Yep. My old man is using it. It's only got 121,000 miles. There were many times I would remark "THIS is a $40k car???" when looking at some of the interior parts, But it always rode well, got good gas mileage, was very comfortable, and very reliable.
Remember, the Lacrosse wasn't designed globally to save money, it was designed globally because it is sold globally. I would imagine that concessions would have had to be made for things like right hand drive for example. I know one of the biggest complaints has been the small trunk. It took some finagling to get 4 sets of clubs in the trunk. But everyone RAVES about how spacious the rear seat is. That is because of the Chinese. It's been said that 70% of the people who buy one in China will never drive it. So, voila!! bigger back seat (I'm sure my boys will appreciate that when they take it on a date. :surprise: )
No it's plan right. ALL companies need to think global. No more can GM expect local tastes to drive their global strategy. The products actually have to perform the best in each market. Is that hard to do? You betcha!
Live in the market or die in the market. GM is finally learning. The La Crosse is an Int'l Home Run.
The 2011 Sonata will be likewise. It's a global market at the end of the day whether computers or cars. One region can destroy you as GM knows now.
No one would accuse Buick of building unreliable cars. On the contrary, the big Buicks will run practically forever without heroics. It's just that until recently, liking these cars required a high tolerance for tackiness. To borrow a phrase from the real estate biz, they had no curb appeal.
Actually I'd be just as happy pumping my own gas. When I lived in Tallahassee for a year I used to do all my checks on the car while I was there at the pump. Of course now there's hardly anything to check on a car anymore....
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
If you bought a pre-2008 intermediate or large GM car, you had to overlook tacky, cheap-looking interiors
My used last gen Riv was the only GM car between a new '88 Formula 350 and a new '10 Malibu. There may not be a car that matches the '96 Riv in seating comfort. The entire interior is soft. Gages are sized for my fading eyesight. It was a $30k car back in the day. Inlaid chrome around the wheelwells, sealed aluminum hood, auto leveling, 3/4 inch thick carpeting, autodimming mirrors, 28 mpg with a 18.6 cu ft fully lined trunk, and 282 ft-lbs from a boosted 6 that still goes like hell at 178k miles.
The new Malibu interior holds its own. I have no basis to complain about GM car interiors. Maybe I skipped all the right years.
In '98 we got a new Astro. Our friend got a new manual Civic at about the same price that same year. Absolutely no comparison 10 years later. Like A Rock vs. dinky faded rattletrap. Civic really showed its age. Major drivetrain clanging when the clutch was let out. Radio, a/c, and windshield broken.
There's an old fashioned service station with a busy garage that only has full serve a half block away from a self serve I sometimes use. The prices are always 15 cents or higher per gallon.
But you go to NJ and not only do they pump your gas, the gas is usually about the cheapest in the country. Go figure.
Getting back to the topic, the focus seems to be on Toyota, Honda and Hyundai but the "American" car companies may be facing a dark horse in VW. They are lowering the price on Jettas and pushing ahead fast with the big new factory in Chattanooga.
I worked for Delco Moraine from 1969 - 1978. At that time they were UAW. I don't know what happened, union wise, after the Delco Moraine plants (Needmore Road and Moraine City) were spun off from GM to Delphi, and, eventually shut down.
"Owners ranked the new Chevrolet Camaro as the most satisfying car in its class, according to a new J.D. Power survey.
On average, owners of new American cars like their cars better than owners of Asian and European models according to the survey. This is the first time that's happened in 13 years.
Detroit gained, in part, because many less appealing models, introduced years ago, were finally phased out of production, replaced by newer designs that customers like much better. Ford and GM, in particular, made some big gains."
Maybe this will lead to GM selling enough cars to fund designing better cars.
Heck, my wife's 2005 Buick LaCrosse was a quantum leap over the 2004 Century and Regal it replaced. The current LaCrosse is even more of a leap over her car!
I like the exterior design and performance of the Charger and 300, but the interiors turn me off. The word "Soviet Bloc" comes to mind.
As the former owner of a 1975 Cadillac Sedan DeVille, Cadillac did go downhill starting with the 1971 redesign. My then-girlfriend had a 1969 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham and it was much better-built, more solid feeling, and had excellent attention to detail. For example, the Cadillac crests on her car were actually cloisonne versus plastic or painted chrome with an acrylic layer. There was actual wood trim inside the car versus the heavy industrial plastic with the questionably tasteful "Mediterannean theme."
