Re: Detroit Vs Japan
 

Scotty wrote:

> I
> asked a real truck owner why he recently bought a Toyota Tundra and he
> told me that he had driven two Toyota cars to 200,000 miles without any
> problems and with nothing more than regular maintenance while his last
> Ford truck needed an engine at 95,000 miles and the interior and body
> started to deteriorate at 65,000 miles.

And I have a 1994 Jeep Wrangler Sport with 146,000 on the odometer, and it
has only needed a clutch @ 143,000 and a new header since a weld has now
cracked in the original. It's still going strong and driven everyday. This
inline 6 was designed by AMC, which was not known for reliability, and
redesigned by Chrysler to update it with fuel injection, etc.. So what does
that tell you? Any car can be driven to 200,000+ if treated right and
normal maintenance has been religious enough.

I'm in the construction trade and it's RARE to see a Toyota truck on the lot
of any construction site I've ever been on.


--

Registered Linux user #378193

Re: Detroit Vs Japan
 

Scotty wrote:

> I
> asked a real truck owner why he recently bought a Toyota Tundra and he
> told me that he had driven two Toyota cars to 200,000 miles without any
> problems and with nothing more than regular maintenance while his last
> Ford truck needed an engine at 95,000 miles and the interior and body
> started to deteriorate at 65,000 miles.

And I have a 1994 Jeep Wrangler Sport with 146,000 on the odometer, and it
has only needed a clutch @ 143,000 and a new header since a weld has now
cracked in the original. It's still going strong and driven everyday. This
inline 6 was designed by AMC, which was not known for reliability, and
redesigned by Chrysler to update it with fuel injection, etc.. So what does
that tell you? Any car can be driven to 200,000+ if treated right and
normal maintenance has been religious enough.

I'm in the construction trade and it's RARE to see a Toyota truck on the lot
of any construction site I've ever been on.


--

Registered Linux user #378193

Re: Detroit Vs Japan
 

Scotty wrote:

> I
> asked a real truck owner why he recently bought a Toyota Tundra and he
> told me that he had driven two Toyota cars to 200,000 miles without any
> problems and with nothing more than regular maintenance while his last
> Ford truck needed an engine at 95,000 miles and the interior and body
> started to deteriorate at 65,000 miles.

And I have a 1994 Jeep Wrangler Sport with 146,000 on the odometer, and it
has only needed a clutch @ 143,000 and a new header since a weld has now
cracked in the original. It's still going strong and driven everyday. This
inline 6 was designed by AMC, which was not known for reliability, and
redesigned by Chrysler to update it with fuel injection, etc.. So what does
that tell you? Any car can be driven to 200,000+ if treated right and
normal maintenance has been religious enough.

I'm in the construction trade and it's RARE to see a Toyota truck on the lot
of any construction site I've ever been on.


--

Registered Linux user #378193

Re: Detroit Vs Japan
 

SoK66 wrote:

> Interesting to note that our domestic auto mfrs, particularly GM & Ford,
> continue to lose market share (and, hence, jobs) to the Asians. GM, Ford &
> DC have shed over 130,000 jobs since 2000. Over the same period, however,
> the Asians & Europeans have continued to invest in the "high-cost" USA,
> opening new plants and employing thousands of workers. Unfortunately, due
> to the built-in inefficiencies of the UAW-bound domestics, they've only
> replaced about 30,000 jobs over the same period of time. It should be no
> mystery why the UAW has been unsuccessful in organizing the Asian plants,
> they simply have nothing to offer the workers but lost income and eventual
> unemployment.

How much do you know about the UAW? How do you figure it's inefficient?

Do you take into consideration that those companies build those plants in
areas where unions aren't strong, and support for unions is weak?

I'm curious why people have a beef with unions? Business people negotiate
contracts for a living. All a union has is a contract with the company
saying they'll provide labor under agreed conditions. If the unions have
done so well to negotiate unsatisfactory terms, then those business people
don't need to be in business because they can't negotiate squat.

European companies like Daimler-Benz (now DaimlerChrysler), BMW, Volkswagen
AG, etc. that produce cars in europe have unions in those plants. Those
unions are even stronger than the UAW. But, they still compete well. Why?
Because union help is not the blame. Poor management is. Poor design is.
Poor engineering is.

