Oldsmobile joins Plymouth: RIP

The success of a brand -- any brand -- is dependent upon its owner. If the
owner of a brand neglects to keep its products interesting, distinctive,
relevant and saleable, the brand will fail. It is not the consumer who is
responsible for this failure, it is the company that produces products
labeled with that brand name.

Such neglect was the case with Oldsmobile and Plymouth. It threatens
Mercury as well.

All successful car brands have one thing in common: their products change
with the times. GM's solution to keeping up with the times was to
badge-engineer Oldsmobiles from other corporate products. While it allowed
them to leverage expensive engineering across multiple brands, this caused
the name 'Oldsmobile' to lose its distinction, and eventually, its
relevance. As a result, a generation or two of potential buyers grew up in
a climate where the word 'Oldsmobile' meant "relabeled Chevy". So the best
memories people have of Oldsmobiles -- true Oldsmobiles -- date back to the
late 1960s.

As we all know, consumers like to pay as little as possible for the things
they buy. When product A -- an Olds Omega, to bring up one particularly
regrettable product -- is functionally and stylistically equivalent to
product B -- in this case a Chevy Citation, the one that sells will be the
one that carries the lowest price tag. There was no particular cachet to be
found in purchasing an Olds Omega; no reason other than brand loyalty or the
occasional fire-sale price drove the customers through the dealership doors.
Citations likely sold for much less on average than the comparable Omegas
did, and to the extent that those (fortunately short-lived) heaps of shit
were going to sell....well, you can see where I'm going.

I submit to you that the corporate world is full of brands that were able to
successfully keep with the times, while still remaining faithful to their
heritage. Sometimes even when the basic needs of the market had changed.
HP got its start building oscillators, and later, engineering calculators.
Despite this, they went on to become the king of printing devices.
Microsoft got its start producing BASIC program language interpreters,
distributed on punched tape! See where those folks are now!

GM could have done the same with Oldsmobile, but the brand died because it's
corporate parent lost interest, and when it tried to revive it in the mid
1990s, it was already too late. It's a shame, and we in the automotive
enthusiast community have lost something important, thanks to GM.

--Geoff

 

Such neglect was the case with Oldsmobile and Plymouth. It threatens

No kidding. Both Mercury and Lincoln are currently Why Bother? brands.

John

 

requirements vary from school to school, but I don't think ABET (if I
remember the accrediation org right) requires ethics classes.

Neither does an ethics class. The point was that business school
is likely to teach practices that are popular, but not ethical, simply
legal.

 

Probably. The Buick does have an acknwledge weakness in block rigidity
at obscene power levels, and used a "structural" oil pan in some
applications to bolster the lower block strength. The Olds' weakness in
the bigger displacements is its ungodly long stroke and huge bob-weight
because of the enormous rods and rod bearing journals. Great for
stump-pulling low end torque, but not so good for surviving above 5000 RPM

Not ALWAYS.... IIRC the Buick GSX holds the record as the fastest "out
of the box" muscle car. It was (and is) such a sleeper that few people
really notice it compared to a GTO or an Olds 442, but it was a HONKER,
even in "mild mannered" Stage I trim. Buy a set of Stage III heads and
cam, and its Katie bar the door! And I say that as a die-hard Mopar fan.
An opponent to respect an opponent worth having... ;-)

The best truck motor GM could have built IMO would have been a
mild-cammed Olds 455 with durability goodies like sodium filled valves,
gear timing, and external head cooling plumbing, etc (a-la Chrysler
413/361 industrial engines). The better block strength would have been
put to good use, as would the bigger bearings and bearing area without
any drawback from the bob-weight because in a truck application it would
never have to see anything above 4500 RPM. They could have put that
thing in two-axle bob-tail dump trucks and "hot-shot" tractor rigs just
like Dodge put the industrial 413 in that kind of application. It was so
much better than the 454 that it just boggles my mind that GM even kept
the 454 in production.

 

And at Chrysler. The Hemi in the 300-C has cylinder deactivation, and
I've already seen a few prowling the highways.

 

No, I didn't forget it. I've seen a modified one lay down over 700
rear-wheel horsepower on the dyno with a stock rotating assembly in the
engine, but its not a car that has any real appeal in the way that an
old GTO or Roadrunner does. If they'd made it decent to LOOK at, used
about 90% less cheap plastic trim, or otherwise given it character,
they'd have had something there.

 

No, Olds fans are not anymore responsible for the demise of Olds than I
am responsible for the demise of Plymouth. My last Plymouth was a '73
model, and they offered NOTHING that appealed to me after that point. If
PLYMOUTH had gotten a version of the LH platform
Concorde/Vision/Intrepid) in 1993, I'd have snapped one up instead of
settling for an Eagle Vision. Same for Oldsmobile- killed by deliberate
starvation of models from management. I'm sure the Oldsmobile fans
would have bought an Olds equivalent of the Buick Grand National in the
80s, or a down-trim performance-oriented version of the Cadillac Seville
STS in the 90s. Olds didn't get a crack at that kind of platform, and
died of management-induced starvation. Just like Plymouth.

