Oldsmobile joins Plymouth: RIP

Yeah but if the press reports were correct, Mr. DeLorean got involved in
a different kind of white powdery stuff to try to keep his company
afloat.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

You've forgotten some worthy cars. Like my Toyota Supra Twin Turbo,
for example. 8) World-class RWD platform (shared with the Lexus SC
coupe), bullet-proof DOHC inline-6, Getrag 6-speed tranny, etc, etc.

 

Funny, I thought that's how wealth was created. Where no value is
assed is by paper-shuffling leaches whose only concern is pumping-up
their stock options.

 

Then all three major professions: Medicine, Law, and Engineering are broken.

 

Oh, the V8->4 concept is back at GM btw. I joked at the autoshow display
that a diesel engine made from a gasoline block would be next. And
despite that failure, it does say something about the olds 350 that it
worked _at all_.

One of the few points a wide agreement I've found is that GM should have
standardized on the olds 350 rather than the chevy.

 

I don't see engineering as "has to have" it. Some engineering schools
do put in ethics classes, but that's neither here nor there as they
aren't teaching students to make dangerous products, to design boilers
that explode, etc and so on. Meanwhile, business school would be teaching
a large number of current trends and such that would be IMO the same
as teaching engineers to design pressure vessels that expode. Hence
it's broken and is patched with ethics classes. I dunno about medicine
and law, but I doubt doctors are being taught that unnesscary surgery
is the key to a profitable practice.

 

Dan was entirely correct about Oldsmobile engineering, but not because olds
engineers were smarter; it was just a corporate decision. Power steering,
automatic transmissions, air conditioning, overhead valve V-8, front wheel
drive, everything had to come through Oldsmobile first before Cadillac and
Buick would use it. They wanted the bugs worked out before it hit the
ultra-high-profit customer. It had to be done somewhere, and that somewhere
was Oldsmobile. It was a good strategy, and when they slipped Cadillac got
hurt bad. They offered no proven engines for two whole model years, 1981 and
1982. They were not the luxury leader after that. That's what GM was trying
to avoid.

Generally, Packard did it first, Cadillac last, with Cadillac claiming to be
first. When you're a really big company you can do stuff like that. There
were rare cases, like the OHV V-8, where Packard wasn't first.

I agree with Steve on the Buick 455 weight and construction, but it was
under the performance radar, and Oldmobiles were still more durable in my
opinion. The engines were always cammed to run out of breath at 4000 rpm,
because they were Buicks. GREAT truck motor, but GM never took advantage.

 

I'm with you. It broke my heart when they sank that 48 Chevy 2-ton. It
looked good enough for a car show if it had made it to the states.

 

It breaks my heart when they sink any of them. I'd try to pick it up, clean
it up and put it in a museum.

 

Actually, I heard that it was a requirement from friends who went
through the engineering programs at Virginia Tech when I was an
undergrad there. But, since you have the benefit of personal experience
with the cirriculum, I'll take your word for it.

They aren't, but that doesn't stop some of them from engaging in it...

 

No, obviously I don't think in such absolute terms.

But you love to make it seem so.

Still, the point remains - the more a person has invested
in a life and the local community, the less likely they
are to do things that will hurt your company as long
as you keep them happy.

 

I think your argument is faulty. In an ethics class I took in
engineering school, I learned about the Lockheed brake case, among other
things. That was where a Lockheed facility tested their brake design
for a military jet. During the qualification testing on the
dynamometer, the brakes turned cherry red and exceeded the allowed
temperature at first. So they decided to have huge fans blowing air on
them (not part of the test protocol) to complete the test and got them
to pass. The pilot was killed and a multi-million dollar plane was lost
on the first series of test flights - brakes failed on a landing.

I personally saw other "opportunities" to be or not be ethical in my
career. Ever hear of Intelsat VI? It was a $500 million satellite that
would not separate from the Titan missile it was launched on due to
electrical design errors in the missile. I was the original electrical
design lead on the Titan vehicle that it went up on. The project was so
out of control as far as drawing checking and integrity that I was
threatened with (and actual attempts were made after the fact at) having
my career ruined when I insisted that I be transferred off of the
project since I could not vouch for the integrity of the design.

Long story short, after I left the project at my insistence, the guy who
took over from me changed some wiring for software commands (things like
the one that ejects the satellite from the 2nd stage of the Titan when
it reaches orbit) without informing the software controls group. When
they built the wiring harness, it failed the tests. The techs called
the engineer about it. He signed off on the tests that showed a fault.
The missile reaches orbit, they issue the separation command, nothing
happens (as is usually the case, a series of errors has to happen for a
real problem to make it thru). A shuttle mission was used to manually
separate the two and throw the satellite out into orbit. The missile
mfgr. settled out of court for an undisclosed amount (probably somewhere
between 1/2 and a billion dollars).