Companies like GM are suffering because with the exception of a few shining
stars like the Corvette and some Cadillac models, their cars are lack
luster. They don't offer the consumer what they're looking for in the
market segment they attempt to compete in. Also, GM has missed golden
opportunities. They killed of the Camaro and Firebird just in time for a
huge resurgence in desire for muscle cars. The Mustang was still selling
like hot cakes, but GM claimed that the market for such vehicles had all
but disappeared. Now we have a new Mustang, and you can't even find a V8
model on the lot, and they're selling over sticker. The Chrysler 300C and
Dodge Magnum RT are a huge success. Instead, GM is pushing a Solstice,
which looks to be a Miata competitor of some sort. The Miata came out in
1989, and it's market has dwindled a bit. It's on the downside of it's
product lifecycle. Even Honda is considering dropping the S2000. But GM
expects it to be a big enough hit to offer a second model sold by Saturn.
Good luck! Their other offering is a 1997 design of an Austrailian market
car they tried to pedal off as a GTO. It's obvious that this design was
dated as soon as it hit the market. It has no pop, and the market has
mostly ignored it. GM's other problem is lack of differentiation between
brands. They've badge engineered their models to death and there is little
to separate them. To make matters worse, instead of having a volume model
and a premium model by another brand, they have 4 to 5 versions of the same
thing accross different brands. Witness the Chevy Trailblazer, GMC Envoy,
Buick Ranier, Isuzu Ascender, and Saab 97x. How many variations of a poor
selling SUV do we need? Lastly, in typical GM fashion, they pump as many
cars as they can build into the market, and lack of public interest has
these things sitting on lots. Therefore, they have to incentivize them to
death to get them to sell. At least Ford has finally realized that the best
thing to do is cut production to a point that supply is more inline with
demand, instead of discounting as much. This has nothing to do with UAW
workers. The reliabiltiy of GM products isn't an issue, as GM is very much
in the higher rankings of the JD Power initial quality survey (Buick 4th,
Cadillac 5th, Toyota 7th, Honda 12th...), and GM plants also got all 3 nods
from JD Power for least problems per vehicle for US built vehicles.
However, the public doesn't seem to be getting that message, swearing a
Camry made in Georgetown, KY is more reliable. However the facts are
different. I guess those UAW workers are doing a horrible job...


--

Registered Linux user #378193

Re: Detroit Vs Japan
 

SoK66 wrote:

> Interesting to note that our domestic auto mfrs, particularly GM & Ford,
> continue to lose market share (and, hence, jobs) to the Asians. GM, Ford &
> DC have shed over 130,000 jobs since 2000. Over the same period, however,
> the Asians & Europeans have continued to invest in the "high-cost" USA,
> opening new plants and employing thousands of workers. Unfortunately, due
> to the built-in inefficiencies of the UAW-bound domestics, they've only
> replaced about 30,000 jobs over the same period of time. It should be no
> mystery why the UAW has been unsuccessful in organizing the Asian plants,
> they simply have nothing to offer the workers but lost income and eventual
> unemployment.

How much do you know about the UAW? How do you figure it's inefficient?

Do you take into consideration that those companies build those plants in
areas where unions aren't strong, and support for unions is weak?

I'm curious why people have a beef with unions? Business people negotiate
contracts for a living. All a union has is a contract with the company
saying they'll provide labor under agreed conditions. If the unions have
done so well to negotiate unsatisfactory terms, then those business people
don't need to be in business because they can't negotiate squat.

European companies like Daimler-Benz (now DaimlerChrysler), BMW, Volkswagen
AG, etc. that produce cars in europe have unions in those plants. Those
unions are even stronger than the UAW. But, they still compete well. Why?
Because union help is not the blame. Poor management is. Poor design is.
Poor engineering is.

Companies like GM are suffering because with the exception of a few shining
stars like the Corvette and some Cadillac models, their cars are lack
luster. They don't offer the consumer what they're looking for in the
market segment they attempt to compete in. Also, GM has missed golden
opportunities. They killed of the Camaro and Firebird just in time for a
huge resurgence in desire for muscle cars. The Mustang was still selling
like hot cakes, but GM claimed that the market for such vehicles had all
but disappeared. Now we have a new Mustang, and you can't even find a V8
model on the lot, and they're selling over sticker. The Chrysler 300C and
Dodge Magnum RT are a huge success. Instead, GM is pushing a Solstice,
which looks to be a Miata competitor of some sort. The Miata came out in
1989, and it's market has dwindled a bit. It's on the downside of it's
product lifecycle. Even Honda is considering dropping the S2000. But GM
expects it to be a big enough hit to offer a second model sold by Saturn.
Good luck! Their other offering is a 1997 design of an Austrailian market
car they tried to pedal off as a GTO. It's obvious that this design was
dated as soon as it hit the market. It has no pop, and the market has
mostly ignored it. GM's other problem is lack of differentiation between
brands. They've badge engineered their models to death and there is little
to separate them. To make matters worse, instead of having a volume model
and a premium model by another brand, they have 4 to 5 versions of the same
thing accross different brands. Witness the Chevy Trailblazer, GMC Envoy,
Buick Ranier, Isuzu Ascender, and Saab 97x. How many variations of a poor
selling SUV do we need? Lastly, in typical GM fashion, they pump as many
cars as they can build into the market, and lack of public interest has
these things sitting on lots. Therefore, they have to incentivize them to
death to get them to sell. At least Ford has finally realized that the best
thing to do is cut production to a point that supply is more inline with
demand, instead of discounting as much. This has nothing to do with UAW
workers. The reliabiltiy of GM products isn't an issue, as GM is very much
in the higher rankings of the JD Power initial quality survey (Buick 4th,
Cadillac 5th, Toyota 7th, Honda 12th...), and GM plants also got all 3 nods
from JD Power for least problems per vehicle for US built vehicles.
However, the public doesn't seem to be getting that message, swearing a
Camry made in Georgetown, KY is more reliable. However the facts are
different. I guess those UAW workers are doing a horrible job...


