Author Topic: 2006: The year GM loses top spot.  (Read 2677 times)

Offline Rolex

  • AH Training Corps
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3285
2006: The year GM loses top spot.
« on: February 21, 2006, 08:37:30 PM »
It looks like GM will lose the title of largest carmaker this year to Toyota. Not only will Toyota surpass GM in unit sales, it earned more profit last year than all 12 global carmakers combined. That is staggering and the trend looks to continue since Toyota intends on bringing hybrid engines into the mainstream.

Cutting the costs of engines in the #1 car in America (Camery) by 50% didn't hurt...

"Foundry workers at a Toyota Motor Corp. plant in Troy, Missouri, laughed out loud back in 2003 when Toyota Executive Vice President Kosuke Shiramizu traveled from Japan and gave them a new assignment: Cut in half the cost of building V-6 engines for the company's Camry sedan by 2005.

`We were thinking they were either crazy or didn't really mean it,' says Robert Lloyd, 51, who, as president of Toyota's Bodine Aluminum Inc. unit, would be expected to deliver on Shiramizu's goal.

Shiramizu, however, had a secret weapon. Back in Japan, 300 engineers were working on a new technology for pouring molten aluminum into molds to create parts for engines. The new equipment, part of a larger Toyota cost-cutting program called Simple Slim, allows Toyota to use smaller and cheaper molds.
"

Link >>

Toyota has done a lot of things right in managing for the future and their long-term approach and investment has been good for suppliers, customers and investors. Will the new 2007 hybrid Camry be a success? I wouldn't bet against it.

Offline wetrat

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2117
2006: The year GM loses top spot.
« Reply #1 on: February 21, 2006, 08:44:58 PM »
The Microsoft of low-mid priced cars has arrived :confused:
Army of Muppets

Offline Stringer

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1610
2006: The year GM loses top spot.
« Reply #2 on: February 21, 2006, 08:49:31 PM »
Read an interesting article today on what GM, Ford, and Chrysler's job bank program (initiated and negotiated with the UAW in '84) is costing those companies today.

The annual price tag is staggering.

Are you familiar with this, Rolex?

Offline Rolex

  • AH Training Corps
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3285
2006: The year GM loses top spot.
« Reply #3 on: February 21, 2006, 09:07:57 PM »
No, I'm not Stringer. How staggering are we talking about?

Offline wetrat

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2117
2006: The year GM loses top spot.
« Reply #4 on: February 21, 2006, 09:14:56 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Rolex
No, I'm not Stringer. How staggering are we talking about?
Staggering enough that they have to close plants and cut thousands of jobs to stay in the black  :eek:
Army of Muppets

Offline Stringer

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1610
2006: The year GM loses top spot.
« Reply #5 on: February 21, 2006, 09:38:13 PM »
I think for GM alone is $800 million a year (for 6,000 people that are on that program).

For all three I think the tab is $1.2b, but I'll need to check that.

Even the UAW is a little worried about how that program is affecting the companies and how it looks as well.

I'll have to get the article tomorrow at the office.

On a different note Rolex, I am a proponent and practitioner of many of the lean principles introduced by Toyota.  Their total commitment to eliminate waste, no matter how small, and no matter where, is amazing.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2006, 09:42:08 PM by Stringer »

Offline Rolex

  • AH Training Corps
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3285
2006: The year GM loses top spot.
« Reply #6 on: February 21, 2006, 11:06:24 PM »
~$133,000 per person? Some people need to be fired, I think.

Offline Thrawn

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6972
2006: The year GM loses top spot.
« Reply #7 on: February 21, 2006, 11:18:27 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Stringer
On a different note Rolex, I am a proponent and practitioner of many of the lean principles introduced by Toyota.  Their total commitment to eliminate waste, no matter how small, and no matter where, is amazing.


Isn't that be recursive?  Doesn't a total commitment to reducing waste in itself produce waste?  How does a company solve that?

Cripes solving the problem of the waste created by solving the problem of wastes...etc.

Offline Rolex

  • AH Training Corps
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3285
2006: The year GM loses top spot.
« Reply #8 on: February 21, 2006, 11:55:39 PM »
Yup, everyone is waist deep in it.

Offline beet1e

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7848
Re: 2006: The year GM loses top spot.
« Reply #9 on: February 22, 2006, 02:28:09 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Rolex
Shiramizu, however, had a secret weapon. Back in Japan, 300 engineers were working on a new technology for pouring molten aluminum into molds to create parts for engines. The new equipment, part of a larger Toyota cost-cutting program called Simple Slim, allows Toyota to use smaller and cheaper molds.
The technology for pouring molten aluminium into moulds has been around since as early as 1990 and possibly earlier. I used to work for another Japanese car company at that time which is when I first heard about this. Not only could the engines be built cheaply, but could be completed in a matter of a few hours.

Offline TexMurphy

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1488
2006: The year GM loses top spot.
« Reply #10 on: February 22, 2006, 03:36:10 AM »
The biggest problem of GM and Ford is their commitment to big engines and beeing outclassed in alternative engines.

