10 Cars That Sank Detroit

[Dave@Moon]

10 Cars That Sank Detroit

Interesting recent article from <span style="font-style: italic">US News & World Report</span>. Many of the cars mentioned are very popular/sold well/have good reputations. I find it very amusing that one of the major advertisers on the web site is Ford.

(Actually I come to find out it's about 4 months old, but I think it was just put online.) All of the various linked related articles are interesting reads as well.

[Dave@Moon]

The Cars That Drove Detroit's Customers Away

Follow-up article from the same author.

[foxhole]

was kinda suprized to see the astro van on there, it is the only small/good work van available, not sure bout the passanger versions but in the city when i had my glass shop you couldn't beat being able to pack all the tools and glass and be able to fit in a "victoria" parking spot.

[Dandy Dave]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: foxhole</div><div class="ubbcode-body">was kinda suprized to see the astro van on there,... </div></div>

I had an Astro Van for a while. It had 400,000, Yes, that is Four Hundred Thousand plus miles on it and it still ran good. I was told that the transmission was replaced once, and also the transfer case. but the V six was original. It was used daily by a transport company and was well maintained. There is something to be said for changing the oil often. It had a wheel chair lift.

I put it on ebay and the van did sell. It was transported all the way to Texas and was going to be used to transport a handicapped child to school.

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">was kinda suprized to see the astro van on there...</div></div>

It was choices like that (and especially the discussion of the Explorer) that prompted me to link the article here. You have to read why each had it's contribution. This isn't the usual whining (however justified) about poor quality.

For the Astro, it was supposed to be a stop-gap measure until the real GM ("Dustbuster") minivans came out in 1990. Because it sold profitably (due to incredibly cheap manufacture/development costs), it wound up on the market for 20 long years virtually unchanged. You have to go to British Leyland to find that kind of product neglect. What that said about GM's interest in improving their product had more impact than anything intrinsic to the van itself.

The parallels between British Leyland and Detroit are remarkable in this respect.

(BTW--I had a brand new GMC Safari (Astro) van loaner for 2 weeks in 1991. It had 4WD and a 4.3L V6. I was such a gas hog (<span style="font-style: italic">11 mpg in mostly highway driving</span>), that I eventually parked it and used my own pickup truck instead. Even for free it wasn't worth driving.)

[rick60]

The Astro/Safari vans easily last 300,00 miles or more. Fleet managers love them. I have a Safari cargo van with 185,000 miles. I bought used. It is a retired phone company truck. I used it to haul my two boys stuff to college. I thought I would sell it when they were done with school, but I fell in love with it. I use it to haul car parts and stuff for the house. When I arrive at Home Depot everyone thinks I'm a professional contractor. At 185,000 miles it still looks good. I have done very little work to keep it on the road. It gets 21mpg in the city, 26mpg on the highway. I was formerly employed as a mechanic at a Chevy dealer. I was surprised the Astro was being discontinued. I asked the general manager of the dealer why they were going to stop making such a money maker for GM. He replied that GM could no longer meet emission requirements. It was not cost effective to redesign the vehicle. I worked as a GM tech for 28 years. I noticed a lot of quality problems were the result of engineering required to meet the demands of the government. AC problems, paint problems, trying to meet emission and C A F E requirements.

I also noticed some of the same problems with import brands. I also worked at an independent shop, part time, for ten years. I spent some time at a Honda dealer. It seems when imports break they are still fantastic cars. The repair is considered routine maintenance. If an American car breaks it is because it is American made. It is very popular for Americans to hate America these days. I watched GM die a slow death for the last 20 years. I don't blame GM. I always thought the product was good. The "hate America" attitude was the problem. Even if GM cars spit $100 dollar bills out of the tailpipe these people would find a reason to complain. I find it ironic that the best cars ever made by GM come at a time when the company is in trouble. Remember....AS GM GOES SO GOES THE NATION

[Guest Hinckley]

I find the growing trend towards self loathing in America to be quite disturbing. Tragically this has been a fashionable one for a very long time.

