C7

[mzziaz]

GM should lose the leaf springs on the vette just for the image problem associated with them.

[Eye of the Tiger]

GM should lose the leaf springs on the vette just for the image problem associated with them.

Yeah, and the pushrods, too. And what's with the round wheels? Junk.

[SVT666]

If the pushrod powerplants weren't competitive, I would say they need to go, but they are easily competitive, if not superior to the competitors.  It's small, light, very powerful, and fuel efficient.  They are fantastic engines.

[SVT666]

No, not at all.  I'm just smart enough to know that I don't know everything. Making definitive statements like "GM does nothing smart and their engineers are completely handcuffed" is the pinnacle of arrogance.  GM's engineers certainly have always had a say in the how things are designed, and no company lets the engineers go wild.  It's a fine balance and not nearly as black and white as Craig suggests.

It's either one or other.  Either the engineers were a bunch of dumbasses, which they weren't, or the company handcuffed them (which they did).  It's the company that told them they had to use very large FWD platforms for the cadillac division while the competitors were using RWD.  The company forced them to badge engineer cars left, right, and center.  The company forced them to put shitty interiors in the cars.  The company forced them to design and build the cars they designed and built.  If you are telling me I'm wrong and the company didn't handcuff their engineers with their poor decisions, then the engineers were shit...and we know that's not true.

[GoCougs]

SVT666 you done got called out:

You trust GM engineers?  Only recently have they shown any intelligence at all.

[SVT666]

SVT666 you done got called out:

Read my next post dumbass.  We don't have a sarcasm smilie.

[MrH]

It's either one or other.  Either the engineers were a bunch of dumbasses, which they weren't, or the company handcuffed them (which they did).  It's the company that told them they had to use very large FWD platforms for the cadillac division while the competitors were using RWD.  The company forced them to badge engineer cars left, right, and center.  The company forced them to put shitty interiors in the cars.  The company forced them to design and build the cars they designed and built.  If you are telling me I'm wrong and the company didn't handcuff their engineers with their poor decisions, then the engineers were shit...and we know that's not true.

To put it bluntly, you're just showing how grossly naive you are to what it takes to design a car.

Wow, thank you for proving my point.

You think a team of engineers have a say as to what platform Cadillac is using?  Whether a car is FWD or RWD?  They were told they had to make "shitty interiors"?  You think that was solely a management decision?  Do you think that's really what brought GM to where it is today?  Don't you think it's possible, just maybe, that there are a TON of things that combined to create GM's past vehicles, one of which was a non-competitive cost structure?  You're saying it's either the engineers OR management's fault.  The fact your calling many of GM's vehicles definitively and categorically bad, and then trying to place the blame on all of two groups (of which, you couldn't draw the line of who's in what group anyhow) is just ridiculous.

I can't believe you're really trying to justify this kind of oversimplification of one of the biggest companies in the world.  Geeze man. 

[SVT666]

Wow, thank you for proving my point.

You think a team of engineers have a say as to what platform Cadillac is using?  Whether a car is FWD or RWD?  They were told they had to make "shitty interiors"?  You think that was solely a management decision?  Do you think that's really what brought GM to where it is today?  Don't you think it's possible, just maybe, that there are a TON of things that combined to create GM's past vehicles, one of which was a non-competitive cost structure?  You're saying it's either the engineers OR management's fault.  The fact your calling many of GM's vehicles definitively and categorically bad, and then trying to place the blame on all of two groups (of which, you couldn't draw the line of who's in what group anyhow) is just ridiculous.

I can't believe you're really trying to justify this kind of oversimplification of one of the biggest companies in the world.  Geeze man. 

Enlighten me.  Who's fault is it for the non-competitive cost structure?

