Replies

I wonder how they can come out with products like the Pontiac Aztec. You can analogize the production of a car with the production of a film - each have long gestation periods and require a lot of money. And with all the money that is committed to either - you wonder what the analysis process is to produce such expensive losers. Look at Honda - the one product they introduced that was arguably a mistake (and I say arguably, because many would say it wasn't) was the Del Sol. They stayed out of the mini-van business for years but pitched a perfect game when they finally introduced one. Now one would think that even if GM only watched Honda for 10 years and then emulated them - they couldn't be in the spot they are in now.

"I wonder how they can come out with products like the Pontiac Aztec."

I had the misfortune to be assigned for a while to the 1994 Ford Taurus program as they engineered that disaster. That was the model that had all the ovals--back window, tail lamps, headlamps, even the radio/ac controls on the instrument panel. I watched people's careers get put on hold or stopped for daring to question the designers and engineering management about taking that direction. A lot of people were pushing for something a little edgier. In the end, of course, Ford's stodgy conservative styling "gurus" won out and the car did not do as well as they thought it would. All the heros got promoted though so I guess that's all that counts. You're right, engineering a car takes a long period of time from concept to customer, you'd think they'd think their styling out a little better. Ford and GM are surely lacking something that Chrysler understands given the Montana, the 300, the PT Cruiser, and anything with a Jeep nameplate. Ford comes out with the 500 which is another name for Taurus. I'm not sure about the GM structure, but I do know that the Ford family just will not fire upper level losers.