GM, Chrysler, and Ford did sow the seeds of their destruction. However, to a large degree it was the American consumer as well as our government that supplied the bullets for their suicide.

The very thought of America without Ford, GM, or Chrysler is a very hard one to accept. Still, the hard, cold reality is that this a very real possibility.

Many years ago I worked in the shop at a VW dealership. A wise old salesman who had entered the business as a Graham salesman during the depression told me the "bug" was dead even though it sold well.

To paraphrase, he said that its demise would be the result of the American consumer who had been sold the idea that they should accept nothing except first class regardless of their budget. Part two was the transition of the environmental movement from a social awakening to a big money machine that could only operate and profit if the role of government was subverted.

As an automotive historian my favorite era for study is between 1885 and 1940. It is here we find the root causes for the current state of the American auto industry as well as solutions for saving and resurrecting it.

[Ben Bruce aka First Born]

Hinckley, you sure can whet a mans appetite! Care to share those root causes?

[Guest Skyking]

This will sink GM & Chrysler even further..................

[jim43]

As to the previous Morris article, way too early to know how GM will shake out. Sort of silly to think any of these corporate heads can't be replaced. It is up to the boards to dig down and come up with better. Some will, some won't. We are all only a heartbeat away from permanent retirement at any given time, head of a corporation or field laborer. And we can all be replaced.

I think more heads on Wall Street should have rolled too, but they are better at buying influence. But when we kick in the big bucks we become a deciding vote, board member, or we should. How else to to make the statement that things need to run differently?

Bankruptcy, Chapter 11, is the cancelling of the old stock and reorganizing, with a call for a new stock issue. I don't think that would have brought enough to keep them afloat in this investing climate.

One thing is certain, no one knows for sure, including Morris and all the wits making their commentary on the radio and television almost non-stop. If they really know so much, I would think they would actually have found their way into positions of actual responsibility by now, instead of safe side line commentary for pay, where their constant carping only serves to make an already frightened populace even more frightened. To some degree, and I certainly don't know how much, large or little, these people have done some degree of disservice to our national situation.

Just my opinion;;; jim43

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I was surprised the Astro was being discontinued. I asked the general manager of the dealer why they were going to stop making such a money maker for GM. He replied that GM could no longer meet emission requirements. </div></div>

This is why I never ask dealers anything.

Tier II emissions standards did effect light trucks, but not until 2007. The Astro was discontinued in 2005. Also if they were making so much money on it, how hard would it have been to engineer for it the solutions that the rest of the product line needed anyway. (<span style="font-style: italic">If the S10-based Astro passed it's emissions standards, a Colorado-based Astro would've doe the same.</span>)

The Astro was dumped because it was a 21 year old design and there wasn't enough of a market to justify a redesign. The Checker Marathon also lasted 21 years (1961-1982). Did anybody think <span style="text-decoration: underline">it</span> was still a viable product?

[Dave_B]

Here is a sad story that might have something to do with the condition of GM today.

In 1984 I bought a brand new pontiac sunbird. I ordered the car just the way I wanted it. I babied that thing, changed the oil and filter every 3k etc etc. Even though I had to remove the front tire and half the air dam to get the filter off. The problem with the car was the temp switch that turned on the radiator fan was crap and needed to be replaced once a year. It got so I didn't have drain down the coolant to change it. Just release the pressure and slam the new one in. Then one time it over heated real bad because that same switch crapped out yet again, this time it warped the head. I lived with the resulting oil leak in the driveway for a while. Then the headliner started to delaminate and everytime I got in the car the headliner was sitting on head. (Kind of funny to think about it now) That was the last straw.

I sold that damn thing and it wasn't 5 years old, less than 100k on the clock. I was very disappointed. I paid my hard earned cash for that car and this is what I got? The headliner on my head? This is not how you build repeat cusomers. I'll buy a Ford, a Chrysler or various imports but not GM. Burn me once.....etc.