I had an '02 Regal. Zero defects/problems in over 120K miles. Roomy, not too big on the outside, fast, 30+ mpg [hwy] on regular. Lotsa goodies, too. I even liked the muscular styling. All for <$30K before huge discounts. GM did right saving Buick - all 4 current models are world-class. I sure do miss those discounts, though; of course they were part of the reason for GM's bankruptcy.
"But you go to NJ and not only do they pump your gas, the gas is usually about the cheapest in the country. Go figure."
The reason NJ gas is so cheap is because they are right on the Gulf of Mexico where they pull the crude off the water...on a related note, I flunked geography in school... :P
yeah, I live in NJ and while we get our gas pumped for us and pay the cheapest in the country, practically every other tax we pay is the highest in the nation so we get screwed probably worse then any of you overall. Gas is probably the only thing we pay the least for! :sick:
Looking at that chart reminds me of the old days, when I was a little kid and my Granddad used to watch me during the day. Sometimes he and his brother in law would drive over to VA to a K-mart, take me with them, load up on cigarettes, and buy me a model car. I remember getting a '53 Bel Air hardtop on one of those trips!
I guess even in the '70's, the disparity in cigarette taxes made it worthwhile to make that run across the state line....about 40 miles round trip, in a 1976 GMC crew cab that got maybe 10-12 mpg.
When I used to drive back to NY from Atlanta in the 1970s, I would stop in North Carolina (for the low cig tax) and buy cigarettes for my parents who used to smoke...Dad wanted Lucky Strike or Camels and Mom wanted Kool or Benson & Hedges...a carton of 10 packs back then was about $2.60...I think a pack of them costs more than $2.60 now, but since I don't smoke I would not know...and I would bet that the cigarette farmers were NOT part of the UAW and proud to say so...(is rocky awake???)...
Well, here's one idea: we should make it so unattractive to offshore manufacturing jobs that companies would be better off keeping them here. First, if any U.S. company manufactures a product overseas, it can only sell it in that market. Will those Chinese you pay about $2 a day be able to afford the product you're manufacturing there? Another idea is corporations that offshore American jobs should pay onerous tariffs on products that were once manufactured here to pay the unemployment compensation for those newly out-of-work Americans indefinitely at 100% of their former pay.
Let's be brutally honest, things were much better when there were plenty of manufacturing jobs to go around. There was a lot more economic stability and a lot less crime and social disarray. We've GOT TO bring those manufacturing jobs home. Not everybody is cut out to earn a college degree. What do you suppose we do with all those out-of-work blue collar workers - turn them into Soylent Green?
We need the manufacturing jobs for things that supply our own people: we aren't even supply part of the needs of our own people.
I keep running into mention of how other countries have protected their own internal manufacturing by putting tariffs on imports of certain items, including certain items from the US, but somehow we're not supposed to protect ourselves and our people?
The huge spending bill included little that actually effected new, private sector job stimulation LAST year when it was direly needed. Instead the union jobs it has kept are mostly in road building and came THIS summer--I can attest to that after spending a few days in Lower Michigan this weekend until yesterday.
Stimulating the jobs LAST summer would have meant more money into state and local tax coffers which would have meant less drastic cutting needed this year on their budgets. But that's too late.
Instead we're supposed to continue sucking up while manufacturing and the private sector jobs stagnate at the bottom because of no hiring for various reasons: uncertainty on tax increases, cap and tax, healthcare bill reality setting in, and no loans from the small banks taking the brunt of the Wall Street reform which is mostly window dressing with no Fannie and Freddy Mac reforms.
All the same, I don't see where offshoring has much, if anything, to do with the plight of the American auto industry. The D3 began to dig itself into a hole way back in the 1970s, when it failed to respond to customers' demands for more fuel-efficient cars. The Vega, Pinto & Chevette were simply not as good - not nearly as good - as the Civic, Accord & Corolla.
I bought my first Japanese car - a Civic - at the height of the 1973-74 gas crunch. (I also paid way over sticker for it, but's that's another story.) My wife bought her first Japanese car - a Toyota Corona - in 1975. (Her previous car was a Chevy Camaro.)
