The Big Three entered the 1980’s in typical Three Stooges fashion. GM (Moe) knocked the other two automakers’ heads together, and then gloated over the market share he’d stolen– oblivious to the imports stealing it right back from under his nose. Mild-mannered Larry (Ford) scratched his professorial pate, and cooked up a brilliant scheme to avoid getting hit in the coming (import) brawl. And buffoon Curley (Chrysler) lay on the floor, doing his dry-swimming antics in a desperate attempt to draw attention to his only product: K cars.
GM’s ability to outspend Ford and Chrysler in the first round of seventies-era downsizing paid off, Big Style. In 1978, GM enjoyed a 48% share of the domestic market. During the eighties, Uber-Moe Roger Smith (of Roger and Me fame) staged one of the greatest tragi-comedy acts in industrial history. By 1989, GM’s market share fell to 35%.
GM’s efforts to re-invent their compact cars crashed. Literally. The company claimed their 1980 front wheel-drive X-Bodies (Citation, Phoenix, Omega and Skylark) offered “BMW-like performance and handling.” Note the omission of “braking.” Bereft of a $14 weight-sensing proportioning valve on the rear brakes, X-Bodies were known for their tell-tale kamikaze rear-tire screech– and the subsequent crunch as they found their next victim. Smart buyers/drivers gave them a wide berth.
Two years later, GM introduced their J-car sub-compacts (Cavalier and clones). Chevrolet General Manager Robert Lund announced their arrival with characteristic pugnacity. “We’re tired of hearing how the domestic auto industry let the Japanese take the subcompact business away from us. The whole Chevrolet organization is spoiling for a fight.”
Yes, well, the Cavalier’s design wasn’t particularly hot or competitive; pitting it against the increasingly sophisticated imports was like bringing a rubber band to a knife fight. Keeping it essentially unchanged for 23 years was like watching that same fight on an endless loop.
Mid-decade, GM embarked on an unprecedented act of auto self-mutilation. In the first bloody stroke, the Cadillac DeVille, Buick Electra and Oldsmobile 98– The General’s grandest luxury sedans– were reduced to Camry size, and fitted with front wheel-drive, 125 hp, 14” tires and tinny fake-wire hubcaps.
The Seville, Eldorado, Toronado and Riviera were next. GM reduced them to puny “eunuch-mobiles” (Oxenado?). The $27k Eldorado was now virtually undistinguishable from a $9k Buick Somerset compact, in both styling and size. Build and interior quality were equally miserable. The Cavalier-based Cimarron, Skyhawk and Firenza destroyed any remaining premium value of the once proud Cadillac, Buick and Oldsmobile divisions. Enter Lexus, BMW, Mercedes and Infiniti.
During the eighties, Ford was Camelot. CEO Donald E. Peterson was a smart, modest and plainspoken “car guy”. He motivated the Ford troops like no one since, instructing his minions to focus their efforts on higher quality, smaller, more efficient cars.
Peterson gambled the precariously-weak Ford farm on the pioneering aero-look ’83 T-Bird and ’86 Taurus. The T-Bird soared again and the Taurus went to the top of the charts– to become the bulls-eye for the Japanese darts Camry and Accord.
Ford also introduced a dumbed down version of their first “global-car” (the diminutive Escort) and the Tempo. While both models were forgettable, they sold well enough.
When Peterson left Ford in 1990, Ford’s Big Boss expressed grave concerns about the future of the U.S. auto industry. A reporter wrote “The word survival came up a lot [in our discussion]. It’s no joke to ask how much of our home-grown auto industry will exist in a generation from now.”
Peterson’s successors dropped the ball. By 1992, Ford’s lackluster line-up led the company into a $7.39b loss and a potential Chapter 11.
The 1979 government bail-out left Chrysler a shell of its former self. Development budgets evaporated. The K-car, Omni-Horizon, and the ancient hold-over RWD Diplomat (nee Volare) were the only toys in Lee Iacocca’s box. The seemingly endless stream of photo-chopped variants gave testimony to his fertile but tasteless imagination.
