CAFE average well over 40 mpg just as Europe does, and we would need to import almost no oil for auto fuel.
The only thing about CAFE that didn’t work is that politicians and lobbyists wouldn’t let it.
Kay ~ “The reason the UAW’s Contract has so many pages is because they are required to put all of the legal mumbo-jumbo in it.”
Kay,
Tell me, exactly who requires so much mumbo-jumbo that the contract needs more than 2,000 pages? My guess is that mumbo-jumbo wouldn’t be there if the UAW didn’t want it there. I’m sure the car makers don’t want it, because it just ties their hands and reduces their flexibility and ability to compete in the world market..
Do you think those working at the Honda, Toyota, Mercedes, and BMW plants in the Deep South have contracts that large?
Kay ~ “I am so sick and tired of the union bashing!!!!!! “
What is your explanation then for the cause of that union bashing? Do you think people do it for kicks, or to be mean? (I don’t.) Or, do you think people just might have a negative perception of the UAW?
My guess is it’s because of a negative perception that has grown over the years due to union over reaches, power grabs, and abuses.
How do you explain the negative perception the UAW has?
“Why would “mainstream media types” have a “pro-Toyota bias?” What’s in it for them? Does Toyota own a lot of these news outlets or something?
I don’t think they do and, consequently, I don’t think they have a pro-Toyota bias… I’m going with the simple explanation for why GM gets more negative press than Toyota… GM doesn’t do business as well as Toyota. This explanation aligns well with observations of their income statements and shifts in market share.
You are so naive. Toyota is praised by media outlets that lean left and believe that SUVs were forced on American consumers. It has nothing to do with profitability or business acumen. Please tell me you can understand this fact. Do you really think Thomas Friedman or any other columnists who has taken numerous shots at GM could give a quote of Toyota’s latest quarterly profit? For the record many of these pro Toyota media outlets and personalities have been bashing the Big 3 before the current crisis. Friedman has been attacking GM for some time and it had nothing to do with profitability. It had everything to do with his belief that GM was not “green” and Toyota only made business decisions that benefitted the environment. He said from an environmental standpoint it would have been great if GM went out of business and Toyota became the dominant automaker worldwide. I am sure Friedman is educated but apparently he didnt have time to do some basic research into Toyota’s sales to learn that Toyota sold more Tundras than Prius’ in 2007 or that Toyota invested $1.2B in TX to build 13mpg trucks, not hybrids.
The media is unquestionably biased against the Big 3 but the truth always comes out. During the congressional hearing the media suggested that the Big 3 were suffering alone and the Asian transplants were doing well. Meanwhile Toyota, Honda and Nissan were suffering 30%+ drops in monthly sales and idling plants in the US. The Big 3 execs told congress that the economic situation was dire and was forcing them to ask for loans but the media downplayed all of this and focused on the UAW and “mismanagement”. Now that Toyota has announced a loss and Honda is making dire forecasts about sales and production the media and Americans in general are starting to realize how had this auto market has been in recent months.
Chip:
“In 1975 Congress passed the first CAFE law. In the next 10 years, the average fuel economy for passenger cars in the U.S. nearly doubled from 13.5 mpg to almost 27 mpg. I’d say that was pretty successful.”
CAFE is a joke. Mileage increased because gas prices were high and automakers had to abandone large RWD cars. Emissions rules also led to the demise of such cars which helped mileage. What you are ignoring is that CAFE was designed to lower oil imports. How are we doing on that score? Higher gas prices always lead to a reduction in miles driven and consumption. CAFE only encourage consumption by making vehicles more efficient which does nothing to discourage people from burning gas. Increased mileage is pointless if miles driven does not decrease. The miles driven in this country have exploded since CAFE started. Same goes for amount of oil we use here daily. CAFE is a failure and will continue to be if gas prices aren’t raised.
“Had we continued on the trajectory we started in 1975, we would by now have a CAFE average well over 40 mpg just as Europe does, and we would need to import almost no oil for auto fuel.”
Incorrect. You are leaving demand out of the equation. One reason that people have flocked towards SUVs and V6 sedans with 250-300hp in recent years is that gas has been cheap compared to European countries. You cannot drive demand for efficient cars by demanding higher mileage. You create demand for such cars by raising the taxes on gas or taxing displacement. During the 1990s and early 2000s Americans had little interest in efficiency and decided to go for size and hp. If gas was cheap for a 20 year span no amount of regulation was going to pursuade Americans to embrace small European style cars. America is a large country with a history of cheap gas. Our gas prices and preferences are different from Europe’s and thus our vehicles are MUCH bigger. In Europe gas is high, countries are small, diesels are popular and pubic transportation is very efficient. This has a lot to do with the types of cars they drive there. Unless you mimic their gas price and public transportation policies you will not see a proliferation of European style small cars in the US.
It boggles my mind that people think you can reduce consumption by forcing automakers to make more efficient vehicles and not changing the cost of gas.
Mr. Lutz:
I am a Canadian. The last time I bought a new American car was in 1984 when the new model Fiero GT came out with the V6 motor. I had that car for three years and unfortunately had to sell it to go to University. While in University, I watched as the Fiero came to an end.
I think that when the Fiero ended – the demise of General Motors truly began. There was nothing to replace the Fiero. Soon thereafter, the Camaro and Firebird were gone too. As each model year would come and go, I would look at the changes to your current models and barely see any changes. Your truck models stayed the same for years – same thing with the Corvette. People would have to point out the changes to me because they were so subtle or cosmetic and boring.
I would go to car shows and see a Chevrolet concept of a “new” version of the ‘55 Chev Bel Air. There were crowds around that car – there weren’t crowds around any of the cars you were trying to sell. In December 1998, Hot Rod featured a new Camao with the then as yet unseen Copper color. This car was beautiful! I was in my 30’s then and every male I showed it to wanted to buy one. I even wrote GM to see how long I would have to wait to buy one. GM wrote me back denying any knowledge of the car, but my comments were important to them, blah, blah blah. If you can have someone find the magazine for you – you would immediately trash the current Camaro concept. Or, you would introduce this car as a new model. I’d bet it would outsell the current concept.
So, instead of building exciting cars that drew crowds – your company opted for the Aztec. I immediately determined that General Motors was no onger in the business of building cars that people actually wanted to drive. Someone in GM must have made up a rule that stated if a concept car creates any kind of excitement – it must be shelved. At GM, the Bezier curve was replaced with sharp origami angles.
For a while, I had to give Chrysler some credit. They would build an exciting concept car (the Prowler, the PT Cruiser, etc). Crowds would gather at the car shows around these cars – and then, Chrysler actually built them! They don’t do that any more and are now in the same boat as GM. Their cars all look like their front ends were designed by International Harvester – and that’s not a compliment.
Then, the movie Transformers came out featuring the “New” Camaro. This was a free, almost 2 hr. commercial for your concept car. Except, there was a problem. GM wasn’t actually building the Camaro, and so couldn’t take advantage of the significant boost the movie would have given them. Could you imagine people wanting to sign up for the Navy after watching Top Gun, and being told that actually the Navy didn’t have any F14 Tomcat fighters . . . ?
I am currently driving a Kia Optima. It’s a well-made, reliable car. My next car will be either a new Toyota Camry or a slightly used Lexus or Mercedes.
I have to give you credit for coming out with a new Fiero (the Solstice). But I think it is too little-too late. By the way, any convertible being made now – should be a retractable hard top. In Canada, we have winter 8 months out of the year. Plus it’s hard to slash the roof of a hard top.
I really hope this response gets to you. I grew up in a family that only bought American vehicles – now none of us do.
Chip Parsons,
CAFE is a failed policy. Its should be repealed. The Big 3 have consistently built vehicles which exceed federal standards. The authors of the CAFE policy say it should be repealed and that it is a failure. The combination conflicting regulations on CAFE/Emissions/Safety has caused market distortions within vehicle classes. These conflicting regulations cost consumers hundreds of $ billions.
More progress toward improving fuel efficiency would be made without CAFE/Emissions regulations.
Moreover, its not the goverments place to be telling people what to buy, and the goverment was never given the constitutional power to do so.
GM offers twice as many models over 30 mpg than the nearest competitior.
Here is what works: Buy what YOU want to buy and stop trying to tell others what to buy.
If people want an SUV, then that is their business and no one elses.
People have different needs. The far left in America may be against needs of families, children and who need car seats.
SUVs are obviously the vehicles many people want to buy.
Charlie H,
The drive-by media has an interest in propagandizing for their parent corporation’s interests which are not necessarily in the American public interest. Some make a profit flooring imports, so why would they want to help American producers. Think about it.
Pierre Roberge
Well, you’re obviously still hanging around. Sorry you have the perception you do. Many of us know that GM builds the best vehicles in the world. There is so much junk out there from the foreign competition, let’s ask them to apologize for it.
The American auto industry leaders should reach out to states like California and New Jersey which are threatening to enact unreasonable rules, with a program to buy products made in California and New Jersey as an olive branch.
American auto companies should ask their dealers, suppliers, and loyal customers to purchase laptops from California based companies like Hewlett Packard, or Texas based companies like Dell. It could help people there begin to rethink American. It should persuade the elected leaders from those states by showing them the purchasing power of the people who support the American auto industry.
The point being many American auto producing states already buy products from those states and support their economy.
http://www.howtobuyamerican.com/content/reviews/ba-021219-apopka-review.shtml
I agree that Cruze is a stupid name for a car. On the bright side, after they slap Buick, Pontiac, Saturn and Cadillac badges on them, they’ll have different names.
Here is another editorial from the Wall Street Journal that should be on the reading list:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123060246925441479.html
“Brand Killers Dilemma”
Now that Toyota will lose money this year, also now that they announced they will see sales plunge 20%.
The brand killer’s perscription is to cut brands and be like Toyota. But now what is their perscription for Toyota?
I guess their suggestion will be to cut Scion.
Now if Toyota is doing bad how do you think Mitsubishi and Isuzu are faring? These companies would lose huge amounts of money in good years.
The problem is not too many brands but too many companies. Every country and their brother supports the automobile industry especially if they are home companies. Even worse Japan’s automakers are guarenteed not to go out of business or be taken over. That must be nice. The bridge loan only evens the playing field as far as I’m concerned.
Now the brand killers think that we can solve this problem of too many companies by killing GM’s brands. Their argument is once Pontiac, GMC, Saturn, et. al. are gone. And GM is left with two brands, the industry and GM would be profitable, efficient, product focused, etc. etc.
The problem is, it does nothing about the main problem. Too many companies.
But the most important thing is GM has already tried exactly what the brand killers want. In Australia GM has had a one brand strategy from the beginning, called Holden. When Toyota and other import brands started making inroads in the last two decades Holden’s market share collapsed in a way far exceeding what happened to GM in North America.
Add to that the fact that getting rid of a brand carries an up front cost well beyond $1 billion.
And if you think people will not buy from a bankrupt automaker, wait until they hear that their brand is being killed.
Is there anyone out there that will buy a car from a brand they know is disappearing?
Fastlane short…
The brand killers have not proved anything except that GM has not fully utilized the brand heritage and captured the products and image that once made them strong. YET!!!
Will they? I don’t know.
But I will tell you this, killing brands will not make tomorrow any easier, it may make it harder unless they can sell strong brands for money.
Which goes back to my original point as always.
Build a brand.
Good brands bring in money.
Economics 101 folks.
12 “platforms,” 12 brands. 3 or 4 models per brand (”platform”), 3 trim levels per model; this way each brand is distinctive. If the Buick/Pontiac/GMC dealer wants a full-size RWD sedan he can get the Cadillac franchise, too.
Otherwise drop everything but Cadillac (cars) and GMC (trucks). If Chevy, Buick, Pontiac, Saturn and Saab aren’t distinctive, they aren’t necessary.
TO Daryl Lyseng’s comments:
I think your perception of GM cars/trucks may be off. Your last GM car was an 84 Fiero?? Thats when you think GM’ demise began??? Are you kidding me?? And the Camaro/Firebird lasted until 2002…..not soon after 1984 as you stated……GM enjoyed great success from the late 80’s up until 2003.GM did build many exciting cars in that time frame. I think you may need to research before you post.
I agree with you about the new Camaro……that car should have been out in 2005 in direct competition with the Mustang. GM lost that battle as well not having it out against the new 2008-9 Challenger. I feel when it does come out,it wont really all that exciting anymore. I may be wrong…..AND I owned (5) 1969 Camaros in the past and its my favorite car.Plus I work for a Chevy dealer.I am a fan.
