Your input is welcome, but your viewpoints may not be embraced.
Here is a fact: GM is on the point of bankruptcy. Chrysler is toast.
Ford apparently is not (yet).
All three Detroit giants have had to face the same market and competition.
GM should have been the strongest of all to face and survive the challenge.
Now, analytically, what is the difference? Honda and Toyota are not
directly responsible for this. This recession that we are suffering is
but this did not cause the problems that wounded GM.
If it is manufacturing costs, why was this allowed to happen?
Might it be a little stupid to keep re-designing every year (as you
which drives up costs and sacrifices quality. "New sheet metal" was the
strategy some of these people could envision to get sales of profitable
up. And that was not enough.
I think manufacturing costs play a part in the failure, and excessive
are another (Nardelli of Chrysler admitted this was one of their Achilles
Perhaps GM and Chrysler had too many expensive people.
In fact, GM has not been profitable across the line for a long long time.
In a case like this, the problems have to be put on the shoulders of
They had a job to do, but didnt do it well enough. They did not address
pressing problems which besat GM until it was too late to do anything about
They kept reacting like mice in a maze which are trained to go down the hole
which contains the cheese. And when the cheese was removed, they continued
to scurry down the same hole.
GM will likely recover, but maybe not like the bullmoose corporation it once
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.