Safety Vs. Quality

Safety is absolutely #1 in the manufacture of any goods. Quality is #2.

Taking the former, an example of a real life occurence is best. A new CEO was put in place in a manufacturing business. He stressed safety throughout the plant, including not only the factory, but the offices too. Accidents fell dramatically to a negligible amount (one or two). Also, quality increased because the reduction of errors increased dramatically and efficiency replaced the errors.

So to put quality first may be erroneous because safety is not only more important, but makes the process less costly and more efficient.

"Tuners"

If GM does not want to make "Tuner" cars right from the factory, they should make the parts so their cars could be made into "Tuners" by the GM dealerships or by selective body shops.

As I said before I think this would be a great way for the young generation and the Hispanic population to become more oriented to GM cars instead of the Japanese cars.

I also think this is a simple way for GM to get into those markets. Engineering the parts would not take much and distribution would be negligible.

And the cost of marketing in a test market such as L.A. would be very low.

Steam Power

I would say easily less than ten years down the road, steam shall or should play a major role in hybrid automobiles.

Right now because of massive technological and engineering improvements, steam locomotives in the future will produce a 60% lower fuel consumption per passenger and a huge reduction in maintenance costs in comparison to advanced diesel or electric passenger trains. In 2000 a company was created to design these modern steam locomotives.

This means that because of the huge technological advancements, steam power would be feasible on a smaller scale such as in automobiles. The economy of scale would obviously have to be engineered, but with patience, it can be done.

For one these cars could be used on long trips, where the clear highway dictated the fuel consumption per passenger. But that would only be a start. Commuting could use the steam part of the engine, as we see the advent of auto driving sensors on highways and even if we don't, steam could regulate and be regulated in traffic just as the internal combustion engine is now.

Some think steam is not only passe, but never was. I think steam is going to ride the crest of the future!

Certain parts of the car wear out or corrode. Bearings among other moving parts obviously
wear out. But they can last a lot longer. Using nickel coated stainless steel
bearings [inconel(C)] for the alternator, fan, and all other parts that use bearings would be
a start.

Double coating? How about triple coating the certain areas of the auto that tend to corrode?

I know gas lines corrode and the bottom back edge of the door does, along with many parts exposed to the elements.

Obviously Chemical Engineering is necessary to manufacturing autos, but it can be used to
increase the standard at all levels that the current processes are not at.

If GM would put the best metals, alloys, plastics, etc. where needed, the automobiles they
made would be superior to the competition, have endurance and have incredible durability.

GM could become synonomous with the best and have the highest end automobiles, and be the
envy of the automobile world. And customers would be willing to pay the higher price for
these automobiles.

Not feasible? In its heyday the Model T used the best materials and was made to drive on the
awful roads of that era. And it isn't necessary to say how popular it was.

Lastly, and most importantly, as these parts were used for your cars and maybe auto production increased, more high paying American jobs would be created.

GM and NY Car Show

After seeing the cars that GM has proposed for production and that are either Concept or Show cars, I hope all are manufactured. They are good looking cars, and they are much better than what is out there.

My idea of extremely good looking cars are the '34 Ford, '39 Mercury, '67 Shelby Mustang, '68 Chevy Chevelle, most 'vettes, '73 Chevy Camaro, 1975 Buick Riviera, etc.

Now GM's challenge is to build them with such a high durability, that all functions of the car will work after 150,000 without any major repairs. And it is highly possible. For one keep the finance men away. Two, do some of the things I have written here and on the GM blogs. Three, read up on getting out of the dilemna GM is in, by focusing on qualitative results, not quantitative. (Forget about the dividend for now). Strictly focus on market share and increasing it.

With dedicated work and good fortune, GM can do this.

Critical Path

The Critical Path is one where the jobs or tasks absolutely must be done in a rigid time frame. This is not to mean there is skimping for all resources necessary are mandatory. The tasks are completed on time (or as extremely close thereof) and the highest standards are used to complete this task. All the way down the Critical Path, each task is completed using this standard.

If a task within a completed job is not critical, more lenient time standards and possibly more lenient "standards" can be used. (i.e. Critical Path - Getting the frame of the house up. Non-Critical Path - Maybe putting in the floors).

For "standards" I mean the ultra-serious attitude the carpenter must have when measuring the frame and layout of the house. Whereas the floorer doesn't need that ultra-serious way to put down the floors. It does not mean it is not done as well, it means that the task is much more easily done.

Bob Lutz Addendum

I think Bob Lutz will do all he can to make the best cars, but if the bean counters counteract his measures, it will be all for naught. Am I talking about the designs? NO! I am talking about the quality of the cars, the durability and near flawless manufactured cars. This is preeminent in the scheme of things. Design is extremely important, but without the lasting ability of the car, without costly repairs (or for that matter any repairs other than simple maintenance) there won't be any headway into the market.

I am a loyal GM customer. Maybe GM's most loyal customer. But that won't help any if GM (and Ford) doesn't start a cohesive and comprehensive plan to make the best cars in the world.

Bob Lutz

I am very glad this man heads up GM's Product Development (or whatever the correct term is). GM has made and is going to make some of the best designs and durable cars we have seen in years from any auto manufacturer. It is as though he has his hand on the "heartbeat of America." There is no doubt that Lutz has gasoline in his veins.

GM was smart by plucking him off of the auto tree.

To Heyll In A Handbasket

I wrote before on the detrimental effects of a country (particularly the U.S.) losing its manufacturing base, especially the automotive manufacturers. There are a myriad of reasons, but one in particular comes to mind now. That is the domestic automobile industry contributes 4% directly to the GDP (gross domestic product) and 7% when counting all the other industries (like parts it buys) it directly effects. This is no small piece of change. It is necessary to look at this and wonder why government does not do anything about the domestic auto companies (like helping them in some way - namely a moderate tariff on all foreign autos built here or abroad (5%) or have a voluntary restraint on autos coming here from abroad and built here in the U.S.). And if the gov't went with the voluntary restraint, that wouldn't mean that the foreign carbuilders could load up their cars with options to make up for the slack in sales. That is nonsense, this was done in the 1980's.

This is something very important to consider!

Another point to consider: The service industry is now the larger percent (70%) of the GDP. Foreign nations have many concerns here in the U.S. eating into this service sector at a rapid rate. The way we are going, I see the U.S. being a wholly owned subsidiary of foreign businesses. And in no small part, we have our elected officials to thank.

GM Advertising (Ford Too)

With all the negative advertising GM (and Ford) get, you'd think they wouldn't have to advertise at all - all advertising is good advertising (NOT!).

They do though. Really to counter all the bad publicity and rhetoric they've received over the years. So it's not only a reason to advertise the new products, but to "bully pulpit" how well the vehicles they make are.

For now I would say that in some cases Toyota and Honda do have a quality edge. But they have nothing on GM as far as design. And with what GM is coming out with, Toy and Hon are falling even further behind in design, from the perspective of this car enthusiast.

So here we are. The foreign competition is a little ahead in quality, but only equal or behind in design.