Re: Perception

[farna@xxxxxxx]

My comments mixed within:

On April 30, 2005 John McEwen wrote:

> While it's nice to blame the big companies and we know that there are
> many reasons to blame them, they are not solely to blame for the
> current mess.
> 
> The manufacturers could not do everything at once.  They could not
> design and produce anti-pollution measures, meet the influx of
> quality, inexpensive cars from Japan, and develop brilliant new
> engine and chassis technology to meet the CAFE standards imposed
> during the same decade - all the while  building attractive modern
> designs.
> 
> The costs were enormous and the assistance minimal.  Instead of
> recognizing the problems and helping to overcome them, the American
> people passed more laws then went out and bought Hondas, Toyotas and
> Datsuns.  They voted with their check books and US Cars Inc. lost the
> battle.  The enthusiast car magazines savaged the domestics and
> shovelled praise on anything foreign which was easy when they
> couldn't contribute to the solution.

I only agree with half of this. There were government tariffs and limits on how many cars Japan could export to the US for a long time. This came about because of the bitching and whining of Detroit. It helped some, but had the side effect of making the Japanese cars look better because they weren't priced as low as their nearest US counterparts and there was often a wait to get them -- so they must be better if they are sold out, right? Perception again. People who wanted/had to have a new car bought US because they couldn't/didn't want to wait, not necessarily because they wanted to. But it was a short term fix to help Detroit. See how much it helped? 

The big auto companies were caught with their pants down during the first fuel crisis, though they had to see it coming. It was short term profits that kept them blind. I'll forgive them getting caught that first time, but then they didn't do enough. Surely they could see that the chance of it happening again was there? Japanese cars started selling like hot cakes, but they didn't want to invest in smaller cars! I won't listen to any of that "we don't know how" crap they put off at first either. There were plenty of examples -- the best being the original Rambler and even better the reintro of it in 58 as the American, Henry J, even Crosley. Only the Rambler was really successful though -- that's what scared the big three more than anything. Chevy could have reintroduced something along the lines of the original Chevy II, Ford the Falcon. They didn't realize they needed more efficient mid size cars, the "bread and butter" of the US car industry, for some odd reason. They tho!
 ught/hoped the small car "fad" would pass over, so kept the big cars and made a small line only suitable as a second/commuter car (Pinto and Vega -- could you imagine a long drive in the back seat of either?). Main reason was profits again -- it would cost a lot to retool the big cars, and the belief that as soon as the crisis was over (by getting OPEC to produce more) Americans would want their big cars again and Detroit would be happy. That was the easiest ting to believe, why get ready for the worse? For whatever reason, the US car industry (AMC incldued -- they were playing follow the leader rather blindly!) totally missed the boat! 

> Europe and Japan went right on building cars in homelands where
> environmental protection was unheard of.  How many of you realize
> that Britain has only just recently abandoned leaded fuel?  How many
> of you realize that in Europe at least 60% of all new cars are sold
> with diesel engines - and they're not slow, noisy or smelly - or
> could be sold in California?  North America responsibly encourages
> hybrids while Europe has only recently discovered the environment.
> British car enthusiasts flutter about paying for "lead-free" cylinder
> heads while we worry about meeting the CAFE standards for 2010.

I wouldn't say Europe as a whole, but they have been behind us. You totally miss it with mentioning Japan though! Japan has had strict emissions laws since at least 1974, stricter than California. How do I know? Because of being stationed there in 1987-1990. One of the restrictions for taking an American car over is it has to be made before April 1974. The reason is emissions. Even CA emissions cars won't meet Japanese standards. Might now, but didn't through the 70s to at least mid 90s. Yet their cars have great performance too. Mazda cleaned up the rotary engine, GM threw in the towel when they couldn't get congress to grant them an extension. 

> While we were fussing with bumper standards, the Euro/Japanese
> complex was making money shoving the same old technology out the
> doors everywhere but in NA.  Instead of meeting the challenge, we
> paid them to build factories here so that they could avoid paying
> import duties.  The payoff was jobs for small-town USA, Mexico and
> Canada.  Remember when Flint and Buick meant the same thing?
> Remember Oldsmobile?

And the Euro/Jap cars had to meet the same standards, have the same crash testing, and had the same cost as US manufacturers. Labor isn't cheaper in Japan nor Germany. Only now has Europe been faced with the same situation we have with Mexico (cehap labor nearby). Most Eastern European countries have plenty of cheap labor now! 

Building factories over here is a result of the import limitations mentioned above. It doesn't help Us manufacturers, but at least a good portion of the money stays over here. Profits, no, but operating expense and the jobs. If Americans are going to buy Japanese name brands they may as well get something out of it! As far as them being in small town American instead of Detroit -- blame the unions. It costs to much to operate in detroit, and there is the threat of the union more or less taking over. There's a big difference in the way the Japanese operate than typical Americans. The Japs (not used derogatory, just short!) basically try to treat their workers fairly and take care of them. A happy worked is a productive worker! That phrase means a lot! My wife worked at a pharmaceutical plant for a long time. Have a personal problem and go to the boss. Well, you better get it taken care of soon, because there's 10 people waiting on your job! Japanese industry works more like t!
 he military does... let's help take care of our people so they will be ready to work. 