[sportyaccordy]

The cost structure argument is such bullshit

Germany has had auto unions forever, far more intertwined w/govt + costly and only recently has that cost structure coem into play. And in Europe they do small low profit margin high volume cars too. Golf/Jetta have sold 33M copies since 74 to the Corolla's 33M copies since 66. All under the oppressive communist German regime

Japan's "cost structure" had a built in cost spiker from its inception- a continually rising yen- and while they have transitioned into manufacturing outside of Japan for a long time they weren't, and their vehicles were still competitive. There were some big projects they outright took initial losses on as investments in market share

It all comes back to management management management... D3 has had shitty management since WWII, everything else is ancillary

[MrH]

Enlighten me.  Who's fault is it for the non-competitive cost structure?

Tons of people.

I don't know why your mind set is: Engineering + Management = 0 or 1.  0 = bad car, 1 = good car.  Nothing in the last decade has been perfect, nothing has been completely bad.  Every car falls in that scale somewhere (which is totally subjective).  GM does a lot of things really well.

For example:  let's take a GM car with a non-competitive interior (it's all painted or mold to color plastics.  Nothing soft touch, cheap trim pieces, low content, etc).  Who's to blame?  First, it's not all bad.  Maybe the AC outlets were well done.  Maybe the glovebox mechanism was robust and incredibly low cost but functional.  Second, who's to blame for the overall end product?:

Was it management's fault for not allocating enough money to the interior portion of the vehicle budget? 
Was it strategic planning dept's fault as there wasn't enough to market demand for that vehicle at that price point? 
Is it the engineering dept's fault for not using the money budgeted for the interior cost effectively? 
Was it operations dept's for not manufacturing the vehicle as efficiently as possible? 
Was it purchasing dept's fault for not getting the best price out of their supply base? 
Was it the unions for pushing manufacturing costs too high to be competitive in that segment?
Was the yen to dollar ratio putting the Japanese at an unfair advantage?
Was it the quality dept's fault the scrap was high and added a lot of cost?
Maybe it's the designers fault for boxing the engineers into a design they couldn't manufacture cheaply?


Or maybe you're just inherently biased against GM and painfully naive to what it takes to produce a vehicle, so you blindly say the engineers are stupid at GM and you don't trust them.

GM is one of the largest companies to ever exist.  They've done something right during that time to get there.  The auto industry is so bizarre because it's massive and wildly fluctuates at any time.  Economy crashes, car sales can slow way down.  A design slightly awkward can kill a public's perception and sales of a vehicle so quickly.  It's ruthless how company's jockey for market share.  Being put at a big cost disadvantage due to unions in a market this competitive hurts big time.  If legacy costs and manufacturer wages add even $500 to the cost of building something like a Chevy Cruze (and trust me, it adds a ton more than that), that's enough to make it noncompetitive.  The fact that GM is making competitive vehicles in spite of their situation is proof they're doing at least something right.

[SVT666]

Tons of people.

I don't know why your mind set is: Engineering + Management = 0 or 1.  0 = bad car, 1 = good car.  Nothing in the last decade has been perfect, nothing has been completely bad.  Every car falls in that scale somewhere (which is totally subjective).  GM does a lot of things really well.

For example:  let's take a GM car with a non-competitive interior (it's all painted or mold to color plastics.  Nothing soft touch, cheap trim pieces, low content, etc).  Who's to blame?  First, it's not all bad.  Maybe the AC outlets were well done.  Maybe the glovebox mechanism was robust and incredibly low cost but functional.  Second, who's to blame for the overall end product?:

Was it management's fault for not allocating enough money to the interior portion of the vehicle budget? 
Was it strategic planning dept's fault as there wasn't enough to market demand for that vehicle at that price point? 
Is it the engineering dept's fault for not using the money budgeted for the interior cost effectively? 
Was it operations dept's for not manufacturing the vehicle as efficiently as possible? 
Was it purchasing dept's fault for not getting the best price out of their supply base? 
Was it the unions for pushing manufacturing costs too high to be competitive in that segment?
Was the yen to dollar ratio putting the Japanese at an unfair advantage?
Was it the quality dept's fault the scrap was high and added a lot of cost?
Maybe it's the designers fault for boxing the engineers into a design they couldn't manufacture cheaply?


