OK, seriously, what should Detroit do to get the folks back?

[Blue Light]

Let's set the political banter aside for a moment.

If you're setting those guys in Detroit straight, what would you suggest they make?

Me, I think they should throw out all their style departments.
Aside from the rare vehicle, like the new Chevy Malibu, most American sedans have been awkward looking, as if they were designed to sit on rental lots. Whenever Detroit comes up with a cool design, like the Chrysler 300, they leave it be for years until everyone is tired of it.

The retro cars are sorta fun, but where's the stuff that lines up with the good stuff from Europe and Japan?

[Doc W]

Just my two cents (and I no longer own a car because I don't need one), I think folks are looking for safety, fuel efficiency, comfort, verstatily, and a decent price. I think those who buy primarily on style are a declining minority. I could be wrong. Just my thoughts.

[juniorspecial]

1) I don't think building attractive cars, and making money in the car business are the same thing. Toyota makes stylishly awkward cars, and they're top of the heap. Honda's styling is not great anymore, but they seem to do well.

2) I think a lot of the problems with GM have to do with their enormous cost structure and spread of brands. Toyota and Honda do quite well with one model in each class. Following that idea probably makes a lot of sense. Make one two-seater sports car, one two door, one hatchback, one sedan, one van, one small SUV, and then a line of trucks, etc. But that would mean eliminating a lot of dealers and brands, and that would mean becoming even more unpopular in the marketplace.

3) Reputation and customer loyalty seem to be king now. It takes a long time to build up. Toyota, Honda, Mercedes and BMW have it. Mercedes couldn't "give" their reputation to Chrysler--which shows that it's a hard task. GM had that reputation, but squandered it over many, many years. Is it possible to get rid of a bad reputation? I don't know. (Ask a slutty girl if getting married saved her reputation.)

4) So, I don't think coming out with a magical stylish model or two is going to cure Detroit's ills. Or a good ad campaign. It's going to take real work right down the line: engineering for durability and quality, manufacturing excellence, better dealers and salespeople that don't seem like hucksters, better service and maintenance, being nice to customers and not treating them like numbers.

5) Pretty much everybody I know dreads the experience of buying a car. You feel like you're getting fleeced and pressured every second. The first outfit that makes buying a car as nice as shopping at Neiman Marcus is going to be a big winner. I'll tell you something about business: I get treated a lot nicer going to a nice department store and spending $100 on a sweater, or $50 on cologne for my wife, than I ever get treated spending $800 on service at any car dealership!! Or spending $30,000 on a car!!

[melody]

Well the cheapest car GM has in there line up is 18K... For starters I think they should focus on the building a car around 10k that has quality second to none...#2 Stand behind the product no questions asked #3 get the cars from development to the street faster..

[Totally bored]

For starters they can hurry the hell up and put a Camaro in the showroom in my nieghborhood so I can check one out.





She can ride with me if she's gonna be a good girl.



I think I'm in love and feel like another Mid-Life Crisis is coming on. Last one got me a Harley Davidson. One before that got me a Les Paul etc.etc.

[NeoFauve]

They could start building guitars.

[TT100]

Well the cheapest car GM has in there line up is 18K... For starters I think they should focus on the building a car around 10k that has quality second to none...#2 Stand behind the product no questions asked #3 get the cars from development to the street faster..

+1!

When the price of an "average" mid-level family car went over $25k they lost me forever. Why that expensive? Pension costs? Labor costs? I don't have an answer but about ten years ago I decided that financing a depreciating asset didn't make sense. Buy used, buy what is easily maintained and pay cash. I avoid all the electronic cellulite that will be impossible to repair or have repaired in 5 years.

My last new car was a '93 T-Bird that left me stranded twice in the first year (almost cost me my job). Then there was a '93 F150 I bought in '95 that cost thousands in AC, driveline and driveability related service costs.

So, my cars, Volvos, are 14 and 15 years old. They have multiple airbags, ABS, structural side impact protection, get >25mpg hwy and still look good. They tow and carry anything I need.

What can Detroit do to bring me back? Build an Infiniti G35 or G37 in wagon form, ditch the electronic luxury items but keep the leather and make it for $17k.