Fortunately for Chrysler, its “K-car in a box” (a.k.a. the Caravan/Voyager mini-vans) were an instant hit. In 1987, Iacocca went two-for-two, spending a measly $1.1b to buy AMC/Jeep.
And yet, by the end of the decade, the import brands were devouring The Big Three’s passenger-car lunch. The Three Stooges didn’t really care. By that time, the domestic market had become SUV and truck mad; the profits were phenomenal.
Once again, Detroit thought themselves triumphant. They failed to realize that they’d been lucky; cheap gas and the marketplace had evolved in their favor, rather than the other way around. When safety, rising gas prices and environmentalism eventually convinced American buyers to abandon the SUV genre for smaller, more efficient alternatives, Detroit suddenly found itself at an evolutionary dead end.
GM, Ford and DaimlerChrysler are now looking abroad, trying to marshal their global resources to develop passenger car salvation to their union-influenced domestic woes. Live or die, the past has finally caught up with Detroit.
Well said, this was a wonderful summation of one of Detroit’s most turbulent decades. You’d think people would learn from their mistakes, or keep doing the right thing (Ford).
Three stooges? I will never think of the big three in quite the same way.
Nyuk nyuk nyuk, I also will never ever think of the Detroit 3 without chuckling. Wooo, wooo, woo. Boink. (eye pokes all around). Slap.
I don’t know how the Japanese and Korean automobile executives can keep a straight face at the Detroit auto show.
Can I nominate some cars for “hindsight is 20/20” cars of the decade?
1970’s: Honda Civic. Talk about timing…. introduce a right-sized, modern, low emission, efficient, high quality car right as the arabs turn off the oil, after proving the quality of product for 15 years with motorcycles. Part good luck, part planning, part brilliance.
1980’s: Honda Accord. The Taurus was but a side-show for the real long-term winner, and just a poor copy of an Audi with a lumpen V6 anyway…
1990’s: Toyota Camry. At least it’s not an SUV. Oh yeah, it starts and goes every time, too.
2000’s: Toyota Prius. Absolute brilliance, though the first gen US cars were kind of “science projects on wheels” by the 2004 model year, the car found it’s niche.
$3.29 per gallon post-Hurricaine Katrina, remember? Watch for a return engagement this year. And next. And the year after. And….
Note the lack of any “detroit 3” in my nominations. Nyuk nyuk nyuk. (eye) Boink. Slap.
Hmmm… The Big Three Stooges: Curlysler Forry GMoe
Didn’t Three Stooges episodes open with the “Three Blind Mice” song:
The Big Three,
The Big Three,
See how they fall,
See how they fall,
They thought they’d stay on the top,
But their cars continue to flop,
Will their spiral down ever stop?
The Big Three,
The Big Three.
Nyuk nyuk nyuk
John
Ah the start of the 1980’s and if you paid attention to cars at all you will remeber that the secret to the Japaneses imports success was, the workers sang the company song, had ping pong tables did morning exercises and wore identical uniforms. Anybody else remeber that? I was an assembly line supervisor then at Ford, and as I recall the paper was full everyday of the superior quality of the Japaneses cars because the assembly line workers were motivated and quality conscious.
One day all of the supervisors were called to the final inspection area of our plant, there was a Honda Civic, Toyota Corrola and a VW Golf. Management explained how they had seen the light in Dearborn and we were all suppossed to show our line workers these cars and explain the importance of fit and finish, squeaks and rattles and that if we did not start bulding our cars like this in 20 years we would be out of business. I remeber saying at the time hey, you give me parts to a Pinto, and when I put it all together perfect it is still gonna be a Pinto. I don’t think my boss liked that, never was much of a team player. Anyway my boss got one thing right, 20 more years and they where in trouble.
I always thought of GM = Sears
Ford = Montgomery Wards
Chrysler = some seedy regional player
Then along came Wal-Mart = Toyota
and it cooler competitor
Target = Honda
Glenn A: So the minivan (millions sold) doesn’t rate? Hmmmm. I also recall hundreds of little rust buggies clunking down the roads in Ontario Canada where I grew up. Not the height of refinment, engineering or sophistication from what I can remember. My sense is that all cars have improved over that past 20 years, not just T and H. The troublesome thing about re-writing history is that so many others were there my friend.
