Buyer Beware at Chrysler

But who pays for that "free" health care system? If wages are the same, then the extra taxes that have to be taken to pay for the health care system have the effect of less take-home pay (also known as lower standard of living). In effect, though the nominal wages are comparable, the net take home would be less.

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

Most new car buyers in the under-35 year old crowd are buying minivans and aren't the target market for a sedan. Plus they cannot afford to buy anything decent anyway.

The Charger is apparently being marketed to the over-35 year old crowd who were buying minivans 10 years ago and today, still have all those kids (but the kids are just older) yet want to have their wanna-be sports cars, so they settle for a 4 door to answer the practicality aspects, but select a sedan with a famous sporty name on it to answer their wanna-be instincts.

The marketers are competent enough -they damn well know their market. It is just a crying shame they had to drag a grand old name like Charger down into the mud.

Ted

Yes there are extra taxes, but it isn't like the USA where only the rich are assured of adequate health care. Although the take home pay is less Canadians still have a purchasing power in the top few countries of the world.

Our HC is too good as CDNs who are living and working in the USA fake their CDN residency so they can return for health care. Eventually in their later years when they may need emergency care they return to CDA to live.

I am under 35 and bought a brand new Charger. No family yet and even if I had wouldn't consider a minivan.

That's a dumb question, but I'll answer it. The reason for building in the US is that American worker's salaries are lower than Germany's. They're also lower than Japans, and that's why Toyota, Nissan and Honda are so happy to be here also. In the world's biggest auto market, the wages are lower than in their own countries. Bigger market with lower wages.

I thought everybody knew that, but I decided to go ahead and answer it.

Of course. No need for debate on this subject: The Canadian standard of living is somewhat less than the US. The last time I had something made in Canada, the wages were actually lower too, even before the workers paid those high taxes. So it's not even a case where the wages are the same. I would assume that the automakers also find that to be true.

Anyway, when things are obvious, they don't need to be brought up in a debate. It is what it is.

Except that people keep debating and promulgating false information on what you say is obvious and needs no debating. When people are spouting lies, whether it's about "free" health care or global warming, it needs to be clarified so that enough of the gullible public doesn't get tricked because their gullibiity ends up costing everyone dearly.

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

To bad you didn't get my point. It's all about exchange rates my friend. With the USA $ continually dropping the situation gets even better for building in the USA. If things continue the Bush way the USA will become bankrupt.

Wow. It's like talking with a tree.

You have nothing to say but this? Keep reading about the 69 Charger while I drive the real thing from the 21st century. How's your F body or whatever piece of shit you drive. Dumb f*ck.

You don't drive a real Charger. You drive a piece of shit, with 'Charger' slapped on the side to make it sell. A real Charger never had 4 doors, and never will.

That's like saying that a GTO isn't a real GTO if it doesn't have a hood scoop. And, I would agree. ;-)

Your question was about why GM fell so far behind... There are multiple reasons, of course, but some of the things GM did in the 90s were just dumb.

They put all their effort into trucks. They kept car designs around for way too many years without restyling them much (e.g. Chevy Cavalier the same from 1982-96), and really never did much advertising for their formerly strong selling makes like Buick and Oldsmobile.

All the effort seemed to have gone into trucks. What effort was put into cars was done for Chevrolet and Cadillac, and the other makes were forgotten.

I do think that people no longer wanted the American type of car- e.g. soft riding, wire wheels, chrome trim, etc- and GM kept that around longer than most. People were shifting towards "world" type cars that were sportier and had more of a focus on handling than soft ride. I think this is why Buick and Olds came to be seen as an older person's car- whereas before they had been highly respected.

Pontiac- well, I don't know what happened there. They always had a sporty, youth riented focus. I suppose there were just other choices, such as VW and Honda, that younger people gravitated towards... although GM cars across their makes were often too much like one another in terms of styling. Same body, just with different nameplates.

Also, even though quality improved greatly by the late 80s, people still bashed American cars well into the 90s, and the authors in magazines certainly didn't give them credit for making the improvements they did make, though they really did deserve credit for that. E.g. making the cars more fuel efficient, making them more reliable and needing less maintenance by switching over to fuel injection and distributorless ignition. The magazines never seemed to have anything positive to say about GM, but I think they chose not to see anything positive.

What is more amazing to me is that the Japanese were able to improve their products so quickly, and respond to market changes as quickly as they did. Perhaps they did it because their volume at the time was smaller so they could respond more quickly. So many Japanese cars in the 70s and 80s were buzzy four cylinder cars with a poor ride, cramped interiors, and few options. For them to have been able to expand their dealer networks and offer more luxurious, sophisticated cars as quickly as they did, well, it's pretty amazing.

But they obviously reinvested in research and development properly and came out ahead.

Getting back to GM, I really think they focused too much on trucks (as did Ford, by the way) and not enough on cars, and they let foreign makes just take over the car part of the market by not advertising enough or updating their products quickly enough.

GM sowed the wind and now they reap the category 5 Hurricane.