American Auto's Troubled Road - GreenHybrid

tanstaafl14 · #1 (**permalink**) 04-15-2006, 12:25 PM

IMO this fellow from Harvard Business School has hit the nail on the head. Whether GM or Ford pay any attention is an open question.

Link to the article

blinkard · #2 (**permalink**) 04-18-2006, 08:34 AM

Speaking solely as a consumer with no business management experience, it seems to me that the American automotive industry is just repeating the 80's all over again. In the 70's, they built huge, bloated, inefficient, mediocre-quality cars. The fuel crunch hit and they blamed the American consumer for the fact that they didn't offer small, high-mileage cars. They finally figured out what they should be building and how to build it and the early 90's saw them actually able to compete on an even basis. (Speaking from the perspective of a former Ford devotee.)

Then the economy heated up and people had the money to waste on SUV's, and Detroit abandoned everything they learned. Ford dropped the low-price coupe (Probe) and compact sedan (Contour) and at one point had at least 5 SUV models. A 7-year-old knows not to put all his eggs in one basket. Anyone who gave it any thought knew good and well that the fuel supply problem was going to come back, sooner or later. It seems to me they just stuck their head in the sand, rather than trying to capitalize on it (sell the SUV's) and be responsible (keep some small car designs in production). It was pure corporate greed.

When I wanted to buy a small Ford in 2000, my only choice was the Focus. It supposedly had 140hp, but couldn't get out of its own way. The best I ever managed was 31mpg. There were a half-dozen recalls in the first year. And my fuel gauge had a bad connection. It amazed me that Detroit could sink so much in 7 years.

So now here we are, 20 years later, re-living the 80's. The executives blame healthcare costs, but in my opinion, they just fell victim to their own short-sightedness.

It's not that we can't do it. Just that we won't. GM came up with that brilliant Northstar V-8 that could run without coolant. And that seems to be the last thing anyone bothered to do.

Archslater · #3 (**permalink**) 04-18-2006, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blinkard

Speaking solely as a consumer with no business management experience, it seems to me that the American automotive industry is just repeating the 80's all over again. In the 70's, they built huge, bloated, inefficient, mediocre-quality cars. The fuel crunch hit and they blamed the American consumer for the fact that they didn't offer small, high-mileage cars. They finally figured out what they should be building and how to build it and the early 90's saw them actually able to compete on an even basis. (Speaking from the perspective of a former Ford devotee.)

Then the economy heated up and people had the money to waste on SUV's, and Detroit abandoned everything they learned. Ford dropped the low-price coupe (Probe) and compact sedan (Contour) and at one point had at least 5 SUV models. A 7-year-old knows not to put all his eggs in one basket. Anyone who gave it any thought knew good and well that the fuel supply problem was going to come back, sooner or later. It seems to me they just stuck their head in the sand, rather than trying to capitalize on it (sell the SUV's) and be responsible (keep some small car designs in production). It was pure corporate greed.

When I wanted to buy a small Ford in 2000, my only choice was the Focus. It supposedly had 140hp, but couldn't get out of its own way. The best I ever managed was 31mpg. There were a half-dozen recalls in the first year. And my fuel gauge had a bad connection. It amazed me that Detroit could sink so much in 7 years.

So now here we are, 20 years later, re-living the 80's. The executives blame healthcare costs, but in my opinion, they just fell victim to their own short-sightedness.

It's not that we can't do it. Just that we won't. GM came up with that brilliant Northstar V-8 that could run without coolant. And that seems to be the last thing anyone bothered to do.

Well said!

Delta Flyer · #4 (**permalink**) 04-18-2006, 10:43 AM

I'll second that!

David Harville · #5 (**permalink**) 04-18-2006, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blinkard

...at one point had at least 5 SUV models...

You mean like the 4Runner, F J Cruiser, Highlander, Land Cruiser, RAV4, & Sequoia?

blinkard · #6 (**permalink**) 04-18-2006, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Harville

You mean like the 4Runner, F J Cruiser, Highlander, Land Cruiser, RAV4, & Sequoia?

Good point! Hadn't thought of that. The one thing I'll say in Toyota's defense is that none of those are as big as the Expedition, which was only the middle of Ford's lineup.

You know what nags at me is that we'll wind up bailing out Ford & GM if they go under, yet we don't get to say a word to them about what they should build (or how much to pay their executives). If I'm going to hand them money, I think I should have a right to say, "Hey, scrap all but a couple of trucks needed for work purposes, and don't build anything else that gets under 30mpg." No? Don't want to? Okay, well, we'll see if whoever buys up your assets is more reasonable. See ya.

texashchman · #7 (**permalink**) 04-18-2006, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blinkard

Good point! Hadn't thought of that. The one thing I'll say in Toyota's defense is that none of those are as big as the Expedition, which was only the middle of Ford's lineup.

I know a woman that drives a Sequoia and she gets 15 mpg on the hwy.
It may not and I'm not sure if it is smaller than the Expedition but it sure gets the same or LESS mpg than another person that drives an Expedition. We avg. 17.5mpg on our last trip in our Tahoe!kevin

AZMerf · #8 (**permalink**) 04-18-2006, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Harville

You mean like the 4Runner, F J Cruiser, Highlander, Land Cruiser, RAV4, & Sequoia?

Good point and you're right. However, Toyota has plenty of the right cars to balance these (unlike Ford and DM).

Archslater · #9 (**permalink**) 04-19-2006, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AZMerf

Good point and you're right. However, Toyota has plenty of the right cars to balance these (unlike Ford and DM).

I think this is the point. Although Ford's current offerings are improving, just look at the 2004 CAR linup of the two companies:

Ford: Crown Victoria, Taurus, Focus, Mustang, Thunderbird

Toyota: Avalon, Camry, Solara, Corolla, Echo, Celica, MR2, Matrix, Prius

I have driven many of these auto's from both manufacturers as rental cars, as I rent frequently and it is painfully obvious which company is serious about cars, and which company focuses on trucks. I always get the feeling that Ford and Chevrolet have rental fleets in mind when designing their sedans.

Katz6768 · #10 (**permalink**) 04-19-2006, 09:16 AM

EPA-MPG Ford vs. Toyota:
(best to worst)

Toyota Prius 60/51
Toyota Corolla 30/38
Toyota Matrix 28/34
Ford Focus 26/32
Toyota Camry 24/34
Toyota Avalon 22/31
Ford Taurus 20/27
Ford Mustang 19/25
Ford Crown V. 17/25
(couldn' find Echo and MR2)

In general better mileage from Toyota than Ford. My guess is that most people buy Ford because of loyalty and/or dealer incentives, this is starting to change, loyalty wears off and incentives affect Ford's bottom line.