Re: Crash Course: The American Automobile Industry’s Road from Glory to Disaster

The quality of Asian/American cars may indeed now be on par but I, for one, will never buy another General Motors (or the new GM) product again. My experience with a dangerous, POS Buick I purchased in the '80s forever has tarnished that brand name.

This, I think, is the point with many posts in this GM newsgroup. General Motors' reckless disregard for quality, safety, and customer satisfaction in the past has alienated so many people and that legacy continues to haunt their future.

Crash Course: The American Automobile Industry?s Road from Glory to > Disaster
formatting link
> Crash Course: The American Automobile Industry?s Road from Glory to > Disaster > By Paul Ingrassia > Random House $26, 320 pages > > Japanese car companies, which overtook US ones in the early 21st > century, leading to the bankruptcy of General Motors and Chrysler last > year, used a method of industrial innovation called kaizen, usually > translated as ?continuous improvement?. From a humble start, the > Japanese companies had got better and better at making cars that were > economical and reliable. >

Japanese kaizen ran into kabe ,or 'wall", as in "brick" wall many years ago.

Their cars simply were no better than American nameplates, but perception, led by the American media kept preaching about Japan's "superiority".

Even though, by the early ninties, American nameplates were as least as good as Japan by any apples to apples comparison.

Better fuel mileage, fewer recalls safer, etc.

By the late nineties, there was really no comparison, if one bothered to check things out on his own.

American nameplates continued to become even more reliable, more fuel effiecient, safer, faster and roomier.

Yet the perception continued that the Japanese made a better product than America.

Now, during the first ten years of the new century, there is little doubt that American nameplates are far superior than the Japanese.

Any comparisons that can be objectively made are decisively in favor of US nameplates.

Add to the fact that Japan has recalled TENS OF MILLIONS of their vechicles, and there can be little doubt who makes better products.

But, still, there are those who try to argue that Japan is "doing right". and they still make a better product than the US.

Really pretty amazing, if you ask me.

Either stupid, naive, or biased, but still amazing.

Meanwhile, Detroit perfected the technique of occasional improvement. As > the Big Three ? GM, Ford and Chrysler ? slid deeper into trouble over > decades of complacency, union obstructionism and mismanagement, they > would occasionally stage a temporary recovery, with some new car or > initiative prompting books and magazine articles about a Detroit revival. >

They made many many many great new cars during his period, dispite the unions, or mismanagement.

This all proved to be illusory, with Detroit?s detour from making cars > (ground that it had in effect ceded to foreign rivals by the mid-1990s) > to producing ?light truck? sports utility vehicles as the biggest > deception of the lot. These were just upward blips on a long, steady > descent from technological dominance to global laughing stock. >

Literally tens of millions of light trucks and sport utility vechicles were sold during this period. It GM sold "junk', these tens of millions of vehicles would not have been sold.

This is a familiar story adroitly retold by Paul Ingrassia, a veteran > Wall Street Journal reporter who has written about Detroit over the > years but maintains his sympathy for the human beings whose lives were > crushed by this vast systemic failure. > > In his effort to isolate what went wrong, Ingrassia goes back to the > early 20th century, when Detroit was a ?Mecca for automotive > entrepreneurs? such as Henry Ford. Things had clearly gone downhill by > the 1970s, when Detroit?s quality standards suffered: cars such as the > Chevrolet Corvair and Ford Pinto had reportedly broken down and exploded. >

A Corvair hasn't been made in about 45 years. A Pinto hasn't been made in about 35 years. Pretty bad examples for using America's "lack of quality standards."

OTOH, Toyota has made millions of light trucks with rusting suspension parts in the past 5 years.

In the past couple of years, they have sold millions of vechicles with sludging engines.

Unless they have already stopped production, they have made vechicles with sticking throttles in the past half hour.

I really have to laugh when idiots try to compare the failures of American nameplates nearly 50 years ago to those that Japan made last week.

Maybe Kaizen is not what it is cracked up to be.

And maybe a good American translation could be "has been."