> 
> While the US manufacturers were inventing catalytic convertors,
> exhaust gas recycling, electronically-controlled carburetors, and a
> myriad of other gadgets, the rest of the world was spending a much
> higher proportion of their larger profit on making their vehicles
> more reliable and of higher quality.  They then built those cars in
> the US using US-developed solutions to meet US laws.

Partially. They were doing research too, not just copying US products. Case in point: Mazda and the rotary again (best example). Europeans were also way ahead in electronic controls, especially ignition and fuel injection. Those are what gave them an advantage in emissions! US manufacturers were so stuck on the "tried and true" (but inefficient for daily driving) carburetor! Why? It took development money they just didn't want to spend for EFI, though they had early units (mechanical and electronic) that were just to far ahead of the technology of the time (Bendix Electrojector toyed with by AMC in the Rebel and Chrysler in one of their cars -- I think Chrysler actually fielded some cars though AMC backed out). So U.S. manufacturers *were* on top of the field -- back in the late 50s/early 60s. They LET the world pass them by and just started catching up in the late 80s/early 90s. Following for 20 years hurt them more than anything else. Blame it on a change in thinking -- sh!
 ort term vs. long term profits. They OWNED the US market back then and made high profits without trying. Once competition started getting tighter they refused to change. To many high paid execs getting big bonuses for selling out -- sending jobs overseas and improving profit margin slightly (in the short term, mainly NOW when the economy is down a bit and profits harder to find). In the long run the companies will suffer for it, but the execs don't care, they'll be retired! N
 
> As sales of Japanese cars rose dramatically, spurred by pricing and
> quality, all the US manufacturers could offer was size, boring style,
> lack of performance, poor economy and even poorer reliability -
> created by the great amount of new technology required to meet a
> problem which didn't affect the part of the car the owner was
> concerned with. except in a negative way..

Not necessarily. Computer control improves economy and reliability and ultimately pays for itself, mainly in decreased maintenance cost. Oil changes have been extended to 5K plus (it's the oil change stores that want you to come in every 3K miles -- no manufacturer has recommended that since the 70s -- check your owners manual!!) because engines burn cleaner -- more efficiently. More power per cubic inch, greater reliability, fewer tune-ups. Those are negative? early reliability of electronic controls was due to Detroit falling to far behind in technology. 

> 
> When the US tried to build small economy cars, what they produced was
> scaled-down big cars - still using the out-of-scale components from
> those big cars.  Let's not forget Pinto and Vega.  They sold millions
> of them, but the only real feature they offered was price and a kind
> of dubious economy.  Compare a Vega to a Datsun 510.  A Toyota
> Corolla to a Pinto.  No contest.  But don't blame the manufacturers -
> forced to keep investors happy with endless profit figures.

Yes, blame the manufacturers for allowing their corporate offices to become bloated and no one wanting to make the difficult decision to tell investors that there won't be as high a profit in the short term because we have to plan for the future. Steady but lower profits is better than high now, none later. So the US is on a roller coaster -- get as high a profit as possible short term "to keep investors happy", then announce losses as we play catch up. In the end (provided a company does catch up) high then low averages out to what they would have been steady. That is if they don't lose so much ground during the low, like the US auto industry has. Right now they are roughly on a par technologicly. Styling has got to improve greatly, especially at GM. I think Ford and Chrysler are at least getting somewhere, even though I don't care for the bulky new Chryslers. 

> 
> I could go on, but you get the picture.  We have advanced 30 years in
> time.  As the US auto manufacturers fail, can the US economy be far
> behind?  As long as trillion dollar debts continue to build to keep
> money sliding into the desert sands on far off shores, who's going to
> help solve the problems which began over 40 years ago?

I agree, we are spending to much overseas and doing nothing for the national debt except increasing it. The war effort is supposedly helping the economy, but at a great expense for future generations. 

> How can the health of workers be a liability?  How can an economy
> grow when the great majority of its productivity has been
> out-sourced, while the remaining dollars pay to haul resources from
> far away?  Why should a poorly-educated and poorly-motivated worker
> expect to live like a king, compared with his forbears, by doing work
> which any machine can be built to do?

Exactly. Part of the problem is expectations of the people. Recent imigrants work harder than the average American for the most part, and are willing to take jobs most of us would scoff at. Then they do those jobs to the best of their ability! Really, when was the last time you were given a crappy task and went at it at your very best? It's tough, but those who feel priveleged to be given the chance do it while those who feel they have a right to be paid high wages with little effort bitch, moan, and complain to the union officials. 

Frank Swygert

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