Genius move by Ford

[Porsche_monkey]

Check the numbers. Buick, Chev, Toyota. It is not far off.

[Porsche_monkey]

Driven by more consistent, leaner processes and buyouts of tens of thousands workers, the Detroit Three automakers in 2007 nearly erased the productivity deficit against their Japanese-based competitors, despite declining production and shrinking market share.

The difference among the Big Six from the most to least productive in terms of total manufacturing labor (Assembly, Stamping, Engine and Transmission) has dropped to 3.50 hours per vehicle (or about $260 per vehicle), down from 10.51 hours (or $790 per vehicle) in 2003.

Chrysler showed the biggest improvement, cutting its total manufacturing labor hours per vehicle by 7.7% to 30.37, the same number recorded by Toyota, according to Oliver Wyman's The Harbour Report(TM) North America 2008, the annual study released today. Oliver Wyman acquired the report in January 2008.

Some Toyota plants are under 16 hours per car, Hyundai Alabama is under 21 hours.

The innovative agreements the United Auto Workers reached with the three domestic companies likely will enhance their competitive position in the future.

First, the union agreed to a lower-tier wage -- about $14.20 an hour -- for new hires. GM can hire these new workers to perform "non-core" work such as delivering parts to the assembly line, custodial services, and most work that doesn't involve putting a part on the body of a car or truck. Ford and Chrysler can hire the lower-wage people for any hourly position as long as they don't exceed 20% of their U.S. hourly workforce.

The hourly 'advantage' is disappearing.

Benefit cost per car?

And make no mistake, GM is in a horrible bind. That $1.1 billion loss in the first quarter doesn't begin to tell the whole story. The carmaker is saddled with a $1,600-per-vehicle handicap in so-called legacy costs, mostly retiree health and pension benefits.

Granted it's a problem. But G.M.'s problems go much deeper than a $1,600 penalty on a $45,000 truck.

[dd74]

The Cobalt SS is starting to look good, as soon GM's going to be giving those away.

Looks like the Senate Republicans are blocking the bailout.

Bankruptcy looms...

[svandamme]

i saw some kind of hearing couple of weeks ago, all 3 present
ford guy seemed straightforward, had some decent answers

the chrysler dude was worse, but sort of tried to come over as somehow capable and acknowleding there's a certain amount of mea culpa required

the gm dude just stood there like, well, just give me money, it's not our fault it's going wrong with our company, it's the economy, it's the banks, it's the customers, it's the oil, not us

[Porsche_monkey]

Originally Posted by dd74

Bankruptcy looms...

Reorganization via bankruptcy protection.

[the]

Originally Posted by Porsche_monkey

Reorganization via bankruptcy protection.

Exactly. This starts to get frustrating . . .

[ruf-porsche]

Originally Posted by Porsche_monkey

[I]
Granted it's a problem. But G.M.'s problems go much deeper than a $1,600 penalty on a $45,000 truck.

Originally Posted by trekkor

There is a strong likelihood that most of the parts already are...

I'm guessing.


What makes a new F350 diesel cost $45k plus?


KT

Did GM just buy out FORD or is GM also building a truck call the F350?

Peugeot got piss with Porsche when PORSCHE tried to use the 901 name. That is why Porsche had to rename it the 911.

Ford should sue GM for naming right infringement.

LOL

[dd74]

Originally Posted by Porsche_monkey

Reorganization via bankruptcy protection.

Redundant. Because reorganization is part and parcel to bankruptcy. It's not like anyone expects the Big 3 to shut their doors; just possibly go the way of, for example, British Steel.

[dd74]

Originally Posted by ruf-porsche

Ford should sue GM for naming right infringement.

LOL

No kidding! When Dodge named one of its long-gone models "Dodge Daytona Turbo Z" I thought at least two manufacturers could sue Dodge. Didn't matter: the car was a POS anyway.

[onewhippedpuppy]

Originally Posted by Porsche_monkey

Driven by more consistent, leaner processes and buyouts of tens of thousands workers, the Detroit Three automakers in 2007 nearly erased the productivity deficit against their Japanese-based competitors, despite declining production and shrinking market share.

The difference among the Big Six from the most to least productive in terms of total manufacturing labor (Assembly, Stamping, Engine and Transmission) has dropped to 3.50 hours per vehicle (or about $260 per vehicle), down from 10.51 hours (or $790 per vehicle) in 2003.

