Where would we be today if?

[nubsnubs]

They say competition is good for the consumer, and I agree. However, with todays auto market, I feel we have lost something. Ford owns Mercury, Lincoln, Mazda, etc. GM own Chevy, Pontiac, Buick, Cadillac, etc. I know these guys still compete with one another, but didn't a Caddy used to be a Caddy, not a hiped up Tahoe? You can buy a Ford Fusion, Mercury Milan, or Lincoln MKZ and the only difference is a face lift and the interior. I was distraught when Chevy... err.. I mean Cadillac came out with this one, the Catera:

So now I'll get to the point... The real question... Where would we be today if the auto makers remained independant and had to REALLY compete with each other? And further more, where would we be today if the visionary Preston Tucker continued to produce automobiles like his wonderful 1948 Torpedo?:

 

[dhermann1]

We'd be back in the 50's with lots of automakers slowly going bankrupt, and engaging in a merger frenzy.

 

[Spitfire]

:eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap well said, dhermann1.

 

[scotrace]

GM has owned its various divisions since the 1920's. Ford founded Mercury so that's been under their wing since the get-go.

It'd be nice to see where Packard would have gone, or Studebaker, or wow - Pierce Arrow. But in the end, they were too small or too badly managed to survive.

It would be nice to have some unique vehicles available, though it is a bit better. At least the PT Cruiser is different, and Chevy brought out that (priced to die anyway) little truck that looked a little like the old Advance Design models.

My own opinion is that GM can't get out of their own way. They want everything to be a truck. The Cadillac nameplate makes no sense on a truck. The Hummer filled that niche.

 

[Diamondback]

Yeah, the last real startup attempt for "something different" was DeLorean, and even with the designer of the legendary "Judge" (IIRC, the GTO was DeLorean's baby, too) spearheading it, things didn't turn out well...

*hoping the second time around works*

 

[nubsnubs]

I did not know some of these ownerships went back so far. I suppose I would like to see some unique thinking in a larger scale, though it is not likely to happen. Yes the PT cruiser looked different, but it was on a Neon chassis. And Chevy has the HHR and some other vehicles. I suppose the question is a hypothetical.. where would we be if they were ABLE to keep designing unique autos, rather than different bodies on the same frames, without going bankrupt.

 

[jamespowers]

My own opinion is that GM can't get out of their own way. They want everything to be a truck. The Cadillac nameplate makes no sense on a truck. The Hummer filled that niche.

Hey!

 

[Ed Bass]

The demise of the US auto market is due almost entirely to the impossible to keep promises that were made to the UAW in the 70's to prevent the threat of strikes.
Today it's time to pay the piper and GM simply can't afford to do it. Detroit builds an inferior car at every level in comparison to the Japanese competition where quality control isn't just a line used for advertising.
"The Jobs Bank" says it all. When a worker is paid his salary to stay home and not work, it's only a matter of time before the money runs out and the company implodes. You won't find anything as ridiculous as the Jobs Bank at Honda or Toyota.
And, just so you know, I am a dyed in the wool GM buyer. I buy American and I've never owned a Japanese car.....but Detroit isn't giving me much to fight with these days.

Best, Toots

 

[dhermann1]

One wonders what might have happened if Packard had held off merging with Studebaker. They might have survived. I thought the cars they were makng in the early 50's were ugly as sin, especially the ones with the big "lips" on the grills 51, 52, 53. They hung onto the silhouette of their older radiators far too long. But their very last cars were great.
The last couple of really new auto makers, Honda and Hyundai, to successfully make it were both Asian.
Seems the ugly labor relations that the auto makers created for themselves, which led, ironically to the excessively generous contracts of the 50's and later, helped to paint them into a corner with the costs of the medical coverage. If they'd been more generous in the 20's and 30's to their workers they might have been in a better position to compete now. That's just a speculation. Am I making any sense?
The railroads did the same thing to themselves in the 19th century. They were so vicious to their emloyees that it created a national backlash, which led to excessive regulations of the 20th century, which in turn helped to hobble them competively vis a vis the truckers and airlines.
By the time the auto makers' complacency was overcome (some might say it still hasn't been) they were too deeply committed financially to their pension funds to have enough capitol to reinvent themselves as fully as they needed to.
I'm no expert in the field, but that sort of summarizes the impression I've gotten over the years.

 

[nubsnubs]

And, just so you know, I am a dyed in the wool GM buyer. I buy American and I've never owned a Japanese car.....but Detroit isn't giving me much to fight with these days.

Best, Toots

I am a through and through Ford guy, and I know what you mean. It makes it tough. What about warranties? Three years 30K miles was fine years ago, but I live in Cali and the average yearly milage is somewhere around 20K. What a joke. I am going to spend how much on a car and you expect only back it for less than 1.5 to 2 years with decent use, maybe more than three with light use. Ohh wait, that is right, I can buy the extended warranty and pay you more money.. I remember now.

 

[dhermann1]

HOWEVER!

