NPR: GM vs. Toyota: By the Numbers

[Patrick Wilson]

The link is a NPR story comparing GM & Toyota.



"NPR: GM vs. Toyota: By the Numbers"



http://www.npr.org/news/specials/gmvstoyota/gm_toyota_comparison.html



I think this is very interesting reading. The comparison makes me wonder what GM (and to a lesser extent Ford) are doing wrong or what is Toyota doing right.

 

[shawn stonbraker 2]

Very interesting article. What I see from it is the fact that, GM and Ford have too much on the table. look at the number of different makes of cars and trucks GM and Ford are making compared to Toyota. Also the quality of workmanship. I know you can have problems with every type of vehicle out there, but look at Toyota's track record. They do make a very sturdy vehicle. My old Toyota that I sold to my friend (89 Toy Pick-up) has 220,000 miles on it and the only thing that has been done to it as for "major" work, is he had to change the clutch in it and that was at 150,000 miles. The body may be pretty rusted on it but it still has the power and not a tick or lag in the engine.(22re 4 cylinder) Can't beat that. I know Ford and GM both have thier "high mileage" trucks but I see alot of older Toyotas out there now. Maybe Ford and GM should cut down the different number of "lines" (Merc., Linc., Buick, Pont., etc.) and get back to basics. QUALITY! If you start putting out the best, you will see the difference. Why do you need the same style car built for two different lines when all that you changed was the look of the front end and the Emblems you put on? Used to be thay could all come up with thier own concept for a car and have a totally different look than anything else out there. Not now. Look at the "Ford Fusion", "Mercury Sable", "Ford 500", "Murcury Monteray", you pay more for one than the other. Why? Look the same to me.

Rant off.

 

[Dale Carter]

Stonemiser - You are dead on. Not only does Toyota have a limited line, but they do something else that is brilliant. When my parents bought the first year Lexus LS400 they were poining out all of the cool features and for each one I replied "My Supra (1984 GT model) has that".



Then I noticed that the controls, air vents, door handles and a large number of other parts were identical to the same parts in the Celica of the same year. That allowed them to develop one item, saving on R&D, manufacturing, inventory,transport etc. etc. for their world beating luxury car and "trickle down" the technology and quality to the entry level.



Lexus had two engines a 4.0 V-8 and a 3.0 V-6. The V8 may still be the smoothest engine I have run across and it made tons of power. I later bought a 1992 SC400 and loved it.



GM has made some moves along these lines over the last decade or so with consolidated drivetrains, platforms and killing Oldsmobile, although Chrysler is a better example. GM growth came from the 50's when Chevy, Olds, Buick and GMC had two or three models each. Now each one is a full line provider with tons of overlap. There is a bloodletting on the way and GM will be better for it.



Corvette Z06, Cadillac STS and GMC trucks prove that Chevy can still build and design with the best in the world. Now they just need to work on the bottom end. The Pontiac Solstice is a great step toward the kind of high quality, high excitement and low price they so badly need.

 

[Gavin Allan]

GM's engines sound like tractor engines to me. Also, their quality has been crap for years. I used to work for a Tier I auto supplier and we could almost shovel garbage in a crate and GM would buy it and not return it. Ford was a little more picky, and Honda and Toyota were real sticklers.



I think the big problem with GM and Ford is that their cars are crappy designs and have quality problems, and that they don't make the kind of cars that people want to buy.

 

[Nelson Atwell]

Look at the number of personnel on the retiree payroll. There are four times as many retirees as there are employees at GM. That is a huge burden on any company. Healthcare costs are also huge. Those costs alone eliminate any chance of a profit in the long term.



I now understand why GM attempts to keep their sales volume up so high. They cannot allow the number of units they sell drop too low, because they have to keep the remaining workers working so they can pay into the pension plan, which allows them to keep the GM Pension system solvent. The whole company isn't working to earn a profit, but they work to pay for the pensions of those sitting at home. It's really pretty sad.

 

[Tom Schindler]

We need to remember, Toyota is a relativly "young" company in the US. If Chinnese automakes built a plant in the US tomorroww, the numbers would be better then Toyota's.



Remember, GM has retired men and women that worked for them for many years. You can not compete with a new start-up company that does not have many retirees.



The benefits we fought for, union and non-union, such as vacation, retirement, 401(k), medical, etc. all come off the top. That is one of the many reasons why Toyota is thriving and GM is hurting.



Give it 20 years, Toyota will start to fall and I am willing to bet they will fall faster then GM is.





Tom

 

[Josh Langel]

Tom,



I am also guessing the economy must also mimic the economy during GM's run in order to safely compare them.



My family was huge on GM, they made awesome trucks... AWESOME, but it seems that their starting a trend in cheap plastics and it seriously makes quality a problem.

 

[EddieS'04]

Nelson...One day your going to be sitting, drawing pension on the american tax dollar..the union worker is drawing pension on corporate pension plans...the money comes out of the american workers pocket anyway you look at it...What the hell is your problem..



I have nothing against the military pension..well deserved for the service..

But my fatherinlaws, 31yrs coast gaurd retirement draws more pension and benfits than I could make working 60hr weeks on my 36yr, exunion job..Iam 55 and cant touch my pension till 62...can you explain to me the fairness in that..hell no you cant..you need to get off the blue collar union mans back and wake up to a reallity trip...:blink:

 

[Tom Schindler]

Fast Eddie,



The big problem is that not everyone worked, or even wanted to work, for the government. Someone has to pay to keep the military serviceman employed by our tax dollars. The retirement of military personal is a huge burdon on our tax systems. When I pay $200.00/per week for federal tax's, I know a huge chunk of that is used for pension packages for ex military personal.