Chrysler built cool cars…yes….I liked the PT Cruiser…..another blunder by GM…..The HHR is soooo much nicer,better equipped,gets better mileage and is roomier then the PT……but it was 5 years too late in my opinion. But its world ahead of the PT. I own a 2007 HHR. LOVE IT. I am also buying a 2009 HHR SS Turbo model in 2 weeks.
Your driving a KIA Optima. Well made? Not. My dealer also runs a Ford/Subaru/Kia store. They are disposable cars. Your next car will be a Camry? I guess thats an ok choice….but I find it interesting that you drive a Kia…but are looking into a Camry or a used Lexus or Mercedes?
Malibu is a better car than the Camry. Nicer too. Lexus is just an overpriced Toyota. Most Mercedes these days only look good…..they have a lot of mechanical /electrical problems. Good luck.
You really should step into a GM showroom and see what we have. Things have come a long way since 1984……I think its sad and closeminded to say you wont buy american anymore based on 24 years ago……..
I have owned one Japanese car in my life, when I was flat broke just out of law school my brother gave me a Nissan 300zx. All other daily drivers have been U.S. cars. Currently I have a 2004 SRX a 2007 Mustang GT and a 96 Cherokee ( to replace the Mustang for snow days). They have all been trouble free and have never left me stranded, even my 139,000. mile Caddy is a rock solid runner.
There is no reason to buy a foreign made vehicle, yet there are many reasons to buy U.S made vehicles made by U.S. car makers. The following are a few reasons.
The U.S. needs a strong and capable manufacturing base in order to survive as a superpower into the next century. With out the ability to manufacture weapons (boots, uniforms, vehicles etc) the power of the U.S. will quickly fade.
The auto industry, by some numbers, accounts for approximately 10 million U.S. jobs. That is almost the population of Ohio.
Each time a buyer makes a selection on a Japanese or other foreign vehicle he is supporting workers and corporations outside of the U.S. and abandoning his own countrymen. I think of it in terms of where I am sending my money. Would I rather my money go to a family in Detroit or in Tokyo?
A commercial should be made by G.M., Ford, Chrysler, or by the UAW, that shows a person buying a Japanese car, the salesman wraps the cash into a package or envelope, and drops the envelope in the mail. Next a person in a mail room at a Japanese auto maker is shown opening envelopes, all mailed from the U.S., and is shown stacking the money up into huge piles of U.S. currency. Next the commercial should show a shuttered U.S. auto plant…
Edwin: “The drive-by media has an interest in propagandizing for their parent corporation’s interests which are not necessarily in the American public interest. Some make a profit flooring imports, so why would they want to help American producers. Think about it.”
Interesting allegation. How do they make a profit “flooring imports?” Why wouldn’t they make the same profit “flooring domestics?”
In the ’70’s, everybody had a strong domestic preference? What happened? The simplest explanation, the one that fits all the available facts, is that certain imports came along and delivered more value.
GM has thoughtfully held the knife to its own throat for the benefit of its competitors; the Dexcool, manifold and gasket fiascos are undeniable. And these weren’t issues where GM tried a new design or part and built a bad engine for a year or so… some of these problems were built into new engines for a decade… long past the point where parts consumption and warranty claims should have clued people in that there was a huge problem. Why didn’t GM act? Never mind fixing the engines that were shipped with problems; why continue to ship engines that they had to know would break?
For thirty years, I’ve worked for American manufacturing companies. When we have reason to believe we’re building things that will fail early; we figure out what’s wrong and correct the problem as fast as we can. We watch service calls and spares consumption. We act.
Chris R wrote:
“Ted Lewandowski, Interesting comments and article. I do sometimes wonder though, on the issue of carbon dioxide, why the eco-nuts keep forgetting that trees, grass, flowers and other plants breathe in carbon dioxide and ‘exhale’ oxygen. So, if their so worried about CO levels, then maybe they need to add more vegetation to their urban areas to offset these emissions.”
Bravo. Glad someone can see the light.
Even if you gave all the ‘eco-friendly enthusiasts’ (as we’ll call them) a true EV, they’d be chasing the automakers about something else that’s wrong. Cars are too big, we can’t fit enough on the highway or something of the like. Maybe if CA had a mass transit system like NY or Chicago, then there wouldn’t be the congestion they have which could probably be a larger contributer in itself.
With CA new green mandates for emmissions on the trucking industry, one has to ask how long it’ll be before they quite shipping to CA. Looks like the lit the fuse, better hope they have a plan to put it out before the bridge burns.
Talk about wanting their cake and eating it too.
The future of GM is inextricably tied up with the success of the Chevy Volt. Why do I say this?
Because economies of scale dictate that producing energy at large power stations either directly as electricity at Hydropower stations or indirectly via coal, natural gas or nuclear power plants is infinitely more energy efficient than converting a combustible fuel into the relatively tiny confines of an internal combustion engine on four wheels. Distributing that energy via an existing power grid is similarly a no brainer compared with creating from scratch a new distribution infrastructure that would be required for liquid hydrogen. Even natural gas and ethanol require at the minimum a significant retrofitting of existing infrastructure as well as significant investments in new infrastructure. Distribution of electricity via the grid is both relatively very inexpensive and it also allows for great flexibility as to the source of energy used to fuel the power stations.
Where am I going with this? The greatest ideas in the world don’t take off unless there is a highly effective marketing campaign to entice interest and cause demand for the execution of those ideas.
Excuse the pun but Mr. Wagoner must jump on the band wagon of “change” that bore the fruit of a Presidential victory.
This is the change that in a sense piggy backed on apple computer’s “think different” campaign.
GM must not only become the automobile manufacturer of “change” as embodied in the Volt but it must effectively communicate it’s new role in a clear and concise way that resonates with its customer base. In summary GM must become synonymous with the phrase “engine of change”
“I agree that Cruze is a stupid name for a car. On the bright side, after they slap Buick, Pontiac, Saturn and Cadillac badges on them, they’ll have different names.”
They could pull the old switcheroo on us and call it the Oldsmobile Cutlass. The Cutlass was once the best selling car in North America. How and why GM let the success of that brand get away from them I’ll never understand.
In my neck of the woods, people (lots of farmers, real estate agents, insurance salesmen, and Rotary International members) are still upset that GM let Oldsmobile and the Cutlass brand wither and die.
It’s a real shame what GM let happen to the Oldsmobile name. Ransom Olds and his cars was part of the very foundation of GM. There was once even a popular song called, “My Merry Oldsmobile.”
This is to Ben Dewberry:
There is legal mumbo-jumbo in every contract in the world. Read one sometime. If you contract a service with someone there is ALWAYS legal stuff in it!!!! If you read an MSDS Book there is legal stuff in it!!!!! If you read a Health Care Contract there is legal stuff in it!!!!!! Buy a product, there is legal stuff on the packaging. Take a prescription or OTC Drug, there is legal stuff on the packaging. Sign the paperwork for employment on any job (union or non-union), there is legal stuff in it. Get a clue, there is legal mumbo-jumbo on everything in the world.
Did you not read what I wrote in the entry you commented on???? You only picked out sentences that met your bias, misinformed opinion. The UAW is not like the unions of 70 yrs ago. This country is not like it was 70 yrs. ago. People are not like they were 70 yrs. ago. Also, you are just singling out the UAW. There are 100’s of unions in this country and 1000’s if you count the rest of the world. They are no different than 1000’s of other unions throughout the world. How come you didn’t comment on the fact that they are the reason everyone’s work place safer (OSHA), employers paying at least minimum wage and the governmental laws and agencies for worker protection and rights????????
I am sick of hearing about these foreign auto companies too. Are you American???? Shouldn’t you support American companies over foreign ones that take the profits home to their country while stealing our money???? Yes, I said steal your money!!!!!! Those foreign auto makers were given $3,400,000,000 of YOUR and MY tax dollars to build and locate their plants in those southern states. That right, GIVEN YOUR TAX DOLLARS!!!!!!!! GM and Chrysler are getting a LOAN, not a give. I buy American if I can find a product I need that is made in America. Do you???? I support my fellow Americans first and foremost!!!! Do you????? BTW, I am totally against any American company outsourcing; it needs to stop no matter which company it is.
Buddy Dean del Rio and the rest of who believe in any form of means testing are the single greatest danger to our free market.
If I, or anyone else, can afford to purchase and operate an SUV, fullsize truck, or Kodiak, that should be our choice. The fact that our government and environmental special interest groups have limited our own domestic energy production should be the foremost concern. It shouldn’t matter than I have a ranch in the mountains, that I have livestock, or that an Enclave isn’t rated to tow the weight of my horse trailer. It shouldn’t matter that 2 car seats and a booster seat don’t fit so well in the back seat of small cars.
For those that think that raising the gas tax is the solution, consider the impact on our exisiting fleet and the current state of our economy.
1) if gas taxes are raised to curb demand, those that can purchase a more fuel efficient car and absorb the massive devaluation of the current vehicle will do so. Those that cannot will be forced to pay additional costs for fuel, while continuing to pay for their less fuel efficient vehicle. This will directly impact the economy in a negative way. I guess you folks where under a rock this past summer. As discretionay income deceases, so does non-essential spending. Hence why Wal-Marts are NOT closing and many specialty retailers are.
2) As the average fuel economy of the fleet increases the gas tax revenue will decrease. What are the chances all those social-engineering types that were in favor of the raised gas tax will support increasing the gas tax some more to make up for the lost revenue?
3) Higher gas taxes will cause the costs of goods and services to increase relative to the buying power of the dollar. The word for this is INFLATION.
Once the Government has their hands in GM and Chrysler they will forever control their direction. If you think this is a problem, you should review the Wells Fargo position on the bank bailout and the protest and strong-arm tactics that followed.
Bottom line, GM needs to stand up TO the Government. They are worse than the Mob.
Here’s what Josh Oliver of gmsource.com thinks about GM’s latest ads: (http://www.thegmsource.com/index.php?categoryid=8&p2_articleid=1046)
TheGMSource – I highly doubt I’m in the minority on this one. The latest GM commercials that show vehicles from Saab, Chevy, Saturn and every other GM brand the automaker runs starts with something cute and unique.
The commercials tout what the vehicle does great. Often while teasing the vehicle in question. One ad I saw recently spoke to how great the Cadillac CTS was. Winning several awards. Tossing out top names of magazines that loved it. I was intrigued.
Then GM decided to get cocky.
General Motors talks up their product, gives great glances as what vehicles they are speaking of, then falls flat on their face and gets cocky. The automaker cuts in on the ads and says “And it’s produced by GM….Surprised?” First, YES we’re surprised. When you’re begging for Billions in tax payer money – when it’s clear the south have a sever disliking for you, don’t give anybody a reason to shout from a mountain top with their message on why we in Detroit can’t compete.
Second – shortly after GM runs the ads asking if you’re “surprised it’s made by GM”, they hit you with the great “Red Tag Sales Event.”
Cadillac should not ever, not once, be included in a “discount sale” if the brand is supposed to have prestige, and I don’t need to be “surprised” by what you produce. Just build it – and as they say – they will come.
The fact remains: GM must fire its advertising groups as quickly as another Detroit hometown favorite fired their head coach. Rod Marinelli went 0-16.
General Motors since the very first Senate hearing on auto bailout has gone 0-3. GM failed the first meeting, failed the second meeting, and failed to achieve the amount of votes to pass a bailout plan on the Senate floor.
“If people want an SUV, then that is their business and no one else’s.”
Actually, that’s not true.
Someone who buys an SUV is consuming more than his of her share of the earth’s resources. People who buy capacity beyond their needs are acting selfishly, and the automakers who profited from that selfishness are also socially irresponsible.
I’m in no way opposed to heavy trucks, they are vital to our economy, from the Peterbilt hauling stuff to the nearest Home Depot, to the 20-ton dump truck hauling coal from mine to powerplant, to the plumbing or roofing contractor who needs a heavy-duty pickup truck or step-van to make a living.
The problem is with the millions who bought SUV’s to do nothing more than satisfy some psychological need or emotional craving, and which the Big Three’s marketing campaigns took advantage of.
CAFE is important because it sets a standard for all. Unfortunately, people are selfish and usually act in their own interest, even when that interest is bad for society. They say, “How can I be a bad guy by for driving an SUV that gets 12 mpg? I’m only one person.” Unfortunately, when several million people thoughtlessly say the same, it quickly adds up. CAFE is a way to compensate for the selfish interests of millions of people.
