Chrysler already working behind the scenes to pull out of Canada: sour

[Jack Weber]

laybour standards already protect the worker, nothing needs to replace the union. It should become nothing more then a peice of history, that served man kind in its day.

Hogwash.You free marketeers will do anything to get rid of any check and balance that stops us from falling into the trap of a total free market.The labour movement IS one of those checks and balances.They set the wage,standard of living,workplace health and safety,and,benny plans that even non-union shops derive their wage and benny plans from.I assume you would prefer labour policy that Gery Nichols and the rest of the NCC free marketeering kooks want.It's also called Right To Work legislation.That name is nothing more than libertarian,free marketeering semantic spin.It should be called "Right To Work For Less!".Here's a little info on the wonderfulness of open shop policies.

http://aflcio.org/issues/legislativealert/stateissues/work/

If it does'nt work,just Google,"Right to work for less".

It is sourced through the US Dept. of Labour.And it's a little out of date!I wonder what those discrepencies are lkie now?

Edited March 19, 2009 by Jack Weber

[Alta4ever]

Hogwash.You free marketeers will do anything to get rid of any chack and balance that stops us from falling into the trap of a total free market.The labour movement IS one of those checks and balances.They set the wage,standard of living,workplace health abd safety,and,benny p-lans that even non-union shops derive their wage and benny plans from.I assume you would prefer labour ploicy that Geryy Nichols and the rest of theNCC free marketeering kooks want.It's also called Right To Work legislation.That name is nothing more than libertarian,free marketeering semantic spin.It should be called "Right To Work For Less!".Here's a little info on the wonderfulness of open shop policies.

http://www.aflcio.org/legislativealert/stateissues/work/

It is sourced through the US Dept. of Labour.And it's a little out of date!I wonder what those discrepencies are lkie now?

It is not a check or balance it causes the market to pay for wages and benefits above their market worth. NA auto products are over priced buckets.

ever wonder why the deprecaition is so high on north american auto products?

Edited March 19, 2009 by Alta4ever

[benny]

So when this is settle and the workers get nothing more then is offerred what will they be left with and what will they have to do to survive....they will have to find work.

What about welfare!?

[Alta4ever]

What about welfare!?

What about it.

[benny]

What about it.

So?

[Jack Weber]

It is not a check or balance it causes the market to pay for wages and benefits above their market worth. NA auto products are over priced buckets.

ever wonder why the deprecaition is so high on north american auto products?

Your larger,less nuanced,inference was the labour movement should disappear.

Do you support Open Shop policies,or not?

If yes,I refer you to the link I've provided proving it's not such a good idea...

[bush_cheney2004]

.....If yes,I refer you to the link I've provided proving it's not such a good idea...

You mean the AFL-CIO link? Not a very objective source.

The right to work (even for less) is better than no job at all.

[benny]

The right to work (even for less) is better than no job at all.

You have to get first a right not to work so that a right to work can make sense.

[Visionseeker]

GM outsells ford, the only reason ford claims to have #1 sales is that they base their numbers against GMC and Chev, not versus GM. They should be basing their number vs. GM as the only difference between a GMC and a chev is the grille.

Visit My Website

Toyota is one of the fastest growing automakers, and has passed GM as number 1, those are facts deal with it. Toyota didn't become number 1 by accident, they became number 1 because the big three produce overpriced crap.

We're talking about 2 different things. The F-150 is the biggest seller in it's class (i.e. trucks). That GM has been the biggest seller of all vehicle types combined doesn't diminish Ford's success with the F-150.

The minimal differences between the Chev and GMC doesn't change the fact that neither "brand" is more popular than the F-150.

But all of this merely takes us away from my point: in a declining market, automakers need to focus on what works and drop those lines that can't compete. For US automakers that bought heavily into the "Canyonaro" craze, this means a lot of redesign, retooling and capacity contraction in order to come-up with models that can sell.

The big three's problem isn't price, it's product appeal. They keep designing vehicles for the wrong demographic. For years they survived on trucks, vans and SUVs - largely ignoring or misfiring in the smaller vehicle and sedan market - leaving them utterly exposed if the market were to shift (as it has).

[Smallc]

The big three's problem isn't price, it's product appeal.

