The Obama Motors Corporation

[Nemo128]

In September, 2008...
(cut to save space)

Craig, great writeup, agree mostly, even if I think you're being a little too generous at certain points.

But bravo, you should seriously find contacts in government and industry to advocate a proposal based on what you've envisioned here.

BTW, I love Honda, I love BMW, and I love Ford. GM and Chrysler can rot, along with Nissan and Mercedes.

 

[Nemo128]

Wow.

This Motor Trend blog pretty much says it all:

http://blogs.motortrend.com/6504588/editorial/gm-and-chrysler-pragmatism-not-socialism/index.html

 

[craigsub]

The Motor Trend Blog ignores some very basic facts when it is criticizing both GM and Chrysler (Though I do agree with most of what it says, it is an error of omission). In fact, pretty much everyone ignores these facts.

Fact #1: The Federal and State governments have very strict franchise laws. The Blog mentions the problems with the laws that exist, but does not mention that what the Federal government has done in the past is the exact opposite what they claim will be done in the future - getting rid of name plates and dealers.

Putting this in blunt terms, We are deriding GM and Chrysler for not doing something we made illegal for them to do: close down a lot of unneeded dealers.

Now we are going to do it, and give government credit for getting it done.

Fact #2. The Federal Givernment has forced the "Big Three" to deal with the union. They had no choice.

I know many reading this next lines (in bold) already know this, but many people don't.

So ... I will put it in bold letters for emphasis only:

Ford, GM and Chrysler are forced, by law, to use nothing but UAW employees in their factories. Toyota and Honda are not.

If GM wanted to build a new factory and also wanted to hire all new, non-UAW workers, they would be prohibited from doing so.

AND ... If a person wanted to take a job at a "Big Three" factory, but did not wish to join the Union, that person gets no job. Zilch. NADA. It's illegal.

If the Obama administration can step in and rid the Big Three of the UAW and also allow them to consolidate the dealer body, great.

It will be interesting to see if they actually do this, as Obama's major support comes from Unions.

 

[Rickster71]

On top of all the things mentioned above.

This link http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50065
talks about the UAW Jobs Bank, industry’s best form of job insurance. It pays idled workers a full salary and benefits even when there is no work for them to do.
It adds thousands of $dollars to the price of a car.

 

[Davemcc]

Craig, I think we're reading from the same playlist. Here's a couple of my older posts you may find interesting.

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=479455&postcount=6

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=483224&postcount=43

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=492397&postcount=30

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=491613&postcount=15

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=485865&postcount=14

 

[markw]

Fact #2. The Federal Givernment has forced the "Big Three" to deal with the union. They had no choice.

I know many reading this next lines (in bold) already know this, but many people don't.

So ... I will put it in bold letters for emphasis only:

Ford, GM and Chrysler are forced, by law, to use nothing but UAW employees in their factories. Toyota and Honda are not.

If GM wanted to build a new factory and also wanted to hire all new, non-UAW workers, they would be prohibited from doing so.

AND ... If a person wanted to take a job at a "Big Three" factory, but did not wish to join the Union, that person gets no job. Zilch. NADA. It's illegal.

If the Obama administration can step in and rid the Big Three of the UAW and also allow them to consolidate the dealer body, great.

It will be interesting to see if they actually do this, as Obama's major support comes from Unions.

Unless he unties the mauufacturer's hands, he's simpy keeping the victim tied up to keep him motionless while the leeches continue to suck the blood out of his bloated, dying body until they finally kill him.

After the hosts are dead, will the government make good on the legacy debts the unions forced the big three to incur? If so, we're so screwed.

 

[rnatalli]

Craig, great writeup, agree mostly, even if I think you're being a little too generous at certain points.

But bravo, you should seriously find contacts in government and industry to advocate a proposal based on what you've envisioned here.

BTW, I love Honda, I love BMW, and I love Ford. GM and Chrysler can rot, along with Nissan and Mercedes.

