Wow, is this true about GM?

[Popinski]

First of all, I am not intentionally making this political, I want to this to be automotive.

I watching a Michael Moore video and he said that GM invented a strategy where they purposely designed the product to last only 3 years so they could buy again in the 1950's. Today, even though it's obsolete with cars, many electronic companies are following GM's strategy. Is this true!?!?

 

[addyguy]

Probably. Wouldn't suprise most people if this was the case.

 

[John_K]

Originally Posted By: addyguy
Probably. Wouldn't suprise most people if this was the case.


Judging by the craaapola they make these days, seems true to me. Remember when people bought a new car every 2-3 years?

John

 

[robshelton]

"Planned obsolescence" is a well known business practice.

 

[MGregoir]

The big 3 constantly redesigned sheet metal, changed interiors and changed features in the 1950s and 1960s so that basically any vehicle three years old would look out of date compared to new cars and be behind in technology.

Eventually the form factor of the American car standardized in the late 1960s, and the trend moved to commonality of parts and badge engineering to cut costs rather than planned obsolescence.

It was more of a design thing than a mechanical thing. Cars did not last as long then as they do now because we have greatly improved metallurgy, 100 years of fine tuning, more advanced fluids, better fuel, computer control, more precise manufacturing at a lower relative cost, etc.

 

[BuickGN]

This is a pretty normal practice for any company, not just GM. The fact that MM wrote it would almost make me think the opposite though.

For what it's worth, I got 220,000 miles out of the GN's factory longblock with it running 11s and even high 10s for over half it's life. Not too bad but it was on it's 3rd trans.

 

[CivicFan]

Obsolescence is a design feature that makes sure the product costs and the price are kept low and makes sure that there is a future market for the product.

This basically a more cynical take on the promise of improving lifestyles of people and economic growth. We need to innovate and people like change and improvement. The bottom line is that it's better to have a product (a car in this case) that is cheap but lasts for a few years than not to have a car at all.

 

[BrianWC]

Yes and no. Alfred P Sloan helped popularize planned obsolescence but it was, at least initially, stylistic in nature. Change a car up every couple of years and people will HAVE to buy the new model whether they need to or not.

 

[StevieC]

I can tell you that my brother who is an engineer and has a ton of schooling was taught about engineering predetermined life-cycles as one of their first subjects.

If a company can save money by engineering a product to last as long as they think the consumer is expecting then they gain the savings.

IMO GM and other companies just did a really bad job at predicting this time line and didn't take into account the true cost to their customers.

 

[d00df00d]

This is nothing new, nor is it unique to GM. All products have to have an anticipated lifespan. It's impossible to design something with an infinite life unless you have infinite money. They have to draw the line somewhere.

Drawing the line early (e.g. 3 years) is gambling that the low cost will outweigh the short life, and that your company is the one that the customers will come back to when they need another item. Drawing it late is safer in terms of your image, but obviously costs more.

Can you take this and say that the companies are designing our products to fail? Sure. But that'd be like saying cars were designed to run out of gas. Technically it's true, but only because the alternative is impossible.

Now, if you think the lifespan is too short, that's another matter. That is determined by supply and demand.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: Popinski
I watching a Michael Moore video and he said that GM invented a strategy where they purposely designed the product to last only 3 years so they could buy again in the 1950's.

As others mentioned, it's called planned obsolescence and it dates back to the 1930s. GM did not invent it. GM just applied it, along with a ton of other manufacturers. In some cases it just makes sense. Do you really want a computer that will last you 30 years? No. In 3-5 years, most computers are so outdated/slow/etc, that you want a new one anyway.

 

[AlanRebod]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: Popinski
I watching a Michael Moore video and he said that GM invented a strategy where they purposely designed the product to last only 3 years so they could buy again in the 1950's.

As others mentioned, it's called planned obsolescence and it dates back to the 1930s. GM did not invent it. GM just applied it, along with a ton of other manufacturers. In some cases it just makes sense. Do you really want a computer that will last you 30 years? No. In 3-5 years, most computers are so outdated/slow/etc, that you want a new one anyway.


Maybe my car should last longer though?

 

[StevieC]

QP I just have a problem with companies like GM trying to dictate to me when I will buy a new vehicle because they feel that the planned obsolesce should be every couple of years and I don't, then forcing it down everyone's throat that people should buy "American" and support the "Domestic" makes and that the "perceived" quality (which IMO isn't perceived but true) isn't better than so called "foreign" products which are more "Domestic" than anything else. Then when this business strategy fails they have their hands out for Taxpayer dollars.

Ok off the soap box now...

 

[BrianWC]

Reminds me of the Saturday Night Live "People's Court" skit from the late 80's (or early 90's?). Jon Lovitz (as the devil was being sued by a hairdresser. She had signed away her soul for better abilities. But her styles were so good that people never needed another one-therefore she had no repeat business.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: AlanRebod
Maybe my car should last longer though?

Just keep paying for the repairs and it'll last you forever.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: StevieC
QP I just have a problem with companies like GM trying to dictate to me when I will buy a new vehicle because they feel that the planned obsolesce should be every couple of years and I don't, then forcing it down everyone's throat that people should buy "American" and support the "Domestic" makes and that the "perceived" quality (which IMO isn't perceived but true) isn't better than so called "foreign" products which are more "Domestic" than anything else. Then when this business strategy fails they have their hands out for Taxpayer dollars.

Well, that's a whole other aspect that I don't even want to get into. Obviously there is a good way and a bad way to implement planned obsolescence, and whether it's good or bad also depends on which side of the table you're sitting.

I was just trying to point out that GM did not invent planned obsolescence. They only applied it.

 

[andyd]

planned obselescence takes a back seat to supply and demand. Those very same 50s cars with a 3 yr planned lifespan have lasted 50yrs in Cuba, with no spare parts!

 

[Camu Mahubah]

So Dexcool must've been insurance in case the engineered in failures didn't happen. Actually I don't think GM is the only one doing this. I think most emissions parts today can only be guaranteed for around 150000 miles. I think most manufacturers are shooting for 150000 mile lifespans at the minimum.

 

[7777]

Yeah, they must of made a mistake with the 327 from Chevy and the straight six from ford,cause them motors wont die!!

My 1988 ford f150 will not die and its got 300K on the motor,it doesn't even burn oil,body looks like cra p though.

 

[mpvue]

the '50's were a time of newer, faster, easier, modern. the economy was humming along, American engineering was the best in the world, everyone was working. it was a positive, forward looking time and all the companies were looking to outdo one another, GM against GM also.
remember also, that GM cars from the 50's and 60's are some of the most memorable, stylish designs ever formed in metal. and many are still around today, so I don't think its fair to demonize them.