Most analysts agree that Ford no longer has that problem. The other two...well....they do. Visit ford.ca or ford.com and you'll see what they've done.

Oh, and:

Ford Motor Co. netted high marks with all three of its brands ranking above the industry average. Its Mercury Grand Marquis was the most dependable large car, and two Lincoln vehicles were top-rated in their segments, according to the study.

Chrysler LLC, however, only had its namesake brand score above the industry average, while Buick and Cadillac were alone among GM's eight brands to score better than the average of 170 problems per 100 vehicles. Buick, which improved from a sixth-place ranking last year, had 122 problems per 100 vehicles.

Detroit News

Ford as a company was ahead of Toyota and second only to Honda in terms of Quality. If they didn't own Volvo (which they soon won't) there score would have been HIGHER than Honda's.

Edited March 19, 2009 by Smallc

[Oleg Bach]

Most analysts agree that Ford no longer has that problem. The other two...well....they do.

They have to out do imports by going back to their roots - create nifty arty slick cars that have appeal - not boxes that look like old Nazi staff cars.

[Alta4ever]

They have to out do imports by going back to their roots - create nifty arty slick cars that have appeal - not boxes that look like old Nazi staff cars.

What they need to produce is a vehicle that doesn't make a hollow tin sound when you close the door or trunk.

[Smallc]

What they need to produce is a vehicle that doesn't make a hollow tin sound when you close the door or trunk.

Well thank God neither our last F 150 or our current Explorer had that problem.

[Oleg Bach]

THE BIG THREE MADE THEM CHEAP SO THEY COULD SKIM PROFITS.

That rubbery calking is cheap - it's acoustics my friend. Although I do remember when my sister drove a Mercedes - she also had BMWs --- She ALSO had a serious accident in the Benz...The cop said "If you were driving on of those cheaper cars you would be dead"....okay - so domestics are cheaply made because - the big three are cheap scapes and greedy.

..It's like "If we do not install the muffling calking - at 20 dollars a unit..then we can save 20 million dollars per million units - THEN we can give our selves a bonus! That's how simple it was - penny pinching and skimming...now look where they are.

The collapse of the big three was due to this mode of operation - How can we make it cheaper....just like the front wheel drive idea - It is NOT better engineering (and forget the snow traction excuse) - in fact it was inferiour to put the drive up front like a horse. The managers new, that once tooled up - they could save billions- by not having to put in crank shafts and all those other attatchments.....Mercedes and BMW continued with the rear wheel idea.

Someone said that the new Chrysler (German Staff Car) drove like a truck - why for 500 dollars more they could have copied the German suspension and it would have rode like a luxury car..but no...getting back to the design ---- Designers at Chrysler and the others were so short of ideas that they started looking at Hilters machines and attempted to get that look - what a bunch of no talent losers - If you do not have any ideas of your own - then you had better get out of the design buisness! If you are to cheap to make a good car then scram!

[blueblood]

We're talking about 2 different things. The F-150 is the biggest seller in it's class (i.e. trucks). That GM has been the biggest seller of all vehicle types combined doesn't diminish Ford's success with the F-150.

The minimal differences between the Chev and GMC doesn't change the fact that neither "brand" is more popular than the F-150.

But all of this merely takes us away from my point: in a declining market, automakers need to focus on what works and drop those lines that can't compete. For US automakers that bought heavily into the "Canyonaro" craze, this means a lot of redesign, retooling and capacity contraction in order to come-up with models that can sell.

The big three's problem isn't price, it's product appeal. They keep designing vehicles for the wrong demographic. For years they survived on trucks, vans and SUVs - largely ignoring or misfiring in the smaller vehicle and sedan market - leaving them utterly exposed if the market were to shift (as it has).

Did you not read my article. It says combined GM truck sales outperformed Ford.

The most popular variant of the F-Series is the F-150. It was the best-selling vehicle in the United States for 23 years and has been the best-selling truck for 31 years[1], though this does not include combined sales of GM pickup trucks.[2]

That means when chev and GMC are combined (which for all intents and purposes they are the same truck) GM trucks outsell fords. Deal with it.

It also doesn't help when their appeal is tarnished when Japanese and German automakers are pumping cheaper and better built cars into the market.