GM really needs the reset button to be pushed. There just seem to be to many people perpetuating the brand management philosophy that was proven to be a failure in the auto industry, and of course a design by committee mentality which gave us the Aztek among other things. The culture at GM is all wrong, and a house cleaning needs to be done. GM doesn’t really need fewer brands as much as it desperately needs to be organized in an efficient manner. Cadillac needs it’s own designers for their vehicles. They may use some of the same common parts as other divisions, but the end result will be all Cadillac. The same goes for Chevy, as well as B-P-G, Saturn and SAAB. Hummer should still get marketing and Sales support from GM, but the brand needs to be returned to AM General. Give them access to GM parts and platforms, but make AM General responsible for running Hummer.
Each diviion needs to have it’s own target, a specific company it is to compete directly against:
Cadillac is doing fine against BMW, Mercedes-Benz and Lexus though Cadillac does need to pay closer attention to interior materials. The chief complaint I hear about Cadillacs is that the interiors aren’t as good as the others
Buick could suppliment Cadillac by making two models to compete directly against the non rear drive models from Lexus. The Enclave is already competing well against the RX, add just one car to compete directly against the ES and you’ll have it. Again, interiors must be on par with Lexus for materials, fit and finish.
SAAB Should really be going after Audi and Volvo. With the powerful turbocharged engines SAAB currently has, and will undoubtedly continue to make, All wheel drive is only a natural evolution. Handling would probably improve significantly over front drive, and of course, the safety value that Audi, Volvo and Subaru espouse could be used by SAAB as well
Saturn really should be renamed as Opel. The cars currently offered are to far upmarket from what Saturns traditionally are. As Opel they’d have an easier time of going after Volkswagen and possibly Acura.
Pontiac is kind of a problem. There really isn’t a brand anywhere quite like Pontiac. So, perhaps Pontiac should have the Holden cars, including HSV variants. Heck, make a police package for the car and make these the next unofficial police car for the country now that the Crown Vic is coming to it’s end. Solstice should either be dropped for a new Fiero, or have the fuel tank relocated and be given a usable trunk. The Honda S2000 and BMW Z4 aren’t much bigger, take a look at them and see where they located their fuel tanks if you don’t know where it’s supposed to go.
Chevy seems to be doing fine. though I must still complain about the interiors here as well. It used to be, not long ago, that you only got the hard plastic interior on the base model cars. Now I’m seeing them in the top level cars. What gives? At least put back the padded dashboards and real door trim. Find any GM car from the 80’s or 90’s that isn’t a base model if you want to see what i mean.
GMC is a problem in that everything except the Denali line is offered by Chevy, and the Denalis are pretty much covered by the Escalades. So how about keeping the Denalis as GM’s premium trucks, and replacing the Escelades with crossovers and perhaps also offering the Hummers in Cadillac dealerships?
Again, I think GM is doing okay as far as product. Some improvements need to be made, namely the interiors, but otherwise the new GM vehicles are top notch. The organization of the company needs to be addressed, and I think decentralizing the divisions is a good way to make things more efficient. It gives each brand a target so as to minimize the chance of models competing against other models within GM, and each division would have the flexibility to change as demand changes. If demand changes in one segment, GM overall can be quicker to change. Each division must run itself though. GM must act only as the parent to these companies it owns, and let them be in charge of their own products.
Simply ask yourselves how can we rely on Japanese automakers to supply our Military with vehicles that are used in transport, logistics, and other non-combat uses? One of these Japanese manufacturers boldly put wooden bumpers on their vehicles during world war 2 so they could divert steel to the effort to demolish America.
If the government fails to act, then GM, Ford, and Chrysler should stop all shipments of unpaid orders to the U.S. Military so a little sense of urgency can undo the bashing of a wonderful American Industry. Where do they think the auto parts for the government fleet vehicles will come from? China. How promising. So now they can literally control our liberty by denying to shore our collapsing currency and deny us parts for government fleet vehicles. Who will deliver the mail? What will they drive when all the ambulances built initially by the big three stop being built. We only need to look to cuba to get a glimpse of what this would be like.
How many steel mills will close? How many mines will close? How many small businesses will collapse because the fleet competition between shipping companies gets disrupted? Who will die because they no longer have medical coverage under this vital industry? How many people will be loosing health insurance? Will the medical system eventually collapse due to an overburden of too many uninsured? Where should we go?
Heavier truck manufacturers like Osh Kosh Truck and others could be affected by the collapse of the tooling and infrastructure of parts makers. Heavy trucks and cranes that dig our wells, move our materials, and make commerce possible.
If the big three collapse because of the government, the exported profits to Japanese shareholders of Japanese manufacturers will probably exceed the 2004 amount of $54 billion to excess $200 billion annually. Just do a little research in the U.S. Library of Congress.
Why did the U.S. Government ask for job cuts in 1979 among an auto bailout of another company when the Canadian government asked “how many jobs can we save”. Shame on us. We need to stop bashing the American auto industry workers and executives and step up to the plate for our faults in this. Did we ever think that American workers and executives should not be treated the better than most in the world?
Goodbye to the American Dollar, goodbye to our dreams, and goodbye to the American way of life should the government fail to act on this crisis they helped create, and are making worse by giving billions with no questions asked to everyone else.
A friend has forwarded me – and a number of others – the following comment in response to a letter GM sent out to suppliers to contact legislators in connection with the government bailout, or shall we say financial support, as you don’t like the widely used term:
Quote:
> Response from:
> Gregory Knox, Pres.
> Knox Machinery Company
> Franklin, Ohio
>
> Gentlemen:
>
> In response to your request to contact legislators and ask for a
> bailout for the Big Three automakers please consider the following, and
> please pass my thoughts on to Troy Clark, President of General Motors
> North America.
>
> Politicians and Management of the Big 3 are both infected with the same
> entitlement mentality that has spread like cancerous germs in UAW halls
> for the last countless decades, and whose plague is now sweeping this
> nation, awaiting our new “messiah” , Pres-elect Obama, to wave his magic
> wand and make all our problems go away, while at the same time allowing
> our once great nation to keep “living the dream”… Believe me folks,
> The dream is over!
>
> This dream where we can ignore the consumer for years while management
> myopically focuses on its personal rewards packages at the same time
> that our factories have been filled with the worlds most overpaid,
> arrogant, ignorant and laziest entitlement minded “laborers” without
> paying the price for these atrocities…this dream where you still think
> the masses will line up to buy our products for ever and ever.
>
> Don’t even think about telling me I’m wrong. Don’t accuse me of not
> knowing of what I speak. I have called on Ford, GM, Chrysler, TRW,
> Delphi, Kelsey Hayes, American Axle and countless other automotive OEM’s
> throughout the Midwest during the past 30 years and what I’ve seen over
> those years in these union shops can only be described as disgusting.
>
> Troy Clarke, President of General Motors North America, states: “There
> is widespread sentiment throughout this country, and our government, and
> especially via the news media, that the current crisis is completely the
> result of bad management which it certainly is not.”
>
> You’re right Mr. Clarke, it’s not JUST management…how about the
> electricians who walk around the plants like lords in feudal times,
> making people wait on them for countless hours while they drag ass…so
> they can come in on the weekend and make double and triple time…for a
> job they easily could have done within their normal 40 hour work week.
> How about the line workers who threaten newbies with all kinds of scare
> tactics…for putting out too many parts on a shift…and for being too
> productive
>
> (We certainly must not expose those lazy bums who have been getting
> overpaid for decades for their horrific underproduction, must we?!?)
>
> Do you folks really not know about this stuff?!? How about this great
> sentiment abridged from Mr. Clarke’s sad plea: “over the last few years
> …we have closed the quality and efficiency gaps with our competitors.”
> What the hell has Detroit been doing for the last 40 years?!? Did we
> really JUST wake up to the gaps in quality and efficiency between us and
> them? The K car vs. the Accord? The Pinto vs. the Civic?!? Do I
> need to go on? What a joke!
>
> We are living through the inevitable outcome of the actions of the
> United States auto industry for decades. It’s time to pay for your
> sins, Detroit.
>
> I attended an economic summit last week where brilliant economist, Alan
> Beaulieu, from the Institute of Trend Research, surprised the crowd when
> he said he would not have given the banks a penny of “bailout money”.
> “Yes, he said, this would cause short term problems,” but despite what
> people like politicians and corporate magnates would have us believe,
> the sun would in fact rise the next day… and the following very
> important thing would happen…where there had been greedy and sloppy
> banks, new efficient ones would pop up…that is how a free market
> system works…it does work…if we would only let it work…”
>
> But for some nondescript reason we are now deciding that the rest of
> the world is right and that capitalism doesn’t work – that we need the
> government to step in and “save us”…Save us my ass, Hell – we’re
> nationalizing…and unfortunately too many of our once fine nation’s
> citizens don’t even have a clue that this is what is really
> happening…But, they sure can tell you the stats on their favorite
> sports teams…yeah – THAT’S really important, isn’t it…
>
> Does i t ever occur to ANYONE that the “competition” has been producing
> vehicles, EXTREMELY PROFITABLY, for decades in this country?… How can
> that be??? Let’s see… Fuel efficient… Listening to customers…
> Investing in the proper tooling and automation for the long haul…
>
> Not being too complacent or arrogant to listen to Dr. W. Edwards Deming
> four decades ago when he taught that by adopting appropriate principles
> of management, organizations could increase quality and simultaneously
> reduce costs. Ever increased productivity through quality and
> intelligent planning… Treating vendors like strategic partners, rather
> than like “the enemy”… Efficient front and back offices… Non union
> environment…
>
> Again, I could go on and on, but I really wouldn’t be telling anyone
> anything they really don’t already know down deep in their hearts.
>
> I have six children, so I am not unfamiliar with the concept of wanting
> someone to bail you out of a mess that you have gotten yourself into -
> my children do this on a weekly, if not daily basis, as I did when I was
> their age. I do for them what my parents did for me (one of their
> greatest gifts, by the way) – I make them stand on their own two feet
> and accept the consequences of their actions and work through it.
> Radical concept, huh… Am I there for them in the wings? Of course -
> but only until such time as they need to be fully on their own as
> adults.
>
> I don’t want to oversimplify a complex situation, but there certainly
> are unmistakable parallels here between the proper role of parenting and
> government. Detroit and the United States need to pay for their sins.
> Bad news people – it’s coming whether we like it or not. The newly
> elected Messiah really doesn’t have a magic wand big enough to “make it
> all go away.” I laughed as I heard Obama “reeling it back in” almost
> immediately after the final vote count was tallied…”we really might
> not do it in a year…or in four…” Where the Hell was that kind of
> talk when he was RUNNING for office.
>
> Stop trying to put off the inevitable folks … That house in Florida
> really isn’t worth $750,000… People who jump across a border really
> don’t deserve free health care benefits… That job driving that
> forklift for the Big 3 really isn’t worth $85,000 a year… We really
> shouldn’t allow Wal-Mart to stock their shelves with products acquired
> from a country that unfairly manipulates their currency and has the most
> atrocious human rights infractions on the face of the globe…
>
> That couple whose combined income is less than $50,000 really shouldn’t
> be living in that $485,000 home… Let the market correct itself folks -
> it will. Yes it will be painful, but it’s gonna’ be painful either way,
> and the bright side of my proposal is that on the other side of it all,
> is a nation that appreciates what it has…and doesn’t live beyond its
> means…and gets back to basics…and redevelops the patriotic work
> ethic that made it the greatest nation in the history of the world…and
> probably turns back to God.
>
> Sorry – don’t cut my head off, I’m just the messenger sharing with you
> the “bad news”. I hope you take it to heart.
>
> Gregory J. Knox, President
> Knox Machinery, Inc.
> Franklin, Ohio 45005
Unquote.
I know you are facing a monumental task of changing people’s long standing perceptions about the quality of your products and the reasons for the tough times GM is facing. One step is to face criticism head on and in this vein, I would be interested to read the response the writer received from Troy Clark.
