Evaluating All The Politics Is Not What I’m Interested In When I Evaluate Cars. I Couldn’t Be Happier With All The Cars We’ve Got, Regardless Of What Went On Behind The Scenes.
…and the producers are way better at manipulating markets than the Feds.
I don’t agree with that at all, but like I said I’m not going to worry about things I have no control over. When I need a car, I’ll choose what suits me best.
CSA
"…and the producers are way better at manipulating markets than the Feds."
Especially when you consider that with unlimited corporate influence, they can work through the fed. as well.
Right now GM is trying to capture the “American buyer” market segment called “early adapters”. Those are the folks who’ll pay a premium to be the first on the block to have the latest technology. It’s worth it to them. GM will get sales out of that, but whether the vehicle is successful for the long term will depend latgely on whether people see it as being worth the cost. Time will tell.
It worked for Chrysler and Lee Iacocca, for a while
I Remember People Getting On Waiting Lists To Be First On The Block To Get Lido’s New Mustang. Turned Out To Be Quite A Success For The Long Haul.
CSA
“Even a broken clock is right twice a day.”
He Was An Innovator, But Lido Didn’t Find As Much Success Marketing His EV . . . Or Should I Say EB ?
http://electric-bike.com/blog/2010/04/20/mustangs-minivans-and-electric-bikes-a-history-of-ev-global/
CSA
His Success it seems was as much dependent upon convincing the public (Feds) to finance his ideas. When the public money runs out, it’s time to make a profit. Lee was a great Inovator but obviously his long term stability was dependent upon forgien investors as it still is today at Chrysler, an unenviable legacy.
Hie ability to generate new automotive ideas necessary to retain competitiveness within the profit margins of his own companies is suspect.
Lee is the icon for innovation for short term profit and not long term stability for his companies employees and the public good. In the measure of the true American, Ralph Nader is head and shoulders above Lee Iacocca. His work in public safety did more to turn Ford into an industrial leader in this field and indirectly contribute to it’s long term solvency today than anything Lee did.
The Ford mustang may bear his mark as an Iococca brainchild, but the F150 is the staple that finances such excursions and Lee can’t take credit for that or Fords overall success.
“obviously his long term stability was dependent upon forgien investors”
Remind you of anyone? HInt: starts with U and ends with A.
“Ralph Nader is head and shoulders above Lee Iacocca. His work in public safety did more to turn Ford into an industrial leader in this field and indirectly contribute to it’s long term solvency today than anything Lee did.”
Are you kidding? Ralph Nader not only did not ever produce anything of value, most of his accusations turned out to be false.
When Lee Iococca took over at Chrysler, it was fundamentally bankrupt. He did need a bailout from the government, but the need for that wasn’t created by him. Under his leadership, Chrysler was able to pay off the loans ahead of time.
Also under his leadership, he brought the Jeep line to Chrysler and the Minivan to the American market. He oversaw a complete revamp of the Chrysler line from bloated v8 powered RWD’s that no one wanted to efficient FWD 4 and 6 cylinder models that were very successful. Most important was the design studio that allowed Chrysler to bring new ideas to reality in very short time. This lasted long after his departure. Chrysler was in good shape when he left, so good that it became a target for a takeover bid.
Iococca retired from Chrysler in 1992, Damlier Benz merged with (took over) Chrysler in 1998.
“Remind you of anyone? HInt: starts with U and ends with A.”
Sam doesn’t end with A. But Uncle does begin with U. At least we’re not Greece. That’s next year.
"Keith"
I guess saving lives is of no value as far as you’re concerned. Putting a focus on auto safety and bringing it to the forefront of automobile design is more important than k car and hemi nomenclature.
“In the measure of the true American, Ralph Nader is head and shoulders above Lee Iacocca.”
How can Nader stand head and shoulders above anybody?
His breakthrough book, Unsafe at Any Speed, was a hatchet job. For instance, Nader uses an “expert opinion” from a CHRYSLER engineer on how dangerous aft-CG cars are.
Now, Chrysler had no aft-engine cars on the lots on in R+D…and the engineer knew that, AS WELL as the fact that two of his chief competitors had such cars. Ralph was either a fool not to see the obvious conflict-of-interest…or sincerely hoped his readers were.
Point being, Ralph used specious tactics to axe a good car, way better than “the other aft-CG car with a swing axle”…that needed, at most, a sway bar and a pair of CV joints. (And didn’t the Corvair actually have those CVs at press time, thus making the whole first chapter moot?)
P.S. After the bashing of the Corvair, the Big 3 abandoned the Bug-alike market and went back to making the barges they knew how to make. Then the oil crisis caught them flat-footed, and were forced to rush through a bunch of really bad small cars where they basically didn’t know what they were doing.
Had USAAS not come out (or at least was written ethically), and the Big 3 thus had more “lead time” going into the oil embargo, would things now be better for the domestic auto mfrs…and the UAW…and Detroit?
Unable to say for certain, but Ralphie sure didn’t help (he did help himself, though).
I always thought Nader was one of our best Presidents. Seriously though, folks, he’s a freakshow. Like Chomsky he has a good mind and the occasional good idea, but should not be left unsupervised. Put in a nutshell (how apt), he’s no Remar Sutton.
Oh, “mean Joe” you are actually saying the vw /Corvair design is safe. I had one, Monza" and the initial handling with severe oversteer for both it and the 5 vw we had in the family required attention as well as having cross wind and Road surface susceptibility. With their poor overall balance and lack of front end collision protection both were death traps. Nader, eccentric, sure and a worthwhile presidential candidate, not. But regardless of your bias, I give him credit for bringing auto safety to light in ways that changed the buying habits of the public. The same is true for product safety in many other areas as well.