Dave

[Big Beat]

The "headliner on head" was a notorious GM issue at the time. I had that problem with a '82 Olds Delta. Which by the way was the absolute worst car I ever owned. I didn't buy it brand new, but it was a fairly late model car at the time. It had problems I've never had to deal with before or since, like power windows shorting out in a thunderstorm, trunk springs failing so that the lid hit me on the head, the horn beeping on every bump, a dashboard that peeled and cracked if you even looked at it, and the driveshaft falling off at 60 mph, the last straw that led to me junking it. All of this in addition to having the transmission replaced twice. It was the last "current" GM car I ever bought (my '58 Chevy and other subsequent vintage hobby cars nonwithstanding).

[Guest Dean_H.]

I think this story on Detroit's worst cars was written by some nut who hates American automobiles. GMs problem is not it's cars, but the government and union. Hopefully, they quit wasting tax dollars on bailouts, before they bankrupt the country.

My wife and I bought a 1985 Corvette in '89. It was one of the best cars we ever owned. When we sold it a few years ago, it had 270,000 miles. No major work had been done to the drive train. The only problems it had was leaky valve covers and the digital dash went haywire, which we fixed and replaced. It was very reliable. My worst car was a 1982 VW rabbit diesel. I bought this car for commuting to work and save on fuel costs. It constantly blew head gaskets, I changed the engine three times. It had the sagging headliner problem and the cracked dash. CV joints went out, the fuel injector pump bit the dust. The Vette accumulated many miles while I repaired that piece of junk.

[Guest 55olds98holiday]

The "headliner on the head" has been a problem for me also. My 99 F-150 4wd has been a great vehicle, a real workhorse. But the Ford and G.M. headliner's suck. Mine started drooping last year. The sunvisor's and dome light are holding it up. Had the same problem with a Mustang years ago. My 55 Old's 98 still has the original headliner,made to last.

[Guest Skyking]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Big Beat</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I had that problem with a '82 Olds Delta. Which by the way was the absolute worst car I ever owned.

</div></div>

In 1987 I bought a '83 Delta 88 that was one of the best most reliable cars I ever owned. It had 63,000 miles on it when I bought it and I drove that car to 140,000 miles and only changed a water pump. So I guess no matter who you talk to everyone has their own stories on domestic and imports. I still prefer Chrysler vehicles over GM.

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I think this story on Detroit's worst cars was written by some nut who hates American automobiles. GMs problem is not it's cars, but the government and union. </div></div>

Out of 10 cars in the article, there is exactly <span style="font-weight: bold">ONE</span> that has it's quality of manufacture even mentioned. If you read the article carefully you'll see that each model was selected to illustrate one product shortcoming of the Big 3. The Ford Pinto took the quality bullet for this write up.

The "government and union" crutch isn't mentioned at all, simply because neither one exists as a problem. There was <span style="text-decoration: underline">NEVER</span> been a time that "foreign" cars were sold here under different rules or requirements than American cars, and in fact our laws have kept many of the very best cars out of the U.S. My TR6 would be 25 mph faster (top speed) if it were a European market car. Even the best Japanese models (i.e. the Nissan Skyline) have been kept out by them. If lousy 90,000 cars/year Subaru could compete successfully under these circumstance, anybody can.

The union issue is even less meaningful. As for the non-union plants most "foreign" manufacturers have on our soil, those people working there are Americans who made a choice based on the salary and benefits they were offered by those manufacturers. Those manufacturers ponied up the dough to keep their workers happy voluntarily. The Big 3 unions here had to extract what they got through force, but we like to forget that now that "the unions" are the bad guys to a lot of our political heros now. And if you think that having union people build your car makes it cost a lot more than a non-union plant, read this. Blaming the union guys is the <span style="text-decoration: underline">weakest</span> argument of all, by far.

People who "hate American cars" don't waste their breath on them, let alone offer highly constructive criticsm like this article. There are a thousand "My Grand Am was a P.O.S." articles, and a thousand more "Honda Drivers are Idiots" articles.

