Yesterday,I drove with the Porsche 911 Carrera.(it wasn't mine)I went way past the speed limit (143mph where I had to drive 75mph)but I still had a lot reserve at my right foot.I could have gone way faster but in Belgium they are really too strict about the speed limit's.And I took a couple of chicane's at high speed at an industry terrain,the traction was phenomenal.It didn't break loose when I lifted the throttle in the curve.COOL
I really wish that more car company execs would try to follow the VW-Porsche model for development. Let's build a car. Let's build the best damned car that we can. And then, let's listen to our customers and let them tell us what it needs to be even better. And every year, let's try to just change five or six things, but leave all of the rest the way it was. Eventually, we'll get to... everything. There are tons of happy Porsche 911/912 owners out there, and legions of happy VW Beetle owners (air-cooled). It remains to be seen whether or not VW will be keeping the New Beetle and improving it piece by piece, or whether they'll run off as many copies as they can and then close it all down. I really admire that kind of thinking though... "We'll run that play until we get it right!" as the old football coach used to say. Imagine the cars we'd be driving now, if GM and Ford and Chrysler had decided to play the hands they held in the 1980s and just improve and improve and improve them?
Imagine the cars we'd be driving now, if GM and Ford and Chrysler had decided to play the hands they held in the 1980s and just improve and improve and improve them?The perfect K car?
>> The perfect K car?> Yeah. Why not?
Yes the 911 is a GREAT car. But remember Ford probably makes more pickups in a week than the 911's total production since 63 (give or take a year). And Porsches have always sold for more than anything made here. Auto makers manufacture what they can sell. (or try to) If Porsche can continue to make money from the 911 design forever, more power to them, but lets's compare apples to apples.Vette owners? (cor NOT che)
do you know what's the problem when a US car-manufacturer is trying to sell a car like for example the sebring in Europe:They don't have enough standard things on their car :the handle above the door is in the US a rather expensive option,in Europe it's always standard,if you buy a Porsche or a Citroën(PSA) these things are the little details that make the car less attractive for European drivers.
"But remember Ford probably makes more pickups in a week than the 911's total production since 63 (give or take a year)."This is true for Porsche, but the difference isn't so significant if you look at VW production. The attention to detail and desire to make things right is company wide, from a $15K Golf to a $100K 911.While I'm not sure about the original author's dream of a perfect K car, I think you could easily argue that if the Big 3 were using their heads in the '80s, the K car would never have existed.
>> While I'm not sure about the original author's dream of a perfect K car, I think you could> easily argue that if the Big 3 were using their heads in the '80s, the K car would never have existed.> I think we're merging two ideas, here. Mine was that the US auto factories should adopt a more VW-Porsche -style of thinking, and build a car for years and years, focusing on making the current car better and better, instead of bringing in a "New&Improved" model every three or five years. Someone else suggested the K-Car. But, I'll own that, too, because it speaks to my original theme. If Chrysler had continued to improve the Aries and Reliant, there's no reason they couldn't have sold them deep into the 1990s. Yeah, it sucked when the door handles came off in your palm--but if they fixed that, what would the complaint be? And when they fixed that, then what would keep it from being a decent car? And so on. And so on. The tooling was already there. The guys on the line had already been trained. Everything was in place to build a good car except the money during development to make it one (and I speak as one who will always hold the Aries and Reliant dear to my heart. At one point, I'd sold one third of the registered K-cars in Omaha, Nebraska, working for Baxter Chrylser-Plymouth). Once the money came pouring in (remember Lee Iacocca paying off the loans early?), they could have devoted some of that to fixing the dozens of little things that made the K-Car such a throwaway in the late 1990s and today. They didn't. Instead, we got a New&Improved LeBaron, and now it's a Sebring--and it's still not the car a Toyota is. I'm sure that the halo effect works both ways. The earliest VW Beetle I remember wasn't a great car. It may not even have been a good car, I don't remember. The original 901-body (short wheelbased) Porsche 911 was a lot of fun, but it wasn't as dependable and reliable as the 1980s versions of the "same" car were, either. That was, and is, my point: Evolution, not revolution.
"The tooling was already there. The guys on the line had already been trained. Everything was in place to build a good car except the money during development to make it one""Evolution, not revolution."I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. I don't believe its a money issue. The problem is and has always been the inability to spot and address problems when they arise. Sure the guys on the line have been trained - to do one job - but not to care about the finished product.He's a real-life scenario - A robot that's supposed to apply adhesive to a vehicle is missing a 2 ft. section and instead hitting the ground.The Toyota solution? Shut down production, re-tool the robot, make sure no vehicles were made without adhesive. A nameless mmember of the Big 3? Put a pail on the ground to catch the glue.I wonder who makes the better car????
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |