GM, Ford, Chrysler vs. Toyota, Nissan, Honda production

Page 3 of 6  


2) I wasn't working for the UAW 3) From what I've personally witnessed, and been told by several members of management of one of the big 3, it is virtually impossible to fire a UAW employee.
--
Anthony

You can't 'idiot proof' anything....every time you try, they just make
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I have experience with a different union & different industry than autos.
American industry is between a rock and a hard place. The union situation (can't be fired) adds to it but it's not the only problem. Our relatively lavish lifestyles in the US-- and the union salaries that enable it*-- that can't be sustained by the planet is the biggest problem. Everyone in the US wants more -- expects more -- demands more -- but in the big picture it isn't affordable, at least not the way we're doing it now. This breeds corruption, dishonesty, etc., in the big picture as well as in the small picture. The small picture, at the local factory, is union employees who slow down, break things, etc., to make sure overtime continues even in the face of declining production schedules and product pricing pressure. Gotta pay for that new boat, motorcycle, 2500 sq.ft. house, big SUV, etc. If they could be fired, the problem would be less frequent. Because it's nearly impossible to fire anyone, the problem only becomes a further push to move production to or outsource from low-cost countries.
Personally, I am repulsed by these people, who expect the very best in material goods, believe they have a right to have these goods as they please, and aren't even willing to turn in a good day's work, to give their best in return. But I need a job too so I keep going back there.
I don't begrudge anyone a decent salary. I am grateful for mine, and I work hard for it in return. We should all be so fortunate. We will NEVER get there by taking the money and in return needlessly causing trouble, wrecking equipment, making scrap. We will NEVER get there by simply using up the planet faster, either. The small picture and the big both need changing.
*(Not to excuse overpaid management, and other rich folks helping themselves to huge tax breaks while, for example, poor folks can't afford to buy a doctor's appointment to help with easily treatable medical problems, while the future viability of the dollar and world banking system is put at risk by gargantuan budget and trade deficits, etc.)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ok, after that vent I feel better and can reconsider. Productivity is improving some, thanks to strong effort by management to measure people's output, and to the response from better workers to monitor themselves and put out a fair or even a hard day's work. And, a very few, the very laziest and careless people have been fired. This has helped a great deal in the place I work. I stand by the rest -- We're still using up the planet faster than we fix or create as individuals and as a people, and this fact is partly at the root of the present debate.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And so is your stereotypical *story*. So ridiculous, in fact, as to be completely unbelievable.

happening "every day". Nobody "just happens" to be in a UAW plant or any other plant with any type of security. As far as your *story* is concerned, at my UAW plant, when something breaks that could or does cause a line stoppage, whichever trades are necessary are sent to the site and NONE of them leave until the problem is rectified. Also their supervisor is right there with them in case he is needed. Line stoppages are a big deal and even incompetant managers won't allow a 20 minute job to take 10 hours. If you are going to lie to us, at least make it believable.
Dave

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave Brower wrote:

I am not anti-Union, but I do think some Union work rules are counter-productive. Many years ago I worked for a big company in Michigan. I decided I wanted my filing cabinet moved, so I did it. A few minutes later, my manager called me into his office. He bluntly told me to never move furniture again. He said I was lucky that the shop steward did not see me move the cabinet. If I had been seen, he assured me he would have filed a grievance against me. To me this seem like total BS. That is until we needed to have a phone added. I saw an amazing demonstration of union power. Step one, the phone man comes. He determines we need to move a desk to install the phone. Phone man sits down, movers are called. Movers come (2 guys and a desk caddy), move desk, phone man swings into action. Movers sit down and wait. Phone man determines we need an electrician for something (a box maybe or the need to supply power?). Phone man sits, movers are still sitting. Electrician is called in. Electrician arrives and does his thing. Electrician leaves. Phone man installs some wires. Apparently a co-worker was down in the phone room somewhere else. They communicate, phone is working. Phone man leaves. Movers reposition desk. Movers leave. BTW, since it was my desk they were moving, I had to sit in the corner out of the construction zone and read. I think it took something like 2 man days to install this one phone. At one point there were four people sitting around watching the electrician (including me). Hopefully the rules have changed in th last 25 years.
Regards,
Ed White
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Victor Smith wrote:

Japanese engineering? Don't make me laugh. The Japanese build fine cars, but the number of inovations that are "Japanese" is tiny. The biggest advantage that Japaneese engineers have is a commitment from their production people to consuistently build parts to close tolerances.

Well I guess I can't argue with that.
Ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

How about 4-wheel steering (1988 Honda Prelude and Mazda MX-6)? Active suspensions (1990 Q45)? The first CVT (1983 Subaru Justy)? Being the first ones to make valve timing work, and the ONLY ones to make the rotary engine work, where GM and others have failed? HYBRIDS (auto catch phrase of the decade and the likely future basis of all cars)? Laugh that.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Wrong-- Try Mercedes Benz in 1903 http://www.4x4abc.com/4WD101/who.html

Try mid 80's Cadillac with the air ride system. Or even earlier with the Lincolns built in the 30's

Based on a COMET Snowmobile clutch, yep high tech there. How about this type of transmission was patented in the U.S. by Adiel Y. Dodge in 1935, patent number 2,164,504. Lots of them around on snowmobiles and that started in the US real early.