Or maybe you're just inherently biased against GM and painfully naive to what it takes to produce a vehicle, so you blindly say the engineers are stupid at GM and you don't trust them.

GM is one of the largest companies to ever exist.  They've done something right during that time to get there.  The auto industry is so bizarre because it's massive and wildly fluctuates at any time.  Economy crashes, car sales can slow way down.  A design slightly awkward can kill a public's perception and sales of a vehicle so quickly.  It's ruthless how company's jockey for market share.  Being put at a big cost disadvantage due to unions in a market this competitive hurts big time.  If legacy costs and manufacturer wages add even $500 to the cost of building something like a Chevy Cruze (and trust me, it adds a ton more than that), that's enough to make it noncompetitive.  The fact that GM is making competitive vehicles in spite of their situation is proof they're doing at least something right.

I think it's you who doesn't understand.  GM may be one of the biggest manufacturing companies to ever exist and they did things right....in the very distant past.  But in the last 30 years GM was doing almost everything wrong (except their trucks and SUVs).  There is a reason GM failed and needed government bailouts.  All of it comes down to poor management and poor leadership making poor decisions.  Good management is the deciding factor in virtually everything you listed there.  I suggest you read a book.  It's called "American Icon: Alan Mullaly and the Fight to Save Ford".  That book will shed some light on this for you.  It's primarily about Ford, but they touch on GM and Chrysler and talk about how they were all been run into the ground by poor management, poor decision making, and a lack of vision.  It's an eye opener, and you really need to read it.

[SVT666]

Or maybe you're just inherently biased against GM and painfully naive to what it takes to produce a vehicle, so you blindly say the engineers are stupid at GM and you don't trust them.

Hardly.  If it wasn't for the squeaky interior in the CTS, I could have one of those in my garage right now.  I would love a Corvette, and if they make an LS3 ATS-V, I could easily buy one of those one day. 

[MrH]

I think it's you who doesn't understand.  GM may be one of the biggest manufacturing companies to ever exist and they did things right....in the very distant past.  But in the last 30 years GM was doing almost everything wrong (except their trucks and SUVs).  There is a reason GM failed and needed government bailouts.  All of it comes down to poor management and poor leadership making poor decisions.  Good management is the deciding factor in virtually everything you listed there.  I suggest you read a book.  It's called "American Icon: Alan Mullaly and the Fight to Save Ford".  That book will shed some light on this for you.  It's primarily about Ford, but they touch on GM and Chrysler and talk about how they were all been run into the ground by poor management, poor decision making, and a lack of vision.  It's an eye opener, and you really need to read it.

Lol.  False.  Everyone did everything wrong back then.  Everyone was horribly inefficient.  And when we look back on today's time, people will say the same in the future.

If you want to trace everything up the management ladder, why did you ever bring up the idea it could be the engineer's "fault"?

I get it, you're enamored with a new book.  I've seen the book, but haven't read it yet.  It's on my To-Read list.  I read Lutz's book.  It was a biased old man simplification of the situation too.

[SVT666]

Lol.  False.  Everyone did everything wrong back then.  Everyone was horribly inefficient.  And when we look back on today's time, people will say the same in the future.

If you want to trace everything up the management ladder, why did you ever bring up the idea it could be the engineer's "fault"?

I get it, you're enamored with a new book.  I've seen the book, but haven't read it yet.  It's on my To-Read list.  I read Lutz's book.  It was a biased old man simplification of the situation too.

For someone who hasn't read the book, you have already made your conclusions and that says a lot about you and your argument.  You have no clue how business works do you?

[SVT666]

Oh and I stated a while back, that my post about the engineers was "sarcasm" and that the real problem lied with management so stop using my sarcastic remark as an actual argument.  Fuck.  Reading comprehension FAIL.  You and Cougs are two peas in a pod.

[MrH]

I'm not the one making definitive, black and white statements.  You're doing just that, based off one book you read.

[SVT666]

I'm not the one making definitive, black and white statements.  You're doing just that, based off one book you read.

