LOL!

They also need a set of secret fueling stations so the cars appear to get 50 MPG. <GRINS>

Bob Wilson

 

Potato,
There are plenty of 10-15 yo pickups with >150,000 miles,and high mile Suburbans out there.Granted many of them look their age, but they are still reasonably reliable( GM pickup drivetrains are reliable-the trim, accessories, power windows etc are a different story).
Of course there are plenty of 1992 Civics with 150,000+ pure ,hard city miles out there also(still worth ~$2000+ usually)!!
The Big 3 do lag in QC, but they are much improved.Their labor costs are insurmountable.You can't spend as much on QC when you have much higher labor costs.The current "plan" seems to slowly whittle down labor costs with the UAW going along as fast as they can. They hope they can approach parity with Toyota on labor costs before they have to close all their USA manu. plants.I just don't think they can do it.
Luck,
Charlie

 

Chrysler auto worker benefits cost $1500 per car and Chrysler is offering incentives of up to $5500 on new vehicles. That's a difference of $4000. I really can't see how unions are the problem at all with a $4000 difference between incentives and worker costs. Poor performance of Chrysler (and Ford and GM as well) should be laid where it belongs, at the feet of managment.

 

I'm not blaming the UAW for the Big 3's woes.Their-the union's-job is to get as much $$ as possible for their members.They did that pretty well-no fault there.Unfortunately for the Big 3 and the UAW, other manu with no union contracts built plants in lower wage/ non union states.My guess is that the Japanese did this instead of building in even lower wage countries (like Mexico) ,because there would have been a huge backlash against them if they destroyed the USA auto industry and didn't build USA plants.Remember there was a big tariff on imported pickups thru most of the 70's 80's I think.It was about $1500 on a small $6000 Toyota pickup!!
The Big 3 had so so mgn, but with the huge wage/cost advantage of the non union plants, it wouldn't matter.The Japanese plants also don't have many funded retirees yet,and their retirement plans aren't very good(expensive) anyway.
Charlie

 

So where does the $4000 difference between total incentives offered and worker health costs factor in then? My point is that while worker costs are a factor they are not the driving force behind the problems of the Big 3. They ARE a convenient excuse and deflection point for management's repeated poor decision making, however. A perfect example is the decision by GM to build Flex Fuel vehicles (SUVs mostly) in quantities beyond the available supply of E85. Here in Dallas I see them frequently and have only heard of E85 being sold in the upper mid-west. Why would they do that? Could it be E85 is about to be more widely available? I don't think so, since Exxon, BP, and Conoco-Phillips were all berated for internal memos that relegated E85 to no under canopy sales and no signage stating price or availibility at stations by Congress this month. Or just maybe it's because they can build all of the Flex Fuel vehicles they want as they do not count against CAFE mileage standards. In other words, they can cheat the intention of the law on one hand while bragging about what they are doing for the environment and energy independence on the other (with the actual opposite affect). Does this mean the Big 3 are not giving the consumer what they want? Exactly the opposite in the short term I'm afraid but only because their ads sell us on the idea of a want and make it a need. I can't prove it but the 20/20 story about food has some correlation here. Eight blind folded interns at ABC thought vanilla yogurt with chocolate syrup was strawberry yogurt because they were told it was strawberry. Instead of "build a better mouse trap and people will buy it" it is now "build a bigger SUV and tell people they will be sexy or have more sex or be smart or be cool or ready for the end of civilization as we know it and people will buy it" A want therefore becomes a need.