Re: General Motors Zombie Watch 19: You Get What You Don’t Pay For

#11

On Oct 27, 3:41*pm, "hls" <h... (AT) nospam (DOT) nix> wrote:

Quote:

"raamman" <raam... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote

I understand what you are saying, but I find it hard to believe that a
design deficiency can be "programed" to fail after a specific period
of time; normal wear and tear is not a design defiecency, it is a
natural process. further, specific cars and manufacturers become
legendary owing to an outstanding reliability; whereas lemons become a
bane that hangs like a necklace for years after the initial debacle.
No manager, ceo, cfo would tell his crew to make a lemon. this does
not say cost-cutting measures won't exist- there always is a balancing
act- but always at the end is the goal of a good product.

****************
Of course you can build a life expectancy into a part or into a vehicle.
Remember the old Sears Roebuck "Good", "Better", and "Best"?

If a company should decide to do this in a more pernicious manner,
they would run the risk that, as you say, the "lemons" would cause them
to lose sales. *At the end, some people's goal is a "good enough"
product, not necessarily a "good" product.

no knowledge of any sears roebuck catalog; it's irrelevant anyways- a
car is much different than a catalog.

#12

"raamman" <raamman (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote

On Oct 27, 3:41 pm, "hls" <h... (AT) nospam (DOT) nix> wrote:

Quote:

"raamman" <raam... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote

I understand what you are saying, but I find it hard to believe that a
design deficiency can be "programed" to fail after a specific period
of time; normal wear and tear is not a design defiecency, it is a
natural process. further, specific cars and manufacturers become
legendary owing to an outstanding reliability; whereas lemons become a
bane that hangs like a necklace for years after the initial debacle.
No manager, ceo, cfo would tell his crew to make a lemon. this does
not say cost-cutting measures won't exist- there always is a balancing
act- but always at the end is the goal of a good product.

****************
Of course you can build a life expectancy into a part or into a vehicle.
Remember the old Sears Roebuck "Good", "Better", and "Best"?

If a company should decide to do this in a more pernicious manner,
they would run the risk that, as you say, the "lemons" would cause them
to lose sales. At the end, some people's goal is a "good enough"
product, not necessarily a "good" product.

no knowledge of any sears roebuck catalog; it's irrelevant anyways- a
car is much different than a catalog.
********
I am surprised that you dont understand the reference.. Almost ALL
companies have several levels of quality in their products. Sears was
only a reference.

A car is not different. Rolls Royce and Yugo both have four wheels.

You can make high quality, medium quality and low quality. Prices normally
follow suite. Quality levels are engineered into the product. There is NO
directive that industry will make the best quality product that they can
make.

They make what they hope is acceptable, for the target market.

On the manufacturing level, "best" and "good" may not be so far apart,
pricewise

A POS part is not so much cheaper to make than a high quality part, in many
cases.

I really think you have missed the point here

#13

On Oct 27, 8:50*pm, "hls" <h... (AT) nospam (DOT) nix> wrote:

Quote:

"raamman" <raam... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in message

news:e11c0db9-c1fe-4b28-a464-5e21162e0593 (AT) g27g2000yqn (DOT) googlegroups.com...
On Oct 27, 3:41 pm, "hls" <h... (AT) nospam (DOT) nix> wrote:

"raamman" <raam... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote

I understand what you are saying, but I find it hard to believe that a
design deficiency can be "programed" to fail after a specific period
of time; normal wear and tear is not a design defiecency, it is a
natural process. further, specific cars and manufacturers become
legendary owing to an outstanding reliability; whereas lemons become a
bane that hangs like a necklace for years after the initial debacle.
No manager, ceo, cfo would tell his crew to make a lemon. this does
not say cost-cutting measures won't exist- there always is a balancing
act- but always at the end is the goal of a good product.

****************
Of course you can build a life expectancy into a part or into a vehicle..
Remember the old Sears Roebuck "Good", "Better", and "Best"?

If a company should decide to do this in a more pernicious manner,
they would run the risk that, as you say, the "lemons" would cause them
to lose sales. At the end, some people's goal is a "good enough"
product, not necessarily a "good" product.

no knowledge of any sears roebuck catalog; it's irrelevant anyways- a
car is much different than a catalog.
********
I am surprised that you dont understand the reference.. Almost ALL
companies have several levels of quality in their products. Sears was
only a reference.

A car is not different. *Rolls Royce and Yugo both have four wheels.

You can make high quality, medium quality and low quality. *Prices normally
follow suite. * Quality levels are engineered into the product. *There is NO
directive that industry will make the best quality product that they can
make.

They make what they hope is acceptable, for the target market.

On the manufacturing level, "best" and "good" may not be so far apart,
pricewise

A POS part is not so much cheaper to make than a high quality part, in many
cases.

