What was the automaker's worst so-called "innovation" ?

[ColbertWatcher]

So much has been said about how bad American cars are compared to foreign-made cars, but little has been said about what specifically makes American cars so bad.

Please list in reply some of the ways American car makers are responsible for the unpopularity of the "Detroit brand."

You can list only the current models, you can list models going back as far as the 1970's or you can go all the way back to the Model A--go back as far as you want to support your argument that the car makers messed up.

You can list improvements they enthusiastically backed--but didn't improve anything--improvements they didn't make--but others did--poorly designed models, legislation they supported, legislation they didn't support, business model failures, marketing failures, etc.

Name as many ways you see fit in one reply or post one mistake per reply, doesn't matter.

This thread is to find out in what way DUers think the car makers screwed up.

The screw up I pick is one mentioned by another DUer who said* that GM marketed bigger vehicles because they cost more and the loan contract would generate more money for GMAC.

Okay, DU, your turn: how do you think the "Big 3" screwed up?


-------------------------------------------------------------------
* I forget who came up with it and in which thread, sorry. If anyone remembers, or if the original poster sees this, please come forward so I can thank you and give you credit.

[xfundy]

1. Planned obsolescence

A disease created in the US that afflicted everything once made here, and was exported worldwide.

[Posteritatis]

7. This (nt)

[hlthe2b]

11. absolutely....

Cars are big ticket purchases... Burn a youth with their first new car and they remember it via their purchasing habits for much of a lifetime. This was the Big 3's biggest failing.... Price, could have been more negotiable for most consumers. Reliability was not.

[TheCowsCameHome]

34. There's some truth in that.............

All of a sudden it's "last year's" style.

[FarCenter]

59. The annual model change

In the '50s GM had enough volume that it would wear out a set of stamping dies each year.

Each year they produced a new body design and fabricated the dies to go with it.

Other manufacturers had lower volume, and either had to run models more than one year or they had to discard dies before they were worn out.

Thus, the annual model change gave GM a competitive advantage over other maker.

This lasted until the imports started arriving in the '60s, and people started to ignore model changes. E.g. the Volkswagen bug.

[SteppingRazor]

2. Improvements they didn't make but others did.

Specifically, the automakers' fighting tooth and nail against higher CAFE standards. The standard for cars is at 27.5 and has been since 1990. At this point, it should be well into the 30s, if not higher.

[Romulox]

44. The CAFE standards aren't higher for foreign makers, fyi. nt

[SteppingRazor]

48. They are in foreign countries. n/t

[Romulox]

53. Yeah, but Toyota happily sells Tundras and LandRunners here. nt

[SteppingRazor]

62. Oh, sure, I realize that...

my point is that, by lobbying again and again for lower CAFE standards, the Big 3 dug their own graves. A lot of other comments here are also good points, of course.

[Romulox]

74. Yes, but you don't seem to get is that the Japanese have ALSO lobbied for lower CAFE standards...

Where do you think Toyota and Nissan's full line up of pickups and V8 powered SUVs will fit into higher CAFE standards?

[CRF450]

75. The point that alot of people miss...

Is that when it comes to strictly just econo cars or small light weight compact cars with a 4cyl engine, imports have always dominated in fuel efficiency in that class. Everything else, they get the same fuel economy, wheather its a high performance car, luxury sedan, full size sedan, SUV's and trucks, they get the same fuel milage. Though I'm very willing to bet that the Corvette gets the best fuel milage for its performance caliber. What other cars get 30mpg HWY having a 400+hp v8? Not very many at all. My 01 Trans Am has gotten 31mpg on the interstate (I didn't stop either), no lie. I also have a 04 Dodge Dakota, crew cab, 4x4 with a 4.7 v8. It gets 16mpg average, and recently got 21mpg on another interstate trip. A Toyota Tacoma loaded out the same way gets no better even though they use a smaller v6, same deal for that truck Honda just released a few years ago, forgot what its called.

[Greyskye]

96. We're # LAST! We're # LAST!

Heck of a job, USA; heck of a job! :sarcasm:

[Romulox]

105. Over 50% of the cars sold in the US are made by Foreign makers. They are a big part of that average

[amdezurik]

3. the one big single thing they did not do

was change how long it takes to go from paper to plant. For the big 3 the average is 5 years. toyota and honda just need 3 years. As long as that is in play Detroit can never catch up...

[slackmaster]

4. Few failures in any industry achieved the level of GM diesel cars of the late '70s to early 80s

That fiasco blew any credibility for any diesel cars in the USA other than high-end Mercedez-Benz models (which were actually pretty good).

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E02E4DE1039F934A15750C0A965948260&sec=travel&spon=&pagewanted=all

[EOTE]

23. Such a shame about that.

The rapid need for more fuel efficient vehicles really hurt domestic auto manufacturers in that time period. They had a three pronged attack for achieving that efficiency and all three did wonders to hurt the big three. The first was to lower engine compression which turned muscle and pony cars into sad shadows of what they used to be. The second was the creation of compact and sub compact cars, and while the Japanese have had a long time making smaller cars, the big 3 were pretty clueless at the time about them (cough Pinto and Gremlin). And the third was probably the least excusable. The big 3 needed decent diesels in their cars. As for why they hadn't been making diesel cars before this time, that's beyond me. But rather than building diesels from the ground up, they took their current engines (typically small block V8s) and added diesel heads to them. That was obviously not the right way to go. Diesels are usually more reliable than their gas burning counterparts as they spend more time in the lower rev range because that's where all their power lies. However, these diesels were utter crap. I hope like hell we see some good American car diesels in the near future.

[slackmaster]

33. They were flailing at developing emission controls the same way at about the same time

They kept trying to retrofit old designs to fit new requirements.

[FarCenter]

51. A major mistake was responding to early polution requirements with big V-8s

The government set polution requirement in terms of parts per million in the exhaust gas, rather than grams of polutant per mile traveled.

So the US auto industry in the late '60s and first half of the '70s met the requiremnt by putting bigger V-8s in and tuning for complete combustion, rather than maximumm power. The big displacement maximized the volume per cylinder wall ratio, which helped clean burning, since incomplete combustion occurs at the cylinder walls.

The upshot was that the nation was equipped with cars getting 10 to 15 miles / gallon (maybe), just as we went into the oil embargo.

