Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[rnicklaus]

Jay Kadis wrote on Tue, 11 November 2008 10:46

rnicklaus wrote on Tue, 11 November 2008 10:13 IF GM was to go down, it is deeper that the employees of GM losing their jobs. All of the suppliers, etc., could lead to 2.4 million in job losses, all very quickly. Maybe not entirely.  Since those GM vehicles need replacement parts all the time, there should still be a market for the suppliers. I have certainly contributed to the repair parts market with my '85 S-10: I think I've replaced most of it by now, including the engine.

That's a good point. At this point people will (should) be keeping their cars much longer.

It could help some but not a huge % of the parts wear out vs the parts it takes to make the car.

[Jay Kadis]

rnicklaus wrote on Tue, 11 November 2008 11:33

Jay Kadis wrote on Tue, 11 November 2008 10:46 rnicklaus wrote on Tue, 11 November 2008 10:13 IF GM was to go down, it is deeper that the employees of GM losing their jobs. All of the suppliers, etc., could lead to 2.4 million in job losses, all very quickly. Maybe not entirely.  Since those GM vehicles need replacement parts all the time, there should still be a market for the suppliers. I have certainly contributed to the repair parts market with my '85 S-10: I think I've replaced most of it by now, including the engine. That's a good point. At this point people will (should) be keeping their cars much longer. It could help some but not a huge % of the parts wear out vs the parts it takes to make the car.

Having switched to Japanese vehicles after the S-10, there's a noticeable difference in parts consumption.  But of course the demand for parts will decline significantly if no new vehicles are being manufactured.  (I meant that as a joke, but it's getting harder to tell anymore.)

[RSettee]

Quote:

Detroit has always taken the "don't spend any money on it... if people ask for 'performance' just stick a bigger, heavier motor in there and tell them it's 'faster'... they'll never care that it goes around corners even WORSE, that the stopping distance is now worse, that the economy is now lamentable, all because of the heavier, larger motor" approach. It's been fun at times: the vernerable Shelby Cobra was an example, except that they started with a BRITISH car (the AC 'Ace') which only weighed about six ounces to begin with, and so they actually had a success...

Agreed-the AC Shelby Cobra was well built: take a very lightweight car and put a big engine in it. Even a small engine would have made the AC Shelby Cobra very competitive.

Quote:

But Detroit has been so lazy, buying lobbyists to stifle any attempts at evolution, and so ensuring that they'll go the way of the dinosaur. They still insist that a Dodge Ram is safer because it's bigger... yet I'd rather be in my wife's yawnmobile 'brick' Volvo than a Dodge Ram for safety. They still resist reductions in fuel efficiency just as a 14-year-old resists doing their homework. -They won't spend money to make a better product: -How many volume-produced US vehicles are fully-galvanised? -Now go and find me a SINGLE production German vehicle which ISN'T fully-galvanised!

Yeah, think of all the prototypes--hydrogen, air, water--that people have come up with that the big companies have bought out or squelched, because they were in line with the oil industry. The funny thing about their "buddy", the oil industry, doesn't seem to care as much about them when the oil industry is making huge profits off of gas, and then making it more difficult for people to justify driving and buying vehicles that they already have, let alone a new one.

Here's another problem-- lax driver licencing. Licensing needs to be tougher, any idiot can get a licence. I was on the road today, and a guy was coming up to a construction lane, and he starts pulling into my lane....right next to me! Like, how fucking dumb are you that you don't even realize that there's someone right next to you? (I gave this guy an EVIL stare back) I've been in three accidents, none of which were my fault. One guy pulled out in front of me (and admitted guilt), I had to fight to have my car not written off, another guy ran a red light and slammed into my driver's door at about 60 km/hr. Now, if my car wasn't built well, i'd have hated to see the results, but I was fine and the car took most of it.

The other accident was a fender bender in a 7-11 parking lot, and it was ridiculous. Some soccer mom backed into me, she backed INTO where a vehicle would be parked (like where I was), probably checked her mirror ten seconds earlier and thought "well there's no one there".

I say that they need stricter licencing. Not everyone should be driving, but the auto makers would disagree, because a person without a license is no candidate to be buying a vehicle, seeing as that you have to have a license to insure a vehicle.

Now, i'm not sure if the auto makers give kickbacks to the DVL's to go more easy on the rules than they should, but what I do know is that there's a lot of inconsiderate and bad drivers out there. Rage issues, personality should be factored into an assessment whether you're given a license or not, just like how they already test your mobility skills and eyesight. More people on the road is NOT a good thing, half the people on the road already run red lights, cut people off, and do extremely dumb things.

Bottom line: even if you take your "investment" on the road, it doesn't account for the shithead driver that will make your investment null and void. Sure insurance covers it, but you don't always get what you paid for it. When my '84 Cutlass was written off, they gave me a settlement, but that didn't take into account the money that I owed on the paintjob--that loan that I was still paying off, I had to pay for it out of the principle payment that I received for the car, overall, meaning that I didn't get my money back. A paintjob on a totalled car is worth zero dollars. The who's owed what and for what reason thing usually is never equal. One side ends up being unrealistic.

