If you want to buy a Honda Civic or Fit in the US, you’ll probably go on a list and pay full price. With such success you might be surprised to learn that Honda has decreased its US Fit allocation and reduced Civic production at their East Liberty Ohio plant. Honda’s also changing over one line in its Canada plant to make Civics and moved part of their Pilot production to their minivan plant in Alabama. All this shuffling seems more like three-card-Monte than modern manufacturing. But there are trade-offs. Honda is willing to trade basic efficiency for manufacturing flexibility, which keeps plants running steadily, which ultimately leads to greater efficiency.
It’s a basic fact of life that the automobile industry is always fighting against the corrosive effects of excess production capacity. Auto manufacturing doesn’t reach cost efficiency until you can run at about 80 to 85% of your capacity. Run below that level and you either need to charge premium prices (if you can) or watch underused machinery and workers kill your profit margins. The specter of idle machines and workers is so awful that Chrysler recently decided to re-introduce the reviled “sales bank”: a pool of cars built without dealer orders. (The practice is a bit like buying lottery tickets on a credit card.) One of the main reasons for the The Big Two Point Five’s collective death spiral is their need to keep moving the metal—no matter what.
Flexible manufacturing is the usual antidote for overcapacity. Automakers who can build more than one model on the same production line (preferably using the same machinery and workers) have a much greater ability to respond to variations in market demand for a given model, and keep the factory humming. All automobile manufacturers use flexible manufacturing to some extent; Europe and Asia’s fragmented markets practically require the capability.
While The Big Two Point Five’s flex-ability still lags behind the foreign competitions’, they’ve improved from the nadir of the ‘70’s to early ‘80’s, where one plant could not even build its badge-engineered “cousins.” There are two reasons for the lag: union contracts (and fixed job descriptions therein) and cost. Vehicles that can be built on standardized equipment also cost more to develop. Machinery that can produce many types of vehicles costs more than single-use equipment. The Big Two Point Five has traditionally opted for greater amounts of cheaper production capacity.
While Honda has two large US factories for their mass-market sellers, both also contain “niche” production capacity. Marysville builds most US-spec Accord sedans and all Accord Coupes and Acura TLs. The company has also converted a plant in Japan to build up to 80k more Accords to satisfy potential demand in the upper end of the home market and “take up the slack” if more TLs are required abroad. Similarly, East Liberty makes Civics, the Element and RDX (with the CRV on the way). This set-up limits the number of the Civics the factory can make. While several of Honda’s Japanese plants can pitch in, that production must “come out” of their Fit/Jazz production.
The short-term solution: shift some Pilot production onto the Odyssey plant to free one line to build Civics. The long-term fix: build another assembly plant in Indiana to increase Civic and Fit production. But that’s a couple years away. (Honda’s bigger problem is they can’t grow their capacity quickly enough to match sales increases; a problem Detroit would dearly love to face.)
All this juggling has three positive results for Honda. First, all their factories are working all the time, even if demand patterns shift. Second, they can keep their mass-market production in tune with demand. Matching supply to demand minimizes the need for margin-killing incentives and “fire sales” that knock down prices and increase depreciation (which further erodes sales and prices). Lastly, niche vehicles can be “soft launched” and take time to find their market share. It’s much less damaging to have 10k extra Civics or Pilots than 10k too many Ridgelines.
Clearly, The Big Two Point Five need to ramp-up their flexibility even further and— equally important— find a way to get the unions to ease working restrictions. More critically, they need to integrate their flexibility in ways that make market sense, building mass-market and “niche” vehicles in the same plants. Price and sales targets need to be set and stuck to. Development needs to be streamlined so that “niche” vehicles don’t need to punch above their weight.
At the same time, The Big Two Point Five needs to develop a realistic market picture. Traditionally, Detroit swings for the fences, aiming to build hot-selling blockbusters. The problem is that by aiming so high, they ensure that any failure will be self-reinforcing. It’s time to get flexible, and sell one profitable car at a time.