Before the settlement, it was interesting the conversations that the
company lawyers had with me trying to determine how willing I was to
bend the truth about how the project was run. I am convinced that I
never would have been called to testify had it gone to court (and
perhaps that's why it never made it to court).

I have other stories of opportunites like that.

Another example of ethics not at work: Challenger o-ring failure.
Management over-rode engineers decision to scrub the launch because of
concerns of the o-rings at the ambient temperatures when NASA threatened
to black list Morton-Thiokol from any future NASA business if they let
the engineers scrub the launch.

Pressures are huge in the auto industry to fake quality systems because
the resources are not there to hire the people that it would really take
to administer them properly. Instead quality systems are often used
purely to cover the customer's butt if a quality spill happens so that
they can recover all the costs associated with the spill.
Unfortunately, there is no incentive (other than personal integrity) to
behave ethically in that situation. Ask me how I know.

Unfortunatley, in a large sense, ethics can't be taught - a person
either has them internally or doesn't. However, a class on the subject
might make them aware of unintended consequences that will get them
thinking and may make them decide to grow some balls to do the right
thing in tough situations (even if their career may suffer for it).

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

Coincidentally, Virginia Tech happens to be where I got my engineering
degree and took the course on ethics that I referenced in another post.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

I like a line in a recent classic mag that said the Brits are the
best at welding because they know they'll never find a rust-free car.
But logically, the Italians should be the best home welders on the
planet. The Brits should be the best at diagnosing electrical faults.
The US population is the best at engine swaps: we can put a
small-block Chevy or Windsor into any model car on the planet, no
matter how ill-advised that might be.
Emanuel

 

Unfortunatley, in a large sense, ethics can't be taught - a person

Bill,

I think ethics ARE taught -- when you're under 7 years of age. It's all
about the behavior your parents model for you. If you are lucky enough to
see them trying to do the right thing most of the time, you'll likely grow
up to be an ethical person.

Ethics cannot be taught at the college level, but they can be reinforced.
You can show basically ethical college students what is expected of them in
the business world, and they will internalize it and become more able to
exhibit ethical behavior in their working lives.

--Geoff

 

Based on the replies I'm seeing it's obvious I completely botched the
question, but what the hey--this turned into a great sub-thread.

I'd say the Vietnamese deserve at least an honorable mention for their
mechanical expertise with limited resources--although their spit and
bailing wire is more commonly applied to elderly Honda 50s and Vespa
scooters than to cars.

If anyone cares, what I meant to ask was, within the US, whose
manufacturer's car owners are providing the *best* informed answers to
CR about reliability? The USAians' (GM/Ford/Kreissler)?
Swedes'(Saab/Volvo)? Germans' (VW/BMW/Audi)? Koreans' (Hyundai/Kia)?

I'd lean toward German car owners based on my personal experience of
those who've owned 'em, but [shrug]...

--Dirk (who can think of at least three GM divisions he'd dump before
Olds)

 

True, but if as an ethical person you work for crooked people and receive
all kinds of shit for doing the right thing your career won't be a pleasant
one. I have been there and done that. I have long ago chosen to work
for myself, where my ethics and actions have never been questioned...

Exactly. College is far too late to teach ethical behavior. Students will
pay
lip service to what's being taught, pass the course, forget about it, and do
whatever they would in a professional capacity once hired had they never
heard of ethics if so inclined...

-'dreas

 

Ethics, as used here, is a formal code of conduct applicable to the
professions. If that formal code exists, it pretty much has to be
taught whether or not the profession is "broken".

 

Surely the buying public are responsible for the demise of the marque..
Oldsmobile is a marque bought by older people who remember them when they
were large, luxurious, faceless cars.. there have been many replies to the
OP.. I trust that you all own Oldsmobiles.. that you support the marque a
little better than giving us statements like ' my dad/granpa owned an Olds
way back when.....'..

Nostalgia does not contribute enough money into GM coffers such that they
can afford to keep a marque that just doesn't sell all that well.. and if
they change the style of Olds, they immediately lose the customer base that
bought them cos of what they WERE..

It is always sad when a marque that has been around for so long disappears,
but we have only ourselves to blame..

 

It is especially sad when one considers that Oldsmobile was the oldest named
car on the road.