Chrysler showed the biggest improvement, cutting its total manufacturing labor hours per vehicle by 7.7% to 30.37, the same number recorded by Toyota, according to Oliver Wyman's The Harbour Report(TM) North America 2008, the annual study released today. Oliver Wyman acquired the report in January 2008.

Some Toyota plants are under 16 hours per car, Hyundai Alabama is under 21 hours.

The innovative agreements the United Auto Workers reached with the three domestic companies likely will enhance their competitive position in the future.

First, the union agreed to a lower-tier wage -- about $14.20 an hour -- for new hires. GM can hire these new workers to perform "non-core" work such as delivering parts to the assembly line, custodial services, and most work that doesn't involve putting a part on the body of a car or truck. Ford and Chrysler can hire the lower-wage people for any hourly position as long as they don't exceed 20% of their U.S. hourly workforce.

The hourly 'advantage' is disappearing.

Benefit cost per car?

And make no mistake, GM is in a horrible bind. That $1.1 billion loss in the first quarter doesn't begin to tell the whole story. The carmaker is saddled with a $1,600-per-vehicle handicap in so-called legacy costs, mostly retiree health and pension benefits.

Granted it's a problem. But G.M.'s problems go much deeper than a $1,600 penalty on a $45,000 truck.

They may have cut manufacturing time, but at what cost? It's not like their quality was superior to begin with. I like how union workers starting at $14.20/hr is considered a concession. That's $14.20 an hour to deliver parts, sweep floors, and empty trash cans. Some college grads don't start out at $14.20/hr.

Originally Posted by ruf-porsche

The only pension plan at those companies are 401K plans, not company sponsored plans like the Big Three.

You mean union mandated pension plans.

[Craig 930 RS]

Sure is fun & easy to get on the gangbang train against Ford, but my money is with them with regards to honesty and product lineup.

[strupgolf]

Yep, a real fight on the hands of the senators. I seem to recall that the cost of health care and benefits added about $1500.00 to each vehicle built, and I read that about 10 years ago.

[dd74]

One question I have involves why the foreign models made domestically are still more expensive than domestic models.

The ML-350 Mercedes Benz SUV is the same size as the Mercury Mountaineer. Both are upscale. Even with labor costs factored in, the Mercury is much less than the Mercedes, yet the Mercedes is made here. I have to figure that build quality of both vehicles is somewhat equal, and where they're built - the Mountaineer is built in St. Louis, the Mercedes in Alabama - is on American soil by American workers.

I'm not exactly suggesting the ML-350 should cost exactly the same as a Mountaineer, but shouldn't the ML be cheaper for the U.S. market than, for example, the Canadian market (I think they're roughly the same price in either country), simply because the ML is made domestically by American workers?

[onewhippedpuppy]

Originally Posted by dd74

One question I have involves why the foreign models made domestically are still more expensive than domestic models.

The ML-350 Mercedes Benz SUV is the same size as the Mercury Mountaineer. Both are upscale. Even with labor costs factored in, the Mercury is much less than the Mercedes, yet the Mercedes is made here. I have to figure that build quality of both vehicles is somewhat equal, and where they're built - the Mountaineer is built in St. Louis, the Mercedes in Alabama - is on American soil by American workers.

I'm not exactly suggesting the ML-350 should cost exactly the same as a Mountaineer, but shouldn't the ML be cheaper for the U.S. market than, for example, the Canadian market (I think they're roughly the same price in either country), simply because the ML is made domestically by American workers?

Umm, why? Mercedes-Benz is not a charity, they have no obligation to sell their products cheaply. Even if the actual cost to produce an ML and Mountaineer is the same (which I doubt), Mercedes is an upscale luxury product that costs more money. They will sell their products for as much as possible.

Of course, it's a silly comparison because a Mountaineer is not a competitor to an ML. Good luck finding a Mercedes customer that cross-shops Mercury. Further, go drive both of them, I doubt you'll find the Mercury equal to the Mercedes. A more valid comparison would be between an ML built in an American plant vs in Germany. But again, why would Mercedes sell them at a discount if they are still selling? Lower costs equals more profit, which is pretty much the point of any business.

[Porsche_monkey]

Originally Posted by dd74

.... shouldn't the ML be cheaper for the U.S. market than, for example, the Canadian market (I think they're roughly the same price in either country), simply because the ML is made domestically by American workers?

What would the prices differ, aside from shipping?

[onewhippedpuppy]

Shipping and exchange rate would be a bonus for most foreign manufacturers. Probably why many of them have plans to build here, or already have.