Ain't going to happen.

But, if I won the lottery I'd probably find a Cherokee SRT8 just for entertainment.

TT

[rudutch]

1) reduce the brands
2) reduce the redundancys
(do they need a chevy, a cadillac & a GMC pickup?)
3) make (engineer / build) 'em good, make 'em cheap,
and give good sevice
4) don't punish people for buying thier products

[Don]

I think it might be too late.

My wife's father was the service manager at a Ford dealership and she won't go near an American car. She hasn't had an American car since her Mustang Ghia debacle in the late '70s.

I first looked to foreign cars for sportscars- MGs. I liked a Pontiac for general use and an MG as a toy. Then I tried an imported car as a daily driver and got hooked. I switched back to a Jeep Cherokee for a couple of years and replaced it with a Honda CR-V as soon as I was able to.

Considering the track record of of our recent Toyota, Hondas and Mazda, I don't think we'll ever have another American car.

My wife and my votes don't count for much anyway as we've had one of the Hondas since we bought it new in 1994 (it replaced a Toyota that my wife bought new in 1983) and the Mazda since 1998 (it replaced an MGB). We don't buy often enough to matter.

[Fedora]

This happened several years ago, but a GM exec told the board "they were no longer in the automobile business, they were now in the "entertainment business".
That should have been the writing on the wall.
I do love my little '92 S-10 however.

[phantomman]

Part of the responsibility for the downturn in auto sales is the American consumer's demand for a better (ie: more durable) vehicle.

I don't think there's any dispute that Detroit has made some real reekers in the past. But the quality of recent domestically-made cars has indeed improved dramatically.

Thus, folks are keeping their cars longer than ever before. In 1984 the average length of ownership for a GM car or truck was around 42 months. Today, we see people keeping these vehicles for eight or ten years (even longer in some instances).

As a result, dealers see repeat customers far less often than before -- which in practical terms means less annual turnover of inventory. The import brands are in this same boat -- the cars are better-made, folks tend to hold onto them longer, and the dealers deliver less units per model year.

Do I have the answer? Nope.

But the above factors are a significant part of the equation and need to be given their due.

[Wilko]

2) I think a lot of the problems with GM have to do with their enormous cost structure and spread of brands. Toyota and Honda do quite well with one model in each class. Following that idea probably makes a lot of sense.

This issue has been over-simplified

Toyota brands include Scion and Lexus and the corporation is part of the Toyota Group. Toyota also owns majority stakes in Daihatsu, and 8.7% of Fuji Heavy Industries, which manufactures Subaru vehicles. They also acquired 5.9% of Isuzu Motors Ltd. on November 7, 2006 and will be introducing Isuzu diesel technology into their products.

[Franklin]

I think it might be too late.

I agree with Don. I don't know if they can re-tool Detroit to head in another direction either. I saw an online gallery of deserted and dilapitated factories in Detroit and it was the most post-apaclyptic (sp?) set of images I've seen in a long time.

A real reviatalization of Detriot would cost more than I can even possibly imagine....

[curtisstetka]

I think they should declare bankruptcy and go through a painful, but necessary restructuring. Taking the guvmint handouts... oh, sorry... bailouts... is only kicking the problem down the road a bit.

The foreign manufacturers are eating their lunch because it costs them a helluva lot less to make a good car.

If Detroit didn't have the crushing labor-related financial obligations, then maybe they could innovate again.

I'd love to buy an American made product. But I get far more bang for my buck with Toyotas.

[Totally bored]

Personally, I think we need to get away from the "Made In America Sucks" mentality and buy American.

We love USA Guitars dang it. ( I ain't got all the answers but ....)


Totally Bored = proud owner of a 11 year old Jeep Cherokee. Extremely dependable and reliable vehicle.