[Smallc]

Did you not read my article. It says combined GM truck sales outperformed Ford.

Yes, bu you can't do that. Many people who buy a GM truck won't buy a Chevrolet and vice versa. If the two brands didn't exist, the sales of the single brand would almost certainly not equal those of the two brands.

[Wilber]

The collapse of the big three was due to this mode of operation - How can we make it cheaper....just like the front wheel drive idea - It is NOT better engineering (and forget the snow traction excuse) - in fact it was inferiour to put the drive up front like a horse. The managers new, that once tooled up - they could save billions- by not having to put in crank shafts and all those other attatchments.....Mercedes and BMW continued with the rear wheel idea.

It depends on what you are trying to accomplish. Mass produced FWD cars originated in Europe with the original Mini being the fore runner of all of todays sideways engined FWD's. This configuration is not the optimum for handling but it is for interior room vs exterior size, lighter weight resulting in better fuel economy and yes, snow traction. That is why it is the favoured family sedan design of almost all manufacturers. Compare the interior room of a BMW 1 series to the same size FWD car. It doesn't fare very well. Compare the RWD Lexus and Infinity's to similar size FWD Toyota's and Nissan's. The same applies.

Edited March 20, 2009 by Wilber

[benny]

What they need to produce is a vehicle that doesn't make a hollow tin sound when you close the door or trunk.

Fat is not part of the solution, it's part of the problem.

Edited March 20, 2009 by benny

[blueblood]

Yes, bu you can't do that. Many people who buy a GM truck won't buy a Chevrolet and vice versa. If the two brands didn't exist, the sales of the single brand would almost certainly not equal those of the two brands.

A GMC truck and a Chev truck are identical except for the grille. They have the same motor, frame, drivetrain, etc. People that want a GMC/Chev truck are wanting the features that those two offer. If somebody says a GMC is better than a Chev, they're a chowderhead. If people didn't want the features that GM vehicles had, they would be buying different brands even if GMC and Chev "merged".

[Smallc]

A GMC truck and a Chev truck are identical except for the grille.

There are more differences, but that's beside the point. The most important thing is that they cater to different markets. Many people who drive a GMC would not lower themselves to buying a Chevy. It's simply the way the marketplace works.

[blueblood]

There are more differences, but that's beside the point. The most important thing is that they cater to different markets. Many people who drive a GMC would not lower themselves to buying a Chevy. It's simply the way the marketplace works.

But they lowered themselves to buying a GM product. The actual brand Ford is a direct comparison to GM, IMO, so I'm going to place GMC and Chevy trucks together because they are the same thing.

[Visionseeker]

That means when chev and GMC are combined (which for all intents and purposes they are the same truck) GM trucks outsell fords. Deal with it.

That's like saying that combining the performance of all Canadian NHL franchises make them better than the best American franchise. Face it, the F-150 is the best brand in its class.

It also doesn't help when their appeal is tarnished when Japanese and German automakers are pumping cheaper and better built cars into the market.

They aren't necessarily cheaper and in many instances they aren't better built either. But the thing that Japanese and German automakers have going for them is that people aspire to own one of their models. When was the last time you heard someone pine about owning a Buick?

[Visionseeker]

But they lowered themselves to buying a GM product. The actual brand Ford is a direct comparison to GM, IMO, so I'm going to place GMC and Chevy trucks together because they are the same thing.

Well, GM doesn't think so or else they'd just merge the product lines. Why won't they?

[Vancouver King]

When was the last time you heard someone pine about owning a Buick?

My kingdom for a loaded Enclave....

Here's a recent development I found staggering: R.L. Polk, the automotive research company, says for the first time since the Second World War, the number of registered vehicles on America's roadways has actually declined - by an astonishing 4 million units.

To those justifying bailouts as temporary help until the market rebounds back to 16 million annual sales, it's time to wake up - it's never going back there.

The recession combined with high recent gasoline prices and growing awareness of the damage to the environment by fossil fueled vehicles is accomplishing the impossible: Breaking the century old love affair between Americans and their cars.

[Alta4ever]

Well, GM doesn't think so or else they'd just merge the product lines. Why won't they?

Funny the most of parts are interchangeable, same engine, same frame....