There were, however, warning signs before that, when Detroit?s early > focus on technology began, by the 1950s, to give way to an obsession > with marketing and design. Ingrassia makes an entertaining journey into > the history of tail fins. In 1948, these were borrowed from a Lockheed > fighter by Harley Earl, GM?s chief designer, leading to a stylistic arms > race. > > One could trace it back further. Ingrassia?s account led me to wonder if > GM was an aberration from the start. It sounds like heresy to even > suggest it: business schools still study how Alfred Sloan turned Billy > Durant?s rag-tag collection of brands into the epitome of the > professionally managed US corporation. > > Sloan was, as Ingrassia says, ?low-key, methodical and prudent? and > shaped GM into a portfolio of car brands, including Oldsmobile, Cadillac > and Buick, intended to serve ?every purse and purpose? in the US postwar > market. He also pioneered techniques of marketing and design ? the > latter under Earl ? that lured customers away from the boring, > technology-oriented Ford, with its black-only Model Ts. GM overtook Ford > and became the car industry?s dominant institution. > > Yet Sloan?s vision of turning cars into dream machines, embodiments of > their owners? aspirations, left a gap that the Japanese, and later > Korean, automobile companies later exploited. Unfortunately, Detroit > came to believe that sizzle sold, while technology and reliability were > of secondary importance. > > Two other factors made Detroit vulnerable. One was its provincialism. > Michigan became a one-industry state, dominated by the Big Three and > hundreds of auto parts suppliers. It became unthinkable that auto > companies could be run by anyone but Midwestern ?car guys?. > > A second vulnerability was the grip of the United Auto Workers (UAW) > union, led by Walter Reuther, who exploited the complacency of the Big > Three in the 1950s and 1960s, when money was flowing, to hammer out > labour deals that later produced vast pension and healthcare liabilities. > > Such forces not only made Detroit underestimate the Japanese invasion > but also prevented it from responding effectively when it woke up. The > Big Three maintained the comforting mantra that the plain, reliable cars > being built by Nissan and Toyota ? the Model Ts of their day ? were > alien to American tastes. > > Ingrassia describes the moment in 1979 when Detroit should have ceased > kidding itself: when Honda built its first US plant in Ohio and showed > that American workers could make high-quality cars. It was not a matter > of nationality, it turned out, but of good management. > > The SUV boom of the 1990s brought a stay of execution, allowing the Big > Three to prosper by switching from a losing struggle to produce decent > cars and instead make bulky, highly profitable, light trucks. Eventually > this avenue would be closed off by surging oil prices. > > The tragic figure in this account is Rick Wagoner, an amiable, > intelligent executive who was appointed chief executive of GM in 2000 > and eventually led it to near-bankruptcy. Wagoner baulked at confronting > GM?s structural problems head-on, and instead tried to make the best of > them. > > Such complacency in the face of trouble finally backfired at last year?s > disastrous hearings in Washington at which the Big Three?s chief > executives ? and the head of the UAW ? arrived on private jets to plead > for a bailout of $25bn and were unable to answer even basic questions. > > Despite this, GM?s board continued to back Wagoner until he was fired by > Barack Obama as the price of a government bailout. ?GM executives had > come to believe that solving their problems was impossible and living > with them was inevitable,? Ingrassia writes. > > The question now is whether outsiders, helped by debt-shedding > bankruptcy (resisted by Detroit until the end) can do better. Fritz > Henderson, Wagoner?s successor, has been pushed out by Ed Whitacre, a > former chief executive of AT&T and now GM?s chairman. Ford is being run > by Alan Mulally, a former Boeing executive, and Sergio Marchionne, the > head of Fiat, has taken over Chrysler. The line-up in Detroit, redoubt > of the Midwestern ?car guys?, is now one telecoms guy, one aerospace guy > and one Italian. > > A changing of the guard may not be enough. Ingrassia shows convincingly > how Detroit?s problems built up, even during decades when it seemed to > be doing well. It allowed Asian and European companies to shove it aside > in its own heartland, and now the Chinese are coming. > > Detroit was not always a basket case. It was the Silicon Valley of the > early 20th century, a crucible of US product innovation and flair. All > good things, however, come to an end. > > -- > Civis Romanus Sum
Reply to
JimG
Loading thread data ...

Get real! Most Toyota were POS in the eighties as well. Would you compare a 2010 Toyota to a 1980 as well? The vehicles from every manufacturer today are pretty good. The only real difference is style and price.

Reply to
Mike Hunter

Reread my post. I think car quality has improved and, for the most part, is on par across most current manufacturers. But I bought a Buick, not a Toyota, during the '80s and that POS experience was disastrous.

There are many car manufactures to choose from today and my past experience with a General Motors product will forever exclude GM from my future consideration.

Reply to
JimG

The point you just made also is a reason many of us here in the GM newsgroup feel insulted.

"General Motors' reckless disregard for quality, safety, and customer satisfaction"

This statement could have come from Consumer Reports, Edmunds, USA Today, NBC, CBS, or a whole host of other media or magazine outlets. You ever write for one of them?????