Because these cars more than lived up to our expectations, it was easier to buy more of the same when the time came to replace them. Price didn't drive our choices; comparable American cars were almost always cheaper. (In the late 70s & 80s, top Japanese brands sold for sticker, while American brands could be had at sharp discounts from MSRP.) But comparable American cars weren't as well made, so buying them seemed to us to be unacceptably risky.
Long story short, the D3 lost much, if not most, of the boomer generation 30+ years ago because it didn't pay attention to what we wanted. As a result, the boomer whose first new car was a '76 Corolla or Civic is driving a Lexus or an Acura today. You can't blame offshoring, which didn't become a significant economic factor until well into the 1990s, for this. In my view, the D3 was in deep doo-doo by 1980 at the latest.
American tastes changed, but American car manufacturers either couldn't or didn't want to cater to them.
I keep running into mention of how other countries have protected their own internal manufacturing by putting tariffs on imports of certain items, including certain items from the US, but somehow we're not supposed to protect ourselves and our people?
This line of reasoning has never made any sense to me.
For one thing, I've never seen any proof that tariffs actually do what their supporters say they'll do - preserve jobs. If tariffs force me to pay more money for a new car, then I'll have less money to spend on other things, like new kitchen appliances or vinyl siding for my house. That's just basic economic common sense.
"Tariff" is just another word for "tax". A tariff is simply a concealed sales tax. And like any tax, it cuts into my buying power.
You aren't saving jobs. You're just shifting jobs to industries with enough clout in Washington to get tariff protection from industries that aren't politically connected.
Most of the arguments in favor of tariffs come down to "Country X does it, so we should do it too." But no one can prove that Country X is actually better off for it. And the idea that because Country X punishes its citizens with wallet-sucking tariffs, we should allow our government to punish us in the same way has never won me over.
WE should be building advanced energy products and systems and leave the old world commodity mfg. products like cars, p.c.'s and clothing to the asians.
Train to build solar systems, robotics, etc here in the states...high-profit items that the faster growing economies are going to need real soon and can't build there.
Since when were there plenty of manufacturing jobs to go around across the US? Last I checked, there is more to the US than the midwest and northeast.
Like it or not things have evolved to where they are now. We have many manufacturers in this country that extract 1/2 or more of their sales around the world. Placing a protectionist policy that will have a backlash that probably would hurt more than it would help. We manufacture and export far more than most on these boards realize.
Okay, so my ipod has to be made here. We can't consume every Deere or Catipillar tractor or loader, every Boeing commercial jet, along with many other expensive products from our manufacturers. You don't think other countries would put a similar policy in place. How many ipods would have to be sold for lost sale of a Cat or boeing jet?
We can't protect some of our own industries without hurting others. Want to sell Jets and heavy equipment to China, South America or where ever? That will stop with short sighted policies that will hurt our exporting companies that have to compete with the likes of Europe and Asia.
We need to get our construction industry back up again. I know far more people laid off in the building trades than manufacturing. Those jobs weren't offshored.
There was a lot more economic stability and a lot less crime and social disarray.
I neglected to address this in my earlier post.
First, economists have never been able to find a connection between the crime rate & the employment rate. At worst, high unemployment might lead to more petty crime, like shoplifting. That's about it.
Second, violent crime in most of the U.S. is far below the levels that prevailed in the 1970s, when manufacturing jobs were supposedly easier to come by.
Here in the NY metro area, crime was at its worst in the late 70s. NYC itself was truly a sewer back then. Today, the city's violent crime rate has dropped to levels not seen since the early 1960s, when JFK was President.
If things are worse in Philly, it might just be because your city is mismanaged - not because of the economy. (I think that I've pointed this out before, but you've never responded.)
I have always stood by the fact that the D3 should have retro engineered the Honda Civic way back in the 80s. I believe we would've been way ahead of the curve if we had done that, instead of playing 2nd (or 3rd) fiddle. It's almost like they wanted to play 2nd fiddle. Not good enough, for me.
I have always stood by the fact that the D3 should have retro engineered the Honda Civic way back in the 80s.
Interesting point. Makes sense. Would have been a much better use of corporate resources than the dreadful X-bodies.
It's almost like they wanted to play 2nd fiddle.
