GM sells heritage fleet

[GRtak]

Unfortunately this "Heritage Collection' is not a museum for the public. GM uses it like a warehouse for the collection that gets rotated in and out of museums and various events. They could be making money by opening the place up to the public.

I had the opportunity to go there and see some great cars. It was work related and the jackass I was with didn't even appreciate the place. If I had known I was going there I would have taken a camera and tons of film (pre-digital era).

 

[otispunkmeyer]

The Chevy Astro and Corvette concepts are pretty awesome, easily some of the coolest cars I've ever seen.


http://img521.imageshack.**/img521/2769/1005767gg5.jpg
http://img521.imageshack.**/img521/1005767gg5.jpg/1/w1600.png

that is just sex

 

[edkwon]

Unfortunately this "Heritage Collection' is not a museum for the public. GM uses it like a warehouse for the collection that gets rotated in and out of museums and various events. They could be making money by opening the place up to the public.

.

Perhaps, but i'm skeptical, Michigan isnt really full of the museum-going crowd and i doubt the costs of running an actual museum would be offset by whatever revenue they generated opening it as a display to the public.

 

[Ezbok58a]

That's exactly what I just said. Because it's a Mustang. Heritage and name are one and the same... holy shit that rhymes. Now it's easier for you to remember. I swear that sentence right there is the linguistic equivalent of dividing by zero. Thank God your mouth doesn't have the same powers as a calculator otherwise we'd all be somewhere around Saturn right about now.

And how does one have heritage? Mustangs have always sold well and have captured peoples imagination. You build off of that success.

And the rest... you are trying to read waaaay too much into what I said. You want me to hate on a successful company? Okay, I hate Hyundais for the same reason as they make me feel 70 years old. No heritage involved. They made a car that makes me feel old and irrelevant; therefore it is crap. I'm providing the "heritage fleet" as a possible source of GM and Crysler's "old fart" factor. They've just gone and looked at something 40 years old and said "aha! We'll do that! Never mind the fact that we stopped selling it ages ago" (with the Mustang and Challenger at least). In market terms that's like building a car that does a 1:20 lap of the Nurbrugring.

Yes all three have made their fair share of garbage but they've also made some very successful and brilliant cars. Corvette, Camaro, Mustang, Taurus, Challenger, Caravans...

90% of Mustang Buyers today are men and women age 16-32...and why is that? Because they like the car.

And they aren't just designing a car thats exactly like a previous old model. The 2005 Mustang is on a entirely new Chassis and looks retro (It doesn't look exactly like a 1968 Mustang).

Challenger is on a the LX platform, the Camaro will be on the same Holden platform as the G8s... The only retro aspect of these cars is the looks...and the live axle in the mustang but that was what the people wanted. (dispute it all you want, I've seen the studies)

So you end up with a car that no one can drive, so you end up learning nothing from it. Similar thing with the Mustang. Perfectly drivable, duh, but ultimately it is no foundation for anything to come. We didn't learn anything with the new Mustang. It's a fad.

What school of thought are you coming from with that kind of logic?

We learned plety with the new Mustang...

FRC500 racers, Outselling entire brands of cars, huge aftermarket followings.

If the Mustang is a Fad then its a Fad that's lasted for 45 years

Because the same principles that made the Mustang a sensation back in 1964 are still making it a sensation in 2008.

 

[bartboy9891]

Perhaps, but i'm skeptical, Michigan isnt really full of the museum-going crowd and i doubt the costs of running an actual museum would be offset by whatever revenue they generated opening it as a display to the public.

It wouldn't be a big money making success, but people would go. Ford has the Henry Ford Museum, but that's a bit larger and includes more attractions that are not related to old cars. However, Dodge/Chrysler has the Walter P. Chrysler Museum, which has ~50 cars, that people do go to. The Chrysler museum is very much like what the GM heritage museum would be like if it was open to the public.