Yet, this statement is strictly based on bias and not objectivity.

"Quality"????? Consumer reports usually uses such terms as "fit and finish" or "rattles" for examples of quality. They've slammed GM for about 30 years on this, but just check a similar model Toyota in any comparable era and see if the "Toys" are really any better.

Safety????? Other than the before-mentioned 45 years ago Corvair, any stastical data obtained (deaths, injuries, crash test data) usually shows GM on par with, or better than Toyota. If you count the problems Toyota has had in the past few years, GM blows them off the charts, safety-wise.

Customer Satisfaction???? CR really slanted surveys in favor of Toyota years ago, but the problem with their surveys was that a blown interior light carried the same weight as a blown engine, so there was no real way to make much use of the surveys; but of course CR didn't let that stop them.

I believe that Toyota is now the company who "alienates people and tarnishes their reputation and haunts their future"

It will be interesting to see who these former customers will go to for their next purchase, and how competing auto manufacters will court them.

Reply to
jr92

I thank you if you think my writing style would suggest a past career in journalism (actually, I had 34 years as an engineer with the telephone company). My comments are not ?based on bias? but entirely on my brief ownership of a 1984 Buick Century wagon. I have detailed my experience with this Buick POS in other threads in this newsgroup and do not think it of value to vent details of these displeasures yet again.

The final paragraph in your reply to my post asks ???who these former customers will go to? ?. Let me tell you my thoughts, because they describe why GM is in such deep sh*t.

In 1984, I was search for a car so my wife could drive our children on her errands. I had settled on a Buick Century wagon or a Volvo DL wagon. The Buick was a pretty car while the Volvo was Spartan and the ?drive away? cost of Buick was $500 less and thus decided. We owned the dangerous, POS, Buick for about 9 months before trading it in on a Volvo DL. My wife drove the Volvo for 10 years (200K miles) before handing it off to our son who, at the time, was on his way to college. He drove it for another two years and 50K miles.

After the DL, I have purchased a Volvo 740 and 850. Each one driven

100K~150K miles before being handed off to one of the kids. Last summer I purchased a Volvo V70. I have been happy with Volvos over the years because each one has been satisfactory.

I owned the ?84 Buick for 9 months because it was a dangerous POS and will never buy another GM. I have since owned four Volvo?s over the past 25 years and each has been satisfactory. Should my most recent V70 purchase develop problems, I would be looking for an alternative brand for my next purchase..

The point you just made also is a reason many of us here in the GM newsgroup feel insulted.

"General Motors' reckless disregard for quality, safety, and customer satisfaction"

This statement could have come from Consumer Reports, Edmunds, USA Today, NBC, CBS, or a whole host of other media or magazine outlets. You ever write for one of them?????

Yet, this statement is strictly based on bias and not objectivity.

"Quality"????? Consumer reports usually uses such terms as "fit and finish" or "rattles" for examples of quality. They've slammed GM for about 30 years on this, but just check a similar model Toyota in any comparable era and see if the "Toys" are really any better.

Safety????? Other than the before-mentioned 45 years ago Corvair, any stastical data obtained (deaths, injuries, crash test data) usually shows GM on par with, or better than Toyota. If you count the problems Toyota has had in the past few years, GM blows them off the charts, safety-wise.

Customer Satisfaction???? CR really slanted surveys in favor of Toyota years ago, but the problem with their surveys was that a blown interior light carried the same weight as a blown engine, so there was no real way to make much use of the surveys; but of course CR didn't let that stop them.

I believe that Toyota is now the company who "alienates people and tarnishes their reputation and haunts their future"

It will be interesting to see who these former customers will go to for their next purchase, and how competing auto manufacters will court them.

Reply to
JimG

I never thought nor meant to impy you are a journalist.

I only suggested the words you used to degrade GM products fit a template that other "journalists" have used for years.

The public bought that template hook, line, and sinker, without really checking out the facts, for years.

Now, it appears, the worm may be turning, if only slightly.

Well, being that you are a Volvo owner, as oppposed to a Toyota owner, you really dont count as to what I was trying to say.

And, BTW, GM has been in "deep sh*t", for a long time, finacially speaking.

I just wish the management, government, unions, and media would get out of the way and let the PRODUCT speak for itself.

The end result might really be surprising.

Here we go again. Another disgruntled former GM owner who had a bad experience 26 YEARS ago with ONE GM VEHICLE, and is suddenly an expert as to the quality (or lack), that GM supposedly has TODAY.

