My Two Dents on GM, Ford and Chrysler LLC

Just a word to the people... The auto industry, along with the rest of the economy, is in shambles. Obviously the big-wigs cannot be trusted to make the right decisions. Everyone (be they layman, enthusiast, or insider) needs to voice their opinions, not only on finished products but on job standards, engineering developments, and the quality of the buttons on the dashboard.

Only by listening to the people will companies start to make the right choices and thrive. After all, why should we be expected to settle for rubbish? While currently concentrating on the Big Three, my articles will soon begin to branch out and hopefully have a more global scale.

GM:

GM is a sinking ship, and the fact that it is eliminating dead weight by jettisoning four brands is old news. Many people have been throwing out theories about where not only the victims, but the survivors are going.

Of the "Poor Four", Saturn and Pontiac are the two with potential (if they play their cards right). Frankly, Hummer was commercially doomed from the start and I have no idea where it could possibly go other than the great junkyard in the sky. Saab lost its soul a long time ago, and again: nowhere to go but away.

Chrysler:

Chrysler is the black sheep of the group, the little-guy outsider. Think Squeak from Baseketball. This company's products have been all over the board, from Neons to Vipers and from racetracks to mountaintops. Good in theory, but oh-so-poorly executed. Now Chrysler needs to make some tough decisions regarding its three brands and their respective images. Upcoming target: Jeep.

Ford:

Not much to scream about here, unless you want to nitpick.... and I do. I'll explain why the Blue Oval deserves to be on top, and yes, it will sound like a PR thing. Why? Because when it comes to domestics, I'm a Ford guy. Regardless, they can stand to do better; Lincoln isn't exactly a direct competitor for Cadillac anymore, and Mercury is all but scrap. Volvo is on its way out, as no one seems to want to touch the Swedes with a ten-foot pole (consumers and Sweden alike).

As will be the norm, I will go ahead and exercise the right to drop in my two cents. Feel free to follow my lead. In fact, I insist on it; it's lonely out here. As always, the point of all forthcoming articles is to incite discussion, not arguments. So ladies and gentleman, start your engines and... GO!

By Phil Alex

Phil Alex was born in Rhode Island in 1985, yet for reasons unbeknownst to him moved to South Carolina. He graduated with degrees in Finance and German from Wofford College in 2007 and has had a strange obsession with cars and travel since he was a wee lad. He currently resides a stone's throw from Japan's international airport in Narita. All of this can be seen on Facebook, so check it out. He makes no apologies for his articles and welcomes all feedback, as long as it is adamantly worded.

Chrysler: A Roller-Coaster Tale of Corporate Hits and Misses

The 1980's: Chrysler's heyday. Lee Iacocca said, "If you can find a better car, buy it." Nowadays that's one hell of a dangerous ad campaign to try. Counting the number of manufacturers presently building cars better than Chrysler involves counting toes... not a good sign. Chrysler; My God, what happened? For the past thirty years the smallest of the Big Three has endured a roller-coaster ride of successes and failures. Looking at the Cerberus-owned Chrysler of today and the Chrysler of 1979, not much has changed.

1979 saw Chrysler begging the government for money, and now we see that history does indeed appear to be cyclical. Over three decades the company has not done much more than get sucked toward bankruptcy, come back up for a brief moment, and then immediately get sucked under again like that poor girl in the opening scene of Jaws.

It is hard to pinpoint the exact "uh-oh" moment for Chrysler; there are a few. After what appeared to be the end of troubled times with the introduction of the LH-Series cars (nicknamed the Last Hope), Daimler-Benz swooped in to buy Chrysler (for a moment forget that "merger of equals" mumbo-jumbo). This entire period, however, was a bit of a mess for both parties. While Chrysler offered relatively attractive models at the time, poor fuel economy and poorer quality of materials led to lackluster sales.

Then Mercedes tried rummaging through its own closet, first for parts and then entire platforms. Even this could not rejuvenate Chrysler in consumers' eyes, leading to Chrysler's unceremonious sale into the hands of its current owners, Cerberus Capital Management. Under Cerberus one could argue that Chrysler is at rock bottom, still hemorrhaging money and now with no magic closet to rummage through other than its own. Where did everything go wrong?

Ages ago Chrysler was a brand known for its radical designs. The boys from Chrysler would appear on the show circuit brandishing their weapons of choice: insane concepts never meant to appear on public roads. Then, when dared to build these absurdities, they actually did! The executives (apparently fans of Field of Dreams) realized that if they built them, buyers would come. That was fifteen years ago, and I can still remember going down to the Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep dealership as a child to sit in a Viper or Prowler. These were the cars that brought people into showrooms.

Today, the thought of walking into a Chrysler dealership is just depressing. The excitement options have dwindled, along with the money to build them. Chrysler LLC'S best-selling product is a Dodge Ram, and the brand's best–selling vehicle a minivan. Thrilling. This is a company not only with boring models, but a company that has seemed to lose its originality as well.

Once upon a time the question on everyone's mind was, "What craziness is Chrysler bringing to the show this year?" Now, all that goes through peoples' minds at a Chrysler booth is a collective groan of disappointment. One such groan came last year, when Chrysler rolled out some not-so-revolutionary electric vehicles based on – gasp - a Town & Country minivan, a Jeep Wrangler, and a Europa borrowed from Lotus. Hardly the cream of the automotive crop.

If it makes it through the next year, Cerberus will need to get some new ideas. As in, yesterday. The lesson to learn from the bungled and ill-received Sebring/Avenger failure is this: when trying to make a vehicle appealing to consumers, design by committee is not an option. No offense to the top-tier management-types versed in finance and economics, but you did not go to design school. Stick to your quarterly reports and let the professionals do their jobs. In fact, think of the design studio as a shark-infested pool. Do not go in the water.

