Packard Forum Index » Studebaker Built Packards (1957 - 58)

John/Pushbutton

I was ony beginning my serious reading WRT to the industry in 1981, starting with On a Clear Day You Can See GM. While I never considered it a highly academic piece, it sure stripped the guilding off the lily that GM had been in my eyes. It didn't diminish my appreciation of GM product or my desire to work for them, but made me wary of korporate appearances.

Yates' book sounds very insightful, but I can picture the korporate mindset dismissing anything that is critical. Your logic of the vehicle buyers' perspective is spot-on, but time and again the industry ignores that. For example, well over a decade ago, I was working in a little backwater town with only two new car dealers - one Chrysler and one Chevy. When GM decided to expire the point, they figure the town folk would simply drive 10-15 minutes down the road to the big Chevy dealer in a small city. Funny, but the hometown Chrysler dealer's sales shot through the roof; the other Chevy dealer down the road, no so much. Flash forward to the present, and the new GM is now pulling the plug on that Chevy dealer.

Meanwhile, the people who get the perks just think of their vehicles as another office supply. They're not stuck with the depreciation and cost to maintain a wasting asset for several years.

Ahhh, remember the good old days, when most people could afford a new car every few years?

Well, I think Henry Ford's notion of paying his workers well enough so they can afford the product they built was a good one, but somewhere along the way, vehicles have become a white elephant. The only way the industry can get its own employees to buy their vehicles is to practically give them away.

All this shuffling around of assets that's been going on with the domestic automakers isn't gonna change a thing in the long-run, and they've proved that skimming the cream in the market only works for the short-term. IMHO, the Big Three are doomed unless they cut out the fat at the top and then get in tune with the average consumer and produce reasonably-priced, yet atractive and comfortable vehicles that can safely carry six adults with reasonable fuel economy. I'm not saying Chevy should go back to the bland old days of nothing but an inline six and seat that feal like an upholstered bale of hay, but from 1955-1975 GM produced a far better array of vehicles that a wide cross-section of people could afford and enjoy.

Exactly. I have said for years that the big 2.4 "chase the fat" which is why the SUV lines were where all the attention went, that's where the fat was. They all fell asleep at the switch WRT small sedans, echoing the familiar attitude "we'll make you a small car that's just good enough so that you won't go to our cometition, but when you grow up and have some real money you'll want a "real car" (trusk, SUV, etc--highly profitible product).
They all want to step up to home plate and hit balls out of the park, base hits are a thing of the past. Only problem is, heavy swingers miss the ball a lot.

John -

You and I are 100% in agreement on that. The automakers have sorely neglected the passenger car market for over a decade. Not everyone wants a small four-door sedan, a big expensive SUV, or a neo-musclecar.

The last good full-size car GM came out with was the Buick LeSabre of the early '90s, but too much nickel-and-dime cost-cutting and fiddling with that platform and skyrocketing sticker prices over they years ruined it.

I got my dad into a brand-new '03 Impala with the venerable 3800-V6, but while it been a fairly good car, it is hardly full-zie as I expect the term to mean. Putting five adult people in that car is one heckuva squeeze. A '73-'77 Malibu sedan had as much room for people, and I bet it required a lower percentage of the average U.S. citizens income, back then.

Meanwhile, another reason I still have my lame old POS '98 Monte is because I could never find another 2-door coupe in its class that is reasonably priced. Yeah, GM made the Monte up through 2007, but when the dealer offered me $1500 in trade and a monthly lease payment of well over $3O0, I realizd it was cheaper to keep 'er. As long as the body holds up, the only thing that might nip me in the buttocks would be a transmission or engine failure, and I'll bite that bullet rather than buy any other "question mark".

I agree. If you look at where the strong suit is for Toyota, Honda, and even Hyundai it's in the their sedans. They are reasonable priced, with nice amenities, and have very good reliability. I put 300,000 miles on my Honda Civic in 10 years which was all heavy stop and go Calif rush-hour traffic. It was the best, lowest cost maintenance car I ever owned.

I think even in the import space there is a change coming in the old guard. As an example for years and years Sony was the innovator and brought some of the best products to market. The founder of Sony was famous for saying "If you don't obsolete your own products, your competition will". Some where in the last 10 years Sony has drifted, and Samsung was really out done them. Korea is becoming the new Japan.

Look at the rise of Hyundai (Korean) in the last 10 years. They are making some really good quality vehicles at attractive prices. They also make the Kia brand. I think they were the first to offer a 10 year, 100,000 mile warranty. I know for me that was a big decision when buying my wife's 2005 Kia Sportage. It's been a great compact SUV for the family.

