Why is GM failing so bad?

Discussion in 'Economics' started by peilthetraveler, Nov 17, 2008.

  1. 1. Good choice on the CTS-V. The coupe is going to be AWESOME.

    2. Landis is correct. Much of the back-end worker benefit liability of foreign makers is nationalized. BMW doesn't pay that stuff, the German government does. Same in Japan.

    3. The factors in point 2 have merely shifted liability from private to public. It's not as if Japan is successfully dealing with future entitlement liabilities either. Japanese debt DWARFS American debt.
     
    #41     Nov 17, 2008
  2. GTS

    GTS

    Unless I mistaken, I think many people mis-interpreted the original question

    "Why is GM failing so bad?"

    Its not "why is GM failing", the question should have been written, "Why is it so bad that GM might fail"?

    You can tell that it is the latter question by reading the originators first post:

     
    #42     Nov 17, 2008
  3. 377OHMS

    377OHMS

    I didn't know that and presumed that their union costs were reflected in their product price.

    That would make my assertion wrong, simplistic and naive lol. :D

    So, if the U.S. Government bails out GM with taxpayer money it is somewhat akin to what is happening in, say, Germany?
     
    #43     Nov 17, 2008
  4. Allen3

    Allen3

    Good call. Not bad just scary to people who think no one should be hurt by a bad company making bad products. Every bodies scared and willing to sign over their future to avoid pain. A lot of good would come from GM's failure. It would just be in the future and would hurt today.
     
    #44     Nov 17, 2008
  5. 65blues

    65blues

    As an automotive professional for the last 26 years, I can tell you that for the last several years the American manufacturers have been consistently porducing lower quality vehicles than their Japanese and European counterparts. And remember this... those counterparts are their competition. The big 3 in Detroit have consistently addressed their sales or lack of sales in the worst ways. In fact, there is a joke in one of the threads in the Chit Chat Forum about GM and Toyota and a canoe race. It's a joke, but not far from the truth.
    GM has had a history of trying to become the first to do things. Examples...
    1. In the early 80's they were one of the first manufacturers to incorporate computer controlled carburetors. This was done to increase fuel economy and performance/drivability. It worked too. But at the same time, their competition was looking long term by putting more money into the research to build a more reliable and much higher quality electronically controlled fuel injection system. Those systems came out later but proved to be much better in the long run.
    2. GM also came out with one of the first mass produced 4 speed automatic transmissions. It had an overdrive for it's fourth gear and proved very much to be a huge benefit to increasing fuel economy in all of it's vehicles. However, they had their problems too. Many problems. I was working in a Pontiac/GMC dealership at the time (1988) as a heavy line technician. We were mailed out service bulletins each month and regularly recieved 4-6 updates for those transmissions each month. Sometimes one would supercede another that we hadn't even recieved yet.
    3. GM was indeed the first to come out with air bags as supplemental restraints too. In fact, the first was an optional accessory on the Oldsmobile Toronado in the early 70's. The systems were expensive, and ultimately proved to have their problems too. By the time they were putting them in vehicles as standard equiptment some time around 1989 or 1990 (If I remember right) they were again trying to beat the masses to the punch. Which they did. The next few years showed proof that they jumped the gun and failed to do the proper research on the system as a whole. Many expensive updates/bulletins/ and recalls followed, which all bite into their profits. In other words, and this applies to all of the above examples...

    If GM builds something, sells it with a warranty, but ultimately has to spend more money on doing research to fix the flawed plan after the sale... It's a losing situation that will continue to snowball. They, along with the other US manufacturers, have done this consistently for years.

    The problem really boils down to this... GM in particular has focused entirely too much on being first rather than being best. Period.

    I could write about this topic for a long time. I have very much experience in the automotive industry as a technician, a shop foreman, an estimator in the collision industry... the list goes on. And I can assure you that the consumer is smarter than ever these days. Add to that the way people communicate. Via the internet on message boards such as this. People say quite a bit about how they feel about their cars, if you start looking for that sort of thing. Honda and Toyota owners are much more likely to buy another Honda or Toyota in the future than American car owners are likely to repurchase from the same manufacturer.

    And while I'm thinking about it, can I just say this? Don't listen to all the BS from all the car review magazines and such. Please? I don't mean to yell, but for crap sakes...

    THEY ARE JOURNALISTS! NOT TECHNICIANS OR ENGINEERS!

    Would you ask me, a mechanic, what I would suggest for a good book to read?

    Probably not.

    The unions contribute to all of this too, I'm sure. As does poor leadership in executive positions. As does the cost to pay pensions/medical insurance, etc. But these are also items that other manufacturers must address too. And in my own opinion the Japanese and European manufacturers are doing a better job of it.

    Let me finish this by saying this. I have 4 cars.
    The Hot Rod........70 Monte Carlo
    The Not Rod........92 Infiniti Q45a
    The Snot Rod......89 Toyota Tercel
    The Yacht Rod.....65 Chrysler Imperial Crown Coupe

    The Toyota is my daily driver. It's ugly as guts, I open the hood twice a year whether I need to or not... but it's reliable as all hell. It's got around 239,000 miles on it now, and it still has the original clutch. I've done NOTHING to it other than service work, meaning fluids, belts, timing belt... normal maintenance items. That's it. I can safely assure anyone that they would be hard pressed to find a 1989 vehicle made by the big 3 that has been as reliable.

    Sorry for the long post... I hope it may help at least one person however in the future.
     
    #45     Nov 17, 2008
  6. jprad

    jprad

    #46     Nov 17, 2008
  7. In Japan and Germany many benefits are nationalized. A BMW or Porsche employee receives the exact same health care as a bum on the street. Paid for BY THE GOVERNMENT.

    One can blame the UAW though for the extreme pension component.
     
    #47     Nov 17, 2008
  8. You need to replace the weather stripping

     
    #48     Nov 17, 2008
  9. Toyota sure builds nice stuff. But a land Cruiser is too small and under powered for my needs.
    I don't own one but the F-150 is a bomb proof solid vehicle. My buddy leases a few for his business. He never changes the oil ever and they just keep going.

    I had a Jeep(Chrysler)Grand Cherokee 94 till I rolled it last january. Solid bomb proof dependable vehicle. I drive it in major snow to get out skiing on powder days. I Beat the crap out of it all over the Sierra offroad getting into flyfishing spots. Ran great never needed anything fixed. just change the oil that was it.

    Big three build some good stuff. Just not much in the way of cars.

     
    #49     Nov 17, 2008
  10. jprad

    jprad

    Jeep sucked before Chrysler bought them.

    After that, totally different. I had a '90 Cherokee that was rock-solid except for one extremely cold, -20, morning when I didn't let it warm enough and cracked the slave cylinder on the clutch.

    Other than that, 10 years, 150K miles until I traded it in for an '02 Durango R/T, which was also rock-solid.

    Traded it in two years ago gas was getting too expensive for the mileage it got.

    Got an '07 Tourag, which sucks rocks in so many categories it's not funny.
     
    #50     Nov 17, 2008