--

Registered Linux user #378193

Re: Detroit Vs Japan
 

SoK66 wrote:

> Interesting to note that our domestic auto mfrs, particularly GM & Ford,
> continue to lose market share (and, hence, jobs) to the Asians. GM, Ford &
> DC have shed over 130,000 jobs since 2000. Over the same period, however,
> the Asians & Europeans have continued to invest in the "high-cost" USA,
> opening new plants and employing thousands of workers. Unfortunately, due
> to the built-in inefficiencies of the UAW-bound domestics, they've only
> replaced about 30,000 jobs over the same period of time. It should be no
> mystery why the UAW has been unsuccessful in organizing the Asian plants,
> they simply have nothing to offer the workers but lost income and eventual
> unemployment.

How much do you know about the UAW? How do you figure it's inefficient?

Do you take into consideration that those companies build those plants in
areas where unions aren't strong, and support for unions is weak?

I'm curious why people have a beef with unions? Business people negotiate
contracts for a living. All a union has is a contract with the company
saying they'll provide labor under agreed conditions. If the unions have
done so well to negotiate unsatisfactory terms, then those business people
don't need to be in business because they can't negotiate squat.

European companies like Daimler-Benz (now DaimlerChrysler), BMW, Volkswagen
AG, etc. that produce cars in europe have unions in those plants. Those
unions are even stronger than the UAW. But, they still compete well. Why?
Because union help is not the blame. Poor management is. Poor design is.
Poor engineering is.

Companies like GM are suffering because with the exception of a few shining
stars like the Corvette and some Cadillac models, their cars are lack
luster. They don't offer the consumer what they're looking for in the
market segment they attempt to compete in. Also, GM has missed golden
opportunities. They killed of the Camaro and Firebird just in time for a
huge resurgence in desire for muscle cars. The Mustang was still selling
like hot cakes, but GM claimed that the market for such vehicles had all
but disappeared. Now we have a new Mustang, and you can't even find a V8
model on the lot, and they're selling over sticker. The Chrysler 300C and
Dodge Magnum RT are a huge success. Instead, GM is pushing a Solstice,
which looks to be a Miata competitor of some sort. The Miata came out in
1989, and it's market has dwindled a bit. It's on the downside of it's
product lifecycle. Even Honda is considering dropping the S2000. But GM
expects it to be a big enough hit to offer a second model sold by Saturn.
Good luck! Their other offering is a 1997 design of an Austrailian market
car they tried to pedal off as a GTO. It's obvious that this design was
dated as soon as it hit the market. It has no pop, and the market has
mostly ignored it. GM's other problem is lack of differentiation between
brands. They've badge engineered their models to death and there is little
to separate them. To make matters worse, instead of having a volume model
and a premium model by another brand, they have 4 to 5 versions of the same
thing accross different brands. Witness the Chevy Trailblazer, GMC Envoy,
Buick Ranier, Isuzu Ascender, and Saab 97x. How many variations of a poor
selling SUV do we need? Lastly, in typical GM fashion, they pump as many
cars as they can build into the market, and lack of public interest has
these things sitting on lots. Therefore, they have to incentivize them to
death to get them to sell. At least Ford has finally realized that the best
thing to do is cut production to a point that supply is more inline with
demand, instead of discounting as much. This has nothing to do with UAW
workers. The reliabiltiy of GM products isn't an issue, as GM is very much
in the higher rankings of the JD Power initial quality survey (Buick 4th,
Cadillac 5th, Toyota 7th, Honda 12th...), and GM plants also got all 3 nods
from JD Power for least problems per vehicle for US built vehicles.
However, the public doesn't seem to be getting that message, swearing a
Camry made in Georgetown, KY is more reliable. However the facts are
different. I guess those UAW workers are doing a horrible job...