[redb]

1. Get some engineers in there do some WEIGHT REDUCTION!!!

2. Bring back manual transmissions.

3. Rear wheel drive.

4. Make the engines as good as they can be and share it across all the cars. Have a 2.0L I4 that puts out 150hp (for comparison, the 2.0L euro market bmw 1 series I4 is a 2.0l engine that puts out 170hp!) that you put in ALL of your cars as an option, and an 3.0L I6 that puts out 250hp that you put in ALL of your cars as an option, and have a nice big 4.0L v8 that puts out ~400hp that you can put in the suvs and halo cars. You can even have a supercharger on it for your corvettes and cobras. Detroit makes the cheap cars crappy on purpose to try and make you buy up and they have horrifically underpowered 4 cylinder engines, I just think people look at the 4 cylinder engines the japanese and germans make and laugh at detroit. Obviously the trucks need their own engine, so they can have one.

5. Hire the guy designing the nissans. Pay him as much as you have too. Especially whoever designed this newest maxima.

6. Remember that maximizing profits in the long run is not maximizing short term profits, but rather building good cars that get people to come back and buy 3 or 4 of your vehicles over their lifetime. Make the plastic nice, make the seats comfortable, make the cars fun to drive and realistically affordable and people will come and buy the cars.

[dirtdog]

I guess if they're not going to make this:



then they could try this:



me, i'd prefer this:

[Wilko]

5. Hire the guy designing the nissans. Pay him as much as you have too. Especially whoever designed this newest maxima.

Those guys are working right here in La Jolla CA. Just up the road from me.

[Don]

3. Rear wheel drive.

Why rear wheel drive? It's great in sports and muscle cars, but in econoboxes?

[Don]

Personally, I think we need to get away from the "Made In America Sucks" mentality and buy American.

I would, and will, as soon as the odds of getting a great American car are about as good as the odds of getting a great imported car.

It's too late for my wife, though! She is very prejudice when it comes to this topic.

[Offshore Angler]

They should start headhunting the people from Ford!

Overlooked in all this US car manufacturing bashing are the facts that Ford turned down any bailout money, and pointed out that they are in a good cash position. Then they reminded people they are among the top manufacturers in the world for customer satifaction.

Quite the paradigm buster.

[redb]

Why rear wheel drive? It's great in sports and muscle cars, but in econoboxes?

improved weight distribution. bmw and merc have been making affordable (relatively speaking to the rest of their line and considering their quality of components) commuter cars in rear wheel drive like the merc c class and the bmw e46 3 series for a long time. There is also the issue of sending more than 200hp to the front wheels being bad. All of the electronics limit the power, if you were going to do that, get a smaller engine since youll save on the gas mileage.

right now there arent very many cars more in demand than the compact german cars; so build that, but american.

it doesnt have to be the same luxury level, just make the car's driving ability that good.

[Offshore Angler]

red, you can't re-write the laws of physics. The car turns around it's center of mass regardless of the drive. I actually studied wheeled vehicle dynamics, and had to figure out Ixx, Iyy, Ixy... for a racecar.

Perfromance cars are builr RWD for acceleration, not handling.

[redb]

red, you can't re-write the laws of physics. The car turns around it's center of mass regardless of the drive. I actually studied wheeled vehicle dynamics, and had to figure out Ixx, Iyy, Ixy... for a racecar.

yes and rwd shifts the mass backwards? you are right, this is not technically the drive type doing it, but it is the effect.

[Wilko]

Perfromance cars are builr RWD for acceleration, not handling.

Rear wheel drive vs front drive for handling has HUGE implications on actual application--maybe not on paper--but certainly where the rubber meets the road.

There are many other benefits to rear wheel drive inluding much cheaper engineering, fewer moving parts, better serviceability and durability due to those factors, plus others.

[Offshore Angler]

yes and rwd shifts the mass backwards? you are right, this is not technically the drive type doing it, but it is the effect.

Nope, the mass is fixed.

The best handling racecars are 4WD, but the complexity results in weight and reliability issues so it's rare, or outlawed.

Anybody remember the six wheeled F1 cars? Or the 4WD Indy cars?

[Offshore Angler]

Here's a cool thing about a racecar - any point on the outside edge of a tire on a car going 200mph goes from 400mph to zero mph about 45 times a second!