I really think you have missed the point here- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I appreciate your elaboration; I am somewhat preoccupied. You are
mostly correct it will appear in describing levels of manufacturing
quality. There is a tolerance specification to a part- and that can be
tightened or loosened. I have worked in parts manufacturing sector so
I do know first hand some of the problems that can be encountered.
Even very simple basic parts have to meet exacting standards in terms
of their shape, and that has to be regularily checked on large
samples- you might be surprised at how often parts are rejected due to
a deviation or mark; but what is perhaps more disconcerting is how
many parts slip through checking and on into the production line. But
then this is where it starts to get expensive- because somewhere down
the line someone will realize bad parts have gotten through and then
it becomes a question of what to do about it. Part of that has do do
with the basic design. Some parts are very difficult to manufacture to
tolerance just on the geometry alone. Change the geometry then ? no
way. So the parts continue to roll off the press often flawed, pasrt
inspection and on into an assembly. Then, perhaps years down the line
a recall order has to be issued. Multiply that by numerous car designs
and yearly design evolvement.That is not very efficient way to run a
business. If the design was allowed to be modified to accomidate a
shapes natural tendancy all that could be avoided.But because of a
simpler design, a cheaper car will bear an out of tolerance part
better than the more expensive one. thats when you get a car that just
goes and goes, whereas the more expensive one will spend more time in
the garage, fixing.

#14

On Oct 27, 2:20*pm, Jim_Higgins <gordian... (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

Mike Hunter wrote:
You said "most people aka the masses fail to think clearly for themselves,"
does that explain why the Camry is the number one selling car in the US?
LOL

"raamman" <raam... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:866146c0-6810-45f4-b6fa-02fff33c89dc (AT) r5g2000yqb (DOT) googlegroups.com...
On Oct 26, 5:54 pm, "Mike Hunter" <Mikehunt2@lycos,com> wrote:
But, but, but how do you explain why GM has out sold every other
manufacture
for at least fifty years, including even today? They must be building what
the US customer wants, or they would not still be number one in the US..

"hls" <h... (AT) nospam (DOT) nix> wrote in message

news:y8qdnakE1IOEi3vXnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d (AT) giganews (DOT) com...

"raamman" <raam... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote

gm or anyone else for that matter, does not need to pay top dollar to
attract talent- they paid top dollar and got talent that designed
crap; and they paid top dollar and got management that was even worse..
when you pay top dollar, you get only the one who is interested in the
dollar; but when you pay a fair wage/ salary you will get the guy who
is in it for the love. besides, there are far too many management
types slowing down the creativity and there are far too few
engineering jobs that there will be vacanncies not filled by good
people.
*********
Respectfully, a lot of top management is lousy. I dont believe that
GM's engineers designed crap because they were crappy engineers.
I would guess the crap resulted from constraints crappy managment
put on the engineers, and on "so-so" parts that were used to build the
vehicles...The "so-so" parts were also probably part of the managerial
master plan.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

most people aka the masses fail to think clearly for themselves, just
look at the numbers of people who got suckered into trying cigarettes
(for absolutely no good reason, pursuaded by advertising) and got
addicted, subsequently losing money and health as a result. Just
because 30 helens agree does not mean they are right.

The folks buying the Camry like the quality and value. Toyota never had
a PowerGlide" that I know of.- Hide quoted text -

"Quality and value"?????

Compared to what?

Even CM (I Bet they hate admitting this) is stating concerns over the
lack of quality on Toyotas these days.

A Chevy Malibu is a much better choice these days.

Looks better.

Better gas milage.

More reliable.

Really not surprising to those who do their homework.

Even the (discontined) Grand Prix is a better car as far as gas
milage, interior room, or factory recalls are concerned.

> - Show quoted text -

#15

"jr92" <coachrose13 (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:

On Oct 27, 2:20 pm, Jim_Higgins <gordian... (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote:
Mike Hunter wrote:
You said "most people aka the masses fail to think clearly for
themselves,"
does that explain why the Camry is the number one selling car in the
US?
LOL

"raamman" <raam... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:866146c0-6810-45f4-b6fa-02fff33c89dc (AT) r5g2000yqb (DOT) googlegroups.com...
On Oct 26, 5:54 pm, "Mike Hunter" <Mikehunt2@lycos,com> wrote:
But, but, but how do you explain why GM has out sold every other
manufacture
for at least fifty years, including even today? They must be building
what
the US customer wants, or they would not still be number one in the
US.

"hls" <h... (AT) nospam (DOT) nix> wrote in message

news:y8qdnakE1IOEi3vXnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d (AT) giganews (DOT) com...

"raamman" <raam... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote

gm or anyone else for that matter, does not need to pay top dollar to
attract talent- they paid top dollar and got talent that designed
crap; and they paid top dollar and got management that was even
worse.
when you pay top dollar, you get only the one who is interested in
the
dollar; but when you pay a fair wage/ salary you will get the guy who
is in it for the love. besides, there are far too many management
types slowing down the creativity and there are far too few
engineering jobs that there will be vacanncies not filled by good
people.
*********
Respectfully, a lot of top management is lousy. I dont believe that
GM's engineers designed crap because they were crappy engineers.
I would guess the crap resulted from constraints crappy managment
put on the engineers, and on "so-so" parts that were used to build
the
vehicles...The "so-so" parts were also probably part of the
managerial
master plan.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

most people aka the masses fail to think clearly for themselves, just
look at the numbers of people who got suckered into trying cigarettes
(for absolutely no good reason, pursuaded by advertising) and got
addicted, subsequently losing money and health as a result. Just
because 30 helens agree does not mean they are right.