In a way, you could say that they did. D3 management in the late 70s was so bloody complacent. They really did think - and were quoted to that effect in the business press at the time - that the boomer infatuation with imports was just a passing phase. Given time, we'd come to our senses & buy the same cars that our parents did. I remember reading this.
Then, when management realized that it had to do something, it responded with such forgettable garbage as GM's X-bodies. The WSJ actually quoted senior GM managers in 1979, on the eve of the X-body rollout, as saying that these new cars would push the imports back into the sea. They really said that & they really seemed to believe it.
It was clear as far back as 1975-76 to anyone who was paying attention that the D3 was about to lose an entire generation of car buyers unless it fundamentally changed the way it did business. We know how that turned out.
That's why Lemko misses the point, IMO. He blames offshoring, which didn't become a significant business factor until the mid-90s. By then, the American auto industry had been bleeding for fully 20 years.
Then, when management realized that it had to do something, it responded with such forgettable garbage as GM's X-bodies. The WSJ actually quoted senior GM managers in 1979, on the eve of the X-body rollout, as saying that these new cars would push the imports back into the sea. They really said that & they really seemed to believe it.
I think the X-cars could have been strong contenders, if the quality had been there and they hadn't been rushed into production. They had a lot going for them...decent room and fuel economy in a tidy package, and performance that was okay for the time period. Some of them even had pretty nice interiors, especially the Skylark and Omega, even the Phoenix if you got the upper trim level. But, they were horribly unreliable, and had recalls galore.
One of my neighbors bought an '81 Citation. He hated it so much that he took it back and traded on an '81 Monte Carlo after a few months. Sadly, the car the Citation had replaced, was a 1969 or 70 Cadillac Sedan DeVille! :sick:
GM did get the quality of the X-car up to around average for 1983. But by then, the Japanese were coming out with ever larger, constantly improved cars, and even Chrysler was improving its K-cars. Ford would soon launch the Tempo/Topaz, which was a big step back for American compacts, but they did sell well for awhile. If GM had gotten the X-cars right, from the beginning, they could've had a real winner on their hands.
Yecch!!! Who replaces a glorious car like a 1969 or 1970 Cadillac with something like a Citation?!?!? I don't care if the X-cars turned out to be all that! Replacing a Cadillac with a compact Chevy isn't just a step down, but falling down an elevator shaft. If all I could afford was something like a Citation, I'd have just kept my old ride. Heck, a Chevrolet Caprice Classic would've been an infinitely better choice!
Unfortunately, around that timeframe I bet a lot of people dumped nice old battlecruisers, as well as musclecars, for what they thought would be the wave of the future.
And, if it's any consolation, it's not like this was an upper-crust family that bought the Caddy brand-new, and then fell on hard times. They picked it up used, but I can't remember how old it was when they got it. I do remember them taking me to school with their kids a few times in it. It was the first car I remember riding in that had power windows. That was probably around '77-78. The husband used to be a carpenter, but also worked on old cars, while the wife worked in the county public school system, in cafeteria management. Very pro-GM family, although the husband did help me repaint both of my Darts, and put a leaf spring on my DeSoto! :shades:
They got fed up with this county and moved down to Southern MD around 2000. The last car I remember them having was a 1995-99 Lumina sedan. They also had a really nice early c1962 Chevy II convertible, and a similar vintage Chevy pickup. At one point they had a '67 or so Riviera, but they might have sold that before they left.
I have always stood by the fact that the D3 should have retro engineered the Honda Civic way back in the 80s.
Interesting point. Makes sense. Would have been a much better use of corporate resources than the dreadful X-bodies.
It's almost like they wanted to play 2nd fiddle.
In a way, you could say that they did. D3 management in the late 70s was so bloody complacent. They really did think - and were quoted to that effect in the business press at the time - that the boomer infatuation with imports was just a passing phase. Given time, we'd come to our senses & buy the same cars that our parents did. I remember reading this.
Here's your answer why it unfolded the way it did...
My Grandpa traded in some '60s Oldsmobile land barge for the Citation in 1979 because it got double the fuel economy without even trying, which was an important consideration when the price of gas had recently doubled. And for those folks who weren't happy with the X-car interior, GM had a Cimarron in the wings.
