Jump to content
andy82471

GM vs Toyota

Recommended Posts

Once GM eliminates the remaining 30,000 + production jobs, their workers/car should be aligned with the same efficiency as Toyota in NA. Based upon 2005 data, Toyota is about 75 workers/car.

GM:

White collar: 36,000

Production: 106,000

Retirees: 460,000

Toyota:

White collar: 17,000

Production: 21,000

Retirees: 1,600

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once GM eliminates the remaining 30,000 + production jobs, their workers/car should be aligned with the same efficiency as Toyota in NA.  Based upon 2005 data, Toyota is about 75 workers/car.

GM:

White collar: 36,000

Production: 106,000

Retirees: 460,000

Toyota:

White collar: 17,000

Production: 21,000

Retirees: 1,600

Then GM will have almost 5 times more retirees than workers. Imagine if GM had no retirees and could use all that money on developing cars. GM basically just has to last until they start dying off, how long would that take?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm shocked by the difference in the Production Time per Vehicle data.

You shouldn't be. Toyota excludes poor performing plants from the Harbour Report, so the Production Time data is incomplete on Toyota's side. Nissan does the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too long.

Then GM will have almost 5 times more retirees than workers. Imagine if GM had no retirees and could use all that money on developing cars. GM basically just has to last until they start dying off, how long would that take?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what you're saying is Toyota and Nissan lie. Big surpise.

The shocking numbers are those workforce numbers. Even if they jettisoned the total retiree count, they'd still have 100K more employees in their workforce than Toyota is showing.

How do they compete at all with those numbers?

You shouldn't be. Toyota excludes poor performing plants from the Harbour Report, so the Production Time data is incomplete on Toyota's side. Nissan does the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what you're saying is Toyota and Nissan lie. Big surpise.

The shocking numbers are those workforce numbers. Even if they jettisoned the total retiree count, they'd still have 100K more employees in their workforce than Toyota is showing.

How do they compete at all with those numbers?

According to the 2005 Harbour Report Press Release:

Nissan's Mexico Operations & Canton, MS Plant did not participate.

Honda's Alliston #1, Alabama, & Mexico plants did not participate.

Toyota's Princeton, IN Plant and Cambridge, ON South Plant did not participate.

GM fully participates in the Harbour Report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the 2005 Harbour Report Press Release:

Nissan's Mexico Operations & Canton, MS Plant did not participate.

Honda's Alliston #1, Alabama, & Mexico plants did not participate.

Toyota's Princeton, IN Plant and Cambridge, ON South Plant did not participate. 

GM fully participates in the Harbour Report.

I have said that in the past, it is not a fair comparison to aggragate all the OEMS together as companies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may not be fair but it's interesting nonetheless.

I have said that in the past, it is not a fair comparison to aggragate all the OEMS together as companies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may not be fair but it's interesting nonetheless.

None the less all auto data is interesting to me but using the Harbour plant study to compare GM, Ford to Honda, Nissan Toyota, etc. is meaningless because it is not an all inclusive study and as a result an apple to orange comparison. Plant to plant is relevant though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You shouldn't be. Toyota excludes poor performing plants from the Harbour Report, so the Production Time data is incomplete on Toyota's side. Nissan does the same thing.

Aha, so the report is useless with regard to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then GM will have almost 5 times more retirees than workers. Imagine if GM had no retirees and could use all that money on developing cars. GM basically just has to last until they start dying off, how long would that take?

Cut their medical insurance and it would speed up the process. :rolleyes:

Edited by hyperv6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We  Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×