Here’s a good anecdote from Allpar about how much attention to quality Chrysler gave to their bread-and-butter minivan in its heyday, 1990, when its new engine was coming out:
http://www.allpar.com/mopar/33.html
[One engineer] told me that noisy tappet replacement was our fifth biggest warranty item on the 3.3, but when they got the suspect parts back to engineering, they weren’t noisy. I fought to get a service bulletin written on this, to check for interference before doing a costly cam/tappet replacement, but another engineer [tried to cover up with] the claim that it “helped attenuate” engine noise. On a visit to Trenton Engine, I found the line worker who assembled the heads and asked him why he didn’t notify engineering about this. “I did, but was told not to worry about it,” he replied…
Nice one Paul!
I was in a Toyota/GM (seriously) dealership back in the early 80s and in the showroom, sitting side-by-side were a Celica and a EldoradoOrSimilarIdontRecall. The sticker on the Celica was $7K and the sicker on the other was $27K. After I looked both car over (with a trained Engineer’s eye) for awhile, a saleman came up and asked “Can I help you?”. I told him with a sincere tone in my voice that he had the stickers switched on the 2 cars. He paused and with a tone of resignation said “Yeah. I know what you mean”. Both cars were black in color and even I can shoot black paint drunk better than GM could sober in the early 80s. (I am just assuming “sober”)
Looks like I didn’t need to respond about the lack of the Chrysler minivans on my “little list” – others appeared to have done a better job than I ever could….
Plus, question to everyone?
What car do you automatically assume is blowing blue smoke (and 90% of the time, you’re right) in traffic?
Answer: Chrysler minivans (first generation) – probably with the wonderous Trenton fours (from K-cars).
The other 10% will be ex-cop car Ford LTDs.
‘What car do you automatically assume is blowing blue smoke (and 90% of the time, you’re right) in traffic?’
Now that cracks me up. I thought the smoking Chrysler (almost always light blue) minivan was an in-joke between my and my wife. Toronto is littered with these things. The single biggest blow this city could take against poor air quality would be to banish first generation Chrysler minivans from our roads. Goddam mosquito foggers.
Luther: the paint problems you noticed were the result of the massive investment in robots, which often weren’t ready for prime time. The Hamtrack MI plant where Eldo, Riviera and Toro were built was known for paint robots that painted each other more than the cars.
“cheap gas and the marketplace had evolved in their favor”
The marketplace hadn’t just “evolved”, the Big Three advertised SUVs and trucks like mad, especially to women who drove much of the sales. They certainly reaped the profits from manufacturing demand through their ads.
As I recall, those “smoking” Chryslers were powered by the V-6s supplied by Mitsubishi.
It was the Mitsubishi V-6 engines that had the problem, not the Chrysler-built four cylinders.
bfg9k: The marketplace hadn’t just “evolved”, the Big Three advertised SUVs and trucks like mad, especially to women who drove much of the sales. They certainly reaped the profits from manufacturing demand through their ads.
If creating demand were that easy, why don’t GM, Ford and Chrysler simply “manufacture demand” for their current offerings with relentless advertising, and greatly reduce the threat of bankruptcy?
Last time I checked, Chrysler had a whole bunch of unordered dealers just waiting for buyers.
Looks like a ripe opportunity for the advertising guys (and gals)…if it were that easy.
Maybe SUVs were popular because people wanted them, and the Big Three were lucky enough to stumble on to a trend, and ride it right into the ground.
Oops… I meant “a whole bunch of unordered VEHICLES just waiting for buyers” in the previous post. (What happened to the edit function?)
The “Blue Smoke Special” (sorry, K-Mart) Chrysler minivans (first generation) that I always see smokin’ the blues, are the early first gen cars. They had either Trenton fours, or Mitsubishi fours.
I really am not worried about which engines they have (worn out). I just wish the states and provinces would enforce the visible smoke rule (which has been on the books for literally half a century or more) and get these vehicles OFF our roads.
One “gross polluter” spews more than 1000 Prius’s. Probably, 10,000 Prius’s.
Glenn A.
An excellent series of articles, Paul!
