Why did Mack have financial hardships years ago while having high quality trucks?

[mackey58]

Ok whatever 

[HeavyGunner]

Facts are facts. https://www.daveramsey.com/blog/millionaire-myth-busters http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/16/retirement/millionaire-salary/index.html

 

Edited December 20, 2017 by HeavyGunner

[Jamaican Bulldog]

1 hour ago, Maxidyne said:

Lots of other factors involved- For example competitors like Daimler that was buying market share and Navistar that was desperate to generate cash flow. Thus they would ruthlessly underbid Mack and other competitors. Another factor was the huge changes in the market in the late 70s and 80s brought on by deregulation and the end of overall length regulations. In the 70s Mack had the most elegant solutions to fit a 45' trailer into a 55' overall length with the U model conventional and the F and Cruiseliner cabovers, with the MH on the way. Suddenly length didn't matter and regional carriers became nationwide carriers and wanted sleepers instead of day cabs. U model sales disappeared, and having spent millions to develop the MH it never sold well enough to justify those expenses. While Mack only had narrow box sleepers to offer, Freightliner and Paccar had conventionals with big sleepers ready to go, and Volvo put the Integral Sleeper White had developed into production. It wasn't 'til the late 80s that Mack caught up with the CH series and it's integral sleepers.

These all make sense as they point to changes to the market that Mack may not have readily adapted to. I find especially interesting the point about the demand for integral sleepers, because like you said I did notice that Mack competitors such as Freightliner, Pete/KW and others seemed to have had more 'comfortable' choices for over the road trucks in the late 70s ,80s and onwards. Its probably why it seemed Mack continued to compete better with vocational trucks and day cab tractors in that period than with over the road trucks.

 

[david wild]

The trucks from Hayward had problems, no way could a white shirt be blamed for loose bearings and no oil in rears, it was poor worker attitude that finished off Mack In CA. Al Wheeler was the Mack dealer in vegas, he used to tell all the horror stories of trucks coming out of Hayward. he loved trucks from back east, but they few in number for him, he had a yard full of Hayward F models, they were all scrapped by the dope handling his estate.  

[HeavyGunner]

So did Mack ever try to take and train personnel back east and transplant willing participants to California?  What a shame that they closed down due to poor employee work ethics. 

[Mack Technician]

5 hours ago, 41chevy said:

You're right! I'm lying and made it all up. Grummans didn't move my father and us to Stuart Florida in 1965 for 1 1/2 years to undo the employee issues.

Haywood had a high turn over rate of employees fired for the lax attendance and work ethics. Grumman was not union and did fire or suspend those who took half days for recreation after the existing leadmen and foremen were replaced or demoted.Stuart in the early mid 60's also had racial issues at the facility too.  As for me giving you "crap" on union involvement, I MADE NO MENTION OF THAT OR EVEN HINTED AT THAT. SO DON'T BAIT.

We have multiple plants in the deep south. The North plant observation is that southern folks work long enough to afford a really nice bass boat. Once they enter the post-bass-boat-purchase portion of their life..........work efficiency and attendance never recovers. 

[fxfymn]

Quote

I MADE NO MENTION OF THAT OR EVEN HINTED AT THAT. SO DON'T BAIT.

Sorry Paul, I did not mean that personally, just as a broad reference to what folks use as a standard reply. No offense intended.

But I stand by my comments. Poor employee performance is not wholly the employee's fault, but is mostly a (poor) management issue.

[41chevy]

8 hours ago, fxfymn said:

Sorry Paul, I did not mean that personally, just as a broad reference to what folks use as a standard reply. No offense intended.

But I stand by my comments. Poor employee performance is not wholly the employee's fault, but is mostly a (poor) management issue.

I got Teamstergrrl defensive, I should have known better from you.

The Haywood problem was described by John Montville, was what MACK Corporate described as California Casual work attitude.