More suggested reading for everyone who draws a paycheck from GM or its suppliers:
Quality Is Free
by Philip B. Crosby
Quality Without Tears: The Art of Hassle-Free Management
by Philip B. Crosby
Out of the Crisis
by W. Edwards Deming
Quality Is Still Free: Making Quality Certain In Uncertain Times by Philip B. Crosby
Juran on Quality by Design: The New Steps for Planning Quality into Goods and Services
by J. M. Juran
Quality and Me: Lessons from an Evolving Life
by Philip B. Crosby
More reading here:
http://www.work911.com/tqmarticles.htm
Cadillac should use the 260-hp, 2.0L turbocharged Ecotec four as the base engine for the CTS instead of the curent base V6 which makes 263hp. It will enable CTS to achieve 30 mpg highway, the best in class. GM already supplies the 260-hp, 2.0L turbocharged Ecotec four to Fisker Auto and Lotus (http://wot.motortrend.com/6393134/green/all-aboard-the-bandwagon-lotus-reportedly-planning-electric-car/index.html), it might as well use it as the base engine for every Chevy and Cadillac model. It would be fantastic if GM could oust Toyota as the engine supplier for I4 and V6 engines to Lotus Cars. Ironically GM owned Group Lotus PLC and sold it a long time ago. And it’s now owned by the hapless Proton Group of Malaysia which is propped up by government monopoly and still churns up rebadged Mitsubishi models for more than 20 years now. They still can’t make their engines and are dependent on Mitsubishi.
Kay said ~ “Get a clue, there is legal mumbo-jumbo on everything in the world.”
Kay,
Sure, I understand that, but not over 2,000 pages worth. And that vast majority of those 2,000+ pages are there because of some demand the UAW made, not because GM wanted it.
I repeat, those 2,000+ pages of picayune and niggling work rules and MOUs only tie the hands of GM’s managment when they try to be flexible and innovative so they can compete on the world market, or even against other U.S. carmakers.
Just so you understand, I have no problem with UAW workers ~ for the most part they are hard working, red, white and blue, salt-of-the-earth Americans. (I have relatives who worked at the local Chrysler assembly plant. I even belong to a union, though not the UAW.) The problem is with the UAW leaders who have been heavy-handed and power hungry, and who have always given short shrift to the good of the company or product.
By the way, did you get the chance to read the opinion piece in the WSJ that Gerry pointed us to? The author of that article spells out the carmaker’s problem with the UAW much more eloquently than I can
In your own words, “Get a clue.” Any company that wants to be competitive has to be lean, nimble, flexible, and innovative. The less union-imposed “mumbo-jumbo’ the better.
———————————————–
Gerry said: Here is another editorial from the Wall Street Journal that should be on the reading list:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123060246925441479.html
This is in res ponce to Joe Buhler’s entry:
Gregory J. Knox, President of Knox Machinery, Inc. is very mistaken and miss informed. I take offense to a “SO CALLED” fellow American trashing his fellow countrymen/women and bagging up foreigners!!!! First off, all UAW and other union members are not lazy and they are not over payed. How much does he make in proportion to his workers? I can almost bet that he makes at least a 75x what they do. How well does he treat his workers? Does he follow all the work laws that are in place to protect workers? I doubt it. Does he provide his workers with the health care they deserve? I doubt it. I bet he has the attitude that if they get sick and die they can be replaced. From reading his letter I can almost bet that is the case.
As for him calling the UAW workers lazy is very offensive to me. My husband goes to work everyday, rain or shine, well or sick. He works 10 to 12 hrs. per day, 6 or 7 days a week. He comes home exhausted to the point he can barely stay awake to eat his dinner. He gets up at 3AM and returns home at 5:30PM. He even works off the clock several hours a week just to get things done. He even sometimes brings home his paperwork and does it on his own time without pay. Supervisors even want him to stay in his position in the union because they like him, even the plant manager. I bet Mr. Knox doesn’t work those hours. If a worker is not doing his job it is a supervisors job to write him up and require disciplinary action. If it continues that person can be fired. It is the supervisor’s fault for not doing his job also. I know this because my husband is a UAW Skilled Trades Shop Committee Person. He wishes that management would take care of the situation properly because he gets tired of dealing with those UAW members also.
There is a reason that “some” and not many foreign vehicles are cheaper. One is most of them are not as well made and don’t last as long as the American cars do. Do you see many foreign cars that are over 10 yrs, old on the road? I sure don’t, but I see plenty US made cars that are over 10 yrs. old on the road. Two, if they are imported vehicles that means they were manufactured buy employees that make probably about $5 per hour, are over worked, maltreated and have no health care unless it’s a country that has nationalized health care. Our country charges them much less on import taxes then their country charges us, that is if we can even import to their country at all. The foreign cars workers in this country are intimidated into not unionizing, don’t have the health care they deserve, are fired unjustly and in some incidences unpaid. MSNBC just reported that a survey was done and 60,000,000 in this country desire to be unionized so that they can have an intimidated work place, safe work environments and health care they deserve. If some of the business owner, CEO and executive were paid a REASONABLE wage they would have the money to pay their worker fairly!!!! Finally, I am sick and tired of my fellow Americans that support foreign countries over their own!!!!!!! What is wrong with people? Do they not realize they are selling this country out to the lowest bidder???!!!!!????? Well, we are now starting to pay for it. That is one of the biggest reasons the economy is like it is. WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!
I made some mistakes in my previous entry. Here are the corections:
There is a reason that “some” and not many foreign vehicles are cheaper. One, most of them are not as well made and don’t last as long as the American cars do. Do you see many foreign cars that are over 10 yrs. old on the road? I sure don’t, but I see plenty US made cars that are over 10 yrs. old on the road. Two, if they are imported vehicles that means they were manufactured by employees that make probably about $5 per hour, are over worked, maltreated and have no health care unless it’s a country that has nationalized health care. Our country charges them much less on import taxes than their country charges us, that is if we can even import to their country at all. The foreign cars workers in this country are intimidated into not unionizing, don’t have the health care they deserve, are fired unjustly and in some incidences underpaid. MSNBC just reported that a survey was done and 60,000,000 people in this country desire to be unionized so that they can have an unintimidated work place, safe work environments and the health care they deserve. If some of the business owner, CEO and executive were paid a REASONABLE wage they would have the money to pay their worker fairly!!!! Finally, I am sick and tired of my fellow Americans that support foreign countries over their own!!!!!!! What is wrong with people? Do they not realize they are selling this country out to the lowest bidder???!!!!!????? Well, we are now starting to pay for it. That is one of the biggest reasons the economy is like it is. WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!
Kay,
Did you pick up on this from Joe Buhler’s post?
> You’re right Mr. Clarke, it’s not JUST management…how about the
> electricians who walk around the plants like lords in feudal times,
> making people wait on them for countless hours while they drag ass…so
> they can come in on the weekend and make double and triple time…for a
> job they easily could have done within their normal 40 hour work week.
> How about the line workers who threaten newbies with all kinds of scare
> tactics…for putting out too many parts on a shift…and for being too
> productive
To Beaugrands regarding more reading:
Quality Is Free
by Philip B. Crosby
First mentor printing, January, 1980
Quality Without Tears: The Art of Hassle-Free Management
by Philip B. Crosby
First Plume Printing, April 1985
Out of the Crisis
by W. Edwards Deming
Eighteenth Printing, May 1992 (A signed copy by the late W. Edwards Deming)
Design For Six Sigma
by Subir Chowdhury
Done it, did it. What’s your point?
These and other books are required at GM.
The Philip Crosby program was taught here in the 80’s.
D.I.R.T.F.T. That’s what we practice everday here at GM.
Best Regards and Happy New Year
I AM GM
“The Philip Crosby program was taught here in the 80’s.”
Why didn’t they pay attention?
Ben:
There is one glaring problem with your continued rants about the UAW- GM’s product quality and efficiency has improved over the last 20 years with UAW members assembling their cars. You keep saying the UAW doesnt care about product quality or GM but the bottom line is that changes they have agreed to over the years have helped GM turn out award winning products lately and GM is now one of the more efficient automakers in North America. How do you explain these gains if the UAW is so uninterested in GM’s well being? The UAW leadership you are criticizing is the same leadership that agreed to wholesale changes in the last contract that will save GM billions in 2010. You are dealing with outdated stereotypes and refuse to acknowledge the progress that has been made. Why would UAW leaders who are greedy agree to $14/hr starting wages for new workers and an end to defined pensions? Can you explain that to me? The decisions that have been made by the UAW leaders in 2007 contradict everything you have said thus far about their supposed inflexibility.
Charlie H,
“In the ’70’s, everybody had a strong domestic preference? What happened? The simplest explanation, the one that fits all the available facts, is that certain imports came along and delivered more value.”
Wrong. You are taking a very simplistic view of the world. To a large degree market share is a function of competiton. Until the mid 1970s the Big 3 had little foreign competition and thus dominated the market. The Japanese have been expanding their lineups and dealer networks since they got here. You increase share by attacking every segment of a market. When the Japanese first came here all they offered were a few small rust prone cars with weak engines. No pickups, SUVs, luxury cars or V6 powered cars. V8s werent even on the horizon back in the 1970s. Over the next 30 years they proceeded to launch vehicles in every vehicle segment and the increased competition led to lower share for the domestics. Quality played a role but its absolutely ridiculous to presume that every sale the Japansese have made to a former domestic owner is based on poor domestic vehicle quality. SOmetimes people are interested in the newest game in town. When there were no import alternatives in certain segments people only bought American products. Once the foreign automakers started to offer minivans, pickups, large cars and luxury models people wanted to check them out. Another factor was that in the 1980s many Americans embraced the concept that owning something foreign increased your social status. Before the 80s Americans really didnt care much about BMWs and MBs but during that decade upper middle class people could afford those cars for the first time and it became a measure of your success. In the 80s no one cool or trendy aspired to drive a Cadillac because it just wasnt representative of being middle aged and successful.
You mention the dexcool issue but dont mention who was at fault. The settlement involves the company that provided the coolant. I should know because I know someone who recently had this issue with an Intrigue. My understanding is that GM placed the blame for the gasket leaks on the supplier. If a supplier promises that a product is going to work they have to deliver or face the financial consequences. BTW, I notice you chose to ignore Toyota’s engine sluge problems or Honda’s transmission problems. All manufacturers have experienced widespread quality issues related to a minor component failure in the past.
Chip,
When are you going to address consumption of oil? You are obviously opposed to SUVs and that is your right but your assertion that CAFE exists to counter selfish behavior is a joke. CAFE encourages selfish behavior by telling Americans their driving habits have no bearing on oil consumption. Are you oppsed to suburban living? Suburban living is primarily responsible for our addiction to oil, not SUVs. Someone in NYC could own an SUV and use less oil than someone driving a Camry four cylinder who drives 15k miles a year. Its simply foolish to single out people based on what they drive without taking driving habits into consideration. If people were serious about reducing consumtion and emissions there would be more discussion of urban living but unfortunately too many people like you believe we can continue to drive everywhere and live 30 miles from work as long as we chastise SUV drives and GM. Americans love to scapegoat and avoid responsibility and you are no different. Honestly, anyone who doesnt live in a transit orieted city like NYC should refrain from lecturing SUV owners about being selfish.
Laramie Jordan – “Why didn’t they pay attention?”
What is it you want to rehash Laramie that hasn’t already been said umpteen times on this blog site? You have to be more specific if you want an answer.
Regards
I AM GM
Sheth, Nobody bought a car from a coolant supplier or a gasket supplier. They bought the car from GM. GM builds it right and/or makes it right or GM suffers the loss.
On the launch of the Tundra, Toyota got some early camshaft failures. The GM solution would have been to blame the camshaft supplier and, apparently, keep buying the very same problematic camshafts from that supplier. The Toyota solution was to recall the trucks with suspect camshafts (not broken camshafts, suspect camshafts) and replace the engines (the engines, not the camshafts). I don’t know what accomodation they came to with the supplier but Tundra reliability returned to Toyota normal in its second year.
I don’t choose to ignore the sludge issue; I am quite sure it’s overblown. I know at least 8 people with the famed Toyota Sludgemaster and all now have high mileages. No one has a problem; we simply change our oil periodically. Of course, after just a couple years, Toyota did redesign the valve covers to supply more oil in critical places, rather than just let the problem fester. Even if the early 3.0L V6’s are susceptible to sludging when the oil is not changed, per spec, Toyota didn’t build a generation of vehicles that would blot their reputation. GM built the problems I mentioned into the cars for a decade or so.
The simple explanation fits. If people weren’t more satisfied with their non-domestic-branded cars, they’d be back as quickly as they left. Detroit would still be atop the US car market. But the migration has all been one way.
Mr. Lutz,
I am not an employee of General Motors. But I have been a loyal owner of the Chevrolet, Pontiac and Saturn badges.
I was looking for a way to float an idea to help GM, and found this forum. I hope that my desire to promote an idea has not broken some “blog etiquette”.
My thought is that GM needs to solve its problem from the ground up, rather than from the top down (although it probably requires approaching the overall problem from both directions).
It goes without saying, the American people are suffering from the worst economic climate since the 1930’s. Most middle class folks who are on the edge will not be purchasing a new car in the months ahead, no matter the incentives offered. And yet, they need decent, reliable transportation.
At the same time, there are millions of decent, older GM vehicles on the road that could benefit from a new program of refitting, retrofitting and restoring. And that is the basis of my idea.
What if GM offered a dealer-based program to restore older GM models to “as new” status, and offered financial packages to support it?
A program of this nature would be “green” in that there would be less need for new; by finding and fixing problems that might be actually increase a vehicle’s milage, reduce wasteful use of resources by replacing worn-out parts, and further reduce accidents by making every older car safe.
Because a program of this nature would be dealer-oriented, it would be aimed directly at the customer base. It would provide jobs and training to the service departments and be a source for the purchase of authorized parts. And if financing were available, it would be a source of long-term revenue for GM.
The scenario I could see is a customer brings in their 1999 Pontiac GTP to the dealer. They tell the dealer of any and all known problems, sign a contract committing to restoration of their car, and the service department would then go over all operating systems; including computer, electrical, engine, brakes, drive train, suspension system, safety features (including tires, lamps, airbags, seats, belts, etc.), frame and body. All worn-out parts would be repaired or replaced.
All work would be done without prior estimates and would be done to the highest GM standards. The dealer would provide a website interface for the customer to track the work and expenses.
At the completion of all the work, the customer would be asked in to the dealership and offered a financial plan to pay for the work and a re-warrantee. The customer would get a “new” 1999 Pontiac GTP with extended warrantee, and a way to pay for the work (which could be, I suppose, $2000-$10,000).
It’s a new way of thinking about people and their relationship to GM and a new idea that would put GM ahead of Ford and Chrysler (and Honda and Toyota for that matter).
Think about it. Talk about it. Find new answers.
Bob,
I’m pretty excited to see you in charge of product development at GM. What the company really needs are more great products. The Malibu, G8, Insignia, and the upcoming Camaro all show that GM is in the right direction. Labor unions, pensions, even management are all forgotten ifyou have a great product. BMW has had the same “legacy” problems in Germany, but they still do fine.
Not to say that GM dosent need to do any cost restructuring, but move all the savings to R&D and marketing. Hope that the new Cruze gets out sooner than 2010, as this will probably be the volume seller that GM needs.
I AM GM said: “What is it you want to rehash Laramie that hasn’t already been said umpteen times on this blog site? You have to be more specific if you want an answer.”
GM,
I was commenting on the irony of you claiming that GM has been teaching and practicing all the best theories on management and quality control since the 1980s, yet still ended up in the dire straits.
If they indeed have been teaching those concepts since the 1980’s, it makes me think that either someone wasn’t paying attention in class, or that GM’s corporate culture is so deeply embedded that nothing can overcome it.
You want me to be specific: If GM has been teaching the most up-to-date theories on quality control and management since the 1980’s, why haven’t they gotten better results?
Charlie H – in your defense for the Tundra, maybe you can enlighten us about the tailgate failures that have created it’s own web sight. This is not a supplier issue , but an engineering failure. It amazes me how some folks think if it’s a Toyota it must just be better. Buy the way, why is Toyota selling a full size truck and SUV if that’s not what consumers want to buy. There is a double standard here.
Respectfully
I AM GM
Okay, it’s the new year, and today we find out that Pntiac has canned the upcoming G8 ST (ute) entirely. Already, contrary to Bob Lutz’s closing remarks 13 days ago, 2009 is not starting out very happy. Sure, some were ticked that the vehicle wasn’t a true reincarnation, including nameplate, of eth El Camino, but to more than a few diehard Pontiac AND truck fans the ST was a dream coming true.
Making Pontiac a “niche” brand does not mean it has to shrink to only one or two models. What is GM’s concept of “niche” anyway? Is it performance? Then give us the G8 in 2 door coupe, 2 dr convertible, wagon, and ute, in addition to what the media calls a “4 door Corvette”. Is it economy? Please do not offend us that Pontiac might become the G3 only.
While we are on eth sunject of shrinking Pontiac and increasing th eso-called “core” brands, hasn’t anyone else noticed the facts that Over the past several months/years, Pontiac in the US has OUTSOLD, not only Cadillac, but Buick, and even Saturn? In fact POntiac sales nearly equal Cadillac and Buick sales in North America combined. Obviously nobody earning a paycheck from GM has noticed this – or they wouldn’t be choking Pontiac to death one model at a time.
Charlie,
If Toyota was building what people wanted their sales wouldn’t have been off 37% in December and they wouldn’t be closing their plants for 11 days. The Tundra is the biggest joke in the Automotive industry since the Edsel. A collosal failure plagued with frame flex, cheapo interior, collapsing tailgates, driveshaft, transmission and engine failures. It’s a shame that it makes the Titan look like a serious truck.
It also gets 20% lower fuel economy than the equivalent Silverado. Nice work Toyota…
BTW; Detroit is still “atop” the car market – GM Ford and Chrysler sell more than half of the vehicles sold in the US and GM still has 22% of the US market; 5% more than Toyota.
Toyota engines aren’t just subject to sludge when they aren’t maintained. They have replaced thousands of engines for this issue.
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news02/toyota_sludge.html
http://www.yotarepair.com/Sludge_Zone.html
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070207/AUTO01/702070349/1148
Laramie,
GM has had great results on quality control and reliability. Even Consumer Reports says so.
http://wkzonews.blogspot.com/2009/01/consumer-reports-fusion-milan-rank.html
Some other interesting links for Charlie.
http://www.tundraheadquarters.com/blog/2007/09/27/tundra-design-flaw-never-drive-your-tundra-tailgate-down/
http://www.tundrasolutions.com/forums/tundra/117206-tundra-tailgate-failures-i-am-club/
Sheth said: “CAFE encourages selfish behavior by telling Americans their driving habits have no bearing on oil consumption.”
Just so I understand this, are you saying that if the CAFE in the States was over 40 mpg as it is in Europe, everyone would decide to live 30 or 40 miles from town? Do I understand that right?
You think that if people owned and drove cars that got over 40 mpg, they would decide to live far enough from their work that they’d have to spend 90-120 minutes a day commuting, or far enough from town that anytime they needed a gallon of mile they’d think nothing of jumping in their 40 mpg econo-boxes to make a 60 mile round trip? (People would really have to love sitting in their cars fighting traffic to decide they’ll put up with long-distance commuting or shopping just because they own a car that gets better than 40 mpg. You do know that people can already buy cars that get better than 40 mpg but don’t do that.)
You are drawing conclusions from something for which there is no demonstrated cause and effect.
“…anyone who doesn’t live in a transit oriented city like NYC should refrain from lecturing SUV owners about being selfish.”
Really? Not that it matters, but I live five miles from where I work, and ride my bicycle except for the handful of days each year when the roads are covered with ice.
Not that you care, but did you know that if everyone who lives five miles or less from where they work commuted by bicycle, the U.S. would have to import no oil for motor fuel?
Laramie “If GM has been teaching the most up-to-date theories on quality control and management since the 1980’s, why haven’t they gotten better results?”
Again, I’m not sure what you are refering to in your response. GM has improved quality and reliability. Are you trying to imply they haven’t? Sheth, Gereon, Edward Hayes and others on this blog has stated many times the difference between the 80’s and todays cars and trucks. As I have stated before, my family and myself have owned many GM products for many years even before I became an engineer here at GM. Maybe it’s time you give GM a try with an open mind Laramie.
We’d love to have you as part of the GM family.
Respectfully
I AM GM
David,
From that Consumer Reports article you pointed me to:
“He says all Ford products have average or better reliability than anything else on the road, and about half of all GM models make that standard.”
If GM has been studying and teaching the most up-to-date theories of quality control and management since the 1980’s, wouldn’t you think that more than “about half” of their cars should make the standard?
Charlie:
“Sheth, Nobody bought a car from a coolant supplier or a gasket supplier. They bought the car from GM. GM builds it right and/or makes it right or GM suffers the loss.”
The suppliers are given specs on a product and are supposed to deliver the product. If the coolant was supposed to work with the GM gaskets than the supplier is at fault. My understanding is that the coolant manufacturer is the one who was forced to pay out a settlement to owners.
The Toyota sludge issue involved many engines and lots of money spent by Toyota to fix the problem. I dont know how many years they allowed this issue to fester but I do know it has nothing to do with not changing oil. It was a design problem. You are employing double standards as usual. You praise Toyota for how they handled a reliability issue but have no criticism of the fact they allowed the issue to materialize in the first place.
You also might want to do some basic research on who sells the most vehicles in the US market. GM is larger than Toyota and Ford is larger than Honda (by a nice margin) in this market. Toyota experienced a larger drop in sales than GM last month and some feel Ford has a shot at passing Toyota in the US within the next 2 years due to new product. GM still finds more customers each month than Toyota regardless of how much you hate the company. Its also foolish to pretend that everyone that buys an import is doing so because they owned an unreliable domestic. The imports have been expanding their offerings here for 40 years and now they compete in every segment. Over the last decade much of the marketshare gain experienced by the imports in the US has been related to crossovers, SUVs and pickups. When the Asians did not compete in those segments people who wanted SUVs and trucks had to buy American. Once consumers have more choices hte market fragments. This is the case in Europe where top notch automakers like BMW and MB do not have as much marketshare as GM has here in the US. Why? Too much competition.
You also say the migration has been all one way. I beg to differ. Many people who own vehicles like the Malibu, CTS or Enclave have owned imports in the past. 3-4 years ago the crossover segment was dominated by import nameplates because there werent many domestic offerings. Now vehicles like the Traverse, Enclave and Ford Edge have grabbed significant marketshre in that segment which tells you that people who previously would’ve been buying a Toyota or Honda chose a GM or Ford model instead.
Chip,
You seem to be struggling with some very basic points. If gas is higher people buy smaller cars and use public transportation. When gas is cheap people buy cars with 300+ hp and SUVs and live 30 miles from work.
You have provided no proof that Europe mandates 40mpg car. I have never heard such a thing. Even if that were the case Europeans use diesels which are 30% more efficient than gas engines. Environmentalists have supported stricty emissions laws that make most diesels too dirty for use in the US so its pointless to claim you want to mimic Europe if you think their engines are not environmentally friendly. California is one of the states that has air quality laws that make most diesels unsellable there and in other states that use CA’s standards. Diesels would be the best way to acheive significant increases in mileage but they are not practical here for numerous reasons. Europe has high fuel taxes which prompts consumers to demand small, weak cars and GM (and others) provide those cars. There is no 40mpg CAFE standard that I know of in Europe that dictates that manufacturers make small, efficient cars. The market demands those cars because of $6/gal gas.
“Really? Not that it matters, but I live five miles from where I work, and ride my bicycle except for the handful of days each year when the roads are covered with ice.
Not that you care, but did you know that if everyone who lives five miles or less from where they work commuted by bicycle, the U.S. would have to import no oil for motor fuel?”
You are the exception, not the rule. GM did not force Americans to move to the suburbs but that is what consumers chose to do. In America living 10+ miles from work and commuting by car is the norm. Only a minority of people walk, bike or catch mass transit to work. BEcause Americans live in such spread out metro areas these options are not practical. Again, this has nothing to do with GM or SUVs. According to your logic such behavior should be deemed selfish but you have reserved your ire for SUV owners and GM alone. I don’t get that.
Pushing for impossible CAFE standards while advocating cheap gas will only lead to more sprawl and suburbanization. If you are pro-environment you should be anti sprawl. You dont curb suburban sprawl and the ensuing 30 mile commutes by having $1.50/gallon gas and 40mpg cars. That will only encouage more driving. As I said, consumption in the US has skyrocketed since CAFE was implemented. People have more cars and longer commutes and thus the improved efficiency of cars has not accomplished its goal.
Laramie,
You might want to do some research on GM quality before making railing accusations based on experiences from 25 years ago. Everyone who measures quality has noted GM’s quality improvements. Also, Gm has posted info about how much they have decreased warranty expenses over the last 5 years or so. They have made significant progress on that front and three of their brands have 4 year/50k warranties. All of their brands have the 5 year powertrain warranties. Recalls from GM have been on the decline in recent years while they have been increasing for Toyota and others. Care to explain that?
“Done it, did it. What’s your point?
These and other books are required at GM.
The Philip Crosby program was taught here in the 80’s.
D.I.R.T.F.T. That’s what we practice everday here at GM.”