Whether the Pinto alone was deserving of all the publicity is debatable, but all manufacturers took a second look at corporate practices. You guys sound like corporations should be given the same civil rights and privileges as individuals and throw anything on the market that sells w/o public safety in mind. Nader will never get my vote for president, but he is still right today about corporate for profit influence in our private lives and govt. and how it must be continually balance by our personal civil rights. I never saw Iococca protesting the for corporate interest oil war in Irag or encouraging proper product safety labeling.
Nader is a polarizing figure to be sure and I definitely agree he needs both a personality and physical make over. Some of you by your comments have staked out your side. I’ll stand by mine. This Freakshow has indirectly saved more lives than you or I, or Lee.
“With their poor overall balance and lack of front end collision protection both were death traps.”
“I had one, Monza” and the initial handling with severe oversteer for both it and the 5 vw we had in the family required attention as well as having cross wind and Road surface susceptibility."
Feeling this way about the Corvair and the VWs, why in the world would you have 6 vehicles in the family that all fit the bill ?
You needed Nader to stop you from buying them ? What ?
I have some experience. I owned a swing axle VW bug and drove it a couple hundred thousand miles. I never rolled it or came close to it and I was a teenager ! Could it be improved upon ? Sure. My sister bought a brand new 65 Corvair (“improved” double-jointed axle) and it also handled very well.
You are taking these cars out of context a bit. Hardly any cars were safe in this era. They were basically all death traps compered with what we have today. Cars had bias-ply tires, drum brakes (single circuit), no ABS, one piece steering column, no seat belts or no harnesses, no air bags, steel unpadded dash boards, no head rests, poorly designed fuel tanks, etcetera. This list could go on and on. That does not compare with cars of today. Better materials, testing, and technology, have made them much safer.
CSA
They weren’t my choices; we were all young and knew nothing else but immortality. I personally had the Monza to drive as a family car. Beggers can’t be choosers when you’re a college student. When it came time to make my own purchases, a VW was never a consideration.
"Cars had bias-ply tires, drum brakes (single circuit), no ABS, one piece steering column, no seat belts or no harnesses, no air bags, steel unpadded dash boards, no head rests, poorly designed fuel tanks, etcetera. This list could go on and on. "
Gee…and Ralph Nader had nothing to do with with that change for the better ? I guess it was just the corporate altruism and not govt. regulations brought about by political pressure inspired by the likes of Ralph Nader among others.
I also consider CR as a not perfect but still important torch carrier in that tradition…consumer information and awareness. Only in enlightenment can the best choices be made by consumers. That is all Ralph Nader ever championed. He wholeheartedly believes in the free enterprise system but also in truth in advertising and free access to all information so we can all make informed choices. The early Ford SUVs Broncos among other makes were rollover kings and even the dealers were unaware of their “potential”, let alone unsuspecting customers kept in the dark by untruthful and incomplete advertising.
It’s as though some feel these cars evolved into what they are today just because Ford. Toyota and GM had a change of heart and better materials. That is rewriting history. Some still believe that Nader runs for president to ever get elected. Not true. Like Ross Perot, it’s just a forum to keep consumers and the public in general aware of their own responsibilities.
"“Keith"
I guess saving lives is of no value as far as you’re concerned. Putting a focus on auto safety and bringing it to the forefront of automobile design is more important than k car and hemi nomenclature.”
You really can give credit more to GM for this. “Unsafe at any Speed” was a little book destined to obscurity until a bumbling GM executive decided to sick a private detective onto Ralph Nader to look for dirt in his bacKground. Nader took this incident and turned it into a media circus to promote his book. I, in fact, bought the book at that time just to see what the frenzy was about.
Ford did only a couple of years earlier, try to sell a car with some safety features, it flopped. Seatbelts had been an option for most vehicles since 57, but they couldn’t give them away. Even after they were mandatory, the rate of usage was in the single digit percentages.
The movement toward safer vehicles has been a slow but growing movement that started long before Nader’s book. Nader was nothing but a critic. I think Theodore Roosevelt said it best when describing the critic. http://thinkexist.com/quotation/it_is_not_the_critic_who_counts-not_the_man_who/12121.html
I also lost a lot of respect for GM at the time. They should have stood up for the Corvair. The Corvair did have a lot of attributes, and it had a few flaws too, but the swing axle was not one of them, or at least not as bad as Nader would have you believe. It did lead to better designs from which we benefit today. Instead of defending and improving the design, they chose to abandon it.
There is no such thing as ‘safe’. There is only safer. When are our cars safe enough? When we have to strap into a five point harness and wear a helmet and the speed limit is 45 mph? At some point, even the most ardent safety freak will say ‘enough already’.
The cars built in the '60 were considered ‘safe enough’ by both the car makers and the majority of the buying public and most of us who rode in those ‘death traps’ survived to become old people.
As for me, I’ll take a ride in a dagerous car driven by a safe driver over a ride in a safe car driven by a dangerous driver any day.
I forgot one thing I meant to add to my previous post. In my opinion, the group MADD has done more to make our roads safer than any safety group, national speed limit or vehicle designer has done.
Back in the mid 60’s and before, drunk drivers were responsible for over half the highway deaths. Now the figure is far lower, I believe that the last time I heard, it was less than 20%.