  Urbanoutdoors Member Username: Urbanoutdoors Post Number: 633 Registered: 11-2005 |
http://www.crainsdetroit.com/a pps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/2007 1130/REG/71130002/1043/-/-/for mer-gm-ceo-roger-smith-dies | ||
Aiw Member Username: Aiw Post Number: 6469 Registered: 10-2003 |
I doubt there will be any tears in Flint... | ||
Plymouthres Member Username: Plymouthres Post Number: 273 Registered: 02-2007 |
Anyone up for the late showing at the Flint theater of "Roger and Me"? | ||
Jjaba Member Username: Jjaba Post Number: 5658 Registered: 11-2003 |
Holy hell, call Michael Moore. Roger Smith made millions for him. jjaba. | ||
Fury13 Member Username: Fury13 Post Number: 3284 Registered: 10-2003 |
I'm sure Roger's family is set for life, Michael Moore notwithstanding. | ||
Track75 Member Username: Track75 Post Number: 2670 Registered: 10-2003 |
On the plus side, NUMMI. Saturn. The EDS and Hughes acquisitions were profitable. On the minus side, he didn't get nearly far enough along on reshaping GM to be competitive. A lot of false starts. | ||
Fury13 Member Username: Fury13 Post Number: 3285 Registered: 10-2003 |
He oversaw the launch of quite a few 12-mpg SUVs, didn't he? GM is where it is today because of Roger Smith. | ||
Cambrian Member Username: Cambrian Post Number: 1760 Registered: 08-2006 |
I wonder if the hearse will be one of those 1985 Front Wheel Drive Mini Cadillac's he was responsible for? There's a hot collector's item for you. In 1985 We were looking back at 1965 Cadillacs' as Masterpieces. Yet in 2005 we were looking back at GM cars launched in 1985 as pieces of sh*t. That's what happens when you let an accountant run a car company. | ||
Track75 Member Username: Track75 Post Number: 2672 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote:Not really. They had the Suburban (first launched circa 1936), the big Blazer and the small Blazer. He did however preside over the downsizing of the Eldo, Seville (1986) and Deville (1985). They were very poorly received. They were designed with $2.50 gas in mind but the public wasn't interested. Crash programs began immediately to lengthen the appearance using taillight extensions and later stretching the platform to make them bigger inside and out. BTW, those big SUVs (and pickups) are what kept GM out of bankruptcy in the 90's and beyond. Without those they'd have had no profitable vehicles with which to subsidize the all the unprofitable small cars. Sorry, but that's the truth. | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 3914 Registered: 10-2003 |
That is the truth. Fury likes small fuel-efficient vehicles, which I do too, but for many years Americans have loved the monster SUV, and GM and Ford had the market cornered until the Japanese caught on. | ||
Fury13 Member Username: Fury13 Post Number: 3291 Registered: 10-2003 |
I don't have too much of a problem with GM (or Ford) building what the public demanded. After all, gas was cheaper in the '80s. My issue with the domestic automakers is that they're very, very slow to recognize changing market trends/demands. They weren't ready with any viable economy vehicles that offer a low cost of total ownership when the big gas crunch hit. They didn't adapt quickly, and now they're paying for it. (Message edited by Fury13 on November 30, 2007) | ||
Plymouthres Member Username: Plymouthres Post Number: 279 Registered: 02-2007 |
My issue with them mostly is their inablity to have foreseen the changes they should have made in the early 70's after we were lined up around the block for gas. We were just a few steps from rationing and they still built cars (until the K car era) that got around 10 or 12 miles to the gallon. We still haven't advanced very far from there considering we've only just doubled that figure and basically ignored other fuel saving methods and more fuel efficient developments. The automotive companies greed and arrogance has just killed them. | ||
Craig Member Username: Craig Post Number: 536 Registered: 02-2007 |
plymouthres - I get where you're coming from, but you're close to 100% off. Stupidity killed the Big Three. Some knew and saw what was coming, but they've never been able to generate enough inertia to do more than dodge some of the bullets. Lifers who never realized that it was no longer 1960 and would never again be knocked Detroit down. I wish that these guys were as devious as you say, but they are more-so bumblers than craven robber-barons. | ||
Track75 Member Username: Track75 Post Number: 2673 Registered: 10-2003 |
