For a concise, readable summary of iTulip concepts developed over the past 16 years and a vision of a challenging next decade and how to navigate it, read Eric Janszen's book "Post Catastrophe Economy".
Join the discussion of today's events with a wide range of professionals with an interest in economics and finance.
Register to join our 50,000 plus member registered community from 78 countries today.
Subscribe to iTulip Select for access to the longest running, deep, accurate, and unvarnished macro economic trends analysis and forecasting available, since 1998.
If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Isn't that one of their problems? Decades ago used to be one could start out in life and buy a decent value-for-money proposition with Chevrolet, and aspire, as one went through life, to step up to be an Oldsmobile or Buick owner, or even a Cadillac, if one were successful.
I think in recent years that faded away as the dream became a bigger and bigger SUV or truck. It wasn't the brand as much as the sheer size of the thing that mattered.
Anyway, what happened to the American designers who designed this work of art...
The 1970 Plymouth Barracuda was the pinnacle.
I see in a last ditch effort to re-live its glory years Chrysler brought back the 'Cuda's cousin, the Dodge Challenger [quite a good resemblance on the 'C' pillar and rear quarter panels, non?]
...but as an old 'rodder my favourite remains the round tail-light 1968, 383-Charger.
I drove the EV1 out at DPG several years ago. Interesting ride to say the least!
This was a science project only.
When you say "science project" do you mean it was merely a "concept car"? The people I've talked with felt it was a go for production until it was killed, similar to the Avro Arrow plane that was a #1 best plane flying design, until it got killed for political reasons. Please explain further.
I understand that, after talking about it for more than 20 years, GM finally got one platform for all their cars rather that many similar but significantly different. Of course, there had to be compromise among the divisions, and the design teams within divisions, but it makes sense to standardize where ever possible.
This maximizes the mass production benefits. Of course, with an automated hydro-forming frame manufacturing system, each frame can be customized for the addition of this hole and that extra bend or different angle that is required by a certain option package or body.
Can this be one of GM's greatest strengths they can parlay into a winner?
Re: Just give me one more hit of that cheap gas...
Toyota had traditionally been known for the small, no flash, plain jane vehicles, then ventured into the high risk, high margin vehicles after watching Detroit 3 get away with it for so many years, seduced eventually and delivered production capacity just before truck/SUV/Xover market fell apart. Now, that Texas plant is in the soup as bad as Detroit 3's plants.
I agree that when they finally get to the finish line, the cars and the technologies aren't half bad. It's how long and at what cost it takes to get them there.
In addition, they still have some catastrophic design failures (eg. Montana engine heat gasket failures for localized overheating) that really hurt their reputation.
The defining question for all the global marbles is whether the GM global model wins or the Toyota global model wins. Nobody knows yet, it's too early to say. Maybe they both win and all others line up with one or the other.
Can you expand on your understanding of ROW, Toyota model, and GM business model for all of us.
Where do you see the competitive differences, strengths for going forward from here?
The middle is very crowded. GM, as well as others would be better to identify their own offerings and those of their competitors as to the key characteristics, and who has no adequate car defined for them. Lose the "me too" and focus on the ones that are significantly different and have little competition.
From President to shop floor, the leanest Japanese organizations tend to have 4 levels. Everybody else are "helpers", but have no direct line responsibility. If each level had a 15% wage differential, that is a total of 75% wage increase. CEO's no longer earn $20 million per year. Very egalitarian.
Tweet
Comment