[NikiterZTS]

No wonder Mercedes complained to McLaren about the build costs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EM5BTbrJh_k


Spotted one recently in Markham, almost creamed myself. :o

[OAC_Sparky]

GM can build them like that, too. If you want to pay $500,000 USD (the car's base price) like the MB McLaren.

The common people like us complain when they can buy a Focus for less than $20,000 and wonder why it doesn't perform like a $40G Subaru.

A lot of people talk and deam big but don't want to or can't put their money where their mouth is.

[NikiterZTS]

true enough i guess

in most cases you get what you pay for

[Spinal]

with the amount of time spent on that car i sure hope so lol.

[StreetEdition]

one argument could say that the big 3 could have better value in their cars if most of the production money wasnt spent on union employees.

[imack]

Well,

The models the GM execs test drove had something like this done: http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/inside-gm...teriors-solved/

:P

[OAC_Sparky]

StreetEdition,May 19 2009, 04:04 AM Wrote:one argument could say that the big 3 could have better value in their cars if most of the production money wasnt spent on union employees.
[right][snapback]287532[/snapback][/right]

If you weren't so blatantly ignorant and misinformed you would know that only 9% of the price of the car is the cost of wages TOTAL for assembly whether it be Union or non-Union employees. Meaning that Union workers could work for free and the cost of the average car would drop less than $2200 (not that the company would pass all or any of that savings to the consumer). Do you see a steep price cut on a Ford Fusion? Those are made in Mexico by non-Union Mexican autoworkers making a third of what an American or Canadian autoworker.

You would also know that the non-Union Toyota worker that lives across the street from me in his $400,000 house makes within $2 an hour of the Union Ford line worker 2 doors down.

So stick to what you know. Which is obviously squat.

[meford4u]

StreetEdition,May 19 2009, 04:04 AM Wrote:one argument could say that the big 3 could have better value in their cars if most of the production money wasnt spent on union employees.
[right][snapback]287532[/snapback][/right]

And another argument could say your a total f***tard.

My argument seems more logical.

[NefCanuck]

I've said it before, I'll say it again.

Auto workers can only put together the parts and sub assemblies that they are given.

Frankly the portrayal in the media of autoworkers as some overpaid nut turners pisses me off. Assembling a car requires both skill and physical labour to a degree that most of the people bitching about the workers wages either couldn't do, or "think that type of manual labour is beneath them" <_<

If management chooses to buy substandard parts or sub assemblies from god knows where in order to cut costs, the workers are left holding the bag. The workers are then assembling what they know is crap but management chooses to ignore the long term damage to the companies reputation in order to save a few bucks per car now.

NefCanuck

[NOS2Go4Me]

How much of the cost of a car is the TOTAL cost of a worker, not just the wages? I'm talking benefits, the "job bank", pension and other legacy costs - health care for retirees, etc.

I think that's going to be a bit more than 9%. Furthermore, I think they'd be selling the cars at a lot cheaper rate if it got them out of the hole and kept people working. Sadly, that doesn't seem to be happening.

[ZTWsquared]

NOS2Go4Me,May 19 2009, 02:14 PM Wrote:How much of the cost of a car is the TOTAL cost of a worker, not just the wages? I'm talking benefits, the "job bank", pension and other legacy costs - health care for retirees, etc.

I think that's going to be a bit more than 9%. Furthermore, I think they'd be selling the cars at a lot cheaper rate if it got them out of the hole and kept people working. Sadly, that doesn't seem to be happening.
[right][snapback]287574[/snapback][/right]

This is all very true Adam but the context IMO is missing. The legacy costs are only relevant in so far as a comparison to the newer import manufacturers is concerned ... and yes, the domestics are at a disadvantage in this regard.

But 40 years ago the legacy burden wasn't nearly as tough as it is now and that's when it should have been dealt with.