Detroit's biggest failure has been their inability to offer enough high-quality, well-designed cars that can compete with the best of Asia and Europe. There've been relatively few years in the last four decades when the US auto market really cared about gas mileage. The Camry didn't kick Chevy and Ford's butt because it got better gas mileage, it was its reputation for reliability, use of better materials, nicer interior design etc. that helped it beat the domestics. World-class economy cars would have done far less for GM's success than their popular SUVs and big pickups did. Low margin/low volume vs. high margin/high volume. | ||
Fury13 Member Username: Fury13 Post Number: 3294 Registered: 10-2003 |
All of that is changing, though, Track... gas is heading toward $4 a gallon and that price will probably be a reality by next summer. That kind of price will push Americans to the breaking point and they'll be selling their SUVs en masse. It's already happening. The fact is that GM still isn't ready for the changing market... not unless they have a quality-built, 40-mpg vehicle on the horizon. | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 3924 Registered: 10-2003 |
American interiors were crap for a while. That has changed now, which is nice. | ||
Track75 Member Username: Track75 Post Number: 2674 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote:There's a slight shift toward small economy cars but its not going to be what you envision, even with $4 gas. There's not a manufacturer in the world that has the capacity to manufacture primarily small cars, Toyota/Nissan/Honda included. They simply don't have the tooling capacity nor do their suppliers. Which vehicles get the 40 MPG you speak of? Some subcompacts, diesel compacts and small car hybrids. The whole Small Car segment is only 15% of the market. Almost 2/3rds of the market today is pickups, SUVs, minivans and luxury cars. Even hybridized, none of these are getting 40 MPG. Midsize cars, at 23% of the market MIGHT be able to get close to that with some radical changes that aren't on tap from any manufacturer for 2008. And if someone did have a breakthrough 40 MPG midsize car, would they capacitize for the full 4 million unit segment? No, not when the top selling car, the Camry, does about one-tenth of that volume.  And if everyone wanted to sell off their SUV due to $4 gas, who would buy them? Their value would be so small that it would cost less to pay for $4 gas than to sell your SUV for $10K under the payoff amount and then find $15K for a tiny 40MPG car. What's the difference between a 40 MPG compact and a 15 MPG SUV? About $200 a month. Significant but not enough to result in the scenario you envision. | ||
Jjaba Member Username: Jjaba Post Number: 5662 Registered: 11-2003 |
Back to the point of Roger and Me. Did Roger Smith kill Flint? Is that his legacy? Off-shoring, downsizing, running to Mexico for cheap labor, out sourcing to dump union power? jjaba. | ||
Hpgrmln Member Username: Hpgrmln Post Number: 299 Registered: 06-2007 |
I feel the love in this room. (sarcasm). My parents know his family.I just called my mom. She knew about it but didn't have much more information than the article. | ||
Alan55 Member Username: Alan55 Post Number: 806 Registered: 09-2005 |
"On the plus side, NUMMI. Saturn. The EDS and Hughes acquisitions were profitable." Sorry Track, Saturn never broke even, much less made a profit. At best, Saturn improved GM's image somewhat, but cost countless billions to do it. Former Saturn employee. | ||
Track75 Member Username: Track75 Post Number: 2675 Registered: 10-2003 |
I agree that Saturn was a money loser. It was a good idea, but excessively costly as you say. Still, it gave people inside and outside the corporation the idea that GM could do something the public would like. They goofed by making Saturn so "apart" that it cost billions, then shorted it on new product because it was so upside down financially. My reference to profit was restricted to the acquisitions. | ||
Cinderpath Member Username: Cinderpath Post Number: 298 Registered: 05-2006 |
Your current sales chart is meaningless when gas hits $4- $4.50 a gallon. Hummers will be worth boat anchors. Go to Europe and see what $6 a gallon gas has done there in terms of what vehicles are sold. People won't want to be paying $300-$500 a month for gas, the average consumer debt can't withstand it long term. Americans will only love big cars until they can no longer afford them. | ||
Plymouthres Member Username: Plymouthres Post Number: 280 Registered: 02-2007 |