Ford turned things around when the leader was replaced.  GM turned things around after the leader was replaced.  They both changed the management style and the focus of the companies.  Fuck man, read the fucking book and get back to me.  You will learn a lot.

[MrH]

Oh and I stated a while back, that my post about the engineers was "sarcasm" and that the real problem lied with management so stop using my sarcastic remark as an actual argument.  Fuck.  Reading comprehension FAIL.  You and Cougs are two peas in a pod.

It was a sarcastic comment, that multiple people took seriously, and then you proceeded to defend for two pages?  #MoonWalkFailSPIN

[SVT666]

It was a sarcastic comment, that multiple people took seriously, and then you proceeded to defend for two pages?  #MoonWalkFailSPIN

My very next post stated what my true feelings on the subject were.  Reading comprehension FAIL.

[MrH]

And yet you're still defending your "sarcastic" joke...

[SVT666]

And yet you're still defending your "sarcastic" joke...

People like you keep bringing it up.  Holy shit, you're dense.

[Lebowski]

Ford turned things around when the leader was replaced.  

I think Mulally is a great CEO, however the entire domestic industry including Ford benefitted immensely from significant reduction in industry capacity plus union concessions, possible in large part because of GM and Chryslers' bankruptcy process.

Yes Ford's management and product have improved but the dramatic improvement in Ford's NA autos profitability would not have been possible absent material industry restructuring.

Witness Ford's own European ops - $1.5b in losses this year owing to the European industry's inability thus far to undergo comparable restructuring and capacity rationalization, due in large part to unions and anti-free market  Gov't policies.

Bottom line if it was all due to Mulally, he'd have turned around Ford Europe as well.  Industry fundamentals matter as well, and a giant lol at all the morons pointing to Europe's auto industry as an example of getting it right (they haven't).

[SVT666]

I think Mulally is a great CEO, however the entire domestic industry including Ford benefitted immensely from significant reduction in industry capacity plus union concessions, possible in large part because of GM and Chryslers' bankruptcy process.

Yes Ford's management and product have improved but the dramatic improvement in Ford's NA autos profitability would not have been possible absent material industry restructuring.

Witness Ford's own European ops - $1.5b in losses this year owing to the European industry's inability thus far to undergo comparable restructuring and capacity rationalization, due in large part to unions and anti-free market  Gov't policies.

Bottom line if it was all due to Mulally, he'd have turned around Ford Europe as well.  Industry fundamentals matter as well, and a giant lol at all the morons pointing to Europe's auto industry as an example of getting it right (they haven't).

Sure, the union concessions helped, but if Ford's management team had gone unchanged when Mullaly was hired they were bankrupt in 18 months.  Fact.  The banks and lenders that Ford secured the LOC from agreedto the deal because Mullaly came on board.  If there was no change in the Management of the company the banks were refusing to lend Ford anything.

[LonghornTX]

Sure, the union concessions helped, but if Ford's management team had gone unchanged when Mullaly was hired they were bankrupt in 18 months.  Fact.  The banks and lenders that Ford secured the LOC from agreedto the deal because Mullaly came on board.  If there was no change in the Management of the company the banks were refusing to lend Ford anything.

Tons of people.

I don't know why your mind set is: Engineering + Management = 0 or 1.  0 = bad car, 1 = good car.  Nothing in the last decade has been perfect, nothing has been completely bad.  Every car falls in that scale somewhere (which is totally subjective).  GM does a lot of things really well.

For example:  let's take a GM car with a non-competitive interior (it's all painted or mold to color plastics.  Nothing soft touch, cheap trim pieces, low content, etc).  Who's to blame?  First, it's not all bad.  Maybe the AC outlets were well done.  Maybe the glovebox mechanism was robust and incredibly low cost but functional.  Second, who's to blame for the overall end product?:

Was it management's fault for not allocating enough money to the interior portion of the vehicle budget? 
Was it strategic planning dept's fault as there wasn't enough to market demand for that vehicle at that price point? 
Is it the engineering dept's fault for not using the money budgeted for the interior cost effectively? 
Was it operations dept's for not manufacturing the vehicle as efficiently as possible? 
Was it purchasing dept's fault for not getting the best price out of their supply base? 
Was it the unions for pushing manufacturing costs too high to be competitive in that segment?
Was the yen to dollar ratio putting the Japanese at an unfair advantage?
Was it the quality dept's fault the scrap was high and added a lot of cost?
Maybe it's the designers fault for boxing the engineers into a design they couldn't manufacture cheaply?