The manufacturers knew what the future of retirement costs was going to be back then - I can remember reading about it - and yet they continued to sign agreement after agreement that only made things worse. You can I guess blame the union for asking for aggressive retirement benefits, but the real blame IMO is on the manufacturers for agreeing to them.

Moreover ... 40 years ago - hell even 25 years ago ... not only did they not concern themselves with labour and retirement costs; the domestic manufacturers (talking about management here) still didn't take the Japanese import companies seriously ... they didn't believe that they could make the kind of vehicle, with the kind of quality that Americans wanted.

Well ... they were wrong on both counts ... so to whatever degree the legacy costs are now putting the domestic industry at risk ... IMO the blame rests solely on management ... and that doesn't even begin to account for their mismanagement in terms of addressing fuel economy and durability issues.

None of these problems are new ... it's been IMO the domestics' wilfull mismanagement of long-term industry trends, dating back decades, that is at the heart of the crises their companies are facing now.

[reldridge]

ZTWsquared,May 19 2009, 03:47 PM Wrote:the blame rests solely on management

QFT!

If the Big Three would have made a more competitive product over the years, the import brands wouldn't have the market share they have now, and they wouldn't be in this mess.

Well, at least Chrysler and GM. Ford seems to have restructured in time to weather some of the storm...

[darkpuppet]

reldridge,May 20 2009, 12:31 PM Wrote:

ZTWsquared,May 19 2009, 03:47 PM Wrote:the blame rests solely on management

QFT!

If the Big Three would have made a more competitive product over the years, the import brands wouldn't have the market share they have now, and they wouldn't be in this mess.

Well, at least Chrysler and GM. Ford seems to have restructured in time to weather some of the storm...
[right][snapback]287633[/snapback][/right]

Ford has done a great job in restructuring.. and last time I heard, I thought they had even passed the handling of the pension to the Union -- a brilliant move IMO.

GM has been too cocky -- the problem with GM has always been 100% management -- and it's similar across the automotive industry.

On the other hand, I think the American car makers were looking at the union troubles in British Layland and wanted to avoid being put out of business from union job action. The unions didn't do many favours by threatening to strike.... in the end, there was a certain lack of common sense on both ends, but eventually management should have done the right thing instead of the easy thing.

[ZTWsquared]

darkpuppet,May 25 2009, 11:58 AM Wrote:

reldridge,May 20 2009, 12:31 PM Wrote:

ZTWsquared,May 19 2009, 03:47 PM Wrote:the blame rests solely on management

QFT!

If the Big Three would have made a more competitive product over the years, the import brands wouldn't have the market share they have now, and they wouldn't be in this mess.

Well, at least Chrysler and GM. Ford seems to have restructured in time to weather some of the storm...
[right][snapback]287633[/snapback][/right]

Ford has done a great job in restructuring.. and last time I heard, I thought they had even passed the handling of the pension to the Union -- a brilliant move IMO.

GM has been too cocky -- the problem with GM has always been 100% management -- and it's similar across the automotive industry.

On the other hand, I think the American car makers were looking at the union troubles in British Layland and wanted to avoid being put out of business from union job action. The unions didn't do many favours by threatening to strike.... in the end, there was a certain lack of common sense on both ends, but eventually management should have done the right thing instead of the easy thing.
[right][snapback]287963[/snapback][/right]

Ford of Canada started restructuring literally 10 years ago when they dropped the Mercury franchise here and started closing dealerships. In addition to that they undertook an independant third-party market review to determine exactly how many dealerships they really needed and where - and dealerships were closed as a result of that too.

These were very controversial decisions - especially at a time of record-breaking auto sales - and moreover they were the subject of dozens of of lawsuits including a class action ... Ford eventually lost that suit, but the benefits of those decisions are being reaped now.

In 1999 Ford Canada had 730 dealerships ... today, they have barely 400. And their head office and sales organizations are equally lean.

That's how I know that the management at GM and Chrysler could have avoided the mess they're in now ... because the signs that caused Ford to act in 1999 were evident to all - they just chose to ignore them.