No, Jjaba. Roger only precipitated its demise. It is, though, his legacy, and he will always go down with that albatross around his neck. Globalization killed the auto industry, plain and simple. Greed in saving the almighty dollar lead to irrational decisions for which we are now paying dearly. The Armenians have a saying for that: "Stepping over dollars to pick-up nickles". Craig- I don't agree with your first statement at all. I've been in the automotive industry for the last 27 years. I appreciate your candor, but you were not sitting in the meetings I was in listening to the management I was working for running the company into the ground. The lifers will always be there, that's why they are lifers. That culture and mindset, as Fury so eloquently stated, will take a loooonnnnng time to change. Here's where you are 100% off. Domestic auto makers made huge profits on their large SUV's and pick-up trucks. They dominated our market. They made as much as 33% profit from each one they sold. They sold gradually increasing numbers of these vehicles from the 1980's through the 1990's. Gas was cheap and plentiful and globalization had not begun to creep in yet. Profits were huge and so were the profit sharing checks. Every one, union and company, was happy. They did what they did and in most,if not all cases, they were very devious. Your assertion that they were stumble bums just isn't supported here. Jack Nasser was the finest manipulator that I've ever seen. His guru was Jack Welsh, but that's another story in itself. Then came the late 1990's, and the company failed to produce anything new, rather they settled for continual safe luke-warm design changes every two years, a "freshening" if you will. Design stagnated, apathy set in, chimneys were formed and cooperation between the divisions stopped. Bad investments racked company profits. Then came September 11, 2001. The economy reversed itself overnight. Also, simultaneous to that the Firestone debacle occurred and that certainly cost a ton (Some estimates are as high as $3 Billion). The final class action lawsuit in this saga was just settled last week, in 2007. Following this came NAFTA and the selling out of America. It wasn't Bush but Clinton who marshalled the "Asian turn over policy" in, set up by Nixon years before. He established our connections with the Chinese, fostering a spirit of d`etente that we are now paying so dearly for that it hurts. We offshored all of our skills in the name of the almighty dollar so that we didn't possess the ability to control those markets like we used to. Blame Bush and his Habala Espanola? attitude and the Mexican invasion if you want, but those factors were the major reasons that further led to the collapse. Concurrent, too, was the .com era and its collapse. After this period, came the "paralyzing fear era", where no one wanted to be known as the person who came up with the wrong design. So instead of going to the edge like their early counterparts did in the 1950 thru 1970's stying eras, they did nothing so that no one could blame them. God forbid they would take a chance and stick their necks out.They simply had no balls, and they still don't today. By the way, they have had the tecnology to hit the 40MPG mark for quite some time. Cost and fear of liability prevent them from doing anything to help the issue. The quality issues are kind of a moot point, due to volume differences. Now that the Japanese are producing more volume, you are also beginning to see them have quality issues, too. They are not immune. Plus, Detroit's quality, across the board, has seen steady increases and public opinion is SLOWLY shifting. Now all the domestics have to do is come out with some stunning styling hits, and they will have the beginning of the package. We are also selling almost 2 million vehicles LESS a year, so due to less production, the numbers should began to improve, albeit marginally. Fury- Although I agree with you in principle, I fail to see that in action. People are selfish and spoiled here, they love their ability to ride into work in the comfort of their own car. They will do what it takes to maintain the essentials, and price will only be a small part of the equation. The poor will certainly stop driving, but I fail to see ANY of my SUV/pick-up driving counterparts cutting back one iota. I do, however, here them bitch far more than before. Maybe it would affect them at $5/gallon? Track- Detroit's biggest failure was the ability to RAPIDLY adapt to growing changes that it foresaw in world market conditions. The Asians, especially the Camry, didn't beat us as much as we beat ourselves by not competing constantly with them. Our apathy killed us more than their ingenuity, believe me. Fury is correct with his "slow to react theory". Godspeed Roger! | ||
