Wow Toyota actually did it...

Joined: 22 Dec 2007 Posts: 461

www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/08/27/MN6919EL3P.DTL

This plant made...and actually proved that the USA can make cars in the country that last. Some assume that everything of the big three is made here and everything else isn't.

It made cars for GM and toyota..many of which were the same but cosmetics...the corolla was the prizum the matrix was the vibe.

This technically might actually be the highest quality plant in the usa if not north america. It's just sad.

Joined: 06 Jul 2003 Posts: 8380 Location: Central CA

But it's what we allowed to happen. It actually happened in two waves with the Aemrican companies so anxious to outsource and offshore their operations to "enhance value for the shareholders" that the automotive infrastructure here was allowed to deteriorate.

In the meantime, the Asian companies were coming in and building state of the art infrastructure and hiring away the talented people that had not been shipped south. The American companies didn't fail to learn from the first wave of Jpanese invasion back in the 70s. They learned OK. They just thought they could bully and advertise their customers into doing it their way no matter how much more sense the Asian model made. And it worked for a while.

From the early 90s clear up until 2008, you never saw an ad for a small economical American car. It's not that they didn't exist or that they wouldn't have been adequate at least. It's just that all the advertising budgets were spent on pushing huge trucks and SUVs and trying to convince the public that size, horsepower and luxury trumped economy and quality. This culminated in the introduction of what was probably the dumbest example of really lousy American business acumen, the Hummer. If there was a symbol for failure in an American industry, the Hummer would have to rank right up there with the Statue of Liberty as a genuine icon.

None of what we see today is surprising to anyone who lived through and observed the whole thing beginning in 1973 and continuing forward and you don't need a rocket scientist to figure out at least the most obvious things that went wrong.

Joined: 26 Aug 2008 Posts: 306

GM in particulair took a weird route with all of this. When they brought out the GEO line, it was wildly successful. The first real successful small SUV with the Tracker, the successful compact in the GEO Metro, and the small sedan in the Prizm. They also had the Spectrum and Storm that were not co-built. At the time they decided they had too many brands, so they folded them back into the Chevy line. The vehicles are still basically in the line up and co-built. Tracker was successful, it's new name, the Equinox, not so much.

To me the whole Saturn venture was weird. It was basically GEO part 2. New, cars with more innovation etc, but for some reason they were afraid to put the Chevy name on it.

The whole idea was always that if they brought out the GEO Tracker as example branded as a Chevy, it wouldn't be received well. In the meantime, while brand like GEO enjoyed some popularity, the GM brand itself continued to slide. They kept investing into everything but the GM brand itself. They really did make the bed they are now sleeping in.

Joined: 08 Jul 2003 Posts: 6309

I almost bought a Prizm once but I got a better a price on a Chrysler. I almost regret that because even 10 years ago even though it was assembled in US it was from parts in made in Mexico or Canada. At least it was North America but still.

I think the lack of modern technology in US plants allowed the US car manufacturers/auto workers to be knocked sometimes justified others not. How can you compete against companies that were so far advanced with technology. It was like comparing apples and oranages til the mid 80s. How pathetic was that that the Japanese; a foreign competitor comes in our own back yard and tells us this is the best way to do it. But the greedy whore corporate auto giants opened the door wide open for them.

What really ticks me though is I thought this whole cash for clunkers thing was to spur or stimulate the US economy and yet the Toyota: the biggest beneficiary of that program packs up shop in the very country that almost literally GAVE them the sales.

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/27/toyota-tops-list-of-cash-for-clunkers-winners

Joined: 06 Jul 2003 Posts: 8380 Location: Central CA

You know what's really weird too is that the earliest GEOs and some of the SATURNS were actually rebadged Toyotas. I think the American companies STILL thought that the move to smaller, more reliable cars was a flash in the pan and that the American advertising industry would eventually win the day for them.

Therefore, they offered a bunch of rebadged products and invented new names for them so they wouldn't be considered a product of the Asian companies but still not "drag down" the names of the American companies.

This actually stared back in the 70s, most notable in the small truck lines at first.
Chevy LUV and later S-10 = Isuzus
Ford Courier and later Ranger = Mazdas
Dodge RAM 50 (small truck) = Mitsubishi

They followed the same pattern when light SUVs began to be developed from the truck lines.

Joined: 08 Jul 2003 Posts: 6309

nofs - smaller fuel efficient cars a flash in the pan then 'rebadged' as US car

Yeap. that's the EXCUSE corporate inbred Detroit used to justify the lack of plant upgrades and model/product changes. It's like they were just trying to justify the status quo.

I think the fact that many Japanese models were rebranded as US was an admission they couldn't get it right or they didn't want to spend to get it right. They could not and would not admit humiliating defeat.

Joined: 22 Dec 2007 Posts: 461

Joined: 08 Jul 2003 Posts: 6309

Funny thing you mention the station wagon. What puzzles me Detroit always cried it's too hard to retool and yet they had no problem retooling from station wagon to SUVs & Minivans.

But in the true tradition of retail who do you sell to ? you sell to ' the boss ' ie the wife or soccer moms : " oh it's so convenient ,it's safer ,it can fit more(in the tradition of American consumption)" yada yada yada. But wait, wifey's got brand new big wheels so now not a contractor hubby needs something-an SUV;talk about subliminal advertising(brillantly played if not thought out by Detroit). MPH -pfffttt , the gas crisis ended in the 70s/early 80s. Insurance-eh no one makes a claim. Payments-no problem with E Z credit.

This does not excuse the push/expansion into modified specialty vehicles usually reserved for terrain,weather or business purposes. The late 80s/early 90s was Detroit's last window of oppurtunity to get it right. If they had perhaps that would be a Ford plant closing or even staying open since the import would've been a moot point.

Joined: 22 Dec 2007 Posts: 461

reminds me of the CAFE standards and how it seems we actually reached a peak around 1988...and haven't pushed beyond it.

I see nothing wrong with lite trucks or suv's if someone has a job or hobby that demands them. But to sell them to everyone is a bit stupid. I've heard the argument that a suv is basically a station wagon with a higher chassee. also suv's in terms of fuel fell under the catagory of "truck" dispite the fact it's being used as a car.

I've heard odd excuses for driving them...like "You get a better view of the road" um... a gps actually gives you a much better view of the road and if you have traffic updates it works even better. or "it's safer since it's bigger" um no. Especially since the roofs of cars obviously cannot withstand a rollover. an extra ton on the bottom becomes a extra ton on the top. It's also odd that some imply that it's made for moving things..nope...if you want to move things learn how to tie knots and get a truck. Where I worked people asked me to fit full size grills already assembled into suv's...they just aren't made for that.
Lastly is the idea that it's made to drive a ton of people..that might make sense if you have a number of kids with sports but come on now how long can they play for!

www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/suv_highway.html
nearly 11% of deaths from autos in 2004 were with suv's

www.consumersunion.org/products/pittle-auto.htm
the consumer union basically ripped apart much of what the industry claimed with suv's.

	Forum Index -> Politics Schmolitics	All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1