Back in 1989, Mr. Arvid Jouppi was “Detroit’s leading independent auto analyst”, according to Time magazine. His prognostication?
Time magazine:
“The production, marketing and organizational power of the U.S. giants will be hard to beat, despite their current woes from Washington.
Says Jouppi: “GM and Ford will pretty much determine what the cars of the future will be.
There just isn’t anyone around who can compete effectively.
Between them they will divide up two-thirds of the world market and leave the remaining third for the rest.”
Imagine that. GM and Ford divvying up two-thirds of *entire* world car market between them…
And the final 3rd left as mere table scraps for the likes of Chrysler, Toyota, Honda, VW, Mercedes-Benz, BMW and the other manufacturers of the day?
The Nostradamus of the late ’80s, eh?
Time Magazine, 1989: Detroit’s “Total Revolution”
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,947023-1,00.html
Glenn, great article, but it was from 1979, not ’89. By ’89, Jouppi would have been laughed at.
As I recall, those “smoking” Chryslers were powered by the V-6s supplied by Mitsubishi.
Geeber is right. I had one. The Mitsu 2.6 large 4 cylinder was nothing to write home about either.
MItsi engines are chain smokers straight from the box
Paul Niedermeyer: “Glenn, great article, but it was from 1979, not ‘89…”
Yes, the forecast in Time was indeed from 1979.
Thanks for the correction, Paul. :-)
(Some day I’ll learn to read numbers;)
My kingdom for an edit button!
Wow I am reading Glen Swansons link for Time Magazine the article is from 1979. I thought this excerpt was good:
The auto companies are spending staggering sums to comply with the regulations as well as to shrink the highway cruiser and develop new, more conserving engines for powering it. GM alone will lay out $5 billion in capital spending this year. Still, Government pressure increases for even sharper and faster change. Transportation Secretary Brock Adams has called on automakers to achieve even greater gas economy by doing “nothing less than reinventing the car.” One of his goals is a fleet that will average 50 m.p.g. by the year 2000.
Many automen are shocked and angered. “We’re breaking our butts trying to get to the numbers that Adams has got for us already,” grouses Riccardo. Adds a Ford executive: “What he’s calling for is the repeal of the law of thermodynamics.”
Points – 50 MPG by 2000 as a fleet avg! Even Toyota can’t/couldn’t do that. And the huge sums of money to spent to comply with regulations – I said it before that during the 70’s I read that quality took a backseat to complying with safety and EPA regulations. Now I’m not against either but I believe there is no intelligent approach to this by our politicians. They can get a new regulation passed and get great press coverage without regard for what it might do to any industry down the road. They might not even be in office or alive when the unintntended consequences come home to roost.
True story. Years ago there was a yacht building business in my home town. Employed avg working people and paid them good wages to make these things. Congress passed a luxury tax on things like yachts. People stopped buying them in enough numbers that they had to lay off a good number of their employees. Now the tax was passed to raise revenue and make the wealthy pay their fair share as the politicos like to say. Then the unintended consequences kicked in. Fortunately this was something where you could see the cause and effect right away. The tax was rescinded. In the case of auto regulations you may not see the consequences until a years later. I believe the truck/SUV boom was a result of such regulations. and lets not assume the Asians or Europeans were so much smarter than the Americans. They were designing and building these things as fast as they could make them.
Hey, any of you engineering minded folks… does anyone know what became of Ford’s idea of a “stratified-charge “proco” (programmed combustion) engine.” mentioned in the Time article? They said it would get 20% better mileage.
You mentioned the mid-80s redesigned gm c-bodies. My uncle has a 1986 Olds 98 Regency with over 200,000 mi. (second owner) The original 3.8L is still running strong. Everything else is excellent for such an old car. Very reliable car too, except for the typical repairs expected for an old car. ‘Baroque-ish’ styling is loved by few, hated by most. But simply a better car than any Asian imports of the time. Even with the pathetic HP and front drive. I’ll take the velour over any of that mouse-hair “fabric” the Japanese were peddling at the time.
Wow this is amazing… What year is it and what are the foreign manufacturers doing to the big 2.332234 now? Again? Still?