This one had real thought behind it. I wish that could be appreciated.

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I still prefer Chrysler vehicles over GM.

</div></div>

My son's '93 Dynasty has a headliner that's badly drooping, and will likely completely fall this year. But after 16 years who's complaining?

[John348]

Well, I can't see how the Chevy Cavalier made the list. I have a 90 wagon with 160K no problems and 20+ to the gallon. A little tight on a long trip, but I can park it anywhere. It is the second one I had an they really are great little cars. I even ponder keeping this one around for awhile.

PS the headliner sags, but then again so do I

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well, I can't see how the Chevy Cavalier made the list. </div></div>

They made it (with one semi-major rebody) for <span style="text-decoration: underline">22 years</span>, and in 5 barely discernable versions.

Again, the parallels with British Leyland are dumbfoundly striking.

(Also, as far as quality goes, the single worst car I ever knew was an Oldsmobile Firenza (one version of the Cavalier GM sold) a friend owned. But that's another story.)

[poci1957]

I do not know this Rick Newman, but looks like once again we have one man's (slanted) opinion being put forth as some kind of expert. To wit, take a look at his comments about the Taurus and Explorer. I am sure lots of Ford employees and dealers would not agree these vehicles "Sank Detroit" as they were tremendously successful for years.

He IS correct that the Taurus "...became a dowdy, rental-lot staple" but dowdy does not mean bad or low quality. I agree that the car was allowed to slide into dowdyness, but you will see in the 2010 model that the Taurus is coming back in a big way.

His comments on the Explorer display his real ignorance, as he quotes the author of a book on Toyota that Explorer "helped create an addiction that lasted 15 years". Gee, what stupid management to create a vehicle that sold millions of profitable units for 15 years. If anyone wants to bash Ford for making SUVs they can look at a full line catalog from their beloved Toyota and find more SUV models than ANYBODY and vehicles that often did not represent good value (or rollover safety, 4Runner) to most people. But isn't it interesting that no one mentioned that?

Everyone's comments on the minivans hit home too, I spent lots of time around Astro and they were indeed a niche vehicle compared to a front drive minivan. But they were very good at their niches! And as our writer bashes Astros maybe he can tell us how the Toyota Previa was such a success as a minivan? The brilliant Toyota did not have a popular minivan in America until 1998. Where do these "experts" come from?

PS to Dave@Moon, I drove a new 1991 AWD Astro on a trip and agree with your comments. I thought I would have to press the gas pedal to coast downhill! But I can tell you few were sold, most people bought the 2wd.

[Big Beat]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In 1987 I bought a '83 Delta 88 that was one of the best most reliable cars I ever owned. </div></div>

I believe you. I was always partial to that generation's RWD Deltas, LeSabres and Impalas, and I know that they were SUPPOSED TO be very reliable. I knew other owners who loved theirs, my neighbor owned a great '77 LeSabre that actually influenced my choice at the time to look for those cars and eventually get that Olds. It was such a disappointment that my car was such a lemon, I wanted to like it, but it turned me off Oldsmobiles forever. BTW, I replaced it with a Chrysler

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">His comments on the Explorer display his real ignorance, as he quotes the author of a book on Toyota that Explorer "helped create an addiction that lasted 15 years". Gee, what stupid management to create a vehicle that sold millions of profitable units for 15 years. If anyone wants to bash Ford for making SUVs they can look at a full line catalog from their beloved Toyota and find more SUV models than ANYBODY and vehicles that often did not represent good value (or rollover safety, 4Runner) to most people. But isn't it interesting that no one mentioned that? </div></div>

The "addiction" wasn't to a number models but to a precentage of sales. SUVs in general went from 4% of the U.S. market in 1980 to 44% 20 years later, with over 3,000,000 sold in 2000. Although the Explorer was used in the article only as representative of this dependence, Ford <span style="font-style: italic">was</span> one of the most if not <span style="font-style: italic">the</span> most SUV-dependent manufacturer.

