Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 06:03:55 GMT From: Milton Brewster <scribblenopsam.com> Subject: Re: Whats wrong with the V6?
In article <q39u2u0c46ff8suhlbbk2996ahvnb5s2k2nopsamcom>, uctraingnopsamanet.com says... > On 29 Dec 2001 19:25:57 -0800, wfc_001nopsamail.com (w) wrote: > > > > > >Lee Iacocca and the Smith's were the worst thing to ever happen to the > >automobile industry. > > > Good thought stream but you picked it up too late. > Management of US car companies has been, and apparently > always will be, stuck in a management mindset developed in the > 40's and 50's. > > For years during the "energy crisis" (and for years after) the > car companies fought against the will of the people for smaller > cars and lost. When they foreign companies had stolen half > their business, they finally, grudgingly, started to produce > (POS) small cars. They still push today at every chance they > get for "bigger is better" cars. > > They'll never learn. > > Bob > I have some simple, obvious rules of thumb. *) Long-term negative reputation among prospective buyers kills a car company more surely than any other business factor, but it takes about fifteen years. *) If you build car models that have significant mechanical problems (including repair costs) for more than two or three model years in a row, you will go out of business. *) If you build a mechanically sound car but it is priced more than 5% above its real (not just intended) competition for three or more model years in a row, then you will go out of business. *) If you build a mechanically sound car that is priced right but doesn't do what the buyer expects it to do, then you will stay in business, but your market share will not increase. You will be vulnerable to compeditors who deliver cars which do live up to their buyers' expectations. *) To stay in business and expand your market share in the auto business, you must build an innovative, mechanically durable, repairable, economical car model with no practical competition in its market segment for at least one year. Subsequent yearly models must add real value to the original model. **** There probably isn't anything wrong with the GM V-6, except that it was designed as a utility engine that is cheap to manufacture. It's not a good truck engine. It's not a good performance engine. It's not a good economy engine. It is not easy to repair. To my knowledge, Saab hasn't improved it enough to make it compeditive in the near-luxury category. GM also uses this V6 engine in economy cars. This means that Saab's market segment skews toward the economy market where Saab's prices render its models uncompeditive. For instance; I can buy a Saturn 200 hp V6 wagon that matches the Saab 9-5 wagon specifications, for fully fourteen thousand dollars less (40 % less) than the 9-5 costs. GM gives Saab's near-luxury compeditors an advantage because those near-luxury makes do not use economy engines to power their cars. This kind of thinking is precisely why Cadillac is no longer the "Standard of the World." WHAT SHOULD A SAAB BE? Today, the Saab 9-3 competes with Saturn, not BMW. The Saab's 9-5 series competes with Honda, not Mercedes or BMW. Saab doesn't need to change: They need to COMPETE. Saab should strive to become a genuinely innovative, tough, maintainable, performance-oriented car that genuinely surprises the marketplace every three years or so. Saab should add several excellent 4-wheel drive car models that surpass Subaru. Hatchbacks should never die. It should be easy to upgrade the engine performance and suspension of ANY Saab. Saab should not try to compete with BMW unless it can deliver a "death-blow" model at below BMW prices (The Viggen is not that car). At least one Saab model in its yearly offerings should be a genuine Special-Interest "milestone" car. NOTE: I drive a great 9-3 that I wouldn't get rid of for anything. milt b
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |