Re: Perception

[farna@xxxxxxx]

Frank Swygert's comments mixed within below:

On April 28, 2005 Mahoney, John wrote:

> Perception is reality, in the sale of autos.  Perception can take up to ten
> years to change.  The question is, can American motors survive that long
> without, like Chrysler in the '80s or American Motors in the '60s, some sort
> of "outside" help.  Uncle Sam guaranteed loans to Lido; USPS bought
> Ambassadors: can GM and Ford avoid a repeat performance of Mopar and AMC?
> 
> GM promotes 61 [post-Olds] models; Ford offers 49, Toyota sells but 31.  GM
> pays $1310 in employee benefits on every vehicle it actually sells; Ford
> pays just $734, Toyota pays $194 (and Honda pays an amazing $107.)

Yes, part of the problem is the plethora of totally different models. Romney knew that manufacturing efficiency was the key to profitability. The American, Classic, and Ambassador shared as many parts as possible 64-66. That didn't change to much for 67-74 -- at least two models shared as many parts as possible (Rebel/Mat/Ambo; American/Hornet/Gremlin/Javelin/AMX). And they were all noticeably separate from each other (with the exception of the 63-64 Classic/Ambo). Ford models are pretty separate, but GM has way to much overlap. If I were in charge of GM, the first thing I'd do is whittle down models and shared bodies to no more than two divisions. I'd badge all trucks GMC except for 1.5 ton and under. The only reason I'd keep them Chevy is because of brand loyalty out there now. I'd really like to see ALL trucks under the GM nameplate, but unlike AMC I wouldn't kill off one of the most recognized and still strong selling names! Of course it could be done over a number of ye!
 ars, and wouldn't hurt to much aa it would be much more of a shift and not a total drop and change to something way different. Pontiac and Buick cars are just to much alike, I mean the upper end cars. The alternative would be to take the bigger cars from Pontiac and leave the low end of luxury to Buick, or drop one of the names. Personally I like giving Buick 2-3 models between Pontiac and Caddy, and leave Poncho with the more sporty models only. There would be only one body shared between Poncho/Buford -- the Bonneville. Pontiac sport model, Buick needs some sqaurer front/rear fender treatments and plushness. 

> 
> The UAW is unhappy to work for GM, Ford and Chrysler; Toyota and Honda labor
> is happy to work in the US.  GM and Ford have lost market share for decades
> (Chrysler, thanks to the popularity of gangsta style cars and mean machine
> trucks has just gained some domestic share --- all of one percent); Toyota
> has increased share GLOBALLY at an annual rate of almost ten percent.
> (Nissan has grown by almost that much over recent years and Honda has
> averaged about five percent,)

and I see this as the downfall/corruptness of US labor unions. I've never been a big fan of unions, though I do know my history and the important role they played -- once. There is still a role for them, but they don't pay attention to the world around them that often! To big, to self-important. Like our government, they need ot work WITH big management more often than try to impose their will and let management know whos "really boss". I know all unions aren't that way, but to many of the entrenched ones are. AMC always had problems -- they got stuck paying more than other Detroit area (if you can call Kenosha that) auto makers before going out of business. Unions weren't willing to help much, even if it cost them their jobs! Then in the mid 90s GM was deciding which plant to close -- one in the Detroit area or one in Texas. Detroit union challenged/threatened, Texas union offered to take temporary pay cuts to keep their plant open. Do you have to guess what happened? 

> 
> I don't see takeovers ahead, neither Chrysler-AMC buyouts, nor "equal"
> opportunity events like Mercedes-Mopar.  Rather, I see mergers of need and
> of convenience, with futures like both Nissan-Renault and AMC-Jeep.  One
> company needs technological advancement and manufacturing quality; one needs
> sales outlets and production capacity.  Each needs the other to survive and
> to succeed.  Bigger is still better; DaimlerChrysler is still considered a
> "small" auto company; those which can't build every size and price vehicle
> only put off until tomorrow their marriage date.

I wonder how well Toyota's auto division would compare to US if it was separated from the rest of the conglomerate? GM is reasonably diversified, but not nearly as much as big Asian corporations. That's definitely one of the things that make the Asians stornger and better able to survive. I can see Chinese companys looing for US partners in the next 20 years. 

 
> PS - Nobody noticed that I put a hyphen in Aston Martin?  Nobody noted that
> I spelled here "hear" too?  Nobody took my dare to burst an AMC bubble?

I noticed, and I thought it a bit odd that YOU used "hear" when you meant "here", but no point in nit picking. The rest of us make more of those mistakes than you, so we've mostly become used to ignoring it. Like when I talke to my "adopted" Philipina niece working over in Korea (and I mean "niece" in the REAL sense, not in the way others might mean it -- something my wife pointed out that I didn't even know!!). You have to think about what she's trying to convey as much (sometimes more) than what she's actually saying. Three translations: Tagalog to her sometimes broken/limited English then to what she means. Not so hard in person as body language helps, over the phone can be difficult! We have to do that here sometimes, though occasionally the meaning gets lost in semantics. 
> 
> And nobody noted the Detnews/Gohsn rewrite of AMC history?
> 
> "In 1987, Renault sold American Motors cheaply to Chrysler - which used the
> company to develop the hugely successful Jeep Cherokee, creating the new
> category of sport-utility vehicle."
> 
> Develop?  Cherokee?  Creating?  New?

Now THAT I didn't notice! The XJ was of course in production, and the Grand Cherokee was almost ready to go when Chrsyler took over. I don't think there's that much DCX influence in the next model either, except for inclusion of the Hemi. Of course that might have been Jeep marketing/engineering's idea too. DCX did, however, have a lot of obvious influence on the Yuppie... er.... I mean Liberty. 

> 
> 
> Or maybe that's good enough for AMC.
> 

Sometimes it is, unfortunately. 


=============================================================
Posted by wixList Archiver -- http://www.amxfiles.com/wixlist