Toyota´s hybrid engine technology is a way better technology when it comes to lowering fuel consumption then the Flexi Fuel, Bi Fuel, what ever you call it technologies that the others are using.

Basicly the hybrid engine is a fuel, electricity engine when recharges its batteries while driving on the fuel engine. At lower speeds and lower accelleration the engine uses the electrical engine and if you throttle up the fuel engine kicks in gradually.

The most expencive driving, fuel cost and environment wise, is rush hour city traffic. This is where the hyrbird engine out classes anything in both polution and buck per mile.

The Flexi fuel, bi fuel what ever you call em engines allow you to use alternative fuels. This makes the engine less dependent on oil based fuels. These engines have a big environmental benefit as the ammount of CO2 converted into Oxygen by the sugar canes (to create methanol) is the same as the ammount of CO2 created by the combustion.

There is a problem of using methanol as a fuel source compared to oil based fules in the fact that methanol contains less energy. So you need more fuel to produce the same effect in the engine.

This results in Flexi fuel cars not beeing much cheaper to operate then gasoline cars. They are cheaper but not nearly as much as the hybrid.

What I expect to see in a VERY near future is that you can use methanol in Toyotas hybrid engine.

Though dont fool your selfs not even methanol+electricity hybrid engines are the engines of the future.

Using methanol as a gasoline replacement has potentially HUGE enviromental problems attached to it.

Since methanol is mostly created from sugar canes the increased need of sugar canes can produce huge agrecultural problems. The desire to grow more and more sugar canes and at a higher pace will result in onesided agreculture and over fertilizing. Onesided agreculture drains the soil and will render it useless, over fertilizing also has huge negative side effects (mostly on rivers and lakes).

But at short term the company that first has methanol+electricity hybride engines in their entire lineup will gain a huge upper hand over the others.

Personally I predict that if GM and Ford dont have have a hybrid engine out within two years at least one of them will file bancrupcy.

Tex

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
2006: The year GM loses top spot.
« Reply #11 on: February 22, 2006, 04:01:02 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by TexMurphy

Since methanol is mostly created from sugar canes the increased need of sugar canes can produce huge agrecultural problems. The desire to grow more and more sugar canes and at a higher pace will result in onesided agreculture and over fertilizing. Onesided agreculture drains the soil and will render it useless, over fertilizing also has huge negative side effects (mostly on rivers and lakes).

Tex


UNLESS the new "fungus" tech in making ethanol succeeds in turning what is now agricultural waste into fuel. Then you have a win/win and all you need to do is design in a bigger fuel tank to get the necessary range.

 Stalks, Straw and Other Refuse
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline beet1e

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7848
2006: The year GM loses top spot.
« Reply #12 on: February 22, 2006, 04:58:55 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by TexMurphy
Basicly the hybrid engine is a fuel, electricity engine when recharges its batteries while driving on the fuel engine.
Hehe, I bet they got that idea from those German U-boats! :)
Quote
The biggest problem of GM and Ford is their commitment to big engines and beeing outclassed in alternative engines.
And that's a problem that's been fostered by the "cheap gas" economy of America. People are undeterred from buying 12mpg gas guzzlers and other house sized vehicles like the Ford Excursion, unless of course there's a gas price hike. The motor industry in Detroit knows this, and also knows that they can make much bigger profits on large luxury vehicles than they can on small, fuel efficient compacts. Or, to use Detroit's own parlance, mini cars = mini profits. And with the oil industry being run like any other business (ie. the more you sell, the more money you make), and with the American motoring public believing in all sincerity that they need that SUV with the 7½ litre V8 engine, and with most of the population being in denial about America's greenhouse gas output (25% of the world total), it's easy to see why Ford and GM have yet to show any commitment to alternative power plants.

Offline Rino

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8495
2006: The year GM loses top spot.
« Reply #13 on: February 22, 2006, 05:03:28 AM »
Sheesh Beetle, change the record already.
80th FS Headhunters
PHAN
Proud veteran of the Cola Wars

Offline TexMurphy

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1488
2006: The year GM loses top spot.
« Reply #14 on: February 22, 2006, 05:35:14 AM »
beet1e

Actually the american consumers are strating to realize that they dont [/i]neeeed[/i] and SUVs is the car class which is droping the most in sales atm. Its this realization combined with increased gas prices (that are here to stay) that Toyota is capitalizing on. 90% of the SUV owners can very easily use a regular station wagon to fill their needs and once they start buying new cars with economy in focus they arnt gonna buy a american car.

If Detroit doesnt turn their focus around ASAP the american manufacturers will be in even worse trouble then they are now. GMs economy is horrible, Fords is bad but not as bad.

Most likely we will see GM selling off brands in a near future inorder to be able to invest in the new technologies needed to be competetive over the next 5-10 years. If this doesnt happen Im quite sure that GM will be filing bankcrupcy.

Tex