Economics 101. Low supply, big demand = high price. The 2.5 know the rule, try getting a deal on a GT 500 or a Z06.
1) It does not cost more to design different models to be able to be built on common machinery.
2) Union work rules do not prevent flexible plants.
3) Yes, flexible machinery costs a bit more, but not as much as unused machinery.
Great article Andrew.
A great piece would be if TTAC visited say the Hyundai assembly plant in Alabama and one of the 2.5 (Jeep plant in Belvidere, Ill. since it was just overhauled.) and do a compare/contrast evaluation.
Click on TTAC ads people!
I’m with Luther… that sounds like a great article idea… get on that! :)
It is my impression that the big 2.5 would rather have too much capacity and too many employees, because both of these resourses were cheap. I was always hearing about car plants shutting down, the workers furlowed, until “later”.
Perhaps the paradym has shifted. In the non-union plants, do I now get the imression that the workers are better off because they are working steadily? Is this true? If so, it should cause a tidle wave of change in the domestics – not only by the unions (who would rather be working and making money, i think), but also the cavalier attitude of management towards these workers.
Even recently I shook my head at GM, who said that the reason that they are in hot water, is because of they have expensive union workers. Not, god forbid, that they make crappy cars that no one (union or non-union) want to buy.
I have always felt that flexability is a good thing. About most things, actually.
They have crappy cars because of expensive union labor.
Luther:
I’m sorry but union labor should not be taking the hit for management’s incompetence. GM has crappy cars because they design crappy cars. Let’s not forget that 6 of the 10 TWATS are GM products and 9 of the 10 are 2.5 products.
Detroit keeps telling itself that it’s just a matter of reducing costs and Detroit is deluding itself to a large degree. The bigger problem is that the big 2.5 don’t make enough models that people want to buy.
It’s amazing to contemplate the problems of the front runner and contrast them with the problems of the followers.
The big 2.5 have a long way to go to where Honda is today. But Honda is not content to rest; they’re going to be further ahead tomorrow.
Ask yourself: do you want to buy a car from a company which has been calmly planning their path, and achieving their goals, or do you want to buy a car from a company which has to cut muscle every 6 months to keep Wall Street happy?
I don’t think anyone can blame any UAW worker for the ugly proboscis on the Uplander.
So cause you pay people a decent wage they build crappy cars? I don’t see the logic Honda and Toyota pay decent wages cause that keeps the UAW/ CAW from knocking on the door.from what I understand they build a pretty good car.
Actualy Im quite proud of the cars I’ve built.
The modern auto is a very complex piece of enginering.
I don’t think you or any other car buyer would buy a vehicle assembled by transient,minimun wage workers.
Perhaps you believe that union people have too generous of wages and benifits?maybe your right.But that Luther is a different debate
I will state here and now.Every employee,superviser,trades
guy thats involved in the build of your new car puts his/her
heart and soul into every car that comes down the line.
And yes we are paid well.I think I make a bit less than RICK or BOB LUTZ but I’m happy.
Crappy cars? I don,t think so
I'm not pro-union (at all) but the idea that crappy cars are forced on by the unions is ridiculous. 2.5 are in deep trouble because they never thought the imports were a threat. 30 years ago, the accord was a piece of ****. However, 30 years and 7 generations later, the accord is considered to be a great car. The 2.5 went to sleep. Product cycles are 8+ years, technology is lagging, perceived quality is lagging (compare the interior of a Caliber with the interior of a Scion xB) and resale value is the last nail in the coffin. Domestics are not even close to identify (less to address) all their problems. Sure, the current union contract adds some stress to their position, but when the contract was signed, everyone agreed to it. Please note that I point at the current contract, not the unions, not their members, because everyone aspires to a better life, more money, more job security. Denying that to union workers is to deny it for all of us.
tms1999: My wife bought her first new car in 1977, the brand new Accord ($500 deposit, wait three months for delivery). It was a fabulous car, albeit the first year of it the CVCC engine blew head gaskets like popcorn, but they fixed it every time without complaint, and by 1978 fixed it entirely. I think that Accord sold about 15 Honda’s (at least) to my friends and relatives.