Government never does things that makes sense

I think I agree that GM, Chrysler, Nissan, and Mercedes can all rot.

 

[rnatalli]

It will be interesting to see if they actually do this, as Obama's major support comes from Unions.

Obama's a calculating person. He no longer needs unions to get elected and he'll probably gain more supported than lose by stomping on the unions. It will be interesting to see...

 

[lsiberian]

Obama's a calculating person. He no longer needs unions to get elected and he'll probably gain more supported than lose by stomping on the unions. It will be interesting to see...

No he can't do that. Most Democratic support is Union based. And while he has no needs for Unions because of his grassroots style of fund raising many of his parties congress members rose with the help of a Union.

Unions have there place, but honestly it's been abused in many cases. Still I don't see anyway for this to turn out good for Chrysler or GM. While I still think Ford makes decent cars despite the Found on road Dead acronym and there propensity to catch fire and bust radiator hoses. I think the product lines are where the real failure is in Chrysler and GM.

There are so many cars from all there companies that they compete with each other.

Ford has a very simple lineup and they also own Mazda who has a simple line up and makes extraordinary cars IMO. I love my Mazda it's a very well engineered car IMO.

Kinda nice to have Craigsub's opinions here. Since he's in the fire so to speak.

 

[lsiberian]

Obama fires the GM CEO and the Obama team will soon lead the way to automotive prosperity under his leadership.

This is change you can believe in!!

Discuss.........

Could be worse. Bush had people tortured.

 

[Davemcc]

While I still think Ford makes decent cars despite...there (sic) propensity to catch fire and bust radiator hoses.

Links please???

 

[highfigh]

Links please???

Google "Ford auto recalls". They have had so many electrical issues over the years I'm surprised they're still in business. I can think of a half dozen for ignition switches and sensors alone and that's going back less than 20 years. They have a long history of solenoid failures and my parents had this happen in the 1940s. No fires, though so that was a good thing.

Here's a link- try not to spend too much time on it.

 

[Davemcc]

Google "Ford auto recalls". They have had so many electrical issues over the years I'm surprised they're still in business. I can think of a half dozen for ignition switches and sensors alone and that's going back less than 20 years. They have a long history of solenoid failures and my parents had this happen in the 1940s. No fires, though so that was a good thing.

Here's a link- try not to spend too much time on it.

Sorry, I was trying to get Isiberian to divulge his source for the information he based his statements on.

At least it wasn't a Toyota, where apparently even the seatbelts catch fire in a collision. But hey, that's only part of a recall affecting one million Toyotas.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28891251/

Of course, Toyota can always recall over have a million vehicles without actually calling it a recall. I mean, if Toyota actually called it what it was, it might affect it's perception of quality.
http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2007/10/dont-call-it-a-.html

I'm glad to see your parent's car didn't catch fire in the 1940's. Have you driven a Ford...this century?

 

[dronezero]

Do you know anything of franchise laws ? Let me answer that for you: No, you don't. Let's say GM wants to get rid of Pontiac, Buick and GMC.

They could easily move those lines into Chevrolet and Cadillac. The problem is, GM now has to compensate each of the Pontiac, Buick and GMC dealers. We are talking billions of dollars.

When GM did close Oldsmobile, it did so by putting Buick or Saab into most Oldsmobile dealers, depending on market area.

Do you understand English ? (I ask this because you quoted me, then typed "Wagoner was flawless?". I never said he was flawless. I said he did the best job a person could, considering the cirmcumstances. How anyone with any amount of brains could change that into flawless is a mystery).

Finally, GM Europe and Asia make a profit. GM North America does not.

The only difference is GM has to pay off contracts that the UAW insisted on over the years at the point of shutting GM down.

You can blame this on management all you want, and you will be wrong.

You said Wagoner did the best job that any human could. And I could see a person making flawless decisions as CEO of a company for 10 years. But really that is beside the point, the fact is that Wagoner was so far from flawless that he was incompetent. His own executive said basically the same in that quote I posted.