I disagree Old people may have bought 88s and 98 Regencys, but they
didn't buy 4-4-2s or even big-block Cutlasses, just like old people
didn't buy Roadrunners and Superbirds even though they did buy Furys.
And you can't deny that old people buy Chevy Impalas and Caprices, so
why is Chevy still around? Because GM gave them a sufficient spectrum of
models.

 

The 454 was/is cheaper to manufacture, therefore "better" according to the
MBAssholes running the place.

 

The above is what is known as a 'business decision' to ship the crap
by making it pass the test. Dollars to doughnuts this was driven
from pressure from on high. I've been there, and thanked god that
we weren't producing aircraft, cars, bridges, or anything where a
failure of the product would kill someone.

<snip rest of story>

Then you are familiar with business cultural aspects that create bad
design. I don't see this as an ethics issue in the way of a MBA coming
in and deliberately wrecking a company in a hunt for the bottom line.
Judging by what you state above, the errors were not made on purpose
but were rather the product of a cultural problem at the company.

This is where ethics comes in. Your willingness to tell the truth. But
this a different sort of ethics than what is comparable to the business
practices tought to MBAs. An engineering comparision to an MBA
buying up a company to close the doors and fire everyone for profit
would be designing a pressure vessel to explode before leaking because
it would be cheaper.

Exactly, management. MBA type thinking, the growing of the pointy hair.
I am sure you are familiar with people who rose through engineering to
management only to grow pointy hair and become like that. They are doing
what they are expected to do to advance rather than standing up for
what is right. That's why the buisness side is fundamentally broken,
that's where this sort of thinking orginiates.

Been there, done that. Again, this is a business cultural thing that
has nothing to do with engineering education as it exists today.
Engineering education doesn't cover anything regarding real business
cultures. I suppose 'standing up to management 101' would be a useful
course, but that's not what I was getting at. I was getting at a previous
persons post on how MBA's are tought business practices that are
fundamentally flawed ethically then get an ethics class. Engineers are
not tought practices that are fundamentally flawed, like designing exploding
pressure vessels.

 

Er, no. You've got it bassackwards. It's not up to the buying public to
blindly shower money upon a marque regardless of the quality, level of
innovation and intrigue (as it were) of the vehicles offered. It's up to
the manufacturer to keep the product relevant, interesting and good. Even
the fifth-graders who ride the short bus usually understand this
intuitively. You apparently do not. I'm guessing you have an MBA.

DS

 

No, the buying public did exactly what they were supposed to, they
stopped buying the crap GM was putting the oldsmobile name on. The
fault is with GM for not making acceptable product.

 

Yup!

The MBAsshole managed to sack me, and a few others, JUST BEFORE the
company went public. He had "promised" a number of us up to 10,000
Principle shares at a penny a piece.

All the more for him! Sure there was a 3 year escrow, so what. 5 years
after going public the shares were in the $50 ballpark. Looks like he
made a killing and screwed anyone that "got in the way" by being
honest or ethical.

Last I heard, there were massive layoffs there. Surprise, surprise.
But I bet this MBAsshole is still on the payroll.

 

I drove a 300C yesterday. The handles is much superior to the on
FWD chassis. At 33K loaded and with a V8 it demonstrates how
much less expensively RWD vehicles can be built than FWD like the
Pacifics. The deactivation sequence is undetectable engaging and
disengaging. What surprises me is it will only get 25 MPG same as
the V8 Mustang and it only requires regular
gas. I would expect to see something closes to 30 MPG.


mike hunt

 

I don't get that at all.

I think the implication is that whan you have two identical cars, and
one has a CHEVY hood ornament, and the other has an OLDS hood ornament
- and this is the only way to differentiate between the two, and then
you find out that OLDS is more expensive than CHEVY, then the buying
public makes its choice alright!

The demise of the Oldsmobile line is a direct result of the failure of
MANAGEMENT. Management failed to provide the required vision,
leadership, market research, and innvovative development environment
which would lead to innovative and superior products.

That is it in a nutshell. Budget constraints, sales margins, corporate
performance are ALL the responsibility of management. Further, Product
Engineering requires DESIGN INPUTS to help define the product in a way
which is meaningful to the customers. This is the responsibility of
Marketing MANAGEMENT. Management defines the vision for the company.
Marketing defines the vision for the product. And Engineering takes
the vision of the design, in context, and creates what MANAGEMENT AND
MARKETING has said will sell - making vision a reality.