So why are my tax dollars being used to bail out GM?
And, if the Philip Crosby program was taught at GM in the ’80s, why was the build quality so horrible in the ’80s and ’90s?
D.I.R.T.F.T.? Did somebody forget to remind Rick about this the first time he flew into D.C. to beg Congress for a handout?
If these materials are already required reading material, how about Rick and the rest of his posse quoting some of the material here in this blog, and in media interviews?
“Again, I’m not sure what you are referring to in your response. GM has improved quality and reliability. Are you trying to imply they haven’t?”
I AM GM,
No, I’m not. I guess there is little point in trying to use irony in this format.
Best,
Laramie
Nick Norman – “This is the change that in a sense piggy backed on apple computer’s “think different” campaign.”
Nice idea. I hope they hire Apple’s ad agency, and have them run Mac style ads for the Volt. Heck, Apple might still be looking for an iCar tie in. I can’t imagine a better car than the Volt for this.
Look,
Every manufacture makes flawed products at some point or another and nobody is immune to screwing up. But as of late and ever since GM and Ford have been threatened by Toyota, all I’ve heard is a large amount of baseless bashing against Toyotas in general, blowing small problems and glitches they supposedly have/had into huge debacles. I’m a fan of GM, but lets set the record straight. Indeed- Toyota had a sludging problem with some of their 1990’s V6 engines. But if you read the details, any sludge problem typically came from the result of the owner failing to change the oil after 10,000-12,000 miles. I’d call that severe neglect. Of course oil will sludge if it loses its viscosity properties as a result of being used beyond its useful life. Name your car, the case would be the same and has been in countless cars and trucks.
Secondly, the Tundra did have a problem with a faulty Camshaft initially. On 20 units. That’s right. Not 20,000, not 20 million, but 20 altogether. Big whoop-di-doo. The problem was fixed well before the truck was on sale in large volumes. Most manufactures would’ve just kept quiet. That Toyota even bothered to mention this is rather admirable. My Dad has a 2001 Tundra, and just like all the other Toyotas we’ve owned, it has well over 200,000 miles, hasn’t had any major problems, and does what its supposed to do: haul stuff.
But what about GM? What about all that Dexcool that tends to clog engines? What about the ridiculous plastic intake manifolds that eventually warp? What about headliners that sag, or door handles that pop off? I could go on and on about these and other problems countless people I know who own GM cars and trucks have had, but that’s sort of counter-productive. The bottom line is that I know a lot of people who are pro-American are getting their feathers in a ruff about Toyota, but it pays to know the facts and to make comparisons and learn from their mistakes as well as GM and Ford’s.
Chip,
Europe does not have CAFE. They have extremely high fuel prices (taxes) that discourage consumption. More recently they have instituted emission controls on CO2 which when combined with registration taxes discourage consumption even more. The US has simply told the car companies to do the equivalent of fighting a national obesity epidemic by making pants with waists no larger than 36″.
“Europe does not have CAFE.”
They do not have a CAFE program or law as we do, but they do have an average fuel economy for the cars on their roads, and that is well over 40 mpg. True, they got there by a different means than us, but what’s important is they got there.
I would not object to a gas tax here that conditioned people to drive smaller, more fuel efficient cars. What matters is the result ~ not how you get there.
“The US has simply told the car companies to do the equivalent of fighting a national obesity epidemic by making pants with waists no larger than 36″.”
Don’t scoff. How do you know that wouldn’t work? If it was a choice between losing weight or walking around without pants, many people would drop the pounds.
Sheth ~ “Recalls from GM have been on the decline in recent years while they have been increasing for Toyota and others. Care to explain that?”
That’s good of course Sheth, and I’m not saying it’s not. But can’t you see the irony in GM claiming they have taught and used the most up-to-date theories of quality control and management since the 1980’s, but are only now getting results – 25 years later?
“Do it right the first time” has been required reading and a management philosophy at GM since the 1980’s? Get real. As Beaugrand said so well in his post above, if that’s the case, why do we now need to bail them out?
Beaugrand®™© – “So why are my tax dollars being used to bail out GM?”
You’ll need to ask Congress that question. Government loans from many countries to help all automotive industry is nothing directly related to the vehicles they sell. The economic meltdown and only the economic meltdown is to blame for ALL auto industries to seek financial aid from their governments.
The Philip Crosby program had nothing to do with the auto loans. By the way if you want to insist on calling it a bailout then I have 2 questions. 1) Exactly how much do you think this will cost you out of your pocket vs. the $700 billion bailout to Wall Street ? Give me a dollar figure. 2) Will you be back on this site to say you were wrong when the low interest loans get paid back to the government with millions of dollars in interest? By the way, other countries governments are giving them ( foriegn auto) tax dollars with no demands to be paid back.
As for my CEO and others flying to Washington. Do the math. His salary times the 18 hrs drive time or fly there in a short amount of time in a private jet and still be able to conduct buisness that reaches to every corner of the globe. While you enjoy your weekend and after work hours to yourself these Global leaders ( Rick and the rest of his posse as you stated) work around the clock 7/24/365.
Why don’t you write to congress and ask them to save your tax dollars by selling all the jets that fly our politicians around the world. Just like they said ” Take a commericial flight”.
By the way, D.I.R.T.F.T. means – Do It Right The First Time. Maybe something Toyota should have tried doing with their Tundra truck.
I AM GM
Edvard,
Don’t be so obtuse. They had problems with sludge up until 2005 at a bare minimum and it wasn’t just engines that were under-maintained.
Flubs like the Tundra are not “small problems and glitches”. When the truck clearly has issues with structure and was designed with a tailagate that can’t support the weight of a full grown male human something is seriously wrong in Toyotaland.
No one is making excuses for the intake manifold issue; that’s why GM had a special policy covering it and in case you haven’t noticed most carmakers use long-life coolants that are very similar to DexCool and have no issues and GM continues to use DexCool. Honda, VW, and GM all use coolants that are almost identical in chemical composition. If they didn’t work and weren’t better than traditional siliacated coolants they wouldn’t still be in use in nearly every vehicle made.
Chip,
“Don’t scoff. How do you know that wouldn’t work? If it was a choice between losing weight or walking around without pants, many people would drop the pounds.”
Or they would buy two pairs of pants and make one out of them.
The best way to influence behavior is by making the consumer own the choice not the manufacturer. CAFE is an utter failure and has only served to cause our domestic industry to suffer.
“Do it right the first time” has been required reading and a management philosophy at GM since the 1980’s? Get real. As Beaugrand said so well in his post above, if that’s the case, why do we now need to bail them out?”
Primarily because of a collapse of the finance market that was beyond their control. Why is France “Bailing out” Renault (and by way of Renault; Nissan) and why is Italy “bailing out” Fiat? Because they know that the failure of core industries will result in untold economic turmoil.
“As for my CEO and others flying to Washington. Do the math. His salary times the 18 hrs drive time or fly there in a short amount of time in a private jet…”
I AM GM,
You completely overlook the enormous intrinsic value of your CEO finally spending lengthy windshield time on the road in one of the cars his company builds.
If the CEOs of all the Big Three had to routinely take long road trips in the cars their companies built, I bet the quality of the cars would soon change. Do you think GM would have ever built the Chevy Vega, or Ford the Pinto, if their CEOs at the time had had to actually drive them?
Were I on the board of directors at GM, I would require that Rick Wagoner have to take a two-day road trip once a month in a GM car picked at random from a GM dealer lot in Detroit ~ no special prep or anything. Just Rick at the wheel of one of his company’s cars on the road for a weekend. CEOs have to understand exactly what it is they are trying to sell to consumers.
David,
The sludging problem was indeed caused by severe neglect/abuse. I even read one case where the owner of a Lexus LS300 had the sludging problem. They guy had put 75,000 miles on the car, yet had only changed the oil THREE times, so basically once every 22,000 miles. Duh. Doya’ think if you don’t change the oil, there will be problems?
Secondly, as mentioned, my Dad owns a Tundra, and being a large man, not to mention all the ridiculous stuff we’ve loaded onto its tailgate, I can definitely testify that they’ll hold a whole heck of a lot more than a full grown man.Like golf carts, loads of cement, bricks, and so forth. Again, I realize a lot of the Domestic guys out there are all flustered that a Japanese company could come in and steal what is supposed to be American turf ( full size trucks) but the better attitude would be to request companies like GM and Ford the desires and features that they like or would like to have.
“Primarily because of a collapse of the finance market that was beyond their control.”
David,
That’s a red herring. GM was in trouble before the financial market collapsed. Had they really been a proponent of DIRTFT and modern lean and nimble management techniques, they would have been building quality cars and market share through the 80’s and 90’s and would have been so strong they would have had sufficient cash reserves to ride out a collapse.
Edvard
The tailgate issue that has alot of Tundra owners very upset was not dreamed up or created by the domestic truck producers. We’re just discussing issues Toyota is plagued with of their own doings. Why don’t you share with us what that Tundra gets for gas milage. Some folks on this forum try really hard to believe GM played with the minds of consumers to buy the so called “gas guzzlers”. Please share with us why your father bought his Tundra, the first year model attempt of a full size truck. If nothing else I would have waited for a couple years to work the bugs out. And don’t even try to tell me it’s a better truck then GM’s new series truck. We’ve compared several of them here at GM at the proving grounds. Conclusion: Not even in the same ball park. But then, no one said it was going to be easy. Let me add, to be fair, it is a nice looking truck on the outside only.
Once again this reminds me that there are consumers that will spend American money on a foriegn owned vehicle just because it’s a Toyota.
Check out all the Tundra recalls on this site:
http://www.blogcatalog.com/blogs/tundraheadquarterscom/posts/tag/tundra%20recalls/
I do wish your father all the best of luck with his truck.
I’m sure when he’s ready to trade up, GM will have some good offers for him to buy a real truck.
By the way, it was Dr Deming who helped the Japanese get their quality controls in line.
So, what happened????????????????
Regards
I AM GM
edvard,
If what Toyota did was “steal” turf and this is the maximum effectiveness they can muster, they couldn’t manage to steal a pack of gum from a convinience store.
You are ignoring the many thousands of customers on the sludging issue that had maintained their cars properly and still had issues – the vast, vast, majority of cases. If there wasn’t really a problem; why did Toyota agree to millions of dollars worth of engine replacements after being faced with a class-action lawsuit?
I am GM,
Here’s some responses. Why did my Dad buy a Tundra in its first model run? Because every single Toyota truck and car he bought for our family was as close to being flawless as imagined. We have owned in the following order:
1: 85′ Camry
2: 88′ Celica
3: 88′ 4Runner
4: 89′ Pickup
5: 92′ Camry
6: 96′ Tacoma ( mine and I still own it)
7: 98′ Avalon ( My Brother’s, formerly my Mom’s.)
8: 2001 Tundra ( Dad’s, still owns it)
I grew up in rural TN, and that’s where my family still lives. My Dad uses his vehicles for heavy work. My Mom has one heck of a commute. ALL of these vehicles lasted a minimum of 200,000 miles. My Truck now has 216,000 miles. Dad’s ( the Tundra) has 220,000 miles. My Brother’s Avalon, which despite having this supposed failure of a V6 engine and with his lack of interest in changing the oil or taking care of it has lasted 245,000 miles so far. What do they all have in common? As mentioned, they last/ lasted forever with few if any problems. Trust me- Dad beats the heck out of his Tundra. It has dents and it doesn’t look super pretty. But 220,000 miles on a truck that was a first for a company is admirable. That GM has been making them for 90+ years should mean this argument should be no contest.
Perhaps some of you who work at GM want to get inside the heads of us who continue to buy Toyotas. So here I’ve given you my reasons, and that would be that they simply build very good products and we have few if any reason to switch.
One other thing. I keep hearing about how we should be buying GM and Fords to help the American economy. Sounds great except that Toyota and Nissan have plants in my home state, pay their employees well, give them a decent quality of life, and invest heavily in their neighborhoods. Just because I buy a car made in the US with a Japanese name doesn’t mean it doesn’t help people I personally know- which it does. Looking at how things are going in states like Ohio, MI, IN, and MN, it doesn’t seem like buying American is improving things there.
Lastly, Edward Deming indeed helped Japan develop lean and efficient manufacturing as well as finding ways to closely monitor quality. Yet GM, Ford, and Chrysler totally ignored this system until the 80’s. It wasn’t as if this same manufacturing system was unavailable to them. They just chose to keep using antiquated infrastructure. If you want to place the blame, it isn’t the Japanese nor Edward Deming.