Time Magazine a scant 27 years ago,
June 1980 “Detroit Hits a Roadblock”
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,924166-1,00.html
OOOHHHH cool. As if the Deathwatch series wasn’t riveting enough. Now (be still my heart) Prequels. Way to go.
Windsworth: Ford’s proco engine is essentially being unfolded again before our eyes: stratified charge direct injection has been slow in coming, but come it will. And HCCI takes it one step further. Ford’s idea was ahead of the technology to produce it, especially the super-high pressure injection that has become common(rail) now.
Dont underestimate the role Gov’t plays in killing off manufacturing in the US. It is not cheap labor that is driving manufacturing offshore as much as it is Gov’t laws. The Gov’t played a key role in the demise of 2.75 as those old articles indicate. The gas “crisis” of the mid 70s was a direct result of Nixon/Carter/Kennedy policies just as the Great Depression of the 30s was a direct result of FDR policies. (All we have to fear is my policies causing a 10 year depression itself. Something like that) As for Brock Adams…Bad things happen to good people when you put retarded children in positions of political power.
Glenn A. wrote: “1970’s: Honda Civic. Talk about timing…. introduce a right-sized, modern, low emission, efficient, high quality car right as the arabs turn off the oil, after proving the quality of product for 15 years with motorcycles. Part good luck, part planning, part brilliance.”
I remember 1970s Honda Civics as being even worse rust buckets than anything of the era’s “Detroit Cancer”, and that’s pretty remarkable.
The rest of your list makes sense to me.
Tom.
For the record, my family’s car from 1987-1991 was an ’86 Voyager with the Mitsubisi 2.6 engine. No problems up through 100K whatsoever.
Also for the record, Civic bodies may have suffered from cancer in the ’70s, but the rest of the car was great compared to its rivals of the time. That’s more than I can say for my first car, a 10-year-old 1982 Cadillac Cimarron with just 52K miles and already rusted through the floor. I still can’t figure out how it still ran. Most everything else didn’t work.
I can only HOPE that high level GM people read these editorials because these assessments of the decades are one hundred percent spot on accurate. The big question is; do these corporate power holders see the past the same as we do or do they still wear rose colored glasses?
I’ve been to Detroit before and that place is definitely it’s own little world and I can see how the corporate people there could easily be out of touch from the real world. They designed and built some of the biggest junk ever made and at the same time, seriously thought they would all be the best selling cars ever. Desperately optimistic and delusional.
How hard is it to take a Toyota or Honda and take it apart and study how it’s assembled and reproduce it’s features/advantages? Why does my 4 cylinder truck(Ford) have 8 spark plugs? You don’t see Toyota/Honda pulling stunts like that and they ALL get better fuel mileage and more power then this joker motor. What a mockery this engine is.
A girl at work owns an Accord and every time I ride in it I think “Gee, this sure is a nice car”. No rattles, nice ride, quiet. Just a nice little car. I got to drive a Prius a while back and that thing sure was pleasant to drive(CVT). Just hop in, leave the key in your pocket, press the button to power it up, pop the electronic joystick into which gear you want and away you go.
Ford and GM COULD save themselves in multiple ways. The sure way not to is to keep building their current vehicles with all their problems and gasoline burning properties.
The “electrification of the automobile”? I think electric cars are ready. You want large format lithium batteries? Type the word kokam into Google. Full size Chevy truck getting 150 miles per change and it doesn’t even have a full load of batteries!
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2006/12/01/edta-conference-more-details-on-uqm-s-electric-silverado/
Hydrogen powered internal combustion(for now)? Put the hydrogen refueling stations at the car dealerships!?! Do a Google image search for the phrase tube trailer.
Mid year model changes are exciting and refreshing. If a car is not selling well, tweak it until it does. Don’t wait a decade to change it up! Is the 2009 Mustang going to be one hundred percent the same as the 2005 model was? Are we esitenially going to be buying 2005 model Mustangs in the year 2015? Everyone who has wanted one of the new style Mustangs has already gotten one by now. I’m not asking for a totally new platform. Just look at the changes between the models from `65-`73. That’s enough to keep things fresh and exciting.