And I agree that it is folley to have someone at the helm of a
business, who is responsible for setting your corporate vision, who
also does not happen to have a single clue about the nitty gritty of
the industry he or she happens to be in!

The death of Oldsmobile proves my point.

Was market / brand consolidation required??? Perhaps. But then call it
what it is. Have the balls to stand up and say that the overall
profitability of the company is being negatively affected, can
Oldsmobile, and focus your efforts on better product. And part of any
good consolidation is to take the best parts and move forward. I have
no evidence that GM has done this. Looks to me like they just sacked
OLDS, hung people out to dry, and are continuing to make the same old
lack-luster crap year after year, only they try to charge more $$$ for
it.

I may not like some of the crap that DC has put out - like the PT
cruiser, and the A604 tranmission, but at least they are giving it a
go! The A604 appears to be the first of its kind. And I bet that DC
has learned a LOT, and is making it better than ever. Not that I like
being part of an ongoing QA and Engineering experiment - but GM is
just as guilty of producing that same'ol crap, and using the end-user
as the QA department. At least DC is trying new ideas, at least there
is a hint of innovation there.

I drove GM for over 20 years. Products that were produced between
1968, and 1995. I can truly say that while some of the creature
comfort stuff got better, the overall designs just got worse and
worse. Cars that ate brakes like candy, bad steering racks, A/C
systems that required major repairs immmediately after the warranty
expired, the list goes on.

I actually like my GC, even with all its quirks. That 3.3 l engine is
reliable, and easy to service. The van is fun to drive, and can hold
LOTS of stuff or people! The trans did go, but I knew of potential
problems in advance, and the van never left me stranded. And with all
the info I got here, the situation was handled.

Given my experiences to date, I am not sure I would go back to GM, not
unless I saw some SIGNIFICANT improvements in quality.

There is a REASON that GM's market share has dwindled over the years.
And at the root os it is BAD MANAGEMENT.

 

By all accounts, the PT Cruiser is a very well made, very reliable, very
versatile (and obviously very popular) car. Be careful not to confuse
bad stuff with stuff you just don't like -- they are not the same thing.

Quite so. I'm aware of at least one individual who snaps-up every
transmission he can get out of recent-model, low-miles Mopar wrecks. He
removes the working components, discards the housing, and installs the
working components in earlier-model housings. His shop's business is
booming because he's known as the guy who fixes A604 transmissions "all
the way fixed".

Remember when GM-Harrison air conditioners were widely known to be
problem-free over several decades? (Remember when Chrysler Corp. was
widely known as the builder of the world's best automatic transmissions?)

The 3.3 has the same daddy as the slant-6, 318, 2.2, and a lot of other
excellent Chryco engines.

Yep.

DS

 

That's the set up, and usually why big US corporations like GM
have huge problems. I find that the real good stuff generally
comes from engineering, machine shop people, sometimes industrial
design, or anywhere other than management and marketing. Anything
that manages to survive without too much damage from management and
marketing and get to market becomes the better products.

The best product I worked on, as far as performance goes, was one
where we sidesteped and subverted management and marketing at every
turn.

Big US corporations just don't give a shit about the product. It's
that simple. Cheaper part = better part as far as management is concerned
most of the time. They suck on to whatever *looks* cheaper for the short
term. They rarely look at the whole picture on anything it seems. Long
term isn't in their vocabulary.

One of the few exceptions seems to be ford's ownership of aston martin.
But these are few and far between and IMO only when the rest of
the world wouldn't accept it any other way.

 

1984-86 Mustang SVO. Good looks, affordable, decently quick and super
handling.

 

First job I had on leaving the Marines in 1957 was as a Oldsmobile
technician. I remember replacing a bunch of camshafts, air rides components
and fires from tri-carb systems.

Dale

 

You guys have an oversimplified understanding of what goes on in the ethics
classes. Time is not wasted on easy black and white issues. It is assumed
the professionals know the difference between right and wrong. The courses
cover difficult questions, for example, can a lawyer represent his best
friend who is seekinga divorce (lawyer knows guy's wife too). What do you
do when a clients hands you potential evidence in a criminal case. Suppose
the IRS turns up at your door and wants info about your client. Interesting
case in Raleigh NC where a guy was murdered and wife and her boyfriend are
suspects. Boyfriend talks to lawyer and then commits suicide. Police want
to know what he told lawyer so they can solve case. Can he reveal
confidence of dead client? Ask your lawyer, doctor and engineer what goes
on in the ethics courses.

broken.

 

Just because some people are unethical, that doesn't mean you have to be.
If everyone in the chain above was ethical, being ethical would not be a
challenge. Unfortunately, sometimes you have to accept the challenge of
being the first ethical person in the chain of command.