Grummans problem was in 1963 / 65 was that as a defense contractor you are required to be diverse. Another problem was that the Stuart facility was originally making Agcat's for Grumman and went on line repairing and rebuilding crash damaged Mohawks from S.E Asia. The management structure was "good ole boy deep south" along with most of the crew, did not like working with or having a New Yorker or a person of color as their equal or boss.

The absentee problem for Stuart, was partially that the facility was on a canal and some of the crew and their bosses would go fishing at lunch and not return until the fish stopped biting. Grumman and the DOD replaced basically the entire managment and most of the employees.

 

[TS7]

Fxfymn is 100% right on employee performance. Management is paid to correct these issues. Mack is owned by Volvo because of poor management.

[Maxidyne]

Mack is owned by Volvo because they bought Renault's truck division and Mack was owned by Renault and was thus included in the deal.

[Jamaican Bulldog]

Was Mack financial hardship at the time only in the U.S or other markets as well such as Canada and Australia? Exporters seem to have liked older Macks and they were well respected too in countries that weren't originally intended as prime markets for Mack.

[TS7]

Poor management led to Renault owning Mack.

[Maxidyne]

True, Signal should have invested in Mack instead of selling. Signal wasn't alone in divesting from truck making in the 80s, when Euro truck makers bought up half the American truck industry. The British magazine "Truck" covered this era well, often noting American management and investors demand for short term quarterly profits- While American management would pull out of a market or sell off a subsidiary if it missed a quarterly profit, Euro management was more patient and the Japanese would move into a new export market and not expect to turn a profit for 5 years. In the 60s and 70s Mack and the other American truck makers should have become established in export markets worldwide, even if the initial volumes were low and less than profitable. In the recession of the 80s American investors and management should have stood by their truck making investments instead of dumping them, but they panicked and dumped them instead. Thus Daimler and Volvo got half the American truck making industry at bargain prices. 

[james j neiweem]

Mack screwed itself by letting Signal in the door then Renault.

[macks in nigeria]

18 hours ago, 41chevy said:

I got Teamstergrrl defensive, I should have known better from you.

The Haywood problem was described by John Montville, was what MACK Corporate described as California Casual work attitude.

Grummans problem was in 1963 / 65 was that as a defense contractor you are required to be diverse. Another problem was that the Stuart facility was originally making Agcat's for Grumman and went on line repairing and rebuilding crash damaged Mohawks from S.E Asia. The management structure was "good ole boy deep south" along with most of the crew, did not like working with or having a New Yorker or a person of color as their equal or boss.

The absentee problem for Stuart, was partially that the facility was on a canal and some of the crew and their bosses would go fishing at lunch and not return until the fish stopped biting. Grumman and the DOD replaced basically the entire managment and most of the employees.

 

You have earned more respect from me the way you accepted his equally commendable apology,some "children" here would have started a new theater of war.As to Teamstergrrl I am sure even you miss her once in a while.

[41chevy]

5 hours ago, james j neiweem said:

Mack screwed itself by letting Signal in the door then Renault.

Exactly.

Macks problem was the way the one to one stock trade with Signal Gas was done. It favored the stock holders and Signal Oil and Gas way more the MACK. The stock was cumulative convertible preferred stock

Cumulative Convertible Preferred stock has a provision that stipulates that if any dividend payments have been missed in the past, the dividends  owed must be paid out to cumulative preferred shareholders first, which happened to be Signal Gas. The start of the financial down turn for MACK.

[grayhair]

1 hour ago, 41chevy said:

Mack screwed itself by letting Signal in the door then Renault.

Yeah, I once had Renaults on my fruit trees, had to spray fungicide to get rid of them. 

Edited December 21, 2017 by grayhair

[41chevy]

3 hours ago, grayhair said:

Yeah, I once had Renaults on my fruit trees, had to spray fungicide to get rid of them. 