Detroit needs to start looking at what Korea is doing as I think that is where the next big push in innovation is going to come from.

The core issue driving this is the fact we are no longer a manufacturing economy. We are a consumer based economy. Look at what we were able to manufacture during WWII in a relative short lead time. That could never happen today. There are only a handful of shipyards left, and really no where to build new ones that doesn't have a resort hotel sitting in the way. Most of those major steel plants have been shuttered for years. Even the skill sets have gone over sees.

It all comes down to the mighty dollar. We can blame corporate CEOs for all our woes, but all of us are to blame. When we buy the cheapest priced item regardless off where it's made, then we just propagate the cycle. If we didn't demand cheaper items, then they wouldn't have to get made overseas where the labor is cheaper and the environmental rules are looser or non-existant.

Just look at sneakers. There is really only one company left in the US that still actually makes them in US. That is New Balance (in New Hampshire I believe). Nike and everyone else make them in offshore factories.

As I said before, if want to solve the problems in the local economy and be green in the process? Then try to buy items that are grown or produced within 100 miles of you. Obviously that cant apply to everything, but I think you get the idea.

I'll get off the soapbox now....

All good points, Kev, but the one that most stands out to me is the demise of our manufacturing economy.

I recall hearing, recently, of some economist's position, now, that Amerika will be unable to sustain itself as only a service economy - that it better get back in the manufacturing game if it wants its consumers to spend and invest. Oh, how I agree with that. You don't have to be an economist to wonder who's gonna buy all these cheap products made off-shore when so many people are out of work in this country. Seems like there's no sense of balance among our korporate and political leader.

Yet, it never ceases to amaze me that politicians don't want to admit that the shortfalls in tax revenues can be attributed to rising levels of under- and unemployment, let alone try to do much about. Brilliant solution bakc in the 1980s was to start taxing unemployment benefits at the federal level.

Well, people can call ol' H. Ross Perot a "kook" all they want, but he was spot-on about the great sucking sound that would result from NAFTA. All that did was line the wallets of Korporate Amerika and the politicians they have in their pocket. I don't know about anybody else, but what's trickled down on me, economically, over the last few decades hasn't been wealth.

If you really want to be concerned, look at Iceland and the 3 countries on the Continent (Greece, Portugal, and Spain) that are facing the possibility of defaulting on their government debts, and see what you see. Budget deficits just a few percentage points above ours as a percent of GDP, and a steady loss of manufacturing sector industry. Sure, the EU won't let them default, but who is going to bail us out? I think I saw the figure that we now borrow annually 40% of our cost of government. And Congress doesn't care! God forbid Nancy Pelosi should have to fly commercial when she goes home.

I also read somewhere recently that the US government's solid gold credit rating is in question - what happens when China says they don't want any more of our debt, or increases the interest on borrowings?

Maybe I'm overly pessimistic, but I think it's a gloomy picture indeed for the next generations.

Quote:

Total collapse. Fiscal discipline has gone out the window. Every child born today is given a blanket, a bottle of milk, and a past due bill.

Eventually China is going to call in it markers, and if we don't have the cash,.....it isn't going to be pretty.

I saw an Economist magazine recently which suggested the only way for the US to get out of debt is to increase tax revenues and decrease spending on Social Security. Said that President Obama didn't know what to do, and Congress won't touch Social Security.

Maybe you could give Texas to the Chinese in exchange for the billions in US debt they have.

The day may even come when the US will have to do what China wants or risk being bankrupted by a refusal to lend any more money, but that would also screw the Chinese as their Billions would be worthless I imagine.

If the worst comes to the worst, we like Americans here in Australia. In fact I saw an interview where Mark Reuss of GM stated that he intends to retire here. You could do worse, and be guaranteed of health insurance by our scheme "Medicare."

The other point is - How much debt can the US economy take, seems crazy to imagine borrowing unlimited sums, already Trillions of dollars in debt, Ye Gods!

One of the last places I would give up is Texas. Their state government is only part-time and they believe in the Constitution. Sometimes their bragging is a little much, but then they have something to brag about.

ENOUGH OF THIS: If you have some thing to post in this thread that is automotive ralated please do so. Keep your personal feelings out of this thread or any other threads I start when it comes to the president of the US, national debt, and other political stuff.

My thread has been taken way off course and now it is time to get it back on course.


John F. Shireman