Please tell me the car you bought was NEW, as opposed to a worn out, abused car that so many other GM bashers on this group have bought and used as "examples" of bad GM products.

In what way was the car dangerous??? Once again, any measurement used back in the day, wether it be stastical data, or data used in crash tests, showed GM products as safe as, or safer than, anything anyone else at the time made.

And, BTW, I have owned about 30 GM products over the past 34 years. More than a couple have gotten 200,000 miles.

I have lost exactly ZERO engines.

I have lost exactly ONE transmission ( It was at 155,000 miles on a

1976 Nova SS. I drove it about another 100,000 trouble free miles before trading it. One of the biggest mistakes of my life, letting that car go.)

Hell, I had a 1978 Trans Am that I abused terribly, and got over

200,000 miles on it.

I owned a 1987 Oldsmobile, the ugliest car I ever owned, that went past 300,000 miles when I traded it.(Probably another mistake, but non=3Dengine parts were beginning to wear out, and I didn't want to spend a bundle on fixing the car at this point)

As I have been satisfied with my GM cars over the years. Only difference is I have owned 30, while you bought one 26 years ago, and I don't even know the whole story about IT.

And, it I were you, based on your wonderful track record with the Volvo, I would simply stay there. But of course, you were the one who dumped GM for good after a bad experience 26 years ago, so I guess I could see you dumping Volvo if you had a problem, even though it appears up to this point you have had a half million miles of good experiences with them.

Reply to
jr92

My point in all of this is that the selection of one's "next" car begins while driving the "current" car off the dealer's lot for the first time. If the current car performs well then that brand has a good chance of being selected again. If the car performs poorly, then the customer is likely to look elsewhere next time. And if the current car proves to be, in the opinion of the owner, a dangerous POS then that brand is damned forever more. This is not GM bashing, it?s just basic consumerism.

The Rodger Smith years at GM pissed off a lot of then-current owners which turned away many future potential returning customers.

I never thought nor meant to impy you are a journalist.

I only suggested the words you used to degrade GM products fit a template that other "journalists" have used for years.

The public bought that template hook, line, and sinker, without really checking out the facts, for years.

Now, it appears, the worm may be turning, if only slightly.

Well, being that you are a Volvo owner, as oppposed to a Toyota owner, you really dont count as to what I was trying to say.

And, BTW, GM has been in "deep sh*t", for a long time, finacially speaking.

I just wish the management, government, unions, and media would get out of the way and let the PRODUCT speak for itself.

The end result might really be surprising.

Here we go again. Another disgruntled former GM owner who had a bad experience 26 YEARS ago with ONE GM VEHICLE, and is suddenly an expert as to the quality (or lack), that GM supposedly has TODAY.

Please tell me the car you bought was NEW, as opposed to a worn out, abused car that so many other GM bashers on this group have bought and used as "examples" of bad GM products.

In what way was the car dangerous??? Once again, any measurement used back in the day, wether it be stastical data, or data used in crash tests, showed GM products as safe as, or safer than, anything anyone else at the time made.

And, BTW, I have owned about 30 GM products over the past 34 years. More than a couple have gotten 200,000 miles.

I have lost exactly ZERO engines.

I have lost exactly ONE transmission ( It was at 155,000 miles on a

1976 Nova SS. I drove it about another 100,000 trouble free miles before trading it. One of the biggest mistakes of my life, letting that car go.)

Hell, I had a 1978 Trans Am that I abused terribly, and got over

200,000 miles on it.

I owned a 1987 Oldsmobile, the ugliest car I ever owned, that went past 300,000 miles when I traded it.(Probably another mistake, but non=engine parts were beginning to wear out, and I didn't want to spend a bundle on fixing the car at this point)

As I have been satisfied with my GM cars over the years. Only difference is I have owned 30, while you bought one 26 years ago, and I don't even know the whole story about IT.

And, it I were you, based on your wonderful track record with the Volvo, I would simply stay there. But of course, you were the one who dumped GM for good after a bad experience 26 years ago, so I guess I could see you dumping Volvo if you had a problem, even though it appears up to this point you have had a half million miles of good experiences with them.

Reply to
JimG

At best, when you bought ( 60s > 90s ) Detroit iron, it was "the luck of the draw". Remember taking your new car back to the dealer with a list of "fixits" as long as your arm ??

I've had friends whose Chevy ( or Olds ) just ran and ran with no appreciable maintenance.

Others spent all their time in the dealers shop......

