Chrysler Efficiency Catches Toyota:

[doh]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/24985043/site...t%7C&par=yahoo

They finally did it! After years of trailing the Asian automakers when it comes to assembly plant efficiency, one of the Big 3 has finally caught Toyota.

It's a major achievement Chrysler should rightfully be proud of. But it also highlights the next challenge for them, as well as GM and Ford: closing the "perception gap."

First, here's the good news for the Big 3 on assembly plant efficiency.


Credit the execs in Detroit and the UAW for making these improvements. After years of reports about the union workers being the problem with the decline of the Big 3, those workers deserve credit for working to make their company's more efficient.

[jkennedy293]

The problem with the big 3 is still the high hourly wage, healthcare, and pension costs. Once the employees who take the buyouts are replaced, the Big 3 should start being profitable, if only by the slimest of margins.

[dratnol]

Good for Chrysler! Now if they can keep quality up and get some popular products, they should be in a better position.

[Ach]

How? A FWD I-4 Caliber gets only 29 highway, an I4 Sebring/Avenger gets 30 highway. And then you have Rams, Aspens, Durangos etc. Even the V6 Sebring/Avenger are relatively thirsty. I don't know how these averages are calculated, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me that Chrysler would tie Toyota in this area.

[unkillsam]

Originally Posted by Ach

How? A FWD I-4 Caliber gets only 29 highway, an I4 Sebring/Avenger gets 30 highway. And then you have Rams, Aspens, Durangos etc. Even the V6 Sebring/Avenger are relatively thirsty. I don't know how these averages are calculated, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me that Chrysler would tie Toyota in this area.

Read the thread. It is plant efficiency, i.e. number of man-hours and such required to build a car.

[Sal Collaziano]

Both Chrysler and Toyota take 30.37 hours to build a vehicle in the U.S. I credit the "Detroit executives" and the UAW members - not the UAW. "Just saying" :p

And is it strictly UAW members?

[psece]

I thought the Domestics were close on this anyway. GM and Ford actually had plants that bettered the Japanese. Didn't beat them overall but is this that big of news?

[ericmvest]

Tom LaSorda, Chrysler Vice Chairman, is a highly regarded manufacturing expert. Apparently is efforts, along with the efforts of the rest of his manufacturing team, are paying off. He spent his early career at General Motors. Chrysler also recruited two other top manufacturing executives who perceded LaSorda from General Motors, Dennis Pawley and Richard Dauch. Going further back, K. T. Keller and Walter P. Chrysler came from General Motors.

[logansowner]

Originally Posted by Ach

How? A FWD I-4 Caliber gets only 29 highway, an I4 Sebring/Avenger gets 30 highway. And then you have Rams, Aspens, Durangos etc. Even the V6 Sebring/Avenger are relatively thirsty. I don't know how these averages are calculated, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me that Chrysler would tie Toyota in this area.

Reading...it's in you to use....

[windvale]

Problem is - consumers don't care about plant efficiency...

[tgagneguam]

Originally Posted by windvale

Problem is - consumers don't care about plant efficiency...

Directly, no. Indirectly, yes. The impact should be felt in consumers' pockets. Less higher compensated people to build a car would presumably put downward pressure on the price of a vehicle. Presumably.

[tgagneguam]

Originally Posted by Ach

How? A FWD I-4 Caliber gets only 29 highway, an I4 Sebring/Avenger gets 30 highway. And then you have Rams, Aspens, Durangos etc. Even the V6 Sebring/Avenger are relatively thirsty. I don't know how these averages are calculated, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me that Chrysler would tie Toyota in this area.

Oy vay, and you're an attorney? Dude, I feel embarassed for you.

[Saturn69]

Originally Posted by Ach

How? A FWD I-4 Caliber gets only 29 highway, an I4 Sebring/Avenger gets 30 highway. And then you have Rams, Aspens, Durangos etc. Even the V6 Sebring/Avenger are relatively thirsty. I don't know how these averages are calculated, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me that Chrysler would tie Toyota in this area.

R.I.F.

(For those of you who did NOT grow up in the 70's, that's "Reading Is Fundamental")

Typical response, though. Why be bothered with actually reading the article when you can pounce on the headline. You don't work for FoxNews, by any chance? Or Matt Drudge? Hmmm?

[hunchman]

Originally Posted by jkennedy293

The problem with the big 3 is still the high hourly wage, healthcare, and pension costs. Once the employees who take the buyouts are replaced, the Big 3 should start being profitable, if only by the slimest of margins.

You're such a fathead talking like this...........

[Rocket 88]

Originally Posted by windvale

Problem is - consumers don't care about plant efficiency...

Your right. Consumers really only care what the plant is building. Last time I ordered a car from the factory it took 6 weeks for me to get it. I didn't care if took them 30.7 hours or 130.7 hours to build it.

More important it is scary to see the $$ per vehicle loss GM, Ford and Chrysler have per vehicle. YIKES!