Re: Michael Moore gets it right sometimes.

Highland Pairos wrote:
"Tim Daneliuk" <tundra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4hpj16-dpd2.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Highland Pairos wrote:
. A
common sense discussion about the needs of the motoring public makes it
very
clear that most people do not NEED trucks or SUVs, and recent gas pricing
I disagree. I regularly engage in activities that require a large
storage area. I do not *always* need it, but when I do, no car would
serve the purpose as well as an SUV.

There are most definatley those who do need large vehicles. I am not at all
saying that there is no market for trucks and SUV. Rather I believe that the
Big 3 has simply over relyed on them.

has forced people to reevaluate their purchasing decisions. It seems to
me
I bought my SUV when gas was $4/gal - it was a great buying opportunity.

If you have the need for one, now is a monumentally good time to buy.

that smart product strategy would be to develop a bread and butter,
reliable
straight forward automobile that will satisfy the wants and needs of the
greatest number of people. That main product line can then be coupled
with
additional vehicle types that fill the needs of the smaller market
segments,
(i.e. contractors, boat owners, those that really do need to get through
a
major snow, sports car enthusiasts.)
This is what they should have done. Then again, the money was all being
made in light trucks and SUVs, not cars. So .. they went where the money
was. They failed to read the changes in the industry effectively and
got caught with the pants down.

Agreed.

. Why is Chrysler
returning to the days of big motored rear-wheel drive cars, (i.e. the
Charger, Magnum, etc.) when the mainline, practical concept is that of
front-wheel drive small displacement 4 and 6 cylinder cars?
Because these really are the cars people like ... or at least that's
what they did like. The eco-weenies want everyone to drive a
shoebox that is vegan and ugly, but that's not what the buying public
really wants. They want comfort, safety, reliability, AND some
level of fuel economy.

I would point to the sales figures for those cars versus those of Camrys,
Accords, Priuses, Sentras, etc to dispute what it is that people really
want. Eco-weenies aren't forcing people to buy the vehicles that they do.
(They might want to, but they don't)

If you look at the relatively recent history of the Big 3 and their
products, you have to notice the successes. What was the product that
saved
Chrysler once before? The Aries K platform, midsized, front wheel drive,
practical and flexible. That platform was used for so many different
vehicles, its amazing. What saved Ford in the late 80's? The Taurus,
midsized, front wheel drive, straight forward automobile. What have the
Especially the SHO with that big honking Yamaha power plant in it.

Japanese been selling by the boatload (or trainload)? Small to midsized,
front wheel drive, 4 and 6 cylinder sedans.


The market changed faster than they could react. I'd argue this was
both because of a lack of vision in leadership, AND an inflexible,
archaic labor rewards system.

I definatley agree with the lack of vision AND leadership, and am curious
how the labor agreement impacts product strategy.

SteveP.



Because the ability to change market direction quickly requires a
flexible workforce. Many of the the past UAW contracts were completely
inflexible with draconian workrules and terms. It's hard to turn
the company on a dime when labor is dragging its feed.

As you say, there's lot's of blame to go around here from senior mangement,
to the Board, to the UAW leadership, to the worker bees themselves.
Personally, I love GM truck products and hope they stay in business,
just not by stealing my- and my fellow citizens' money.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk tundra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
.

Loading