--

Registered Linux user #378193

Re: Detroit Vs Japan
 

SoK66 wrote:

> Interesting to note that our domestic auto mfrs, particularly GM & Ford,
> continue to lose market share (and, hence, jobs) to the Asians. GM, Ford &
> DC have shed over 130,000 jobs since 2000. Over the same period, however,
> the Asians & Europeans have continued to invest in the "high-cost" USA,
> opening new plants and employing thousands of workers. Unfortunately, due
> to the built-in inefficiencies of the UAW-bound domestics, they've only
> replaced about 30,000 jobs over the same period of time. It should be no
> mystery why the UAW has been unsuccessful in organizing the Asian plants,
> they simply have nothing to offer the workers but lost income and eventual
> unemployment.

How much do you know about the UAW? How do you figure it's inefficient?

Do you take into consideration that those companies build those plants in
areas where unions aren't strong, and support for unions is weak?

I'm curious why people have a beef with unions? Business people negotiate
contracts for a living. All a union has is a contract with the company
saying they'll provide labor under agreed conditions. If the unions have
done so well to negotiate unsatisfactory terms, then those business people
don't need to be in business because they can't negotiate squat.

European companies like Daimler-Benz (now DaimlerChrysler), BMW, Volkswagen
AG, etc. that produce cars in europe have unions in those plants. Those
unions are even stronger than the UAW. But, they still compete well. Why?
Because union help is not the blame. Poor management is. Poor design is.
Poor engineering is.

Companies like GM are suffering because with the exception of a few shining
stars like the Corvette and some Cadillac models, their cars are lack
luster. They don't offer the consumer what they're looking for in the
market segment they attempt to compete in. Also, GM has missed golden
opportunities. They killed of the Camaro and Firebird just in time for a
huge resurgence in desire for muscle cars. The Mustang was still selling
like hot cakes, but GM claimed that the market for such vehicles had all
but disappeared. Now we have a new Mustang, and you can't even find a V8
model on the lot, and they're selling over sticker. The Chrysler 300C and
Dodge Magnum RT are a huge success. Instead, GM is pushing a Solstice,
which looks to be a Miata competitor of some sort. The Miata came out in
1989, and it's market has dwindled a bit. It's on the downside of it's
product lifecycle. Even Honda is considering dropping the S2000. But GM
expects it to be a big enough hit to offer a second model sold by Saturn.
Good luck! Their other offering is a 1997 design of an Austrailian market
car they tried to pedal off as a GTO. It's obvious that this design was
dated as soon as it hit the market. It has no pop, and the market has
mostly ignored it. GM's other problem is lack of differentiation between
brands. They've badge engineered their models to death and there is little
to separate them. To make matters worse, instead of having a volume model
and a premium model by another brand, they have 4 to 5 versions of the same
thing accross different brands. Witness the Chevy Trailblazer, GMC Envoy,
Buick Ranier, Isuzu Ascender, and Saab 97x. How many variations of a poor
selling SUV do we need? Lastly, in typical GM fashion, they pump as many
cars as they can build into the market, and lack of public interest has
these things sitting on lots. Therefore, they have to incentivize them to
death to get them to sell. At least Ford has finally realized that the best
thing to do is cut production to a point that supply is more inline with
demand, instead of discounting as much. This has nothing to do with UAW
workers. The reliabiltiy of GM products isn't an issue, as GM is very much
in the higher rankings of the JD Power initial quality survey (Buick 4th,
Cadillac 5th, Toyota 7th, Honda 12th...), and GM plants also got all 3 nods
from JD Power for least problems per vehicle for US built vehicles.
However, the public doesn't seem to be getting that message, swearing a
Camry made in Georgetown, KY is more reliable. However the facts are
different. I guess those UAW workers are doing a horrible job...


--

Registered Linux user #378193

Re: Detroit Vs Japan
 

> Again, when they also export accounts payable, accounts receivable,
> accounting, data entry and all other computer related jobs, what's left?


Innovation. Read Tom Friedman's book.

Re: Detroit Vs Japan
 

> Again, when they also export accounts payable, accounts receivable,
> accounting, data entry and all other computer related jobs, what's left?


Innovation. Read Tom Friedman's book.

Re: Detroit Vs Japan
 

> Again, when they also export accounts payable, accounts receivable,
> accounting, data entry and all other computer related jobs, what's left?


Innovation. Read Tom Friedman's book.