The extremely high profit margins on SUVs vs. other vehicle types resulted in the Big 3 catering to that market to the exclusion of all others. That's why cars like the Cavalier and Taurus were allowed to fester and whither, becomming Checker-like in their development cycles, while new/improved/badge-engineered SUV models bloomed like dandelions. For crying out loud, the Ford brand currently only sells <span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold">4</span></span> car models (Focus, Fusion, Mustang, Taurus), only two of which have a second body style. And <span style="font-style: italic">they're</span> the successful American car company right now?

It could easily be said that the neglect of new car models created low demand for the dated/neglected cars that were still produced. Lower sales (relative to the big/shiny/NEW! SUVs) resulted in more neglect, and even lower demand, etc. etc. etc.

Also why is any of this related to Toyota, specifically or at all?

[Dandy Dave]

I looked at an Explorer that sat along the road side for sale about a week ago. It had 220,000 thousand miles on it and still ran and drove. I think it had a transmission leak judging by the oil can and funnel that was in the rear compartment. My rusty old explorer has 154,000 on it, and it still runs and drives fine. Dandy Dave!

[Steve Braverman]

It's amazing how people can read an article, and yet not really read it.

[TG57Roadmaster]

Interesting article, with <span style="font-style: italic">US News & World Report's</span> typical "what's wrong with America" slant;

I didn't read any constructive criticism anywhere, just a rant from another nattering nabob of Naderism.

Followed up by bilious nonsense from Dick Morris, an irrelevant turncoat twit who's been pi$$ed off at the planet since the Clintons threw him out on his ear for his drug-fueled hooker "scandal."

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> There was NEVER been a time that "foreign" cars were sold here under different rules or requirements than American cars, and in fact our laws have kept many of the very best cars out of the U.S. </div></div>

Excuse me? When foreign cars like the Datsun B-210 were swarming our shores, American companies' cars weren't sold in Japan because of laws over there prohibiting imports.

We were told their "roads were too small" for Big American Cars.

Funny then, when you consider that Japan's largest 1975 cars, Nissan President and Toyota Century, were dimensionally larger in <span style="font-style: italic">every way</span> than Dart, Granada, Hornet, Maverick, Monza, and Nova, and all their corporate siblings. While this doesn't exactly address the quote, it is still evidence of a notorious double-standard to which we collectively turned a blind eye. <span style="font-style: italic">Tariffs,</span> anyone?

Living in the South, I also find it odd that the most vociferous of loud-mouthed Detroit-bashers are southern politicians whose states have showered foreign companies with hundreds of millions of dollars in tax incentives to build factories in the Sun Belt. The "climate" here is very pro-corporate and anti-union, and they're happy to report to their constituents the thousands of, "bringing-home-the-bacon," average-paying jobs created on their watch.

Small consolation for the tens (or hundreds) of thousands of bread-winners whose jobs were lost when the textile and furniture industries fled to even-sunnier shores. "Here's a crumb, and if you hurt your back bending over to pick it up, don't expect us to pay for your doctor visit."

Finally, for a bunch of car guys (and gals, too), what's with the headliner carping? You wouldn't hesitate to fix one in your old car, so why not in a new(er) one? Your local upholstery jobber will be happy to sell you replacement material, and if you don't want to pay him to do the job, do it yourself. A little 3M spray glue and a few hours later, and no more droop.

As a nation built on climbing, socially, financially and politically, let's consider the mess we're in as a new bottom. We <span style="font-style: italic">will</span> get out of this, hopefully sooner than later, and, while there's plenty of blame to go around, it will take a massive, introspective re-evaluation to get us back on track.

The way I read the history, we're ready and up for the challenge.

Meanwhile, leave the manure-spreading to the "experts." They know <span style="font-style: italic">everything!</span>

And, have a nice day,

TG

(NOTE; No experts were harmed, maimed or killed in this post, nor do I purport (Heaven Forbid)

to be an expert; merely a practitioner of <span style="font-style: italic">hope</span>, rather than <span style="font-style: italic">nope</span>.