[dd74]

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

Umm, why? Mercedes-Benz is not a charity, they have no obligation to sell their products cheaply.

As Mercedes cars and trucks in SoCal have sat on the dealer lots for months, as well as populated a good portion of the San Pedro ports, it's more likely Mercedes Benz will wish for "charitable" consumers to buy their dusted-over product. "Charity" is in the money-holders, and these days, that is not Mercedes-Benz.

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

Even if the actual cost to produce an ML and Mountaineer is the same (which I doubt), Mercedes is an upscale luxury product that costs more money.

Mercedes is upscale [U]how? When it offers a C-series for $30K, which is about the same as any other car of its sort on the market? Is cloth and/or fake leather seating on some models upscale? "Upscale" means one does not compete with modestly-priced product or use cheap materials. Bentley, Ferrari, Lamborghini, etc., is upscale, specifically because they have nothing to do with Toyota, Nissan, Ford, etc., and use real leather in their vehicles. Why does Mercedes cost more money? Maybe because Mercedes is overpriced.

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

They will sell their products for as much as possible.

Not in Britain:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1367268/Consumer-power-forces-Mercedes-to-cut-prices-by-20pc.html
From Sept 1, buyers will be able to save £9,940, or 21 per cent, on the Mercedes E430 Elegance saloon, which will retail at £38,390. The S500 limousine's list price will be cut by 20 per cent, down from £74,040 to £59,440. Buyers will also be able to save £1,700, or 12 per cent, on Mercedes's new small car, the A140 Classic, whose £12,790 price tag will make it the cheapest new Mercedes on the road to date. Across the range, prices will fall by an average nine per cent.
And I'm sure soon, not in the U.S.

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

Of course, it's a silly comparison because a Mountaineer is not a competitor to an ML. Good luck finding a Mercedes customer that cross-shops Mercury. Further, go drive both of them, I doubt you'll find the Mercury equal to the Mercedes.

First of all, I own both a Mountaineer and an ML - both of which are current models. One drives as fine as the other within the realm of what they're supposed to do - that is drive. The Mountaineer is actually much better with interior hauling, as it has a larger interior. It also seats more passengers. It has every single amenity the ML has. Performance is the same, handling is the same. Gas mileage is the same, except for The ML-320 diesel which is higher, but also costs more than the gasoline version.

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

A more valid comparison would be between an ML built in an American plant vs in Germany.

Why would that be at all a valid comparison for someone who wants an SUV built in America by Americans, which is the point of my reply on this thread? Again, the ML is no better than the Mountaineer in almost every respect, so why does the ML cost more? Is it overpriced? Is it because it's a luxury brand as if the Mountaineer is not? (Lincoln-Mercury is, of course, the luxury brand of Ford). The ML is made by Americans in America, and does nothing better than the Mountaineer, yet is $10-20K + more between the standard level of both models.

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

But again, why would Mercedes sell them at a discount if they are still selling? Lower costs equals more profit, which is pretty much the point of any business.

1) They aren't "still" selling - not very well, at least.
2) Lower costs equals more profits is not a luxury brand philosophy. If Mercedes subscribes to lower costs equals more profits, how can you still call them a luxury brand?

So what's the real point here? The Big 3 get smothered and compromised, potentially go out of business, and we as consumers get stuck paying even higher prices for product that isn't that much better? If true, Mercedes better rethink their philosophy in the American market.

As is, they've already rethought their assembly line output in Alabama:
http://carscoop.blogspot.com/2008/11/mercedes-to-cut-production-of-m-class.html

[dd74]

Addendum:

Fully loaded 2009 Mercury Mountaineer AWD V8 = $43,000

Mercedes-Benz ML-350 start at $48,000

Two luxury brands (so to speak) made in America by Americans.

Both are very comparable - I haven't had a problem with either one.

So why the price difference between these two American-made products?

Has anyone considered that if the Big 3 went bankrupt, as auto consumers, we could be stuck paying even higher prices for what is overall comparable quality from foreign brands made in this country?

[the]

GM spends more on healthcare than they do on steel. Game over.

[Keith Perry]

First one to switch to the electric wheel wins. Ford showed a 150+ MPG F150 CrewCab at SEMA LV Nov. 28. Same electric wheels as the 250+ MPG Mini Coopers in CA. And this 1st generation EW adds only 15 or so lbs. of unsprung wt. to the corners.