In either regard, I post here because despite what I’ve said, I have tremendous respect for GM and people like Bob Lutz. I am like many highly anticipate of the new Volt and applaud recent cars like the Malibu. Change is exciting. Hopefully GM will continue in this direction.
“That’s good of course Sheth, and I’m not saying it’s not. But can’t you see the irony in GM claiming they have taught and used the most up-to-date theories of quality control and management since the 1980’s, but are only now getting results – 25 years later?”
Laramie:
GM quality and productivity has been improving for years. All cars are more reliable than they used to be. Even if we believe that GM’s quality isnt equal to Toyota’s that does not mean GM only learned how to make a reliable car 2 years ago. CR supposedly tracks unreliable vehicles but they fail to disclose the actualy failure rates for each product. Why? Because these days the failure rates are so small that CR knows most people would deduce that cars are very reliable. THis is why CR rates cars relative to the average. If the average vehicle has a 3% problem rate and a GM product has a 6% problem rate that GM product is labelled as “much worse than average” in reliability and gets a poor score. A GM vehicle of today is probably more reliable than an import of 10 years ago.
edvard,
Anecdotal stories to validate reliability are pointless. There are thousands (millions) of people who could offer similar stories about GM products that have lasted 150K+ miles and yet I am willing to bet those stories wouldnt convince you of anything. That being said there is no point in you listing all the Toyotas in your family that have lasted for yeas. In 2008 a car that lasts 200k miles is a novelty that doesn’t really matter to most people. How many folks do you know that keep their vehicles for 10+ years? I know few. Any car sold today can last 150k miles if properly maintained. You Toyota fans are stuck in the past and believe that Toyota has a monopoly on quality and that just is not true. I’ve known numerous people who drove GM products that were well over 10 years old and well over 100K miles.
“Yet GM, Ford, and Chrysler totally ignored this system until the 80’s. It wasn’t as if this same manufacturing system was unavailable to them. ”
You are ignoring the realities of the market before the oil crise of the 70s. Cars were seen as disposable items until the 70s. Do not act like Americans wanted cars that lasted 15 years and GM woudlnt provide them. Cars were affordable enough in the 60s and 70s that people would buy a new one every 3-4 years. This is why all the domestics used to change their models so much and constantly update them with new engines or sheetmetal. This concept of cars lasting for over 100k miles was nonexistent before the Japanese got a foothold here. Warranties in the 50s and 60s were measures in MONTHS not years and people did not care. BAck in the day a car with 40K miles was considered old and ready for replacement. The average person keeps a car 5-7 years now and that is hardly enough to rack up 200k miles. I don’t doubt that a Toyota would last that long but it really doesn’t make me want to buy one. I always wonder why I see so few Toyotas and HOndas from the 80s and early 90s on the road if they last so long. Where are all these cars?
Laramie:
“That’s a red herring. GM was in trouble before the financial market collapsed. Had they really been a proponent of DIRTFT and modern lean and nimble management techniques, they would have been building quality cars and market share through the 80’s and 90’s and would have been so strong they would have had sufficient cash reserves to ride out a collapse.”
As with many here you are ignorant about the state of the global auto market. Toyota is about to post a loss and governments all over the world are offering loans to their automakers. Japan hasnt done so yet but Toyota does not face the same costs as GM because healthcare is covered over there. BMW has said that if conditions dont improve they will be out of cash by 2010. Honda’s CEO said that if the US market doesnt pick up his company is in big trouble. No automaker was ready for this. Toyota made $15B last year and will lost $2B this year. In fact, it appears that Toyota has lost over $7B in the last half of 2008. Does that sound like a company that was prepared to ride out a financial calamity? Within the last few weeks Toyota has announced the postponing of new factories and major production cuts. Their management has said this financial crisis and recession is unlike anything they have seen and they are scrambling to cut costs to prevent cash burn. No normal business can plan for a sudden 30% drop off in volume. When a similar drop off occured with the airline industry after 9/11 the government had to offer loans and several carries went to Chap. 11 because they were blindsided by the loss of revenue. You are simply a GM hater who comes here to voice your displeasure and nothing more. The fact that you are suggesting that GM should have been prepared for the evaporation of the creidt market and the largest stock market collapse in almost 80 years shows how biased and unreaslistic you are.
No business builds marketshare when half a dozen competitors are expanding in their home market and building plants there as well. How could GM have expanded share at a time when Toyota, Honda, Nissan and Hyundai were setting up shop here with the help of tax breaks from Southern states and trying very hard to break the Big 3’s dominance of the truck and SUV markets? Can you explain that? You can gain marketshare in a saturated market or a new market. When you are on top you have the most to lose as new competitors come on line. Kmart and Sears were around before Walmart. Who do you think Walmart took their business from as they expanded over the last 30 years?
“The sludging problem was indeed caused by severe neglect/abuse. I even read one case where the owner of a Lexus LS300 had the sludging problem. They guy had put 75,000 miles on the car, yet had only changed the oil THREE times, so basically once every 22,000 miles. Duh. Doya’ think if you don’t change the oil, there will be problems?”
Manufacturers dont end up spending money to address issues that are related to lack of maintenance. All of this is laid out in the warranty. If the sludge problem was due to not changing oil (which is not true) Toyota would not have been on the hook for damages. Owner neglect voids warranties and cannot lead to any type of valid consumer complaint.
The new Tundra is a nice truck if all you want is hp and great commercials. You have failed to mention its cheap interior. As of right now the Tundra officially has the worst mileage and interior of any full size pickup. Its amazing to me that people could try to defend that vehicle as if its a class leader. Ford and GM offer pickups that can get 21mpg on the highway while the Tundra manages 18. I don’t think I need to get into an interior comparison.
Edvard
Thanks for the info you have provided on your families car history.
I noticed your listing started in 85′. I would be curious to find out if that was the first year your family bought a foreign car or another reason. Using my own family as comparison, 5 siblings and my folks (mid 80’s) have always driven GM products. I too grew up in rural Illinois on a farm. Closest biggest town was approx 15 miles away. The trucks were used for what a truck was produced to do.
If I pulled all the history on all the vehicles in my family it would read very much like what you wrote except with GM products. My 2003 Cevy truck V6 has 267,000 actual miles. I would feel confident driving to Alaska and back. For the first 5 years it was an outdoor truck everyday. No corrosion problems on the body.
I guess I’d have to ask if prior to 85′ you may have had an incident with a domestic vehicle. We’re talking about that mid 80’s thing again. If that is the case then I’d like to know if you would think about a GM product for your next vehicle purchase.
As for your fathers Tundra. I originally thought it was todays FST Tundra. Sorry, my mistake.
You’ve been very critical about GM at times but not sure if it is justified if you do not drive GM products on a regular bases. As far as I know you might have started to get the Toyota discount in 85′ for a multiple of reasons.
Once again, thanks it is much appreciated,
I AM GM
Sheth,
Read any number of long term reliability reports. Anecdotal or not, the fingers point in Toyota and Honda’s direction. Secondly, perhaps rich people back then traded in their cars every few years, but certainly not people like my Grandfather who worked as a school teacher in Chattanooga back in the 30’s-70’s and certainly didn’t have the kind of money to buy a new Ford every few years.His house was $10,000. An average car in the 60’s was $2,600. Think about that for just a minute.That’s puts the price of a car in 1960 at the same level as a car of today.Except back then power steering and AC were “luxuries”. He used to keep his cars for 20 years or more and when they started to rust, painted them with house paint leftover in the garage.
On the same token, I keep my cars and trucks for as long as they run reliably and look decent. My truck still runs and looks good.At the rate its wearing, I could drive the thing for another 10 years. Why should I trade or buy a new car or truck? Had I been like many others and traded every few years, I wouldn’t have a nice pad of cash to buy a decent house once this economy bottoms out.
Lastly, come out here to California. I’d say that fully 60% or more of the cars here are Japanese, and yes- there’s TONS of them from the 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s.The bottom line is that No, I’m not saying GM builds junk. In fact, some of them are quiet good. But if Toyota had built crappy cars, they would still be a tiny niche player and that deserves a degree of attention.
“No business builds market share when half a dozen competitors are expanding in their home market and building plants there as well. How could GM have expanded share at a time when Toyota, Honda, Nissan and Hyundai were setting up shop here with the help of tax breaks from Southern states and trying very hard to break the Big 3’s dominance of the truck and SUV markets?”
By building better cars.
Unfortunately, from about 1965 to 2005, GM forgot their reason in being and took their eye off the ball. You might call it their “wilderness years.” And now it’s going to be a tough slog back.
I am GM,
You are correct that we had incident(s) with GM products prior to 85′. We had a Buick Riviera. The thing was beautiful. Bose stereo, moon roof, power everything. But it was a nightmare. One day out of the blue, the window dropped down into the door in a rain storm. The transmission gave up the ghost soon afterwards. The car was one month old and luckily the dealer bought it back. The Camry had a lot of whistles and bells too. But we owned it forever and never had a glitch.
Would I buy a GM car given the chance? If money were no object I’d get a Cadillac CTS-V or a Corvette. Truck wise though, I’m a small truck fan and nothing GM makes in the small truck department is appealing to me. The Colorado is sort of Bleh.
I realize I’ve been critical today. I’ve been on this forum for almost 3 years and for the most part, I generally try to be objective. But this is altogether different because we’re talking about a situation that is perhaps one of GM’s biggest problems, and that would be the example of people like myself who to date have little reason to switch since what we drive now gives us no reason to do so. I’ll even go as far as to say that Toyota builds bland, boring, uninspiring cars and trucks. But even so, its the reputation that sells them and that’s a hard nut to crack.
What you guys are going to have to do is come up with products that are off the charts and truly original. Sure- the Malibu is a nice car. But it holds the line right there along with the Camry, Taurus, and Accord: Big bulbous cars that don’t make people drool or remember them once they start to age.They are as exciting as sliced bread. It isn’t even necessarily style either per say. For example, there’s an Indian company called Mahindra that plans to sell small pickups in the US sometime this year. Its a turbo-diesel truck that looks like it was designed in the 70’s.Its actually kind of ugly. I find it refreshing because it looks different.I love the idea of some clanky, boxy, basic truck. Never mind that it is an unproven brand in the US. The fact that its out of the box is appealing. If GM did the same, perhaps I would perk my ears.
So you all have a hard hill to climb. I hope what I’ve mentioned helps.
Chip Parsons
Europe doesn’t have CAFE or the strict emissions standards like the US, and it does matter how they got there, since they got there without the stricter US emissions requirements. Vehicles in Europe are very expensive too. The US doesn’t want to go the way of Europe.
————————————-
The US has a conficting morass of unfunded mandates, these include CAFE-Emssions-Safety which cost consumers $ hundreds of billions. Most of it should be repealed. The American automakers have consistently made vehicles which exceed federal standards.
Airbags – are of questionable value for those already wearing a seatbelt. They perform almost no function when the seat belt is worn except to make a loud noise and potentially injure lighter weight passengers. Airbags should be optional – If you want to buy an airbag – buy one – if you don’t, you should have the option not to buy one. Now they are telling people to drive with their hands at 9 and 3 on the wheel instead of 10 and 2 so as not to injure themselves when an airbag deploys. This means the airbag has questionable value.
Some questioned the value of airbags when they were invented.
The authors of the CAFE law say it is a failure and that it should be repealed.
—————————————–
Foreign car guilt:
Those who have parents or grandparents who purchased foreign cars in the past feel some psychological need to defend the choice. Many bought a style they liked or were misled by the media about vehicle quality. That’s ok, its not their fault.
Foreign cars fall apart, breakdown, and their owners seem to think they need to pretend it didn’t happen. But we see the foreign cars breaking down everyday. Tranmissions shop workers and tow truck drivers tell us they see more foreign makes breaking down.
There is hope and redemption for those who come home to American cars. American auto companies build the best vehicles in the world.
We have American cars, both old and new and they are all fantastic vehicles.
———————————————–
With a strong US auto industry, the whole economy will rebound. There is enough success to go around for the whole market place.
We aren’t worried about the foreign competition, we know American auto companies build the best. The recession/ war are the adversary.
High debt and low savings rate is the competition.
The conflicting morass of CAFE-Emissions-Safety and unfanded mandates should be repealed.
Just let the car companies make cars.