Plus, with the various anti-polution pumps, exhaust gas recirulation, other primitive polution cotrols, and being mistuned for more complete combustion, they ran like crap.

[BOSSHOG]

5. I've owned

three Chevy trucks and have not had a problem with any of them. I got a total of close to 400,000 miles on them, did not abuse them, routine maintenance and they did fine. I will buy another one some day, probably not for a couple of years though, my current one only has 115K on it.

- Maybe the aluminum engine in the Vega/Astre vehicles in the 70's wasn't the greatest idea.
- The Pontiac Fire(something or other), the little two seater which was somewhat of a fire trap.
- GM didn't have the greatest automatic transmissions.

I would like to see an automaker (any automaker) come up with gas fill holes on both sides of a car. Should be an easy thing to do.

[hlthe2b]

8. " Maybe the aluminum engine in the Vega........

in the 70's wasn't the best idea" Ya think? LOL


Then there was the exploding pinto.... I'd like to say we turned the chapter on those bad ole days of very poor engineering.... I hope so.

[BOSSHOG]

14. I don't want to go too hard on the domestic auto companies

I think they had a great run in the 60's with the muscle cars. Mustang, Camaro, GTO, Cuda, Challenger, even AMC had (at least an incredibly badass looking) muscle car. The Javelin I think.

And lets not forget the Gremlin, cute as a garden gnome but not as fast.

[ColbertWatcher]

20. Oh, maybe I should have worded it differently.

I guess what I was really going after was the idea that if American cars are so bad, how are they bad?

There seems to be a perceived consensus that they are bad, but no substance supporting that idea.

So, I guess I'm saying: put up or shut up!

[hlthe2b]

27. Well, we've given many historical examples, how about today?

I believe the reliability issues have been addressed signficantly. But, why we don't have American made cars achieving 50+ miles per gallon, when it was possible 15 or more years ago (think Honda) is insane. They are so proud to brag about their current lines getting 25-30mpg. Geebus?

How about the General Motor's EV1 that got 100 miles on a charge? That technology was available in 1990! Where is it TODAY?

[StreetKnowledge]

45. Reality check.

The EV1 first hit the road in 1996. After six years and $2 Billion in development. (Almost all funded by GM, too.) That car couldn't do 100 miles on a charge unless it was rolling downhill the whole time. The EV1's best was about 85 miles to a charge. Using a better pack that cost $25,000 a unit and took 5-6 hours to charge. The EV1 was viable for inner city dwellers and that's about it. And GM's MSPR for the thing was $40,000, and even at that price it was horribly uneconomical to make.

50+ miles per gallon was possible - even common in some places years ago, but now it doesn't happen because cars are bigger, need better safety and comfort features to sell. Today, it's difficult. GM has every right to say it's 25-30 mpg fleets are good - because compared to rival import vehicles, IT IS.

Yes, GM has made many mistakes. But I don't get the DU demands to keep stomping on them, based on (often) a load of unreality. It's amazing at times.

[hlthe2b]

57. You make some good points...

I haven't given up on the Big 3, including GM, but their management and R&D decisions has sucked over the years. How can one have faith in a company that promoted the Excursion, the Hummer, Suburban and all the other gas guzzling road killers and fought CAFE standards tooth and nail, though the issues of global warming and peak oil were not a secret known only by tree-hugging liberals.


Judgment matters. But, I support the UAW workers. I want GM, Ford, and Chrysler to succeed. Even if it means my tax dollars. But, I do want accountability this time around (and Iaccoca's success aside, that doesn't mean a new crop of "K cars."

[ColbertWatcher]

124. Thank you for adding your post.

One of the things that I don't understand about discussion on some forums is the fear of a disagreement.

I post a lot of crap on wikis and one of the first things you learn is that no matter what your opinion is, it's just as valid as anyone else's opinion, so post it, then back it up. Facts cannot be disputed, but sources and presentation can. And those are the basis for most disputes.

But I don't get the DU demands to keep stomping on them, based on (often) a load of unreality.

I was hoping this thread would help get rid of some of the "unreality" in the myths surrounding the Big 3.

As I've said before, I was hoping that the people who've posted that the Big Three don't deserve a bailout but don't explain why can come read this and see that the "mistakes" the Big Three have made are temporary and can be easily fixed.

This country cannot afford to lose this industry, not only because of its importance to manufacturing, but because of the number of union jobs that will be lost if it is permitted to fall.

[hlthe2b]

22. Yes... and thus the generational effect...

Those who owned the 60s successes, were more forgiving with the abyssmal failures of the 70's-80s. Those who purchased their first new car during that bleak period, are not so quick to forget or forgive. Now, that cohort has both the questionable reliability issue forever ingrained in their mind-- along with the trend of poor mileage gas hogs....

I hope we can turn it around... I hope the Volt and others like it ends up opening the door to an incredible new era of success... I'm just sayin that the mistakes were cumulative over three decades. One can not just blame "unpatriotic consumers" (speaking rhetorically, as you, have not)

[dysfunctional press]

10. how about one in the center in the back...?

probably not an option for pick-ups, but i've had several cars with caps under the rear license-plate...that way it doesn't matter which way you approach the pump.

[BOSSHOG]

17. Or both

left side, right side and back. I can't imagine that would be too difficult to do. Don't think it would work with pickups though.

[donco6]

18. Too dangerous.

In a rear-ender, the gas spews out the back, right onto the hot engine of the rear car. Not a good idea.

[dysfunctional press]

19. never once heard of that happening.

:shrug:

[donco6]

77. It's why they don't make them that way anymore.

Trust me.

[ColbertWatcher]

16. "gas fill holes on both sides of a car"

That would be interesting to see.

Or, maybe gas stations can create hoses that reach!

[TheCowsCameHome]

29. Center fill is great. I miss it on today's cars.

I still have one with a center gas fill.

[conscious evolution]

49. They used to be longer.

Seems like they shortened them around the same time as the vapor recovery systems started being used on gas pumps.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

114. That's the great thing about my b/f's Honda Fit

He can pull up to the gas pump at Costco on either side and the hose reaches!

[EOTE]

35. Aluminum is used in some of the best engines made today.

In fact, a lot of them use an all aluminum design. Per volume, it's not as strong as steel, but per weight, it's much stronger. I believe the Pontiac you were referring to was the Fiero, and yes it was quite a fire trap, but with a bit more power, it would have been a nice challenger to the Vette and even some Ferraris. As for GM's autos, I can't really speak back as far as the 70s, but I thought that they had been pretty damn good even then. I know more recently, GM's transmissions have been so acclaimed that Rolls Royce outsourced GM trannies for some of their high six figure sedans.

[ColbertWatcher]

38. So how are modern aluminum engines better than the Vega's?

Do you know what they do differently now that they didn't do then?

And do you think the failure of the Vega helped designers make those improvements?

[StreetKnowledge]

52. The Vega Motor

The Vega used an aluminum block but steel pistons, which is NOT what the engineers wanted. The engineers told the accountants that using steel pistons in an aluminum block would result in huge scratches to the engine block. The engineers got over-ruled, and the result was that crap motor. Lesson learned? Since GM has made lots of aluminum engines since then, I'd say yes.

[ColbertWatcher]

58. So, just like Hollywood: the creative types are overruled by the money guys.

That's why we don't get any good movies and American-made cars have to be redesigned a few times before they get them right.

[NoGOPZone]

63. That's where a lot of the problems with the domestic auto industry started

People with financial and not engineering background dominating the decision making. That led to cars like the Corvair and the Pinto whose shortcomings could have been adressed before their release. Even Chrysler, which always had a reputation for innovative engineering, eventually fell victim.

[regnaD kciN]

107. WRONG!

People with financial and not engineering background dominating the decision making. That led to cars like the Corvair and the Pinto whose shortcomings could have been adressed before their release.

You couldn't be more wrong about the Corvair. That was actually a "designer's car" -- a dramatic break from "same old same old" Detroit mentality. It was the first attempt to build a rear air-cooled engine automobile (similar to Porsche) in the U.S.

What went wrong with the Corvair can be laid, ironically enough, at the foot of the average consumer. Because the new engine design wound up being heavier than expected, it became necessary to inflate the rear tires to a different, higher pressure than the front. Although this was noted very clearly in the manual and in very large decals on the inner glove-compartment door (and, as I recall, in several other places on the car), many buyers proceeded to totally ignore these warnings and inflate all four tires to the same pressure, then complain when the resulting handling was unbalanced. Virtually every problem with the "unsafe" Corvair could be laid at the feet of an owner who didn't bother to learn about his new car, and didn't set the tire pressure correctly.

FWIW, I had a '66 Corvair as my first car, and it served sixteen long years, including many trips up and down the eastern seaboard, and a final, heavily-laden cross-country journey in '79. It was the best American car I've driven. Unfortunately, its failure (which was, actually, due less to Nader-inspired safety concerns than to the runaway success of the Mustang) meant that the American auto industry went even further in the direction of shunning innovation and sticking to the same tried-and-true recipes that allowed the Japanese manufacturers to take over the U.S. market in the '70s and '80s. :-(

[NoGOPZone]

113. Actually, I'm not

I've heard ALL the revision history regarding the Corvair, and it's inaccurate. I'm well aware of Chevy tire pressure recommendations and the lengths they went to inform the public. That entirely misses the point, which is that the engineers FROM THE BEGINNING had recommended simple suspensions modifications, which the bean counters over-ruled even though the cost was minimal. Using tire pressure to attempt to tame the swing axle's tendencies was simply the cheapest method, and was thus selected even though its not the most effective.

It's easy, especially on this forum, to look back and blame everything on Nader, but here are the facts. Only one chapter of his book dealt with the Corvair, and the book was largely ignored on its release, only gaining attention due to GM's bizarre response to it. Nader wasn't the only critic of car. Lee Iaccoca and John DeLorean, among others, also were not fans.

Finally, I've driven several Corvairs, including stock first generation versions, first generations with aftermarket modifications kits, and later generations with modified suspensions. There's a noticeable difference in handling characteristics, particularly during performance cornering. Even someone of my moderate skill can tell the difference.

[FarCenter]

64. The accountants and the crative types overruled the engineers

Engineers that actually design the mechanical and electical parts that make the car function are towards the bottom of the heap.

The accounting and marketing droids are at the top.

Then come the stylists and designers that determine the shape of the sheet metal, plastic, and upholstry, the look of the dashboard, etc.

Then come the product engineers who do the mechanical/electrical plans for the car.

Then come the production engineers who design the factory and tooling to produce it.

Then come the workers who actually build it.


Lately, we have to slot safety and regulatory compliance people into the heirarchy. They also fit towards the bottom. Note that working on new propulsion systems is not a priority unless the marketing droids find out from their focus groups that their sample customers really want it more than say, 5 channel stereo. Also, it doesn't have a chance unless the accounting droids can be convinced that it will make bags of profit in the next couple of quarters.

[ColbertWatcher]

69. I actually consider engineers creative types.

What's more creative than a person who designs something?

Yes, there's some math involved, but in order to solve problems, you have to be creative.

[FarCenter]

84. I would too, but I don't think that accountants and auto stylists consider engineers as creative

That adjective would be applied to themselves.

[StreetKnowledge]

70. Yeah, pretty much.

All of the Big 3 have huge corps of engineers, and these guys when not having to deal with penny-pinching bean counters can make some incredible stuff. That's why the 400+ horsepower Chevy Corvette can get 30+ miles per gallon cruising on the highway, and why the two-mode hybrid system GM is bringing into production impressed BMW and Honda so much that both want to use it. (Yes, really.) GM had a hybrid powered concept years before Honda did.

GM's problems are three fold, IMO:

1 - Terrible PR. DU personifies that - all they make is gas guzzlers, they are all bad quality, they need to be making more hybrids, et cetera, et cetera ad infinitum. This despite the fact that GM's two-mode hybrid is a generation beyond the Prius system and the Volt is far beyond that still.

2 - Bean counters. Compromised quality in assembly and vicious cost-cutting on suppliers has resulted in decades of terrible parts. That point has to gotten through to suppliers and supply companies. Hopefully it has. But GM could stand to realize that better quality costs a bit more money.

3 - UAW. I know most people here are pro-union (as am I to an extent) but they need to get with the program too. Their wages are not an issue. Some of their benefits however are nuts. However, I am not going to say its only them who need to make sacrifices - the white collar guys need to as well - but the UAW needs to think about the future, not just the next contract and squeezing as much water form the stone as possible.

[jmowreader]

100. Pistons are always made from aluminum

The rings are made from cast iron and the block is aluminum with some super snazzy high-hardness coating down the cylinder bores. The shit didn't work. Apparently the Vega's designers didn't think the shit worked either because they made the engine compartment big enough to drop a 305 into.

[Fumesucker]

109. 305's are for wimps, you want a 350

Or even a 400 small block if you want killer torque.

A buddy of mine put a 350 forged crank into a 400 block and make a 370 that had a lot of torque but would wind up to 8,000 rpm. That was a fairly common combination back in the late 70's for hot rodders.

A 1955 265 Chevy small block is the same size and virtually the same weight as a 1980 400 small block and quite a few of the parts will interchange.

[jmowreader]

132. But will it work in a Vega?

I think a Vega is too lightweight of a vehicle to put a 350 in for regular use. I know they use 350s for drag racing, but I wouldn't want to use one on the street.

This doesn't change the focus of this train of thought: aluminum blocks with no cylinder liners are a BAD idea.

[EOTE]

54. Yeah, I think in many ways the failure of the Vega and others like it did.

Today, if an engine is going to be made entirely (heads and all) from aluminum, it's usually some type of aluminum alloy. However, an engine like that used in the Vega could have been a very reliable engine and almost as light if they used a different, stronger metal or alloy in the cylinder sleeves which take the brunt of abuse in an engine. Use iron sleeves in an aluminum engine and you've typically got a lightweight (and usually cooler running) engine which should also be durable as well.

[conscious evolution]

55. I think they learned from it.

Todays engines are much better then what they tried in the Vega.

[CRF450]

65. What StreetKnowledge says is true. And todays all aluminum engines are very reliable

Check out the LSx engines starting from the LS1 used in the 97-04 Corvette all the way to the current LS7 (Z06 Vette) and supercharged LS9 in the ZR1 Corvette. They may be big in cubic inches but they're pretty compact and lightweight. GM has the pushrod v8 down to an art form, they're powerful, lightweight and decently fuel efficient. What other 430hp sports car gets 30mpg on the highway?

[Fumesucker]

108. The Vega engine had aluminum cylinder walls with no steel liners..

Virtually all other aluminum engines have steel liners in the cylinder bore. Aluminum is soft and once the anodized hard surface to the bores wore through (it's very thin) the cylinder walls wore out incredibly quickly.

Buick actually made a 215 cubic inch aluminum V8 back in the early 60's that was quite a nice and reliable little engine, but it had steel sleeves. Rover in the UK bought the rights and the tooling and I do believe the same basic engine is in the Range Rovers today.

[EOTE]

110. Did Buick actually put that in anything?

215 CID is pretty damn tiny for an American V8. In fact, I think that would be the smallest if it weren't for the 3.4 liter Yamaha derived V8 that they used in the Taurus SHO from the mid to late 90s. I tend to like tiny hi-tech V8s. I had a 3.9 in my Lincoln LS and it was a blast to drive. Not a great amount of low end torque, but it was as smooth as butter and revved so willingly above 4 grand. I really miss that car. I might get another LS in the future, but I'd probably look for a 2002 with the V6 and a six speed.

[Fumesucker]

111. I know for sure it was in the Buick Skylark of that era, my dad had one.

http://www.aluminumv8.com/tech/tech.htm

The Buick/Olds/Rover 215 cubic-inch (3.5 liters) aluminum V8 was originally announced in 1960 as a potential lightweight economy engine destined for General Motors new line of compacts: Buick Skylark, Olds Cutlass and Pontiac Tempest. First appearing in the 1961 model year, production ended in 1963 after over 3/4 million engines were produced. Two versions were available: Buick's model and the Olds, which featured different heads, valve train and valve covers. Pontiac used the Olds version.

The reason production ended so soon was a high rejection rate during the casting process, as GM utilized pressure casting of the Reynolds 356 aluminum alloy around steel sleeves. The assembly was then heat-treated to T-6 condition; but the heat treating caused the steel sleeves to shift and thus rejection of the entire block.

Eventually, GM cured the casting maladies, but the advent of new thin-wall iron casting techniques soon rendered the aluminum motor too expensive. The General quickly adapted the V8's architecture to cast-iron, lopping off two cylinders to create the workhorse Buick V-6. And in 1965, negotiated production rights with the British Rover Cars company. Rover, seeing the motor as its salvation for an aging product line, found that sand casting the block and installing press-in sleeves at a later point precluded any production problems. The engine went on to power the ancient P5 Rover sedan, then the modern 3500 (a transplant into the 2000 TC), and finally the legendary Range Rover. It continues to power Land Rover products today in 4.6 liter guise.

[EOTE]

39. And WRT the Vega, I know it was a POS.

Aluminum as a weight saving measure was a good idea in itself. But by lacking any stronger material to be used for the cylinder sleeves was a very bad move.

[uncle ray]

120. i believe some Jaguars had fuel fillers on both sides.

i recall checking out the fuel fillers on them in the junkyard while looking for a flip top gas cap, which the jaguars had, and some had them on both sides, on top of the rear quarter panel in front of the deck lid.

[yodoobo]

6. GMs DEXCOOL

Still ruining engines as I type

The supposed new and improved anti-freeze

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/08/gm_dexcool.html

[Warpy]

9. Favoring unnecessary power

and surface styling over economy and durability.

Pushing high profit margin pseudo truck gas hogs over the economical models, thereby giving the small car market to foreign companies.

In the 70s, confusing "economical" with "cheap and shoddy."

Resisting all innovation, clinging to their dream of the 1950s auto market.

Resisting all increases in CAFE standards, again giving the economy market to offshore, innovative car companies.

Loading cars down with too much automatic equipment, reducing already bad fuel economy.

The bastards still haven't figured out that women need a place to stash a handbag in a full car.

[dysfunctional press]

13. that would actually be a failing of the buying public, not the automakers.

they made the stuff that sold well.

[unpossibles]

40. not entirely true

They helped create the demand for high-power/low-efficiency cars, from the muscle cars of yore to the SUVs/trucks, and muscle cars of today.

In fact, they spent a metric shitload of money marketing them, and fighting CAFE standards, when they could have used that in other areas.

I've owned both foreign and domestic vehicles, and frankly there have been so many stupid little (and some big) problems with my current Ford truck that it's pissing me off to the point I don't know if I'd buy another one.

Furthermore, I do think that as someone else stated, they need to be more innovative, faster at bringing those innovations to the market, and less stuck in the past, riding their laurels on the idea that people will always "buy American" out of sheer loyalty.

[dysfunctional press]

46. they had other models- the ones that sold well were the ones that stuck around.

lots of people like the feel of a powerful car. and i can't tell you how many diminutive women i've seen behind the wheel of huge suv's- they love the feeling of power it gives them.

[Romulox]

47. This is the "the DEVIL made me buy an SUV!" argument. Hard to swallow

[unpossibles]

56. It still exists. How many people bought SUVs because they were told they were safer?

I'd wager that many of the families who bought them did so because they were sold (ie: marketed) the idea that they were safer than cars, which is simply not true one bit.

How many people also bought them because they were simply popular, to fit in and keep up?

If marketing doesn't work, then why would so many industries spend billions on it to sell us things every day?

[anigbrowl]

80. True, but business planners should remember the public is fickle.

[ColbertWatcher]

24. Wow.

I hope car makers (or Congressional aides) read DU.

They really need to read your post.

Thank you for adding it.

[StreetKnowledge]

61. Where to start with this?

1 - The power was WANTED by people. It's that simple.

2 - The small car market the management had a hard time figuring out how to make money on it. Hence, it took time. The big gas guzzlers, again, was simply the domestics filling a demand.

3 - Can't argue with that one.

4 - Wrong again. Yes, they did want people in bigger cars that made more money for them, but resisting all innovation is a bit of a misnomer, they did innovate in many areas, but relied on what they knew and liked in the mechanical department. Perhaps that was a mistake, but it was hardly deliberate.

5 - CAFE is bad law, which CAUSED the SUV boom. Yes, really. Since SUVs ere considered trucks and not cars, they were exempt from CAFE. As a result, the family station wagon, once an institution, was dead as the dodo bird by the mid 90s. The better idea would have been to have all vehicles set to a standard a bit lower (maybe 24 mpg instead of 27) to deal with the trucks, and steadily move it up over time.

6 - Again, that's what the customers wanted. Can't fault them for that.

7 - I can't really comment on that one. ;)

[Warpy]

79. Do you realize how long they fought things like robotics?

Or even cheap things like the lowly seat belt?

They didn't want to change. That's called resisting innovation.

That's the problem with a lot of mature industries. The only real innovation that occurs after a while is surface styling and figuring out how to shave additional pennies off the per unit cost.

[likesmountains 52]

12. I don't know if this qualifies as a bad innovation but I miss "wing" windows...

[ColbertWatcher]

26. Are those the tiny windows in the front that you can open separate from the big one?

I've seen new cars with this extra panel and remote to open it. It seems like it would be very expensive to fix if it ever broke.

[likesmountains 52]

83. I have not seen them in new cars yet...but they were great in the old ones!

[trof]

78. Me too. Used to suck the cigarette smoke right out.

Without letting the rain in.

[likesmountains 52]

82. Bingo! And they were so easy to get open if you locked your keys in the car. I also

liked them because you could have the main window down, and the wing cracked half-way so the person sitting in the back seat didn't get so wind blown...

[TahitiNut]

119. They were called "Fisher vents" ... I suppose due to Fisher body.

They disappeared in the 60s.

[lurky]

15. The Chevy Vega had an aluminum engine block,

which typically wore out after 40,000 miles... My folks had one, and yes it died. We also had a Ford Pinto, which had the infamous rear gas tank, known for exploding in fender benders. We did get rear-ended by a drunk when we were sitting at an intersection, but luckily no injuries or fireballs. We also had an AMC Gremlin, which had a sensor in the driver's seat to prevent the car from operating without a driver. However, the design assumed that that the driver would be over 150 pounds, so it wouldn't let my mom drive the car (she was too light).

My parents kept buying these crappy American cars out of patriotism. They needed a small, efficient car, but they refused to buy a foreign-made vehicle. If it wasn't for people settling for inferior vehicles out of loyalty to American manufacturing, I think Detroit would have gone under years ago.

[proud patriot]

25. OT when I was a Teen

we fit 8 of us into a gremlin to go to DAY ON THE GREEN
a concert festival in the SF Bay Area .

[lurky]

43. Wow! Getting everyone in there must have been like playing Tetris.

I hope it was a short drive...

:rofl:

[proud patriot]

85. got pretty friendly that day LOL

about a 30 min. drive

[Greyskye]

97. Hell, I had 9 in a '76 Honda Civic CVCC

http://bp3.blogger.com/_Fg6I_cn4SXk/R-Q_AufTyrI/AAAAAAAAAXQ/h9wLddNXlns/s400/lf+34.jpg

College days, when a bunch of my friends lived just off campus, and didn't own cars.

2 in the front passenger seat.
4 in the rear seat.
2 in the hatchback area.
Luckily only 1 in the drivers seat.

I didn't have to drive that horde too far, luckily. But that incident was the primary motivation for my next car being a 2 seater. :rofl:

[ColbertWatcher]

28. "settling for inferior vehicles out of loyalty"

I never considered that, but you're probably correct.

[hlthe2b]

31. Yup... that was my parent's generation to a tee....

[dysfunctional press]

21. not offering a set price.

most people don't like to haggle or negotiate over those types of purchases, and often feel lie they're being cheated somehow.

[ColbertWatcher]

30. That's a good point.

I wonder how much that effected people's purchases.

Hmm...

[TheCowsCameHome]

37. Haggling with salesmen is the pits.

Wastes everybody's time and pits buyer against buyer.

[FarCenter]

68. Offering a myriad of options

Which helped the salesman hide the actual cost of whatever car he was selling from the customer.

It also complicated production, increased inventory, decreased quality, and increased staffing.

[ProfessorGAC]

126. I Don't Like It, And I'm Good At It

I like Carmax type stuff. Just tell me what it costs, and i'll decide if i want to spend that much.

My dad sold cars. I was already a good negotiator and then when my dad started selling them (he was a truck driver, albeit a super classy one, for many years before that) i learned the details and operating margins.

I know i've made good deals, especially on pre-owned, over the last 30 years, but i'd still rather just know the damn price and leave all that nonsense aside.

Being good at it and liking it are two separate things, you know what i mean?
The Professor

[Greyhound]

32. Two more for you. The Tucker in 1948 and the dealership model. n/t

[ColbertWatcher]

42. Could you elaborate a little, please? n/t

[Greyhound]

66. Tucker built his car in 1948. Rather than meet his innovation and compete,

the Big Three colluded to use their influence to ruin him. It took over 40 years and several acts of Congress to force them to build a comparable car. Some of the features he included, like directional headlights, were not matched until the 80s and then, only in their top end models.

The Dealership model, as opposed to selling what you build directly, has stained the entire industry for most of it's existence. From the small-time con artists in the early days to the big-time corporate thieves that are most of the dealerships today, they have pushed more American consumers into Japanese dealerships than the Pinto, Vega, Pacer, and K-Car, combined.

[Chef]

36. Cars

I am by no means an expert but i have owned 27 cars throughout the years (both American and Foreign) and I do have some ideas.

The one best things they ever did was the invention of the minivan which saved Chrysler. They certainly led the way in some engineering and safety advances. At least in the 50's and 60's. The cheap price we pay for gasoline in this country certainly didn't inspire them to invest a lot in economy cars in the 60's and 70's and their reliance on cheap to build but inefficient truck and truck based vehicles was not a long term sound strategy.

It seems that they lost their edge in styling, innovation, and economy in the 80' as the quality of foreign progressed. For example, with only a few recent exceptions, most GM cars feel like they were designed in the 80's For that matter, the Ford Crown Victoria model was only recently phased out after 20 years on the market. Chrysler, who has been an innovator in engineering, now finds it hard to compete. The big three has taken years to overcome the poor quality reputation they earned in the 70's, 80's and 90's. And they would have been better off to have embraced fuel efficient standards early on rather than fight them. Having said that, I now own a Honda Accord. Very well laid out and comfy but I have never owned a new car that had so many recalls and minor mechanical problems. However, it certainly looks and feels like a much better vehicle than what was available from Detroit when I bought it.

The real problem is that cheap financing and home equity lines of credit allowed the market to support sales of 15 million units a year or an automobile bubble. When that ended, the whole industry took a hit whether it was Toyota of Ford. That, coming at a time with this last summer's rapid spike in oil prices, killed what market there was for cars and what part of our economy wasn't based on the automobile was based on real estate. We are in for a readjustment of the market where we can only absorb so many cars and the government loans only keep things from completely going in the ditch. There is more pain before a more efficient market will reemerge.

[dmallind]

41. Lousy contracts too

I don't care what they pay the union guys within reason but signing contracts that limited their ability to introduce new production methods and processes because that would entail more automation or a more flexible workforce.

Promising cradle to grave health care and generous pensions for short term wage concessions without doing the math right.

Not pushing for universal health care to lower their costs.

Big 3 cars tend to be either ugly as sin (most GMs), bland and overpriced (Ford) or interesting to look at but horribly engineered (Chrysler). They have a longer production and revamp cycle than the foreign cos too.

But anything wrong with their cars per se is secondary. All have some cars with good appeal to some people, depending on their taste or priorities. Even with my generalities listed above, all of the three make some cars which I would be perfectly pleased to own, and even in some cases MORE pleased to own than foreign competitors. For example, if I lived in a climate where RWD was comfortable for me I would have had a Crown Vic years ago. Full sized comfort, low price, good durability, low costs of owership. If I ever decide I want or need a high powered sports car only the midlife-crisis looks of the Corvette would make me even think about anything else. Nothing foreign offers the same blend of power and handling in a reasonably comfortable sized car for that low a cost. Other examples out there too.

Their biggest problem is not their cars but their cost structure that means they can only compete on low profit margins and decontenting at every opportunity so their cars become less attractive BECAUSE OF their cost structure. A couple of years ago I bought a luxury car because I could finally afford one and had always wanted something very nice to drive. The Cadillac DTS would have been ideal. I'm not a canyon carver. I like big, comfortable, whisper-quiet, bells and whistles, some giddyup of course. So a FWD V8 luxo land yacht for under $50K would have been great - if the plastic and trim and switchgear didn't look and feel exactly like it came off a Chevy Cavalier. I ended up paying $10K more for a smaller V6 Merecedes E class because they had enough money left over to actually put componentry in worthy of the car itself. Sure it drove better than the Cadillac too but that kind of aggressive driving ability is way way down my priority list and I would have given it up in an instant for the better size and comfort of the GM if they could have put some more money into the car.

Am I blaming the unions? Partly, sure. But far from completely, or even mostly when it comes down to it. They demanded unreasonable guarantees and conditions and pay far in excess of the market rate for the skills and duties supplied. But so what? I want to get paid as much as I can, and want as secure and as predictable and accommodating a job as I can get too. Who doesn't? But the big 3 should have done a far better job of balancing short term costs and long time liabilities, plus used their considerable lobbying clout to solve the underlying problem - federal healthcare and retirement systems that would have obviated the need for those excessive demands, rather than squawking about CAFE.

[ColbertWatcher]

50. Well said and balanced look at the industry. I'd vote for you to be Car Czar. n/t

[ieoeja]

60. World War II ended.

By the end of WW-II the United States was the only major industrial nation in the world whose industry was still intact. We had decades of good times based on that factor alone.

For decades 90+% of French wine was made from {gasp} Concord grapes!

Once the rest of the world rebuilt, they started facing increasing competition which means a smaller slice of the pie. GM is still #2 worldwide and was only overtaken as #1 a year ago.

Maybe they could have recognized this smaller share on the horizon and planned accordingly. But when you shrink, Wall Street drops the price of your stock. And when that happens ... someone else will buy you and put you out of business. So I dunno. But it really isn't an issue with building cars. It is all about money.

[hlthe2b]

67. So, ColbertWatcher..are you going to summarize a new plan...

for the Big 3, based on what you've learned for your next journal entry? (Inquiring minds want to know)

[ColbertWatcher]

71. I think what I'll do is create a poll first based on the responses here.

There's a lot of them, though.

I might have t make two polls, then consolidate into one final poll.

[FarCenter]

72. Resisting innovations until the patent have expired

Chevy never built a V-8 until Ford's patents expired.

Front wheel drive, radial tires, and a lot of other innovations were also resisted by the US auto industry until the patents expired.

[yurbud]

73. Chevy Vega, Ford Pinto, first iteration of the Chevy Cavalier... (WARNING: ugly, ugly ass photos)

It's hard to find a photo that does the 80's Cavalier's ugliness justice. Suffice to say that it was about as aerodynamic as Chinese take out food boxes stapled together (which may have been the construction method they actually used).

[MadHound]

76. In general, putting the bottom line ahead of everything, including safety and innovation

For instance, seat belts, ordinary lap belts, weren't put in as standard equipment for years and decades because it was thought they would eat into the bottom line. The Tucker, an innovative American brand, was killed by the Big 3 because they didn't want to compete with the innovations, some of which are just now being introduced fifty years later(the rotating headlight being an example of this). They consistently skimp on parts to beef up the bottom line. The Pinto, and later the Crown Vic are prime examples of this. In fact what's really sad in the case of the Pinto is that it was a deliberate calculation, the folks at Ford knew that they were making a dangerous product, but they thought that it would cost less to settle in court with the families than to add a twenty five cent gasket to their vehicle production.

It is this sort of short term, bottom line thinking that has dragged the entire industry to the point where it is now, on the brink of extinction.

[taught_me_patience]

81. Let me list them for you (Crown Victoria 2000)

1) A v8 with 230 HP. Feeble and week. I attibute this to SINGLE OVERHEAD CAM. Why is Ford using V8 technology that is 45 years old? Most V6's with DOHC make much more power than this.

2) 17mpg city/19mpg hwy. Terrible mileage. See above.

3) Solid rear axle. Made for bumpy ride. Why did Ford not have an independent rear suspension? Why were they resorting to 45yo tech again?

4) 8 seperate ignition coils. This is where they should have stuck with the tried and true 1 coil. A coil was burning out every couple of months or so, causing ignition misfire.

5) Body on frame technology. This is old-school, as most cars, now, are monocoque chassis and body. This caused a "jiggly" ride that was much worse than a 4000lb car would suggest.

6) Terrible interior ergonomics. The rear seat leg room had less room than my sister's Honda Civic 2dr Hatchback. SERIOUSLY!

7) Cheap plastic fittings that wouldn't be suitable for a Kia.

8) 4 speed automatic transmission. This contributed to the poor highway mileage. 5 speeds autos were readily available by this time.

In all, it seemed that Ford "cheaped" out on a 30k car. Not having a 5sp automatic on a car of this size and expense is inexcusable.


on edit... didn't even talk about the exploding gas tank issue. Mine was repaired under recall.

[CRF450]

88. Um BS on the fuel milage.

My dad has a 97 Crown Vic, it easily gets 23mpg in city/rural driving. Why they use v8 tech thats 45 years old? Because it works!

[taught_me_patience]

89. Nope not b.s.

The 97's had a slopier nose that was more aerodynamic. A re-design in 1998 made the nose boxier. My point is that a 45 yo v8 works but not as good as a dohc v6. Gotta keep up with the times.

[CRF450]

90. V6 engines in general aren't anymore efficient than a v8 in a heavier car.

A Toyota Tacoma configured like my Dodge Dakota (4 door crew cab, 4.7 v8, and a 4x4)doesn't get any better fuel milage despite having a smaller 4.0 v6.

The LS1 v8 in my 01 Trans Am is actually more efficient than the 3.4 v6 in the 94 Camaro I had a couple years ago. Being a powerful engine, it doesn't have to work hard at all, and the 6 speed manual is geared very tall. It got me 31mpg on the interstate when the best the v6 Camaro got was 27 on that same trip previously. Than again, the 3.4's were a POS engine, and the 3.8 v6's were a huge upgrade in power and fuel efficiency.

When it comes to EPA fuel milage ratings, what they rate cars now is determined under worst driving conditions, and they do say on the window sticker how much the fuel milage could vary depending on driving habits and conditions. If a Crown Vic drives 100% stop and go city driving, I could see it getting 17mpg. But if it's kept moving, they would easily get 20+mpg. Thats simply my experience, I'v never gotten less than the old EPA estimates when driving normally. Personally I think they stuck with the v8 in the Crown Vic because v8's are smoother running, and also that they provide good usable torque to move a car that big and heavy. Literally, when accelerating normally, the engine stays way down in the low rpm's even with the old 4 speed auto.

[Fresh_Start]

86. Humvee's for consumers

has my vote.

[ColbertWatcher]

91. Weren't Humvees originally designed for civilian use, but "sold" as a "military" vehicle? n/t

[CRF450]

103. Thats completely opposite, the military wanted something better than the old Jeeps

And that was the Humvee. Then somebody just had to turn one into a civilian vehicle and call it the Hummer H1x(

[Greyhound]

112. Actually two different vehicles with a similar body.

The Hum-Vee is an all terrain military vehicle that was available in limited quantities to consumers that wanted to spend $120K on a penis extension.

The Hummer H-1 is a Yukon with the ugly body on top, it retailed for $60K. It lacked the gearing, suspension, and ground clearance of the Hum-Vee, but included a plethora of gadgets and comfort options. It was marketed to the tiny penis crowd that lacked the means to get the real thing, and sales were supported by a tax break making it virtually free for businesses.

[CRF450]

129. No you got that bankwards, the H1 is the civilianized humvee...

The H2 is the one built on the Yukon/Suburban frame. The H3 is built on the smaller Colorado/Canyon body.

[FriendlyReminder]

87. AMC Pacer.....gawd what an ugly car

[rove karl rove]

94. LOL, one of my friend's dad had the pacer

It was gold and buttugly. We all hated that car. The generation before, the Edsel.

[KG]

92. bloated, top-heavy, fossilized, management.

as the last few weeks show, failure has no adverse consequences. they've driven a entire industry into the ground, and nobdy has lost their job.

[Stinky The Clown]

93. How about what is actually a damned near bulletproof motor?

This is a good thing, not bad.

The corporate GM V-6 in all its various guises. An old fashioned pushrod motor that makes a nice amount of horsepower. Not so economical, but not awful. It will run and run and run and run until its cost-per-mile is among the lowest in the industry.

[leftofthedial]

95. hatred of unions and workers.

[GoneOffShore]

98. Destroying the light rail system back in the '20s

And promoting the automobile over any other sort of transportation.