There was a guy in Pennsauken, NJ threatening to commit suicide the other day by jumping off an overpass into traffic. I heard he sold his Hemi 'Cuda convertible in April 1979 to buy one of the first Chevrolet Citations.
There was a guy in Pennsauken, NJ threatening to commit suicide the other day by jumping off an overpass into traffic. I heard he sold his Hemi 'Cuda convertible in April 1979 to buy one of the first Chevrolet Citations.
Was it because he traded his 'Cuda for the Citation, or because he was in NJ?
Comments
I know, that's just plain wrong.
Live in the market or die in the market. GM is finally learning. The La Crosse is an Int'l Home Run.
The 2011 Sonata will be likewise. It's a global market at the end of the day whether computers or cars. One region can destroy you as GM knows now.
Regards,
OW
I'd wind up getting a tank of regular in my diesel.
That's not real estate talk, that's AUTO talk: curb appeal.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
My used last gen Riv was the only GM car between a new '88 Formula 350 and a new '10 Malibu. There may not be a car that matches the '96 Riv in seating comfort. The entire interior is soft. Gages are sized for my fading eyesight. It was a $30k car back in the day. Inlaid chrome around the wheelwells, sealed aluminum hood, auto leveling, 3/4 inch thick carpeting, autodimming mirrors, 28 mpg with a 18.6 cu ft fully lined trunk, and 282 ft-lbs from a boosted 6 that still goes like hell at 178k miles.
The new Malibu interior holds its own. I have no basis to complain about GM car interiors. Maybe I skipped all the right years.
In '98 we got a new Astro. Our friend got a new manual Civic at about the same price that same year. Absolutely no comparison 10 years later. Like A Rock vs. dinky faded rattletrap. Civic really showed its age. Major drivetrain clanging when the clutch was let out. Radio, a/c, and windshield broken.
But you go to NJ and not only do they pump your gas, the gas is usually about the cheapest in the country. Go figure.
Getting back to the topic, the focus seems to be on Toyota, Honda and Hyundai but the "American" car companies may be facing a dark horse in VW. They are lowering the price on Jettas and pushing ahead fast with the big new factory in Chattanooga.
VW’s U.S. Leadership Vacuum May Disrupt Winterkorn’s Turnaround (Business Week)
Regards:
OldCEM
On average, owners of new American cars like their cars better than owners of Asian and European models according to the survey. This is the first time that's happened in 13 years.
Detroit gained, in part, because many less appealing models, introduced years ago, were finally phased out of production, replaced by newer designs that customers like much better. Ford and GM, in particular, made some big gains."
Maybe this will lead to GM selling enough cars to fund designing better cars.
Jobs at a Loss
I like the exterior design and performance of the Charger and 300, but the interiors turn me off. The word "Soviet Bloc" comes to mind.
The reason NJ gas is so cheap is because they are right on the Gulf of Mexico where they pull the crude off the water...on a related note, I flunked geography in school...
The center will be part of GM’s global engineering and design network, and provide input to GM affiliates the world over.
Ah. our tax dollars at work... :sick:
If yes, considering how expensive everything else is in NJ, I would be shocked if their gas tax was the lowest...
Might be time to move to North Carolina....
That would still keep me two states away from Bob...
I guess even in the '70's, the disparity in cigarette taxes made it worthwhile to make that run across the state line....about 40 miles round trip, in a 1976 GMC crew cab that got maybe 10-12 mpg.
Had we known what her mom smokes these days we'd have picked her up some. Since she's 88 we've given up trying to make her stop.
To sit by passively and do nothing in the face of such deprivation is against all that we as Americans stand for.
So what do you think we should do? You must have some ideas. Go ahead & share them.
Let's be brutally honest, things were much better when there were plenty of manufacturing jobs to go around. There was a lot more economic stability and a lot less crime and social disarray. We've GOT TO bring those manufacturing jobs home. Not everybody is cut out to earn a college degree. What do you suppose we do with all those out-of-work blue collar workers - turn them into Soylent Green?
Nah, put 'em on Carousel. Maybe they'll renew!
I keep running into mention of how other countries have protected their own internal manufacturing by putting tariffs on imports of certain items, including certain items from the US, but somehow we're not supposed to protect ourselves and our people?