Track75 Member Username: Track75 Post Number: 2676 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote:In the long term given $5 gas we'd tend toward a US vehicle fleet more like Europe's. The reality is that there is an installed base of 200 million vehicles in the US currently and out of the 16 - 17 million vehicles sold in a typical year only a subset of the 2 million small cars sold each year are really high mileage cars. Our roads won't resemble Europe's any time soon. Even with a huge shift in consumer preference toward small high mileage cars (say, half the overall market, or 8 million units/year) that's only an incremental shift of 6 million units per year in an installed base of 200 million units. And for small cars to constitute half the yearly market it would take several years to tool up for that level of production. Combine that difficulty with the fact that in the short term it's cheaper to pay more for gas than to take a bath on a SUV trade-in and pay way over sticker for a super-popular new hybrid. In the long run people will shift to more efficient vehicles when it comes time to trade in their vehicle. That trade cycle time may be compressed due to higher gas prices. But it'll still be gradual, it's simply impossible for it to be otherwise. The predictions of massive and immediate shifts in consumer demand in response to $4 gas sound like the predictions concerning $3 gas. Yet the shift in consumer demand toward higher MPG cars in response to $3 gas has been rather tepid, despite all the complaining at the pump. | ||
Cambrian Member Username: Cambrian Post Number: 1761 Registered: 08-2006 |
It's peculiar to me that although most seem to think Roger Smith's influence on GM was a negative one, the current management continues follow his thinking. AutoBeat Daily: RETIRED GM CHAIRMAN ROGER SMITH DIES. Roger Smith, who served as chairman and CEO of General Motors Corp. from 1981 to 1990, died in the Detroit area last week at age 82 after a brief illness. Smith joined GM in 1949 as an accounting clerk. During the time he led GM, the company’s market share dropped 8 points to 35.5%. He served on GM’s board of directors from 1974 until he was pushed out in 1993. Smith was arguably GM’s most influential leader since Alfred Sloan retired in 1956. But the controversial executive may be best known to the American public as the elusive subject of Michael Moore’s 1989 satirical commentary, Roger & Me. Smith’s legacy is a series of flawed attempts to modernize a stumbling giant. To learn Toyota Motor Corp.’s secrets of efficiency and quality, for example, he aligned GM with Toyota in 1983 to create New United Motors Manufacturing Inc. But few insights gained at NUMMI—many relating to management technique and continuing incremental improvements— seeped into GM. Instead, Smith spent tens of billions of dollars automating GM’s existing production methods. The result was higher fixed costs with little impact on its competitiveness. Smith was more successful with Saturn, “cleansheet-of-paper” experiment in small-car making that set new standards in flexible labor agreements, vehicle retailing and customer loyalty. But the brand didn’t stem the rising popularity of foreign-made small cars, and Saturn’s practices didn’t spread to other GM operations. Smith’s acquisitions of Electronic Data Systems Inc. in 1984 and Hughes Aircraft Corp. in 1985 provided few of the automotive synergies he envisioned. Yet both purchases were savvy investments that, when sold, gave GM badly needed injections of cash. The EDS acquisition also produced memorable clashes between Smith and blunttalking EDS founder and GM director Ross Perot, before GM paid Perot $700 million to go away. Smith completely reorganized GM in 1984 in an effort to streamline operations. But the new structure failed to fix what ailed the company, including poor quality and look-alike cars. And the overhaul was so chaotic that Smith’s successors repeatedly chose to err on the side of “evolutionary change” in addressing GM’s problems. | ||
Rb336 Member Username: Rb336 Post Number: 3802 Registered: 02-2007 |
so long Squeaky | ||
Willmess01 Member Username: Willmess01 Post Number: 35 Registered: 02-2007 |
Saturn has produced a profit the last 2 years. Go figure we finally have product. -Current Saturn employee. God rest R.S. Thanks for the vision.... | ||
Crazy_pete Member Username: Crazy_pete Post Number: 29 Registered: 01-2006 |
GM didn't get itself into trouble because it built SUVs and inefficient cars. Thats what people WANTED in the late 80s and 90s. People weren't asking for smaller cars, they were asking for better SUVs. GM was raking in profits... SUV profits was the only thing keeping them alive in the 80s and 90s. | ||
Lefty2 Member Username: Lefty2 Post Number: 773 Registered: 07-2007 |
