Interestingly enough, the British Daimler (which is now basically defunct) is indeed pronounced Daym-ler.
I don’t know. My dad had an '81 Ford Mustang. I think the unions should have looked at the first one of those off the line and gone on strike and refused to make that piece of shit.
Which actual autoworkers have noted this? Can you quote something?
So management didn’t care about quality.
Neither of these quotes back up the claim.
The claim was, again, that “they didn’t spend any more on quality control”. Has anyone backed this up?
ETA: Everyone agrees that management didn’t focus enough on quality. The question is about the extent to which this was based on the fact that they couldn’t afford to do anything about it anyway.
Read the rest of the post:
[my bolding]
Unions have a responsibility to their members to extract as many concessions as they can. Management does not have the same leverage as the unions. If the unions struck and put one of the manufacturers out of business that would just be more market share for one of the other automakers that also had UAW workers. No one at the unions felt bad when Packard, Studebaker, or AMC went out of business. They still had plenty of workers at the other places to build cars for that share of the market.
The end result is that management negotiates deals that keep the company profitable if everything works out. Then a downturn comes up unexpectedly and the company goes bankrupt. This is like evolution in action. Union membership used to by 35% of workers but they are maladaptive and now 12% of workers are unionized, (7% in private sector).
This is not the fault of the unions since they are just doing what they were supposed to do, get as much as possible for their membership. This is not the fault of managment since they were just doing what they were supposed to do, keep the plants open and producing cars. It is the fault of the system that gives too much power to the unions. It is like putting a shark in a pool and being mad when it eats your dog. It is not the shark’s fault it was the fault of the person who put it in the pool.
On the contrary, I have a 1995 F-150. Bought it with 120,000 miles on it and only had a few minor age-related issues with it; it is 19 years old after all. There are many other F-150s of that vintage on the road around here, I see them pretty much daily.
VW made Rabbits in Westmoreland, PA from 1978-1988. Union issues were one of a number of things which caused VW to close the plant.
How did Detroit go from the hugely profitable SUV days to now? At one point, I recall reading that one of the main SUV plants was making more profit in a single building than any other factory on Earth.
It takes some serious fiscal mismanagement to blow that kind of advantage.
Well, nobody is buying SUVs anymore, for one thing. They’re buying crossovers, which are just regular (unibody) cars that look like SUVs.
What on earth are you talking about? Packard’s failure had nothing to do with unions at all. It was down to the collapse of the luxury market after WWII and the company’s failure to find a suitable merger partner.
That doesn’t follow, from the bold part or anything else in that quote.
Raising quality costs money. It means buying higher quality materials, paying more for engineering and for better subcontractors, and using costlier manufacturing techniques. If you can’t afford to implement those things, there’s not going to be much of a focus on 1,000 worker observations about how this or that product has all sorts of flaws.
A large percentage of Toyota trucks I see on the freeway are '70s and '80s models. 
In Washington State or LA? I wouldn’t be surprised in LA because rust isn’t as much of an issue there. From what I’ve seen older Toyota trucks rust badly.
Either way I think since the 1990s US cars made significant strides in quality and reliability. From many articles I’ve read, the lowly Ford Focus is considered equal to Civics and Corollas.
Both, actually. More '70s models in L.A., and more '80s models up here. Haven’t noticed much of a rusting issue on older Toyota trucks up here. One thing I do notice is that white Chevy/GM trucks and vans often have their paint peeling off in sheets, revealing the grey primer coat.
I rented a Focus once, about a dozen years ago. It looked good and was comfortable, but the automatic transmission made it sluggish.
FWIW, the SO says she’d never buy a Ford based on past experiences.
Quality and reliability are two aspects that sometimes get confused.
Quality is about manufacturing process. How to what extent do you deliver what you promised? Meaning, how many manufacturing flaws are present in cars that roll off the lot? This type of thing is what gets measured in things like JD Power surveys, and my impression is that this is where the US automakers have made the greatest strides.
Reliability is more about engineering. I once saw a Toyota chief engineer quoted as saying that their cars are designed to not need major repairs for the first 175,000 miles. Even a flawlessly produced Ford might not last that long.
Packard actually did much better than most luxury manufacturers, which failed during the Depression. Packard held on by going affordable with their product line, notably with the Clipper, until war contracts became available. After that, they did manage to hang on long enough to get bought by Studebaker, whose death was assured when Nash backed out of the deal to make them part of AMC.
It could be argued that the unions created Detroit. Detroit was like a magnet. In its heyday, people flocked there, from all over the country, to get a good wage at the auto plants. This, of course, created thousands of other related jobs.
Markets change all the time, succesful companies change with them. Companies that are saddled with uncooperative unions find it harder to change. Packard probably would have gone out of business anyway, but the UAW had no reason to try to help keep it in business since every Packard not sold, was likely a Pontiac or Cadillac sold which were also built by dues paying members of the UAW, and agreeing to concessions would have set a bad precedent.
One of the reasons that the Big 3 were so into SUVs and pickups is that bigger cars have larger markups and they can better compete on price. Because of legacy costs they could not compete on price for smaller cars except by compromising quality. Their smaller cars became noticeably worse than the competition because they had to pay legacy and labor costs their competitors did not. The only reason the big 3 produce small cars in CAFE standards. If that were repealed they could become profitable truck companies instead of struggling car companies. Until the other companies decided to take over the truck business.
Detroit prospered before the unions not because of them. Detroit population grew 468% from 1900 to 1940. In 1941 Ford was the last of the big three to sign a contract with the UAW. Since then Detroit has lost 56% of it 1940 population.
It is more accurate to say Detroit was like a magnet that attracted jobs and people before unionization and like a magnet that repelled jobs and people after unionization.