[redb]

Nope, the mass is fixed.

having rear wheel drive means the differential is at the back of the car instead of the front, ie mass has been shifted towards the back. the center of mass moves toward the side that is relatively heavier, so in 50/50 its directly in the middle, in common FWD cars its 60/40 and the center of mass is towards the front, and in mid engined sports cars its closer to 45/55 and the center of mass is towards the back.

once everything is bolted onto the car it wont move, I guess, but I am 95% sure you knew that I meant that the weight distribution in a RWD car is more twoards the rear of the car than in FWD cars.

at this point we are soooooo far off of my point, which is that RWD would improve the way the cars handle and get more people interested and buying american.

[juniorspecial]

This issue has been over-simplified

Toyota brands include Scion and Lexus and the corporation is part of the Toyota Group. Toyota also owns majority stakes in Daihatsu, and 8.7% of Fuji Heavy Industries, which manufactures Subaru vehicles. They also acquired 5.9% of Isuzu Motors Ltd. on November 7, 2006 and will be introducing Isuzu diesel technology into their products.

Perhaps. But here is GM's list (US only): Hummer, GMC, Saab, Cadillac, Buick, Pontiac, Chevrolet, and Saturn. All of which they own 100% of. And they have lots of little stakes in little things all over the world. (Some of their foreign brands include Vauxhall and Opel.)

Now, I don't know about you, but I can tell a Scion from any other car on the road from 300 yards away. It has a strong product identity.

Can you tell a GMC SUV from a Buick SUV from a Cadillac SUV from a Chevy SUV from a Saturn SUV from a Pontiac SUV? OK, so Hummer sticks out in this class. It has a strong identity. And I don't think Saab sells an SUV (I may be wrong on that). But the rest kind of run together, don't you think?

Therein lies my point...

[juniorspecial]

Here's a cool thing about a racecar - any point on the outside edge of a tire on a car going 200mph goes from 400mph to zero mph about 45 times a second!

I don't understand this. You're saying the outside edge of the tire stops 45 times per second? Sounds like a bumpy ride.

Please explain.

[redb]

Perhaps. But here is GM's list (US only): Hummer, GMC, Saab, Cadillac, Buick, Pontiac, Chevrolet, and Saturn. All of which they own 100% of. And they have lots of little stakes in little things all over the world. (Some of their foreign brands include Vauxhall and Opel.)

Now, I don't know about you, but I can tell a Scion from any other car on the road from 300 yards away. It has a strong product identity.

Can you tell a GMC SUV from a Buick SUV from a Cadillac SUV from a Chevy SUV from a Saturn SUV from a Pontiac SUV? OK, so Hummer sticks out in this class. It has a strong identity. And I don't think Saab sells an SUV (I may be wrong on that). But the rest kind of run together, don't you think?

Therein lies my point...

I think they need to stop with the move up selling programs where they use chevy to get you into a buick into a cadillac or a ford into a mercury into a lincoln.

just have your main brand and make some decent cars. maybe you have a "luxury" brand that makes cars to compete with germany and the better japanese cars.

and pontiac needs to go away for good.

[redb]

I don't understand this. You're saying the outside edge of the tire stops 45 times per second? Sounds like a bumpy ride.

Please explain.

just going to guess here but I think when the point actually comes in contact with the pavement it rapidly decelerates to 0 and then as it pushes against the pavement to move the car forward it accelerates VERY rapidly.

probably wrong but Im not sure how else it could happen.

[Offshore Angler]

I don't understand this. You're saying the outside edge of the tire stops 45 times per second? Sounds like a bumpy ride.

Please explain.

Easy, the tire is rolling around it's cotanct point on the road. Since the tire isn't slipping on the road it has zero velocity there. At any instant in time, if you look where the tire is rolling on the ground there is no relative movement between the tire and the road, right? Next, the car's axle is moving the same speed as the car - which makes sense too. So we can show that the center of the rotation is where the tire meets the ground, and velocity of any part on the tire computed as the tire's angular velocity times the distance from the center of rotation, which is the contact point on the ground.

So, we know the tire is not moving where it contacts the ground, we know the car is going 200, and we know the top edge of the tire is twice as far from the center of the rolling as the axle, so the top of the tire is going 400 mph.

You can see this on any wheel if you look. Another easy way to see it is on a tank tread. The tread is laying on the ground motionless and the top of the tread is moving forward at twice the speed of the tank.