 

[MadCat360]

If the Mustang is a Fad then its a Fad that's lasted for 45 years

Because the same principles that made the Mustang a sensation back in 1964 are still making it a sensation in 2008.

First of all, I'm not arguing the Mustang is crap. Nowhere have I ever said that it makes me feel old, or is a bad drive. I used it as an example of how car companies are being unoriginal and just looking at the past "for inspiration" (which is balls, because that inspiration has already come, that's why they made it 50 years ago). The current Mustang could be so much better though.

I meant the CURRENT Mustang is a fad (notice how I used the present tense there). The retro design craze is a fad. You say it's been a sensation for 45 years, so that must mean no Mustang has ever been bad. Yeah. They definitely weren't bad in the 80's, or the 90's... The Mustang needs to go away. It's done it's last courtesy show and now it needs to go to pasture.

 

[Cobol74]

Back OT:

They could do a deal with Disney who do know about visitor attractions perhaps (too late thouhg I think) - I'll be sad to see the collection broken up but I can see that GM should sell 'everything' that is not to do with developing, making, and selling cars/trucks and engines. They have to get the UAW 'on side' too, somehow.

 

[Spectre]

I disagree on that last point. What GM desperately needs to do is tell the UAW to take a hike, then move everything down to one of the right-to-work states and start over.

The only thing that American unions do is drive up costs and drive down quality.

 

[Cobol74]

That would be my last negotiating position - better to try to get co-operation first but, finally if its the company or the agreements then 'tear up' the agreements.

 

[Spectre]

Why bother? The UAW has already gone on record as refusing to help or cooperate until 2011.

An automaker can get an entire new plant structure up and running by 2011. Toyota had their San Antonio plant go from an empty field to cranking out Toyota Tundra trucks in a little less than three years. Hyundai got their Alabama plant up and into limited production in a little over two years.

Since GM loses a lot *less* money when they aren't making cars, just bite the bullet and set up new plants without the UAW.

 

[difiCa]

That would be my last negotiating position - better to try to get co-operation first but, finally if its the company or the agreements then 'tear up' the agreements.

From what i've seen happen and heard, it isn't much of a possibility to negotiate with the UAW. Last time someone tried it they got 2250 pages of rules and regulations that nobody can understand, and i'm yet to see something out of those rules and regulations that actually improves work quality or efficiency.

And even if it's possible to negotiate and co-work with the union, why would they do that? It's much more cost-effective to just tell them to keep their hands off the automakers' businesses, and will prevent them from trying to get back the ridiculous benefits.

 

[Cobol74]

I think I'd give 'em one last go myself - then I am soft and not in-charge of anything - except a family. (Psst do not tell Mrs. Cobol74 that I think I am in-charge!)

 

[2Billion]

I wonder how much of the problems with the UAW is this attitude of workers and management at war with each other. It's quite difficult to negotiate when you have an inherent distrust of the people you are negotiating with.

 

[Spectre]

I wonder how much of the problems with the UAW is this attitude of workers and management at war with each other. It's quite difficult to negotiate when you have an inherent distrust of the people you are negotiating with.

It's not even that. The unions feel that they are "entitled" to a *lot* of stuff, just because they're a union. One of which is the immunity from discipline when a poor job is performed or no job is performed.

Good luck negotiating with that. Walmart's got the right idea - you unionize a store? Great, we close it.

You cannot run a successful non-government/defense-sector business in the US with a union.

 

[2Billion]

It's not even that. The unions feel that they are "entitled" to a *lot* of stuff, just because they're a union. One of which is the immunity from discipline when a poor job is performed or no job is performed.

Good luck negotiating with that. Walmart's got the right idea - you unionize a store? Great, we close it.

You cannot run a successful non-government/defense-sector business in the US with a union.

I don't think it's a sense of entitlement, but a sense of profound distrust. I know the UAW has gotten out of hand, but it seems to me that it's due to a fear that without the various clauses in their contracts, the management would fire everyone and cut pay and so on. Maybe this fear is fostered by union leaders who stand to benefit from it - and in the UAW, I think this is the case - but I can understand where they must be coming from.

You have mentioned the special case of Chrysler back in the day, where the unions and the management had begun to cooperate and try to understand each other's position. I think attitudes like 'kill all the unions!' just strengthens fears within the unions that they are going to get mistreated by management, and that serves to encourage labyrinthine contracts in order to ensure their safety. Is this fostered, in some degree, by some union bosses (especially in the UAW) who want to stoke the fires of mistrust in order to get some perks for themselves? Probably. But I don't believe that the people within the union do things purely due to a sense of entitlement. Everything comes down to distrust of the management. Why do a good job for the enemy? Why make concessions to the enemy? Why not take advantage of the enemy?

If management would take steps to ensure they aren't perceived as the enemy - and don't do it in a patronizing way, natch - the unions wouldn't be as much of a problem. But because of that, and of anti-union sentiments like your own, there's going to be a perception that the people within the union are threatened, and they will be less likely to make concessions, do a better job, and so on.

I don't claim to be a labor relations expert, obviously, but I have been considering both sides here, and I can't see how they would solve any problems by cutting out the UAW so long as they keep up this antagonistic attitude. The reason the UAW can't get into foreign factories seems to be because the workers there don't see their management as a threat, and don't need the protection of a union.

It's all grounded in fear and mistrust. Eliminate the fear and mistrust, and you'll have good labor relations. Keep it up, and you're going to have unions forming no matter where you go. Look at Wal Mart. Closing stores hasn't stopped people from trying to form unions.

 

[Spectre]

Actually.. in a given area, closing the unionizing store *has* stopped other unions from forming.

And the problem with the rest of your post is that I used to *be* in a union... when I was much younger and far dumber than I am today. I came by my opinions of unions by working in a union, observing other union operations, and talking to union members. Trust me, "us versus them" is a lot less prevalent than "I'm entitled."

 

[2Billion]

Actually.. in a given area, closing the unionizing store *has* stopped other unions from forming.

And the problem with the rest of your post is that I used to *be* in a union... when I was much younger and far dumber than I am today. I came by my opinions of unions by working in a union, observing other union operations, and talking to union members. Trust me, "us versus them" is a lot less prevalent than "I'm entitled."

Which is why the Wal Mart in Weyburn, Sk. has JUST unionized a few weeks ago.

But do they believe they're entitled because the management are jerks anyway so they should ride them for all they're worth? I'm telling you, get the workers and the management to like each other, this feeling of entitlement would go away, as would unions. Underneath that attitude of entitlement is a subconscious feeling that the management would try to screw them out of absolutely everything if they could. It might not be stated, it might not even be realized by most of the people, but it's there.

 

[Ezbok58a]

First of all, I'm not arguing the Mustang is crap. Nowhere have I ever said that it makes me feel old, or is a bad drive. I used it as an example of how car companies are being unoriginal and just looking at the past "for inspiration" (which is balls, because that inspiration has already come, that's why they made it 50 years ago). The current Mustang could be so much better though.

The Mustang could 'always' be better. Its always allowed for the buyer to make their own mustang personal to them... Thats why its got a great aftermarket parts following. But can it be 'better' yet stay at the same price? Which is 25k for a base model GT Mustang? That's a bit of a stretch.

I meant the CURRENT Mustang is a fad (notice how I used the present tense there). The retro design craze is a fad. You say it's been a sensation for 45 years, so that must mean no Mustang has ever been bad. Yeah. They definitely weren't bad in the 80's, or the 90's... The Mustang needs to go away. It's done it's last courtesy show and now it needs to go to pasture.

The Retro design craze more than likely is a fad, but so far its modernizing with the times, The new Camaro for example gives off the retro design but yet looks modern. The 2010 Mustang, same thing. The Challenger...well that's a carbon copy...

By next design cycle there'll be a new looking Mustang, one that'll be vastly different than even the new one.