It was known by the mid-1990’s that the key to auto profitability was to shorten lead times and figure out how to make money on runs of less than 100,000. There would be no “Death Watches” if Detroit had been working on that rather than truck framed station wagons…..
Toyota has put a ceiling on the number of Scions it will manufacture. It will not ramp production over 150.000 – in order to preserve brand cachet …
That’s a problem Saab doesn’t have to contemplate …
The flex is the way of the future, that is an undeniable fact.
In Canada we opened our contract with GM to win the Camaro and with it the flex plant.
We give up transfer rights,we gave up some senority rights we give up a lot of jobs.Worst of all we let non union people in to do jobs traditionly held by senior people.
It was a tough pill to swallow.but the alternative as been well said in the death watch articles
Yes even the toughest Unions can be flexible All it takes is a gun held to your head,and you may see the other guys point
mikey, I’m glad to see the CAW is willing to use their brains and retain as many jobs for you guys and gals as possible, nobody really WANTS to actually SEE GM or Ford or DCX implode – we don’t, any of us, wish harm to the employees.
However – reality is this. That light in the end of the tunnel most car workers see? It IS a train and it is moving very fast.
Either you get off the track, and adjust to the fact, or get splatted.
I’m very glad the CAW is moving to the side and using some sense, from what you are saying.
I unfortunately do not think the UAW is smart enough to do so.
I can say this for one good reason. The Delphi UAW union faithful were busy picketing the North American Auto Show in Detroit last January, right in front of Toyota’s chief executive.
So, if you ran Toyota, would you smile and say “oh, those guys!” and go ahead and build a plant in Michigan, or would you say “oh! those GUYS!” and a few months later, announce yet another plant in Ontario? Guess which happened?
Why don’t the UAW just go ahead and shoot themselves in BOTH feet, while they are at it, and strike Delphi so GM goes bust? Oh yeah, sorry, that is their plan, eh?
The gist of the article was how flexible manufacturing works for Honda so why doesn’t the Big 2.5 take a bold move forward and radically change their manufacturing paradigms rather than do things that only work to pacify shallow on-lookers (namely cutting fat, now muscle and bone. A couple good comments were made about how the existing union contracts, manufacturing processes and infrastructure do not support flexibility and I whole-heartedly agree. However, the 2.5 will not truly move forward until management digs their heals into a rebuilding program and says “by golly, this is the plan we’re going to follow and we’re sticking to it.” An integral part of that would be flexible manufacturing, requiring tremoundous changes in white and blue collar work mindsets. Not so much infrastructure (or what’s left of it).
The current management has not made such a bold move because they are inherently risk averse. That is why they make cryptic remarks, trumpet each small initiative as a step forward (rather than a shot in the dark) and bank their hopes that a new model will bail them out. That was yesteryear’s mindset and it didn’t work (remember Ford championing their launch of x many vehicles in x many months? What did Toyota and Honda do? They made their best vehicles better.)
Ford, GM and DCX need strong leaders charging forward to save themselves from themselves. Folks not afraid to step on toes and address the 800lb gorilla in the room by countering each paradigm changing decision with the same question: “You’ve basically done the same thing for the past 30+ years – where has that gotten you?”
1) It does not cost more to design different models to be able to be built on common machinery.
2) Union work rules do not prevent flexible plants.
3) Yes, flexible machinery costs a bit more, but not as much as unused machinery.
You must be smoking something. It does not cost more material wise, but it cost more in engineering, testing, and training. Those are additional cost that 2.5 are not willing to take, and are now costing them even bigger cost (incentive, inventories).