^ That and the suppliers who efficiently brought them cheaper parts than they could build themselves. And just imagine,in the 1970's our own government, wanted to break up General Motors because they were TOO dominant a force. They wanted to kill the golden goose that helped bring the biggest middle class in the history of the world. On the one hand the politicians wanted the donations for their campaigns, on the other, they wanted union votes to get reelected. The lawyers wanted their share and used scare tactics to get money by scaring the company into antitrust lawsuits. The workers and consumers ended up losing on both ends. | ||
Craig Member Username: Craig Post Number: 595 Registered: 02-2007 |
Hi Plymouth - better late than never with this, I hope. All knew that the big truck/SUV wave could not last forever. The fact that something credible to step into the breech -from design, engineering, manufacturing, or even marketing- never came is all of the evidence that I need to conclude that the Big Three saw the train coming but were too calcified to get off of the tracks. My meetings (not 27 years worth, though) demonstrated this plenty. | ||
Detroithabitater Member Username: Detroithabitater Post Number: 91 Registered: 10-2006 |
i'm sure there are no tears in poletown | ||
Plymouthres Member Username: Plymouthres Post Number: 352 Registered: 02-2007 |
Craig- Never too late! I think we are somewhat in agreement here, and I believe that you see my point. I see yours as well, with just a bit of $ord twist to it, that's all. Stagnation, greed and the "calcification" that you speak of are the things that I outlined in my rant above, and are still problems that the "Big Two" suffer from today. Fear is the main operating factor for these tyrants who want to have their cake and eat it too. That coupled with the fact that they are now producing a MILLION less vehicles per year are the major culprits, and likely these problems will get worse with the new generation of "children with degrees" entering into and managing the companies we speak of. They are continuously trying to undermine YEARS of research in their quest to put their stink on the company, so to speak. That's why I left last February and in February will be moving to Arizona to work for the defense industry. It breaks my heart to leave the place that I was born in and grew up around, but there is no hope here for me anymore. This place sucks as the mindset here is ancient and not moving forward. My question is how can one move forward when constantly looking over their shoulder? Turning these places around is a bit akin to turning the Titanic. It takes FOREVER to bring the bow around........ Soapbox removed. | ||
Cambrian Member Username: Cambrian Post Number: 1790 Registered: 08-2006 |
Sorry to see you go Plymouthres. I agree, sometime around Roger Smith it all became about how to save money, instead of how to offer the consumer a world class car with all the bells and whistles. Not too say it was all his doing, the companies decided to out Japanese the Japenese companies, that's the real heart of the issue. | ||
Plymouthres Member Username: Plymouthres Post Number: 354 Registered: 02-2007 |
Thanks Cambrian! I have mixed emotions and I've been working on this for some time, but it finally became a reality last night and this is the first time I have really mentioned it. Hopefully we will see each other a couple of more times before we leave, as MrsRes really enjoyed her conversation with you at the last FSC. I wish you well in your engineering endeavors, as you are a great person and deserve the best in my book. | ||
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg Post Number: 1327 Registered: 12-2005 |
My two cents worth on the Roger B Smith era - His deal-making that brought EDS, Hughes, etc. into the GM fold may have been a smart financial move, but it had little impact on the vehicle side and in fact, it just served to further dilute top management's attention to the core business of producing trucks and cars. The other stain on his legacy is the botched reorganization of GM's automotive engineering and manufacturing operations in 1985. That re-org basically tore apart the car divisions, Fisher Body and the GM Assembly Division and replaced them with the Chev-Pontiac-Canada and Buick-Olds-Cadillac car groups. Costs and hiring got out of control and standardized production processing went out the window. The engineering organizations were in turmoil and mid-management was focused on organizational structure and process, instead of product and manufacturing excellence. It's no coincidence that GM passenger car quality hit rock bottom in the mid to late 1980s. | ||
Cambrian Member Username: Cambrian Post Number: 1792 Registered: 08-2006 |
You to res, I can feel for you, I'm about fed up with the Auto Biz too. A change of scenery can be a good thing. After some time out west you may decide you want to come on back. I have a friend who moved to North Carolina, he likes the warm weather, but hates the effects of the drought they have going on down there. (Message edited by cambrian on December 18, 2007) | ||