Vehicles are terrible investments, just because of the drive-off value depreciation, theft, accidents, etc.....if you sink 2000 dollars into the car for a brakejob and maintenance, good luck getting that money back in resale.....you're just playing catch up to maintain the overall value/ worth of what the car goes for on the market.

[Hank Alrich]

rnicklaus wrote on Tue, 11 November 2008 10:13

IF GM was to go down, it is deeper that the employees of GM losing their jobs. All of the suppliers, etc., could lead to 2.4 million in job losses, all very quickly.

But they're going down; no amount of government money is going to "save" them from themselves, even though we'll probably try and as a result enjoy astonishing inflation in the near future.

Quote:

This could add another 4% to the unemployment rate taking it above 10%.  That number does not include people who have stopped looking for jobs. Don't forget that Reagan changed the unemployment statistics in the '80's.  If you came off unemployment insurance - it ran out - you were no longer considered unemployed.

It's not just about what Reagan did; it started way before that and every administration is complicit. It's also not just about unemployment figures; it's about nearly all of the government's reported numbers.

http://www.shadowstats.com/

[rnicklaus]

Hank,

I don't know how/why GM, being the #1 auto maker (ahead of Toyota), can't survive with the right vehicles.

[Jay Kadis]

GM hasn't made the right vehicles for decades.  When gas was $0.26/gallon and we were blissfully ignorant about the exhaust gases, they made cool cars that disintegrated within 3 years and everyone just accepted that as the status quo.  My first four vehicles were all Chevys.

But GM never progressed in build quality until it was too late.  They kept ignoring the handwriting on the wall, making gas wasting behemoths even when there were oil shocks, since each time the gas price rolled back and everyone forgot.  Now the cycle repeats again and even though gas prices have retreated, this time they're so out of step with demand they are done.  I'd be sorry to see them go if they hadn't worked so intently to bring this on themselves.

The government is partially responsible for waiting so long to do something about the declining manufacturing base in the US, but they still made money while the auto giants sunk into debt and didn't act when it could have done some good.  Losing the ability to make things is really a national security issue.  It's not just about cars.

[Strummer]

Devil's advocate time:

I have a Chevy Silverado gas 3/4 ton 4x4 pickup I bought new. Today it turned over to 100k miles. True story.

The reason I drive this truck has to do with my job and political realities of it that I'm not willing to battle. Suffice to say I'm not arguing that the thing is fuel efficient.

However other than tires and routine maintenance I haven't spent a dime to keep it on the road. I've owned several GM vehicles since my first in 1970, which was an Olds 442, a great fast car but it was a true POS at about 60k.

Point being, some American quality controls and engineering are better than the days of planned obsolesence.

And the thing has a halfway decent factory stereo.

[cerberus]

PookyNMR wrote on Mon, 10 November 2008 18:43

I'd put money on Ford and GM being out of business by the end of the year.

ford have secured adequate lines of credit; they
will not go under in the next 12 months.

ssltech wrote on Tue, 11 November 2008 14:20

Well looking at what happened to Austin, Wolseley, Morris, Rover, MG, Triumph, Riley, Austin-Healey and any other manufacturers unfortunate enough to come under the BMC/British Leyland 'unification', (which was bailed out for YEARS by the British government, and have all utterly FAILED despite all efforts) I'd say that all government intervention would do is postpone an inevitable death, and swill money down the drain for an extended period of pain for everyone.

on the other hand, one could point to vw or renault to prove
that a state controlled auto company can thrive. one of
those companies saw massive success in north
america. the other rebuilt the jeep brand
before selling it to chrysler.

what did happen in england?  we can't blame blmc for what
happened to rolls royce-bentley.  after the mercedes 450,
they would just rebody the silver shadow II forever?

finally, british aerospace was able to make some
decent quality jaguars. those are really lovely,
the late series 3 xj was such a memorable
drive, the steering was a bit lacking
in feedback, but very precise...
amazing poise. i drove the
americanized straight 6
quite hard through
the hills and turns
of westchester
county.

(with my "westchester lady")

speaking of things other than music,  that drive was, for me:
"england's finest hour" (and i have been to england).
even filling up the twin fuel tanks was special.
talk about vintage gear lust... i'd like to
drive the double six someday. is
it as balanced overall?  the jag i
drove ran like a swiss watch.

the newspaper guy who gave me
first job at age 11 drive a white
tr4... that i think it pretty
much lured me into
the  job. something
"honest" about it
that a camaro
would not
imply...

(i had not heard of lucas yet)

but what happened? i suppose labor
got pissed at management
and started drinking
heavily? we could
avoid that here
perhaps...

jeff dinces

[Hank Alrich]

Strummer wrote on Tue, 11 November 2008 17:26

Devil's advocate time: I have a Chevy Silverado gas 3/4 ton 4x4 pickup I bought new. Today it turned over to 100k miles. True story. The reason I drive this truck has to do with my job and political realities of it that I'm not willing to battle. Suffice to say I'm not arguing that the thing is fuel efficient. However other than tires and routine maintenance I haven't spent a dime to keep it on the road. I've owned several GM vehicles since my first in 1970, which was an Olds 442, a great fast car but it was a true POS at about 60k. Point being, some American quality controls and engineering are better than the days of planned obsolesence. And the thing has a halfway decent factory stereo.