The compensation for those that activly serve is too little for the work they do. Remember, they are public servents paid for by the public.



Tanks and ships are built out of iron and steel. If all the steel mills go overseas, who makes the steel. if all the steel mills go to china and the US has a war with China, where de we get the steel. You really think China will sell us steel to build tanks?





Tom

 

[EddieS'04]

Tom...I understand your point...but it bites me in the ass when people dog the retirement of the common citizen...for the most of it, even union retirements are not much more or as much as active duty miltary pay...so there is the trade off...some need a wake up to real economics....



Iam not agaist the military or thier pension...proud to pay it...I was in the army and served 2yrs in vietnam...I was glad to serve despite how conterversial it was...

 

[Tom Schindler]

I feel the same way.



Many people look at pension plans in a negative way. Many pension plans were underfunded. It is not my fault. My father worked 43 years and he deserves a pension. He has also paid many dollars into Social Security. by rights, he should be able to collect.



No company should be allowed to back out of thier pension obligations. The money should have been placed there. Many times it wasn't.



As you said, no matter if the pension is on the tax payers , i.e. Government retirees, or corporate pension plans, i.e. in my fathers case, Ford Motor Company, the pension is promised.



The difference is the government can raise tax's to pay for it. They have no competition. It isn't that easy for the private sector. It is hard to compete with a company that has been building cars in the US for less then 20 years. GM started in 1908. There are people that have been retired for over 20 years. They deserve a pension just as much as someone that retired from any branch of the government.





Tom

 

[Deleted deleted]

Being an owner of both Toyota and Ford products, I get a chance to compare them side-by-side. I own a '06 Ford Escape and a '03 Toyota Matrix. Each has it's good points and bad points, but bolt-for-bolt the Toyota is put together better. More attention was paid to the details in engineering. Here are a couple of good examples.



For example let's talk about the placement of the oil filter. In the Escape, the filter sits in the front of the engine (good), but is right next to the exhaust pipe (bad) and is angle at a 60 degree angle. When you remove the filter, oil runs down the side of the engine (bad). In the Matrix, the filter also resides up front (good), is nowhere near the exhaust pipe (good), and points straight down, so that when it is removed, no oil gets on the engine (good).



Another example, the cabin air filter. Keep in mind the Matrix is only at $16K(!) vehicle and it came with a microfilter cabin filter that sits in a small slot behind the glove box. Takes about 2 minutes to change - no tools required. All you have to do is open the glove box, press in on the sides, remove the glove box, pop 2 clips to get to the filter. The Escape has a slot for a cabin filter, but Ford chose not to include one in a $23K(!) vehicle. To get to that filter, you must remove several screws, lift up the plastic shroud below the wipers, then remove several more screws in order to remove the door to gain access to the slot for the cabin filter. Takes about 20 minutes to change and requires a screwdriver.



I know these 2 examples may seem minor, but when you start adding them together I now understand why folks are so loyal to their Toyota's.

 

[TomT]

Until American car manufactures settle the union problem they will constantly be looking for ways to cut costs which means building a lesser quality vehicle. Fact: GM spends more money on health care cost per vehicle then steel.

 

[Nelson Atwell]

I was not implying that GM employees don't deserve their pensions. I was simply stating a fact that the Pension plan is a big burden on the company and current employees of GM. That economic reality will make it difficult, if not impossible for GM to survive.



The US is having a similar problem with Social Security. As the baby boomers become eligible for retirement, the outflow begins to exceed the inflow from current workers. Fortunately for all of us, the situation won't be as bad as GM's, but it still won't be pretty for the younger generations of workers.



The military retirement plan differs from both of the above systems. We don't pay into the pension plan, except through payroll taxes. Instead, we earn a little less during our careers than our civilian counterparts, and the retirement is likely less than we could have earned from a IRA or 401K. Some of my retired buddies have told me that after taxes, they only get 20-25% of what they made on active duty. This is beginning to change though, since we recently have been offered the Thrift Savings Plan, which works similar to a 401K. I suspect this will replace the current retirement plan that is in place in 10-20 years.



Regardless, the aging of our society will have a huge impact on this country. We won't be able to compete with countries like China in the manufacturing sector, because we don't have enough young workers to do the assembly work. Without immigrant workers from Mexico and overseas, we'd be in even worse condition than we are now.

 

[gary s]

unions no longer serve a pupose other than to destroy american company's.

just my 2 cents

 

[Deleted deleted]

Gary, I'm not sure if that's a whole 2 cents worth. Don't gyp us!

 

[TomT]

Gary s. There are some good unions out there. Unfortunately there are also a lot of bad ones. To say no unions are needed is saying that corporate america and big government ALWAYS takes care of it's workers. Most unions would have never been formed if the administrators weren't trying to screw people over just so the big bosses could get richer and richer at the employees expense. I do agree that now there are way to many union leaders that are screwing companies over at the expense of both the company and it's members. It seems that union members have lost control of their own unions much as americans have lost control of big government. They need to get a grip on things and learn there is no free ride. Union members have become as spoiled as the rest of us americans.

 

[TomT]

[Broken External Image]:

 

[Tom Schindler]

Here is another.



[Broken External Image]:





Tom