Plymouthres Member Username: Plymouthres Post Number: 356 Registered: 02-2007 |
Mikeg- Good observation and good points. Same thing happened at all of the Big Three, really. Nice way to put it, but I would have added "watching out for their own necks" to the mid-management statement. The incompetents gathered together to protect their positions, and in the end, all they can achieve is mediocrity. It really is sad. | ||
Craig Member Username: Craig Post Number: 597 Registered: 02-2007 |
Plymouth - I was thinking that we were close to the same spot, but how does one back down from a charge that the other guy is 180-degrees off (grimacing at myself over here). It's heartbreaking, but I think that "we" squandered our inheritance, believed our own clippings, etc. Had "we" been hungry and fearful of the future domestic share would still be north of 70%. Just too many guys, in my opinion, staying the course instead of reading the trends. Keep buying and driving domestic when you're out west. We need the biz. | ||
Plymouthres Member Username: Plymouthres Post Number: 358 Registered: 02-2007 |
Craig- This issue is like a stick in the eye to me, so sometimes I get a bit disturbed when discussing the issues. I still dis-agree with your first statement from post #536 where you said: "I wish that these guys were as devious as you say, but they are more-so bumblers than craven robber-barons" Since I was at Ford at the time and I saw the extremely manipulative and underhanded way people in management there dealt with each other, us and the products we produced, I said I felt they were being devious. I believe that what I wrote was fact, at least to me. It was also simply my opinion. Your statement was opposite of my assertion which led me to claim that from the position that I witnessed it, you were 100% off. Sometimes emotion gets the best of us as we try to enunciate our various positions, but it wasn't like I was calling your kid ugly! Perhaps I was a bit harsh, but I try to call it as I see it. Later, in post #593, you seem to almost confirm my belief with your statement: "The fact that something credible to step into the breech -from design, engineering, manufacturing, or even marketing- never came is all of the evidence that I need to conclude that the Big Three saw the train coming but were too calcified to get off of the tracks." which indicates management knew exactly what they were doing, which led me to believe that you had agreed with my contention that they knew what they were doing all along, thereby making their actions devious by their very nature. Also, when I am wrong, I try to admit it, and that is what I was saying about us being in agreement on the REST of what was written. I perhaps could have been more clear in what I had written, but I wasn't backing down one iota, just agreeing that we were closer than the words appeared to indicate. As far as you and I, I hardly think that "we" had anything to do with it(unless you were middle management then), and I was so far down the totem pole at that time that even ants appeared to be giants to me then! Finally, now that I am not subjected to the American automobile situation directly, I will reserve the right to purchase what I wish. I still get A-plan from Ford, and when they make a good looking competitive product that has the quality that the imports have, gets adequate gas mileage and has decent quality I will exercise that option. The domestics have made significant progress in these areas lately, so I will be looking closely in the next few months as I will certainly need to purchase something new soon! Right now, though, they will have to do some drastic stuff to convince me that "they need my biz". | ||
Cambrian Member Username: Cambrian Post Number: 1795 Registered: 08-2006 |
Good points Res, the high horse the big three is on is what's driven a lot of talent like you to the foreign car companies. I'v read articles in Car magazines about individuals retiring from places like the Toyota Design studios in CA that talk about how while in Detroit they never could get anyone to respect thier ideas. You would think the beating they've been getting lately would have humbled them somewhat, but that's the thing about arrogance, it doesn't require a lot of smarts for a person to look into the mirror and say " I'm the greatest". | ||
Plymouthres Member Username: Plymouthres Post Number: 362 Registered: 02-2007 |
Nicely put Cambrian. Those guys at the top and their attitudes really kill me and until that changes, it will all be downhill...... |
