Who Needs MBAs?
Regarding Jerry Flint's column about culture change at GM (see WAW — Aug. '09, p.32): I remember working at Toyota's Engineering Center in Ann Arbor in the late 1990s as a product engineer and having to prepare for design reviews with the president of the company. It was always stressful because he came up through the engineering ranks. You couldn't “fake it” with him.
In one particular meeting, a less experienced associate was explaining the virtues of his less-than-stellar design when the president interrupted him and told him he designed the same part on the 1964 Corona, and his solution was far better. He told the engineer to go away and redo it properly.
What has stayed with me over the years is that Toyota understands companies developing and manufacturing consumer products must be led by an engineer. It seems obvious to engineers, but those touting MBAs as the cure to all that ails a business either don't understand or don't want to acknowledge this fact.
Neil Oswalt
Plymouth, MI
Required Reading
Hopefully there will be life after the fall (see WAW — Aug. '09, p.22). Too bad Mr. Penske and GM could not make a future for Saturn. I even bought an Aura on the hope of him continuing the brand. I often said instead of “GM-izing” Saturn, GM should have been Saturnized as originally proposed.
That leads me to Jerry Flint's article. It could not be said better and should be required reading for all MBA students. Indeed the financial wizards have interfered with GM for a long time.
I recall often where the bean counters destroyed great engineering proposals. It is time to put them aside, and let innovators bring about a comeback in manufacturing and products. With the government czar and politicians running the show now, engineers may as well pack up and go to Asia.
Henry Sommerstorfer
Clinton Township, MI
Editorial Right On
Your “Cash for Clunkers” editorial was one of the most balanced editorials I have read in recent memory (see WAW — Sept. '09, p.2). If both sides in Washington could ever get past the selfish political ends, the results and speed in which progress could be made in so many areas would be astounding.
Now if only the networks could get their news departments to deliver their stories in the same manner as this editorial.
Michael Taylor
Lavergne, TN
A Questionable Deal
I appreciate your editorial on the Cash for Clunkers program, and it did produce car sales. However, there is another consideration:
A vehicle driven 12,000 miles (19,311) per year at 15 mpg (15.6 L/100 km) uses 800 gallons (3,028 L) of gasoline. A vehicle driven 12,000 miles per year at 25 mpg (9.4 L/100 km) uses 480 gallons (1,816 L). So the average clunker transaction will reduce U.S. gasoline consumption by 320 gallons (1,211 L) per year.
They claim 700,000 vehicles sold through the program, so that's 224 million gallons (848 million L) per year. That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil. Five million barrels of oil is about one-quarter of one day's U.S. consumption. And 5 million barrels of oil costs about $350 million at $75/bbl.
So we as taxpayers contributed $3 billion to save $350 million. How good a deal was that? They'll probably do a great job with health care, though!
Gordon Ploeg
Rockford, MI
Correction:
The October issue incorrectly stated some specifications of the '10 Chevrolet Equinox. The overall height is 66.3 ins. (168.4 cm), and the overall weight is 3,770 lbs. (1,710 kg).
We want your feedback. Please email comments to Editor Drew Winter at [email protected]. Include your name, city and state. Letters may be edited for clarity and length.