The current Mustang is too expensive. Even if both the V6 and V8 had twice as much power each, I don’t think that would move more volume because of the price point.
Take a bill of materials and analyze every component and ask yourself if that part is absolutely necessary. Why can’t less be more? Why can’t we have a nice looking plain wheel that costs less then the wheels you currently use? Are those stock tires the cheapest brand/model you can find? Who makes your drive line and could it be made cheaper? Why do we need a two piece drive shaft when the aftermarket offers a one piece replacement that is superior to the stock two piece? You did it because the more complex two piece is somehow cheaper right? Those mod motors are cheaper with their multiple cams, timing chains, and greater number of valves then GM’s impressive Gen III and IV engines(one cam and push rods)?
Strip the car down to it’s uni body and crash test it and see how well a ~1,000lb car fares compared to a ~3,500lb car. The acceleration and stopping abilities of the half tonner sure would be nice. Not to mention the handling… Less weight would mean less material, so the price should be less? Your selling this stuff by the ton right?
Difference in culture between american and european/japanese car companies concerning investments in market share?
One thing that astounds me is the big 2.5s lack of investment and refinement in existing production-lines. The Euro/Japanese culture seems to be hooked on steady cycles of face-lifts and re-designs. A face-lift every two years, a major re-design every four years, a new platform every 6 to 8 to 10 years. When an automaker has a steady share of a market sector, it is essential to stay competitive, and not only keep that share but expanding it, and have enough money left when the cycle is over to produce an entirely new vechicle for that sector and market share. The money for the face-lifts, overhauls and replacements must come from the revenue of that market share, thus the smarter management keeps the product competitive, because more vechicles sold means more money for further re-investments. That is the most essential part of car-making. If not, your share of that market sector will diminish as the competition moves further ahead. It is as old as Karl Marx, and the core mechanism of capitalistic theory.
In the fifties and sixties, the american car companies did just that. And they had face-lifts every year! Re-designs every four years, and new platforms, well, once in a blue moon. But the fury and aggression in the evolving design-language from that era is still one of the true wonders of car-making history. Never before nor after that time, has the splendor of car design reached a fuller zenith than then and there.
So, why is that that the american car companies has lost their faith in capitalism? The examples are many in which a company has produced a new car, and not only more or less banished further development, but not even produced a proper replacement when the cycle is over and actually long, long overdue.
Ford Taurus, The Fox platform, Ford Focus, GMs J-Car, the Saturn, Chrysler PT Cruiser and so on and so forth.
I can’t find a single European or Japanese car company that doesn’t invest in existing production lines, and produce proper replacements. Well, it would be Saab, then. But of course, their problem with lack of investment in the 9-5 and lack of replacement seems to be on a GM management level.
As for Brock Adams…Bad things happen to good people when you put retarded children in positions of political power.
Certainly words for our modern age. But with so many of the “foreign” companies building in this country, how does your point make sense? Surely Honda and Toyota are burdened more by any domestic industrial regulations than any of the big 2.x who mostly build out of the country?
Thanks for the trilogy, Paul, and the unforgettable Three Stooges analogy. I just had a flashback to those Pontiac Sunbird ads stating how it would go further on a full tank of gas than a Rabbit would.
Reminds me of the time I received a promotion and an award. I buzzed right down to drive the, then new, Cadallac Cimmeron. What a mistake. First, because I dressed quite casually I was treated by the salesman like I had leprosy. Second, the car stalled at every stop, the brakes shuddered, and when I tried to adjust the seat, the trim around the bottom of the seat fell off, and the thing felt like a Vega. What a piece of junk! Obviously, they didn’t sell me anything that day. A total GM market failure.
More recently, I drove a Catera for a day. It seemed to be a generally good car with acceptable quality, but how unexciting can a car get? Even my wife turned up her nose at it. Another GM market failure.
Another gem, Paul.