Or maybe you're just inherently biased against GM and painfully naive to what it takes to produce a vehicle, so you blindly say the engineers are stupid at GM and you don't trust them.

GM is one of the largest companies to ever exist.  They've done something right during that time to get there.  The auto industry is so bizarre because it's massive and wildly fluctuates at any time.  Economy crashes, car sales can slow way down.  A design slightly awkward can kill a public's perception and sales of a vehicle so quickly.  It's ruthless how company's jockey for market share.  Being put at a big cost disadvantage due to unions in a market this competitive hurts big time.  If legacy costs and manufacturer wages add even $500 to the cost of building something like a Chevy Cruze (and trust me, it adds a ton more than that), that's enough to make it noncompetitive.  The fact that GM is making competitive vehicles in spite of their situation is proof they're doing at least something right.

This is a good post. The number of people who "touch" a car before, during and after it is designed/produced is astounding. I know, I have seen it from the inside.

At the same time, leadership does truly have a huge impact on the effectiveness of organizations of this size. As does the overall business environment (as noted by Lebowski) and outside actors (Ford probably would have gone bankrupt as well without the bailout, since its supplier base would have been severily disrupted).

This industry is the definition of managing complexity and that is why I love it. Now, can we get back to talking about the new Vette?

[Gotta-Qik-C7]

Back to the C7. I hope this car is a home run cuz I plan on owning one in the near future!!!

[Raza]

Back to the C7. I hope this car is a home run cuz I plan on owning one in the near future!!!

I used to be a big Corvette fan, but with the C6, and the S197, I shifted towards the Mustang.  Something about the Mustang just feels more...I don't know.  Maybe it's because I like classic Mustangs more.  But now I feel weird liking both the Corvette and the Mustang.

Also, Corvette drivers never wave.  It's like they don't even know they're driving a sports car. 

[Lebowski]

Also, Corvette drivers never wave.  It's like they don't even know they're driving a sports car. 

They wave to other corvettes.

[Lebowski]

Back to the C7. I hope this car is a home run cuz I plan on owning one in the near future!!!

Gotta-qik-C7 has a nice ring to it

[sportyaccordy]

I used to be a big Corvette fan, but with the C6, and the S197, I shifted towards the Mustang.  Something about the Mustang just feels more...I don't know.  Maybe it's because I like classic Mustangs more.  But now I feel weird liking both the Corvette and the Mustang.

Mustang & Vette have always had a huge cross section of fans. Largely cause they are in totally different sectors, but are borne out of the same nationalism & culture. I was never really a "fan" of the Mustang... I mean I liked them in a "sum of the parts" way for versions like the old IRS Cobra or just pure nostalgia for the Vanilla Ice Cobra. But with this last one they really stepped into the 20th century. With this next one they will step into the 21st. I'm excited.

I have the new C&D with "renderings" of the C7. Looks like a cross between a lot of non-American cars. Not sure how I feel about the design. Under the skin though it sounds awesome. I am really looking forward to it.

Also, Corvette drivers never wave.  It's like they don't even know they're driving a sports car. 

Arthritis.

Though on motorcycles you are supposed to wave too, and unless I am on a sweeping two lane road I never do. Actually I think its weird to wave to other sports car drivers too

[Raza]

They wave to other corvettes.

That was the assumption I made.  It's silly.  Porsche drivers do all wave to each other, but I've gotten the wave from an S2000 and an NSX before.  Don't know why Corvette drivers wouldn't even reciprocate.