[R W Burgess]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...nattering nabob of Naderism....

...irrelevant turncoat twit... </div></div>

Wow! Tom? Did you get some bad KoolAid in Charlotte?

I pulled out my trusty old "Big Words for Southern Rednecks" and couldn't even find those words listed!

Gotta get me a new one at the local flea market!

Wayne

[TG57Roadmaster]

Wayne,

I got some bad likker at the banquet...still reeling!

Dang that bartender,

TG

(BTW, I thought Pinto-bashing went out with mirrored disco balls and platform shoes...)

Disco Pinto blog.

Disco Pinto video.

[Guest Skyking]

The article calls the Chrysler Sebring a blanmobile. Funny, this was in todays paper. Obvious, the writer doesn't agree with most. I always prefered Chrysler cars because they seem to give far more for the money.

The problem today is most people don't check out what the compitition offers. They do what most everybody else does.

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Excuse me? When foreign cars like the Datsun B-210 were swarming our shores, American companies' cars weren't sold in Japan because of laws <span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="color: #CC0000">over there</span></span> prohibiting imports.

</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There was NEVER been a time that "foreign" cars were sold <span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="color: #CC0000">here</span></span> under different rules or requirements than American cars, and in fact <span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="color: #CC0000">our laws</span></span> have kept many of the very best cars out of the U.S. </div></div>

We were talking about why Americans weren't buying American cars in 2009, not who couldn't buy them overseas 35 years ago, weren't we?

[TG57Roadmaster]

C'mon Dave,

Be fair and read the next paragraph...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...While this doesn't exactly address the quote, it is still evidence of a notorious double-standard to which we collectively turned a blind eye. <span style="font-style: italic">Tariffs,</span> anyone? </div></div>

I read all of yours.

TG

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TG57Roadmaster</div><div class="ubbcode-body">C'mon Dave,

Be fair and read the next paragraph...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...While this doesn't exactly address the quote, it is still evidence of a notorious double-standard to which we collectively turned a blind eye. <span style="font-style: italic">Tariffs,</span> anyone? </div></div>

I read all of yours.

TG

</div></div>

I was adding this when you were making this post:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> We were talking about why Americans weren't buying American cars in 2009, not who couldn't buy them overseas 35 years ago, weren't we? </div></div>

I think that's fair.

[Steve Moskowitz]

Here is another thought provoking article by a Pulitzer prize winner:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/192458

A couple of observations folks. Sweeping generalizations are just that and might be unfair. For every car that my Oldsmobile customers had large problems with (in the 80's it was way too many) there were far more that were satisfied. I sold thousands so I witnessed it over almost 30 years. I also had very happy Honda customers and some that would never buy one again. I also had employees that could stand up to any questions asked of them and others that could not. There are many dealers who ran quality stores and who genuinely cared about their customers.

I also was responsible for analyzing warranty data in the early 70's for Olds and remember the quality issues vividly. Olds led GM with the lowest costs in the the company in engine repair expense (I had engines, transmissions and fuel systems to report on).

Everyone has their opinions on the state GM finds itself in today. I have long been a huge critic of their marketing, their leadership (especially Ron Zarella), their health care costs, etc. but I still think they could have overcome a lot of these issues if it were not for the credit collapse. I am mortified by the greed and irresponsibility of banks and other lending institutions. Sadly, I went along with some of this in my last years as a dealer with secondary financing of used cars. We were all on a merry go round that just never stopped.

The article above is about Saturn. I had several trips to Spring Hill and met executives and labor leaders who had a profound impact on me. The car never excited me but the people did. It is too bad that dream turned into a nightmare.

There are a lot of factors that the public will never know about GM and a lot of things GM never figured out about the public! The whole situation is sad. I have little confidence in our governments ability to help as neither party has shown any ability to be prudent and run anything without wasting the taxpayers money. Interesting in a recent meeting that several of the governments ad visors thought GM owned ALL the stores in this country! Great way to start off...