I'm not saying there 'weren't' any bad mustangs. Comprehend what you're reading

1974-1978 Mustang II's are the bastard child of the Mustang family. They rarely get the recognition they actually deserve (every hot rod out there owes the Mustang II since they've all adapted it's front suspension.)...

Fox Bodies sold well till the late 80s and early 90s, although the following was more of a cult following than of actual buyers.

If you think the Mustang needs to go out to pasture I suggest you put the crack pipe down. As long as the Mustang is still selling, and selling well (even in the current economic crisis they're selling nicely, although they're down about 13% from last year...) it will continue long into the Future.

The Corvette's been around for over 50 years, should that be put out to pasture too because the 80s versions were terrible?

 

[difiCa]

I don't think it's a sense of entitlement, but a sense of profound distrust. I know the UAW has gotten out of hand, but it seems to me that it's due to a fear that without the various clauses in their contracts, the management would fire everyone and cut pay and so on. Maybe this fear is fostered by union leaders who stand to benefit from it - and in the UAW, I think this is the case - but I can understand where they must be coming from.

You have mentioned the special case of Chrysler back in the day, where the unions and the management had begun to cooperate and try to understand each other's position. I think attitudes like 'kill all the unions!' just strengthens fears within the unions that they are going to get mistreated by management, and that serves to encourage labyrinthine contracts in order to ensure their safety. Is this fostered, in some degree, by some union bosses (especially in the UAW) who want to stoke the fires of mistrust in order to get some perks for themselves? Probably. But I don't believe that the people within the union do things purely due to a sense of entitlement. Everything comes down to distrust of the management. Why do a good job for the enemy? Why make concessions to the enemy? Why not take advantage of the enemy?

If management would take steps to ensure they aren't perceived as the enemy - and don't do it in a patronizing way, natch - the unions wouldn't be as much of a problem. But because of that, and of anti-union sentiments like your own, there's going to be a perception that the people within the union are threatened, and they will be less likely to make concessions, do a better job, and so on.

I don't claim to be a labor relations expert, obviously, but I have been considering both sides here, and I can't see how they would solve any problems by cutting out the UAW so long as they keep up this antagonistic attitude. The reason the UAW can't get into foreign factories seems to be because the workers there don't see their management as a threat, and don't need the protection of a union.

It's all grounded in fear and mistrust. Eliminate the fear and mistrust, and you'll have good labor relations. Keep it up, and you're going to have unions forming no matter where you go. Look at Wal Mart. Closing stores hasn't stopped people from trying to form unions.

Actually, i think you're right with the claim that union members are afraid. Mostly this is because the UAW was originally set up to fight for the benefits of auto workers. After it got the benefits and made working for auto manufacturers a lucrative and well-paid job, which, after a few years of keeping the benefits and getting them well-planted within the organization, it started to try and fight (using the benefits it negotiated earlier) for the indifference of work quality. Now this is a massive mistake, and hurts the car companies tremendously, let me explain why.

The indifference of work quality means, along with the fact that the bad workers can do basically whatever kind of job they can be bothered that day, that the good workers' jobs don't get them any extra benefits: they're never promoted or get a pay rise because they do a better job than others. The only way you can (and will pretty much nevertheless) get promoted is from seniority. And now you can probably see what happens to the good, younger workers.

They go to other companies where their better job is appreciated with a higher pay and promotions. And when finding alternatives to the unionized, seniority-based promotion plants is easy, it makes going somewhere where your career is appreciated so easy, that it's basically insane to stay at the unionized plant, unless obviously you are planning to give up on your work morale.

Now this stretches the work quality gap between unionized and non-unionized plants to a whole new level. And makes competing for the owner of the unionized plant very hard, given that the unionized bad labor is also more expensive.

 

[GRtak]

Wallmart used to have the best paid employees in retail. Then the old man died and the kids took over and they drove down the employees pay so everyone else had to do the same. So in a state like California 50% of there employees receive some sort of state assistance. Sounds like agreat way to operate a company, just get the goverment to pay the difference.