Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views Does America Even Need Its Own Automakers?
1788 messages, Last post on Mar 03, 2009 at 2:18 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Nov 15, 2008 5:00 pm) As far as the future of the Big Three relating to design, retro was only one way to go but you can't tell me they led the way in design over the last 30 years which they should have. (I look at the Cobalt and feel PAIN!) I believe that the basic structure of these companies limit their capabilities in the end after a certain critical mass is reached in terms of size. Cutting quality of parts and design got them where they are today. Nothing is more telling than the disaster interiors in the GM stuff up until 2008 saw CTS, Lambda and Malibu. What, they all of a sudden woke up? It might have been better off to have 10 auto companies in the US instead of one. Failure of all 10 at the same time would be far removed than we are today. Toyota is getting there fast and should continuously re-invent itself to stay solvent. They have a far better strategic infrastructure but cracks have been forming of late. Who knows what the future brings but I would welcome many companies the size of BMW or Mercedes in the US to stimulate competition and better products in design and tech. Perhaps we already can see this will take place as the global players face the new reality. Regards, OW
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: circlew (Nov 15, 2008 5:31 pm) I don't see how a computer is going to fit pieces of plastic and steel and glass together any more imaginatively than before. Remember, this is a finite universe. We are not talking about thoughts or ideas or undiscovered technology, but doors and windows and fenders in 3D space. The combinations are limited. If anything, computers merely accelerated the End of Design. So I'm betting that new technology will have the same appeal that "design" used to have. Instead of "looking good" we will be "working good". Electronics will become a status symbol rather than fashion being status. Don't you think that this, in a sense, explains the success of Toyota Hybrids and BMW 3-Series cars? Toyota's Prius and Mr. Bangle's trunk lids certainly can't be called "pretty".
|
|
|
Replying to: jeffyscott (Nov 15, 2008 7:30 am) Just curious, what decisions went into you and your wives' moves to foreign nameplates?
|
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Nov 15, 2008 5:55 pm) But I do agree I'd rather see a preference change to Working Good from Looking good. Perhaps that's one of the strengths the new paradigm for US Auto needs to pursue because the other global competition are far ahead here. just in build quality alone and mechanical integrity. In terms of status from that perspective, the lines in the sand were drawn years ago. Yes, the Prius and the Bangle designs are tough on the eyes but the hybrids appeal is a new status. But don't you think we have a way to go on the looks side of things?    Regards, OW
|
|
|
Replying to: lemko (Nov 14, 2008 1:29 pm) |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: circlew (Nov 15, 2008 4:46 pm) The job loss figure of 2.5-3 million being bandied about is from a study just completed by the Center for Automotive Research. Who is funded in part by, guess who? The domestic automakers.  Who knows what the future brings but I would welcome many companies the size of BMW or Mercedes in the US to stimulate competition and better products in design and tech. I too would love to see this. Our market is saturated and totally dumbed down now in part because of the undue influence of the Big 6. There is no originality or real variety in anything they do any more. I would like to see all of them lose about 1/3 of their market share in order to allow more influence from a variety of global automakers on the vehicles available here, and consequently start a revolution in design, but so far only the domestics have been good enough to oblige me. 
|
|
|
Replying to: circlew (Nov 15, 2008 7:35 pm) "Yes, the Prius and the Bangle designs are tough on the eyes but the hybrids appeal is a new status. But don't you think we have a way to go on the looks side of things? " I have chosen to respond to those who actually understand economics who I respect as opposed to the California green's . It is so hard to endorse a bail out. So let's call it a loan and get rid of the stigma. Here's why I support a loan lest some think I have chosen the dark side . The fallout would be abysmal . 2 + million on the unemployment rolls at a weak moment in our economic cycle. Sayeth not the " D " word. The unemployment benefits paid out for a collapse of the big, err medium three plus ancillary suppliers may well exceed a bailout , err loan. The 8,000 suppliers to the three also are the suppliers to Honda, Toyota and Nissan in the US. I really don't want Chinese after market parts lest we get cardboard instead of real brake parts.
|
|
|
Replying to: circlew (Nov 15, 2008 4:46 pm) They're wildly guessing and trying to make it sound as dire as possible. Not that it wouldn't be bad. One of the biggest flaws in the "x million will lose their jobs" argument is that car demand will still exist and be nearly the same whether GM goes under or not. Those buyers will buy elsewhere, and some nameplates will see increased demand, which will require more jobs to satisfy.
|
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Nov 15, 2008 5:00 pm) To some degree, yes. But BMW manages to build very desirable cars. Toyota managed to build the Prius. I see that the CRV is the best-selling SUV and was the first "small" SUV in Japan. Perhaps the problem isn't that GM is not innovative. It's just that their innovations are pop flys while the competitors' innovations are sometimes home runs: Home Runs: - Prius - PT Cruiser (when originally introduced) - New Mustang - BMW 3-series - CTS (new model) - Malibu (new model) - Honda Civic, current generation - Mazda 3 - Camry/Accord (for at least 20 years, continuously) Pop flys/outs: - HHR (copycat vehicle to PT Cruiser) - Aztek - GM minivans - Pontiac GTO - Saab (all) - G6 (maybe a bunt single) - Saturn VUE Greenline - Two-mode SUV hybrids - Camaro (probably; copycat concept to new Mustang) - Volt (probably; attempt to leapfrog Prius technologically) |
|
|
Replying to: duke23 (Nov 15, 2008 9:30 pm) The auto plan funding plan needs to be finite with measured results over an agreed time line with hurdle rates for improvements and payback. I am skeptical that the existing management structure can accomplish the necessary work which will be massive and the biggest issue will be unions who believe they are complete with UAW negotiation and it's all on the business side now. No, everyone feels more pain from this point. Within this massive initiative, nothing is off the table. Nada. Nameplates and jobs must go across all 3 companies. The dealer network needs massive changes as well and should be part of the overall plan. The objective is to improve every facet of the supply chain towards the highest customer satisfaction. These changes should be part of an overall revitalization of the manufacturing base in the U.S. It's been too long that greed and indifference have allowed our products to degrade to this level and to be blindsided by an economic downturn is short sighted at best for any management worth it's weight. Financial or manufacturing. Where is the vision? Market blindness, Energy blindness now Economy blindness? Not in my world of acceptable corporate guidance. Like I said, now it's GO TIME in more ways than one! Regards, OW |
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Does America Even Need Its Own Automakers?
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