Pretty cool, eh. Think about that next time you're driving.

[Wilko]

Therein lies my point...

I totally agree with you. I was just pointing out that most reporting of the issue oversimplifies, including your own post where you said they each have one of each model. It just isn't true.

I agree that the US makers are horrific at it. I blame wall street for that. They are forced by being "public" companies to show growth.

Geeze they even have Jaguar making entry level cars. It's not ok to just be a good luxury car maker.

[cwilliamrose]

For starters they can hurry the hell up and put a Camaro in the showroom in my neighborhood so I can check one out.

My wife is a former Z-28 owner. She liked what she saw at Sebring a few weeks ago (Chevy had a nice exhibit at the race). Me, well I guess I'm not into muscle cars. It looked a bit too massive for my tastes but it was far from ugly. It just didn't appeal to my sporty car sensibilities.

I think Detroit could compete if they shed all the baggage from past union contracts. There's no reason they couldn't build a car like my 3-series BMW for a decent price.

As for the comment that FWD doesn't affect handling, I disagree. Torque steer and the steering boost required to tame it makes the front end feel numb. Power changes result in feedback through the steering system. We had a '93 Probe for a number of years and it handled pretty well but it only had about 160HP. We no longer own any FWD cars.

Our only "Made in USA" is my 16 year old Nissan PU truck. Maybe some day that will change........Bill

[juniorspecial]

So, we know the tire is not moving where it contacts the ground, we know the car is going 200, and we know the top edge of the tire is twice as far from the center of the rolling as the axle, so the top of the tire is going 400 mph.

That's kind of meaningless though. It's like saying that if you jump off a cliff, you're not falling because relative to yourself you're not changing position. Or relative to someone falling with you, you're not moving.

(Of course, when falling off a cliff, it's not the falling that's the problem. It's the sudden stopping.)

If the car is going 200mph, the tread of the tire is moving at 200mph, minus whatever small percentage is lost to slippage and friction on the ground. And, after an hour, the tire, even though you contend that it stops in relation to the ground, will be 200 miles away. From that spot on the ground.

Some stoppage!

[redb]

junior its just taking advantage of looking at time in a very discreet way and looking at movement from one discreet moment to another an infinitely small increment and saying that at one point the tire is going 0 mph relative to the ground and at the opposite extreme it's going 400 mph.

you could also look at it and say that if you count one revolution (a fair time period) the point is going 200 miles per hour because in 1 hour at that speed it will cover 200 miles of ground.

you can play a lot of tricks by stretching the view of time as discreet and continuous. for instance a very fundamental question in macro economics about the speed at which a curve moves along another to reach equilibrium can be answered as "infinitely fast" if you game tiem right but that's not a particularly useful or even correct answer.

I dont mean to imply OA is incorrect at all, he is not. Nor am I implying that its not useful or good information, because I am not. Just saying.

[Offshore Angler]

The fact remains that the outside edge of the tire will go from zero to 400 mph relative to the ground every revolution.

It's simple physics.

[Offshore Angler]

If the car is going 200mph, the tread of the tire is moving at 200mph, minus whatever small percentage is lost to slippage and friction on the ground. And, after an hour, the tire, even though you contend that it stops in relation to the ground, will be 200 miles away. From that spot on the ground.

Some stoppage!

Nope as noted before, ( and proved by the math ) the tread of the tire is changing velocity.

The reason you don't feel it is because for every differential piece of the tire that is decellerating, there is an equal and opposite acceleration Pi radians away, so the net effect is that the center of mass off the tire - coincendentally it's axle - is moving at 200 mph. You can't argue with the physics and math. It is what it is.

That is why rolling is not the same as spinning! The axis of rotation is where the tire meets the ground. Which makes perfect sense, because when we study the dynamics of a road vehicle, it is how it interacts with the ground that matters.

You're example of how far the tire travels over time would be a due to the tire's speed, not it's velocity. The tread's velocity will vary sinusoidally from zero to 400mph 161,344 times over the trip.

[Jonnda]

...and the Mazda since 1998 (it replaced an MGB)...

Funny, I'm going through a long drawn out process to replace a toyota with a MGBGT