“Read any number of long term reliability reports. Anecdotal or not, the fingers point in Toyota and Honda’s direction. ”
There are two main sources for reliability info- JD Power and CR. According to CR GM doesn’t make reliable vehicles. The flaws in CR’s data gathering methods are well known but the biggest issue is that they survey the SAME PEOPLE every year. That is not a way to gather accurate data. According to JD POwer GM vehicles do well in initial and 3 year quality. At least two GM brands routinely outperform Toyota in those 3 year dependability surveys. There is no valid statistical evidence out there that proves that Toyotas and Hondas last longer. As I said, most people do not keep their vehicles for 150k miles so I wonder how you can presume that there is widespread proof that Toyotas and Hondas last that long with no problems.
“Lastly, come out here to California. I’d say that fully 60% or more of the cars here are Japanese, and yes- there’s TONS of them from the 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s.”
I know all about California and its hatred of American cars. I live on the east coast so imports are very popular here but unlike California there are many open minded people here that will drive vehicles such as the 300, CTS, Escalade, Malibu, Acadia, Aura, etc. I see all of those vehicles quite frequently. In spire of the popularity of imports here I can tell you its very rare to see 15 year old Hondas and Toyotas on the road and when I do they have rust holes in the fenders and bumpers. Sure the engines run, but the rest of the car is falling apart. If all you care about is engine durability than I can understand your praise of Japanese cars. I do believe that their engines can easily last to 150k+ miles. Unfortunately, the rest of the car may not hold up as well. My wife had a Corolla and the engine was fine at 135k miles. The untold part of the story was that the tape player didnt work, the antenna had popped off, the driver’s side door handle (interior) was broken in half, the clutch went in year 10 or 11 and several interior components were severely worn. Also when the battery had to be replaced the power cables had to be cut from the terminals because they had fused themselves to the terminals for some reason. I had never seen this in a GM product. If the engine was the ONLY concern than I am sure we could have kept the car for 5 more years.
Toyota built its reputation on reliabilty and that is OK. That does not mean reliability explains Toyota’s growth here. Toyota has grown here because they were determined to become the #1 automaker and enter every single segment in which GM and Ford competed. They used to be smaller because they didn’t make many trucks, SUVs or large cars. In the last decade that they have added many truck and SUV models and a few cars as well. They are now nearly as bloated as GM when it comes to product lineup. The Venza is a pefect example of Toyota offering new products that compete with its existing products- something GM has been guilty of in the past. If GM could compete in Japan on equal ground and build plants there I can guarantee you Toyota’s share would decrease in Japan. Fortunately for the Japanese automakers they dont face much in the way of foreign competition at home and have 95% of the market. Must be nice. The best way to maintain marketshare is to not allow competitors into your arena. Its works wonders in South Korea and Japan. I just read that Hyundai/Kia have 70% of the market in S. Korea which is mostly do to lack of outside competition.
“For example, there’s an Indian company called Mahindra that plans to sell small pickups in the US sometime this year. Its a turbo-diesel truck that looks like it was designed in the 70’s.Its actually kind of ugly. I find it refreshing because it looks different.”
Edvard,
It does sound pretty interesting. It will be attractive to those who want a compact truck with which to actually do truck-like things, and aren’t all concerned about their image with the neighbors. It sounds like a good second car. With the turbo-diesel it will be economical for commuting, and also handy for those weekend jobs in suburbia.
Perhaps that will be a catalyst for GM to at last bring the Chevy Montana they make in Brazil and market to South America into the North American market. Chevrolet Montana
“The Chevrolet Montana is a light pickup truck sold by Chevrolet in Latin America and emerging markets. In Mexico the vehicle is known as Chevrolet Tornado.”
Sheth ~ “I know all about California and its hatred of American cars.”
Sheth,
Californians don’t hate U.S. built cars ~ it’s simply the market at work. When a Californian goes out to buy a new car it’s not like they say, “Oh, how I hate U.S. built cars. I’m going over to the nearest Toyota dealer.”
They vote with their wallets based on their experiences and the experiences of their friends and neighbors. Hate doesn’t motivate new car purchases, it’s a matter of consumers selecting what they think will best satisfy their personal needs.
In short, they buy things they like it, and are not driven by their hate of other choices.
“Foreign cars fall apart, breakdown, and their owners seem to think they need to pretend it didn’t happen. But we see the foreign cars breaking down everyday.”
Ok… if you say so. All I know is that of all the people I know who have owned either Toyotas or Hondas, the only person I knew who had serious problems was with a 99′ Honda Odyssey. The transmissions in those are notoriously bad. What you’re saying doesn’t correlate with what I or hardly anyone else I know has experienced. It also helps to identify what you mean by “Foreign” since that could mean anything from Puegot, Yugo, Renault, Daewoo, or whatever.
“I know all about California and its hatred of American cars. I live on the east coast so imports are very popular here but unlike California there are many open minded people here that will drive vehicles such as the 300, CTS, Escalade, Malibu, Acadia, Aura, etc”
Californians don’t “Hate” American cars. Remember that California was virtually the birthplace of the hot rod not to mention some of the largest automotive design studios in Long Beach. There’s a historical reason why there are so many Japanese cars here. California started selling Toyotas ( back then called Toyodas) in the 50’s. Simply put, Japanese brands were here in this state decades before they started becoming prevalent elsewhere. If anything, California should be used as a gauge to determine what Toyota’s future market share might look like if companies stay in their current course. Many of us- myself included- have insane commutes. I drive well over 500 miles a week. Its absolutely imperative to own a car or truck that runs for 100’s of thousands of miles because it doesn’t take that long to run up the miles. That’s the story with many Californians. I realize there are regional differences in vehicle taste. When I visit my folks in TN, there are still a lot of people who would NEVER drive a Japanese car. ” I’d never drive one of them “foreign” cars is still not uncommon to hear. Perhaps its just as fair to say that people in TN hate Japanese cars and thus- as you suggested- not as open minded. Somehow, I fail to see how open ended capitalism and vehicular choice equates to being closed minded.
In regards to Toyota’s Lineup in the US and the comments about it being bloated, for starters Toyota only has three brands: Toyota, Lexus, and Scion. All three are extremely distinct. Many people I know haven’t got a clue that the $60,000 Lexus they drive ir made by Toyota. Scions are undoubtedly made for 18-25 year old kids. Toyota is the basic all around brand. Additionally, their North American lineup is totally different from the Asian and European models. They get that Americans in general like big fluffy cars, SUV’s, Trucks, and so forth. That they “get it” and in the process actually start smelling like GM is no coincidence.
Lastly, I still know very few people who only keep their cars 3-4 years. I realize there’s a lot of car enthusiasts on this board, including the guy who has owned a dozen Corvettes. But for the average American, keeping a car 5, 10, 15 years is the norm. Especially if after 10 years they still run and look fine. Initial quality is of little interest to me.
Sheth writes, “I just read that Hyundai/Kia have 70% of the market in S. Korea which is mostly do to lack of outside competition.”
Very interesting. Are you saying that Hyundai/Kia outsell Daewoo by something like 3 to 1? In other words, GM has a “domestic” presence in South Korea and is getting hammered there? If GM is in Korea, is it open or closed? Please identify a car GM builds that the Japanese would actually want to drive. Have you ever been to Japan? The Aveo would be considered a fullsize car…. but it’s nowhere near as nice as anything in that size class on the streets in Tokyo.
Sheth writes, “The Venza is a pefect example of Toyota offering new products that compete with its existing products- something GM has been guilty of in the past. ”
Just what other Toyota do you think the Venza competes with? The vehicle it’s closest to is the Lexus RX-somethng and it’s much less expensive and is clearly distinct (among other things, it doesn’t say, “Hey, I can afford a Lexus”). And, as for GM competing with itself in the past, the past is yet with us; please tell me how the Traverse, Outlook, Acadia and Enclave differ? I admit, they do use different taillamp assemblies (as oppose to the interchangeable ones on, say, the old Malibu and Cutlass) but they are all the same vehicle. And there’s 4 of them. The Venza only resembles in general size and layout ONE other Toyota product. There’s even less difference between the Tahoe and Yukon. Sierra and Silverado. G3 and Aveo. G5 and Cobalt. There’s slightly more differentiation between the G6, Aura and Malibu but they’re all fundamentally the same car.
Sheth writes, “There is no valid statistical evidence out there that proves that Toyotas and Hondas last longer.”
Actually, there is. R. L. Polk can tell you, for sure. But they’ll charge you for that information; they give almost nothing away for free. Why don’t you write to them and ask?
Now, as luck would have it, they do offer one tidbit of information… Surf to their site and check “news.” There’s a report that median vehicle age is rising. The interesting part of that is that the median age of cars is greater than the median age of trucks. Surprised? And who dominates in trucks?
Edvard,
Here’s the link to the Mahindra pickup truck coming to the U.S. market: Mahindra diesel-electric pickup truck
Looks a bit utilitarian and not too flashy, but I suspect that’s something the market might like right about now. Looks like GM missed the boat again.
Mahindra Promises Diesel Hybrid Pickup by 2010
A turbo-diesel compact pickup truck with leather seats, built in Ohio, and that can push a snowplow? That’ll give the Chevy Colorado a run for value and utility.
“The “Appalachian” will have a U.S. exclusive interior that’s been designed to American tastes (and sizes) by Michigan-based supplier Lear Corporation. Leather seats will be optional. Two-wheel and Four-wheel-drive versions will be available. Mahindra and GV-USA are planning a wide range of accessories for the truck, one of which is expected to be a snow plow.”
Dear Bob
It is good to hear people write good things about GM. Why is it then that you are
always the one with bad news? It seems that every time we get some news to feel good
about GM you come along with some bad news to knocks back down. The canceling of
the rear wheel program is just the latest of your bad news. Please please no more bad
news. Let us hang on to what little hope we have left.
Build the Converj! That’s something you would NEVER see from Honda or Toyota, and it will be just as important to Cadillac as the CTS was when it debuted.
That is a great list, thanks very much! I will be sure to check out as many on the list as I can this year!
GM’s newer offerings are world leading products. The Cadillac CTS has been an incredible car since the 2004 model. The rest of the Cadillac line is exceptional, even the DTS Performance makes the Chrysler 300C and the Lexus LS look like dogs in evasive maneuvers and slaloms. The CTS-V has been extraordinary since day one, and the new one is ten times better.
The Saturn lineup has become the best bunch of entry level to mid level cars available in the country.
Chevy is now getting the full treatment of this new found excellence. The Malibu is terrific. The forthcoming Cruze has the best interior I’ve seen on a compact. The HHR is an excellent retro wagon. All it needs is the Orlando AWD system.
I agree with some of the posts that GM’s advertising really missed the point throughout the early and mid 2000s. Although, I really liked the “Let’s Dance” ad for the STS. None of the ads really highlighted the technology nor the huge turnaround in quality and competence. The new ads are better but still have a way to go. Afterall, getting the message out that GM has heard the message and has taken to heart the need for quality and world class performance is the most important message today, maybe the only message that matters. Perceptions always trail reality, even among enthusiasts and gearheads. The only important question is, By how much?
Gerry,
Your comments on “legacy costs” is off base. The single most important cause of the cost disadvantage that most American industries face is our health insurance system. All of our competitor countries have a rational way of paying for health care for everyone. We do not. The health care component in a vehicle built in the US is around $1500.00. When we build one in Germany or England, it is about $300.00. In Canada it is about $400.00. etc., etc. We can continue to beat up on the unions till the cows come home, but that does not solve a problem that they have very little to do with. The major manufacturing firms created the problem of employer funded health insurance during WWII as a way of holding onto key employees. Now we have to find the way out of the thicket by enacting s Single Payer, Community pool health insurance program as has every other (yeah, England’s system is more like our VA than our Medicare.) industrialized, First World nation. All the other attempts to take care of this issue are merely an attempt to stick someone else with the problem instead of actually solving it.
GM sold 8.5 million vehicles in 2007. (I haven’t seen the totals for 2008, yet.) That is a lot of cars and trucks that apparently were bought by someone named “Nobody”.
Unfortunately, GM sold a pittance in Japan. All US branded products, combined, only amounted to about ½ of one % of their market. The Aussies sold 0%, and they drive on the same side of the road. The fact is that Japan is a closed market to imports and almost always has been. Another fact is that the Japanese are deliberately keeping the yen low relative to US and European currencies. That is how they maintain such a large trade surplus with the rest of the First World. Their entire economy is based on domestic protection and global predation. It is no wonder that Toyota passed GM when it has such a huge home field advantage. The wonder is why we let them keep that advantage; why do we let them destroy our economy by draining Billions of dollars and millions of jobs from it every year in the name of a failed economic theory?