[flvegan]

99. The Computer Age

GM made great cars in the 50's and 60's. Then came the gawdawful 70's. People wanted economical cars that got good mileage. Along came the influx of Japanese cars. They were economical and reliable. In 1981 or 82, GM started "computerizing" everything on the car. Fuel injection, sensors this and that, meters...all of which went to crap quickly and expensively. I think 5 years of absolute shit really tainted folks on their product. Ford had the same problem, though I don't think they jumped on the computer bandwagon until 1986 and they had 3 years of garbage. Didn't take an IQ over 20 to realize that your LeSabre wasn't running again but your neighbor's Accord never broke down.

People get in a mindset and it's hard to change it. For me, that's what hurt GM in my mind at the time.

All that said, I think all of the automakers have the computer parts pretty much down pat, and we're better for it. The advances in technology are incredible.

Thinking about it, the 80's were great to a couple car companies and tragic to others. The Cadillac Cimarron? The "Maserati" TC? Are you kidding me?!

[harun]

101. Had good plug-in electrics and buried them.

Need to have plug-in electrics FOR SALE, not lease BS. And they won't get any credit for it if Toyota comes out with one then 7 years later they come out with one. You get the "halo effect" by leading the way, not following. No one looks at copies of iPods, like they do iPods. No one looks at copies of a Prius like they do the Prius. Doesn't mean 50% of the fleet is electric, just have the option there for a few people to get them. Yes they will probably lose a little bit of money on this.

Ford is actually doing a lot of things right, now. I just wish they could bring down their prices a bit. The designs of their new vehicles are really attractive.

GM should offer something like 8 years full warranty on new vehicles. You only pay tires and oil for 8 years everything else gets fixed for free. Only way they can get around their maintenance record. Only way I would consider buying anything GM. I know this sounds unreasonable but it is the only way I would consider buying a new GM at the prices they are selling them for.

Ditch low profile expensive tires.

Make all factory stereo's iPod friendly, line input, connector, etc.

Offering a configure and buy on the Internet and just pick up at the dealership.

No salesman just people available to answer questions by phone or email.

Stop the "I have to talk to my manager BS at the dealerships".

Offer maintenance contracts that allow people to pay a monthly fee and anything that goes wrong they have to fix it.

[taught_me_patience]

102. Onstar

I can't think of a more useless money drain.

Other's include:

retro styling. I damn sick of "retro". We don't need to be styling muscle cars after crap that is 45 years old.
$8,500 in "upgrades". Stereos, floor mats, electric... etc. That shit should come standard.
the 72 month loan. Way too long and most people don't have the discipline to pay a car for 6 or 7 years.
Pontiac Aztek. Damn that thing was fugly.
Chevy cavalier (1986). I can't think of another car that had done more damage to a brand name than this piece of crap.

[greyl]

104. Fake bullshit like faux convertible tops, fake wooden body panels, fake wire wheels.

That whole style before quality thing is what really did them in for me.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

115. Never understood the fake convertible top thing.

If I want a convertible I'll buy a real one.

[LanternWaste]

106. Refusal by the U.S. Auto Industry and the U.S. government...

Refusal by the U.S. Auto Industry and the U.S. government to sign onto the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations.

[dembotoz]

116. just too damn expensive

in the old days just 36 month loans, not 72 month loans.
Lots of people switched cars every 3 years, not so much anymore.
When your customer base buys ever 6 years instead of every 3, you need twice as many customers to sell the same number of cars.
100 thou miles used to be about the life span for a car, not anymore--hardly broken in--or is it because it is just so much money now you cannot afford to have the lifespan of only 100 thou.

A big problem is that the consumer buys with their heart (or crotch) and not with their brain.
Practical and sturdy does not sell as well as sleek and sexy.
I try to view my car like it is an appliance. Don't care what my refrigerator look like as long as it works. Cars should be the same.

[deaniac21]

117. The crank on the Ford Model T was hard to use and dangerous.

[PJPhreak]

118. This is Easy....

1.Vega
2.Pinto
3 Mustang (64-70) Crown Victoria(95-05)Trunk Floor is also the top of the gas tank...Rear Ender,Car Go Boom!!!
4 Plymouth Cricket/Dodge Colt
5.Diesel Conversions...77-81 GM Full Size Models/Small Block gas engines with the compression ratios pushed thru the roof=Blown out Bottom ends
6.Cadillac 8/6/4 Engines of the 70's/80'
7.Ford Escorts
8.90's Ford SUV Steering and Suspensions...Ya'll think the "Rollover" Problem was all Firestone Tires??? Not So!!!
9.Chrysler Electrical Systems...Gotta Marshmallow?
10.Plastic Interiors (look at the door panels on a 84 Olds Cutlass)
11.Crappy Safety/Restraint Systems-Three Point Seat Belts as an example or Why Don't they put Air Bags in Race Cars if they work SO WELL??


Given time I could come with a list twice this long...this is why I have driven a 86 Toyota Corolla for 14 years!!

And this comes from a guy that thinks the sound of a 600 Horsepower Chevelle is pure bliss!!!

[TahitiNut]

121. Chrysler's "interference engine"

The cylinders and the valves alternate using space in the compression chamber. When the timing belt goes, they collide and BINGO! - ruined engine. Big repair bill.

[ProfessorGAC]

127. Can't That Happen With Any Overhead Cam Engine

I have a recollection, but not solid, that a mechanic told me that's why he liked the pushrod design better. Because that won't happen with pushrods, but will with OHC.

Did i hear that wrong?
GAC

[TahitiNut]

128. I don't believe it has anything directly to do with the cam shaft(s) ....

... but with configuring the internal cylinder to gain higher compression and having the peak end of the piston's compression stroke impinge geometrically on space needed by an open valve. Thus, when the timing belt breaks, the valves can be open when the piston is at the peak compression and that bends/breaks the valve and damages the piston head.

There are "design fixes" that avoid the problem (valve relief notches, recesses, etc.) but that makes them "non-interference engines."

At least that's how I understand it. People driving Chrysler products with the interference engine are warned (LOUDLY) to be sure to replace the timing belt at recommended service intervals. (Or more often.)

My step-sister's Sebring had that problem. Major repair bills.

[ProfessorGAC]

131. Thanks, Nut

I knew i could expect a good answer.
GAC

[JVS]

122. The automatic transmission

[ive jumped the shark]

123. The car. n/t

[TrogL]

125. Huge engines, excess weight, high centre of gravity, poor visiblity

I could go on all day

[kiranon]

130. Doing away with 5mi/hr crash standard for bumpers

Repairs cost a lot more after this standard was dropped.