"raamman" <raamman (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.

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" <hls (AT) nospam (DOT) nix> wrote

On Oct 26, 5:54*pm, "Mike Hunter" <Mikehunt2@lycos,com> wrote:
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.

On Oct 26, 5:35*pm, "hls" <h... (AT) nospam (DOT) nix> wrote:
That might be something that might be better understood among
themselves...there are examples of both good and poor engineering in
the auto industry, from the specification to put two reactive metals
together in an assembly...management can tell the engineers to make
the wheels square, but it is still up to the engineer to know and tell
managment that square wheels won't work. Management cannot mandate the
laws of nature, so too, they should not mandate the science and law of
good design. And I think most everyone will agree that most cars are
over engineered over complicated- there is far too much work going
into creating an automobile to achieve a fairly simple purpose.Each
part requires manufacture, which means a design that is checked
contracted out for stamping dies or molds made ( which can take months
of labour ) brought into an assembly which is finally made into a car;
and that design will be modifed on a yearly basis or in answer to
other requirements or unforseen circumstances ( faulty parts poor fit
etc.). The whole thing is a very very wasteful process- and it is not
hard to see why with so much waste with so many makes and models it
became so hard for the automakers to turn a profit.Simpler designs are
mechanically far more effective and reliable; and businesswise that
too should translate into greater efficency.This top dollar stategy
clearly lost sight of that and demonstrates why the top dollar led to
such undesirable results. There is no reason why we cannot have better
cars for far less- it is the automakers who stand in the way.

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

On Oct 26, 5:35 pm, "hls" <h... (AT) nospam (DOT) nix> wrote:
That might be something that might be better understood among
themselves...there are examples of both good and poor engineering in
the auto industry, from the specification to put two reactive metals
together in an assembly...management can tell the engineers to make
the wheels square, but it is still up to the engineer to know and tell
managment that square wheels won't work.

*******
"Engineering" may not set these policies.


If management sets, for example, some selfserveing policies such as
(1) The cars should not come back in statistically large numbers during
the warranty period, but should begin to cause problems after 4-5
years...
(2) Cars should look shiny and nice, but should start to degrade rather
quickly after a few years use
(3) When a car needs a part, it should be something that is available
only at the dealership at proprietary prices,

then there is little engineering can do but comply.

"If", I said, mind you......

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

On Oct 26, 5:54 pm, "Mike Hunter" <Mikehunt2@lycos,com> wrote:
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.

Mike Hunter wrote:
a PowerGlide" that I know of.

On Oct 27, 1:44*pm, "Mike Hunter" <Mikehunt2@lycos,com> wrote:
no, it means that right and wrong are absolutes, not democratic
principals. Most of the folks living at jonestown thought they were
going to a better place, most of the kids in the heavens gate thought
much the same thing- we know better because they died and went into
the ground; so if most of the people believe x is a better car it does
not mean they are right.

On Oct 27, 8:59*am, "hls" <h... (AT) nospam (DOT) nix> 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.

"raamman" <raamman (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.