[poci1957]

VERY interesting article there about Saturn. I liked the analogy that the other car divisions treated Saturn like the teacher's pet they wanted to beat up when the teacher wasn't looking.

Your final note about the government people is certainly scary. It reminded me of a pundit that huffed that Ford should raise money by selling Mercury. THERE is an expert in the field!

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The article above is about Saturn. I had several trips to Spring Hill and met executives and labor leaders who had a profound impact on me. The car never excited me but the people did. It is too bad that dream turned into a nightmare. </div></div>

I moved to Ohio in '97 Saturn SL2. If you measure cars by how much they are like mausoleums (Buick good, Crosley bad), the first Saturn was a complete failure. If you measure them by how much they are like Hondas (inexpensive, practical, long-lived, and reliable in the extreme), the first Saturn was a huge success. I can live with a whole lot of loud and coarse when it means going years and 70,000+ miles without so much as turning a screw on the car.

The Saturn was not the bank vault of cars, but the bits and pieces that mattered were over-engineered in the same sense that Honda components are. My experience with an SL2 was typical, and the S-Series Saturn was the first "American" car to match the "imports" in all measures of dependability on both J.D Powers and <span style="font-style: italic">Consumer Reports</span>, and it did so consistently for a decade. No other "American" car can claim that, even to this day.

I loved that car. If it were a wagon I'd still be driving it.

========================

One very interesting thing about the car, the original battery said "Delco" on it. That was the closest <span style="text-decoration: underline">anywhere on the car</span> it came to admitting it was a GM product. The plugs were AC's, but you had to pull the wires to know that. Nowhere else on the car, <span style="text-decoration: underline">or</span> in the manual, <span style="text-decoration: underline">or</span> on the data plate, did it say GM, General Motors, Packard, Moraine, Delco, AC, Fisher, or any other GM name. Even the original plug wires had no brand name on them, something I've never seen on <span style="text-decoration: underline">any</span> car built in the last 50 years.

What should that tell us about how GM's upper management, who had to have known and approved of this, thought of the rest of their car line during that period? It sounds like more than a marketing concept to me.

[Guest Hinckley]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: First Born</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Hinckley, you sure can whet a mans appetite! Care to share those root causes? </div></div>

Are you sure you want to uncork this bottle? I have been storing up some of this for a very long time. As this is a brief summary rather than a book I will be as succient as possible. Still, as this an important topic that is close to my heart I hope you will bear with me as it will have to be written in two parts.

Okay, between 1885 and 1910 the framework for the American automobile industry was established. Two primary schools of thought began to dominate the industry during this period.

One, was being formulated by Henry Ford. In essence his concept was to build a simple to operate, easy to repair, durable, adaptable, no frills automobile that could be sold for a reasonable price.

To accomplish this Henry Ford broke the stranglehold of the Selden patent which hamstrung automotive development. Next he streamlined production methods and took steps to control costs by micro managing every aspect of the manufacturing process through acquisition of sources for raw materials.

Last, but not least, he revolutionized the relationship between labor and owner. From a long term perspective these three contributions overshadow the impact of the Model T.

The second dominate line of thought was being solidified through the endeavors of Benjamin Briscoe and William Durant. In essence their vision for the industry was a large conglomerate that controlled all aspects of production and manufactured a vehicle for every need as well as budget.

To accomplish this goal overtures were made to Ransom Olds and Henry Ford to unite with Benjamin Briscoe and Jonathan Maxwell (Maxwell-Briscoe) and William Durant (Buick) under one banner. This idea was still born but Durant transformed the concept into GM, Briscoe into United States Motor Company.

Henry Ford's myopia worked well until about 1919. The endeavors of Durant and Briscoe were to serve as a conerstone for an American auto industry that would dominate the world for more than a half century.