President Bush said make cars, that people want. What a Shakespeare-like sentence! still, it`s true. it`s not government, that stops manufacturing, it`s the companies themselves, that make too outdated products, that have superpoor diversity, and superlong product cycle. that is why colgate and mountain dew is having good profits, because they don`t need to push constantly in high precision movement building. they change labels, slap new names and sell,. but you can`t slap a new name on old impala and sell it as a new megaturbo cheetah.everything that needs precision assembly ,needs long term investment, but usa is very bad at making profits for tomorrow, not today. that `s why as a rule all movement involved companies die, but soap makers proliferate. and today if detroit can`t make good cars, they can pretend they make. that`s what rebadge is for. that`s what byuing foreign shares is for. detroit is destined the vauxhall way. to live in memories, not in egine rumbles.oop`s, you watch that burger boy, you former gm engineer,or your toyota service center diner lounge boss takamichi will fire you………..
rtz wrote: “Why does my 4 cylinder truck (Ford) have 8 spark plugs? You don’t see Toyota/Honda pulling stunts like that and they ALL get better fuel mileage and more power then this joker motor.”
Actually, Honda’s 4-cylinder L-series engines have an 8-plug 8-valve variant (i-DSI) as well as a 4-plug 16-valve variant (VTEC). The former is designed to maximize fuel economy, so it’s not available in any American models. The following article describes the Honda engines: http://asia.vtec.net/Series/FitJazz/lseries/index.html
What “problems”?
How about perceived problems? How about their reputation for having problems? How do you convince someone that a brand new Ford Focus or Chevy Cobalt is just as good or even better then a new Accord or Camry when the past 25 years says otherwise?
Luther:
While it sounds like we agree in (economic) principle, I partially disagree with one of your statements. FDR did not cause the depression through his policies, the depression was there when he took office. His policies approved by the congress, just extended the depression and made it more severe. Instead of a short term boom/bust cycle that had been typical, at least throughout the history of this country up to that time, we had a very long lasting “bust” portion of the cycle following the boom of the teens into the twenties. However, I totally agree with you that a large if not the largest impediment to manufacturing in this country is not wages, it is government regulation. It’s not just the wages you pay your employees, it’s the amount of time spent on payroll and HR activities to ensure that you are complying with all the governemnt regulations. Then there are the government safety regulations that are applied wiht a blind eye to the reality that is right in front of the government inspector’s face (“but that doesn’t make any sense in this case” is not a valid answer to “section 1256789(a)(1)(d) of the …. states that you shall not….”). These are the costs of doing business in this country that aren’t normally discussed. As soon as somebody says something is necessary for safety, it’s unquestionable. I mean, how can you be against safety? Then of course there are also the costs of frivolous personal injury lawsuits.
RE: ttilley,
I remember 1970s Honda Civics as being even worse rust buckets than anything of the era’s “Detroit Cancer”, and that’s pretty remarkable.
————————————
All the early Japanese cars were that way. After a couple of Northeast winters they would literally dissolve. I was convinced that the Japanese were building them out of compressed rust.
The reason why the Japanese prevailed, is because they acknowledged the problems with their cars and corrected them. With Detroit it was business as usual.
If a car even looks like a car, I’m grateful. I appreciate vehicles and Frankensteins alike. I don’t care to blame anyone (I practice accepting, not expecting). Anyhow. We seem to focus more on the companies and less on the clients. That were the truth matters most. Folks fork forward funds for Fords, their reason? their psyche? Those are the most important questions.
I’d be happy with a Corsica or Cressida, I’m grateful for what opportunities come my way. although the all things being equal, the Cressida works much better for me.
Hydrogen and “leccy” cars are not the future. They still need power to feed them either in when charging or to “make” (i.e. extract) the Hydrogen required.
The really great thing about oil is the return on investment, the power out is huge compared to the energy put in to extract and refine it. Hydrogen and battery-mobiles can’t match it. Even hybrids struggle – a good Diesel will use less fuel and emit less CO2 overall (remember I’m including manufacture and disposal costs here) than a hybrid.
When “Flux Capacitors” become standard fitment then we will match oil but until then we need to make the most of it.
Luther … check out a book called “Rivethead” by Ben Hamper for a very interesting look into the relative sobriety of the GM workforce in the 80s. The answer is, they weren’t very sober. It’s a great read, very entertaining, and great insight into what trainwrecks GM’s manufacturing plants were in that era.
Three Stooges? What an underhanded insult . . . to the Three Stooges.