Unions do not fight against flexible manufacturing, they fight against anything automation (which cost them jobs).
A 30 year old design/machine cost hardly anything compare to a new, flexible machine that is not yet depreciated.
Like I said, you either pay now (equipments and flexible designs) or pay later (incentives and unsold inventories), the 2.5 decide to pay later 10-20 years ago, and now they are paying for it. It is not yet too late, but they are way behind in that.
> GM has crappy cars because
> they design crappy cars.
Yes, and the reason that GM’s vehicles are poorly engineered is because high union wages take money that would otherwise be invested in improving design.
> Honda and Toyota pay decent wages
> they build a pretty good car.
Yes, they pay decent wages in the United States. However, Honda and Toyota make huge profits from their Japanese-built vehicles, and they can invest this money in designing their product. Therefore, their American facilities are free from the burden of supporting the engineers. In a way, their Japanese factories (low wages, free healthcare from the gov’t) subsidize their American facilities.
Ford and GM see this, and that’s why they’re gradually moving production to Mexico.
I can’t believe the willingness of so many people to blame unions for the Big 2.5’s woes. Maybe you will understand when Ford and GM move their plants to Mexico or wherever and they still can’t make money in the US market.
Or until that happens, read the Death Watch articles and notice how many of them deal with poor decisions by upper management.
From Detroit 9000:
“Ask yourself: do you want to buy a car from a company which has been calmly planning their path, and achieving their goals, or do you want to buy a car from a company which has to cut muscle every 6 months to keep Wall Street happy? ”
Well said.
I know a guy in the automation business. A couple years ago he was telling me a story about a PLC job he was doing at an Ontario GM plant (probably late ’90s or so). He was working on the Suburban line when a truck goes by with an assembly line worker sleeping in the back.
The optimist in me figures the guy was probably taking his coffee break with a power nap. After all, how far can the thing go from his work station in 15 minutes?
The pessimist in me was wondering what part wasn’t getting properly installed in the vehicle.
Still, it is too easy to blame everything on the union workers and I don’t believe that is the case. As others have opined, they didn’t design the cars, select the cheap(est) materials, or manage the company into the ground.
They do, however, need to be part of the solution, and it sounds like the CAW is coming to the table with a willingness to make concessions. Good for them.
dean – This kindas reminds me of an old Alfred Hitchcock interview by David Susskind that was recently shown on the TCM channel.
Mr. Susskind asked the Great Master of Suspense if he had any ideas for any new works. Mr. Hitchcock responded that he has images of an opening scene for a movie of a car body that makes its way down the assembly line. The camera pans with the moving car body as workers attach parts to it at various workstations. Once the vehicle is fully assembled it continues to move into a scene where two workers are seen in the background casually having a brief conversation. The conversation ends abruptly with one of the two people leaving the scene, and the remaining guy walks to the fully assembled vehicle and casually opens the door, at which time a human arm pops out of the car, a murder who-done-it at an assembly plant.
This gave the viewer some rare insight into the workings of Mr. Hitchcock’s creativity. Also, I do not believe any such work was ever produced or directed by Mr. Hitchcock.
rottenbob:
Japanese factories (low wages, free healthcare from the gov’t) subsidize their American facilities.
ridiculous.
these factories were built initially because of import tariffs. Now they are here, americans are building cars according to the mandates from the management.
Just like Detroit. Just like everywhere.
But in this case, for some unknown reason (DUHHHHHHHHH), peeple are buying Hondas and Toyotas INSTEAD if Chevys. Go figure.
The same people are building competing product. One is successfull, the other isnt. According to you, its the fault of the laborers. I disagree.
rottenbob:
Japanese factories (low wages, free healthcare from the gov’t) subsidize their American facilities.
ridiculous.
these factories were built initially because of import tariffs. Now they are here, americans are building cars according to the mandates from the management.
Just like Detroit. Just like everywhere.