The remainder of the foundation was laid through the rock solid leadership of men like Charles Nash and Walter Chysler. It should be noted that both men were instrumental in keeping GM from going the way of USA Motor Company.

Here is the first example of what is wrong with the American auto industry today - a lack of leadership. We need the strength of character exemplified by Charles Nash and the unwavering focus of Walter Chrysler.

The second restructuring and rescue of GM during the early 1920s also has leassons for the current crisis. It was during this period we have the first mass automobile recall - the air cooled Chevrolet.

It was also during this period that we see the rise of the financing system that allowed the average consumer to over extend themselves and buy a vehicle for status rather than need. This was to have far reaching ramifications as evidenced by the current situation with the industry.

The next pivotal steps on the road to the collapse of the American auto industry is found during the remainder of the prewar period and the immediate post war years. We have the rise of the labor movement that would eventually create an unrealistic and unsustainable sense of entitlement among workers.

This was fostered by a management increasingly untethered from a sense of moral responsibility. Many early leaders in the automobile industry equated profitable business with ensuring the worker was educated, cared for, and a part of decsions made.

An extreme example of this is found in the formative years of Nash and the business philosophy of Charles Nash. During the first years of Nash as a company Charles Nash was often seen in the factory helping to install machinery and on the line.

Ransom Olds established schools. Studebaker had a first rate father/son apprenticeship program. All of this ensured a strong brand loyalty among employees that was real, not one mandated through peer or union pressure. I may be wrong but to the best of my knowledge the closest the industry has come to this in recent years was with Saturn.

Okay, I have been a bit long winded and for that I apologize. I also must apologize for making this a two part tirade. Here are a couple more thoughts to ponder before I sign off.

Through the lend lease program Studebaker transformed the Russian lexicon. In many parts of the British empire Packard provided fierce competition for Rolls Royce. Engineers as well as dies and machinery from American Bantam were foundational underpinnings for Datsun.

At this juncture it should be noted I have nothing against foreign manufacturers. However, as a matter of principle and preference I have never owned anythig other than vehicles built by American manufactures.

I would also like to add that in my opinion quality control has always been an on going problem with automobile manufacturers be they American or Japanese. Toyota and Honda may build good, dependable vehicles but I do not believe they are any more reliable than my 1988 Ford s/w, our 1973 Olds 88, or tehmost recent addition to our stable - a 1998 Jeep Cherokee.

[MarkV]

Funny article, we owned 5 Astro Vans Between 1989-2007:

1987 Astro

1994 Astro

1997 Astro

2000 Astro

2003 Astro

And they all ran great and we got rid of them at 100,000 and they still gave the other new owners longtime good service aftr we had them. You know people think that you can just let new cars go, rather than care for them, I think that is the biggest problem. I change all my oil in all my cars right at 3000, no questions asked! And I check all my fluids all the time, but, people dont do that these days...

[MarkV]

Buick= great during the 80's with the 3800 (1986 and up)

[Steve Moskowitz]

Here is another long but even more interesting read from back in the day. Pretty fascinating...

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/BA_gm_memo.pdf

[West Peterson]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dave@Moon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

The Saturn was not the bank vault of cars, but the bits and pieces that mattered were over-engineered in the same sense that Honda components are. My experience with an SL2 was typical, and the S-Series Saturn was the first "American" car to match the "imports" in all measures of dependability on both J.D Powers and <span style="font-style: italic">Consumer Reports</span>, and it did so consistently for a decade. No other "American" car can claim that, even to this day.</div></div>

Dave

I concur. I laugh out loud today whenever I read of these new econo cars, and how 35mpg is supposed to be some sort of revelation. I don't know about your SL2, but my 1996 SL1 gets 41mpg on the road (well... it would if I ever get around to replacing its oxygen sensor). The car is now pushing 300,000 miles – same engine, same clutch, etc. It's not the most comfortable car to drive on trips more than 50 miles, but at this point, I've challenged myself to drive this car until it dies just to see how many miles it will go... or until the a/c quits (which it never has, and has never needed recharging).