The huge spending bill included little that actually effected new, private sector job stimulation LAST year when it was direly needed. Instead the union jobs it has kept are mostly in road building and came THIS summer--I can attest to that after spending a few days in Lower Michigan this weekend until yesterday.
Stimulating the jobs LAST summer would have meant more money into state and local tax coffers which would have meant less drastic cutting needed this year on their budgets. But that's too late.
Instead we're supposed to continue sucking up while manufacturing and the private sector jobs stagnate at the bottom because of no hiring for various reasons: uncertainty on tax increases, cap and tax, healthcare bill reality setting in, and no loans from the small banks taking the brunt of the Wall Street reform which is mostly window dressing with no Fannie and Freddy Mac reforms.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
All the same, I don't see where offshoring has much, if anything, to do with the plight of the American auto industry. The D3 began to dig itself into a hole way back in the 1970s, when it failed to respond to customers' demands for more fuel-efficient cars. The Vega, Pinto & Chevette were simply not as good - not nearly as good - as the Civic, Accord & Corolla.
I bought my first Japanese car - a Civic - at the height of the 1973-74 gas crunch. (I also paid way over sticker for it, but's that's another story.) My wife bought her first Japanese car - a Toyota Corona - in 1975. (Her previous car was a Chevy Camaro.)
Because these cars more than lived up to our expectations, it was easier to buy more of the same when the time came to replace them. Price didn't drive our choices; comparable American cars were almost always cheaper. (In the late 70s & 80s, top Japanese brands sold for sticker, while American brands could be had at sharp discounts from MSRP.) But comparable American cars weren't as well made, so buying them seemed to us to be unacceptably risky.
Long story short, the D3 lost much, if not most, of the boomer generation 30+ years ago because it didn't pay attention to what we wanted. As a result, the boomer whose first new car was a '76 Corolla or Civic is driving a Lexus or an Acura today. You can't blame offshoring, which didn't become a significant economic factor until well into the 1990s, for this. In my view, the D3 was in deep doo-doo by 1980 at the latest.
American tastes changed, but American car manufacturers either couldn't or didn't want to cater to them.
This line of reasoning has never made any sense to me.
For one thing, I've never seen any proof that tariffs actually do what their supporters say they'll do - preserve jobs. If tariffs force me to pay more money for a new car, then I'll have less money to spend on other things, like new kitchen appliances or vinyl siding for my house. That's just basic economic common sense.
"Tariff" is just another word for "tax". A tariff is simply a concealed sales tax. And like any tax, it cuts into my buying power.
You aren't saving jobs. You're just shifting jobs to industries with enough clout in Washington to get tariff protection from industries that aren't politically connected.
Most of the arguments in favor of tariffs come down to "Country X does it, so we should do it too." But no one can prove that Country X is actually better off for it. And the idea that because Country X punishes its citizens with wallet-sucking tariffs, we should allow our government to punish us in the same way has never won me over.
Train to build solar systems, robotics, etc here in the states...high-profit items that the faster growing economies are going to need real soon and can't build there.
Regards,
OW
The rest is history and the gaping hole in the market was nicely filled with a plethora of much better products.
Regards,
OW
Like it or not things have evolved to where they are now. We have many manufacturers in this country that extract 1/2 or more of their sales around the world. Placing a protectionist policy that will have a backlash that probably would hurt more than it would help. We manufacture and export far more than most on these boards realize.
Okay, so my ipod has to be made here. We can't consume every Deere or Catipillar tractor or loader, every Boeing commercial jet, along with many other expensive products from our manufacturers. You don't think other countries would put a similar policy in place. How many ipods would have to be sold for lost sale of a Cat or boeing jet?
We can't protect some of our own industries without hurting others. Want to sell Jets and heavy equipment to China, South America or where ever? That will stop with short sighted policies that will hurt our exporting companies that have to compete with the likes of Europe and Asia.
We need to get our construction industry back up again. I know far more people laid off in the building trades than manufacturing. Those jobs weren't offshored.
I neglected to address this in my earlier post.
First, economists have never been able to find a connection between the crime rate & the employment rate. At worst, high unemployment might lead to more petty crime, like shoplifting. That's about it.
Second, violent crime in most of the U.S. is far below the levels that prevailed in the 1970s, when manufacturing jobs were supposedly easier to come by.
Here in the NY metro area, crime was at its worst in the late 70s. NYC itself was truly a sewer back then. Today, the city's violent crime rate has dropped to levels not seen since the early 1960s, when JFK was President.
If things are worse in Philly, it might just be because your city is mismanaged - not because of the economy. (I think that I've pointed this out before, but you've never responded.)
Interesting point. Makes sense. Would have been a much better use of corporate resources than the dreadful X-bodies.
It's almost like they wanted to play 2nd fiddle.
In a way, you could say that they did. D3 management in the late 70s was so bloody complacent. They really did think - and were quoted to that effect in the business press at the time - that the boomer infatuation with imports was just a passing phase. Given time, we'd come to our senses & buy the same cars that our parents did. I remember reading this.
Then, when management realized that it had to do something, it responded with such forgettable garbage as GM's X-bodies. The WSJ actually quoted senior GM managers in 1979, on the eve of the X-body rollout, as saying that these new cars would push the imports back into the sea. They really said that & they really seemed to believe it.
It was clear as far back as 1975-76 to anyone who was paying attention that the D3 was about to lose an entire generation of car buyers unless it fundamentally changed the way it did business. We know how that turned out.
That's why Lemko misses the point, IMO. He blames offshoring, which didn't become a significant business factor until the mid-90s. By then, the American auto industry had been bleeding for fully 20 years.
I think the X-cars could have been strong contenders, if the quality had been there and they hadn't been rushed into production. They had a lot going for them...decent room and fuel economy in a tidy package, and performance that was okay for the time period. Some of them even had pretty nice interiors, especially the Skylark and Omega, even the Phoenix if you got the upper trim level. But, they were horribly unreliable, and had recalls galore.
One of my neighbors bought an '81 Citation. He hated it so much that he took it back and traded on an '81 Monte Carlo after a few months. Sadly, the car the Citation had replaced, was a 1969 or 70 Cadillac Sedan DeVille! :sick:
GM did get the quality of the X-car up to around average for 1983. But by then, the Japanese were coming out with ever larger, constantly improved cars, and even Chrysler was improving its K-cars. Ford would soon launch the Tempo/Topaz, which was a big step back for American compacts, but they did sell well for awhile. If GM had gotten the X-cars right, from the beginning, they could've had a real winner on their hands.
And, if it's any consolation, it's not like this was an upper-crust family that bought the Caddy brand-new, and then fell on hard times. They picked it up used, but I can't remember how old it was when they got it. I do remember them taking me to school with their kids a few times in it. It was the first car I remember riding in that had power windows. That was probably around '77-78. The husband used to be a carpenter, but also worked on old cars, while the wife worked in the county public school system, in cafeteria management. Very pro-GM family, although the husband did help me repaint both of my Darts, and put a leaf spring on my DeSoto! :shades:
They got fed up with this county and moved down to Southern MD around 2000. The last car I remember them having was a 1995-99 Lumina sedan. They also had a really nice early c1962 Chevy II convertible, and a similar vintage Chevy pickup. At one point they had a '67 or so Riviera, but they might have sold that before they left.
Interesting point. Makes sense. Would have been a much better use of corporate resources than the dreadful X-bodies.
It's almost like they wanted to play 2nd fiddle.
In a way, you could say that they did. D3 management in the late 70s was so bloody complacent. They really did think - and were quoted to that effect in the business press at the time - that the boomer infatuation with imports was just a passing phase. Given time, we'd come to our senses & buy the same cars that our parents did. I remember reading this.
Here's your answer why it unfolded the way it did...
http://books.google.com/books?id=kwxsa5yGELkC&pg=PA486&lpg=PA486&dq=%22small+car- s+mean+small+profits%22+henry+ford&source=bl&ots=Q3OxyFsN1h&sig=u_nsiwOp5ILyNUHq- m8Am5MkODG4&hl=en&ei=GWZITLTCGoP7lwepuJmsCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum- =1&ved=0CBUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22small%20cars%20mean%20small%20profits%22%20hen- ry%20ford&f=false
Henry Ford was made famous by his quote...
"Small cars mean small profits".
It was the standard all US auto management types believed at the time.
Nah, the Citation already had enough problems as it is. It didn't need a rustbucket body and bio-degradable interior on top of it all! :shades:
Was it because he traded his 'Cuda for the Citation, or because he was in NJ?