But in this case, for some unknown reason (DUHHHHHHHHH), peeple are buying Hondas and Toyotas INSTEAD if Chevys. Go figure.
The same people are building competing product. One is successfull, the other isnt. According to you, its the fault of the laborers. I disagree.
This is the kind of smart engineering and management which got me to buy some Honda common stock several months ago. These people have thought deeply about what they are doing and make darn smart decisions most of the time.
Another way Honda manages smart is by having far fewer option variations on their vehicles than do most companies. Acura takes this to the extreme. Most Acuras have exactly one option: with or without GPS Navigation system. It is much simpler to run a factory when the permutations and combinations within a model are minimized.
Rottenbob: Actually Japanese wages are NOT lower that American wages, and haven’t been since the mid-80s. There are differences in regards to pension/health care costs, but even that is overstated. What you are really missing is that Japan, because of its extremely low birth rate and very strict immigration policies, has been much more aggressive about “robotizing” its mfg. lines than their American counterparts. Japanese mfg. plants have been the envy of the world for quite some time. (See: MB desperately trying to copy Lexus’ mfg approach)
Nice points Mikey–The flex is the way of the future, that is an undeniable fact.
In Canada we opened our contract with GM to win the Camaro and with it the flex plant.
We give up transfer rights,we gave up some senority rights we give up a lot of jobs.Worst of all we let non union people in to do jobs traditionly held by senior people.
Thats why many current U.A.W. locals are already opening their local contracts with management in hopes of securing some of G.M.’s new product.
–gun to the head you say– The message is clear from corporate,flex on new agreements & increase quality & throughput.If not those facalities that dont will be phased out.
I have read many times about your plant Mikey and you guys got it going on as far as SPQRC is concerend & will only get better.
Anyone on the inside such as you and I could only wish the general public could see the total shift in mind-set among employees as far as quality.Hopefully some of the new models ( 900 series-new cuvs– Malibu ) will reflect this shift & help turn public opionon around.
To say in just the past few years G.M.’s quality process inside its stamping & assy. plants has undergone a major overhaul would be a gross understatement.
At least some domestic manufacturers have made some headway in this. From Allpar’s website:
http://www.allpar.com/SUVs/dodge/nitro.html
On August 15, 2006, the Dodge Nitro entered production. Thanks to flexible manufacturing, it is made on the same line as the Jeep Liberty, with a $600 million investment that added 150 robots and expanded the plant by 160,000 square feet; this investment will presumably pay off with future models as well.
The Toledo North Plant was extensively retooled to manage the complexity of building two different models on one production line and to improve quality, productivity, and worker ergonomics. The retooling of Toledo North is part of $3.9 billion spent on investment that added 150 robots and expanded the plant by 160,000 square feet; this investment will presumably pay off with future models as well.
Toledo manufacturing capabilities that include an original $1.2 billion to build Toledo North (opening in 2001) and $2.1 billion for Chrysler’s Toledo Supplier Park, home of the 2007 Jeep Wrangler and Wrangler Unlimited.
Chrysler Group’s Flexible Manufacturing Strategy allows the company to efficiently build lower-volume vehicles that take advantage of market niches, and to quickly shift production volumes between different models within a single plant or among multiple plants. FMS is being implemented product by product and plant by plant across the Chrysler Group. New investment is enabling the company to produce more than one vehicle on a production line and conduct rolling launches of new models. Chrysler Group’s workforce is becoming more flexible with the implementation of empowered teams and an increased emphasis on supporting assembly line operators.
At the core of the new process is a body shop with 150 robots instead of the vehicle-specific heavy tooling that was previously used. The door, hood and liftgate assembly system is new, as are the side aperture assembly systems. Only the robots’ “hands” need to change to build the different models, and that is done automatically, within the time it takes to cycle from one vehicle to the next. TNAP can vary production between two products anywhere from 0 to 100 percent of each model. A third model can also be piloted — or test-built — at the same time, helping reduce the time needed to make new-model changeovers.