I bought a new Pontiac that must've been built "the day after vacation startup". It looked great, but had failure after failure. ( I dumped it in little more than a year )

Buying a new car shouldn't be a crap-shoot. The payments go on long after the honeymoon's over.

Reply to
Anonymous

Why in the world would anybody judge todays fine cars with the ONE they purchased years ago.

If you previous vehicle was on the crapy Toyotas sold years ago, would you not consider one of the fine cars THEY sell TODAY?

Disaster

formatting link
>

Reply to
Mike Hunter

I guess we can assume you never owned a Toyopet or one of their early model rust buckets? LOL

Reply to
Mike Hunter

They judge the company and the service they get.

What you look at is quality, price, service.

If the quality goes up it is fine. If the price goes up that is something you can calculate. The service you take into consideration and if it is bad it takes a long time to repair if ever. You listen to others and hear if service has improved and if it has not then you stay away.

There is evidence that quality did improve in all or at least most brands.

The service quite often given or sold by GM and its dealers remained poor until the very end.

That is why GM died.

Reply to
Björn Helgason

Reply to
Mike Hunter

What is the saying, screw me one, tisk-tisk on you, screw me twice and it makes me a fool.

Why patr> Why in the world would anybody judge todays fine cars with the ONE they

Reply to
Canuck57

Reply to
Canuck57

JimG wrote, "...1984 Buick Century wagon. I have detailed my experience with this Buick POS in other threads in this newsgroup and do not think it of value to vent details of these displeasures yet again. "

************************************

Yes, that would be nice. Please remember you said that. I don't even visit this NG very often, and even "I" am familiar with your story about the problem car. Yes, we GET it: You bought a lemon. A really long time ago. In fact, I'm pretty sure that everyone in here, myself included, has heard of that happening to someone... AND WITH EVERY BRAND. If you don't want another GM car, then don't buy one -- but I don't think your experience with quality (over a quarter-century ago) has any bearing upon what we can expect from one now.

Reply to
burboun supreme

JimG wrote, (1984 Buick Century wagon)

I have detailed my experience with this Buick POS in other threads and it is of no value to vent details of these displeasures yet again. " _______________________________________________________________________ Under the hood of my mid-80's Buick wagon, emission control gadgets hung all over the engine like coconuts on jungle vines. Once the Throttle Position Sensor went bad. Looking for a replacement part I discovered that my Buick had an Oldsmobile engine (from the factory). The TPS was INSIDE the carburetor, and access required disassembling the carb then drilling out a rivet to get at it, and re-riveting. Instead, I found a similar carb on a Pontiac at a salvage yard, bolted it on, and it worked fine.

The point is that no matter what broke on my GM car, I could find a reasonably priced replacement, retail or salvage. Used foreign cars were way overpriced, and parts for them, if they could be found, were extremely expensive.

I always bought used cars, maintained and drove them until they completely wore out. Then I would take $1200 and buy another big comfortable well-used car, with an engine big enough to push it smoothly into freeway traffic. This usually meant a GM car. I was never afraid of a GM car based on reliability. All cars have parts which can go bad. For me, it was comfort and overall cost.

Rodan. ___________________________________________________________________

Reply to
Rodan

I case you haven't noticed this is 2010! Apparently you have never checked the cost of parts for any of the import brand vehicles, if you believe GM parts cost too much LOL

Reply to
Mike Hunter

Once again our friend Canuck57 is telling us the sky is falling LOL

Disaster

formatting link
>>>

Reply to
Mike Hunter

Rodan - you make an interesting point.

You have the knowledge and skills to work on your own car. Many people, myself included, do not.

In the post where I discussed some of the problems I was having with the Buick, a person in this newsgroup replied that the solution was the rather simple replacement of some kind of pressure regulator. I had brought the Buick back to the dealership a couple of times to report the problem and Mr Goodwrench could not find anything wrong.

I traded the Buick after 9 months to get rid of the headaches. Perhaps someone like you was able to buy it at a good price, fix the many problems that had eluded Mr. Goodwrench and, enjoy the car for many miles.

Reply to
JimG

.... The point is that no matter what broke on my GM car, I could find a reasonably priced replacement, retail or salvage. Used foreign cars were way overpriced, and parts for them, if they could be found, were extremely expensive. ___________________________________________________________________ "Mike Hunter" answered:

Apparently you have never checked the cost of parts for any of the import brand vehicles, if you believe GM parts cost too much ___________________________________________________________________

Mike, Mike !!

Please read a post before hurling an answer. Not every post is an attack on you or your knowledge.

Best regards,

Rodan.

Reply to
Rodan

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.