But there is a ray of light yet; the Italians are coming! Hopefully this supposed partnership with Fiat will buy Chrysler some time (and that small car platform everyone is dreaming about), something it desperately needs to bring some flavor back into its brands. Chrysler, it's time to get out of the boardroom and hit the pavement. It's time to find out what consumers are looking for and to bring it to them. Trust me. If you build it, they will come.

By Phil Alex

Phil Alex was born in Rhode Island in 1985, yet for reasons unbeknownst to him moved to South Carolina. He graduated with degrees in Finance and German from Wofford College in 2007 and has had a strange obsession with cars and travel since he was a wee lad. He currently resides a stone's throw from Japan's international airport in Narita. All of this can be seen on Facebook, so check it out. He makes no apologies for his articles and welcomes all feedback, as long as it is adamantly worded.

Saturn - A Casualty of War by Phil Alex

I originally intended to write an article extolling Cadillac for their colossal turnaround as a brand, but alas, that will have to wait. Today's star is located at the other end of General Motors' wide spectrum of products: Saturn, the General's attempt at an entry-level brand. Go back with me for moment to the 1980's. America's auto industry was reeling from the threat of affordable, entry-level foreign vehicles. The Big Three's entries into the market were, for the most part, being clobbered.

In a twisted automotive version of the Second World War, Japan and Germany were flooding our shores with attractive, fuel-efficient models of their own. From the East came the epitome of cheap, reliable vehicles in the form of Toyota Camrys and Honda Civics. From the West came the cars of the people, Volkswagen's highly acclaimed Golf and Jetta: German engineering, Teutonic style, priced to sell. America, with its shoebox designs and aged brands, couldn't consistently compete in the trenches of low-cost warfare. Something had to be done.

Offensive tactics were implemented; some even paid off. Ford dealt the mid-size segment a huge blow with its futuristic Taurus, and Chrysler was back on the front lines with Commander Lee Iacocca and a barrage of successes: the fuel-sipping K-cars, followed swiftly by the Minivan and the purchase of AMC. One member of the big three had fallen by the wayside however: General Motors. Despite the plethora of brands under its wing, the General lacked a punch when compared to the outsiders.

While General Motors' presence in the 1980's was widespread, it lacked variety. To say that GM cars suffered from a look-alike and drive-alike syndrome is an understatement; GM's cars of the 80's were badge engineering at its finest. GM needed a weapon to level the playing field in this new era. The General made the effort, but it was plagued by a problem that has been afflicting American car manufacturers for the past thirty years: product delinquency. The Saturn brand was no exception.

A company that could have been the Manhattan Project of economy cars in the 80's, Saturn would not begin building cars until 1990. While Saturn was a fresh idea that gave the General a foot in the doorway to the entry-level market, it was also a long time coming.

Saturn's mission was simple: to have compact, entry level, fuel-efficient cars and to give customers a genuinely pleasant experience. And they did. The brand started out strong, winning awards left and right while being commended for their engineering on a regular basis. People loved them; the media loved them. Saturn was a hit, and for a while it seemed to be a contender. Maybe it was the quirky styling, or maybe just the affordability, but something brought people into showrooms to buy these things.

Then, after the late-90's, things started to get quiet. Awards for value and engineering disappeared. The awards now gracing the walls were superficial: sales satisfaction, customer service, and loyalty. While important on some levels, they hardly represented build quality and innovation.

It gets worse. Rising prices and brand dilution led to a loss of identity and increased confusion, pushing Saturn to become a smaller, niche-like Chevrolet. The brand lost sight of its targets, and having done so did not realize a new war had begun raging in the entry-level market: a Korean war. The Koreans brought their A-game to the entry-level table with insanely cheap cars and eternal warranties, dealing a painful blow to an already befuddled brand.

What happened to the "different kind of company" with a focus on people? In a dangerous gamble, the General tried to revamp Saturn into GM's Euro-American brand by teaming with Opel; a dangerous move, because people could (and still can) buy myriad Hondas, Toyotas, and Volkswagens, not to mention Kias and Hyundais, for thousands of dollars less.

The plan was in the pipeline too long (sound familiar?), and by the time it came to fruition with the Astra and Aura people just weren't interested in a $20,000+ Saturn. The brand was left standing in no-man's-land, looking confused about what it wanted to be: entry-level or mid-level? It still doesn't seem to know.

While trying to advance into the mid-level market, already flooded with bloated brands of its own, Saturn sold out. Now the brand and its employees lie dying out on the automotive battlefield, a painful lesson in brand management. Saturn: the latest casualty in the war for consumer dollars.

Phil Alex was born in Rhode Island in 1985, yet for reasons unbeknownst to him moved to South Carolina. He graduated with degrees in Finance and German from Wofford College in 2007 and has had a strange obsession with cars and travel since he was a wee lad. He currently resides a stone's throw from Japan's international airport in Narita. All of this can be seen on Facebook, so check it out. He makes no apologies for his articles and welcomes all feedback, as long as it is adamantly worded.

Have Your Say on Carscoop

A couple of days ago we were contacted by a Carscoop reader who expressed his desire to contribute on our site with some op-ed style articles reflecting his own opinions on automotive related matters. His name is Phil Alex and after a few mails back and forth, we happily accepted his proposal. You can read Phil's first article that focuses on GM's Saturn brand later in the day.

Carscoop has been growing the past few years and at the same time, so has our readership that includes millions of people from all four corners of the world. With this in mind, Phil's proposal gave us an idea; why not share our space with our readers? It's blogging in its purest sense - that way it was meant to be. If you have something to say in an articulate and well written manner drop us a line, and who knows, maybe your article will be featured on Carscoop next time.