Hopefully the above is all true and not just PR fluff.
True flexability is seriously complicated. Toyota and Honda started from the basement with the mindset of flexability the “domestics” didn’t.
Listen to me….every one of you would benefit immensely from taking a tour of a few auto assembly plants. Not only is it enjoyable, it is astoundingly educational. You will never see cars in the same way afterwards, nor will you take anything in the way of quality, design and engineering for granted in the future. Any plant, be it Toyota, Chrysler, Hyundai or even John Deere is Shangri-La to a pistonhead.
The complexity, organization, infrastructure, and dynamics of any modern plant are beyond imagination until you witness it.
Do some searching online and find a tour-friendly plant nearest you and make tracks there immediately. I highly recommend the Corvette plant in Bowling Green, KY for a starter. I went there this summer and seeing Z-06’s being set free was remarkable. I even tried to share the experience with TTAC readers but was editorially vetoed at the time. Perhaps this audience is ready for something beyond the typical rants and reviews in the future?
If you want it you have to ask.
The more you spend on labor, the less you can spend on R&D for ‘want to buy’ cars
Here is my problem with the union.
People started the Union long time ago because worker were been mistreated by the owners. People use the power of union to gain workable hours, decent wages, etc.
Now a days, there is no need for unions anymore. When is the last time anyone has heard company mistreat its workers and not get sued for mutli-million dollars? There are laws, safety statute and local ordinance protect the workers.
The only function for the union left is how can we get as much money as possible for our members, how do we get most amount of benefit possible, we don’t care about the cost to the factory owners because he needs us to run the plant and we can strike and holdout until he agree to our demands.
Also pretty much all jobs now a days is at will, meaning you can get fired anytime for breaking company policy, not performing up to standard you are expected, etc.
Why should the union worker get a free ride and job security when rest of us have to serious work hard. Now i am not saying union workers aren’t hard workers, but the basic common sense says that If i can make $20 buck a hour by putting in 100% effort and I can also make $20 bucks a hour putting in 10% effort, I am going to put in 10% effort. Why bother work as hard as I can when the pay is the exact same, there is no incentive or punishment to make the worker work harder or less.
As for whether the union contracts are the ones keeping 2.5 down, I think it’s only one of many issues 2.5 need to deal with.
Good grief!
LeeAlmighty and rottenbob makes 2/31.
That is terrible for TTAC…
Every single time this argument (the effect of labor costs on the types of cars the Big 2.5 make) comes up anywhere, I notice something:
People rush in to defend the unions, protesting to high heavens that “management gave the laborers bad cars to make”.
Are we arguing here that “management” can make “good cars”, but (somehow) willingly—yea, eagerly–chooses to send “bad” ones to the production line (for kicks, maybe)?
“Good cars” cost lots of money to develop–although judging from frequent comments on TTAC, you’d think none of the commenters here realizes that.
When GM can unload 30,000 UAW workers by 2008 and still maintain current levels of production that means that 30,000 people were being paid to do absolutely nothing at all (Right?).
All that salary money could be used to develop the “good cars” everybody likes to chirp about.
Secondly, we have the problem of arcane work rules and poor work ethic in UAW shops.
Case in point–absenteeism; which runs at 2% at the Japanese plants in the south, but 12% to 15% at UAW shops in the north.
I read that every percentage point of absenteeism costs GM $125 million.
So, assuming that their workers could actually show up (at non-UAW Honda rates, no less), GM could be $1.5 billion (oh that’s a “b” alright!) richer each year.
Surely more than 3/32 commenters realize this?
“Management” may have problems of their own, but that isn’t one of them. After all, not only do they have to show up for work; they have to pay for their own Viagra as well.
But that’s another story altogether…
When GM can unload 30,000 UAW workers by 2008 and still maintain current levels of production that means that 30,000 people were being paid to do absolutely nothing at all (Right?).
Either that or they traded the 30,000 Gov’t-gun backed gang-bangers…err… UAW members for a few hundred robots that work 24/7, dont threaten violence/strike, and dont come to work hungover on Monday. (Full disclosure – I worked at a UAW shop my first job out of college. I was a hard-core New York Dumobrat and that experience transformed me into a die-hard libertarian living in the south.)
Excellent post C.D.Weir… With this article and your post I am going to take some vacation and tour the Hyundai plant in Alabama. It will probably be like something out of a Sci-Fi movie.
Luther,
Speaking as a libretarian in the Southeast, I’m with you on the Hyundai plant tour idea. Mind you, I may start with the ‘vette plant up in KY.
Although I may just walk out of Bowling Green a lot poorer.
Those of us in the 31 crowd are not ignoring union costs, we are saying that the mistakes committed by management far exceed those costs. There was an article in the business section of yesterday’s Washington Post by Steven Pearlstein, a columnist who is also an economist. He was talking about Detroit’s decision to flood rental car companies with their cars which freed them up to make more SUVs and get caught flat footed when gas prices went up. And speaking of SUVs, everyone has known that gas prices were going up except the wizards in Detroit.
The dismal economic condition of Detroit cannot be laid primarily on the unions. A lot of the higher fixed costs that Detroit is burdened with could be offset IF they made cars people wanted to buy! A large part of the car industry is not a commodity business where you compete only in terms of price. If you doubt this, take a look at BMW’s 3 Series which is 40-50% of their entire production and is around $5k more expensive than their competition.
Ron says (with a straight face, no less):
“Union work rules do not prevent flexible plants.”
Bwaaahaahaaahaa!
Surely you jest! That’s an insult to the intelligence of anyone who has spent any time in an automotive plant in the US.
To CD Weir’s post…
Don’t forget to visit the Nissan plant in Smyrna, TN. It has been in the US for 25 years and produces 500,000 cars and trucks per year. I believe they do tour Tues. and Thurs.
Although I may just walk out of Bowling Green a lot poorer.
Thats exactly why I will stay away from the Bowling Green KY plant !
“Union work rules do not prevent flexible plants.”
I got kinda choked up on that one to. The UAW will not allow any automation that would threaten UAW jobs. Not even air tools. The times they are a changing though.
Yeah only hand tools Luther takes about 15hrs to build 1 Impala with rachets and open end wrenches,but you can advertise them as hand built cars.
Lets see 40,000 orders in the bank divided by 3 cars a day.
Great! I d’ont hafta worry about my job any more.
I gonna put an employee suggestion in with your power tool idea GM will give me a big check and I can retire.35yrs of running a wrench is hard on the body.
A lot of the higher fixed costs that Detroit is burdened with could be offset IF they made cars people wanted to buy!
Why do people say things like this?
That’s like saying, “LMVH sales would skyrocket if only more people were rich”. It follows.
I’d like to respectfully suggest, that that isn’t exactly a pearl of wisdom.
We need to get beyond the obvious and focus on the reasons why this is not so.
There are millions of reasons why “people don’t want to buy” GM cars. It takes time to pick them apart–and even longer to fix them.
If the next Malibu had the interior of a Spyker, the looks of an Aston Martin and the reliability of a Lexus, it still wouldn’t sell at the rate of 450,000 per year for a very, very long time.
GM has crappy cars (with a few exceptions) and horrible union contracts both. Lets spread the blame; there’s plenty to go around. The question is will the unions take reduced benefits in exchange for more people remaining employed. This is not necessarily a given. The unions (including the one I belong to) like to trumpet what benfits and pay they got you, the worker; never mind that there are only 90% as many workers and you have to work harder to cover the slack. Union members as a whole may like the idea of higher employment rates, but the union bosses and contract negotiators don’t necessarily see that as a bonus if it is at the expense of lower individual compensation.