Our 2000 Toyota Sienna turned 230K miles two weeks ago, and they have not been easy miles. It hasn't missed a beat, doesn't burn a drop of oil, etc.

Back in the early '60's I had an older pal with a Mercury wagon that had gone 300K, but that's not usual, IME.

[Jon Hodgson]

Hank Alrich wrote on Wed, 12 November 2008 05:02

Strummer wrote on Tue, 11 November 2008 17:26 Devil's advocate time: I have a Chevy Silverado gas 3/4 ton 4x4 pickup I bought new. Today it turned over to 100k miles. True story. The reason I drive this truck has to do with my job and political realities of it that I'm not willing to battle. Suffice to say I'm not arguing that the thing is fuel efficient. However other than tires and routine maintenance I haven't spent a dime to keep it on the road. I've owned several GM vehicles since my first in 1970, which was an Olds 442, a great fast car but it was a true POS at about 60k. Point being, some American quality controls and engineering are better than the days of planned obsolesence. And the thing has a halfway decent factory stereo. Our 2000 Toyota Sienna turned 230K miles two weeks ago, and they have not been easy miles. It hasn't missed a beat, doesn't burn a drop of oil, etc. Back in the early '60's I had an older pal with a Mercury wagon that had gone 300K, but that's not usual, IME.

My grandfather has a Datsun 1200 that he adored.

I think he got it in 1976, in what was then Rhodesia, he kept it until he died twenty years later, during which time he shipped it over to England and then back over to South Africa.

I don't know what the mileage was at the end, but I do know that a few years earlier he wrote to Nissan offering them its use in advertising, because he had passed the milestone of 1 million kilometres (620 000 miles).

I drove it around that time, and it was fine.

[ssltech]

rnicklaus wrote on Tue, 11 November 2008 18:08

Hank, I don't know how/why GM, being the #1 auto maker (ahead of Toyota), can't survive with the right vehicles.

-But GM isn't the number one auto maker...

...and they DON'T have the right vehicles.

Keith

[ssltech]

cerberus wrote

the jag i drove ran like a swiss watch.

..Then I assume that you didn't drive it for long...

www.aronline.co.uk tells the full story of Austin, Rover and all the rest of the brands.

Daimler-Chrysler: the joke always was :How do the Germans pronounce 'Daimler-Chrysler'?

-The "Chrysler" is silent!

I'll write more when I get more time (may not be today) but think about all that remains of the UK car industry: -nostalgia. -And Cerberus, even your tapered formatting is overflowing with exactly that.

The big three are even using exactly the same advertising approaches which the Brits reverted to in the late 1970s... that's a terrible sign of what's to come.

My colleague and namesake has a honda accord and a V-12 Jag... the Jag has character, but in the same way that pro-audio automatically sprouts the word "vintage" in eBay descriptions, old British cars (particularly those with Lucas electrics) always sprout the word "heritage"...

His Jag is most certainly prone to bouts of 'heritage'... if you know what I mean!

Keith

[bblackwood]

Hank Alrich wrote on Mon, 10 November 2008 21:56

Why are Toyota and Honda able to profitably manufacture relatively reliable and efficient vehicles in the United States if the problems are all about the cost of labor?

I don't remember the exact numbers, but when researching this very question a couple of years ago I was astonished to find the average US Honda/Toyota/Nissan worker makes around $19/hour while the average Ford/Chrysler/GM worker makes a whopping $65/hour.

Not hard to see a discrepancy there...

[ssltech]

I believe that the numbers are a little closer than the figures which you quote Brad, although certainly not parity.

-The simplified figures which I looked up do however include an adjustment for benefits to help compare 'apples to apples', so the actual "naked" hourly figures are closer, but -once again- pension and healthcare load give the big-three UAW workers a significant tilt.

Basically the figures were designed to show what a worker costs the company PER HOUR, so they included healthcare, pensions etc.

However, if -for example- the UAW healthcare provider is overpriced (and how do you rationally quantify a 'fair' price?) then they may indeed be costing the company $65 per hour, but still only taking home about $35. The Toyota, Honda, Nissan worker may be taking home $25 but have more shift flexibility, and have a lighter workload (typically the southern-state assembly lines are vastly more modern, and the workload may be much less arduous on individual workers).

So yes, it can indeed be true that the cost to the company can be enormously different, yet the actual take-home wage disparity may be slight or even the same. -The difference is that the Michigan big-three UAW members have very favourable pension costs paid for 100% by the employer... -and that's a VERY nice thing, so long as it works... -Trouble is that it's now reaching up and choking the goose that lays the eggs.

Keith

[bblackwood]

ssltech wrote on Wed, 12 November 2008 08:44

So yes, it can indeed be true that the cost to the company can be enormously different,

Thanks for the updated numbers, but yah, the cost to employer (which of course is part of the manufacturing cost of the vehicle) is the important factor. There are many factors involved, but imo the UAW has far outlived it's usefulness and is as responsible for the predicament US automakers face as the automakers themselves.