And of course you can't expect to maintain profitability in a region when you lose nearly a quarter of your market share. I don't care how little you pay your workers, your company is going to be struggling if you can't sell cars.

 

[Davemcc]

Does Ford have any plans for a full size sedan with v8 power to compete with the likes of the Charger RT/Impala SS?

Look out for the 2010 Taurus SHO. It's not RWD and it's not a V8, but an AWD direct injection twin turbo 3.5L V6 with 365 HP might do the trick.

 

[billy p]

Sorry, I was trying to get Isiberian to divulge his source for the information he based his statements on.

At least it wasn't a Toyota, where apparently even the seatbelts catch fire in a collision. But hey, that's only part of a recall affecting one million Toyotas.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28891251/

Of course, Toyota can always recall over have a million vehicles without actually calling it a recall. I mean, if Toyota actually called it what it was, it might affect it's perception of quality.
http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2007/10/dont-call-it-a-.html

I'm glad to see your parent's car didn't catch fire in the 1940's. Have you driven a Ford...this century?

Hey Dave, I can assume you work for Ford? Well my mother worked there for 32yrs and I've driven nothing but Fords for the last 25 and I'll never buy another. Regardless of improvements on quality control and purchase incentive programs, they'll never reclaim that generation of owners they have pissed off with their junk and I consider myself one of them!

 

[craigsub]

You said Wagoner did the best job that any human could. And I could see a person making flawless decisions as CEO of a company for 10 years. But really that is beside the point, the fact is that Wagoner was so far from flawless that he was incompetent. His own executive said basically the same in that quote I posted.

And of course you can't expect to maintain profitability in a region when you lose nearly a quarter of your market share. I don't care how little you pay your workers, your company is going to be struggling if you can't sell cars.

It would be nice if you would learn to quote a person accurately, but that's probably too much to ask.

As for the rest of your ideas. I am sure you believe everything you have typed, good for you.

 

[Davemcc]

Hey Dave, I can assume you work for Ford? Well my mother worked there for 32yrs and I've driven nothing but Fords for the last 25 and I'll never buy another. Regardless of improvements on quality control and purchase incentive programs, they'll never reclaim that generation of owners they have pissed off with their junk and I consider myself one of them!

It's no secret around here that I work for Ford. I come from a "Ford family" where my parents always drove Fords. Over the years, I've seen a lot of Fords pass through our family, everything from the '78 LTD that went 450,000kms without ever having the valve covers off to the Cobra that I unceremoniously dumped after 6 months. The vast majority were trouble free and reliable. In fact, the only problem vehicles were my Cobra and my Dad's '82 T-Bird with the variable venturi carb. If my Dad simply switched the carb to a Holley and dumped the VV carb, that car would have been flawless. As it is, the '82 lasted in our family for 14 years without any other trouble.

I guess from your statement that I should be one of the generation that should be pissed off with the junk. But I think it's highly unfair to Ford to pass off your personal issues as generational issues. For me and four generations of my family, Ford has provided reliability and value for our driving needs. And the two incidents I mentioned were minor and should not be blown out of proportion given the total number of Fords in my family since the 1960's. Sorry your experience has differed.

 

[dronezero]

It would be nice if you would learn to quote a person accurately, but that's probably too much to ask.

As for the rest of your ideas. I am sure you believe everything you have typed, good for you.

So in other words you can't or won't reply to my ideas, instead you just continue to throw half-assed insults around.

 

[craigsub]

Dave - Even though I own a Ford dealership, I don't drive Fords exclusively. I can say though, we have never had an issue with any of the Fords we have owned.

In the long term warranty industry, the ratings for vehicles are done based on the expense per vehicle.

Ford is competitive with Toyota, especially when comparing, for example, cars to cars, trucks to trucks ... etc ... but any company will have people that get no satisfaction from purchases.

A question for you ... Do you work at the Oakville Plant ?