Somethingtosay:
People like me keep saying that because reading this thread one might get the impression that solving GM’s legacy costs would solve the problem. It won’t.
Time after time, Detroit introduces half baked cars. Even their best efforts are lacking. The Caddy CTS is the best Detroit product I’ve driven in a long time, but the interior design is substandard. I’m sure the CTS-V is a real blast to drive and a 500 hp V Plus might be even more fun. BUT…the CTS-V has a 400 hp Vette engine. Horsepower really isn’t the issue with the car. For $50k, customers expect a certain level of interior design and the Caddy is clearly lacking in that department. Instead of studying the people who do interiors the best (Audi), they let some design team with a button/gadget fetish design the interior with predictable results. Detroit just can’t bring itself to take a hard look at the cars that people buy and incorporate the best of those designs.
“This gave the viewer some rare insight into the workings of Mr. Hitchcock’s creativity. Also, I do not believe any such work was ever produced or directed by Mr. Hitchcock. “
Actually, this story was the inspiration (and homage, of sorts) for the opening scene in the movie Christine.
someethingtosay. has a lot to say that makes sense. You can’t blockbuster your way out of a whole with home runs when your team can’t do the singles and doubles. I have said before when you don’t have the wind at your back with a string of viable products already for sale, it is hard to go foreward. Instead of taking for instance a very good taurus that is just getting a little tired in the market place (vis avis newer competiors) and then refreshing it adding the features and styling to update the line and take it to a new level. However, if you don’t have a very good taurus, and your last upgrade of the car in the late 90’s was a failure, your starting point is far different. You now have to admit the entire car is not even rental fleet material and has to be scrapped. In fact you do dump the last years production on the rental fleets at a low price. Now instead of renters driving the newest freshest fords that they might want to own one day, they get a tired obsolete taurus from Hertz. No amount of advertising about the fusion, can overturn the thousands of dissapointments of people driving the old iron taurus. Also the fusion now has to start from ground zero with a customer base and be no more than even with all the other cars for sale in it’s price range. To sum up, ford has lost a two decade lead in a family car that once enjoyed first place, and allowed the competition to leap frog them by two model changes by now.
Here is a good option to add a little spice to the various vehicle models: Take every car and truck being made and make them all be at least one second quicker in the 1/4 mile and continue to sell them for the same price!
You want the easy way? Strip off 1,000+ lbs of dead weight for an easy one second reduction in 1/4 mile time…
Attention auto manufactures: Do you need a little help getting max hp/tq from your engines?
http://www.flowtechinduction.com/
http://www.totalengineairflow.com/
Call them up and say you need some help with a max hp/tq heads/cam/intake package.
Take a vehicle and re cam it, mod the intake/head(s) for max flow, then start producing intakes/heads just like the modded ones and use the ideal cam. Why don’t you pump up the cubic inches too?
I currently commute in a gutless 22mpg Ranger and it sucks. No power at all to pass or over take. It can’t even get out of it’s own way. With that open diff, the back right tire lights up and the left one is just useless on take offs.
I don’t know if I will replace the muffler with a turbo, or sell this turkey off and get something more satisfying to commute in…
http://www.ststurbo.com/
1987-1993 5.0 Mustangs claimed to have 225hp/300tq at the flywheel. That equates to about 180-190hp at the back tires! Somehow, these cars still ran traction limited mid 14’s.
Today, with aftermarket heads/cam/intake on the stock short block, these cars are guaranteed to have 300+hp at the tires! Ford, why did you ever make such a terrible stock cylinder head((E7TE)!!?
“The stock Ford Windsor head design is known for having very restrictive intake and exhaust ports as cast and need some major attention to increase quality of flow.”
“Seen in the diagram below, the stock intake port has some major faults,”
“The stock E7TE castings house some of the worst stock exhaust ports you might ever see. ”
“This sorry excuse for an exhaust port outlet is comparable in size to a postage stamp”
http://www.armstrong.edu/ron/auto/e7.html