Never had em on fruit trees but did have them on our corn, burned the field. Pretty good, smelled like french fries

[Jamaican Bulldog]

15 hours ago, Maxidyne said:

True, Signal should have invested in Mack instead of selling. Signal wasn't alone in divesting from truck making in the 80s, when Euro truck makers bought up half the American truck industry. The British magazine "Truck" covered this era well, often noting American management and investors demand for short term quarterly profits- While American management would pull out of a market or sell off a subsidiary if it missed a quarterly profit, Euro management was more patient and the Japanese would move into a new export market and not expect to turn a profit for 5 years. In the 60s and 70s Mack and the other American truck makers should have become established in export markets worldwide, even if the initial volumes were low and less than profitable. In the recession of the 80s American investors and management should have stood by their truck making investments instead of dumping them, but they panicked and dumped them instead. Thus Daimler and Volvo got half the American truck making industry at bargain prices. 

You helped to answer one of my other curious truck questions. Why European Truck makers wound up owning most of America's major truck makers and thus so much more established globally.

[Kevin Grice]

My dad was a salesman for mack in the last of the 70s and early 80s. His manager " FORMER BRANCH OWNER" told of a time when he returned from a vacation only to find a fleets of B models with 711's engines returned with bad engines. HIS BRANCH WAS RUINED. That with the death nail of late 70's 21% interest rates was tough. Dad also told me he would quote MACK trucks only to find a compared "WHITE Truck" priced 10K below mack. His ready response would be "White knows what there truck was worth" lol. but it was hard to convince the resale or operating price could overcome the difference, The used truck market was wide open around here in the south about that time, a mid 80s R686st was worth its weight in gold particular if it was sporting a 6speed with 38k rears. Its hard to believe Mack trucks could screw up so bad. But lets not forget the Ford LTN's they were white hot too! that around here was Macks biggest competitor. Can't believe someone let that brand go either. But Mack really drop the ball worst of all. every time I here the quote (Snatching defeat from the mouth of Victory) Mack Trucks comes to mind.

[Jamaican Bulldog]

I remember in the late 80s people would say that Macks were more expensive than the average competitor but I also noticed that Mack also won a lot of municipal bids. Could it be that Mack took such low bids on fleets that it affected them financially? I know some car companies like the I work for have reduced their eagerness to seek large fleet sales because of the low mark ups. There was a time they would want them to pump up sales numbers that looked good in magazines.

[Maxidyne]

That was in the days of "factory branch" dealerships, so it's possible that being Mack owned they'd take a loss on a sale to keep the factory busy. I've seen Mack, KW, etc. make competitive bids on big orders, but when a small operator wanted to buy just a truck or three the bids were sometimes much higher. Back in the 70s GM and Ford were still making big trucks and would often underbid Mack, Paccar, etc. on one truck orders and offer financing when Mack, Paccar, etc. wouldn't.

[Jamaican Bulldog]

16 minutes ago, Maxidyne said:

That was in the days of "factory branch" dealerships, so it's possible that being Mack owned they'd take a loss on a sale to keep the factory busy. I've seen Mack, KW, etc. make competitive bids on big orders, but when a small operator wanted to buy just a truck or three the bids were sometimes much higher. Back in the 70s GM and Ford were still making big trucks and would often underbid Mack, Paccar, etc. on one truck orders and offer financing when Mack, Paccar, etc. wouldn't.

Good point. Even today the bigger car companies that have their own finance bank can have an advantages over smaller ones because even if the cars are more expensive they can offer lower rates and flexibility in terms to offset it. For example companies like Mazda and Subaru normally have their finances and lease supported by Chase but larger companies like Ford have their own finance like Ford Motor Credit

[james j neiweem]

By the time they got the bugs out of the 711's the damage to Mack was already done. Fortunately the Maxi came along. but with a small block compared to the competition (Cummins Cat).

Too bad Mack"s big six was never Maxied.

[mackey58]

Man the pics of that big six I bet that would have been awesome wonder what the hp would have been on them