Last post on Feb 14, 2013 at 6:24 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views-Archives
What is this discussion about?
#31158 of 32000 Re: Question about Corvair influence [keystonecarfan]
Jan 25, 2013 (12:46 pm)
Did any of them ever pay a real price? Or just lip service?
Smith's tenure maybe earned him a trip to a hot place, if there is such a thing, that might be the eventual destination for that group.
#31159 of 32000 Re: Question about Corvair influence [fintail]
Jan 25, 2013 (1:01 pm)
I hope Smith is in such a low place in Hades he has to look up to see the devil. I feel as if I should live an extraordinarily evil lifestyle then kill myself just so I can go to Hades, find Roger Smith, and kick his butt for eternity for what he did to my beloved GM!
#31160 of 32000 Re: Question about Corvair influence [lemko]
Jan 25, 2013 (1:12 pm)
Although, to be fair, he was just the leader of a group of incompetents - some I fear are still near the top of the 37 levels of management today. You'll be kicking more than one rear end
#31161 of 32000 Re: Question about Corvair influence [fintail]
Jan 25, 2013 (1:52 pm)
In the case of Honda, the new Civic still sold well, despite negative reviews, so the company didn't have to lay off any workers, and the dealers weren't really hurt. The main cost was in corporate pride (the stinging reviews from Consumer Reports supposedly shocked the company) and the need for heftier incentives to move the car.
In Chrysler's case, Iacocca wasn't fired or demoted, although he helped lay the groundwork for the company's second recovery under his watch. His income would have been hurt if any of it was in stock options, as the company's stock went into the toilet in the late 1980s. The UAW Jobs Bank requirements were in effect by the late 1980s, so no lineworkers would have lost their pay or benefits.
#31162 of 32000 Re: Question about Corvair influence [lemko]
Jan 25, 2013 (2:03 pm)
Lemko, GM had serious problems before Roger Smith took over the helm. Read John DeLorean's book, On a Clear Day, You Can See General Motors, which was published in 1979. It's quite eye-opening.
The problem was that, through the late 1970s, the Japanese weren't yet strong in the middle of the market, and Ford and Chrysler were consumed by their own problems. GM actually GAINED market share at the expense of Ford and Chrysler in the 1970s!
The weakness of the competition helped hide GM's problems - or, at least, allowed GM leadership to be complacent.
It was one thing for the low-profit Vega to lose sales to the Toyota Corolla. It was another matter entirely when the Ford Taurus and Honda Accord began swiping sales from the Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme. Or when the Chrysler minivans began stealing sales from intermediate and full-size station wagons. Those vehicles were striking at the heart of GM's success.
Roger Smith was smart enough to realize that GM had serious problems. Unfortunately, he had an uncanny knack for implementing solutions that either failed to address the original problem, or somehow made it worse!
#31163 of 32000 Re: Question about Corvair influence [keystonecarfan]
Jan 25, 2013 (2:45 pm)
I think the point we mainly disagree on is this:
You appear to have come to the conclusion that Chrysler would have done things differently if never associated with Daimler.
I see that as an assumption that can never be proven, especially since both Ford and GM followed the very same vehicle offerings structure (heavy on trucks).
Chrysler never had the external presence (outside the US) that Ford has enjoyed, so any domestic contraction would have a more significant impact on Chrysler.
I've already stated that, if one wishes to blame Daimler for making the same decisions that Ford and GM did in product offering, which history showed to be the wrong ones, I offer no argument.
Personally, I'm not one to make guesses on what "could have been, only if...", if for no other reason than once one goes down that path, anything becomes possible.
I think we've beat this dead horse long enough. How 'bout you?
#31164 of 32000 Re: Buick Encore reviewed in Motor Trend [xrunner2]
by Stever@Edmunds HOST
Jan 25, 2013 (3:01 pm)
They can just sit down in the front seat sideways and then turn and put their legs inside
One of our octogenarians has a swivel gizmo so he can sit and then more easily twist his legs in.
The minivan is perfect for us while we find the Outback a bit low. Our seniors have trouble climbing up into the van (I carry a little wooden box for her) but the Outback is a bit too low for him. Usually we try to use their Buick since it seems to be a happy medium, and the trunk is still big enough for his folding wheelchair.
#31165 of 32000 Re: Buick Encore reviewed in Motor Trend [steve_]
Jan 25, 2013 (3:12 pm)
The minivan is perfect for us while we find the Outback a bit low. Our seniors have trouble climbing up into the van (I carry a little wooden box for her) but the Outback is a bit too low for him.
We have a Mazda 5 (Mazda's microvan) and the height is between a car and an SUV. You pretty much just slide into it without going up or down. It has more room than a CRV, seats 6, and is way more maneuverable with a lower CG. The steering feedback is fabulous.
Somehow it's not very popular in the states, but then Mazda never advertises it, either.
#31166 of 32000 Re: Buick Encore reviewed in Motor Trend [tlong]
by Stever@Edmunds HOST
Jan 25, 2013 (3:19 pm)
I sent my wife to drive one a few years ago when we were still in Boise and she vetoed it without leaving the lot. Oh well; I was excited about a small box with a manual available.
I think a lot of people, when they break down and decide they must settle for a minivan, decide to get the biggest honking one they can find. They've about outgrown us.
#31167 of 32000 Re: Government interference with GM [bpizzuti]
Jan 25, 2013 (4:45 pm)
Keep in mind it was not one but two Administrations that gave GM a government bailout. Two different, theoretically opposite ideologies, also.
Well, Bush pretty much did everything wrong, so the bailout doesn't surprise me. He has no excuse though, just is an idiot I suppose.
At least Obama can blame the dumb move to do bailouts to get re-elected by Ohio and Michigan. Paid off for 4 more years for him. What's Bush's excuse?