The folks buying the Camry like the quality and value. Toyota never had
a PowerGlide" that I know of.- Hide quoted text -

"Quality and value"?????

Compared to what?

Even CM (I Bet they hate admitting this) is stating concerns over the
lack of quality on Toyotas these days.

A Chevy Malibu is a much better choice these days.

Looks better.

Better gas milage.

More reliable.

Really not surprising to those who do their homework.

Even the (discontined) Grand Prix is a better car as far as gas
milage, interior room, or factory recalls are concerned.

- Show quoted text -

try this article
http://www.freep.com/article/20091027/BUSINESS01/91027056/1002/NEWS01/Chevrolet-prices-showing-new-signs-of-strength-for-American-brand

#16

But what he said, in reply to my reminding him that GM is still number one
in sales, was "most people aka the masses fail to think clearly for
themselves," that would include Camry buyers since it is the number one
selling car, dummy.

"jr92" <coachrose13 (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote

On Oct 27, 2:20 pm, Jim_Higgins <gordian... (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

Mike Hunter wrote:
You said "most people aka the masses fail to think clearly for
themselves,"
does that explain why the Camry is the number one selling car in the US?
LOL

"raamman" <raam... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:866146c0-6810-45f4-b6fa-02fff33c89dc (AT) r5g2000yqb (DOT) googlegroups.com...
On Oct 26, 5:54 pm, "Mike Hunter" <Mikehunt2@lycos,com> wrote:
But, but, but how do you explain why GM has out sold every other
manufacture
for at least fifty years, including even today? They must be building
what
the US customer wants, or they would not still be number one in the US.

"hls" <h... (AT) nospam (DOT) nix> wrote in message

news:y8qdnakE1IOEi3vXnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d (AT) giganews (DOT) com...

"raamman" <raam... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote

gm or anyone else for that matter, does not need to pay top dollar to
attract talent- they paid top dollar and got talent that designed
crap; and they paid top dollar and got management that was even worse.
when you pay top dollar, you get only the one who is interested in the
dollar; but when you pay a fair wage/ salary you will get the guy who
is in it for the love. besides, there are far too many management
types slowing down the creativity and there are far too few
engineering jobs that there will be vacanncies not filled by good
people.
*********
Respectfully, a lot of top management is lousy. I dont believe that
GM's engineers designed crap because they were crappy engineers.
I would guess the crap resulted from constraints crappy managment
put on the engineers, and on "so-so" parts that were used to build the
vehicles...The "so-so" parts were also probably part of the managerial
master plan.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

most people aka the masses fail to think clearly for themselves, just
look at the numbers of people who got suckered into trying cigarettes
(for absolutely no good reason, pursuaded by advertising) and got
addicted, subsequently losing money and health as a result. Just
because 30 helens agree does not mean they are right.

The folks buying the Camry like the quality and value. Toyota never had
a PowerGlide" that I know of.- Hide quoted text -

#17

Does anyone remember "Planned Obselescance" ?
Championed by GM in the 50's and the 60's.

If you bought a new car ( warranty 3 months or 3000 miles )
You were looking at a trade before 35000 miles.

It was common that you'd need;
New brakes, new shocks, new muffler, new battery.
Without rustproofing, holes would start to appear
in doors, fenders, etc.....

I don't think it was a matter of poor components...
but rather a choice of poor components in the corporate plan.

#18

"<RJ>" <baranick (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in message

Quote:

I don't think it was a matter of poor components...
but rather a choice of poor components in the corporate plan.

Most cars of that time didnt last long. BUT that was not a
consequence of the times.. Technology existed to do better,
but they did what they thought was "good enough" for the
market. A fatal philosophy.

#19

That may be your opinion but can you tell us what color is the sky in your
world?

"<RJ>" <baranick (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:

Does anyone remember "Planned Obselescance" ?
Championed by GM in the 50's and the 60's.

If you bought a new car ( warranty 3 months or 3000 miles )
You were looking at a trade before 35000 miles.

It was common that you'd need;
New brakes, new shocks, new muffler, new battery.
Without rustproofing, holes would start to appear
in doors, fenders, etc.....

I don't think it was a matter of poor components...
but rather a choice of poor components in the corporate plan.

#20

Mike Hunter wrote:

Quote:

That may be your opinion but can you tell us what color is the sky in your
world?

"<RJ>" <baranick (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:m4bke59a0ina132v9j0isgif6g2ifno3hv (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...
Does anyone remember "Planned Obselescance" ?
Championed by GM in the 50's and the 60's.

If you bought a new car ( warranty 3 months or 3000 miles )
You were looking at a trade before 35000 miles.

It was common that you'd need;
New brakes, new shocks, new muffler, new battery.
Without rustproofing, holes would start to appear
in doors, fenders, etc.....

I don't think it was a matter of poor components...
but rather a choice of poor components in the corporate plan.

Ah, you're wishing for the good 'ole Powerglide days :-)