However! I seem to recall that Ford is trying to spin off some of the divisions they accumulated over the last few years (Jaguar and I believe also Volvo), so maybe we're seeing the dawn of a new age of "boutique" auto makers!

 

[scotrace]

I think I read a quote from an exec at one of the US automakers: We're primarily a health care provider who also happens to make cars."

 

[Rob]

Trust you guys have seen what Holden Australia (our version of GM) have made, recently:

http://images.google.com.au/imgres?...ijy&um=1&start=2&sa=X&oi=images&ct=image&cd=2

And, yes, it's "only" a concept, but it's clear that some people still have great taste in design...

 

[KL15]

Well the "Big 3" have had alot of competition from Japan. Nissian, Toyota, Honda, and others feasted on them in the 70's. I'm too young to remember that, but I do remember in the 80's the American auto companies were telling us all to "buy American." The problem was, their product was inferior to the Japanese counterpart. I give GM some credit, much of the new styling is good. And I think, I think, they've got the message that they need to make a better product. The GM products of the last 10 or 15 years are much better than the ones of the 70's and 80's. The only personal experience I have with this is the newer Corvette is much better than the ones I've been around that were made in the 70's and 80's. I think Ford is catching on to the idea. It's going to be some time before any progress is shown, but the retro styling they're doing I think is great. I do agree with the post earlier, one of the biggest problems is the health and retirement the big 3 agreed to with the UAW.

 

[nubsnubs]

Trust you guys have seen what Holden Australia (our version of GM) have made, recently:

http://images.google.com.au/imgres?...ijy&um=1&start=2&sa=X&oi=images&ct=image&cd=2

And, yes, it's "only" a concept, but it's clear that some people still have great taste in design...

Wicked! That is all I can say. Wicked!

 

[Ed Bass]

dhermann1,
you are making perfect sense and have a very clear image of the problem.

KL15,
although most of your post makes sense I personally disagree with the retro styling that seems to be so prevalent recently.
The new (old style) T-Bird
The new (old style) Mustang
The 50's style Chevy truck
etc., etc.

The real problem is this:

After you've re-hashed a previous designer's model and pawned it off as new, where can you possibly go from there?

And don't forget the biggest tragedy here.

In 1957 the Thunderbird was Ford's "look to the future".
45 years later all they could do is give a watered down version of a once fine car.

Best, Toots

 

[carebear]

Trust you guys have seen what Holden Australia (our version of GM) have made, recently:

http://images.google.com.au/imgres?...ijy&um=1&start=2&sa=X&oi=images&ct=image&cd=2

And, yes, it's "only" a concept, but it's clear that some people still have great taste in design...

SOLD! Where do I mail the check? :eusa_clap

 

[Flivver]

The capital intensive nature of the auto buisiness makes it impossible for small, one make companies to compete profitably (unless you're a global premium brand with a strong reputation). Add to that all the government regulations that must be met in various countries.

These days it costs about $5 Billion and takes about 5 years to bring an all new vehicle to market.

The domestic three are in a very precarious position today. They are producing truly competitive and high quality products, but many Americans won't even *consider* them because they are convinced that the Asians and Europeans make superior vehicles. These are *not* the trouble prone American cars of the 1980s. But how do you convince consumers that things have changed?

Going back to the original question about the independent U.S. manufacturers, everything came to a head in 1953-54. That was when Henry Ford II decided to wage war on GM. He started a price war that nearly wiped out the independents, and almost killed Chrysler as well. The only option for the independents was merger. So in 1954, Hudson and Nash merged, as did Studebaker and Packard and Kaiser and Willys. The only long term survivor here was Hudson/Nash which became American Motors and lasted until 1987.

But back in 1954, there was talk of a super-merger between Hudson, Nash, Studebaker and Packard. Now *that* combination might have been able to survive...but we'll never know.

 

[scotrace]

The newer US made vehicles are doubtless better than those turned out twenty years ago. I think that American buyers may look at them in adverts and in passing and think that they would be worth a look, but are dubious about quality long term. Many of us rack up miles fairly quickly. What will this car be like at 100,000 miles?

I have two US made cars (Oldsmobiles) with 120,000 and 134,000 miles on them. The latter has been parked and is about to be junked as, in spite of careful maintenance from day one, has enough mechanical failures to make repairing them a waste of money. The former is hanging on, but it'll never see 150,000.

Compare to a Camry, or Accord, or any BMW. You might spend a little more up front, but there's a good chance they'll still be hauling groceries reliably at 200,000 miles. The Camry I had in the late '80's was finally sold with 240,000 miles on it.

Plus, I think that when buyers were burned by promises of better quality from US makers that turned out to be hooey, they were burned to the tune of $15,000 - 25,000 and up. You only get one chance when we're talking that kind of dough.

Then again, I may be jaded. I am the buyer I describe. Eventually let down by every US made car I've owned, I won't consider one this time out, no matter how slick they look (Buick Lucerne is very nice).

 

[Rob]

I knew you guys would like the EFIJY