Valve timing was developed in the 1800's on early engines, If you mean VVT then Honda is the first to offer it on a showroom vehicle BUT it was developed by Ford back in the late 80's they just didn't need it at the time. As for Wankel engines they were developed in GERMANY in 1873 and in 1951 Wankel helped with the design. They wer first offered by NSU in motorcycles long before Japan got involved. http://www.monito.com/wankel/history.html

How about this hybrid a 1913 Oldsmobile, it had a small gas engine running a generator that powered the electric motors at the wheels with large batteries that were also kept charged by regenerative braking as well as the generator.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

4-wheel steering, not 4-wheel drive.

If that's true, why aren't they around now? Cadillac also invented the V8-6-4, which let the engine run on 6 or 4 cylinders, and it was so reliable that it sometimes ran on none at all.

"Didn't need it"? Yeah right. It's useful and it's techno, so if they could have made it work, they would have. Certainly by now. Like I said, the rotary wasn't invented by Japan, but only Mazda has made it work properly. I don't know if you guys are overlooking the fact that the Western world got into this car thing a half-century earlier. So of course the discoveries will go to them, but isn't mastery more important?

So how come they're having so much trouble developing hybrids now? Their first systems, which are about to come out on their trucks (8 years after the Prius' debut), will reportedly be much less effective.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
--
Steve Williams
Fort Plain NY
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Air suspension or not, they don't seem to execute it very well. Lincoln and Cadillac are both criticized for offering a both an inferior ride and inferior handling (on the models you mentioned, as well as on the LS and CTS), especially compared to Lexus and BMW, if not all luxury imports.

No one said anyone needed a rotary; we're just talking about technical achievements here, and how Mazda has been the only one to make it work. I read a report once how GM spent $50 million on it and gave up because they failed. In any case, rotaries are useful, in sports cars. The downsides are crappy gas mileage and mandatory meticulous maintenance. The upsides are smoothness, an exciting "feel", a reputation of reliability (if maintained properly), and light weight. The RX-8 scales in at just under 3,000 pounds, compared to a 3,300+ fatass like Nissan's 350Z. Then again, there's the also-light S2000, but that's the exception.

Why are you getting into business relations? If you think BUYING successful car companies is a bigger achievement than being one, then your sources of pride amuse me. Your facts are also faulty: Honda and Toyota are completely independent. Nissan is about 40% owned by Renault (sound American to you?). Mitsubishi is 1/3rd Chrysler, Mazda is 1/3rd Ford, Subaru is 20% GM. Isuzu and Suzuki are parly GM too but those companies are lame so who cares.

Nobody? Try looking at sales figures for the Civic Hybrid and the Prius. And check back in a year, when the tally is available for the 2004 Prius, which is now a mid-size car at the exact same price point as the last one. It's like buying a 4-cylinder Camry and getting a hybrid for free. And if nobody wants the damn things, why are Ford and GM suddenly scrambling to rush hybrids to market?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well this one has an easy answer - GM and Ford and whoever are building hybrids for exactly the same reason that every company that get slap four wheels on a frame is now building SUVs - because they think people will buy them. It has nothing to do with whether hybrids are actually beneficial. It has everything to do with people thinking they are beneficial and wanting one. Which is exactly the same reason people buy SUVs.
Ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yeah, that was my point. I'm guessing you weren't the one who said "nobody wants the damn things."

Hybrids are beneficial in every way, nevermind what people think.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Crunchy Cookie wrote:
(snip)

Nobody wanted the crap that Ford and GM tested but they were too arrogant that grasp that their shitty engineering was the cause. Now that they have a Polish blueprint in the form of the Prius and Civic Hybrid to work from, it's no surprise they're scrambling to get on onboard.
JD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JD wrote:

Remember, though, that this is the same Ford and GM that couldn't copy a fine diesel design(Mercedes) and turned a whole generation off in the process.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Joseph Oberlander wrote:

The same GM that can't seem to make the 'vette a mid engine OHC "real" sports car?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JD wrote:

GM knows muscle cars and land-yachts, but couldn't innovate to save its rear end. Always copying and playing catch-up with the rare exception(usually from the very high-end market)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Joseph Oberlander wrote:

By fine diesel design, do you mean the slow, noisy, black smoke cloud emitting 300SD? Or maybe the 240D? If so, it hard to imagine GM making anything more pathetic. I still remember my office mate giving me a ride in his MB diesel. He was actually proud that the battery cost $120. The thing was a joke. They might have made good taxi's in Europe, but they were horrid cars for the US. It did have nice seats which were quite enjoyable until he started up the clatterbox of an engine. I have diesel farm tractors that were quieter than that piece of junk. The Oldsmobile diesel may have put a wooden spike through the US market for diesels, but the MB diesel certainly didn't help it any. And then there were the awesome Rabbit diesels - have you ever seen one consume it own oil supply and self destruct? I've seen it three times - which is pretty incredible considering the few that were sold in the US. Oh yeah, lets not forget the Peugeot diesels that were sold here......GM didn't really need much help killing diesels. Diesels are successful in Europe because of the distorted fuel taxes in Europe. Until we have something like that here, diesels will remain a niche market vehicle. However, as far as I can tell the current VW TDIs are not offensive. I even considered buying one, until I remembered they were a VW product. My family has had enough experience with VWs so that I know better (1 Audi Coupe, 1 Jettta, 1 Passat).
Regards,
Ed White
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

wholly owned.
--
Clive

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Clive wrote:

Who owns Toyota? It has stockholders just like GM, but I doubt most of them are Americans. Heck, I am not even sure most GM stockholders are American anyomore. See http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=TM
From http://www.toyota.com/about/shareholder/services/faq.html :
How many Toyota Motor Corporation shareholders are there globally?
As of March 31, 2002, there were approximately 276,449 shareholders of record.
Ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    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.